Home » A Self, Leader, and Spiritual Identity Perspective

A Self, Leader, and Spiritual Identity Perspective

Authentic Leadership: A Self, Leader, and Spiritual Identity
Karin Klenke
Leadership Development Institute (LDI) International
In this paper, I introduce a model of authentic leadership that rests on a single explanatory concept—
identity—which specifies three interrelated identity systems: the self-identity system, the leader-identity
system, and the spiritual-identity system, which, in turn, are comprised of multiple subidentities that
include cognitive, affective, and conative elements. I offer a construct definition of authentic leadership
that is explicated in a theoretical model which draws from humanistic psychology, existential philosophy,
and social identity as well as self-categorization theory, leader prototypicality, and spiritual leadership
theory. The fundamental premise of this paper is that spirituality and spiritual identity are at the core of
authentic leadership. While much work remains to be done in terms of sharpening construct definitions of
authentic leadership and operationalizing it, in the opinion of this author, authentic leadership is an
important and provocative concept that holds promise for multiparadigmatic and multimethodological
theoretical and empirical research.
The authentic self is the soul made visible.
– Sarah Ban Breathnach
For more then two decades, transactional/transformational leadership (hereafter referred to as
TA/TF leadership) has been the poster child of the “new paradigm” theories (Beyer, 1999, p.
308) and has occupied center stage. Transformational leaders exhibit charismatic behaviors,
arouse inspirational motivation, provide intellectual stimulation, and treat followers with
individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994). They transform their followers’ needs,
values, and preferences; nurture aspirations toward reaching their full potential; and generate
higher levels of performance compared to their transactional counterparts (Seltzer & Bass, 1990).
Moreover, transforming leadership taps into deep levels of meaning as it changes both leaders
and followers; it occurs when one or more persons engage with each other in such a way that
leader and follower raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1978).
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Some scholars have argued that prior to the emergence of TA/TF leadership theory as the
dominant paradigm, there were increasing misgivings about the scholarly study of leadership.
Many questioned its viability as a legitimate area of study, pointing out that scholars have
expended a vast amount of money and effort on understanding leadership with little payoff. Hunt
(1999) posited that the disillusionment with leadership’s value added potential provided a strong
impetus for the paradigm shift ushered in by TA/TF or “new” leadership theories that surfaced in
the mid 1980s. Thus, when TA/TF leadership theory arrived on a barren landscape permeated by
doom and gloom, it was widely heralded as a new paradigm. Conger and Hunt (1999) attributed
the proliferation of empirical and conceptual work on TA/TF leadership to the fact that the
theory attracted new scholars who gave research a boost by providing a fulcrum for the field
through improved measurement and analytic techniques, greater use of meta-analyses, increased
methodological pluralism, and greater attention to context.
However, the TA/TF paradigm and the Multiple Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Bass,
1985) as the primary operational measure, despite continuous refinements and revisions to
respond to criticisms that have been raised over the years (e.g., Antonakis, Avolio, &
Sivasubramaniam, 2003), continue to be challenged on theoretical and psychometric grounds.
Several scholars (e.g., Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001; Tourish & Pinnington, 2002; Yukl,
2002) have asserted that TA/TF theory does not represent a paradigmatic departure from earlier
two-factor theories such as initiating structure versus consideration, autocratic versus democratic,
task versus people oriented leadership, or leadership versus management. Conger (2004) added
that over the last decade, researchers have produced principally normative models of leadership
such as transformational, charismatic, and emotional intelligence based models that assume a
unitary approach to leadership across levels and situations. Finally, qualitative, feminist,
postmodern, critical, and ecological and other theoretical and methodological challenges have
called into question some of the fundamental assumptions of TA/TF theory. As Kuhn (1970)
noted, data empirically derived from the reigning paradigm are bound temporally and spatially
(i.e., TA/TF theory is largely Anglocentric) and are subject to decay as new theories and
methodologies challenge the validity and utility of the prevailing paradigm.
Partly in response to these criticisms and partly because of a zeitgeist that is sensitive to a
paradigm shift that seems to permeate the field of leadership studies, a wave of new perspectives
has emerged including spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003), complex leadership (Knowles, 2001,
2002; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Regine & Lewin, 2000), contextual leadership (Osborn, Hunt,
& Jauch, 2002), paradoxical leadership (Kark, Shamir, Chen, 2003; Klenke, 2003), servant
leadership (e.g., Greenleaf, 1977), stewardship (e.g., Block, 1993), connective leadership (e.g.,
Lipman-Blumen, 1996), self-sacrificial leadership (e.g. Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999), shared
leadership (e.g., Pearce & Conger, 2003), and authentic leadership (Avolio, Gardner, Walumba,
Luthans, & May, 2004; Gardner & Avolio, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumba,
2005). Many of these approaches are in the early stages of development and/or lack a strong
theoretical infrastructure as well as reliable and valid measures of the foundational constructs.
Although there are important differences in terminology and foci that characterize these
divergent perspectives, they converge on the acknowledgement that leadership effectiveness
depends less on individual, heroic action and more on collaborative processes; distributed,
supported, and sustained by a network of individuals, leaders, and followers engaged in
collective achievement, teamwork, and shared accountability. These models conceptualize
leadership as a shared, relational process distributed across different organizational levels and
dependent on social interactions and networks of influence. Fletcher (2004) argued that it is this
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
focus on fluidity, mutuality, and the two-directional nature of leadership that serves as the
connective tissue that provides the common denominator for the perspectives that have recently
Among the emergent perspectives mentioned, authentic leadership (Avolio et al., 2004;
Gardner & Avolio, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003;
Mitchie & Gooty, 2005) is gaining increased attention in the scholarly and practitioner
communities. The inaugural 2004 Gallup Leadership Summit held in Omaha, Nebraska; a 2005
special issue of The Leadership Quarterly; along with the publications of books and articles on
the topic of authentic leadership have provided the impetus for the development of models of
authentic leadership and followership and other authentic leadership initiatives such as the
development of testable propositions and measures that are building blocks of an emergent
theory. Moreover, in an era of corporate malfeasance and scandals and preoccupation with
maximizing shareholder value at the expense of other organizational objectives such as employee
well-being and low levels of trust in senior leadership, the word authenticity has intuitive appeal
for scholars and practitioners alike.
The concept of authenticity has been treated extensively in various disciplines including
humanistic psychology (Maslow, 1971; Rogers, 1959), developmental psychology (Erickson,
1995), and existential philosophy (Heidegger, 1963/2002; Sartre, 1994). It has been addressed in
religious studies and history. Terry (1993) asserted that
authenticity is ubiquitous, calling us to be true to ourselves and true to the world, real in
ourselves and real in the world, When authenticity is acknowledged, we admit our
foibles, mistakes and protected secrets, the parts of ourselves and society that are fearful
and hide in the shadows of existence. (p. 139)
The purpose of this paper is to extend existing conceptualizations and contribute to the
emergent formulations of authentic leadership by offering an identity-based model that explores
the role of self-identity, leader identity, and spiritual identity in authentic leadership. As such,
this work builds on research by Gardner et al. (2005), social identity and self-categorization
theory (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990), leader prototypicality (B. van Knippenberg & van
Knippenberg, 2005), and spiritual leadership theory (Fry, 2003, 2005). However, it also
represents a significant departure from other models in that it intentionally establishes
motivational and spiritual bases of authentic leadership.
In this paper, then, I advance a model of authentic leadership that embraces an identity
perspective with three specific foci. Moreover, the model posits that each of the three identity
systems has one (or more) substratum that contributes to the overall system. Each identity
system, in turn, assumes underlying cognitive, affective, and conative components which were
explicated in an earlier model of authentic leadership (Klenke, 2005). After reviewing several
contemporary conceptualizations of authentic leadership, I lay the foundations for a theoretical
framework that not only moves the self to the center but more specifically focuses on the role of
the self in authentic leadership through three identity lenses: (a) self-identity, (b) leader identity,
and (c) spiritual identity.
Authentic Leadership
“Wanted – Authentic leaders” was a call issued by George (2003), former CEO of a
major U.S. corporation, in the aftermath of the corporate scandals and the mania for meeting
Wall Street’s numbers. According to George, we need authentic leaders, people of highest
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
integrity, committed to building enduring organizations. We need leaders who have a deep sense
of purpose and are true to their core values. George suggested that corporate boards choose
authentic leaders for character, not for charisma but for their values and ability to motivate
employees to create genuine value for customers. He argued that public trust will not be restored
until we have authentic leaders in both corporations and on Wall Street. These sentiments have
been reflected in the academic literature (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Cooper, Scandura, &
Schriesheim, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005).
What then is authentic leadership? Most definitions of authentic leadership start with the
underlying root construct of authenticity. The construct of authenticity; captured by the
injunctions of ancient Greek philosophers to know thyself; refers to accepting, being oneself, and
remaining true to one’s self. Kernis (2003) described,
Behaving authentically means acting in accord with one’s values, preferences, and needs
as opposed to acting merely to please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments
through acting ‘falsely.’ . . . Authenticity is not reflected in a compulsion to be one’s true
self, but rather in the free expression of core feelings, motives and inclinations. (p. 14)
Instead, authenticity is “the unobstructed operation of one’s true self or core self in one’s daily
enterprise” (p. 1). Knowing oneself and being one self, then, are essential qualities of authentic
leadership (May et al., 2003).
Avolio et al. (2004) defined authentic leaders as those individuals who are deeply aware
of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and
others’ values/moral perspective, knowledge, and strength; aware of the context in which they
operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and high on moral character.
Although authentic leadership shows some overlap with other contemporary perspectives such as
transformational, charismatic, servant, and spiritual leadership; the construct is gaining
legitimacy in its own right as researchers are beginning to differentiate authentic leadership from
related constructs by grounding it in theory and seeking support in empirical research.
Transformational leaders, for example, like authentic leaders, have been described as being
optimistic, hopeful, developmentally oriented and of high moral character (Bass, 1998).
Likewise, transformational leadership traces out a complex moral spectrum along which most
leaders combine authentic and inauthentic behaviors which led to the distinction between (a)
authentic transformational leaders who “as moral agents, expand the domain of effective
freedom, the horizon of conscience” (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 211) and whose “actions aim
toward noble ends, legitimate means, and fair consequences” (Bass & Steidlmeier, p. 211) and
(b) pseudo or inauthentic transformational leaders who fall prey to self-aggrandizement. Bass
and Steidlmeier warned of the dark side of charismatic/pseudotransformational leaders who
purport to be authentic but instead use their positions to feed their “narcissism, authoritarianism,
Machiavellianism, flawed vision, need for power. . . ” (p. 182). However, as Avolio and Gardner
(2005) pointed out, authentic leaders, unlike transformational leaders, may or may not be
actively or proactively focused on developing followers into leaders, even though they have a
positive impact on them via role modeling. Similarly, Bass and Steidlmeier noted that like
authentic leadership, both servant and spiritual leadership include either explicit or implicit
recognition of leader self-awareness and the focus on integrity, trust, courage, and hope.
However, in servant and spiritual leadership, these constructs have remained largely atheoretical
and have not been supported by empirical research.
Authentic leadership, then, can incorporate transformational, charismatic, servant,
spiritual, or other forms of positive leadership. However, authentic leaders are not necessarily
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
transformational or charismatic; instead, they influence follower awareness from a values/moral
perspective and energize followers by creating meaning and positively constructing reality for
themselves and followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Although further work is needed to validate
the construct of authentic leadership, Avolio et al. (2004) argued that the main distinguishing
element that differentiates authentic leadership from related forms of leadership is that it is at the
very core of what constitutes profoundly positive leadership in whatever form it exists. Avolio et
al. (2004) argued that in authentic leadership; the focus on transparency, positivity, and high
ethical standards is critical. Moreover, authentic leaders are expected to evoke followers’ selfconcept, recognizing that they share similar values with the leader. Nevertheless, since the
authentic leadership construct is new, establishing discriminant validity that reduces some of the
construct redundancy that currently exists is an important issue for future research.
Modeling the Authentic Leadership Construct
As a result of the growing interest in this new construct, several models of authentic
leadership have recently appeared in the literature. Avolio et al. (2004) presented the first formal
statement of authentic leadership by proposing a theoretical model that draws from positive
organizational behavior, trust, recent work on leadership and emotions, and identity theories to
describe the processes by which authentic leaders exert their influence on follower attitudes such
as job satisfaction and commitment and behaviors such as job performance. Follower outcomes
included in the model are performance; extra effort; and withdrawal behaviors such as turnover,
absenteeism, and tardiness. This model draws on theories of identification (e.g., Pratt, 1998),
emotions (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2000), social identity
and self-categorization (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; A. Hogg & Terry, 2000), transformational/
charismatic leadership (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1994), and positive psychology and positive
organizational behavior (e.g., Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003).
Gardner et al. (2005) proposed a self-based model of the processes undergirding
authentic leadership and followership. The model posits that a key factor contributing to the
development of authentic leadership is the self-awareness of the leader which includes his or her
values, emotions, identity, and goals. The second theoretical cornerstone of this model is selfregulation including internalized regulation, balanced processing of information referring to the
unbiased collection and interpretation of self-related information, authentic behavior, and
relational transparency which means that the leader displays high levels of openness, selfdisclosure, and trust in close relationships. This model postulates that the leader’s personal
history (family influences, early challenges, educational and work experiences) and key trigger
events (including crises as well as positive trigger events such as a promotion or stretch
assignment) serve as antecedents for authentic leadership. As positive role models, authentic
leaders demonstrate integrity and a commitment to core ethical values and contribute to a
positive organizational climate. Positive outcomes for authentic leader-follower relationships,
according to Gardner et al., include heightened levels of follower trust in the leader; workplace
well-being; and veritable, sustainable performance.
Ilies et al. (2005) advanced a model of authentic leader and follower development that
focuses on the elements of authenticity and the processes whereby authentic leadership
contributes to the eudaemonic well-being of leaders and followers. Ilies et al. argued that
authenticity as an introspective yet relational concept has substantial implications for leadership
processes influencing not only leaders’ own well-being but also impacting their followers’ wellInternational Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
being and self-concept. More specifically, Ilies et al. differentiated between hedonic and
eudaemonic well-being. The hedonic approach to well-being is based on the motivational
principles of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain while the eudaemonic approach is based on
“living in a manner that actively expresses excellence of character or virtue” (Haybron, 2001, p.
210). Eudaemonic well-being is reflected in self-realization, personal growth and expressiveness,
human flourishing, and the fulfillment of one’s true nature (Waterman, 1993). Ilies et al. pointed
out that eudaemonia, described as personal expressiveness which one experiences during intense
involvement, is closely related to peak experiences of interest, motivation, and joy or what
Csikzentmihalyi (2003) referred to as flow.
Applied to authentic leadership, Ilies et al. (2005) suggested that eudaemonic well-being
occurs when leaders and followers are true to their selves and fully engaged in realizing their true
potential. The Ilies et al. model illustrates the connections between authentic leadership and the
leader’s eudaemonic well-being and proposes some mechanisms through which authentic
leadership influences followers’ eudaemonic well-being. However, the model does not specify
the actual relationships among authentic leadership components and specific outcomes such as
self-awareness and expressiveness.
Finally, Klenke (2004, 2005) proposed a model of authentic leadership that integrates
contextual, cognitive, affective, conative, and spiritual elements. Like the models discussed
previously, this model also treats the self as a critical aspect of authentic leadership. However, in
addition to including self-esteem and self-efficacy (Ilies et al., 2005) and self-awareness and selfregulation (i.e., motivation) (Gardner & Avolio, 2005), Klenke’s (2004, 2005) model explicitly
incorporates a spiritual component as a determinant of authentic leadership. Whereas Avolio et
al. (2004) suggested that authentic leadership may incorporate spiritual and ethical leadership, I
hypothesize that spirituality (defined as self-transcendence, self-sacrifice, and a sense of meaning
and purpose) actually serves as a precursor of authentic leadership. The proposition that
authentic leaders are spiritually more mature than their less authentic counterparts and that a
leader’s spirituality contributes over time to greater authenticity is an important question subject
to empirical testing.
In addition, more so than other approaches, this model explicitly incorporates
organizational context in the form of authentic leadership cultures as potential outcomes of
authentic leadership. As asserted elsewhere (Klenke, 1996), leadership is shaped by context;
leadership is context dependent and context sensitive with leaders serving as tenants and
stewards of context. In all form of leadership, contextual factors set the boundaries within which
leaders and followers interact and determine the demands and constraints placed on them as they
contextualize their actions, behaviors, attitudes, emotions, and spiritual choice (Klenke, 2005).
The integrated model of authentic leadership (Klenke, 2004) is depicted in Figure 1. The context
for authentic leadership is the complex organization characterized by uncertainty, turbulence,
high velocity, and ambiguity. Additional contextual elements relevant to authentic leadership are
organizational cultures characterized by caring, nurturing of the human spirit at the workplace,
and providing opportunities for all members of the organization to develop their full potential.
There are notable differences as well as convergent viewpoints found in the approaches
to authentic leadership. For example, as has been suggested, the defining characteristic of
authentic leadership is that authentic leaders are anchored in their strong sense of self. However,
although the self is included as a construct in the four models discussed, it occupies a position
ranging from center to periphery. In the Gardner et al. (2005) self-based model of authentic
leader and follower development; the self, manifested by two constructs (self-awareness and
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
self-regulation), is at the core of authentic leadership development and is directly linked to
follower outcomes. In the Ilies et al. (2005) conceptualization of authentic leadership, aspects of
the self (i.e., self-realization/development, self-esteem, and self-efficacy) are components of the
leader’s eudaemonic well-being. Self-awareness is presented as one facet of authentic leadership.
Furthermore, the model postulates that characteristics of the self pertaining to the leader’s
eudaemonic well-being affect followers’ eudaemonic well-being which is conceptualized as
consisting of the same components of self (i.e., self-development, self-efficacy/self-esteem).
Knowing self
Leadership selfefficacy
Moral capacity/
Motivation to
leadership cultures
Authentic leadership context:
The complex organization
Figure 1. Cognitive, affective, conative, and spiritual antecedents of authentic leadership.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
In the remaining two models, the self is operationalized as a facet of personal
identification (Avolio et al., 2004) or is treated as a cognitive (self-knowledge), conative (selfmotivation, motivation to lead), or spiritual (self-transcendence, self-sacrifice) antecedent of
authentic leadership (Klenke, 2005). The role of the self and its various facets that have been
incorporated into the theories of authentic leadership discussed here are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: The Self in Selected Models of Authentic Leadership
Facets of self Gardner et al.
Avolio et al.
