Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Authenticity is a crucial component of leadership for developing moral and ethical leaders in the public sector. Despite that, authentic leadership has struggled to progress into a more advanced theory. Therefore, this study serves as a foundation for new developments in authentic leadership studies. The research is valuable because it investigates aspects of authenticity and leadership drawn from public sector leaders’ experiences. It employs a qualitative approach using in-depth interviews of 15 top executive leaders in Malaysian public administration. The interpretive study is underpinned by authentic leadership and self-determination theory, and content analysis is applied to understand the subjective interpretation of the interviews through the identification of specific themes and patterns of coding facilitated by the NVivo software. The participants describe authenticity in leadership as a combination of mindset and qualities, such as purposeful intention, spiritual connection and sustainable legacy. This study provides a new perspective on authenticity in leadership from the public sector context. A new important factor emerged from the study, namely, spiritual connection, which is unique to the Malaysian context. Another theoretical contribution to the body of knowledge is that the element of personal growth, which is connected to human motivation by addressing autonomy from the self-determination theory perspective, is important to describe authenticity. These elements suggest the third wave of the leadership model that is derived from the interpersonal process between leader and followers in a bureaucratic environment. These results may be used to develop a new instrument for examining the public leadership context – as a new leadership model or design development intervention for future leaders in the public sector.

Keywords

authentic leadership Malaysia public sector qualitative research

Introduction

The need for authentic leadership (AL) arises due to challenges faced by public sector employees in dealing with public scrutiny, political pressure and expectations of the public towards public organisations. AL was introduced as a value-based leadership concept, as a scholarly response to the interest in developing ethical and moral leaders (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). The interest in AL continued to increase but the discussions were usually in retrospect rather than moving forward (Banks et al., 2016; Kaptein, 2019; Newstead et al., 2019) and lacked theory development and maintenance (Banks et al., 2016; Bedi et al., 2016; Crawford et al., 2020; Tonkin, 2013). Among the criticisms about this concept was the confusing domain of AL, namely, whether it could be viewed as a leadership process (Walumbwa et al., 2008), leaders’ characteristics (Shamir and Eilam, 2005), not to mention, overlapping characteristics with other leadership concepts such as transformational leadership (Banks et al., 2016). Another criticism was the lack of theoretical rigour (Crawford et al., 2020). The continuous debate about this subject is intriguing, given the tremendous need for ethical leaders and the search for a moral compass to find our true selves.

AL has been defined from intrapersonal, interpersonal and developmental perspectives (Northouse, 2019). In the concept’s early stages of development, it was defined from an intrapersonal perspective, focussing on a leader’s self-knowledge, self-regulation and self-concept (Shamir and Eilam, 2005). Then, from the interpersonal perspective, AL focused on the relational process resulting from reciprocal interaction between leader and follower. Another widely used interpretation of AL incorporates the developmental perspective, defined by four main components, namely, self-awareness, moral perspective, balanced processing and relational transparency (Walumbwa et al., 2008). These definitions provide the springboard for AL theoretical development, which follows the practical approach based on real-life examples, case studies, training and development (George, 2003; George et al., 2007) and the theoretical approach that leads to the definition of the construct and its characteristics (Gardner et al., 2005; Neider and Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Even though AL has been applied in various settings, including the private and public sectors, notably in healthcare and education (Aliyyani et al., 2016; Lemoine et al., 2019), there is no specific definition that caters for the complexity of leadership in the public sector.

Due to the nature of AL that derives from positive organisational scholarship (Northouse, 2019), AL studies are linked to positive psychological capacities (Crawford et al., 2020) such as organisational performance, followers’ attitudes and behavioural outcomes (Day et al., 2014; Gardner et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Some researchers have examined the impact of AL in the public sector context. For example, the self-evaluation component of AL was found to have a significant impact on employees’ psychological empowerment (Joo and Jo, 2017). AL is also shown to predict the maintenance of behaviour in the organisation and influence performance (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Authentic leaders are seen as effective leaders because they influence followers’ attitude and behaviours (Howell and Costley, 2006) and indicates leaders’ ability to promote growth (Banks et al., 2016).

The empirical foundations of AL have been underpinned by the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory and social exchange theory (SET) (Ismail et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2020). Some studies are based on psychological capital (PsyCap) (Howell and Costley, 2006; Northouse, 2019). A small number of studies are also based on self-determination theory (SDT) were identified (Levesque-Côté et al., 2018; Miniotaitė and Bučiūnienė, 2013), which indicate that AL studies are largely quantitative. There are very few studies that discuss AL from a qualitative perspective. For example, Endrissat et al. (2007) assert that the value of authenticity is rich and varied across cultures, which aligns with previous studies that argue that authentic behaviour is context-dependent (Cooper et al., 2005) and that the meaning of AL can provide better leadership implications to its followers (Levesque-Côté et al., 2018). Based on these observations, more qualitative studies are needed to investigate AL roles in various processes and contribute to the theoretical development of this concept of leadership. Furthermore, the limited studies of AL in the public sector and the scarcity of public leadership studies in general (Ancarani et al., 2020) and even fewer AL studies in Malaysia (Hassan and Ahmed, 2011; Opatokun et al., 2013), provide a promising opportunity for scholars to offer an alternative insight on leadership interaction from public sector perspectives.

Despite several empirical studies on AL, there is confusion with regards to how the perception of authenticity shapes leaders. Examination of this perception among leaders is expected to help discover how moral compass can be adequately explored. Previous quantitative studies are based on various theoretical foundations (Ismail et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2020). The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), which is developed by Walumbwa et al. (2008), and Authentic Leadership Instrument (ALI) by Neider and Schriesheim (2011) provide the same dimension of AL for measurement. This inevitably leads to repetitive outcomes of construct clarity confusion and disagreements among scholars (Alvesson and Einola, 2019; Crawford et al., 2020). In addition, several papers on AL were retracted (Peterson et al., 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2011), which indicates some errors in the measurement model using the existing instruments. In statistical analysis, the measurement model will determine the reliability and validity of the model before the researcher can proceed further with hypothesis testing. The underlying assumption of this scenario is that even though isolation would undermine the credibility of quantitative measurement regarding AL. Therefore, most importantly, there is a clear need to pursue a properly defined concept of AL.

