magz4

A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational

leadership: A test for redundancy☆

George C. Banks a,⁎, Kelly Davis McCauley b, William L. Gardner c, Courtney E. Guler a

aUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USAbWest Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, USAcTexas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

article info abstract

Article history:

Received 26 August 2015

Received in revised form 27 January 2016

Accepted 23 February 2016

Available online xxxx

Handling Editor: M. Mumford While authentic leadership (AL) has seen a dramatic increase in scholarly attention over the last

decade, its contribution relative to more established leadership constructs merits investigation.

We employ meta-analytic techniques to compare AL and transformational leadership theories

using 100 independent samples and 25,452 individuals. Theﬁndings reveal that (1) the relation-

ship between authentic and transformational leadership is large in magnitude, suggesting construct

redundancy (ρ= .72); (2) neither AL nor transformational leadership add noticeable incremental

validity beyond the other construct; (3) AL has a lower relative weight than transformational lead-

ership for the outcomes of follower satisfaction, follower satisfaction with the leader, task perfor-

mance, and leader effectiveness; and (4) AL demonstrates dominance over transformational

leadership when predicting group or organization performance and organizational citizenship

behaviors. We recommend future research examine AL at the component level and its relationships

with related ethical constructs to potentially differentiate it from transformational leadership.

Keywords:

Authentic leadership

Transformational leadership

Meta-analysis

Introduction

Authenticity within the leadership context has received signiﬁcant attention within the management literature as a standalone

construct (e.g.,Luthans & Avolio, 2003), perhaps as a response to the crisis of conﬁdence in today's corporate and government

leaders (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011). Since its introduction, authentic leadership (AL) has gained considerable prac-

titioner (e.g.Cashman, 2003; George, 2003; George & Sims, 2007) and scholarly interest (e.g.Avolio, 2010; Gardner et al., 2011).

During this time, the study of AL has beneﬁtted from critical reﬁnements of the theoretical models (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May,

& Walumbwa, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005) and the development of multiple validated scales (e.g.Neider &

Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). As a result of these advancements, empirical

work examining AL has increased quite dramatically over the past 10 years.

Despite the impressive advances made both theoretically and empirically, researchers have expressed concerns regarding the

contribution of AL theory to the leadership literature (e.g.Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005; Yammarino, Dionne,

Schriesheim, & Dansereau, 2008). For example, AL overlaps conceptually with many of the other positive theories of leadership

(Avolio & Gardner, 2005). An application of Occam's razor would suggest that, all else being equal, two redundant constructs

add unnecessary complexity to our understanding of leadership theory (Schmidt, 2010). Indeed,Avolio and Gardner (2005)

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

☆

Suggestions by Matthew Baker, Ernest O′Boyle, In-Sue Oh, and Anson Seers were valuable in the improvement of this paper and were greatly appreciated. An earlier

version of this paper was presented at the 2014 Southern Management Association conference.

⁎Corresponding author at: University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Belk College of Business, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC, 28223.

E-mail address:[email protected](G.C. Banks).

LEAQUA-01127; No of Pages 19

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 suggest that AL can incorporate many theories of leadership including transformational, charismatic, servant, and spiritual, along

with other forms of positive leadership. With such conceptual overlap, concerns have emerged about whether AL is sufﬁciently

distinct from these theories (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014). The issue of distinctiveness between these theories, both theoretically

and empirically, is important since a lack of distinctiveness between AL and other positive leadership theories could suggest

that AL theory may be“old wine in new bottles”(Spell, 2001). Hence, determining whether AL represents a case of construct

redundancy and if AL accounts for unique variance in key outcomes will help to assess the value that AL adds to the leadership

literature.

Our study offers three primary contributions to the literature. First, we take the initial steps toward addressing concerns about

construct redundancy in the leadership literature by investigating the empirical distinction of AL from transformational leadership.

To explore the potential empirical redundancy of AL in comparison to transformational leadership, we present and test the rela-

tionship between authentic and transformational leadership across multiple studies. We also report the incremental validity of AL

over and above transformational leadership and vice versa, and we provide a test of the relative contribution of authentic and

transformational leadership when predicting important work outcomes. Second, by completing the tests, we also offer theﬁrst

meta-analytic review of the AL literature. While the number of AL studies pales in comparison to the number of transformational

leadership studies, empirical work has demonstrated the importance of early meta-analytic reviews in providing critical guidance

for fast-growing bodies of literature (e.g.,Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011). AsLeavitt, Mitchell, and Peterson (2010)point out, despite

the potential utility for doing so, meta-analysis is rarely used to compare theories and address concerns regarding theory prolif-

eration. We seek to capitalize on this potential, as we believe meta-analysis provides an advantageous tool for exploring our

research questions. Speciﬁcally, we selected meta-analysis to examine the discriminant validity of AL relative to transformational

leadership, since these theories reﬂect a considerable amount of conceptual overlap (seeTable 1inAvolio & Gardner, 2005for a

complete overview of the theoretical convergence between these theories). Lastly, as our third contribution we present a roadmap

for future AL theory development and empirical research.

AL theory

Luthans and Avolio's (2003)conceptualization of AL ignited scholarly interest in the AL construct within theﬁeld of manage-

ment and provided the foundation for current understandings of the construct. Building upon their work, several scholars

(e.g.Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008)havereﬁned AL the-

ory. Reﬁnements such as those byWalumbwa et al. (2008)have resulted in the most generally accepted deﬁnition of AL within

the literature. Thus, authentic leaders are described as being self-aware, showing openness and clarity regarding who they are,

and consistently disclosing and acting in accordance with their personal values, beliefs, motives, and sentiments (Walumbwa

et al., 2008). Based on this view, there are four components of AL: self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing,

and an internalized moral perspective.

Self-awarenessarises from an understanding of self-reﬂection regarding one's values, emotions, goals, knowledge, and talents

(Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005) and one's strengths and weaknesses (Ilies et al., 2005). Additionally, it refers to knowledge of

the multifaceted nature of the self and one's meaning-making process in relation to the social world (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Anin-

ternalized moral perspectiveis based on self-regulation, which is anchored by one's mission, deep-seeded values, or a desire to make a

difference (Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008).Balanced processingincludes considering others' opinions and all available

relevant information in decision-making while maintaining a relatively objective lens (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Finally,relational

transparencyrefers to showing one's true self to others and openly, but appropriately, sharing information regarding one's true

thoughts and emotions. Thus, authentic leaders welcome openness and self-disclosure in close relationships with others (Gardner,

Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005).

Past empirical evidence has linked AL to both attitudinal (e.g.

Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2013; Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012)

and behavioral outcomes (e.g.Hannah, Walumbwa, & Fry, 2011a; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2012). For the purpose of examining

the empirical redundancy of AL, we focus speciﬁcally on the following six outcomes: (1) follower job satisfaction, (2) follower

satisfaction with the leader, (3) task performance, (4) organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), (5) group or organization perfor-

mance, and (6) rated leader effectiveness. These outcomes were selected because they have been explicitly identiﬁed by AL theory

(Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005, 2011; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Walumbwa

et al., 2008)asconsequencesoftheauthenticleader–follower relationship, and they have been previously examined in meta-analytic

studies on transformational leadership (e.g.Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Such overlap in the

outcomes between our study and prior transformational leadership meta-analyses was necessary in order to test the incremental

validity and relative importance of AL compared to transformational leadership.

Empirical evidence suggests that when leaders are aware of their values and act upon such beliefs, they are more likely to achieve

elevated levels of performance and help others accomplish the same (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Followers tend to express greater satisfac-

tion with their leader when the leader engages in authentic behaviors and this satisfaction is likely to correspond to an increase in

job satisfaction (Jensen & Luthans, 2006). Thus, leaders who are perceived to be more ethical and make principled decisions will be

perceived as caring more about their followers (Brown & Treviño, 2006) and will likely inspire increased levels of OCBs.

Additionally, AL has seen a strong link to improved task performance (Leroy, Anseel et al., 2012) and performance at both the

group andﬁrm levels (Hannah et al., 2011a), in part, because individuals who are authentic are able to effectively use balanced

processing of information and illustrate consistency between their words and deeds (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The result is that

followers are more likely to receive the assistance, guidance, and resources that they need to perform their roles. In addition to

2G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 this direct effect of AL, there is likely to be an indirect effect on performance. This is because authentic leaders serve as role

models who act with integrity and fairness (Avolio et al., 2004). Furthermore, given that AL has been linked to these important

performance-related outcomes, it is likely that authentic leaders will also be rated as more effective (Illies, Curseu, Dimotakis,

& Spitzmuller, 2013). Thus, we suggest the following:

Hypothesis 1.AL will have positive, nonzero relationships with the following work outcomes: (a) follower job satisfaction, (b) follower

satisfaction with the leader satisfaction, (c) task performance, (d) organizational citizenship behaviors, (e) group or organization

performance, and (f) rated leader effectiveness.

Transformational leadership theory

Transformational leadership theory has received a tremendous amount of attention in the last three decades and has deserved-

ly emerged as one of the most dominant leadership theories (Mhatre & Riggio, 2014). First proposed byBurns (1978),thetheory

was advanced byBass (1985), who made critical revisions. Since that point the theory has received the beneﬁts of both theoretical

as well as meta-analytic reviews (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013), along with an in-depth theoretical and methodological critique (van

Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).

Transformational leadership describes how a leader seeks to meet the higher-order needs of followers. Four dimensions of

transformational leadership have been proposed. First,idealized inﬂuencecharacterizes the extent to which an individual engages

in behaviors that encourage followers to identify with him or her (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Second,inspirational motivation

describes the extent to which an individual puts forth a vision meant to inspire followers. Third,intellectual stimulationcharacter-

izes the extent to which individuals challenge existing assumptions and encourage others to take risks. Finally,individual

considerationdescribes the extent to which an individual seeks to meet the individual needs of his or her followers (Judge &

Piccolo, 2004).

We suggest that when introducing a new leadership construct, such as AL, it is necessary to take stock of how this novel con-

struct fares when predicting important outcomes relative to existing constructs, such as transformational leadership. If it is the

case that AL does not illustrate incremental validity and a certain amount of importance relative to more established leadership

constructs, its contribution to leadership research might be brought into question. Extensive reviews of the transformational lead-

ership literature already exist (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Eagly et al., 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; van Knippenberg & Sitkin,

2013; Wang et al., 2011). Thus, in this section, we discuss the literature on transformational leadership as it relates to AL theory

and research.

There are many differences and similarities between transformational leadership and AL. With regard to conceptual differ-

ences, transformational leadership focuses on developing followers for the purpose of performing leadership roles (Avolio,

1999), whereas AL is more concerned with developing followers' sense of self more generally (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Addition-

ally, authentic leaders are not necessarily charismatic or inspirational, yet transformational leaders by deﬁnition paint powerful

visions and stimulate creativity among followers within an organization. Other key elements of AL theory that are distinct or

absent from transformational leadership theory include (a) a reciprocal relationship between positive psychological capital and

authentic leadership/followership, (b) open and transparent relationships with close others, (c) alignment between leader values

and ethical conduct, (d) a positive, strengths-based perspective, and (e) follower authenticity and development (Avolio &

Gardner, 2005). These differences reﬂect the core premise of AL that alignment between the leaders' values and behavior pro-

duces tangible beneﬁts for the leader in the form of heightened levels of psychological well-being. Conversely, follower modeling

of such authenticity contributes to elevated levels of follower engagement, trust in the leader, well-being, and performance.

