Authentic Leadership and Behavioral Integrity in Organizations

This report investigates the relationship between authentic leadership and behavioral integrity in driving follower commitment and performance, drawing on a study of 49 teams in the service industry. It proposes that authentic leadership behavior is an antecedent to perceptions of leader behavioral integrity, which in turn affects follower affective organizational commitment and follower work role performance. The study found that authentic leadership is related to follower affective organizational commitment, fully mediated through leader behavioral integrity, and that both authentic leadership and leader behavioral integrity are related to follower work role performance, fully mediated through follower affective organizational commitment. These relationships hold even when controlling for ethical organizational culture, highlighting the importance of leader integrity in fostering a committed and high-performing workforce.

Cornell University School of Hotel Administration
The Scholarly Commons
Articles and Chapters School of Hotel Administration Collection
5-2012
Authentic Leadership and Behavioral Inte
Drivers of Follower Commitment and
Performance
Hannes Leroy
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Michael E. Palanski
Rochester Institute of Technology
Tony L. Simons
Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, [e-mail]
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles
Part of the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, and the Industria
Organizational Psychology Commons
This Article or Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Hotel Administration Collection at The Scholarly C
been accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters by an authorized administrator of The Scholarly Commons. For more informatio
[e-mail].
Recommended Citation
Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower com
performance [Electronic version]. Retrieved [insert date], from Cornell University, School of Hospitality Administration
http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/723

Authentic Leadership and Behavioral Integrity as Drivers of
Commitment and Performance
Abstract
The literatures on both authentic leadership and behavioral integrity have argued that leader int
follower performance. Yet, despite overlap in conceptualization and mechanisms, no research ha
how authentic leadership and behavioral integrity relate to one another in driving follower perfor
this study, we propose and test the notion that authentic leadership behavior is an antecedent t
of leader behavioral integrity, which in turn affects follower affective organizational commitment
work role performance. Analysis of a survey of 49 teams in the service industry supports the pro
authentic leadership is related to follower affective organizational commitment, fully mediated t
behavioral integrity. Next, we found that authentic leadership and leader behavioral integrity are
follower work role performance, fully mediated through follower affective organizational commit
relationships hold when controlling for ethical organizational culture.
Keywords
affective organizational commitment, authentic leadership, behavioral integrity, ethical organiza
work role performance
Disciplines
Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics | Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Comments
Required Publisher Statement
© Springer. Final version published as: Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic
and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business
107(3), 255-264. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
This article or chapter is available at The Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/art

1
Authentic Leadership and Behavioral Integrity as Drivers of Follower
Commitment and Performance
Hannes Leroy
Research Center of Organization Studies,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
Michael E. Palanski
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA
Tony Simons
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Abstract
The literatures on both authentic leadership and behavioral integrity have argued
that leader integrity drives follower performance. Yet, despite overlap in
conceptualization and mechanisms, no research has investigated how authentic
leadership and behavioral integrity relate to one another in driving follower performance.
In this study, we propose and test the notion that authentic leadership behavior is an
antecedent to perceptions of leader behavioral integrity, which in turn affects follower
affective organizational commitment and follower work role performance. Analysis of a
survey of 49 teams in the service industry supports the proposition that authentic
leadership is related to follower affective organizational commitment, fully mediated
through leader behavioral integrity. Next, we found that authentic leadership and leader
behavioral integrity are related to follower work role performance, fully mediated through
follower affective organizational commitment. These relationships hold when controlling
for ethical organizational culture.
Keywords
Affective organizational commitment • Authentic leadership • Behavioral integrity •
Ethical organizational culture • Work role performance
To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then
be false to any man.—Polonius, in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3