Closer scrutiny of qualitative studies on AL signifies the importance of AL development. Johnsen (2018) argues that being authentic does not mean a person is always moral, thus rejecting the idea of a moral compass, but suggests ethical component is relevant in AL development. Another paper states that the current theory is misaligned with the real workplace situation and encourages the ALQ measurement tool to be tested as a future development tool rather than assessing the current authentic qualities of a leader (Covelli and Mason, 2017). Alvesson and Einola (2019) criticised the positive leadership theories including those based on morally grounded and ethical foundations. They proposed focussing on subordinate/follower experience, perception and reasoning.

It is believed that the concept of AL needs to be further developed using the motivation-based theories, such as SDT, to encourage new contributions to the body of knowledge. Therefore, this study explores the authenticity and autonomy components of AL in the context of the public sector in Malaysia. Malaysia, a South East Asian country chosen for this study, would offer an interesting perspective from the non-Western country’s point of view. Malaysia is a progressive Islamic state in the Asian region. The leadership and governance style has always been built based on local and religious foundations. Some of the successful ethical campaigns promoted among Malaysian civil servants include the ‘Clean, Efficient and Trustworthy’ campaign – to avoid corruption in the public sector, ‘Islam Hadhari’ – Islamic values in governance, ‘Shared Prosperity Vision’ and ‘Malaysian Family’. Furthermore, Malaysia’s Human Development Index (HDI) value is 0.810 (Human Development Report, 2020), which is considered above average in East Asia and the Pacific region. HDI is a measure of a healthy life, access to knowledge and decent standards of living. Thus, Malaysia is a good example of a developing nation with a decent quality of life, strong cultural and religious foundations. It is hoped that the study’s findings will contribute to the existing literature on leadership and lead to a better understanding of leadership skills for future leaders in the public sector.

Moving beyond transformational leadership

Before the emergence of AL, scholars applied the concept of transformational leadership to explain the leadership process among the top leaders. However, transformational leadership limits the discussion to observing leadership at all levels in the public sector organisation due to its complex hierarchical structure (Ancarani et al., 2020). Due to this focus, established leadership models are unsuccessful in encapsulating public sector leadership challenges and the dynamics in today’s world (Murphy et al., 2017). Furthermore, most leadership research is largely conceptual and does not adequately address the complexity at various levels in the system (Litcthenstein and Plowman, 2009).

AL development was proposed as a strategy to overcome unethical leadership behaviours (Crawford et al., 2020). The ALQ and ALI were established and widely used in literature (Neider and Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). These instruments measure AL as a relational process between leaders and followers based on key components of honesty, transparency and authenticity. Despite the development of AL as a theory, critical issues surrounding the literature can be observed and as such, the confusion with regards to establishing AL, either as a process or as characteristics of a person, persist (Crawford et al., 2020). This confusion arose even though AL is defined as a multi-level theory (Algera and Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Day et al., 2014), which involves several stakeholders (i.e., leader, follower, peers). Finally, the existing definitions make ambiguous distinction between authenticity, as a leader or an individual (Alvesson and Einola, 2019; Crawford et al., 2020; Day et al., 2014; Suddaby, 2010). A comparative perspective of AL and other positive leadership theories is provided in Table 1. The table compares between AL and other positive leadership theories. It provides a summary of similarities and differences between contemporary leadership theories.

Table 1.

Key characteristics of positive leadership theories.

Leadership theories	Transformational Leadership	Servant leadership	Authentic leadership
Definition	The ability to get people to want to change and to lead change.	Helping others to accomplish shared objectives by facilitating individual’s development, empowerment and collective work that is consistent with health and long-term welfare of the followers.‘Service to the followers’, ‘way of life’, ‘life-long journey’	A pattern of leader behaviour that draws upon and promotes both psychological capacities and positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, internalised moral perspective, relational transparency and balanced processing on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive development.
Role of leader	To inspire the followers and drive organisational change	To serve the follower and encourage personal development	To develop relationship with the follower and based on moral foundation and inspirational
Role of follower	To pursue the organisational goals	To cultivate positive culture and well-being	To develop relationship with the leader and actively contribute to the organisation
Nature of theory	Normative	Normative	Normative
Underpinning philosophies/Theories/Model	Social exchange theoryPath-goal theoryFull-range leadership modelParticipative decision making	No specific model	Positive organisational behaviour, PsyCap, LMX, Attachment theory, social exchange theory, authentic leadership development model

Authentic leadership

What is it that makes AL unique compared to other positive leadership siblings (servant, ethical, transformational leadership)? One study suggests that the self-development component is an internal compass (Wuffers and Carmichael, 2020). Studies about leader needing a personal compass or seeking the true north is scarce but could potentially become an alternative for better conceptualisation of AL (Assor et al., 2020; George, 2003; Johnsen, 2018; Wuffers and Carmichael, 2020). For example, the notion of authenticity needs further clarification based on a qualitative approach from the practitioner’s experiences (Algera and Lips-Wiersma, 2012). Only leaders can relate to their practical experiences, thus providing a sensible departure for AL to have practical implications in the workplace. AL development was reviewed extensively by Gardner et al. (2011), and a comparative study of AL with transformational, ethical and servant leadership was conducted by Hoch et al. (2018). Furthermore, there are several papers about integrative reviews on AL (Banks et al., 2016; Lemoine et al., 2019; Ling et al., 2017; Tonkin, 2013). However, there is only one systematic study of AL and it is specific to the healthcare industry (Alilyyani et al., 2018). Our view is that, there is a lack of qualitative studies on AL.

During the early stages of development, AL was conceptualised in different ways. It was initially believed that ‘authenticity’ is about knowing your true self and acting according to that true self (Avolio et al., 2004; Luthans, 2002; Luthans and Avolio, 2003). This general definition was later operationalised to include four components: self-acceptance, unbiased processing, consistent action with the true self and a relational orientation (Walumbwa et al., 2008). AL is believed to positively influence followers’ behaviour by enhancing self-awareness, internalised moral perspective, balanced processing of information and relational transparency and fostering positive development (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Combining these two definitions provides a more comprehensive awareness, internalised moral perspective, with balanced processing of information, relational transparency and fostering positive development (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Theories can be either content theory or process theory, or sometimes two-fold (Xu and Chen, 2017). There is a need to properly define AL as a content or process theory.