Hence, the explicit focus on the psychological health and well-being of both the leader and followers that accrues from the attain-

ment of authenticity represents a unique feature of AL theory that is not present within the transformational leadership literature.

As for similarities, a review of the original deﬁnitions of transformational leadership by bothBurns (1978)and Bass (Bass &

Steidlmeier, 1999) suggests that it is a necessity that“true”as opposed to“pseudo”transformational leaders are authentic in

their actions (

Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Hence, AL is most likely highly related to genuine transformational leadership and may

serve as a“root construct”of this and other forms of positive leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Moreover,Avolio and

Gardner (2005)note that the underlying leadership processes described by both theories stress the importance of leader

self-awareness, positive modeling, follower self-determination, positive social exchanges between leaders and followers, and a

supportive and ethical organizational context, while positing positive effects on follower, group, and organizational performance.

Finally, while transformational leadership theory does not explicitly discuss the role of positive psychological capital or follower

and leader relational transparency,Avolio and Gardner (2005)point out that these elements of AL are implicit in scholarly

discussions of transformational leadership. Thus, while there are notable differences been the posited elements of AL versus

transformational leadership, there is also a considerable amount of conceptual overlap.

An examination of the tools used to measure these constructs further illustrates their distinctiveness. The items in the Multi-

factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2004), which is the most extensively used measure of transformational leadership,

suggest that the content of this measure differs from that in the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ;Avolio, Gardner, &

Walumbwa, 2007) or the Authentic Leadership Inventory (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011), which measure the four AL dimensions.

Yet this does not mean there is not still conceptual overlap between the measures of AL and transformational leadership as

3 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 appears to be the case for the dimensions of idealized inﬂuence within transformational leadership theory and the internalized

moral perspective within AL theory (Walumbwa et al., 2008). In the case of these two sub-dimensions, one would expect a leader

to role model ideal behaviors that are meant to inspire followers in at least some capacity. Thus, from both a conceptual and

measurement perspective, AL and transformational leadership appear to be related, yet distinct. If there is a very strong relation-

ship between the measures of AL and transformational leadership, one might raise the issue of empirical redundancy. Based upon

these arguments, we propose the following competing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a.AL will reﬂect incremental validity and/or provide a greater relative contribution than transformational leadership

when predicting important work outcomes.

Hypothesis 2b.AL will not reﬂect incremental validity and/or provide a greater relative contribution than transformational leadership

when predicting important work outcomes.

Methods

Literature search

A thorough search was conducted in order to identify published and unpublished samples that examined the antecedents, corre-

lates, and consequences of AL. We employed a search strategy similar to that ofGardner et al. (2011). Samples were identiﬁed

through electronic searches of EBSCO/Host databases (e.g., Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, Education Re-

search Complete, ERIC, PsycArticles, and PsycINFO) and Google Scholar using speciﬁc keywords such as“authentic leadership”and

“authenticity”paired with“leader,”“follower,”or“leadership.”We conducted manual searches of theAcademy of Management,

Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology,andSouthern Management Associationannual conference proceedings and programs.

We also searched reference lists of key articles on AL (e.g.,Gardner et al., 2011). A cutoff date was set for September 19, 2014. Finally,

we issued a call for unpublished samples and in-press papers through theAcademy of Management's OB, HRDIV, and LDRNET listservs.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To be included in the current meta-analytic review, primary samples had to meet several established criteria. First, only

primary samples that explicitly measured AL were included. Second, to merit inclusion, primary samples had to measure AL

and at least one of the variables identiﬁed inTable 1. Third, samples were included only if sufﬁcient data were reported in

order to calculate a correlation coefﬁcient. When the necessary information was not reported, the authors were contacted and

a request was made for the zero-order correlations not provided in the original study (e.g.Batchelor, 2011; Clapp-Smith,

Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009). It was decided to exclude the study byHmieleski, Cole, and Baron (2012)as these authors applied

a reference-shift composition model to their AL scale so as to characterize AL of entire teams instead of individual leaders. In total,

this process resulted in 100 samples that were coded and the inclusion of 25,452 individuals. The primary input values

(e.g., sample size, reliabilities, and correlations) from each sample are available inAppendix A.

Coding procedures

Two authors independently coded a subsample of studies. Across 44 coding decisions (e.g., sample size, reliabilities, effect size,

etc.), the interrater reliability was acceptable (Cohen's kappa = 1.0) (Cohen, 1960). Additionally, the lead author randomly exam-

ined approximately 20% of the primary samples and found no coding errors. When coding samples, if the sample included mul-

tiple time periods, Time 1 was coded in order to increase the comparability of longitudinal samples to samples that utilized a

cross-sectional design. In some instances, a reliability estimate (e.g., coefﬁcient alpha) was not reported, and an average reliability

was computed using other reliabilities in that distribution. If a study did not report the reliability of the AL measure employed, we

used Cronbach's alpha for the ALQ even if it was a unique scale. This most likely overestimates reliability and under corrects for

any measurement error. However, as corrections boost the magnitude of the correlations, it was decided to use the more conser-

vative approach. In a few cases proxies were coded. First, affective commitment was coded as a proxy for organizational commit-

ment. Second, credibility was coded as a proxy for trust. Third, bullying was coded as a proxy for counterproductive work

behaviors (CWB). In all other instances, the variables coded exactly matched the category for which the variable was assigned

(e.g., the variable job satisfaction was coded as the criterion job satisfaction).

Meta-analytic procedures

The psychometric meta-analysis approach was employed in order to synthesize the primary samples (Hunter & Schmidt,

2004). In a few instances, a composite correlation was used (the composites are reported inAppendix A). The variability of

corrected effect size estimates was investigated by calculating 80% credibility intervals. Wide intervals or intervals that include

zero can be interpreted as evidence of moderating effects. Additionally, the percentage of variability due to random-sampling

and measurement error is described. Finally, 95% conﬁdence intervals (95% CI) were reported.

4G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 Incremental validity and relative weights analyses

Historically, in management research, there has been a great deal of emphasis placed on the total predictive validity of a

collection of theoretically important variables (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004). Additionally, techniques have been posited that

allow one to compare the importance of one predictor variable to another. For example, it is not uncommon to see regression

analyses, such as tests of incremental validities, included in meta-analytic studies (Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha,

2009; Kepes, McDaniel, Brannick, & Banks, 2013). This approach can be useful as it allows one to see the extent to which various

constructs provide predictive validity over and above related constructs. However, such approaches can also be limited when

the correlations between predictor variables are quite large in magnitude. This is certainly true when considering authentic and

transformational leadership (Copeland, 2009; Lelchook, 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Concerns about multicollinearity in regression equations suggest that a relative weights analysis is merited. The use of relative

weights in meta-analyses has gained great popularity and acceptance in the management literature (Banks et al., 2014; Behson,

2012; Chiaburu, Munoz & Gardner, 2013; Chiaburu, Peng, Oh, Banks & Lomeli, 2013; Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey,

2011; O'Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011; O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, White, & Story, 2014; Tonidandel & LeBreton,

2011). Such an analysis can be completed using the epsilon weight technique advanced byJohnson (2001). This technique has

received much attention over the past decade. This approach can be used to identify patterns of dominance among correlated

predictor variables (LeBreton, Hargis, Griepentrog, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2007). Hence, its adoption is warranted when considering

the high correlations of the leadership constructs of interest in this study. The resulting weights can be summed toR

2and then

compared via ratios. For example, an epsilon weight of 0.30 is three times as important as an epsilon weight of 0.10; the summed

weights of 0.40 reﬂect the total variance explained.

Sensitivity analyses

Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the results. Unfortunately, a sufﬁcient number of sam-

ples were not available to compare the operationalization of AL using the ALQ (Walumbwa et al., 2008) relative to the Authentic

Leadership Inventory (ALI;Neider & Schriesheim, 2011).

Outlier check

A check for outliers was conducted usingHuffcutt and Arthur's (1995)sample adjusted meta-analytic deviancy (SAMD) with

corrections recommended byBeal, Corey, and Dunlap (2002). A critical value of .001 was used. When identiﬁed as a possible out-

lier, the primary samples were reexamined to rule out the possibility that there were coding or transcription errors. In all in-

stances, analyses were conducted with and without the possible outliers to identify if there were any changes in the

conclusions drawn. In no cases did a conclusion change, and thus, it was decided not to eliminate any potential outliers.

One-sample-removed analysis

To supplement the outlier check and to reduce any remaining concerns that the results may have been affected by inﬂuential

samples, one-sample-removed analyses were computed and reported in the results section (Kepes et al., 2013). To accomplish

this, the primary samples were removed one at a time from each distribution and the meta-analytic estimate was recalculated.

The result is a range of estimates that illustrates the robustness of the meta-analytic estimate should any one sample be removed.

Publication bias check

Publication bias is considered to be a potential threat to the robustness of meta-analytic results (Banks, Kepes, & McDaniel,

2012; Banks & McDaniel, 2011) and, consequently, evidence-based practice (Briner & Rousseau, 2011). Previous research has sug-

gested that, conservatively speaking, publication bias analyses should only be interpreted when there are at least 15 samples, as

publication bias tests are thought to be less accurate within smaller distributions (Kepes, Banks, & Oh, 2012). In the current study,

there are four distributions with at least 15 or more samples (AL-transformational leadership; AL-OCB; AL-commitment; AL-job

satisfaction). In order to triangulate the possibility of publication bias, we report the results of the trim andﬁll (Duval, 2005),

moderate selection models (Vevea & Woods, 2005), and cumulative meta-analysis (Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012).

For a complete review of these tests, seeBanks, Kepes, and McDaniel (2015)as well asKepes, Banks, McDaniel et al. (2012).

Results

We began our analyses by considering the relationships between AL and its sub-dimensions. Past empirical studies have

examined the construct validity of AL via factor analysis (e.g.Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Yet there are

beneﬁts to considering the relations between dimensions via meta-analysis because such results provide close approximation of pa-

rameter estimates free from random-sampling error (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). There appear to be strong relations among the

AL dimensions. The correlations between relational transparency and balanced processing (b

ρ=.86,k=23,N= 4425), internal-

ized moral perspective (b

ρ=.89,k=24,N= 4,535), and self-awareness (b ρ= .88,k= 23,N= 4,457) are all large in magnitude.

The parameter estimates between balanced processing and self-awareness (b

ρ= .92,k= 24,N= 4,515) and internalized moral

5 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 perspective (b ρ= .84,k=24,N= 4,516) are also quite large in magnitude. Finally, the relation between internalized moral perspec-

tive and self-awareness (b

ρ=.84,k=23,N= 4,378) was consistent with the other relations examined.

The correlates and outcomes of AL are illustrated inTable 1. In cases where the number of samples (k) and the overall sample

size are small (n), greater caution should be used when interpreting the results. The results shown inTable 1provide support

forHypothesis 1. AL is strongly correlated with job satisfaction (b

ρ= .53,k=16,N= 4,084), follower satisfaction with the leader

ρ=.66,k=6,N= 1,318), group or organization performance (b ρ=.40,k=4,N= 333), and leader-rated effectiveness (b ρ=

.58,k=7,N= 1,431), as well as task performance (b

ρ=.14,k=9,N= 2,054) and OCB of followers (b ρ=.48,k=10,

N= 2,309). There were also strong true-score correlations between AL and other important behavioral and attitudinal outcomes,

such as CWB (b

ρ=−.31,k=3,N= 1,549), organizational commitment (b ρ= .51,k=17,N= 4,077), and turnover intentions (b ρ=−

.21,k=5,N= 1,149). Hence, these results show that AL is related to both important attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Also of note,

AL displays a strong positive relationship with leader-member exchange (LMX;b

ρ=.65,k=6,N= 2,083).