2
As Shakespeare explains in a father’s advice to his son, being true to oneself—or
authentic—is an important precondition to being true to others—to keep one’s word, and
not to misrepresent oneself (see also Bass and Bass 2008, p. 223). In the last decade
or so, these ideas have been examined within the context of business ethics (Driscoll
and McKee 2007; Jackson 2005; Liedtka 2007; Verbos et al. 2007), particularly within
the study of leader integrity (Palanski and Yammarino 2007; Palanski et al. 2011).
Specifically, the idea of ‘‘being true to oneself’’ has manifested itself in of the form of
authentic leadership, which focuses on those behaviors that indicate that leaders are
self-aware and regulate the self accordingly (Avolio and Gardner 2005). Similarly, the
idea of ‘‘being true to one’s word when dealing with others’’ has manifested itself as
behavioral integrity, the perceived alignment between an actor’s words and actions
(Simons 2002).
Both authentic leadership and leader behavioral integrity have been examined
under the broader umbrella of leader integrity as those positive virtues that are
important in characterizing leadership character (Palanski and Yammarino 2007). In this
context, both behavioral integrity and authentic leadership have been posited to form a
‘‘root construct’’ (Avolio and Gardner 2005) or a ‘‘key ingredient’’ (Simons 1999) of other
positive forms of leadership. To be more exact, both authentic leadership and
behavioral integrity have been placed within the broader umbrella of positive
organizational behavior or positive organizational scholarship (Luthans and Youssef
2007; Simons et al. 2011). This positive lens on human behavior in the workplace
identifies those human strengths that drive effective performance in today’s complex
and unstable work environment (Bakker and Schaufeli 2008).
Previous research has confirmed that authentic leadership and behavioral
integrity predict similar measures of follower performance through similar theoretical
mechanisms. Authentic leadership has been demonstrated to drive follower affective
organizational commitment, performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors
through trust in the leader and identification with the leader (Walumbwa et al. 2008,
2010, 2011). Similarly, behavioral integrity has been demonstrated to drive follower
performance and organizational citizenship behaviors through perceived trust in and
satisfaction with the leader, and follower affective organizational commitment (Dineen et
al. 2006; Palanski and Yammarino 2011; Simons et al. 2007).
Despite these similarities, authentic leadership and behavioral integrity are not
the same (Palanski and Yammarino 2007). Authentic functioning is primarily inward-
focused reflecting behaviors that indicate whether one remains true to oneself (Kernis
2003; Jackson 2005), while behavioral integrity is primarily outward-focused, as others’
perceptions of alignment between word and deeds (Simons 2002). In this article, we
follow this reasoning and further clarify Shakespeare’s quote that ‘‘being true to oneself’’
helps leaders ‘‘walk the talk’’. Next, we argue that authentic leadership and behavioral
integrity build on similar theoretical mechanisms to foster follower performance (Avolio
and Gardner 2005; Simons 2002). Specifically, we argue that authentic leadership and
behavioral integrity foster follower identification with the organization, thus driving
follower affective organizational commitment. In turn, affective organizational
commitment helps us understand how leader integrity drives follower work role
performance. Employees who are personally identified with the organization are willing

3
to work hard, take initiative, and adapt to changes (Griffin et al. 2007; Meyer et al.
2004). We elaborate on our hypothesized conceptual model in Fig. 1 in the next
paragraphs.
Development of Hypotheses
Authentic Leadership and Leader Behavioral Integrity
Walumbwa et al. (2008) identified and validated four components to describe
authentic leadership. Self-awareness refers to demonstrating behaviors that indicate
that leaders are aware of personal needs, preferences, motivations, and wants.
Balanced processing refers to leader behavior that shows that leaders try to analyze
relevant data before coming to a decision and that leaders are not afraid to solicit
opposing views from followers. Relational transparency refers to presenting the leaders’
authentic self, their true feelings, and thoughts to followers. Finally, internalized moral
perspective refers to self-regulation that is guided by internal moral standards and
values, and results in behaviors and decisions consistent with these internalized values.
These components are based on the study of Kernis and Goldman (2006) who defined
authentic functioning as ‘‘the unobstructed operation of one’s true, or core, self in one’s
daily enterprise’’ (Kernis 2003, p. 13) or, in other words, the extent that leaders remain
true to oneself (Avolio and Gardner 2005). It is important to note that the term authentic
functioning (and thus authentic leadership) refers to behaviors that make one authentic
and that, in the case of authentic leadership, are observable to followers. This in distinct
from perceptions of whether someone is authentic or genuine.
Simons (2002) defines leader behavioral integrity (BI) as the perceived pattern of
alignment between the leader’s words and deeds or, in other words, the extent that
leaders are seen as practicing what they preach. Simons (2002, 2008) argued that there
are several factors that drive BI. An important determinant is the extent to which the
leader does, in fact, keep promises and enact espoused values. Specifically, the actual
alignment between words and deeds is argued to be an important driver of perceived
alignment. The actual alignment is further argued to be affected by the extent to which
the leader is aware of personal values. A lack of self-awareness will result in the leader
espousing values based on social pressure or practical exigencies—values that he or
she might not deeply accept and so not fully enact. While actual alignment is important
for BI, it does not guarantee that followers will perceive BI. BI, because it is subjectively
assessed, is also shaped by the extent to which leaders are transparent to followers
about what they think, feel or believe. When managers do not communicate their values

