Discussion: Authentic Leadership and Team Leadership

User Generated

SryvkOengb

Business Finance

Description

Authentic Leadership is a relatively new leadership approach and as a result much more research is needed. There is no standard, accepted definition of Authentic Leadership but it can best be described as transparent, responsible to people's needs, and adhering to a moral code. It is becoming more popular as a response to leadership failures in both the private and public sectors.

Teams have become more of a fixture in both the public and private sectors, and as a result, there is a greater interest in Team Leadership. Team Leadership posits that the critical function of leadership is to oversee the group, identify the problems, and take appropriate action. Team leadership is popular because it identifies the functions that a leader can share within the team.

For this Discussion, reflect on the leadership approaches or theories you have discussed throughout this course, select ONE of the approaches or theories that appeals to you (I HAVE SELECTED THE LMX THEORY - which is attached below). Consider the characteristics of your selected approach or theory. Consider the characteristics of Authentic Leadership and of Team Leadership.

In a 1.5 double-spaced paper (350-400 words), post a description of the approach or theory you selected, and compare the characteristics of the approach or theory you selected to those of Authentic Leadership and Team Leadership. Using your own experience, share an example of a situation that demonstrates this relationship. Describe the impact of that relationship. Use an example from your personal experience with this type of leadership or one from the Learning Resources.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Authentic leadership and implicit theory: a normative form of leadership? Thomas W. Nichols, Rod Erakovich, Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) Article information: To cite this document: Thomas W. Nichols, Rod Erakovich, (2013) "Authentic leadership and implicit theory: a normative form of leadership?", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 Issue: 2, pp.182-195, https:// doi.org/10.1108/01437731311321931 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731311321931 Downloaded on: 08 October 2018, At: 03:02 (PT) References: this document contains references to 39 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8542 times since 2013* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2010),"Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 Iss 7 pp. 643-663 https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011079673 (2013),"Are leadership constructs really independent?", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 Iss 1 pp. 20-43 https:// doi.org/10.1108/01437731311289956 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:145602 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm LODJ 34,2 Authentic leadership and implicit theory: a normative form of leadership? 182 Thomas W. Nichols and Rod Erakovich School of Business Administration, Texas Wesleyan University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA Abstract Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) Purpose – This empirical study aims to consider the stability and connection of implicit leadership theories to authentic leadership using performance feedback as a first step in a larger research agenda. Design/methodology/approach – Scenarios were created to operationalize implicit and authentic leadership, manipulate implicit leadership theory between followers and leaders, and discover perceptions of leader effectiveness. The use of scenarios was purposely intended to create anticipatory future research agendas. Findings – Components of authentic leadership may be a part of implicit leadership theory and leadership performance feedback may alter leader and follower implicit leadership theories. Research limitations/implications – Data collected in this study were from students’ perceptions, and did not infer causality between constructs. This study is also subject to mono-operation and monomethod bias. Originality/value – This research provides an extension of theory in several ways: by looking at the authentic leadership paradigm; and by viewing perceptions of leader authentic effectiveness as a continuous influence on implicit leadership theories. Keywords Authentic leadership, Transformational leadership, Implicit leadership theory, Leader effectiveness, Management effectiveness Paper type Research paper Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 34 No. 2, 2013 pp. 182-195 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437731311321931 Literature review Ethics are a basic component of authentic leadership and frame follower feedback. Ethical leadership is defined by Brown et al. (2005) as the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision making. We have seen the damage done by unethical leaders in recent scandals by business leaders that have dominated the news in recent years (e.g. Kenneth Lay and Enron, Joseph Nacchio and Qwest Communication, and Arthur Anderson). Ethics are an integral part of leadership that cannot be ignored. As a result, this study asserts that followers are not satisfied with leaders that are not authentic. Ethicality is no longer something nice to have in a leader, but a necessity. It is the authentic leader that influences follower implicit leadership perceptions. Implicit theories are cognitive frameworks or categorization systems that people