According to a recent meta-analysis, there have been more than 40 empirical articles on authentic leadership (Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, & Wu, 2016). Despite a growing interest in authentic leadership, relatively less research exists on its components, although some scholars argue that the decision to analyze authentic leadership as a single higher-order construct or as four first-order constructs depends on the leader and situation under study. Based on context, the process and effects of authentic leadership may be modeled and understood through its components and āreinforces the potential importance of not assuming that perceived authentic leadership is universally a unitary or higher-order (global) constructā (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011: 1154). Since there is value in studying individual components as causal factors in the leadership process, this chapter begins a deeper investigation of a foundational component of authentic leadership, namely leader self-awareness, and its relationship to followers across cultures. This component was described as underlying the theoretical core to the development of authentic leadership as a self-based model (Gardner, Avolio, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2005: 346), and thus deserves further dedicated theory development and analysis of its explanatory power in predicting follower attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, the primary purpose of this chapter is to examine the effect of leader self-awareness (in the context of authentic leadership and its measurement) and develop theory predicting followersā psychological attitudes, specifically a sense of empowerment at work. Secondly, these relationships will be examined across national cultures to ascertain potential differences in the measurement or structural models across multiple levels of analysis (individual, work group, and national culture). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to explain in theoretical depth the differences that exist country by country, yet potential explanations for work unit and cultural differences in measurement and structural effects will be offered.
This study contributes to the field of authentic leadership in several ways. First, this research builds on prior theoretical explanations of the multidimensional nature of authentic leadership, specifically outlining a framework for leader self-awareness and its development. Although prior definitions exist, there is not a specific framework for leader self-awareness that describes its construct model and corresponding developmental practices. Second, although previous studies find that different measures of self-awareness are positively related to leadership effectiveness, less is known about the impact of leader self-awareness on followersā attitudes at work. Therefore, the current study offers insight into the cross-level relationships between leader self-awareness at the work group level and followersā sense of empowerment at work. Third, the existing survey instrument for authentic leadership contains items for assessing leader self-awareness, but these items have not been evaluated across cultures for measurement invariance. Without deconstructing variance across levels to assess random and systematic sources, differences in mean levels of any construct could be due to numerous factors (Byrne & Watkins, 2003; Jak, 2017). Therefore, evaluation of measurement invariance and differences in the relationship between leader self-awareness and follower empowerment will be examined across national cultures as a third contribution.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
What Is Leader Self-awareness and Why Is It Important?
Leader self-awareness is considered a foundation in leadership development by practitioners and scholars alike (Avolio, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; George, 2003; Goleman, 1998; London, 1995, 2002; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2003). Since sensitivity training emerged in organizations beginning in the 1950s, the idea has prevailed that managers should be more aware of their perceptual biases and potential prejudices in order to be effective interpersonally at work (Katz, 1956; Miles, 1960). More recently, the theory of authentic leadership presents leader self-awareness (LSA) as one of its four primary components (Gardner et al., 2005) explaining that āself-awareness refers to demonstrating an understanding of how one derives and makes meaning of the world and how that meaning making process impacts the way one views himself or herself over time. It also refers to showing an understanding of oneās strengths and weaknesses and the multifaceted nature of the self, which includes gaining insight into the self through exposure to others, and being cognizant of oneās impact on other peopleā (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008: 95). Further, they argue that āself-awareness is not an end in itself, but a process whereby one comes to reflect on oneās unique values, identity, emotions, goals, knowledge, talents and/or capabilitiesā (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005: 349).
Prior research on LSA found significant positive relationships with leader effectiveness (Church, 1997), charismatic leadership (Sosik, 2001), and follower satisfaction with the leader (Tekleab, Sims, Yun, Tesluk, & Cox, 2007). Leaders who are self-aware tend to possess high levels of self-efficacy and provide orientation for followers (Sosik & Megerian, 1999).
How Does LSA Develop?
Self-awareness arises from the human capacity for self-reflexivity. No other species seems to have the reflexive capacity to observe and evaluate themselves in the same ways that the human species can (Gallup, 1982). Evolutionary perspectives suggest that the brain in humans has developed layers of complexity over time, including the reptilian brain (basal ganglia) governing survival and aggression instincts, the limbic system (paleomammalian) generating emotions motivating social behaviors, and the neocortex regions (neomammalian) responsible for conceptual thinking, abstract reasoning, language, and projecting time into the future and past (MacLean, 1990). āThe different brains seem to cooperate like three interconnected biological computers, each of them having its own feeling of subjectivity and its own perception of time, space, and memoriesā (Wiest, 2012). Humans uniquely possess mental time travel, and can project an image of themselves in their minds out in the future and into the past (Wheeler, Stuss, & Tulving, 1997). The human capacity for self-reflexivity a...