Bill George proposes a practical definition, where he sees AL as a journey based on five dimensions: heart, purpose, values, self-discipline and relationship (George, 2003). These dimensions are related to the inner side of a leader, and it will influence others to be authentic. While there were a few conceptual definitions of AL, there is a lack of clarity between AL as a theory or as a process or the leader and follower characteristics. AL, compared to other ethical-based leadership theories (Brown et al., 2005; Kaptein, 2019; Treviño et al., 2000; Walumbwa et al., 2011). For example, AL is always compared with transformational leadership and servant leadership, but AL has explicit moral dimension and fosters positive outcomes (Banks et al., 2016). Next, this study examines the issues of morality and ethics in leadership.

Moral and ethical leadership

The pursuit of moral leadership has been discussed for decades. However, change is not necessarily related to being moral, which explains transformational leadership does not address issues of moral and ethical leaders (Kaptein, 2019; Luthans and Avolio, 2003). The lack of an ethical foundation in traditional leadership models (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Johnsen, 2018; Shamir and Eilam, 2005) raises the proliferation of moral leadership and virtue-based approaches among the positive leadership fraternity. Scholars have recently addressed the conversation by introducing the concept of ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005; Kaptein, 2019; Treviño et al., 2000; Walumbwa et al., 2011). Ethical leadership emphasises the appropriate conduct through personal actions and personal relationships, which is composed of moral person, moral manager (Bedi et al., 2016; Brown et al., 2005) and moral entrepreneur (Kaptein, 2019). To the best of our knowledge, research has not advanced the definition of ethical leadership.

Authentic leaders lead their followers based on their moral values and engage them by pursuing higher demands for a better quality of life (Carey, 1992). Moral reasoning does not predict leaders’ perceptions of their authenticity (Sendjaya, 2007). Such debate opens doors for a virtue-based leadership approach that constitutes good leaders and good leadership (Newstead et al., 2019) but there is a lack of research on this topic. Most importantly, virtues and leadership can be learnt and can be developed further (Newstead et al., 2019). AL predicts positive outcomes such as more committed and potent teams (Rego et al., 2013) and positively influences followers’ attitudes and work behaviours (Avolio et al., 2004). Therefore, virtues and personal values may be important characteristics of authenticity.

While Banks et al. (2016) and Tonkin (2013) discuss the comparative characteristics of AL and transformational leadership, several papers suggest a difference between AL and ethical leadership (Ling et al., 2017; Yasir and Mohammad, 2016). For example, Kalshoven et al. (2011), while looking at ethical leadership, highlighted its distinctiveness from other leadership styles, including AL. According to them, ethical leaders also use transactional forms of leadership while authentic leaders do not. On the other hand, according to Yasir and Mohamad (2016), the key difference is that other forms of leadership do not specifically focus on ethical behaviour. In other words, authentic leaders may or may not be ethical depending upon their moral values.

Furthermore, AL and servant leadership have been compared to address construct clarity issues (Alvesson and Einola, 2019; Banks et al., 2016; Crawford et al., 2020). Alvesson and Einola (2019) argue that the construct lacks a maturity phase due to its loose theoretical foundations. As an alternative to the post-positivist approach, scholars suggest further development of AL theory from existential theory (Algera and Lips-Wiersma, 2012). Lemoine et al. (2019) state that the general approach from the moral perspective limits understanding of the phenomena. In this regard, AL should be explored from a different theoretical perspective.

Antecedents of authentic leadership

Very few qualitative studies have explored the development of AL theory (Algera and Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Johnsen, 2018). Most studies focus on AL’s positive strengths (Alvesson and Einola, 2019; Banks et al., 2016), but Diddams and Chang (2012) explored weaknesses that positively impact the authenticity and effectiveness of the leaders. These suggest its shortcomings and certain levels of competencies made authentic leaders look more human. Rather than seeing AL as a leadership process (Luthans and Avolio, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008), it should be perceived as a technique because authenticity is a human quality that needs to be understood among members of the organisation (Algera and Lips-Wiersma, 2012). In comparison, only a few studies discuss the antecedents of AL as opposed to the impacts or consequences, such as self-knowledge and self-consistency (Peus et al., 2012), individual antecedents based on PscyCap and psychological climate (Petersen and Youssef-Morgan, 2018), authentic leader personality (Liang, 2017), personal factors such as personality, cognitive ability and gender (Kotzé and Nel, 2017) and mindfulness (Nübold et al., 2020). However, the lack of construct maturity (Diddams and Chang, 2012) allows other researchers to continue building the body of knowledge in this area.

Self-determination theory

SDT is a motivation theory that addresses three basic psychological needs for humans: autonomy, relatedness and competence (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Essentially, the premise of SDT is that humans are naturally motivated. However, there are some situations where motivation might be affected when psychological needs are not satisfied. SDT is a two-fold theory consisting of content and process theory (Xu and Chen, 2017). This theory is chosen because it covers the content and process of motivation. This way, it can address the shortfalls of AL as a construct. A content theory usually consists of the dimensions of a construct, while a process theory usually consists of the antecedents and consequences of the construct.

Thus, the conceptual framework builds on the prior work of AL based on SDT, particularly in exploring authenticity and autonomy as key ideas in theory (Miniotaitė and Bučiūnienė, 2013). It is similar to the relational process from LMX in studying leader-follower relationships but distinctive because it further explores the leader’s intrinsic and extrinsic value orientations. SDT promotes self-growth and well-being based on competence, relatedness and autonomy influenced by an individual’s values (Levesque-Côté et al., 2018). The contribution to the body of knowledge is with regards to the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic value orientations in understanding the motivation of an authentic leader.

Methodology

Setting

For this study, all the participants are top leaders in the Malaysian public administration. In Malaysia, the top level is equivalent to C-Suite leaders in corporate organisations. It is the highest leadership position for public administrators in the Malaysian public sector. They are responsible for ministries’ administration and play a significant role in leading public policy development and implementation portfolios. For example, within the various ministries, the senior management team comprises Directors or Undersecretaries and is led by the Secretary Generals. Together, they make up <1% of the 1.6 million civil servants in the Malaysian public administration. Therefore, their views and leadership experiences are critical in understanding the complexities of public administration in Malaysia.

Research design

As highlighted earlier, AL studies face theoretical development and maintenance challenges. Therefore, this situation requires scholars to re-evaluate how AL is defined and provide alternatives. This investigation aims to explore an alternative definition of AL from the non-Western perspective and, more specifically, from the Malaysian public sector context. In Malaysia, the topic is underexplored, and thus this study has a concise and specific purpose.

