Do We See Authentic Leadership the Same Way? A Multilevel Study of Leader–Follower Perceptions and Follower Commitment and Well-Being

2.1 The multilevel perspective of authentic leadership

Despite significant theoretical advancements, gaps persist in the authentic leadership literature regarding the dynamics that shape follower perception of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2021, 2024; Steffens et al., 2021a). Research suggests that authentic leadership should be viewed as a relational process co-constructed over time through leader–follower interaction (Bunjak, Lord, & Acton, 2024; Malloy, Yukhymenko-Lescroart, & Kavussanu, 2023). We adopt a positive modeling theory, which posits that authentic leadership emerges through reciprocal affirmation between leader and follower (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Leadership becomes authentic when followers perceive and validate consistency between a leader’s words and behaviors (Gardner et al., 2024; Steffens et al., 2021a).

We follow the widely used definition by Walumbwa et al. (2008), which conceptualizes authentic leadership as comprising four interrelated dimensions of leadership behavior observable to followers (Černe et al., 2014; Gardner et al., 2024; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Self-awareness refers to leaders’ ability to understand the behavioral impact they have on followers and their willingness to seek feedback to improve their interactions with them. An internalized moral perspective means that ethical principles guide leaders’ actions and are evident to followers through the leaders’ consistency with speech and behavior. Relational transparency refers to the extent to which leaders share their thoughts and emotions with their followers; followers may experience the leader’s willingness to admit mistakes. Balanced processing entails leaders inviting diverse opinions before making decisions, i.e., allowing dissent and integrating different views in the decision-making process.

While this framework has been widely applied, concerns have been raised regarding conceptual ambiguity and overly positive assumptions when authenticity is not examined critically (Alvesson & Einola, 2019; Gardner et al. 2021). Value-behavior consistency may not reflect constructive leadership if underlying values are authoritarian or exclusionary. These critiques underscore the importance of examining authenticity through leader–follower relational interpretations. Therefore, we adopt an exploratory approach that acknowledges potential variation by comparing leaders’ self-ratings with follower perceptions (Fleenor et al., 2010). Hence, our first hypothesis:

2.2 Authenticity over time: the moderating role of relationship duration

Recent research on authentic leadership suggests that its effects and perceptions are temporally dynamic (Bunjak, Lord, & Acton, 2024; Gardner et al., 2024). However, understanding how authentic leadership develops and changes over time remains empirically underexplored. According to the self-concept-based leadership theory, leader–follower relationship duration may influence how authenticity is perceived (Kipfelsberger et al., 2022). In early-stage relationships, followers’ work-related self-concept may be less defined and more dependent on leadership cues (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Thus, followers’ perceptions of authenticity may align more closely with their leaders’ intentions, whereas later-stage perceptions may be based on broader organizational experiences and evolving expectations (Kipfelsberger et al., 2022).

Two competing theoretical perspectives exist. The first posits that authentic leadership may have a heightened impact in the early phases of the relationship, when followers are highly attuned to signs of psychological safety, transparency, and value alignment (Gardner et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2021). Early relational signals may be particularly influential in Nordic contexts, where expectations of ethical conduct and a low power distance are especially salient (Erjansola, 2024). The other is based on evidence suggesting that authenticity may require time to evolve. Tang et al. (2022) found that followers in short coworker relationships expressed doubts about leadership authenticity, whereas consistent, authentic behavior over time fostered trust.

Kipfelsberger et al. (2022) demonstrated that visionary leadership had a greater influence when the leader–follower relationship lasted fewer than 6 years. Similarly, Shamir (2011) observed that the effects of leadership tended to diminish in strength over time. Meta-analytic evidence from Zhang et al. (2021) further supports these observations: cross-sectional studies have tended to report larger effects of authentic leadership, suggesting that time may temper outcomes. From a relational perspective, early interactions may carry disproportionate weight in shaping perceptions of authenticity, as followers actively construct meaning about leadership intentions (Gibson, Cooper, & Conger, 2009). Over time, these perceptions may stabilize into daily leadership behavior as alternative relational resources emerge. Therefore, our second hypothesis:

2.3 Authentic leadership: the JD-R perspective on follower commitment and well-being

The JD-R theory provides a well-established framework for understanding how job characteristics influence employee well-being and commitment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017). Central to the JD-R theory is that job demands deplete energy and lead to strain, whereas job resources foster motivation and engagement. In recent years, leadership has been increasingly viewed as a critical job resource that can buffer against demands and stimulate resources (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023). In line with the JD-R theory, we examine the impact of authentic leadership on indicators of employee commitment (job involvement and turnover intention) and well-being (work engagement and burnout). Job involvement refers to the degree to which employees are cognitively and emotionally invested in their work (Feldt, Hyvönen, & Oja-Lipasti, 2012; Kanungo, 1982). Turnover intention indicates the subjective likelihood of leaving the organization due to dissatisfaction (Sousa-Poza & Henneberger, 2004; Singh et al., 2024). Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), and burnout refers to emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy (Maslach et al., 2001).

We propose that authentic leadership may function as a relational job resource that contributes to processes of follower commitment and well-being within the JD-R framework. Previous research has shown that social support and feedback, which also characterize authentic leadership, are associated with increased engagement (Rego et al., 2012), enhanced commitment (Winton, Whittington, & Meskelis, 2022), and reduced burnout and turnover intentions (Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2021). Previous studies have supported our argument by showing that authentic leadership can lead to positive follower commitment (e.g., Azanza et al., 2018; Meskelis & Whittington, 2020; Winton, Whittington, & Meskelis, 2022; Zhang et al., 2021) and lower turnover intentions (Hsieh & Wang, 2015; Pattali et al., 2024; Wubetie, Taye, & Girma, 2020). Additionally, authentic leadership can protect employees from exhaustion and stress by fostering work environments that support job resources (Kim, 2018; Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2012; Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Long, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Thus, based on the JD-R theory, our third hypothesis:

2.4 Moderating effect of relationship duration on authenticity–outcome associations

Although authentic leadership has been widely associated with positive employee commitment and well-being outcomes, the evolution of these associations is unclear. Emerging evidence suggests that relationship length can serve as a critical contextual moderator, shaping the influence of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2024; Malloy, Yukhymenko-Lescroart, & Kavussanu, 2023). Followers in the early stages of a relationship often rely more heavily on leaders to construct meaning and emotional safety at work (Howell & Shamir, 2005). While longer-tenured relationships can change how leadership is experienced and evaluated. As followers gain experience, their expectations often shift, and the unique impact of authenticity may diminish unless actively renewed (Shamir, 2011).

Kipfelsberger et al. (2022) reported that the positive influence of visionary leadership on followers’ sense of meaningfulness was more prominent in shorter relationships. Similarly, Shamir (2011) and Chan & Mak (2014) observed that the longer the relationship, the weaker the leadership effect. These findings suggest a potential attenuation of authentic leadership’s impact over time, possibly due to changes in relational needs or the availability of alternative sources of workplace support. Authentic leaders may become less salient to employees without continued investment in relational quality (Bunjak, Lord, & Acton, 2024). Therefore, it is plausible that the beneficial effects of authentic leadership on commitment and well-being are strongest when the leader–follower relationship is still relatively new.

Despite these theoretical insights, the moderating effect of leader–follower relationship duration has received little empirical attention in authentic leadership research. We address this gap by examining the moderating effect of relationship duration on authenticity–outcome associations. We expect these associations to be stronger when the relationship is shorter. As the relationship matures, these outcomes may be sustained but less distinct as other contextual factors come into play. Hence, our fourth hypothesis:

The proposed conceptual model and hypotheses of the study are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

3.1 Data collection and participants

This study was conducted in Finland. To ensure sectoral variation, an open call for participation was disseminated through a national network of HR professionals in May 2021. This approach allowed organizations to opt in voluntarily, without the researcher influencing participant selection. Eight Finnish organizations from five sectors, i.e., leisure, healthcare, industrial services, finance, and technology, participated. Selection was based on the organization’s willingness to engage in the research process. Data were collected between November 2021 and September 2022. The timeline reflected the organization’s scheduling needs; one large organization requested data collection in five phases to minimize operational disruptions.

Each organization’s CEO and HR department collaborated with researchers to develop internal communications and a data-collection protocol. All leaders were invited to participate and nominate their entire team or at least five followers to be included in the study. In most cases, leaders included their entire team, which contributed to variation in team sizes (1–32 followers per leader, see Figure 2) and reduced the likelihood of selecting only favorable respondents. HR representatives collected the contact details of nominated followers and securely shared them with the researcher, who sent individual email invitations to participate in the study. The email briefly explained the study’s purpose, ethical guidelines, and participants’ rights, including the right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Participation was voluntary and confidential. Following the survey phase, feedback discussions were conducted with each participating organization and its leaders, enabling them to reflect on their leadership practices and thereby strengthening the study’s relevance and ethical integrity.

Figure 2

The final sample comprised 1357 followers (Level 1) nested within 240 leaders (Level 2), with an average of 5.7 followers per leader (see Figure 2). Response rates were 95–100% for leaders and 76–89% for followers.

3.2 Leader participants

A total of 240 leaders who completed self-ratings and were evaluated by at least one follower were included in the analysis. Of these, 52.4% were male, with a mean age of 45.8 years (SD = 8.9). Leadership experience varied: 34.2% had 0–5 years, and 30.4% had 11–20 years. Mean leadership experience was 12 years (SD = 8.6).

3.3 Follower participants

The matched follower sample (n = 1357) was hierarchically structured under their respective leaders. Among followers, 59.7% were female, and 48.7% were between 31 and 50 years old. The average duration of their relationship with their leaders was 1.78 years. In total, 15.3% of followers held a supervisory role.

3.4 Leader measure

Leaders rated their authentic leadership using four items adapted from the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) by Walumbwa et al. (2008), each representing a core dimension: (1) Self-awareness: “I seek feedback to improve interaction with others”; (2) Relational transparency: “I am willing to admit mistakes when they are made”; (3) Internalized moral perspective: “I demonstrate beliefs that are consistent with actions”; and (4) Balanced processing: “I solicit beliefs that challenge my deeply held positions.” The selection of one item per dimension followed a pragmatic approach, applied because full-scale use was restricted, to capture the behavioral core of each dimension.

While the original ALQ uses a 5-point scale (0 = not at all, 4 = frequently), this study applied a 7-point Likert scale (1 = describes me very poorly; 7 = describes me very well), with higher values indicating stronger authenticity. The use of the 7-point scale aligns with previous studies that used adapted versions of the ALQ, such as Men and Stacks (2014), who justified this approach by noting the commercial restrictions of the full ALQ. Our adaptation aimed to maximize the variance and enhance sensitivity in the leader self-ratings. The scale’s internal consistency was acceptable (α = .67).

3.5 Follower measures

Followers evaluated their leader’s authenticity using the same four items, reworded in the third person (e.g., “My leader seeks feedback …”), and rated them on a 7-point Likert scale. Internal consistency was excellent (α = .90). Followers self-assessed four outcome variables.

Job involvement was measured with four items initially developed by Kanungo (1982). The scale includes items such as “Most of my interests are centered around my job” and “I am very involved personally in my job” to which followers responded on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Completely disagree”) to 6 (“Completely agree”), with higher scores indicating better job involvement. Internal consistency was adequate (α = .80).

Turnover intention was measured with one item: “I often think about leaving my current employer,” developed by Kinnunen, Feldt, & Mäkikangas (2008). Followers responded to the item on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“Completely disagree”) to 6 (“Completely agree”), with higher scores indicating a stronger intention to quit.

Work engagement was measured using the three-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2019). This shortened scale is based on the original version (UWES-9: Schaufeli et al., 2006), which has been validated in various occupational groups (see Seppälä et al., 2009). The scale reflects three dimensions of work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Each dimension was measured with (1) vigor (“At my work, I feel bursting with energy”), (2) dedication (“I am enthusiastic about my job”), and (3) absorption (“I am immersed in my work”), to which followers answered on a frequency-based scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 7 (“Daily”), with higher scores indicating more frequent experiences of work engagement. The mean score had an adequate reliability (α = .80).

Burnout was measured using the nine-item Bergen Burnout Inventory (BBI-9) (Salmela-Aro et al., 2011), which has demonstrated good validity among Finnish leaders and organizations (Feldt et al., 2014). The BBI captures three dimensions of burnout: (1) emotional exhaustion (3 items, e.g., “I am snowed under with work”), (2) cynicism (3 items, e.g., “I feel dispirited at work, and I think of leaving my job”), and (3) inadequacy (3 items, e.g., “My expectations for my job and my performance have reduced”). Followers responded on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (“Totally disagree”) to 6 (“Totally agree”), with higher scores indicating greater burnout. The mean score had adequate reliability (α = .75).

3.6 Control variables

Previous research has demonstrated that leader and follower characteristics can influence leader–follower dynamics and related outcomes (Dulebohn et al., 2012). We included the following control variables to address these potential confounding effects: (a) gender (1 = female, 2 = male), (b) age (in years) for leaders and followers, (c) leadership experience (in years), (d) followers’ managerial role (1 = no, 2 = yes), and (e) sector, recoded into three categories: 1 = industrial services, 2 = technology, 3 = customer-oriented business, to balance group sizes and ensure comparability across contexts.

All control variables were tested for statistically significant correlations with the study’s independent and dependent variables. Those showing significant associations were retained as covariates in the final multilevel models to control for variance attributable to individual and contextual characteristics (see Table 1). This approach enhanced the internal validity of the analysis and ensured a more accurate estimation of the hypothesized relationships.

3.7 Analyses

All analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998/2017). CFA and invariance tests were conducted across leader and follower ratings. Factor loading invariance was supported using the interval hypothesis approach (MacCallum, Browne, & Cai, 2006), whereas intercept invariance was not, suggesting caution in comparing latent means. Due to the reduced item structure and multilevel design, sum scores were used, which may attenuate precision but are common in multilevel research (Muthén, 2002; McNeish & Wolf, 2020). Consistent with approaches for analyzing self-other agreement (Fleenor et al., 2010; Yammarino, Spangler, & Dubinsky, 1998), multilevel modeling was applied, with followers (Level 1) nested within leaders (Level 2). Hypotheses were tested using two-level regression models with continuous outcomes and random intercepts. Following Muthén & Muthén (2017), at the within-level, we examined associations between follower-perceived authentic leadership and follower outcomes, and at the between-level, the effects of leader ratings of authentic leadership, mean follower ratings, relationship duration, and their interaction. Variables evaluated by followers were analyzed for both levels, i.e., each follower could evaluate their leader differently. The shared variance in follower ratings was included at the between-level. Significant covariates, i.e., leader age and leading experience, follower age, and managerial role, were included (see Table 1).

5.1 Theoretical implications

This study challenges leader-centric views by demonstrating that authenticity is experienced relationally (Gardner et al., 2024) and varies across levels of analysis. Although moderation effects were absent, the direct effect of the leader-follower relationship duration on follower-perceived authenticity raises important questions about how authenticity evolves. This finding is consistent with the notion that authenticity must be continually renewed to maintain its influence (Malloy, Yukhymenko-Lescroart, & Kavussanu, 2023). It may indicate a form of expectancy adaptation, whereby followers’ standards increase over time, or relational fatigue, in which prolonged exposure reduces the leader’s distinctiveness (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). The results invite further investigation into whether the impact of authenticity changes form over time, supporting calls to integrate temporal dynamics into authentic leadership theory (Gardner et al., 2024; Shamir, 2011).

By simultaneously examining motivational (engagement, involvement) and strain-related (burnout, turnover intentions) outcomes within the JD-R framework (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023), this study responds to integrative approaches that capture both resource and strain processes in leadership research. The findings indicate distinct multilevel pathways: at the within-level, follower-perceived authentic leadership was associated with higher motivation and lower strain, whereas at the between-level, authentic leadership was associated with lower burnout. These results align with multilevel extensions of JD-R theory that conceptualize leadership as a contextual resource shaping both motivation and strain (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).

By drawing on data from multiple organizational sectors, this study extends authentic leadership research beyond single-industry contexts. Our results indicated variation in follower outcomes and authenticity ratings across different sectors. Employees in customer-oriented sectors reported higher levels of authentic leadership and more favorable outcomes than those in technology or industrial sectors. These findings align with context-sensitive leadership research, which suggests that leadership processes are embedded in cultural norms and relational demands (Lemoine, Hartnell, & Effinger, 2024). This evidence may reflect structural, cultural, or relational dynamics specific to sectoral work environments, e.g., the impact of customer engagement, and highlights the contextual meaning of authentic leadership. By demonstrating sectoral variation, the study supports moving authentic leadership theory toward a more contextually embedded and ecologically valid framework (Gardner et al., 2024).

5.2 Practical implications

Divergence between leader and follower views underscores authentic leadership as a relational process grounded in self-awareness and the balanced processing of others’ perspectives (Gardner et al., 2005; Kernis, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Structured feedback mechanisms are, therefore, a critical organizational practice that enables leaders to better understand how their behavior is interpreted. Dialogue-based sessions, developmental feedback discussions, and team reflection practices can support leader authenticity through reflective interaction (Kets de Vries & Korotov, 2007), while also facilitating alignment between leader intentions and follower perceptions, which is central to authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Such processes are most effective when embedded in psychologically safe environments, where new behaviors can be practiced, reflected upon, and gradually internalized into leadership practice (Baron & Parent, 2015).

The findings also emphasize the importance of follower-perceived authentic leadership for employee outcomes. Higher perceived authenticity supports commitment and protects against burnout. From the JD-R perspective, the findings suggest that authentic leadership may serve as a relational resource that supports employee well-being and commitment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). At the same time, declining authenticity may contribute to strain.

Regular renegotiation of expectations and roles, and open communication, can help sustain authenticity over longer relationships. Regular renegotiation of expectations and roles, and open communication, can help sustain authenticity over longer relationships, as leader–follower relationships require ongoing development and mutual understanding (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Furthermore, sectoral variation suggests that leadership development should be sensitive to industry-specific work structures, customer interfaces, and professional norms as they can influence how authenticity is expressed and valued. Leadership development programs should therefore incorporate contextual diagnostics rather than rely solely on universal models (Baron & Parent, 2015).

5.3 Strengths, limitations, and future research

This study has several strengths that contribute to the literature on authentic leadership. First, it used a robust multisource dataset comprising 1,357 followers nested within 240 leaders across eight Finnish organizations across diverse sectors. This design enabled the examination of perceptual variation between leaders and followers while supporting the modeling of within- and between-level associations. The matched dyadic structure reduced the risk of common method bias. It brought needed empirical attention to follower-based evaluations of leadership, which remain underrepresented in the authentic leadership literature despite the acknowledged theoretical importance.

However, follower recruitment partly relied on leader nominations, which may have introduced selection bias. Future research should use more independent or randomized sampling strategies. It is also worth noting that the data were collected in 2021–2022, a period marked by significant organizational adaptation following the COVID-19 pandemic. The extended data-collection timeline reflected deliberate efforts to minimize disruption, particularly in large organizations, thereby enhancing ecological validity.

The use of a shortened, four-item scale for authentic leadership limited measurement precision. The reliability of the scale among leaders was unsatisfactory, as in other studies, even when using longer versions (Zhang et al., 2021). Future research should examine the subdimensions of authentic leadership separately to better understand their distinct relational dynamics and explanatory power (e.g., Neider & Schriesheim, 2011), thereby improving both theoretical precision and measurement validity. Analytical limitations include the use of sum variables, which may have attenuated associations, and the cross-sectional design, which prevents causal inference.

It remains possible that followers with better well-being may be more inclined to perceive their leaders as authentic. Longitudinal or mixed-method approaches would better capture the temporal dynamics of authentic leadership (e.g., Almutairi et al., 2025). Future studies should also explore the heterogeneity of authentic leadership experiences by using person-centered methods. Such approaches could help identify subgroups of employees for whom authentic leadership is particularly strongly associated with commitment or well-being outcomes. Previous research has used person-centered approaches to examine employee well-being profiles and JD-R configurations in relation to leadership (Pulido-Martos et al., 2023), but similar analyses remain relatively scarce in the authentic leadership literature.

The present findings are situated within Finnish organizational settings characterized by relatively strong cultural expectations of integrity and fairness (Eurofound, 2023). While this context provides a meaningful environment for testing theories of authentic leadership, it may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should extend research across different cultural and organizational contexts, given the sectoral differences observed in this study. A more nuanced understanding could be gained from comparative studies that match organizations by their size, structure, and purpose (Lemoine, Hartnell, & Effinger, 2024).

Future studies could focus on leaders’ experiences of authentic leadership. Little is known about how leaders sustain their authenticity and how this relates to their well-being and commitment to leadership roles (Macamo & Klasmeier, 2024). Our findings further suggest that leader rotation strategies support relational renewal, as long-standing teams may become less authentic over time. Finally, sector-specific leadership development initiatives may be needed to address profession- and culture-bound expectations of authentic leadership behavior.

5.4 Conclusion

This study examined leader–follower perceptual alignment, the relationship between follower-perceived authentic leadership and follower commitment and well-being, and the moderating role of relationship duration. The findings showed that leaders and followers do not see authentic leadership in the same way, supporting its relational nature. Follower-perceived authentic leadership was positively associated with follower commitment and well-being, indicating its role as a social resource within the JD-R framework. Differences across sectors suggest these dynamics may also reflect contextual influences, highlighting the importance of leader-follower relationships for sustainable employee outcomes.