Toward a unified Theory Y of leadership: Leader self

Toward a unified "Theory Y" of leadership: Leader self-awareness, ethics and integrity as key attributes of positive leadership Vincent Giolito Over the last 15 years a profusion of "positive" leadership theories emerged. In part inspired by positive psychology, they also remind of McGregor (1960, 1966) "Theory Y" of management positing that leaders may attain economic performance while developing their subordinates toward self-development. Those constructs were empirically associated with favorable individual and collective outcomes. Yet the theories were developed in parallel, resulting in a lack of theoretical integration. Taking stock of research in the six major positive theories – servant, authentic, ethical, empowering, spiritual, and responsible leadership, this paper proposes an integrative framework of "Theory Y" leadership based on the overarching concept of leaders attributes that is, the representations that followers form of the qualities or virtues of their leaders. It argues that the attributes of leader self-awareness, ethical sense and integrity may synthesize the positive leadership theories. This integrative conceptualization of "Theory Y" leadership helps structure the theoretical field within the leadership studies and position leadership in the literature streams of positive organizational scholarship and positive organizational behavior. Theoretical propositions and avenues for research are offered, as well as implications for practice. Keywords: Servant leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership, empowering leadership, spiritual leadership, responsible leadership; Self-awareness; Ethical sense; Integrity; positive organizational scholarship

CEB Working Paper N° 15/043 October 2015

Université Libre de Bruxelles - Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management

Centre Emile Bernheim ULB CP114/03 50, avenue F.D. Roosevelt 1050 Brussels BELGIUM

e-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +32 (0)2/650.48.64 Fax: +32 (0)2/650.41.88

mailto:[email protected]

Page 1 of 38

Vincent Giolito – [email protected]

Toward a unified "Theory Y" of leadership:

Leader self-awareness, ethics and integrity as key attributes of positive leadership

Vincent Giolito - Solvay Brussels School of Economics & Management

ABSTRACT

Over the last 15 years a profusion of "positive" leadership theories emerged. In part inspired

by positive psychology, they also remind of McGregor (1960, 1966) "Theory Y" of

management positing that leaders may attain economic performance while developing their

subordinates toward self-development. Those constructs were empirically associated with

favorable individual and collective outcomes. Yet the theories were developed in parallel,

resulting in a lack of theoretical integration. Taking stock of research in the six major positive

theories – servant, authentic, ethical, empowering, spiritual, and responsible leadership, this

paper proposes an integrative framework of "Theory Y" leadership based on the overarching

concept of leaders attributes that is, the representations that followers form of the qualities or

virtues of their leaders. It argues that the attributes of leader self-awareness, ethical sense and

integrity may synthesize the positive leadership theories. This integrative conceptualization of

"Theory Y" leadership helps structure the theoretical field within the leadership studies and

position leadership in the literature streams of positive organizational scholarship and positive

organizational behavior. Theoretical propositions and avenues for research are offered, as

well as implications for practice.

Keywords: Servant leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership, empowering

leadership, spiritual leadership, responsible leadership; Self-awareness; Ethical sense;

Integrity; positive organizational scholarship

JEL Keywords: M00 Management - M510 Personnel Economics: Firm Employment

Decisions; Promotion - M140 Corporate culture

Page 2 of 38


Toward a unified "Theory Y" of leadership:

Leader self-awareness, ethics and integrity as key attributes of positive leadership

More than 50 years ago, McGregor (1960; 1966) enunciated his "Theory Y" of

management. He proposed that people are naturally willing to participate in organizational

efforts as part of their self-development and that the role of managers was to "recognize and

develop" subordinates' motivation, potential for development, and readiness in order to attain

organizational goals (McGregor; 1966: 12). He contrasted this proposition with a generalized

"Theory X", which held people for naturally self-interested and reluctant to work, and

assigned management a role of control and prodding. Over the last 15 years, with the term

"management" replaced by "leadership", a profusion of constructs of "good" or "positive"

leadership emerged that at least implicitly refer to Theory Y (Sorensen & Minahan, 2011).

The most prominent include servant leadership, authentic leadership, empowering leadership,

ethical leadership, spiritual leadership and responsible leadership, and are hereby referred to

as positive leadership theories (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006; Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, &

Dickens, 2011; Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Siegel, 2014; Seidman, 2004; van Dierendonck,

2011). The publications in peer-reviewed management journals (excluding sector-specific

publications) from 2000 to 2014 mentioning those theories in either their title, abstract or

keywords indicate a strong scholarly interest: 334 articles on authentic leadership, 383 on

servant leadership, 572 on ethical leadership for example. Some of those constructs have long

passed the stages of theory initiation and argumentation and entered the stage of empirical

verification (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). Half a century after passing away, McGregor

would have appreciated to see that leaders who score high on those variables indeed seem to

obtain favorable organizational outcomes, from job satisfaction and organizational citizenship

behavior to sales growth to return on equity (e.g., Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser, 2013;

Page 3 of 38


Hunter et al., 2013; Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2011; Zhu, May, & Avolio, 2004).

Table 1 summarizes definitions, dimensions of the constructs and indicates the state of the

research.

- - - - - - - - - - -

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

- - - - - - - - - - -

For all the merits of their proponents however, the positive leadership theories leave

with the impression of a somewhat disorderly endeavor. Constructs frequently mix leader

behaviors, or what followers can directly observe in their leaders (e.g. listening, giving

feedback), with leaders attributes that is, what followers infer on their leaders' characteristics

such as conceptual skills or self-awareness (Liden et al., 2008; van Dierendonck & Nujiten,

2011; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). From a broader

perspective, this profusion appears conducive to a risk of overlap, as researchers may tend to

remain in their respective "silos" (Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011). To paraphrase Suddaby, could

it be that research in these separate streams makes the "same wine in different bottles"

(Suddaby, 2010: 352)? Attempts to structure those positive forms of leadership appear to fall

short. Proponents of positive organizational scholarship and positive organizational behaviors,

for example, have embraced a broad range of topics from interpersonal relationships to

strategic change and did not make leadership a common theme (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008;

Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012). In any case, positive

leadership theorists remain apparently wary of tight affiliations with either of those streams.