This alternative definition of AL has practical implications for other scholars. For this study the definition can assist in developing a new instrument for AL for the Malaysian public sector. Thus, the researcher explored the concept of AL using qualitative interviews with the top leaders in the Malaysian public sector. The participants were chosen from the top level of Malaysian administration for several reasons. First, the leaders have significant years of experience leading various agencies and ministries in the government. Second, their views and opinion provide insights from the of higher authority perspective, especially with regards to issues concerning leadership. Thirdly, they can articulate professional experiences better as they have experience coaching and mentoring, including exposure to various leadership approaches, as compared to the younger generation of leaders. The qualitative interviews give a better depth than other approaches, such as a written interview or focus group discussion, as we want to capture an in-depth discussion about the topic explored.

This study employs qualitative methodology and follows the interpretivist approach. The themes that emerged from the discussion can generate patterns and meanings (Nowell et al., 2017). This approach is appropriate to derive insights and understand the patterns in the data. Furthermore, it is possible to provide an interpretation of the results based on the participants’ views. In addition, the Malaysian perspective can draw important elements and characteristics unique to AL.

This study developed the interview questions from SDT and AL theory perspectives. This approach is also considered inductive, as themes are associated with the data (Nowell et al., 2017). Through previous literature, there are some potential areas for the development of an internal compass based on these theories (Assor et al., 2020; Seco and Teixeira, 2019), and it is hoped that through the Malaysian perspective, the contribution can address a better foundation of authenticity as a concept in the domain of leadership studies.

Sampling and recruitment

As for the sample, it is common for qualitative analysis to use between 1 and 30 informants (Fridlund and Hildingh, 2000); however, the sample size for this study is limited to 15 informants based on the research question with sufficient confidence. Initially, five participants were contacted based on the researcher’s network. All participants agreed to participate in 45-min duration in-depth interviews. Other participants were recruited based on the recommendation of the top leaders who fit similar participants’ criteria.

The interviews aim to generate themes and additional insights relating to AL from the public sector perspective. According to Sarstedt et al. (2017), non-probability sampling can be considered when the sampling frame cannot be obtained. As such, we chose a non-probability purposive sampling method to select participants based on specific characteristics to ensure that they represented the opinion of the ‘thought leaders’ in leadership. Some of the key selection criteria for this interview include (1) Leaders in the highest position ministries or agencies, (2) Possessing a minimum of 5 years of working experience in the top management or senior executive role in the public sector. The response rate was 60% with 15 individuals representing the top management taking part in the interviews.

The in-depth interviews were conducted between April to May 2021. In the interviews, the researcher sought to identify their understanding using general questions like ‘Please define authentic leadership’ and subsequent prompts to further explore the meaning of AL, its characteristics, values and personal experiences in leading organisations. In addition, the interviews proceeded with deeper questions exploring the previous leadership experience during their younger years. These leaders influenced their style and philosophy of public sector leadership. The face-to-face interviews approach was used as some useful information obtained using interviews might not be possible if it were conducted in group discussions or in the form of questionnaires. Table 2 details participants’ demographic characteristics. The sample was predominantly male (60%). Most (64%) had at least one postgraduate degree, while 34% had obtained both master’s and PhDs. Most have served the government for more than 25 years (67%) and between 50 and 59 years old (60%). Therefore, we address them as P1-P15 for data analysis purposes.

Table 2.

Participant characteristics.

Characteristics	η	%
Gender
Male	10	66
Female	5	34
Age
30–39	2	13
40–49	4	27
50–59	10	60
Professional experience
15–19 years	2	13
20–24 years	3	20
25+ years	10	67
Highest academic qualification
Bachelor’s degree	0	0
Master	10	66
Ph.D.	5	34
Role within the organisation
Top management	8	53
Senior management	5	34
Middle management	2	13

Data analysis

The researchers performed a qualitative analysis that involved steps of systematically coding and categorising, and finally identifying patterns classified into themes to generate meaningful and useful insights from the qualitative data (Tracy, 2010). Qualitative inquiry is the most appropriate method to investigate participants’ statements about a particular topic (Nowell et al., 2017). Furthermore, the findings can assist future studies, such as further development of AL construct in quantitative methods. The interview data were transcribed and facilitated using NVivo, the qualitative analysis software.

The data were analysed in several stages. During the first stage, the interview transcript was transcribed and read thoroughly. In this stage, the responses to the same questions were analysed to see similarities and differences within each transcript. Then, in the next stage, some unique phrases were captured based on key concepts in SDT and AL. Key concepts such as self-awareness, transparency, decision-making, morality, competency, authenticity and autonomy were compared based on the responses. Then, these responses were categorised into three main themes and sub-themes. The final stage involved reviewing the consistencies of each response, and then the summary was provided. The next section discusses the findings of this study.

Findings

Authentic leadership characteristics are presented in Table 3. The table presents AL’s main categories, including the main themes and sub-themes. Initially, this study reviewed other positive leadership theories’ characteristics and considered SDT and AL theories as the main theories. The purpose of comparing previous definitions is to explore new elements or vocabulary that might be unique to the Malaysian context. However, it is important to note that before the interviews, most participants were not familiar with the theoretical definition of AL. Therefore, the discussion was purely elicited from their professional and personal experiences with the leaders or being a leader. The definition of AL was based on the practitioner’s perspective. We also probed into elements of AL as understood by the participants. These elements are not necessarily personal traits, but a combination of mindset and qualities aligned with existing public sector values. Table 3 details AL themes and sub-themes based on the qualitative data analysis.

Table 3.

Themes and subthemes.

Themes	Subtheme	Quotations
Purposeful intention	Align intention with behaviour and goal.	How I see authenticity is because of my culture and family upbringing
	Impersonal intention	You become inauthentic when you depend on others for your survival
	Start with why, how, and where	Why do I join the civil service?
		How long do I plan to be in this career?
		Where do I see myself in the next 5 or 10 or 15 years?
Spiritual connection	Remember your purpose	Human beings are naturally selfish; you need to be honest and do what pleases God instead of pleasing yourself or others.
	A good relationship with God and a relationship with others	Authenticity is connected to both relationships among human beings and with Allah. But first, we need to have a strong connection with the Almighty, and the rest will be easier for us.
	Work-life integration	To a certain point, I no longer believe in work-life balance, but work-life integration is more relevant to our current condition.
Sustainable legacy	Develop others	Praise and motivate your officers when they did a wonderful job and never take credit for someone else’s work.
	Develop nation	Essentially, working in the public sector is not about you but serving others, building the nation, and protecting national interest.
	Good memories	People will remember how you treat them more than your contribution when you have left.

