Reflective Essay by using Gibbs Reflective Cycle

This is a reflective essay and i need to write what happen in our group

” How to help the Middlesbrough council deal with the problems it face”

“For example there are lot of criminals and unemployed people in Middlesbrough “

And  how to help with it’s problems

In group we talked about

we are talk about that and need to deal with those problems, and through the group activities, and analyze leadership module, and analyze how to use your leadership and which things did you do and which one do your activities belong to, and what did you changed though the group meeting

Strategic Management and Responsible Leadership

Individual Assessment: some handy tips

1. The task

ICA 50% (Individual) – 3,000 word reflective essay – demonstration of your own learning over the course of the module and specifically as part of the group.  Students will be expected to include in their reflective essay evidence of leadership and explore critically how this relates to the theory presented as part of the module.  Challenges should be presented along with how the individual, or team overcame these challenges.  This assessment relates to learning outcomes 3,4,5.

2. How should I approach this?

· This essay covers a number of issues: your relationship with the learning materials; your group work – specifically the problem you have identified and how you worked together as a group, how the module has changed your view of the world e.g. was there a moment in the conference that inspired you to find out more and change your outlook?

· Remember this is reflective writing and relates to your own learning – therefore it is acceptable to write in the first person throughout;

·

Select an appropriate reflective model to stimulate and underpin your reflection e.g. Gibbs. Be clear to state you are using this particular model and refer to it periodically throughout.

· Refer back to the two-day conference to stimulate your thinking. Remember, this was the vehicle to introduce you to contemporary learning materials and real world insights from the business community… This will prompt reflection and connection to the academic materials on the Blackboard site and of course, other readings/research you will need to independently source;

· Think about your group work so far. How did you come together (hint think about the session Jeanette did at the conference), how have you worked as a group and how did you overcome challenges?;

· Refer to the live group challenge you are working on and discuss the problem you have identified e.g. poverty, homelessness;

· Don’t forget to refer to the 17 SDGs in this piece;

· As you reflect ensure that you are linking to relevant theory and practice – e.g. look at the learning materials on Blackboard viz. strategy and models of leadership;

· Important areas of theory to examine are: responsible leadership, the role of business in society, and do remember that you have been asked to provide strategic ideas in response to the brief and so you should demonstrate engagement with relevant strategic management literature;

· Whilst the marking criterion is a useful tool to assist structure, don’t let it inhibit you. We are looking for evidence of what it contains throughout. So, for example, we would expect to see critical discussion throughout, we would expect to see reference to theory and references in the introduction and scope etc.

3. What should I avoid?

· Merely providing a descriptive narrative of chronological events. It’s ok to mix things up and refer to something more than once (BUT AVOID DUPLICATION). E.g. you may refer to Terri-Anne’s speech in a number of different contexts;

· Not referring to theory or adding references;

· Not using a model of reflection to underpin the essay;

· Incorrect referencing;

· Trying to cover everything – be selective!

4. So, how do I write in the first person and critique theory?

This is a skill, but not an impossible one. I’ve included a short passage of my own work, which adopts this approach and hopefully you’ll get a feel for it.

Autoethnography first appeared in the mid-1970s, emerging with the increase in identity politics. Since then, autoethnography has has grown in popularity as a research method, despite its criticisms, which I will briefly touch on later in this chapter. There are a number of definitions of autoethnography. Ellis &Bochner (2000) define autoethnography as ‘autobiographies that self-consciously explore the interplay of the introspective, personally engaged self with cultural descriptions mediated through language, history, and ethnographic explanation (P.742). Another useful definition by Adams et al., (2015) states that ‘autoethnography is a qualitative method – it offers nuanced complex, and specific knowledge about particular lives, experiences and relationships rather than general info about large groups of people’ (2015:21).

Both definitions are broadly similar, but I concur with Chang (2008) that the definition posited by Ellis and Bochner leans too far towards the autobiographical than the ethnographic end (P.2). Both definitions, though, share similarity in that they connect the personal to the cultural, which is a key facet of autoenthography (Chang, 2008:2). According to de Munk (2000) culture and people have a symbiotic relationship and therefore culture would cease to exist without the individuals who make it up.

Building on the words of de Munk, I have chosen autoethnography as my theoretical lens because it is a method of inquiry that will allow me to draw upon my personal and professional experience to explore my practice; it will allow me to critically reflect upon the relationships I have with people in the communities of practice I am active within (for example life as a musician and my work as a management educator) and, importantly, autoethnography requires deep and careful self-reflection (reflexivity), in order to interrogate the intersections between self and society (Adams et al., 2015:2). The latter point is an important one, in that this context statement is indeed a reflective account on my critical engagement with my public works. I am at the centre of my practice, embracing the roles of jazz musician and management educator, using my experience in these roles to contribute to two bodies of knowledge (e.g. jazz informing strategic marketing practice).

The SMRL Module Team

1-8

9-18

19-28

29-35

Introduction and Scope	1-5	6-10	11-15	16-20
Limited scope in relation to your own learning journey, no real identification of critical issues identified in relation to the role of business in society and responsible leadership and your experience in the team. Lacks clarity making it difficult for the reader to fully understand the context and the approach taken to the essay.	Introduction and essay scoped well in relation to your own learning journey, with a sound understanding of critical issues identified in relation to the role of business in society and responsible leadership and your experience in the team. Some clarity but additional consideration could have been given to make it clearer to understand the context and the approach taken to the essay.	Very good introduction and scope including relevance to your own experience and clear connectivity between stages of your journey. Very good understanding of critical issues identified in relation to the role of business in society and responsible leadership. The reader can understand the context and approach; however, this could have been developed further.	An excellent introduction where you have fully considered your own experience in your team and have articulated your journey, making your approach to the essay explicit to the reader. Excellent understanding of critical issues identified in relation to the role of business in society and responsible leadership.
Critical Discussion of the concepts introduced as part of the module (lit)		1-8		9-18		19-28		29-35
Poor critical discussion of the concepts introduced as part of the module. Lack of depth in all areas. Key module themes omitted. Very descriptive with limited use of academic literature.	Good critical discussion of the concepts introduced as part of the module. Limited in parts and missing some key themes. Quite descriptive with some use of academic literature to support the discussion.	Very good critical discussion of the concepts introduced as part of the module. Some areas need further consideration and development.	Excellent critical discussion of all the concepts introduced as part of the module. You have demonstrated a very critical style of writing which has considered the literature to good effect which in turn allows you to clearly articulate your argument.
Demonstration of an understanding of the core areas in relation to own learning (app)
Poor understanding of the module core areas in relation to your own learning with little application to your development demonstrated. Little understanding of the impact of your experience.	There is good understanding of the module in relation to your own learning and you demonstrate some evidence of the effect of your experience on yourself and others.	You have demonstrated a very good understanding of the module core areas and the application of these through your team experience. You explore the impact of your learning and consider how this has contributed to your development.	This is a thorough and very well developed demonstration of your application of all module core areas in relation to your module experience. The way in which you have demonstrated the impact of your learning is excellent.
Presentation and referencing	1-3	4-6	7-9	10
Poorly structured essay which has significant grammatical and/or spelling errors. Harvard referencing has not been adhered to and has some major errors.	Good structure with a number of grammatical and/or spelling errors in the work. Reasonable adherence to the Harvard referencing style.	Structure very good and essay only has minor grammatical and/or spelling errors. Harvard referencing has been adhered to.	Excellent structure. Essay is written in clear and error free English. Harvard referencing has been adhered to and is free of errors.

ICA Rubric / SM&RL / 2017-18

Strategic Management & Responsible Leadership

Thursday 9th November 2017

Groups and Assessment

Groups
Adjustments made to some groups.
Essential to check blackboard.
Some imbalances to numbers and additional students to include.
No further changes accommodated.
End of discussion.

ECA – 50% – Group
10 minute presentation of a group exercise that will allow the group to understand a business problem or to develop a business idea.  The presentation should be delivered in a media format chosen by the group.  In addition to the presentation students will complete and submit documentation demonstrating engagement in the project. 

Criterion
Please refer to the Generic University Assessment Marking Criteria and see below for the content specific criteria Weighting
% Mark
%
Professional presentation delivered within the given timeframe 20  
Clear and logical development of the presentation 20  
Connectivity between each element of the presentation 20  
Evidence (theoretical and market based) to support 20  
Evidence of team engagement 20
  100 0

Professional presentation delivered within the given timeframe – 20%
Use of an appropriate media format;
Brief handouts to be provided;
Ensure you address the brief;
Clearly articulate the strategic ideas in appropriate detail;
Stick to time – you will receive a one minute warning and will be stopped at 10 minutes

Clear and logical development of the presentation – 20%
Clear introduction that outlines the structure of the presentation;
Evidence individual contributions, whilst not detracting from team aspect;
Ensure focus and balance e.g. do not spend too long on one slide at the expense of another;
Concise conclusions that draw a natural end to the presentation.

Connectivity between each element of the presentation – 20%
Seamless flow from start to finish
Perfect preparation prevents poor performance!
REHEARSE! REHEARSE! REHEARSE!

Evidence (theoretical and market based) to support – 20%
Appropriate application of relevant strategic management and leadership theories;
Evidence engagement with appropriate academic and professional literature;
Evidence of active engagement with the business/local community;

Evidence of team engagement – 20%

Last Year
While having notes to remind you are fine, you should not rely on these notes in your presentation.  Practicing and learning your part of the presentation is ALWAYS preferable with notes to support.  The panel remembered those individuals who engaged with the audience and had “learnt” their bit.
EYE CONTACT!  Very important you positively engage with your audience.
Timing for some was an issue.  In interview situations you are likely to be cut off once time has run out so practice to make sure you are in time.
While the panel commended those groups who took a more creative approach, there was consensus that some level of dialogue and engagement with the audience was essential.
You must not chat to one another while other members of your team are presenting.
It was noted how much effort you had made in terms of dress, it is important that you create the right impression by how you present yourself.

Last Year
Always check your slides etc. for spelling mistakes
Some slides were quite “busy”.  Ensure the audience can read what they need to and “you” present the key points.
While Gill and I accept that the questions were difficult they were all linked to the presentations.  Try to be more prepared for what you might get asked, ensure you know your stuff.
ALWAYS respond politely, confidently and directly when asked a question.  It is okay not to know the answer but being respectful to the questioner is always important.
Use of evidence is crucial.
Groups who all engaged in some way were commended.

ICA 50% (Individual)
3,000 word (+/- 10-%) reflective essay – demonstration of your own learning over the course of the module and specifically as part of the team.  Students will be expected to include in their reflective essay evidence of leadership and explore critically how this relates to the theory presented as part of the module.  Challenges should be presented along with how the individual, or team overcame these challenges. 

Criterion
Please refer to the Generic University Assessment Marking Criteria and see below for the content specific criteria Weighting
% Mark
%
Introduction and scope 30  
Critical discussion of the concepts introduced as part of the module 30  
Demonstration of an understanding of the module theory in relation to own learning 30  
Presentation and referencing  10  
  100 0

Introduction and scope – 30%
Articulation of the issue(s) addressed in the team;
Identification of theoretical lenses
Stress the balance of the critical and reflective aspects of the piece

Critical discussion of the concepts introduced as part of the module – 30%
Critiquing the academic materials provided in the module;
Think of this like a mini literature review;
Criticality is essential, so avoid merely describing things.

Demonstration of an understanding of the module theory in relation to own learning-30%
This is reflective writing;
Your voice is essential here;
In particular, use the conference as a tool to develop your reflective narrative;
How has your view of the world changed???

Presentation and referencing-10% 
Front cover – Name, student number, module, date of submission, word count
Referencing – must be Harvard format – no excuse at this level for this to be wrong!
Each page – name, student number, page numbers

Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
2016, Vol. 23(4) 456 –466
© The Authors 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051816630227
jlo.sagepub.com

Article

Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory posits that fol-
lowers’ work-related attitudes and behaviors depend on
how their leaders treat them. According to social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964), followers feel obligated to reciprocate
by working hard to benefit their leader when treated favor-
ably (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Several meta-analyses
have provided strong support to LMX theory and found
positive relationships between LMX quality and work per-
formance (Gerstner & Day, 1997), citizenship behavior
(Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), and attitudes such as
affective and normative commitment and job satisfaction
(Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012).
Finally, a recent meta-analysis of LMX across 23 countries
concluded that the relationships of LMX with work perfor-
mance and organizational commitment were not affected by
national culture (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore,
2012). Accordingly, a high-quality LMX relationship is a
strong and robust predictor of followers’ work performance
and important work-related attitudes. Furthermore, it is typ-
ically assumed that LMX relationships fall on a single con-
tinuum from high to low quality, where high-quality
exchange relationships represent social exchange relation-
ships, and low-quality exchange relationships represent
economic exchange, or transactional exchange, relation-
ships (e.g., Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, & Walker,
2007; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Wayne et al., 2009). The
other side of the coin is, therefore, that a transactional LMX

relationship will be associated with lower work perfor-
mance and organizational commitment. Unlike a high-qual-
ity, or social LMX relationship, a transactional LMX
relationship is characterized by economic exchange behav-
ior, formal role-defined relations, and unidirectional down-
ward influence (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Indeed, Graen
and Uhl-Bien (1995) argue that low-quality, or transactional
LMX is analogous to transactional leadership in that “the
leader makes requests based upon his/her hierarchical status
within the organization, and the follower complies because
of his/her formal obligation to the leader and because of the
economic rewards the leader controls” (p. 232). In this case,
followers’ motivations are assumed to be based on the satis-
faction of self-interests rather than the prosocial motivation
emanating from social exchange of favors (Graen & Uhl-
Bien, 1995).

Unfortunately, some dyads may not advance much
beyond transactional LMX, as social LMX relationships
can be hard to develop owing to personality differences,

630227 JLOXXX10.1177/1548051816630227Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesBuch et al.
research-article2016

1Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo,
Norway
2BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

Corresponding Author:
Robert Buch, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences,
Pilestredet 35, 0166 Oslo, Norway.
Email: robert.buch@hioa.no

Transactional Leader–Member Exchange
Relationships and Followers’ Work
Performance: The Moderating Role of
Leaders’ Political Skill

Robert Buch1, Geir Thompson2, and Bård Kuvaas2

Abstract
In this study, we test whether leader political skill moderates the relationship between more transactional leader–member
exchange (LMX) relationships and follower work performance. A field study was conducted among 753 followers and 153
leaders from several Norwegian business organizations. The results showed that the negative relationship between more
transactional LMX relationships and follower work performance was weaker for employees with a highly politically skilled
leader. Thus, leader political skill seemed in part to mitigate the negative effects of transactional LMX. This is an important
observation, since finding alternative routes to enhanced work performance of followers in less favorable transactional
LMX relationships is essential. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Keywords
leader political skill, LMX, follower work performance

Buch et al. 457

style differences, differences in background, incongruent
values, and so forth (Breland, Treadway, Duke, & Adams,
2007; Uhl-Bien, 2003). In addition, the time and resources
of both followers and leaders are limited (Bauer & Green,
1996), and social LMX relationships require a fair amount
of time and energy to be invested in relationship develop-
ment. Thus, it follows that leaders favor particular employ-
ees over others and only develop social LMX relationships
with some, and more transactional LMX relationships with
others (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Wayne et al., 2009).
Accordingly, and to increase overall productivity, the iden-
tification of leadership skills that may mitigate the negative
impact of more transactional LMX is a theoretically and
practically important research endeavor (Kuvaas, Buch,
Dysvik, & Haerem, 2012). Furthermore, there is a dearth of
knowledge regarding the impact of leaders’ skills on leader-
ship effectiveness, and Yukl (2012) recently called for more
research on how leader skills may combine with other vari-
ables to influence performance.

In the present study, we therefore investigate the interac-
tive roles of LMX and leader political skill in predicting
follower performance. Specifically, we hypothesize and test
whether leader political skill can moderate the negative
relationship between more transactional LMX and follower
work performance. Political skill refers to the “ability to
effectively understand others at work and to use such
knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance
one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris
et al., 2005, p. 127). With an emphasis on skill, political
skill is typically viewed as a something that can be devel-
oped through training and socialization (Ferris, Anthony,
Kolodinsky, Gilmor, & Harvey, 2002; Munyon, Summers,
Thompson, & Ferris, 2015), although it probably also has
dispositional antecedents (Liu et al., 2007). Followers in
social LMX relationships deliver high performance mainly
as a result of the prosocial motivation emanating from the
relationship itself, probably relatively independently of
their leader’s political skill. However, for followers in a
more transactional LMX relationship, their leaders’ ability
to understand others at work and to use this type of knowl-
edge to influence followers to work harder or smarter may
represent an instrumental pathway to reducing the negative
impact of such LMX relationships.

Theory and Hypothesis

Because organizations can be considered political areas in
which social and political skills are vital to managerial suc-
cess (Mintzberg, 1983), researchers have begun to investi-
gate the nature and the effects of political skill. Research
has shown that leader political skill relates to ratings of
leader effectiveness (Douglas & Ammeter, 2004), task and
contextual job performance (Jawahar, Meurs, Ferris, &
Hochwarter, 2008), and followers’ job satisfaction and

organizational commitment (Treadway et al., 2004). Thus,
leader political skill shares many of the most important con-
sequences of a favorable LMX relationship. Yet motivating
followers through political skill is typically described as
more instrumental than influencing them by developing
trust-based, diffuse, and long-term relationships. Early the-
orizing defined political skill as the ability to influence oth-
ers through the use of manipulation, persuasion, and
negotiation (Mintzberg, 1983). More recently, Ferris et al.
(2005) argued that political skill is composed of four
aspects: interpersonal influence, networking ability, social
astuteness, and apparent sincerity. Because of their high
levels of networking ability and social astuteness, leaders
high in political skill have a good understanding of the
workplace and are able to read situations and people well
(Brouer, Harris, & Kacmar, 2011; Kimura, 2013). Because
of this ability to diagnose situations, politically skilled lead-
ers are able to select the most situationally appropriate
behaviors to gain interpersonal effectiveness and to elicit
the desired responses from those around them (Ewen et al.,
2013). They do not only know exactly what to do in various
social situations at work, but also how to do it in a way that
disguises any self-serving motives, making them appear
sincere (Ferris et al., 2005). Finally, politically skilled lead-
ers should be able to influence employees by using influ-
ence tactics (Ferris et al., 2007), such as coalition building,
upward appeal (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Yukl
& Falbe, 1990), and rational persuasion, defined as “using
logic, factual evidence, or thorough explanations in order to
persuade or influence others” (Kolodinsky, Treadway, &
Ferris, 2007, p. 1751). The use of political skill is arguably
particularly advantageous in situations that require interper-
sonal skill and social influence tactics (Bing, Davison,
Minor, Novicevic, & Frink, 2011).

Our main premise is that a leader’s political skill is prob-
ably not equally important to all followers in terms of facili-
tating their work performance. Although it is theoretically
possible for leaders to develop social exchange relation-
ships with all their followers, the reality is that leaders tend
to differentiate between followers and develop more social
LMX relationships with a chosen few (Liden & Graen,
1980). Below, we argue that a leader’s political skill will be
increasingly more important for follower performance the
more transactional the LMX relationship is, and increas-
ingly less important the more social the LMX relationship
is. Stated differently, we argue that the relationship between
LMX and follower work performance is moderated by
leader political skill.

First, as pointed out by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), a fol-
lower in a more transactional LMX relationships is probably
motivated by “the satisfaction of his/her own self-interests,
without consideration of the good of the group” (p. 232).
Hence, the explanation for negative consequences of more
transactional LMX relationships is probably that followers

458 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 23(4)

in such relationships adopt a short-term and instrumental
approach to their work and their leader (Kuvaas et al., 2012).
As an example, followers may not be willing to take on any
extra work unless they know precisely what they will get in
return for doing so. Leaders high in political skill can miti-
gate or compensate for a transactional LMX relationship
because they have been shown to set challenging goals, cre-
ate accountability, lead by example, and incentivize employ-
ees by rewarding goal attainment (Ewen et al., 2013; Smith,
2009). For instance, the politically skilled leader may be bet-
ter at bargaining the terms of the more transactional agree-
ment as well as framing (Munyon et al., 2015) the terms in
such a way that the follower is incentivized to take on the
extra work. Furthermore, the more transactional the LMX
relationship, the more necessary and influential such behav-
iors would probably be in increasing follower work perfor-
mance. Followers in more transactional LMX relationships
probably need an extra stimulus to perform well, as they
worry about their self-interest and future returns and there-
fore withhold effort (Buch, Martinsen, & Kuvaas, 2015;
Kuvaas et al., 2012).

It is also likely that followers in more transactional LMX
relationships engage in feedback behaviors and political
influence tactics that require a highly politically skilled
leader. Research has, for instance, shown that resource-con-
strained conditions (low relative LMX/low perceived orga-
nizational support) increase the frequency of upward
influence attempts and that employees are likely to employ
levels of both hard and soft tactics with a transactional
leader (Epitropaki & Martin, 2013). High political skill may
allow leaders to respond properly to these influence tactics
and better explain to these followers the means for improv-
ing their status so they are able to benefit from desired per-
formance goal improvements.

Leader political skill can also act as a substitute for a
more social LMX, by providing followers with some of the
social benefits associated with a favorable leader–follower
relationship. Leaders with higher levels of political skill are
able to build large bases of social and organizational capital
(Ferris et al., 2005). Such capital implies that politically
skilled leaders have more resources available to compen-
sate followers in more transactional LMX relationships. In
support of this, followers of politically skilled leaders have
been shown to exhibit higher levels of perceived organiza-
tional support, job satisfaction, and commitment (Treadway
et al., 2004). Such resource availability may in turn signal to
followers in more transactional LMX relationships that
their LMX status can be altered.

Accordingly, followers in transactional LMX relation-
ships might benefit more from higher levels of leader politi-
cal skill by being more instrumentally motivated to increase
work effort. Conversely, followers in more social LMX
relationships should exhibit higher levels of work perfor-
mance because they have a more strongly felt obligation to

reciprocate (see meta-analytic reviews by Dulebohn et al.,
2012; Gerstner & Day, 1997) with lower needs for leaders
with strong political skills. As noted by Blau (1964, p. 16),
“If we feel grateful and obligated to an associate for favors
received, we shall seek to reciprocate his kindness by doing
things for him.” This is consistent with findings by Erdogan,
Kraimer, and Liden (2004), showing that followers in more
social LMX relationships are less influenced by work value
congruence when it comes to career satisfaction than fol-
lowers in more transactional LMX relationships.
Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: The negative relationship between more
transactional LMX relationships and work performance
is moderated by leader political skill. The higher the
political skill, the less negative the relationship.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The respondents were recruited through students enrolled in
executive education programs at the business school where
two of the authors are employed. Data were collected from
supervisors and their employees at different organizational
levels (top, middle, and operational) in 35 medium to large
business organizations located in eastern part of Norway.
The respondents were full-time employed. Each organiza-
tion provided us with information that displayed the organi-
zational structure, showing leaders and their direct reports.
Additionally, we were given access to leaders’ and follow-
ers’ e-mail addresses. We distributed questionnaires to the
respondents while they were at work. One online survey was
used to collect data from the followers, and a separate online
survey was used to collect data from the leaders. The respon-
dents were informed that participation was voluntary, that
the data were being collected for academic research, and
confidentiality assurances were given. Every respondent
was given a unique link to the questionnaires where they
could respond to each item. A total of 987 followers and 148
leaders responded (the overall response rate was nearly
81%). Merging the followers’ and leaders’ responses pro-
vided complete data for 753 followers and 153 leaders. Of
the leaders, 69.3% were men, and 30.7% were women. Of
the followers, 65.3% were men and 34.7% were women.
The average age of the leaders was 41.8 years, reporting an
average education of 15.1 years. Follower average age and
education were 42.9 and 13.9 years, respectively.

Measures

Transactional LMX. Our measurement of transactional LMX
(α = .88) by having followers fill out Graen and Uhl-Bien’s
(1995) widely cited seven-item scale (LMX-7) is based on

Buch et al. 459

the assumption in the extant literature that (low-quality)
transactional LMX and (high-quality) social LMX relation-
ships represent opposite poles on a single continuum (e.g.,
Bernerth et al., 2007; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Wayne
et al., 2009). To critically assess the unidimensionality of
this bipolar construct, we performed a supplemental explor-
atory factor analysis. The results of this exploratory factor
analysis clearly showed that the seven items loaded on a
single factor with an average factor loading of .72. Hence,
to facilitate the interpretation of the results we reverse-
coded the respondents’ LMX-7 scores such that higher
scores would represent a more transactional LMX relation-
ship. Consequently, the reversed scale represents subordi-
nate perceptions of having a low-quality (transactional)
exchange, rather than a high-quality (social) exchange rela-
tionship with their leader. Sample items include “How well
does your supervisor understand your job problems and
needs?” and “Regardless of how much power my supervi-
sor has built into his/her position, my supervisor would be
personally inclined to use his/her power to help me solve
problems in my work.” Respondents recorded their
responses on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree).

Leader Political Skill. To measure leader political skill (α =
.88), we had leaders fill out the political skill inventory by
Ferris et al. (2005). Sample items include “I always seem to
instinctively know the right things to say or do to influence
others” and “I am particularly good at sensing the motiva-
tions and hidden agendas of others.” Respondents recorded
their responses on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to
7 = strongly agree).

Follower Work Performance. To measure follower work per-
formance (α = .92), we obtained leader ratings of work per-
formance by having supervisors fill out a five-item scale
(Liden & Graen, 1980). The aspects of performance evalu-
ated included dependability, planning, know-how and judg-
ment, overall present performance, and expected future
performance. The items were scored using a 7-point scale (1
= unsatisfactory, 7 = outstanding).

Control Variables. To rule out alternative explanations of the
observed relationships between more transactional LMX
and follower work performance, we controlled for the age
and gender of both the leader and the follower. Further-
more, given that relational demography could account for
variance in LMX, we controlled for age and gender differ-
ences or similarities between the leaders and the followers
(Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003; Turban & Jones,
1988), where similar genders between leaders and followers
was coded as “0” and different genders as “1.” We calcu-
lated age difference as the absolute difference in age
between the leader and follower. Finally, we controlled for

span of supervision, as the number of followers per leader
might influence interaction frequency and thus the nature of
the LMX relationship (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002).

Data Analysis

To examine the adequacy of our measurement model we
performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Since
“ordinal variables are not continuous and should not be
treated as if they are” (Jöreskog, 2005, p. 10), we used the
WLSMV estimator (Muthén, du Toit, & Spisic, 1997) to
accommodate the ordered categorical data (e.g., Flora &
Curran, 2004). In addition, because the observations in the
data set are not independent (i.e., followers clustered within
different leaders), the CFA was performed using cluster
robust standard errors at the leader level.

Because our data are hierarchical (followers nested
within leaders), there may be concerns about “leader
effects” for some of the variables (e.g., Brouer, Douglas,
Treadway, & Ferris, 2013). Therefore, we used hierarchical
linear modeling to test our hypothesis. The appropriateness
of using this method was underlined by the estimation of a
fully unconditional model (null model) for follower work
performance, which demonstrated significant between-
group variability in leader ratings of follower work perfor-
mance (τ

00
= .17, p < .05). To explore the nature of the

statistically significant interaction, we plotted low versus
high scores on transactional LMX and leader political skill
(one standard deviation below and above the means using
nonstandardized scores; Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken,
2003).

Results

The results of a CFA performed on a three-factor model rep-
resenting LMX, leader political skill, and follower work
performance fit the data well (χ2[402] = 642.05, p < .01; root mean square error of approximation = .024; compara- tive fit index = .97; Tucker–Lewis index = .97) according to commonly used rules of thumb (Bollen, 1989; Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999; Steiger, 1989). Furthermore, the scales demonstrated high internal consistency, with coeffi- cient alphas ranging from α = .88 to α = .92. We report descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and bivariate cor- relations among the study variables in Table 1, and we pres- ent the results of the hierarchical linear modeling analyses in Table 2.

In Step 1, we entered the control variables. Results
indicated that leaders’ span of supervision relates nega-
tively to followers’ work performance (γ = −.02, p < .05). In Step 2, we entered transactional LMX. The results indi- cated when controlling for leaders’ age, gender, span of supervision, and tenure, there is a negative relationship between transactional LMX and follower work

460 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 23(4)

performance (γ = −.38, p < .001). Next, in Step 3, results indicated that leader political skill (γ = .21, p < .01) relates positively to follower work performance. Finally, in Step 4, we entered the interaction term (transactional LMX × Leader political skill). The introduction of the interaction term (γ = −.17, p < .05) resulted in increase in the pseudo R2 (ΔR2 = .01) and a significant decrease in model deviance (Δχ2 = 4.13, p < .05), thus showing that the relationship

between transactional LMX and follower work perfor-
mance is moderated by leader political skill. Specifically,
the results displayed in Figure 1 demonstrate a weaker
negative relationship between transactional LMX and fol-
lower work performance for followers whose leaders
reported higher levels of political skill (b

low
= −.47, p <

.001, vs. b
high

= −.25, p < .001). A supplemental t test revealed significantly different slopes for high versus low

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Leader’s age 41.81 7.70
2. Leader’s gendera .31 .46 −.06
3. Leader’s span of

supervision
11.79 9.03 .14** −.08*

4. Follower’s agea 41.49 11.01 .16** −.12** −.13*
5. Follower’s gender .35 .48 −.08* .26** −.02 −.03
6. Age differenceb 10.15 8.85 −.00 −.03 .11** .10** −.01
7. Gender differencec .33 .47 −.01 .17** −.03 −.03 .36** −.02
8. Transactional LMX 2.13 .62 −.02 −.04 .14** .03 −.00 .10** .00 (.88)
9. Leader political skill 5.43 .61 −.11** .00 .11** −.16** .08* −.02 .11** −.09** (.88)
10. Follower work

performance
5.58 .98 .05 .07* −.23** −.01 .10** −.07 .04 −.28** .13** (.92)

Note. N = 753. LMX = leader–member exchange.
aMale = 0; female = 1. bWe calculated age difference as the absolute difference in age between the leader and follower. cWe coded similar genders
between leaders and followers as “0” and different genders as “1.”
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2. Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses.

Follower work performance

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Intercept 5.58*** 5.54*** 5.52*** 5.53***
Leader’s age .01 .01 .01 .01
Leader’s gendera .02 .01 .02 .01
Leader’s span of supervision −.02* −.02* −.02** −.02**
Follower’s age .00 .00 .00 .00
Follower’s gendera .17* .17* .16* .16*
Age differenceb −.01 −.00 −.00 −.00
Gender differencec −.05 −.04 −.06 −.05
Transactional LMX −.38*** −.37*** −.36***
Leader political skill .21** .22**
Transactional LMX × Leader
political skill

−.17*

Pseudo R2 .09 .15 .17 .18
ΔR2 .06 .02 .01
Model deviance χ2 1921.53 1872.35 1863.40 1859.27
Decrease in deviance: Δχ2d 49.18*** 8.95** 4.13*

Note. N = 753. Nonstandardized coefficients are displayed. LMX = leader–member exchange.
aMale = 0; female = 1. bWe calculated age difference as the absolute difference in age between the leader and follower. cWe coded similar genders
between leaders and followers as “0” and different genders as “1.” dThe full ML estimator was used to calculate this decrease in deviance (Δχ2) which
can be considered a way of expressing effect size in multilevel modeling.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Buch et al. 461

levels of leader political skill (t = 2.04, p < .05). Accordingly, we received support for Hypothesis 1.

Finally, researchers have argued that there is a need to
better comprehend the four subdimensions of political skill
and how they may operate individually (e.g., Ferris,
Treadway, Brouer, & Munyon, 2012). Accordingly, to
explore which of the dimensions of political skill that can
explain the significant interaction, we performed post hoc
moderation analyses using the four subdimensions of politi-
cal skill (i.e., social astuteness, interpersonal influence, net-
working ability, and apparent sincerity).1 In these analyses,
we entered the control variables in Step 1, transactional
LMX in Step 2, the four subdimensions of political skill in
Step 3, and all the interaction terms (i.e., transactional LMX
× Social astuteness, transactional LMX × Interpersonal
influence, Transactional LMX × Networking ability, and
Transactional LMX × Apparent sincerity) in Step 4. The
results revealed that the only product term reaching statisti-
cal significance was that of transactional LMX and net-
working ability (γ = .13, p < .05). In line with the initial results using the single composite measure of leader politi- cal skill, the results displayed in Figure 2 suggest a weaker negative relationship between transactional LMX and fol- lower work performance with higher levels of networking ability (b

low
= −.49, p < .001, vs. b

high
= −.24, p < .01).

Discussion

Leaders do not treat all followers alike, differentiate
between followers, and develop social exchange relation-
ships with some and economic exchange, or transactional

relationships with others (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Consistent with prior research (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997;
Rockstuhl et al., 2012) our results suggest that more trans-
actional LMX relationships are related to lower work per-
formance, and more social LMX relationships are related to
higher work performance. Since many dyads do not advance
much beyond transactional LMX finding alternative routes
to the increased work performance of followers in these
relationships is essential. In this respect, we have extended
research on LMX relationships and follower work perfor-
mance by investigating the interactive role of LMX and
leader political skill. In support of our hypothesis, the form
of moderation reveals a weaker negative relationship
between transactional LMX and follower work perfor-
mance with higher leader political skill. Accordingly, we
found that leader political skill did, to some extent, mitigate
the negative relationship between more transactional LMX
relationships and follower work performance. The politi-
cally skilled leader has the ability to read people and such
situations well (i.e., social astuteness) and can therefore act
to influence followers by applying the influence tactics that
the situations demand. This probably makes politically
skilled leaders better able to incentivize followers to per-
form well in situations where followers worry about their
self-interest and future returns and therefore withhold effort
(Buch et al., 2015; Kuvaas et al., 2012). This can be done,
for instance, by tailoring the terms of more transactional
exchanges (e.g., provision of rewards in exchange for fol-
lower performance) to fit the followers’ needs and wishes.
In addition, as noted by Munyon et al. (2015, p. 172) politi-
cal skill should “enhance the accuracy of perspective taking

Figure 1. The moderating role of leader political skill on the relationship between transactional LMX and follower work
performance.

462 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 23(4)

and empathic processes, which facilitate improved negotia-
tion and conflict resolution.” The politically skilled leader
should thus be able to take the perspective of the follower
with whom she/he has a more transactional exchange rela-
tionship with and negotiate the exchanges while appearing
genuine and sincere, with no ulterior motives (Munyon
et al., 2015). Our findings may thus indicate that leader
political skill acts as a proxy for more social LMX relation-
ships with respect to inducing follower performance. As
such, the current study contributes to clarifying the interac-
tive impact of leader characteristics (i.e., leader political
skill) and situational criteria (leader–member relationship
quality) in predicting follower work performance, and rep-
resents a step toward a answering Yukl’s (2012) call for
more research on how leader skills may combine with other
variables to influence performance.

Furthermore, we observed a moderately strong positive
relationship between leader political skill and follower
work performance, in line with prior research (e.g., Ahearn,
Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter, 2004; Treadway
et al., 2004). Together, the findings of the present study
reaffirms previous research indicating that political skill is
one of the most essential competencies a leader can possess
(Treadway et al., 2004). Still, even though there was a
markedly weaker negative relationship between transac-
tional LMX and work performance for leaders with strong
political skills, political skill may seem to represent a some-
what poor consolation for more transactional LMX rela-
tionships as the observed relationship was still negative.
However, taking into account that LMX is a strong and

robust predictor of work performance and other important
employee outcomes, the mitigating role of leader political
skill is not negligible.