Ilies et al.
Self-awareness â– 
Self-regulation â– 
Self-esteem â– 
Self-efficacy â–  â– 
Self-motivation â– 
identification) â– 
Self-development â– 
Self-transcendence â– 
Self-sacrifice â– 
Toward an Identity Systems Oriented Model of Authentic Leadership
In this section, I offer a construct definition of authentic leadership and delineate the
three identity systems that are proposed to play a critical role in authentic leadership. Figure 2
outlines the overall components of the proposed model and serves as a guide in the discussion
that follows. In addition, each of these identity systems contains a number of substrata explicated
in the sections that follow. For example, Table 1 lists a number of substrata of the self-identity
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Spiritual Identity
Authentic Leadership
Self-Identity Leader Identity
Figure 2. Identity systems in authentic leadership theory.
The Self-Identity System
Avolio and Gardner (2005) posited that one of the key distinguishing characteristics of
authentic leaders is that they are anchored by their own deep sense of self. The self or selfconcept can be viewed as the knowledge a person has about him or her self. The self, as a
knowledge structure, helps people organize and give meaning to their behavior (Kihlstrom, Beer,
& Klein, 2003). Moreover, it is presupposed here that the self is context dependent and variable.
Thus, a number of authors (e.g., Markus & Wurf, 1987; Showers & Zeigler Hill, 2003) have
asserted that a person’s overall self is typically represented as a set of categories, each of which
represents a distinct self or identity. For the purposes of this discussion, the terms self and selfconcept are used synonymously. Self and identity, as used in the psychological literature, are
reflexive concepts, meaning that they refer to the person’s image or view of himself or herself
(D. Hall, 2004). For the sake of parsimony, like other authors (e.g., D. van Knippenberg & Hogg,
2003a), I use the terms self, self-concept, identity, and personal identification (Avolio et al.,
2004) interchangeably and employ the term self-identity when referring to these constructs.
Moreover, I presuppose that self-identity subsumes a number of substrata or subidentities of
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
which self-concept is one. In other words, self-identity is multidimensional. While it is beyond
the scope of this paper, subidentities relevant to the development of authentic leadership may
include self-esteem, self-knowledge, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-consistency. For
example, one aspect of the self that has received little attention is self-consistency or selfconcordance. Buono and Judge (2003) reported that self-concordance mediates the relationship
between transformational leadership and leadership effectiveness in a survey of nine
organizations and a laboratory experiment. Obviously, we need to learn more about the role of
self-consistency in authentic leadership and what specific aspects of authentic leadership
moderated by self-consistency affect leadership effectiveness.
Schlenker (1985) defined identity as “a theory (schema) of an individual that describes,
interrelates, and explains his or her relevant features, characteristics, and experiences” (p. 68).
Self-identification is the process of “fixing and expressing one’s own identity, privately through
reflection about oneself and publicly through self-disclosures, self-presentations, and other
activities that serve to project one’s identity to audiences” (Schlenker, p. 66). Similarly,
Baumeister (1986) defined a person’s identity as a way of seeing self, a personal construction or
interpretation of the self. In addition, Markus and Nurius (1986) posited that we have an array of
possible selves such as an ideal self (how we would like to be), an ought self (how we think we
should be), and the actual self. These possible selves are future-oriented schemata of what we
think we could potentially become.
Consequently, many writers have agreed with Kegan (1982) who asserted that identity is
a multifaceted and complex construct which relates to the way an individual perceives himself or
herself in relation to others. Individual identity images that are particularly valued by leaders in
general (Gardner & Avolio, 1998) and authentic leaders in particular include being perceived as
trustworthy, credible, and morally worthy. By definition, authentic leaders are perceived as being
more true to themselves and display high levels of moral integrity (Luthans & Avolio, 2003).
However, as Sparrowe (2005) pointed out, claiming that a particular form of leadership is
intrinsically ethical or moral is difficult to falsify empirically but also extremely difficult to argue
A related concept is self-awareness, a construct that appears in most conceptualizations
of authentic leadership assuming that authenticity and authentic leadership require heightened
levels of self-awareness. Avolio and Gardner (2005) identified four elements of self-awareness
that they believe are specifically relevant to the development of authentic leadership: values,
cognitions regarding identity, emotions, and motives/goals (Gardner et al., 2005).Though a
person may not be fully conscious of all the components of his or her identity, self-awareness
refers to the extent to which people are aware of various aspects of their identities and the extent
to which their self-perceptions are internally integrated and congruent with the ways others
perceive them. Thus, the identity is a description of what the sense of self is; whereas selfawareness contains an evaluative component, referring to quality and accuracy (i.e., agreement
with others) of those self-perceptions. Self-awareness, then, is a measure of the person’s ability
to be truly conscious of the components of the self and to observe it accurately and objectively.
According to Silvia and Duval (2001), self-awareness occurs when individuals are cognizant of
their own existence and what constitutes that existence within the context within which they
operate over time.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
The issue of awareness of the self is made explicit in the theory of identify development
proposed by Kegan (1982). In Kegan’s model, growth of identity involves the person’s ability to
see the self with some objectivity, take different perspectives of one’s self and observe it as from
a distance. This is in contrast to the less developed state, where the self is more embedded (i.e.,
the subject), where the person is the self and is not able to observe and reflect on it. In Kegan’s
view, development occurs not so much in an age driven manner as from the person’s
encountering new situations that contain increasingly greater complexity. From Kegan’s
perspective, the self evolves in a process of increasing maturation and ability to comprehend the
complexities of the environment. As a person increases his or her capacity to deal with this
complexity, identity grows in its capacity to take in complexity and to integrate it in a way that
permits committed action. Influenced by Piaget, the Kegan model proposes a series of identity
levels, as the person moves from being very dependent and self-focused to being both
autonomous and interdependent and able to comprehend a very complex system of relationships
in which he or she operates.
Other theorists (e.g., D. Hall, 2004) have argued that the key to understanding the growth
of self-awareness are key experiences (McCall, 1998), critical events that may alter a person’s
identity or trigger personal exploration which later lead to changes in self-awareness. From
development and career literature, for example, we know that there are certain predictable
changes in identity that occur as the individual makes certain status or role changes. Levinson
(1986, 1997), for example, sees the life course as a series of periods called stages which build the
structure of the self separated by structure-changing periods (transitions).
Key events that have been discussed in the context of authentic leadership development
have been described as trigger experiences (Gardner et al., 2005). Events that may trigger the
development of self-identity or changes in self-identity; redefine the role and salience of specific
subidentifies; and promote the development of authentic leadership may be sensational or subtle,
positive or negative, and located in the personal history of the leader or prompted
contemporaneously. Whatever their specific form and timing, trigger events serve as positive
forces in developing leader self-awareness and stimulate positive growth and development
(Avolio, 2005; Gardner at al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003).
Both negative and positive moments and events can trigger a deep change in an
individual’s self-identity, bringing into clearer focus alternative possible selves that eventually
may replace the individual’s actual self (Lord & Brown, 2004). Although trigger events have
been traditionally viewed as negative experiences involving crises and negative stressors (e.g.,
loss of a loved one, health or financial problems), positive events (promotions, significant
relationships, mentoring) can likewise trigger leadership development. Both positive and
negative events shape the leader’s development to the extent that they are reflected upon and
interpreted in terms of the self (Gardner et al., 2005). For example, the power of adversity or
what Bennis and Thomas (2002a, 2002b) referred to as the leader’s crucible in leadership
development has been widely established, both anecdotally and in case studies. Yet, crucibles do
not need to be horrendous ordeals since leaders have been able to create meaning out of the
crucible experiences and have found them a source of strength. Bennis and Thomas (2002a)
defined a crucible of leadership as “a transformative experience through which an individual
comes to a new or altered sense of identity” (p. 6). Similarly, a leader’s response to a calling can
be traumatic or it may lead to an experience of the transcendent and, in doing so, provides
meaning and purpose in life (Fry, 2003).
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
The remaining constructs in the self-identity systems (self-knowledge, self-efficacy, selfcongruence, and self-liking) have been sufficiently discussed in the literature and, for the sake of
parsimony, will not be reviewed here.
Self-Identity Versus Social Identity
Finally, it is important to differentiate between self-identity and social identity.
Banaji and Prentice (1994) posited that personal identities involve self-categorization based upon
one’s unique characteristics, including traits and attributes, which specify how one differs from
others. In contrast, social identities are based on the extent to which one sees oneself as being a
member of certain social groups, as well as one’s assessment of the emotional and value
significance of this membership (M. Hogg, 2001). When the self is defined in collective terms;
collective interest is experienced as self-interest, meaning individuals are intrinsically motivated
to contribute to the collective good (D. van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & van Gijk, 2000).
In this research, however, the focus is on self-identity as it represents a fundamental building
block in the development of authentic leadership because empirical evidence for the relationship
between leadership to relational self-construal (personal identification or self-identity) is much
scarcer compared to evidence for the relationship between social identification and leadership
effectiveness (B. van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). D. Van
Knippenberg and Hogg (2003a) and M. Hogg (2001) suggested that elements of charismatic and
transformational leadership may be primarily associated with personal identification, whereas
other elements such as one’s identity as an organizational or community member are primarily
associated with social identification with these collectivities. However, this position remains to
be tested.
There is a substantial body of evidence linking self-identity to leader effectiveness in
