The Interactive Effect of a Leader’s Sense of Uniqueness and Sense of Belongingness on Followers’ Perceptions of Leader Authenticity

Abstract

Researchers have emphasized the value of authenticity, but not much is known about what makes a person authentic in the eyes of others. Our research takes an interpersonal perspective to examine the determinants of followers’ perceptions of leader authenticity. Building on social identity theory, we propose that two fundamental self-identifications–a leader’s sense of uniqueness and sense of belongingness–interact to influence followers’ perceptions of a leader’s authenticity via perceptions of a leader’s self-concept consistency. In a field study conducted among leader–follower dyads and in a controlled laboratory experiment, we find that when a leader feels a low sense of belongingness, there is a positive relationship between a leader’s sense of uniqueness and perceptions of leader authenticity. When a leader feels a low sense of uniqueness, there is a positive relationship between a leader’s sense of belongingness and perceptions of leader authenticity. This is because followers perceive this leader as having high self-concept consistency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    A high sense of belongingness is distinct from accepting external influence. As noted earlier, accepting external influence refers to believing one has to accept the influence from others and even conform to their expectations. Belongingness leads to norm internalization, which avoids such enforced influence from others.

  2. 2.

    It is worth noting that CFI = 1.00 does not indicate perfect, but excellent fit (when df > 1). These fit values result when χ2 < df (Bentler 1990).

  3. 3.

    Although the figure suggests a pattern that a high sense of uniqueness and belongingness lead to a lower level of perceptions of leaders’ self-concept consistency, simple slope analyses revealed that perceptions of leaders’ self-concept consistency was not significantly different from those of leaders with a high sense of uniqueness and a low sense of belongingness, and those with a low sense of uniqueness and a high sense of belongingness.

  4. 4.

    We also used the Johnson–Neyman technique Johnson and Neyman (1936) to investigate the nature of the simple slopes in more detail. The relationship between uniqueness and self-consistency was significant and positive at values on belongingness < 3.99; at values ≥ 3.99 on belongingness, there was no significant relationship between uniqueness and self-consistency. This further supports Hypothesis 1.

  5. 5.

    If perceptions of leader self-concept consistency mediates the interaction between leaders’ sense of belongingness and leaders’ sense of uniqueness on perceptions of leader authenticity, this suggests that the Leaders’ Sense of Belongingness × Leaders’ Sense of Uniqueness interaction significantly predicts perceptions of leader authenticity when perceptions of leader self-concept consistency are not added as a predictor in the equation Shrout and Bolger (2002). OLS regression in which we regressed perceptions of leader authenticity on the main and interactive effects of leaders’ sense of belongingness and leaders’ sense of uniqueness revealed a significant Leaders’ Sense of Belongingness × Leaders’ Sense of Uniqueness interaction (β = − 0.06, t (156) = − 2.06, p = 0.04). The shape of this interaction was such that leaders’ sense of uniqueness positively predicted perceptions of leader authenticity when leaders’ sense of belongingness was low, β = 0.18, t (156) = 3.54, p < 0.001; leaders’ sense of uniqueness did not predict perceptions of leader authenticity when leaders’ sense of belongingness was high (β = 0.06, t (156) = 1.18, p = 0.24).

  6. 6.

    Given that perceived leader self-concept consistency and perceived leader authenticity were collected simultaneously from the same source, to establish in an unbiased way if the proposed moderated mediation model holds, the error term in the equation used to establish the interaction effect on the mediator should be uncorrelated with the error term in the equation used to establish the effect of mediator on the dependent variable (Shaver 2005). Correlated error terms are possible in the present study for various reasons. First, perceived self-concept consistency and perceived leader authenticity were both indexed by the same respondent leading to potential common method bias. Second, the causal direction between perceived self-concept consistency and perceived leader authenticity may be bidirectional. Third, in addition to being influenced by the independent variables in our study, perceived self-concept consistency and perceived leader authenticity may both be influenced by unmeasured variables, such as the leader’s life storytelling and the leader–follower’s value congruence (Weischer et al. 2013; Williams et al. 2012). Therefore, we used the recommended 2SLS approach.

  7. 7.

