Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research

ISSN: 1094-1665 (Print) 1741-6507 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapt20

To be true or not to be true: authentic leadership

and its effect on travel agents

Yeon-Kook Jeong, Yong-Ki Lee & Sally Kim

To cite this article: Yeon-Kook Jeong, Yong-Ki Lee & Sally Kim (2017): To be true or not to be
true: authentic leadership and its effect on travel agents, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2017.1331921

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1331921

Published online: 29 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapt20

Download by: [Cornell University Library] Date: 30 May 2017, At: 04:27
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1331921

To be true or not to be true: authentic leadership and its effect on travel

agents
Yeon-Kook Jeonga, Yong-Ki Leeb and Sally Kimc
a
Dongeui Institute of Technology, Busan, South Korea; bSchool of Business, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea; cHarry F Byrd
Jr., School of Business, Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study examines authentic leadership and its impact on employees in the travel Authentic leadership; travel
industry. Based on previous studies, the study proposes and tests a framework, in industry; trust; employee
which four dimensions of authentic leadership influence two types of trust burnout; service employee
(supervisor trust and organizational trust), which in turn affect employee burnout.
The data were collected by using a survey on travel agents in South Korea. The
study finds that not all four dimensions of authentic leadership influence trust and
that supervisor trust affects organizational trust. Trust is found to mediate the
relationship between authentic leadership and employee burnout. The study offers
theoretical implications and practical suggestions.

Introduction
The construct of authentic leadership has generated a
growing body of research (Avolio & Gardner, 2005;
Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004;
Luthans & Avolio, 2003) since early 2000s. The
researchers have made efforts to understand the
characteristics of authentic leadership and the
impact authentic leaders have on the followers. The
concept of authenticity has been brought out to
light by the researchers who warned of a pitfall of
some leadership styles that focus on the followers
feelings rather than cognitions (e.g. charismatic lea-
dership, coercive leadership). Those leadership styles
were often criticized for the leaders unethical behav-
ior and use of manipulative tactics (Bass & Steidlmeier,
1999; Price, 2003). Contrariwise, authentic leadership
is based on an understanding of the leader himself
and relies on the internalized perspectives and con-
sistency among belief, emotion, and behavior (Avolio
& Gardner, 2005). The impact of authentic leadership
can extend well beyond followers to include larger
communities (e.g. public) by generating and restoring
hope, trust, and optimism. Avolio et al. (2004) who
articulated a framework linking authentic leadership
to followers attitudes and behaviors call for future
studies to empirically test how authentic leadership
influences followers. Our study proposes and tests a
framework that underlines a mechanism by which
authentic leaders exert an influence on the followers.
To date, empirical research in this area has examined
only several mediating variables such as followers
level of identification with the leader, empowerment,
and emotion toward the leader (Avolio et al., 2004;
Peterson, Walumbwa, Avolio, & Hannah, 2012). No
prior research has specifically aimed to understand
how trust plays a mediating role in the relationship
between authentic leadership and followers
responses. In the present study, we examine how
authentic leadership (four dimensions of self-aware-
ness, relational transparency, internalization of moral
perspectives, and balanced processing) mitigates
employee burnout (reduced personal accomplish-
ment, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization)
through a mediating effect of trust. We hope to con-
tribute to the authentic leadership literature by offer-
ing an explanation how authenticity of leaders helps
to reduce employee burnout.
Prior research (Avolio, 2007) suggests that a
context should be considered in all leadership
studies because effectiveness of the leadership is

CONTACT Sally Kim ykim2@su.edu

2017 Asia Pacific Tourism Association
2 Y.-K. JEONG ET AL.
dependent on the context. Our study tests a frame-
work in the travel agency industry. Although a
growing number of studies have examined authentic
leadership in many different disciplines (e.g. organiz-
ational behavior, leadership), only a dearth of research
is found in the tourism area. The travel agency indus-
try is considered an appropriate context for the study
because the study involves employee burnout, which
is frequently observed in the service-intensive industry
such as hotels, restaurants, and airlines (Kim, Yoo, Lee,
& Kim, 2012; Moon, Hur, & Jun, 2013). Due to stressful
work environment, employees in the travel agency
industry often experience burnout, which may lead
to poor job performance, lowered work morale, and
attrition (Chan, Wan, & Kuok, 2014; Kim, 2014; Lin,
Huang, Yang, & Chiang, 2014; Wong & Wang, 2009).
By testing a model in the context of the travel
agency industry, our study offers evidence on the
role of authentic leadership in the service-intensive
industry. Another important contribution of this
study is that it employs a dimensional approach in
which distinctive effects of four dimensions of auth-
entic leadership and two types of trust are examined.
The dimensional approach allows us to gain a deeper
understanding of how each dimension makes a
unique contribution to explaining the outcome
variables.
Theoretical background
Authentic leadership
Prior studies (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Conger & Kanungo,
1987; Klein & House, 1995) identified different types of
leadership (e.g. transformational leadership, charis-
matic leadership, and visionary leadership) and exam-
ined their characteristics and impacts on the followers.
Authentic leadership, since its introduction into the lit-
erature (Luthans & Avolio, 2003), has gained attention
among the researchers who emphasized the impor-
tance of the leaders authenticity. Authenticity
means leaders are true to their thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors, while maintaining consistency among
the three elements (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Accord-
ing to this definition, a leader who believes in corpor-
ate social responsibility is likely to take part in
philanthropic activities to be consistent with his
belief. Authentic leaders are grounded on their own
sense of self and understand their values and beliefs.
They tend to uphold a high level of moral integrity
(Luthans & Avolio, 2003).
There have been some discussions regarding how
authentic leadership is related to or different from
ethical leadership (Bedi, Alpaslan, & Green, 2016;
Dion, 2012). While some scholars treat ethical leader-
ship as a leadership style in its own right (Lu & Guy,
2014), a majority of the scholars view ethics as an
important attribute required of some leadership
styles such as authentic leadership, servant leadership,
and transformational leadership (Bedi et al., 2016;
Dion, 2012). Ethical leadership focuses on ethics or
normatively appropriate behavior, which should be
considered and interpreted in the context of the
culture (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005; Eisenbeib
& Brodbeck, 2014). On the other hand, authentic lea-
dership emphasizes sincerity and understanding of
self as a human being. Dion (2012) examines different
leadership styles (directive leadership, self-leadership,
authentic leadership, transactional leadership, etc.) in
their relation to ethical theories and argues that
some leadership styles are defined in connection
with ethics. For example, authentic leadership,
because it is grounded on integrity of the self (the
leader) and sincerity, helps leaders to be comfortable
with ethics of virtue.
A review of the literature suggests four elements
that are considered characteristic of authentic leader-
ship: self-awareness, balanced processing, relational
transparency and internalization of moral/ethical
perspectives (Luthans, Norman, & Hughes, 2006;
Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson,
2008; Walumbwa, Wang, Wang, Schaubroeck, &
Avolio, 2010). Self-awareness means that the leader
understands his own traits, values, and beliefs as
well as his/her impact on other people. In other
words, self-awareness involves not only internal refer-
ent (the leaders self-knowledge of his/her mental
state) but also external referent (the leaders percep-
tion of how others view him/her). Authentic leader-
ship requires the leader to have heightened levels of
self-awareness. Balanced processing is related to a
decision-making process. A leader who utilizes
balanced processing reviews and analyzes all relevant
information objectively before making a decision. He/
she typically solicits information from various groups
including those who express disfavor of his/her per-
spective and considers diverse viewpoints before
reaching a decision. Relational transparency means
that the leader is open to the followers by sharing
information and expressing his/her true thoughts
and feelings. Internalization of moral/ethical perspec-
tives means that the leader follows his/her internal