4
or communicate false values, this failure may lead to a perceived incongruence
between what managers say and do.
Simons (2002) argues that some word–deed inconsistency will be inevitable.
Managers typically need to satisfy diverse constituencies. Diverse role–expectations
may lead to competing values and require the leader to occasionally renege on
promises. If these breaches result in a perceived lack of behavioral integrity depends in
part on how the leader communicates about the breaches. Leaders can engage in self-
defensive mechanisms by coming up with excuses, apologies, or dismissals. Simons
(2008), however, suggests that the one of the best strategies to maintain perceptions of
behavioral integrity is accepting personal responsibility for the broken promise and
being transparent about the reasons behind the decision.
We believe these antecedents to follower perceptions of leader behavioral
integrity are present in the conceptualization of authentic leadership. Authentic
leadership comprises patterns of behavior that facilitate leaders’ living by their words
and being seen as doing so: Authentic leaders are by definition more aware of the
values that drive their decisions—which makes them better able to describe those
values accurately and so align their words and actions. Authentic leaders are also more
likely to communicate openly about those values, and to apologize when their actions
fall short of those espoused values. These two behavior patterns enhance follower
perceptions of leader behavioral integrity, as they provide context and explanation for
the leader’s actions and any emergent inconsistencies. Thus, the components of
authentic leadership facilitate both leaders’ follow-through on their word and their
communication about that follow-through. Based on this reasoning, we advance the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 Authentic leadership behavior is positively related to follower perceptions
of leader behavioral integrity.
Authentic Leadership, Leader Behavioral Integrity and Affective Organizational
Commitment
Affective organizational commitment can be described as the employee’s positive
emotional attachment and identification with the organization (Allen and Meyer 1990).
Avolio and Gardner (2005) suggest that we can understand the relationship between
authentic leadership and follower affective organizational commitment through the
theoretical mechanisms of positive social exchanges and personal and social
identification of the follower with the leader. Authentic leaders interact in an open and
non-defensive way—and thus present themselves to followers as vulnerable. This
vulnerability engenders in followers trust in leaders and their willingness to be
vulnerable (Walumbwa et al. 2011). This reciprocal, trusting relationship between
leaders and follower sets the stage for personal and social identification between
followers and leaders (Walumbwa et al. 2010). Followers will get to know, understand,
and value their leader’s personality, wants, needs, and desires (personal identification),
as well as their role–position as a leader and thus as a representative spokesperson for
the overall organization (social identification). This identification will impact follower’s
affective organizational commitment (Avolio et al. 2004).

5
We believe these effects of authentic leadership on affective organizational
commitment can be better understood by considering the concept of behavioral
integrity. Behavioral integrity was posited to be an important driver of employee affective
organizational commitment for two reasons (Simons 2008). First, by following up on
promises, high behavioral integrity leaders indicate to followers that trust in the leaders
is warranted. Second, in consistently conveying the same values through words and
actions, the leader clearly and unequivocally communicates what he or she truly values
in work-related behavior, thus presenting the basis of personal and social identification
of the follower with the leader. The combination of direct and sincere communication of
values and follow-up on promises and behavioral consequences of these value-
statements will lead the follower to identify with the leader and the values he or she, as
the primary face of the organization (Grojean et al. 2004), stands for.
Based on these theoretical arguments, we expect that perceptions of behavioral
integrity will mediate the effect of authentic leadership on follower affective
organizational commitment. We expect that authentic leader behaviors will engender
follower perceptions that this leader walks the talk (see Hypothesis 1) and that these
perceptions are responsible for follower trust in and identification with the leader and the
organization as a whole. In further support of this reasoning, previous research has
identified that leader behavioral integrity is an important antecedent to trust in the leader
(Palanski and Yammarino 2011; Simons et al. 2007) and follower affective
organizational commitment (Simons and McLean-Parks 2000). In addition, authentic
leadership has been shown to be related to follower affective commitment (Walumbwa
et al. 2008), group trust (Walumbwa et al. 2011), and identification with one’s supervisor
(Walumbwa et al. 2010).
Hypothesis 2 Behavioral integrity mediates the relationship between authentic
leadership and follower affective organizational commitment.
Leader Integrity, Follower Affective Organizational Commitment, and Work Role
Performance
Griffin et al. (2007) defined follower work role performance as proficient,
adaptive, and pro-active work behaviors and argued that these behaviors are
particularly effective in an uncertain work environment. Both the literature on behavioral
integrity (Simons 1999) and authentic leadership (Avolio and Gardner 2005) have
argued that leader integrity is especially important in a turbulent work environment. In a
complex and highly volatile environment, it is important for leaders to offer stability by
promoting clear directions and values for followers to identify with. In support of a
positive relationship between leader integrity and follower work role performance, the
previous research has indicated that authentic leadership (Walumbwa et al. 2008, 2010)
and leader behavioral integrity (Dineen et al. 2006; Palanski and Yammarino 2011;
Simons and McLean-Parks 2000) are related to follower performance and
organizational citizenship behaviors.
In this article, we further argue that the relationship between leader integrity and
follower performance is mediated by follower’s work experiences. To be more exact, we
argue that affective organizational commitment mediates the relationship between