The estimate of the true-score correlation (b

ρ) between authentic and transformational leadership is .72 (k=23,N= 5,414).

These results indicate a strong overlap between authentic and transformational leadership, which raises concern that these are

not stand-alone constructs. It should be noted that the authentic-transformational leadership parameter estimate exceeds the

traditionally accepted minimum cutoff for acceptable internal consistency of .70 (LePine et al., 2002; Nunnally, 1978). Thisﬁnding

is contradictory to scale development studies that argue that authentic and transformational leadership are empirically distinct

constructs (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Incremental validity and relative importance of AL

As previously described, we propose that when introducing a new leadership construct, it is necessary to take stock of how

this new construct fares when predicting important outcomes compared to existing constructs. In the case that AL fails to illus-

trate incremental validity and/or an appropriate amount of importance relative to existing leadership constructs, its contributions

to theﬁeld of management could be brought into question. As previously mentioned, concerns exist that there is construct and

theory proliferation in management research (Leavitt et al., 2010). Thus, we conducted both incremental validity and relative

weights analyses with authentic and transformational leadership.

To construct the correlation matrix necessary for each incremental validity test and relative weights analysis, an attempt was

made to identify the most up-to-date and accurate correlations between transformational leadership and important outcomes.

Thus, we used the correlations fromJudge and Piccolo (2004)as well asWang et al. (2011)for our incremental validity and

Table 1

Correlates and consequences of authentic leadership (AL).

VariablekN

rSD r bρa bρb SDρ CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL %Var One sample removed

AL←→Transformational 23 5,414 .70 .20 .72 .85 .27 [.37 1.00] [.60 .83] 2% .69 to .77

ALQ 17 4,013 .74 .11 .74 .90 .24 [.43 1.00] [.63 .86] 2% .72 to .82

Other measures 6 1,401 .58 .31 .63 .70 .32 [.22 1.00] [.38 .89] 2% .52 to .79

AL←→Transactional 10 1,812 .44 .35 .55 .58 .43 [.00 1.00] [.29 .82] 3% .48 to .69

AL→Employee behavioral and attitudinal outcomes

Task performance 9 2,054 .12 .04 .14 .15 .04 [.08 .19] [.08 .19] 74% .12 to .16

Group or org performance 4 333 .35 .07 .40 .43 .08 [.31 .50] [.28 .52] 69% .33 to .49

OCB 10 2,309 .42 .24 .48 .52 .24 [.17 .78] [.33 .63] 7% .40 to .52

Voice 6 1,530 .29 .10 .31 .36 .11 [.17 .44] [.21 .41] 25% .27 to .36

LMX 6 2,083 .60 .22 .65 .75 .22 [.36 .94] [.47 .83] 3% .55 to .73

Satisfaction with leader 6 1,318 .60 .11 .66 .72 .11 [.52 .81] [.57 .76] 16% .64 to .72

Trust in leader 12 3,210 .57 .18 .65 .71 .19 [.41 .89] [.54 .76] 7% .62 to .74

Leader effectiveness 7 1,431 .54 .35 .58 .64 .37 [.11 .99] [.30 .85] 2% .49 to .73

Job satisfaction 16 4,084 .48 .15 .53 .59 .16 [.32 .74] [.45 .61] 10% .50 to .55

Org. commitment 17 4,077 .44 .14 .51 .55 .16 [.30 .71] [.43 .59] 13% .49 to .54

Creativity 4 859 .29 .21 .33 .39 .23 [.04 .62] [.10 .56] 9% .21 to .41

Engagement 11 3,018 .33 .34 .37 .41 .38 [−.11 .85] [.14 .59] 3% .29 to .49

Empowerment 5 1,394 .45 .07 .51 .54 .07 [.41 .60] [.43 .58] 35% .47 to .53

Psychological capital 7 3,134 .48 .09 .53 .59 .11 [.40 .67] [.45 .62] 14% .49 to .55

CWB 3 1,549−.28 .11−.31−.33 .12 [−.47−.16] [−.46−.17] 13%−.41 to−.17

Turnover intentions 5 1,149−.20 .28−.21−.25 .31 [−.60 .18] [−.49 .06] 5%−.42 to−.14

Burnout/stress 7 1,616−.24 .00−.27−.30 .00 [−.27−.27] [−.31−.22] 100%−.29 to−.25

Note. k= number of independent samples;N= total sample size;

r= sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation;SD r= sample-size-weighted observed

standard deviation of correlations;b

ρ= mean true-score correlation (corrected for unreliability for both variables);SD ρ= standard deviation of corrected correlations;

CV LLand CV UL= lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 80% credibility interval; CI LLand CI UL= lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% conﬁdence

interval around the mean true-score correlation; %Var = percentage of variance attributable to statistical artifacts; OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors;

LMX = leader-member exchange; CWB = counterproductive work behaviors.

aObserved correlation corrected for measurement error using coefﬁcient alpha.bObserved correlation corrected for measurement error using inter-judge agreement. 6G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 relative weights analyses. The correlations from the current meta-analysis and those from the two previous studies were input

into an SPSS matrix regression macro created byJohnson (2001)for the relative weights analyses.

When constructing meta-analytic correlation matrices, it is important to keep in mind that effect sizes from prior meta-

analyses draw upon different samples from those included in the current meta-analysis. Thus, there is a possible limitation that

the samples vary in important and unknown ways. Additionally, the number of samples included in previous transformational

leadership meta-analytic research was larger than the number of samples included in this AL meta-analysis. Hence, the parameter

estimates for transformational leadership are thought to be more stable as the literature has had more time to develop and

become established. With these caveats in mind, the results of the current incremental validity and relative weights analyses

do represent the best estimates of the population parameters and AL's contribution relative to transformational leadership.

The results of the incremental validity tests are illustrated inTable 2. In the upper half of the table, transformational leadership

is entered into step one of the regression model, and AL is entered into step two. The results show that AL adds little incremental

validity over and above transformational leadership except for the case of followers' OCB (ΔR

2= .15) and group or organization

performance (ΔR 2= .09). Conversely, when AL is enteredﬁrst into the regression model, transformational leadership appears to

add the most incremental validity in the evaluation of leadership effectiveness (ΔR 2= .10), follower job satisfaction (ΔR 2=.08),

and follower satisfaction with the leader (ΔR 2= .11). Neither construct appears to add much incremental validity over and above

the other in general.

Next, we completed relative weights analyses. Epsilon weights can be used in such an analysis in order to estimate the sum of

explained variance (R

2). Additionally, the epsilon weights can be judged through ratios (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004). The magni-

tude of the weights can be interpreted using the standards set byCohen (1988)in whichR 2values of 0.01, 0.09, and 0.25 cate-

gorize the small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Yet these standards for evaluating bivariate relations can be considered

conservative when used in the context of multivariate models such as in the case of a relative weights analysis. This is because

partial and semi-partial correlations decrease as the number of predictors increases (except for in the case of suppressor effects).

Table 3displays the results of the relative weights analyses. The percentage of relative weights shown inTable 3is calculated

by dividing the relative weights by totalR

2and subsequently multiplying by 100. The percentages then total to 100%. This infor-

mation provides indices of the relative importance of these leadership constructs that are useful for interpretation of the results.

In general, the results of the comparison of AL to transformational leadership show mixed dominance by the two constructs.

AL did not show greater dominance than transformational leadership for follower job satisfaction (42.3% vs. 57.7%), task perfor-

mance (22.4% vs. 77.6%), follower satisfaction with the leader (43.8% vs. 56.2%), and leadership effectiveness (41.7% vs. 58.3%).

Conversely, AL did show greater dominance in the cases of group or organization performance (78.6% vs. 21.4%) and OCB

Table 2

Results of the incremental validity tests.*

The incremental validity of AL

Follower job satisfaction Follower satisfaction with leader Task performance

βSEβSEβSEβSEβSEβSE

TL 0.58⁎⁎

0.01 0.41⁎⁎

0.02 0.71⁎⁎

0.02 0.49⁎⁎

0.02 0.21⁎⁎

0.02 0.23⁎⁎

0.03

AL 0.23⁎⁎

0.02 0.31⁎⁎

0.02−0.02 0.03

2= 0.336⁎⁎

R 2= 0.363⁎⁎

R 2= 0.504⁎⁎

R 2= 0.550⁎⁎

R 2= 0.044⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.027⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.046⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.000

Group or organization performance Leader effectiveness OCB

TL 0.26⁎⁎

0.04−0.06 0.05 0.64⁎⁎

0.02 0.46⁎⁎

0.02 0.30⁎⁎

0.01−0.10 0.02

AL 0.44⁎⁎

0.05 0.25⁎⁎

0.02 0.55⁎⁎

0.02

2= 0.068⁎⁎

R 2= 0.162⁎⁎

R 2= 0.410⁎⁎

R 2= 0.439⁎⁎

R 2= 0.090⁎⁎

R 2= 0.235⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.094⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.029⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.145⁎⁎

The incremental validity of transformational leadership

Follower job satisfaction Follower satisfaction with leader Task performance

βSEβSEβSEβSEβSEβSE

AL 0.53⁎⁎

0.01 0.23⁎⁎

0.02 0.66⁎⁎

0.02 0.31⁎⁎

0.02 0.14⁎⁎

0.02−0.02 0.03

TL 0.41⁎⁎

0.02 0.49⁎⁎

0.02 0.23⁎⁎

0.03

2= 0.281⁎⁎

R 2= 0.363⁎⁎

R 2= 0.436⁎⁎

R 2= 0.550⁎⁎

R 2= 0.020⁎⁎

R 2= 0.044⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.082⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.114⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.024⁎⁎

Group or organization performance Leader effectiveness OCB

AL 0.40⁎⁎

0.04 0.44⁎⁎

0.05 0.58⁎⁎

0.02 0.25⁎⁎

0.02 0.48⁎⁎

0.01 0.55⁎⁎

0.02

TL−0.06 0.05 0.46⁎⁎

0.02−0.10 0.02

2= 0.160⁎⁎

R 2= 0.162⁎⁎

R 2= 0.336⁎⁎

R 2= 0.439⁎⁎

R 2= 0.230⁎⁎

R 2= 0.235⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.002⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.103⁎⁎

ΔR 2= 0.005⁎⁎

Note. AL = authentic leadership; TL = transformational leadership.

⁎

pb.05.

⁎⁎

pb.01.7 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 (79.9% vs. 20.1%). The nature of the dominance by constructs varies and often by wide margins. In sum, it appears that across the

six outcomes, transformational leadership shows greater relative weight in four of the cases, while AL shows greater dominance in

another two.

Sensitivity analyses

Contextual factors

In order to consider the potential for contextual factors to inﬂuence the relations investigated in this study, we investigated

several moderating variables. First, in cases where at least three samples were available by source, we reported multi-source

(data came from multiple participants) or same source relations (data came from a single source). We also coded for the most

common context, which was the healthcare industry and level of leader investigated (e.g., upper management and lower manage-

ment). Theseﬁndings are reported inTable 4.Webrieﬂy discuss the AL-transformational leadership relation as a case example.