moral standards rather than being influenced by
external pressures. For example, a leader who has an
internalized moral/ethical perspective is likely to
uphold his/her moral standards and values even in
the presence of external pressures.
Previous studies (Avolio et al., 2004; Clapp-Smith,
Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009; Peterson et al., 2012;
Walumbwa et al., 2010) report that authentic leader-
ship brings many benefits to the organization: trust
in management, employee job satisfaction, job per-
formance, engagement, commitment, sales growth,
and organizational citizenship behavior. These pre-
vious studies suggest that leaders who are perceived
as authentic have a significant influence on the fol-
lowers attitudes and behaviors. Walumbwa et al.
(2010) show that employees are more likely to
engage in organizational citizenship behavior when
they perceive the leader to be authentic. Clapp-
Smith et al. (2009) report that an organizations unit
sales growth is associated with authentic leadership.
While some scholars (Walumbwa et al., 2008;
Walumbwa et al., 2010) suggest that the construct of
authentic leadership should be treated as a higher
order construct due to marginal unique variance
attributable to each individual element, other scholars
(Wong & Cummings, 2009) believe that treating com-
ponents separately allows for an examination of the
unique contribution made by each component. There-
fore, our study examines effects of four elements of
authentic leadership.
Trust
Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995, p. 712) defined
trust as ones willingness to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party based on the expectation
that the other party will perform a particular action
important to the trustor irrespective of the ability to
monitor or control the other party. Trust has been
considered critical for sustaining a long-term relation-
ship (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Morgan & Hunt,
1994). Wong, Ngo, and Wong (2006) who studied
the impact of trust on employees behavior show
that trust fosters employees engagement in organiz-
ational citizenship behavior. The finding suggests
that trust affects employees attitudes as well as
behaviors.
Over the years, scholars have extended application
of trust to many different relational contexts includ-
ing interpersonal and institutional. The literature
(Avolio et al., 2004; Joseph & Winston, 2005;
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 3
Spence, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001; Tan & Tan, 2000;
Wong, Laschinger, & Cummings, 2010; Wong et al.,
2006) directly or indirectly suggests that examining
two types of trust (supervisor trust and organizational
trust) may be helpful. Supervisor trust is an employ-
ees trust in the supervisor (interpersonal), while
organizational trust is concerned with an employees
trust in the organization (institutional). We offer
below a couple of reasons why we consider these
two types of trust. First, prior research (Mayer et al.,
1995; Tan & Tan, 2000) suggests that supervisor
trust and organizational trust are different in nature.
Supervisor trust is a relational quality based on the
interpersonal relationship (Butler & Cantrell, 1984)
while organizational trust is concerned with an insti-
tutional and impersonal relationship (Gilbert & Tang,
1998). Because of the interpersonal nature of the
relationship, supervisor trust heavily relies on attri-
butes and behaviors of the supervisor (e.g. consist-
ency, fairness, honesty, and flexibility) (Butler, 1991).
For example, a supervisor who is open to communi-
cation is more likely to gain trust from the employees
than one who is not (Bennis & Thomas, 2002; Sparks,
2000). Organizational trust is based on the employ-
ees overall experience with the organization and
his expectation that the organization will take care
of him (Tan & Tan, 2000). This expectation is
grounded on various factors spanning from the
organizations policies related to employment, com-
pensation, and benefits to the way the organization
makes a decision (e.g. fairness in decision-making
processes). Therefore, organizational trust tends to
be system-related and non-personal. Due to differ-
ences in relational nature, supervisor trust and organ-
izational trust may not share the same set of
predictors. The second reason is related to the separ-
ate outcomes derived by the two types of trust. Prior
research suggests that organizational trust has a posi-
tive influence on the employees willingness to
engage in organizational citizenship behavior
(Spence et al., 2001). This may be due to the fact
that employees may feel obligated to do something
good for the organization when they perceive that
the organization is interested in their welfare and
benefits. They will then likely engage in citizenship
behavior (i.e. doing an extra work not prescribed by
the job) as a way of returning favor to the organiz-
ation (Spence et al., 2001). However, supervisor trust
may not have the same effect on the citizenship
behavior because the interpersonal relationship is
confined to the personal interests.
4 Y.-K. JEONG ET AL.
Because trust is important for building and sustain-
ing long-term relationships, numerous studies (Lee,
Kim, Lee, & Li, 2012; Spence et al., 2001) have exam-
ined positive outcomes of trust (e.g. job satisfaction,
performance, engagement, and commitment). Rela-
tively few studies (Harvey, Kelloway, & Duncan-
Leiper, 2003; Wong & Cummings, 2009) have exam-
ined the consequences resulting from a lack of trust
(e.g. employee burnout, attrition). Our study considers
three aspects of employee burnout: reduced personal
accomplishment, emotional exhaustion, and deperso-
nalization. While some studies (Harvey et al., 2003;
Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Laschinger, Shamian, &
Thomson, 2001) suggest a direct link between lack
of trust and employee burnout, others show no such
direct effect of trust on employee burnout (Wong &
Cummings, 2009). For example, Wong and Cummings
(2009) show that supportiveness is critical in reducing
employee burnout. However, trust in management
was not found to have a significant direct effect on
employee burnout. Their study suggests further
research should be done to clarify the relationship
between different types of trust and outcomes. Prior
research (Lee et al., 2012; Wong & Cummings, 2009)
employed only one type of trust or trust in an unspe-
cified term such as trust in management which can
be related to either supervisor or organization. Our
approach to include both supervisor trust and organ-
izational trust in the study will be helpful because it
differentiates two types of trust and clarifies their sep-
arate effects on the outcome variables.
Hypotheses
Authentic leadership and trust
One way of understanding why followers trust the
leader is to examine the attributes of the leader
especially related to his/her leadership style. Mayer
et al. (1995) identified three attributes of the leader
that are critical for the development of trust among
the followers: ability, benevolence, and integrity. Auth-
entic leaders can build benevolence and integrity by
engaging in four elements of authenticity: self-aware-
ness, relational transparency, internalization of moral
perspectives, and balanced processing. We expect
that each of the four elements has a positive influence
on supervisor trust. We anticipate that self-awareness
is positively related with supervisor trust. It is hard to
trust a leader when he lacks a sense of self and is con-
fused about his/her own values and beliefs. Self-
awareness is considered fundamental to building
supervisor trust. Relational transparency is expected
to have a positive impact on supervisor trust. Rela-
tional transparency is concerned with a leaders open-
ness in dealing with the followers. A leader who is
transparent shares information with the employees
instead of withholding it and expresses his/her true
feelings and opinions instead of hiding or faking
them. Employees will view such a leader as honest,
sincere, and open to communication, which is critical
for nurturing trust (Russell & Stone, 2002). Supervisor
trust is expected to be influenced by a leader who
has internalized moral standards. A leader who has
an internalized moral perspective chooses his behav-
ior based on his moral standards instead of external
factors or pressures. This means that the leader main-
tains consistency between his beliefs and behaviors,
conveying a message to the employees that they
can rely on the leaders words and promises to
predict his/her behaviors. Lastly, balanced processing
is expected to have a positive influence on supervisor
trust. Balanced processing concerns a decision-
making process by which a leader considers all rel-
evant information and alternative options before
making a decision. A leader based on balanced pro-
cessing will try to avoid favoritism and prejudice,
and depend on objectivity in making a decision.
Employees will perceive such a leader as fair and
unprejudiced, which will be helpful for them to trust
the leader.
We predict that supervisor trust has a positive influ-
ence on organizational trust. We borrow trust transfer
theory to support our hypothesis. Trust transfer theory
is that trust can be transferred from the source of trust
to another person or group with which the trustor has
little or no direct experience (Strub & Priest, 1976). In
order for trust transfer to occur, there should be an
association between the two entities (Campbell,
1958). Studies in celebrity endorsement (Smith,
2004) and destination marketing (Lee, Kim, Lee, &
Kim, 2014c) have successfully used trust transfer
theory to explain the phenomenon. Celebrity endorse-
ment has become a popular marketing communi-
cation tool in promoting a brand because the well-
known positive image of the celebrity is expected to
be transferred to the brand. Similarly, in destination
marketing, co-marketing has gained popularity as
countries or cities hosting a well-known event take
advantage of the well-known events reputation by
creating an association with it (e.g. the Beijing Olym-
pics) (Lee et al., 2014c). It appears that two conditions