use during information processing to encode, process, and recall specific events and behavior (Shaw, 1990). People have their own unique thoughts as to the nature of leaders and leadership. A person’s implicit leadership theory (ILT) is based on beliefs on how leaders generally behave and what is expected of them (Eden and Leviathan, 1975) that suggests individuals are labeled as leaders or non-leaders based on cognitive Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) categories (Lord et al., 1986; Calder, 1977). Essentially, ILT represent ideal instances of leadership (Lord et al., 1986). Perceptions of effective leadership can be based on two alternative processes (Lord and Maher, 1991). First, an inference-based perceptual process can be used to garner conclusions about leadership from observed, relevant events, and outcomes; leadership is inferred from outcomes of salient events. These processes rely upon attribution, such as a successful business turnaround being attributed to the top management team or CEO (Hartog et al., 1999). Second, recognition-based perceptual processes rely on the degree of fit between observed leader behavior and a person’s implicit theory of what a leader is or should be. When there is a fit between observed behavior and one’s personal theory of leadership, the individual exhibiting the behavior is recognized as a good leader. To what extent do implicit follower and leader implicit theories influence the perception of effective leadership? The use of ILT as a guide for understanding and interpreting leader behavior and the consideration that authentic leadership behaviors may be an ideal form of leadership are the focus of this study as the basis for creating an appropriate research agenda for future consideration. Since its inception as a perceived paradigm, the literature works to connect authentic leadership to specific disciplines and forms such as public and military leadership. Avolio et al. (2004) conceive of authentic leaders as people who have realized elevated degrees of authenticity in that they know themselves, what they value and believe, and they operate based upon those beliefs and values while visibly and clearly interacting with others. Furthermore, they are perceived by others as understanding their own and others’ values and moral perspectives, strengths, and knowledge. They are cognizant of their environment and clearly picture the framework in which they lead. May et al. (2003) argue that authentic leaders are those who are able to integrate their ethical behavior fully into both their personal and organizational lives, creating an ethical climate that focusses on the employees and the stakeholders and recognizing their inherent worth. This framework of authentic leadership marks the theory as developmental in nature as well as holistic in that it covers a vast range of leadership perspectives, including transformational leadership. Authentic leaders use the behaviors of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration in an ethical manner and influence the perception of follower. In order to more clearly define an authentic leader, a comparison of the way each type of leader (authentic and inauthentic) demonstrates each of the specific dimensions is presented in the following paragraphs. Inauthentic leaders are deceptive and manipulative. They display many of the qualities of an ethical leader, though actually seek power and position at the expense of their followers. They appear authentic, though are false to the organization’s mission, their hidden purposes self-aggrandizing. Whereas authentic leaders have vision with a sense of responsibility to the organization and followers to the point of self-sacrifice (in an altruistic sense), inauthentic leaders have vision but cannot be trusted and are willing to sacrifice followers for their own purposes. In using their charisma, or idealized influence, these leaders seek to be idolized rather than idealized (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Inauthentic leaders want to seem to motivate through empowerment, though actually seek to control (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Empowerment should be uplifting and focussed on the good of the follower; inauthentic leaders focus on conspiracy, illusory risk, excuses, and anxieties (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). They are Authentic leadership and theory 183 LODJ 34,2 Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) 184 pre-disposed to self-serving biases and are known to be deceptive, domineering, and egotistical with an inflated and positive public image, an image they may indeed be idolized for, though they are privately serving only their own interests. While their motivation seems inspirational, it is, in fact, false without concern for the organization or followers. Their motivation is to enhance their image while serving their own needs. To unknowing followers, deceptive leaders will motivate them to do what they think is best for the organization, when the leader is truthfully the only one who benefits. Authentic leaders intellectually stimulate their followers in a dynamic interaction that encourages questions, debate, and the attempt to formulate creative solutions to problems. Inauthentic leaders prey on the unawareness of their followers so their followers will more willingly accept a vague picture of the leader concerning their morality and true intentions. This acceptance, gained through the promotion of ambiguity and inconsistency, provides opportunities for the