An examination of authentic leadership as an individual and social factor of resilience

Psychological or dispositional attributes that impact resilience can originate from within an individual, from social interactions and from the environment (Masten et al., 1990). These attributes can be categorised as protective factors and vulnerabilities. Protective factors refer to those which enhance positive adaptation following adversity (Straus et al., 2019), while vulnerabilities are factors which increase the likelihood of maladaptation to adversity (Lee et al., 2013). The same factor can be either a protective or a vulnerability based on the context and interaction with the individual. For instance, self-efficacy is a personal judgement on how well a person can cope (Bandura 2006). This personal judgement can be either a protective or vulnerability factor, depending on the outlook of the person in combination with life experiences and countless other variables. Social interactions can equally be protective, through nurturing experiences with others, or maladaptive, through degrading or toxic associations. The complex balancing act between protective factors and vulnerabilities points to the dynamic nature of increasing protective factors as a counterweight to vulnerabilities to maintain a healthy psychological homeostasis.

In addition to the possibility of a factor being protective or maladaptive, extant research has noted the differences in the relative strength of the variables on resilience (Lee et al., 2013). Some personal traits (e.g. extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, negative emotionality, open mindedness) or cognitive qualities can to be more impactful than others in the development of resilience (Smith et al., 2013). Context plays a role in how impactful traits and qualities are, as illustrated by the growing research on resilience in a multitude of areas such as education, sports and medicine. This relative variability indicates a need for researchers to explore the different variables on resilience and assess that are most related towards positive responding following periods of adversity in certain contexts.

Social support and social relationships include family, friends, coworkers, subordinates, peers and leaders from across an individual's personal environment. Positive social relationships provide tangible resources to enhance the ability to cope with adversity and can serve as a buffer for negative impacts on psychological resilience (McCabe et al., 2020). Comparatively, poor social relationships can be deleterious on one's ability to cope with adversity if the relative weight of vulnerabilities outweighs protective factors. One social factor of resilience with significant implications for military personnel is the role of unit members and leadership (Adrian et al., 2018).

Leadership researchers have explored the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate behaviours for decades (Bass and Bass 2008). Many studies focus on specific leader actions or attributes and the outcomes on subordinates. While unique in design and results, a review of the extant literature indicates the influential role leaders have on the actions and behaviour of subordinates (Avolio and Gardner 2005; Hannah et al., 2020; Vanhove et al., 2016; U.S. Army 2012). Harland et al. (2005) noted the relationship between leadership based on positive psychology and psychologically resilient behaviours. If positive psychology-based practices enhance resilience, leadership styles based on positive psychology could be an effective vehicle for strengthening the ability to respond repeatedly following adverse situations (Harland et al., 2005).

Authentic leadership can be defined as a pattern of leader behaviour that leverages and promotes positive psychological capacities to foster greater self-awareness, internalised moral perspective, balanced processing and relational transparency (Baron and Parent 2015; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Authentic leadership promotes positive psychological interactions and an ethically sound organisational climate (Hirst et al., 2016). Self-awareness represents how accurately one sees their own values, aspirations, beliefs and reactions (Eurich 2018). Relational transparency represents the authentic presentation of one's self to others (Baron and Parent 2015). Balanced processing is defined as the objective analysis of data in decision-making (Zehir and Narcikara 2016). Internalised moral perspective represents the self-regulation of one's conduct consistent with internal values rather than from external sources, including social expectations (Walumbwa 2008). In sum, authentic leadership behaviours enable subordinates to develop confidence in their leaders through trust, hence providing critical support to challenges encountered in adverse environments and situations.

Authentic leadership has been previously researched in military contexts as a factor in resilience. Research by Gaddy et al. (2017) demonstrated a positive relationship between perceptions of authentic leadership and resilience in subordinate infantry soldiers. While this finding is promising, more research on the construct of authentic leadership in military populations is vital for understanding how leadership and contribute to resilience as a social protective factor.

The general topic with which the present study is concerned is how the perception of leadership influences resilience. Focusing on the resilience factor of social support, Harland et al. (2005) determined that views on leadership are related to resilience. This relationship has the potential for positive or negative outcomes on resilience (McCabe et al., 2020). To increase the body of knowledge on the relationship between leadership and resilience, especially in military populations, this study was designed to explore the perception of leadership in self and as a social factor in relation to resilience. Specifically, the researchers asked, ‘What is the relationship between one's self-reported authentic leadership with their own resilience as an individual factor’ and aimed to provide a replication of previous work (Gaddy et al., 2017) regarding the question, ‘What is the relationship between the perception of authentic leadership in first-line leaders and subordinate resilience as a social factor?’