are essential for a successful transfer of trust to take
place. First, two associated entities should have a
common fate (Campbell, 1958). In the case of celebrity
endorsement, celebrities endorsing a brand risk their
reputation if the brand fails to live up to its promises,
suggesting a shared fate between the two parties. The
second condition is that trustors should relate the
image of a well-known object to a lesser known
object. A celebrity who is well known becomes a
source of trust for the lesser known brand. Applying
these two conditions to our study, we argue that (a)
supervisor and organization are two separate entities
that are perceived as sharing the same fate and (b)
employees engage in a trust transfer process by
which they relate their relationship with the supervisor
(a better known object) to the relationship with the
organization (a lesser known object). Tan and Tan
(2000) report that employees rely on their relationship
with the supervisor (supervisor trust) to determine
whether the organization is trustworthy (organiz-
ational trust). In addition, Konovsky and Pugh (1994)
argue that employees are more likely to trust the
organization when they have trust in the supervisor
because they perceive the supervisor as a representa-
tive of the organization. Therefore, we expect a posi-
tive influence of supervisor trust on organizational
trust.
We anticipate that authentic leadership will have a
direct influence on organizational trust, in addition to
its indirect effect through supervisor trust. Based on
trust transfer theory, employees make inferences
about the organization from the experiences with
the supervisor. Thus, we expect that four elements
of authentic leadership have an influence on organiz-
ational trust. We propose the following hypotheses.
H1: Self-awareness (H1a), relational transparency (H1b),
internalization of moral perspectives (H1c), and balanced
processing (H1d) of authentic leadership will have a posi-
tive influence on supervisor trust.
H2: Self-awareness (H2a), relational transparency (H2b),
internalization of moral perspectives (H2c), and balanced
processing (H2d) of authentic leadership will have a posi-
tive influence on organizational trust.
H3: Supervisor trust will have a positive influence on
organizational trust.
Trust and burnout
Numerous studies have reported that trust leads to
many positive outcomes such as job satisfaction,
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 5
commitment, job performance, and loyalty (Dirks &
Ferrin, 2002; Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2014b; Podsakoff, MacK-
enzie, & Bommer, 1996; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng,
2009). In the tourism context, Lee et al. (2014c) show
that employees who are in trustful relationships
perform better than those who are not. Yang et al.
(2009) also show that supervisor trust is positively
related to employee job performance. These findings
are understandable. When employees trust the super-
visor, they will feel confident and secure in their job,
which allows them to focus on the job better, and
be productive and innovative (Engle & Lord, 1997;
Gerstner & Day, 1997; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993;
Thomas & Lankau, 2009). On the contrary, employees
who are not in trustful relationships will feel anxious
and apprehensive, not being able to focus on the
job. While many studies (Avolio et al., 2004; Joseph &
Winston, 2005; Spence et al., 2001; Tan & Tan, 2000;
Wong et al., 2006, 2010) have emphasized positive
outcomes of trust, relatively few studies examined
whether trust could mitigate negative outcomes
such as employee turnover intentions and burnout
(Harvey et al., 2003; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005;
Laschinger et al., 2001). Harvey et al. (2003) report
that employees who have trust in the supervisor
experience burnout less frequently. Similarly, Laschin-
ger et al. (2001) and Laschinger and Finegan (2005)
display that a lack of trust is related to frequent
employee burnout. These previous studies highlight
the important role of trust in mitigating negative out-
comes related to the employees.
Travel agents typically work under pressure that
stems from fast-paced and time-sensitive (e.g. to
meet the deadline) nature of the business. Their job
requires a high level of interactions with customers
and other employees, which add more pressure and
stress, leading to frequent burnout (Gil, Flaschner, &
Shachar, 2006; Hyphantis & Mavreas, 2005). Burnout
can be defined as physical, emotional, or mental
exhaustion that results from a chronic work-related
stress (Freudinberger, 1981). We examine three
dimensions of burnout based on prior research
(Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001): reduced personal
accomplishment, emotional exhaustion, and deperso-
nalization. Reduced personal accomplishment refers
to the employees perceived lack of accomplishment.
Because employees perceive themselves as inefficient
and incompetent, they experience unproductivity,
feelings of helplessness, and lowered morale
(Maslach, 2003). Emotional exhaustion refers to the
negative emotional condition experienced by the
6 Y.-K. JEONG ET AL.