6
leader integrity and work role performance. To understand the relationship between
follower affective organizational commitment and work role performance, it is important
to understand that affective organizational commitment may reflect follower’s intrinsic
work motivation (Meyer et al. 2004). In contrast to other types of organizational
commitment (i.e., continuance commitment and normative commitment), employees
who experience affective commitment pursue work-related goals because they want to
not because they feel they have to. Gagne´ and Deci (2005) offer that follower intrinsic
work motivation may be especially important in driving the in-role and extra-role
behaviors that are important in the current work environment. In personally valuing the
importance of their work, employees will be more likely not only to work hard at their
standard work tasks but also to remain open to changes and take personal initiative. In
further support of this reasoning, previous research has shown that follower intrinsic
work motivation in general (Gagne´ and Deci, 2005) and follower affective
organizational commitment in particular (Meyer et al. 2002; Griffin et al. 2007) are
related to follower performance and organizational citizenship behaviors.
In this study, we hypothesize that affective organizational commitment will
mediate the relationship between leader behavioral integrity and follower work role
performance. Followers will personally identify with a behaviorally integer leader and
thus become more intrinsically motivated for their work tasks. In turn, this intrinsic work
motivation will drive their work role performance. We hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 3 The effects of leader integrity on follower work role performance are
mediated by follower affective organizational commitment.
Method
Sample and Procedure
We collected data from 25 organizations in Belgium to test our hypotheses.
Participating companies were small- to medium-sized organizations in the service
industry. These organizations fit the purpose of our study in that these organizations
may show meaningful variance on our dependent variable of work role performance.
Within these organizations, our sampling design focused on selecting followers and
leaders within teams. We considered a team to consist of one team leader and a
minimum of four team members who reported directly to this leader.
Company representatives provided the e-mail addresses of 345 followers and 49
team leaders to the researchers and informed the team leaders and followers about the
study. We contacted respondents through email, asked them to complete an internet
survey, and reminded them after 2 weeks. Participation was voluntary, and respondents
were assured that we would only report aggregated results. We administered the survey
at two stages. At stage 1, a total of 252 followers or 73% completed the survey. At
Stage 2, 1 month later, team leaders were asked to rate the performance of followers.
Participating companies asked us to restrict leader-rated performance to four randomly
selected team members to avoid placing an excessive work load on leaders. Thirty
team leaders (61%) completed the survey after reminders. The total number of team
members for whom leader performance ratings were provided was 118.

7
The average number of years that our sample of leaders had served as a leader
for their team was 5.50 years (SD = 5.31). Seventy percent of the leaders held graduate
degrees, 60% were men, and their average age was 40 years (SD = 7.99). On average,
the organizational tenure of our sample of team members was 9.95 years (SD = 8.93),
and their mean age was 36.26 years (SD = 9.34). Thirty-seven percent of the followers
held graduate degrees and 70% were women. To rule out potential non-response bias,
we examined and found no differences (p > 0.05) between followers whose leaders did
and did not participate at Stage 2.
Measures
Authentic Leadership
Walumbwa et al. (2008) validated a 16-item operational definition of authentic
leadership. Followers were asked to rate the leader on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from never to almost always. Sample items include ‘‘Is eager to receive feedback to
improve interactions with others’’ (self-awareness), ‘‘Is willing to admit mistakes when
they are made’’ (relational transparency), ‘‘Makes decisions based on his/her core
beliefs’’ (internalized moral perspective), and ‘‘Solicits views that challenge his or her
deeply held positions.’’ (balanced processing).
Behavioral Integrity
Simons and McLean-Parks (2000) developed an eight-item measure on
perceived behavioral integrity that was reported in Simons et al. (2007). Four items deal
with promisekeeping behavior, and the other four items deal with enactment of
espoused values. Items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from
completely agree to completely disagree. Sample items are ‘‘My manager delivers on
promises.’’ and ‘‘My manager practices what he/she preaches’’.
Affective Organizational Commitment
Affective organizational commitment was assessed by the Meyer et al. (1993)
affective organizational commitment scale. Followers were asked to respond to six
items on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An
example item is ‘‘I feel emotionally attached to my organization.’’
Work Role Performance
Griffin et al. (2007) validated a measure of individual work role performance for
the benefit of the overall organization. We included nine items measuring proficiency
‘‘Presented a positive image of the organization to other people,’’ adaptivity
‘‘Responded flexibly to overall changes in the organization (e.g., changes in
management)’’ and proactivity ‘‘Made suggestions to improve the overall effectiveness
of the organization (e.g., by suggesting changes to administrative procedures)’’. We
asked leaders to rate their frequency using a five-point Likert scale, with anchors
ranging from never to almost always.

