Behavior PDF

The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a
Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso,

multi-level perspective
Francis J. Yammarino a,, Shelley D. Dionne a,1, Chester A. Schriesheim b,2, Fred Dansereau c,3
a
b
c
Center for Leadership Studies, School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, United States
Management Department, School of Business Administration, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-6548, United States
Jacobs Management Center, School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords:
Authentic leadership
Positive organizational behavior
Multi-level model
Multiple levels of analysis
a b s t r a c t
Authentic leadership (AL) and positive organizational behavior (POB) are two important
emerging approaches in the organizational sciences. To date, published work on AL and POB has
been primarily leader-focused and based on individual differences. In this article, after verifying
this individual-level focus via content coding of AL articles, AL and POB are explicated and
integrated using a meso, multi-level perspective. Essentially, viewed in terms of multiple levels
of analysis, AL promotes various multi-level primary criteria and outcomes of POB that, in
turn, enhances various multi-level secondary criteria and outcomes of performance. Direct
effects of AL on performance at multiple levels of analysis also are plausible. Implications for
future meso perspectives on leadership theory and research in general and on AL and POB in
particular are discussed.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Two approaches, positive organizational behavior (POB) and authentic leadership (AL), are becoming increasingly important in
the organizational sciences literature. POB has been most fully developed by Luthans et al. (Luthans, 2002; Luthans, Luthans,
Hodgetts, & Luthans, 2001). Building on the work of Seligman (1998) and Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi (2000) on positive
psychology, Luthans proposes POB as focusing on positive feelings, in general, and on the sub-concepts of condence/self-efcacy,
hope, optimism, subjective well-being/happiness, and emotional intelligence, in particular. Specically, Luthans (2002) denes
POB as the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be
measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement (p. 59).
Somewhat similar in many respects, AL (Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005a) has its roots in the work of Bass (1985, 1990) and
Bass & Steidlmeier (1999). Building on the notion of socialized charismatic leadership (Howell, 1988), Bass focuses on the
components of transformational and charismatic leadership that highlight the ethical and moral character of leaders who are
authentic transformational or socialized charismatic leaders (as opposed to pseudo-transformational or personalized charismatic
leaders). Luthans & Avolio (2003) dene AL as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly
developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of
leaders and associates, fostering positive development (p. 243). Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa (2004) dene authentic leaders as
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 607 777 6066; fax: +1 607 777 4422.
E-mail addresses: fjyammo@binghamton.edu (F.J. Yammarino), sdionne@binghamton.edu (S.D. Dionne), chet@miami.edu (C.A. Schriesheim),
mgtdanso@buffalo.edu (F. Dansereau).
1
Tel.: +1 607 777 6557; fax: +1 607 777 4422.
2
Tel.: +1 305 284 3758; fax: +1 305 284 3655.
3
Tel.: +1 716 838 4641; fax: +1 716 838 4860.
1048-9843/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.004
694
F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707
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/morale perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are condent,
hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character (p. 4).
2. Purpose and overview
To date, in our opinion, there has been no real attempt to fully integrate these related notions of POB and AL in a meso, multilevel approach. Given (1) the increasing importance of these concepts in the organizational sciences, (2) the potential their
integration offers for enhanced understanding of both organizational behavior in general and leadership in particular, and (3) the
acknowledged importance of considering levels of analysis issues in both theory building and theory testing (see below), it seems
critical to pursue such a multi-level approach. As we will demonstrate below, the work of Avolio, Gardner, Luthans and their
colleagues on AL and POB, however, is primarily limited to the individual level of analysis, focusing on individual employees or
leaders and the characteristics of the person as an individual, i.e., individual differences. While there may be nothing particularly
inappropriate about using a solely individual perspective (Eden, 1998), there is an opportunity to explore and develop more fully
the concepts of AL and POB at higher (e.g., group, organizations) levels of analysis or in terms of multiple levels of analysis. In this
way, we might advance our understanding of AL and permit more comprehensive multi-level tests of this approach to leadership.
While our work ultimately focuses on AL, it seems critical to include some focus on POB for several reasons beyond those noted
above. First, it is very difcult to discuss AL without mention of POB, as the former literature has direct links with the latter
literature, as evidenced by the citations and quotations provided and the interconnections among the authors most closely
associated with each approach (i.e., ALAvolio and POBLuthans). Second, and related to the rst point, POB can provide a context
for understanding AL and vice versa, so it is critical to deal with both concepts together in an integrative fashion. Third, while the
POB literature acknowledges a primary individual-level focus, the AL literature claims a multi-level focus, a contention with which
we disagree, so the contrast is important for us to highlight.
Our purpose here is not to provide an extensive critique and review of POB or the positive movement in general, as these have
been presented in detail elsewhere (e.g., Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Fineman, 2006a,b; Roberts, 2006; Luthans, 2002; Seligman &
Csikszentimihalyi, 2000). Nor is it our purpose to provide a detailed critique and review of AL or authentic leader development,
as this too has been presented previously (e.g., Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005a,b;
Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Rather, our intent is to rst demonstrate, through content coding of previously
published AL articles, that this work resides primarily at the individual level of analysis. The POB literature generally acknowledges
the importance of and primary focus on the individual level in conceptual work; empirical studies in this literature are conducted
at the individual level of analysis; and critiques of the POB literature make the point that the focus is individual differences (see
Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). In contrast, the AL literature implies and often refers to or claims
that it is conceptually multi-level in nature. Thus it seems important to verify (or refute) this assertion from the AL literature before
proceeding to multi-level theory building. As such, we conducted a content coding of AL (but not POB) articles. Moreover, we have
identied and included the extant population to date of conceptual and empirical work, or feasible set of articles, for coding (as
described below).
Then, building from this levels-of-analysis assessment, our second intent is to develop a preliminary meso, multi-level model
of AL and POB that can be the subject of future multi-level testing. To accomplish this second purpose, we draw on several prior
multi-level leadership approaches (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Dansereau, Yammarino, & Markham, 1995a;
Hunt, 1991; Hunt & Ropo, 1998; Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & Yammarino, 2001; Yammarino, 1996; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, &
Dansereau, 2005).
Overall, the purpose of this paper is to integrate and explicate AL and POB using a multi-level perspective on leadership (see
Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000, 2006; Dansereau et al., 1984; Dansereau, Yammarino, & Kohles, 1999; Dansereau et al., 1995a;
Yammarino, 1995, 1996; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008; Yammarino, Dionne, & Chun, 2002; Yammarino et al., 2005). The key
notion developed here can be summarized diagrammatically as follows:
(1)
where AL is authentic leadership, POB is positive organization behavior, and P is performance, all of which operate in terms of
multiple levels of analysis (MLOA). Essentially, AL, viewed in terms of multiple levels of analysis, has direct and indirect effects via
POB (also viewed at multiple levels) on performance (at multiple levels of analysis).
To accomplish our purpose and more fully explicate this general model, we rst present a levels-of-analysis content coding of
previous published articles on AL in the subsequent sections of this paper. Again, a similar analysis of the POB literature is not
undertaken as its proponents, as far as we can determine, do not make multi-level claims, choosing to focus solely on the individual
level of analysis. After drawing conclusions from this analysis (in which we nd AL to be primarily an individual-level phenomenon),
we next explore and integrate a variety of past multi-level leadership and related works to enhance the conceptualization of POB
and AL in terms of multiple levels of analysis. In particular, we show how AL and POB can be viewed and conceptualized from a
multi-level perspective. Finally, we discuss some implications of our approach for future multi-level research and testing of the
proposed ALPOBP framework.
695
3. Coding of authentic leadership articles for levels issues

