Expert Answer:Authentic Leadership – Is It More Than Emotional I

  

Solved by verified expert:I have attached the two references. no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar. Please only use the attached references below. Only 200 wordThe discussion post is belowThe statement, “Top leaders adjust their leadership style in order to best influence their followers”, I agree that this statement is true. The key to strong and effective leadership is to adapt to the personalities and characteristics that your followers display. Furthermore, utilizing Emotional Intelligence (EI) is an essential component to understanding others. Emotional Intelligence can be defined as the ability, capacity, or skill to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and of groups. As a leader you need to have the ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought. Also, you should understand emotions and regulate emotions to promote personal growth. Adjusting your leadership style to best influence your followers is necessary for success.After reviewing the discussions on situational charismatic, and transformational leadership found in Yukl (2013) text, transformational leadership best reflects my style and perspective on leadership. Furthermore, it is the type of leadership style that can inspire positive changes in those who follow. Transformational leaders are generally energetic and passionate. Not only are these leaders mindful and involved in the day to day tasks, they are also focused on helping every member of the group succeed as well. Goleman states, Emotional Intelligence embraces and draws from numerous other branches of behavioral, emotional and communications theories, Transactional Analysis, and empathy. By developing our Emotional Intelligence in these areas and the five EQ domains we can become more productive and successful at what we do, and help others to be more productive and successful too. The process and outcomes of Emotional Intelligence development also contain many elements known to reduce stress for individuals and organizations, by decreasing conflict, improving relationships and understanding, and increasing stability, continuity and harmony. Knowing these key factors, a leader should willingly adapt to his influence his or her followers to maximize potential and efficiently.ReferencesDuncan, P., Green, M., Gergen, E., & Ecung, W. (2017). Authentic Leadership–Is It More than Emotional Intelligence? Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 7(2), 11–22. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford….Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 169-185. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.110…
contentserver__4_.pdf

out__2_.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Expert Answer:Authentic Leadership – Is It More Than Emotional I
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, Winter 2017, Vol.
7, No. 2: 11-22. DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.2.2
Authentic leadership—is it more than emotional intelligence?
Phyllis Duncan, Ph.D.
Mark Green, Ph.D.
Esther Gergen, Ph.D.
Wenonah Ecung, Ph.D.
Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas
Abstract
One of the newest theories to gain widespread interest is authentic leadership. Part of the
rationale for developing a model and subsequent instrument to measure authentic leadership was
a concern that the more popular theory, the full range model of leadership and its instrument, the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1985), did not sufficiently emphasize
aspects of leader emotional intelligence (EI), such as self-awareness (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
In its current configuration, the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Walumba, Avolio,
Gardner, Wernsing & Peterson, 2008) measures four dimensions of leadership: relational
transparency, internal moral perspective, balanced processing, and self-awareness. In a recent
meta-analysis of authentic leadership, Banks, McCauley, Davis, Gardner, and Guler (2016) found
that, overall, authentic leadership is highly correlated with transformational leadership (k = 23, N
= 5,414, rho = .72). The Banks et al. study, however, reported no meta-analytic analyses between
emotional intelligence and authentic leadership. In a meta-analysis performed in 2010 by Harms
and Crede, self-ratings of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership were highly
correlated (k = 47, N = 4,994, rho = .56). Given that a) EI is strongly related to transformational
leadership, b) authentic leadership is very strongly related to transformational leadership, and c)
part of the original rationale for creating a model and instrument to measure authentic leadership
included a need to include more self-awareness in a leadership model, exploring the degree to
which emotional intelligence is related to authentic leadership is important.
In this study, 1,028 working adults completed the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test
(SSEIT) (Schutte, 2009) and the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumba et al., 2008). The
sample was 61% female, 30% held a college degree or higher, and the mean age was 29.6 years.
An exploratory factor analysis using the principal components method with varimax rotation
resulted in a 2-factor solution. While exploratory in nature, this study indicates that the
components of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire seem to be measuring something different
than emotional intelligence measured by the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test.