The AL-transformational leadership relation did not seem to vary much by source (e.g.,ρ= .75 vs.ρ= .81). However, for

the level of management for this relation, upper management differed signiﬁcantly from lower management (e.g.,ρ= .86 vs.

ρ= .42). In general, the reporting of these categorical moderators allows for a more detailed look at the extant research on AL.

One sample removed

The one-sample-removed analyses are summarized inTable 1. These results illustrate the range of possible effect sizes if any

one sample were removed from the analyses. As might be expected, the range of potential estimates is much smaller in nature

when the number of samples (k) increases. There is no doubt that as the number of AL studies increases, more stability will

emerge in the parameter estimates between the AL and the constructs in its nomological network. However, the range of poten-

tial estimates appears to be small in most cases, suggesting that the results are relatively robust. It appears that some of the

distributions with fewer samples were less robust. For instance, the AL-CWB relation (k= 3) ranged from−.41 to−.17, and the

AL-turnover intentions relation (k=5)rangedfrom−.42 to−.14. Conversely, larger distributions, such as the AL-transformational re-

lation (k= 23), showed a smaller range from .69 to .77. In general, the smaller ranges can be interpreted as illustrating more robust

ﬁndings, while the larger ranges illustrate that greater caution should be exercised when interpreting theﬁndings.

Correction for measurement error

Inter-judge agreement may be a more appropriate estimate of reliability than coefﬁcient alphas in the context of the current

study (LeBreton & Senter, 2007). However, the vast majority of the studies included in this meta-analysis did not report the

necessary reliability estimate. Hence, we coded the requisite information for AL where available and then imputed the reliability

estimate for the studies where the information was missing. As a sensitivity check, we report the observed correlations corrected

for measurement error using inter-judge agreement inTable 1. By and large, theﬁndings reported inTable 1did not change re-

gardless of the type of measurement error corrected.

Publication bias analyses

As previously stated, we followed past precedence and only interpreted distributions with at least 15 samples for the publica-

tion bias analyses (Kepes, Banks, & Oh, 2012). To begin, we examined the relationship between authentic and transformational

leadership. The moderate (Δr= .002) and severe (Δr= .004) one-tailed selection model tests show that the original meta-

analytic estimate is only marginally adjusted downward. Next, a cumulative meta-analysis was calculated and the difference be-

tween the point estimate after the 10% most precise samples in the distribution and theﬁnal meta-analytic estimate was com-

pared. The results show that the correlation is adjusted downward, which is counter to what would be expected if publication

bias were present. Finally, when considering the potential for missing negative or near-zero correlations, the trim andﬁll analysis

supported the results of the previous two analyses asﬁndings suggested that publication bias is not present in the distribution.

Table 3

Relative importance of authentic and transformational leadership.

Follower job satisfaction Follower satisfaction with leader Group or organization performance

Raw relative

weightsRelative weights

as a % ofR

2 Raw relative

weightsRelative weights

as a % ofR 2 Raw relative

weightsRelative weights

as a % ofR 2

Authentic 0.154 42.3 0.241 43.8 0.127 78.6

Transformational 0.209 57.7 0.309 56.2 0.035 21.4

2= 0.363R 2= 0.550R 2= 0.162

Task performance OCB Leadership effectiveness

Raw relative

weightsRelative weights

as a % ofR

2 Raw relative

weightsRelative weights

as a % ofR 2 Raw relative

weightsRelative weights

as a % ofR 2

Authentic 0.010 22.4 0.188 79.9 0.183 41.7

Transformational 0.034 77.6 0.047 20.1 0.256 58.3

2= 0.044R 2= 0.235R 2= 0.439 8G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 The same analyses were repeated with the AL→organizational commitment and AL→job satisfaction relationships. These analyses

also provided no evidence of publication bias. In sum, this preliminary evidence shows no support for concerns of publication bias.

However, the analyses should be updated in the future once more samples have emerged.

Discussion

The primary objective of this study is to consider the potential for empirical redundancy among the authentic and transforma-

tional leadership constructs. Despite recent advancements in the theoretical understanding of AL, only a few years ago there was a

dearth of empirical studies necessary to conduct a meta-analytic review (e.g.,Gardner et al., 2011) and consider the contribution

of the construct. However, due to the dramatic increase in AL studies, a critical mass has been reached allowing for a meta-

analytic review on the topic. Thus, this study is theﬁrst to consider the empirical redundancy of AL using a meta-analysis. This

objective was completedﬁrst by examining the magnitude of the correlation between AL and transformational leadership. We

then conducted two additional analyses to consider the incremental validity of the constructs as well as their relative importance.

Interestingly, theﬁndings of this study are somewhat inconsistent with previous empirical work. While individual scale develop-

ment studies have provided evidence that the AL and transformational leadership constructs are related, yet distinct (Neider &

Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008), the current studyﬁnds at least some evidence to the contrary. More speciﬁcally, AL was

strongly and positively correlated with transformational leadership. The very large correlation between AL and transformational

Table 4

Categorical moderators of Authentic Leadership (AL) relations.

VariablekN

rSD r bρSD ρ CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL %Var

AL←→Transformational

Multi-source 5 1,068 .66 .16 .75 .17 [.53 .97] [.59 .90] 6.5%

Same source 16 3,393 .73 .23 .81 .25 [.49 .99] [.69 .93] 2.2%

Upper management 9 1,948 .75 .10 .86 .12 [.71 .99] [.78 .94] 8.3%

Lower management 4 639 .38 .32 .42 .34 [−.02 .86] [.08 .76] 5.2%

Task performance

Multi-source 6 1,439 .13 .00 .14 .01 [.14 .15] [.09 .20] 99.2%

Same source 3 615 .10 .07 .11 .07 [.02 .21] [−.00 .23] 52.4%

Healthcare context 3 534 .07 .09 .08 .10 [−.05 .20] [−.06 .22] 42.3%

OCB

Multi-source 5 1,145 .29 .08 .33 .10 [.21 .46] [.23 .44] 32.0%

Same source 4 917 .56 .29 .62 .27 [.28 .96] [.35 .89] 3.8%

Upper management 3 796 .60 .30 .65 .29 [.27 .99] [.31 .98] 2.3%

Trust in leader

Healthcare context 3 658 .58 .08 .66 .08 [.56 .76] [.56 .76] 30.1%

Upper management 4 1,495 .46 .17 .52 .18 [.29 .75] [.34 .70] 7.1%

Job satisfaction

Multi-source 4 787 .43 .00 .46 .00 [.46 .46] [.40 .52] 99.9%

Same source 11 3,159 .49 .17 .55 .19 [.31 .79] [.44 .66] 7.3%

Healthcare context 5 1,227 .51 .18 .56 .21 [.29 .83] [.37 .75] 5.7%

Upper management 3 520 .30 .13 .35 .11 [.22 .49] [.21 .49] 40.1%

Lower management 5 1,122 .41 .05 .45 .07 [.36 .53] [.37 .52] 45.4%

Org. commitment

Multi-source 6 1,207 .47 .11 .52 .12 [.37 .68] [.42 .63] 19.6%

Same source 10 2,732 .43 .15 .50 .17 [.28 .72] [.39 .61] 10.0%

Upper management 3 520 .46 .00 .63 .12 [.48 .77] [.48 .77] 32.1%

Lower management 3 572 .37 .11 .40 .12 [.25 .55] [.25 .55] 25.4%

Engagement

Healthcare context 3 557 .29 .05 .32 .05 [.25 .38] [.22 .41] 68.8%

Psychological capital

Multi-source 3 938 .45 .07 .49 .05 [.42 .56] [.41 .57] 49.6%

Same source 4 2,196 .49 .10 .55 .12 [.40 .70] [.43 .67] 8.6%

Upper management 4 1,932 .48 .08 .54 .09 [.42 .66] [.45 .64] 16.5%

Burnout/stress

Healthcare context 4 1,075−.23 .00−.26 .00 [−.26−.26] [−.31−.20] 99.9%

Lower management 3 822−.22 .00−.24 .00 [−.24−.24] [−.31−.18] 99.9%

Note. k= number of independent samples;N= total sample size;

r= sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation;SD r= sample-size-weighted observed

standard deviation of correlations;b

ρ= mean true-score correlation (corrected for unreliability for both variables);SD ρ= standard deviation of corrected correla-

tions; CV LLand CV UL= lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 80% credibility interval; CI LLand CI UL= lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95%

conﬁdence interval around the mean true-score correlation; %Var = percentage of variance attributable to statistical artifacts; OCB = organizational citizenship

behaviors.9 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 leadership suggests the possibility of empirical redundancy as the correlation approached 1.0. This was particularly true when AL was

measured using the ALQ where the parameter estimate was .74. Given that conceptual arguments have been made for the distinction

between AL and transformational leadership, it is curious that the two constructs wereso highly correlated. It is possible that further

reﬁnement to the ALQ as well as continued application of the ALI would improve our understanding of the AL and transformational

leadership relationship. Further, given the .72 correlation between AL and transformational leadership, it is not surprising that neither

AL nor transformational leadership seemed to add much incremental validity over and above the other.

Perhaps most notably, transformational leadership seemed to outperform AL in predicting four of the six examined attitudinal

and performance-related outcomes. Yet AL outperformed transformational leadership when predicting group- orﬁrm-level per-

formance (a proxy for leadership effectiveness in some research areas) and followers' OCB. Thus, the relative importance analyses

suggest that AL and transformational leadership may show dominance over the other in predicting varying outcomes. However,

given the small number of samples and total sample sizes in some cases, such as when considering group or organization perfor-

mance, caution should be exercised when expressing the robustness of theﬁndings. Still in total, while the magnitude of the

correlation between authentic and transformational leadership and the incremental validity results suggest the possibility of

empirical redundancy, theﬁndings of the relative weights analyses indicate that AL is deserving of future attention given the

mixed results.

With this caution in mind, we found it useful to revisit AL and transformational leadership theory to speculate on possible

explanations for the differences in the relative levels of dominance observed for these theories. In doing so, we were struck by

the extent to which the outcomes that are more strongly related to transformational leadership (task performance, leader effec-

tiveness, follower job satisfaction, and follower satisfaction with the leader) reﬂect an individual level focus, whereas those more

strongly related to AL (OCB's and group and organizational performance) reﬂect a collective focus. One possible explanation for

the former set ofﬁndings is provided by the subtitle ofBass' (1985)seminal treatise on transformational leadership—Performance

Beyond Expectations. Clearly, the focal outcome of transformational leadership is performance. As such, in retrospect, perhaps it is

not surprising that it has a stronger relationship with task performance and leader effectiveness. Moreover, achievement of

elevated levels of leadership effectiveness and follower performance may explain the strong relationships with job satisfaction

and follower satisfaction. Speciﬁcally, by inspiring followers to pursue and attain exceptional levels of performance, transforma-

tional leadership accrues very high levels of follower satisfaction with their jobs and the leader.