Yet close, methodical cross-examination of the six positive leadership constructs as

they were operationalized indicates strong commonalities. It invites to suggest a combination

of three leaders attributes as pivotal toward a unified "Theory Y" of leadership. The first

attribute is self-awareness that is, the reflexive knowledge someone has of their own strengths

Page 4 of 38


and weaknesses, from competencies to skills to emotional tendencies and identity features

(Church, 1997; Taylor, 2010). Second comes ethical sense, or the personal consciousness of

what is good and bad (Ciulla, 1995). The third attribute is integrity or the capacity to act in

accordance with one's thoughts and words (Palanski & Yammarino, 2007; Simons, 2002).

The purpose of this article is to threefold: a) to offer a synthetic view of the most

important leadership constructs that explicitly or most often implicitly hinge on McGregor's

Theory Y postulate (for an explicit reference see Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004); b) building

on the similarities between those constructs, to propose that self-awareness, integrity and

ethics may define "Theory Y" leaders; c) to suggest that future research on related constructs

include a clear delineation between leaders' attributes and specific behaviors. In so doing I

attempt to clarify what may be called "good" or "positive" leadership within the broad field of

leadership studies (Bass & Bass, 2008). This paper should contribute to reinforce the structure

of the streams of positive organizational scholarship and positive organizational behavior

(Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012).

In addition, it should help scholars in the mentioned constructs to better position their

research relatively to other constructs and in the broader perspective what may be termed

"Theory Y" leadership. The next brief section delimitates the scope and bases of our

propositions. A brief overview of each of the constructs studied will follow. Then the paper

identifies main commonalities in terms of leaders' attributes and presents some avenues for

future research and new opportunities for practitioners.

SIX POSITIVE LEADERSHIP THEORIES

My propositions are based on a systematic review of the literature in positive

leadership theories over the period from 2000 to 2015 (LePine & King, 2010). Table 2

displays the main similarities (above the diagonal of the table, right-hand side) and

Page 5 of 38


differences, attempting to delineate leader behaviors from leader attributes (below the

diagonal, left-hand side of the table).

- - - - - - - - - -

INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

- - - - - - - - - -

Criteria for inclusion in the review

This paper is based on an examination of six specific leadership constructs that

emerged as important in the managerial literature since the turn of the century: servant

leadership (Greenleaf, 1970), authentic leadership (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004),

ethical leadership (Seidman, 2004), empowering leadership (Keller & Dansereau, 1995),

spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003) and responsible leadership (Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).

Criteria for inclusion were: the construct demonstrates a clear intent of "doing good" for

either or both the people within the organization and the society outside, evoking a

prescriptive approach; it is presented with theoretical, not only empirical bases; it is

sufficiently developed to include not only propositions and definitions, but at least a

delineation of dimensions, and ideally operationalized instruments for empirical

measurements. Finally, a count of the mentions in peer-reviewed management journals over

the years 2000-2014 helped exclude a few theories. Based on these cumulative criteria, I

excluded three widely researched constructs. The first one is transformational leadership

(Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Despite its prominence in the literature, it is strongly associated

with the charismatic view of leadership and its proponents insisted on its beneficial impact on

people and society only incidentally (Bass & Bass, 2008). Second, leader-member exchange

or LMX is not included either, notably because of its main focus on the way leaders

differentiate their relationships with individual followers (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer,

& Ferris, 2011). Lastly, appreciative inquiry was excluded because it is presented more as a

Page 6 of 38


pragmatic method for change than a theory-based leadership construct per se (Cooperrider &

Whitney, 1999; Cooperrider & Goodwin, 2012). Too scarce mentions in the literature

precluded the consideration of a few other constructs such as moral leadership and positive

leadership (e.g. Becker, 2007; Gini, 1997; Cameron, 2008).

Common assumptions

The propositions I derive from the six constructs under study in this paper share a

number of basic assumptions. First, leadership is conceived of as the influence a leader has on

their followers above and beyond their formal, legal powers, toward organizational goals,

specifically in the perspective of some organizational change (Bass & Bass, 2008). Yet the

leader all six positive theories focus on is generally a manager that is, a person formally

legally endowed with some powers linked to collective objectives on behalf of their

organization – essentially a for-profit company. Our concern is not emergent leadership, or

the factors conducive for a person to being accepted as a leader (Bass & Bass, 2008). Second,

my propositions and the constructs I refer to parallel the opposition exposed by McGregor

(1960) between theories X and Y: in the same way McGregor invited managers to achieve

economic objectives while developing their subordinates, this paper builds on the idea that

leaders' positive features are a avenue, if not a means, to attain organizational goals. Third, the

six positive leadership theories I build on are construed based on the assessment of the leaders

by their followers. This leaves aside alternative ways of assessment, for example by the

leader's leader, other stakeholders, or in reference to some objective bases of comparison such

as the "Big Five" psychological traits (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991).

OVERVIEW OF SIX POSITIVE LEADERSHIP THEORIES

AND SPECIFIC LEADER ATTRIBUTES

Page 7 of 38


The brief section below focuses on the distinctive features of the six positive

leadership theories I retained based on construct definitions and their respective specific

components in terms of leaders attributes.

Servant leadership. Robert Greenleaf, then an executive in a large US company, introduced

the paradoxical idea of "the servant as leader" based on his own experience (1970: 1), with

this definition:

"The best test [of being a servant leader], and difficult to administer, is: do

those served [i.e. followers] grow as persons? Do they, while being served,

become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to

become servants?" (Greenleaf, 1970: 7)

Laub (2004: 8) defined servant leadership as "an understanding and practice of

leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader". In his

comprehensive review, van Dierendonck (2011: 1231) summarized that servant-leaders work

"toward building a learning organization where each individual can be of unique value".

Based on how the construct was operationalized, servant leadership distinguishes itself by

several attributes, among which the personal sense of being a servant; professional conceptual

skills, courage and humility (Liden et al., 2008; van Dierendonck & Nujiten, 2011).

Authentic leadership. Practitioners popularized the term authentic leadership before and

shortly after the turn of the century (e.g George, 2003; George, George, & Sims, 2007; Terry,

1993). Scholars followed suit in the early 2000s. Authenticity in leadership was conceived of

as a "leader's moral capacity to align responsibilities of the self, to the followers, and to the

public in efforts to sustain cooperative efforts within and outside of the organization"

(Novicevic, Harvey, Ronald, & Brown-Radford, 2006). Luthans and Avolio refer to authentic

leadership as owning one's personal experience and acting in accord with one's true self, and

elicits behaviors such as giving priority to developing associates (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). A

Page 8 of 38


specific component of authentic leadership is a broad concept of self-awareness: authentic

leaders have a good understanding and potentially control of their identities, goals,

competencies and weaknesses (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005;

Walumba et al., 2008).