Data originated as a component of a larger grant-funded study. Data from the original study were provided to the authors with the specific purpose of conducting this secondary analysis to explore the relationship between psychological resilience and leadership. The purpose of the original study was to examine the role of mindfulness on working memory and attention in a military cohort. The study was conducted at Fort Stewart, Georgia in 2015 and data collection occurred in a quiet room on the military installation. All participants were administered a battery of computerised cognitive tasks and self-report questionnaires. Participants completed the battery in groups of up to 18 and were proctored by a team of two or three experimenters. The testing session required approximately 2 h to complete all items. The data for the present study were administered as components of the total assessment battery and were not analysed in relation to each other as a part of the larger study.

All participants in this study were U.S. Army active-duty soldiers (N = 179; M = 26.86 years, SD = 6.42). The original collection began with 180 soldiers, but 1 participant was removed from the analysis for failure to complete the demographic assessment. Table 1 presents the demographics of ethnicity, race, military rank and self-reported gender. All participants in the initial study provided informed consent in compliance with a university Institutional Review Board and governmental oversight provided by the U.S. Department of Defense Human Research Protections Office. No soldiers participating in this study received any compensation in addition to their military salary in accordance with the Department of Defense regulations governing soldier compensation. All involvement occurred during the normal duty day. A group-randomised assignment strategy was used for selecting participants to maintain the organic structure of different military units. As scheduling active-duty cohorts can be challenging, this methodology is consistent with other military studies (e.g. Adler et al., 2008; Jha et al., 2020). Personal identifying information was removed from the raw data and was not provided for use in the present study to ensure participant confidentiality.

The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) asked respondents questions about their perceptions of authentic leadership in self and in their first-line leader on a scale of 0–4 (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The ALQ is a 16-item questionnaire that includes four subscales, assessing self-awareness (4 items, e.g. My leader accurately describes how others view his or her capabilities), relational transparency (5 items, e.g. My leader admits mistakes when they are made), internalised moral perspective (4 items, e.g. My leader makes decisions based on his or her core values) and balanced processing (3 items, e.g. My leader analyses relevant data before coming to a decision). The ALQ includes a self-version and a rater-version. Both include the same questions, but the self-version uses ‘I’ and the rater-version uses ‘my leader’ to begin each survey question.

The Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) measures the ability to respond following adversity on a scale of 0–4 (Connor and Davidson 2003). The CD-RISC consists of 25 questions assessing resilience (e.g. I try to see the humorous side of things when I am faced with problems). The CD-RISC does not separate questions into sub-factors and combines all 25 responses into one score. Higher scores on the scale indicate a greater level of resilience.

A multiple regression on resilience assessed four predictor variables and calculated significance levels as authentic leadership in self (p < 0.001), authentic leadership in first-line supervisor (p < 0.001), military rank (p = 0.329) and years in service (p = 0.393). The overall regression model was significant (r = 0.57, F(4.174) = p < 0.001). The multiple linear regression calculated a beta weight to the statistically significant variables of the perception of authentic leadership in self (β_{authentic leadership} = 0.434, p = 0.000) and the perception of authentic leadership in their first-line supervisor (β_{authentic leadership rater} = 0.260, p = 0.000).

Appelbaum et al. (2018) explain that an external replication occurs when a researcher reports a replication of one or more previously published studies. When reporting a replication, it is important to compare the original and the replication with enough detail to allow for appropriate evaluation. Specifically, details on participants, conditions, measures, methods or otherwise should be presented to allow for the comparison of findings (Appelbaum et al., 2018).

The original study (Gaddy et al., 2017) examined the perception of authentic leadership with subordinate resilience. Respondents (N = 132) were all active-duty soldiers assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia. The administration of the survey data was via paper and ink in a comfortable waiting room on the installation. The measures used were the CD-RISC and ALQ-Rater-version only. The method of analysis was to sum both surveys to establish a higher order score, then conduct a Pearson correlation to determine whether a positive or negative correlation existed. The original study noted a significant positive relationship (r = 0.41, p < 0.005). The current study supported these replicated findings with similar results (r = 0.39, p < 0.005). A lack of significance was noted in the demographic variables of military rank and years in service in both studies.