employees whose job requires an excessive inter- contacting outbound travel agencies listed in the
action with others. Emotionally exhausted employees directory of Busan Tourism Association. Copies of the
become easily frustrated and agitated and lose self- questionnaire along with a cover letter were delivered
respect and passion for the job (Maslach et al., to the human resources manager or the general
2001). Depersonalization means employees become manager of the travel agencies. The designated
insensitive, negative, and unemotional toward other person at each agency then distributed the question-
people. Employees who experience depersonalization naires to the full-time employees. The total number of
tend to avoid interaction with others and become questionnaires distributed was 230 and we had 215
callous to others, which could negatively influence questionnaires completed, achieving a response rate
job performance in the service sector. Some previous of 93.5%. Because of missing information, 16
studies suggest that employee burnout occurs when responses were excluded from the analysis. We used
there is a lack of trust (Bhanugopan & Fish, 2006; 199 responses for the analysis.
Elloy, Terpening, & Kohls, 2001; Kalbers & Fogarty,
2005). Therefore, we hypothesize that two types of
trust will mitigate employee burnout. Measures
H4: Supervisor trust will have a negative effect on We have used multiple measures for all constructs that
reduced personal accomplishment (H4a), emotional
were developed and tested in previous studies. A 7-
exhaustion (H4b), and depersonalization (H4c).
point Likert-type scale anchored by strongly dis-
H5: Organizational trust will have a negative effect on agree and strongly agree was used to measure
reduced personal accomplishment (H5a), emotional each item. Authentic leadership was measured with
exhaustion (H5b), and depersonalization (H5c).
four dimensions of Neider & Schriesheims (2011).
The Authentic Leadership Inventory including self-
awareness (four items), relational transparency (four
Methodology items), internalization of moral perspectives (four
items), and balanced processing (four items). Ten
Sample and data collection
items were used to measure trust (Nyhan, 2000): five
We used a cross-sectional survey on the employees of items for supervisor trust and another five items for
thirty-six outbound tour operators located in Busan, organizational trust. Employee burnout was measured
South Korea. We had solicited their cooperation by with three dimensions including reduced personal
accomplishment (five items), emotional exhaustion
Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents.
(six items), and depersonalization (five items). The
n= Percent
measures were adopted from the study of Singh,
Demographic variables 199 (%) Goolsby, and Rhoads (1994)s Maslach Burnout Inven-
Gender Female 98 49.2 tory (MBI).
Male 101 50.8
Age 2029 30 15.1
3039 93 46.7
4049 75 37.7 Results
50 and over 1 0.5
Marital status Single 58 29.1 Sample characteristics
Married 141 70.9
Education Associate degree 39 19.6 Table 1 shows demographic characteristics of the
Bachelors degree 122 61.3
Masters degree and 38 19.1
respondents. The respondents were almost equally
higher split between males (51%) and females (49%). The
Monthly household $10002000 37 18.6 majority of the respondents were in their 30s (47%),
income $20013000 67 33.7
$30014000 85 42.7
followed by 40s (38%). About 71% of the respondents
$40015000 9 4.5 were married as compared to 29% who were single.
Over $5000 1 0.5 The respondents education level was relatively high;
Length of 23 years 33 16.6
employment 45 years 14 7.0
about 80% of the respondents were four-year
67 years 15 7.5 college educated. This high education level is not
89 years 28 14.1 unusual for a job in the outbound travel agency indus-
10 years and over 109 54.8
try in S. Korea. More than 50% of the respondents
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 7

Table 2. Construct intercorrelations (), mean, and standard deviation).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Self-awareness 1.00
2. Relational transparency 0.54** 1.00
3. Internalized moral perspective 0.48** 0.75** 1.00
4. Balanced processing 0.50** 0.78** 0.78** 1.00
5. Supervisor trust 0.51** 0.60** 0.67** 0.66** 1.00
6. Organizational trust 0.55** 0.59** 0.61** 0.65** 0.71** 1.00
7. Reduced personal accomplishment 0.33** 0.32** 0.37** 0.30** 0.38** 0.53** 1.00
8. Emotional exhaustion 0.34** 0.23** 0.20** 0.14 0.26** 0.42** 0.70** 1.00
9. Depersonalization 0.13 0.12 0.15* 0.05 0.22** 0.26** 0.78** 0.61** 1.00
Mean 4.46 4.09 4.21 4.10 4.20 4.21 2.51 2.83 2.27
SD 0.92 1.16 1.50 1.12 1.17 1.50 1.16 1.35 0.94
**p < .01.
*p < .05.

(55%) had worked at the company for more than 10
years.
Measurement model
The measures were subjected to reliability and validity
analyses. Table 2 reports descriptive statistics of the
measures and correlations. Cronbachs alpha coeffi-
cients were used to measure reliabilities, which
ranged from 0.81 to 0.98. In general, coefficients that
exceed 0.70 are considered reliable (Nunnally, 1978).
Then, we subjected all measures to Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) for validity (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1992). Following previous studies (e.g.; Lee
et al., 2014b), the items that did not load well on the
hypothesized factor or the items that were highly cor-
related with other constructs were removed. Because
of the large number of variables, we performed CFA
on endogenous and exogenous constructs separately.
First, we performed CFA on four dimensions of auth-
entic leadership. The result showed an adequate
overall model fit ( 2 = 92.682, df = 47 ( 2/df = 1.972),
p = .000; GFI (goodness-of-fit index) = 0.932; AGFI
(adjusted goodness-of-fit index) = 0.886; NFI (the
normed fit index) = 0.950; IFI (the incremental fit
index) = 0.975; CFI (the confirmatory fit index) =
0.974; RMSEA (the root mean square error of approxi-
mation) = 0.070). In the CFA procedure for the
authentic leadership scale, the correlated measure-
ment errors of the two redundant items (My leader