By contrast, the central focus of AL on enabling both leaders and their followers to stay true to their values, identity, emotions,

motives, and goals (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005)reﬂects a more diffuse focus beyond performance. Indeed, the internal-

ized moral perspective component of AL suggests that both leaders and their followers have a clear moral duty to respect the in-

terests of the collective. While this responsibility is also implied by transformational leadership (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), it is

more explicit and central to AL. This focus may in turn explain the stronger relationship of AL with citizenship behaviors that

are directed toward supporting collective interests, even though such behaviors may not always produce tangible individual re-

wards (LePine et al., 2002). Moreover, this focus on not only one's self-interests but also the interests of the collective may explain

why AL is more strongly associated with elevated levels of group and organizational performance. While this post hoc explanation

is admittedly speculative, it is also a plausible explanation for these differential results that is compatible with both AL and

transformational leadership theory. Hence, we consider assessments of the merits of this explanation to be a promising avenue

for future research into authentic and transformational leadership and the differences between them.

While the focus of this research has been to assess AL relative to the more established construct of transformational leadership,

it should be noted that the conceptual underpinnings and empirical support for charismatic-transformational leadership has been

drawn into question. In a highly critical review of this literature,van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013)concluded that theﬁeld suf-

fers from serious theoretical and measurement deﬁciencies. In particular, they argued that (1) a clear deﬁnition of charismatic-

transformational leadership is lacking, in that current multidimensional conceptions of charismatic-transformational leadership

do not specify how these dimensions combine to form charismatic-transformational leadership, or how these dimensions were

selected for inclusion; (2) the distinct inﬂuence of the leadership dimensions on mediating processes and outcomes are not spec-

iﬁed; (3) conceptualization and operationalization of these constructs confounds them with their effects; and (4) the validity of

the most commonly used measures is suspect because they fail to reproduce the posited dimensional structure or achieve empir-

ical distinctiveness from other aspects of leadership. Hence, despite three decades of conceptual and empirical scholarly attention

being devoted to explicating the construct of transformational leadership, conceptual and empirical ambiguity remains.

In light of these limitations, it is possible that the redundancy between AL and transformational leadership stems from limita-

tions of the later, as opposed to the former, theory. Nonetheless, it should also be noted that the extant AL theory and research to

date is subject to many of the same criticisms thatvan Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013)level against transformational leadership

theory. These include a lack of distinctiveness among the components (as the high correlations observed in this study demon-

strate) and the absence of theory regarding differential effects. These limitations have important implications for future AL

research, as described below.

Limitations and implications for future research

As AL is a new construct that is drawing considerable attention in the academic (Gardner et al., 2011), and practitioner liter-

ature (George & Sims, 2007), the results of this meta-analytic review are critical to direct future research. There are three primary

points that we wish to emphasize in order to guide future research. First, perhaps one of the most obviousﬁndings of this re-

search is the strong correlation between AL and transformational leadership. In fact, AL has fairly strong correlations across the

10G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 range of measures that we presume to reﬂect outcomes of good leadership. Some of the issues we see in the ALQ measure may

be due to an overall reliance on single-source methods. It was not uncommon for AL studies to rely largely upon followers to rate

the authenticity of leadership, the degree to which a leader was transformational, and other outcomes. Such an approach could

certainly lead to correlations that are inﬂated by common-method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). In other

words, the potential for correlated method variance may inﬂate the relations between AL and transformational leadership as

well as important outcomes.

Second, there was an overreliance on studies that collected data at one time point. Again, this is not unique in primary studies

in leadership (Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010; Lowe & Gardner, 2000), but the collection of data at multiple

time points would do much to reduce concerns regarding the inﬂating inﬂuence of common-method bias (Podsakoff et al.,

2012; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003;Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). What is redeeming is the fact that AL performed

reasonably well when predicting performance-related outcomes not dependent on a single source (e.g., supervisor-rated task

performance; group orﬁrm-level performance). This latterﬁnding is intriguing. It is possible that theﬁnding is due to chance

when looking at group orﬁrm-level performance as the overall sample size was rather small (n= 333). However, in the case

of supervisor-rated task performance, there was a relatively large overall sample size (n= 1,439), indicating less potential for

a chanceﬁnding. In the case of supervisor-rated task performance, we can have greater conﬁdence in the robustness of the

results. Third, we point out that the results of the incremental validity and relative weights analyses are dependent upon the qual-

ity and type of criteria used. In the event that criteria quality is poor, or the types of criteria matter (i.e., there are moderating

variables), the results of these analyses might change.

To help further distinguish AL and transformational leadership, more work should be done to consider the relationships be-

tween the underlying dimensions of the two constructs. As noted above, the lack of articulation of how the dimensions combine,

as well as their differential effects, is a limitation of transformational leadership research (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013) that is

so far shared by AL theory and research (Gardner et al., 2011). As such, an insufﬁcientamountofempiricalworkwasavailableto

permit us to explore dimensional analyses in the current meta-analytic review. However, a more speciﬁc consideration of the

redundancy of the two constructs at the facet level would be insightful. The advantages of using a meta-analytic comparison of

sub-facets has been illustrated when examining the dimensions of potentially redundant personality models, such as theﬁve-

factor model and the dark triad model (e.g.,O'Boyle et al., 2014).

The subscales of AL were highly correlated in these analyses, suggesting weak discriminant and structural validity (Messick,

1995). However, part of the problem may stem from current deﬁnitions of the AL components, which fail to clearly demarcate

their differences. For example, a sharper conceptualization of how relational transparency differs from balanced processing

would enable researchers to generate new items to better operationalize these differences. Conceptually, relational transparency

is more focused on being open in one's relationships with close others and willing to engage in self-disclosure, whereas balanced

processing is focused on a relatively objective and non-defensive interpretation of ego-relevant information, regardless of its

source (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005). At present, the items of the ALQ and the ALI do not fully capture these distinctions.

As such, it is not surprising that these dimensions are highly correlated. Sharpening the conceptual distinctions among the AL

components and developing associated measures that reﬂect these differences would also facilitate the generation of differential

hypotheses for focal work outcomes and appropriate tools for exploring these hypotheses.

For example, the aforementioned difference between relational transparency and balanced processing suggests that the former

will be more strongly related to measures of self-disclosure (Jourad & Lasakow, 1958), whereas the latter would be a better pre-

dictor of distributive and procedural justice (Greenberg, 1987). Hence, while it is of critical importance that future research con-

siders the possibility that a general factor underlies the four components of AL and all observed relationships, it is also important

that greater conceptual and empirical work be conducted to determine the utility of reﬁning the de

ﬁnitions and operationalization

of these components. Such work could be completed with both the ALQ and the ALI scales, as well as new measures that may

better differentiate the AL components and hence establish greater discriminant validity among these dimensions and with

other measures of positive leadership. Thus, we recommend that researchers continue to explore the relations between AL and

its components with other leadership theories (e.g., LMX, servant leadership, and ethical leadership) as more data become

available (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, 2014).

Fig. 1illustrates both theoretical antecedents and outcomes of AL discussed in the literature.

1Interestingly, antecedents of AL

have not yet received adequate research attention, although they have been theoretically argued to be relevant to AL. Studies on

AL have focused largely upon the relations between AL and important work outcomes (e.g., job performance, job satisfaction).

Hence, this was the focus of our meta-analysis. Yet it is worth noting that another approach to distinguishing authentic and trans-

formational leadership would be to consider antecedents related to ethical factors, such as the organizational ethical climate and

the values of the leader, as well as ethical outcomes. Unlike transformational leadership, AL was explicitly developed to answer

calls to improve the ethical conduct of today's leaders (Gardner et al., 2011), which may explain its stonger association with

collective outcomes, as suggested above. This distinction may be important when attempting to discriminate between authentic

and transformational leadership. Yet there were no sufﬁcient studies with a focus on how AL might decrease unethical behaviors

(e.g.,Cianci, Hannah, Roberts, & Tsakumis, 2014) available to explore these effects in this study. Consequently, the lack of research

that considers ethical antecedents and outcomes is a shortcoming of the existing AL research and an opportunity for future

research. The contribution of AL compared to transformational leadership might be different if ethical antecedents and

1Enough data exist to test individual differences as antecedents (e.g., gender, age, etc.). However, individual differences have not been theorizedto be meaningful

antecedents to AL, thus, we do not include such tests (Gardner et al., 2011).11 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 outcomes were considered. Additionally, greater research at the component level could assess the discriminant validity of the

internalized moral perspective component since, theoretically, it should be most strongly related to ethical behavior and outcomes

(Walumbwa et al., 2008).

On a related note, we wish to emphasize that there was a general lack of identiﬁed antecedents that could predict the emergence of

AL. Some researchers have suggested that trigger events, positive psychological capacities, personal histories, and a positive organiza-

tional context could lead to AL behaviors (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). However, there were insuf-

ﬁcient empirical data to test such assertions. Moreover, we echo calls from other scholars suggesting that greater emphasis should be

placed on the development of authentic followers (Cianci et al., 2014; Gardner et al., 2011; Leroy, Anseel et al., 2012). The need for a

greater focus on followers when studying leadership is true of most leadership theories (Avolio, 2007), and the AL literature is certain-

ly not unique in this aspect.

Additionally, the number of primary samples did not allow for the testing of several important moderating variables. For

example, the ALQ is the most commonly used measure of AL (Walumbwa et al., 2008). However, other measures have been

developed and used, such as the ALI (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). Yet at this juncture it was not possible to compare the

magnitude of the parameter estimates between these scales when predicting attitudinal and behavioral outcomes due to the

limited number of available samples that employ the ALI. Similarly, it was not possible to test for contextual or methodological

moderators, such as industry, use of multi-source designs, experimental versus observational designs, or longitudinal versus

cross-sectional designs. Future research will need to consider these potentially meaningful moderators, as well as their causal

relationships with AL components, after the number of primary samples has grown even further.

Finally, it is important to note that while our meta-analysis focused on the most prevalent version of AL theory advanced by

Avolio, Gardner, Luthans, Walumbwa, and colleagues (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; Walumbwa

et al., 2008), which is deeply rooted in the social psychology literature, there are alternative perspectives (Algera & Lips-Wiersma,

2012; Ladkin & Spiller, 2013; Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Liu, 2010; Pittinsky & Tyson, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005).

For instance,Algera and Lips-Wiersma (2012)draw from philosophy to advance four existential authenticity themes (inauthen-

ticity is inevitable, authenticity requires creating one's own meaning, authenticity does not imply goal and value congruence, and

authenticity is not intrinsically ethical) that provide very different implications for AL than those generated from a social psychol-

ogy perspective. However, because these alternative approaches are either purely conceptual or rely exclusively on qualitative

methods (Liu, 2010; Pittinsky & Tyson, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005), it was impossible to incorporate them in this meta-

analysis. Nevertheless, it is important to not only acknowledge these alternative approaches but also consider their utility in re-

ﬁning the prevailing conceptions of AL and their potential for enhancing the operationalization of the construct and the explica-

tion of its nomological network (Neuman, 2002). Enhanced dialog along these lines may serve to provide a broader perspective of

AL, stimulating more diverse avenues for future research, and thereby enriching both the study and practice of authentic

leadership.

PREDICTORS

Leader characteristics

Personal history

Psychological capital

Efficacy beliefs

Psychological contract

Attributions

Positive Work Experiences

Trigger events

Ethical climate

Positive org. context

Affective events

Authentic

leadership

Transformational Leadership

RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

Relational outcomes

LMX

Satisfaction with leader

Trust in leader

Leader effectiveness

Follower outcomes

Job satisfaction

Organizational commitment

Creativity

Engagement

Empowerment

Psychological capital

Turnover intentions

Burnout/stress

ATTITUDINAL

OUTCOMES

Task performance

Group and org performance

OCB & Voice

CWB

BEHAVIORAL

OUTCOMES

Note. Theoretically relevant predictor variables of authentic leadership have not received sufficient empirical attention necessary for

inclusion in the current meta-analytic study.