Levels of analysis are the entities or objects of study about which we theorize and are integral parts of the denitions of
constructs, operationalizations of measures, and empirical tests of theoretical associations (Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000;
Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002). The key levels of analysis here are individuals or persons (independent human beings), dyads
(two-person groups and interpersonal relationships), groups (work groups and teams), and organizations (collectives larger than
groups and groups of groups) (see Dansereau et al., 1984; Yammarino, 1996; Yammarino & Bass, 1991).
3.1. Coding approach
In our review and analysis, 27 conceptual and empirical publications (i.e., book chapters and journal articles) in the area of AL
were reviewed and coded in terms of (1) the degree of appropriate inclusion of levels of analysis in theory and hypothesis
formulation; (2) the extent to which levels of analysis are represented appropriately in the measurement of constructs and
variables; (3) the degree to which levels of analysis are addressed in data analytic techniques; and (4) the extent to which theory
and data are aligned from a levels-of-analysis perspective in the drawing of inferences.
Conducting a review and analysis of the AL literature seemed important for at least three reasons. First, given the growing
literature on AL, it appears to be an appropriate time to take stock of this work. While AL research may be relatively new and
primarily conceptual rather than empirical in nature (see below), such a levels-of-analysis assessment is still critical as levels issues
(1) need to be addressed from the outset of a research stream and (2) are both a theoretical and an empirical concern. This is
especially critical since relatively little of the research to date, as noted below, has explicitly focused on multiple levels-of-analysis
issues. Understanding how and if levels are specied permits an examination of the potential for or the actual degree of theoretical
misspecication in variables and relationships.
Second, such a levels-of-analysis examination is critical prior to conducting any comprehensive meta-analysis of AL, which
must, at a minimum, account for specic individual-level, within-organization, and organizational-level population parameter
estimates (Ostroff & Harrison, 1999). Without such levels-based efforts, comprehensive meta-analyses cannot be accurately
conducted and theoretical advancement is therefore inhibited. Third, only by fully incorporating levels of analysis in theory,
measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing can a more integrative and testable theory of AL result (see Dansereau et al.,
1984; Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a,b; Yammarino, 1996). Without explicit incorporation of levels-of-analysis issues, incomplete
understanding of AL phenomena may lead to faulty measures, inappropriate data analytic techniques, and the drawing of
erroneous conclusions (e.g., Schriesheim et al., 2001).
In our review, we did not include an assessment of unpublished papers, technical reports, and dissertations, as these works in
progress are often not fully developed conceptually and empirically or are unclear as statements of the author(s) nal theoretical
positions. We have focused our review on major compendia and mainstream journal article publications on AL as conceptualized by
Avolio, Gardner, Luthans, and their colleagues. In the coding of these articles and book chapters, which we believe constitute the
population or feasible set of available articles, we were guided by major works on multiple levels-of-analysis issues, following the
approach of Dansereau, Yammarino, and colleagues (e.g., Dansereau et al.,1984; Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000; Dansereau et al.,1999;
Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002) and Rousseau (1985). Our coding scheme has been successfully employed in at least three prior studies
(Dionne, Randel, Jaussi, & Chun, 2004; Yammarino, Dionne, & Chun, 2002; Yammarino et al., 2005).
Beyond single levels of analysis (i.e., individuals, dyads, groups, or collectives, each viewed separately and one-at-a-time), a key
issue is that of multiple levels of analysis. In other words, levels can be viewed in combination or simultaneously. In multiple levels
of analysis cases, we are concerned with multi-level or cross-level effects, as well as mixed determinants and mixed-level effects
(for details and a review, see Dansereau et al., 1984; Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Rousseau,
1985). Briey, multi-level models depict relationships between independent and dependent variables that operate at different
levels of analyses; others have called these cross-level models. In contrast, for us, cross-level models are those where patterns of
relationships are replicated across multiple levels of analysis. Mixed effects models are those in which a single variable of interest
may have effects at multiple levels with multiple criteria of interest. Mixed determinants models are those where multiple
predictor variables at various levels of analysis affect a single criterion at a single level of analysis.
3.2. Coding results
We searched the leadership and organizational behavior literatures for relevant AL works, using both manual and computer key
word, subject matter, and table of contents search procedures, as well as following up on citations provided in each of the works that we
located. Our search process produced 27 publications (journal articles and book chapters), of which 23 were conceptual in nature and
the remaining 4 were empirical studies. We obtained 100% of the articles discovered in our search. Two trained coders independently
reviewed each article for the following levels-based criteria: (1) did the article explicitly state the level of analysis within its theoretical
and/or hypothesis development; (2) was measurement at the appropriate level of analysis given theoretical development (empirical
articles only); (3) was a multi-level data analytic technique employed in the study (empirical articles only); and (4) was there
appropriate levels-based alignment between theory and data (empirical articles only). Initial agreement between coders reected an
overall rate of 85.3%; after meeting to discuss discrepancies, coders were able to agree on 100% of the ratings and codes.
For all publications, after recording basic conceptual and empirical information, we assessed the incorporation of levels of
analysis into the theory and data treatment. This assessment followed the guidelines for inclusion of levels of analysis into
696
Table 1
Authentic leadership conceptual publications and levels-of-analysis issues
Author name (s) and date
1a
Avolio & Gardner (2005)

Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans & May (2004)
Avolio & Walumbwa (2006)
Chan (2005)
Chan, Hannah & Gardner (2005)
Douglas, Ferris & Perrew (2005)
Eagly (2005)
Fry & Whittington (2005)
Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumbwa (2005)
Gardner & Schermerhorn (2004)
Hannah, Lester & Vogelgesang (2005)
Hughes (2005)
Ilies, Morgeson & Nahrgang (2005)
Klenke (2005)
Kolditz & Brazil (2005)
Luthans & Avolio (2003)
Luthans, Luthans, Hodgetts & Luthans (2001)
May, Chan, Hodges & Avolio (2003)
Michie & Gooty (2005)
Shamir & Eilam (2005)
Sparrowe (2005)
Varella, Javidan & Waldman (2005)
Youssef & Luthans (2005)
Multi-level:
Multi-level:
Multi-level:
Multi-level:
Multi-level:
Individual: X
Individual: X
Multi-level:
Multi-level:
Individual: X
Individual: X
Individual: X
Multi-level: X
Multi-level:
Mixed Determinants: X
Multi-level: X
Individual: X
Individual: X
Individual: X
Individual: X
Individual: X
Multi-level:
Multi-level:
Level(s) represented in theory/hypothesis formulation. Key: = explicit; X = implicit; ? = indeterminable.
theoretical formulation and empirical testing put forth by Dansereau et al. (1984), Klein et al. (1994), Yammarino (1996), Dansereau
& Yammarino (2000), Dionne et al. (2004), and Yammarino et al. (2002, 2005). This set of procedures focused on three key issues
regarding levels of analysis.
The rst issue concerned the conceptualization of multiple levels to allow for their inclusion into theoretical formulations (notated
as levels represented in theory/hypothesis formulation in Tables 1 and 2). We evaluated all conceptual and empirical publications on
this dimension and noted whether conceptualizations were explicit, implicit, or indeterminate with regard to levels of analysis.
The second key issue regarding levels-based theoretical formulation and empirical testing concerned the empirical
specication of multiple levels as to allow for their testing in data analysis. We evaluated all empirical publications on this
dimension using two classications. The rst classication evaluated whether levels of analysis were represented appropriately in
measurement (noted as level(s) represented appropriately in measurement in Table 2). In particular, we were concerned with
whether (a) concepts and measures were at the same level or at least aggregated appropriately, using some aggregation
assessment technique such as rWG (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) or WABA (Dansereau et al., 1984; Dansereau & Yammarino,
2000, 2006; Schriesheim et al., 2001); (b) measures were not aggregated appropriately; (c) concepts and measures were at
different levels; or nally, (d) the level of measurement was indeterminate with regard to levels of analysis.
The second classication for the empirical aspects of the publications addressed levels of analysis in data analysis techniques
(notated as addressed level(s) in data analysis techniques in Table 2). We evaluated whether (a) WABA was employed correctly or
incorrectly; (b) some other multi-level technique (e.g., HLM, Hierarchical Linear Modeling; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) was used
correctly or incorrectly; (c) there was no use of a multi-level technique; or nally, (d) the focus of data analytic techniques was
indeterminate with regard to levels of analysis.
Finally, the third key issue regarding levels of analysis for empirical publications related to the drawing of inferences, which
concerned the existence of a one-to-one alignment of conceptual (theory) and empirical (data) specications (notated as
alignment of theory and data in Table 2). Here we evaluated whether (a) the theory and data were aligned at the appropriate
Table 2
Authentic leadership empirical publications and levels-of-analysis issues
Author name (s) and date
1a
2b
3c
4d
Dasborough & Ashkanasy (2005)

Eigel & Kuhnert (2005)
Pittinsky & Tyson (2005)
Walumbwa et al. (2008)
Multi-level:
Individual: X
?
Individual:
XX
XX
XX
?
XX
XX
Level(s) represented in theory/hypothesis formulation. Key: = explicit; X = implicit; ? = indeterminable.

