The impeccable authentic leadership 3

Authentic Leadership AL emerged as an important component in the positive leadership studies since its initial conceptualization, in late 1970, until its theoretical maturity as a "root construct of leadership theory” (Gardner, Avolio, & 2005 p. 315). The construct AL was initially proposed by Luthans and Avolio (2003) and was developed by Gardner et al. (2005) and Avolio and Luthans (2006). However, Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa & May (2004) were the first to propose this as a theoretical model, derived from the positive organizational behavior, in which leaders are deeply aware of how people think and behave, the context in which they operate and are perceived by others, as well as some are aware of values/morals systems, knowledge, perspective and own and others strengths. In this way, the theoretical model of AL includes not only leader behaviors but also the characteristics of the followers and leaders, such as their levels of psychological capital, suggesting a more integrated approach to study leadership and organizational behavior (Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans, Norman, & Hughes, 2006). Authentic leaders will be those "who know who they are and know what they believe (Avolio, Gardner & Walumbwa, 2005, p. 13). In AL there are four characteristics dimensions that describe leaders’ behavior and allow its recognition as authentic:

When leaders are aware of how their own actions affect those who are around them, being open and transparent to the processes and influences within and outside of their organizations, the followers have a better sense of the organizational goals/challenges. So, measure the AL will be based not only on the followers’ perceptions as well as those of the leaders (Authentic Leadership Questionnaire, Walumbwa et al., 2008. However, despite this last current of AL be the most publicized of all, there are others that deserve our reference. The origin of the elements of the AL model, according to Gardner and Avolio (2005), flows from the work of Kernis (2003) about the optimal theory of self-esteem, in which he identifies four key elements of authenticity: the self-awareness, unbiased rendering of information, authenticity and relational/authentic behavior action. Ilies, Nahrang & Morgeson (2005) also use the same elements in their model on the eudamonic welfare (happiness) of leaders and followers. Sparrowe (2005) puts already the frame of self-narrative at the heart of AL. The author suggests that authenticity is not achieved by self-awareness, nor by the values and internal purposes, but by the leader’s narrative process in what others have fundamental importance. This position is close to the Shamir and Eilam (2005) one who base AL on the self-concept of the leader. These authors associate the development of leaders to his life story, insofar as AL lays fundamentally on the relevant senses of leader's life experiences. The life story of the leaders gives followers a broader basis to judge the authenticity of their leader. In this sense the authors advance with four authentic leaders underlying settings:

Michie and Gooty (2005), in turn, have developed an alternative approach of AL based on the role of emotions in the lead. From the theory of emotions and positive psychology, the authors argue that the self-transcendent values (universal-social justice, fairness and open-mindedness; benevolent-honesty, loyalty and responsibility) and positive emotions towards others (gratitude, compassion, goodwill) are AL fundamental determinants. Also Yamarino, Dione, Scriesheim & Dansereau (2008) proceeded to the integration with the positive organizational behavior, using a meso and multilevel perspective. So, if we take the AL in terms of multilevel analysis, it promotes various criteria of first level and results of positive organizational behavior (e.g. optimism, self-efficacy of individual leaders and followers) that, in turn, improve several second-level criteria and performance results (e.g. individual results, team and organizational). In another perspective, Eagly (2005) raises the question that the leaders are asked more than act according to their own values. I.e., getting a relational authenticity and obvious requires that the followers give leaders the legitimacy of promoting a framework of values on behalf of the community. For Klenke (2004, 2005 and 2007), which proposes an integrated model of contextual elements, cognitive, affective, pro-active and spiritual, spirituality and spiritual identity are at the core of AL. Also curious is the Douglas, Ferris & Perrewé (2005) approach which places AL at the heart of the role of political qualities of the leader. I.e., the leader who has propensity to exercise political positions has greater ability to inspire trust and authenticity as mechanisms which cause the motivation, commitment and productivity of the follower. In a next line of thought, Chan, Hannah & Gardner (2005) argue that the AL can constitute a multiplier of leaders, building the foundation of a virtuous cycle of performance and learning for leaders, followers and organizations. The authors emphasize the power of example as AL enhancer element. Finally, we resist not talking about that current which considers authenticity is best understood in the context, whether it involves action. In a study by Puente, Crous & Venter (2007), the "engine" of AL are the so-called "trigger events" . The development of AL tends to be catalyzed by "trigger events", hence it is of all recommended that these events have positive force. PS: if you want to finish the reading of this paper ( The impeccable authentic leadership 4) go to htpp//remodealdreu.blogspot.pt/ .