8
Control Variables
We controlled for demographic information of employees, such as age, sex, and
tenure, with the organization. Furthermore, previous research has suggested that a
positive ethical climate might be related to authentic leadership and behavioral integrity
(Avolio and Gardner 2005; Driscoll and McKee 2007; Simons 2008; Verbos et al. 2007)
and may, therefore, confound the relationship between these constructs and their
affective organizational commitment. In this study, we included three dimensions of the
measure an ethical culture developed by Kaptein (2008, 2011): discussability,
transparency, and sanctionability. Example items are discussability (‘‘In my immediate
work environment, I have the opportunity to express my opinion’’), transparency (‘‘If a
colleague does something which is not permitted, my manager will find out about it’’),
and sanctionability (‘‘In my immediate work environment, people are held accountable
for their actions’’). We asked employees to rate 18 items on a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from completely agree to completely disagree.
Analysis
We analyzed the data using structural equation modeling in two steps (McDonald
and Ho 2002). First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on our measurement
model. Second, we tested the structural, hypothesized relationships between the
variables. Specifically, we tested the hypothesized relationships in a multilevel path
model using scores of authentic leadership aggregated to the group level
(Walumbwa et al. 2010). Multilevel structural equation modeling takes into account the
fact that employees are nested within teams and are thus non-independent. Multilevel
structural equation modeling is thus similar to the procedures used in hierarchical linear
modeling but adds information on how the hypothesized model fits the data (Kline
2011). We performed these analyses using the M-plus statistical package (Muthen and
Muthen 2011).
Results
Measurement Model and Descriptive Statistics
We performed a confirmatory factor analysis to validate the higher-order factor
structure of authentic leadership and follower work role performance. We found a
reasonable fit for a higher-order factor model for authentic leadership (Hu and Bentler
1999): 𝑥2 (100) = 133.41 (p < 0.05), SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI = 0.95. We also
found a good fit for a higher-order factor model for leaderrated work role performance:
𝑥2 (24) = 33.20 (p = 0.10), SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.98. To validate the
overall measurement model, we used item parcels to maintain a favorable indicator-to-
sample-size ratio. More specifically, we followed the recommendations of Little et al.
(2002) and created four domain-representative parcels for authentic leadership and
follower work role performance and four random parcels for behavioral integrity, and
three for affective organizational commitment. A confirmatory factor analysis showed a
good fit for a model where all items load on their respective factors: 𝑥2 (59) = 91.03

9
(p\0.05), SRMR = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.98. This model showed a significantly
better fit than a model where authentic leadership and behavioral integrity load on the
same factor: 𝑥2 (62) = 285.51 (p < 0.05), SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.15, CFI = 0.90.
Table 1 depicts the means, standard deviations, correlations, and Cronbach alphas of
all the variables included in this study. The correlation matrix depicts significant
correlations between the variables considered under our hypotheses in the expected
direction. Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity are positively correlated, and
behavioral integrity is more highly correlated with follower affective organizational
commitment than is authentic leadership. In turn, organizational commitment is
correlated more highly with leader-ratings of follower work role performance than either
authentic leadership or leader behavioral integrity.
Path Model
We tested our hypothesized model by estimating a path model where authentic
leadership influences follower affective organizational commitment through leader
behavioral integrity. Follower affective organizational commitment further drives follower
work role performance. Because our interest lies in authentic leadership behaviors as
they are displayed uniformly to different team members, we averaged this measure
within work groups (Walumbwa et al. 2010). Supporting this aggregation, we found an
average 𝑟𝑤𝑔of 0.82 (Mdn = 0.82) showing adequate within-group agreement, an
intraclass correlation coefficient of ICC(1) = 0.28 and ICC(2) = 0.67 (Bliese 2000). An
analysis of variance (ANOVA) further indicated a significant amount of between-group
variance F (48, 203) = 3.01, p = 0.01 in authentic leadership. In order to conduct our
cross-level effects, we examined and found a significant (p < 0.01) amount of between-
group variance in behavioral integrity, affective organizational commitment, and work
role performance: 41% of the variance in behavioral integrity, 37% of the variance in
affective organizational commitment, and 46% of the variance in leader-rated work role
performance resided between groups. The final results for our hypothesized model
showed a good fit: 𝑥2 (1) = 3.70 (p = 0.05), SRMR within = 0.06, SRMR between = 0.01,
RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.96.