self-enhancement of pretenders (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Authentic leaders use hard evidence and base discussion on the merits of the issues, whereas inauthentic leaders use false logic and depend on authority to make their arguments. Instead of rational debate, inauthentic leaders depend on emotional argumentation. The inauthentic leader uses a veneer to hide his/her true intentions. What looks like intellectual stimulation is nothing more than the leader sounding intelligent to confuse followers into doing what the leader wants. Individualized consideration is dependent on altruism to differentiate leadership from authoritarian control (Kanungo and Mendonca, 1996). Inauthentic leaders concentrate on the maintenance of follower dependence, while authentic leaders act as mentors and coaches to develop their followers into leaders. Inauthentic leaders encourage personal distance, invite blind obedience, encourage favoritism and competition, and exploit feelings of followers to maintain deference (Sankowsky, 1995). While both authentic and inauthentic leaders may have a need for power, the authentic leader will convert this need into attainable goals for the good of the organization and the follower. The inauthentic leader works only to increase that power while looking condescendingly on his/her followers and pretending to be helpful. In sum, leaders who are not truly authentic may also transform and motivate their followers. Such leaders, however, do so for their special interests at others’ expense, not focussing on what is good for the whole. They promote fantasy and rationalization in place of achievement. They encourage a type of unhealthy competitiveness, an “us vs them” attitude that serves the leader’s self-interests. They generate envy and hate instead of harmony and cooperation. Perhaps most importantly, Bass (1998) points out that this discussion is about two ideal types, and that most leaders fall somewhere in between. The simple difference between an authentic and an inauthentic leader comes down to ethics. The concept of an ideal leader lies individually within each person, represented in his or her ILT, and each person’s implicit theory of leadership will differ for any number of reasons. A person’s ILT is based on beliefs on how leaders generally behave and what is expected of them (Eden and Leviathan, 1975) and suggests individuals are labeled as leaders or non-leaders based on cognitive categories (Lord et al., 1986; Calder, 1977). Essentially, ILT represent ideal instances of leadership (Lord et al., 1986). These implicit theories come from many sources, including personality (Hunt et al., 1990; Keller, 1999), demographic similarity (Mehra et al., 1998), and the institution itself (Knights and Willmott, 1992). Leader effectiveness, as perceived by either leader or Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) follower, also assists in forming ILT, but does so differently than the other antecedents. Continued perceptions of situations where leaders are viewed as effective or ineffective may constantly reinforce or alter the contents of ILT, whereas the other antecedents are more likely to be stable over time. Perceptions of leader effectiveness have many positive outcomes including trust (Robinson, 1996), organizational commitment (Conger, 1999), satisfaction (George and Jones, 1997), performance (Howell and Avolio, 1993), and organizational citizenship behaviors (Gardner and Schermerhorn, 2004). Furthermore, perceptions of leader effectiveness are an important element in the maintenance of ILT through continual reinforcement by the leader. Authentic leadership and theory 185 Hypotheses While considerable literature and empirical knowledge focusses on the necessity of authentic leadership, the influence of followers, and perceptions of effective leadership, the connection between these constructs has not been made. The focus of this study, as shown in Figure 1, argues that while follower implicit leadership perceptions do create what is seen as effective leadership, it does not alter the influencing function of authentic leadership. Moreover, follower ILT are influenced by perceptions of effective leadership as understood by the leader. Therefore, we hypothesize: H1. Feedback on leader effectiveness is perceived to influence the content of follower ILT. When followers receive information that their leaders are effective, they include those behaviors into their ILT. H1a. Feedback on leader effectiveness is perceived to influence the content of leader ILT. When leaders receive feedback that their current behaviors are effective, the content of their ILT is reinforced. Leadership prototypes (Lord and Maher, 1991) are identified as a result of categorization, which occurs in a process using cognitive categories. In leadership Follower implicit leadership theory H1 H2 Other leader behaviors Leader implicit leadership theory Leader effectiveness Authentic leader behaviors H2a Figure 1. Research model H1a LODJ 34,2 Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) 186 categorization theory (Lord and Maher, 1991), it is argued that to be successful and exert influence in any leadership attempt, followers must perceive the person to be a leader. Such a perception involves giving meaning or identity to an event, person, object, or idea (i.e. categorization). Hence, the better the fit between the perceived leadership behaviors and the leadership prototype, the more likely this individual will be seen as a leader (Offermann et al., 1994; Foti and Luch, 1992). In