Fig. 1.Predictors and work outcomes of authentic leadership.Note. Theoretically relevant predictor variables of authentic leadership have not received sufﬁcient

empirical attention necessary for inclusion in the current meta-analytic study. 12G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 Conclusions

AL is a new leadership construct that is attracting a great deal of empirical attention and excitement in an attempt to address

the crisis of conﬁdence in today's government and corporate leaders (Gardner et al., 2011). At the foundation of AL is the belief

that leaders can express their natural selves in an open and honest manner and that this will lead to positive and ethical work

outcomes. The current meta-analytic review considered the empirical redundancy of AL by computing its correlation with trans-

formational leadership while mitigating the inﬂuences of random-sampling error and measurement error. Next, we considered

the incremental validity and relative importance of AL in comparison to transformational leadership. Most notably, AL showed

some dominance over transformational leadership when predicting selected outcomes. Yet our review ultimately shows that

much work is needed to better distinguish AL from transformational leadership. This can be accomplished by improving the

methodological design of studies as well as by focusing on antecedents and outcomes with ethical implications. In sum, AL is a

new leadership construct that shows promise; however, theoretical, measurement, and validity issues must be considered for

this new construct to reach its full potential.

Appendix A

Main codes and input values of each primary study/sample included in the meta-analysis. Not included are the authentic lead-

ership dimension level correlations (these correlations are available upon request).

Author Year Publishednr r xx ryy Variable

Abid et al. (2012) Yes 210 .48 .71 .53 Commitment

Abid et al. (2012) Yes 210 .12 .71 .62 Job satisfaction

Alok and Israel (2012) Yes 117 .47 .95 .88 Engagement

Amadeo (2008) No 313 .80 .93 .86 Job satisfaction

Azanza et al. (2013) Yes 571 .35 .88 .90 Job satisfaction

Bamford et al. (2013) Yes 280 .28 .97 .90 Engagement

Batchelor (2011) No 138 .42 .90 .88 Commitment

Batchelor (2011) No 138 .44 .90 .63 Job satisfaction

Batchelor (2011) No 138−.42 .90 .94 Turnover intentions

Batchelor (2011) No 138 .25 .90 .86 Group and organization performance

Batchelor (2011) No 138 .59 .90 .82 OCB

Batchelor (2011) No 138 .66 .90 .88 Transformational

Bird et al. (2012) Yes 633 .61 .95 .86 Engagement

Bezeau (2010) No 104 .27 .60 .84 Transactional

Bezeau (2010) No 104 .37 .60 .82 Transformational

Brennan (2010) No 806 .64 .81 .87 Transformational

Burris (2013) Yes 187 .86 .92 .94 Transformational

Cameron (2007) No 95 .84 .96 .96 Trust in leader

Caza et al. (2010) Yes 960 .56 .90 .82 Psy Cap

Černe et al. (2014) Yes 171 .36 .94 .90 Job satisfaction

Černe et al. (2014) Yes 171 .61 .94 .80 LMX

Černe et al. (2014) Yes 171 .32 .94 .75 Engagement

Černe et al. (2013) Yes 201 .65 .91 .90 Creativity

Chen (2010) No 351 .59 .97 .87 Commitment

Chiaburu et al. (2011) Yes 165 .63 .96 .84 Transactional

Chiaburu et al. (2011) Yes 165 .44 .96 .86 Job satisfaction

Clapp-Smith et al. (2009) Yes 82 .30 .70 .87 Psy Cap

Clapp-Smith et al. (2009) Yes 82 .41 .70 .73 Trust in leader

Clapp-Smith et al. (2009) Yes 51 .27 .70 1.00 Task performance

Copeland (2009) No 175 .89 .97 .95 Leader effectiveness

Copeland. (2009) No 175 .90 .97 .95 Transformational

Cottrill (2012) No 80 .36 .96 .85 OCB

Eberly (2011) No 97 .46 .94 .95 Leader effectiveness

Emuwa et al. (2013) Yes 152 .21 .77 .81 Empowerment

Epitropaki et al. (2013) No 207 .26 .96 .90 Psy Cap

Epitropaki et al. (2013) No 207−.21 .96 .72 Burnout/stress

Erkutlu and Chafra (2013) Yes 848 .33 .89 .86 Trust in leader

Erkutlu and Chafra (2013) Yes 848−.38 .89 .89 CWB

Giallondardo et al. (2010) Yes 170 .21 .91 .86 Engagement

Giallondardo et al. (2010) Yes 170 .29 .91 .90 Job satisfaction

Guerrero et al. (2014) Yes 606 .27 .94 .78 Commitment

Hannah et al. (2011b) Yes 47 .27 .76 .82 Group and organization performance

Hassan and Ahmed (2011) Yes 395 .53 .90 .90 Engagement

Hassan and Ahmed (2011) Yes 395 .71 .90 .83 Trust in leader

Houghton et al. (2013) No 262 .16 .92 .85 OCB

Hsiung (2012) Yes 404 .66 .96 .87 LMX

Hsiung (2012) Yes 404 .40 .96 .92 Voice13 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 (continued)

Author Year Publishednr r

xx ryy Variable

Huang and Luthans (2013) No 286 .11 .89 .84 LMX

Huang and Luthans (2013) No 286 .21 .89 .94 Voice

Illies et al. (2013) Yes 198 .16 .79 .73 Leader effectiveness

Jensen (2003) No 62 .21 .91 .82 Psy Cap

Jensen (2003) No 62 .40 .91 1.00 Group and organization performance

Jensen and Luthans (2006) Yes 172 .41 .95 .93 Job satisfaction

Jensen and Luthans (2006) Yes 172 .48 .95 .82 Commitment

Joo (2014) Yes 427 .90 .85 .88 Transformational

Kiersch et al. (2012) No 187−.21 .96 .78 Burnout/stress

Kiersch et al. (2012) No 187−.56 .96 .92 Turnover intentions

Kiersch et al. (2012) No 187 .65 .96 .88 Commitment

Kiyani et al. (2013) Yes 283 .98 .96 .99 OCB

Lagan et al. (2007) No 215 .71 .92 .88 Transformational

Lagan et al. (2007) No 215 .23 .92 .84 Commitment

Laschinger and Fida (2014) Yes 342−.18 .94 .92 Burnout/stress

Laschinger and Fida (2014) Yes 342−.29 .94 .88 Turnover intentions

Laschinger and Smith (2013) Yes 194 .42 .96 .84 Empowerment

Laschinger et al. (2013) Yes 273−.28 .97 .93 Burnout/stress

Lelchook (2012) No 327 .91 .79 .97 Transformational

Lelchook (2012) No 327 .77 .79 .97 Transactional

Lelchook (2012) No 327 .21 .79 .96 Engagement

Leroy (2013) No 225 .32 .93 .85 Voice

Leroy et al. (2012a) Yes 252 .48 .95 .92 Job satisfaction

Leroy et al. (2012b) Yes 225 .25 .95 .90 Commitment

Leroy et al. (2012b) Yes 118 .22 .95 .87 Task performance

Lewis (2010) No 190 .78 .92 .84 Trust in leader

Lewis (2010) No 190 .64 .92 .90 LMX

Lewis (2010) No 190 .74 .92 .89 Leader effectiveness

Li et al. (2014) Yes 199 .14 .89 .86 Task performance

Li et al. (2014) Yes 199 .23 .89 .94 OCB

Li et al. (2014) Yes 199 .21 .89 .88 Creativity

Li et al. (2014) Yes 170 .50 .92 .86 Transformational

Li et al. (2014) Yes 170 .20 .92 .90 Task performance

Li et al. (2014) Yes 170 .01 .92 .94 Creativity

Liu (2012) No 107 .46 .93 .95 Engagement

Liu (2012) No 107−.03 .93 .96 Task performance

Liu (2012) No 107 .80 .93 .96 Transformational

Liu (2012) No 107−.23 .93 .91 CWB

Lusin (2014) No 200 .44 .90 .80 Commitment

McClellan (2007) No 149 .23 .90 .86 Commitment

McElrath (2013) No 231 .51 .90 .87 Trust in leader

Men (2012) No 402 .85 .96 .90 Transformational

Men (2012) No 402 .62 .96 .86 Commitment

Men (2012) No 402 .70 .96 .88 Job satisfaction

Men (2012) No 402 .53 .96 .85 Empowerment

Milad (2012) No 530 .60 .95 .92 Commitment

Neider and Schriesheim (2011) Yes 228 .50 .90 .88 Job satisfaction

Neider and Schriesheim (2011) Yes 228 .72 .90 .89 Satisfaction with lead

Neider and Schriesheim (2011) Yes 228 .36 .90 .86 Commitment

Nichols (2012) No 116 .30 .78 .55 Trust in leader

Nielsen (2013) Yes 594 .71 .89 .86 Transformational

Nielsen (2013) Yes 594−.14 .89 .85 CWB

Norman (2006) No 304 .73 .96 .82 Trust in leader

Norman (2006) No 304 .84 .96 .92 Leader effectiveness

Norris (2013) No 433 .35 .90 .88 Job satisfaction

Norris (2013) No 433 .49 .90 .89 Satisfaction with lead

Ozkan and Ceylan (2012) Yes 304 .51 .92 .94 Commitment

Peus et al. (2012) Yes 157 .65 .94 .91 Commitment

Peus et al. (2012) Yes 157 .81 .94 .94 Satisfaction with lead

Peus et al. (2012) Yes 86 .59 .88 .89 Satisfaction with lead

Peus et al. (2012) Yes 86 .53 .88 .84 Group and organization performance

Rahimnia and Shariﬁrad (2015) Yes 272 .52 .91 .84 Job satisfaction

Rahimnia and Shariﬁrad (2015) Yes 272−.24 .91 .87 Burnout/stress

Rego et al. (2012) Yes 201 .65 .91 .90 Psy Cap

Rego et al. (2012) Yes 201 .65 .91 .90 Creativity

Riggio et al. (2010) Yes 172 .87 .97 .97 Transformational

Riggio et al. (2010) Yes 172 .84 .97 .69 Transactional

Schabram (2009) No 26 .61 .72 .72 Transformational

Seco and Lopes (2013) Yes 326−.57 .89 .94 Engagement

Shapira-Lischinsky and Tsemach (2014) Yes 366 .46 .83 .86 Empowerment

Shapira-Lischinsky and Tsemach (2014) Yes 366 .30 .83 .88 OCB 14G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 References 2

*Abid, T., Altaf, M., Yousaf, U., & Bagram, M. (2012).Entrepreneur as an authentic leader: A study of small and medium sized enterprises in Pakistan.Management

Science Letters,2,2355–2360.

Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012).Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic.The

Leadership Quarterly,23,118–131.

*Alok, K., & Israel, D. (2012).Authentic leadership and work engagement.Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,47,498–510.

*Amadeo, C. A. (2008). A correlational study of servant leadership and registered nurse job satisfaction in acute health-care settings. Unpublished Ed.D., University of

Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona.

Avolio, B. J. (1999).Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. (2007).Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.American Psychologist,62,25–33.