Figure 1. Estimates of the structural model. Solid line: significant path. Dotted line: non-significant path. a = 34.117, df = 12, p = 0.000, GFI =
0.964, AGFI = 0.867, CFI = 0.982, NFI = 0.973, RMR = 0.043, SRMR = 0.035. *p < .05, **p < .01.
8 Y.-K. JEONG ET AL.
Table 3. Results of CFA for authentic leadership scale.a
Constructs and items
Self-awareness ( = 0.893)
My leader solicits feedback for improving his/her dealings with others.c
My leader describes accurately the way that others view his/her abilities.
My leader shows that he/she understands his/her strengths and weaknesses.
My leader is clearly aware of the impact he/she has on others.b
Relational transparency ( = 0.877)
My leader clearly states what he/she means.b
My leader admits mistakes when they occur.
My leader openly shares information with others.
My leader expresses his/her ideas and thoughts clearly to others.c
Internalized moral perspective ( = 0.807)
My leader shows consistency between his/her beliefs and actions.c
My leader uses his/her core beliefs to make decisions.b
My leader resists pressures on him/her to do things contrary to his/her beliefs.
My leader is guided in his/her actions by internal moral standards.
Balanced processing ( = 0.911)
My leader asks for ideas that challenge his/her core beliefs.b
My leader carefully listens to alternative perspectives before reaching a conclusion.
My leader objectively analyzes relevant data before making a decision.c
My leader encourages others to voice opposing points of view.
= 92.682, df = 47 ( 2/df = 1.972), p = .000; GFI = 0.932; AGFI = 0.886; NFI = 0.950; IFI = 0.975; CFI = 0.974; RMSEA = 0.070.
a 2
b
Items were deleted during confirmatory factor analysis.
c
Items were fixed at 1.0 during confirmatory factor analysis.
shows consistency between his/her beliefs and
actions. and My leader is guided in his/her actions
by internal moral standards.) associated with the
internalized moral perspective construct were set
free. All standardized factor loadings exceeded 0.75,
indicating convergent validity (see Table 3). Next, we
performed CFA on endogenous constructs (supervisor
trust, organizational trust and burnout dimensions).
The result showed an adequate overall fit ( 2 =
131.086, df = 67 ( 2/df = 1.956), p = .000; GFI = 0.915;
AGFI = 0.866; NFI = 0.950; IFI = 0.975; CFI = 0.975;
RMSEA = 0.069). All standardized factor loadings
exceeded 0.78, indicating convergent validity (see
Table 4).
We checked for discriminant validity in two ways.
First, we compared the proportion of variance
extracted in each construct against the square of the
coefficients representing its correlation with other
factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Lee, Kim, Kim, &
Choi, 2014a). The result showed that the proportion
of variance extracted in each construct exceeded the
square of the coefficients, supporting discriminant
validity. Second, we conducted chi-square difference
tests for all pairs of the constructs to see whether
the unconstrained model (i.e. correlation was freely
estimated) was significantly better than the con-
strained model (i.e. correlation was fixed at 1) (Lee
et al., 2012; Rust, Moorman, & Dickson, 2002). The
test result showed that the differences were all
Standardized factor loadings t-value
0.801
0.875 13.184
0.846 12.818
0.884 13.749
0.884 13.757
0.783
0.823
0.741 10.552
0.937 12.081
0.844 16.055
0.888
0.868 16.934
significant. This finding suggests evidence of discrimi-
nant validity among the constructs (see Table 5).
Testing of the hypothesized structural model
Following the procedure frequently used in previous
studies (Lee et al., 2012; Neider & Schriesheim, 2011;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998), we calcu-
lated and used a single scale score for each construct.
We chose this method based on the fact that the con-
structs used in the study were well established and we
had a large number of variables compared to the
sample size. We used AMOS 20.0 to conduct path ana-
lyses. Based on the overall model fit indices, the model
fits the data well: = 34.117, df = 12 (/df = 2.843), p
= .000, GFI = 0.964, AGFI = 0.867, CFI = 0.982, NFI =
0.973, SRMR = 0.035. Maximum likelihood estimates
of the parameters are given in Table 6 and Figure 1.
H1aH1d predicted that four dimensions (self-
awareness, relational transparency, internalization of
moral perspectives, and balanced processing) of auth-
entic leadership would affect supervisor trust. The
result shows that self-awareness (coefficient = 0.189,
t-value = 3.190, p < .01), internalization of moral per-
spectives (coefficient = 0.356, t-value = 4.226, p < .01),
and balanced processing (coefficient = 0.271, t-value
= 3.057, p < .01) have a positive influence on supervi-
sor trust. However, relational transparency does not
have a significant influence on supervisor trust
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 9

Table 4. Results of CFA for supervisor trust, organizational trust, and burnout scale.a
Constructs and items Standardized factor loadings t-value
Supervisor trust ( = 0.949)
I have strong loyalty to my supervisor.c 0.884
When my supervisor tells me something, I can rely on him/her. 0.873 16.782
My supervisor keeps his/her promise with the staff. 0.903 17.740
Working with my supervisor is advantageous. b

I can rely on my supervisor for job performance.b
Organizational trust ( = 0.975)
My organization tries to meet my expectation. b

My organization is committed to proper management practices. 0.934 13.693
My organization is committed to understand employees. 0.958 13.850
My organization has an overall responsibility.b
I trust my organization. c
0.912
Reduced personal accomplishment ( = 0.956)
I am not able to offer azz relaxed environment for my customers.c 0.798
I dont feel exhilarated after working with customers.b
I am not passionate about the work.
I have not accomplished many worthwhile things in this job. 0.939 15.889
I am not good at dealing with emotional problems appropriately at work. 0.894 14.897
Emotional exhaustion ( = 0.934)
I feel exhausted at the end of the workday. 0.856 14.403
I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning.b
I feel emotionally drained from my work.c 0.856
Working with people is really a strain for me.
I feel I work too hard on my job. 0.832 13.608
I feel like I am at the end of the rope.b -
Depersonalization ( = 0.932)
I dont really care what happens to the customers.b
I feel customers blame me for their own problems.c 0.952 13.254
I feel I treat some customers as if they were impersonal objects. c
0.779
I feel have become callous toward people since I took this job. b
I feel this job is hardening me emotionally. b
a 2
= 131.086, df = 67 ( 2/df = 1.956), p = .000; GFI = 0.915; AGFI = 0.866; NFI = 0.950; IFI = 0.975; CFI = 0.975; RMSEA = 0.069,
b
Items were deleted during confirmatory factor analysis.
c
Items were fixed at 1.0 during confirmatory factor analysis.

(coefficient = 0.018, t-value = 0.215, n.s.). Therefore,
H1a, H1c, and H1d are supported, while H1b is not.
H2aH2d addressed that self-awareness, relational
transparency, internalization of moral perspectives,
and balanced processing dimensions of authentic lea-
dership would have a direct effect on organizational
trust. The result shows that relational transparency
(coefficient = 0.190, t-value = 3.391, p < .01) and
balanced processing (coefficient = 0.239, t-value =
2.852, p < .01) have a positive influence on organiz-
ational trust. On the other hand, self-awareness (coef-
ficient = 0.023, t-value = 0.290, n.s.) and internalization
of moral perspectives (coefficient = 0.030, t-value =
0.367, n.s.) have no significant influence on organiz-
ational trust. Hence, H2b and H2d are supported
while H2a and H2c are not. H3 stated that supervisor
trust would have an influence on organizational
trust. We find that supervisor trust (coefficient =
0.425, t-value = 6.487, p < .01) has a significant
impact on organizational trust, supporting H3.
H4aH4c expected that supervisor trust would miti-
gate three dimensions of employee burnout: reduced
personal accomplishment, emotional exhaustion, and
depersonalization. The result shows that supervisor
trust does not have any significant influence on
reduced personal accomplishment (coefficient =
0.022, t-value = 0.261, n.s.), emotional exhaustion
(coefficient = 0.094, t-value = 1.025, n.s.), or deperso-
nalization (coefficient = 0.064, t-value = 0.655, n.s.).
Therefore, H4aH4c are not supported. H5aH5c pre-
dicted that organizational trust would have a negative
impact on reduced personal accomplishment,
emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization. The
result shows that organizational trust has a significant
influence on all three dimensions of burnout: reduced
personal accomplishment (coefficient = 0.511, t-
value = 5.941, p < .01), emotional exhaustion (coeffi-
cient = 0.491, t-value = 5.380, p < .01), and deperso-
nalization (coefficient = 0.217, t-value = 2.229, p
< .05). Hence, H5aH5c are supported.
10 Y.-K. JEONG ET AL.