other words, leadership perceptions are based on cognitive categorization processes in which perceivers match the perceived attributes of potential leaders they observe to an internal prototype of leadership categories (Foti and Luch, 1992). Expectations and predictions of leadership are developed through these prototypes and categorizations, distinguishing good leaders from bad and effective from ineffective, based on the attributes and behaviors held within the ILT of the observer (Lord and Maher, 1991). In effect, leadership is an outcome of cognitive processes in which people label individuals as leaders based on the fit between observed leader behavior and their own implicit theory of leadership. Therefore we hypothesize: H2. The relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness is perceived to be influenced by follower ILT. In order for followers to see leadership behaviors as effective, those behaviors must reside within their ILT. However if authentic leadership is an ideal form of leadership, it should be seen as effective regardless of whether or not those behaviors explicitly lie within a follower’s ILT. A person may consciously disagree with those behaviors, but still rate such a leader as effective: H2a. The relationship between authentic transformational leadership (ATF) behaviors and leader effectiveness is not perceived to be influenced by follower ILT. Authentic leadership behaviors are perceived to be effective regardless of the content of a follower’s ILT. Methods Sample The hypotheses were examined using responses from scenarios created for this study. Data were collected at a large North Texas University in the USA. The sample consisted of 158 undergraduate students enrolled in business online classes, reflecting a 73 percent response rate. The sample was comprised of primarily juniors and seniors in college; 64 percent consisted of females and 72 percent were under the age of 25. In total, 57 percent had at least one year of full-time work experience. In total, 91 percent reported having at least one year of leadership experience (as indicated by committee chair experience, club leadership experience, and experience in managing other people in a work setting). In total, 47 percent of students had taken a course in ethics. The convenience sample of undergraduate students presents sample validity threats to this study in generalizing the results to the leadership population. Three key issues that counter this threat are addressed (Kam et al., 2007). The instrument used was found to be a reliable and valid indicator of implicit leadership concepts. Second, the population was heterogeneous and does not differ culturally from those entering positions of leadership. Third, the population of students does not differ greatly from Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) those previously in preparation for leadership roles. Further, Flere and Lavric (2008) found student samples are cautiously similar to the population when comparing student responses to world value samples. The exploratory point of this research, coupled with the student sample exerting more cognitive effort than an average employee (Kam et al., 2007), supports the use of this sample in this study. Finally, none of the constructs of this study require experience when conducting evaluation of the hypotheses (Chelimsky, 1998). None of the control variables (age, gender, race, class, work experience (full time and part time), leadership experience (through indication of committee chair, club officer, or managerial experience), and whether or not the students had taken an ethics course) have a significant relationship with the dependent variables, meaning that any effects found were not due to the control variables, as they shared little or no correlation with the dependent variables, further indicating the utility of the student sample for this research. Procedure Data were collected through the online course platform, WebCT. WebCT allows the researcher to have complete control over who accesses which surveys, in a certain order, at specific, time-limited hours and dates. An online consent form was provided that assured confidentiality of responses. The anonymity reduced bias in the survey results. Use of electronic surveys is appropriate with this sampling frame and does not create a threat to sampling validity, a key issue with electronic surveys (Sheehan and Hoy, 1999; Coomber, 1997). Each student was randomly assigned to eight different groups, representing eight separate conditions used to test all four hypotheses. Students could only access the surveys assigned to their group and could not view other answers. Once the survey was completed, students could not access the survey again. Examples of scenarios and measures used can be found in Appendix. Variance inflation factor (VIF) analysis was used to examine multicollinearity of variables. Each hypothesis was examined descriptively using the mean and SD of responses. An ANOVA was conducted to examine the significance of the relationships between each group. Finally, reliability of the measures was examined using Cronbach’s a internal measures. To examine H1, two scenarios were created, one describing an effective leader, the other an ineffective leader. Leader effectiveness was manipulated in the study using four items based on an effectiveness measure developed by van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005). Each item was transformed into a sentence to include in the scenario describing a leader’s effectiveness. For example, in