Keywords: authentic leadership, authenticity, emotional intelligence, EI
DUNCAN, GREEN, ECUNG, & GERGEN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.2.2
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
12
O
ne of the newest theories to gain widespread interest is authentic leadership. Part of the rationale
for developing a model and subsequent instrument to measure authentic leadership was a
concern that the more popular theory, the full range model of leadership, and its instrument, the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1985) did not sufficiently emphasize aspects
of leader emotional intelligence (EI), such as self-awareness (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
In its current configuration, the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Walumba, Avolio, Gardner,
Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) measures four dimensions of leadership: relational transparency, internal
moral perspective, balanced processing, and self-awareness. In a recent meta-analysis of authentic
leadership, Banks, McCauley, Davis, Gardner, and Guler (2016) found that overall authentic leadership is
highly correlated with transformational leadership (k = 23, N = 5,414, rho = .72). Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn,
and Wu, (2016) also conducted a meta-analysis that included authentic and transformational leadership
and found a strong correlation between the two aspects of leadership (k = 10, N = 2,397, rho = .75).
The Banks et al. and Hoch et al. studies, however, reported no meta-analytic analyses between emotional
intelligence and authentic leadership. In a meta-analysis performed in 2010 by Harms and Crede, selfratings of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership were highly correlated (k = 47, N = 4,994,
rho = .56).
Given that a) EI is strongly related to transformational leadership, b) authentic leadership is very strongly
related to transformational leadership and c) part of the original rationale for creating a model and
instrument to measure authentic leadership included a need to include more self-awareness in a
leadership model, exploring the degree to which emotional intelligence is related to authentic leadership
is important.
Previous Research on Emotional Intelligence
Ability Models of Emotional Intelligence
One approach to emotional intelligence (EI) envisions EI as either a form of intelligence or overlapping
with intelligence. The predominant ability model is that of Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso. Their model posits
EI as “the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and
emotional knowledge to enhance thought” (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008, p. 515). Their test to
measure EI ability is the MSCEIT 2. The MSCEIT 2 uses “correct and incorrect” answers. The correct
answers have been determined by expert judges.
Because the MSCEIT 2 is a test rather than an inventory, it is typically more highly correlated with
traditional measures of intelligence than are other types of EI assessments. Likewise, it is typically less
correlated with traditional measures of personality than are other types of EI assessments.
Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence
A different approach to EI is often called a mixed models approach. This approach envisions EI as a
combination of factors. The predominant mixed model approach is that of Bar-On. Bar-On envisions EI as
cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how
effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others, relate with them, and cope with
daily demands. (Bar-On, 2006, p. 15). This study used the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence
instrument. The instrument is considered a mixed models approach to emotional intelligence.
DUNCAN, GREEN, ECUNG, & GERGEN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.2.2
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
13
Research on Leader Emotional Intelligence
Table 1 illustrates leader self-reported ratings related to leader emotional intelligence (EI) as well as leader
self-reported ratings of EI and ratings of the criterion variable provided by others.
The top portion of Table 1 reflects research from studies (k = 185) that included ratings (N = 19,113) that
indicate when leaders self-assess their EI, those ratings generally have a weak to moderate effect size (ES),
with various aspects of the full range model of leadership such as laissez-faire (ES = -.37), management by
exception-passive (ES = -.22), and management by exception-active (ES = -.10).
