Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Authentic Transformational Leadership:

Authenticity as the key to sustainable organization change

Ajay Kumar
Executive FPM, XLRI, Jamshedpur

-1-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Authentic Transformational Leadership: Authenticity as

the key to sustainable organization change
Ajay Kumar

Abstract

In this article I have studied the authenticity of transformation leader during change.
Transformational leaders often rely on charisma to bring radical or large-scale
change. Charisma on the other hand has the scope of manipulation as it is based on
emotions rather than on rationality. Transformational leaders go though divergent
personal interests and organizational interests and values conflict during the process
of change which leads to moral tension. Moral tension manifests in word-action misfit.
Blind followership under the idealized influence of transformational leader and a
transformational leader leading change under the moral tension may not result into
institutionalization and sustenance of change. I propose authenticity in
transformational leader as a solution to overcome the challenges of manipulation and
moral tension faced by them.

Introduction

It is not new to say that leadership is critical to successful implementation of change.

Management’s leadership effort in the change effort seems to be the key determinant of
whether that change will succeed (Clement, 1994). Popper and Zakkai (1994) stated that
transformational leadership is proactive. This kind of leader sees the present as a
springboard to achieve future aims. They engage in a process, which includes a
sequence of phases: recognizing the need for change, creating a new vision, and then
institutionalizing the change (Tichy and Devanna, 1990).

Charbonneaue (2004) noted that transformational leaders use methods of influence

that result in their followers’ commitment to a request. Bass (1985) also identified
charisma or idealized influence (followers trust in and emotionally identify with the
leader) as one of the important factors of transformational leaders. But charismatic
leadership processes may leave space for persuasion and manipulation and ethical

-2-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

questions concerning its nature (Marjosola and Takala, 2000). Manipulation can stem
from the divergent personal and organizational responsibilities (Bernard, 1958) which
engender moral tension (Novicevic et al., 2005) in the leader resulting into difficulty in
maintaining congruence between words and deeds. The divergence between words and
deeds has profound costs as it renders managers untrustworthy and undermines their
credibility and their ability to use their words to influence the actions of their
subordinates (Simons, 1999). Behavioral integrity, therefore, has emerged as a
highly problematic element in the current environment of near-continuous
organizational change (Simons,
1999).

Leadership has always been more difficult in challenging times, but the unique stressors
facing organizations throughout the world today call for a renewed focus on what
constitutes genuine leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Environmental turbulence
has stimulated the search for new theories of leadership, a search that has resulted in
a growing body of serious academic research and popular literature (Schruijer
and Vansina, 1999). One such outcome of research has been the concept of authenticity
(i.e. the idea of ‘being oneself’ or being ‘true to oneself’) which is becoming a central
focus of responsible behaviour of leaders in post-Enron era (Novicevic et al., 2006).

Authenticity involves both owing one’s personal experiences (values, thoughts, emotions
and beliefs) and acting in accordance with one’s true self (expressing what you really
think an believe and behaving accordingly) (Harter, 2002). Authentic leaders are those
who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as
being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and
strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful,
optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character (Avolio and Gardner, 2005).

My purpose through this article is to highlight the implications of the manipulation by a

transformational leader leading change and a transformational leader leading change
under moral tension and then, I propose authenticity in the transformational leader as a
solution to minimize manipulations and moral tension so that change in the organization is
sustainable and institutionalized.

-3-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Leadership and organization change

The importance of leadership to the change management process is underscored by the

fact that change, by definition, requires creating a new system and then institutionalizing
the new approaches (Kotter, 1995). As the environment becomes more turbulent,
more attention is given to leadership in organizational change (Schruijer and Vansina,
1999). Leadership then becomes closely linked to the management of change. Nadler
and Tushman (1990) noted that executive leadership is the critical factor in the initiation
and implementation of large-system organization change. Tyler (2005) in his study on
merger process proposed that Leadership is central to change and, in particular, to the
ability to produce “constructive or adoptive change”.