Empowering leadership. Employee empowerment has grown in popularity from the years

1990s (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; Forrester, 2000). Empowerment refers to

managerial practices that evoke for workers an "active, rather than a passive orientation to a

work role" based on four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination and impact

(Spreitzer, 1995: 1444; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Empowering leaders were described as

"negotiating latitude" with followers and supporting them for "self-worth" (Keller &

Dansereau, 1995: 129). In that respect empowering leadership directly opposes "theory X"

and pragmatically embraces "theory Y" assumptions (McGregor, 1960; 1966). Specifically, it

features leading by example (Arnold, et al., 2000).

Ethical leadership. Ethical leadership was defined as "the demonstration of normatively

appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the

promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and

decision-making" (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006: 595). Based

on prior theorization, seven dimensions were identified by Kalshoven, Den Hartog and De

Hoogh (2011): fairness, integrity, ethical guidance, people orientation, power sharing, role

clarification, and concern for sustainability. As in constructs mentioned above, and although

the authors proposed to focus on leader behaviors, their operationalization combines actual

behaviors (e.g. the leader provides me with ethical guidance) and attributes (e.g. the leader is

perceived as possessing fairness).

Spiritual leadership. Fry construed spiritual leadership as based on the values and attitudes

necessary to generate intrinsic motivation with oneself and others toward "a sense of spiritual

Page 9 of 38


survival through calling and membership" (Fry, 2003: 693; Fry, Matherly, Whittington, &

Winston, 2007). Distinctive components of spiritual leadership are an inspired vision or

mission for themselves and their organization; a sense of altruistic love and hope guided by

personal faith. Although no reference is made to a specific faith, spiritual leadership appears

impregnated by Christian tradition rather than other forms of spirituality.

Responsible leadership. A first definition presented responsible leaders as tasked with

"weaving a web of inclusion where the leader engages himself among equals" (Maak & Pless,

2006: 104). Leaders and their stakeholders, from employees to customers to shareholders to

the society at large, "are connected through a shared sense of meaning and purpose through

which they raise one another to higher levels of motivation and commitment for achieving

sustainable values creation and social change" (Pless, 2007: 438). More recently, responsible

leadership has been presented as "intentional actions taken by leaders to benefit the

stakeholders of the company and/or actions taken to avoid harmful consequences for

corporate stakeholders and the larger society" (Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014: 238), in a "do

good-do no harm" approach (Siegel, 2014; Waldman & Balven, 2014: 226). Based on the

only operationalization available, what makes responsible leaders different is the diversity of

stakeholders they pay attention to, from employees and trade unions to customers to local

communities to NGOs and the society at large (Vögtlin, 2011).

COMMON "THEORY Y" LEADER ATTRIBUTES

I propose that it is possible to coalesce a unified "Theory Y" leadership based on the

attributes followers ascribe to their leaders. Theoretical developments in the six positive

leadership reviewed lead to isolate three specific attributes that are compatible with

McGregor's insights: leader's self-awareness, ethical sense, and integrity.

Page 10 of 38


Self-awareness

What is leader self-awareness? Self-awareness refers to the reflexive knowledge and

acceptance of one's personal and specific characteristics (Church, 1997). For example, as

Kernis notes (2003: 13), "it includes, but is not limited to, being aware of one’s strengths and

weaknesses, trait characteristics, and emotions". Self-awareness can be measured both by

breadth and depth. Breadth means the range of specificities leaders are aware of, from

professional competencies and talents to typical preferences and emotional reactions in given

situations to organizational artifacts they feel as psychological owners (Avey, Avolio,

Crossley, & Luthans, 2009). Self-awareness naturally includes one's weaknesses and

shortcomings (Diddams & Chang, 2012). It extends to a broader sense of identity, where

leaders can easily express their values, preferences, ambitions and strivings both at the

individual and collective levels. Depth of self-awareness refers to how leaders make sense of

those characteristics based on their own history, from their upbringing to their career path. It

implies that leaders are able to deal with their prior failures as well as current and past inner

contradictions and potential multiple possible selves (Ilies, Morgenson, & Nahrgang, 2005;

Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Markus & Nurius, 1987). Self-awareness is not fixed at one point

in time. Rather, it evokes a continuous development process in which leaders constantly

update and adjust their understanding and trust in their talents, motives and purposes and

measure their potential and actual reactions in a dynamic environment, both by self-reflection

and in the exchanges with others (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Goffee & Jones, 2009).

Where is self-awareness in the six positive theories? With abundant reference to the works of

Kernis (2003), the proponents of the authentic leadership theory have made self-awareness a

key component of their construct (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Gardner & Schermerhorn (2004)

highlight the need of knowledge of one's emotions, values and beliefs. Shamir and Eilam

(2005) insist that authentic leaders achieve a high level of self-clarity, with strongly held

Page 11 of 38


values and convictions. It may be argued that self-awareness is an underlying condition of the

other theories studied. Servant leadership and spiritual leadership are cases in point.

Regarding servant leadership, "it begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to

serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead" (Greenleaf, 1970: 27). The

sense of personal calling and membership, the faith and the altruistic love that are key to

spiritual leadership seem to necessarily imply a strong self-awareness, if perhaps less

sensitive to the potential contradictions in the spiritual leader's inspiration (Fry, 2003).

Because ethical leaders are presented as "principled decision-makers" (Brown & Treviño,

2006: 597) who practice role clarification with their followers (Kalshoven, den Hartog, & de

Hoogh, 2011), they must have a good understanding of their own values and competencies

respectively. The informing and coaching dimensions in empowering leadership also imply

that leaders are deeply aware of their personal position, at least relatively to their followers

(Arnold et al., 2000). Lastly, in responsible leadership theory, leaders are supposed to feel

personally accountable of their own and their organization's actions toward various

stakeholders (Doh & Quigley, 2005; Pless & Maak, 2011; Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).

This necessitates a thorough consciousness of their personal role, aspirations and potential

liabilities in the society at large.

