The above notion illustrates the potential value of authentic leadership (AL), which could be regarded as the highest form of leadership effectiveness (Eigel & Kuhnert, 2005). To combine high performance with high integrity and to re-instate trust in the free enterprise system requires leaders who know who they are and who produce consistent and predictable leadership behaviour as such leaders foster higher levels of integrity, trust and positive affective responses among followers (Chan, Hannah & Gardner, 2005; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner & Peterson, 2008). The challenge is that the metric of time required for developing such leadership is typically very long, as it takes life and leadership episodes over time for the characteristics of AL to emerge (Chan, 2005). There is a need for a leadership programme that could possibly fast-track the development of leadership authenticity (Wulffers, 2014).

The latest rash of corporate scandals over the last decade has awakened collective consciousness to the fact that self-interest, unchecked by moral reasoning and obligation, can result in destructive greed. This greed destroys not only the lives of those executives who are driven by it to ethical compromise but also ultimately impacts on all stakeholders, as the outcomes trickle down the corporate hierarchies, spilling over into communities and crashing into families (Fry & Whittington, 2005, p. 184).

True leadership is always more difficult to maintain in challenging times, and the unique stressors facing organisations throughout the world today call for a renewed attention to what constitutes true and positive leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Organisations are focusing on finding leadership that will restore confidence, hope and optimism, while displaying resiliency that allows appropriate responses to potentially catastrophic events. There is a need for leaders who lead with purpose, values and integrity (George, 2003; Metcalf & Benn, 2013). What organisations require is a way of leading that is based on character and substance rather than style of leadership and integrity rather than image or position (George & Sims, 2007).

While there are ample definitions available in literature on AL and how AL impacts on inter-relational trust, individual and team leadership, and organisational effectiveness, there is less information available on how it can be developed. Typically, it takes a long time to develop the characteristics of leadership authenticity, requiring life and leadership episodes that provide development opportunities. This begs the question whether companies can wait that long to have true leaders at the helm (Wulffers, 2014). Unless a way can be found to deliberately develop such leadership within a reasonable time span, organisations and even governments will head the news in stories of corruption and achieving wealth at the expense of their citizens (Karpoff, 2010).

To date, insufficient research has been done on how the development of AL can be fast-tracked (Avolio, 2010; Wulffers, 2014). Avolio and Gardner (2005) highlighted the complexity of AL development theory and stated that they were not yet able to view AL development in the format of a programme, unless it were to be broadly labelled ‘life’s program’ (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 322), meaning that the development had to emanate from the lessons offered by life.

While much has been written about the need for a better quality of leadership (Fry & Whittington, 2005; George, Sims, Mclean & Mayer, 2007), very little research is available on how this type of leadership can be developed. Reichard and Avolio (2005) conducted a study on the status of leadership intervention research, pointing out that very little research has been done on AL programmes. They highlighted some high-level aspects that should be present in AL programmes and encouraged researchers to do high-quality research studies on the effectiveness of AL programmes. A subsequent meta-analytic review of leadership impact research by Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumba and Chan (2009) comprised research on 200 leadership interventions from 1950 onwards, and although these authors are regarded as leading researchers in the field of AL, their study did not yet include any AL intervention studies.

Thus, there is a need for further research on the development of leadership authenticity by means of the evaluation of an appropriate programme. This study focused on a practitioner’s perspective on developing AL by means of an AL programme. The aim of this article is twofold:

AL can be regarded not only as the root construct of positive leadership (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans & May, 2004; Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumbwa, 2005) but also meets the requirements for the highest level of leadership (Eigel & Kuhnert, 2005). However, as the metric of time for developing such leadership authenticity is typically very long (Chan, 2005), it was therefore worthwhile to evaluate an AL programme that not only shortens the development period of such leadership but would also provide organisations with a programme that has been proven to develop AL (Wulffers, 2014).

The next section reviews relevant current literature on AL and criteria for AL development. The research design is then presented followed by the outline of the programme and the findings from the qualitative research design. The article concludes with the main contributions to the field of an outline and effect of an AL programme on the development on AL, which in itself is an antecedent of leadership effectiveness.