the effective condition, the scenario read “Joe completely trusts Frank, and has been heard to comment that Frank is an excellent supervisor” (Joe is the follower and Frank is the leader). For the ineffective condition, the same sentence reads “Joe, however, does not trust Frank and has been heard to comment that Frank is a terrible supervisor.” After reading scenarios to manipulate this relationship, students were asked to give their opinion as to whether the follower’s ILT would change based on feedback. Responses to six items measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (absolutely). Total scale scores were based on the mean of each subject’s answers. To examine H1a, two scenarios were created, one describing a leader who receives a positive leadership evaluation, and one describing a leader who receives a negative Authentic leadership and theory 187 LODJ 34,2 Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) 188 leadership evaluation. In this way, leader effectiveness was manipulated by describing feedback that informed the reader of a leadership evaluation that was either positive or negative based on past leadership behaviors. After reading a scenario to manipulate this relationship, students were asked to give their opinion as to whether the leader’s ILT would change based on feedback. Responses were obtained to six items measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (absolutely). Total scale scores were based on the mean of each subject’s answers. To examine H2 and H2a, four scenarios were created (2  2 factorial design using leadership style and congruence/non-congruence). Two scenarios described an authentic transformational leader, and two describing a transactional leader, with a congruent and non-congruent condition – congruence between leader’s and follower’s implicit perceptions – for each style. In one condition the ILT of both the leader and the follower contained ATF behavior content. In the second condition, the leader’s implicit leadership theory (LILT) contained ATF leadership behavior content, but the follower’s implicit leadership theory (FILT) did not. The leadership behaviors were based on an ethical leadership measure developed by Brown et al. (2005) and transformational items from the MLQ 5  (Bass and Avolio, 1990). Congruence and non-congruence conditions were created for the two leadership styles by including in each scenario a description of the LILT content and then a description of a follower who either agreed or disagreed with the leader’s behavior style (i.e. LILT content and FILT content contained similar information about leader behavior). After reading scenarios that manipulated varying combinations of variables, leadership effectiveness was assessed. Responses were obtained across four items, each measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (absolutely) (van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg, 2005). This measure was chosen due to its short length and successful use in past studies (e.g. Pierro et al., 2005). Total scale scores were obtained by taking a mean of each subject’s answers. The use of scenarios in this research is specifically designed for imaging future research work. The effort here is to anticipatorily examine and create a desirable research agenda. Results VIF were used on variables to determine multicollinearity. The VIF is a measure of the variance of the inflated the effect of the independent variables in the model, including the standard error of the variable, compared to uncorrelated independent variables, thus making the coefficient of determination unstable (Suen, 1990). Where VIFs in excess of 10.0 exist, severe multicollinearity problems are present in the models. All VIFs for the variables are below 10.0, indicating multicollinearity is not present (Suen, 1990). H1 H1 projected that perceptions of leader effectiveness affect a FILT. Students have significantly higher expectations for the followers to behave similarly to the leader when the leader is considered effective (mean ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 0.56) than when he is considered ineffective (mean ¼ 2.23, SD ¼ 0.72). The ANOVA found the difference is significant (F ¼ 469.18, po0.001; n ¼ 56). Using Cronbach’s a, the measure is reliable (a ¼ 0.94). H1 is supported. Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) H1a H1a projected that perceptions of a leader’s own effectiveness will influence his ILT. Students have higher expectations for the leaders to maintain their current behaviors with positive feedback (mean ¼ 5.55, SD ¼ 0.72) than with negative feedback (mean ¼ 2.95, SD ¼ 0.99), and the difference is significant (F ¼ 131.67, po0.001; n ¼ 59). The measure is reliable (a ¼ 0.94). H1a is supported. Results from H1 and H1a suggest that feedback on leader effectiveness provides a basis for continual adjustment to a person’s ILT, for both leaders and followers. The data from these hypotheses indicate that ILT may not be as stable as once thought. Students believe that followers and leaders alike, through observations and feedback on leader effectiveness, adjust their ILT, supporting Weick and Bougon’s (1986) argument that changes in cognitive structure occur continuously. Development of ILT is an ongoing process involving cognitive matches between leader behavior and previous categorizations of ideal leader behavior (Lord and Maher, 1991). In relationship to the results of these hypotheses, new observations of effective (or ineffective) leader behavior influence current categorizations of