On today's VBlog, I share with you a study done by Dr. Carol Gill and Dr. Arran Caza titled, "An Investigation of Authentic Leadership's Individual and Group Influence on Follower Responses.", published in the Journal of Management (2018). I had high hopes for this study because of my curiosity of the broader impact that an Authentic Leader can have on an organization. However, as I will discuss, the wheels on the bus were a little wobbly when I got to the end of the article. The premise the authors suggest is spot on; however, the tools used to answer the research question was less so.
Before I get to the study I want to remind to head over to Amazon to grab The Crucible's Gift: 5 Lessons From Authentic Leaders Who Thrive In Adversity. https://amzn.to/2w1IswH. Also, I want to recommend a second book titled, "Conversations Worth Having" by Dr. Jackie Stavros and Dr. Cheri Torres. https://amzn.to/2KnSk6g. If you are a leader who wants to create positive conversations in such a way that you enhance the outcomes from those around you, this is the book. It is easy to read and even more straightforward to implement.
Okay! Back to the Research
Gill and Caza set out to answer two overarching questions;
1) Do followers of an Authentic Leader hold the following attitudes towards the leader; 1) identify with the leader, 2) trustworthiness of a leader, 3) positive state of the followers, and 4) positive social exchange with the leader?
And,
2) What is the indirect impact of an Authentic Leader's influence on the group as a whole? Do followers embrace the Authentic Leader's traits and espouse them with the other followers (across the four stated attitudes above)?
Before we dive into the whom, they investigated, and how they examined, I want to define the four concepts above quickly.
1) Identify with the leader: When followers perceive a leader as authentic, they tend to see a part of themselves in the leader as well.
2) Trustworthiness of the leader: When followers perceive a leader as authentic, they believe they have competency, benevolence, and integrity...or trustworthiness.
3) The positive state of the followers: When followers perceive a leader as authentic, they felt at ease and empowered to engage in having positive interactions with the leader. Leading to healthier happier attitudes and emotions in the workplace.
4) Positive social exchange: When followers perceive a leader as authentic, they maintain a long-term mutually beneficial relationship that is predicated on respect and openness.
The Who of the Study
Gill and Caza's study used a single division of a large international organization, resulting in exploring the perceptions of 104 followers of 31 leaders. The sample is not a large sample, especially, when you break down the average leader-follower ratio (1-3). Considering the complexities of actually collecting data in an organizational setting, well-done authors. I do believe this complicates their findings, but I will get to that shortly.
The How of the Study
Here is where I will do my best not to over explain how they answered the two overarching research questions. Because the nature of this study is to explore questions at the individual and group level, the authors had to use two different types of statistical tools. The first tool was regression analysis. If you are not familiar with regression analysis, the best way to explain it is as an 'if-then' statement. For example, if the follows perceive the leader has authentic, then the follower will believe the leader is trustworthy. Gill and Caza used regression analysis to predict if followers held the four stated perceptions/attitudes towards a leader when they found them to be authentic. The trickier explanation is how they created and tested the group effect of an Authentic Leader.
To assess the group impact of an Authentic Leader, Gill and Caza used a tool called additive composition modeling. To explain this, I need to quote Chan (1998), "Composition models specify the functional relationships among phenomena or constructs (in this study this is Gill and Caza exploring Authentic Leadership and the four outcomes) at different levels of analysis (e.g., individual level, team level, organizational level) that reference essentially the same content but that is qualitatively different at different levels (Hannan, 1971; Roberts, Hulin, & Rousseau, 1978; Rousseau, 1985). Specifying functional relationships between constructs at different levels provides a systematic framework for mapping the transformation across levels." Stated another way, additive composition model allows you to explore the same group at two different levels using the same research survey questions.
The So What of the study
At this point, you may be thinking, what the F (frick) is this guying going on about. I agree, let's wrap this thing up! The answer the first research question, 'Do followers of an Authentic Leader hold the following attitudes towards the leader; 1) identify with the leader, 2) trustworthiness of a leader, 3) positive state of the followers, and 4) positive social exchange with the leader?' was pretty straightforward and was an absolute yes. Yes, followers saw themselves in an Authentic Leader. Yes, followers perceived an Authentic Leader as more trustworthy. Yes, followers spend their days in a more positive state. And, yes, followers experienced positive social exchanges with their Authentic Leader.
To be fair, and the authors agreed, this was no surprise. So, it doesn't really get me all worked up and excited. It was the second research question I was more excited about learning, '[W]hat is the indirect impact of an Authentic Leader's influence on the group as a whole? Do followers embrace the Authentic Leader's traits and espouse them with the other followers (across the four stated attitudes above)?.' If you recall, at the beginning of this article, I mentioned the word wobbly, wheels and a bus. This is where it happened.
After the researchers created their additive model, they ran the regression analysis at the group level looking to see if there was the same impact on the four proposed responses. Here they found that there was a significant impact on trustworthiness and positive social exchange. Right at this point, the wheels on the bus came entirely off. Like gravity, there are specific rules that apply to regression analysis. What goes up, must come down, or when it is below 32 F (0 C) water freezes. You get it. In regards to regression analysis, the strength of the 'if-then' statement is based on the how close the results are to 1 (the result of a regression analysis goes from 0-1, the closer to 1 the stronger the relationship and the more likely the 'if-then' relationship is true). So, when their results were .92 and .99 respectively, they are claiming that there is near unity. Stated a different way, based on the results, the researchers are saying that perceptions the group holds of an Authentic Leader are the same as the trustworthiness of an Authentic Leader, and the positive social exchange is the same thing as an Authentic Leader at the group level. Even though both trustworthiness and positive social exchange are two separate ideas from Authentic Leadership. This completely calls into question their findings at the group level. After reading this section, the sparks were flying off the wheel wells and I was thinking several negative thoughts. This did lead to what I would love to see.
What I would love to see
I believe Gill and Caza are moving in the right direction with this study. The ripple effect of an Authentic Leader is something that is important to measure. For many in the C-Suite, having a concrete ROI and or verifiable impact of a leadership style is essential. In my opinion, this study's shortcoming is the sample used. On average small groups are used to explore the indirect impact of an Authentic Leader (average ratio of one leader per three followers). That is not a lot and could quickly create a level of bias in the results. Plus, the 'so what' is not as impactful. You would expect that small groups of followers will take on aspects of their leader if they hold them in high esteem.
What I would have loved to have seen is Gill and Caza to explore the impact of a follower on a cross-functional team. Take one of the followers of an Authentic Leader team and measure their effects in a cross-functional setting. To me, this may be one of the best ways to explore the ripple effect of an Authentic Leader in an organization. So, to wrap this up, Gill and Caza fell a bit short of answering the research question and left me with sparks flying from being underwhelmed.
Ok, next week, I will unpack my Authentic Leadership Model from the book, The Crucible's Gift. Please head over to www.drjameskelley.com/book-tour to see where I am going this summer.
James Kelley, Ph.D.
Author | Podcaster | Professor
-------------
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of applied psychology, 83(2), 234.
Gill, C., & Caza, A. (2018). An investigation of authentic leadership’s individual and group influences on follower responses. Journal of Management, 44(2), 530-554.
Comments
Post a Comment