How is self-awareness linked to performance and followers' growth? First, leaders

themselves benefit from self-awareness in several respects. More self-aware leaders are

keener to enjoy optimal self-esteem that is, a sense of their worth that is not dependent on

exogenous conditions such as positive feedback or good performance (Heppner & Kernis,

2008; Kernis, 2003). For example, they may be more perseverant and resilient in the face of

potential adverse conditions. It has been proposed that personal self-awareness also helps

leaders understand and appreciate the needs of others, be they team members or external

stakeholders (Taylor, 2010). Self-awareness appears to be crucial, too, to leaders' personal

Page 12 of 38


identification with their role and their organization (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000). Role

and organizational identification have been shown to be predictors of performance (Yoshida,

Sendjaya, Hirst & Cooper, 2014). Moreover, self-awareness should be a determinant of

intrinsic motivation, according to self-determination theory. As described by Ryan and Deci

(2000), intrinsic motivation hinges on competency, autonomy and relatedness. It may be

argued that only leaders who are deeply aware of their needs in those three dimensions are

able to design their role relatively to their followers and, to a certain extent, relatively to their

peers and supervisors. For example, in a business negotiation, a leader who knows she has a

strong people orientation may devote her efforts to deepen the relationship with partners

while assigning her more task-oriented colleagues the processing of the actual details of the

deal. In addition, because self-awareness helps leaders overcome their self-overestimation

bias, it helps them predict more accurately their results and avoid deception (e.g. Dunning,

2005). An empirical study has showed that more self-aware leaders tend to obtain better

performance and to be more effective change leaders (Church, 1997; Higgs & Rowlands,

2010).

Second, as proposed by social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), followers tend to

model their attitudes and behaviors on those of their leaders. Transposed in an integrative

"Theory Y" theory of leadership, it implies that followers of self-aware leaders in turn gain a

better ownership of their own competencies, values, and aspirations relatively to those of their

organizations and environment. Provided they feel a personal alignment, they should tend to

more readily adopt behaviors that benefit their leaders, coworkers and other stakeholders

(servant leadership: Liden et al., 2008; responsible leadership: Pless, 2007; Pless & Maak,

2011), show concern for others and foster power sharing and participative decision-making

(ethical leadership: Kalshoven & al., 2011; empowering leadership: Arnold et al., 2000) and

create a sense of membership (spiritual leadership: Fry, 2003).

Page 13 of 38


Proposition 1. Leader self-awareness is central to "Theory Y" leadership. More as

opposed to less self-aware leaders experience a higher level of alignment of their own

objectives and those of their organizations and are more able to negotiate to the

benefit of all stakeholders. By modeling their attitudes on those of more self-aware

leaders, followers become themselves more self-aware, thus favoring the attainment of

better outcomes at the individual, team, organizational, and societal levels.

Ethical sense

What is leader ethical sense? Ethics is "the examination of right, wrong, good, evil, virtue ...

etc. in human relationships with each other and other living things" reminds Ciulla (2004: 4;

Sutcliffe, 2005). In that respect ethical sense means the consciousness of what is good and

what is bad (Aronson, 2001). While self-awareness helps leaders determine their behavior by

reference to internal principles, ethical sense appeals to external frames of reference. Those

may be universal values, such as giving precedence to love over hatred, expressed in the

traditional wisdom of "treating people as we would like to be treated" (Seidman, 2004: 135).

The reference may also be more specific codes of appropriate conduct more or less

imperatively ordered by common moral, philosophical, religious or cultural values (Becker,

2007). A strong sense of ethics should privilege virtues over vice, fairness over unfairness and

respect over disrespect. As ethics fundamentally concerns the effects of one's actions on other

people (Aronson, 2001:135), it should also invite leaders to pay specific attention to how their

attitudes and decisions might hurt the most fragile or deprived among their stakeholders.

Ethical sense is not limited to the immediate impact of the leader's actions. Rather, the

consciousness it implies extends to more remote elements such as medium- to long-term

consequences, for example the efficacy and safety of a company's products for customers

(Seidman, 2004). To the extent that doing good concerns not only people, but also the natural

Page 14 of 38


environment and the society at large, ethical sense connotes strongly with corporate social

responsibility (Aronson, 2001).

Yet the mere consciousness by leaders of their ethical values is not sufficient, as

values frequently conflict in the effective practice of leadership. The simplest example may be

found in the decision to lay off an employee whose behavior becomes incompatible with his

assignments, as both alternatives have negative consequences, that is do harm, not good to

others (Marsh, 2012). In reality, the leader's sense of ethics manifests itself more as a process

in which leaders are cognizant of the positive or negative ethical quality of the full range of

choices they may make (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2004). The process they follow in

those "ethical dilemmas" is one where they are able to figure out the set of values, weigh their

alternatives against those values and make the conscious choice to act in accord with the

values they judge most appropriate (May et al., 2004).

Where is the leader's ethical senses in the six positive theories? Naturally the conscience of

what is right and wrong is central to the theory of ethical leadership, defined as the

observance of "normatively appropriate conduct" in Brown and Treviño's comprehensive

review (2006: 595). It translates in attributes of fairness and concern for sustainability, for

example (Kalshoven et al., 2011). Proponents of authentic leadership include in the definition

of their construct an internalized moral perspective that they define as an integrated and

internalized form of self-regulation guided by internal moral standards versus group,

organizational and societal pressures (Walumbwa, et al., 2008). The sense of ethics is also

manifest in the servant leaders' virtuous attributes of forgiveness and humility, and their

preoccupation with the community and the most deprived (Greenleaf, 1970; Liden et al.,

2008; Spears, 2002; van Dierendonck & Nujiten, 2011). Ethics are not absent from

empowering leadership insofar as empowerment proactively supports the employees' self-

worth and removes conditions that foster their potential sense of powerlessness in the

Page 15 of 38


organization (Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Arnold et al., 2000). In spiritual leadership theory,

spiritual values – specifically altruistic love – are supposed to form the base of the collective

engagement around the leader toward the organizational vision and mission. Finally,

responsible leaders are presented as actively inquiring in the potential results of their actions

on other stakeholders, and avoid those that may have harmful consequences of which they

would feel themselves accountable for (Doh & Quigley, 2014; Maak & Pless, 2006; Stahl &

Sully de Luque, 2014).