Table 5. Chi-square difference test for discriminant validity of the measures.

Constrained Unconstrained
df df p*
Self-awareness vs. relational transparency 37.731 9 27.816 8 9.915 .00
Self-awareness vs. internalized moral perspective 52.725 9 21.275 8 31.340 .00
Self-awareness vs. balanced processing 42.255 9 19.290 8 22.965 .00
Self-awareness vs. supervisor trust 51.653 9 26.984 8 24.669 .00
Self-awareness vs. organizational trust 17.428 9 12.148 8 5.280 .00
Self-awareness vs. reduced personal accomplishment 156.065 9 7.687 8 148.378 .00
Self-awareness vs. emotional exhaustion 140.057 9 10.848 8 129.209 .00
Self-awareness vs. depersonalization 120.288 5 4.069 4 116.219 .00
Relational transparency vs. internalized moral perspective 34.509 9 23.478 8 11.031 .00
Relational transparency vs. balanced processing 9.771 9 5.722 8 4.409 .00
Relational transparency vs. supervisor trust 28.387 9 17.458 8 10.929 .00
Relational transparency vs. organizational trust 19.839 9 9.423 8 10.416 .00
Relational transparency vs. reduced personal accomplishment 149.609 9 11.697 8 137.912 .00
Relational transparency vs. emotional exhaustion 99.527 9 16.931 8 82.596 .00
Relational transparency vs. depersonalization 99.326 5 4.460 4 94.866 .00
Internalized moral perspective vs. balanced processing 53.295 9 32.301 8 20.994 .00
Internalized moral perspective vs. supervisor trust 23.928 9 16.929 8 6.999 .00
Internalized moral perspective vs. organizational trust 28.243 9 16.094 8 12.149 .00
Internalized moral perspective vs. reduced personal accomplishment 185.211 9 11.411 8 173.800 .00
Internalized moral perspective vs. emotional exhaustion 93.126 9 2.289 8 90.837 .00
Internalized moral perspective vs. depersonalization 120.100 5 6.703 4 113.397 .00
Balanced processing vs. supervisor trust 25.948 9 21.457 8 4.491 .00
Balanced processing vs. organizational trust 88.267 9 26.887 8 61.380 .00
Balanced processing vs. reduced personal accomplishment 165.020 9 16.732 8 148.288 .00
Balanced processing vs. emotional exhaustion 78.746 9 9.223 8 69.523 .00
Balanced processing vs. depersonalization 94.476 5 11.031 4 83.445 .00
Supervisor trust vs. organizational trust 25.158 9 15.237 8 9.921 .00
Supervisor trust vs. reduced personal accomplishment 158.463 9 15.401 8 143.062 .00
Supervisor trust vs. emotional exhaustion 71.601 9 10.107 8 61.494 .00
Supervisor trust vs. depersonalization 107.677 5 1.919 4 105.758 .00
Organizational trust vs. reduced personal accomplishment 197.636 9 19.793 8 177.843 .00
Organizational trust vs. emotional exhaustion 120.544 9 16.839 8 103.705 .00
Organizational trust vs. depersonalization 102.345 5 6.163 4 96.182 .00
Reduced personal accomplishment vs. emotional exhaustion 61.202 9 15.599 8 45.603 .00
Reduced personal accomplishment vs. depersonalization 32.747 5 20.665 4 12.082 .00
Emotional exhaustion vs. depersonalization 8.642 5 4.459 4 4.183 .00
*Significant at p < .01.

Discussion and implications
Theoretical implications
One of the theoretical contributions of this study is
related to its use of a dimensional approach. The
study finds that not all four dimensions of authentic
leadership have a significant influence on supervisor
trust. While self-awareness, internalization of moral
perspectives and balanced processing are important
dimensions for nurturing supervisor trust, relational
transparency is not found to be related to supervisor
trust. The insignificant effect of relational transparency
on supervisor trust may be interpreted in the context
of the study. This study was conducted in South Korea.
A typical work environment in South Korea is charac-
terized by hierarchical relationships and power dis-
tance. In the work environment where a hierarchy is
important, a supervisor who is open to
communication and willing to share his/her true feel-
ings with the subordinates may not be perceived as
positive but rather as incompetent or undependable.
Keeping some distance from the subordinates may
be considered a virtue in such a cultural environment.
On the other hand, a supervisor who is prudent in
sharing his/her own feelings and shows reservations
may be perceived as thoughtful, competent and trust-
worthy. The studys finding that relational transpar-
ency is not significantly related to supervisor trust
suggests that a further investigation is necessary in
other cultural or relational contexts to clarify the
relationship between relational transparency and
supervisor trust.
We anticipated that four dimensions of authentic
leadership would have a direct influence on organiz-
ational trust. The study finds that only two dimensions
(relational transparency and balanced processing)
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 11

Table 6. Standardized structural estimates.a

Path Standardized estimates t-value
H1a Self-awareness supervisor trust 0.189 3.190**
H1b Relational transparency supervisor trust 0.018 0.215
H1c Internalized moral perspective supervisor trust 0.356 4.226**
H1d Balanced processing supervisor trust 0.271 3.057**
H2a Self-awareness organizational trust 0.023 0.290
H2b Relational transparency organizational trust 0.190 3.391**
H2c Internalized moral perspective organizational trust 0.030 0.367
H2d Balanced processing organizational trust 0.239 2.852**
H3 Supervisor trust organizational trust 0.425 6.487**
H4a Supervisor trust reduced personal accomplishment 0.022 0.261
H4b Supervisor trust emotional exhaustion 0.094 1.025
H4c Supervisor trust eepersonalization 0.064 0.655
H5a Organizational trust reduced personal accomplishment 0.511 5.941**
H5b Organizational trust emotional exhaustion 0.491 5.380**
H5c Organizational trust depersonalization 0.217 2.229*
Indirect effect of supervisor trust on burnout through organizational trust
Supervisor trust organizational trust reduced personal accomplishment 0.189 *
Supervisor trust organizational trust emotional exhaustion 0.331 **
Supervisor trust organizational trust depersonalization 0.330 **
Squared multiple correlations (R)
Supervisor trust 0.523 (52.3%)
Organizational trust 0.595 (59.5%)
Reduced personal accomplishment 0.071 (7.1%)
Emotional exhaustion 0.185 (18.5%)
Depersonalization 0.278 (27.8%)

34.117
df 12
p .000
a
= 34.117, df = 12, p = .000, GFI = 0.964, AGFI = 0.867, CFI = 0.982, NFI = 0.973, RMR = 0.043, SRMR = 0.035.
**p < .01.
*p < .05.