charismatic and transformational leadership (e.g., De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002). As B.
van Knippenberg et al. (2004) noted, core to the self and identity approach to leadership
effectiveness is an understanding that the way we perceive ourselves; our self-concept or
identity; strongly informs our feelings, beliefs, attitudes, goals, and behavior (Leary & Tangney,
2003). Taken together, research examining the self and collective identity has suggested that
leaders construe the self in personal, relational, and collective terms. The salience of these
different self-construals varies across situations, relationships, time, and context (Atron, 2003;
Brewer, 2003; M. Hogg, 2003).
In sum, the self-identity system of the proposed model assumes that a strong sense of
identity is a prerequisite for the development of authentic leadership. If leaders are not clear on
their needs, values, motivations, abilities, and other important elements of self-definition; it
becomes very difficult for them to know how to develop as a person and as a leader (Avolio et
al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2005). The self-identity system consists of both cognitive (i.e., selfefficacy) and affective (i.e., self-liking) components. In addition, the system encompasses both
multiple self-identities (i.e., self as leader, self as parent) as well as a subset of subidentities such
as self-knowledge or self-congruence which may be salient at different times and in different
contexts (see Figure 3).
From the research reviewed in this section, the following propositions regarding the selfidentity system in authentic leadership are postulated:
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Proposition 1a: Authentic leaders have a greater sense of self-awareness than
inauthentic leaders.
Proposition 1b: A leader’s healthy and authentic self-identity is one in which the
component subidentities are integrated.
Proposition 1c: Authentic leaders have a more differentiated self-identity than less
authentic leaders.
The Leader Identity System
Leader development is the creation of new aspects of the self that specifically relate to
the leader role. I use the construct of leader identity as the bridge between personal and
collective identity since it combines unique, individual characteristics of self-identity along with
group-oriented aspects of collective identity. This system acknowledges that the individual self
coexists with both the relational self (those aspects of the self-concept that are shared with
partners and define the person’s role or position within significant relationships) and the
collective self (those aspects of the self-concept that differentiate in-group members from
relevant outgroups) (Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). At the individual level, leader identity is
derived from the leader’s self-identity and the human capital he or she brings to the leadership
role. At the collective level, leader identity develops as a function of shared experiences from
which shared identities of leaders and followers emerge. Authentic leaders have a highly
developed sense of how their own roles as leaders and carry a responsibility to act morally and in
the best interest of others (May et al., 2003). As a construct, leader identity resonates with
Sparrowe’s (2005) comment that “the emphasis on authenticity as ‘to thine own self be true’
should be complemented by authenticity disclosed in regard one holds for others” (p. 135).
The leader identity system consists of three subidentities: (a) leadership self-efficacy, (b)
leader reputation, and (c) leader prototypicality. The leader identity system component of the
model is consistent with recent conceptualizations of identity that acknowledge multiple aspects
of self-construals and, as a construct, illustrate the dual individualist/collective nature of the roles
of a leader.
Leadership Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy plays an important role in leadership research. By extension, leadership
self-efficacy represents a leader’s self-perceived capabilities for the general leadership tasks of
directing setting, gaining follower commitment, and overcoming obstacles. More specifically, it
refers to the leader’s judgment that he or she can successfully exert leadership by setting the
direction for the work group, build relationships with followers in order to gain commitment to
change goals, and work with followers to overcome obstacles to change (Paglis & Green, 2002).
McCormick (2001) defined leadership self-efficacy as an individual’s perceived capability to
perform the cognitive and behavioral functions necessary to regulate group process in relation to
group achievement. He treated leadership self-efficacy as a focal construct that affects the goals
leaders select, their motivation, the development of functional leadership strategies, and the
skillful execution of these strategies.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Leader Reputation
Leader reputation is the second subidentity in this system. Ferris, Blass, Douglas,
Kolodinsky, and Treadway (2003) defined reputation as “a perceptual identity reflective of the
complex combination of salient personal characteristics and accomplishments, demonstrated
behavior, and intended images presented over some period of time as observed directly and/or
reported from secondary sources” (p. 215). Building on this definition, A. Hall, Blass, Ferris, and
Massengale (2004) suggested that leader reputation is a perceptual identity of a leader as held by
others that serves to reduce the uncertainty regarding the expected future behavior of that leader.
This definition is consistent with the dual nature of the constructs making up this identity system.
Like leadership self-efficacy, leader reputation has an individual and a collective component. On
one hand, leader reputation is based on the leader’s perceptions of himself or herself as a
reputable individual; on the other hand, leader reputation is determined by external
constituencies. Hence, leader reputation may be conceptualized as both an individual and group
construct. Furthermore, according to the authors, just as leaders may embrace several selfidentities, they also might have multiple reputations, each signaling the likelihood of behavior
specific to a given context.
A. Hall et al. (2004) argued that the reputation a leader achieves can serve as a proxy for
role episodes, such that a leader’s reputation (like a history of interaction) provides information
regarding the leader’s abilities and values. Ferris at al. (2003) found that increased reputation is
associated with greater trust which is associated with autonomy, concepts that play a role in
authentic leadership. Whitmeyer (2000) reported that a leader’s reputation can significantly
influence the development of stakeholder trust. The reputation of leaders influence the trust and
confidence we place in them and ultimately our assessment of leadership performance and
Authentic leaders build their reputation on trustworthiness, high moral standards, and the
positive psychological capacities and resources they bring to the leadership role and model for
followers’ authenticity through self-awareness and relational transparency. They foster positive
affective states which then spread and reverberate through social contagion processes to
positively foster emotional and cognitive development of other organizational members as well
as organizational learning and transformation (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). A favorable leader
reputation is predicted to facilitate the development of authentic leadership.
Leader Prototypicality
Finally, leader prototypicality comprises the third subidentity in the identity system.
Reichers, Haslam, and Hopkins (2005) argued that those in a position to direct the group are
individuals who are seen to be most prototypical of the group position in a given context. There
is considerable evidence suggesting that leadership is contingent upon leaders being perceived as
being prototypical of a social identity that they share with followers (Duck & Fielding, 2003;
Turner, 1991; D. van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003b). As a result, the most prototypical member
assumes the mantle of leadership. There is a substantial body of evidence linking self-identity to
leader effectiveness in charismatic and transformational leadership (e.g., De Cremer & van
Knippenberg, 2002). As B. van Knippenberg et al. (2004) noted, core to the self and identity
approach to leadership effectiveness is an understanding that the way we perceive ourselves (our
self-concept or identity) strongly informs our feelings, beliefs, attitudes, goals, and behavior
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
(Leary & Tangney, 2003). Taken together, research examining self and collective identity has
suggested that leaders construe the self in personal, relational, and collective terms. The salience
of these different self-construals varies across situations, relationships, time, and context (Atron,
2003; Brewer, 2003; M. Hogg, 2003).
The social identity theory of leadership (M. Hogg, 2001; M. Hogg & van Knippenberg,
2003) proposes that because group members to a greater or lesser extent treat the group, and thus
the group prototype, as a source of information about social reality; they are more open to the
influence of group prototypical leaders. Moreover, they are more likely to trust group
prototypical leaders as representatives of shared identity who have the group’s best interests at
heart. Therefore, group members are more likely to endorse more prototypical leaders since they
tend to be perceived as attractive and effective. The proposed greater effectiveness of
prototypical compared to nonprototypical leaders is supported by a variety of studies in the
laboratory as well as in the field (e.g., Fielding & Hogg, 1997; B. van Knippenberg & van
Knippenberg, 2005; D. van Knippenberg et al., 2000).
The most basic prediction from this theory is that as group salience increases, perceived
leadership effectiveness becomes more determined by leader prototypicality and less determined
by the possession of general leadership qualities since social identity theory suggests that ability
to lead depends on the capacity to represent a group consensus. Reichers and Hopkins (2001)
stated that leadership activity and leadership effectiveness largely revolves around the leader’s
ability to create identity definitions and engage people in the process of turning those definitions
into practical realities. Without such an identity, there is nothing to bind leaders and followers
together. The identity definitions a leader generates are determined by his or her leader identity
and by context.
Leaders are actively crafting, defining, and redefining identities beginning with selfidentities and leader identities associated with the leadership role. The self-identity and leader
identity systems are interdependent. According to Reichers et al. (2005), leadership is a matter of
what it means to be us in a given context. Leaders actively define the category themselves and
engage in behaviors to enhance their prototypicality, while followers actively weigh and interpret
the definitions offered to them. Both leaders and followers are active interpreters of the social
world. Consequently, it seems reasonable to argue that leader prototypicality develops and stems
from the symbiosis of self-identity and leader identity. The merger of these two identity systems
allows leaders to integrate personological characteristics (self-esteem, self-efficacy) with the
demands associated with the leadership role such as facilitating the integration of individual and
group identities.
Proposition 2a: Authentic leaders have a stronger sense of leadership self-efficacy than
inauthentic leaders.
Proposition 2b: Authentic leaders have stronger and more favorable reputations than
inauthentic leaders.
Proposition 2c: Authentic leaders are more likely to assume the role of prototypical
member than inauthentic leaders.
The Spiritual Identity System
One of the few constants is the belief for most people in the omnipresence and
omniscience of a higher being/God or superordinate spirit. Individuals develop a sense of