Finally, our post hoc analyses suggest that networking
ability is the most important political skill a leader can have
with respect to mitigating the negative relationship between
more transactional LMX and follower work performance.
Although more research is needed, this observation aligns
well with our theorizing that leaders with higher levels of
political skill are able to build large bases of social and
organizational capital (Ferris et al., 2005), which provides
them with more resources available to compensate follow-
ers in more transactional LMX relationships. Consider the
example above, where followers in more transactional
LMX relationships withhold effort because they worry
about their self-interest and future returns. In this case, the
benefits of having more resources available to negotiate
better follower performance in return for some tangible
reward enables the leader to match the available resources
with the needs and wishes of the follower. The leader could
for instance leverage extra vacation days, participation in
decision making, interesting tasks, more responsibility, and
so forth, in return for extra effort. Indeed, as noted by Ferris
et al. (2012) networking ability is expected to be important
for the effectiveness of leaders since “well positioned and
networked leaders are better able to maximize resource
attainment for their units, which builds greater appreciation
and support from their teams” (p. 510). Furthermore,
Sparrowe and Liden (2005) theorized that the “structure
and composition of an individual’s network of informal

Figure 2. Post hoc analysis of the moderating role of networking ability on the relationship between transactional LMX and follower
work performance.

Buch et al. 463

contacts allows him or her to identify strategic opportuni-
ties, marshal resources, assemble teams, and win support
for innovative projects that benefit the organization” (p.
505). Finally, a leader with networking ability is believed to
have the capability of effectively handling negotiations and
conflict (Ferris et al., 2012), which should mitigate poten-
tial conflicts that may arise in more transactional LMX rela-
tionships. Taken together, the present study aligns well with
previous research demonstrating the importance of net-
working ability for leader effectiveness (Douglas &
Ammeter, 2004; Ferris et al., 2012) and represents a step
toward a better understanding of the different roles of the
four dimensions of political skill.

Limitations, Strengths, and Research Directions

Our study has certain limitations that need to be acknowl-
edged. First, we cannot demonstrate causal relations
between the variables. For causal inferences to be drawn,
experimental studies would be necessary (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2001).

Second, we relied on same-source data with respect to
the measurement of the moderator (leader political skill)
and the dependent variable (follower work performance).
This may cause concerns about common method bias and
inflated ratings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff,
2012). Still, there was a modest correlation between leader
political skill and follower work performance (r = .13), and
our results align well with prior research where leader polit-
ical skill and follower outcomes had been assessed indepen-
dently (e.g., Ahearn et al., 2004; Ewen et al., 2013).
Furthermore, while one of the procedural remedies recom-
mended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff
(2003) is separating the measurement of the predictor and
the criterion variables in time, a strength of the current
study is that we obtained LMX ratings (the predictor vari-
able) and leader performance ratings (criterion variable)
from different sources. Doing so represents another proce-
dural remedy to alleviate potential common method vari-
ance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Still, future research should
ideally measure LMX and follower work performance inde-
pendently and include a temporal gap between their
measurements.

Relatedly, given that we gathered corresponding data
from different sources (leaders and followers), we could not
guarantee the respondents’ complete anonymity, as an identi-
fying variable was required to match the data. As noted by
Podsakoff et al. (2003), a lack of anonymity could “reduce
their willingness to participate or change the nature of their
responses” (p. 887). However, in attempting to alleviate such
potential problems, we informed the respondents that a link-
ing variable not related to their identity was used and assured
them strict confidentiality. In this respect, Podsakoff et al.
(2003) argue that emphasizing respondent confidentiality

should reduce the likelihood that respondents “edit their
responses to be more socially desirable, lenient, acquiescent,
and consistent with how they think the researcher wants them
to respond” (p. 888).

With one-time measurement of LMX, researchers (e.g.,
Graen & Scandura, 1987) have advocated the measurement
of LMX from the perspective of the followers, since leaders
are more likely to answer in a socially desirable way indi-
cating they treat all followers the same (Howell & Hall-
Merenda, 1999). Although our research satisfies this
condition, research indicates that leaders’ and followers’
perceptions of the relationship frequently do not converge
(e.g., Sin, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2009). Future research
should thus measure LMX from the perspective of both the
follower and the leader to see whether similar results would
be obtained.

Finally, the problem of generalizability poses a potential
limitation, as our sample is characterized by mostly male lead-
ers and followers in a specific culture (Western). Accordingly,
future research should investigate whether our findings can be
replicated across different contexts and cultures.

In addition to performing similar studies in other con-
texts by means of experimental designs, an interesting ave-
nue for future research might be to incorporate the notion of
relative LMX or a focal individual’s LMX relative to the
LMXs of coworkers (Hu & Liden, 2013; Vidyarthi, Liden,
Anand, Erdogan, & Ghosh, 2010). For instance, it may be
that leader political skill may fully mitigate the negative
relationship between transactional LMX and follower work
performance when followers perceive to be relationally dis-
advantaged in comparison with their coworkers. In such a
scenario, a leader’s political skill may be of utmost impor-
tance for the compensation of lack of a favorable LMX
relationship.

Practical Implications

Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations, our study
holds some potentially important practical implications.
First, if it is difficult to learn the abilities necessary to
develop more social, as opposed to more transactional LMX
relationships as perceived by followers (Uhl-Bien, 2003),
organizations should select and promote candidates to lead-
ership positions who already have these abilities. Second,
organizations may draw on our findings to tailor selection
and/or promotion practices toward politically skilled indi-
viduals. Finally, since political skill is viewed as theoreti-
cally malleable, training programs could be designed to
develop the talents of those with lower levels of political
skill (Ahearn et al., 2004). In this respect, Munyon et al.
(2015, p. 167) suggest that “organizations that provide
ongoing training and professional development opportuni-
ties for their employees could include workshops on politi-
cal skill in their course offerings” and note that such

464 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 23(4)

organization-sponsored training should be team-based and
include roleplay and simulations. Organizations could also
help leaders develop political skills by providing formal
mentoring programs. Blass and Ferris (2007), for instance,
viewed political skill as representative of a form of tacit
personal learning that could be developed through a form of
“relational job learning” (p. 8) where they learn the “infor-
mal rules of the game” (p. 9). Indeed, research on the indi-
vidual dimensions of political skill suggests that networking
ability is predicted by mentoring (e.g., Ferris et al., 2008).
Hence, political skill, and networking ability in particular,
can probably be fostered in organizations by providing indi-
viduals with experienced, politically skilled mentors (Ferris
et al., 2012). This might be especially useful when the size
of a leader’s span of supervision exceeds his or hers ability
to develop social exchange relationships with all followers
(Schyns, Maslyn, & van Veldhoven, 2012).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

1. We would like to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for
this idea.

References

Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., &
Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill and team perfor-
mance. Journal of Management, 30, 309-327. doi:10.1016/j.
jm.2003.01.004

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review
and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673-704.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-mem-
ber exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1538-1567. doi:10.2307/257068

Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F.,
& Walker, H. J. (2007). Leader-member social exchange
(LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28, 979-1003. doi:10.1002/Job.443

Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Minor, I., Novicevic, M. M., & Frink,
D. D. (2011). The prediction of task and contextual perfor-
mance by political skill: A meta-analysis and moderator test.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 563-577. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2011.02.006

Blass, F. R., & Ferris, G. R. (2007). Leader reputation: The role
of mentoring, political skill, contextual learning, and adapta-
tion. Human Resource Management, 46, 5-19. doi:10.1002/
hrm.20142

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York,
NY: Wiley.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York, NY: Wiley.

Breland, J. W., Treadway, D. C., Duke, A. B., & Adams, G. L.
(2007). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange
and political skill on subjective career success. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 1-14.

Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R.
(2013). Leader political skill, relationship quality, and leader-
ship effectiveness: A two-study model test and constructive
replication. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
20, 185-198. doi:10.1177/1548051812460099

Brouer, R. L., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The mod-
erating effects of political skill on the perceived politics-out-
come relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,
869-885. doi:10.1002/job.718

Buch, R., Martinsen, Ø. L., & Kuvaas, B. (2015). The destruc-
tiveness of Laissez-Faire leadership behavior: The mediat-
ing role of economic leader-member exchange relationships.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22, 115-
124. doi:10.1177/1548051813515302

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied
multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences (3rd ed.). London, England: Erlbaum.

Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). An examination of leader
political skill and its effect on ratings of leader effective-
ness. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 537-550. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2004.05.006

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., &
Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and con-
sequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past
with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38,
1715-1759. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformational–
transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of
relative leader–member exchanges (RLMX) and perceived
organizational support (POS). Leadership Quarterly, 24, 299-
315. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.007

Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value
congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory
roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organiza-
tional support. Personnel Psychology, 57, 305-332.

Ewen, C., Wihler, A., Blickle, G., Oerder, K., Ellen Iii, B. P.,
Douglas, C., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Further specification of
the leader political skill–leadership effectiveness relation-
ships: Transformational and transactional leader behavior as
mediators. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 516-533. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2013.03.006

Fan, X. B., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample
size, estimation method, and model specification on structural
equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 56-83.

Ferris, G. R., Anthony, W. P., Kolodinsky, R. W., Gilmor, D. C.,
& Harvey, M. G. (2002). Development of political skill. In
C. Wankel & R. DeFillippi (Eds.), Research in management
education and development. Volume 1: Rethinking manage-
ment education for the 21st century (pp. 3-25). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age.

Ferris, G. R., Blickle, G., Schneider, P. B., Kramer, J., Zettler,
I., Solga, J., . . . Meurs, J. A. (2008). Political skill con-

Buch et al. 465

struct and criterion-related validation: A two-study inves-
tigation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 744-771.
doi:10.1108/02683940810896321

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Brouer, R. L., & Munyon, T. P.
(2012). Political skill in the organizational sciences. In G. R.
Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations:
Theory and research considerations (pp. 487-529). New
York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W.,
Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink,
D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the politi-
cal skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126-152.
doi:10.1177/0149206304271386

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L.,
Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations.
Journal of Management, 33, 290-320.

Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of
alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor
analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466-
491.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review
of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and con-
struct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of
dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-208).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX)
theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind:
The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and
transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.680

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2013). Relative leader–member exchange
within team contexts: How and when social comparison
impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66,
127-172. doi:10.1111/peps.12008

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-
member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

Jawahar, I. M., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W.
A. (2008). Self-efficacy and political skill as comparative
predictors of task and contextual performance: A two-study
constructive replication. Human Performance, 21, 138-157.
doi:10.1080/08959280801917685

Jöreskog, K. G. (2005, February 2005). Structural equation mod-
eling with ordinal variables using LISREL. Retrieved from
http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ordinal

Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003).
The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and com-
munication frequency on performance ratings. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 764-772. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.4.764

Kimura, T. (2013). The moderating effects of political skill and
leader-member exchange on the relationship between orga-
nizational politics and affective commitment. Journal of
Business Ethics, 116, 587-599. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-
1497-x

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980).
Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting
ones way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

Kolodinsky, R. W., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2007).
Political skill and influence effectiveness: Testing portions
of an expanded Ferris and Judge (1991) model. Human
Relations, 60, 1747-1777. doi:10.1177/0018726707084913

Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Dysvik, A., & Haerem, T. (2012). Economic
and social leader-member exchange relationships and fol-
lower performance. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 756-765.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.013

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical
dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management
Journal, 23, 451-465. doi:10.2307/255511

Liu, Y., Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Perrewé, P. L., Weitz, B., & Xu,
J. (2007). Dispositional antecedents and outcomes of politi-
cal skill in organizations: A four-study investigation with
convergence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 146-165.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.003

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Thompson, K. M., & Ferris, G.
R. (2015). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical
extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the
future. Personnel Psychology, 68, 143-184. doi:10.1111/
peps.12066

Muthén, B. O., du Toit, S. H. C., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust
inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimat-
ing equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and
continuous outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.
com/download/Article_075

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.
P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended rem-
edies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research
and recommendations on how to control it. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi:10.1146/annurev-
psych-120710-100452

Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012).
Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-anal-
ysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 1097-1130. doi:10.1037/a0029978

Schyns, B., Maslyn, J. M., & van Veldhoven, M. P. M. (2012).
Can some leaders have a good relationship with many fol-
lowers? The role of personality in the relationship between
leader-member exchange and span of control. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 33, 594-606.
doi:10.1108/01437731211253046

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001).
Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized
causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

https://www.statmodel.com/download/Article_075

https://www.statmodel.com/download/Article_075

466 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 23(4)

Sin, H. P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009).
Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: An examination
of leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1048-1057. doi:10.1037/a0014827

Smith, A. D. (2009). A qualitative study of high-reputation plant
managers: Political skill and successful outcomes. Journal
of Operations Management, 27, 428-443. doi:10.1016/j.
jom.2009.01.003

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence:
Integrating leader-member exchange and social network per-
spectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505-535.

Steiger, J. H. (1989). Causal modeling: A supplementary mod-
ule for SYSTAT and SYSGRAPH, SYSTAT. Evanston, IL:
SYSTAT.

Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C.
J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2004).
Leader political skill and employee reactions. Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 493-513. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.004

Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate sim-
ilarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 228-234.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2003). Relationship development as a key ingre-
dient for leadership development. In S. E. Murphy & R. E.
Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 129-
148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh,
S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader-
member exchange social comparison on employee work
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 849-861.
doi:10.1037/a0020033

Wayne, S. J., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Eisenberger, R., Liden, R. C.,
Rousseau, D. M., & Shore, L. M. (2009). Social influences. In
H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment

in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions
(pp. 253-284). New York, NY: Routledge.

Yukl, G. A. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we
know and what questions need more attention. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85. doi:10.5465/
amp.2012.0088

Yukl, G. A., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objec-
tives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132-140.

Author Biographies

Robert Buch is Associate Professor of Organizational Psychology
at the School of Business, Oslo and Akershus University College
of Applied Sciences (HiOA). His research interests and teaching
responsibilities include organizational behavior, leadership, and
human resource management. His work has been published in
journals such as the Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of
Management Studies, The Leadership Quarterly, Human Resource
Management, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, and Motivation and Emotion.

Geir Thompson is Associate Professor of Organizational
Psychology at BI Norwegian Business School. His research inter-
ests are leadership, emotions at work, interpersonal mistreatment,
and personality.

Bård Kuvaas is Professor of Organizational Psychology at BI
Norwegian Business School. His research interests include behav-
ioral decision making, motivation, leadership, and HRM. He has
published in journals such as Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Human
Resource Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal
of Managment Studies, and The Leadership Quarterly

The Effect of Followers’ Behavior
on Leader Efficacy

Lei Wang

University of Texas – Pan American

Kim T. Hinrichs

Minnesota State University, Mankato

Leonel Prieto

Texas A&M International University

Janice A. Black

Coastal Carolina University

This study tested the effect of followers’ behavior on a leader’s self-efficacy to
lead (leader efficacy). A paired sample T-test and independent sample T-tests
were conducted on data collected from 121 MBA students at four different
universities in the United States. The results showed that leader efficacy was
affected by follower behaviors. The more positive follower behaviors were,
the more respondents indicated they would experience an increase in leader
efficacy. The more follower behaviors were negative, the more respondents
indicated they would experience a decrease in leader efficacy. Moreover,
ethnic and gender backgrounds moderated the relationship between follower
behaviors and leader efficacy. Specifically, negative follower feedback
affected the leader efficacy of Hispanic leaders less than Caucasian leaders.
Negative follower feedback also affected the leader efficacy of male leaders
less than that of female leaders. In contrast to our predictions, positive
follower feedback resulted in no significant differences in leader efficacy
between male leaders and female leaders, or between Hispanic leaders and
Caucasian leaders. The findings of this study provide evidence of a type of
upward influence that has rarely been studied and may have implications for
developing competent leaders, building positive leader-follower
relationships, and promoting leadership diversity.

139Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto and Black

Leadership scholars have traditionally focused on a unilateral leader-follower
relationship emphasizing the influence of leaders over followers, with a few notable
exceptions (e.g. Herold, 1977; Hollander, 1978; Mowday, 1978, 1979; Porter, Allen &
Angle, 1981; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). More recently, an increasing number of
studies have redirected their research attention toward the upward influence of
followers on leaders, explaining upward influence from several different perspectives.
For example, Atwater (1988) found that subordinates’ trust and loyalty to their leaders
induce more supportive leader behaviors. Deluga and Perry (1991) found that
subordinates’ performance and ingratiation behaviors improve the leader member
exchange quality. Dvir and Shamir (2003) examined the influence of follower
developmental characteristics on leadership style. Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson
(1980) identified some tactics used by subordinates to influence their bosses. Finally,
certain other studies addressed factors that predict followers’ persistence at upward
influence attempts (Maslyn, Farmer & Fedor, 1996; Schilit & Locke, 1982).

An examination of the studies on upward influence reveals that most of them focus
on follower influence on leader behavior and attitudes. Few studies address the
relationship between follower behavior and leader traits such as self-efficacy to lead or
how influence from followers affects a leader’s self-efficacy to lead (leader efficacy).
Recent work by Hannah et al. (2008) on leader efficacy proposed a model of
bidirectional relationships among leader efficacy, follower efficacy, and collective
efficacy. However, little discussion was dedicated to the mechanism through which
follower’s affect leader efficacy.

The topic of self-efficacy is important because studies consistently demonstrate
that self-efficacy in performing certain activities correlates with motivation and effort
levels in the activity and eventually the outcome of an action (Bandura, 1997). From
a leadership perspective, leader efficacy has a significant impact on the focus of a
leader’s attention, risk taking tendency, goal setting and choice of influence tactics, all
of which eventually lead to different group outcomes (Bandura, 1997; Chemers,
Watson & May, 2000; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Luthans & Peterson, 2002; Wood &
Bandura, 1989). A leader’s efficacy level has widely been considered to be one of the
traits that distinguishes a leader from a non-leader and an effective leader from an
ineffective leader (Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Kolb, 1999; Luthans, 2002). Self-efficacy
is an important mechanism of the social learning process (Bandura & Cervone, 1983),
through which individuals learn behaviors through cues from the environment
(Bandura, 1997). Followers make up a large portion of a leader’s social environment.
The effect of behavioral cues from followers in response to a leader’s behavior may be
a significant influential force on leader efficacy.

Having recognized the importance of research on followers’ impact on leader
efficacy, Hannah et al. (2008) called for empirical studies on the topic. In response to
that call, the goal of this study is to examine the effect of followers’ behavior on leader
efficacy. The interaction between leaders and followers varies by gender and among
populations with different cultural backgrounds (Antonakis, Avolio &
Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Collinson, 2005; Eagly, 2005; Hofstede, 1984; Kets De Vries,
Vrignaud & Florent-Treacy, 2004; Kolb, 1999; Mohr & Wolfram, 2007; Rosener,
1990). Therefore, this study will examine how the relationship between followers’

140 Journal of Business and Management – Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010

behaviors and leader efficacy is affected by gender and ethnicity.

Hypotheses Development

Leader Efficacy
Perceived self-efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and

execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997,
p. 3). People who believe they have the ability to successfully lead others can be said
to possess high leader efficacy (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Hannah et al., 2008; Paglis &
Green, 2002). Bandura (1997) recognized four sources of self-efficacy: enactive
mastery, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and physiological and affective state.
Social persuasion is the influence exerted upon individuals by means of verbal
comments or behavioral cues. It provides a person with an opportunity to observe
his/her own performance or ability through the eyes of others. Mellor et al. (2006)
found that leader efficacy is related to encouragement and persuasion from others.

The effectiveness of the social persuasion process depends to a large degree on the
expertise and credibility of the sources of the persuasion (Bandura, 1997). Although
followers in most cases do not have more expertise than a leader in the latter’s task
domain, they are one of the most credible sources of social persuasion about their
leader’s competence. They help define the roles of follower and leader. By accepting or
rejecting a leader’s influence, they transmit a strong message to the leader about his or
her authority (Hollander, 1978) as well as his or her competence as a leader.

Positive verbal comments, as well as compliance and cooperative behaviors from
followers, confirm the leader’s role as a leader and the followers’ role as followers.
When these positive verbal or behavioral cues are sensed, leader efficacy improves. On
the other hand, when negative attitudes of followers are conveyed by negative
comments or non-compliant behaviors and those attitudes are sensed by a leader,
leader efficacy will likely falter. These arguments suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Leader efficacy will be higher when follower feedback is perceived
as being positive and lower when follower feedback is perceived as being negative.

Cultural Factors
As previously mentioned, the interaction between leaders and followers is affected

by gender and cultural factors (e.g. Collinson, 2005; Hofstede, 1984; Kolb, 1999).
Hofstede (1984) identified four cultural dimensions based on the result of a series of
surveys administered to tens of thousands of respondents worldwide: individualism
versus collectivism; power distance; uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity versus
femininity. Among the four cultural dimensions, the dimension that is directly related
to the leader and follower relationship is power distance (Cohen, Pant & Sharp, 1995).

According to Hofstede (1984), “the power distance between a leader (B) and a
subordinate (S) in a hierarchy was described as the difference between the extent to
which B can determine the behavior of S and the extent to which S can determine the
behavior of B” (p. 72). In a high power distance culture, people more readily accept an
unequal distribution of power. They believe leaders and followers are fundamentally

141Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto and Black

different and people with power have the right to enjoy privilege. They believe that
power itself precedes good or evil and its legitimacy is irrelevant (Hofstede, 1984). In
contrast, in a low power distance culture, people believe inequality in society should
be minimized. They view leaders and followers as essentially the same and believe they
should have equal rights. From their point of view, the use of power should be
legitimate and subject to the judgment between good and evil (Hofstede, 1984).
Hofstede’s (1984) description of the difference between high power distance cultures
and low power distance cultures implies that followers’ opinions will be valued more
in a low-power distance culture than in a high power distance culture. Consequently,
a leader’s behavior should be more affected by a follower’s behavior in a low-power
distance culture than in a high-power distance culture as followers’ opinions of leader
competency, expressed through their words and behaviors, are valued more by leaders
in low-power distance cultures. As a result, followers in low-power distance cultures
are likely to have a larger impact on leader efficacy.

Hofstede’s (1984) data showed that Mexican culture, as well as the cultures of
countries in Latin America and South America, were extremely high in power
distance, whereas U.S. and European cultures were relatively low in power distance
(Hofstede, 1984). Considering that the family background of a majority of the
Hispanic population living in the U.S. has roots in Mexico and other Latin American
countries, it can be estimated that the U.S. Hispanic population, particularly in the
U.S. Mexico border region, has maintained many elements of Hispanic culture as well
as cultural connections to Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Consequently,
Hispanic populations living in the U.S. may be higher in power distance than Non-
Hispanics living in the U.S. Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between leader efficacy and follower feedback will
be affected by the leader’s ethnic background, such that Hispanic leaders will
experience less of a change in leader efficacy than Caucasian leaders when
receiving positive or negative follower feedback.

Gender
There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the effect of gender roles on

leadership effectiveness. Gender roles refer to the shared societal expectations of
behaviors by males versus females regarding communion and agency (Eagly, 1987).
Communion refers to the motivation behind behaviors such as forming social
relationships, getting along with others, and maintaining harmony and affiliation.
Agency involves the motivation to pursue power and control over others; and
emphasizes assertiveness, self-efficacy, and mastery (Bakan, 1966). Social role theory
(Eagly, 1987) argues that women tend to carry the communal role, whereas men tend
to carry the agentic role. Multiple studies have found that female leaders are more
likely to demonstrate democratic, supportive, and gentle behaviors, whereas male
leaders are more likely to demonstrate assertive, controlling and confident behaviors
(Antonakis et al., 2003; Collinson, 2005; Eagly, 2005; Kets De Vries et al., 2004; Kolb,
1999; Mohr & Wolfram, 2007; Rosener, 1990). The results of these studies indicate
that female leaders prioritize building and maintaining harmonious leader-follower

142 Journal of Business and Management – Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010

relationships. As a result, they may be more likely to pay attention to followers’ verbal
or behavioral cues. In contrast, male leaders were found to be more driven by the
motive to control and dominate. They may be less concerned with followers’ reactions
than female leaders. Based on the above argument, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between leader efficacy and follower feedback will
be affected by the leader’s gender, such that male leaders will experience less of a
change in leader efficacy than female leaders when receiving positive or negative
follower feedback.

Methods

Sample
A survey was administered to MBA students enrolled in business-related courses at

three universities in the Southwest U.S. and one university in the Midwest U.S.
Approximately 52%, of the sample (n = 121 students) were female; about 49% were
Hispanics and 40% were Caucasians. Their mean age was approximately 32 years.
Close to 80% of the respondents reported having leadership experiences in an
organizational setting. The average number of years in a leader role was four years.
Table 1 demonstrates this data.

Table 1: Moderating Variable Characteristics

N=121
Measures

All the items in the survey were created specifically for this study. A pilot study was
conducted with undergraduate students to examine validity and reliability of the scales
and the scales were revised based on the results. Each item describes a situation
characterized by a specific follower behavior directed toward a leader. Respondents
were asked to indicate how likely their confidence as a leader would change in each of
those situations. A seven-point Likert scale was used with responses ranging from “less
confident” to “more confident”.

The word “confident” rather than “efficacy” was used in the survey. This word
choice was based on two considerations: 1) the word “efficacy” is not familiar to
people who have not received special training in psychology, and 2) the conceptual
meanings of the words “efficacy” and “confidence” are very similar (Hannah et al.,

143Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto and Black

2008; Yukl, 2002). “Positive Follower Behavior” was measured by 5 items. The
internal reliability for these items was .79. “Negative Follower Behavior” was
measured by 6 items. The internal reliability for these items was .74. (The survey
questions are listed in the appendix.)

Statistical Methods
A paired sample T-test was used to compare the means of respondents’ opinions on

a leader’s change in confidence in the situations of positive and negative follower
behavioral cues. Independent samples T-tests were used to compare female versus
male as well as Caucasian versus Hispanic respondents’ opinions on change in leader
confidence when receiving positive or negative feedback from followers.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A series of factor analyses were conducted to test whether items measured the

constructs they were intended to measure. The factor loadings of all the items on the
target factors were higher than .50. A factor analysis of all the items showed there were
no cross-loading problems. These results showed that the items measured the
intended single constructs, meeting the requirement of unidimensionality for creating
a summated scale (Hair et al., 2006). The summated scales were created by averaging
scores of the items measuring the constructs.

Hypothesis Testing
The paired comparison T-test (Table 2) showed that when follower behavior

toward the leader was positive, respondents’ confidence as a leader was higher (Mean
= 6.20) than when follower behavior toward the leader was negative (Mean = 3.24).
The mean difference is 2.95 (p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 1.

Table 2: Change in Leader Efficacy in the Situation of Positive versus
Negative Follower Behavioral Feedback

N = 121, ** p < .01.

The result of the independent sample T-test comparing Hispanic and Caucasian
respondents (Table 3) showed that compared to Caucasian respondents, Hispanic
respondents’ confidence as a leader was less affected by negative follower behavior
(mean difference = .45, p < .05). There was no significant difference between Hispanic and Caucasian respondents’ confidence as a leader in situations characterized by positive follower behavioral cues. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was partly supported.

144 Journal of Business and Management – Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010

Table 3: Change in Leader Efficacy between Caucasian and Hispanic Respondents

N = 121, ** p < .01.

The result of an independent sample T-test comparing male and female
respondents showed that in situations of negative follower feedback (Table 4), male
respondents’ confidence as a leader was less affected than female respondents’ (mean
difference = .44, p < .01). No significant difference was found for male and female respondents’ confidence as a leader in situations characterized by positive follower behavioral cues. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was partially supported.

Table 4: Change in Leader Efficacy between Male and Female Respondents

N = 121, ** p < .01.

Discussion

Findings
The study supported the hypothesis that leader efficacy would fluctuate with

followers’ behavior. The more followers were cooperative and respectful, the more
respondents indicated they would experience an increase in leader efficacy. The more
followers were uncooperative and defiant toward a leader, the more respondents
indicated they would experience a decrease in leader efficacy. Self-efficacy has been
viewed as an important trait for a successful leader (Bandura, 1997; Bass, 1990;
Boyatzis, 1982; Howard & Bray, 1988). The findings of this study on the close
relationship between leader efficacy and followers’ behaviors suggest the importance
of the leader-follower interaction on a leader’s effectiveness and success.

Of course, this study did not exhaust all the possible factors influencing leader
efficacy. An example would be the group’s task performance. In addition to social
persuasion, another important source of self-efficacy is enactive mastery (Bandura,
1997). As Bandura (1997) discussed, the experience of successfully completing a task

145Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto and Black

would boost self-efficacy in performing a similar task in the future. In the case of
leadership, a high group performance level could be perceived as a mastery experience
by a leader which would likely help elevate leader efficacy. Thus, group performance
may moderate the relationship between leader efficacy and followers’ behaviors toward
the leader. However, group performance could also be related to follower behaviors.
Cooperative follower behaviors could more likely produce high level group outcomes
and vice versa. More studies are needed to reveal the full picture of the effect of
follower behaviors on leader efficacy.

The effect of follower behavior on leader efficacy to lead might also vary with the
level of leader-member exchange (LMX) in the group (Graen, 1976). According to
LMX theory, a leader experiences different kinds of interaction with in-group versus
out-group followers (Graen, 1976; Graen & Schiemann, 1978). The relationship
between a leader and in-group followers is characterized by mutual trust, support, and
formal/informal rewards, whereas the relationship between a leader and out-group
followers is characterized by low trust, a lack of support, and an absence of rewards
(Graen, 1976). A leader might receive opposite behavioral cues from in-group
followers and out-group followers. How a leader would respond to positive and
negative feedback at the same time and how leader efficacy would be affected by social
persuasion of a mixed nature are questions for future research.

As was predicted, the leader efficacy of Hispanic respondents was affected less by
negative behavioral cues from followers than that of Caucasians. This result may be
due to cultural differences regarding the power distance dimension. Influenced by a
culture that is high in power distance, Hispanics may have a relatively high regard for
the authority and power of a leader over followers. From that perspective, they may
pay less attention to followers’ behavioral cues than would Caucasians, who may be
more likely to view leaders and followers as having equal status.

The finding regarding the difference between Hispanic and Caucasian respondents
to negative follower behavior contributes to the study of the relationship between
leaders and followers with different ethnic backgrounds. Past research on leadership
diversity found that race and ethnicity affects followers’ expectations and perceptions
of leader behaviors, the quality of the leader/follower communication process, as well
as job satisfaction, commitment to the group, group cohesiveness, and group
evaluation for both leaders and followers (Dorfman, 1996; Riordan & Shore, 1997;
Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly, 1992; Wesolowski & Mossholder, 1997; Zenger & Lawrence,
1989). Given that leader efficacy affects the leader’s behavior toward followers
(Bandura, 1997; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004), a change in leader efficacy to lead would
be expected to play an important role in the interaction process between leaders and
followers. Change in leader efficacy in response to negative follower behavior among
people with different ethnic backgrounds might be an explanation for the effects of
ethnicity on leadership processes and outcomes.

The results of this study also showed that the leader efficacy of females was more
affected by negative follower feedback than males, indicating that female leaders may
rely more on the people around them for feedback regarding their leadership
effectiveness. This finding provided a certain level of support to the argument
maintaining the communal role of female leaders (Eagly, 1989; Johnson et al., 2008).

146 Journal of Business and Management – Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010

Our study’s findings suggest that male and female leaders perceive and respond
differently to feedback from their social environment and that female leaders’
confidence may correspond more to how they are respected and supported by their
followers than male leaders.

The finding regarding the difference between the male and female respondents’
reaction to negative follower behavior may have implications concerning the
underrepresentation of female leaders in organizations. Any unfavorable societal
prejudice against women as leaders may effect a women’s’ perception of her leader
efficacy through followers’ behaviors. Since self-efficacy is an important predictor of
leader emergence and effectiveness, this could contribute to the rate at which women
are given leadership opportunities and their success rate when in a leadership position.

Surprisingly, the results did not show a significant difference in leader efficacy
between the Hispanic and Caucasian respondents or between male and female
respondents in situations of positive follower feedback. One possible explanation for
this result is the self-serving bias. Self-serving bias happens when people attribute
failure to external factors and success to internal factors (Kelley, 1972). When people
receive positive feedback, they are likely to take credit and experience positive feelings
without examining the credibility of the source. Therefore in the situation of positive
follower feedback, Hispanic and Caucasians, as well as males and females would
experience a similar increase in leader efficacy. However, when people perceive
negative feedback, they tend to examine the credibility of the source, thus bringing
their cultural and/or gender backgrounds into the judgment process.

Limitations
This study focuses on a leader’s change in leader efficacy when facing different

follower behaviors. As mentioned previously, this change might be affected by group
performance outcomes. Future research should incorporate the factor of group
performance outcomes into the study design.

This study was survey-based. Respondents were asked to project their change in
confidence as a leader given certain hypothetical situations characterized by positive
or negative follower behavior. It would be valuable to directly measure leaders’
change in leader efficacy after the actual experience of receiving positive or negative
follower feedback. Future research should consider utilizing field studies or
experimental designs.

Conclusion
For years, downward influence from a leader to followers has been the central

topic in research on leader-follower relationships. The influence that followers exert
on a leader has been neglected or downplayed in comparison. The findings of this
study suggest that follower behaviors could affect leader efficacy, which in turn could
contribute to a leader’s effectiveness. Recognition and understanding of the
importance of follower behaviors has significant implications for developing
competent leaders, building positive leader-follower relationships, and improving
group performance.

147Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto and Black

References

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J. & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14: 261-295.

Atwater, L. E. (1988). The relative importance of situational and individual variables
in predicting leader behavior: The surprising impact of subordinate trust. Group &
Organization Studies, 13: 290-310.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western
man. Boston: Beacon Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman
& Company.

Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms
governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45: 1017-1028.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York:
Free Press.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manger. New York: John Wiley.
Chan, K. & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and

leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86:
481-498.

Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B. & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership
effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 267-277.

Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W. & Sharp, D. J. (1995). An exploratory examination of
international differences in auditors’ ethical perceptions. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 7: 37-64.

Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58: 1419-1442.
Deluga, R. J. & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing

behavior, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member
exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64: 239-252.

Dorfman, P. W. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership. In Punnett, B. J. &
Shenkar, O. (Eds.), Handbook for international management research (pp. 267-331).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Dvir, T. & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting
transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14:
327-344.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?
Leadership Quarterly, 16: 459-474.

Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-
1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Graen, G. & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad

148 Journal of Business and Management – Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010

linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 206-212.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C. Babin, B. J. Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006).

Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F. & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy:

Review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 669-692.
Herold, D. (1977). Two-way influence processes in leader-follower dyads. Academy of

Management Journal, 20: 224-237.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequence: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hollenbeck, G. P. & Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-confidence and leader performance.

Organizational Dynamics, 33: 254-269.
Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics. New York: The Free Press.
Howard, A. & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and

changing times. New York: Guilford Press.
Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S. & Reichard, R. (2008). The strong, sensitive

type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of
male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
106: 39-60.

Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interactions. In Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E.,
Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving
the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Kets De Vries, M. F. R., Vrignaud, P. & Florent-Treacy, E. (2004). The Global
Leadership Life Inventory: Development and psychometric properties of a 360-
degree feedback instrument. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
15: 475-492.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Interorganizational influence tactics:
Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 440-452.

Kolb, J. A. (1999). The effect of gender role, attitude toward leadership, and self-
confidence on leader emergence: Implications for leadership development. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 10: 305-320.

Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing
psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16: 57-72.

Luthans, F. & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager efficacy:
Implications for managerial effectiveness and development. Journal of Management
Development, 21: 376-387.

Maslyn, J. M., Farmer, S. M. & Fedor, D. B. (1996). Failed upward influence attempts:
Predicting the nature of subordinate persistence in pursuit of organizational goals.
Group & Organization Management, 21: 461-480.

Mellor, S., Barclay, L., Bulger C. & Kath, L. (2006). Augmenting the effect of verbal
persuasion on efficacy to serve as a steward: Gender similarity in a union
environment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 121-129.

Mohr, G. & Wolfram, H. (2007). Leadership and effectiveness in the context of gender:
The role of leaders’ verbal behavior. British Journal of Management, 19: 4-16.

Mowday, R. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23: 137-156.

149Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto and Black

Mowday, R. (1979). Leader characteristics, self-confidence, and methods of upward
influence in organizational decision situations. Academy of Management Journal, 22:
709-725.

Paglis, L. L. & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation
for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 215-235.

Porter, L., Allen, R. & Angle, H. (1981). The politics of upward influence in
organizations. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Riordan, C. & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An
empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82: 342-358.

Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6): 119-125.
Schilit, W. K. & Locke, E. (1982). A study of upward influence in organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 304-316.
Tsui, A. & O’Reilly, C. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of

relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management
Journal, 32: 402-423.

Wesolowski, M. & Mossholder, K. (1997). Relational demography in supervisor-
subordinate dyads: Impact on job satisfaction, burnout, and perceived procedural
justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 351-362.

Wood, R. E. & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56: 407-451.

Wortman, C. B. & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and
techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In Staw, B. M. & Salancik, G.
R. (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 133-178). Chicago: St.
Clair.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Zenger, T. R. & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential
effects of age and tenure on technical communication. Academy of Management
Journal, 32: 353-376.

150 Journal of Business and Management – Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010

Appendix: Questionnaire

The following statements describe some situations that are fairly common to leaders.
Use the scale provided below to indicate how likely each of the following situations
would affect your confidence in your leading ability. (Choices range from 1 – less
confident, 4 – no change, to 7 – more confident on a seven-point Likert scale)

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when group members show
great respect for me.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when group members follow
my directions.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when group members
cooperate with me.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when group members skip
group meetings.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when there are many free
riders in the group.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when group members make a
strong effort in group work.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when group members
voluntarily work overtime on group projects.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when group members show
no excitement or enthusiasm for group tasks.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when group members express
doubts about my leading ability.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when few group members
respond to my invitation for input to help solve a problem.

I would likely feel __________ about my leading ability when my performance as a
leader is rated low by group members in a 360 degree performance evaluation.

151Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto and Black

Copyright of Journal of Business & Management is the property of Journal of Business & Management and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Leading Strategic Change

Change Management

Managers in modern business are expected to be more strategic, more entrepreneurial, more innovative and more changed-centred.
(Dalton, 2010)
Leading modern organisations

Types of Change
Technology – production processes
The product or service – the output of the business
Administrative changes – structure; policies; budgets; reward systems
People attitudes – expectations; behaviour
Structural changes (merger, acquisition, restructuring)
Cost changes (reducing budgets, redundancies)
Cultural changes. (change to organisations shared assumptions, values, and beliefs)

Different views exist as to what is a ‘trigger’ or ‘driver’ of change. It can be triggered by:
Large-scale uncertainty – in the form of either threat or an opportunity
Comparisons between current and past or future performance
Environmental changes
Technological changes
Changes in people
Government legislation
Advances in process or product technology
Changing consumer requirements, expectations or taste
Competitor or supply change activities
Triggers of Change (Hughes, 2007)
Political
Economic
Social
Technology
Legal
Environmental

4

Drivers of Change
Increases in the size, complexity and specialization of organizations
People and their skills
Managers and power
Advances in process or product technology
Environmental
Technological obsolescence or innovation
Government legislation, political and social events
Consumer requirements
Competitor activities
Globalisation

5

Understanding Change
A change culture is highly desirable for many organizations but very difficult to achieve. Implementation of change requires:
a perceived need for change can originate with either the strategic leader or managers throughout the company who are aware of the possibilities
the necessary resources involves aspects of competency as well as physical resources, and the ways in which managers use power to influence the allocation and utilization of resources
commitment – the culture of the organization will influence the extent to which managers are responsive and innovative.

Understanding Change
A Classification Framework
What is Change?
Why is the Change taking place?
Who is making the decision to change?
What is the history of the change?
How is the change being communicated?

7

Lewin’s Force-field Analysis

Lewin’s 3 Step Change Process

Unfreeze
“Unfreezing” involves finding a method of making it possible for people to let go of an old pattern that was counter productive in some way by strengthening driving forces & weakening restraining forces

Move/change to new state

Involves a process of change – in thoughts, feelings, behaviour, or all three, that is in some way more liberating or more productive
Introduce new technology to improve productivity.
Influence direction of movement in unbalanced system
Top down – active top-down communication (advocated by Lewin’s model)
Bottom-up active participation by the affected parties

Refreeze
“Refreezing” is establishing the change as a new habit, so that it now becomes the “standard operating procedure.”
New behavioural patterns stabilise/institutionalised
Establish new recruiting policies
Promote those who symbolise new corporate values
Performance appraisal

Kotter’s 8 Step Change Process

13

Planned Model
Bullock and Batten (1985) developed an integrated four phase model based on a review and synthesis of over 30 models of change:
Model has two dimensions – change phases and processes
Exploration – identifying need for change and the resources required to make it happen
Planning – collecting information; identifying goals; identifying strategies; gaining support
Action – move from current to desired state including support, feedback, evaluation
Integration – consolidate; stabilise; reinforce; diffuse; monitor

14

Criticisms of Planned Change approach
Ignores complex and dynamic nature of environmental and change processes
Ignores continuous need for flexibility and adaptation
Assumes we can make controlled movement from one state to another
Assumes consensus – ignores power and politics
Assumes managers can have full confidence in their actions
15

15

Emergent Approach to Change
‘Change cannot and should not be solidified, or seen as a series of linear events within a given period of time; instead, it is viewed as a continuous process’ (Burnes, 2000)
Emergent approach views change process as unfolding through the interplay of multiple variables (context, political processes and consultation)
Stresses developing and unpredictable nature of change
Change as a continuous process of adaptation and experimentation
More analytical and less prescriptive
Culture of adaptation and learning
16

16

Problems with the Emergent Approach
Not all organisations exist in turbulence all the time
Idealised linkage between learning culture and change
To what extent does organisational learning exist?
Can managers take on this role?
17

17

Reactions to change

Kubler-Ross 1969 “On Death And Dying” 

18

Resistance to Change
Resistance where people have worked out ways of doing things which are beneficial to them in terms of their objectives and preferences.
Resistance to ‘sideways change’ (expanding certain activities, contracting elsewhere) unless people are fully aware of reasons and implications.
Fear of the unknown as people feel comfortable with situations, policies and procedures that they know.
Organization or managers may resist external pressures if change involves expense, investment in new equipment and the associated risks.
Resistance where there are perceived flaws or weaknesses in the proposal.
Where particular policies, behaviour patterns and ways of doing things have been established and in effect have become part of the culture of the organization, change will require careful implementation.

1. Fear
2. Lack of information
3. Lack of perceived benefit
4. Habit
(Martin, 2005)

Why people resist change

21

How do people resist change?
Sabotage
Work manipulation
Misuse of resources
Rumour and gossip
(Martin, 2005)

Name Type of Resister Characteristics
Wolves Howl a lot, but only strike when in a pack
Sheep Bleat a lot but follow the ram
Sinister sheep Silent and unpredictable
Prize ram
Where they go others follow

Types of Resister

Education / communication
Participation
Facilitation and Support
Negotiation
Co-optation
Manipulation
Coercion
(Kotter, 1986)
Overcoming resistance to change

24

Change – Who?
Change agents: individual or group that effects strategic change in an organisation.
Leadership: process of influencing an organisation or group within an organisation in its efforts towards achieving an aim or goal.
Managers: the implementers of strategy.

Different approaches to organisational change….
Emergent change – emerges without prior intention or planning such as dealing with contingencies, breakdowns etc. (Burnes, 1996: P291)
Planned change – change that is planned and managed in detail by an organisation rather than changes that come about by accident, force or impulse (Marrow, 1969)
Incremental change – barely noticeable change in the day-to-day business of an organisation which happens in small steps e.g. minor changes to policies and procedures (Rees and French, 2013)
Improvisational change – change which may begin with a plan but which recognises the necessity to react to circumstances as they arise often in an unplanned way (Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997)

Summary
Definitions of change management
Triggers/sources of change
Types of change
Models of change
Resistance to change

27
27

Bloisi, W., Cook, C.W. and Hunsaker, P.L. (2010) Management and Organisational Behaviour, McGrawHill.
Brown, A. (1995) Organisational Culture. (2nd ed). Pitman Publishing
Cummings, T G and Worley C G (2009) Organisational Development and Change. Cengage learning
Dalton,K (2010) Leadership and Management Development: Developing Tomorrow’s Managers. Prentice-Hall.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1988) Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of corporate life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A.K. (1995) Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness Organization Science 6(2).
Garside, P. (1998) Organisational context for quality: lessons from the fields of organisational development and change management. Quality in Safety and Health Care. 7 (suppl 1), S8–S15.
Kefala, G.T. (2010) Understanding Organizational Culture and Leadership. PM World Today, 12(1).
Kotter, J. (1995) “ Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail,” Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59 – 67.
Levasseur, R.E. (2001) People Skills: Change Management Tools – Lewin’s Change Model. Interfaces, 31 (4), 71-73.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper Row.
Mullins,J. L.(2005) Management and Organisational Behaviour. 7th Ed p906, Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations. 4th Ed Penguin Books p 300
Orlikowski, W.J., and Hofman, J.D. (1997) An Improvisational Model for Change Management: The Case of Groupware Technologies. Sloan Management Review, 38 (2), 11-21.
Rees, G. and French, R. (2013) Leading, Managing and Developing People,, CIPD
Schein, E. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership, Third Edition. Jossey-Bass.
Senior, B. (1997) Organisational Change. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Sun, S. (2008) Organizational Culture and Its Themes International Journal of Business and Management 3(12)
Suggested Reading

Impact of authentic leadership on performance:
Role of followers’ positive psychological capital
and relational processes

HUI WANG1, YANG SUI2, FRED LUTHANS3, DANNI WANG4* AND YANHONG WU5
1Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China
2School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
3College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.
4Department of Management, Arizona State University, Phoenix Arizona, U.S.A.
5Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing, China

Summary Authentic leadership has received considerable attention and research support over the past decade. Now the
time has come to refine and better understand how it impacts performance. This study investigates the
moderating role followers’ positive psychological capital (PsyCap) and the mediating role that leader–
member exchange (LMX) may play in influencing the relationship between authentic leadership and
followers’ performance. Specifically, we tested this mediated moderation model with matched data from
794 followers and their immediate leaders. We found that authentic leadership is positively related to

LMX

and consequently followers’ performance, and to a larger degree, among followers who have low rather than
high levels of PsyCap. Our discussion highlights the benefits of understanding the roles of relational
processes and followers’ positive psychological resources involved in the effectiveness of authentic leadership
and how they can be practically implemented. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: authentic leadership; leader–member exchange; psychological capital; mediated moderation
models

Introduction

A positive, genuine, transparent, ethical form of leadership, broadly termed authentic leadership (AL), is now
recognized as a positive approach to organizational leadership that can help meet today’s challenges (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005; Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; George, 2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003;
Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). AL is characterized by a leader’s self-awareness,
openness, and clarity behaviors. Authentic leaders share the information needed to make decisions, accept others’
inputs, and disclose their personal values, motives, and sentiments. Such characteristics enable followers to
accurately assess the competence and morality of their authentic leader’s actions (Walumbwa, Wang, Wang,
Schaubroeck, & Avolio, 2010).
To date, theory building is in the process of formulating the underlying mechanisms of AL (e.g., see the special

issue edited by Avolio & Gardner, 2005; also see Avolio & Walumbwa, 2012; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). For
example, attention has been devoted to specifying the developmental dynamics between AL and follower attitudes
and behaviors (Avolio et al., 2004; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; George, 2003; Illies,
Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). In particular, Avolio et al. (2004) drew from positive organizational behavior
(Luthans, 2002; Luthans & Avolio, 2009; Luthans & Youssef, 2007), trust, emotion, and identity theories to

*Correspondence to: Hui Wang, Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, China. E-mail: wanghui@gsm.pk.cn

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 14 February 2012

Revised 09 November 2012, Accepted 12 November 2012

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
Published online 14 December 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1850 Research

A
rticle

describe the mechanisms by which authentic leaders exert their influence on followers’ attitudes, behaviors, and
performance. Recently, empirical studies have also been conducted to uncover some of the dynamics involved in
the AL process (e.g., Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2010). In general, this
research supports that AL can motivate and influence follower effectiveness. However, better understanding of
the followers’ personal and contextual factors that may affect the impact of AL on follower performance is
needed.
One suggestion is that authentic leaders develop and influence their followers by invigorating them with positive

psychological states, which are conducive to their performance (Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004). To the extent
that employees may differ in the degree to which they are receptive to such influence, we would question
whether AL can uniformly impact their followers’ performance. This line of questioning stems from the perspective
of complementary congruity (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011; Kiesler, 1983). This theory posits that an individual’s
(e.g., the leader) capabilities can fill a missing, but needed, component valued by another individual (e.g., the
follower).
Drawing from complementary congruity theory for the present study would suggest that the authentic leader can

effectively contribute to the development of and have an impact on the follower’s performance. Specifically, the AL
characteristics contribute and complement the needed capabilities of the follower for performing well. For example,
in their initial model of AL development, Luthans and Avolio (2003) posited that authentic leaders draw from their
own positive psychological resources to contribute and complement their followers’ psychological capital in order to
enhance their performance. This psychological capital, or simply PsyCap (see Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans,
Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), has now become the widely recognized core construct consisting of the positive
psychological resources of hope, efficacy, resiliency, and optimism.
On the basis of the assumption of follower individual differences and drawing from the theory of complementary

congruity, our first purpose is to explore if the relationship between AL and follower performance depends on the
followers’ level of PsyCap. The second purpose of this study is to explore a mechanism that may explain the
contingent effect of PsyCap. In particular, we examine the relational processes (i.e., leader–member exchange or
LMX) as a mechanism linking AL and follower performance.
We examine LMX as the process transmitting the impact of AL on follower performance for two reasons. First,

leadership is arguably a relational process (e.g., Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2005). It is known that a relationship of
some type between the leader and follower emerges at different stages during this process (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). In addition, the nature and quality of this relationship has been shown to be fundamental to leader behaviors
impacting follower responses (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Second, in order to best understand the contingent
effect of PsyCap on the AL–follower performance linkage, the process most relevant to that complementary
congruity mechanism should be examined. Previous research has indicated that through the ongoing interaction
and resultant exchange relationship, leaders may instill positive psychological states into followers (Ilies,
Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Story, Youssef, Luthans, Barbuto, & Bovaird, in press). We would propose that
authentic leaders provide complementary congruity to followers with resulting performance impact. However, yet
to be answered is whether followers with different levels of PsyCap may benefit more or less from their exchange
relationship with the leader. This dynamic of varying levels of follower PsyCap in the LMX may in turn account
for the varied effect of AL on follower performance. Thus, we are interested in not only whether PsyCap
moderates the LMX–follower performance relationship but also if LMX mediates the relationship between AL
and follower performance.
Overall, this research aims to make needed theoretical and empirical contributions to both AL and PsyCap by

offering a balanced and comprehensive perspective that recognizes the role that followers’ positive psychological
resources (i.e., PsyCap) play in making AL more or less effective. This perspective highlights the value of
understanding AL through the theoretical lens of complementary congruity. In addition, by investigating how
authentic leaders enhance follower performance via LMX relationships, which in turn accounts for the moderating
effect of followers’ PsyCap, we show the benefit of incorporating followers’ psychological resources and relational
processes into one integrated framework when examining the effectiveness of AL.

6 H. WANG ET AL.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

Study Hypotheses

On the basis of the theoretical foundation discussed so far, we draw from the four categories of authentic leaders’
behaviors that have been identified: balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, relational transparency,
and self-awareness (Gardner et al., 2005; Illies et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Balanced processing refers
to analyzing all relevant information objectively before making a final decision. Internalized moral perspective
involves leadership behaviors with internal moral standards and values, rather than with external pressure such as
that from peers, as well as organizational and societal pressures (Gardner et al., 2005). Relational transparency refers
to personal disclosures, such as openly sharing information and expressing true thoughts and feelings with followers
and relevant others (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Finally, self-awareness means the leaders are able to recognize how
followers view their leadership, as well as understand their own motives, strengths and weaknesses. Leaders with
high self-awareness enhance their authenticity and effectiveness using both self-knowledge and reflected self-image
(Walumbwa et al., 2010). These four theoretically related dimensions have been empirically supported and serve as
the basis of a validated measure of AL (Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010)

Authentic leadership and follower

performance

We expect AL to have a positive effect on follower performance. Previous theory building has indicated that
authentic leaders can influence follower performance (e.g., Lord & Brown, 2004). Authentic leaders behave in
accordance with their values and strive to achieve openness and truthfulness in their relationships with followers
(Gardner et al., 2005; Kernis, 2003). Authentic leaders can lead by example and demonstrate transparent decision
making (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Leading by example demonstrates a leader’s commitment to his or her work
and provides guidance to followers about how to remain emotionally and physically connected and cognitively
vigilant during work performance. Walumbwa et al. (2010) argued that ethical behaviors of authentic leaders are
likely to guide their followers because of their attractiveness and credibility as role models.
Followers under AL tend to attribute exceptionally strong positive qualities to the leaders, internalize their values and

beliefs, and behave consistently with them. For example, according to Avolio et al. (2004), the behaviors of authentic
leaders are viewed by followers as being guided by high moral standards and characterized by fairness, honesty, and
integrity in dealing with followers. As a result, such leaders are able to stimulate values shared among their followers
by means of transparency, positivity, and high ethical standards. The result is that followers are motivated to exhibit
positive behaviors and have a sense of self-worth and obligation to reciprocate (e.g., Illies et al., 2005; Yukl, 2002).
In addition to this theoretical understanding of why authentic leaders have a positive impact on their followers’

performance, empirical support is also emerging. For example, Walumbwa et al. (2008, 2011) and Walumbwa
et al. (2010) have recently found that AL behavior is positively related to supervisor-rated job performance,
organizational citizenship behavior, and work engagement. Also, in the management practitioner literature, George
(2003) observed that authentic leaders motivate followers by means of modeling and transferring a deep sense of
responsibility to deliver positive outcomes over an extended period. Drawing from this theoretical, empirical, and
practical literature, we derive the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: AL is positively related to followers’ performance.

The moderating role of psychological capital

As indicated, complementary congruity theory refers to the match between leaders’ behaviors or capabilities and the
corresponding needs of their followers (e.g., Grant et al., 2011; Kiesler, 1983). We posit that when there is an

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS 7

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

absence of complementarity between leaders’ capabilities and characteristics of their followers, leaders may be less
influential in that aspect because the need for their development is substantially reduced. On the other hand, when
leaders’ specific capabilities complement their followers’ needs on such aspects, leaders may powerfully facilitate
their followers’ ability to perform in a certain domain. On the basis of this complementarity perspective, we propose
that although AL enhances follower performance when followers are in need of positive psychological resources,
this advantage decreases when they have a high level of PsyCap, that is, they are already hopeful, optimistic,
resilient, and efficacious.
It should be noted that AL has a similar effect with PsyCap in terms of the extent to which it influences

follower job performance by virtue of building positive psychological resources. Each of the four components of
PsyCap (i.e., hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism) represents the positive psychological resources that lead to
desirable outcomes for organizations (see Luthans, Youssef et al., 2007). A recent meta-analysis indicated that
PsyCap has a significant impact on desired employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance measured multiple ways
(Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011). As originally depicted by Luthans and Avolio (2003), authentic
leaders’ behaviors come from these positive psychological resources and in turn lead to the development of
themselves and their followers (also see Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, &
Dansereau, 2008).
Authentic leadership is further suggested to result in followers’ positive outcomes because it is able to foster

followers’ positive psychological capacities (Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004). Specifically, authentic leaders have
the ability to remain realistically hopeful and trustworthy, and can enhance followers’ hope not only by establishing
their willpower but also by including positive aspects of the pathways or directions to pursue which enhance
followers’ sense of self-efficacy (Avolio et al., 2004). Moreover, authentic leaders interpret information, exchanges,
and interactions with followers from a positive perspective, thus evoking followers’ positive emotions, and such
emotions result in followers’ optimism (Avolio et al., 2004; Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004; Luthans &
Avolio, 2003). Empirical evidence also shows that AL is positively related to the leaders’ and followers’ PsyCap,
thereby leading to enhanced follower performance (Avey, Avolio, & Luthans, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2011;
Woolley, Caza, & Levy, 2011). However, the moderating role that PsyCap may play in the relationship between
AL and follower performance has yet to be tested.
From the complementarity perspective, we can explain the positive impact of AL on follower performance. The

complementary congruity process helps explain the positive impact that authentic leaders have under conditions
when followers lack positive psychological states, while this impact tends to fade when these followers’ positive
resources are already there. More specifically, high PsyCap followers are characterized as hopeful, optimistic,
resilient, and confident, and these positive capacities per se motivate them to achieve high performance. As a result,
they should perform at relatively high levels regardless of whether they are led by a more or less authentic leader. In
contrast, low PsyCap followers depend more on the positive development provided by AL in order to have
performance benefits than their high PsyCap counterparts. Stated another way, authentic leaders’ positive behaviors
and development of followers complement the lack of positive psychological capacities of low PsyCap followers
and in turn facilitate their performance. On the basis of this background, we derive the following study hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Followers’ PsyCap moderates the relationship between AL and performance of followers, such that
the relationship is stronger among followers with low rather than high levels of PsyCap.

Mediating role of leader–member exchange

Given that the effect of AL on follower performance is proposed to depend on followers’ PsyCap, we now turn to
the possible mediating process through which this overall moderated AL effect may be produced. Drawing from our
introductory discussion of the role of relational processes, we expect LMX to mediate the relationship between AL

8 H. WANG ET AL.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

and followers’ performance. Specifically, we noted that AL reflects an interactive and authentic relationship that
develops between the leader and followers. This relationship can nourish positive social exchanges by virtue of
building credibility and winning the respect and trust of followers (Avolio et al., 2004; Illies et al., 2005; Norman,
Avolio, & Luthans, 2010). These exchange relationships seem to result in successful follower performance.
Authentic leadership may be able to influence the development and maintenance of exchange relationships with

followers. The components of self-awareness, balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, and relational
transparency together demonstrate the integrity, respectability, and trustworthiness of authentic leaders
(Illies et al., 2005). These characteristics constitute the central elements of high-quality exchange relationships
(e.g., Avolio et al., 2004; Blau, 1964; Illies et al., 2005). First, by eliciting diverse viewpoints from followers,
authentic leaders are viewed as showing respect for and trust in each of their followers. This gesture is likely to
be reciprocated by respect and trust on the part of followers (Avolio et al., 2004; Norman et al., 2010). Second,
authentic leaders are true to themselves and display high levels of moral integrity. Such leaders are viewed by
followers as honest and morally worthy, and therefore enhancing followers’ trust in the leaders and willingness
to cooperate with them (e.g., Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009; Gardner et al., 2005; Norman et al.,
2010). Third, authentic leaders share information with their followers in an open and transparent manner, that
is, they transparently convey their attributes, values, aspirations, and weakness to followers, and encourage them
to do likewise, thus fostering trust and intimacy with followers (Avolio et al., 2004; Norman et al., 2010).
Moreover, relational transparency also means accountability in the relationships with followers (Burke &
Cooper, 2006; Illies et al., 2005). Such accountability facilitates a shared understanding about future actions
and each party’s responsibilities, thus leading to high quality of exchange relationships over time (Burke &
Cooper, 2006; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Taken together, authentic leaders are likely to develop positive social
exchanges with their followers. We thus propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: AL is positively related to followers’ LMX.

Besides the relationship between authentic leaders and their followers’ LMX, the positive relationship between
LMX and follower performance is premised on the notion that followers are obligated to reciprocate with good
performance as a return for the treatment they derive from the exchange relationship with the leader (e.g., Blau,
1964; Law, Wang, & Hui, 2010; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). More specifically, low quality of LMX results
in standard or normal task performance because the exchanges underlying these relationships are quid pro quo and
“contractual” (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). High-quality of LMX, by contrast, leads to superior
performance in that the relationship moves from economic to social exchange characterized by mutual trust, respect,
and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). A large body of empirical evidence for the favorable relationship between
LMX and followers’ work outcomes has been demonstrated over the last three decades (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997;
Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). To sum up, AL is positively related with the quality of exchange relationships
with followers, and LMX, in turn, predicts followers’ task performance. Culminating from this discussion, we
hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4: LMX mediates the relationship between AL and follower performance.

The mediated moderation relationship

Although the significant positive relationships between LMX and work outcomes have been well documented, LMX
researchers have consistently called for the examination of moderators—in particular, individual difference
moderators—of the LMX–performance relationship (e.g., Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ozer,
2008). More specifically, it has been suggested that although a high-quality exchange with a leader can be
instrumental in supporting and motivating followers, they are dependent on it only to the extent that alternate forms

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS 9

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

of support, guidance, and resources are lacking (Bauer, Erdogan, Liden, & Wayne, 2006). We agree but would also
argue that followers with high levels of PsyCap may avail themselves of the benefits of their LMX relationships with
the leader to a lesser degree than followers with low levels of PsyCap, and the LMX–performance relationship is
thus likely to vary accordingly.
According to previous research (e.g., Bauer et al., 2006; Erdogan & Enders, 2007), the positive association

between LMX and performance is due, in part, to the tangible and intangible benefits that followers can gain from
a high quality of LMX. These benefits include leaders’ behaviors of providing followers job feedback information
(Graen & Scandura, 1987), defending them against negative impact and mobilizing task relevant resources for them
(Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001). Other benefits of high-quality LMX to followers have been found to be
exposing them to valuable social connections or favorable assignments (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005), protecting them
from unfairness, encouraging them to take on challenging tasks, or providing them friendliness and affective
intimacy (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). In other words, through high or low quality of
exchange relationships, leaders create positive or less positive conditions (whether physical or psychological) for
followers’ functioning (Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Wang et al., 2005), which in turn results in high or low levels
of individual performance.
As discussed earlier, PsyCap represents a set of positive psychological resources, which contribute to one’s

motivational propensity to accomplish tasks and goals. For example, both experimental (Luthans, Avey, Avolio,
& Peterson, 2010) and longitudinal (Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Zheng, 2011) studies have
demonstrated a causal impact of PsyCap on performance (measured both objectively and subjectively). These
findings suggest the support and resources conveyed by LMX may become less necessary. Therefore, for high
PsyCap followers, LMX relationships would seem to play a less important role in determining their performance.
On the other hand, without the support and resources derived from a high-LMX relationship, low PsyCap followers
may find it difficult to persist in the face of difficult and adverse situations, to maintain a positive outcome outlook,
and to be encouraged to pursue the path to success. As a result, low PsyCap followers should be more receptive to,
and further seek out the benefits and favors conveyed by their exchange relationship with the leader, in order to
accomplish their work. In summary, when followers have relatively low PsyCap, their performance is more likely
to be affected by LMX than their higher PsyCap counterparts. Thus, the following hypothesis is derived:

Hypothesis 5a: PsyCap moderates the relationship between LMX and follower performance, such that the
relationship between LMX and follower performance is stronger among followers with low rather than high levels
of PsyCap.

Combining Hypothesis 2, 4, and 5a, we further propose a mediated moderation model shown in Figure 1.
Specifically, the effect of AL on follower performance is moderated by follower PsyCap; and this moderating effect
is due to the mediating effect of LMX on the AL–performance linkage, and the moderating effect of PsyCap on this
LMX–performance relationship. Moreover, because authentic leaders’ behaviors and the resultant LMX are more
likely to complement the needs of low PsyCap followers (as opposed to high PsyCap followers), AL and LMX
should contribute more to the low PsyCap followers’ performance. By contrast, for high PsyCap followers, the
relationship between AL (and LMX) and individual performance is weakened because they rely more on their

Authentic
leadership

Leader-member
exchange

Follower
performance

Psychological
capital

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the study

10 H. WANG ET AL.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

own psychological resources than on the leader and/or the LMX relationship to achieve high levels of performance.
Thus, we propose our final study hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 5b: The mediation of LMX underlies the overall moderating effect of PsyCap on the relationship
between AL and follower performance in such a way that AL is positively related to LMX, and the relationship
between LMX and follower performance is stronger among followers with low rather than high levels of PsyCap.

Method

Sample and procedure

A total of 801 followers and their immediate leaders from a Chinese logistics firm located in the capital city Beijing
were invited to participate in our survey. The company has been established for 18 years, and its business is to
collect and deliver parcels for customers. They were told about the objectives and procedures of the survey, and
anonymity and confidentiality were assured. Leaders were given the link to get on the website and each received
a randomly generated code. This code was used to match the responses of the leaders with their corresponding
followers. All 49 leaders and 794 of their followers responded after several rounds of follow-up reminders, yielding
very high response rates. In addition to the reminders, the high response rates also occurred because of company
sponsorship and the use of work time to complete the survey.
Among the leaders, 69.2 percent of them were male. The mean age was 39 years (ranging from 25 to 54 years old).

On average, leaders had 17 years of organizational tenure (ranging from 4 to 36 years). Among the followers,
71.3 percent were male and the mean age was 35 years (ranging from 18 to 56 years old). The average dyadic tenure
with their current leaders was 3.3 years (SD = 3.7), and on average, they had 7 years of organizational tenure (ranging
from 1 to 36 years).
In terms of procedures, the leaders were asked to rate their followers’ job performance. Followers, on the other

hand, were asked to confidentially rate their leader’s AL, LMX, and their own PsyCap.

Measures

Authentic leadership
Authentic leadership was measured using the 16-item Authentic Leadership Questionnaire of Walumbwa et al.
(2008), which has been further validated and translated by Walumbwa et al. (2010) for the Chinese context. These
analyses confirmed four theoretically related substantive factors including balanced processing (three items),
internalized moral perspective (four items), relational transparency (five items), and self-awareness (four items)
and when combined indicate a core higher order AL construct. Sample items include “Solicits views that challenge
his or her deeply held positions” (balanced processing), “Makes decisions based on his/her core beliefs”
(internalized moral perspective), “Is willing to admit mistakes when they are made” (relational transparency),
and “Is eager to receive feedback to improve interactions with others” (self-awareness). Responses were based on
a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The coefficient alpha for the current study was .88.

LMX
Leader–member exchange was measured by a 16-item scale initially developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998) and
later adapted by Wang et al. (2005) for the Chinese context. Items include “I like my supervisor very much as a
person” (affect); “My supervisor would come to my defense if I were ‘attacked’ by others” (loyalty); “I do not mind

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS 11

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

working my hardest for my supervisor” (contribution); and “I admire my supervisor’s professional skills”
(professional respect). Responses were based on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree).
The coefficient alpha for this study was .96.

PsyCap
The measure of PsyCap was the 24-item questionnaire or PCQ (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007; Luthans,
Youssef et al., 2007). This PCQ draws from and adapted from widely recognized published standardized measures
for each of the positive constructs that make up PsyCap as follows: (i) hope (Snyder et al., 1996); (ii) resiliency
(Wagnild & Young, 1993); (iii) optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985); and (iv) self-efficacy (Parker, 1998). This
PCQ has been demonstrated to have reliability and construct validity (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007), including
translated and conducted in the Chinese context (Luthans, Avey, Clapp-Smith, & Li, 2008). Sample items include
“At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals” (hope); “I can get through difficult times at
work because I’ve experienced difficulty before” (resiliency); “I feel confident contacting people outside the
company (e.g., suppliers, customers) to discuss problems” (self-efficacy); and “When things are uncertain for me
at work I usually expect the best” (optimism). Responses were based on a 6-point scale ranging from 1
(totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). The coefficient alpha for this study was .95.

Job performance
We measured followers’ job performance using the four items developed by Farh and Cheng (1997) for the Chinese
context. To avoid same source bias, the leaders were asked to rate their followers’ job performance. Sample items
include “this employee makes a significant contribution to the overall performance of our work unit” and “this
employee always completes job assignments on time.” Responses were based on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The coefficient alpha for this study was .84.

Control variables
We also included individual demographic characteristics in the analysis because these variables may confound the
relationships of interest. Gender was a categorical variable with 1 as male and 0 as female. Age, education, and
organizational tenure were continuous variables measured in years.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis

Table 1 presents the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results of the proposed model. As shown in Table 1, the
results of the proposed four-factor structure (AL, LMX, PsyCap, and follower performance) demonstrated good
fit with the data (w2(528.89, N = 794)/df(98) = 5.40, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .07). Against this baseline four-factor
model, we tested three alternative models: Model 1 was a three-factor model with LMX merged with AL to form
a single factor; Model 2 was another three-factor model with LMX merged with PsyCap to form a single factor;
and Model 3 was a two-factor model, with AL merged with LMX and PsyCap to form a single factor. As
shown in Table 1, the fit indices support the proposed four-factor model, providing evidence for the construct
distinctiveness between AL, LMX, PsyCap, and job performance.
Because individual respondents were nested within groups, we tested for possible statistical dependence in our

data by computing the ICC(1) for AL, LMX, PsyCap, and job performance. The results showed the ICCs for all
variables, except AL, to be non-significant, indicating that these variables vary much more within (under the same
leader within a group) than between groups. The ICC(1) for AL was .11 (p <. 01), indicating that the followers of a leader tended to converge in their assessment of the authenticity of that leader. Following Van der Vegt, Van de

12 H. WANG ET AL.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

Vliert, and Oosterhof (2003), we tested our hypotheses twice. First, we used regular regression analyses, and second,
we used hierarchical linear modeling, to examine whether the statistical dependence in AL would affect our results.
These analyses generated similar results. Because of space limitations, we only report the results of the regular
regression analysis, but the HML data can be provided upon request from the first author.

Hypotheses testing

Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for all study variables, as well as the inter-correlations between
them. Most of the coefficients are moderate in magnitude and well below their reliabilities, providing supportive
evidence for their discriminant validity. As shown in Table 2, AL is significantly and positively correlated with LMX
(.78, p < .01) and performance (.11, p < .01), and LMX is significantly correlated with performance (.17, p < .01). PsyCap is significantly and positively correlated with AL (.48, p < .01), LMX (.48, p < .01), and performance (.12, p < .01). We tested Hypothesis 1, 2, 3, and 5a using multiple regression. Table 3 summarizes the results of regression

analysis for testing Hypothesis 1 (AL is positively related to follower performance), Hypothesis 2 (followers’
PsyCap negatively moderates this relationship), Hypothesis 3 (AL is positively related to follower LMX), and
Hypothesis 5a (followers’ PsyCap negatively moderates the relationship between LMX and performance). We mean

Table 1. Comparison of measurement models.