have a significant direct effect on organizational trust.
Dimensions that are considered more closely related
to a leaders personal characteristics such as self-
awareness and internalization of moral perspectives
are found to have no significant influence on organiz-
ational trust. On the other hand, dimensions that are
concerned with the institutions system and processes
such as balanced processing and relational transpar-
ency (e.g. open to communication) are found to be
related to organizational trust. The finding that super-
visor trust and organizational trust are driven by a
different set of leadership dimensions suggests that
(a) it is beneficial to treat supervisor trust and organiz-
ational trust separately and (b) the dimensional
approach offers an insight into the relationship
between authentic leadership and trust.
Using trust transfer theory, this study hypothesized
that supervisor trust would have an influence on
organizational trust. We have argued that employees
(subordinates) are more familiar with the supervisor
than the organization and therefore trust is transferred
from the supervisor (a better known source) to the
organization (a lesser known target). As predicted,
supervisor trust is found to have a significant influence
on organizational trust, supporting trust transfer
theory. This finding suggests that interpersonal
relationships are critical in forming employees per-
ceptions of the organization. In other words, employ-
ees draw inferences about the organization based on
their relationship with the supervisor.
A theoretical insight of the current study involves an
identification of a mechanism through which authentic
leadership mitigates employee burnout. The finding
that trust mediates the relationship between authentic
leadership and burnout suggests that developing a
trustful relationship is critical in allowing authentic lea-
dership to have a full effect on reducing employee
burnout. We predicted that supervisor trust and organ-
izational trust would have a negative impact on
employee burnout (reduced personal accomplishment,
emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization). The
study finds that supervisor trust has no significant
direct effect on any of the three dimensions of
burnout. On the other hand, organizational trust is
12 Y.-K. JEONG ET AL.
found to have a significant influence on all three dimen-
sions of burnout. In order to examine whether organiz-
ational trust fully mediates the relationship between
supervisor trust and three dimensions of burnout, we
conducted a post hoc analysis. We used the bootstrap
procedure recommended by Preacher and Hayes
(2008) (see Preacher & Leonardelli, 20102012) and per-
formed the Aroian version of the Sobel test (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). This test allowed us to examine signifi-
cance of the indirect effect of the independent variable
(i.e. supervisor trust) on the dependent variables (i.e.
three dimensions of burnout) through a mediator (i.e.
organizational trust). Table 6 reports the significance
levels of the indirect effects. Our analysis shows that
the effect of supervisor trust on all three dimensions of
employee burnout is fully mediated by organizational
trust. This finding has a couple of implications. First,
supervisor trust which appeared to have no significant
influence on employee burnout plays a part in reducing
employee burnout through its significant effect on
organizational trust. Second, the full mediating effect
of organizational trust highlights the important role of
organizational trust. The finding suggests that employee
burnout can be reduced when the organization has an
appropriate system and processes to build organiz-
ational trust. It will be worthwhile for future studies to
investigate which type of organizational processes influ-
ences or mitigates employee burnout.
Practical implications
Our study offers some practical suggestions for organ-
izations that are interested in reducing employee
burnout.
Practice authentic leadership to develop trust
The study finds that all four dimensions of authentic lea-
dership have an influence on either supervisor trust or
organizational trust. Self-awareness is a basic element
for leaders to embrace in order to gain trust from the
employees. When a leader is cognizant of and comforta-
ble with self, the employees perceive the leader as trust-
worthy. Relational transparency which is related to a
leaders tendency to share his/her feelings and opinions
is found to be important for organizational trust but not
for supervisor trust. It seems that employees perceive
the supervisor and the organization as two separate
entities and hold a different set of expectations regard-
ing relational transparency. Employees do not seem to
expect the supervisor to share everything with them in
a culture characterized by hierarchical relationships
and power distance. However, they seem to view that
the organization should be open to communication.
The study shows that internalization of moral perspec-
tives is important for leaders to gain trust from the
employees. The finding suggests that leaders should
guide their behaviors based on internalized moral per-
spectives and not external factors or pressures. A
leader whose behavior is consistent with his/her internal
qualities (e.g. values) is considered trustworthy.
Balanced processing is found to affect both supervisor
trust and organizational trust. This is the only dimension
that is significantly related to both supervisor trust and
organizational trust. When a leader is open to alternative
ideas and solutions, the subordinates perceive the
supervisor and the organization as trustworthy. This
may be because employees will feel safe about
sharing opinions and new ideas without worrying
about negative consequences. Therefore, organizations
may want to welcome and solicit suggestions from the
employees in order to create a trustful work
environment.
Focus on trust to mitigate employee burnout
Our study shows that supervisor trust is an important
condition for building organizational trust. Employees
look into their relationship with the supervisor in
drawing inferences about the organization. However,
the importance of supervisor trust in mitigating
employee burnout becomes insubstantial when
organizational trust is present. This means that only
organizational trust has a significant direct effect on
mitigating employee burnout. An effective approach
for organizations is that they focus on a system-
related approach, in which organizations examine
current policies and processes and modify them as
necessary to gain employees trust in the organization.
In sum, our study suggests that organizations should
take a two-pronged trust-building approach to miti-
gate employee burnout: (a) trust building through
an interpersonal relationship (b) trust building
through an institutional relationship.
Limitations of the study and directions for
future study
The present study proposed a framework that
underlies a mechanism through which authentic
leaders mitigate followers burnout. In doing so, we
used a dimensional approach and examined four
dimensions of authentic leadership, two types of
trust, and three dimensions of employee burnout.