How does the leader's sense of ethics impact performance and followers' self-growth? At

least two mechanisms are at play. First, if a subjective basic sense of right and wrong is self-

evident for anyone, the situations a leader has to deal with necessarily entails complex choices,

were it only regarding the possibly unethical means required to attain ethically correct ends

(Price, 2003; Palmer, 2009). Moreover, "leaders may well come to believe … that they are not

bound by the requirements of morality" (Price, 2003: 69). Overcoming those difficulties in

ethical discernment implies that leaders possess personal qualities that set them apart from

followers. Such leaders are seen as demonstrating courage, humility, fairness and hope

(servant leadership: van Dierendonck & Nujiten, 2011; ethical leadership: Kalshoven et al.,

2011). Those characteristics are almost universally recognized as virtues (Peterson &

Seligman, 2004; Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005). Morality serves as a crucial test

for legitimacy, as people are more prone to respect others when they demonstrate moral

qualities they ascribe to themselves, argue Skitka, Bauman and Lytle (2008). So a leader high

in ethical sense can expect more alignment from his followers at the interpersonal level. At

the team or organizational levels, ethical sense, for example manifested in the attribute of

leader fairness, is conducive to trust: followers have confidence that their leader will not

exploit their potential vulnerabilities (Sabell, 1993, quoted by Barney & Hanson, 1994). And

numerous studies have demonstrated the positive association between trust and various

Page 16 of 38


favorable organizational outcomes (e.g. Barney & Hansen, 1994; Clapp-Smith, Vogelsgang,

& Avey, 2008; Norman, Avolio, & Luthans, 2010; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011).

Second, a strong sense of ethics induces "Theory Y" leaders to specific behaviors that

followers perceive as good deeds towards them. Examples are listening and taking

information into account (authentic leadership: Walumbwa et al., 2008), listening, caring and

helping, (servant leadership: Liden et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011; Spears, 2002),

coaching and allowing for participation in decision making (empowering leadership: Arnold

et al., 2000), love (spiritual leadership: Fry, 2005) or entertaining a proactive dialogue about

stakeholders' needs (responsible leadership: Doh & Quigley, 2014). Social exchange theory

posits that followers in organizations tend to reciprocate what they appreciate from others,

more specifically supervisors (Blau, 1964). So, followers are more inclined to align

themselves with the objectives of leaders who manifest such positive behaviors. Specific

effects can also be expected as caring and coaching leaders may well foster positive emotions

in followers. Besides partially offsetting negative emotions, positive emotions allow people to

broaden their cognitive and behavioral repertoire and build on new perspectives, thus

developing their potential (Fredrickson, 1998; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Research has

shown, for example, that positive emotions improve creativity in problem-solving (Isen,

Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987).

Proposition 2. A high sense of ethics is crucial to "Theory Y" leadership, so that

leaders with a higher sense of ethics will experience a stronger alignment from their

followers toward organizational objectives, and the self-growth of followers will be

enhanced.

Integrity

What is integrity? Although frequently cited in normative leadership studies as well as

practitioner accounts, integrity has been singled out as a problematic concept, often confused

Page 17 of 38


with close constructs such as authenticity, honesty, justice, conscientiousness, and ethics or

morality (Palanski & Yammarino, 2007). Yet relatively recently, leader integrity has received

a practical scholarly definition. It refers to one's consistency between words and actions

(Palanski & Yammarino, 2007; Simmons, 2002). Leaders with integrity "represent themselves

accurately in their communications with employees" (Simmons, 2002: 19). Integrity is by

demonstrated by "walking the talk", as the saying goes. Leaders high in integrity keep

promises and follow through their commitments (Davis & Rothstein, 2006). This consistency

must extend over time, as followers compare current leader actions with prior discourse. It

must also hold with a variety of stakeholders and across situations, particularly in the face of

adverse circumstances. As a result, leaders high in integrity manifest what may be perceived

as a) endurance or perseverance; b) fairness, because they apply the same principle with all

constituents; c) courage, because they persist in their actions regardless of the difficulties.

By proposing that leader integrity must complement self-awareness and ethical sense,

I follow Palanski and Yammarino, who present integrity as an "adjunctive" virtue in their

clarification of integrity as a leadership construct (2007: 408). That is, integrity per se may

not determine how "Theory Y" leaders enhance their influence. It only does so by

complementing the attributes of self-awareness and sense of ethics. In effect, integrity bridges

the gap between the psychological specificities of a leader and his or her actual attitudes,

decisions and actions. Integrity combined with self-awareness results in authenticity. Leaders

follow the ancient Greek and Shakespearian maxim "To thine own self be true" (Avolio &

Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005): owners of their identity, they act in accordance with

their true selves (Harter, 2002). Integrity combined with a strong ethical sense translates into

the actual attributes fairness, justice or trustworthiness that followers will ascribe to leaders

when assessing their credibility and legitimacy (Davis & Rothstein, 2006; Palanski &

Yammarino, 2007).

Page 18 of 38


I insist that integrity must complement self-awareness and sense of ethics

simultaneously. The combination of only self-awareness and integrity is not sufficient to

produce "Theory Y" leadership, as a leader high in his self-awareness of needing domination

and power might use of means contrary to basic human rights – it was the basis for the

strongest criticisms to both transformational and authentic leadership theories (Algera & Lips-

Werma, 2011; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Accordingly, the combination of integrity and

sense of ethics alone would confer leaders the image of a depersonalized individuals applying

moral rules without involving their identities, like a monk, or perhaps a robot (Alvesson &

Spicer, 2011).

Where is leader integrity in the six positive theories? Because all the leadership theories I

studied mix attributes and behaviors, at least in their operationalized constructs as shown in

table 1, they implicitly refer to integrity more or less explicitly. Specifically, most authentic

leadership proponents insisted on the consistency between self-awareness and behavior

(Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Algera & Lips-Werma, 2011). The construct

comprises of behaviors – transparent communication and balanced information processing –

that concretely transpose self-awareness and ethical perspective. Regarding servant leadership,

of the two operationalized constructs available, one focuses on behaviors and the other on

attributes, and they demonstrate strong correlations, which implies that servant leaders

effectively act upon their espoused values (Liden et al., 2008; Liden et al., 2015; van

Dierendonck & Nujiten, 2011). Integrity is singled out as a particular dimension of ethical

leadership and ethical leaders are presented as sharing power and being able to provide ethical

guidance (Kalshoven et al., 2011),. Though integrity appears less self-evident in empowering

leadership, it is manifested in leading by example that is, acting in consistency with proffered

principles. By inviting leaders to create a culture "whereby leaders have genuine care and

appreciation for both self and others", spiritual leadership, too, seems to compel them to a

Page 19 of 38


high degree of integrity (Fry, 2003: 695). Lastly, responsible leadership focuses not only on

the leader's cognitive concern for a variety of constituents, but also on actions that serve their

needs and avoid harmful consequences for the society at large (Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).