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
spiritual self in relation to a higher power or God and by recognizing the sacred and divine
within them.
James (1902) provided an early yet enduring conceptualization of identity development.
He posited that the study of an individual’s identity involves considering two aspects of the self:
the I (self-as-subject) and the me (self-as-object). An individual’s I functions consciously and
objectively to create and connect the various me views and maintain a sense of continuity of self
across time. The types of me created by the I include the material me (family, home, belongings),
the social me (how one is seen and responded to by others), and the spiritual me which describes
a person’s inner life. James (1910/1968) referred to this spiritual me as “the true, the intimate,
the ultimate, the permanent me which I seek” (p. 43). It is the highest level of self-organization,
more advanced than the material me and the social me. The distinction between the I and the me
has proved amazingly viable and appears as a recurrent theme in most treatments of the self
(Harter, 1999; Lewis, 1991).
Since the time that James proposed his early model of the self, identity theorists from
different schools of thought (psychodynamic, cognitive, narrative, and systems theory) have
extended and modified his work. But by and large, they have abandoned the emphasis on
spiritual self-conceptualization. For James (1902), the spiritual self manifests in spiritual
experiences or what the author refers to as mystical experiences. These spiritual experiences
become internalized and integrated with the person’s self-identity until people see themselves as
spiritual beings. Themes of spirituality are woven through many aspects of their lives because
people recognize spiritual experiences across many settings.
The role of spirituality in leadership and the workplace has generated quite a bit of
attention in both the popular press and the research literature, reflected in the recent proliferation
of articles and books (e.g., Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Gunther, 2001; Mitroff & Denton, 1999;
Thompson, 2000) that speak to the growing interest in spirituality in the corporate world. In
addition, research has shown that the core benefits of organizational transformation are not
merely economic. Instead, the nonmaterial, spiritual aspects of transformation may be the most
profound for individuals, organizations, and society (Milliman, Czaplewski, & Ferguson, 2003;
Neal, Lichtenstein, & Banner, 1999). For many practitioners, on the other hand, the surge in
literature on spirituality raises the red flag that this may be the next management fad especially
when attempts to integrate spirituality into existing management practices are simply seen as
means through which people can be exploited (Elmes & Smith, 2001). Promoting spirituality in
organizations and institutionalizing spiritual practices such as meditation or prayer is raising
suspicions about the spirituality in the workplace movement since employees’ spiritual yearnings
and needs can be used as a way to manipulate and exploit workers to fulfill selfish or
materialistic objectives of organizations or management (Cavanagh & Bandusch, 2002).
Development of Spiritual Identity
Spiritual development and the development of an individual’s spiritual identity or
spiritual self are poorly understood with few models to guide researchers in the rapidly growing
fields of workplace spirituality and spiritual leadership. Part of the lack of theories of spiritual
development and spiritual identity stems from the lack of consensus associated with definitions
of spirituality. Similarly, there are few cohesive theories of spiritual formation, growth, and
development which come from religious or theological traditions, psychological perspectives, or
those that claim to be neither faith nor discipline based. Regardless of underlying philosophical
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
foundations, most conceptions of spirituality embody notions of a path, a journey, a process, and
a developmental sequence; they also include references to inner life, meaning and purpose,
connectedness, and transcendence.
Some theories (e.g., Fowler, 1981; Helminiak, 1987) assume that the development of
spirituality proceeds similarly to other areas of human development such as cognitive or moral
development. If this is indeed the case, then spiritual development would stand with the other
psychologically defined conceptions of human development such as Piaget’s cognitive
development, Kohlberg’s moral development, and Loevinger’s ego development theories;
especially when spiritual development is treated as human development as in the models
proposed by Fowler and Helminiak. Nevertheless theorists (e.g., Fowler; Helminiak; Kegan,
1982) who assume continuity in spiritual development do make some allowances for periodic
discontinuities while still seeing the process as largely continuous. Opponents (e.g., Delbecq,
1999, 2000; Mitroff & Denton, 1999) of spiritual development as a continuous process have
argued that discontinuities have a significant influence that negates any idea of a linear
development. For example, spiritual markers, epiphanies, or other discontinuous awakening
experiences can profoundly redirect a person’s spiritual development as conversion experiences
have shown. For example, Neal et al. (1999) cited CEOs and managers who provided examples
of intense moments of suffering or epiphanies as transforming experiences and pivotal aspects
that profoundly influenced their spiritual development.
A somewhat different approach to spiritual identity development has been pursued by
narrative theorists who rely on stories as their sources of data. Narrative stories of identity
development (McAdams, 1993, 1996) integrate psychodynamic, cognitive, and systems theories
into a more complete conceptualization of the self. Narrative theorists have proposed that an
individual’s Jamesian I creates meaningful or coherent life stories or self-stories. Sparrowe
(2005), for example, argued that authenticity is not achieved by leaders’ and followers’ selfawareness of their inner values or purpose; rather, it emerges from the narrative process in which
others play a constitutive role in the self. The author suggests that through self-stories;
individuals develop a narrative identity which represents the portrayal of the whys of one’s life,
if not by means of a causal explanation then through an accounting of how those events are
The self-stories that are created include various self-symbol, self-schemas, and self-other
scripts. From the perspective of narrative theory, individuals achieve a healthy identity as they
develop a coherent life story that integrates their various self-stories into a meaningful whole
(McAdams, 1993, 1996). A person’s sense of a storied spiritual self may develop through selfawareness, relationships, and interactions at work or through membership in spiritual
communities. Self-stories can be analyzed for themes of spiritual development and spiritual
identity as many of them describe the spiritual path taken or spiritual values to which the
individual subscribes. The spiritual architecture of this identity system is built on three pillars or
subidentities: self-disclosure, self-transcendence, and self-sacrifice.
Self-disclosure refers to the process of revealing one’s inner self to others. Self-disclosure
aids in self-acceptance because revealing more of oneself allows more opportunities for others to
accept an individual. As acceptance by others increases, so does self-esteem because self-esteem
is based heavily on how we are perceived by others. Self-disclosure also means opening oneself
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
to a higher power, admitting to spiritual needs and struggles. Self-disclosure requires that
individuals expose their vulnerabilities, opening themselves up to pain and suffering. Bunker
(1997) has argued that expressing vulnerability becomes an important leadership component
when it comes to connecting with others at a basic level of humanness. For example, discussions
of trust in organizational authorities typically emphasize the vulnerability of individuals in
follower roles and their dependence on those above them in the organizational hierarchy
(Kramer, 1996). Shamir and Lapidot (2003), in a multimethod study which combined
quantitative and qualitative elements, reported that the vulnerability of senior leaders to team
leaders stemmed from the fact that their leadership, like that of all leaders, depended on the trust
of their followers (Hollander, 1992). The leaders, Israeli army commanders in a very hierarchical
organization, depended on followers no less than their followers depended on them. The authors
concluded that the leaders’ vulnerability was due to the essential relationship between
subordinates’ trust and superiors’ ability to lead.
According to Fairholm (1998), this spiritual dimension underscores not only virtuous
behaviors but also an attitude of openness to the transcendent meaning of human existence. The
author proposed a model of leadership that results in five levels ranging from managerial control
to spiritual holism. Self-transcendence; as defined by Cloninger, Svrakic, and Pryzbeck (1994);
includes components such as creative self-forgetfulness, transpersonal identification, and
spiritual acceptance. Carey (1992) argued that authentic leadership implies self-transcendence
that comes only with genuine self-enlightenment and is the product of reflection and
introspection. Strack, Fottler, Wheatley, and Sodomka (2002) interviewed 20 transformational
leaders who defined spirituality as God or some other transcendent power, the source of personal
values and meaning, an awareness of one’s inner self, and a way of integrating all aspects of
oneself into a whole. Piedmont (1999) referred to spiritual transcendence as the capacity of
individuals to stand outside their immediate sense of time and place and develop a more holistic
and interconnected perspective, recognizing a synchronicity to life and developing a sense of
commitment to others. These different definitions imply that transcendent individuals recognize
the limitedness of their human existence which is anchored in a specific time and place and
consider encompassing visions of life that are more holistic and interconnected.
Historically, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Martin Luther King demonstrated
self-sacrificial leadership. Contemporaneously, Suu Kyi of Burma, prodemocracy leader and
Nobel Prize winner, spent 6 years under house arrest fighting for the freedom of her country.
Anne Mulcahy, CEO of Xerox, sacrificed her personal life to take charge of a corporate
turnaround. Other business leaders as well as political, grassroots, and religious leaders;
especially during economic downturns and crises such as 9/11; have made selfless contributions
that have fueled the interest in the role of sacrifice in leadership (Halverson, Holladay, Kazama,
& Quiñones, 2004). Leadership often entails suffering since the tasks involved require physical,
mental, psychological, and emotional labor which takes a toll on even the most resilient leader
since they are not immune to the pain, internal conflicts, and stressors that arise from the need to
wear protective masks.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Self-sacrificial leadership goes beyond an individual’s motivation to help others or
selflessness. It has been defined as
the total/partial abandonment, and or permanent/temporary postponement of personal
interests, privileges, and welfare in the: (1) the division of labor (by volunteering for
more risky and arduous tasks); (2) distribution of rewards which involves giving up one’s
fair and legitimate share of organizational rewards); and/or (3) voluntarily refraining
from using position power and privileges. (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, p. 399)
If the leader is perceived to be self-sacrificing, perceptions of effectiveness and charisma are
positively influenced (Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). Self-sacrificial leadership promotes