Avolio, B. J. (2010).Pursuing authentic leadership development. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.),The handbook of leadership theory and practice: A Harvard Business

School centennial colloquium on advancing leadership(pp. 739–768). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

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

(continued)

Author Year Publishednr r

xx ryy Variable

Shapira-Lischinsky and Tsemach (2014) Yes 366 .20 .83 .94 Turnover intentions

Sosik et al. (2011) Yes 184 .63 .82 .82 Transformational

Spitmuller and Illies (2010) Yes 91 .26 .93 .88 Transformational

Stearns (2012) No 192 .42 .96 .94 Job satisfaction

Tuttle (2009) No 285 .87 .94 .96 Transformational

Tuttle (2009) No 285 .00 .94 .47 Transactional

Tuttle (2009) No 132 .90 .97 .92 Leader effectiveness

Valsania et al. (2012) Yes 220 .47 .90 .85 OCB

Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 178 .22 .90 .72 OCB

Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 178 .36 .90 .92 Commitment

Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 178 .48 .90 .88 Satisfaction with lead

Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 236 .39 .90 .70 OCB

Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 236 .54 .90 .92 Commitment

Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 236 .62 .90 .85 Satisfaction with lead

Walumbwa et al. (2008) Yes 236 .68 .90 .88 Transformational

Wang et al. (2014) Yes 794 .78 .95 .96 LMX

Wang et al. (2014) Yes 794 .48 .95 .88 Psy Cap

Wang et al. (2014) Yes 794 .11 .95 .84 Task performance

Wang et al. (2013) Yes 386 .58 .95 .94 Engagement

Weischer et al. (2013) Yes 334 .76 .90 .92 Trust in leader

Wherry (2012) No 238 .47 .93 .89 LMX

Wherry (2012) No 238 .46 .93 .82 OCB

Williams (2014) Yes 115 .41 .97 .77 Job satisfaction

Wilson (2013) No 106 .28 .91 .90 Engagement

Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 147 .29 .90 .92 Voice

Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 147 .25 .90 .89 Task performance

Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 147−.34 .90 .81 Burnout/stress

Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 147 .49 .90 .83 Trust in leader

Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 188 .40 .90 .92 Voice

Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 188 .12 .90 .89 Task performance

Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 188−.25 .90 .81 Burnout/stress

Wong and Cummings (2009) Yes 188 .53 .90 .83 Trust in leader

Wong and Laschinger (2012) Yes 280 .46 .97 .88 Empowerment

Wong and Laschinger (2012) Yes 280 .35 .97 .95 Job satisfaction

Wong and Laschinger (2012) Yes 280 .01 .97 .76 Task performance

Wong et al. (2010) Yes 280 .69 .97 .83 Trust in leader

Wong et al. (2010) Yes 280 .10 .97 .92 Voice

Wood (2007) No 335 .45 .90 .88 Transformational

Wood (2007) No 335 .13 .90 .69 Transactional

Wood (2007) No 335 .06 .90 .89 Leader effectiveness

Woolley et al. (2011) Yes 828 .43 .94 .88 Psy Cap

Yemi-Sofumade (2012) No 116−.35 .97 .71 Turnover intentions

Zhu (2006) No 55 .85 .72 .80 Transformational

Zhu. (2006) No 55 .58 .72 .67 Transactional

Zhu (2006) No 81 .59 .78 .84 Transformational

Zhu (2006) No 81 .71 .78 .60 Transactional

Zhu (2006) No 73 .69 .70 .89 Transformational

Zhu (2006) No 73 .70 .70 .60 Transactional

Zhu (2006) No 215 .68 .90 .88 Transformational

Zhu (2006) No 215 .68 .90 .69 Transactional

2References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.15 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2014).Authentic leadership theory, research, and practice: Steps taken and steps that remain. In D. V. Day (Ed.),The Oxford Handbook

of Leadership in Organizations. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Avolio, B., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999).Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership.Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology,72,441–462.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007).Authentic leadership questionnaire.Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

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 leader's impact follower

attitudes and behaviors.The Leadership Quarterly,15,801–823.

*Azanza, G., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2013).Authentic leadership and organizational culture as drivers of employees' job satisfaction.Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology,29,45–50.

*Bamford, M., Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. (2013).The influence of authentic leadership and areas on work-life on work engagement of registered nurses.Journal of

Nursing Management,21,529–540.

Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidence-based I-O psychology.Industrial and Organizational Psychology,4,40–44.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.

1754-9434.2010.01292.x.

Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O'Boyle, E., Jr., Pollack, J., & Gower, K. (2014).What does team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of

team and leader social exchange.Journal of Organizational Behavior,35,273–295.

Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012).Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences.International Journal of

Selection and Assessment,20,182–196.

Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015).Publication bias: Understand the myths concerning threats to the advancement of science. In C. E. Lance, & R. J.

Vandenberg (Eds.),More Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends(pp. 36–64). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bass, B. M. (1985).Leadership and performance beyond expectations.New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004).Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form, rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5 ×-Short).Redwood City, CA: Mind

Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999).Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior.The Leadership Quarterly,10,181–217.

*Batchelor, J. H. (2011). Leading with emotional labor and affective leadership climate as antecedents to entrepreneurial effectiveness. Unpublished PhD, Virginia

Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Supplemental information provided via personal communication.

Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthur's (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-analysis ofcorrelations.

Journal of Applied Psychology,

87,583–589.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.1087.1033.1583.

Behson, S. J. (2012).Using relative weights to reanalyze research on the job characteristics model.Journal of Organizational Psychology,12,71–81.

*Bezeau, C. (2010). From the Cradle to the Workplace: Attachment and the Reported Provision of Need Support. Unpublished PhD, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

*Bird, J. J., Wang, C., Watson, J., & Murray, L. (2012).Teacher and principal perceptions of authentic leadership: Implications for trust, engagement, and intention to

return.Journal of School Leadership,22,425–461.

*Brennan, P. T. (2010). Pursuing success without scandal: Exploring the relationship between transformational and authentic leadership. Unpublished PhD, Capella

University, Minneapolis, MN.

Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011).Evidence-based I-O psychology: Not there yet but now a little nearer?Industrial and Organizational Psychology,4,76–82.

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

Burns, J. M. (1978).Leadership.New York, NY: Harper & Row.

*Burris, K., Roya, A., Che, Y., & Hanyi, M. (2013).Asian American's and Caucasians' implicit leadership theories: Asian stereotypes, transformational, and authentic

leadership.Asian American Journal of Psychology,4,258–266.

*Cameron, R. K. (2007). Governing ourselves before governing others: An investigation of authentic leadership. Unpublished PhD, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

Cashman, K. (2003).Awakening the leader within: A story of transformation.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

*Caza, A., Bagozzi, R. P., Woolley, L., Levy, L., & Caza, B. B. (2010).Psychological capital and authentic leadership: Measurement, gender, and cultural extension.

Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,2,53–70.

*Černe, M., Dimovski, V., Marič, M., Penger, S., &Škerlavaj, M. (2014).Congruence of leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership:

Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees' job satisfaction.Australian Journal of Management,39,453–471.

*Cerne, M., Jaklic, M., & Skerlavaj, M. (2013).Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective.Leadership,9,63–85.

*Chen, C.-C. (2010). The mediating effect of employees' experience of inclusion and the moderating effect of individual work values on the relationship of authentic

leadership style and organizational commitment. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University.

Chiaburu, D. S., Munoz, G. J., & Gardner, R. G. (2013a).How to spot a careerist early on: Psychopathy and exchange ideology as predictors of careerism.Journal of

Business Ethics,118

,473–486.

Chiaburu, D. S., Peng, A. C., Oh, I. -S., Banks, G. C., & Lomeli, L. C. (2013b).Employee organizational cynicism antecedents and outcomes: A meta-analysis.Journal of

Vocational Behavior,83,181–197.

*Chiaburu, D. S., Diaz, I., & Pitts, V. E. (2011).Social and economic exchanges with the organization: Do leader behaviors matter?Leadership and Organization

Development Journal,32,442–461.

Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2014).The effects of authentic leadership on followers' ethical decision-making in the face of temptation: An

experimental study.The Leadership Quarterly,5,581–594.

*Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of

analysis.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15,227–240. Supplemental information provided via personal communication.

Cohen, J. (1960).A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement,20,37–46.

Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005).Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory

and authentic leaders.The Leadership Quarterly,16,475–493.

*Copeland, M. K. (2009).The impact of authentic, ethical, transformational leadership on leader effectiveness.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern

Management of Association, Ashville, NC.

*Cottrill, K. R. (2012). Antecedents and outcomes of inclusion: Exploring authentic leadership, organizational climate for ethics, organization-based self-esteem, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA.

Derue, S. D., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011).Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative

validity.Personnel Psychology,64,7–52.

Duval, S. J. (Ed.). (2005).The trim and fill method. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003).Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing

women and men.Psychological Bulletin,129,569–591.

*Eberly, M. B. (2011). Follower reactions to leader emotions: A cognitive and affective path to leadership effectiveness. Unpublished PhD, University of Washington,

Seattle, Washington.

*Emuwa, A. (2013).Authentic leadership: Commitment to supervisor, follower empowerment, and procedural justice climate.Emerging Leadership Journeys,6,45–65.

*Epitropaki, O. (2013).Employment uncertainty and the role of authentic leadership and positive psychological capital.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Academy of Management, Orlando, FL

*Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013).Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and organizational deviance.Management Research Review,

36,828–848.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005).Authentic leadership development: Emergent trends and future directions.Authentic leadership theory and prac-

tice: Origins, effects, and development(pp. 387–406). 16G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 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,16,343–372.

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,

1120–1145.

*Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. J. (2009).Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity?The Leadership Quarterly,20,466–482.

Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010).Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review ofThe Leadership Quarterly's

second decade, 2000-2009.The Leadership Quarterly,21(6), 922–958.

George, W. (2003).Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

George, W., & Sims, P. (2007).True north: Discover your authentic Leadership. sanFrancisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. -B. E., & Cunha, P. V. (2009).A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research.Journal of

Management,35,393–419.

*Giallondardo, L., Wong, C., & Iwasiw, C. (2010).Authentic leadership of preceptors: Predictor of new graduate nurses' work engagement and job satisfaction.Journal of

Nursing Management,18,993–1003.

Greenberg, J. (1987).A taxonomy of organizational justice theories.Academy of Management Review,12,9–22.

*Guerrero, S., Lapalme, M. -E., & Seguin, M. (2014).Board chair authentic leadership and nonexecutives' motivation and commitment.Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies,1–14.

Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Fry, L. (2011a).Leadership in action teams: Team leader and members' authenticity, authenticity strength, and team outcomes.

Personnel Psychology,64,771–802.

*Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Fry, L. W. (2011b).Leadership in action teams: Team leader and members' authenticity, authenticity strength, and team outcomes.

Personnel Psychology,64,771–802.

*Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011).Authentic leadership, trust, and work engagement.International Journal of Human and Social Sciences,6,164–

170.

Hmieleski, K. M., Cole, M. S., & Baron, R. A. (2012).Shared authentic leadership and new venture performance.Journal of Management,38,1476–1499.

*Houghton, J. D., Dawley, D., Bucklew, N., & Munyon, T. (2013).Truly limiting: How authentic leadership and organizational politics affect the performance of organi-

zational citizenship behavior.Paper presented at the 2013 Academy of Management Meeting, Orlando, FL, 2013.

*Hsiung, H. -H. (2012).Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process.Journal of Business Ethics,107,349–361.