Model Factors w2 df Δw2 RMSEA CFI TFI

Null 8551.91 120
Baseline Four factors 528.89 98 0.07 0.95 0.94

Alternatives
Model 1 Three factors. Authentic leadership and LMX were

combined into one factor
941.01 101 413.12** 0.10 0.90 0.88

Model 2 Three factors. LMX and PsyCap were combined into
one factor

1312.13 101 783.24** 0.12 0.86 0.83

Model 3 Two factors. Authentic, LMX, and PsyCap were
combined into one factor

1624.81 103 1095.92** 0.14 0.82 0.79

Note: **p < .01. LMX, leader–member exchange; PsyCap, psychological capital.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlationsa.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender 0.76 1.27 —
2. Age 35.53 8.14 �.16** —
3. Education 2.14 0.91 .16** �.31** —
4. Tenure 7.03 6.76 �.02 .52** �.14** —
5. AL 5.68 0.95 �.09* .02 �.07* �.10** (.95)
6. LMX 5.58 1.05 �.07 .02 �.10** �.08* .78** (.96)
7. PsyCap 4.56 0.61 �.11** .10** .00 �.02 .48** .43** (.88)
8. Performance 3.96 0.57 �.06 .10** �.01 .10** .11** .17** .12** (.84)
Note: AL; authentic leadership; LMX, leader–member exchange; PsyCap, psychological capital.
an = 794; reliability coefficients for the scales are in parentheses along the diagonal.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS 13

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

centered the variables that consist of the interaction term in the moderation analysis (Aiken & West, 1996). We
entered the control variables (gender, age, education, and organizational tenure) at Step 1, AL at Step 2, and the
interaction term between AL and PsyCap at Step 3 in the regression equation with performance as the dependent
variable. Model 1 in Table 3 indicates that the R2 change associated with AL was significant (Step 2, b = .13,
p < .01), showing support for Hypothesis 1. The R2 change was also significant with the addition of the interaction term, indicating the presence of a significant interaction between AL and PsyCap (Step 4, b = �.07, p < .05). Figure 2 illustrates that the pattern of the two-way interaction was consistent with Hypothesis 2, that is, the relationship between AL and performance was stronger when PsyCap was low rather than high. Similarly, in Model 2, we entered the control variables at Step 1, PsyCap at Step 2, and the interaction between LMX and PsyCap at Step 3 with performance as the dependent variable. Model 2 in Table 3 indicates that the R2 change associated

Table 3. Results of regressions.

Performance LMX

ba

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2

Independent variables
Gender �.12** �.12** �.12** �.11** �.11** �.11** �.10** �.05 �.03
Age .07 .06 .05 .05 .06 .05 .05 .04 �.01
Education .02 .03 .02 .02 .04 .04 .04 �.11** �.05*
Tenure .06 .07† .08† .07† .08† .08† .08* �.11** �.01
AL .13** .09* .08* .77**
PsyCap .07 .07†

AL * PsyCap �.07*

LMX .18** .16** .14**
PsyCap .04 .05
LMX * PsyCap �.12**

R2 .03 .04 .04 .05 .06 .06 .07 .02 .61
ΔR2 .03 .02 .00 .02 .06 .00 .02 .02** . 58**

ΔF 5.38** 12.55** 2.59 4.78* 9.77** 1.02 11.89** 4.78** 1164.61**

Note: aStandardized coefficients are reported. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

performance

authentic leadershipLow PsyCap High PsyCap

Figure 2. Moderating effect of PsyCap on AL–performance relationship

14 H. WANG ET AL.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

with the addition of the interaction term was significant (Step 3, b = �.12, p < .01), showing support for Hypothesis 5a, which hypothesizes that PsyCap moderates the relationship between LMX and performance. To test Hypothesis 3, we entered the control variables at Step 1 and AL at Step 2 with LMX as the dependent variable. Model 3 in Table 3 indicates that the R2 change associated with AL was significant (Step 2, b = .77, p < .01), lending support to Hypothesis 3. Second, we used a bootstrapping approach with the aid of SPSS macro developed by Preacher et al. to test

Hypothesis 4 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Bootstrapping is a non-parametric method for assessing indirect effects
without imposing the assumption of normality of the sampling distribution (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West,
& Sheets, 2002; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Because we
hypothesize that LMX mediates the effects of AL on performance, we ran the indirect macro with 5000 bootstrapped
re-samples by using AL as the independent variable; LMX as the mediator; and gender, age, education, and
organizational tenure as covariates. The result shows that the relationship between AL and performance was
significantly mediated by LMX (R2 = .06, p < .01). Specifically, both the path from AL to LMX (.85, p < .01) and the total effect of AL on performance (.07, p < .01) were significant. Moreover, the indirect effect of AL on performance via LMX was .10, and the 95 percent bias-corrected confidence interval around the bootstrapped indirect effect did not contain zero (bias-corrected CI = [.04, .15]). These results indicate that followers who perceived their leaders as authentic reported high LMX, which, in turn, was related to higher job performance. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported. Finally, to test mediated moderation, we followed the steps suggested by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005).

We centered variables that are the components of the interaction term in the mediated moderation analysis. We
summarized the statistical results for the mediated moderation analysis in Table 4. In Model 1 of Table 4, we
regressed performance on control variables (gender, age, education, and organizational tenure), AL, PsyCap, and
the interaction between AL and PsyCap. Both the coefficients of AL (b = .08, p < .05) and the interaction term (b = �.07, p < .05) were significant. In Model 2, the hypothesized mediator, LMX, was regressed on the same independent variables included in Model 1. Results show that AL had a significant effect on LMX (b = .74, p < .01), but the interaction term was not significant (b = .03, ns). In Model 3, we regressed the control variables, AL, LMX, PsyCap, the interaction between AL and PsyCap, and the interaction between LMX and PsyCap on performance. Results indicate that the interaction between LMX and PsyCap contributed significantly to performance (b = �.15, p < .01), and the interaction between AL and PsyCap became no more significant (b = .04, ns). We indicate the relationship between LMX and performance at high and low levels of PsyCap in Figure 3. As shown

Table 4. Test of mediated moderation.

Predictors

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Performance

LMX

Performanceba

Gender �.11** �.03 �.11**
Age .05 �.00 .05
Education .02 �.06* .04
Tenure .07† .00 .08*
AL .08* .74** �.01
PsyCap .07† .08** .06
AL * PsyCap �.07* .03 .04

LMX .17**
LMX * PsyCap �.15**

R2 .05* .61** .08**

Note: aStandardized coefficients are reported. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS 15

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

in Figure 3, the relationship between LMX and performance increases as PsyCap decreases, as is hypothesized.
Overall, these findings suggest that LMX mediated the relationship between AL and performance, that the
relationship between LMX and performance was weakened by the followers’ PsyCap, and thus resulted in the
hypothesized mediated moderation pattern. In other words, Hypothesis 5b is supported.
As an aside, it should be noted that gender had a significant influence on performance, which is not consistent

with previous results. After closely examining the sample in the study, a possible explanation for women getting
higher performance evaluations may be because they represented a much smaller proportion (28.7 percent) and/or
the women also had on average much longer tenure than their male counterparts.

Discussion

This study examined the role that followers’ positive psychological resources (i.e., PsyCap) and relational processes
(i.e., LMX), through an integrative, mediated moderation model, may play in the relationship between AL and
follower performance. We found that the positive relationship between AL and job performance is moderated by
followers’ PsyCap. Specifically, the relationship between AL and follower performance is greater among followers
with low rather than high levels of PsyCap. Examining the role of relational processes, we further tease apart this
overall moderating effect by showing that AL is positively related to LMX, and LMX contributes to follower
performance contingent upon the followers’ PsyCap. These findings have both theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical implications

The primary contribution of this research is uncovering an important contingency for the performance effect of AL,
and thereby empirically supporting and advancing the original theoretical integration of AL and PsyCap (see Avolio
& Luthans, 2006; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Our findings suggest that the complementary congruity between
leadership behaviors and follower psychological resources contributes to follower performance. Specifically, we
found that a higher level of incremental follower performance was achieved when a lack of positive PsyCap was
complemented with a more AL approach than when followers had high levels of PsyCap.
These findings not only answer the call for an integrative approach to AL and PsyCap research (e.g., Avolio &

Walumbwa, 2012; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Yammarino et al., 2008) but also highlight the potential importance
of adopting a complementarity perspective to leadership research in general. In contrast with the common

3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Performance

LMXLow PsyCap High PsyCap

Figure 3. Moderating effect of PsyCap on LMX–performance relationship

16 H. WANG ET AL.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

supplementarity approach, wherein the influence of leadership is often potentiated by followers’ characteristics,
the complementarity perspective offers a neglected insight into the function of leadership and its effectiveness. In
addition to personal characteristics such as the PsyCap of followers, future research needs to examine whether
work tasks and organizational context may also complement or supplement AL. Such contingency variables
should be integrated into AL research (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2012; Klenke, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003).
Moreover, AL was originally conceptualized as being multilevel (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Recently, PsyCap
has been extended to the group/team (i.e., collective PsyCap, see Walumbwa et al., 2011) and organizational (i.e.,
organizational PsyCap, see McKenny, Short, & Payne, 2012) levels of analysis. Thus, future research needs to
integrate AL with collective and organizational PsyCap to examine the meso, multilevel implications
(Yammarino et al., 2008).
Another contribution is theoretically formulating and empirically examining the relational processes (i.e., LMX)

as a mechanism that mediates the relationship between AL and follower performance. This study adds to our
knowledge of the effectiveness of AL and supports the importance of adopting a relationship-based perspective in
(authentic) leadership research (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Illies et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2005). In particular, the
results show that the moderated relationship between AL and follower performance is due to AL contributing to
LMX, and LMX being more related to performance for followers with low rather than high levels of PsyCap. This
study uncovered a mechanism through which AL achieves complementarity with followers’ needs in terms of
positive psychological resources (i.e., PsyCap), and this in turn results in their performance. By formulating a
mediated moderation model, this research accentuates the value of incorporating potential moderators and mediators
into one theoretical framework in order to help disentangle the complexity and contribute to the better understanding
of AL.
Finally, our findings provide further support for the classic substitutes for leadership. This well known, but under-

researched, conceptualization of leadership posits that some of subordinate, task, and organizational characteristics
can substitute for, or neutralize, leadership, thereby negating a leader’s ability to influence subordinate effectiveness
(Kerr & Jermier, 1978). For example, Bauer et al. (2006) found that for introverted managers, a high-LMX
relationship seems essential for their successful performance, but extraverts’ ability to seek social interaction,
resources, and support make a high-LMX relationship unnecessary, suggesting extraversion as a substitute for
leadership. According to recent analytical advances suggested for the substitutes for leadership model, five possible
conditions should be tested to identify a substitute for leadership: (i) a leadership main effects model, (ii) a substitute
main effect model, (iii) an interactive or joint effects model, (iv) a mediation model, wherein the substitutes mediate
leadership impact versus moderate, and (v) the originally proposed moderated model (Dionne, Yammarino, Howell,
& Villa, 2005). We conducted a supplemental analysis to test whether PsyCap meets these criteria. Results show that
follower PsyCap could indeed be viewed as a substitute for AL (These results can be obtained from the lead author).
This means that PsyCap makes AL and LMX significantly less impactful (i.e., serve as a leadership substitute) for
followers’ performance.

Limitations

Before getting into the practical implications of our findings, some possible limitations must be noted. First, we
cannot substantiate causal conclusions with this study’s cross-sectional data. A second potential limitation concerns
common method bias. Although we obtained information about AL (from followers) and followers’ performance
(from leaders) from separate sources, data about AL and LMX are from the same source (i.e., followers), and
this may contribute to the relatively high correlation between them. However, the CFA of the measurement
models at least provides partial support for the distinctiveness of AL and LMX. To provide further evidence for
the distinctiveness of AL and LMX, we entered AL into a regression model as predicting performance at the
first step, and then entered LMX at the second step, looking for a significant change in the variance
explained. We found that the change in R2 after LMX was entered was significant (F = 14.44, p < .01), implying that

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS 17

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

LMX explained additional variance in the dependent variable, beyond what AL explained. Nevertheless,
future research could benefit from a longitudinal design and collecting data from multiple sources (e.g., peers or
360-degree feedback).
Another potential limitation is the use of followers’ subjective performance ratings obtained from their immediate

leaders. For example, Gerstner and Day (1997) reported meta-analytically derived average correlations of .31
between LMX and supervisory ratings of performance, and .11 between LMX and objective measures of employee
performance. However, the recent meta-analysis of PsyCap (Avey et al., 2011) did not find a significant difference
between supervisor evaluations of performance (.35) and objective performance (.27). Nevertheless, it is recom-
mended for future studies to use objective performance- or other-source rated performance.
A final potential limitation concerns the generalizability of the findings. The sample is from one firm in China.

The authenticity of leaders’ conduct and decision making is rooted in and reinforced by the culture of this
organization, which in turn is susceptible to the overall values of the societal and cultural context. Whether the
participants in this study confer the same meaning on “authenticity” with their counterparts in other organizations
or countries may impact the relationships found. Therefore, we caution making over-generalizations from our
findings. Future research needs to be conducted in different organizational and societal cultures in order to cross-
validate and help generalize the findings.

Practical implications

This study contributes to the integration of two important and interrelated recently emerging topics with recognized
practical applications (i.e., AL and PsyCap). The current challenges facing organizational leaders and their followers
revolving around competitive pressures and ethics point to the need for better understanding and application of AL
(Avolio & Walumbwa, 2012; Avolio et al., 2004). In a similar vein, positive psychological resources are also
particularly relevant to today’s turbulent workplace in that they provide individuals, teams, and organizations with
a largely unrecognized potential source of competitive advantage (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Specifically, PsyCap
not only has been repeatedly found to be related to desired attitudes, behaviors, and performance (see the recent
meta-analysis by Avey, Avolio, & Luthans, 2011; Avey et al., 2011) but also has been empirically demonstrated
to be malleable and statelike (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007; Peterson et al., 2011). It is also open to development
through short training interventions (including delivered online; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008; Luthans et al.,
2010) with causal impact on performance (Luthans et al., 2010).
As the results suggest that AL has a positive impact on follower performance, organizations may wish to develop

their managers to be authentic leaders. As indicated, specific guidelines of AL development have been offered by
Avolio and colleagues (e.g., Avolio, 2009; Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Avolio & Walumbwa, 2012). However, they
suggest that not all followers are receptive to AL and the resultant exchange relationship to the same degree in terms
of their implications for job performance. Our findings verify this observation by indicating that more leverage for
performance improvement may be gained among followers with low levels of PsyCap.
According to our findings, it would be more impactful if authentic leaders expend more effort on developing

followers with less positive PsyCap because they could achieve complementarity congruity leading to improved
performance. In addition, low PsyCap followers, depending more on AL in order for them to perform well, could
be targeted for development. This could also help alleviate the pressure for close, time-consuming attention from
authentic leaders on high PsyCap followers. In other words, as was indicated, PsyCap may be an effective substitute
for leadership. However, the complementarity between PsyCap development and AL development becomes a win–
win for overall effective performance. The results also indicate that effective leaders express their authentic
behaviors within a dynamic relational exchange context, that is, an effective AL style exerts its influence on follower
performance through open communication and mutual exchange.
In conclusion, by combining leadership (both AL and LMX) and PsyCap, this study found the relationship

between AL and followers’ performance contingent on followers’ PsyCap. In addition, the results of mediated

18 H. WANG ET AL.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

moderation analysis showed that AL is positively related to LMX, and consequently followers’ performance, to a
larger degree among followers who have low rather than high levels of PsyCap. These findings deepen our
understanding on the complexities of AL and on how it can be more effectively implemented for followers’
improved performance.

Acknowledgements

The research is supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China awarded to the first author. Project
numbers are 71032001 and 71272034.

Author biographies

Hui Wang is a professor in the Guanghua School of Management, Peking University. He received his PhD from Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology. His research interests include leadership behaviors, leader-member
exchange, organizational culture, and other topics especially in the Chinese context.
Yang Sui is currently a post-doctoral fellow in the School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University. She
received her PhD in Management (specialization in Organizational Behavior) from the Guanghua School of Management,
Peking University. Her research focuses on leadership, culture, innovation, and teams.
Fred Luthans is Distinguished Professor of Management, University of Nebraska. A former president of the
Academy of Management and editor of three journals, his theory building and research has been devoted to positive
psychological capital since he formatted the construct over a decade ago.
Danni Wang is a doctoral student of management at W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University. Her
research interests include leadership, teams, and turnover.
Yanghong Wu is a professor in the Department of Psychology, Peking University. She received her PhD from Peking
University. Her research interests mainly focus on culture and self from a social cognition perspective.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1996). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2011). Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity
and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 282–294.

Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on
employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127–152.

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., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments matter in accelerating authentic leadership development.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2012). Authentic leadership theory, research and practice: Steps taken and steps that remain.
In D. V. Day (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

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.

Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion:
Leader–member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 298–310.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Academic Press.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS 19

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (2006). The human resources revolution. Oxford: Elsevier.
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 and Organizational Studies, 15, 227–240.

Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Follower emotional reactions to authentic and inauthentic leadership influence.
In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and
development (pp. 281–300). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Howell, J. P., & Villa, J. (2005). Substitutes for leadership, or not. The Leadership Quarterly,
16, 169–193.

Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-
member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321–330.

Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (1997). Modesty bias in self-ratings in Taiwan: Impact of item wording, modesty value, and self-
esteem. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 39, 103–118.

Gardner, W. L., & Schermerhorn, J. R. (2004). Unleashing individual potential: Performance gains through positive
organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 270–281.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based
model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange
(LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly,
6, 219–247.

Grant, M. A., Gino, F., & Hofmann, A. D. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee
proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528–550.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational
leadership and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 680–694.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277.

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.

Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–26.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 22, 375–403.

Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological
Review, 90, 185–214.

Klenke, K. (2005). The internal theater of authentic leader: Integrating cognitive, affective, conative and spiritual facets of
authentic leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice:
Origins, effects and development (pp. 55–183). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate performance: The mediating role of
expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54, 71–100.

Law, S. K., Wang, H., & Hui, C. (2010). Currencies of exchange and global LMX: How they affect employee task performance
and extra-role performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 625–646.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multi-dimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale
development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–119.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Clapp-Smith, R. C., & Li, W. (2008). More evidence on the value of Chinese workers’ psychological
capital: A potentially unlimited competitive resource? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19,
818–827.

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. (2008). Experimental analysis of a Web-based intervention to develop positive psychological
capital. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 209–221.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241–258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

20 H. WANG ET AL.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2009). The point of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 291–307.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people
for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143–160.

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321–349.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting performance impact of positive
psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 41–67.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with
performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., & Payne, G. T. (2012). Using computer-aided text analysis to elevate constructs: An illustration
using psychological capital. Organizational Research Methods. doi: 10.1177/1094428112459910

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test
mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product
and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.

Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their
perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 350–364.

Ozer, M. (2008). Personal and task-related moderators of leader-member exchange among software developers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 1174.

Parker, S. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 835–852.

Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zheng, Z. (2011). Psychological capital and employee
performance: A latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64, 427–450.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in
multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and
prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.

Scheier, M., & Carver, C. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome
expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and
validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321–335.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and social network per-
spectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505–535.

Story, J. S., Youssef, C. M., Luthans, F., Barbuto, J. E., & Bovaird, J. (in press). Contagion effect of global leaders’ positive
psychological capital on followers. International Journal of Human Resource Management.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship
behavior: The role of intra-team interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 715–727.

Wagnild, G., & Young, H. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resiliency scale. Journal of Nursing
Measurement, 1, 165–178.

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.

Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective
psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 4–24.

Walumbwa, F., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. (2010). Psychological processes linking authentic leadership
to follower behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 901–914.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the
relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432.

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.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS 21

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 5–21 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies: Examining Follower
Reactions to Leader

Apology

Tessa E. Basford • Lynn R. Offermann •

Tara S. Behrend

Received: 21 October 2012 / Accepted: 28 December 2012 / Published online: 19 January 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Recognizing gaps in our present understanding

of leader apologies, this investigation examines how fol-

lowers appraise leader apologies and how these perceptions

impact work-related outcomes. Results indicate that fol-

lowers who viewed their leader as trustworthy or caring

before a leader wrongdoing were more likely to perceive

their leader’s apology to be sincere, as compared to fol-

lowers who previously doubted their leader’s trustworthi-

ness and caring. Attributions of apology sincerity affected

follower reactions, with followers perceiving sincere

apologies reporting greater trust in leadership, satisfaction

with supervision, leader–member exchange quality, affec-

tive organizational commitment, and forgiveness than

those reporting insincere or no apologies. A mediation

model was supported, showing that attributions of apology

sincerity fostered perceptions of humility, which enhanced

perceptions of transformational leadership, and conse-

quently garnered more positive follower reactions.

Keywords Apology � Leadership � Followership

No one is perfect, not even leaders. In the course of their

day-to-day activities, leaders may err and offend followers

through their words, behavior, or lack of action. Off

ended

followers might respond by losing trust in the leader,

experiencing a decrease in satisfaction with supervision,

sensing a decline in relationship quality, and feeling lower

levels of organizational commitment. Thus, examining

how leaders can enhance follower attributions of their

leadership qualities and improve follower reactions after a

transgression offers benefit to all involved—the leader, the

follower, and the organization as a whole.

The aftermath of a leader wrongdoing presents an

important opportunity for leaders. Hopefully, offensive

leadership behavior occurs relatively infrequently in most

leader–follower interactions, making such events likely to

stand out and lead followers to be especially attuned to

their leader’s response (Tucker et al. 2006). Tucker et al.

(2006) propose that these instances may serve as ‘‘critical

moments,’’ carrying particular weight in followers’ overall

perceptions of their leaders (p. 197).

How do leaders respond in these critical moments?

When people find themselves in identity-threatening situ-

ations where their reputation is at stake, they generally

adopt a strategy of remedial self-presentation designed to,

‘‘repair or minimize the damage done to their identities and

attenuate potential punishment from audiences’’ (Schlenker

and Darby 1981, p. 271). Apology is a form of remedial

self-presentation through which individuals admit blame-

worthiness, communicate remorse, and attempt to convince

another that the offense is not a reflection of their true

character (Schlenker and Darby 1981).

Apologies provide a means for a person to make sense

of an apologizer in the aftermath of the apologizer’s

wrongdoing. When perceiving a leader to have trans-

gressed, a follower experiences uncertainty. Is the leader

truly a bad person? Can the leader be trusted? Is the leader

capable of effective leadership? Uncertainty reduction

theory contends people are motivated to reduce such

T. E. Basford (&) � L. R. Offermann �

T. S. Behrend

Department of Organizational Sciences & Communication,

The George Washington University, 600 21st St. NW,

Washington, DC 20052, USA

e-mail: tessabasford@gmail.com

L. R. Offermann

e-mail: lro@gwu.edu

T. S. Behrend

e-mail: behrend@gwu.edu

123

J Bus Ethics (2014) 119:99–117

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1613-y

uncertainty in order to make informed decisions about

others (Berger and Calabrese 1975). Receiving an apology

may help a follower manage this uncertainty, in that the

follower can use the leader’s apology to arrive at a better

assessment of the leader’s remorse.

Empirical findings indicate that apologies tend to be

effective (De Cremer and Schouten 2008). For instance,

research has shown that apologies can improve customer

satisfaction post-service failure (Wirtz and Mattila 2004),

compensate for unattractive boasting behavior (Levine and

West 1976), and facilitate forgiveness in romantic rela-

tionships (Bachman and Guerrero 2006). However, though

it has received attention in other contexts, investigation of

follower reactions to leader apologies is very minimal.

Despite evidence of its effectiveness in other settings,

reports suggest that leaders may be especially resistant to

apologize, perhaps fearing that apologizing shows weak-

ness and threatens authority (Tucker et al. 2006). Research

finding evidence to the contrary—that leaders who apolo-

gize for a perceived transgression actually accrue more

favorable follower perceptions of leadership and more

positive follower reactions—could help ameliorate some of

these leaders’ concerns and build more positive leader–

follower working relationships.

This study examines how followers appraise and

respond to leader apologies in the workplace. First, ante-

cedents to follower attributions of leader apology sincerity

are examined, as guided by theory and research in other,

non-organizational contexts. Next, the impact of these

perceptions on follower reactions is studied to test whether

the general consensus regarding apology effectiveness

extends to leader–follower relationships and workplace

outcomes. Finally, spurred by work linking leader apology

to transformational leadership (Tucker et al. 2006) as well

as transformational leadership to humility (Morris et al.

2005), mediators of the relationships between leader

apology and follower reactions are explored.

Apology Sincerity

All apologies are not created equal. While some apologies

are perceived as quite heartfelt, others are appraised as

insincere. These perceptions of apology sincerity matter, as

research indicates that targets respond more positively

to apologies that they consider sincere. For instance,

Tomlinson et al.’s (2004) work suggests that perceptions of

apology sincerity facilitate reconciliation between business

partners after a broken promise. Also, Scheleien et al.

(2010) found that children reacted more favorably to

spontaneously elicited sibling apologies, which were

believed to be seen as more sincere than apologies parents

ordered siblings to say.

In contrast, a leader whose apology is perceived to be

insincere may engender negative follower reactions. In

such cases, a follower may suspect that a leader’s apology

is more motivated by the leader’s desire to save face than

by the leader’s honest concern for the follower’s well-

being (Regehr and Gutheil 2002). In fact, when a leader’s

apology is appraised as insincere, it may do more harm

than good. Struthers et al. (2008) report that apologies can

backfire, contending that sometimes apologizers may be

viewed suspiciously, seen as potentially untrustworthy,

self-interested, and possessing an ulterior motive.

Source Credibility

Recognizing the importance of perceived apology sincer-

ity, leaders can benefit from learning what impacts follower

perceptions of apology sincerity. Research suggests that

source credibility—the believability of the communica-

tor—may play a key role. While various factors likely

contribute to followers’ assessments of leader credibility,

source credibility theory emphasizes the perceived exper-

tise and trustworthiness (Goldsmith et al. 2000) as well as

the perceived goodwill and caring of the source

(McCroskey and Teven 1999).

Followers who perceive their leader as a highly credible

source should be less inclined to question the sincerity of

their leader’s apology, as compared to those who view their

leader as a less credible source. Lending support to this

proposition, De Graaf et al. 2010 found that leaders reputed

to be fair prior to an ambiguously discriminatory exchange

were more likely to receive the benefit of the doubt than

their counterparts who had a negative reputation. A posi-

tive reputation helped shield leaders from harsh evaluations

and promoted more favorable follower reactions. Though

such work highlights the importance of follower percep-

tions of a leader prior to a leader’s offense, the question of

whether a leader’s source credibility affects follower

appraisal of apology sincerity has yet to be tested.

Hypothesis 1 Perceived source credibility will positively

relate to perceptions of apology sincerity, such that the

apologies of leaders who are viewed as more credible

sources prior to a perceived mistake or offense are rated

more sincere than the apologies of those who are viewed

as less credible sources prior to a perceived mistake or

offense.

Apology and Follower

Outcomes

This study examines four highly relevant constructs as

possible outcomes of leader apology—trust in/loyalty with

the leader, satisfaction with the supervisor, leader–member

100 T. E. Basford et al.

123

exchange (LMX) relationship quality, and affective orga-

nizational commitment.

Trust is defined by Mayer et al. (1995) as, ‘‘the will-

ingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another

party’’ (Mayer et al. 1995, p. 712). In this context, trust in a

leader involves a follower’s willingness to be vulnerable to

his or her leader (Liu et al. 2010).

Job satisfaction reflects positive feelings about a job

based upon an assessment of its characteristics (Robbins

and Judge 2009). This investigation is particularly con-

cerned about employee satisfaction with one job element—

supervision.

LMX, described as a ‘‘relationship-based approach to

leadership,’’ addresses the nature of the dynamic dyadic

relationship between the leader and follower (Graen and

Uhl-Bien 1995, p. 225). According to LMX theory, when

leaders and followers experience positive exchanges, both

the leader and follower benefit; when leaders and followers

suffer negative interactions, their exchanges become less

favorable (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). Research indicates

that high-quality LMX relationships benefit organizations,

impacting outcomes such as job performance, organiza-

tional citizenship behaviors, and supervisory

commitment

(e.g., Ilies et al. 2007; Walumbwa et al. 2011).

The final follower outcome examined, organizational

commitment, has been subdivided into affective, continu-

ance, and normative commitment (Allen and Meyer 1990).

This investigation focuses on affective commitment,

‘‘employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with,

and involvement in, the organization,’’ because this study

is concerned with whether employees stay at an organiza-

tion because they want to, rather than need to (i.e., con-

tinuance commitment) or perceive they ought to (i.e.,

normative commitment) (Allen and Meyer 1990, p. 1990).

A sincere apology is expected to positively relate to

each of these four follower outcomes. Sincerely apologiz-

ing may disassociate a transgression from the leader’s

character, making the follower less inclined to form an

internal attribution for the leader’s wrongdoing (Schlenker

and Darby 1981). In contrast, receiving no apology or an

insincere apology would not serve to as effectively separate

the transgression from the leader’s character. Thus, a sin-

cere apology is hypothesized to elicit more favorable

reactions than no apology or an insincere one.

Hypothesis 2 Followers who perceive their leader to

have sincerely apologized will report more (a) trust in/

loyalty with the leader, (b) satisfaction with supervision,

(c) LMX relationship quality, and (d) affective organiza-

tional commitment than those who received an insincere

apology or did not receive an

apology from their

leader.

As esteemed writer G. K. Chesterton once noted,

‘‘A stiff apology is a second insult’’ (Risen and Gilovich

2007, p. 418). When insincere, a leader’s apology may

negatively impact follower outcomes. Rather than discon-

nect the transgression from the leader’s character, an

insincere apology might actually reinforce followers’

negative impressions. Receiving an insincere apology may

provide evidence to followers that their negative impres-

sions of their leader following a wrongdoing are warranted.

Hypothesis 3 Followers who perceive their leader to

have insincerely apologized will report less (a) trust in/

loyalty with the leader, (b) satisfaction with supervision,
(c) LMX relationship quality, and (d) affective organiza-

tional commitment than those who did not receive an

apology from their leader.

Mediators of the Apology–Outcome Relationship

If leader apologies are found to impact follower outcomes,

the next question becomes why. Why does a leader who

sincerely apologizes for a wrongdoing garner more positive

follower outcomes? Why might an insincere apology be so

harmful? Two potential mediators—humility and transfor-

mational leadership—may add insight into the explanatory

mechanisms underlying the relationships between follower

appraisals of leader apology and follower reactions.

Humility

Descriptions of humility note that it involves openness to

accurate self-appraisal and consideration of oneself in

relation to others (e.g., Morris et al. 2005; Nielsen et al.

2010; Owens 2009). Morris et al.’s (2005) definition of

humility reflects this general conceptualization: ‘‘a per-

sonal orientation founded on a willingness to see the self

accurately and a propensity to put oneself in perspective’’

(p. 1331). While such definitions often conceptualize

humility as a relatively stable trait (e.g., Morris et al. 2005),

Davis et al. (2010) propose a ‘‘theoretical shift’’ (p. 248).

Rather than view humility as a quality of an individual,

they attest that humility may sometimes be more aptly

conceived from the perspective of perceiver evaluations.

Termed ‘‘relational humility,’’ Davis et al. (2010) describe

this as a ‘‘relationship-specific judgment’’ in which

observers assess a target on qualities of other-orientedness,

positive other-oriented emotional expression, emotional

regulation, and accurate self-appraisal (p. 248).

Followers who receive a sincere apology from a leader

following a wrongdoing may be more likely to attribute

humility to their leader, perceiving the leader possesses

Davis et al.’s (2010) relational humility qualities. A sincere

apology might signal that the leader is not self-absorbed,

but rather is concerned with the impact of the transgression

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 101

123

on the follower. Also, the leader’s sincere apology could

communicate other-oriented emotions (e.g., sympathy,

empathy) and show that the leader can regulate emotions in

difficult situations, rather than respond defensively or by

ignoring the issue. Finally, a sincere apology might dem-

onstrate the leader holds an accurate self-assessment, rec-

ognizes personal faults, and is willing to accept blame and

responsibility when warranted.

In contrast, leaders delivering insincere apologies may

not earn attributions of humility. Nielsen et al. (2010) note

that pro-social self-presentation tactics, such as apologiz-

ing, may not always lead to their intended consequences.

For instance, if a leader is viewed as insincere in his or

her apology, the leader may not receive high follower

appraisals of humility.

Relational humility may link follower appraisals of

leader apologies to their perceptions of transformational

leadership. Leaders who sincerely apologize following a

mistake or offense, as compared to those that do not, likely

receive greater attributions of humility from their follow-

ers. Perceived as humble, these leaders will also be more

likely viewed as transformational, as described below.

Transformational

Leadership

Transformational leadership involves motivating followers,

appealing to their values, and inspiring them to rise above

their self-interest for the benefit of a greater shared purpose

(Bass 1985). Definitions of transformational leadership are

largely behaviorally based, stemming from a taxonomy of

four leadership behaviors: idealized influence, intellectual

stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspirational

motivation (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999). As defined by

Bass (1997), idealized influence is behavior that stimulates

follower identification with the leader. Intellectual stimu-

lation involves behavior that raises follower awareness of

issues, leads followers to reframe problems, and to helps

followers to consider matters from a new perspective (Bass

1997). Individualized consideration includes behavior that

attends to each follower’s needs, and inspirational moti-

vation encompasses behavior that stimulates and encour-

ages followers (Bass 1997).

By fostering perceptions of humility, leaders who sin-

cerely apologize may increase follower attributions of

transformational leadership. For instance, humble leaders

might be granted greater perceptions of idealized influence,

in that followers are more likely to view such leaders as

acting morally and doing what is right (Morris et al. 2005).

Also, humble leaders may be viewed as demonstrating

individualized consideration. In showing that they are not

self-centered and care about the follower, they communi-

cate that they value their relationship with the follower

(Morris et al. 2005). However, when genuine remorse is

not perceived, a leader may be viewed as insincere, seen as

less humble, and thus assigned lower attributions of

transformational leadership. A leader who does not com-

municate humility would not demonstrate individualized

consideration, instead appearing inconsiderate, self-

focused, and caring little about follower well-being. Such

leaders may lead followers to feel less inspired and

motivated.

The positive effects of transformational leadership have

been demonstrated on a range of work outcomes, includ-

ing: follower organizational commitment (e.g., Ismail et al.

2011), follower trust in the leader (e.g., Liu et al. 2010),

follower satisfaction with supervision (e.g., Erkutlu 2008),

and leadership effectiveness (e.g., Erkutlu 2008), among

others. Likewise, in this study, perceptions of transforma-

tional leadership are expected to relate to positive out-

comes, specifically: trust/loyalty in the leader, satisfaction

with the supervisor, LMX relationship quality, and affec-

tive

organizational commitment.