the image of leaders as being willing to incur personal costs to serve the mission of the group and
organization, especially when exposed to external threats or crises. Self-sacrificing leaders deny
themselves personal privileges and share pains and hardships with their followers. Many political
and grassroots leaders, for instance, have given up their freedom by spending time in prison to
demonstrate the severity of their causes (House & Shamir, 1993).
Several authors (i.e., Avolio & Locke, 2002; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Burns, 1978)
have suggested that leaders willingly sacrifice for the collective good of their work group,
organization, or society at large. For example, B. van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005)
argued that being self-sacrificial is probably one of the most direct ways for a leader to state that
he or she considers the group’s welfare to be important and explicitly shows the leader’s
commitment to the collective. Moreover, the authors suggested that a leader’s self-sacrificing
behavior will create pressure on followers to do the same, thereby prescribing what kinds of
behavior are expected in light of the group’s common cause.
Finally, the model presented here postulates that spiritual development and spiritual
identity are central to authentic leadership development. Parameshwar (2005), in a
phenomenological study, examined significant life events from the autobiographies of 10
internationally renowned human rights leaders. The author showed how the spiritual generativity
of ego-transcendental processes metamorphosed from challenges to opportunities for these
leaders as they responded exceptionally to life-defining and life-altering circumstances. Leaders
included Viktor Frankl, Paulo Friere, Mathatma Gandhi, Helen Keller, and Rigoberta Menchu;
leaders known as both authentic and spiritual leaders. In responding to challenging
circumstances, the leaders uncovered what they perceived as ways in which the human spirit is
held hostage within the thick nexuses among institutional structures. In these situations, the
leaders’ actions also affirmed a higher purpose/moral principle/inner God and denied societal
norms/authority structures/laws that get in the way. Studying the ego-transcendental, exceptional
responses of leaders from different continents, time periods, religions, and educational and
professional backgrounds is timely because it teaches us how spiritual leadership can enable us
to engage with the vexing challenges we face.
Based on the foregoing discussion, authentic leadership development is the process by
which the self-identity and leader identity systems converge and become unified in the spiritual
identity system which directs leaders’ and followers’ moral compass, motivation, and emotions
toward optimization of performance and the establishment of an organizational climate that
nurtures the human spirit at work and positive, strength-based organizational cultures. In sum,
spiritually authentic leaders draw from the selfless ground of the human experience; they
recognize the emotional labor involved in the tasks and responsibilities of leadership as well as
the suffering and sacrifice that are integral components of authentic leadership. The question of
whether self-sacrificing leadership leads to greater authenticity of leaders and followers or
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
enhances follower performance is an empirical issue that has not been addressed. Hence, in the
absence of empirical data, the assumption that leader self-sacrifice leads to leader effectiveness
of positive follower outcomes is tenuous at best (Klenke, 2005).
Proposition 3a: Authentic leaders exhibit greater willingness and greater degrees of
self-disclosure than inauthentic leaders.
Proposition 3b: Authentic leaders use ego or self-transcendental processes as
exceptional responses to challenging circumstances (Parameshwar,
Proposition 3c: Authentic leaders are more likely to engage in self-sacrificing
behaviors than inauthentic leaders.
Figure 3 presents the full version of the model which includes several subidentities in each of the
three proposed identity systems.
Self-efficacy Self-identity
system Self-liking
Leadership self-efficacy
Leader reputation
Leader prototypicality
Figure 3. Toward an identity based model of authentic leadership.
Leader identity
Spiritual identity
leadership development
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
As a new construct, authentic leadership is still in the nascent stages of development;
therefore, the emergence of several perspectives is to be expected. This research attempts to
make several contributions to the ongoing theory-building work (e.g., Avolio et al., 2004;
Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Klenke, 2005). First, a model of authentic leadership is
offered that relies on the single explanatory construct of identity which operates at different
levels of analysis: individually, identity is captured by the self-identity system and its component
elements; collectively, as the leader identity system and its correlated subidentities; and
holistically, as the spiritual identity subsystem also comprised of several constituent components.
As such, this research challenges the existing approaches which have drawn from positive
psychology constructs such as hope, resilience, and optimism and flow to frame authentic
leadership and followership development by focusing and defining the authentic leadership
construct from an identity framework.
The model of authentic leadership introduced in this article is a triumvirate that includes
self-identity, leader-identity, and spiritual identity systems. The self-identity system encompasses
the intrapersonal self defined by internal dispositions, abilities, and dynamics. The leader identity
system reflects the interpersonal self as defined by the leader’s relationships with others. It
serves as the bridge between the individual and the collective self or social identity and is
associated with group membership and group process (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Both the self- and
the leader identity systems are embedded in the spiritual identity system. The model assumes that
authentic leaders are motivated to sustain multiple identities in harmony and congruent with one
another. Brewer (2003) posited that balance or the optimal self can be achieved by adjusting
individual self-construals to be more consistent with the group prototype by developing a stable
leader identity system or by shifting social identification to a group that is more congruent with
the self-identity system. Finally, the spiritual identity system functions as a superordinate
configuration of behaviors based on transcendent behaviors and values.
Despite notable differences in construct definitions and models of authentic leadership
presented here, Avolio and Gardner (2005) argued that the commonalities shared by the models,
even at the early stage of development of this emergent construct and field of inquiry, suggest
that some agreement on core elements of authentic leadership and followership may be
surfacing. For example, self-awareness is a core facet in many models of authentic leadership;
however, it is a messy variable to operationalize. The measurement challenges and issues
regarding the self-awareness and identity constructs are significant. These constructs are
inherently clinical concepts which typically have been studied with qualitative, clinical methods
(D. Hall, 2004) which are underrepresented in leadership research. Additionally, we need to
develop more and better quantitative approaches to the study of identity as self-awareness and
the closely related concept of identity are difficult to define and even harder to measure.
As with all new fields of inquiry, much work needs to be done particularly with regards
to (a) achieving greater clarity of construct definitions, (b) addressing measurement issues, and
(c) avoiding construct redundancy. With respect to construct clarity, Cooper et al. (2005) pointed
out the need to identify key dimensions of authentic leadership and then create a theoretically
based definition. They argued that the current definition of authentic leaders as
those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as
being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspective, knowledge and strengths;
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic,
resilient, and of high moral character. (as cited in Avolio et al., 2004, p. 805)
is very broad, contains many diverse elements from diverse domains (traits, states, behaviors,
contexts) that pose serious measurement challenges. I would add to the caveats voiced by these
authors that the above definition is not a definition of authentic leadership as a process but a
definition of authentic leaders as persons. We have evidenced this same problem of confusing
leaders as persons with leadership as a process through the history of the field.
At the present time, the study of authentic leadership is hampered by both lack of
construct clarity and the absence of a reliable and valid instrument of authentic leadership.
Achieving construct clarity involves identifying the relevant construct dimensions, specifying the
interrelationships among construct dimensions, and identifying the boundaries within which the
constructs elements are interrelated in a lawful manner (Dubin, 1978). The social sciences have a
strange inability to recognize that a theoretical model must have boundaries even if the
boundaries are overlapping. Finally, the issue of construct redundancy involves the need to avoid
overlap between construct dimension of authentic leadership and other values-based theories
such as transformational, servant, and other types of inspirational leadership. One of the
important research challenges ahead is establishing the discriminant validity of the authentic
leadership construct. If discriminant validity cannot be established, then the question raised by
Cooper et al. (2005) regarding the need and necessity of creating other leadership constructs
becomes highly relevant. If the authentic leadership construct is not unique (i.e., fails to
demonstrate discriminant validity), time and effort may be more effectively spent using existing
theories to address questions generated by authentic leadership.
Directions for Future Research
Since the study of authentic leadership is in the nascent stages of development; many
avenues to refine the construct and move from the conceptual phase to an empirical, theory
building, and testing phase await the leadership researcher. As noted earlier, development and
validation of a measure of authentic leadership that allows researchers to distinguish the
construct from similar constructs empirically are needed (Cooper et al., 2005). In addition,
studies are needed that relate authentic leadership and followership development to other areas of
human development such as cognitive or moral development longitudinally. Also needed are
qualitative studies such as retrospective cases of authentic leaders employing narrative analysis,
which may be particularly useful in identifying the construct dimensions of authentic leadership.
In addition, Eisenhardt (1989) made a persuasive case for building theory from case study
research involving either single or multiple cases. Continued development of theory is a central
activity when building a new construct.
Another avenue for future research involves the use of critical incidents of authentic and
inauthentic leader behaviors to produce typologies of authentic leader behaviors that may be
instrumental in defining the nomological network of the construct domain more precisely.
Yet another promising area of research would look into the role of trigger events in the lives of
authentic leaders such as Mother Teresa and Bill George or the crucibles of authentic leadership
which Bennis and Thomas (2002a) defined as “a transformative experience through which an
individual comes to a new or an altered sense of identity” (p. 6). Qualitative interviewing lends
itself to the elicitation of significant life stories that have served as trigger events and can be