There are some limitations of the study. Because the
sample size was relatively small, the study might not
have fully satisfied the purpose of Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM). This study tested the framework on a
sample collected in South Korea. This might have
posed a threat to the generalization of the results to
other situations.
As mentioned before, context of the study cannot
be ignored in leadership studies and future research
may want to expand the scope by including different
industries or cultural environment (e.g. collectivistic
versus individualistic). For example, could the pro-
posed framework be applied to the industry where
the level of interaction between customers and
employees is relatively low? Future studies may test
the framework using an experimental design in
which different types of leadership can be compared
for their level of influences on the followers. The
result will shed light on the effectiveness of different
styles of leadership. Finally, future studies may
enhance the model by including other potentially rel-
evant variables such as self-efficacy and job engage-
ment to see how they affect employee burnout.
Both self-efficacy and job engagement have been
found to be important variables that explain
peoples perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (Lee
et al., 2014a; Lee et al., 2014b). Of particular interest
is how values of the employees influence their percep-
tions of the leader.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1992). Assumptions and com-
parative strengths of the two-step approach: Comment on
Fornell and Yi. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(3), 321
333.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for lea-
dership theory building. American Psychologist, 62, 2533.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed
at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for
examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199218.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership devel-
opment: 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 beha-
viors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801823.
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 13
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(6), 11731182.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and auth-
entic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 181217.
Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review
of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of
Business Ethics, 139(3), 517536.
Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). The crucibles of leadership.
Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 3945.
Bhanugopan, R., & Fish, A. (2006). An empirical investigation of job
burnout among expatriates. Personnel Review, 35(4), 449468.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leader-
ship: A social learning perspective for construct development
and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97(2), 117134.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring con-
ditions of trust: Evolution of conditions of trust inventory.
Journal of Management, 17(3), 643663.
Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory
approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordi-
nates. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 1928.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices
of the status of aggregate of persons as social entities.
Behavioral Science, 3(1), 1425.
Chan, S. H., Wan, Y. K. P., & Kuok, O. M. (2014). Relationships
among burnout, job satisfaction and turnover of casino
employees in Macau. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management. doi:10.1080/19368623.2014.911712
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G., & Avey, J. (2009). Authentic lea-
dership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role
of trust at the group level of analysis. Organizational Studies,
15(3), 227240.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory
of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy
of Management Review, 12(4), 637647.
Dion, M. (2012). Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leader-
ship? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(1),
424.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic
findings and implications for research and practices. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611628.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 1127.
Eisenbeib, S. A., & Brodbeck, F. (2014). Ethical and unethical lea-
dership: A cross-cultural and cross-sectoral analysis. Journal of
Business Ethics, 122(2), 343359.
Elloy, D. F., Terpening, W., & Kohls, J. (2001). A causal model
of burnout among self-managed work team members.
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 135(3),
321334.
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theory, self-schemata,
and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 9881010.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.
Freudinberger, H. J. (1981). Burn-out: The high cost of high
achievement. New York, NY: Double day.
14 Y.-K. JEONG ET AL.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-
member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827844.
Gil, A. S., Flaschner, A. B., & Shachar, M. (2006). Mitigating stress
and burnout by implementing transformational-leadership.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
18(2), 469481.
Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organiz-
ational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27
(3), 321338.
Harvey, S., Kelloway, E. K., & Duncan-Leiper, L. (2003). Trust in
management as a buffer of the relationship between overload
and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4),
306315.
Hyphantis, T., & Mavreas, V. (2005). Burning in-burning out in
public aspects of the burnout process in community based psy-
chiatric services. Research Companion to Organizational
Health Psychology, US, Edward Elgar.
Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant lea-
dership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership &
Organizational Development Journal, 26(1), 622.
Kalbers, L. P., & Fogarty, T. J. (2005). Antecedents to internal
auditor burnout. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(1), 101118.
Kim, N. H. (2014). Employee turnover intention among newco-
mers in travel industry. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 16(1), 5664.
Kim, T., Yoo, J. J., Lee, G., & Kim, J. (2012). Emotional intelligence
and emotional labor acting strategies among frontline hotel
employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 24(7), 10291046.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leaders and
levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 183198.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and
social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),
656669.
Laschinger, H. K., & Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to
build trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for
addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economics, 23(1),
613.
Laschinger, H. K., Shamian, J., & Thomson, D. (2001). Impact of
magnet hospital characteristics on nurses perceptions of
trust, burnout, quality of care and work satisfaction. Nursing
Economics, 19(5), 209219.
Lee, Y.-K., Kim, S., Kim, M. S., & Choi, J. G. (2014a). Antecedents
and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 20972105.
Lee, Y. K., Kim, S., & Kim, S. Y. (2014b). The impact of internal
branding on employee engagement and outcome variables
in the hotel industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 19(12), 13591380.
Lee, Y.-K., Kim, S., Lee, C.-K., & Kim, S. H. (2014c). The impact of a
mega event on visitors attitude toward hosting destination:
Using trust transfer theory. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 31, 507521.
Lee, Y.-K., Kim, Y., Lee, K. H., & Li, D. X. (2012). The impact of CSR
on relationship quality and relationship outcomes: A perspec-
tive of service employees. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 31(3), 745756.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study
on the early development of leader-member exchanges.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662674.
Lin, Y. S., Huang, W. S., Yang, C. T., & Chiang, M. J. (2014). Work-
leisure conflict and its associations with well-being: The
roles of social support, leisure participation and job burnout.
Tourism Management, 45, 244252.
Lu, X., & Guy, M. E. (2014). How emotional labor and ethical lea-
dership affect job engagement for Chinese public servants.
Public Personnel Management, 43(1), 324.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive
development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E.
Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241261).
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Luthans, F., Norman, S., & Hughes, L. (2006). Authentic leadership:
A new approach for a new time. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Inspiring leaders (pp. 84104). London: Routledge.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some
possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and
extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62,
8798.
Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and
intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12
(5), 189192.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout.
Annual Review Pschology, 52(1), 397422.
Mayer, C. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative
model of organizational trust. Academy of Management
Review, 20(3), 709734.
Moon, T. W., Hur, W. M., & Jun, J. K. (2013). The role of perceived
organizational support on emotional labor in the airline indus-
try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 25(1), 105123.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory
of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 2038.
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The authentic leadership
inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The
Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 11461164.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in
public sector organizations. The American Review of Public
Administration, 30(1), 87109.
Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T.
(2012). The relationship between authentic leadership and
follower job performance: The mediating role of follower
positivity in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 23,
502516.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on fol-
lowers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Journal of Management, 22, 259298.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in mul-
tiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879891.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (20102012). Calculation for the
Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation test.
Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leader-
ship. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 6781.
Russell, R. F., & Stone, G. (2002). A review of servant leadership
attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145157.

Rust, R. T., Moorman, C., & Dickson, P. R. (2002). Getting return on
quality: Revenue expansion, cost reduction, or both? Journal
of Marketing, 66(4), 724.
Singh, J., Goolsby, J. R., & Rhoads, G. K. (1994). Behavioral and
psychological consequences of boundary spanning burnout
for customer service representatives. Journal of Marketing
Research, 31(4), 558569.
Smith, G. (2004). Brand image transfer through sponsorship: A
consumer learning perspective. Journal of Marketing
Management, 20(34), 457474.
Sparks, J. (2000). Exploring trust: A dynamic and multidimensional
model of interpersonal trust development in a task setting.
Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI.
Spence, L., Finegan, H. K., & Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of
workplace empowerment, organizational trust on staff
nurses work satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Health Care Management Review, 26(3), 723.
Strub, P. J., & Priest, T. B. (1976). Two patterns of establishing
trust: The marijuana user. Sociological, 9(4), 399411.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Toward differentiation of turst in
supervisor and turst in organization. Genetic, Social and
General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241260.
Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The
effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress,
and burnout. Human Resource Management, 48(3), 417432.
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH 15
Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson,
S. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation
of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1),
89126.
Walumbwa, F., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B.
J. (2010). Psychological process linking authentic leadership
to follower behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5),
901914.
Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic
leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health
care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 623.
Wong, C. A., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Cummings, G. G. (2010).
Authentic leadership and nurses voice behavior and percep-
tions of care quality. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 889
900.
Wong, J., & Wang, C. (2009). Emotional labor of the tour
leaders: An exploratory study. Tourism Management, 30(2),
249259.
Wong, Y., Ngo, H., & Wong, C. (2006). Perceived organizational
justice, trust, and OCB: A study of Chinese workers in joint
ventures and state-owned enterprises. Journal of World
Business, 41(4), 344355.
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2009). Supervisory pro-
cedural justice effects: The mediating roles of cognitive and
affective trust. Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 143154.