    Consistent with Study 1, we found a significant Leaders’ Sense of Belongingness × Leaders’ Sense of Uniqueness interaction effect on perceptions of leader authenticity (F(1, 98) = 4.93, p = 0.03, η2 = 0.04). The shape of this interaction was such that when sense of belongingness was low, leaders’ high sense of uniqueness led to a significantly higher level of perceived authenticity (M = 4.31, SD = 0.66) than leaders’ low sense of uniqueness did (M = 3.72, SD = 0.65; F(1, 98) = 8.19, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.08). When leaders’ sense of belongingness was high, leaders’ high sense of uniqueness did not lead to a higher level of perceived authenticity (M = 4.63, SD = 0.85) than that of leaders’ low sense of uniqueness (M = 4.69, SD = 0.76; F(1, 98) = 0.08, p = 0.78, η2 = 0.001). Thus, the negative indirect effect we found was not replicated in the direct effect of the interaction on perceptions of leader authenticity.

  8. 8.

    To test the indirect effect of the leader’s sense of uniqueness × leader’s sense of belongingness (and the two main effects) on perceived leader authenticity, via the consistently estimated effect of perceived self-concept consistency on perceived leader authenticity (see the 2SLS analyses in the text), we used the NLCOM command in STATA. This analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of leader’s sense of uniqueness (b = 0.62, SE = 0.17, z = 3.56, p < 0.001), of leader’s sense of belongingness (b = 1.01, SE = 0.20, z = 5.18, p < 0.001), and, most importantly, of the leader’s sense of uniqueness × leader’s sense of belongingness interaction (b = − 0.90, SE = 0.24, z = − 3.75, p < 0.001). In sum, these analyses support the conclusions drawn from the PROCESS analyses presented in the text.

References

  1. Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94 – 107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2014). Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations, 1, 93–117.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of management, 34(3), 325–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self in social contexts. Annual review of psychology, 45(1), 297–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450802458935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 815–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Block, J. (1961). Ego identity, role variability, and adjustment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25(5), 392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 241–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bongiorno, R., Bain, P. G., & David, B. (2014). If you’re going to be a leader, at least act like it! Prejudice towards women who are tentative in leader roles. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(2), 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boucher, H. C. (2011). The dialectical self-concept II: Cross-role and within-role consistency, well-being, self-certainty, and authenticity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(7), 1251–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this” We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(1), 83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The leadership quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brunell, A. B., Kernis, M. H., Goldman, B. M., Heppner, W., Davis, P., Cascio, E. V., & Webster, G. D. (2010). Dispositional authenticity and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 900–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70, 1), 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 14(3), 464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chun, J. U., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Sosik, J. J., & Moon, H. K. (2009). Leadership across hierarchical levels: Multiple levels of management and multiple levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 689–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cross, S. E., Gore, J. S., & Morris, M. L. (2003). The relational-interdependent self-construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(5), 933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (1993). The divided self: concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles on self-concept differentiation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(5), 834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological methods, 12(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ellemers, N. (2012). The group self. Science, 336(6083), 848–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. English, T. (2009). Emotional suppression and social functioning in young and older adults. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69, 5830.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 36(3), 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fields, D. L. (2007). Determinants of follower perceptions of a leader’s authenticity and integrity. European Management Journal, 25(3), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ford, J., & Harding, N. (2011). The impossibility of the ‘true self’of authentic leadership. Leadership, 7(4), 463–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gardner, W. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (2008). Can a leader be “true to the self” and socially skilled? The paradox of leader authenticity and behavioral flexibility. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.) The Sage handbook of new approaches in management and organization. 93–94.

  35. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 5(6), 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  37. González, R., & Brown, R. (2006). Dual identities in intergroup contact: Group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 753–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.

  41. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Henney, M. (2017). Hillary Clinton comes across as ‘robotic’ in new memoir, says former Trump surrogate. Retried from http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/08/24/hillary-clinton-comes-across-as-robotic-in-new-memoir-says-former-trump-surrogate.html.