Level(s) represented appropriately in measurement. Key: = concepts and measure(s) at same level; = measure(s) at one level, but aggregated
appropriately to level of concept(s); X = measure(s) not aggregated appropriately to level of concept; XX = concepts and measure(s) at different levels; ? =
indeterminable.
c
Addressed level(s) in data analysis techniques. Key: = used WABA at correct level; = used some multi-level technique correctly at appropriate level; X =
used a multi-level technique or WABA incorrectly; XX = no use of a multi-level technique; ? = indeterminable.
d
Alignment of theory and data. Key: = yes, at appropriate level; XX = theory at some level other than data level; ? = indeterminable.
b
697
levels of analysis; (b) the theory was at some level other than the data level; or (c) the level of theory and data represented was
indeterminate with regard to levels of analysis.
Our levels-of-analysis review of all conceptual publications on AL is summarized in Table 1. In Table 2, a levels-of-analysis
summary of all empirical publications on AL is presented. It is important to note that all the evaluations of levels-of-analysis issues
in theory, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing were classied in a liberal or generous manner. In other words,
we gave authors the benet of the doubt, often trying to interpret what they meant regarding levels issues even when they were
less than explicit.
Examination of Tables 1 and 2 reveals that many articles do not address levels-of-analysis issues. Although approximately 40%
of the articles explicitly noted that it is important to develop multi-level models, the importance of multi-level theory and
hypothesis development was not reected in this literature. Conceptual AL articles in this review explicitly addressed levels of
analysis in theory and hypothesis development only 43% (10 of 23) of the time. Closer examination of the models in these works
revealed multi-level linkages such as contextual variables impacting leader development, and AL's inuence on follower
perceptions and/or organizational variables; however, in several cases the theoretical development did not explicitly address the
interdependency related to, and boundary conditions of, these multiple levels.
For example, several models addressed perceptions regarding authentic leaders, but the perspective seemed to reect more of a
one-sided, in the presence of an authentic leader view of perception (i.e., a follower level of analysis). This single level of analysis
view differs from a multi-level view where one could expect a theoretical explanation of the interdependency arising from the
interaction between authentic leaders and followers. For example, Youssef & Luthans (2005) noted that resilient leaders can
become models for followers, who draw optimism and efcacy from what they believe the leader can do, which helps followers
recover from initial failures and, over time, begin their own resiliency development journey. Although a cascade and contagion
effect is the mechanism by which this journey occurs, a follower's journey reects a more singular view via observation of a focal
leader, rather than a multi-level, interdependent view of both leader and follower.
Empirical AL articles in our review (see Table 2) revealed that 50% (2 of 4) of the studies explicitly addressed levels of analysis within
the theoretical or hypothesis development portion of the article or book chapter. Although one article described a multi-level model
(Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2005), the actual study conducted was cross-sectional and focused on follower perceptions of manipulated
leader behavior; this is more accurately viewed as constituting a single level of analysis investigation which did not use multi-level data
analytic techniques. Another empirical article was implicitly focused on the individual level (Eigel & Kuhnert, 2005) and did not employ
multi-level assessment techniques. Yet another empirical article had an indeterminate level of analysis (Pittinsky & Tyson, 2005) and
did not employ multi-level theory or technique. Finally, the other empirical article (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson,
2008) focused exclusively on the individual level of analysis in formulation, measurement, and testing. Thus, no empirical articles
assessed a multi-level model and, consequently, no empirical articles employed multi-level analytic techniques.
Two of these empirical articles appropriately measured the constructs and had proper theory and data alignment (50%, 2 of 4).
These were the individual level of analysis articles by Eigel & Kuhnert (2005) and Walumbwa et al. (2008). Although Dasborough &
Ashkanasy (2005) employed individual-level measures and tests, they indicated that their model reects multiple levels and
therefore their measurement and alignment entry in Table 2 reects this inconsistency. We were unable to determine the
appropriate level of analysis for theory and measurement in the Pittinsky & Tyson (2005) article, although their technique reected
a more qualitative approach. As a result of this review and analysis, it appears that multi-level data analytic techniques were
generally not employed in the AL literature, reecting that these four empirical articles essentially theorized, measured, and
analyzed concepts at a single level of analysis (that of the individual).
The conclusion that seems the most appropriate to reach here is that AL work to date has been primarily conceptualized at the
individual level of analysis and in terms of individual differences, and the few empirical tests that have been conducted have not
been levels-based; i.e., levels issues are not explicitly articulated and explored. Our ndings align with the review of Cooper et al.
(2005) as well as the writings of Avolio & Gardner (2005), Chan (2005), and Gardner et al. (2005b). In particular, Cooper et al.
(2005) state: Clearly specifying the level(s) of analysis will be particularly important in moving forward so that authentic
leadership researchers working from the denition will not measure at one level and analyze at another, producing results of
questionable validity (p. 478).
Avolio & Gardner (2005) note: we have viewed authentic leadership as operating at multiple levels of analysis, including the
individual, dyad, group and organizational levels Nevertheless, as Cooper et al. (2005) warn, ambiguity remains about the levels
at which authentic leadership and its development operates, as well as the cross-level effects from the individual, to the group, to
the organizational level that are implicit in our model (p. 333). Chan (2005) states: Authentic leadership and authentic leadership
development can be conceptualized and operationalized at different levels This inherent complexity has raised calls for a clearer
construct denition with well-specied (and simpler) levels of analysis (pp. 230232). Finally, Gardner et al. (2005b) assert:
Cooper et al. (2005) expressed concerns about current conceptions of authentic leadership, which dene it as a multi-level and
multi-dimensional phenomenon We share these concerns (p. 398).
4. A meso, multi-level approach
4.1. Overview of multi-level AL approach
To move beyond the primarily individual-level view of AL that has been used exclusively in the literature to date, we will now
consider a variety of multi-level work on leadership and related concepts. In this way we can enhance the conceptualization of AL
698
Fig. 1. A multi-level perspective on AL, POB, and performance.
by explicitly incorporating multiple levels of analysis, developing some multi-level linkages between AL and POB and performance,
and providing a framework for future multi-level testing of these ideas.
Using the work of various multi-level researchers mentioned above (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1984, 1995a; Dansereau &
Yammarino, 1998a,b, 2006; Hunt, 1991; Hunt & Ropo, 1998; Schriesheim et al., 2001; Yammarino, 1996; Yammarino & Dansereau,
2008), we can begin to explicitly incorporate multiple levels of analysis into a consideration of AL. In particular, as shown in Fig. 1,
it is possible to take a multi-level perspective on the linkages among AL, POB, and P that were displayed in our initial diagram
(Expression 1) presented above. These meso, multi-level ideas are developed more fully below and in Table 3 for AL and in Table 4
for POB. Beyond the multi-level direct effects of AL on P, there are the multi-level indirect effects of AL on P via POB. Specically, the
central thesis or meta-proposition here is that AL, viewed in terms of multiple levels of analysis, promotes the various multi-level
primary criteria and outcomes of POB that, in turn, enhances the various multi-level secondary criteria and outcomes of
performance.
4.2. Multi-level view of AL
2
AL can be formulated as a multilevel construct:
Our intent here is to rst describe how the AL approach might operate at each level of analysis (individual, dyad, group,
organization) and across levels of analysis (multi-level view). We also discuss other established leadership theories that operate at
each of these levels of analysis. Then, through this alignment in terms of constructs and levels of analysis, our understanding of AL
approach is better informed, the AL approach can be viewed as similar to these extant established theories, and the basis beyond
which AL should explain leadership notions to be viewed as a new useful approach can be provided.
As shown in Table 3, extending the original writings of Bass as well as the work of Avolio, Gardner, and Luthans, AL is conceptualized here not only in terms of individual leaders and their style, but also in terms of leaderfollower dyadic relationships,
shared leadership in groups and teams, and an organization-wide managerial philosophy or approach.
4.2.1. Individual level
At the individual level of analysis, AL might operate like some combination of the Hunt (1991) and Hunt & Ropo (1998) and the
pragmatic leadership (PL) approaches (Connelly, Zaccaro, Gilbert, Marks, Threlfall, & Mumford, 2000; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding,
Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). Authentic leaders, in this
case, can display an AL style toward subordinates or followers in which they treat all followers the same or similarly. The AL style
may differ from leader-to-leader, but can display stable individual differences over time. Following Hunt (1991), this view can apply
at multiple levels of management with increasing cognitive and task complexity for authentic leaders at successively higher
hierarchical levels.
In particular, Hunt's (1991) extended multiple-organizational-level leadership model emphasizes two types of levels; i.e.,
leadership is a function of multiple hierarchical organizational levels of management, and these levels have different multiple
levels of analysis implications. His approach permits the specication of processual, as compared to solely static, issues (Hunt &
Ropo, 1998); and extends the work of Jacobs & Jaques (1987) on stratied systems theory. For an organization to perform
effectively, Hunt (1991) and Hunt & Ropo (1998) argue that certain tasks are critical. These tasks become more complex and
qualitatively different as one moves up the hierarchy (in terms of levels of management), and more complex tasks (e.g., strategy/
vision, organizational design) are reected in longer time spans for completion.
Table 3
A multi-level perspective on authentic leadership (AL)
Level of analysis
View of authentic leadership
Compatible leadership view
Leader/individual
Leaderfollower dyad
Authentic leader style; individual differences; treat followers similarly