The quote by Cummings applies especially in the organisational leadership context, which at times can squeeze the self out of oneself (Wulffers, 2014). It is helpful to understand AL by what it is not. AL is not about impression management, which occurs when an inauthentic person acts in deference to external information rather than being aligned to an internal sense of being true to the self (Chan et al., 2005). Impression management might also be the result of a lack of self-awareness of who the self really is, whereas the authentic person will ensure that the impression created is consistent with the true self (Franzese, 2007). Extraordinary leaders are those who are transparent and genuine, therefore commanding respect and admiration, rather than one who is merely posing as a leader, falsely currying favour and trust among followers (Kolditz & Brazil, 2005).

Increasing self-clarity through self-awareness requires the process of continuous self-reflection or introspection (Akrivou, Bourantas, Mo & Papalois, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Introspection and reflection require a dynamic processes that describes the fact that individuals continually question and re-assess their values, strengths and weaknesses during leadership episodes that test and further develop leadership authenticity (Freeman & Auster, 2011; Peus, Wesche, Streicher, Braun & Frey, 2012). Understanding one’s purpose, identity, values, beliefs and psychological states requires not only continuous self-reflection and introspection but also consultation with and feedback from others (George, 2004). Even so, authentic leaders are only human; therefore, they need to display the psychological state of vulnerability in non-defensive recognition of their own weaknesses as well as their strengths (Diddams & Chang, 2012). This ability, which Leroy and Sels (2008) called balanced vulnerability, in itself becomes a strength allowing for further development. Balanced vulnerability then becomes an internal resource that allows challenging events to trigger heightened self-awareness and self-regulatory behaviours as part of the process of positive self-development (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Weischer, Weibler & Peterson, 2013).

Positive psychological states (PPS), such as (self-) accountability, (self-) belief, (self-) commitment, (self-) honesty, consistency, courage, truthfulness, respect and trust in self and others, contribute to leadership authenticity. It is the reflection of these aspects in leadership behaviour that will allow the restoration of the public’s trust in leadership in the wake of the reported ethical dilemmas (Diddams & Chang, 2012). Having this understanding of what is morally good and holding oneself accountable for staying aligned with this understanding ultimately leads to psychological ownership (Luthans & Avolio, 2009), which reflects not only in the leader’s behaviour but often also in those of the followers. Leaders who usually reflect relational transparency (Weischer et al., 2013) and balanced processing (Rego, Sousa, Marques & Pina e Cunha, 2012) develop relationships of trust and mutual respect with their followers. The positive impact of leadership authenticity on the levels of trust, predictability and overall quality of leader–follower relationships ultimately leads to a positive influence on the development of a culture of authenticity (Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang & Avey, 2009; Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey & Oke, 2011). Therefore, PPS in AL has a direct impact on leadership effectiveness, trust and follower–team effectiveness (Walumbwa et al., 2011).

While AL is a logical extension of the authentic self (Chan et al., 2005), it can also be regarded as the root construct of positive leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Therefore, a leader who is authentic can achieve more than one who is not, and the extent to which the leader is authentic as a person directly affects the efficacy of his or her leadership of followers (Chan et al., 2005). In summary, authentic leaders are leaders who know who they are and what they believe in; display transparency and consistency between their values, ethical reasoning and actions; focus on developing positive emotional states such as confidence, optimism, hope and resilience within themselves; and are widely known and respected for their integrity (Avolio, Gardner & Walumbwa, 2005, p. xxiii).

Referring to increasing leadership development levels, Eigel and Kuhnert (2005) point out that it is important to note that enhancing AL needs to start with mastering personal leadership, before being able to lead others and, ultimately, the organisation as the complexity in leading increases at each level. It is not possible to successfully lead others if self- or personal leadership has not yet been mastered (Barret, 2010). Being able to lead self and others with awareness and authenticity requires a journey of transformation where individuals need to explore the internal identity that drives them and integrate all of life’s experiences into a meaningful context (Cashman, 2008; Shamir & Eilam, 2005).