Research suggests that transformational leadership acts

as an antecedent to follower trust. Studies have examined

trust in leadership both as an outcome of transformational

leadership (e.g., Liu et al. 2010) and as a mediating vari-

able explaining the impact of transformational leadership

on other outcomes (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 1990). Dirks and

Ferrin’s (2002) meta-analysis of precursors of trust reports

a strong relationship between transformational leadership

and trust in leadership. Thus, a positive relationship

between perceptions of transformational leadership and

trust/loyalty in leadership is hypothesized.

Similarly, perceptions of transformational leadership are

expected to positively impact satisfaction with supervision.

Judge and Piccolo’s (2004) meta-analysis of transformational

leadership studies revealed a strong positive relationship

between transformational leadership and satisfaction with

leadership. This relationship was documented across a vari-

ety of contexts, supporting the proposition that transforma-

tional leadership fosters follower satisfaction in the leader.

Also, followers who view their leader as transforma-

tional are predicted to experience higher quality LMX

relationships. As both Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) and

Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) note, transformational leaders

motivate followers to look beyond their own self-interests

to pursue greater shared goals. This ability for transfor-

mational leaders to direct followers’ efforts towards

mutually beneficial interests can help foster high-quality

LMX relationships in which both leaders and followers

succeed.

Further, the benefits of transformational leadership are

believed to reach beyond follower reactions to their leader.

Research has shown that transformational leadership

relates to organizational commitment overall (Ismail et al.

2011) as well as to specific components of it (Korek et al.

102 T. E. Basford et al.

123

2010). Therefore, followers who perceive their leader to be

transformational are expected to experience greater affec-

tive commitment to the organization.

Hypothesis 4 Perceptions of leader humility will mediate

the relationship between leader apology and transforma-

tional leadership.

Hypothesis 5 Perceptions of transformational leadership

will mediate the relationship between leader apology and

(a) trust in/loyalty with the leader, (b) satisfaction with

supervision, (c) LMX relationship quality, and (d) affective

organizational commitment.

Apology, Forgiveness, and Follower Outcomes

The importance of forgiveness has long been recognized,

with written accounts of forgiveness dating back thousands

of years (Fehr et al. 2010; Waldron and Kelley 2008).

Forgiveness still holds consequence today, likely impacting

leader–follower relationships.

Interpersonal forgiveness has been conceptualized as a

motivational construct (McCullough et al. 1998). In par-

ticular, avoidance and revenge motivations are proposed to

underlie forgiveness (McCullough et al. 1998). As descri-

bed by McCullough et al. (1998), avoidance is character-

ized by the strong motivation to avoid contact with the

offender and revenge is conceptualized as a desire to see

harm befall the offender, thus decreasing forgiveness.

Recent investigation also acknowledges the importance of

a third motivation underlying forgiveness—benevolence.

Benevolence, a ‘‘conciliatory motivation toward the

transgressor’’ (Bono et al. 2007, p.184), involves a wish to

set aside the transgression, desire to regain a positive

relationship with the offender, and a possession of goodwill

for the offender (McCullough et al. 2006).

Apologizing is a ‘‘forgiveness-seeking strategy’’ (Wal-

dron and Kelley 2008, p. 112). In researching tactics people

employ to convey a desire to be forgiven, Kelley (1998)

found that explicit acknowledgement of a perceived

wrongdoing was the most frequently reported technique.

The most recognizable type of explicit acknowledgement is

apology (Waldron and Kelley 2008). It also appears to be

the best one, with Waldron and Kelley (2008) contending

that apology is the approach most likely to be associated

with forgiveness.

Theoretical explanations regarding how apologies

engender forgiveness generally tie back to Goffman’s

(1971) work. Goffman (1971) described apologies as

functioning to disassociate an offender’s bad self from his

or her good self. By apologizing, a person strives to sep-

arate the part of the self that committed the wrongdoing

from the part of the self that is sympathetic and remorseful,

thus allowing the good self to be forgiven. In addition to

this ‘‘splitting of the self’’ theory (Goffman 1971, p. 113),

other explanations have been offered to explain why

apologies are often effective image-restoration and rela-

tionship-repair strategies. For instance, correspondent

inference theory (Jones and Davis 1965) contends the

inferences that victims make about a transgressor depend

on factors such as the degree to which the wrongdoing is

perceived to be under the actor’s control and the extent to

which it benefits the actor. An apology may help to com-

municate that the apologizer did not intend to harm the

victim, is suffering as consequence of his or her bad

behavior, and deserves forgiveness. Though some details of

these theories slightly differ, they converge on the notion

that apology should facilitate forgiveness. Empirical

investigation lends support to this proposition. In a recent

meta-analysis, Fehr et al. (2010) found a substantial overall

relationship between apology and forgiveness.

Despite considerable study of forgiveness in other

settings, the construct has garnered little attention from

organizational researchers and theorists (Aquino et al.

2006). Based on investigations in other contexts, a positive

relationship between leader apology sincerity and follower

forgiveness is expected. A leader who sincerely apologizes

may communicate to an offended follower that the trans-

gression is not indicative of his or her true self. As con-

sequence, the follower may be less likely to avoid the

leader or seek revenge and more apt to respond in a posi-

tive, benevolent manner.

However, research also indicates that apologies do not

always generate forgiveness. Struthers et al. (2008) found

that forgiveness was actually less likely following an

apology when a wrongdoing was intentional, as compared

to when no apology was given. Also, Skarlicki et al. (2004)

report that apologizing, rather than not apologizing, for a

low offer in an ultimatum game increased punishing

behavior (i.e., preventing a partner to continue participat-

ing in the game). How is it that apologizing might some-

times reduce forgiveness and amplify revenge?

Though yet to be tested, apology sincerity may help

address this question. In emphasizing the importance of

apology sincerity, Waldron and Kelley (2008) contend that

‘‘apologies must be authentic to advance the forgiveness

process’’ (p. 147). When a follower perceives a leader’s

apology to be sincere, the follower may disassociate the

event from the leader’s true self and attribute it to other

factors. In contrast, an insincere apology may do little to

separate the event from the apologizer. In fact, an insincere

apology may be even worse than no apology at all if it

reaffirms the follower’s perception that the wrongdoing is a

function of the leader’s character.

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 103

123

Hypothesis 6 Followers who perceive their leader to

have sincerely apologized will report more forgiveness

than those who received an insincere apology or did not

receive an apology from their leader.

Hypothesis 7 Followers who perceive their leader to

have insincerely apologized will report less forgiveness

than those who did not receive an apology from their

leader.

Forgiveness is associated with a number of important

benefits both for the victim and the victim-perpetrator rela-

tionship. Longitudinal research has found forgiveness relates

to improved victim life satisfaction, increased positive

mood, and decreased negative mood (Bono et al. 2007). In

addition to these psychological effects, forgiveness appears

to offer the victim physical benefits (e.g., Bono et al. 2007;

Waldron and Kelley 2008; Worthington 2006). Also,

research indicates improvements in interpersonal relation-

ships to be another important consequence of forgiveness

(Tsang et al. 2006). In fact, ‘‘relationship restoration’’ is

believed to be one of the primary motives underlying both a

transgressor’s forgiveness seeking and a victim’s forgive-

ness granting (Waldron and Kelley 2008, p. 107).

Despite evidence of these benefits, forgiveness is often

underappreciated in organizations. Posner and Schmidt

(1982) found that managers ranked forgiveness as 15th

in importance out of 18 values. Perhaps forgiveness is

undervalued because managers cannot see how it links to

work outcomes. Thus, the present research draws attention

to the importance of follower forgiveness by testing the

relationships between forgiveness and four critical orga-

nizational outcomes.

First, follower forgiveness is proposed to raise trust and

loyalty in the leader. In fact, forgiveness is often described

as a trust-building process (Waldron and Kelley 2008). In

forgiving, followers stop avoiding their leader and release

their intentions to seek revenge. They open themselves up

to repairing the damaged relationship, put the past behind

them, and move forward in their relationship. This process

allows followers to regain faith in their leaders and place

themselves in a position of willing vulnerability (Mayer

et al. 1995).

Follower forgiveness is also expected to positively

impact satisfaction with supervision. Enright’s (2001)

research indicates that people who forgive an offender

develop more positive feelings and thoughts toward the

person. Though not specifically studying leader–follower

dynamics, we expect Enright’s (2001) findings will gen-

eralize to satisfaction with supervision.

In addition, followers who forgive their leaders are

hypothesized to enjoy higher quality LMX relationships. In

forgiving, followers commit to advancing and rebuilding

the relationship and, thus, may be more likely to act in

ways that facilitate higher quality LMX relationships.

Further, as Wieselquist’s (2009) research on romantic

relationships shows, individuals who believe they have

earned their partner’s forgiveness experience greater trust

in their partner. Though yet to be examined in an organi-

zational context, leaders who feel forgiven might also be

more prone to trust their followers and behave in ways that

promote high-quality LMX relationships.

Finally, affective organizational commitment may also

be impacted, with followers who forgive their leaders more

likely to make a commitment to remain attached to their

organization than those who fail to find forgiveness.

Studying general, interpersonal transgressions, Tsang

et al.’s (2006) longitudinal investigation found a relation-

ship between victim forgiveness and subsequent victim

commitment to the offender. Whether these findings extend

to the relationship between follower forgiveness and fol-

lower affective organizational commitment has not yet

been empirically examined.

Hypothesis 8 Follower forgiveness of a leader will be

positively related to (a) trust in/loyalty with the leader,

(b) satisfaction with supervision, (c) LMX relationship

quality, and (d) affective organizational commitment.

Model of Follower Reactions to Leader Apology

Figure 1 models these hypothesized relationships. At the

far left, source credibility is explored as a possible ante-

cedent of apology sincerity perceptions. The upper portion

of the model outlines the expected relationship between

leader apology and follower outcomes, highlighting the

potential mediators of humility and transformational lead-

ership. The lower section of the model explores the influ-

ence of leader apology on forgiveness as well as the impact

of forgiveness on follower outcomes.

Method

Sample

An online survey was made available through Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk (AMT), an online marketplace that pro-

vides a virtual space for researchers to post studies and for

interested users to respond in exchange for small monetary

compensation. AMT participants tend to be diverse with

regard to variables such as gender, age, race/ethnicity,

educational attainment, occupational industry, and work

experience (Behrend et al. 2011). This study was restricted

to U.S. residents with at least six months of prior work

experience in the U.S.

104 T. E. Basford et al.

123

After data cleaning, the total sample consisted of 511

participants. The sample was representative of both gen-

ders: 49.1 % female (n = 251), 48.5 % male (n = 248),

and 2.3 % non-response (n = 12). Participants primarily

classified themselves as: Caucasian/White (43.6 %;

n = 223), Asian/Pacific Islander (38.4 %; n = 196),

African American/Black (5.7 %; n = 29), Hispanic/Latino

(2.9 %; n = 15), Mixed-Race (2.2 %; n = 11), and Other

(4.5 %, n = 23), with 2.7 % (n = 14) of participants

choosing not to respond. Participants varied widely in age

(19–64 years), averaging 32.85 years (SD = 10.21), and

they ranged in total work experience from less than a year

to 52 years, with a mean of 11.92 years (SD = 10.51).

Respondents held a vast array of job titles, including:

teacher, truck driver, architect, accountant, human resour-

ces manager, nurse, and computer programmer, among

many of others. Participants worked in various industries,

such as: health care, sales, finance, media, information

technology, food service, law, hospitality, and education,

and many others.

Procedure

Study procedures were reviewed and approved by the

Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the authors’ mid-size,

Mid-Atlantic U.S. University. In accordance with ethical

standards, participants were provided with information

about the purpose, procedures, possible risks, possible

benefits, and costs associated with participation as well as

their right to withdraw from the study, confidentiality of

research records, and contact information in the case of

questions.

After gaining informed consent, a critical incident

technique was employed. Participants read and responded

to the following prompt, adapted from Aquino et al.’s

(2001) work:

Think back over the last 6 months as an employee to

recall an incident where your supervisor offended you

or made a mistake that negatively impacted you.

Please write a two or three sentence description of the

incident below explaining what your supervisor said

or did. Be as specific as possible. If you have not been

offended by your supervisor or negatively impacted

by a mistake your supervisor made within the last

6 months, think about the last time you were offen-

ded or negatively impacted by a supervisor.

After reading and responding to the prompt, participants

completed a number of quantitative measures. For scales

relating to participants’ perceptions of their supervisor,

they were instructed to think about ‘‘My supervisor’’ as

being the same individual who they wrote about in

response to the prompt. In other words, even if the follower

was no longer working under that same supervisor, the

follower’s responses to the measures still reflected his or

her perceptions about the offending leader.

Like the participants, leaders described were also

diverse. With regard to gender, 65.5 % (n = 336) of par-

ticipants reported instances involving male leaders, 31.1 %

(n = 159) reported instances involving female leaders, and

3.1 % (n = 16) did not identify their leader’s gender. Most

leaders were described as Caucasian/White (45.6 %;

n = 233), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (36.2 %;

n = 185), African American/Black (6.7 %; n = 34), His-

panic/Latino (2.7 %; n = 14), Other (3.7 %; n = 19), and

Mixed-Race (2.3 %; n = 12), with 2.7 % (n = 14) of

participants not indicating their leader’s gender. Leader job

title varied widely, including: project manager, trainee

supervisor, branch manager, chief executive officer, crea-

tive director, and line lead supervisor, among many others.

Measures

Source Credibility

Source credibility was measured with McCroskey and

Teven’s (1999) validated seven-point scale. Participants

were instructed to rate how they perceived their supervisor

before the apology occurred on six competence factor

+ + ++

Outcomes
(trust in leader,
satisfaction with

supervision, LMX
relationship quality,

org commitment)

Source
Credibility

+ +

Perceived
Humility

Perceived
Transformational

Leadership

Forgiveness

Leader Apology
(sincere apology,

insincere apology,

no apology)

Fig. 1 Theoretical model

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 105

123

items (e.g., ‘‘Incompetent-Competent,’’ ‘‘Inexpert-Expert’’),

six trustworthiness factor items [e.g., ‘‘Untrustworthy-

Trustworthy,’’ ‘‘Honest-Dishonest’’ (reverse coded)], and

six caring/goodwill factor items [e.g., ‘‘Cared about me-

Didn’t care about me’’ (reverse coded), ‘‘Not understanding-

Understanding’’]. These three factors of source credibility

were designed to be assessed independently, not combined

(McCroskey and Teven 1999). They have been found to

show reliability and criterion-related validity, predicting

outcomes of source likability and believability (McCroskey

and Teven 1999). In this study, the three factors demon-

strated good reliability: competence (a = .80), trustworthi-
ness (a = .91), and caring/goodwill (a = .88).

Apology

Supervisor apology was measured with the item, ‘‘My

supervisor apologized to me for this incident,’’ to which

participants could either agree or disagree. Participants

were given the following definition of apology: an explicit

verbal or written ‘‘statement of apologetic intent such as

‘I’m sorry’’’ (Schlenker and Darby 1981, p. 272).

Apology Sincerity

Apology sincerity was assessed using a four-item scale

with a five-point Likert response format (strongly disagree

to strongly disagree). This measure was previously devel-

oped by the first author on the basis of extensive literature

review and was subject to content validation, pilot testing,

reliability analysis, factor analysis, and construct validation

using a different sample.

The four items included: ‘‘My supervisor’s apology was

sincere,’’ ‘‘My supervisor sincerely apologized for the

incident,’’ ‘‘My supervisor was truly sorry for the harm or

ill-will caused to me,’’ and ‘‘My supervisor felt genuine

remorse for the harm or ill-will caused to me.’’ Because

this scale was self-developed and had not been used in

published research, an exploratory factor analysis was

conducted to examine the scale’s dimensionality. An

oblique rotation (Promax) was selected, since any factors

that appeared would likely be related. A clear one-factor

solution emerged. This scale was shown to be highly reli-

able (a = .95).

Relational Humility

Relational humility was measured using Owens’ (2009)

nine-item, other-report scale of humility on a five-point

Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Partici-

pants assessed their current feelings about their supervisor

when responding to items (e.g., ‘‘My supervisor admits it

when they don’t know how to do something,’’ ‘‘My

supervisor acknowledges when others have more knowl-

edge and skills than themselves’’). Research supports the

psychometric soundness of this scale (Owens et al. in

press), and the measure also was shown to be reliable in the

present investigation

(a = .93).

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership was measured using an adap-

ted version of the validated Global Transformational

Leadership scale (GTL; Carless et al. 2000), with partici-

pants asked to assess their current feelings regarding their

supervisor. The GTL has been well-validated and has been

shown to demonstrate strong reliability (Carless et al. 2000;

Tucker et al. 2006). Like Tucker et al. (2006), the item

‘‘My leader fosters trust, involvement, and cooperation

among team members’’ was removed from the GTL

because of the item’s emphasis on teams, rather than the

individual leader–follower relationship. Participants

responded to the remaining six items (e.g., ‘‘My supervisor

communicates a clear and positive vision of the future,’’

‘‘My supervisor gives encouragement and recognition to

staff’’) on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to

strongly agree). The measure demonstrated strong reli-

ability in this study as well (a = .92).

Forgiveness

Forgiveness was assessed with McCullough et al.’s (2006)

Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory

(TRIM), using a five-point, Likert scale (strongly disagree

to strongly agree). Participants evaluated their current

feelings about their relationship with their supervisor in

responding to the 13-item avoidance-benevolence factor

(e.g., ‘‘I avoid him/her,’’ ‘‘I withdraw from him’’). The

validity and reliability of the scale is well-documented

(McCullough, Root, and Cohen 2006), and the measure

was also found to be reliable in this investigation

(a = .93).

Trust in/Loyalty to the Supervisor

Trust in/loyalty to the supervisor was measured using

Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) six-item scale with a five-point,

Likert-type rating format (strongly disagree to strongly

agree). Participants were instructed to describe their cur-

rent feelings about their supervisor when responding to

items (e.g., ‘‘I have complete faith in the integrity of my

supervisor,’’ ‘‘I feel a strong loyalty to my supervisor’’).

The scale has been shown to be unidimensional and reli-

able, and it possessed adequate reliability in this study

(a = .82).

106 T. E. Basford et al.

123

Satisfaction with Supervision

Satisfaction with supervision was measured with the four-

item supervision subscale from Spector’s (1997) Job Sat-

isfaction Scale (JSS), employing a six-point, Likert-type

rating format (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Par-

ticipants were asked to assess how they currently felt about

their supervisor when responding to items (e.g., ‘‘I like my

supervisor,’’ ‘‘My supervisor is quite competent in doing

his/her job’’). This four-item scale demonstrated adequate

reliability (a = .84).

Leader–Member Exchange

LMX was assessed with Graen and Ul-Bien’s (1995)

widely used LMX 7 Scale. This measure employs a five-

point Likert response scale and contains seven items (e.g.,

‘‘How would you characterize your working relationship

with your leader?’’ ‘‘How well does your leader understand

your job problems and needs’’), which were slightly

modified by replacing the term ‘‘leader’’ with ‘‘supervisor’’

for the sake of consistency. This widely used scale has been

found to be reliable (Yukl et al. 2008) and demonstrated

strong reliability in this study (a = .92).

Affective Organizational Commitment

Affective commitment was measured using Allen and

Meyer’s (1990) eight-item affective commitment scale,

assessed on a five-point, Likert-type rating scale (strongly

disagree to strongly agree). Participants were asked to

describe how their current feelings about their organization

when responding to items [e.g., ‘‘I would be very happy

to spend the rest of my career with this organization,’’

‘‘I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization’’

(reverse coded)]. This scale, found to demonstrate good

internal consistency in other research (Allen and Meyer

1990), also showed sufficient reliability in this investiga-

tion (a = .85).

Contextual Variables

Contextual variables, many of which other researchers

have also identified as affecting reactions to apologies,

were also measured, including: time elapsed since incident

(McCullough et al. 2003), perceived severity of offense

(Bradfield and Aquino 1999; Waldron and Kelley 2008),

perceived intentionality of offense (Struthers et al. 2008;

Waldron and Kelley 2008), history of leader offenses,

whether the leader made amends, apologizer gender, victim

gender (Miller et al. 2008), victim ethnic group member-

ship, apologizer ethnic group membership, victim-apolo-

gizer racial heterogeneity, victim age (Mullet and Girard

2000), tenure at organization prior to incident, industry of

organization where incident occurred, time working under

supervisor before the incident, time working under super-

visor after the incident, and overall work experience.

Recognizing that memory is subject to retrospective bias,

Schwartz’s (1999) recommendation to use open-ended

items (e.g., ‘‘How long ago did the incident occur?’’) to

assess relevant variables (e.g., time elapsed since incident,

time working under supervisor before the incident) was

employed to reduce the risk that scale values might serve as

anchors and affect responses.

Because some people find it easier to forgive than others

(Waldon and Kelly 2008; Worthington 2006), individual

differences in the tendency to forgive were assessed using

Brown’s (2003) Tendency to Forgive (TTF) scale. The

measure consists of four items [e.g., ‘‘I tend to get over it

quickly when someone hurts my feelings,’’ ‘‘I have a ten-

dency to hold grudges’’ (reverse coded)], rated on a five-

point, Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Though scale has been validated and shown to demonstrate

reliability (Brown 2003; Brown and Philips 2005), Cron-

bach’s alpha for the scale in the present investigation was

low (a = .58). While this low reliability is not ideal, ten-
dency to forgive does not serve as a central variable in the

model, acting only as a control variable in the analyses.

Finally, to minimize the impact of affect on participants’

pattern of responses, the Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule (PANAS) (Crawford and Henry 2004) was

administered and individual differences in positive and

negative affect were controlled. The PANAS is composed

of a ten-item scale of positive affect and a ten-item scale of

negative affect, both measured on a five-point Likert scale.

Participants were be asked to indicate the extent to which

they experienced different affective mood states (e.g.,

excited, alert, irritable, upset) over a designated period of

time. A time-frame of ‘‘during the past week’’ was selec-

ted, consistent with that used by Crawford and Henry

(2004) in their research on the construct validity and

measurement properties of the scale. Both the positive

affect and negative affect scales demonstrated strong reli-

ability (a = .93).
Instead of automatically controlling for all potentially

confounding variables, a practice which Spector and

Brannick (2010) rightly criticize, the pattern of relation-

ships between the contextual variables and the model’s

constructs was first examined. In examining the correla-

tions, nine potentially problematic contextual variables

were identified: positive and negative affect, tendency to

forgive, months elapsed since incident, months working in

organization prior to incident, months working under lea-

der prior to incident, history of leader wrongdoings prior to

incident, transgression severity, and transgression inten-

tionality. Because these variables were strongly related to

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 107

123

both independent and dependent variables in the model and

could be theorized to contaminate the proposed relation-

ships, they were controlled (Spector and Brannick 2010).

Other potential confounding contextual variables (e.g.,

gender, work experience) did not strongly covary with the

constructs and, therefore, were not controlled.

Analysis and Results

Sincerity Grouping

Participants were grouped for analytic purposes according

to their responses on the sincerity scale. For participants

receiving an apology, scores on the apology sincerity scale

were examined. The scale was not normally distributed,

with participants tending to rate leader apologies at either

the very low or the very high ends of the scale. Likewise, in

responses to qualitative questions (e.g., ‘‘Describe how

your supervisor conveyed sincerity or insincerity in his/her

apology’’), participants tended to describe apologies as

either sincere or insincere; few mentioned apologies as

being somewhat sincere or somewhat insincere. Thus,

apology sincerity appeared to be perceived as a dichoto-

mous variable (i.e., sincere or insincere) rather than as a

continuous construct.

Having determined the scale should be dichotomized,

two options were considered. The first, a median split (3.75

on the apology sincerity scale), was rejected because it

created ambiguity by retaining mid-scale responders who

could not be clearly assigned to either the sincere or

insincere apology group. The second option, grouping

participants according to the upper and lower quartiles of

the apology sincerity scale, was preferable as it clearly

identified participants who perceived a sincere apology and

those who perceived an insincere apology. Participants in

the upper quartile, scoring 4.50 or higher on the apology

sincerity scale, were placed into the sincere apology group

(n = 87); those in the lower quartile, scoring 2.75 or lower,

were assigned to the insincere apology group (n = 92).

Participants who reported that they did not receive an

apology were assigned to the no-apology group (n = 165).

Descriptive Statistics

Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1,

along with the Likert values used for each scale to facilitate

interpretation. Offering an initial glimpse into the rela-

tionships between variables, Table 2 presents correlations

among all constructs of interest and contextual variables.

All variables were standardized when computing these

bivariate correlations.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1

Path analysis was used to test Hypothesis 1, predicting

that source credibility positively impacted perceptions of

apology sincerity. Mplus Version 5.21 (Muthén and

Muthén 1998–2006), one of the most common programs

utilized for path analysis, was employed. The three source

credibility factors were included in the path analysis

along with the leader apology variable. The contextual

variables of history of leader wrongdoing, incident

severity, and intentionality were modeled as antecedent

variables, and other potentially confounding contextual

variables (i.e., months elapsed since incident, months

working under leader prior to incident, months working in

organization prior to incident, tendency to forgive, posi-

tive affect, negative affect) were controlled. Because this

hypothesis specifically pertains to followers who received

an apology, participants who did not receive one were

excluded from this analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the model

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of quantitative study variables

Scale N M SD Likert

point scale

Source credibility

Competence 417 4.48 1.24 7

Trustworthiness 415 4.27 1.60 7

Caring/goodwill 433 3.83 1.52 7

Apology sincerity 334 3.48 1.20 5

Humility 493 3.03 .97 5

Transformational leadership 493 2.96 1.04 5

Forgiveness 481 3.18 .96 5

Trust in/loyalty to supervisor 488 2.92 .95 5

Satisfaction with supervision 495 3.59 1.26 6

Leader–member exchange 483 2.94 .97 5

Affective organizational

commitment

489 3.96 1.34 7

Contextual variables

History of leader wrongdoing 498 2.85 1.16 5

Transgression severity 509 3.61 1.04 5

Transgression intentionality 502 3.42 1.25 5

Months elapsed since incident 503 9.97 24.88 Open-

ended

Months working under leader

prior to incident

495 20.47 28.61 Open-

ended

Months working at

organization prior to incident

491 36.03 47.82 Open-

ended

Tendency to forgive 498 4.03 1.08 7

Positive affect 476 3.47 .91 5

Negative affect 482 2.13 .91 5

108 T. E. Basford et al.

123

used to test this first hypothesis. Constructs of interest

appear in white; contextual antecedent variables are por-

trayed in gray.

Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. The path between

trustworthiness and leader apology was statistically sig-

nificant, b = .33, p \ .001, as was the path between

Table 2 Correlation matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Competence –

2. Trustworthiness .67*** –

3. Care/goodwill .58*** .79*** –

4. Sincerity .35*** .55*** .56*** –

5. Apology group .27*** .46*** .44*** .96*** –

6. Humility .41*** .59*** .64*** .70*** .46*** –

7. TFL .41*** .57*** .62*** .63*** .45*** .88*** –

8. Forgiveness .40*** .60*** .58*** .58*** .44*** .69*** .66*** –

9. Trust/loyalty .42*** .60*** .61*** .66*** .48*** .84*** .84*** .74*** –

10. Satisfaction .52*** .67*** .65*** .64*** .47*** .75*** .77*** .81*** .77*** –

11. LMX .48*** .65*** .65*** .66*** .51*** .76*** .76*** .74*** .78*** .80***

12. Commitment .29*** .40*** .38*** .33*** .22*** .47*** .47*** .48*** .50*** .49***

13. Wrongdoing history -.40*** -.49*** -.51*** -.26*** -.30*** -.41*** -.45*** -.44*** -.40*** -.52***

14. Severity -.13** -.27*** -.25*** -.11 -.15** -.22*** -.20*** -.30*** -.26*** -.28***

15. Intentionality -.27*** -.38*** -.35*** -.25*** -.33*** -.37*** -.36*** -.38*** -.38*** -.42***

16. Time/incident -.06 -.09 -.09 -.12* -.09 -.13** -.10* -.09 -.12** -.11*

17. Time/leader .13* .02 -.01 .04 .17** .01 .01 .05 .05 .07

18. Time/Org .09 .04 .01 .08 .19** .04 .06 .15** .11* .11*

19. Tendency forgive .11* .12* .15** .22*** .19*** .21** .21** .28** .30** .24**

20. Positive affect .16** .10* .16** .16** .25*** .19*** .19*** .18*** .21*** .18***

21. Negative affect -.13* -.08 -.06 .09 -.14** .03 -.01 -.15** -.01 -.15**

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1.

Competence

2.

Trustworthiness

3. Care/goodwill

4. Sincerity

5. Apology group

6. Humility

7. TFL

8. Forgiveness

9. Trust/loyalty

10. Satisfaction

11. LMX –

12. Commitment .50*** –

13. Wrongdoing history -.38*** -.25*** –

14. Severity -.23** -.14** .22*** –

15. Intentionality -.36*** -.23*** .42*** .44*** –

16. Time/incident -.10* .08 .00 .09* .14** –

17. Time/leader .05 .16*** .05 .06 -.05 .10* –

18. Time/Org .12* .25*** .01 .07 -.06 .12* .67*** –

19. Tendency forgive .24** .20** -.11* -.01 -.08 .05 .03 .06 –

20. Positive affect .32*** .26*** .03 .18*** .05 .01 .09* .14** .17*** –

21. Negative affect -.07 -.10* .23*** .04 .11* -.10* -.13** -.17*** -.20*** -.14**

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 109

123

caring/goodwill and leader apology, b = .32, p \ .001,
suggesting that the source credibility factors of trustwor-

thiness and caring/goodwill positively impact perceptions

of apology sincerity. However, the path between compe-

tence and leader apology, b = -.05, p = .498, did not
reach statistical significance. The R

2
value of apology,

R
2

= .54, p \ .001, indicates a moderate to strong effect
size.

Hypotheses 2 and 3

Hypothesis 2 and 3 were tested using the general linear

model, with leader apology entered into the model as a

discrete, independent variable and the outcome variables

included as continuous, dependent variables. Once again,

contextual variables of intentionality, severity, and nega-

tive history of wrongdoing were modeled as antecedent

variables, and the other potentially confounding contextual

variables were controlled.

Hypothesis 2a received support, indicating that attribu-

tions of leader apology sincerity fostered greater trust in/

loyalty with the leader than appraisals of insincerity or non-

apology. Leader apology had a significant main effect on

trust in/loyalty with the leader, F (2, 281) = 73.67,

p \ .001. Partial eta-squared was found to be .34, indi-
cating a moderate effect. A post-hoc least squares means

test was conducted to assess whether the means signifi-

cantly differed in the predicted fashion. As predicted, the

mean of trust/loyalty for the sincere apology group,

LSMean = 3.84, was significantly higher than that of the

insincere apology group, LSMean = 2.31, t = 11.33,

p \ .001, and no apology group, LSMean = 2.53,
t = 10.42, p \ .001, findings which held even after
applying the Bonferroni correction.

Hypothesis 2b was also supported, showing that that

perceived leader apology sincerity generated greater

satisfaction with supervision as compared to perceived

insincerity or non-apology. Leader apology exerted a sig-

nificant main effect on satisfaction with supervision, F (2,

284) = 75.94, p \ .001. The computed value of partial eta-
squared, partial g2 = .348, indicates a moderate effect size.
A post-hoc least squares means test revealed that the mean

of the sincere apology group, LSMean = 4.88, was sig-

nifi

cantly higher than that of the insincere apology group,

LSMean = 2.71, t = 11.70, p \ .001, and no apology
group, LSMean = 3.09, t = 10.32, p \ .001, findings
which held after employing the Bonferroni correction.

Hypothesis 2c also received support, finding that attri-

butions of leader apology sincerity garnered higher quality

LMX relationships than perceptions of insincerity or non-

apology. Leader apology had a significant main effect on

LMX relationship quality, F (2, 278) = 64.13, p \ .001.
The computed value of partial eta-squared, partial

g2 = .22, indicates a moderate effect size. The post-hoc
least squares means test found that the mean of the sincere

apology group, LSMean = 3.86, was significantly higher

than that of the insincere apology group, LSMean =

2.37, t = 10.56, p \ .001, and no apology group,
LSMean = 2.55, t = 9.84, p \ .001, findings which held
after applying the Bonferroni correction.

In addition, support was found for Hypothesis 2d, which

had predicted that appraisals of leader apology sincerity

would foster greater affective organizational commitment

than attributions of insincerity or non-apology. Leader

apology had a significant main effect on affective organi-

zational commitment, F (2, 284) = 11.68, p \ .001. The
value of partial g2 = .08 suggests a small effect size. The
post-hoc least squares means test showed that the mean of

the sincere apology group, LSMean = 4.44, was signifi-

cantly higher than that of the insincere apology group,

LSMean = 3.40, t = 4.82, p \ .001, and no apology
group, LSMean = 3.78, t = 3.24, p = .001, findings

which held even after using the Bonferroni correction.

Mirroring Hypothesis 2, post-hoc least squares means

tests were employed to assess Hypothesis 3, predicting that

leader apologies perceived to be insincere would garner

more negative reactions (i.e., trust/loyalty in leader,

Leader Apology
(sincere apology,

insincere apology)

Source
Credibility
Factor 1:

Competence

Source
Credibility
Factor 2:

Trustworthiness

Source
Credibility
Factor 3:

Caring/Goodwill

Intentionality

Severity

History of Leader
Wrongdoing

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

-.13*

.10

-.01

.32***

.33***

-.05

Fig. 2 Path coefficients of leader apology antecedent variables

110 T. E. Basford et al.

123

satisfaction with supervision, LMX relationship quality,

affective organizational commitment) than no apology at

all. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. The mean of

satisfaction with supervision for the insincere apology

group, LSMean = 2.71, was significantly lower than that

of the no apology group, LSMean = 3.09, t = -2.46,

p = .015. Likewise, the mean of affective organiza-

tional commitment for the insincere apology group,

LSMean = 3.40, was significantly lower than that of the no

apology group, LSMean = 3.78, t = -2.10, p = .037.

However, while the mean of trust/loyalty for the insincere

apology group, LSMean = 2.31, was lower than that of the

no apology group, LSMean = 2.53, this difference did not

achieve statistical significance, t = -1.95, p = .05. Also,

the mean of LMX relationship quality for the insincere

apology group, LSMean = 2.37, was less than that of the

no apology group, LSMean = 2.55, but this difference was

not statistically significant, t = -1.60, p = .11. Figure 3

illustrates these results for Hypotheses 2 and 3.

Hypothesis 4 and 5

Path analysis was employed in testing Hypothesis 4 and 5,

which proposed that humility and transformational lead-

ership mediated the relationship between appraisals of

leader apology and follower reactions (i.e., trust/loyalty in

leader, satisfaction with supervision, LMX relationship

quality, affective organizational commitment). All con-

structs of interest were included, with contextual variables

modeled as antecedent variables or controlled as previously

specified. The hypothesized path analysis model was tested

for each of the four follower outcome variables. Chi-square

tests of model fit for each of the four models were signif-

icant: trust in/loyalty with leader, v2(29) = 410.27,
p \ .001; satisfaction with supervision, v2(29) = 423.65,
p \ .001; LMX relationship quality, v2(29) = 422.07,
p \ .001; affective organizational commitment,
v2(29) = 385.57, p \ .001. Other indices also suggested
poor fit for each of the four originally proposed models:

trust in/loyalty with leader (CFI = .78; SRMR = .14;

RMSEA = .20); satisfaction with supervision (CFI = .77;

SRMR = .14; RMSEA = .120); LMX relationship quality

(CFI = .76; SRMR = .14; RMSEA = .20); affective

organizational commitment (CFI = .73; SRMR = .13;

RMSEA = .19).