Table 1
Meta-Analytic Findings Related to Leader Emotional Intelligence
Variable
k
N
Leader Self-Ratings of Both EI and Leadership
Laissez-Faire (H)(3)
13
1,204
Management by Exception (Passive) (H)(3)
10
871
Management by Exception (Active) (H)(3)
10
871
Transformational Leadership (H)(2)
10
1,066
Contingent Reward (H)(1)
12
1,272
Idealized Influence (Attributed) (H)(1)
15
1,576
Intellectual Stimulation (H)(1)
17
1,815
Idealized Influence (Overall) (H)(1)
17
1,815
Inspirational Motivation (H)(1)
17
1,814
Individual Consideration (H)(1)
17
1,815
Transformational Leadership (H)(1)
47
4,994
Leader Self-Ratings of EI and Others’ Ratings of Criterion Variable
Laissez-Faire (H) (2)
8
617
Transformational Leadership (H)(2)
4
441
Idealized Influence (overall) (H)(1)
7
730
Individual Consideration (H)(1)
7
730
Intellectual Stimulation (H)(1)
7
730
Follower Job Satisfaction (M)(4)
5
732
Transformational Leadership (H)(1)
22
2,661
Contingent Reward (H)(1)
6
622
Inspirational Motivation (H)(1)
7
730
Transformational Leadership (H)(3)
4
267
Constructive Conflict Management Leaders (S)(1)
NP
2,122
Follower Job Satisfaction (M)(1)
20
4,665
Subjective Team Performance (C)(1)
10
3,335
Follower Job Satisfaction (M)(5)
6
1,407
Effect
Size
-.37
-.22
-.10
.24
.35
.38
.40
.42
.43
.45
.56
-.17
.05
.10
.10
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.20
.25
.31
.35
.43
Note. (C) Ceri-Booms, Curşeu, and Oerlemans (2017), the statistic is the population estimate corrected for
attenuation due to measurement error, sampling error variance; (H) Harms and Crede (2010), the statistic is the
estimated true score correlation; (M) Miao, Humphrey, and Qian (2016), the statistic is the corrected sample-sizeweighted mean correlation; (S) Schlaerth, Ensari, and Christian (2013), the statistic is the Fisher’s z; (1) All EI
Instruments; (2) MSCEIT; (3) EQ-I; (4) Ability Model; (5) Mixed Model
DUNCAN, GREEN, ECUNG, & GERGEN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.2.2
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
14
Additionally, the research illustrated that leader self-reported ratings are moderately positively correlated
with contingent reward and the 5 I’s of the full range model of leadership (ES ranged from .24 to .45).
Most noteworthy is the strong positive finding between leader self-reported ratings and the behavioral
facet of transformational leadership (ES = .56).
The lower portion of Table 1 reflects research from studies (k = 113) that included ratings (N = 19,789)
that indicate when leaders self-assess their EI and when others rate the criterion variable, the ratings
indicate that leader EI is weakly negatively correlated with laissez-faire leadership (ES = -.17). The ratings
also reflect weak positively correlated (ES = .05 to .20) relationships with various aspects of the full range
model of leadership. Also worth mentioning, the ratings indicate there is a weak positive correlation with
constructive conflict management (ES = .25) and moderately positive relationships between follower job
performance (ES = .31 and .43) and team performance (ES = .35).
Authentic Leadership
Authenticity is not a new concept. It can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophy, “Know Thyself,”
which was inscribed in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (Parke & Wormell, 1956). Authenticity has been
shown to influence individual well-being and enduring social relationships (Erickson, 1995; Rogers, 1959).
Maslow (1968) suggested that satisfying higher order needs was a precondition to authenticity.
The authentic leadership construct encompasses four dimensions. Self-awareness is a dynamic process
and is the degree to which the leader reflects and demonstrates an understanding of how (s)he derives
and makes sense of the world and is aware of his or her strengths, limitations, how others see him or her,
and how (s)he impacts others (Kernis, 2003; Walumba, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008).