Authentic dyad; balanced relationships; one-to-one connections
Group/team
Organization
Authentic team; AL shared mental model; followers see AL similarly

Authentic organization; AL philosophy/managerial values in organization
Pragmatic leadership (e.g., Mumford, et al., 2000)

Individualized leadership (e.g., Dansereau,
Yammarino, Markham, Alutto, Newman, et al., 1995)
Shared leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 1996)
Strategic leadership (e.g., Hunt, 1991)
699
Table 4
A multi-level perspective on positive organizational behavior (POB)
Individual
Group
Organization
Condence/self-efcacy
Group potency
Group and team efcacy
Goals and standards of high-performance teams
High expectations and standards; positive group mood
Positive team mental model
Group morale and cohesion
Emotionally intelligent team/group
Collective efcacy
Hope
Optimism
Subjective well-being/happiness
Emotional intelligence
Positive vision and mission

Striving for mission success and accomplishment
Intrinsically motivating aspects of jobs
Emotionally healthy organization
Three domains, each of which encompasses multiple levels of management, are relevant for Hunt's model: bottom or direct/
production with up to three month time spans for tasks; middle or organizational with task time spans ranging from several
months to several years; and top or systems/strategic with 20 years or longer time spans for tasks. In addition, Hunt (1991)
argues that increasingly complex tasks at successively higher levels of management require increasing levels of leader cognitive
capacity. Cognitive capacity assumes that cognitively complex individuals process information differently from and perform
selected tasks better than do cognitively less complex people because they use more categories to discriminate among stimuli and
see more commonalities among these categories. As such, there should be a match between leader cognitive complexity and
critical task complexity at each level. In essence, Hunt's model assumes that leader behavioral complexity, in terms of behaviors
and skills (cognitive, social, technical, etc.), also increases with organizational level (Hunt, 1991; Hunt & Ropo, 1998). As the time
span requirements increase, a higher level of cognitive capacity is needed. Leadership is considered more effective the closer the
match between time spans required and the leader's cognitive capacity to deal with the position's time span requirements.
Relatedly, pragmatic leadership (PL) is an individual-level approach to leadership (Connelly et al., 2000; Mumford et al., 2000,
Mumford et al., 2002; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). These individual differences can focus on the leader or superior per se and his/
her style, and also on the style of others in a group or team who have some form of leadership responsibility. PL, sometimes labeled
as a functional and problem-solving approach to leadership, is leadership where inuence is exercised by identifying and
communicating solutions to signicant social problems, working through elites (broadly dened) in solution generation, creating
structures to support solution implementation, and demonstrating the feasibility of these solutions. Essentially, the PL approach
asserts that effective leadership behavior fundamentally depends upon the leader's ability to solve the kinds of complex social
problems that arise in teams and organizations.
Mumford et al. (2000) have provided details on the PL approach to leadership and articulate the leader capabilities, knowledge,
and skills needed for solving complex social problems. In brief, leaders begin to address complex issues by dening the problem
and formulating a solution framework or set of ideas to understand the problem and develop initial solution strategies. The focus
here for leaders is on the problem per se, its signicance, origin, and potential solutions. Experience, knowledge of the job/tasks,
and understanding of the environment shape the way the leader represents the problem, the kinds of information sought, and the
type of concepts applied.
Capabilities such as wisdom and knowledge, perspective-taking, creative problem solving, and social judgment skills enable
leaders to go beyond themselves to assess how others react to a solution, identify restrictions, develop plans, and build support for
implementation. Ultimately, however, performance depends on the implementation of a plan. And, the implementation occurs in a
social context where the leader depends on the efforts of others for making proposed solutions happen. So, social cognition and
knowledge of peers, subordinates, and superiors is critical for solution implementation. Flexibility and adjusting plans as dictated
by the changing social environment and the ability to communicate a vision, establish clear and achievable goals, monitor progress
and motivate others to implement a given solution also are seen as critical skills.
Moreover, general cognitive abilities, crystallized cognitive abilities, motivation, personality, and prior career experiences all
inuence a leader's problem-solving skills, social judgment and social skills, and knowledge. These in turn impact actual problem
solving, and ultimately performance, subject to outside environmental inuences. As noted by Mumford & Van Doorn (2001), PL
requires careful observation of people and social systems to identify needs, objective analysis of the situation to identify restrictions
and intervention points, and development and implementation of solution strategies designed to maximize benets at low cost.
In general, at the individual level of analysis, AL can be viewed as operating similarly to both the approaches of Hunt (1991) and
Hunt & Ropo (1998) regarding increased cognitive and task complexity at higher levels of management as well as the Mumford et al.
(2000, 2002) pragmatic approach involving functional problem solving. So, in terms of constructs and the individual level, there
appears to be a potential alignment of these established approaches and AL.
4.2.2. Dyad level
At the dyad level of analysis, AL might operate like the individualized leadership (IL) approach. IL is a dyadic-level approach to
leadership (Dansereau et al., 1984; Dansereau, Yammarino, Markham et al., 1995b; Mumford, Dansereau, & Yammarino, 2000;
Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002). Dyads, a special case of groups and teams, are two-person entities. In this case, authentic dyads can
involve a leader and a follower or a superior and a subordinate having an interpersonal relationship. In particular, IL is a one-to-one
relationship between a superior and a specic subordinate involving the superior's investments in and returns from the subordinate,
and the subordinate's investments in and returns from the superior. The key investments and returns variables are providing support
for the subordinate's feelings of self-worth by a superior, and providing satisfying performance to a superior by the subordinate.
700
These variables and their relationships operate such that there is agreement within a superior-subordinate dyad and differences
between multiple dyads thus, the leadership is individualized. The ideas of giving and receiving are linked with the principle of
reciprocal reinforcement, i.e., investments trigger return, and returns trigger investments, so they are positively related. The parties
are thus interdependent, and when in a balanced relationship, where the amounts of giving and receiving for each party are
similar, there are still likely to be differences between dyads (see Dansereau et al., 1995b; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002).
In the IL approach, a critical investment by a superior, and a return to a subordinate, is providing support for feelings of selfworth to a subordinate. This can be accomplished by a superior providing attention, support, and assurance to a subordinate.
Authentic leaders appear to engage in similar behaviors. A key subordinate investment, and a return to the superior, is providing
exceptional performance to the superior. This can be accomplished by a subordinate providing performance at or above standards,
particularly in terms of quality and doing a job in line with the superior's preferences. Superiorsubordinate dyads are involved and
some relationships may be rich (high levels of investments and returns), while others may be poor (low amounts of these
variables). This dyadic bonding process may start with an investment in or a return to either party from the other party.
A key element of the IL dyadic approach is the notion of support for self-worth that one individual provides another. This
concept is dened as supporting another individual's actions and ideas, expressing condence in the other individual and his/her
integrity, ability, and motivation, and paying attention to the individual's feelings and needs. The focus is on developing the
individual's competencies at a dyadic (one-to-one) level through empowerment. Specic additional dimensions of investments
and returns that link well with the AL approach can include: showing respect, cooperativeness, openness, being task-centered,
endorsing values, benevolence, acceptance, having fun, providing learning opportunities, communication, and allowing selfresponsibility and mistakes.
In general, at the dyad level of analysis, AL can be viewed as operating similarly to the individualized leadership approach
(Dansereau et al., 1995b; Mumford et al., 2000; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002) regarding investments and returns. So, in terms of
constructs and the dyad level, there appears to be a potential alignment of this established approach and AL.
4.2.3. Group/team level
At the group/team level of analysis, AL might operate like the shared leadership (SL) approach. SL is a group- or team-level
approach to leadership (Avolio, Jung, Murry, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Gronn, 2002; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers,
1996; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). This approach can focus on the entire team or group and how
they operate collectively. In the case of the authentic team, all team members, including the authentic leader, view AL similarly
and as a shared responsibility of all members. In this approach, especially in high-performing teams, there is a strong reliance on
shared mental models and shared knowledge and cognitions within the team (Gibson, 2001; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu,
Marks, & Zaccaro, 2002; Mohammed & Dumville, 2001).
In particular, SL is an approach to leadership where no one member of a team stands out always and everywhere as a leader;
rather, leadership roles and responsibilities are shared and distributed throughout the team depending on the issue, circumstance,
expertise needed, time constraints, etc. The need for an SL approach is driven by the new, complex demands of work situations,
