Introduction
While different research designs are required to advance scholarship (Leavy, Reference Leavy2017), experiments are the gold standard to establish causality (Eden, Reference Eden2017; Lonati, Quiroga, Zehnder, & Antonakis, Reference Lonati, Quiroga, Zehnder and Antonakis2018) – this is largely because their high level of control and internal validity serve to isolate cause-and-effect relationships (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff and Podsakoff2019). By manipulating a single discrete variable in a controlled environment, researchers can exclude confounding variables and competing explanations, such that only the manipulated variable can affect other phenomena under investigation (Randolph-Seng & Gardner, Reference Randolph-Seng and Gardner2013).
Despite the value of, and increased interest in the experimental design, it is underused in leadership research (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, Lalive and Day2014; Eden, Reference Eden2021; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Lowe, Meuser, Noghani, Gullifor and Cogliser2020; Rietzschel, Wisse, & Rus, Reference Rietzschel, Wisse, Rus, Schyns, Hall and Neves2017) – this extends to authentic leadership research, where field surveys and correlational designs dominate. For instance, following their ‘review of the literature,’ Gardner and colleagues (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011, p. 1141) observed that ‘cross-sectional, non-experimental designs … dominant.’ And it appears that little has changed, with Gardner and colleagues (Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021) more recently noting the relative dearth of experimental designs in authentic leadership research.
The limited use of the experimental design can constrain understandings of authentic leadership. This is because correlational designs are unable to draw causal inferences about theorised relationships. While the experimental design can isolate variables and determine their direct effects on outcomes, correlational designs primarily identify relationships between variables without establishing causality (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010) – additionally, the potential for confounding variables in correlational designs remains high, further muddying the waters. As such, relying on correlational designs can hinder what is known about authentic leadership behaviours and their impact on organisational outcomes.
The reliance on correlational designs can also thwart opportunities to theorise authentic leadership (Fischer, Dietz, & Antonakis, Reference Fischer, Dietz and Antonakis2024). Without experimental evidence, theoretical advancements might be based on assumptions rather than empirical validation. This can perpetuate the use of models that are not optimally aligned with the realities of organisational dynamics. As a result, interventions based on these models might be less effective, undermining efforts to foster authentic leadership within organisations.
The apprehension around experimental designs might stem from a misunderstanding about their basic characteristics and their limitations (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff and Podsakoff2019). They might be perceived as lacking external validity or generalisability, such that the controlled environments typical of experiments do not reflect the complex and dynamic nature of organisational settings (Lonati et al., Reference Lonati, Quiroga, Zehnder and Antonakis2018). Consequently, some might suggest that the findings from experimental designs cannot be applied to actual workplace scenarios.
A second, related concern is the perceived lack of realism in experimental research. Critics have argued that the artificial nature of experiments, where variables are manipulated in a controlled setting, does not accurately capture the nuances of authentic leadership in practice (Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Dietz and Antonakis2024). The leadership behaviours observed in experiments might differ from those in actual organisational contexts.
A third concern is that of ethics (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff and Podsakoff2019). Manipulating leadership behaviours and randomly assigning participants to different experimental conditions might raise ethical questions, particularly in organisational settings. Researchers might be concerned about the potential impact on participant wellbeing and the ethical implications of such manipulations.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid apprehensions, because the limited use of experimental designs in authentic leadership research can impede the field’s growth, some scholars have encouraged their use (Sidani & Rowe, Reference Sidani and Rowe2018). For example, Gardner and colleagues (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011, p. 1141) suggested that experimental designs in authentic leadership research can ‘facilitate strong inferences about the causal relationships among leadership constructs … [and] identify potentially positive effects of authentic leadership that could accrue for individuals, groups, and organizations under the right circumstances.’ Similarly, experimental designs can serve to operationalise authentic leadership (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021).
While the calls for more experimental designs are instructive, there is limited clarity on how they have been used to examine causality in authentic leadership. Specifically, to the authors’ knowledge, research is yet to describe how experimental designs have been deployed, as well as methodological trends and gaps. As such, while a generic call for more experimental designs might be helpful, there is likely to be greater value in research that learns from and builds on previous studies.
To advance scholarship on authentic leadership, this article describes the use of experimental designs to examine causality in authentic leadership. This is achieved through a scoping review.
This article is structured as follows. It starts with a brief introduction of authentic leadership, then describes and justifies the method and presents the results. The article concludes by discussing the key findings and explicating the associated implications for scholars, managers, and practitioners.
Authentic leadership
Authentic leadership has gained significant attention in the discipline of management as a contemporary leadership theory (Avolio & Walumbwa, Reference Avolio, Walumbwa and Day2014). It emphasises leaders’ integrity and consistency with their core values, promoting genuine relationships and ethical decision-making. Authentic leadership is rooted in the idea that leaders who remain true to their beliefs and values can positively influence their followers and foster a culture of trust and engagement within organisations (Iszatt-White & Kempster, Reference Iszatt-White and Kempster2019).
A dominant understanding of authentic leadership is that of Peus and colleagues (Reference Peus, Wesche, Streicher, Braun and Frey2012, p. 332) – or variations of. They suggested that authentic leaders ‘are guided by sound moral convictions and act in concordance with their deeply held values, even under pressure; they are keenly aware of their views, strengths, and weaknesses, and strive to understand how their leadership impacts others.’ Correspondingly, there appears to be broad consensus that authentic leadership comprises four dimensions, including self-awareness, an internalised moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011). Self-awareness involves understanding one’s emotions, motives, and values, while an internalised moral perspective refers to making decisions that align with one’s ethical beliefs. Balanced processing denotes the ability to objectively analyse information and consider multiple perspectives, and relational transparency involves openly sharing thoughts and feelings with others, fostering trust and openness (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumbwa, Reference Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa2005).
The appeal of authentic leadership aligns with the appeal of ethical and trustworthy leaders (Soderberg & Romney, Reference Soderberg and Romney2022). As organisations navigate complex global challenges and face stakeholder scrutiny, the need for leaders who demonstrate integrity and transparency has become critical (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011). Authentic leadership addresses this need by promoting values-based leadership that prioritises ethical decision-making and genuine relationships with followers. This approach is particularly relevant in today’s business environment, where trust and integrity are essential for building sustainable organisations.
The popularity of authentic leadership theory is further supported by its connection to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, Reference Deci and Ryan2000). Authentic leadership can positively affect desirable follower outcomes by fulfilling the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Authentic leaders can foster autonomy by encouraging followers to participate in decision-making processes, which empowers them and enhances their intrinsic motivation and engagement. They support followers’ competence by offering constructive feedback and opportunities for skill development, helping followers build confidence and effectiveness in their roles; this in turn can validate their professional identities (DeRue & Ashford, Reference DeRue and Ashford2010). By promoting open communication and demonstrating genuine concern for follower wellbeing, authentic leaders fulfil the need for relatedness, creating a sense of belonging and trust within the team.
Despite its growing acceptance, authentic leadership faces criticism and debate. Critics argue that the concept of authenticity might conflict with a leader’s roles within organisations. Alvesson and Einola (Reference Alvesson and Einola2019) contended that the ideal of authentic leadership might be difficult to achieve due to the social and political conventions inherent in organisational life. They suggested that the demands placed on leaders to influence others and align follower values with their own can create tension between being authentic and fulfilling leadership roles. Authentic leadership also risks conflating authenticity with sincerity and honesty, which are distinct (Trilling, Reference Trilling2009). Sincerity involves portraying oneself accurately to others, while authenticity involves being true to oneself (Avolio & Gardner, Reference Avolio and Gardner2005).
Proponents of authentic leadership have asserted that striving for authenticity is a worthwhile endeavour, even if it is not always fully attainable (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011). They have argued that the pursuit of authenticity and authentic leadership can lead to personal and professional growth, enhancing wellbeing and performance. Organisations that foster authentic leadership can benefit from leaders and followers working together to align values and goals, improving decision-making and building strong relationships (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa2005). By encouraging open communication, mutual respect, and ethical behaviour, authentic leadership offers a way to create a positive and productive organisational culture (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2007). A comprehensive review of authentic leadership theory can be sourced within this special issue.
Method
The aim of this review was to ‘identify and map the breadth of evidence’ (Munn et al., Reference Munn, Pollock, Khalil, Alexander, McLnerney, Godfrey and Tricco2022, p. 951) on how experimental designs have been used to examine authentic leadership. A scoping review was appropriate for three key reasons. First, authentic leadership is ill-defined, whereby there is no universal understanding of it (cf. Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019; Gardner & McCauley, Reference Gardner and McCauley2022). Second, in their critique of authentic leadership studies, Alvesson and Einola (Reference Alvesson and Einola2019, p. 390) argued that the evidence is scant. Specifically, they observed:
An overreliance on survey measures, cross-sectional designs, and single source data, and an almost complete lack of causally identified studies, qualitative studies other than in the positivist tradition… limit[ing] the possibility to develop the field further through in-depth understandings, either through longitudinal or (field) experimental research.
Third, a scoping review typically precedes a systematic review, which in turn can ‘Produce statements to guide decision-making’ (Munn et al., Reference Munn, Peters, Stern, Tufanaru, McArthur and Aromataris2018, p. 2). For these reasons, a scoping review was conducted to describe publications that report on the use of experimental designs to examine authentic leadership.
The scoping review addressed the overarching question: how have experimental designs been used to examine the causal effects of authentic leadership? It was conducted in accordance with the JBImethodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., Reference Peters, Godfrey, McInerney, Munn, Tricco, Khalil, Aromataris and Munn2020) and reported using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., Reference Tricco, Lillie, Zarin, O’Brien, Colquhoun, Levac and Straus2018). Accordingly, the overarching question served to clarify the concepts of interest – namely, authentic leadership and experimental designs. Thus, publications that reported the use of experimental designs to examine authentic leadership were considered, irrespective of participant group or study context.
After searching Business Source Complete (EBSCOhost) to ensure comparable reviews had not been published, search strategies were devised for Business Source Complete (EBSCOhost), APA PsycInfo (EBSCOhost), and ABI/INFORM Collection (ProQuest), given the relevance of these databases. To optimise the pertinence of the identified publications, the term, ‘authentic leadership,’ was searched in publication titles and abstracts across all three databases. Furthermore, the term was also searched in other relevant search fields (Business Source Complete: KW and SU; APA PsycInfo: SU, MJ Word in Major Subject Heading, and MA MeSH Subject Heading; and ABI/INFORM Collection: MainSubject) – this approach served to expand the search, while remaining focused on authentic leadership.
To optimise comprehensiveness, all publications were considered, irrespective of language or publication date, as was grey literature (e.g., theses, conference abstracts). When a publication was in a language other than English that the reviewers were unable to readily translate, Google Translate was used to translate titles and abstracts, in the first instance; and the full-text, thereafter, as required.
Following the deployment of the search strategies (on March 6, 2024), all identified citations were collated and uploaded to EndNote (The EndNote Team, 2013) and duplicates, removed. Titles and abstracts were then imported into the online platform, Covidence, and screened by two reviewers, independently, with reference to the inclusion criteria – namely: an intervention was used (broadly defined); and authentic leadership was manipulated. In accordance with the focus of this scoping review, these criteria served to ensure that: ‘an intervention [was] … deliberately introduced to observe its effects’ (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, Reference Shadish, Cook and Campbell2002, p. 12) on at least one dependent variable; and authentic leadership was manipulated as an explanatory variable (i.e., an independent variable, a mediator, or a moderator). While these criteria were important to address the overarching question, they limited the review in two ways. First, they excluded publications that reported on observational studies or qualitative research without an intervention, thereby omitting alternative research designs that aided understandings authentic leadership. Second, the inclusion criteria excluded publications that reported on investigations of authentic leadership that naturally occurred in organisations without an intentional manipulation.
When it was unclear whether a publication met the inclusion criteria (for example, Haas, Braun, & Frey, Reference Haas, Braun and Frey2016), the publication was excluded for consistency. For potentially relevant publications, the full-text was then imported into Covidence and assessed against the inclusion criteria by two reviewers, independently. Reasons for excluding full-text publications that did not meet the inclusion criteria were reported. Discrepancies were reconciled with another reviewer.
Data were extracted from relevant publications by two reviewers, independently, using a data extraction tool that the reviewers developed. Disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.
The data extracted from each included publication were tabulated and presented in diagrammatic form. This served to present an overview of the publications, transparently and succinctly, with reference to the key items of the data extraction tool. The tables and diagrams were accompanied by a narrative to describe how experimental designs have been used to examine authentic leadership, and ultimately clarify how the results relate to the review question. As a scoping review, a quality assessment of the publications was not required (Grant & Booth, Reference Grant and Booth2009) – as such their content was not critically analysed.
Of the 2,362 publications identified, 2,088 were screened after duplicates were removed (see Figure 1). Of these, the full-text of 75 publications was assessed to determine eligibility – this served to identify 11 publications that were eligible for inclusion.
PRISMA flowchart.
Results
Publication details
The 11 publications were issued between 2013 and 2024, inclusive, with the greatest proportion issued in 2023 (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio, & Lester, Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Malloy, Kavussanu, & Mackman, Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu, & Chen, Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023). While most of the publications were journal articles, one was a doctoral thesis (McKee, Reference McKee2015). The ten journal articles were largely published in management journals (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Braun, Peus, & Frey, Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Cianci, Hannah, Roberts, & Tsakumis, Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Monzani, Ripoll, & Peiró, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023); however, some were published in psychology journals (Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack, & Goldszmidt, Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; Monzani, Ripoll, & Peiró, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014). The journals might largely be deemed, high-quality – this is because all except one (Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023) had a Scimago quartile ranking of one, and all had a five-year impact factor that was greater than one, according to the Journal Citation Reports.
Among the 11 publications, the largest proportion was conducted in Europe (Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015) and the United States of America (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Cianci et al., Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; McKee, Reference McKee2015). This suggests that experimental studies on authentic leadership are primarily concentrated in Western nations with limited presentation of other nations, particularly developing nations (see Table 1).
Scoping review summary (publications = 11; experiments = 16)
Five publications included one study (Cianci et al., Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; McKee, Reference McKee2015; Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015), while the remaining six included more than one study, with four publications presenting multiple studies (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024). Four publications also included a field survey (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023), with two of these presenting multi-method and multi-experiment approaches (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023). Additionally, one publication presented a causal chain design involving three sequential experiments (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023).
Understandings of authentic leadership
When articulating an understanding of authentic leadership, the 11 publications referred to the definitions offered by Avolio (Reference Avolio and Gardner2005, Reference Avolio, Wernsing and Gardner2017), Gardner and colleagues (Reference Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa2005), and/or Walumbwa and colleagues (Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2007). This suggests the publications largely understood authentic leadership as comprising four dimensions – namely, self-awareness, balanced processing, transparent relationships, and an internal moral compass. The aforesaid references were complemented with others (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, Reference Ilies, Morgeson and Nahrgang2005; Neider & Schriesheim, Reference Neider and Schriesheim2011).
Experimental conditions
The 11 publications collectively presented 16 experiments that met the inclusion criteria. Nine publications included one eligible experiment, whereby authentic leadership, as an explanatory variable, was manipulated and two included more than one experiment involving authentic leadership treatments – specifically, Braun and colleagues (Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018) presented three experiments, and Lagowska and colleagues (Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024) presented four.
Guided by Rietzschel and colleagues’ (Reference Rietzschel, Wisse, Rus, Schyns, Hall and Neves2017) categorisation of field, laboratory, and online experiments, eight of the 16 experiments were conducted online (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; McKee, Reference McKee2015; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023); four were conducted in a laboratory, all of which involved university students (Cianci et al., Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015); and Lagowska and colleagues (Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024) conducted the remaining four in the field. The greater prevalence of online experiments reflects their increasing use in the related fields of psychology and economics (Parigi, Santana & Cook, Reference Parigi, Santana and Cook2017; Prissé & Jorrat, Reference Prissé and Jorrat2022). While they can unhelpfully increase heterogeneity within samples and reduce control over experimental conditions (Manago, Mize, & Doan, Reference Manago, Mize and Doan2021), they can enable leadership scholars to expand the boundaries of the ‘organization’ (Eden, Reference Eden2021).
Experimental design
Seven experiments used a factorial between-subjects experimental design (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Cianci et al., Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014; Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024; McKee, Reference McKee2015). The remaining nine used a one-factor design, with eight involving a between-subjects design (Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; studies 3 and 4 in; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023), and one, a within-subjects conjoint design (study 2 in Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018) – while some consider experimental designs to include conjoint designs (Mize & Manago, Reference Mize and Manago2022), it should be noted that this is a contested view (Aguinis & Lawal, Reference Aguinis and Lawal2012).
Factorial designs, which manipulate multiple independent variables, enable researchers to examine the separate effects of each independent variable (that is, the main effects), as well as their combined effects (that is, the interaction effects) on the dependent variable (Rietzschel et al., Reference Rietzschel, Wisse, Rus, Schyns, Hall and Neves2017; Rogers & Révész, Reference Rogers, Révész, McKinley and Rose2019). Moreover, such designs can mitigate social desirability bias by simultaneously controlling the influence of multiple factors, making it difficult for participants to predict the desired response (Mize & Manago, Reference Mize and Manago2022). Generally, factorial designs involve more treatment conditions – this is because each combination of the different levels of multiple independent variables constitutes a condition in the experiment; this can make it suitable to test complex leadership models. As Rietzschel and colleagues (Reference Rietzschel, Wisse, Rus, Schyns, Hall and Neves2017, p. 61) noted, by independently manipulating single, specific predictors in a factorial design, ‘these studies are informative in not just showing whether certain leadership behaviors are effective … but also identifying boundary conditions for those benefits.’ However, the complexity of factorial designs can be challenging in non-laboratory settings where it is difficult to control independent or extraneous variables (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff and Podsakoff2019). This might partly account for the greater use of one-factor, rather than factorial designs in authentic leadership experiments.
Fourteen of the 16 experiments manipulated authentic leadership as an antecedent variable; the two remaining experiments manipulated authentic leadership as a mediator (Appels, Reference Appels2023) or moderator (Cianci et al., Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014). This suggests that experimental designs to examine causality in authentic leadership have largely investigated the effects of authentic leadership as an independent variable.
Experimentally manipulating the mediator to test causal mediating mechanisms can be challenging, thus requiring complicated experimental designs (Imai, Tingley, & Yamamoto, Reference Imai, Tingley and Yamamoto2013; Pirlott & MacKinnon, Reference Pirlott and MacKinnon2016). For instance, Appels (Reference Appels2023) adopted a parallel design, combining a measurement-of-mediation design with a concurrent double randomisation manipulation-of-mediator design. The design involved two sequential experiments whereby authentic leadership was manipulated as a mediator in the concurrent double randomisation experiment. Johnson and colleagues (Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023) adopted a different type of manipulation-of-mediator design – namely, a causal chain design (Stone‐Romero & Rosopa, Reference Stone‐Romero and Rosopa2010), also called a double randomisation design (Pirlott & MacKinnon, Reference Pirlott and MacKinnon2016). They conducted three experiments involving multiple mediators. Authentic leadership was manipulated as an antecedent variable and its effects on the proximal mediators (organisational identification and role clarity) were assessed. While the parallel and causal chain designs can demonstrate the causality of mediating effects (Pirlott & MacKinnon, Reference Pirlott and MacKinnon2016; Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, Reference Spencer, Zanna and Fong2005), they differ. The parallel design consists of two experiments, and ‘each subject is randomly assigned to one of two experiments; in one experiment only the treatment variable is randomized whereas in the other both the treatment and the mediator are randomized’ (Imai et al., Reference Imai, Tingley and Yamamoto2013, p. 6). However, the causal chain design involves separate sequential experiments where causal mediation analysis is applied to each single experiment.
While the 14 experiments that positioned authentic leadership as an antecedent variable were conducted in an array of settings – both online (Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; McKee, Reference McKee2015; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023) and offline (Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015) – an examination of these experiments revealed three key patterns. First, with two exceptions (Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014), they all involved a manipulation check within the experiment. Second, they largely involved the use of written vignettes (Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; McKee, Reference McKee2015; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023) – the exceptions involved the use of leadership profiles (Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018), leader scripts (Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024), and multimedia videos (Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015). Third, the dependent variables largely included outcomes pertaining to followers (Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024; Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023).
Participants
Eleven experiments involved working adults or residents (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023), while five involved university students (Cianci et al., Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; McKee, Reference McKee2015; Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015). While the sample sizes ranged from 47 participants (study 1 in Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024) to 302 participants (study 1 in Appels, Reference Appels2023), most experiments involved 100 to 300 participants. Specifically, three experiments involved fewer than 100 participants, six involved between 100 and 200 participants, another six involved between 200 and 300 participants, and one involved over 300 participants. These larger samples parallel those found in other management and leadership studies (Alilyyani, Wong, & Cummings, Reference Alilyyani, Wong and Cummings2018; Scandura & Williams, Reference Scandura and Williams2000).
Comparing the experimental settings, all eight online experiments involved the highest mean number of participants (191). This was followed by the four lab experiments (175), with the four field experiments involving the lowest mean number of participants (116). These patterns reflect research that suggests online experiments can serve to increase sample size (Manago et al., Reference Manago, Mize and Doan2021; Parigi et al., Reference Parigi, Santana and Cook2017; Reips, Reference Reips and Birnbaum2000).
Of the 14 experiments in which participant mean age was reported, this ranged from 19.36 to 43.70 years (mean of means = 32.17 years). Of the 13 experiments in which the standard deviation of participant age was reported, this ranged from 1.57 to 14.39 years (mean of SD = 9.28 years). The four experiments involving university students that reported participant age indicated a younger mean age (24.19 years), than the seven online experiments that involved working adults (37.29 years) and the three field experiments that involved residents that reported participant age (30.85 years). Additionally, the standard deviation of participating students (range = 1.57–8.6 years; mean of SD = 4.95 years) was smaller than the participating working adults (range = 9.21–14.39 years; mean of SD = 25.07 years) and participating residents (range = 10.49–12.54 years; mean of SD = 11.32 years). These differences potentially limit comparability between the cohorts.
Of the experiments that involved working adults, there was limited detail on the organisations or sectors they represented. For instance, Johnson and colleagues (Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023, p. 232) limited their description to ‘One hundred participants who live[d] in the U.S. [United States] and work[ed] full-time.’ Similarly, while some authors reported on the industries that their participants represented, these industries were not defined (Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018). Consider, for instance, Zhu and colleagues (Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023) who noted that the largest proportion of their participants were part of the ‘manufacturing industry’ – however, what this industry included or excluded was not apparent. This might be partly due to the heterogeneity of online samples, as all seven experiments with working adults were conducted online.
Manipulation checks
Of the 16 experiments, all but one involved a manipulation check (Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014). Of the 15 experiments that involved a manipulation check, eight involved an in-sample manipulation check using the authentic leadership questionnaire and the authentic leadership inventory to assess the manipulation of authentic leadership. One experiment also involved the use of the authentic leadership inventory as a manipulation check for its authentic leadership treatments during a pretest with a different sample (Appels, Reference Appels2023). Lagowska and colleagues’ (Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024) experiments involved a one-item binary manipulation check to assess whether respondents believed they interacted with an authentic leader or an ethical leader in the experiments. The authors pretested the validity of their leadership manipulations with a separate sample with a within-person design. Similarly, McKee (Reference McKee2015) tested their leadership manipulation check in a pilot study and then applied the improved measures in the experiment. Additionally, Braun and colleagues (Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018, study 2) used expert rating in a pretest as a manipulation check. Overall, these findings suggest that the experiments largely performed manipulation checks within the experiment after measuring the dependent variable(s), with the authentic leadership questionnaire and the authentic leadership inventory commonly used to assess manipulation effectiveness.
The aforesaid findings do not appear to align with recommended research designs. In social science experiments, it is common to conduct a manipulation check after the dependent measures have been assessed (Mize & Manago, Reference Mize and Manago2022). However, in leadership research, manipulation checks within the experiment, either before or after measuring the dependent variable(s), can lead to demand effects. Therefore, ideally, manipulation checks should be undertaken as part of a pilot study involving a different, comparable sample (Lonati et al., Reference Lonati, Quiroga, Zehnder and Antonakis2018; Podsakoff & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff and Podsakoff2019; Schowalter & Volmer, Reference Schowalter and Volmer2023). A pretest of the treatment conditions enables researchers to improve the experiment manipulation before their primary study. More importantly, an ‘external manipulation check’ (Lonati et al., Reference Lonati, Quiroga, Zehnder and Antonakis2018, p. 22), using out-of-sample manipulation checks in a separate pilot test, can address the demand effects or effects that have already faded. Yet, this scoping review suggests that most experimental designs to examine causality in authentic leadership fell short of the recommended research designs.
Manipulation materials
To manipulate authentic leadership, 11 of the 16 experiments involved the use of a written vignette. Reflecting previous research (Schowalter & Volmer, Reference Schowalter and Volmer2023), those developed by Cianci and colleagues (Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014) appear to have been particularly influential, as they were adapted for six other experiments (study 2 in Appels, Reference Appels2023; study 2 in Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; studies 3 and 4 in; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; study 2 in Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023). Cianci and colleagues developed scripts to reflect high, low, or neutral authentic leadership – the latter was ‘a condition with no information regarding the follower’s immediate supervisor – designed to elicit responses in the absence of authentic leadership’ (p. 586).
Rather than use adaptations of Cianci and colleagues’ (Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014) materials, four experiments involved the use of novel written vignettes. For instance, in one experiment (study 2a in Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023), participants read a vignette imagining they worked for a specific company and manager, and the manipulation treatment was a description of the manager’s style as high or low in authentic leadership. Two other experiments involved the use of a brief description of a manager’s leadership style, which was either authentic or ethical (studies 3 and 4 in Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024). And another experiment involved the use of eight different scenarios to manipulate transformational and authentic leadership (McKee, Reference McKee2015).
Of the five remaining experiments (that did not involve the use of a written vignette), two manipulated ethical and authentic leadership by involving trained actors to deliver a scenario script (studies 1 and 2 in Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024). The actors played the role of a future supervisor and their speech was manipulated to create a scenario of ethical or authentic leadership.
Another two experiments involved videos and computer software to manipulate authentic and transactional leadership (Monzani et al., Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015). Both included: an initial manipulation in the form of a video of a chief executive officer delivering a welcome speech to participants in each condition; and the manipulation of leadership feedback style in the form of a commentary on the trial performance according to each leadership treatment.
The remaining experiment involved the use of 16 leadership profiles, whereby the four dimensions of authentic leadership – specifically, self-awareness, relational transparency, internalised moral perspective, and balanced processing – were manipulated by using a high and low condition (Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018). This design provided 32 profiles in total for comparative value. As the authors described, participants were invited to complete 16 profile comparisons:
Each comparison consisted of two leader profiles presented side by side in random order. Each profile contained four statements representing the four dimensions of authentic leadership. Specifically, within a profile, each dimension of authentic leadership was varied to indicate either high or low levels of self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing (p. 134).
Manipulation treatments
All 16 experiments included counterfactual conditions, involving one of two types of manipulation treatment. Specifically, they either manipulated the level of authentic leadership or they compared authentic leadership with an alternative style. Each type is addressed in turn.
Nine experiments involved the manipulation of the level of authentic leadership, comparing high and low levels – of these, six included a control group. In one of these experiments, the control group received no treatment (Appels, Reference Appels2023). Here, the experiment – a parallel design – entailed no manipulation of the mediator in one of two experiments – namely, authentic leadership attributions; in the other, the manipulation of the mediator was fixed to a high versus low value. A biased comparison can be created when an experiment does not include a control group or when a control group receives no intervention (Lonati et al., Reference Lonati, Quiroga, Zehnder and Antonakis2018; Schowalter & Volmer, Reference Schowalter and Volmer2023). This is because it can be difficult to ascertain the true cause of an observed effect. As such, control groups should receive a neutral treatment, differing only in leadership behaviour and not in other aspects of the manipulation. This was reflected in the remaining five experiments in which the control group received a neutral treatment. For instance, in Cianci and colleagues’ (Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014, p. 586) experiment, the neutral treatment was ‘a condition with no information regarding the follower’s immediate supervisor – designed to elicit responses in the absence of authentic leadership.’ Similarly, in the three experiments conducted by Braun and Peus (study 2 in 2018), as well as Braun and colleagues (studies 3 and 4 in 2018), the control groups did not receive further information about the leader. And Malloy and colleagues (Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023) involved a control group that received a neutral script, devoid of references to authentic leadership behaviours.
Rather than manipulate the level of authentic leadership, seven of the 16 experiments compared authentic leadership with an alternative leadership style. The experiments involved manipulation treatments that presented participants with two contrasting leadership scenarios – the impact of authentic leadership on particular outcomes was compared with the impact of an alternative leadership style on these outcomes. For instance, Lagowska and colleagues’ (Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024) four experiments compared authentic leadership with ethical leadership, serving to differentiate the two. Similarly, Monzani and colleagues’ (Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2014, Reference Monzani, Ripoll and Peiró2015) two experiments compared authentic leadership with transactional leadership – they concluded that an authentic feedback style had a stronger effect on followers’ loyalty, task performance, and work result satisfaction. And – in comparing non-transformational (authentic) leadership with non-authentic (transformational) leadership – McKee (Reference McKee2015) found no difference between the two.
Experiment results
Reflecting previous research (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff and Podsakoff2019; Schowalter & Volmer, Reference Schowalter and Volmer2023), most of the 16 experiments culminated with outcomes pertaining to followers – for instance, they considered how perceptions and behaviours of authentic leadership impacted followers. The dependent variables in these experiments included followers’ wellbeing (e.g., work-life balance); job satisfaction (e.g., work satisfaction, enjoyment); positive attitudes or behaviour (e.g., organisational identification, organisational citizen behaviour, commitment, trust, loyalty to leader, ethical decision, willingness to apply for a job, employers’ attractiveness); negative attitudes or behaviour (e.g., resistance to change, guilt, cheating and aggression, stereotype threat); as well as capability and performance (e.g., role clarity, psychological capital, task performance).
Conversely, fewer experiments culminated with outcomes pertaining to leaders. The dependent variables in these experiments included leaders’: work–life balance; and attributions of gender. For example, Braun and colleagues’ (Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018) three experiments suggested that authentic leadership was positively associated with attributions of being female.
Of the 16 experiments, nine explicitly established the causal effects of authentic leadership on the outcome(s) of interest. For example, Appels (Reference Appels2023, p. 2742) found ‘participants attribute [authentic leadership] … to activist … [chief executive officers] … and that this causally explains a substantial portion of any positive impact of … [chief executive officers’ sociopolitical activism] on employer attractiveness’. Similarly, Braun and Peus (Reference Braun and Peus2018, p. 887) reported that ‘the experimental design allowed us to draw causal inferences about the positive impact of authentic leadership on all three dependent variables.’ And Malloy and colleagues (Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023, p. 37) claimed their research offered ‘causal evidence for the positive effects of authentic leadership on trust, enjoyment, and commitment.’
Discussion
Despite recent advancements in the theoretical understandings of authentic leadership, few experimental designs have been used (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011, Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021). Instead, there has been a greater reliance on correlational designs. Nonetheless, some researchers have proposed causal relationships, discussing the results as consequential from leadership (Wulff et al., Reference Wulff, Sajons, Pogrebna, Lonati, Bastardoz, Banks and Antonakis2023). The scarcity of experimental authentic leadership studies suggests that caution should be exercised when interpreting much of the research findings on authentic leadership to date, given the limitations of correlational designs (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010).
To address the criticism about ‘weak empirical studies’ in authentic leadership (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019, p. 383), there have been calls for diverse methodologies, including experimental designs, to establish causal relationships in authentic leadership research (Banks, Gooty, Ross, Williams, & Harrington, Reference Banks, Gooty, Ross, Williams and Harrington2018; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021; Sidani & Rowe, Reference Sidani and Rowe2018). As such, this article presented findings of a scoping review to establish how experimental designs have been used to examine the causal effects of authentic leadership.
The review served to identify 11 publications, largely from the United States of America, which collectively presented 16 experiments that met the inclusion criteria. Generally, these experiments: tested authentic leadership as an antecedent; were conducted online; used a one-factor design; involved large samples, typically of working adults or residents; involved a manipulation check; involved the use of written vignettes to manipulate levels of authentic leadership; included counterfactual conditions; culminated with outcomes pertaining to followers; and established the causal effects of authentic leadership on the outcome(s) of interest.
This aforesaid landscape of experimental designs to examine causality in authentic leadership illuminates what is known as much as what remains unknown. For instance, with five (of 11) publications reporting on European studies, and four reporting on North American studies, there is limited evidence from elsewhere in the world. Similarly, the sole involvement of young and middle aged adults suggests there is much to learn about authentic leadership among much younger cohorts, including children, as well as much older cohorts, including retirees – this is particularly important given ageing populations, worldwide (WHO, 2022).
Despite the importance of the findings presented in this article, four methodological limitations warrant mention. First, given that the search only included the term, ‘authentic leadership,’ and excluded variations thereof, it is unlikely that all relevant publications were identified. For instance, publications about genuine leadership (Fultz, Reference Fultz2017) or the dimensions of authentic leadership – namely, ‘self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing and relational transparency’ (Puni & Hilton, Reference Puni and Hilton2020, p. 369) – would not have been identified via the search strategy. Second, given varied understandings of what constitutes laboratory and field experiments, the way the experiments were categorised for the purpose of this scoping review might differ to others’ approach. Third, while the 16 experiments were categorised according to whether they culminated with outcomes pertaining to followers or leaders, others might have categorised the experiments differently. For instance, while employers’ attractiveness was deemed to be an outcome pertaining to the followers who participated in the experiments (Appels, Reference Appels2023), others might argue this to be an outcome pertaining to the leader (as the employer). Fourth, the findings presented in this article might be susceptible to publication bias (Harrison, Banks, Pollack, O’Boyle, & Short, Reference Harrison, Banks, Pollack, O’Boyle and Short2017), whereby articles might be more likely to be published if they present positive results, leading to an overrepresentation of positive findings.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid limitations, the findings from this scoping review have implications for scholars, managers, and practitioners. For scholars, the findings highlight four key lessons to advance the scholarship of authentic leadership. First, there appears to be value in using written vignettes (Appels, Reference Appels2023; Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Braun et al., Reference Braun, Peus and Frey2018; Cianci et al., Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Lagowska et al., Reference Lagowska, Sobral, Jacob, Hafenbrack and Goldszmidt2024; Malloy et al., Reference Malloy, Kavussanu and Mackman2023; McKee, Reference McKee2015; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023). Vignettes offer some control where researchers can present participants with scenarios depicting various leadership behaviours. These scenarios can be carefully crafted to reflect realistic and contextually relevant leadership behaviours, allowing researchers to study participant responses and evaluations. When written vignettes are used, participants can receive a series of scenarios describing different leadership behaviours. By standardising these scenarios across all participants, researchers can control for extraneous variables and focus on how participants attribute leadership qualities based on the behaviours presented. Although written vignettes might not reflect the complexities and subtleties of real-world interactions (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010), they allow causal relationships to be examined between attributed leadership and various outcomes, such as follower motivation, trust, and performance. For instance, to avert the methodological constraints and estimation biases often associated with correlational studies, it can be helpful to randomly assign participants to groups, providing one group with a vignette on high-level authentic leadership and the other with a vignette on low-level authentic leadership vignette; and compare mean effects between the groups (for guidance, see Aguinis & Bradley, Reference Aguinis and Bradley2014).
Despite their advantages, written vignettes are not a perfect solution. They typically manipulate perceptions or evaluations of behaviours, rather than the behaviours themselves (Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Dietz and Antonakis2024). This distinction is crucial because behaviours and perceptions are not synonymous. Perceptions act as outcomes rather than independent variables, influenced by various factors that are not always accounted for in the experimental design. These omitted variables can skew results, leading to theoretical confounding (Sajons, Reference Sajons2020). This issue creates significant challenges in ensuring the validity of findings, as the unmeasured variables can introduce endogeneity problems that complicate estimation. Therefore, written vignettes present a helpful way forward for authentic leadership research, but require careful consideration of the inherent limitations in measuring true causal effects of leader behaviour (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010; Lonati et al., Reference Lonati, Quiroga, Zehnder and Antonakis2018; Wulff et al., Reference Wulff, Sajons, Pogrebna, Lonati, Bastardoz, Banks and Antonakis2023).
Second, there appears to be value in using multi-method approaches, combining field surveys with experimental designs (Braun & Peus, Reference Braun and Peus2018; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Long, Liu, Shu and Chen2023). As Appels (Reference Appels2023, pp. 2735–2736) observed, while the ‘experiments address issues of causality … the field survey speaks to issues of generalizability.’ This approach addresses the limitations of using one design – like a correlational design, which cannot demonstrate causal effects – or one method – like a written vignette, which can be ‘challenged by threats to external validity’ (Aguinis & Bradley, Reference Aguinis and Bradley2014, p. 351).
Third, there is likely to be value in conducting online experiments. Online platforms can help to extend the reach of research, ease participation, and diversify participants (Buso et al., Reference Buso, Di Cagno, Ferrari, Larocca, Lorè, Marazzi and Spadoni2021; Prissé & Jorrat, Reference Prissé and Jorrat2022). However, online experiments are not without methodological or ethical challenges (Benbunan-Fich, Reference Benbunan-Fich2016) – for instance, in addition to the prospect of ‘threaten[ing] several major types of validity’ (Newman, Bavik, Mount, & Shao, Reference Newman, Bavik, Mount and Shao2021, p. 1383), it can be difficult to ensure participant identity and their informed consent.
While the three aforesaid lessons speak to what the scoping review found, the fourth lesson pertains to five opportunities that remain underused to advance authentic leadership research. First, given the reliance on working adults or residents and students, largely from Western nations, there is a need to diversify the participants and the cultural and organisational contexts they are part of. Such diversity would aid the generalisability of the findings. Second, given the predominance of cross-sectional experiments, there is an opportunity for longitudinal experiments to determine the long-term effects of authentic leadership. Such research could establish causal relationships over time and offer a deeper understanding of the dynamics involved. Third, given the reliance on individual outcomes, scholars might consider the prospect of establishing experimental outcomes at the team or organisational levels. Fourth, given the demonstrated interest in manipulating authentic leadership as an antecedent variable, there is a need for additional experiments to manipulate authentic leadership as a mediator or moderator. Fifth, while other fields have found value in sequential experiments to establish causal chains (Bai, Xu, Yang, & Guo, Reference Bai, Xu, Yang and Guo2023), and/or immersive technologies to increase the realism of experimental conditions (Innocenti, Reference Innocenti2017), with few exceptions (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Bluhm, Hannah, Avolio and Lester2023), authentic leadership researchers have made limited use of these. This points to opportunities that might warrant consideration; as such, each is briefly addressed in turn.
Sequential experiments involve the examination of various cause-and-effect relationships in separate experiments as stages (e.g., from the predictor to the mediator and from the mediator to the effect) (Fischer, Dietz, & Antonakis, Reference Fischer, Dietz and Antonakis2016). This approach enables researchers to exogenously manipulate variables that would otherwise be influenced by internal factors, hence addressing endogeneity issues (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010). Additionally, sequential experiments can help to establish causal chains, providing particularly strong evidence for mediating effects (Eden, Stone-Romero, & Rothstein, Reference Eden, Stone-Romero and Rothstein2015; Spencer et al., Reference Spencer, Zanna and Fong2005). Furthermore, Podsakoff and Podsakoff (Reference Podsakoff and Podsakoff2019) noted that sequential experiments can minimise the potential for common source biases because the mediating variable and dependent variable are not obtained from the same source in such experiment design.
Relative to other manipulation materials, like written vignettes, immersive technologies can enhance experimental conditions and how experiments are conducted. For instance, they can offer: experimental control (Mol, Reference Mol2019); experimental realism, thereby bolstering ecological validity (Bombari, Schmid Mast, Canadas, & Bachmann, Reference Bombari, Schmid Mast, Canadas and Bachmann2015; Pan & Hamilton, Reference Pan and Hamilton2018); the automatic collection of data that are otherwise difficult, including movement and rotation (Parsons, Reference Parsons2015); reproducibility (Blascovich et al., Reference Blascovich, Loomis, Beall, Swinth, Hoyt and Bailenson2002); participants the opportunity to visualise complex problems (Patterson, Darbani, Zacharias, & Yazdizadeh, Reference Patterson, Darbani, Zacharias and Yazdizadeh2017); and researchers the opportunity to conduct experiments that might otherwise be prohibitive (Rosenberg, Baughman & Bailenson, Reference Rosenberg, Baughman and Bailenson2013). Consider for example, the prospect of manipulating authentic leadership with immersive leader–follower interactions hosted in virtual reality, powered by generative artificial intelligence dialogues, and testing wellbeing outcomes with reference to heartrate, galvanic skin response, and cortisol swabs. As Harrison and colleagues (Reference Harrison, Haruvy and Rutström2011, p. 88) noted:
The potential benefit to experimental and behavioral research of utilizing virtual reality is that the cues provided are naturalistic, allowing respondents to get immersed in the task in ways that may not be possible using standard text and picture interactions.
While authentic leadership scholarship will benefit from different research designs (Leavy, Reference Leavy2017), the four key lessons from this review suggest there are considerable opportunities to harness the strengths and potential of experimental designs.
For managers and practitioners, the findings from this scoping review suggest two points. First, given the limited use of experimental designs in authentic leadership research, available evidence should be used with careful consideration. Second, to bolster the evidence-base, managers and practitioners are encouraged to call for strong research designs, and scrutinise offers to participate in authentic leadership studies to ensure that issues with the evidence-base are not exacerbated.
Conclusion
The findings from this scoping review establish how experimental designs have been used to examine the causal effects of authentic leadership. The 16 experiments across 11 publications demonstrate the value and feasibility of experimental designs to establish causal relationships and advance how authentic leadership is theorised. Specifically, they demonstrate the value of written vignettes; multi-method approaches; and online experiments. They also point to opportunities to advance authentic leadership research by using sequential experiments to establish causal chains and immersive technologies to increase the realism of experimental conditions.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Professor Ann Dadich is a Professor of Human Resources and Management. She is internationally recognised as an expert in health service management. This is demonstrated by her publication record; the grants she has secured with collaborators; the doctoral theses she is invited to examine; and the awards she has received. Consequently, Professor Dadich holds editorial appointments with leading academic journals. She is also the Deputy Director of the Maridulu Budyari Gumal Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise (SPHERE) Knowledge Translation Platform; she serves on the Australian Consortium for Social and Political Research Incorporated (ACSPRI) Executive Committee; and she is a Director of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM). She supervises doctoral candidates and teaches change management, innovation, creativity, and organisational behaviour.
Ling Abbott is pursuing a doctoral degree. Her research interests are in the areas of strategic management and leadership.
Dr Andrei Lux is a Lecturer of Leadership and a Research Cluster Lead. His research focuses on authentic leadership and organisational behaviour, with interests in positive follower outcomes such as engagement and commitment, as well as cross-cultural issues, such as cognition and values. Dr Lux founded the Leadership & People Research Cluster at the Edith Cowan University and serves as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Management & Organization. Previously, he was a Director, the Treasurer, and Research Committee Co-Chair of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM), as well as the ANZAM Conference Chair (2020–2021), Stream Chair of Organizational Behaviour (2018–2022), and the Director of Academic Studies at the Edith Cowan University (2023).
Professor Kevin B. Lowe is a recognised leader in the field of leadership. He serves on ten editorial boards, including The Leadership Quarterly (Associate Editor), Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Leadership, Journal of World Business, and Group and Organization Management.
Open access