Balanced processing is the degree to which the leader shows that (s)he objectively analyzes the relevant
data and solicits others’ views that challenge his or her deeply held beliefs before making a decision
(Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Internalized moral perspective refers to the degree to which the leader sets a high standard for moral and
ethical conduct, and lets them consistently guide his or her decisions and actions versus external pressures
such as group, organizational, and societal pressures (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005;
Walumbwa et al., 2008). Relational transparency is the degree to which the leader presents his/her true
self (as opposed to a false and distorted self) to others, openly shares information, and expresses his/her
true thoughts and feelings, reinforcing a level of openness with others that allows others to be
comfortable and forthcoming with their ideas, challenges, and opinions (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner
et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
With the incorporation of a moral and ethical perspective, the theory of authentic leadership moves
beyond transformational or full-range leadership (Avolio et al., 2005) to serve as a foundation for
understanding leadership independent of style (George, 2003; Hughes, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003).
Avolio et al. (2005) argue that authentic leadership can be viewed as a “root construct” for other
leadership processes.
Research on Authentic Leadership
To date, two meta-analyses have been published analyzing authentic leadership. Table 2 reflects research
from studies/analyses (k = 197) that included ratings (N = 48,858) that indicate authentic leadership is
DUNCAN, GREEN, ECUNG, & GERGEN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.2.2
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
15
weakly negatively correlated with employee burnout (ES = -.27), deviance (ES = -.25), and employee
turnover intention (ES = -.21).
Table 2 also indicates that authentic leadership is weakly to moderately to strongly positively related to
job performance, measures of organizational citizenship and commitment, measures of employee
engagement and employee empowerment, and various measures of leadership and trust (ES ranged from
.12 to .72).
Table 2
Meta-Analytic Findings Related to Authentic Leadership
Variable
Burnout/Stress (Bank)
Employee Deviance (Hoch)
Turnover Intentions (Bank)
Job Performance (Hoch)
Task Performance (Bank)
Voice (Bank)
Organizational Citizenship (Hoch)
Engagement (Bank)
Engagement (Hoch)
Organizational Citizenship (Bank)
Job Satisfaction (Hoch)
Organizational Commitment (Hoch)
Empowerment (Bank)
Organizational Commitment (Bank)
Psychological Capital (Bank)
Job Satisfaction (Bank)
Leader Effectiveness (Bank)
LMX (Bank)
Trust in Leader (Bank)
Satisfaction with Leader (Bank)
Transformational Leadership (Bank)
Transformational Leadership (Hoch)
k
N
7
4
5
8
9
6
8
11
6
10
9
5
5
17
7
16
7
6
12
6
23
10
1,616
1,175
1,149
2,101
2,054
1,530
1,256
3,018
1,182
2,309
2,129
797
1,394
4,077
3,134
4,084
1,431
2,083
3,210
1,318
5,414
2,397
Effect
Size
-.27
-.25
-.21
.12
.14
.31
.33
.37
.47
.48
.48
.48
.51
.51
.53
.53
.58
.65
.65
.66
.72
.75
Note. (Bank) Banks, McCauley, Gardner and Guler (2016), the statistic is the mean true-score correlation corrected
for unreliability for both variables; (Hoch) Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, and Wu (2016), weighted mean correlations,
corrected for measurement and sampling error.
Participants
In this study, 1,028 working adults completed the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT)
(Schutte, 2009) and the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumba et al., 2008). The sample was 61%
female, 30% held a college degree or higher, and the mean age was 29.6 years.
DUNCAN, GREEN, ECUNG, & GERGEN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.2.2
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
16
Instruments
Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT)
Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, and Dornheim (1998) developed the SSEIT with the
purpose of assessing trait emotional intelligence in line with Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) emotional
intelligence abilities and traits model conceptualized by the following branches: appraisal and expression
of emotion; regulation of emotion; and utilization of emotion.
Schutte et al. (1998) performed a principal-components, orthogonal-rotation, factor analysis on the
instrument’s 33 items representing all aspects of Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) model of emotional
intelligence. Because all items loaded on factor one, a first factor dimension was revealed. An internal
consistency analysis revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 during the development of the instrument and a
cross-check for internal consistency revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of .87. A two-week test-retest reliability
further revealed a total scale score of .78 (Schutte et al., 1998).