Defining authentic leadership

This study found that some themes are similar to Walumbwa’s (2008) definition of AL, specifically some elements, like self-awareness and transparency. We analysed how leaders and managers define AL according to their context. We begin by asking them to describe authentic leaders in their own words. Authentic leadership meant being truthful and genuine according to the participants (P2, P5, P10, P12). For example

Authentic leaders are courageous leaders who can make important organisational decisions fairly. Depending on the situation, they are also good at manoeuvring between firmness and kindness. Even though they have a role model for leaders, they are not tempted to copy them and know who they are. (P5)

They also relate authenticity to being self-aware and transparent in words and actions. However, while exploring the meaning of authenticity, the participants find the terms, being authentic and authentic leader, might be confusing and misleading. Therefore, several leaders suggest that there should be a clear distinction between authenticity, authentic leader and AL to help the researcher conceptualise the topic.

Elements of authentic leadership

The elements of AL were discovered when data from the transcripts were analysed in the second and third stages, in which patterns and themes were analysed. The researcher noticed broader descriptions of their experiences. Overall, the participants described what they perceived based on their personal beliefs and values and according to the norms and work culture of working in Malaysian public administration. In addition to that, they also describe ideal characteristics or essential features that are unique to Malaysian culture. In essence, three main themes emerged, namely, purposeful intention, spiritual connection and sustainable legacy.

Purposeful intention

‘The intention must be followed by your behaviour and a goal’ (P1). Almost all participants believed in a moral compass. Some scholars believe that the moral compass must begin with a purposeful intention (George et al., 2007). Then, the purpose must be followed through with behaviour and a goal. A few senior participants relate this to their early experience as junior officers. Their superiors taught them to develop a sense of purpose right at the beginning of their career. One (P2) mentioned that joining the civil service is due to ‘more stability in the job’ and ‘expectations’ from the parents. Another sees becoming a civil servant as an obligation because he was a government-sponsored student (P5). While many enter the service for various reasons, after years of serving, they begin to find their purpose, and most of them share a similar sense of Berkhidmat Untuk Negara or ‘Serve the Nation’.

The purposeful intention must not be personal. For example, one participant said, ‘do not work or live to please others’ (P5). In other words, the choice to serve in the civil service should not be made for personal reasons or glory. Authentic leaders usually have a strong, unselfish intention to serve the nation. They prioritise this and point out that people find their motivation because their purpose is clear. Several participants differentiated authentic and inauthentic leaders to distinguish those who behaved ‘differently before and after a job promotion’ or a person that displays ‘favouritism’ (P7, P12, P15) because of personal reasons.

“Start with why, how, and where” (P6). As the famous Simon Sinek wrote in his book ‘Start with Why,’ different participants gave their feedback on how this information came together. The leaders feel that a purposeful intention to serve must also come with a series of powerful questions. The three important questions one must ask themselves if one wants to join the civil servants as diplomats and administrators are:

(i) Why do I join the civil service?

(ii) How long do I plan to be in this career?

(iii) Where do I see myself in the next 5 or 10, or 15 years?

Spiritual connection

Serving the public came with a noble purpose. Due to this intention, the participants assert the idea that spiritual connection was paramount before finding a goal at work. ‘Remember your purpose’ (P1, P3, P4, P10, P11) was mentioned a few times, and ‘God has the power to change someone’s fate’. While this phrase might not be conceptual, this has a strong relation to the earlier discussion about the moral compass. Most participants are Muslims, following the Islamic faith, so the belief in the concept of God was strongly intertwined in their lives. Most agree that Islam is a way of life. Therefore, the purpose of working is also a form of connection – ‘connect with the Creator’ (God). As such, noble human beings are connected spiritually and are guided by this as a moral compass, personally and professionally at work.

As the discussion tried to distinguish between being spiritual and being religious, most believed that being spiritual is being religious. The participants did not see the difference between the two concepts. The word spiritual is connected to ‘holy’, ‘transcendental’ and ‘sacred’. In other words, these words are aligned with the concept of a higher being or Godliness. In support of these words, the participants assert that work is regarded as an ‘act of worship’ because, as Muslims, the religion (Islam) should be embraced in totality as a way of life. The way of life encompasses how you live, work and play when everything can be done with moderation and remembrance of God. Hence, this understanding was translated into positive behaviour, thoughts and work ethics. In addition, it is also interesting that most participants did not agree with the concept of work-life balance as their nature of work and the leadership roles are highly demanding, and most of them work beyond regular office hours. The theme that emerged was ‘work-life-integration’, as it is impossible to keep work and life separate in their current lives. So, being spiritual is not only about being connected with God but it addresses the concept of work as part of living and integrating this into ways of living.

Sustainable legacy

Leadership in the public sector is also about creating a legacy. Authentic leaders can create a better legacy by trying to find a ‘lasting contribution’ through public policies or public programmes. As one participant mentions, ‘People will remember you for who you are and not for what you did’ (P5). Another participant mentioned that people remember leaders better through their personal qualities, so if they have a negative personality, this will not create a lasting impression about the person within the organisation. Most leaders were also aware of their role as superiors that ‘guide’ and ‘motivate’ rather than ‘instruct’ and ‘delegate’. This conventional practice reflects a change in the work culture compared to a few decades ago, which involved more delegating. More recently, the leaders are most comfortable using the words ‘remind’, ‘advise’ and ‘reflect’ as their leadership styles to manage the younger generation at work. In the discussion, the leaders pointed out that younger leaders are more authentic than top leaders. Authenticity is seen an important quality to get buy-ins from followers.

However, we were rather interested in how this legacy can be sustainable. Participants described that legacy is not about personal achievement but being aligned with policies or plans for the public’s interest. By sustainable, we refer to relationships and actions made by authentic leaders, like putting together the people, policies and public doing what is best for the nation and future generations. Thus, developing the staff included praising and motivating them to do their jobs and, more importantly, giving them proper credit. As public sector staff, building the nation and protecting national interest were also highlighted.