10
Hypothesis 1 predicted that authentic leadership would be significantly related to
leader behavioral integrity. Our results indicated that authentic leadership is significantly
related to leader behavioral integrity (ŷ = 0.27, p < 0.05). Hypothesis 2 predicted that
perceptions of behavioral integrity mediate between authentic leadership and follower
affective organizational commitment. We found that leader behavioral integrity was
significantly related to follower affective organizational commitment (ŷ = 0.25, p < 0.05).
To test the cross-level mediation effect, we followed the recommendations of Zhang et
al. (2009) who argued that cross-level mediation effects may be confounded if one looks
at within-level effects as mediators rather than between-group effects. As such, the
indirect effect was calculated with the aggregated scores of behavioral integrity on
follower affective organizational commitment. We conducted a Sobel test on this indirect
effect and found that this effect was significant z = 3.35 (p < 0.05). We thus confirm
hypothesis 2 that the effects of authentic leadership on follower affective organizational
commitment is mediated by behavioral integrity. Hypothesis 3 predicted that leader
integrity is significantly related to follower work role performance through follower
affective organizational commitment. Our model indicates that affective organizational
commitment is significantly related to follower work role performance (ŷ = 0.27, p <
0.05). The proposed mediation effect of behavioral integrity on follower work role
performance was supported by a Sobel test z = 3.86 (p < 0.05). These results hold
when controlling for ethical organizational culture, sex, age, and tenure.
We specified a number of alternative models to further validate these findings.
We summarize the fit of these models in Table 2. First, we specified a model where
authentic leadership has a direct effect on follower affective organizational commitment.
Despite a positive initial correlation between both (see Table 1), the parameter from
authentic leadership to follower affective organizational commitment was not significant
(ŷ = 0.03; p = 0.86). This analysis suggests that leader behavioral integrity fully
mediates this effect. Second, we specified a model where authentic leadership has a
direct effect on follower work role performance. Adding this additional path rendered the
parameter from authentic leadership to follower work role performance non-significant (ŷ
= 0.05; p = 0.45). Third, we specified a model where behavioral integrity has a direct
effect on follower work role performance. Despite the initial correlation, the parameter
from behavioral integrity to follower work role performance was insignificant (ŷ = 0.15; p
= 0.05). These effects further validate that affective organizational commitment fully
mediates the effects of leader behavioral integrity on follower performance.
Discussion
In this article, we set out to increase our understanding of how authentic
leadership and behavioral integrity relate to each another and how both contribute to
effective performance in the current, turbulent work environment. First, we
demonstrated that authentic leadership is related to leader behavioral integrity. Leaders
who remain true to the self in their behavior, and are open and non-defensive in their
interaction with others, will be perceived as walking the talk, delivering on promises, and
aligning words and deeds. Second, we demonstrate that authentic leadership is related
to follower affective organizational commitment, fully mediated through perceptions of
leader behavioral integrity. Authentic leadership drives follower identification with the