technology, and new patterns of interdependence and coordination required among team members. No one person can possibly
have all the knowledge, expertise, and skills needed to meet goals and accomplish tasks successfully in today's cross-functional and
multi-functional situations. From a distributive leadership perspective (e.g., Gronn, 2002), there are numerical advantages (i.e.,
more than one leader), concertive action advantages (i.e., holistic, multiplicity, collaboration, intuitive understandings), and
conjoint agency advantages (i.e., synchronized actions and plans) to this approach.
In brief, through team processes of communication, face-to-face interaction, and collaboration, there is considerable knowledge
acquisition and sharing in teams. Knowledge and information sharing lead to cognitive elaboration where new knowledge
structures are created and old structures are modied. Over time, cognitive convergence occurs where team members gradually
acquire enhanced overlap among their cognitive structures. Shared cognitive structures and knowledge, or shared mental models,
then can reduce variance in team performance, enhance cohesiveness, build a positive team climate, and promote successful goal
accomplishment. These shared mental models (or shared cognitions) are similar, overlapping, compatible or complementary
knowledge or belief structures that represent features of the context (such as task-specic knowledge, task-related knowledge,
knowledge of team members, and attitudes and beliefs).
As noted by various authors, shared and overlapping knowledge and belief structures support the alignment of expectations
that permit rapid and smooth coordination of behavior (via shared mental models), availability and access to a larger pool of
information for problem solving and task completion, enhance the creation of new knowledge, enable team innovation and
learning, and foster faster agreement on problem denition and strategic decisions. In turn, all these elements result in enhanced
team effectiveness and efciency. As a process-based view, SL involves teamwork with high levels of expended collective effort
and high-quality interpersonal relationships. Cohesion, communication, and conict management are all both drivers of and
outcomes from this process.
In the SL approach, highly effective teams are characterized as having a clear focus or vision when members are willing to
sacrice individual goals and accomplishments for team mission fulllment. Team members identify so well with the team
purpose and mission, that they are willing to make individual sacrices for the team and to enhance other team members'
potential and capabilities. This approach assists in the building of team/shared mental models noted above. By developing a
collective belief structure that is shared among members, teams develop a shared climate and culture that includes understanding
of their behaviors, values, and ideas, and that develops a sense of cohesiveness and a set of expectations of one another that
facilitates learning and the ability of the team to lead itself collectively.
701
In general, at the group/team level of analysis, AL can be viewed as operating similarly to the shared leadership approach
(Avolio et al., 1996; Kozlowski et al., 1996; Zaccaro et al., 2001) regarding shared mental models and shared cognitions. So, in terms
of constructs and the group/team level, there appears to be a potential alignment of this established approach and AL.
4.2.4. Organizational level
At the organizational level, with a focus on organizational values and philosophy, AL might operate like some combination of
the Hunt (1991) and Hunt & Ropo (1998) and other strategic leadership (StL) approaches (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Cannella &
Monroe, 1997; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999), resulting in an authentic organization. The AL philosophy and values may be
infused throughout the entire organization similarly, in all units and within all subcultures. This may signal the inuence of an
authentic CEO and/or various authentic department or unit leaders.
In particular, StL is an organizational-level approach to leadership that focuses on executives who have overall responsibility for an
organization. In particular, the characteristics, behaviors, and impact on organizational outcomes of top individuals (e.g., CEOs) and top
groups (e.g., top management teams, boards of directors) are considered of prime importance (Hunt, 1991; Finkelstein & Hambrick,
1996; Cannella & Monroe, 1997; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999; Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, & Yammarino, 2004). Finkelstein &
Hambrick (1996) view the realm of StL as concerned with four primary constructs and their various associations: strategic leadership
per se, as noted above; organization form or conduct (which includes strategy, structure, and processes); environment or stimuli
external to the organization (such as industry structure); and organizational effectiveness or rm performance.
As noted by Hunt (1991) and Hunt & Ropo (1998), StL occurs at the highest levels of management, and regardless of the level of
analysis or focus (e.g., CEO as an individual, TMT as a group, philosophy and values for the organization), involves dealing with (a)
organizational culture and effectiveness, (b) the highest degrees of cognitive and behavioral complexity and decision making, (c)
critical tasks that include strategy/vision and organizational design, and (d) the longest time spans (often 20 years and beyond).
Strategy, according to Hunt (1991), has been conceptualized as the means-end package of the organization, typically expressed in
terms of the vision of the CEO and/or TMT. Organizational design includes two primary aspects: an overall congurational characterization (e.g., tall vs. at) and various combinations of dimensions such as size, formalization, and centralization (Hunt & Ropo, 1998).
Moreover, for organizations to be effective there should be a consistency between the organization's strategy and structure.
As discussed previously, behavioral and cognitive complexity, another aspect of StL, is essentially an individual's (in this case,
likely the CEO's) cognitive power, the sophistication of one's organizing processes, the skill to differentiate and integrate multiple
cognitive elements, and the ability to engage in and effectively perform multiple roles and wide-ranging behaviors required by an
organization in its environment (Hunt, 1991; Hunt & Ropo, 1998). This includes creating, dening, and managing the organizational
culture. For Hunt (1991) and Hunt & Ropo (1998), culture is multi-layered (i.e., visible artifacts, deeper shared values and beliefs,
and even deeper shared basic assumptions), with potentially numerous subcultures, and dimensions of culture that may vary both
within units (intensity or agreement within) and between units (integration or agreement between). Finally, all of the above
elements in an StL framework impact numerous implicit and explicit indicators of organizational performance and effectiveness, as
valued by various internal and external stakeholders (Hunt, 1991; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Cannella & Monroe, 1997;
Waldman & Yammarino, 1999; Tosi et al., 2004). In essence, performance (broadly dened in terms of quantity and quality, general
and specic, and soft and hard criteria) at the individual, team/group, and organizational levels of analysis is relevant.
In general, at the organization level of analysis, AL can be viewed as operating similarly to the strategic leadership approach
(Hunt, 1991; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Waldman and Yammarino, 1999) regarding organizational values and managerial
philosophy. So, in terms of constructs and the organization level, there appears to be a potential alignment of this established
approach and AL.
4.2.5. Multi-level issues for AL
In two ways we have not fully addressed the multi-level implications of the ideas presented thus far. First, we need to clarify
how effects will be manifested at multiple levels of analysis. This notion is easiest to illustrate by beginning with the
organizational-level portion of our conceptualization. We believe that the organizational-level effects also will hold at each lower
level of analysis. For example, when individuals are viewed as part of a culture or subculture in an organization, we expect to see
differences between individuals depending on whether they reside in different cultures or subcultures. At the group level of
analysis, we expect to see differences between individuals depending on whether they reside in different groups or teams. At the
dyadic level of analysis, we expect to see differences between individuals depending on whether they reside in different dyads. At
the individual level of analysis, for leaders and their followers, we expect to see differences between followers depending on
whether they report to one leader or different leaders. In other words, we expect differences at the individual level of analysis to
occur and to manifest themselves in different ways depending on which level of analysis is the focal level of interest. These are
different hypotheses about what should occur at the lowest level of analysis. Dansereau et al. (1984), among others, suggest that
such hypotheses need to be tested directly to avoid incorrectly inferring that effects reduce to lower levels of analysis when, in fact,
they do not. (This inferential error is called the ecological fallacy.)
Second, we have hypothesized a particular view at each level of analysis. Specically, we have focused on differences between
individuals, between dyads, between groups and teams, between subcultures and cultures, and between organizations. As such,
we have asserted what Dansereau et al. (1984) labeled a wholes view that focuses on differences between various entities. This is
one view of entities at a focal level of analysis. In contrast, we have not focused on a parts view or differences within individuals,
within dyads, within groups and teams, within subcultures and cultures, and within organizations. For example, when we view
individual differences, these differences among individuals may be based on group membership. But it is also plausible that
702
differences between individuals may reect either differences within groups or differences between groups. These are two
different alternative hypotheses about what should occur at the lowest level of analysis, and we have asserted differences between
groups (as well as differences between entities at higher levels of analysis) as the primary hypothesis for testing. Dansereau &
Yammarino (2000, 2006) suggest that such hypotheses need to be tested directly to avoid incorrectly inferring that effects reect
differences between entities (e.g., groups) when, in fact, they actually reect differences within entities (e.g., groups).
4.3. Multi-level view of POB
POB can be formulated as a multiQlevel construct:
4.3.1. Multiple levels