*Huang, L., & Luthans, F. (2013). Authentic leadership and follower voice: The mediating role of voiceself-efficacy in the leader-member exchange context.Unpublished study.

Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data.Journal of Applied Psychology,80,327–334.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0021-9010.1080.1032.1327.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004).Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

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

Quarterly,16,373–394.

*Illies, R., Curseu, P., Dimotakis, N., & Spitzmuller, M. (2013).Leaders' emotional expressiveness and their behavioral and relational authenticity: Effects on followers.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,22,4–14.

*Jensen, S. M. (2003). Entrepreneurs as leaders: Impact of psychological capital and perceptions of authenticity on venture performance. Unpublished PhD, The

University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.

*Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006).Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees' attitudes.Leadership and Organizational Development Journal,27,

646–666.

Johnson, J. W. (2001). Computer program exchange: Rweight: Computing the relative weight of predictors in a regression.Applied Psychological Measurement,25,342.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01466210122032190.

Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research.Organizational Research Methods,7,238–257.http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428104266510.

*Joo, B. -K. (2014).Two of a kind? A canonical correlational study of transformational leadership and authentic leadership.European Journal of Training and

Development,38,570–587.

Jourad, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958).Some factors in self-disclosure.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

,56(1), 91–98.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.Journal of Applied Psychology,89,

755–768.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755.

Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., & Oh, I. -S. (2012). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of“null”findings.Journal of Business and Psychology.http://dx.doi.org/10.

1007/s10869-012-9279-0.

Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences.Organizational Research Methods,15,624–662.http://dx.

doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452760.

Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS

(the meta-analytic reporting standards).Journal of Business and Psychology,28,123–142.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2.

*Kiersch, C. E. (2012). A multi-level examination of authentic leadership and organizational justice in uncertain times. Unpublished PhD, Colorado State University, Fort

Collins, CO.

*Kiyani, K., Saher, N., Saleem, S., & Iqbal, M. (2013).Emotional intelligence (EI) and employee outcomes: The mediating effect of authentic leadership style.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,5,394–405.

Ladkin, D., & Spiller, C. (2013).Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

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

*Lagan, T. E. (2007).Examining authentic leadership: Development of a four-dimensional scale and identification of a nomological network.University at Albany, State

University of New York.

*Laschinger, H., & Fida, R. (2014).A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,23,739–753.

*Laschinger, H., & Smith, M. L. (2013).The influence of authentic leadership and empowerment on new-graduate nurses' perceptions of interprofessional collabora-

tion.The Journal of Nursing Administration,43,24–29.

*Laschinger, H. K., Wong, C. A., & Grau, A. L. (2013).Authentic leadership, empowerment and burnout: A comparison in new graduates and experienced nurses.Journal

of Nursing Management,21,541–

552.

Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. (2010).Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape.Organizational Research Methods,13,644–667.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2007).Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement.Organizational Research Methods,11,815–852.

LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007).A multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational research and

practice.Personnel Psychology,60,475–498.

*Lelchook, A. (2012). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace engagement. Unpublished PhD, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002).The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis.Journal of

Applied Psychology,87,52.

*Leroy, H. (2013). Authentic leadership, psychological safety and follower voice: The role of level and contingency of self-esteem. Unpublished.

*Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2012).Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level

study.Journal of Management.

*Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012).Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance.Journal of Business

Ethics,107,255–264.

*Lewis, T. M. (2010). The influence of authenticity and emotional intelligence on the relationship between self-monitoring and leadership effectiveness. Unpublished

PhD, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA.17 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 *Li, F., Yu, K. F., Yang, J., Qi, Z., & Fu, J. H. (2014).Authentic leadership, traditionality, and interactional justice in the Chinese context.Management and Organization

Review,10,249–273.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998).Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development.Journal of Management,

24(1), 43–72.

Liden, R. C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S. J. (2014).Servant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In D. V. Day (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of

leadership in organizations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Liu, H. (2010).When leaders fail: A typology of failures and framing strategies.ManagementCommunication Quarterly,24,232–259.

*Liu, Y. (2012). Linking authentic leadership to positive employee health, behavioral engagement, and job performance. Unpublished D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University,

Ruston, LA.

Lowe,K.B.,&Gardner,W.L.(2000).Ten years ofLeadership Quarterly:Contributions and challenges for the future.The Leadership Quarterly,11(4), 459–514.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature.The Leadership Quarterly,7,385–425.

*Lusin, J. M. (2014). Employee perceptions of authentic leadership and outcomes of planned organizational change. Unpublished dissertation. George Washington

University.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003).Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.),Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a

new discipline(pp. 241–261). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.

Mhatre, K. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2014).Charismatic and transformational leadership: Past, present, and future.The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations,

221–240.

*McClellan, J. L. (2007). A correlational analysis of the relationship between psychological hardiness and servant leadership among leaders in higher education.

Unpublished PhD, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.

*McElrath, M. (2013). The influence of authentic leadership attributes on credibility: How administrative leaders in an academic medical center build, maintain or lose

credibility. Unpublished Ed.D., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

*Men, L. (2012). The effects of organizational leadership on strategic internal communication and employee outcomes. Unpublished PhD, Universityof Miami, Coral

Gables, FL.

Messick, S. (1995).Validity of psychological assessment: Validation inferences from persons' responses and performance as scientific inquiry into score meaning.

American Psychologist,50,741–749.

*Milad, M. (2012). What is Authentic Leadership really measuring? The role of leader core self-evaluation, character, and narcissism. UnpublishedPhD, Alliant

International University, Alhambra, CA.

*Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011).The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests.The Leadership Quarterly,22, 1146–1164.

Neuman, W. L. (2002).Social science research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn &* Bacon.

*Nichols, A. L. (2012). Unpublished study. Information provided via personal communication.

*Nielsen, M. B. (2013).Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,54,127–136.

*Norman, S. M. (2006). The role of trust: Implications for psychological capital and authentic leadership.Unpublished PhD, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln,

LE.

*Norris, H. T. (2013). A study of the relationships between authentic leadership and job satisfaction in a parks and recreation organization. Unpublished dissertation.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., White, C., & Story, P. A. (2014).A meta-analytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the Dark Triad and five factor

model of personality.Journal of Personality,83,644–664.

O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011).The relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance: A

meta-analysis.Journal of Organizational Behavior,32,788–818.

Oh, I. -S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011).Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality: A meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,96,

762–773.

*Ozkan, S., & Ceylan, A. (2012).Multi-level analysis of authentic leadership from a Turkish construction engineers perspective.South East European Journal of Economics

& Business,101–114.

*Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Strieicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012).Authentic leadership: An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms.

Journal of Business Ethics,107,331–348.

Pittinsky, T. L., & Tyson, C. J. (2005).Leader authenticity markers: Findings from a study of perceptions of African American political leaders.Authentic Leadership Theory

and Practice: Origins, Effects, and Development,3,155–182.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986).Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.Journal of Management,12,531–544.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).Source of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.Annual Review

of Psychology,63,539–569.

*Rahimnia, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. (2015).Authentic leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of attachment insecurity.Journal of Business Ethics,132,

363–377.

*Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2012).Authentic leadership promoting employees' psychological capital and creativity.Journal of Business Research,65,

429

–437.

*Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Maroosis, J. A., & Reina, C. (2010).Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The leadership virtues of questionnaire.Consulting Psychology

Journal: Practice and Research,62,235–250.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001).On happiness and human potential: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.Annual Review of Psychology,52,

141–166.

*Schabram, K. (2009). To Thine Own Self Be True: Authentic Leadership and Managerial Training. Unpublished M.Sc., Concordia University, Portland,OR.

Schmidt, F. (2010).Detecting and correcting the lies that data tell.Perspectives on Psychological Science,5,233–242.

*Seco, V., & Lopes, M. P. (2013).Calling for authentic leadership: The moderator role of calling on the relationship between authentic leadership and work engagement.

Open Journal of Leadership,2,95–102.

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

*Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Tsemach, S. (2014).Psychological empowerment as a mediator between teachers' perceptions of authentic leadership and their withdrawal

and citizenship behaviors.Educational Administration Quarterly,50, 675–712.

*Sosik, J. J., Zhu, W., & Blair, A. L. (2011).Felt authenticity and demonstrating transformational leadership in faith communities.Journal of Behavioral and Applied

Management,179–199.

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

Spell, C. S. (2001).Management fashions: Where do they come from, and are they old wine in new bottles?Journal of Management Inquiry,4,358–373.

*Spitzmuller, M., & Illies, R. (2010).Do they [all] see my true self? Leader's relational authenticity and followers' assessments of transformational leadership.European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,19,304–332.

*Stearns, M. (2012). The relationship of leadership behaviors to staff RN job satisfaction and retention. Unpublished Ed.D., Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ.

Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011).Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis.Journal of Business and Psychology,26,1–

*Tuttle, M. D. (2009). True north or traveled terrain? An empirical investigation of authentic leadership. Unpublished PhD, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

*Valsania, S. E., Leon, J. A. M., Alonso, F. M., & Cantisano, G. T. (2012).Authentic leadership and its effect on employees' organizational citizenship behaviors.Psicothema,

24,561–566.

van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013).A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?The Academy of

Management Annals,7(1), 1–60. 18G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006 Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions.Psychological Methods,10, 428–443.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428.

*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,34,89–126.

*Wang, H., & Hsieh, C. -C. (2013).The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement. Social behavior and personality.Journal of Behavior

and Personality,41,613–624.

Wang, G., Oh, I. -S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011).Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years

of research.Group & Organization Management,36,223–270.

*Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D., & Wu, A. Y. (2014).Impact of authentic leadership on performance: Role of followers' positive psychological capital and re-

lational processes.Journal of Organizational Behavior,35,5–21.

*Weischer, A. E., Weibler, J., & Peterson, M. (2013).“To thine own self be true”: The effects of enactment and life storytelling on perceived leader authenticity.The

Leadership Quarterly,24,477–495.

*Wherry, H. M. (2012). Authentic leadership, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis. Unpublished PhD, University of

Nebraska.

*Williams, L. C. (2014). The relationship between authentic leadership and job satisfaction in a university setting. Unpublished dissertation. Capella University,

Minneapolis, MN.

*Wilson, D. R. (2013). Examining the relationship between authentic leadership behaviors and follower employee engagement. Unpublished PhD, Capella University,

Minneapolis, MN.

*Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009).The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff.Journal of Leadership Studies,3,

6–23.

*Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. (2012).Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of empowerment.Journal of Advanced Nursing,69,

947–959.

*Wong, C. A., Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010).Authentic leadership and nurses' voice behavior and perceptions of care quality.Journal of Nursing

Management,18,889–900.

*Wood, G. M. (2007). Authentic leadership: Do we really need another leadership theory? Unpublished PhD, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

*Woolley, L., Caza, A., & Levy, L. (2011).Authentic leadership and follower development: Psychological capital, positive work climate, and gender.Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies,18,438–448.

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,19,693–707.

*Yemi-Sofumade, H. B. (2012). The relationship between ethical and authentic nurse leadership and the turnover intentions of staff nurses. Unpublished PhD, Capella

University, Minneapolis, MN.

*Zhu, W. (2006). Authentic leadership and follower moral decision intention: Role of follower moral identity.Unpublished PhD, The University of Nebraska - Lincoln,

Lincoln, NE.19 G.C. Banks et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article as: Banks, G.C., et al., A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for

redundancy,The Leadership Quarterly(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006