11
organization because these leaders stay true to themselves, which facilitates their
aligning of words and actions (BI), thus making it easier for followers to trust the leader
and identify with the leader as the organizational spokesperson. Finally, we
demonstrated that leader integrity is related to follower work role performance and that
this effect is fully mediated through follower affective organizational commitment. In a
turbulent work environment, leader integrity offers stability by offering followers clear
values to identify with. This personal identification of the follower with the organization
drives their willingness not only to promote a good image of the organization, but also to
adapt to changes and take initiative to improve the overall effectiveness of the
organization.
Contributions
This article makes a number of contributions to the previous literature. First, we
contribute to the literature on behavioral integrity. Behavioral integrity is an established
construct that shows strong linkages to follower outcomes, yet little is known about its
behavioral antecedents (Simons et al. 2011). We propose and empirically verify
authentic leadership as an antecedent to leader behavioral integrity. This result is
important because it provides insight into how being true to the self may result in others’
positive perceptions of aligning words and deeds. Specifically, our results suggest that
being true to the self does not imply a rigid or dogmatic adherence to personal values.
Being authentic refers to an open and non-defensive way of interacting with one’s
environment. As a result, leaders who function authentically express their personal-self
yet, at the same time, remain open to relational input. As a result, individuals who
function authentically will be perceived as having more integrity, not only because their
words and deeds are actually aligned, but also because they effectively manage others’
perception of how their words and deeds are in alignment.
Second, while authentic leadership has a broad and rich theoretical base, more
research is needed on conceptual clarification and clarifying mechanisms of impact
(Cooper et al. 2005). Authentic leadership was conceptualized as a multi-component
construct (Walumbwa et al. 2008) suggesting different theoretical mechanisms (Avolio
and Gardner 2005). By looking at behavioral integrity as an outcome to authentic
leadership and mediator to follower outcomes, we further clarify the conceptual
(Walumbwa et al. 2008) and theoretical (Walumbwa et al. 2010, 2011) underpinnings of

12
authentic leadership. We offer that being true to the self will yield behaviors that support
follower perceptions of word–action alignment: self-awareness and internal consistency
support actual alignment, and transparent communications additionally support
perceptions of alignment, especially in ambiguous situations. Behavioral integrity is an
important mechanism of authentic leadership as it clarifies how authentic leadership is
related to follower affective commitment to the organization.
Finally, these results further clarify how leader integrity is related to follower work
role performance (Palanski and Yammarino 2011). We demonstrated how leader
behavioral integrity is important in driving effective performance in a turbulent work
environment. We argued that in a world that is subject to constant change, it is
important for leaders to stay true to themselves and walk the talk. To use a metaphor,
integral leaders offer followers more stability for followers in an otherwise unstable work
environment. Specifically, we argue that integral leaders offer more stability to followers
by staying true to the values they espouse, thus offering clear signals about what
behaviors are expected from followers.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations of our study, which should be acknowledged.
First, because most of the data are cross-sectional in nature, we are unable to draw
strong causal inferences regarding the direction of the relationships identified. Additional
studies that employ longitudinal research designs are needed to determine with greater
confidence the direction of the relationship among the variables studied in this article.
Second, the antecedent and mediating variables in our study were rated by the
same-source followers. Same-source data are a potential limitation because they
introduce the chance that these findings can be attribute to common method variance
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). Research suggests that concerns for common-method bias can
be reduced by the adoption of several pro-active strategies (Lindell and Whitney 2001;
Podsakoff et al. 2003): In this study, we used leader-ratings of follower performance as
an externally validated dependent variable (follower work role performance). In addition,
we used a multilevel research design that confirmed the existence of some of the
posited effects at the group level of analysis, reducing biasing effects that are operative
at the individual level of analysis. Nevertheless, future research should include multiple
raters at different time periods to reassess the relationships identified in our study.
A third limitation pertains to the generalizability of our findings. Our participants
were restricted to employees in small-to-medium-sized service companies in Belgium.
Future investigations could assess the generalizability of our findings by drawing
samples from individuals in other organizational environments or national cultures. For
example, we acknowledge that the results of this study need to be reconfirmed in other
national cultures where being true to the self is of less value or where word–deed
misalignments are perceived differently. In addition, future research could reassess the
present findings in other dynamic work environment such as health care. In this context,
it may be interesting to demonstrate how authentic leadership and behavioral integrity
are related to context-specific measures of performance such as safety problems.
Future Directions