Alternative models were tested to improve model fit. In

Model 2, the first alternative model tested, four nonsignifi-

cant paths were removed (caring/goodwill ? apology;
history of leader wrongdoing ? apology; severity ?
apology; intentionality ? apology). As shown in Table 3,
Model 2 appeared to slightly improve model fit. Next, in

Model 3, a path was added between humility and forgive-

ness, resulting in improved model fit indices. Subsequently,

Model 4 added a path between trustworthiness and humility,

further improving fit. While adding additional paths would

have continued to slightly impact model fit, improvements

were not noteworthy. Model 4 fit indices point to four

parsimonious, well-fitting models: trust in/loyalty with

leader (CFI = .96; SRMR = .03; RMSEA = .13); satis-

faction with supervision (CFI = .95; SRMR = .04;

RMSEA = .14); LMX relationship quality (CFI = .95;

SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .14); affective organizational

commitment (CFI = .97; SRMR = .03; RMSEA = .11).

Model 4 for each of the four dependent variables is

presented (Fig. 4). Constructs in white represent variables

of interest in the model; constructs in gray indicate con-

textual antecedent variables. Standardized estimates of

each path, along with their corresponding significance

values, are provided.

Hypothesis 4 and 5 were supported. First, support was

found for the indirect relationship from leader apology to

humility to transformational leadership to trust in/loyalty in

the leader. The direct path between leader apology and

humility was significant, b = .21, p \ .001, as was the
direct path between humility and transformational leader-

ship, b = .88, p \ .001, as was the direct path between
transformational leadership and trust in/loyalty with the

leader, b = .61, p \ .001. The indirect path (apol-
ogy ? humility ? transformational leadership ? trust
in/loyalty with leader) also achieved statistical signifi-

cance, b = .11, p \ .001. Bootstrapped confidence interval
estimates of the standard error of this indirect effect did not

include zero, lower 2.5 % = .07; upper 2.5 % = .16,

providing confidence in the existence of this indirect

effect.

Fig. 3 Trust/loyalty, satisfaction, LMX, commitment, and forgive-
ness least squares means for no apology, insincere apology, and

sincere apology groups

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 111

123

Second, support was found for the indirect relationship

from leader apology to humility to transformational lead-

ership to satisfaction with supervision. The direct path

between leader apology and humility was statistically sig-

nificant, b = .21, p \ .001, as was the direct path between
humility and transformational leadership, b = .88,

p \ .001, as was the direct path between transformational
leadership and satisfaction with supervision, b = .42,
p \ .001. The indirect path (apology ? humility ?
transformational leadership ? satisfaction with supervi-
sion) also was significant, b = .08, p \ .001. Bootstrapped
confidence interval estimates of the standard error of this

Table 3 Trust/loyalty, satisfaction, LMX, and commitment model fit indices

Proposed model Alternative models

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Trust/loyalty v2(29) = 410.27 v2(13) = 329.46 v2(12) = 165.48 v2(11) = 74.99

p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001
CFI = .78 CFI = .81 CFI = .91 CFI = .96

SRMR = .14 SRMR = .13 SRMR = .10 SRMR = .03

RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .27 RMSEA = .19 RMSEA = .13

Satisfaction v2(29) = 423.65 v2(13) = 340.05 v2(12) = 176.08 v2(11) = 85.59

p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001
CFI = .77 CFI = .80 CFI = .89 CFI = .95

SRMR = .14 SRMR = .13 SRMR = .11 SRMR = .04

RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .27 RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .14

LMX v2(29) = 422.07 v2(13) = 340.28 v2(12) = 176.30 v2(11) = 85.81

p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001
CFI = .76 CFI = .79 CFI = .88 CFI = .95

SRMR = .14 SRMR = .13 SRMR = .10 SRMR = .04

RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .27 RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .14

Commitment v2(29) = 385.57 v2(13) = 307.03 v2(12) = 143.06 v2(11) = 52.57

p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001
CFI = .73 CFI = .76 CFI = .89 CFI = .97

SRMR = .13 SRMR = .11 SRMR = .09 SRMR = .03

RMSEA = .19 RMSEA = .26 RMSEA = .18 RMSEA = .11

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Total R2 estimates: apology = .27***; humility = .43***; transformational leadership = .78***; forgiveness = .55***; trust/loyalty = .78***; satisfaction = .76***; LMX relationship quality = .71***; affective organizational commitment = .34***.

.61***(trust/loyalty)

.42*** (satisfaction)

.46*** (LMX).52***

.21*** .88***

.61***

.12** .31*** (trust/loyalty)

.47***

-.13* Humility Transformational
Leadership

Forgiveness

Leader Apology
(sincere apology,
insincere apology,

no apology)

Source
Credibility
Factor 2:

Trustworthiness

.54*** (satisfaction)

.42*** (LMX)

.25*** (commitment)

.28*** (commitment)

Source
Credibility
Factor 1:

Competence

Outcomes

Fig. 4 Path estimates

112 T. E. Basford et al.

123

indirect effect were greater than zero, lower 2.5 % = .05;

upper 2.5 % = .11, offering confidence in the presence of

this indirect effect.

Third, the indirect relationship from leader apology to

humility to transformational leadership to LMX relation-

ship quality also received support. The direct path between

leader apology and humility was statistically significant,

b = .21, p \ .001, as was the direct path between humility
and transformational leadership, b = .88, p \ .001, as was
the direct path between transformational leadership and

LMX relationship quality, b = .46, p \ .001. The indirect
path (apology ? humility ? transformational leader-
ship ? LMX relationship quality) also was significant,
b = .08, p \ .001. Bootstrapped confidence interval esti-
mates of the standard error of this indirect effect were

above zero, lower 2.5 % = .05; upper 2.5 % = .12, giving

confidence

in the existence of this indirect effect.

Fourth, support was found for the indirect relationship

from leader apology to humility to transformational lead-

ership to affective organizational commitment. The direct

path between leader apology and humility was statistically

significant, b = .21, p \ .001, as was the direct path
between humility and transformational leadership,

b = .88, p \ .001, as was the direct path between trans-
formational leadership and affective organizational com-

mitment, b = .28, p \ .001. The indirect path (apology
? humility ? transformational leadership ? affective
organizational commitment) also was significant, b = .05,
p \ .001. Bootstrapped confidence interval estimates of the
standard error of this indirect effect did not include zero,

lower 2.5 % = .03; upper 2.5 % = .08, giving confidence

in the existence of this indirect effect.

Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 6 and 7 were tested with the general linear model.

Leader apology was entered into the model as a discrete,

independent variable, and forgiveness was included as con-

tinuous, dependent variable. As specified before, contextual

variables were modeled as antecedent variables or controlled.

Hypothesis 6 received support, finding that followers

who appraised their leader’s apology as sincere reported

greater forgiveness than those who viewed the apology as

insincere or did not receive one. Leader apology had a

significant main effect on forgiveness, F (2, 280) = 54.17,

p \ .001. Partial g2 = .28, indicates a small to medium
effect. As predicted, a post-hoc least squares means test

found that the mean of forgiveness for the sincere apology

group, LSMean = 4.06, was significantly higher than that

of the insincere apology group, LSMean = 2.63, t =

9.77, p \ .001, and no apology group, LSMean = 2.85,
t = 8.89, p \ .001, findings which held even after applying
the Bonferroni correction.

Hypothesis 7

Paralleling Hypothesis 6, post-hoc least squares means

tests were employed to assess Hypothesis 7, which pro-

posed that followers would experience less forgiveness

when they perceived a leader’s apology as insincere as

compared to when they did not receive an apology.

Hypothesis 7 was not supported. Though the mean of

forgiveness for the insincere apology group,

LSMean = 2.63, was lower than that of the no apology

group, LSMean = 2.85, this difference was not statistically

significant, t = -1.84, p = .067. Figure 3 illustrates these

Hypothesis 6 and 7 results.

Hypothesis 8

Hypothesis 8 received support, suggesting that forgiveness

leads to favorable follower outcomes (i.e., trust/loyalty in

leader, satisfaction with supervision, LMX relationship

quality, affective organizational commitment). As dis-

played in Fig. 4, the path between forgiveness and trust in/

loyalty with the leader was significant, b = .31, p \ .001,
as was the path between forgiveness and satisfaction with

supervision, b = .54, p \ .001, forgiveness and LMX
relationship quality, b = .42, p \ .001, and forgiveness
and affective organizational commitment, b = .25,
p \ .001.

Discussion

This investigation adds insight into how followers appraise

leader apologies and how these perceptions impact their

reactions. First, aspects of source credibility were examined

to better understand how followers assess leader apology

sincerity. Two source credibility factors—trustworthiness

and caring/goodwill—demonstrated significant, positive

relationships with leader apology sincerity. Followers who

viewed their leader as a trustworthy and caring source prior

to the transgression were more likely to form impressions of

apology sincerity; followers who viewed their leader as an

untrustworthy and uncaring source tended to make insincere

appraisals. However, the source credibility factor of com-

petence did not significantly impact perceptions of apology

sincerity. Followers who received an apology did not appear

to use their prior perceptions of leader competence to form

attributions of apology sincerity.

Do follower assessments of a leader’s apology impact

follower reactions? The answer to this question is a

resounding, ‘‘yes.’’ Follower appraisals of leader apology

matter. Followers who viewed their leader’s apology as

sincere experienced greater forgiveness, trust in/loyalty

with their leader, satisfaction with supervision, LMX

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 113

123

relationship quality, and affective organizational commit-

ment, as compared to followers who considered their lea-

der’s apology to be insincere or who did not receive an

apology. These favorable reactions benefit the follower,

leader, and the organization overall.

Whereas sincere leader apologies generated the most

favorable follower reactions, insincere apologies often

appeared worse than non-apologies. Compared to followers

who did not receive an apology, followers who appraised

their leader’s apology as insincere had significantly lower

satisfaction with supervision and affective organizational

commitment. Apparently Chesterton was right—insincere

apologies may add insult to injury. While not reaching sta-

tistical significance, followers who perceived their

leader’s apology as insincere also reported lower trust in/

loyalty with the leader, LMX relationship quality, and for-

giveness as compared to followers who did not receive an

apology. Such findings suggest that an apology, if considered

insincere, may do more harm than no apology at all.

Finally, the question of why was examined. Why do

sincere apologies inspire favorable follower reactions? To

provide insight into the explanatory mechanisms of these

relationships, two mediators—humility and transforma-

tional leadership—were examined. Findings revealed that

both of these constructs mediated the relationships between

leader apology and follower reactions. Leader apologies,

when appraised as sincere by followers, engender percep-

tions of humility, which consequently foster perceptions of

transformational leadership, which in turn lead to favorable

follower outcomes. Thus, rather than a sign of weakness,

sincere apologies might be better considered a sign of

humility and transformational leadership.

Limitations

Two main limitations should be noted. First, participants

were asked to recall past events, raising possible concerns

about the limits of human memory. Although psychologi-

cal researchers have long-recognized that human memory

is imperfect and subject to error, rare and important

behaviors and events—such as leader offenses—are less

affected by such issues, thereby minimizing retrospective

bias (Schwartz 1999). Even so, followers’ present evalua-

tions of their leader and job might still somewhat impact

the nature of their recollections. However, using a stan-

dardized scenario-based approach as an alternative to a

retrospective design was believed to pose greater risk than

benefit. Because people tend to overestimate the extent to

which they will value an apology when they imagine

receiving one (De Cremer et al. 2011), studying how fol-

lowers expect they will respond to an apology in a vignette

could result in an inflated estimate its impact. This inves-

tigation’s retrospective approach offers a better assessment

of how people really respond to actual events, lending

external validity to the research.

Second, concerns regarding common methods bias may

arise. As suggested by Conway and Lance (2010) and

Podsakoff et al. 2003), the following steps were taken to

reduce the likelihood of common methods bias: lowering

evaluation apprehension by guaranteeing respondents of

anonymity, using unambiguous items, and ensuring items

did not overlap between scales. Also, a Harman one-factor

analysis was conducted to assess whether variance could be

attributed to a single factor (Podsakoff et al. 2003); it could

not. In addition, affect was controlled to ensure partici-

pants’ affective state was not obscuring the relationships.

Implications and Future Directions

Despite these limitations, this investigation adds to past

research, refining our understanding of the role of leader

apologies in workplace leader–follower dynamics. Building

on Tucker et al.’s (2006) finding of a link between leader

apology and transformational leadership, our research

identifies humility as a key mediator of this relationship.

Humility is an under-researched area within leadership

studies, and the present work suggests it may play an

important role in improving understanding of leader–fol-

lower relations. Leaders who were believed to sincerely

apologize following a wrongdoing were viewed by followers

as more humble and, consequently, more transformational.

These perceptions of transformational leadership were in

turn shown to promote positive follower reactions that not

only helped the leader–follower relationship but also

extended to benefit the organization overall.

Also, this study opens new areas for continued research

exploration. While the present investigation highlighted the

importance of aspects of leader source credibility, other

factors also likely influence followers’ appraisals of leader

apology sincerity. Continued research into additional

antecedents of leader apology sincerity perceptions, such as

aspects of message content and delivery style, are needed

to further improve our comprehension of how followers

appraise leader apology sincerity. Also, future investiga-

tions might extend beyond the follower, perhaps consid-

ering the impact of bystander appraisals of leader

apologies. While research indicates that observers and

targets of apologies appraise messages differently (Risen

and Gilovich 2007), such effects have yet to be examined

in an organizational context.

Further investigation is needed to translate this research

into effective leadership trainings, programs, and initiatives.

Recognizing the value of sincere apologies, organizations

may desire to increase the likelihood that leaders will apol-

ogize when appropriate and that their apologies will be

appraised as sincere. Future efforts should focus on how.

114 T. E. Basford et al.

123

How can leaders be trained to deliver apologies that are

appraised as sincere by followers? Practitioners should be

aware that the application of this research in practice might

pose risks. Learning that their organizational leaders

received ‘‘apology sincerity training’’ might heighten fol-

lowers’ skepticism and cause them to doubt the veracity of

even truly sincere leader apologies. Also, the ethicality of

such training is questionable. Leaders, armed with knowl-

edge about how to best communicate sincerity, might use

these techniques to ‘‘dupe’’ their followers into forming

attributions of sincerity.

In spite of these concerns, efforts to apply this research in

practice should not be abandoned. Leaders, followers, and

organizations stand to benefit if leaders can learn how to best

convey apology sincerity. As other work indicates (Tucker

et al. 2006), leaders are all too often reluctant to apologize.

Showing leaders that sincere apologies generate more favor-

able results than no apologies may help increase the likelihood

that leaders will apologize when they make a mistake or

offend an employee, as they inevitably will at some point in

their career. Further, since leaders may be unsure how to best

convey sincerity when they find themselves in the aftermath of

a transgression, awareness of the impact of source credibility

could help reduce their anxiety and reluctance to apologize.

Future efforts to develop leadership programs that stress the

importance of establishing trustworthiness and caring repu-

tations may help avoid ‘‘duping’’ concerns and build more

positive, effective workplaces.

Given the restriction of the sample to U.S. employees,

the generalizability of these findings outside of the U.S.

requires future attention. Because cultural differences in

apology exist (Guan et al. 2009), the extention of this

study’s findings to other countries is unclear. For instance,

the factors impacting apology sincerity perceptions in the

U.S. may differ from those in other countries. Also, dif-

ferences in cultural variables such as power distance may

reduce the importance of attributions of leader humility.

These exciting opportunities for continued cross-cultural

research on leadership and apology are just a few of the

numerous questions open for exploration. However, at least

in the U.S. workplace, our work suggests that leaders may

benefit from overcoming their concerns about apologizing.

In the wake of a wrongdoing, a sincere ‘‘I’m sorry’’ can

make all the difference.

Acknowledgments The research described in this paper was sup-
ported in part by a grant to the first author from the American Psy-

chological Association.

References

Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of

affective, continuance and normative commitment to the

organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T., & Bies, R. (2001). How employees respond

to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim

status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the

workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52–59.

doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.52.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T., & Bies, R. (2006). Getting even or moving on?

Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors

of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in orga-

nizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 653–668.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653.

Bachman, G., & Guerrero, L. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and

communicative responses to hurtful events. Communication

Reports, 19(1), 45–56. doi:10.1080/08934210600586357.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.

New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leader-

ship paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?

American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.

Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic

transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly,

10(2), 181–218. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8.

Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The

viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research

Methods, 43(3), 800–813. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0.

Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some exploration in initial

interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of

communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x.

Bono, G., McCullough, M., & Root, L. (2007). Forgiveness, feeling

connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182–195.

doi:10.1177/0146167207310025.

Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions

and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the

workplace. Journal of Management, 25(5), 607–631.

Brown, R. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency

to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759–771.

doi:10.1177/0146167203029006008.

Brown, R., & Philips, A. (2005). Letting bygones be bygones:

Further evidence for the validity of the Tendency to Forgive

scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 627–638.

doi:10.1177/014920639902500501.

Carless, S., Wearing, A., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of

transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychol-

ogy, 14(3), 389–405.

Conway, J., & Lance, C. (2010). What reviewers should expect

from authors regarding common method bias in organizational

research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.

doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6.

Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement

properties and normative data in a large non-clinical

sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265.

doi:10.1348/0144665031752934.

Davis, D., Worthington, E., Jr, & Hook, J. (2010). Humility: Review

of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality

judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 243–252.

doi:10.1080/17439761003791672.

De Cremer, D., & Schouten, B. (2008). When apologies for injustice

matter: The role of respect. European Psychologists, 13(4),

239–247. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.239.

De Cremer, D., Pillutla, M. M., & Folmer, C. R. (2011). How

important is an apology to you? Forecasting errors in evaluating

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 115

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.52

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934210600586357

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207310025

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006008

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500501

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752934

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439761003791672

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.239

the value of apologies. Psychological Science, 22(1), 45–48.

doi:10.1177/0956797610391101.

De Graaf, S., Basford, T., Offermann, L., Graebner, R., & Jaffer, S.

(2010). Can leader behavior reduce perceptions of racial

microaggressions at work? In L. Offermann (Chair) (Ed.),

Leadership and diversity: Science meets practice. Paper pre-

sented in a symposium at the Society for Industrial Organiza-

tional Psychology Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-

analytic findings and implications for research and practice.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. doi:10.1037/

0021-9010.87.4.611

Enright, R. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process

for resolving anger and Restoring hope. Washington: APA

LifeTools.

Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on

organizational and leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case.

The Journal of Management Development, 27(7), 708–726.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A

meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and disposi-

tional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894–914.

doi:10.1037/a0019993.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper Colophon

Books.

Goldsmith, R., Lafferty, B., & Newell, S. (2000). The impact of

corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer

reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising,

29(3), 43–54.

Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to

leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX)

theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-

domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.

Guan, X., Park, H., & Lee, H. (2009). Cross-cultural differences

in apology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33,

32–45. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.10.001.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member

exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.92.1.269.

Ismail, A., Mohamed, H., Sulaiman, A., Mohamad, M., & Yusuf, M.

(2011). An empirical study of the relationship between trans-

formational leadership, empowerment and organizational com-

mitment. Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(1),

89–107.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The

attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2,

pp. 219–266). San Diego: Academic Press.

Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.89.5.755.

Kelley, D. (1998). The communication of forgiveness. Communication

Studies, 49(3), 255–271. doi:10.1080/10510979809368535.

Korek, S., Felfe, J., & Zaepernick-Rothe, U. (2010). Transformational

leadership and commitment: A multilevel analysis of group-level

influences and mediating processes. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 364–387. doi:10.1080/

13594320902996336.
Levine, R., & West, L. (1976). Attraction as a function of boasting,

self-apology, and credibility of an actor. Psychological Reports,

38, 1243–1246. doi:10.2466/pr0.1976.38.3c.1243.

Liu, J., Siu, O., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and

employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in the leader

and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

59(3), 454–479. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative

model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,

20(3), 709–734.

McCroskey, J., & Teven, J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the

construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs,

66(1), 90–103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464.

McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness,

forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-

related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84(3), 540–557.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L.,

Jr, Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving

in close relationships: II. Theoretical and measurement. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.6.1586.

McCullough, M., Root, L., & Cohen, A. (2006). Writing about the

benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 887–897.

doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.887.

Miller, A. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr, & McDaniel, M. A. (2008).

Gender and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review and research

agenda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(8),

843–876. doi:10.1521/jscp. 2008, 27(8), pp. 843.

Morris, J., Brotheridge, C., & Urbanski, J. (2005). Bringing humility

to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader

humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323–1350. doi:10.1177/

0018726705059929.

Mullet, E., & Girard, M. (2000). Developmental and cognitive points

of view on forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament,

& C. E. Thorsen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and

practice (pp. 111–132). New York, NY: Guilford.

Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2006). Mplus user’s guide. Los

Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Nielsen, R., Marrone, J., & Slay, H. (2010). A new look at humility:

Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized

charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organization

Studies, 17(1), 33–43. doi:10.1177/1548051809350892.

Owens, B. (2009). Humility in organizational leadership. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington

Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (in press). Expressed

humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams,

and leadership. Organization Science.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003).

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review

of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’

trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship

behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7.

Posner, B., & Schmidt, W. (1982). Managerial values and expecta-

tions: The silent power in personal and organizational life. New

York: American Management Association.

Regehr, C., & Gutheil, T. (2002). Apology, justice, and trauma

recovery. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the

Law, 30, 425–430.

Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in

the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418–433. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.92.3.418.

Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2009). Organizational behavior. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

116 T. E. Basford et al.

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391101

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019993

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.10.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979809368535

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320902996336

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320902996336

http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1976.38.3c.1243

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.6.1586

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.887

http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726705059929

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726705059929

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350892

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418

Schleien, S., Ross, H., & Ross, M. (2010). Young children’s apologies

to their siblings. Social Development, 19(1), 170–186.

Schlenker, B., & Darby, B. (1981). The use of apologies in social

predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(3), 271–278.

doi:10.2307/3033840.

Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the

answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105.

Skarlicki, D., Folger, R., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts

backfire: The exacerbating effects of a polite message or an

apology on reactions to an unfair outcome. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 34(2), 322–341.

Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes,

and consequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P., & Brannick, M. (2010). Methodological urban legends:

The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational

Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305. doi:10.1177/1094428110

369842.

Struthers, C., Eaton, J., Santelli, A., Uchiyama, M., & Shirvani, N.

(2008). The effects of attributions of intent and apology on

forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 983–992. doi:10.1016/

j.jesp.2008.02.006.

Tsang, J., McCullough, M., & Fincham, F. (2006). The longitudinal

association between forgiveness and relationship closeness and

commitment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(4),

448–472. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.4.448.

Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to

reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile

following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30(2),

165–187.

Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Reid, E., & Elving, C. (2006).

Apologies and transformational leadership. Journal of Business

Ethics, 63, 195–207. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-3571-0.

Waldron, V., & Kelley, D. (2008). Communicating forgiveness.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2011). How

leader–member exchange influences effective work behaviors:

Social exchange and internal–external efficacy perspectives.

Personnel Psychology, 64, 739–770.

Wieselquist, J. (2009). Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and the

investment model of commitment. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 26(4), 531–548. doi:10.1177/0265407

509347931.

Wirtz, J., & Mattila, A. (2004). Consumer responses to compensation,

speed of recovery and apology after a service failure. Interna-

tional Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(2), 150–166.

Worthington, E. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and

application. New York: Routledge.

Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2008). Influence of leader

behaviors on the leader-member exchange relationship. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 289–299. doi:10.1108/

02683940910952697.

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 117

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033840

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428110369842

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428110369842

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.4.448

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-3571-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347931

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347931

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940910952697

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940910952697

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

• c.10551_2012_Article_1613

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies: Examining Follower Reactions to Leader Apology
Abstract
Apology Sincerity
Source Credibility
Apology and Follower Outcomes
Mediators of the Apology–Outcome Relationship
Humility
Transformational Leadership
Apology, Forgiveness, and Follower Outcomes
Model of Follower Reactions to Leader Apology
Method
Sample
Procedure
Measures
Source Credibility
Apology
Apology Sincerity
Relational Humility
Transformational Leadership
Forgiveness
Trust in/Loyalty to the Supervisor
Satisfaction with Supervision
Leader–Member Exchange
Affective Organizational Commitment
Contextual Variables

Analysis and Results
Sincerity Grouping
Descriptive Statistics
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1
Hypotheses 2 and 3
Hypothesis 4 and 5
Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis 8

Discussion
Limitations
Implications and Future Directions
Acknowledgments
References

Leading Strategic Change

Managing Organisational Development

Managers in modern business are expected to be more strategic, more entrepreneurial, more innovative and more changed-centred.
(Dalton, 2010)
Leading modern organisations

Can a public sector organisation be subject to private sector management philosophies?

Organisational Culture
The shared beliefs, values and behaviours of organisational members
Schein, 1983, 1984, 1985

Human resource capabilities
Systems
Organisational structures
Misalignment

Systems
Organisational structures
Human resource capabilities
Alignment

People – Vehicle or obstacle?

The faster the change the more crucial the alignment and adaptability of human resource capabilities

Organisational Development

A model of slow, planned change that concentrates on organisational effectiveness and employee wellbeing

Transformational Leadership

Creating an inspiring vision of the future by building trust-based relationships with your people

Effective strategy

Communication

Structures

Human resource capabilities

Culture

Communication

Including the people
A sense of urgency – establish the need
Create a coalition – people with energy
Communicate, communicate, communicate
Involve, involve, involve
Short-term wins
Anchor success

Types of saboteurs for successful change
The Attacker
The Whiner
The scene stealer
The drive-by boss
The manipulator
The clueless colleague
The faux-smart boss
The slacker
The bully

The Attacker
The colleague who repeatedly expresses his/her anger and frustration in the form of inappropriate personal criticism

The Whiner
That co-worker who complains without taking responsibility for improving conditions that surround him/her.

The Scene Stealer
The peer who sets about building his/her reputation at your expense

The drive-by boss
A leader who ignores some of his/her key management responsibilities and doesn’t meet the needs of his/her employees or the organisation

The Manipulator
The co-worker who attempts to influence your attitude or behaviour through deception or secrecy

The Clueless Colleague
A co-worker who is insensitive to his/her negative impact on the work environment

The faux-smart boss
The boss who has unrealistic confidence in his/her own ideas and skills, often accompanied by a lack of confidence in his/her employees

The Slacker
The co-worker whose poor performance damages your performance

The Bully
A colleague who uses unreasonable demands and inappropriate threats to get his/her way

Leading Strategic Change

Leading & Implementing Strategy

Strategy as…
…Tactics

Early 19th Century
Von Clausewitz
Man of War!
“In strategy the longest way round is often the shortest way there; a direct approach to the object exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, whereas an indirect approach loosens the defender’s hold by upsetting his balance.”
~500BC
Sun Tzu
The art of war
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”
“Defence is the stronger form of waging war”
Early 20th Century
Lidell Hart
The indirect approach

Strategy as…
…a plan
‘Strategy is the determination of the long-run goals and objectives of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resource necessary for carrying out these goals’ Alfred Chandler
Strategy as growth

Growth?

4

Strategy as…
…competition

“Competition existed long before strategy” Henderson, B. D. (1989), ‘The origin of strategy’, Harvard Business Review, 67, 6, pp. 139-143
1979 to date
Five Forces
Competitive advantage
Diamond
Competition of nations…

Strategy as…
…collaboration
“The goal of the hottest economic war, is an agreement for coexistence, not annihilation“
Henderson, B. D. 1967, ‘Brinkmanship in Business’, Harvard Business Review, 45, 2, pp. 49-55.

Strategy…
…from within

Henry Mintzberg
A pattern in a stream of decisions

“Letting the wrong people hang around is unfair to all the right people, as they inevitably find themselves compensating for the inadequacies of the wrong people. Worse, it can drive away the best people. Strong performers are intrinsically motivated by performance, and when they see their efforts impeded by carrying extra weight, they eventually become frustrated.”
Gary Hamel
(and C K Prahalad)
Core Competence
Jim Collins
Good to Great, 2001

The Hedgehog!

Stability? What stability?
Globalisation
Political directives
The digital world
Brexit
(Global) Leadership
The ageing (and work age declining) population
CHANGE!

Strategy as…
…vision

Collins and Porras, 1996
“Any convincing vision of future success must focus on (and be aggressive about) the market ‘outside’” Sir John Eldridge, chairman Edinburgh Airport, former Permanent Secretary Scottish Government

Case Study
Morphcostumes
21st Century fancy dress provider – why successful?
“We have three target customers: the lynx effect guy; the happy weekender; the mums: Pester Power” Gregor Lawson co-founder Morphcostumes

Strategy as…
…agility

Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?
Louis V. Gerstner Jr, 2002
“Vision allows flexibility – surround yourself with people who get that vision”
Forget Strategy. Get Results Michael Tobin, 2014

Any one fancy some structure?
The PCC of strategy:
Process
Context
Content

Approaches to Strategy (Process)
Planned Approach
strategy is formal; deliberate; historically involves the hierarchy; images of business plans on office shelves
Main protagonists – Alfred, Chandler, Michael Porter
Emergent Approach
Strategy comes from within the organisation; trial and error; implies the organisation learns what works in practice and adapts to suit; suggests that plans will fail and we cannot control the many variables
Main protagonist – Henry Mintzberg “pattern”

Middle Ground?
Strategic management generally involves incorporation of both approaches (planning and monitoring to enable adaptability); involvement of a range of people and the consideration of a range of factors (internal and external)

14

What is Strategic Management?
Strategic management requires the involvement of people to identify and implement an organisations strategy
Strategic management requires awareness, foresight, analysis and planning
Strategic management is about deciding:
Where we should compete
How we should compete
How we can implement
And then getting on with it!

What is Strategic Analysis?
Strategic analysis is where strategic management starts.
The starting point for a strategic analysis (or any analysis) is to understand the current position
i.e. answering the question where are we now?
The strategic management process is therefore about answering the following questions:
Where are we now?
Where do we want to be? (where and how compete)
How are we going to get (and stay) there? (implement and manage)

A
B
Strategy
Strategic Management
Where are we now?
Where do we want to be?
How are we going to get and stay there?
What is Strategic Management?

The Structured bit
Strategy Process
The how, who and when of strategy
How is strategy made, analysed, formulated, implemented, change, controlled?
Who is involved, when do activities take place?
This is usually sub-divided into:
Strategic Analysis
Strategic Formulation
Strategic Implementation

Strategic
Analysis
Strategic
Formulation
Strategy
Implementation

A model of strategy process JSW!
Environmental
analysis
Resources and
strategic capability
Planning and
allocating
resources
Organisation
structure
Managing strategic
change and culture
Identifying
options
Evaluating
options
Stakeholder
expectations
Selecting a
strategy

Problems with strategy as a process
Assumption that there is ‘one right way’ or that a recipe book of techniques will improve strategy.
Its difficult to know which strategy fits the best conditions.
There is little empirical evidence to suggest that strategists or the environment are critical to strategic success.
Sometimes it is the ‘unobservable’ or hidden aspects of strategy that lead to success.
The myriad of factors make it difficult to achieve systematic control.
Planning and execution of strategy may be divorced.
Values/people are important elements.
Rational models rely on the isolation of too few variables.
Oversimplification
SWOT is problematic (becomes a descriptive indicator rather than giving weight to relevant factors). Subjective, biased and arbitrary.
Mission statements have many rationales.
Stakeholder analysis is critical but this is a challenge.

The Structured bit
Strategy Content
What should be the strategy and which constituent units of the organisation should be included?
Usually delineated into levels of strategy

Operational strategy
Business level
strategy
Corporate
level
strategy
overall purpose and scope of an organisation and how to add value to different areas of the business (business units)
the way a business seeks to compete successfully in its particular market.
how different parts of the organisation deliver the strategy in terms of managing resources, processes and people.
Levels of Strategy

22

The Structured bit
Strategy Context
Where is the company contextualised and what are the environmental forces acting upon it?
Usually identified as:
Organisational
Industry
International
Based on the assumption that strategists can adapt the strategy process and strategy content to specific strategy contexts.

The new world of Strategy
It used to be:
Planners
Organisers
Staffers
Directors
Controllers
Reporters
Budgeteers
We now need:
Knowledge Managers
Ability to manage across boundaries (Stakeholder Management)
Networking/political skills
Lateral thinkers
Innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship
Continuous learning
Risk taking

Stakeholders
Any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the organisation’s corporate objectives
Freeman, 1984.
Stakeholder theory does not presume that managers of a service are the only rightful locus of corporate governance and control…
Managers are responsible for acknowledging the validity of diverse stakeholder interests and must attempt to respond to them within a mutually supportive framework. This is a moral requirement
Donaldson and Preston, 1995

Stakeholders – who are they?
There is academic debate on the exact nature of stakeholder relationships, but various writers have argued that:
Stakeholders should:
Have a legitimate claim on the organisation.
Have a formal contract
Have direct involvement and critical interest in core economic interest and survival
Be morally responsible to participate in decision making for fair distribution of harms and benefits
Be risk-bearers, commit capital (financial or human) and share loss or gain depending on performance
Have power to influence organisational performance

Satisfying Stakeholders

Stakeholder Mapping
Allows answers to the following questions:
Who are the stakeholders?
How can we prioritise them in terms of relative importance?
What are their expectations?
Do they share expectations?
Can we evaluate the expectation of one stakeholder against another?
Which stakeholders will frustrate strategic change?
How can we manage the stakeholder relationships to achieve the strategy?
CITIZENS/USERS/CUSTOMERS/COMMUNITIES?

Stakeholder mapping: the power/interest matrix
Adapted from A. Mendelow, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Systems, Cambridge, MA, 1986

29

Stakeholders
Who are this organisation’s stakeholders?
How powerful/interested are they/do they need to be?

Problems with Stakeholding
Stakeholder models are static
Time bound: changes over time
Weighting of relative importance of each one problematic
Informal aspects may be as important as formal aspects
Power and influence are different
External forces shape strategic change

Creating ORDER out of Chaos ( synthesising, bringing all activities together in a systematic way)
Adding value (playing to organisational strengths and minimising weaknesses.)
Distinctive competitive advantage (distinguishing the organisation from others)
Sustainability and continuous improvement (identifying the critical success factors for maintaining competitive edge)
Giving focus and direction (disparate functional elements drawn together for future success)
Facilitates innovative approach to new market opportunities.
Entrepreneurialism and creativity
Allows a critical evaluation of current state (situational analysis) and future direction (objective setting, mission statements, visioning)
Strategy is…

21st Century Strategy is …
Change
Vision
Leadership
Risk
And is reliant on:
Speed
Focus
Knowledge
People
Digitalisation
Sustainability

Strategic Leadership
“The task of leadership, as well as providing the framework, values and motivation of people, and allocation of financial and other resources, is to set the overall direction which enables choices to be made so that the efforts of the company can be focused.”
Sir John Harvey-Jones

34

Strategic Leadership
7 key responsibilities
Strategic Vision – Thinking, setting clear direction, committing resources to the achievement of its mission
Pragmatism – Making things happen, achieving results
Structure – For carrying out the strategy and ensuring change is possible. Structure must capture the abilities of the organisation
Culture – Predominantly dictated by the strategic leader and delivered through preferred style of leadership
Communication – Formal and informal routes to share vision and inform people of priorities and strategies to achieve results
Governance and management – location and exercise of power and responsibility at the head of the organisation
Managing Change – Ensuring the organisation changes as it needs to in order to be successful and remain competitive

Strategic Leadership Styles
No one recommended style for effective leadership.
Leaders should not attempt to do everything.
Strategic Leaders must know their own strengths and weaknesses.
Strategic Leaders must ensure teams are in place to DO the job!