followed by an examination of the transformative effects of leveraging self-disclosure, selfInternational Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
transcendence, and self-sacrifice (Parameshwar, 2005) that are hypothesized here to be
dimensions of the spiritual identity system of the authentic leader.
Although much work remains to be done, the authentic leadership construct is important
and promising since it focuses scholars’ attention on the inner dynamics and leadership as being
as opposed to leadership as doing or having. It assumes that the inner life of leaders and
followers composed of different identities guides and motivates their behaviors which, according
to Shamir (1991), are often guided by imagined possibilities and “faith” (p. 409). Spiritual
identity is posited to be at the core of authentic leadership, presupposing that leader and
followers exhibit positive selves and leader identities that are shared. Shared identities at
multiple levels of analysis, in turn, enhance individual and organizational effectiveness and
performance. Duchon and Plowman (2005) did indeed report a positive relationship between
scores on a spirituality measure and work unit performance. Authentic leaders not only enhance
performance and motivation; they not only have a highly developed sense of how their roles as
leaders carry the responsibility to act morally and in the best interest of others (May et al., 2003);
they also enhance and deepen followers’ spiritual identity by creating conditions at work that
nurture the human spirit.
One promising approach to further construct development and the development and
validation of a measure of authentic leadership, its origins, and effects can be found in Cialdini’s
(2001) full-cycle psychology construct which describes a research program as a process of
“continual interplay between (a) field observation of interesting phenomena, (b) theorizing about
the causes of these phenomena, and (c) experimental tests of the theorizing” (p. 32). As Chatman
and Flynn (2005) noted, by combining observational and experimental methods in a continual
recursive pattern, robust findings that offer causality, relevance, and generalizability may
About the Author
Dr. Karin Klenke currently serves as senior principal of the Leadership Development Institute
(LDI) International (www.ldi-intl.com), a consulting firm specializing in the design and delivery
of leadership development and education programs. Dr. Klenke holds a Ph.D. in organizational
psychology. She has served on the faculties of the University of Colorado, George Washington
University, Averett University, Regent University, Old Dominion University, and was a
founding faculty member of the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of
Richmond. Dr. Klenke has published widely in leadership, management, psychology, and
research methods journals. Her book entitled Women and Leadership (1996) received a national
award. Dr. Klenke’s most recent book, Qualitative Research Methods in Leadership Studies, is
published by Elsevier Science, publisher of the Leadership Quarterly, and will be on the market
in the spring of 2008. Her current research interests include authentic, contextual, and spiritual
leadership; positive psychology and leadership effectiveness; leadership cartographyâ„¢; women
in leadership; e-leadership; and multiparadigm and multimethod research in leadership studies.
E-mail: [email protected]
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. (Eds.). (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical
advances. New York: Springer.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 261-295.
Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human
Relations, 48(2), 97-125.
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Ashmos, D., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 134-145.
Atron, A. (2003). Self and close relationships. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of
self and identity (pp. 442-461). New York: Guilford Press.
Avolio, B. (2005). Leadership development in balance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the
process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 15(6), 801-823.
Avolio, B., & Locke, E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation:
Altruism versus egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 169-191.
Badaracco, J. (2001, September). We don’t need another hero. Harvard Business Review, 79,
Badaracco, J. (2002). Leading quietly. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Banaji, M., & Prentice, D. (1994). The self in social contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 45,
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and transformational leadership behavior.
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 81-217.
Baumeister, R. (1986). Identity: Cultural change and the struggle for the self. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bennis, W., & Thomas, R. (2002a, September). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business
Review, 80(1) 5-11.
Bennis, W., & Thomas, R. (2002b). Geeks and geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Beyer, J. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 307-330.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Brewer, M. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. . In M. Leary & J.
Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480-491). New York: Guilford Press.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Bunker, K. (1997). The power of vulnerability in contemporary leadership. Consulting
Psychology Journal, 49(2), 122-136.
Buono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 554-571.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (Eds.) (2003). Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations for a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Carey, M. (1992). Transformational leadership and the fundamental option for selftranscendence. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 217-236.
Cavanagh, G., & Bandusch, M. (2002). Virtue as a benchmark for spirituality in business.
Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1), 109-117.
Chatman, J., & Flynn, F. (2005). Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior research.
Organization Science, 16(4), 434-447.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. (1999). The model of follower responses to self-sacrificial
leadership: An empirical test. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 475-501.
Cialdini, R. (2001). Systematic opportunism: An approach to the study of tactical social
influence. In J. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect
processes (pp. 25-39). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Cloninger, R., Svrakic, D., & Pryzbeck, T. (1994). A psychobiological model of temperament
and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990.
Conger, J. (2004). Developing leadership capability: What’s inside the black box? Academy of
Management Executive, 18(3), 136-139.
Conger , J., & Hunt, J. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership: Taking stock of the
present and future. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 121-127.
Cooper, T., Scandura, T., & Schriesheim, C. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past:
Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3),
Csikszsentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning.
New York: Penguin Group.
Dasborough, M., & Ashkanasy, N. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leadermember relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 615-634.
De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). Ho do leaders promote corporation? The effects
of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 858-866.
Delbecq, A. (1999). Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 345-349.
Delbecq, A. (2000). Spirituality for business leadership: Reporting on a pilot course for MBAs
and CEOs. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 117-128.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: Free Press.
Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit
performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 807-833.
Duck, J., & Fielding, K. (2003). Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: Implications for the
evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 33, 387-401.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532-550.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Elmes, M., & Smith, C. (2001). Moved by the spirit: Contextualizing workplace empowerment
in American spiritual ideals. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(1), 33-50.
Erickson, R. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic Interaction,
18(2), 121-144.
Fairholm, G. (1998). Perspectives on leadership: From the science of management to its
spiritual heart. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Ferris, G., Blass, F., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R., & Treadway, D. (2003). Personal reputation in
organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science
(2nd ed., pp. 211-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fielding, K., & Hogg, M. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization and leadership: A field
study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research, and Practice, 1,
Fletcher, J. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647-661.
Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for
meaning. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Fry, L. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693-727.
Fry, L. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being and corporate social
responsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. Giacalone, C. Jurkiewisz, & C. Dunn
(Eds.), Positive psychology in business ethics and corporate social responsibility (pp. 47-
84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Fry, L., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory,
measurement, and establishing a baseline. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 835-862.
Gardner, W., & Avolio, B. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32-58.
Gardner, W., & Avolio, B. (Eds.) (2005). Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins,
effects and development: Vol. 3. Monographs in leadership and management. New York:
Elsevier Science.
Gardner, W., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., Walumbwa, F., & May, D. (2005). “Can you see the real
me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.
George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gunther, M. (2001). God and business. Fortune, 144, 59-80.
Hall, A., Blass, F., Ferris, G., & Massengale, R. (2004). Leader reputation and accountability in
organizations: Implications for dysfunctional leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly,
15(4), 515-536.
Hall, D. (2004). Self-awareness, identity, and leader development. In D. Day, S. Zaccaro, & S.
Halpin (2004). Leader development for transforming organizations (pp. 153-176).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halverson, S. K., Holladay, C. L., Kazama, S. M., & Quiñones, M. A. (2004). Self-sacrificial
behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and situational factors.
Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 263-275.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self. New York: Guilford Press.
Haslam, S. (1989). Leadership. In A. Kuper & J. Kuper (Eds.), The social science encyclopedia
(3rd ed., pp. 566-568). New York: Routledge.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Haybron, D. (2001). Happiness and pleasure. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research,
62, 501-528.
Heidegger, M. (2002). The essence of human freedom (T. Sadler, Trans.). New York:
Continuum. (Original work published 1963)
Helminiak, D. (1987). Spiritual development: An interdisciplinary study. Chicago: Loyola
University Press.
Hogg, A.., & Terry, D. (2000). Social identity and self categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-141.
Hogg, M. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5, 184-200.