Discussion

From the SDT perspective, this study focusses on the early development of AL. Therefore, the theoretical contribution of this study is related to the theory of self-determination or motivation of the leaders. In the earlier discussion, the researcher explained that AL studies are currently facing a challenge to advance into more substantive theoretical advancement (Crawford et al., 2020; Diddams and Chang, 2013). This challenge is not particularly unique to AL. This situation is also common with other positive leadership theories (Banks et al., 2016) However, the uniqueness of AL is its potential to explore self-growth among individuals (Banks et al., 2016; Shamir and Eilam, 2005), develop others (Levesque-Côté et al., 2018), and develop stronger moral components for leadership qualities (Tonkin, 2013). Thus, this study supports AL development by exploring alternative definitions through SDT.

In the background section earlier, the purpose of this study was to investigate key aspects of AL from the public practitioner’s perspective. This study reveals that participants were not familiar with the concept of AL. This study also informs some themes that are unique to the Malaysian context. Participants acknowledge the importance of AL in the public sector. This perspective offered interesting insights and alternatives to transformational and servant leadership, which were more common in public leadership literature. It is important that while the leaders define new elements of AL, these elements suggest a new model for leaders to develop leaders.

The leaders interviewed in this study acknowledge that AL is a combination of mindset and a set of behaviours because of the leaders’ exposure of the environment and the coaching process with their leaders. The three themes identified were related to self-growth. The spiritual connection is the inner compass that guide their insights, followed by purposeful intention, which in turn is translated into sustainable legacy. This description is a combination of traits and process that is seen in other motivational theories like SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The following diagram (Figure 1) illustrates the findings.

Figure 1.

The definition of authentic leadership.

This study’s important outcome is the conceptualisation of AL from the Malaysian public sector perspective. Still, it also provides some distinctions as to what AL is not. For example, the descriptions of AL are still unclear, namely, whether it is a process or dimensions with several elements. What this study informs us is that if the definition needs to be expanded into an operational definition for empirical testing, the construct itself could potentially be multi-dimensional(Levesque-Côté et al., 2018), consistent with the previous definition of four dimensions of AL by Walumbwa et al. (2008) or AL as a process by Avolio and Gardner (2005) and AL as leadership approach by George et al. (2007). These findings are critical as a foundation for quantitative studies, as the scholars need something concrete for theory-testing and statistical model development. This study has laid out an alternative foundation to elements that is also important in AL from the public sector perspective.

Diverging from the discussion about theoretical development as a construct, we explored authenticity from the SDT perspective. In SDT, several key components include autonomy, relatedness and competency (Ryan and Deci, 2000). So how do we relate this authenticity? This study investigates the three main themes: purposeful intention, spiritual connection and sustainable legacy. The earliest definition of authenticity simply means being true to yourself (Luthans, 2002) and multiple combinations of awareness, unbiased processing, behaviour and relational orientation (Kernis and Goldman, 2006). Both definitions have in common that both terms are very leader-oriented (Crawford et al., 2020). Purposeful intention only happens when one truly understands their role and responsibilities at work. It is possibly aligned with the competency-related element, which means being skilful and knowledgeable about something (Miniotaitė and Bučiūnienė, 2013). So, these findings align with previous concepts in SDT as well.

In addition to that, surprisingly, the themes emerging from these studies were also leader-oriented (Crawford et al., 2020). Perhaps, a critical lesson from this process is that leadership is still a representation or perception that comes from the leader rather than the followers. These findings, however, is not a definite answer to the conceptualisation of AL. Further empirical testing is warranted to bring this conversation to another level.

The spiritual connection element supports previous literature on self-transcendence and the spiritual scale developed by Sendjaya (2007). It is worth mentioning that this theme was not found in previous AL studies. Most leaders feel that being religious is also spiritual, evident in the individual’s actions and behaviour. This idea supports a virtuous-based approach and moral leadership perspectives (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Johnsen, 2018; Shamir and Eilam, 2005). Work around this is still underexplored and suggests potential areas for further research. In some cultures, people see religion as separate from the concept of spirituality, while this study suggests otherwise.

In addition to exploring AL, we also found that another way of defining this concept offers us the opportunity to understand what AL is not. For example, authenticity becomes insignificant when someone cannot understand who they are. It is a process that requires both internal processing and external perception. In previous studies of AL using self-reported measures, there was a high possibility of biased results.

Implications

As mentioned, the three main themes that emerged from this study were purposeful intention, spiritual connection and sustainable legacy. It was explored from the Malaysian public sector perspective. Although these components are closely intertwined, they are distinctive. Some components are considered new elements, such as spiritual connection, which was not reflected in the earlier discussions of AL. There is a need to continue developing these components so that the dimensions of AL based can also be based on motivational perspectives rather than self-qualities such as in other Western studies (Kernis and Goldman, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2008), especially in non-Western or Asian-centric contexts.

This study also benefits practitioners in some ways. First, this study provides some insights on how AL can be applied in the public sector. While this study initially set out to address common issues from the practitioners’ perspectives, it also highlights that the development of future leaders in the public sector is crucial for success and effective administration. AL should be promoted in the organisation because the leaders can motivate and empower their team to get things done. They play a important role in motivating employees and getting things done in the organisation. However, this type of leadership should be applied with care, making sure that the employees’ emotional well-being are not neglected.

Second, this study might benefit the younger generation of leaders – the future leaders in the pipeline. Developing AL among middle managers will potentially benefit them because middle managers play an important role within the organisation because they must manage multiple stakeholders inside and outside the organisation. Due to this unique dual role in dealing with the upper-level management (their superiors) and lower level (subordinates), they experience both stress and a steep learning curve. As technical experts sandwiched in between, their role is critical in bridging the gap between various hierarchical positions in the bureaucratic organisation (Ancarani et al., 2020; Murphy et al., 2017). Even though this study was conducted among the top leaders, it provides a sense of accumulation of leadership experiences they have gained in their younger years, including their current position in the public sector. Since AL is a combination of mindset and qualities, future leadership programmes can be designed to address the skills gaps for younger leaders who are still in the middle of their careers.