  43. Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., & Goldman, B. M. (2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1140–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2016). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and social psychology review, 5(3), 184–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). When do leaders sacrifice?: The effects of sense of power and belongingness on leader self-sacrifice. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 883–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 248–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hoyle, R. H., Kernis, M. H., Leary, M. R., & Baldwin, M. W. (1999). Selfhood: Identity, esteem, regulation. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hoyt, C. L., & Burnette, J. L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations: Merging implicit theories and role congruity perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1306–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ibarra, H. (2015). The authenticity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jackson, E. M., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). When opposites do (and do not) attract: Interplay of leader and follower self-identities and its consequences for leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 488–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical research memoirs;, 1, 57–93.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Johnson, R. E., & Saboe, K. N. (2010). Measuring implicit traits in organizational research: Development of an indirect measure of employee implicit self-concept. Organizational Research Methods., 14(3), 530–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the relational, individual, and collective self-aspects (RIC) Scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 19–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological inquiry, 14(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The good life of the powerful: The experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychological science, 24(3), 280–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self-regulation and consistency between attitudes, traits, and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kokkoris, M. D., & Kühnen, U. (2014). “Express the real you” cultural differences in the perception of self-expression as authenticity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(8), 1221–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Koole, S. L., & Kuhl, J. (2003). In search of the real self: A functional perspective on optimal self-esteem and authenticity. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 43–48.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 974–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010). Enacting the ‘true self’: Towards a theory of embodied authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2013). How does “being real” feel? The experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 276–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2016). State authenticity in everyday life. European Journal of Personality, 30(1), 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 311–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational dynamics, 32(3), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Moorman, R. H., Darnold, T. C., & Priesemuth, M. (2013). Perceived leader integrity: Supporting the construct validity and utility of a multi-dimensional measure in two samples. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), 427–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Naidoo, L. J., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Speech imagery and perceptions of charisma: The mediating role of positive affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (Eds.). (2006). Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Pratt, M. G. (1998). Central questions in organizational identification. In Identity in organizations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 255–273). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., Arndt, J., & King, L. A. (2009). Thine own self: True self-concept accessibility and meaning in life. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(2), 473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. The self and social life, 65, 99.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Schreiber, J. B., Stage, A. Nora,F. K., Barlow, E. A. & Jamie King (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1993). The self in impression formation: Trait centrality and social perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(4), 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2005). Development of the levels of self-concept scale: Measuring the individual, relational, and collective levels. Unpublished manuscript..

  84. Sendjaya, S., Pekerti, A., Härtel, C., Hirst, G., & Butarbutar, I. (2016). Are authentic leaders always moral? The role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadership and morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Shaver, J. M. (2005). Testing for mediating variables in management research: Concerns, implications, and alternative strategies. Journal of Management, 31(3), 330–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 6), 1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Şimşek, ÖF., & Yalınçetin, B. (2010). I feel unique, therefore I am: The development and preliminary validation of the personal sense of uniqueness (PSU) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 576–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Slabu, L., Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, M. (2014). Trait and state authenticity across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(9), 1347–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Smith, J. R., & Terry, D. J. (2003). Attitude-behaviour consistency: The role of group norms, attitude accessibility, and mode of behavioural decision-making. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(5), 591–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 419–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Spitzmuller, M., & Ilies, R. (2010). Do they [all] see my true self? Leader’s relational authenticity and followers’ assessments of transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 304–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Focusing on followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in visionary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 457–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Steffens, N. K., Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., & Okimoto, T. G. (2016). True to what we stand for: Championing collective interests as a path to authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(5), 726–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Tate, B. (2008). A longitudinal study of the relationships among self-monitoring, authentic leadership, and perceptions of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(1), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Turner, R., & Billings, V. (1991). The social context of self-feeling. In J. Howard & P. Callero (Eds.), The self-society dynamic: Cognition, emotion, and action (pp. 103–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Waite, R., McKinney, N., Smith-Glasgow, M. E., & Meloy, F. A. (2014). The embodiment of authentic leadership. Journal of Professional Nursing, 30(4), 282–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1983). Psychology’s sanction for selfishness: The error of egoism in theory and therapy. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Weischer, A. E., Weibler, J., & Petersen, M. (2013). “To thine own self be true”: The effects of enactment and life storytelling on perceived leader authenticity. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 477–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Wellen, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1998). Group norms and attitude–behavior consistency: The role of group salience and mood. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(1), 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Whalen, B. (2016). Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Win In 2016. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/billwhalen/2016/02/19/even-when-she-doesnt-lose-hillary-clinton-cant-win/#48abfdf32f81.

  108. Wickham, R. E. (2013). Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 878–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Deptula, B., & Lowe, K. B. (2012). The effects of crisis, cynicism about change, and value congruence on perceptions of authentic leadership and attributed charisma in the 2008 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 324–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Xue Zheng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, M.X., Yuan, Y., van Dijke, M. et al. The Interactive Effect of a Leader’s Sense of Uniqueness and Sense of Belongingness on Followers’ Perceptions of Leader Authenticity. J Bus Ethics 164, 515–533 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4070-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sense of belongingness
  • Sense of uniqueness
  • Perceived leader authenticity
  • Self-concept consistency
  • Social identity theory