Hogg, M. (2003). Social identity. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and
identity (pp. 462-479). New York: Guilford Press.
Hogg. M., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In
M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 35 (pp. 1-52). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hollander, E. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43-
House, R., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:
Directions and perspectives (pp. 81-107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hunt, J. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An
historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F., & Nahrgang, J. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being:
Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373-394.
James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience: A study of human nature. New York:
Modern Library.
James, W. (1968). The self. In C. Gorder & K. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction: Vol.
1 (pp. 41-49). New York: J. Wiley & Sons. (Original work published in 1910).
Kakadadse, N., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2002). Spirituality and leadership praxis.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 165-182.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-245.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process of human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kernis, M. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry,
14, 1-26.
Kihlstrom, J., Beer, J., & Klein, S. (2003), Self and identity as memory. In M. Leary & J.
Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 68-90). New York: Guilford Press.
Klenke, K. (1996). Woman and leadership: A contextual perspective. New York: Springer.
Klenke, K. (2003, November). The leader’s new work: Living with paradox. Paper presented at
the meeting of the International Leadership Association, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Klenke, K. (2004, June). The internal theatre of the authentic leader: Toward an integrated
model of authentic leadership. Paper presented at the Inaugural Gallup Leadership
Summit, The Gallup Institute, Lincoln, Nebraska.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Klenke, K. (2005). The internal theatre of the authentic leader: Integrating cognitive, affective,
conative and spiritual facets of authentic leadership. In W. Gardner, B. Avolio, & F.
Walumba (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and
development: Vol. 3. Monographs in Leadership and Management (pp. 155-182). New
York: Elsevier.
Knowles, R. (2001). Self-organizing leadership: A way of seeing what is happening in
organizations and a pathway to coherence. Emergence, 3(4), 112-127.
Knowles, R. (2002). Self-organizing leadership: A way of seeing what is happening in
organizations and a pathway to coherence (Part II). Emergence, 4(4), 86-97.
Kramer, R. (1996). Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchy relation;
Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The nature of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Leary, M., & Tangney, J. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford
Levinson, D. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41, 3-13.
Levinson, D. (1997). The seasons of a women’s life. New York: Ballentine.
Lewis, M. (1991). Ways of knowing: Objective self-awareness or consciousness. Developmental
Review, 11, 231-243.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). The connective edge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lord, R., & Brown, D. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K.
Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241-
258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. Leadership Quarterly,
12(4), 389-418.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking.
May, R., Chan, A., Hodges, T. & Avolio, B. (2003). Developing the moral component of
authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247-260.
McAdams, D. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New
York: Morrow.
McAdams, D. (1996). Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework
for studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 285-321.
McCall, M. (1998). High flyers. Boston: Harvard University Press.
McCormick, M. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive
theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 22-33.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A., & Ferguson, J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and employee work
attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 16, 426-447.
Mitchie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please
stand up. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 441-457.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Mitroff, I., & Denton, E. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Neal, J., Lichtenstein, B., & Banner, D. (1999). Spiritual perspectives on individual, organization
and societal transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 175-
Osborn, R., Hunt, J., & Jauch, L. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 13(6), 787-837.
Paglis, L., & Green, S. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation to change.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215-235.
Parameshwar, S. (2005). Spiritual leadership through ego-transcendence; Exceptional responses
to challenging circumstances. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 689-722.
Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Piedmont, R. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual
transcendence and the five factor model. Journal of Personality, 67, 985-1013.
Pratt, M. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D.
Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through
conversations (pp. 107-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Regine, B., & Lewin, R. (2000). Leading at the edge: How leaders influence complex systems.
Emergence, 2(2), 2-23.
Regine, B., & Lewin, R. (2003). Third possibility leaders: the invisible edge women have in
complex organizations. Learning Organization, 10, 347-353.
Reichers, S., Haslam, A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership:
Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality.
Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 547-568.
Reichers, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation. London: Sage.
Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed
in a client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science: Vol. 3
(pp. 54-72). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill.
Sartre, J. P. (1994). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology. London:
Schlenker, B. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. Schlenker (Ed.). The self and social
life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Individual self, relational self, and collective self.
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership beyond initiation and consideration.
Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405-
Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational supervisors: Systemic and collective
considerations. Organization Studies, 24(3), 463-491.
Showers, C., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2003). Organization self-knowledge: Features functions, and
flexibility. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 47-47).
New York: Guilford Press.
Silvia, P., & Duval, T. (2001). Objective self-awareness theory: Recent progress and enduring
problems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 230-241.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, 2007, pp. 68-97
© 2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Sparrowe, R. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3),
Strack, G., Fottler, M., Wheatley, M., & Sodomka, P. (2002). Spirituality and effective
leadership in healthcare: Is there a connection? Frontiers of Health Services
Management, 18(4), 3-45.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, C. (1986). The social identity theory of group behavior. In S. Worchel &
W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Tejeda, M., Scandura, T., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and
recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31-52.
Terry, R. (1993). Authentic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thompson, D. (2000). Can you train people to be spiritual? Training and Development, 54, 18-
Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the
spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace. Human Relations, 55(2), 147-
Turner, J. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leader
effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(1), 25-37.
van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. (2004). Research in
leadership, self, and identity: A sample of the present and a glimpse of the future.
Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 495-499.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. (2003a). Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups
and organizations. London: Sage.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. (2003b). A social identity of leadership effectiveness in
organizations. In R. Kramer & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 25,
243-295. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & van Gijk, E. (2000) Who takes the lead in risky
decisions? Effects of group members’ individual riskiness and prototypicality.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 213-234.
Waterman, A. (1993). The relevance of Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia for the
psychological study of happiness. Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 10(1990),
Whitmeyer, J. (2000). Effects of positive reputation systems. Social Science Research, 29, 188-
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on
influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(3), 428-436.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
A Self, Leader, and Spiritual Identity Perspective
Just from $9/Page
Order Essay

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Buy Custom Essay

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

  • Plagiarism free papers
  • Timely delivery
  • Any deadline
  • Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
  • Subject-relevant academic writer
  • Adherence to paper instructions
  • Ability to tackle bulk assignments
  • Reasonable prices
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Get superb grades consistently

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects


Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.


Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!


While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.


Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.


In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.


Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.


We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!


We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.


Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

  • When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
  • We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

  • The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
  • We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
  • Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment Help Service Works

1. Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2. Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3. Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4. Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

smile and order essay GET A PERFECT SCORE!!! smile and order essay Buy Custom Essay

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
error: Content is protected !!
Open chat
Need assignment help? You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp using +1 718 717 2861

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.
  +1 718 717 2861           + 44 161 818 7126           [email protected]
  +1 718 717 2861         [email protected]