The SSEIT contains 33 self-report items that use a five-point Likert scale. Schutte et al. (2009) notes that
the most widely used subscales obtained from the instrument are based on research by Petrides and
Fumham (2000), Ciarrochi, Chan, and Bajgar, (2001), and Saklofske, Austin, and Minski, (2003). Some of
the items across these three studies loaded on different factors and the authors labeled the four factors
slightly differently. The current study used four subscales called, Managing Others’ Emotions, Perception
of Emotions, Managing Own Emotions, and Utilization of Emotions.
The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ)
Walumbwa et al. (2008) developed the Authentic Leadership to measure four aspects of authentic
leadership: Self-Awareness, Relational Transparency, Internalized Moral Perspective, and Balanced
Processing. The ALQ contains 16 self-report items. Internal consistency analysis performed by Walumbwa
et al. (2008) revealed the following Cronbach alpha reliability scores: Self-Awareness, .92; Relational
Transparency, .87; Internalized Moral Perspective, .76; and Balanced Processing, .81.
Scale Reliabilities
Table 3 provides the Cronbach reliability scores from the current study for the SSEIT and ALQ. The
researchers used a standard of .50 as the cut-off for sufficient scale reliability for use in group analysis.
Using that standard, all the individual scales, as well as the two composite scales, were deemed sufficient
to use in additional analysis (Ree & Carretta, 2006).
Bivariate Results
Table 4 provides the bivariate correlations of the continuous variables age the instrument scales. One of
the criticisms of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire is the high inter-correlations among the subscales
(Green, 2015, p. 404). The inter-correlations among the four subscales in this study ranged from r = .49 to
r = .53, indicating reasonable levels of both discriminant and convergent validity. The inter-correlations
among the four subscales of the SSEIT ranged from r = .49 to r = .63. The inter-correlations above r = .6
are slightly higher than researchers might desire. Since an exploratory factor analysis was run as the
second step of the analysis, these inter-correlations were deemed acceptable to proceed.
DUNCAN, GREEN, ECUNG, & GERGEN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.2.2
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
17
Table 3
Scale Reliability Scores
Scale
Managing Others’ Emotions
Perception of Emotions
Managing Own Emotions
Utilization of Emotions
Overall Emotional Intelligence
Cronbach Alpha
.63
.72
.64
.70
.87
Balanced Processing
Moral/Ethical
Transparency
Self-Awareness
Overall Authentic Leadership
.59
.71
.58
.69
.85
Table 4
Correlation Matrix Among Instrument Scales
1
2
3
4
1.0–0
.102**
.150**
.189**
5
6
7
8
9
0.05
.175**
.216**
.161**
.063*
1
Age
2
Transparency
.102**
1.00
.549**
.492**
.533**
.846**
.319**
.333**
.364**
3
Moral/Ethical
.150**
.549**
1.00
.493**
.484**
.828**
.229**
.324**
.321**
4
Balanced Processing
.189**
.492**
.493**
1.00
.529**
.770**
.309**
.289**
.304**
5
Self-Awareness
.050
.533**
.484**
.529**
1.00
.673**
.374**
.392**
.385**
6
Total ALQ
.175**
.846**
.828**
.770**
.673**
1.00
.356**
.399**
.416**
7
Perception of Emotions
.216**
.319**
.229**
.309**
.374**
.356**
1.00
.592**
.634**
8
Managing Own Emotions
.161**
.333**
.324**
.289**
.392**
.399**
.592**
1.00
.614**
9
Managing Others’ Emotions
.063*
.364**
.321**
.304**
.385**
.416**
.634**
.614**
1.00
10
Utilization of Emotions
.066*
.308**
.293**
.214**
.325**
.342**
.490**
.551**
.624**
11
Total SSEIT
.125**
.403**
.358**
.348**
.455**
.464**
.850**
.842**
.840**
10
.754**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Exploratory Factor Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis using the principal components method with varimax rotation resulted in a
2-factor solution. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 2.76 and accounted for 34.54% of the variance in
scores. All four dimensions of the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test load …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP