Bernard M. Bass's Theory Of Authentic Leadership

In article number three, we examined how authentic leadership and laissez faire leadership in masters may combine with psychological job demands and influence SA and the willingness to take a risk. In the following, the concept of authentic leadership and laissez faire leadership will be further outlined.

1.4.4.1 Authentic leadership

Theories on leadership have evolved throughout the years. According to Ford and Harding (2011) Bernard M. Bass was the first to introduce the term ‘authentic leadership’ in his theory of ‘transformational leadership’. He included the concept of ‘authentic leadership’ in his original theory as an answer to critics who pointed at the possibility for ‘narcissistic and authoritarian managers to masquerade as transformational

For instance, Wetzel (2015) argues that the idea of a ‘stable core self’ in the sense that it can be recognized and explained both to ourselves and others is a myth (p.41), and a leader will therefore always fail in his search for his/her true self. Ford and Harding (2011) also discuss the notion of a ‘true self’ and argue that the theory of authentic leadership ‘refuse to acknowledge the rounded subject as someone full of contradictions’ (p. 476). Wetzel (2015) further argues that a leader does not hold an unambiguous role in relation to the organization. Rather, the leader will face contradiction in expectations and demands that will influence the leader’s behaviour. In other words, both the leaders and the organization lack a stable core – whereupon authenticity will be impossible. This argument is supported by a study conducted by Nyberg and Sveningsson (2014), who reported that leaders experience a tension between their authenticity and the expectations of other members in the organization. Due to that, the leaders reported to have restrained their authenticity in order to be perceived as good leaders. According to the authors, it is thus misleading to examine leadership disconnected from the context in which it takes

134). In other words, laissez-faire leadership may be seen as lack of leadership. Surprisingly few studies have examined the effect of laissez-faire leadership on safety related outcomes, as opposed to studies concerning leadership that is more active. However, Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis (2006) found that passive and active leadership should be viewed as distinct constructs in a sample of part-time workers. These authors argued that active and passive leadership should be considered as distinct constructs rather than opposite ends of the same continuum. Zohar (2002) conducted a study that focused on the effect of laissez-faire leadership on safety climate. Not surprisingly, this study found that laissez-faire leadership was negatively related to the group-level safety climate (i.e., preventive actions considered, or taken, by the superior). Laissez-faire leadership has also been shown to be associated with other work place variables such as worker job satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), motivation (Chaudhry & Javed, 2012), role conflicts, role ambiguity and conflicts with co-workers (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). These studies lend support to Skogstad and collegues (Skogstad et al., 2007) argument that laissez-faire leadership should