In order to lead with purpose, which could be regarded as one’s highest value (Demartini, 2013), understanding of one’s values is required. Therefore, this journey of developing leadership is about getting to know the authentic self and how it needs to be expressed. It is about practising values and principles, understanding what inspired individuals and leading with purpose and passion (George & Sims, 2007). The following two aspects are important in the development of AL:

Chan et al. (2005, p. 5) proposed that every leader forms part of a bigger system and that they interact with, influence and receive feedback from other members in their system. They illustrated a process model of the emergence of authentic behaviour, starting with self, which proposes six major AL sub-processes: (1) a leader’s self-clarity and meta-cognition of the self-system, commonly known as self-awareness; (2) the leader’s alignment of self-awareness and self-regulation, that is, aligning the expression of self to the awareness of who the self is; (3) the sense that others (followers) make of the leader’s observed behaviour, called perceived leadership authenticity; (4) the resulting true effects this has on followers; (5) the self-verification of the leadership processes through the diagnostic feedback in terms of impact on performance of followers and organisations and finally (6) how this leads to the formation and reinforcement of a more authentic organisational culture. This study focuses mostly on the first two AL sub-processes (self-awareness and aligning self-regulation with self-awareness).

Although Chan et al. (2005) did not elaborate on the nature of the required leadership programme, they did indicated that the process ought to start with a leadership programme. Reichard and Avolio (2005), in their meta-analysis and summary of the effectiveness of various forms of leadership programmes from 1900 to 2004 concluded that the dominant characteristics of the previous leadership programmes included the use of training manipulations. Moreover, the shift from traditional leadership theories to a focus on a new genre of leadership required a different type of programme. Reichard and Avolio (2005) were not able to include any research on AL programmes, and they encouraged researchers to bridge the practitioner–researcher divide by conducting a greater number of high-quality field programme studies, adding that it is important to adequately test theoretical propositions. They referred specifically to those propositions offered by Cooper, Scandura and Schriesheim (2005), which will be outlined later on. More recent leadership intervention meta-analytic research by Avolio, Reichard et al. (2009) still did not include any data on AL interventions. Recent research by Kinsler (2014) and Gatling (2014) started to explore the link between coaching or coaches and the development of AL, and even so, there seems no evidence of any evaluation of an AL programme yet.

Recommendations for consideration regarding the design of AL programmes were made by several researchers. The AL programme under study adhered to four working assumptions regarding the requirements of effective AL programmes offered by Chan (2005), which builds further on the guidelines of Cooper et al. (2005). These will be further elaborated on during the discussion on findings.

The researcher considered various philosophical research approaches, such as post-positive, social construction, advocacy or participatory and pragmatic (Cresswell, 2009). The selected pragmatist approach can be described as a world-view that arises out of actions, situations and consequences, rather than antecedent conditions. It concerns applications – what works and what does not – and solutions to problems (Creswell, 2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2004), which is characteristic of programme evaluation.

The researcher’s ontological perspective, in line with postulates outlined by Cresswell (2009), is that there is no such thing as absolute truth and that truth is constructed. This ontology translated into an epistemology of a qualitative approach that allowed for mining of deeper subjective meanings during the participant interviews and data triangulation across various sources of qualitative data. Data triangulation comprised temporal and spatial variation, which was addressed by gathering data from primary and secondary participants. The researcher’s practitioner reflective journal was an additional data source for data triangulation to validate and enrich interpretations (Hammersley, 2008).

AL1: Awareness of self-schema: Authentic leading starts with being able to lead oneself, before one can lead others. The findings indicated that the programme led to a noticeable increase of both the participants’ understanding of and development in AL.

Reflections on their self-awareness before the programme: Before commencement of the programme, there was limited awareness of the notion of AL, illustrated by the following quote:

In line with findings by Kolditz and Brazil (2005), participants sensed that most leadership styles did not acknowledge the authentic self, rather prescribing a one-fit-for-all skill set that was transactional in nature pertaining to organisational outcomes only:

Before the programme, participants experienced mostly a lack of self-awareness or self-knowledge of their own self-schemas. Not only did they not realise how they contributed to the problems within their team, they also did not realise their potential:

Reflection on their self-awareness after the programme: During the programme, they started the process of continuous introspection towards increasing self-awareness:

This example is in line with suggestions by Akrivou et al. (2011) and Peus et al. (2012) about the importance of self-awareness gained through introspection. Similar to thoughts by George (2004) regarding underpinnings of authentic behaviour, participants referred specifically to aspects that drive behaviour, such as core beliefs, core values, internal identity and purpose or vision or legacy. This quote illustrates these underpinnings:

The increased self-awareness also pertained to what they believed about self, others and even what leadership really could entail, as the following quotation illustrates. As a result, their self-knowledge about their potential became clearer and resulted in increased self-confidence, requirements for AL as postulated by Diddams and Chang (2012):

A programme such as this can never be evaluated in isolation. Aligned with Cooper et al. (2005) and Freeman and Auster (2011), it needs to be cognisant of and use trigger events to test and further develop leadership authenticity. Participants were able to identify specific work episodes that had tested and further developed their awareness of self and others towards increased leadership authenticity, leading to more trusting relationships, for example:

These key findings illustrate that the programme had a noticeable effect on increased understanding of AL and increased self-awareness of the self-schema.

AL2: Commitment to self-schema (self-regulation): Participants’ reflections on their commitment to their self-schema (self-regulation) before the programme: Participants understood that before the programme they were simply deluding themselves and that they were lacking in positive psychological states, as the following illustrates:

Reflection on their commitment to their self-schema (self-regulation) after the programme: In terms of commitment to being true to one’s self and one’s core values, once an awareness of the drivers of the participant’s behaviour was in place, self-regulation could follow. As illustrated in Table 1, increased awareness lead to increased internal management of positive psychological states such as accountability (psychological ownership), appropriate vulnerability, commitment, consistency, self-belief, self-confidence, self-discipline, self-honesty, truthfulness and trust.

Accountability (self-ownership), commitment, consistency, self-belief, self-confidence, self-discipline, self-honesty, truthfulness and trust are all requirements of AL as highlighted by Avolio and Gardner (2005) and Walumbwa et al. (2008). Regarding appropriate vulnerability, also referred to by Leroy and Sels (2008) as balanced vulnerability, the programme helped participants to develop appropriate strength-based vulnerability so that they could accept and grow from feedback from others, which further led to the development of intrapersonal and interpersonal trust, which supports the postulates by Diddams and Chang (2012). Increased self-belief, self-confidence, self-discipline, self-honesty and being true to self, in line with postulates by Avolio et al. (2005) and Walumbwa et al. (2008) resulted in participants who previously wished to leave the organisation to develop more hope in their current situation.

These findings illustrate that the programme had a noticeable effect on increased commitment towards a more authentic self-schema within primary participants.

AL3: Behavioural reflection of self-regulation in participants’ behaviour: Reflecting self-regulation in behaviour before the programme: The lack of self-regulation in participants before the programme manifested in, among others, not dealing with issues, and at times, taking inappropriate responsibility for others, as illustrated from the researcher as facilitator’s reflective journal:

Reflecting self-regulation in behaviour after the programme: Secondary participants noticed that primary participants were more willing to do continuous introspection, resulting in increased psychological state management, reflected in their behaviour. In particular, they noticed increased consistency, relational transparency, confidence and balanced processing, illustrated by the examples in Table 2. Rego et al. (2012) and Weischer et al. (2013) suggest that qualities such as consistency, relational transparency, confidence and balanced processing are AL qualities that further lead to developing relationships of trust and mutual respect with their followers.

Participants gave examples of leadership episodes where they had been tested in terms of changes in their behaviour, such as the positive impact of being able to conduct crucial conversations and relationship building that led to better team delivery. They were also better able to hold team members accountable for delivery, and even on occasion, hold their seniors accountable for their behaviour, as illustrated in Table 3.

Authors on AL, such as Chan et al. (2005) and Peterson, Walumbwa, Avolio and Hannah (2012), often refer to the impact of AL on followers without necessarily limiting those to sub-ordinates. These findings indicate that authentic leaders could even, at times, lead those senior to them, illustrating that they lead by presence rather than position.

These key findings illustrate that the programme had a noticeable effect on increased reflection of self-regulation in the behaviour of participants. Furthermore, there was an indication of an increase in all three AL sub-processes, as outlined by Chan et al. (2005), resulting in a noticeable increase in personal AL.

The findings indicated the programme had a noticeable effect on both the understanding and development of interpersonal AL. Whereas all three AL themes were required in developing personal AL, only the third was required in developing interpersonal AL.

AL3: Reflection of self-regulation in participants’ behaviour: Reflection of self-regulation in participants’ behaviour before the programme: In terms of the participants’ original perspectives on interpersonal AL, participants had previously been introduced to the notion of engaging leadership. However, there was a sense that, even if leaders are encouraged to engage with others, they were not necessarily authentically doing so; rather than showing their true selves, they would create an impression that they were truly engaging with others, as the following quotation illustrates. Avolio and Gardner (2005), Chan et al. (2005), Franzese (2007) and Walumbwa et al. (2008) call this impression management, which does not constitute AL:

Reflection of self-regulation in participants’ behaviour after the programme: During the programme, one participant realised that appropriate vulnerability, also called balanced vulnerability, allowed him to be open to others:

Participants realised the importance of consistently holding others accountable, as others would then know what the leader expected of them and the importance of meaningful and empowering communication:

P 6 on meaningful and empowering communication: ’… true to me – know what’s true to me as a person, know what drives me, understand how I see the world, understand how I see other people. I think once I understood that it became easier to interact with others around me in a much more real and meaningful way. So for me it’s really about understanding myself within the context of the world to be able to live up to the best vision of who I want to be.’

They referred to understanding and adhering to increased positive psychological states of interpersonal respect and interpersonal trust and realised the importance of truly knowing themselves. This reflected in their behaviour as it allowed them to engage in meaningful and empowering communication with others, which concurs with findings by Archer (2009), as illustrated in Table 4.

However one participant was less optimistic and referred to the fact that he himself remained part of the problem, indicating that each participant was not yet at the same leadership development level, in line with findings by Eigel and Kuhnert (2005):

In line with claims by Rego et al. (2012), secondary participants noticed significant changes in terms of increased balanced processing. For instance, one participant had become more open and engaging and no longer strictly results-driven and only interested in the bottom line. She had also toned down her directive leadership style. There had also been a move towards more balanced processing in the leader of the team; instead of autocratic style of leadership, he became more willing to listen, as the following illustrate:

These findings illustrate that the programme had a noticeable effect on increased reflection of interpersonal self-regulation in the behaviour of participants, as noticed both by primary and secondary participants. This is in line with the third AL sub-process outlined by Chan et al. (2005), resulting in a noticeable increase in interpersonal AL within the participants.

In terms of their original perspectives on the notion of organisational leadership, participants considered this to be restricted mainly to positional leadership and being task-focused and driving results, illustrated as follows:

Concurring with postulates by Avolio et al. (2005), during the programme participants realised that leadership authenticity forms the root construct of positive leadership:

Similar to suggestions by George and Sims (2007), it is a type of leadership that went beyond position and a balanced situational leadership that allowed one to be true to oneself both in and beyond the organisational environment. This, in turn, allowed the leader to create a culture worth following, which was conducive to the achievement of results, as postulated by Chan et al. (2005) and Walumbwa et al. (2011), as the following response indicates:

Secondary participants noticed how developing leadership authenticity in primary participants had enhanced effectiveness and commitment within the team, in line with findings by Clapp-Smith et al. (2009). Primary participants had also developed a more empowering style of leadership, which also confirms findings by Walumbwa et al. (2011):

These findings illustrate that the programme had a noticeable effect on increased understanding of AL and an increased reflection self-regulation in the behaviour of participants, as noticed by the primary and their secondary participants. This is in line with the third AL sub-process outlined by Chan et al. (2005), resulting in a noticeable increase in organisational AL within the participants.

The main limitations of this study were that there was only one leadership team that comprised the programme participant sample; therefore, the findings of this study cannot be generalised. Although the individual sessions in this empirical study ran over 3 months and data were collected after the programme, indicating that changes had been made towards increased AL, the question remained whether these changes could be sustained. This study opens a new area of possibilities for further research, as follows:

For some in leadership positions, it can take years, even a life time, to discover the true self at a deep and meaningful level. It can take even longer to master the regulation of the various processes below the soil-line that allows the leader to sustain authenticity; not only within but also in the leadership role and purpose to which he or she needs to be true. Whereas most research on leadership authenticity focuses on what it entails, how it impacts and considerations in the development of such leadership, the uniqueness of this research is that it focused from an empirical perspective on the proximal programme effect on development of AL. It determined that the AL programme adhered to guidelines for such programmes and had a noticeable proximal effect on enhancing leadership authenticity within a period of 3 months.