13
The present findings can be expanded in a number of ways. Future research
may want to look at other antecedents to leader behavioral integrity. One particularly
interesting antecedent is leader political skills. Simons (2008) suggested that leader
behavioral integrity will be a function of the aptitude of the leader to communicate
effectively to followers. Intuitively, one may argue that leader political skills and
authentic leadership are at the opposite ends of the same continuum. Leaders who
remain true to the self do not try to manipulate followers into a certain course of action.
However, this is a particularly negative view on leader political skills that do not coincide
with recent conceptualizations (Ferris et al. 2005, 2007). As we noted in this article, a
leader often needs to address the needs of diverse constituencies and therefore needs
to be careful in how they present an argument. Being careful about how to phrase an
argument might not always be about political skills so much, as it might also be an effort
of the leader or politician to remain true to the self. In this case, authentic leadership
and leader political skills need not be opposites, but might mutually reinforce one
another and perceptions of leader behavioral integrity. A similar suggestion has been
offered by Douglas et al. (2005), but has not been empirically tested.
Future research could look at alternative measures of follower motivation which
explain the effect of leader integrity on follower outcomes. One specific example is
follower work engagement as the extent to which individuals can express their own- or
true-self at work (Meyer and Gagne 2008). Work engagement may lead to similar effect
on performance as affective organizational commitment but may be directed more at
behaviors that are important for one’s job or team rather than the overall organization
(Griffin et al. 2007). We further expect that authentic leadership will have a direct effect
on follower engagement over and above leader behavioral integrity. Authentic
leadership create an environment where followers can be themselves. In support of this
reasoning, Walumbwa et al. (2010) found that both feelings of empowerment as well as
identification explain the effect of authentic leadership on follower engagement.
Finally, while our operational definition of authentic leadership explicitly includes
a moral component (Walumbwa et al. 2008), the previous research has questioned
whether authentic leadership (Sparrowe 2005) or leader behavioral integrity (Palanski
and Yammarino 2007) should include a moral component. Can one be an authentic or
integer narcissist, and if so what are the consequences of being an authentic or integer
narcissist? Future research could investigate how leader benevolence (social versus
egocentric orientation) combines with leader authenticity and behavioral integrity (leader
word–deed alignment versus misalignment) to impact perceptions of trust in and
effectiveness of leaders.

14
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
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.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004).
Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact
follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behaviour: Engaged
employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29,
147–154.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. Theory, research, &
managerial applications. New York: Free Press.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.),
Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
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.
Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and
behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 622–635.
Douglas, C., Ferris, G. F., & Perrewe´, P. L. (2005). Leader political skill and authentic
leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic
leadership theory and practice: Origins effects and development. Oxford:
Elsevier.
Driscoll, C., & McKee, M. (2007). Restorying a culture of ethical and spiritual values: A
role for leader storytelling. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 205–217.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J.,
Douglas, C., et al. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill
inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126–152.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewe´, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S.
(2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290–320.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Griffin, M., Neal, A., & Parker, S. (2007). A new model of work role performance:
Positive behaviors in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 327–347.
Grojean, M. W., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., & Smith, D. B. (2004). Leaders, values
and organizational climate: Examining leadership strategies for establishing an
organizational climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 223–241.

15
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jackson, K. T. (2005). Towards authenticity: A sartrean perspective on business ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 307–325.
Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of
organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 29, 23–947.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self- esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, 14, 1–26.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, M. B. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of
authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 38,
283–357.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel
modeling. In M. Williams (Ed.), Handbook of methodological innovation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liedtka, J. (2007). Strategy making and the search for authenticity. Journal of Business
Ethics, 80, 237–248.
Lindell, M., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not
to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9, 151–173.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior.
Journal of Management, 33, 321–349.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practices in reporting structural
equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations—extension and test of a 3-com- ponent conceptualization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and
motivation: A conceptual analysis and integra- tive model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Gagne´, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self-determination
theory perspective. Industrial and Organizational Perspectives, 1, 60–62.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. K., Hersovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61,
20–52.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.
Palanski, M. E., Kahai, S. S., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Team virtues and
performance: An examination of transparency, behavioral integrity, and trust.
Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 201–216.
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: Clearing the
conceptual confusion. European Management Journal, 25, 171–184.

16
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Impact of behavioral integrity on follower
job performance: A three-study examina- tion. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,
765–786.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Simons, T. L. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational
leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 89–104.
Simons, T. L. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’
words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.
Simons, T. L. (2008). The integrity dividend: Leading by the power of your word. Jossey
Bass: San Francisco.
Simons, T. L., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & McLean-Parks, J. (2007). Racial differences in
sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and
‘‘trickle down’’ among black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 650–665.
Simons, T. L., & McLean-Parks, J. (2000). The sequential impact of behavior integrity
on trust, commitment, discretionary service behavior, customer satisfaction, and
profitability. Paper presented at the annual Academy of Management
Conference, Toronto, ON.
Simons, T., Tomlinson, E., & Leroy, H. (2011). Research on behavioral integrity: A
promising construct for positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron &
G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), Handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Sparrowe, R. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 419–439.
Verbos, A. K., Gerard, J. A., Forshey, P. R., Harding, C. S., & Miller, J. S. (2007). The
positive ethical organization: Enacting a living code of ethics and ethical
organizational identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 17–33.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J.
(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and analysis of a multidimensional
theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126.
Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups:
The mediating role of positivity and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34,
89–126.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010).
Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 21, 901–914.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using
hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research
Methods, 12, 695–719.