While work to date on POB acknowledges and focuses on the individual level of analysis (see Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Luthans,
2002; Luthans et al., 2001, 2007), this work can be enhanced with a multi-level perspective. Similar to our discussion of AL, the work of
Luthans and colleagues can be extended and POB can be conceptualized not only in terms of positive individual behavior, but also in
terms of positive group-/team-level behavior, and positive organizational-level behavior (e.g., culture) (see Table 4). We provide only
illustrative details here on these notions due to space considerations, our primary focus on AL (rather than POB), and the fact that many
POB issues have been addressed above and are closely linked to AL and the multi-level issues previously discussed.
The rst column in Table 4 represents the work of Luthans (2002) and Luthans et al. (2001) at the individual level of analysis,
which focuses on CHOSE (see Table 4 for details on this acronym). Rather than POB, this work might be more accurately labeled or
referred to as PIB, positive individual behavior, as there is no explicit recognition, conceptualization, or empirical tests at higher (e.g.,
group, organization) levels of analysis. As noted above, current POB work claims nothing beyond the individual level, and there is
nothing inherently inappropriate in this view. So this new label is merely for clarication purposes and to allow for higher-level
possibilities which we summarize in the remainder of the table. In the second column, we provide our extrapolation of Luthans and
colleagues' concepts to the group level of analysis. The similarly analogous notions for us at the organizational level are presented in
the third column of the table. Through the additional consideration of concepts at the group and organization levels of analysis, a
more fully multi-level view of POB can thus emerge and become the subject of future multi-level empirical testing.
Extensions of PIB to the group level of analysis focus on aspects of group climate that are related to high-performance teams.
Many of the notions discussed above with regard to SL and AL at the group or team level of analysis apply here (also see Avolio et al.,
1996; Kozlowski et al., 1996; Zaccaro et al., 2001). There is extensive literature on teams and shared elements in teams and groups
that lead to high levels of team performance. Notions such as group or team potency, efcacy, positive mood, morale, and cohesion
are well-established in the literature (e.g., Avolio et al., 1996; Kozlowski et al., 1996; Mathieu et al., 2002; Zaccaro et al., 2001); and
the idea of an emotionally intelligent team has been discussed (Askanasy, 2003). All these concepts, in our view, are group-level
analogues or manifestations of the individual-level PIB concepts.
Extensions of PIB to the organizational level of analysis focus on aspects of organizational culture that lead to highly effective
and socially responsible organizations. Many of the notions discussed above with regard to StL and AL at the organizational level of
analysis apply here (also see Hunt & Ropo, 1998; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). There is extensive
literature on organizations and key concepts such as cultures at the organizational level that link these variables and high
performance at that level of analysis. Collective efcacy, positive visions and missions, striving for high levels of success and
customer or stakeholder satisfaction and delight, giving back to the community or environment, and the intrinsically motivating
aspects of jobs are well-established notions in the literature (e.g., Cannella & Monroe, 1997; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Hunt,
1991; Tosi et al., 2004). Even the idea of emotionally healthy organizations has been discussed (Askanasy, 2003). All these concepts,
in our view, are organizational-level analogues or manifestations of the individual-level PIB concepts discussed previously.
4.3.2. Multi-level issues for POB
Of course, the same two multi-level issues arise for POB as did for AL. Specically, it is necessary to recognize that the ideas and
hypotheses assert that effects at higher levels of analysis also will be manifested at lower levels of analysis and in terms of a
wholes view or differences between individuals, between groups and teams, and between organizations. In contrast, while
plausible, we are not focusing on or asserting a parts view or differences within persons, within groups and teams, and within
organizations. Dansereau & Yammarino (2000, 2006) suggest that such alternative ideas and hypotheses need to be tested directly
to avoid making errors in drawing inferences from real data.
4.4. ALPOBP linkages
Positive associations among AL; POB; and P are multiQlevel in nature:
As shown in Fig. 1, the meso, multi-level connections of AL and POB with P, both soft and hard, can now be explored. As the
literature on performance, dened in various ways (both soft and hard) at multiple levels of analysis (individual, group, team,
organization), is vast and well-established (see, for example, Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Bass, 1990; Neal & Hesketh, 2002; Viswesvaran,
2001), we will not review it here. Also, many of the direct (i.e., ALP and POBP) and indirect (i.e., ALPOBP) connections of interest
have been addressed above from a multi-level perspective and in prior work on AL and POB from an individual-level perspective
(e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans, 2002). As such we will just briey mention and illustrate them here.
703
For example, at the individual level, one can conceptualize high degrees of satisfaction, commitment, and loyalty (all soft
performance criteria) as well as effective and higher individual performance, lower absenteeism, and less turnover (all hard
performance criteria) as relevant factors (see Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Bass, 1990). These variables can have conceptual linkages
with AL and POB and various individual-level leadership approaches, such as PL and aspects of Hunt's work, that may resemble AL
at that level of analysis (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans, 2002; Hunt, 1991; Mumford et al., 2000, 2002).
At the group level, viewing high degrees of cohesion, high morale, and positive climate (all soft performance criteria) as well as
objective (hard performance criteria), effective and higher group/team performance and lower group absenteeism appear
important (see Bass, 1990; Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Viswesvaran, 2001). These variables can have conceptual linkages with AL and
POB and various group-level and team-level leadership approaches, such as SL (as well as dyadic approaches such as IL), which may
resemble AL at that level of analysis (e.g., Dansereau et al.,1995b; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002; Avolio et al., 1996; Kozlowski et al.,
1996; Zaccaro et al., 2001).
At the organizational level, consideration of a positive culture and multi-faceted mission (soft performance criteria) as well as
objective, effective and higher organizational performance (e.g., stock prices, sales, ROA, ROE all hard performance criteria)
appears important (see Bass, 1990; Neal & Hesketh, 2002). These variables can have conceptual linkages with AL and POB and
various organizational-level leadership approaches, such as StL and aspects of Hunt's work, that may resemble AL at that level of
analysis (e.g., Hunt, 1991; Hunt & Ropo, 1998; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Tosi et al., 2004; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999).
In terms of multi-level issues, the same notions are relevant for the ALPOBP linkages as noted above for AL and POB
separately. In particular, it is important to realize that the linkages and hypotheses assert that effects at higher levels of analysis also
will be manifested at lower levels of analysis and in terms of a wholes view or differences between individuals, between dyads,
between groups and teams, between subcultures and cultures, and between organizations. While plausible, we are not asserting a
parts view or differences within persons, within dyads, within groups and teams, within subcultures and cultures, and within
organizations for these ALPOBP linkages. Again, Dansereau et al. (1984) and Dansereau & Yammarino (2000, 2006) note that
such alternative ideas and hypotheses need to be tested directly to avoid making errors in drawing inferences.
In essence, as displayed in Expressions 14, as well as in Fig. 1 and Tables 3 and 4, multi-level aspects of AL and POB will have a
positive impact and foster enhanced levels of P, using both soft and hard performance criteria, at multiple levels of analysis and
in terms of between-entities differences. These include direct (i.e., ALP and POBP) and indirect (i.e., ALPOBP) meso, multi-level
associations and, as developed here, help provide a more explicit consideration of AL at multiple levels of analysis.
5. Discussion and implications
Our central thesis or meta-proposition here is that authentic leadership (AL), viewed in terms of multiple levels of analysis,
promotes the various multi-level primary criteria and outcomes of positive organizational behavior (POB) that, in turn, enhances
the various multi-level secondary criteria and outcomes of performance. To support this thesis, we rst demonstrated, through a
levels-of-analysis assessment of the literature (see Tables 1 and 2), that prior AL work, like that of POB, has focused primarily on the
individual level of analysis and the individual differences of authentic leaders. We then extended this work, relying on various
multi-level leadership and related approaches, to develop a meso, multi-level view of AL, POB, and their linkages to each other and
to performance at multiple levels of analysis. We note some limitations of our approach below, but believe this framework and the
four expressions articulated above have various implications for future meso leadership theory and research in general and for
subsequent multi-level testing of AL in particular.
5.1. Limitations
Our approach is not without limitations. In particular, in the content coding of articles on AL, we were able to identify only a
small number of empirical studies available for assessing levels issues. As such, like many areas in the social and behavioral
sciences, the AL literature appears to have many more theoretical articles (23) proposing ideas than empirical articles (4) testing
those ideas. This relative small number of empirical articles, reective of a young state of knowledge, may have limited the
conclusions and inferences we drew regarding levels-of-analysis issues. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, the entire population of
feasible empirical studies on AL currently available for coding was captured in our review.
This dearth of work indicates that AL theory is in an early stage of development. Perhaps if we had waited for a longer period
(say, 10 years) to conduct our levels-of-analysis review, the obtained results and conclusions may have differed. Moreover, we
focused on the overall AL approach in the levels-of-analysis assessment and not on specic dimensions of, or sub-constructs
within, the AL domain. Again, results and inferences may have differed if this more detailed perspective was adopted. We were
limited in our ability to employ this perspective, however, by little or no knowledge of the critical dimensions of AL in terms of
levels-of-analysis issues in the extant literature.
5.2. Implications for meso leadership approaches
We agree with Yammarino et al. (2005) and Yammarino & Dansereau (2008) as well as with other scholars (e.g., Dansereau et al.,
1995a; Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a,b; Schriesheim et al., 2001) who indicate that leadership theory and research will advance
further and faster with an explicit consideration of levels of analysis issues in theory, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing.
In essence, meso, multi-level leadership theory and research must become the norm, not the exception, for the advancement of our eld.
704
One-to-one leaderfollower dyadic (interpersonal) relationships, leader-group and leader-team dynamics, leadership within