Third, this study asserts that the AL approach exposes leaders to moral forms of leadership. Understanding the importance of being authentic can help them understand the big picture, play different roles and dare to challenge the status quo of doing things in the public sector. However, this requires support from the organisation’s top management and human resource personnel. For example, leadership training should be more diversified instead of focussing on skills and job competencies; continuous professional development programmes must also include character development programmes like coaching, mentoring and sponsoring for highly strategic positions in public administration.

Finally, in addition to training and development, maintaining a positive work culture should be the top priority to promote AL. It was discussed earlier that the employees could observe inauthentic qualities among their leaders, and unfairness, favouritisms and subconscious bias might occur within organisations. Although it might be unintended, leaders need to have a high self-awareness so that their actions are not translated as acts of prejudice that tarnish their leadership style. Therefore, open communication and trust-building are important so AL can lead to positive organisational behaviour and employee well-being.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

The future of AL is still promising. It was mentioned earlier that this study would help the future development of AL. The studies of AL have been previously confined to specific theories such as LMX and SET. Using a new theoretical lens, such as SDT, will reframe the discussion of AL and change how scholars analyse AL. This study has allowed other researchers to continue using SDT to study AL. Although the alternative dimension has been laid out as a foundation, it has not been empirically tested. Researchers who want to proceed with empirical testing must approach it cautiously. The previous studies on AL have fallen into a theory-testing pattern rather than a theory-development approach. Certainly, researchers should avoid repeating the same process. Alternatively, qualitatively, more evidence-based practice, such as case studies on the application and outcome of AL, would benefit the community of scholars and practitioners. These efforts have a better value with practical implications for organisations.

An important outcome of this study is the need for AL to be conceptualised and defined. Previous literature suggests that AL development is loose in its theoretical foundations (Crawford et al., 2020; Diddams and Chang, 2013), the participants also feel that AL should be properly conceptualised. Scholars must define the process, authentic qualities and values that shape such leadership behaviour. Revisiting the construct of AL might require the scholar to look at the underpinning theories of existing literature or perhaps take a new theory and consider a different or more practical approach to avoid confusion.

Next, regarding the methodological approaches for AL, most of the studies of AL were quantitative. This situation is also true with other established leadership theories, such as transformational and ethical leadership (Antonakis et al., 2019; Crawford et al., 2020; Gardner et al., 2011). This study considered the other strategy of theory development using a qualitative approach. Further studies should examine AL’s theoretical foundations using a mixed-methods approach. This approach might contribute to a robust theoretical development of AL as a leadership theory. Quantitative empirical studies to test out various conceptual models of AL and the antecedents, using appropriate statistical procedures, are expected to produce interesting perspectives of AL theory. Therefore, the measurement of AL should be handled with care. Furthermore, the element of purposeful intention is congruent with one of the dimensions of AL defined by Walumbwa et al. (2008), which consists of four dimensions (self-awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency and internal moral perspective). Self-awareness is widely acknowledged as an important criterion for top-level leaders between these four dimensions. However, researchers need to continue developing AL measures to examine whether these dimensions are distinctive or redundant. As such, this is a call for scholars to consider refining the ALQ and ALI in the future. To do this, the researchers can consider existing instruments that measure similar concepts and combine these instruments into a model and run appropriate statistical procedures to test them out empirically.

Conclusion

Authentic leadership is essential in building positive behaviour among both leaders and followers. However, existing studies require extensive work on making its theoretical foundation and effective measurement. While current studies focus on applying AL as a construct, this study provides an understanding of building a theoretical foundation for AL as a theory. This study provides a new perspective about authenticity in leadership from the public sector context. Thus, AL involves an interpersonal process between the leader and followers that is built upon three main elements, namely, (i) purposeful intention, (ii) spiritual connection and (iii) sustainable legacy. These elements suggest the third wave of leadership model that is derived from the interpersonal process between leader and followers in a bureaucratic environment. The findings help to illuminate new dimensions of AL based on cultural perspectives. These findings will help improve the models and measures and guide practitioners.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Dilip S Mutum

References

Algera

Lips-Wiersma

(2012) Radical authentic leadership: co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. The Leadership Quarterly 23(1): 118–131.

Alilyyani

Wong

Cummings

(2018) Antecedents, mediators, and outcomes of authentic leadership in healthcare: a systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 83: 34–64.

Alvesson

Einola

(2019) Warning for excessive positivity: authentic leadership and other traps in leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly 30(4): 383–395.

Ancarani

Arcidiacono

Mauro

, et al. (2020) Promoting work engagement in public administrations: the role of middle managers’ leadership. Public Management Review 23(8): 1–30.

Antonakis

Banks

Bastardoz

, et al. (2019) The leadership quarterly: state of the journal. The Leadership Quarterly 30(1): 1–9.

Assor

Soenens

Yitshaki

, et al. (2020) Towards a wider conception of autonomy support in adolescence: the contribution of reflective inner-compass facilitation to the formation of an authentic inner compass and well-being. Motivation and Emotion 44: 159–174.

Avolio

Gardner

(2005) Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 315–338.

Avolio

Gardner

Walumbwa

, et al. (2004) Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 15(6): 801–823.

Banks

McCauley

Gardner

, et al. (2016) A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: a test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly 27(4): 634–652.

10.

Bedi

Alpaslan

Green

(2016) A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics 139(3): 517–536.

11.

Brown

Treviño

Harrison

(2005) Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97: 117–134.

12.

Carey

(1992) Transformational leadership and the fundamental option for self-transcendence. The Leadership Quarterly 3(3): 217–236.

13.

Cooper

Scandura

Schriesheim

(2005) Looking forward but learning from our past: potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. The leadership quarterly 16(3): 475–493.

14.

Covelli

Mason

(2017) Linking theory to practice: authentic leadership. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 16(3): 1–10.

15.

Crawford

Dawkins

Martin

, et al. (2020) Putting the leader back into authentic leadership: reconceptualising and rethinking leaders. Australian Journal of Management 45(1): 114–133.

16.

Day

Fleenor

Atwater

, et al. (2014) Advances in leader and leadership development: a review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly 25(1): 63–82.

17.

Diddams

Chang

(2012) Only human: exploring the nature of weakness in authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 23(3): 593–603.

18.

Endrissat

Müller

Kaudela-Baum

(2007) En route to an empirically based understanding of authentic leadership. European Management Journal 25(3): 207–220.

19.

Fridlund

Hildingh

(2000) Health and qualitative analysis methods. In: Fridlund

Hildingh

(eds), Qualitative Research, Methods in the Service of Health. Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 13–25.