Effective Strategic Leadership
Visionary – developing and implementing
Team development and management
Belief in success and able to exploited organizational strengths
Awareness (and use of) the environment
Effective decentralization
Credibility and competence
Perseverance, persistence and stamina
Getting things done
Flexibility

Ineffective Leadership
Coasting, arrogance, personal goals/interests/knowledge
Specifically:
Less innovation more tinkering.
Lack of new products and services.
The leader surrounds himself with loyal supporters, rather than fresh mindsets.
Discordant views are either ignored or not tolerated.
Cash reserves are allowed to accrue.
The leader becomes out of touch
Too much time is spent by the leader on external activities
Leadership must therefore be evaluated and be able to be changed

Leadership as a process
Until 1980s Transactional Leadership (authority relationship, maintaining stability etc.) was common
1980s economic shift saw the emergence of Transformational Leadership – consideration of the perceptions/needs of staff as to what they seek in a leader.
‘Transformational Leaders’ who have vision/mission of the organisation and where it should be headed and the ability to communicate and sell that vision to staff and empower them to make the vision a reality.

Leading Change
Leading change is really about leading people
Kotter suggests there has been greater emphasis on change management rather than change leadership
Successful transformation is 70-90% leadership & 10-30% management
The use of power can promote high failure rate risks

40

The Emergent approach to change
‘Change cannot and should not be solidified, or seen as a series of linear events within a given period of time; instead, it is viewed as a continuous process’ (Burnes, 2000)
Emergent approach views change process as unfolding through the interplay of multiple variables (context, political processes and consultation)
Stresses developing an unpredictable nature of change
Change as a continuous process of adaptation and experimentation
More analytical and less prescriptive
Culture of adaptation and learning

41

Problems with the Emergent approach
Not all organisations exist in turbulence all the time
Idealised linkage between learning culture and change
To what extent does organisational learning exist?
Can managers take on this role?

42

McKinsey 7-S framework
Source: R. Waterman, T. Peters and J. Phillips, ‘Structure is not organization’, Business Horizons, June 1980, pp. 14–26: p. 18
Successful strategy
is coherent strategy

Leading Strategic Change

New Approaches to Leadership

Character, Confidence, Common Sense & Trust

What is Character?
From a Greek word “Kharakter” meaning a chisel or marking instrument for metal or stone
the ​particular ​combination of ​qualities in a ​person or ​place that makes them different from ​others (Oxford online dictionary)
the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”—Malcolm S. Forbes.

2
2

What is Character?
Who we are
What we believe in
What we stand for
How we propose to behave
How do you describe / explain something that is not tangible like character?
Are we born with particular character traits or do we learn them?

3
3

Six Universal Virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004)

Character

Wisdom – cognitive strengths (creativity, curiosity, judgment. Love of learning, perspective)

Courage – Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition (bravery, perseverance, honesty, zest)

Humanity – Interpersonal strengths that involve tending and befriending others (love, kindness, social intelligence)

Justice – Civic strengths that underlie healthy community life (teamwork, fairness, leadership)

Temperance – strengths that protect against excess (forgiveness, humility, prudence, self-regulation)

Transcendence – strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning (appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humour, spirituality)

Can we learn character?
By practicing virtuous acts we can develop character (Arjoon, 2000)
By sharing our interests and goals with others we can develop social virtues such as temperance, generosity and friendliness (Horvath, 1995; Solomon, 1992)
Teaching strategies such as role plays, collaborative learning, service learning, self-reflection can affect moral awareness and moral reasoning (Comer & Vega, 2008)
Character can be learned through direct experience of the environment alone providing both desirable and undesirable results (Ghoshal, 2005)

Can we learn character?
Some research:
Krishnan (2008) found that there was an increase in self-oriented values (e.g. living a comfortable life and pleasure) but a decrease in other values such as being helpful and polite after 2 years on an MBA programme
Murnighan (2011) found that increased exposure to economics courses was positively related to attitudes towards greed and one’s own greedy behaviour

Can we learn character?
Character strengths are not consistent – they change according to the situation (Zimbardo, 2008)
Even virtuous people might behave in an uncharacteristically unvirtuous manner (Doris, 2002)
Not everyone is equally teachable:
No ethics course will much affect a student who, after careful consideration, believes that the one who dies with the most toys wins in the zero sum game that is business and that s/he wants to be such a person. Nor can we do a great deal for people incapable of developing any skill in dealing with complex situations, or those incapable of doing anything other than what nearly everyone else is doing. (Hartman, 2006: 69)

So what is self-confidence?
“a personal judgement based on our perceptions of our capabilities to execute or perform specific task challenge in a specific context”
(Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004)
“a core belief in yourself and your abilities”
(Stoner & Stoner, 2013)

https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oCP_wk1TA

Self confidence

Self esteem

Overall emotional evaluation of his/her worth

Internal locus of control

The extent to which individuals believe they have control over events affecting them

Low neuroticism

Anxiety

Guilt

Anger

Envy

High Self-confidence
Satisfaction
Effectiveness
High motivation
Hard working
Ambitious goals
Deal with adversity
Low Self-confidence
Timidity
Low assertiveness
Reluctance to act
Self doubt
Self-questioning

Emerging leaders
Most people are not confident all of the time in all situations

Technical skill
Experience
V

Psychological capital
Have confidence to take on challenging tasks (self-efficacy)
Positive attribution (optimism)
Persevere (hope)
Bounce back (resilience)

The Dark Side of Confidence
Can you be overconfident?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_
EaJMr26F5w
“In preparing for challenging endeavours, some self-doubt about one’s performance efficacy provides incentives to acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to master the challenges” (Bandura & Locke, 2003)
The biggest problems can come not from what we don’t know to what we think we know.

What is common sense?
No single quantifiable measurement that could tell us how to define the term; however –
“good sense and sound judgement in practical matters” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2008)

15

Shared sense making
Common sense:
Unites underlying presuppositions about the environment (Goodwin, 2009)
Consists of a group of shared opinions about the environment (Goodwin, 2009)
Is a shared “way of thinking” about the environment (Fletcher, 1984)

Making sense – Making meaning
Meaning-making makes sense of an action by placing it within some larger frame, and this frame is seen by the person who makes sense as the way the world is and thus guides the person in his or her way of being in the world
“The process of using meaning-making structures to construct knowledge about experience so that one is able to interpret, anticipate, and plan”
(Drath & Palus, 1994)

17

Practical Intelligence
Allows people:
To make reasonable assumptions and weigh different courses of action.
To hold reality-based expectations and to make sensible, practical, and responsible decisions.
To take practical corrective action when things go wrong (Gerber, 2000; Schragis and Frishman, 2006; Stewart, 1996)

Intulogical Thinking

Gut feeling, innate ability, just knowing, learning from mistakes, cognitive abilities, personal attributes, streetwise, being practical, confidence, self-motivated

19

Webber, Goussak & Ser (2012)

20

Webber, Goussak & Ser (2012)

21

Developing Common Sense
Initiate conversations by focusing on experiences and framing the experiences from a positive rather than negative perspective
Create an environment of asking questions and identifying purpose
Develop external as well as internal interpersonal dynamics.
Provide opportunities to blend intuition and logical thinking.
Create sensitivity to optimistic amplification

Experienced Based Learning

23
Assess
Understand
Clarify
Discover
Build

Skills in:
EI
Communication
Story Telling
Decision making
Negotiation

Develop
Refine
Equip

Yang (2011)

24

Wise words

25

Trust

Some definitions
“A generalised expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, oral or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon”
(Rotter, 1967)
“A calculated decision to cooperate with specific others”
(Gambetta, 1988)
“belief in a person’s competence to perform a specific task under specific circumstances”
(Sitkin & Roth, 1993)
“a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another”
(Rousseau et al., 1998)

Why does it matter?
“Researchers and practioners continue to recognise trust as an important factor in determining organisational success, organisational stability and the well-being of employees” (Zeffane/Connell, 2003:1)
“Trust has many positive benefits to relationships in that it can reduce conflict, promote team working, and provide confidence when dealing with issues” (Sundaramurthy, 2008:94)

Dirks and Ferrin’s (2002)

Leader actions & practices

Do they do what they say they will do and when they said they would do it?

Attributes of the follower

Follower styles

Leader-follower relationship

Social interaction

Why are they following the leader?

Both individuals have significant influence on the relationship and development of trust

Skills, attributes, competencies

Loyalty, consistency?

Is trust a solo act?

A processual perspective on leadership interaction
Social interaction
“The reciprocal influence of persons taking each other into account as they act”
(Stryker & Vyran, 2003)
Difficult to determine the outcome of those social interactions so we need to develop expectations about the behaviours of others and ourselves

Elements of trust
Trustees – the party to be trusted
Trustors – the trusting party
Calculus based trust – rational choice exchange model
Relational trust – we have a long standing relationship so I trust you

Chart1

46
25
29

Webber, Goussak & Ser (2012)

Sheet1

Webber, Goussak & Ser (2012)
Decision Making 46
Goal Setting 25
Motivation 29

Chart1

10
7
8
10
14
12
9

Leadership Identification Groupings

Sheet1

Leadership Identification Groupings
Recognition 10
Back to basics 7
Principle Driven 8
Internal vs External 10
Right/Best Interests 14
Employee Focus 12
Right Environment 9

Chart1

25
25
25
25

Wisdom

Sheet1

Wisdom
Qualities 25
Ego Strength 25
High level reasoning 25
Accomplishment 25

About Personal Reflection

“Reflection involves looking back and analysing past events and experiences. This enables those experiences to be then placed within the context of what is happening in the present and what may happen in the future.” (Hooker, 2010:p25)

Developing your ability to reflect is an important skill in a way to increasing your self-awareness. Reflection is:

· An important source of continuous personal and professional improvement

· A way to learn from your own professional and personal experiences

· A way of bringing together things you learn and applying it practically in your work or personal life

To think reflectively you have to:

· Experience something

· Think about what happened

· Learn from your experience

Personal reflection can really drive you professional development and self-improvement by opening you to new ideas, solutions and different ways of working. It does require you to be very honest about yourself, time and commitment. Coaching can help to support you whilst enhancing your development journey.

Reflective Practice Processes

You might find the following reflective practice processes useful:

· Thinking about what, why and how you do things
· Thinking about what, why and how others do things
· Asking “so what…..?”
· Asking “what if….?”
· What did I learn? How? How will this help me?
· What worked well for me? Why?
· What didn’t work so well? Why?
· Have I achieved anything? What? If not why not?
· How can I use new skills and knowledge to improve….?
· Consider the reaction from others, ask them for their feedback

· Seeking alternatives to your usual practice and trying something new / different
· Asking for others’ ideas and viewpoints
· Comparing and contrasting
· Be honest with yourself
· Keeping an open mind
· Identifying and resolving problems
· Consider potential consequences
· Consider the potential impacts. What would happen if I did…..? What could have happened if I tried…… instead?
· Consider your practice from another person’s / independent perspective how would I feel if…..

An approach that you may want to try

Experience Something

Example: – I arrive at work to find another colleagues task on my desk to complete urgently as they have not done it and do not have the time today

Think about what happened

What did you experience/say or do?

How did you respond/behave?

What emotions and feelings did you have at the time?

How did others react? E.g. the person you spoke to
Example: – Anger, why me? Why do I need to complete this task just because someone else has been lazy?
Example: my colleague complained about me, they were upset and other staff joined in and made it worse
Example: frustration, anger, I feel let down by my colleague, taken advantage of
Example: I told the person to their face that they were lazy and I was not happy, I also vented to the whole team

So what

What will I do differently next time?

What do I need to change?

Example: – I will not vent to the group and will take the person to one side and have an adult to adult conversation. Or discuss with my line manager
Example: – I will stop and take a deep breath, thinking before I speak.

Example: – I won’t feel angry and taken advantage of; they will either do the job or ask me to help, talking about the best way to get it done.
How will I know I have changed and what have a noticed that is better, different or worse?

A model of reflective practice – Gibbs

Description
What happened?

Feelings
What were you thinking and feeling at the time/

Evaluation
What was good and bad about this experience?

Analysis
What sense can you make of the experience

Conclusion
What else could you have done?

Action plan
What would you do different next time? What do you need to change to stop it happening again?

Reflectionand Reflective Practice

Jeanette Sumler-Hutchinson

Session content:
Reflection and reflective practice
Reflective frameworks
Learning journals
Reflective writing

Why the emphasis on reflection?
“Reflective skills are widely regarded as a means of improving students’ lifelong learning and professional practice in higher education” (Rogers 2001)

Reflection
In pairs consider the following questions:
What is reflection?
What is reflective practice?
What is the relationship between reflection and action?
What are the benefits of becoming a reflective practitioner?
What are the challenges/difficulties of becoming a reflective practitioner?

So why bother?
An intellectualisation of experience
An active process of thinking and learning from that thinking
Links thinking to prior practice and learning based on your experience
Become more conscious of your responses to situations/experiences
Broadens your perspectives to create a change in behaviour
The goal is to develop higher order skills

So, you have had exposure of a variety of Leadership styles and theories within the modules and in life. You will
undoubtedly have had experience in some context of being a leader and/or being lead.
The speakers at the Conference showed different styles of leadership as did each of you in the way you engaged
with each other and the challenges. Use all of this information to inform your thinking.

Your Leadership Line….

How do I get started with reflection?
There are a number of reflective frameworks you can use as a template:
Kolb’s (1984) Experiential learning Cycle
Rolfe’s (2001) Reflective Framework
Gibbs (1998) Reflective framework

KOLB (1984)
DOING
THINKING BACK
LEARNING
CHANGE TRY SOMETHING NEW

9

Rolfe (2001)
What worked well and why? Description of the experience
So What didn’t work well and why not?
Critical and evaluative analysis
Now What will I do the same and what will I do differently to improve performance?
Taking positive action

10

Gibbs (1998)

Greatest difference with Gibb’s model is that it relies on emotional honesty and integrity.

Self explanatory, but students can find out more after our session through this link.
11

Challenges of becoming a reflective practitioner
Some people find reflection difficult – it may not be their ‘preferred learning style’
It takes practice!
You need to learn how to reflect e.g. using a reflective framework
It involves being critical of ourselves
It involves allowing others (peers, tutors, colleagues, mentors) to be critical of us

Activity 2
Let’s have a go – (remember to be honest with yourself)
Think of your experience at the Conference and using Rolfe’s framework for reflection use the template provided to reflect on that experience.
Discuss your reflection with a partner– are there any similarities?

Reflective writing quiz… (True or False?)
.. is straight forward description
..has a conclusion
..can include descriptive elements
..is instruction or argument in a report or essay
..is writing about a straight-forward decision e.g. whether something is right or wrong, good or bad etc
..involves critical writing, questioning viewpoints, examining reasons
.. is about simple problem solving like recalling how to get to the nearest station
..is a process through which people develop or change their opinions and/or behaviours
..involves expressing ideas, feelings and behaviours
..enables you to learn something new or reflect more with further input
False
False
False
False
True
True
True
True
True
True

14

Reflective learning journals
Keep a ‘learning journal’ on a weekly basis – use any reflective framework
Reflect on learning activities (group & individual) you undertake during modules and life experiences
Remember the reflection is personal so you can use the first person ‘I’
Consider knowledge you have gained, competencies you have acquired or strengthened while undertaking activities, tasks and discussions
Consider also anything you didn’t understand, theories, concepts or tasks you found difficult and why?
Use the language of reflection outlined in the reflective writing help guide

Questions to get you started
1. What happened?
2. How did you (and others involved) feel?
3. What can you learn from it?
4. What changes need to be made?
5. How can you make those changes
6. How can you develop?
7. What is the impact of what you have learnt?

And finally…

I
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

Plan a 2025
CommItments

01
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

WHat CUstomeRs

HaVe tolD Us

Customers now define themselves
more in terms of attitude than age.
We can help them get the most out

of life, no matter how young or
old they are.

They want more meaningful
connections with other people and

with the world around them.

They want us to make it easier
for them to do the right thing

and make a difference.

They’re increasingly aware of injustice,
particularly at a local level and

these issues are the ones customers
also feel empowered to tackle.

They expect that businesses will be
highly scrutinised to ensure they do
the right thing – but also hope that

retailers will use their power to
promote wider changes for

good in society.

Our customers value quality
– they really care about how

products are made.

WE’VE ALREADY HELPED TO REDEFINE THE ROLE OF BUSINESS IN SOCIETY.
We started our Plan A journey ten years ago. Since then we have substantially
improved our social and environmental performance, whilst also saving more
than £750 million in costs and winning more than 240 awards.

We’ve done this by setting bold goals and integrating Plan A deep into our
business processes, whilst simultaneously ensuring strong governance and
independent assurance. We’ve built partnerships with communities, councils,
charities, NGOs and businesses (including our competitors) to collectively solve
problems and scale-up solutions. We’ve also begun to understand just how
different M&S will need to be in the future to continue satisfying our customers’
evolving needs and to become a truly sustainable business.

But if there’s one lesson we’ve learnt above all others, it’s the importance of
humility. Even though we’ve completed 296 individual commitments, we’ve
learnt just as much from the 21 commitments we’ve failed to deliver. We’ve
started a journey to build a sustainable business, but we are still a long way from
completing it. This sense of restlessness inspired us to update Plan A in 2010
and again in 2014.

NOW WE’RE PUSHINg FORWARD AgAIN
Now we’re rebooting Plan A again – restating our ambition to lead and adding
even greater urgency. The past ten years have shown us that change is possible
and we’re optimistic that change can deliver better outcomes for customers,
communities and the planet. Our update to Plan A is driven by two basic
dynamics: first, the sheer scale of the global socio-economic and environmental
challenges confronting us all; second, the speed at which our customers’ lives
are changing.

WE’VE FOCUSED ON ALL THE BIg SOCIAL AND ENVIRONmENTAL ISSUES
The world is warming faster than we imagined even a few years ago. The pressure
on oceans (plastic pollution and depletion of fish stocks) is increasing. Corporate
performance on human rights and related issues such as modern slavery is
under closer scrutiny. People are demanding greater transparency about
where and how we source products. The Paris Climate Agreement and UN’s
17 Sustainable Development Goals challenge government and business to
imagine a very different future. And a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ is sparking
unprecedented technological innovation, which could become an incredible
force for good, but could also present new challenges for society and the planet.

INTRODUCTION
Our customers’ world is changing fast. They are living through a period
of great political, social and technological disruption. They’re looking for
organisations they can trust to offer leadership, now and in the future.

Marks & Spencer has been at the forefront of social change for 133 years, and
we’re determined to play a leading role in the years ahead: helping to build

a sustainable future by being a business that enables our customers to have a
positive impact on wellbeing, communities and the planet, through all that we do.

an ambItIoUs CUstomeR foCUseD sUstaInabIlIty Plan

02
PLAN A COMMITMENTS 2025

We must thank our external Plan A Advisory Board, chaired by
Jonathon Porritt in helping us understand this rapidly changing
world. The collective wisdom of Forum for the Future, Business
for Social Responsibility, Oxfam, WWF and the Wellcome Trust has
been enormously helpful as we’ve addressed these changes and
developed Plan A 2025.

The scale of this change is so significant that iterative improvements
are no longer enough. Business needs to find a new way to satisfy
customer needs, one that is good for the individual but also equally
good for the planet and communities too.

WE’VE LISTENED CLOSELY TO OUR CUSTOmERS
Our customers’ lives are changing too. And as always, we must keep
pace with their needs and expectations.

We’ve sought the views of more than 750,000 customers and in
particular, their attitudes, hopes and fears for the future,
to help inform our new strategy.

We believe our customers and society more broadly do care about
the future. But most people feel that the issues facing our planet
are too big, too distant and too difficult for them to influence
personally. They expect big business, government, NGOs and
other organisations to tackle these issues on their behalf.

We believe there is an untapped need in society for businesses to
do more than merely re-assure in a distant paternalistic way.
We believe there is a desire amongst people for a very different
approach to business. Trust is becoming one of the most important
building blocks of a successful business. It is no longer enough for
a company to hope or assume it is trusted, it must offer society a
clear, measurable ‘social dividend’ to earn and retain people’s trust.

If we don’t fulfil this need for a more purposeful approach to
business, we run the risk of losing our customers’ confidence,
of declining relevance in a rapidly changing marketplace, and
of failing to develop new sustainable products and services.

Plan A 2025 is integral to the M&S brand and our promise to our
customers – to make every moment special. We recognise that no
M&S product or service can ever be ‘special’ unless it embodies our
unswerving commitment to have a positive impact on wellbeing,
communities and the planet.

I believe the targets set out in Plan A 2025 will enable us to meet
the future demands of our customers. It sets bold social and
environmental goals, crucially complemented by a desire to
engage all our customers, colleagues, suppliers and business
partners in our sustainability journey. It’s our plan for the future.
A future in which a truly sustainable M&S can, in partnership with
our customers and other stakeholders, have a positive impact in
all that it does.

steVe RoWe ChIEF ExECUTIvE OFFICER

03
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

WE LISTENED TO OUR STAkEHOLDERS
Changing customer needs and expectations have helped to define
Plan A 2025, but the plan is also informed by the insights of many
other stakeholders.

We commissioned GlobeScan to ask stakeholders how they
expected retail to evolve and about their expectations of M&S.
We received more than 300 responses to our global survey, which
we shared widely across M&S. Our Sustainable Retail Advisory
Board then helped us to shape Plan A 2025, providing guidance
throughout its 12-month development period.

WHAT’S DIFFERENT ABOUT PLAN A 2025?
We have achieved a lot with Plan A over the last ten years but we
need to accelerate our work in our own operations, supply chains
and with our customers too. Even for a plan as ambitious as Plan A
it’s clear that ‘steady as she goes’ is not enough given the scale of
wellbeing, community and planetary challenges we face. Nor is it
enough to race ahead alone, we’ll fail if the rest of the business
community and the policy ecosystem within which it operates
does not change too, so we have to continue to build bigger and
bolder partnerships to affect collective change.

So more ambition, more pace and more scale all define Plan A
2025. What does not change is our determination to be the
retail leader globally in sustainable business.

having listened to our stakeholders and reviewed the most recent
scientific insights we have made several very important changes
with Plan A 2025. In particular, by 2025 we want:

1. to be the world’s leading retailer on engaging and
supporting customers in sustainable living
Our customers want us to help them live more sustainably and
we’ve made good progress over the last ten years, for example
via Shwopping, our clothes recycling campaign, through our
charity partnerships with Breast Cancer Now and Macmillan
Cancer Support, and by growing our healthy food ranges.
however, there is much more we can do and Plan A 2025 will
see us fully integrate sustainability into our brand and deliver a
step change in the way we engage and support our customers.
This will be achieved through new products and services,
through even stronger community partnerships, and by
providing advice and incentives on areas such as healthy living.
We have set bold targets, such as 50% of our food sales coming
from healthier products by 2023, and we will work with the 5.7m
members of our Sparks club to incentivise them to make more
sustainable choices.

2. to help 10 million people live happier and healthier lives
We have worked hard on many aspects of wellbeing in the last
decade, but now we are bringing this work together so we can
offer our customers and colleagues one integrated package

of support. We will extend the work we’ve done on our food
products to our clothing, home and beauty offers too. We
will have a particular focus on addressing issues of mental
wellbeing, ensuring people are connected and happy as well
as physically healthier. We will also work hard to ensure we
support our customers and colleagues with cancer, heart
disease, dementia and mental health issues.

3. to help transform 1000 Communities
We have a long tradition of our stores, offices and warehouses
supporting their neighbouring community. In Plan A 2025 we are
going to bring together these many individual activities to ensure
that our stores are able to help play a transformative role in the
communities we serve, many of which face enormous challenges.
Starting in 10 communities (Birmingham, Bradford, Derry~
Londonderry, Glasgow, London Borough of Newham, Liverpool,
Merthyr Tydfil, Middlesbrough, Norwich, Rochdale) we are going
to undertake a range of activities to identify how our stores
and people can make a positive and measureable difference
to their neighbourhood. We’ll rollout this approach to a further
100 communities by 2023 and then share any transformative
learning with the other 1000 communities we serve.

4. to champion Human Rights by taking a lead on addressing
in-work poverty, modern day slavery and an inclusive society
Plan A 2025 sees a decisive step change on social issues. We
have worked hard to manage ethical compliance over the last
decade, but now we’re setting more aspirational goals to respect
and positively impact individual human rights in all that we do.
Over the past twelve months we’ve improved our approach to
human rights significantly, culminating in the recent Corporate
human Rights Benchmark scoring us as the best apparel and
food business. Now we want to build on this position through
an important new collaboration with Oxfam and by taking a lead
on tackling issues such as in-work poverty and the living wage,
modern day slavery and social inclusion.

5. to ensure 100% of our products address 100% of their
material social and environmental impacts
We have an existing commitment that every one of the 3 billion
food, clothing, home and beauty products we sell every year
has at least one Plan A attribute by 2020. An attribute being, for
example, Fairtrade certified tea or coffee or FSC certified timber
in furniture. We believe it’s vital that Plan A should apply to
everything we sell and not be a niche ‘ethical range’ in the corner
of a store. Today, 79% of our products have a Plan A attribute –
putting us well on the way to our 2020 goal. however, we are now
extending this commitment so that by 2025 every one of our
products will have Plan A attributes that address every single
one of its material social and environmental impacts. For
example, covering the key raw materials, factory, use and
disposal stages in a product’s lifecycle. This will put all our
products well on the path to being truly sustainable.

OveRvIew
an ambItIoUs CUstomeR foCUseD sUstaInabIlIty Plan

Ten years ago, we launched Plan A. We made 100 commitments to tackle
five big issues – climate change, waste, resources, fair partnerships, and health.

These issues are still as relevant as ever. They’re the beating heart of Plan A.
Plan A 2025 strengthens our commitment to address these issues with 100 bold

new targets. Crucially, it forces us to address questions to which we don’t yet
have answers, but must address if we are to become a truly sustainable retailer.

04
PLAN A COMMITMENTS 2025

6. to ensure 100% of factories are on a sustainability ladder
with 50% of our products coming from the very highest
Gold standard
Currently, every factory that supplies M&S food is on a
Bronze/Silver/Gold sustainability ladder to drive measurable
improvements in its social and environmental performance.
For example, Silver factories need to have reduced energy
use by 20% and regularly use a staff survey to improve staff
satisfaction. We’ve previously had a goal that by 2020 100% of
the food we sell should come from Silver rated factories and
have made good progress with 56% now validated as Silver, 70%
of supplier sites sending zero waste to landfill and 54% having
reduced their water and energy use per tonne of production in
the last 12 months. Now we are upping our target for food
suppliers to 50% of the food we sell coming from Gold ranked
factories by 2025, with 95% of the remainder achieving Silver
standards (note, there are always new factories joining our supply
chain and some will need time to progress to Silver then Gold
standards). Crucially, we are now making the same commitment
for factories producing our clothing, home and beauty products
as well as factories and suppliers to our Property Division. By
2025, every factory producing products for us will be systemically
improving its environmental and ethical performance.

7. to ensure our 50 key raw materials (80% by volume
of what we use) come from a sustainable source
Many of the raw materials we use today come from more
sustainable sources. For example, 100% of the coffee and tea we
sell, 99% of the wood, 100% of the fish and 47% of the cotton.
With Plan A 2025 we are extending our commitment to a much
greater range of the raw materials we use. We are setting a goal
that 100% of the key raw materials we sell will come from sources
respecting people, communities, planet and animal welfare.
These key raw materials will represent at least 80% by volume of
the raw materials used in our business. As a retailer selling 35,000
unique product lines we use thousands of different raw materials
but a few dominate. For example, in our food supply chain, 40
key raw materials make up more than 80% of the raw materials
we use. So it’s important we focus on the raw materials where we
have the scale to make a real difference. Raw materials we will be
addressing include sugar, cocoa, fruit, vegetables, cotton, wool
and leather.

8. to set a science-based target to accelerate our shift
to a low carbon business
In 2007, when we launched Plan A we had 29 targets to tackle
climate change. Since then we’ve led the way in becoming more
efficient, reducing our absolute operational carbon footprint
by 70% and making our global operations carbon neutral to
accelerate climate action. The new plan includes a bold new
(approved) science-based target to further improve the
efficiency of our own operations as well as cutting 13.3m tonnes
of CO

2
e from our wider value chain. We will also continue to

invest in carbon offsets for our own operations to in order to
remain carbon neutral.

9. to be a circular business generating zero waste
Since 2012, we have been zero waste to landfill across our own
operations in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Plan A 2025 sets
a bold new goal to be a zero waste business across all that we do
– our operations, our supply chains and of course when our
customers come to remove packaging and use our products.
This includes designing our products and packaging to underpin
the creation of a circular economy in the markets we serve.

10. to be a leader on transparency
Over the past 12 months we have published digital transparency
maps identifying all the factories that produce food, clothing,
home and beauty products for us. With Plan A 2025, we’ll add
information on the raw material sources we use and also
translate this into ‘on product’ information to help guide our
customers’ decision making.

This is just a snapshot of the key changes we’ll be making and
importantly, we will be rolling them out across our franchise
partners to encourage and support them to make progress.

We are very clear that with Plan A 2025 we want to set a course to
being a truly sustainable business – one that is low carbon, circular,
restorative, committed to wellbeing, equality and fairness in all
that it does.

WHat stakeHolDeRs HaVe tolD Us

m&S can play a bigger role in enabling
more sustainable, healthy lifestyles.

Plan A 2025 must focus on our customers and
be integrated into the brand purpose.

There are big opportunities to be explored
in the circular and sharing economies.

We must continue to focus on incorporating
sustainability in our supply chain. key issues
include living wage, conserving water and

improving communities. We should also focus
on more sustainable packaging.

We should use our significant physical retail
presence to play a greater role in connecting

initiatives at a local level.

We should increase collaborations, partnerships and
advocacy to ensure the m&S voice is heard more clearly.

We’re expected to be transparent and are encouraged
to talk even more frankly about the challenges

we face and our failures.

Plan A 2025 must set a consistent direction of travel –
towards becoming a truly sustainable retailer for

example – but will also need to evolve in response
to a changing world.

Responsible companies should develop social and
environmental targets that support the overall aims

of the UN Sustainable Development goals.

05
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

tHe 3 PIllaRs of Plan a 2025

HeaDlIne Plan a 2025 taRGets

• By 2019, we’ll incentivise and reward our
customers for making healthier choices.

• By 2022, 50% of our global Food sales
will come from healthier products.

• By December 2018, M&S single serve
portion sizes of snacks, confectionery
and ice cream will contain no more
than 250 calories.

• Between 2017 and 2025, we’ll help to
make a positive difference to people
who are affected by either cancer,
heart disease, mental health,
loneliness or dementia by helping to
raise £25m for charities that support
these causes.

• By 2022, we’ll enable our M&S
colleagues worldwide to complete
a health risk assessment, including
health checks, where appropriate. 
We’ll use this data to tailor our
interventions/advice and report
annually on progress.

• By 2020, in ten locations we will have
completed programmes that aim to
secure meaningful economic, social
and environmental benefits in the
communities around our stores and
beyond. We’ll build on our insights and
roll out programmes in 100 further
locations in the UK and internationally
by 2023, then share our learnings with
1,000 locations by 2025.

• By 2025, 50% of our full line M&S
operated stores and offices in the
UK will have space available for
community groups, charities and
local interest groups to use.

• Between 2017 and 2025, we’ll support
M&S colleagues worldwide to provide
one million hours of work-time
community volunteering.

• By 2025, we want all edible surplus
food from M&S stores, key franchises
and direct Foods suppliers worldwide
to be diverted for human consumption.

• We’ll enter into a new collaboration
with Oxfam over 3 years focusing on
the UK and India to develop a deeper
understanding of the connection
between our sourcing practices and
our human rights impacts. Oxfam will
report the findings independently,
whilst M&S will develop a programme
of actions and report annually on our
progress from 2018.

• Between 2017 and 2025, our Global
Community Programme will benefit
one million people in our supply chain
communities by working in partnership
with others to help build livelihoods,
protect the environment and improve
wellbeing focusing on our areas of
biggest human rights and
environmental impact.

• By 2020, 100% of M&S products will have
at least one Plan A attribute and by
2025 every product will have attributes
which address all priority social, ethical
and environmental impacts.

• By 2022, all M&S product packaging
in the UK that could end up with our
customers will be not only ‘recyclable’,
but ‘widely recycled’. To achieve this,
we will actively collaborate with others
to bring about changes in local
government recycling policy. By 2022,
we will also assess the feasibility of
making all M&S plastic packaging from
one polymer group, which will help
maximise the use of recycled content.

• By 2025, the 50 key raw materials used
for M&S products will come from
sources verified as respecting the
integrity of ecosystems, the welfare of
animals and the wellbeing of people and
communities. This will cover over 80%
of M&S raw material usage by volume.

• By 2025, we’ll halve net food waste
relative to sales from M&S operated
and franchised locations worldwide
against a newly established baseline.

• By 2030, in line with climate science,
we aim to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from M&S operations
worldwide by 80% compared to
2006/07, on route to a 90% reduction
by 2035.

• By 2030, in line with climate science,
we’ll reduce our indirect greenhouse
gas emissions from upstream and
downstream sources by at least
13.3 million tonnes.

noURIsHInG oUR WellbeInG

We believe that taking care of ourselves is the
first step to helping the people around us.

our goal is to help 10 million people live
happier, healthier lives.

tRansfoRmInG lIVes anD CommUnItIes

We believe we can achieve more together
than we can on our own.

our goal is to help transform
1000 communities.

CaRInG foR tHe Planet We all sHaRe

We believe that we should leave the planet
better than we found it.

our goal is to become
a zero waste business.

06
PLAN A COMMITMENTS 2025

07
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

NOURIshINg OUR
wellbeINg

The world faces a growing wellbeing challenge including an ageing population,
obesity and mental illness. Pressure is growing on traditional national and

local government healthcare systems to deal with the scale, cost and
complexity involved in meeting these challenges.

PIllaR 1

We believe we can inspire our customers
to be the best they can be and play
a role in helping society tackle the
wellbeing challenge.

During the first ten years of Plan A, we’ve
done a lot to address physical health –
in particular, diet and nutrition through
our food products. In ‘Count on Us’ and
‘Balanced for You’ we have the two biggest
healthy food brands in the UK. We’ve
introduced a range of nutrient-enriched
products and successfully promoted our
Eat Well range of products. Our long
established partnerships with Breast
Cancer Now and Macmillan Cancer
Support are well supported by our
customers and colleagues.

WE CAN DO mORE TO
NOURISH WELLNESS
Work done by the New Economics
Foundation, identifies five ways to achieve
personal wellbeing (Connect, Be Active,
Keep Learning, Take Notice and Give)
and highlights the opportunity that
customer-facing brands and retailers
have to support wellbeing.