How does leader integrity foster organizational performance and followers' self-growth?

As followers judge their leaders based on their actions, and particularly those actions that

have an impact upon them, leader integrity removes the obstacles that may stand in the way of

the positive outcomes of the assessment of leaders as both self-aware and endowed with

strong ethical sense. For example, leaders who follow through may indeed be judged as fair

and equitable, thus generating interpersonal trust and, in turn, positive emotions and their

favorable consequences. By leading by example, they may influence followers individually

and develop a culture of organizational trust and fairness through social learning (Bandura,

1977). Initial research on authentic leadership had actually shown how important it is for

middle managers, themselves leaders and followers at the same time, not to be "fake"

(Endrissat, Müller, & Kaudela-Baum, 2007; Shamir & Eilam, 2005). The mechanisms by

which integrity operates toward both organizational objectives and followers' self-growth are

possibly most vividly demonstrated when integrity is absent. Inside the organization, people

observe the congruence between what leaders assert, for examples team or corporate values,

and the way they act in their daily duties. Occasional incongruence may be tolerated, but

repetition induces followers to ascribe an attribute of hypocrisy to the leader, and in turn

experience personal feelings of disenchantment, "a blend of disappointment and anger" (Cha

& Edmondson, 2006: 71). As trust disappears, followers are more likely to restrain their

commitment and effort toward organizational goals. Ultimately, they may feel that the leader

and the organization violated the psychological contract of which the ethical element was a

part (Rousseau, 2001; Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). The same reasoning

applies to leaders vis-à-vis other stakeholders. As noted by responsible leadership proponents,

Page 20 of 38


leaders who fail on the accounts of accountability and dependability on behalf of their

organization may induce disastrous consequences in terms of value destruction or reputation

loss (Cameron, 2011; Pless & Maak, 2011).

Proposition 3. Integrity, or alignment of words and actions, is crucial to "Theory Y"

leadership so that leaders high in integrity are more likely to benefit from a better

alignment from their followers toward organizational objectives; and the self-growth

of their followers is more likely to be enhanced.

Proposition 4. Integrity implies the simultaneous combination into actions of leader

self-awareness and sense of ethics, so that only leaders who are judged high on those

two attributes based on their behaviors and actions will be assessed as "Theory Y"

leaders, and their leadership will be positively associated with favorable outcomes for

followers and organizations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

A fundamental assumption of the developments above is that followers' attributions of

leaders are pivotal in determining the effectiveness of leadership influence. Attributions, "a

causal ascription for a positive or negative outcome" (Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007:

562), are heuristics that is, cognitive schemata that facilitate the understanding of a complex

reality (Tversky & Kahnemann, 1973). Over time, attributes are more likely to exert the

influence of a leader than his or her discrete behaviors. People form those heuristics about

their leaders and make sense based on them. As those heuristics refer to some broader frame

of reference, specifically, virtues (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005), people not only

adjust their own behavior on them in the daily negotiation episodes of their working lives, but

also, as people share information and opinions about leaders' attributes in the larger

Page 21 of 38


conversation of the workplace, they participate to building the organizational culture (Toor &

Ofori, 2009).

Avenues for research

The primary avenue for further research is naturally to better delineate virtuous

attributes from behaviors. A first endeavor may be to elaborate instruments to measure leader

attributes, building on the scales developed for leader integrity such as the Perceived leader

integrity scale (Craig & Gustafson, 1998), the items pertaining to leader self-awareness in the

authentic leadership scale (Walumbwa et al., 2008) and, with respect to the ethical sense

attribute, the ethical leadership scale (Brown & Treviño, 2002; Kalshoven et al., 2008) and

the ethical dimensions in servant leadership, authentic leadership and spiritual leadership.

This effort will be made easier as there exists a strong stream of theoretical developments

regarding the three virtuous attributes in various literatures from leadership studies to positive

psychology to philosophy (e.g. Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005).

A second type of endeavor is needed to map out those attributes with reference to

behaviors or, put in another way, to explain how followers infer attributes from the

observation of their leaders. Regarding leader integrity, as consistency over time is a crucial

element, longitudinal or at least time-lagged studies may help. Yet how do people come to

assess their leader as self-aware or endowed with ethical sense? What actions, what attitudes

are more likely to drive or, conversely, to preclude such judgments? Research in that direction

may be illuminated both by extant studies on the six theories, but also complementarily by

scholarly studies on the "dark side of leadership", despotic leadership and abusive leadership

(ref.needed). In that effort for mapping out the three virtuous attributes of "Theory Y"

leadership, an important light may be shed by reference to other, very distinct attributes such

as professional competence (Ciulla, 1995).

Page 22 of 38


While abundant empirical research has shown favorable outcomes of the six theories I

gathered under the umbrella of "Theory Y" leadership, surprisingly little attention has been

paid to their antecedents. This may be a third avenue for further research. What personal

characteristics make a leader more likely to be perceived as self-aware and high in ethical

sense and integrity remains by and large an unexplored area. For sure, theorists of authentic

leadership suggested that "trigger events", be they positive or negative, may be conducive to

authenticity, and one author argued that perceived authenticity was more easily attained by

male than female leaders (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Eagly, 2005;

Puente, Crous, & Venter, 2007). Empirically, a positive association was found between

perceptions of servant leadership and the status the founder of the company (Peterson, Galvin,

& Lange, 2012). Yet those examples remain too few and far apart. Because attributes may be

assumed to be close to traits that is, stable over time, what remains to comprehend, for

example, is whether there are correlates with measured universal psychological traits such as

the so-called Big Five – extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and

neuroticism (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In a developmental perspective, narrative approaches

would help understand what personal and professional experiences leaders who are perceived

high on our three positive attributes built on and how they make sense of their professional

identities (Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Driscoll & McKee, 2007).