20.

Gardner

Avolio

Luthans

, et al. (2005) Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 343–372.

21.

Gardner

Cogliser

Davis

, et al. (2011) Authentic leadership: a review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 22(6): 1120–1145.

22.

George

(2003) Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

23.

George

Sims

McLean

, et al. (2007) Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review 85(2): 129–130.

24.

Hassan

Ahmed

(2011) Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. nternational Journal of Human and Social Sciences 6(3): 164–170.

25.

Hoch

Bommer

Dulebohn

, et al. (2018) Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management 44(2): 501–529.

26.

Howell

Costley

(2006) Understanding Behaviours for Effective Leadership. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

27.

Human Development Report (2020). The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthropocene. Available at: https://malaysia.un.org/en/109587-launch-2020-human-development-report-malaysia (accessed 4 April 2022).

28.

Ismail

Abdullah

AGK

(2019) The effect of school leaders’ authentic leadership on teachers’ job stress in the Eastern part of peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of Instruction 12(2): 67–80.

29.

Johnsen

(2018) Authenticating the leader: why Bill George believes that a moral compass would have kept Jeffrey skilling out of jail. Journal of Business Ethics 147(1): 53–63.

30.

Joo

(2017) The effects of perceived authentic leadership and core self-evaluations on organizational citizenship behavior: The role of psychological empowerment as a partial mediator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 38(3): 463–481.

31.

Kalshoven

Den Hartog

De Hoogh

(2011) Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly 22(1): 51–69.

32.

Kaptein

(2019) The moral entrepreneur: a new component of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 156: 1135–1150.

33.

Kernis

Goldman

(2006) A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38: 283–357.

34.

Kotzé

Nel

(2017) Personal factor effects on authentic leadership. Journal of Psychology in Africa 27(1): 47–53.

35.

Lemoine

Hartnell

Leroy

(2019) Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: an integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. The Academy of Management Annals 13(1): 148–187.

36.

Levesque-Côté

Fernet

Austin

, et al. (2018) New wine in a new bottle: refining the assessment of authentic leadership using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Journal of Business and Psychology 33(5): 611–628.

37.

Liang

S-G

(2017) Linking leader authentic personality to employee voice behaviour: a multilevel mediation model of authentic leadership development. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 26(3), 434–443.

38.

Ling

Liu

(2017) Servant versus authentic leadership: assessing effectiveness in China’s hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 58(1): 53–68.

39.

Luthans

(2002) The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(6): 695–706.

40.

Luthans

Avolio

(2003) Authentic leadership development. Positive organizational scholarship 241(258): 1–26.

41.

Miniotaitė

Bučiūnienė

(2013) Explaining authentic leadership work outcomes from the perspective of self-determination theory. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research 65: 63–75.

42.

Murphy

Rhodes

Meek

, et al. (2017) Managing the entanglement: complexity leadership in public sector systems. Public Administration Review 77(5): 692–704.

43.

Neider

Schriesheim

(2011) The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly 22(6): 1146–1164.

44.

Newstead

Dawkins

Macklin

, et al. (2019) We don’t need more leaders – we need more good leaders. Advancing a virtues-based approach to leader(ship) development. The Leadership Quarterly 32(5): 101312.

45.

Northouse

(2019) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

46.

Nowell

Norris

White

, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1): 160940691773384.

47.

Nübold

Van Quaquebeke

Hülsheger

(2020) Be(com)ing real: a multi-source and an intervention study on mindfulness and authentic leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology 35: 469–488.

48.

Opatokun

Hashim

Syed Hassan

(2013) Authentic leadership in higher learning institution: a case study of International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). International Journal of Leadership Studies 8(1): 49–66.

49.

Petersen

Youssef-Morgan

(2018) The “left side” of authentic leadership: contributions of climate and psychological capital. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal 39(3): 436–452.

50.

Peterson

Walumbwa

Avolio

, et al. (2012) RETRACTED: the relationship between authentic leadership and follower job performance: the mediating role of follower positivity in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly 23(3): 502–516.

51.

Peus

Wesche

Streicher

, et al. (2012) Authentic leadership: an empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics 107(3): 331–348.

52.

Rego

Vitória

Magalhães

, et al. (2013) Are authentic leaders associated with more virtuous, committed and potent teams? The Leadership Quarterly 24(1): 61–79.

53.

Ryan

Deci

(2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78.

54.

Sarstedt

Bengart

Shaltoni

, et al. (2017) The use of sampling methods in advertising research: a gap between theory and practice. International Journal of Advertising 37(4): 650–663.

55.

Seco

VMM

Teixeira

PMC

(2019) Quality of leadership and implicated constructs. Open Journal of Leadership 8: 95–113.

56.

Sendjaya

(2007) Conceptualizing and measuring spiritual leadership in organizations. International Journal of Business and Information 2(1): 104–126.

57.

Shamir

Eilam

(2005) ‘What’s your story?’ A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 395–417.

58.

Singh

GKPA

Subramaniam

Mahomed

ASB

, et al. (2020) Role of authentic leadership, servant leadership and destructive leadership behaviour on employee engagement in Malaysian hospitality industry. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 10(9): 113–125.

59.

Suddaby

(2010) Editor’s comments: construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review 35(3): 346–357.

60.

Tonkin

(2013) Authentic versus transformational leadership: assessing their effectiveness on organizational citizenship behavior of followers. International Journal of Business and Public Administration 10(1): 40–61.

61.

Tracy

(2010) Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16(10): 837–851.

62.

Treviño

Hartman

Brown

(2000) Moral person and moral manager: how executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review 42: 128–142.

63.

Walumbwa

Avolio

Gardner

, et al. (2008) Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management 34(1): 89–126.

64.

Walumbwa

Christensen

Hailey

(2011) Authentic leadership and the knowledge economy. Organizational Dynamics 40(2): 110–118.

65.

Chen

(2017) Moving from public service motivation (PSM) to motivation for public service (MPS): through the lens of self-determination theory. In: Wade

(ed), Self-determination Theory (SDT): Perspective, Applications and Impact. Nova Science Publishers, pp. 1–8.

66.

Yasir

Mohamad

(2016) Ethics and morality: comparing ethical leadership with servant, authentic and transformational leadership styles. International Review of Management and Marketing 6(4): 310–316.