We can do a lot to support wellbeing
through our products – and not just food,
but also clothing, home and beauty. We are
aiming to offer the healthiest food
products, with a goal of 50% of
our food sales to come from
healthier products,

supported by rewards for customers for
purchasing them. We will make sure the
healthy option is the delicious, easy to find
one too. We will also offer food products
tailored to specific health conditions.

We will always offer our customers choice
and this will include indulgent food too –
we all like a treat every now and then, but
we’ll do it against a backdrop of increasing
support and insight for individuals on the
implications of these choices.

We see opportunities in clothing, home and
beauty products to inspire customers to
be more physically active and spend time
outdoors in the natural environment.

We know our customers and colleagues
want support as well as products and
services that can enhance wellness. So,
we’ll offer them the best advice and
wellness tools available – and go the extra
mile to support them when they or their
loved ones are facing life-changing
illnesses such as cancer or dementia.

We’ll also take a lead in improving mental
wellbeing. It’s well established that taking
care of others is one of the best ways to

improve one’s own wellness, so we’ll inspire
colleagues and customers to get involved
in volunteering, with a particular emphasis
on facilitating social connections.

At the heart of all of our work will be a
commitment to help colleagues embrace
wellbeing themselves and support our
customers by becoming wellbeing
ambassadors. We know from listening to
colleagues and suppliers that we need to
widen our definition of wellbeing beyond
the physical and take into account mental,
emotional and financial factors. We also
need to find ways to support an
increasingly diverse, and in some areas,
ageing workforce. We will also have a
careful, more data-driven approach to
colleague wellbeing. And we won’t stop
with our own employees: we’ll reach out
to support our suppliers, encouraging
them to bring the same commitment
to approximately two million people
participating in our supply chains around
the world.

WE’LL WORk IN PARTNERSHIP
TO CHAmPION WELLNESS
To achieve our wellness commitments,
we’ll build on longstanding partnerships
with organisations including Breast Cancer

Now and Macmillan Cancer Support.
We’ll also build new relationships

with other organisations.

08
PLAN A COMMITMENTS 2025

NOURISHINg OUR WELLBEINg COmmITmENTS

1.1 We’ll provide our customers with industry-leading products and services to help them live more healthily

• By 2019, our indulgent M&S food categories will have 20% fewer calories, saturated fat and added sugar in total compared to 2017.

• By December 2018, M&S single serve portion sizes of snacks, confectionery and ice cream will contain no more than 250 calories.

• By 2022, 50% of our global Food sales will come from healthier products.

• By 2020, we’ll have grown a comprehensive range of vegetable-based protein convenient meal solutions and components for cooking.

• By 2020, we’ll rationalise our number of Health Brands and simplify our on pack messages in order to maintain M&S Foods being the
destination of choice for healthy food for our customers as shown by the overall results from nutritional benchmarking, number of
healthy products within a category and market trends analysis.

• By 2025, 20% of all M&S clothing will have a special Plan A health or wellbeing attribute (e.g. SkinKind™ accessories and specialist/
adapted clothing).

• By 2019, we’ll incentivise and reward our customers for making healthier choices.

1.2 We’ll offer the very best wellbeing knowledge and support

• Between 2017 and 2025, we’ll help to make a positive difference to people who are affected by either cancer, heart disease, mental health,
loneliness or dementia by helping to raise £25m for charities that support these causes.

• By 2021, we’ll work with our franchise partners to remove confectionery from tillpoints in all key franchise partner operated M&S stores
worldwide (excluding petrol station forecourts).

• By 2020, we will extend our health and wellbeing advice to our customers to help them live happier healthier lives.

1.3 We’ll improve the health & wellbeing of our colleagues and of people working in our supply chains

• By 2019, we’ll launch an independently benchmarked retail industry leading health & wellbeing framework providing support to M&S
colleagues worldwide on physical and mental health as well as nutrition and wellbeing.

• By 2022, we’ll enable our M&S colleagues worldwide to complete a health risk assessment, including health checks, where appropriate.
We’ll use this data to tailor our interventions/advice and report annually on progress.

• By 2022, health and wellbeing learning and support will be included in all our employability programmes worldwide.

• By 2022, we’ll offer training on mental health to M&S colleagues in our offices, stores and warehouses worldwide.

• By 2019, we’ll define our expectations on nutrition and physical and mental wellbeing for our franchise partners and direct suppliers and
by 2022 launch a range of initiatives, including health checks where appropriate, to enable them to tailor their interventions and advice.
We’ll report annually on progress.

• We will continue to report on our UK and ROI Health and Safety data and extend to owned international operations from 2020.

takInG a leaD on mental WellbeInG
having listened to our customers
and colleagues it is clear that
improving people’s wellbeing is more
than just improving their physical
health. They believe mental
wellbeing is just as important. We’ll
use our scale and brand profile to
positively champion mental health
with customers, employees, and
people in our supply chains.

In 2014, we were the first retailer to
sign the Mind and Rethink Mental
Illness ‘Time to Change’ pledge on
tackling mental health stigma in the
workplace and supporting the
annual Time to Talk Day campaign.

We have made good progress in
changing the conversation because
of senior leadership sponsorship, a
business wide awareness campaign
‘Mental Wellbeing Week’ and practical support tools. We’ve
seen the power of peer-to-peer employee support groups
and now we want to upskill everyone in our business to support
customers and colleagues. We’re offering training on mental
health to M&S colleagues in our offices, stores and warehouses

worldwide. And we’re building health
and wellbeing learning and support
into our employability programmes
worldwide. We’re not stopping with our
employees; we want to extend this
approach to our suppliers so they can
reach approximately two million people
in our supply chains.

As a trusted retailer with millions of
personal connections every day in store
we believe we are ideally placed to
make a significant contribution to the
wellbeing of our customers. In 2016,
Ruby Wax approached us to trial her
concept of Frazzled Café – a meet up
for people who want to talk about their
mental health. her vision was to host
Frazzled Café in a public space that was
accessible and made it acceptable to
talk about not being ok. We are now

making more of our store space available for initiatives like
Frazzled Café and peer-to-peer support groups. In particular,
we’ll join forces with partners to offer support to tackle mental
health, loneliness, and dementia.

09
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

10
PLAN A COMMITMENTS 2025

takInG a leaD on tRansfoRmInG CommUnItIes

We believe that a successful economy is
entirely dependent on a successful society.
If M&S and other businesses are to thrive,
we need to be at the heart of an economy
that’s fair and inclusive for all.

WE’VE BEEN WORkINg WITH
COmmUNITIES FOR DECADES
For decades, M&S stores globally have
helped their local communities. In the last
ten years we’ve helped more than 17,000
disadvantaged people gain work
experience through our Marks and Start
and Make Your Mark programmes, in the
UK, Greece, Malta, France and India. As a
business, we’ve supported colleagues’
efforts to fundraise and volunteer for local
charities. Our Food halls donate surplus
food via the Neighbourly platform.

We’ve also worked to make our stores,
website and products more inclusive,
accessible and safe for all. For example,
we’ve worked with Disabled Go to provide
guidance to anyone living with a disability
about how accessible our stores are.

WE WANT TO PLAY A BIggER ROLE IN
ImPROVINg LIVES AND COmmUNITIES
Our customers and colleagues have told us
that their local area matters to them – and
they expect us to play a leading role at a
local level while also using our national
scale to achieve wider change.

Our aim is to help play a transformative
role: enabling local economies to thrive,
building socially connected communities,
and improving local environments. By 2025
we want to have helped 1000 communities
transform themselves.

This doesn’t mean we won’t move or even
close stores. Inevitably, an estate of over
1300 shops around the world that has been
built up over a 100 years needs to be
refreshed as shopping habits and town
centres change. But it does mean that
wherever we trade we’ll work our very
hardest for that community and in those
instances where we do have to move we’ll
do it with respect and consideration for
those effected.

We’ll maintain existing programmes and
launch new ones – whether that means
offering community groups space in our
stores or supporting local entrepreneurs.

We’re going to increase our efforts to
be a more inclusive employer and to offer
our customers a more inclusive shopping
experience.

We’ll strengthen our commitment to
managing human rights for example,
through a new formal collaboration with
Oxfam. Our aspiration is to tackle in-work
poverty and encourage the payment of a
living wage in our supply chains and in our
partners’ businesses. We’ll continue to take
a lead on difficult and emotive issues such
as forced labour where criminals prey on
the vulnerable. And we’ll help our suppliers
transform communities around their
factories and farms too, ensuring that M&S
suppliers are a force for good globally.

Over the last 3 years we have been
working with Business in the Community
(BITC) to support their healthy high
Street programme, which brings together
retailers, councils and community
groups to work in partnership to improve
100 high streets across the British Isles.

This work opened our eyes to the depth
of social and environmental challenge
that many communities face, but also
showed us the potential for concerted
business action to support them. We
want all our stores to be a force for good
in their local community, playing a key
role in helping to transform them for the
better. We cannot solve all the world’s ills,
but we believe that by taking a more

systematic approach to utilising our
resources, skills and networks we can
play a much more transformative role
in the neighbourhoods we serve.

Our initial focus is on the UK and we’ve
used the Legatum Prosperity Index
to identify communities that we can
support and mapped them against
our store estate. We have identified ten
communities (Birmingham, Bradford,
Derry~Londonderry, Glasgow, London
Borough of Newham, Liverpool,
Merthyr Tydfil, Middlesbrough, Norwich,
Rochdale) where we are going to
undertake an extensive trial on how
we can act in this transformative way.
Working with local groups we’re going

to create a baseline for each community,
identifying its current social and
environmental challenges and then trial
seven activities over the next two years
to see which make the most measurable
difference and which are most relevant
to us. These activities will focus on
thriving local economies, socially
connected communities and healthy
environments for people to enjoy.
We’ll then use these insights to plan
how we’ll help transform a further 100
communities and share the learning
with the wider 1000 communities we
serve around the world to help them
transform too.

TRaNsfORmINg lIves
aND COmmUNITIes

PIllaR 2

The world has seen tremendous social progress in the past seventy years. hundreds
of millions of people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. But significant
inequalities remain in terms of income, gender, sexuality and social mobility.

Pernicious human rights abuses, such as modern day slavery, lurk beneath a veneer
of 21st Century respectability. Communities can be fragmented and individuals

living in them isolated. New technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics
are changing the nature of work and impacting on job security.

11
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

tRansfoRmInG lIVes anD CommUnItIes CommItments

2.1 We’ll enable people to connect with each other and help deliver a better future for the communities we touch

• By 2025, 50% of our full line M&S operated stores and offices in the UK will have space available for community groups, charities and local
interest groups to use.

• Between 2017 and 2025, we’ll support M&S colleagues worldwide to provide one million hours of work-time community volunteering.

• By 2020, we’ll launch an education programme in the UK in partnership with others to promote the importance of health and wellbeing,
employability and sustainability in schools and colleges.

• By 2025, we want all edible surplus food from M&S stores, key franchises and direct Foods suppliers worldwide to be diverted for human
consumption.

• Between 2017 and 2025, we aim for M&S operated and key franchise stores worldwide to make a positive difference to their local
community by supporting local charities through fundraising, volunteering and product donations.

• By 2020, in ten locations we will have completed programmes that aim to secure meaningful economic, social and environmental
benefits in the communities around our stores and beyond. We’ll build on our insights and roll out programmes in 100 further locations in
the UK and internationally by 2023, then share our learnings with 1,000 locations by 2025.

• By 2019, 200 of our retail managers will have taken a lead role in collaborations which aim to revitalise and secure lasting social benefits in
city and town centre locations.

• By 2019, we’ll launch an annual Community Business Competition to support and recognise local community entrepreneurs who bring
positive benefits to society. We’ll report annually on progress.

• By 2019, we’ll launch a strategy to support growing artisan and smallholder producers in the M&S Food supply chain.

• Between 2017 and 2025, our Global Community Programme will benefit one million people in our supply chain communities by working
in partnership with others to help build livelihoods, protect the environment and improve wellbeing focusing on our areas of biggest
human rights and environmental impact.

• By 2019, we’ll develop an approach for calculating and accounting for the financial and non-financial support enabled by M&S and the
associated benefits to society. We’ll then measure and report on our performance on an annual basis.

• We will report annually on our community donations and amounts raised with support from customers and suppliers.

• By 2025, M&S Energy will help at least 200 communities to reduce their carbon footprint through the installation of renewable energy
generation or energy efficiency measures, including battery storage.

takInG a leaD on HUman RIGHts
Over the last 12 months we have systematically improved
our approach to protecting human rights. We are shifting our
emphasis from ethical compliance to manage business risk,
to putting individual’s human rights at the core of what we do.
We have improved our policies, processes, training and
transparency with the result that the recent Corporate human
Rights Benchmark ranked us as the leading food and apparel,
respectively, business in the world on human rights.

Now with Plan A 2025 we’ll be going further with the aim of being
the retail leader in addressing modern day slavery and decent
work, tackling in-work poverty and fostering an inclusive society.

On modern day slavery and decent work we will take a lead on
scaling-up responsible recruitment and management of third
party labour providers, plus encouraging more effective
workplace representation. We will increase the number of
people we help through our Global Community Programme
to one million by 2025 and we’ll encourage the factories we use
to put people positively at the centre of all that they do.

To address in-work poverty we will carry out a detailed
review on the potential causes across our supply chains and
operations. We’ll aim to pay a living wage for all our direct
employees and champion the payment of a living wage in
our supply chains too.

To help create an inclusive society we’ll pay particular attention
to women’s human rights, and develop an inclusion strategy
for our whole value chain from field to factory to store. We’ll
make sure that our workforces and management teams reflect
the diversity of the regions where they are located. And we’ll
monitor pay gaps and tackle any we find.

12
PLAN A COMMITMENTS 2025

2.2. We’ll develop a truly inclusive business and supply chain

• By 2022, we’ll undertake regular benchmarking to ensure we have the most accessible and inclusive retail proposition in store and online.
We’ll aim to extend this approach to our international locations from 2023.

• Between 2020 and 2025, we’ll implement new Inclusive Design Standards to ensure M&S Food and Clothing & Home products and
packaging are accessible to and usable by as many people as possible. These new Inclusive Design Standards will be created by a detailed
review to be published in 2019.

• By 2019, we’ll launch an independently endorsed retail industry leading inclusion strategy that is locally relevant for our business,
franchise partners and supply chain.

• By 2025, we want M&S workforces to reflect the diversity of each region in which we operate. We’ll report on progress from 2019.

• By 2022, we aim to have 50% female and at least 15% BAME (black, Asian, and minority ethnic) representation on the M&S senior
management team.

• By 2022, we aim for our Food and Clothing & Home first-tier manufacturing sites to have 25% women in management positions.

• By 2019, we’ll help advance women’s human rights and combat gender discrimination by launching programmes and initiatives that
promote gender equality and women’s empowerment in our business and supply chains.

• By 2020, we’ll measure the socio-economic and educational background of our global M&S employee base and established a target to
improve our social mobility by 2025.

• We’ll aim to reduce the non-demographic gender pay gap within M&S in the UK (this is the gap adjusted for different gender demographic
by grade and the impact of disproportionately high female numbers in our retail operation) by at least 10% by 2020 and by 25% by 2025
compared to 2017.

• By 2020, we’ll extend our UK pay gap monitoring and reporting to include ethnicity, disability and age (where known) and will take action
to close any gaps.

2.3. We’ll help people into work and give them the skills they need to progress in the future

• From 2019, we’ll undertake regular research to understand the current and future labour market skills gaps for our business. We’ll then
provide an annual update on our actions.

• By 2020, we’ll complete collaborative research into the likely employment impacts of next generation technologies. We’ll then provide an
annual update on our actions to prepare our people for the future, whether they work for M&S or other employers.

• By 2019, we aim to have an employability programme in all countries where we have M&S operated stores and will report on our progress
of launching programmes in countries where we have franchised stores.

• Between 2017 and 2025, we aim to offer 25,000 Marks & Start work placements worldwide to people from disadvantaged parts of the
community with 50% going into work and 50% of these retaining work for at least 12 months.

2.4. We’ll respect human rights in our business and supply chains

• We’ll enter into a new collaboration with Oxfam over 3 years focusing on the UK and India to develop a deeper understanding of the
connection between our sourcing practices and our human rights impacts. Oxfam will report the findings independently, whilst M&S will
develop a programme of actions and report annually on our progress from 2018.

• By 2019, we’ll work with others to review and implement ethical assessment methodologies that drive better outcomes for workers in our
supply base and report annually on our progress.

• By 2019, we’ll put in place mechanisms to make human rights complaints or raise concerns, which are accessible to all individuals and
communities connected with our business. From 2020, we’ll report annually on the use and performance of these mechanisms.

• We will further our work to eradicate modern slavery. By 2018, we will report annually on scaling-up responsible recruitment and better
management of third-party labour providers as well as our progress towards ensuring no worker pays for a job.

• By 2020, we’ll carry out and publish a review of the effectiveness of workers’ representation arrangements for enabling improved workers’
rights, within our Food and Clothing & home first-tier manufacturing supply chain. We’ll develop a programme of actions and report
annually on our progress.

• From 2018 we’ll run Reward Forums for key franchise and third party operators to set out our approach to delivering higher rates of pay in
the UK based around paying the living wage in a sustainable way.

• By 2019, we’ll carry out and publish a detailed review of our potential impact on in-work poverty and develop a programme of
transformative interventions to improve livelihoods in our business and supply chains, enabling progress on our living wage
commitments and demonstrating sector leadership. We’ll report annually on progress.

• By 2020, all workers in our first-tier Food, Clothing and Home manufacturing sites will have the opportunity to be paid digitally.

• By 2025, we’ll aim for a living wage, for all our direct employees as set by us and reviewed by credible stakeholders in a way that is
sustainable for M&S and demonstrate how we’ve encouraged our key franchises and direct supply chains to do the same.

• By 2019, we’ll develop and launch a mechanism that enables all M&S Foods suppliers and raw material suppliers to report transparently
on their experience of working with M&S and for M&S to report on steps taken to improve score.

13
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

14
PLAN A COMMITMENTS 2025

CaRINg fOR The
PlaNeT we shaRe

No company can hope to prosper in
a world where we continue to plunder
resources and pump CO

2
into the

atmosphere at the rate we are today.
Supply chains are being disrupted. Raw
material quality and cost is becoming more
volatile. Transparency is raising society’s
awareness of today’s unsustainable
approach to business. At the same time, the
policy framework for protecting natural
resources is becoming more uncertain.

WE’VE mADE SUBSTANTIAL
ImPROVEmENTS TO OUR
ENVIRONmENTAL FOOTPRINT
Today, 99% of the wood and all of the fish
M&S uses comes from a more sustainable
source. Over 50% of the food we sell comes
from a silver sustainability factory. We send
no waste to landfill from our stores in the
UK and Republic of Ireland, have reduced
our operational carbon footprint by 70% in
absolute terms and made our global
operations carbon neutral.

NOW WE WANT TO DO EVEN mORE
We know we must build a business that is
low carbon, circular and restorative. Not in
50 years, but over the next 10-15 years.
And we know we cannot do this alone. It is
impossible for us to achieve these high
ambitions without the rest of the economy
changing around us too.

We’re aiming to make our entire business
model zero waste – not just our own
operations but also our supply chains
and our products too, putting circular
thinking at the heart of our business
model. This is a bold goal, one that
will demand that we simplify the
materials we use, help create
markets for recycled materials,
build partnerships to give

products and packaging a second life
and launch new types of business model.

On climate change we will accelerate our
work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
across every aspect of our value chain –
in our operations, supply chains and
customer’s homes – so that we can say
that we are a truly low carbon business.

Sustainable raw materials have always
been at the heart of Plan A and now we’re
committing to ensure that 100% of our key
raw materials (at least 80% of the total
volume we use) in food, clothing, home and
beauty products will be verified that they
respect the integrity of ecosystems, the
welfare of animals and the wellbeing of
people and communities.

We’ll also build on the work we’ve already
done to make sure every M&S product we
sell (approximately three billion items each
year) has a Plan A attribute by 2020 (79%
so far) with a commitment to ensure every
item has attributes relevant to each
of its material social and
environmental impacts
by 2025.

We want to ensure that our customers can
be proud of the social and environmental
story behind every product we sell and that
we’re transparent about where and how
they were produced.

WE WILL WORk IN PARTNERSHIP TO
TACkLE THE BIg CHALLENgES FACINg
THE NATURAL WORLD
We’ll form alliances and be more vocal
about the need for change. We’re already
involved in many partnerships to tackle the
natural world’s biggest challenges. We’ve
worked with WWF for more than 10 years
to improve sustainable sourcing in global
markets, and we’re supporting the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation’s work to build a
New Plastics Economy globally – helping
to close the loop on the tens of millions
of tonnes of plastic that enter the global
marketplace each year. The Consumer
Goods Forum (CGF) is our platform for
tackling three critical environmental
challenges: deforestation (driven by the
sourcing of commodities such as soy

and palm oil); low carbon refrigeration;
and food waste.

The natural environment is under increasing pressure as the world’s population
grows and consumption increases. Although great progress has been made in
raising awareness on climate change, the science indicates that we all still need

to accelerate our efforts to create a low carbon future. We are also seeing
worsening air pollution, deforestation, species decline and ocean degradation.

PIllaR 3

15
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

takInG a leaD on ClImate
We have worked hard in the last decade
to become more efficient, procure
renewable energy for our operations
and become the only major retailer in
the world to be carbon neutral. This in
turn has accelerated climate action in
some of the poorest parts of the world.
In Plan A 2025 we are increasing the
scale and pace of this work but
importantly we are bringing it together
to begin to create a low carbon business.

We have made 16 new climate
commitments. Many of these are an
extension of existing work, rightly
building on our long term, systemic
commitment to reduce our operational
carbon footprint in lighting, refrigeration,
heating and logistics. There are
commitments to maintain and extend
our position to purchase 100%
renewable electricity and to remain
carbon neutral globally. Important
affirmations of our long-term
commitment to be at the heart of
building a low carbon future. We’ve also
added in a new goal to stop the air
freight of clothing and home products
in our logistics supply chain.

But we recognise that our own carbon
footprint is the smallest part of our
value chain carbon footprint, dwarfed
by the impact of our supply chain and
customer use of our products. That’s
why we’ve set a new (approved) Science
Based Target (SBT) that also aims to take
13.3 mt of CO

2
e out of our value chain

by 2030. This will be activated in part
through our wider goal that 50% of our
products are produced in factories
meeting our Gold Factory Sustainability
standard (at least 35% improvement in
energy efficiency and their own supply
chain’s carbon footprint mapped) as well
as commitments to prevent food waste.

We will also have to innovate to
transform all elements of our business
model to low carbon. So we are
undertaking research into issues such
as the protein content of the diet that
people eat. We will be using our farm
environmental indicators work to set
future targets for farming including on
carbon. And we will be implementing a
programme to improve soil health.

Finally we recognise the linkages across
Plan A 2025, with our M&S Energy

business supporting community
groups who want to undertake low
carbon work, from efficiency
improvements to village halls to the
installation of local decentralised low
carbon energy production. As part
of our plan to transform 1000
communities we will help at least
200 with their low carbon journey.

takInG a leaD on CIRCUlaR eConomy
We have set a simple but bold goal – to be
a zero waste business across all that we do.
That’s not just in our own operations, where,
in the UK and Republic of Ireland, we already
send zero waste to landfill, but also in our
supply chains and our customer’s homes.

We will be ensuring that all the packaging
we put on the market is easy to recycle.
We’ll be working with our customers to
reduce food waste in their homes as well
as making sure that every piece of food
unsold in our stores at the end of the day

goes to human consumption. At the
moment no surplus food from M&S
operated UK and Republic of Ireland
stores goes to landfill, virtually all is
processed using Anaerobic Digestion to
generate electricity. Now even that will
be replaced by ensuring it’s all sold at
markdown to customers or colleagues
or donated to local food banks.

For our Clothing and home business
we’re building on our work through
Shwopping (encouraging customers to
donate clothing they’ve finished with to
Oxfam) to make it much more circular
too. We will be launching repair services,
using 25% recycled material in at least
25% of the clothing we sell by 2025. And
crucially we’ll be developing Circular
Economy Standards to ensure our
clothing and home products are all made
to last and can be reused and recycled
in the most effective way possible.

Just as with climate action, we’ll be
using our commitments on products
and factories to systemise our circular
economy ambition. Setting product
attributes. Defining Bronze/Silver/Gold
standards for food, clothing, home,
beauty and property suppliers/factories
will all take into account circular principles.

16
PLAN A COMMITMENTS 2025

CaRInG foR tHe Planet We sHaRe PIllaR CommItments

3.1 We will source and operate to the highest sustainability standards

• From 2018, we’ll report on our use of animal welfare and environmental outcome-indicators for fresh meat, farmed fish, poultry, fresh milk and
laying hens. We’ll use this data to shape future production standards and drive a continual improvement culture across our farm supply base.

• By 2019, we’ll develop and publish an independently endorsed, retail industry leading, sustainable product design toolkit for M&S Food
and Clothing & home products and subsequently report on its implementation.

• By 2019, in collaboration with our suppliers and other partners, we will carry out and publish a detailed review of the potential for
adopting restorative/regenerative agricultural practices aimed at improving soil organic matter, sequestering carbon and reducing the
dependency on artificial inputs within our Food supply base. We’ll then provide an annual update on our actions to implement.

• By 2022, we’ll implement independently endorsed retail industry leading standards on animal welfare for Clothing & Home products.

• We’ll source 100% of cotton from sustainable sources by 2019 and by 2025 will aim to have increased the proportion of Fairtrade, organic
and recycled sources to 25%.

• By 2025, the 50 key raw materials used for M&S products will come from sources verified as respecting the integrity of ecosystems,
the welfare of animals and the wellbeing of people and communities. This will cover over 80% of M&S raw material usage by volume.

• By 2020, 100% of M&S products will have at least one Plan A attribute and by 2025 every product will have attributes which address all
priority social, ethical and environmental impacts.

• By 2025, at least 25% (by volume) of M&S Clothing & Home products will be made using at least 25% reused or recycled material.

• By 2025, all key products and materials used for construction fit out, shop fit, marketing décor and visual merchandise in our UK and ROI
stores, offices & warehouses will have Plan A attributes that address all priority social, environmental and ethical impacts.

• By 2020, at least 95% of M&S food (by volume) will come from factories that achieve Silver level on our Food Sustainability Scorecard and
by 2025 at least 50% will be achieve Gold level..

• By 2025, at least 50% of M&S Clothing & Home products (by volume) will come from factories that achieve Gold level on a new Clothing &
home Sustainability Scorecard and 95% of other factories have achieved at least Silver.

• By 2025, for our M&S Clothing & Home products, we’ll only use dyehouses, printers, laundries, tanneries, and finishing facilities that meet
credible independent standards of environmental and social sustainability.

• By 2025, at least 50% of all our major UK and ROI direct property suppliers will achieve Gold level on a new Property Sustainability
Scorecard and 95% of our other major UK and ROI direct suppliers will have achieved at least Silver.

• By 2019, we’ll develop a credible methodology for measuring the water efficiency of our textile and garment wet processing and set
targets for reduction by 2025.

• By 2020, we’ll implement a programme to put in place water stewardship plans for our most material and at-risk watersheds in our Food
and Clothing & home supply chains.

• Building on the substantial progress we’ve already made, and in recognition of forest protection as part of climate change mitigation,
we’re aiming to ensure zero deforestation from the use of palm oil, soy, cattle, wood and wood derived materials in the production of M&S
products by 2020.

• By 2021, we’ll strengthen our Forever Fish Programme by rolling out global best practice crew welfare and responsible fishing
management, and demonstrating our advocacy for protecting the marine environment.

3.2. We’ll achieve a zero waste business and value chain

• By 2025, we’ll have reduced total waste from M&S Property activities (including packaging) in the UK and ROI by 50% against a newly
developed baseline and will recycle at least 95% of waste that’s produced.

• By 2025, 95% (by weight) of equipment and other fit-out materials arising from UK and ROI store refresh/refurbishment projects will
be reused.

• We’ll maintain zero waste to landfill for M&S operations in the UK and ROI and extend this to our M&S and key franchise operations
worldwide by 2025.

• By 2022, all M&S product packaging in the UK that could end up with our customers will be not only ‘recyclable’, but ‘widely recycled’. To
achieve this, we will actively collaborate with others to bring about changes in local government recycling policy. By 2022, we will also
assess the feasibility of making all M&S plastic packaging from one polymer group, which will help maximise the use of recycled content.

• By 2020, we plan to reduce food waste in our UK stores by 20% per sq ft against 2013/14 . In addition, we will review opportunities to
donate an increased amount of food to charities.

• By 2025, we’ll halve net food waste relative to sales from M&S operated and franchised locations worldwide against a newly established baseline.

• By 2022, we’ll introduce a range of repair services for M&S Clothing & Home products.

• Between 2020 and 2025, we’ll implement new Circular Economy Standards to ensure that M&S Clothing & Home products are made to
last and can be reused or recycled in the most effective way. These new Circular Economy Standards will be documented in a detailed
review to be published in 2019.

• By 2019, we’ll develop a digital strategy and campaign to engage customers on the value of food.

• By 2022, we’ll introduce messaging and implement relevant design changes to our top 10 most wasted food products (as defined by
WRAP) to help our customers prevent food waste in the home.

• Between 2017 and 2025, we’ll help customers around the world give clothes a second life, by facilitating the collection of at least three
million garments a year for reuse and recycling.

17
MARKS AND SPENCER GROUP PLC

3.3. We’ll cut emissions in line with climate science and become a low carbon, climate resilient business

.• By 2030, in line with climate science, we aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from M&S operations worldwide by 80% compared to
2006/07, on route to a 90% reduction by 2035.

• By 2020, we aim to improve energy efficiency in M&S operated stores, offices and warehouses in the UK and ROI by 50% compared to
2006/07, rising to 60% by 2025.

• By 2020, we aim to improve energy efficiency in M&S operated international stores & warehouses outside of ROI by 30% compared to
2013/14.

• By 2025, we aim to improve fuel efficiency for M&S Clothing & Home deliveries to store in the UK and ROI by 40% by 2025 and 60% by
2030 compared to 2006/07.

• By 2025, we aim to improve fuel efficiency for M&S Food deliveries to store in the UK and ROI by 40% by 2025 and 60% by 2030 compared
to 2006/07.

• By 2025, we aim to reduce refrigeration gas carbon emissions by 80% in all M&S operated stores in the UK and ROI.

• By 2030, we aim to replace HFCs in refrigeration systems in all M&S operated stores in the UK and ROI.

• By 2025, we’ll deliver 50% of our UK property estate peak-energy demand flexibly, using clean and renewable technologies.

• Between 2017 and 2035, 100% electricity purchased for M&S operated stores, offices and warehouses worldwide will be classified
as renewable.

• By 2025, all gas procured for M&S operated stores, offices and warehouses in UK and ROI will be certified bio-methane.

• We’ll maintain carbon neutrality for our worldwide operations up to at least 2025. We will develop a strategy to ensure that by 2022
participants of our supply chain can benefit from our carbon credit purchases.

• By 2019, we’ll establish a new partnership to increase our understanding and definition of sustainable animal protein and report about
the action we take to implement our findings.

• By 2025, we’ll install building fabric solutions in 20 stores at high risk of climate-related weather events, to improve our resilience to
climate risks.

• By 2022, all of our strategic Food suppliers will be required to have implemented a ten-year strategic climate mitigation and adaptation plan.

• By 2030, in line with climate science, we’ll reduce our indirect greenhouse gas emissions from upstream and downstream sources by at
least 13.3 million tonnes.

• By 2022, we’ll end the use of air freight for Clothing & Home products.

3.4 We’ll be open and transparent and inspire customers to live more sustainably

• We’ll become even more transparent about how we operate. We aim to add further Food and Clothing & Home supply chain details by
2019 and details of raw materials suppliers by 2022. We’ll ensure all information can be easily viewed by our customers in store or online
worldwide by 2025.

• By 2019, we’ll develop and launch a mechanism enabling products that meet certain sustainability criteria to be clearly labelled, helping
customers worldwide identify these products in store or online.

• By 2022, we’ll incentivise and reward our customers for making more sustainable choices.

We’ve set bold ambitious targets for the future. 

Now we’re focusing on enabling the business to deliver them.
We can’t do it alone we’ll need to continue to work in partnership

and we’ll continue to report annually on our progress.

Please get in touch and share your views, by email to:
PlanA@marks-and-spencer.com

Alternatively write to us at:
marks and Spencer group plc, Plan A Department,

5 merchant Square, North Wharf Road, London W2 1AS

Further information and our previous reports are available
from our website at: marksandspencer.com/plana

Reflective Writing Help Guide

Can you give me some examples of reflection?

· Reading and acting on your managers/peers/clients/tutors feedback on your work to improve it

· Keeping a learning journal in order to record changes in your practice/knowledge/skills.

· Keeping a record of your learning development via e.g. Pebblepad

What is reflective writing?

· much more than a description of facts or events

· critical writing, questioning different viewpoints, examining reasons

· a process through which you develop or change your opinions and/or your behaviour

How do I structure my written reflection?

There are many reflective writing models. One simple model is Rolfe’s (200

1

) What? So What? Now What? model.

1. What?

Report what happened, objectively without judgement or interpretation. Describe the facts and event(s) of an experience you have had. Some of the questions you might ask yourself are:

What happened?

What was my role in the situation?

What was I trying to achieve?

What actions did I take?

What was the response of others?

What feelings did it evoke in me and others?

What were the consequences (good and bad) about the experience?

This experience could be a seminar you attended, a team task in which you played a role, a work presentation you gave etc.

2. So What?

This is the level of analysis and evaluation when we look deeper at what was behind the experience. It helps you to understand what you have learnt from the experience. Some of the questions you might ask yourself are:

So what does this tell me?

So what was going through my mind when I acted?

So what did I base my actions on?

So what more do I need to know about this?

So what could/should I have done to make it better?

So what is my new understanding of the situation?

3. Now What?

This is the level of synthesis. Here you build on the previous levels to consider alternative courses of action and choose what you need to do next. Some of the questions you might ask yourself are:

Now what could I do to make things better?

Now what actions do I need to take?

Now what plans do I need to put into place?

Now what might be the consequences (long term and short term benefits/drawbacks) to you, your organisation and your colleagues of this action?

Now what might hold me back?

Now what realistic goals will I work towards?

The language of reflection

Here is a list of suggested reflective phrases you might like to use in your reflective writing:

After observation….

This comment tells me….

In this situation I should have…

Because of this activity I was prompted to…

This is an indication of…

To promote continued thinking I plan to..

With hindsight, I should perhaps have…

In retrospect…

After this activity I found…. to be significant because…

The significance of this activity…

It is important for me to realize…

This is significant because…

I acknowledge that…

I focused on….because…

I realized that…

In the future…

I have since concluded…

On reflection I feel that….

Other considerations

· Make connections between the experience and your knowledge

· Show evidence that you have learnt something specific as a result of your experience

· Include the views and motives of others involved, as well as an awareness of your own feelings in response to the event

· Show your awareness of your own strengths and qualities…and of your own weaknesses and, therefore, areas for improvement

· Question what you did and whether you could / would do something differently next time (Action planning for personal development)

· Show evidence of personal learning and change

1