Finally, further studies are warranted regarding boundary conditions. Research so far

has focused on organizations with a strong formal structure essentially in the for-profit world

of corporations, as emerges both from empirical studies and underlying assumptions of the

theoretical development. The three "Theory Y" leadership attributes may be sought in

different contexts such as early entrepreneurial ventures, nonprofit and hybrid organizations.

The six leadership theories on which I based my propositions have to a certain extent proven

culture-proof in the sense that constructs have shown to be theoretically consistent with major

Page 23 of 38


philosophical currents, and close empirical results have been observed in various parts of the

world (e.g. Bobbio, van Dierendonck, & Manganelli, 2012; Liden et al., 2015; Mittal &

Dorfman, 2012; Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010; Walumbwa et

al., 2008). However, what remains to know is how robust "Theory Y" attributes are with

respect to organizational cultures. It might be, for example, that self-awareness, ethical sense

and integrity are more salient in organizations where the culture is more benevolent, more

humane, and less salient in bureaucratic cultures. Moreover, whilst most empirical work on

positive leadership was done at the individual and team levels, with employees assessing the

characteristics of their direct supervisor, using a multilevel lens would help make headway

building on existing attempts in that direction (e.g. Palanski & Yammarino, 2009; Vögtlin,

Patzer, & Scherer, 2011; Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, & Dansereau, 2008; Yoshida,

Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014). Specifically, more effort seems warranted to extend prior

findings to the organizational level (e.g. Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012). While popular

business literature tends to associate self-servingly some positive CEO characteristics with

successful outcomes, insights might be gained by testing relationships between the three

fundamental virtuous attributes and organizational performance. Because in typical

organizations, most employees are not able to directly observe CEO behaviors, the three

simple attributes I propose may constitute efficient variables to measure the actual influence

of the top management and unveil some of its mechanisms.

Implications for practice

Because authentic, servant, ethical, empowering, spiritual and responsible leadership

theories have been shown to have positive impact both on performance and the individual

wellbeing of employees, synthetizing their findings in the three "Theory Y" leadership

attributes should have important implication for performance-oriented organizations with

respect to managers' selection, development and collaborative practices. Selection refers to

Page 24 of 38


hiring as well as promoting. The attributes of self-awareness, ethical sense and integrity are

more easily observable and verifiable than more elaborate constructs. In the hiring process,

they can be verified with referrals. In the promotion and succession planning process, HR

practitioners can assess them for a specific individual by means of interviews, questionnaires

and, with more accuracy and consistency, 360-degree assessments. Depth can be added by

asking individuals and referrals about specific practices that signal the three attributes. For

example, self-awareness is fostered by self-reflection. Recruiters may ask what self-reflection

practices candidates engage in. Regarding ethics and integrity, supervisors may consider

whether applicants for a promotion have had their behavior reported by whistleblowers.

Training and coaching, on the other hand, may be tools for leadership development if

designed toward the three "Theory Y" leadership attributes. Because the "only learning which

significantly influences behavior is self-discovered, self-appropriated learning" (Schön, 1983),

coaching appears a crucial instrument to develop self-awareness and integrity. Coaching helps

clients reflect on their actions and their relationship with their various constituents, draw

conclusions and, if need be, engage in alterations of their behaviors. Training too may infuse

managers with new habits fostering self-reflection, such as journaling. It is debatable how

effective training can be regarding the development of ethical sense, particularly since ethics

are held to be highly personal and people tend to think everyone share their subjective ethical

perceptions (Skitka, Bauman, & Lytle, 2008). But while this may be true about grand societal

issues, it is more easily conceivable that organizations can develop their staff's ethical sense

relatively to their specific organizational codes of conduct, for example.

CONCLUSION

This paper aimed to take stock of the important findings brought about in the last

fifteen years by six theories of leadership that share the basic assumptions of McGregor's

Page 25 of 38


1960; 1966) "Theory Y" and the positive approach advocated by positive organizational

scholarship and positive organizational scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003;

Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). It specifically attempted at

synthesizing the abundant literature by showing how three specific attributes, that I call

"Theory Y" leadership attributes, may aptly cristallize the description of positive leaders.

Those attributes are: self-awareness, ethical sense and integrity. I proposed a framework in

which those three attributes, taken together, may be delineated from behaviors that in turn

influence followers and contribute to the positive outcomes highlighted by empirical studies. I

derived specific, testable propositions for transforming those attributes into variables and

verifying how they may influence both performance and employee wellbeing, before

suggesting practical avenues for further research and implications for practice.

As insights both from McGregor and the positive streams were pivotal in the reflection

on leadership, I can only hope that this paper will bring clarity and encourage scholars of the

various currents to find constructive ways for further developments.

Page 26 of 38


REFERENCES

Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification:

Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13–17.

Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2011). Radical Authentic Leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. The Leadership Quarterly.

Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2011). Metaphors we lead by : understanding leadership in the real world. Abingdon, Oxon New York, NY: Routledge.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (21), 249–269.

Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 18(4), 244–256.

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 173–191.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823.

Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory-building for veritable sustained performance. Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska. The Leadership Quarterly.

Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of Performance and Weil-Being in Two Work Settings1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068.

Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147–154.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Barney, J., & Hansen, M. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage.

Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job

Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial applications. Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.

Page 27 of 38


Becker, G. K. (2007). The competitive edge of moral leadership. International Management Review, 3(1), 50–71.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Transaction Publishers. Bobbio, A., Dierendonck, D. V., & Manganelli, A. M. (2012). Servant leadership in Italy and

its relation to organizational variables. Leadership, 8(3), 229–243. Bright, D. S., Cooperrider, D. L., & Galloway, W. B. (2006). Appreciative inquiry in the

office of research and development: Improving the collaborative capacity of organization. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(3), 285–306.

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

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.

Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (S1), 25–35.

Cameron, K. S. (2008). Positive Leadership: Strategies for Extraordinary Performance. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2012). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press (OUP).

Cameron, Kim S., Dutton, Jane, & Quinn, R. (Eds.). (2003). Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 57–78.

Church, A. H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 281.

Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(01), 5–28.

Ciulla, J. B. (2014). Ethics, the heart of leadership. ABC-CLIO. Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2008). Authentic Leadership and

Positive Psychological Capital: The Mediating Role of Trust at the Group Level of Analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227–240.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Sage Publications, Inc.

Cooperrider, D., & Godwin, L. (2012). Positive Organization Development. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press (OUP).

Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry. In Collaborating for change (Berrett-Koehler Communications Inc). Peggy Holman and Tom Devane, Eds.

Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Integrity scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 127. Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Shared Virtue: The Convergence

of Valued Human Strengths Across Culture and History. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 203–213.

Page 28 of 38


Davis, A. L., & Rothstein, H. R. (2006). The Effects of the Perceived Behavioral Integrity of Managers on Employee Attitudes: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 407–419.

Diddams, M., & Chang, G. C. (2012). Only human: Exploring the nature of weakness in authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly.

Doh, J. P., & Quigley, N. R. (2014). Responsible Leadership and Stakeholder Management: Influence Pathways and Organizational Outcomes. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 255–274.

Driscoll, C., & McKee, M. (2007). Restorying a culture of ethical and spiritual values: A role for leader storytelling. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(2), 205–217.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management.

Dunning, D. (2005). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the path to knowing thyself. New York, N.Y.: Psychology Press.

Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459–474.

Endrissat, N., Müller, W. R., & Kaudela-Baum, S. (2007). En route to an empirically-based understanding of authentic leadership. European Management Journal, 25(3), 207–220.

Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 67–80.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.

Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727.

Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. Positive Psychology in Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility, 47–83.

Fry, L. W., Matherly, L. L., Whittington, J. L., & Winston, B. (2007). Spiritual leadership as an integrating paradigm for servant leadership. Integrating Spirituality and Organizational Leadership (Macmillan India Ltd., Delhi), 70–82.

Gardner, W. L., & Schermerhorn Jr, J. R. (2004). Unleashing individual potential performance gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 270–281.

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

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

George, B. (2003). The journey to authenticity. Leader to Leader, 2004(31), 29–35.

Page 29 of 38


George, W. W., George, B., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership (Vol. 143). Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.

Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership: An overview. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(3), 323–330. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2009). Authentic leadership. Leadership Excellence, 26(7), 17. Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological

functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 5(6).

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The Servant as Leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Center. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In Handbook of positive psychology (Oxford University

Press). New York, N.Y.: Snyder, C. R. (Ed); Lopez, Shane J. (Ed). Heppner, W. L., & Kernis, M. H. (2007). “Quiet Ego” Functioning: The Complementary

Roles of Mindfulness, Authenticity, and Secure High Self-Esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 248–251. 0

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2010). Emperors with clothes on: The role of self-awareness in developing effective change leadership. Journal of Change Management, 10(4), 369–385.

Hoyt, C. L., Forsyth, D. R., Han, L. C., & Goethals, George R. (2008). Introduction: A Contemporary Social Psychology of Leadership. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Leadership at the crossroads. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373–394.

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122 – 1131.

Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin. Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. . (2011). Ethical leadership at work

questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly.

Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 48(2), 127–146.

Kernis, M. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1.

Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity: Theory and Research. In Mark P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. Volume 38, pp. 283–357). Academic Press.

Laub, J. (2004). Defining Servant Leadership. In Retrieved January (Vol. 25, p. 2007). Retrieved from: http://www.regentuniversityonline.com/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2004/laub_defining_servant.pdf

Page 30 of 38


LePine, J. A., & King, A. W. (2010). Editor’s comments: developing novel theoretical insight from reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 506–509.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254–269.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.

Liden, R., Wayne, S., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. (2013). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, amj–2013.

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

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic Leadership development. In Positive Organizational Scholarship: foundations for a new discipline (Berret Koehler). San Francisco: Dutton, Quinn, Cameron.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2009). The “point” of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 291–307.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society–A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99–115.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954. Marsh, C. (2012). Business Executives’ Perceptions of Ethical Leadership and Its

Development. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–18. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of

attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 561–585. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. ., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral

component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of

organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, 21, 166. McGregor, D. (1966). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill, New York. Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal of World

Business. Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency

on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 350–364.

Novicevic, M. M., Harvey, M. G., Ronald, M., & Brown-Radford, J. A. (2006). Authentic leadership: A historical perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(1), 64–76.

Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J.-P. (2011). The challenges of theory building by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 6–12.

Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and Leadership: Clearing the Conceptual Confusion. European Management Journal, 25(3), 171–184.

Page 31 of 38


Palmer, D. E. (2009). Business Leadership: Three Levels of Ethical Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 525–536.

Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(5), 754–780.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification. Washington, DC; New York: American Psychological Association ; Oxford University Press.

Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 565–596.

Pless, N. M. (2007). Understanding Responsible Leadership: Role Identity and Motivational Drivers: The Case of Dame Anita Roddick, Founder of The Body Shop. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 437–456.

Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2011). Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–11.

Price. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14.

Puente, S., Crous, F., & Venter, A. (2007). The role of a positive trigger event in actioning authentic leadership development. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 11–18.

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (Jossey-Bass, pp. 5–39). San Francisco, CA.

Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511–541.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Book review - Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass San Francisco.

Seidman, D. (2004). The case for ethical leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 134–138.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. Free Press.

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

Siegel, D. S. (2014). Responsible Leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 221–223.

Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.

Page 32 of 38


Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Lytle, B. L. (2008). Morality as a Foundation of Leadership and a Constraint on Deference to Authority. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Leadership at the crossroads (pp. 300–314). Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Sorensen, P. F., & Minahan, M. (2011). McGregor’s legacy: the evolution and current application of Theory Y management. Journal of Management History, 17(2), 178–192.

Spears, L. C. (2002). On character and servant-leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.

Stahl, G. K., & Sully de Luque, M. (2014). Antecedents of Responsible Leader Behavior: A Research Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Agenda for Future Research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 235–254.

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

Taylor, S. N. (2010). Redefining leader self-awareness by integrating the second component of self-awareness. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(4), 57–68.

Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action (1st ed.). Toor, S. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full

range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533–547.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249–267.

Voegtlin, C. (2011). Development of a Scale Measuring Discursive Responsible Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–17.

Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M., & Scherer, A. G. (2011). Responsible Leadership in Global Business: A New Approach to Leadership and Its Multi-Level Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16.

Waldman, D. A., & Balven, R. M. (2014). Responsible Leadership: Theoretical Issues and Research Directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 224–234.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529.

Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 4–24.

Page 33 of 38


Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 693–707.

Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1395–1404.

Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647–680.

Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1), 16–26.

Documents

Toward a unified Theory Y of leadership: Leader self