different types of organizations and industries, strategic-level leadership, and cross-cultural leadership are all higher levels-ofanalysis conceptualizations, beyond individual differences, for leadership scholars to address more fully. Such higher levels of
analysis also can serve as moderators and mediators in various multi-level leadership approaches that should be considered in
future theory and research.
Measures, in turn, must be developed with the level of analysis of the concepts, constructs, and theory in mind. Measurement
must be conducted at the appropriate level of analysis; or at a minimum, justication and tests for aggregation are necessary when
concepts are measured at a lower level than their theoretical specication. Next, the choice of data analytic technique should be
driven by theory. As theories specify different or multiple levels of analysis for leadership approaches, then multi-level data
analytic techniques are required, each of which has a unique purpose and use. Finally, in terms of drawing inferences, alignment of
theory (with explicit levels-of-analysis specications) and data (with explicit incorporation of levels of analysis in measurement
and analysis) must have a multi-level focus.
5.3. Implications for AL approach
Our ultimate goal here is to build a more comprehensive, meso, multi-level theory of AL. Prior work typically focused on the
authentic leader and his/her actions, characteristics, behaviors, or cognitions; or on followers' individual perceptions of the
authentic leader; and not on leaderfollower interactions in dyads, groups, and teams; nor on the context, situation, or boundary
conditions of AL all higher (beyond the individual) levels of analysis.
As such, to fully test our ideas about AL in a rigorous way, both multi-level data analytic techniques and structural equation
modeling techniques will be needed in addition to various traditional analyses. These more advanced procedures are necessary
because our model and framework are meso and multi-level in nature, process-oriented (mediational) and longitudinal in focus,
and would involve the measurement of constructs at multiple levels of analysis from a variety of sources. Only in this way can a
multi-level alignment of theory and data occur for AL, resulting in a more comprehensive meso approach.
In particular, we have attempted to enhance and expand the denition of AL and its various constructs and sub-constructs (see
Cooper et al., 2005), as well as that of POB and its various constructs and sub-constructs, by explicitly considering multiple levels of
analysis. These multi-level elaborations can add precision to the denition of AL (as well as POB) and help both distinguish it (them)
from and connect it (them) to other similar leadership and related notions and theories. As shown in Tables 3 and 4 and Fig. 1, our
multi-level extensions also can provide the basis for more precise and multi-source/multi-method measures of AL (and POB).
Overall then, we offer a guide for future researchers to generate even more specic meso, multi-level hypotheses and research
questions for multi-level testing in the AL (and POB) nomological network.
While our multi-level conceptual approach focuses on POB as a mediator of the ALperformance association, there are other
possibilities as well. In particular, given the current state of the conceptual literature and the lack of experimental (causal) studies
to the contrary, it is also plausible for AL to serve as a mediator of the POBperformance relationship. The PIB attributes of selfefcacy, hope, optimism, subjective well-being, and emotional intelligence appear to align well with many of the related
components of AL such as positive psychological capital, positive moral perspective, self-regulation, etc. Likewise, as noted above,
the higher group- and organization-level POB ideas introduced here seem to have a similar alignment with higher-level AL notions
also developed here. As such, it is an empirical question for multi-level testing in future work whether the ALPOBperformance
versus POBALperformance alternative conceptualizations are more plausible and at which levels the models operate.
Regarding additional levels-related notions for conceptualization and testing, there is the potential for the expansion levels-ofanalysis issues for POB in Table 4. In particular, unlike our multi-level perspective on AL that included the leaderfollower dyad
level (see Table 3), the analogous perspective for POB here ignored the dyadic level of analysis. The primary reason for this omission
was the lack of a clear writing about, or even hints at, the leaderfollower dyad level in the POB literature. To speculate, if certain
concepts such as leadermember exchange (LMX) and positive and negative leader affect and their impact on followers, among
others, are determined to be dyadic in nature, then these notions may be fertile ground for dyadic-level theorizing and testing
about POB.
A nal set of implications of the multi-level perspective proposed here deals with research studies to evaluate AL at different
levels of analysis and assess its incremental value beyond established leadership approaches. We previously described how the AL
approach might operate at each level of analysis of interest and across levels. Also, we discussed other established leadership
theories that operate at each of these levels of analysis and include notions that may be viewed as similar to AL; i.e., pragmatic
leadership at the individual level, individualized leadership at the dyad level, shared leadership at the group/team level, and
strategic leadership at the organization level. As such, we view the AL approach as similar to these extant established theories in
terms of constructs and levels of analysis. So, to better inform understanding of AL and establish its uniqueness as a leadership
approach, AL should be competitively tested from a multi-level perspective relative to these other approaches. In this way the
incremental validity or value-added contribution of AL can be established.
In particular, through experimental studies that manipulate aspects of AL and the other established approaches, the unique
causal mechanisms of AL vis--vis PL, IL, SL, StL on performance can be demonstrated. In eld studies that include measures of AL
as well as established measures of these other approaches, the incremental validity of the newer AL operationalizations to predict
performance can be demonstrated. In brief, to validate the AL model it seems necessary to competitively test and compare it
relative to extant leadership models from a multi-level perspective to show incremental validity beyond, for example, pragmatic,
individualized, shared, and strategic leadership as well as beyond its foundation in transformational leadership.
705
Relatedly, beyond additional explained or residual variance after accounting for more typical and established leadership
measures and approaches, it seems important to establish boundary conditions on AL. Levels of analysis are one way to specify and
test boundary conditions on theories (Dansereau et al., 1984; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008); and
the multi-level perspective on AL presented here should be useful in that regard. In addition, various contextual conditions and
settings, higher levels of analysis, provide other potential boundary conditions for future researchers to consider. For example,
while limited AL empirical work has obtained positive or supportive ndings, these results are limited to the individual level and as
applying to only safe or stable working conditions. Consider the cases of crises and emergencies or when situations are serious,
dangerous, and life-threatening (and not just stable or calm). In these instances, will the positive and supportive effects of AL, and
at various levels of analysis, be conrmed and supported? Multi-level empirical research is needed to address these boundarycondition issues.
Finally, in future empirical work on AL, there appears to be a need to include measures that go beyond simply perceptions and
that are subject to self-perception bias. Such measures, particularly if collected at multiple levels of analysis, are necessary to rule
out response bias or common-method bias. Moreover, there is a need to build in controls in experimental designs or control
variables in non-experimental designs of AL to assess the value-added contribution unfettered by extraneous effects. Lastly, there is
a need in AL future research to articulate theoretically and test empirically processes and process variables and measures. This is
critical as AL claims development, which is a long-term process, and this process may be multi-level in nature. All these
mechanisms for testing of AL in future work will go a long way toward establishing AL as a new and useful leadership approach.
After tests and replication of results for our meso, multi-level approach to AL are veried, the ndings could then provide the
foundation for applied practice through various applications in organizational settings. For example, multi-level assessments of AL,
including assessments at multiple levels of management, as well as interventions, training programs, and leadership development
experiences for authentic leaders, followers, dyads, groups, teams, and organizations could be identied and conducted. With
these different practical applications, the use and practice of AL in organizations could be expanded and enhanced.
5.4. Conclusion
We began with a simple goal: to explicate the notions of AL, POB, and their linkages to one another and performance from a
meso, multi-level perspective. We analyzed prior AL work, discovering it to be primarily individual level in focus, as is prior POB
work. Viewed in terms of multiple levels of analysis, AL then was asserted to promote various multi-level primary criteria and
outcomes of POB that, in turn, were posited to enhance various multi-level secondary criteria and outcomes of performance. Our
hope is that by developing a meso, multi-level approach to AL and POB we will stimulate future multi-level testing of these ideas
and contribute to the eld of multi-level leadership theory and research.
Acknowledgements
We thank Jessica Federman for her assistance with the content coding and analysis. We also thank Michael Mumford and three
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
References4
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141168.
Askanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues. Multi-level
issues in organizational behavior and strategy, vol. 2 (pp. 954). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower
attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801823.
Avolio, B. J., Jung, D., Murry, W. D., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Vital forces: Building highly-developed: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efcacy, trust and
performance. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 173209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory building for veritable sustained performance. Working Paper, Gallup Leadership
Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2006). Authentic leadership: Moving HR leaders to a higher level. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (pp. 273304). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in ourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29,
147154.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181217.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Cannella, A. A., & Monroe, M. J. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Journal of Management, 23,
213237.
Chan, A. (2005). Authentic leadership measurement and development: Challenges and suggestions. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.),
Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 227250). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Chan, A., Hannah, S. T., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Veritable authentic leadership: Emergence, functioning, and impacts. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O.
Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 341). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership
theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 475493.
4
(Marked [] references were coded for levels-of-analysis issues.)
706
Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Marks, M. A., Threlfall, K. V., & Mumford, M. D. (2000). Predicting organizational leadership: The impact of problem solving
skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 6586.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (1998). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part A: Classical and new wave) (Vol. 24 of Monographs in Organizational
Behavior and Industrial Relations). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (1998). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part B: Contemporary and alternative)Vol. 24 of Monographs in
Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Within and between analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods (pp. 425466).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Is more discussion about levels of analysis really necessary? When is such discussion sufcient? The Leadership Quarterly,
17, 537552.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. (1999). Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theory building. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 346357.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1995). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 97109.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., Nachman, S. A., Naughton, T. J., Kim, K., Al-Kelabi, S. A., Lee, S., & Keller, T. (1995).
Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 413450.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Follower emotional reactions to authentic and inauthentic leadership inuence. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O.
Dionne, S. D., Randel, A. E., Jaussi, K. J., & Chun, J. U. (2004). Diversity and demography in organizations: A levels of analysis review of the literature. In F. J.
Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in Multi-level IssuesMulti-level issues in organizational behavior and processes, vol. 3 (pp. 181229). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Science.
Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., & Perrewe, P. L. (2005). Leader political skill and authentic leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic
leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 139154). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459474.
Eden, D. (1998). Multiple levels as a self-fullling prophecy: One sees what one expects to see. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level
approaches (Part A: Classical and new wave) (pp. 163172). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Eigel, K. M., & Kuhnert, K. W. (2005). Authentic development: Leadership development level and executive effectiveness. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31, 270291.
Fineman, S. (2006). Accentuating the positive? Academy of Management Review, 31, 306308.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing.
Fry, L. W. J., & Whittington, J. L. (2005). In search of authenticity: Spiritual leadership theory as a source for future theory, research, and practice on authentic
leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 183200).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower
development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343372.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (Eds.). (2005). Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Emergent themes and future directions. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O.
Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development, 387406. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Gardner, W. L., & Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr. (2004). Unleashing individual potential: Performance gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic
leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 270281.
Gibson, C. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 145160.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423451.
Hannah, S. T., Lester, P. B., & Vogelgesang, G. R. (2005). Moral leadership: Explicating the moral component of authentic leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O.
Howell, J. M. (1988). The two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. Conger & R. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The
illusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hughes, L. W. (2005). Developing transparent relationships through humor in the authentic leaderfollower relationship. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O.
Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1998). Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors. In F. Dansereau & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part A: Classical and new wave) (pp. 289362). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leaderfollower outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 373394.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex organizations. In J. A. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity enhancement, vol. 2 (pp. 765). New York: Praeger.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 8598.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis, 19. (pp. 195229): Academy of Management Review.
Klenke, K. (2005). The internal theater of the authentic leader: Integrating cognitive, affective, conative and spiritual facets of authentic leadership. In W. L.
Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 155182). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kolditz, T. A., & Brazil, D. M. (2005). Authentic leadership in in extremis settings: A concept for extraordinary leaders in exceptional situations. In W. L. Gardner, B. J.
Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 345356). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kozlowski, S., Gully, S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1996). Team leadership and development: Theories, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams.
In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 253291). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
Kozlowski, S., & Ilgen, D. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77124.
Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 5772.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
organizational scholarship (pp. 241261). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 60, 541572.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., Hodgetts, R. M., & Luthans, B. C. (2001). Positive approach to leadership (PAL): Implications for today's organizations. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 8(2), 320.
Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). Multiteam systems. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work,
and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 289313) London: Sage.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247260.
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 441457.
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary
boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89106.
Mumford, M. D., Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Motivation and followership: The case of individualized leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 313340.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
705750.
707
Mumford, M. D., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). The leadership of pragmatism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 279310.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The
Leadership Quarterly, 11, 1135.
Neal, A., & Hesketh, B. (2002). Productivity in organizations. In Anderson (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 724).
London: Sage.
Ostroff, C., & Harrison, D. A. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in
organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 260270.
Pittinsky, T. L., & Tyson, C. J. (2005). Leader authenticity markers: Findings from a study of perceptions of African American political leaders. In W. L. Gardner, B. J.
Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 253279). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Roberts, L. M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of positive scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 31, 292305.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 137.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. T., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001). The folly of theorizing A but testing B: A selective level-of-analysis review of the eld and a
detailed leadermember exchange illustration. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 515551.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentimihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 514.
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). What's your story? A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395417.
Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 419439.
Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation, and rm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15,
405420.
Varella, P., Javidan, M., & Waldman, D. (2005). The differential effects of socialized and personalized leadership on group social capital. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio,
& F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 107137). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Assessment of individual job performance: A review of the past century and a look ahead. In Anderson (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial, Work,
and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 110126) London: Sage.
Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels of management and levels of analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24,
266285.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure.
Journal of Management, 34, 89126.
Yammarino, F. J. (1995). Dyadic leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(4), 5074.
Yammarino, F. J. (1996). Group leadership. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 89224). Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Person and situation views of leadership: A multiple levels of analysis approach. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 121139.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2002). Individualized leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9, 9099.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 135141.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., & Chun, J. U. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: A levels-of-analysis review of theory, measurement, data analysis,
and inferences. Research in Management, 2, 2363.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16,
879919.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2005). Resiliency development of organizations, leaders and employees: Multi-level theory building for sustained performance. In W. L.
Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 303343). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451483.

Behavior PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Behavior PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso,

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

3. Coding of authentic leadership articles for levels issues

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

Avolio & Gardner (2005)

Level(s) represented in theory/hypothesis formulation. Key: = explicit; X = implicit; ? = indeterminable.

Dasborough & Ashkanasy (2005)

Level(s) represented in theory/hypothesis formulation. Key: = explicit; X = implicit; ? = indeterminable.

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

Fig. 1. A multi-level perspective on AL, POB, and performance.

AL can be formulated as a multilevel construct:

View of authentic leadership

Compatible leadership view

Authentic leader style; individual differences; treat followers similarly

Authentic team; AL shared mental model; followers see AL similarly

Pragmatic leadership (e.g., Mumford, et al., 2000)

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

Positive vision and mission

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

4.3.1. Multiple levels

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

(Marked [] references were coded for levels-of-analysis issues.)

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 693707

Вам также может понравиться