Effective implementation and management of significant organizational change is an

elusive process. The sheer complexity of organizational system can often lead to
unpredictable and detrimental outcomes. Given the challenges of managing complexity
and internal resistance to change, the task of the top executive during the
implementation of change can be very difficult indeed (Manz et al., 1991). Therefore,
management leadership – especially top management – is probably the most critical
element in a major organizational change effort (Clement, 1994).

A successful change doesn’t stop at the stage of communication and adoption

(Armenakis et al., 1999), but it needs to be institutionalized as Kotter (1995) proposed
that change sticks only when it becomes “the way we do things around here'', when it
seeps into the bloodstream of the corporate body. Armenakis et al. (1999) outlined a
three-stage change process model that proceeds linearly from readiness to adoption to
institutionalization. Readiness is defined as a cognitive state that occurs when
organization members have positive attitudes, beliefs and intentions towards the change
(Armenakis et al., 1993). When appropriate cognitive state is attained through the
development of relevant attitude, belief and intentions toward the change, organizational
members begin to adopt change such that they behave in a way that is consistent with
the change initiative and then change is completely integrated into the organizational
fabric, that is, change is institutionalized (Holt et al., 2003).

-4-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Holt et al. (2003) proposed that regardless of the specific phases of the change process,
organizational leaders choose to embark on the change journey to strengthen
organizational performance and improve effectiveness.

Transformational Leader and organization change

Transformational, charismatic and visionary leaders can successfully change the status
quo in their organization by displaying the appropriate behaviours at appropriate stage in
the transformation process (Eisenbach et al., 1999). Transformational leaders are a
boon for the successful management of change (Simons, 1999) as they enhance
organization members' affective commitment by getting them to profoundly alter their
attitudes and assumptions about work (Yukl, 1989). When they realize that the old ways
no longer work, they may undertake the task of developing an appealing vision of the
future which provides both a strategic and a motivational focus leading to a clear
statement of the purpose of the organization and a source of inspiration and commitment
(Eisenbach et al., 1999).

Transformational leadership has been argued to motivate people to go beyond their self-
interest and to pursue goals and values of the collective (Tyler and Cremer, 2005). It is
often identified by the effect that it has on followers' attitudes, values, assumptions and
commitments (Yukl, 1989) that lead to successful organizational change.
Transformational leaders change their followers’ attitudes, values, and beliefs to align
them with those of the organization and steer their followers towards self-development
and greater-than-expected accomplishments (Bass, 1990). They motivate followers to
identify with the leader's vision and sacrifice their self- interest for that of the group or the
organization (Bass, 1985).

In order to pull or attract followers to different change possibilities, the leader must craft
an appealing vision that takes into consideration the underlying needs and values of the
key stakeholders (Eisenbach et al., 1999). How a transformational leader does it? What
are those leadership behaviours that bring about the desired transformation in the
follower? Bass (1985) stated that such leaders display the following four types of
behaviour to successfully lead their followers –

-5-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Idealized influence: They use idealized influence when they appeal to subordinates’
ideals and act as role models.

Inspirational motivation: They inspire followers by presenting them with an attractive

vision, an approach known as inspirational motivation.

Intellectual stimulation: They use intellectual stimulation to encourage their subordinates

to think in innovative ways.

Individualized consideration: Lastly, they demonstrate individualized consideration by

showing care and concern for each subordinate.

Charbonneaue (2004) based on an empirical study of military personnel identified that

leaders who use more influence methods that result in targets’ internalization of a
request or task are perceived as more transformational. Yukl (2002) also noted that the
influence process is important in as much as it impacts on the outcome of the request.
Holt et al. (2003) stated that the extent to which organization achieves the benefits at the
end of the change process is affected by the influence strategies used by organizational
leaders to encourage adoption and implementation of the change.

Transformational leadership factor, idealized influence, also known as charisma is

concerned with being a role model, respected, admired, trusted, persistent and
determined (Charbonneaue, 2004). It refers to leaders’ behaviours that inspire others to
change their beliefs and values. It also refers to the manner in which a request is
presented (Charbonneaue, 2004). Simons (1999) asserted that charismatic leadership is
a key element of transformational leadership. The charismatic leadership dimension has
consistently represented the strongest single predictor of leadership outcomes (Bass,
1990).

Further, Charbonneaue (2004) also found out from his study that rational persuasion and
inspirational appeals contribute significantly to idealized influence. Inspirational appeals
refer to the use of values and ideals to arouse an emotional response in the target (Yukl,
2002). The request is presented in such a way by the leader that it resonates with the
target’s needs, values, and ideals (Charbonneaue, 2004) and inspires and influences
them to enact desired change. Therefore, the manner in which leaders make requests is

-6-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

important because it may ultimately lead to followers’ broader commitment to the

organization’s goals and values (Charbonneaue, 2004).

Proposition – I: Charisma (or idealized influence) is a critical dimension of a

transformational leader to bring desired outcome.

Proposition – II: Inspirational appeals and rational persuasions significantly contribute to

Charisma (or idealized influence) of a transformational
leader.

Scope of manipulation in Transformational Leadership

Charisma works with emotions. Accepting charisma, from the followers' point of view,
can be seen as dubious, showing the tendency to be easily impressed by others
(Marjosola and Takala, 2000). This may leave room for irrationality. Irrationality
allows extra space for the persuasion and manipulation between leaders and the led
(Marjosola and Takala, 2000). Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) proposed since inspirational
leadership rhetoric appeals to emotions rather than to reason, this is unethical.
Persuasion and manipulation mean that someone deliberately and systematically
attempts to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to
achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist (Jowett and
O’Donnell, 1992).

Root of such manipulation can be traced to the multiple responsibilities of a leader.

Leadership is often characterized by a nexus of multiple responsibilities toward various
stakeholders of an organization (Novicevic et al., 2005). Bernard (1958) proposed that a
leader has two primary types of responsibilities: Personal responsibility and
Organizational responsibility. A persistent conflict can exist between them. This conflict
reflects a moral tension engendered by the oftentimes competing interests. The higher
the leader is in the organization, the higher the complexity of moral issues engendered
by the interaction between diverse responsibilities and associated loyalties (Novicevic et
al., 2005).

There is a growing personal suspicion that most managers in America today pretend to
be nicer than they really are (Simons, 1999). An interest in the moral capacity
of
-7-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

organizational leaders to resist the short-term directions of the Wall Street “price
makers” and the episodic herd behavior of peer “price takers” has become prominent
among leadership researchers (Terry, 1993). In the name of organizational collective
benefit, such leaders propagate their own benefit. They exploit followers into foregoing
their own best interest (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Michie and Gooty (2005) further
noted that by focusing primarily on organizational interests the leaders also indirectly
promotes self-interests, because the success of the organization is directly (i.e.
compensation) and indirectly (i.e. reputation) connected to the leaders individual
success and well-being. It is possible to describe an ideal professional whose typical
behavioural tendencies, values, and other important features are such that they serve
the goals of the profession. Consequently, there is an evident gap between general
moral considerations and professional duties and values. For certain professions this
gap may be wide (Marjosola and Takala, 2000).

Proposition – III: Charisma as a transformational leader dimension leaves scope for

deliberate manipulation.

Proposition – IV: Divergent personal and organizational responsibility can be a cause of

such manipulation.

Authenticity and Transformational Leader

A leader, whose self-awareness is high, recognizes the moral intensity of each situation,
exhibits moral imagination by rising above normative solutions to create, with moral
efficacy, solutions that impact the moral climate of the organization (Novicevic et al.,
2005) is an authentic leader. An effective leader has to master diverse moral tensions
and exhibit authenticity in moral awareness and decision making (i.e. be perceived to
reflect genuineness, reliability, trustworthiness, reality, and veracity) for the stakeholders
to grant legitimacy to the leader’s authority and endorse the necessary adaptations as
legitimate (Tyler, 1997). As Novicevic et al. (2006) proposed that authenticity of
organizational leadership depends upon the leader success or the lack of success in
attempts to resolve the challenges inherent to moral conflict of responsibility (personal
vs. organizational).

-8-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

This is crucial for organizational morale as, “the creation of organizational morality is the
spirit that overcomes the centrifugal interests or motives” of organizational constituents
(Barnard, 1938). Moral transparency and resilience are necessary for sustainability of
this impact because the quality of leadership, the persistence of its influence, the
durability of its related organizations, the power of cooperation it entices, all express the
height of moral aspirations, the breadth of moral foundations (Bernard, 1938).

Self-awareness and awareness about the needs of all the stakeholders may
lead sometimes to conflict between the personal values of the leader and organizational
values (Ryan and Scott, 1995). Incongruence personal and organizational values
create moral tension in the leader (Novicevic et al., 2006). Change projects by their nature
risk generating perceptions of managerial word-action misfit through managerial
ambivalence, confusion, and other mechanisms (Simons, 1999). Behavioral integrity
proposed by Simons (1999) elaborates the perceived degree of congruence between
the values expressed by words and those expressed through action. It is the perceived
level of match or mismatch between the espoused and the enacted. In such environment
where espoused values do not match with actions, leaders and followers will talk the
espoused while behaviorally following the enacted (Simons, 1999).

Since one’s moral judgment often reflects a tension between one’s personal norms of
responsibility and the collective norms of moral conformity, authenticity can be viewed as
an individual state-like trait that enables the individual to reconcile this tension - “owing
one’s personal experiences” and acting in accord with “one’s inner thoughts and
feelings” as a way of resolving the tension/conflict between moral conviction and moral
conformity (Novicevic et al., 2006). Authenticity by definition involve being true to the
self (Gardner et al., 2005). Authenticity is a social condition of minimal discrepancy
between projected external appearance and underlying internal structure
(Etzioni, 1968). Authenticity reflects a leader’s moral capacity to align responsibilities
to the self, to the followers, and to the public in efforts to sustain cooperative efforts
within and outside the organization (Novicevic et al., 2006). Executives with secure self-
esteem tend to assume personal responsibility by acting on personal values, while
those with low self-esteem
tend to avoid it (Novicevic et al., 2006). Authenticity as the unobstructed operation of
one’s
-9-
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

true, or core, self in one’s daily enterprise. One product of authenticity is optimal self-
esteem characterize as genuine, true, stable and congruent high self-esteem, as
opposed to high self-esteem that tends to be fragile due to its defensive, contingent, and
discrepant qualities (Kernis, 2003).

Terry (1993) also noted that there was an increasing pattern of divergence
between managers' words and deeds. This divergence is largely driven by managers'
understandable responses to managerial fads and to organizational change efforts. From
a study conducted by Tyler and Degoey (1996) it can be inferred that leader’s trust in
management enhances followers’ compliance with organizational rules and laws, increases
the zone of indifference, and facilitates the implementation of organizational change and
vice versa an apparent mistrust not only causes followers to reciprocate with less trust,
but can also cause the followers’ to in turn behave in a less trustworthy manner.
Challenge of maintaining behavioral integrity is critical for the development of employee
trust and commitment that are vital for successful change efforts. Leaders, by violating
behavioral integrity, reduce their ability to induce change through their words. Some
employees will become increasingly frustrated as they attempt to bridge the large gap
between the espoused and the actual. Others will become cynical and contemptuous
of their leaders (Simons, 1999). For a successful change management behavioural
integrity is a must for the leader (Simons,
1999).

Authenticity implies that “one act in accordance with one’s true self, expressing oneself
in the ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings (Harter, 2002). Authentic
behaviour refers to actions that are guided by the leader’s true self as reflected by
core values, beliefs, thoughts and feelings, as opposed to environmental
contingencies or pressure from others (Gardner et al., 2005). Authenticity of an
individual is a virtuous aspiration to rise above the average expectations of following
someone else’s directions or following the crowd – authentic leaders are virtuous due to
their reluctance to rely on commonly accepted schema when seeking solutions to
moral problems (Pianalato,
2003). Goffee and Jones (2005) note authenticity ensure your words are consistent
with your deeds. The most disturbing thing a leader can do is doublespeak and create
a sense of mistrust. Authenticity is the idea of ‘being oneself’ or being ‘true to
oneself’
(Novicevic et al., 2006).
- 10 -
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Proposition – V: Incongruence personal and organizational values create moral tension

in the leader that leads to word-action mismatch.

Proposition – VI: Authenticity involves behavioural integrity which can help

transformational leader develop moral capacity to align divergent responsibilities.

Self-awareness doesn’t always guarantee a moral and authentic response from the
leader on the contrary sometimes it can be opposite – deliberate immorality and
inauthenticity. A leader may be self-aware, still he can manipulate to meet personal or
organizational objectives. Michie and Gooty (2005) observed that lacking emotional
harmony with one’s values indicates a lack of integrity and moral consistency. Such
leaders may act in ways that appear altruistic towards collective entities by advocating a
mission that promotes organizational success at the same time, exploiting individual in-
group or out-group stakeholders to achieve extraordinary goals. They are inauthentic or
unethical leaders who are insensitive and unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of
others (Howell and Avolio, 1992). Such inauthentic or exploitative leaders deliberately
promote self-interests at the expense of their constituencies (Michie and Gooty, 2005).

Further, leaders and managers must be aware that excessively promoting the interest of
one entity through the exploitation or abuse of another has ethical implications that put
the organization at risk (Michie and Gooty, 2005). Consequently the long-term objective
of change process of its institutionalization may fall apart.

Authentic leaders are guided towards doing what is right and fair for all stakeholders
(Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Self-awareness regarding one’s values is pre-requisite
for authenticity and authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005). Authenticity of the
leader will influence follower self-awareness of values/moral perspective, more
based on their individual character, personal example, and dedication, than on
inspirational appeals, dramatic presentations, or other forms of impression management
(Avolio and Gardner,
2005). Capacity for awareness, determination and dependability to remain true to
oneself and aligned with the organization’s genuine mission, while passionately enacting
organizational vision, which can be conceptualized as authenticity in leader (May et al.,
2003) will be of importance under this situation. Authentic leaders are transparent about

- 11 -
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

their interactions and strive to maintain a seamless link between espoused values,
behaviours, and actions (Michie and Gooty, 2005).

Proposition – VII: A self-aware transformational leader can also deliberately promote

self- interest (or deliberately interest of a particular stakeholder).

Proposition – VIII: Authenticity involves being fair and right to all stakeholders which
can help transformational leader transcend the self-interest boundary.

The notion of “hierarchy of needs” as expressed in the theories of needs by Maslow

(1970), the needs that motivate the individual’s actions operate hierarchically in terms of
their intensity and effect (Popper and Zakkai, 1994). The less secure people feel in the
organization and the more anxiety they experience, the stronger the desire for
leadership that can provide “solutions” of psychological security (Kets De Vries, 1989).
On the other hand, genuine charisma is connected with something “new''. In
extraordinary situations this “new'' issue calls forth a charismatic, authoritarian structure
so that charisma, at least temporarily, leads to actions, movements, and events which
are out of the ordinary routine and outside the sphere of everyday life (Marjosola and
Takala, 2000). The charismatic leader’s approval or disapproval becomes an important
commodity (Nadler and Tushman, 1990).

Less secure followers under an environment of insecurity become a pure dependent on

the leader, or blind follower (Schruijer and Vansina, 1999). Blind followership and
follower acceptance of the directed course of action under the influence of charisma may
not lead to sustainable change. In due course, in the presence of a strong leader, people
may become hesitant to disagree or come into conflict with the leader, but this may in
turn lead to stifling conformity (Nadler and Tushman, 1990). Such now
resistant managers often attempt to put up an appearance of supporting the change
project while actual behavior remains unchanged (Simons, 1999).

Authenticity is particularly relevant in the times of radical change. In these situations

there is a temptation to live ‘inauthentically’ because change widens the moral gap
between individual responsibility for freedom and autonomy and social responsibility to

- 12 -
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

follow the shared norms of the community (Heidegger, 1962). Characteristics of

authentic leaders identified by Shamir and Eilam (2005) propose that authentic leaders
are true to themselves, rather than conforming to the expectations of others; they are
motivated by personal convictions, rather than to attain status, honors or other personal
benefits; they are originals and not copies and their action is based on their personal
values and convictions. Authentic leaders are people with high integrity, with a deep
sense of purpose and committed to their core values (George, 2003). Leaders
with “strong integrity” are characterized by “internal consistency” which promotes
acting in concert with values that respect the rights and interests of others (Howell and
Avolio, 1992). Individuals who are “in tune” with their basic nature and clearly and
accurately see themselves and their lives. Because fully functional persons are
unencumbered by other’s expectations for them, they can make more sound personal
choices (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Leaders who lead by example in fostering healthy
ethical climates characterized by transparency, trust, integrity and high moral standards
are authentic leaders - who are not true only to themselves, but lead others by helping
them to likewise (Gardner et al., 2005). Authentic transformational leaders are
concerned with the welfare of others, because they believe every individual has dignity
and moral standing (Michie and Gooty, 2005).

Proposition – IX: Blind followers under the influence of charisma or in the situation of
insecurity follow leader’s directive which may not lead to sustainable organization
change.

Proposition – X: Authenticity involves strong integrity and internal consistency which

can help transformational leader make sound choice of the directions suggested to
followers for their adoption and institutionalization.

Limitations and Future research

In this article I have explored only the charisma dimension of a transformational leader
which has scope for manipulation. Other dimensions as proposed by Bass (1985)
intellectual stimulation and individual consideration have been not discussed. Both of
these dimensions can also be studied to explore the scope of manipulation.

- 13 -
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Further, I have considered only transformational leader in this article as leader during
time of change. Eisenbach (1999) proposed that certain transformational qualities are
uniquely appropriate for leading certain types of change. For example, transformational
leadership qualities are better for non-routine change (Bass, 1985). Marjosola and
Takala (2000) proposed that there is a close relationship that charisma has to the
cultural context of the time. The evocation of pure charisma and charismatic leadership
always leads away from the everyday world; it rejects or transcends routine life
Therefore, charisma as a leadership quality can be more appropriate at the time of
radical change. In turn, this article by focusing only on the charisma dimension of a
transformational leader has limited itself to radical and large-scale change. Further
studies can be carried out to explore the transformational leadership behaviour beyond
radical change.

Conclusion

Leading for change is not only about adoption of the “new”, but it is more important that
the “new” has been institutionalized so that change becomes sustainable. The times of
evolving change require leaders with a stable philosophy of the self, as well as of others
in the organization (Novicevic et al., 2006). Transformational leaders have been strongly
associated with bringing about successful changes in the organization. But in today’s
turbulent times leader authenticity becomes salient because the continuity of
organizations as social systems is threatened by multiple discrepancies among leader
responsibilities toward the self, toward the follower and toward other stakeholders
(Badracco, 1992). To sustain change the manipulative aspect of transformational leader
that originates from its charisma dimension should be minimized. Authenticity in leaders
could be one such characteristic that has the potential to overcome the scope of
manipulation by virtue of it being “true to oneself” and “true to others”.

Kerfoot (2006) noted that there is leadership, and then there is authentic leadership. If
you are not willing to engage from your heart, to passionately work to create a greater
quality of work life for front-line staff every day, and to push yourself to the ultimate
limit to make that happen, you might be a leader, but you will not be perceived as an
authentic leader.

- 14 -
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

References

Avolio, B.J., and Gardner, W.L., (2005). Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the
Root of Positive From of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005), 315-338.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Field, H.S. (1999). Making Change Permanent: a model
for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, Vol. 12, 97-128.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Massholder, K.W. (1993). Creating Readiness for
Organizational Change. Human Relations, Vol. 46, No. 6, 681-703.

Badracco, J. (1992). Business Ethics: Four Spheres of Executive Responsibility. California

Management Review, 34:3 (spring), 64-79.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New
York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and
Managerial Applications, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character and authentic transformational
leadership behaviour. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-218.

Bernard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executives. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.

Bernard, C. (1958). Elementary Conditions of Business Moral. California Management

Review, 1(1), 1-13.

Charbonneaue, D. (2004). Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership.

The Leadership and Organization Development Journal Vol. 25, No. 7, 2004 565-576.

Clement, R.W. (1994). Culture, Leadership, and Power: The Key to Organizational Change.
Business Horizons, January-February, 1994, 33-39.

Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, No. 2,
1999, 80-88.

Etzioni, A. (1968). Basic Human Needs, Alienation And Inauthenticity. American Sociological
Review, 33: 87-885.

Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. and Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see
the real me”? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005), 343-372.

George, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting

Values. Jossey-Bass.

- 15 -
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2005). Managing Authenticity. Harvard Business Review, 83(12),
85-94.

Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive

Psychology: 382-394, London: Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time, T. Macguire and E. Robinson (Trans.), New York:
Harer & Row.
Holt, D., Self, D., Thal, A. and Lo S. (2003). Facilitating Organization Change: a test of
leadership strategies. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 24/5
(2003), 262-272.

Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or
liberation?, The Executive, 6, 43-52.

Jowett, G. and O’Donnell, V. (1992). Propganda and Persuation, Sage, London.

Karlene, K. (2006). Authentic Leadership. Nursing Economic$, March-April 2006, Vol. 24,
No. 2, 116-117.

Kernis, M.H., (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological

Inquiry, 14, 1-26.

Kets De Vries, M. (1989). Prisoners of Leadership. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading Change: why transformational efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, March/April, 1995, 59-67.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1992). Ethical leaders: an essay about being in love, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, No. 5, 479-84.

Manz, C., Bastien, D. and Hostager, T. (1991). Executive Leadership During Organizational
Change: A Bi-Cycle Model. Human Resource Planning, Vol. 14, No. 4, 275-287.

Marjosola, I.A. and Takala, T. (2000). Charismatic leadership, manipulation and the
complexity of organizational life. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling
Today, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2000, 146-158.

Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. 1st edition 1954, Harper & Row, New York,
NY.

May, D., Chan, A., Hodges, T. and Avolio, B. (2003). Developing the Moral Component of
Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 3, 247-260.

Michie, S. and Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions and authenticity: Will the real leader
please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005): 441-457.

Nadler, D. and Tushman M. (1990). Beyond the Charismatic Leader: Leadership and
Organizational Change. California Management Review, Winter, 1990, 77-97.

- 16 -
 Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Novicevic, M., Harvey, M., Buckley, R., Brown, J. A. and Evans, R. (2006). Authentic
Leadership: A Historical Perspective. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 2006, Vol. 13, No. 1, 64-76.

Novicevic, M., Buckley, R. and Brown J. A. (2005). Barnard on conflicts of responsibility:

Implications for today’s perspectives on transformational and authentic leadership.
Management Decision, 2005, Vol. 43, No. 10, 1396-1409.

Pianalato, M. (2003). Resuscitation of a moral ideal. In Richard Lee (Ed.), Contemporary

Ethical Theory, 218-230.

Popper, M. and Zakkai, E. (1994). Transactional, Charismatic and Transformational

Leadership: Conditions Conducive to their Predominance. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1994, 3-7.

Ryan, L. and Scott, W. (1995). Ethics and Organization Reflection: The Rockefeller
Foundation and postwar moral deficits 1942-54. Academy of Management Review,
202 (2), 438-461.

Shamir, B. and Eilam, G. (2005). “What is your story?: A life-stories approach to authentic
leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005), 315-338.

Schruijer, S. and Vansina, L. (1999). Leadership and organizational Change: An Introduction.

European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 1999, 8 (1), 1-8.

Simons, T. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1999, 89-104.

Tyler, T.R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: a relational perspective on voluntary

deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, 323-
45.

Tyler, T.R. and Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: the influence of motive
attributions on willingness to accept decisions', in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds),
Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications,
Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 331-56.

Tyler, T.R. and Cremer, D.D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedure and
reactions to organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005), 529-545.

Terry, R.W. (1993), Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA

Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1990). The Transformational Leader, John Wiley, New
York, NY.

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Journal of

Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, 251-89.

Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Pearson Education.

- 17 -