leadership. Authentic leadership and theory 189 H2 and H2a H2 projected that the relationship between leadership behaviors and leader effectiveness is influenced by the content of a FILT. H2a projected that the relationship between ATF behaviors and leader effectiveness is not influenced by the content of a FILT (as indicated by congruence). Both leadership style and congruence were manipulated across four scenarios. Students were asked, based on the scenario, if the follower would find the leader effective (1 ¼ not at all; 7 ¼ absolutely). Means, SD, and ANOVA results can be found in Table I. As expected, the main effect for congruence between a FILT and a leader’s behavior is significant in both style conditions, meaning that a follower finds those leaders effective who display behaviors consistent with their implicit theory. In addition, there is a significant main effect for leadership style. Examination of the effectiveness means reveals that authentic transformational leaders (mean ¼ 3.58, SD ¼ 0.94) are evaluated as more effective than transactional leaders (mean ¼ 2.35, SD ¼ 0.76). Thus, although congruence between a FILT and a leader’s behavior was expected to significantly increase leader effectiveness evaluations, authentic transformational Style ATF TA Total Dependent variable: leader effectiveness Congruence Mean SD n Non-congruent Congruent Total Non-congruent Congruent Total Non-congruent Congruent Total 0.94 0.85 1.59 0.76 1.30 1.99 1.05 1.12 1.83 25 28 53 22 27 49 47 55 102 3.57 6.20 4.96 2.35 5.68 4.18 3.00 5.94 4.59 Notes: ATF, authentic transformational leadership; TA, transformational leadership Table I. Descriptive data for H2 and H2a LODJ 34,2 Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) 190 leaders are seen as more effective than transactional leaders, regardless of whether followers contain authentic transformational leader behaviors in their ILT. A two-way ANOVA (style  congruence) was performed for H2 and H2a as shown in Table II. The results indicate a significant main effect for style (F ¼ 19.37, po0.001; n ¼ 102) and an interaction between style and congruence (F ¼ 3.09, po0.083; n ¼ 102). If subjects perceive that followers must agree with a leader’s style (congruence) to see that leader as effective, then there would have been no effect for style, and no interaction between style and congruence. The weak interaction is important as it illustrates again that style is important; there would be no interaction if authentic leadership was not perceived to be effective in both congruent and non-congruent scenarios. The interaction is weak because only authentic leadership interacts, not transactional. The measures are reliable (a ¼ 0.95). Both H2 and H2a are supported. Leadership perceptions are based on cognitive categorization processes in which perceivers match the perceived attributes of potential leaders they observe to an internal prototype of leadership categories (Foti and Luch, 1992). Expectations and predictions of leadership are developed through these prototypes and categorizations, distinguishing good leaders from bad and effective from ineffective, based on the attributes and behaviors held within the ILT of the observer (Lord and Maher, 1991). In effect, leadership is an outcome of cognitive processes in which people label individuals as leaders based on the fit between observed leader behavior and their own implicit theory of leadership. H2 was supported in that transactional leader behaviors and leader effectiveness is perceived to be influenced by FILT. H2a stated, however, that this would not be true for authentic leaders. H2a was supported. Students do not believe that congruence between LILT and FILT are necessary for an authentic leader to be seen as effective; they are seen as effective regardless of ILT dyadic congruence. However, results indicate there must be a content match between a transactional LILT and a FILT, as one might expect based on the previously discussed research by Lord and Maher (1991). Conclusions and contributions Past research has suggested that ILT are stable (see Epitropaki and Martin, 2004). This study contributes to ILT literature by demonstrating that a person’s ILT change as a function of his or her experiences with leaders. It cannot be disregarded; this research suggests that people believe observations of effectiveness (a change in context) will influence ILT. We provide an extension of theory by looking at the authentic leadership paradigm through the lens of ILT and by viewing perceptions of leader effectiveness as a continuous influence on ILT. Source Table II. ANOVA results for H2 and H2a Corrected model Intercept Style Congruence Style  congruence a Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Significance Observed powera 241.03b 2,007.02 19.29 224.38 3 1 1 1 80.34 2,007.02 19.29 224.38 80.67 2,015.26 19.37 225.30 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1 3.06 3.07 0.083 0.41 3.06 b 2 2 Notes: Computed using a ¼ 0.05; R ¼ 0.71 (adjusted R ¼ 0.70) Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) Authentic leadership is presented as a root construct of all positive, effective forms of leadership (Avolio et al., 2004), including spiritual, ethical, servant, and transformational leadership. Through both the organizational and personal perspectives, it is posited that authentic leaders develop higher levels of self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors in leaders and followers, with the result being positive self-development in each (Luthans and Avolio, 2003). As theoretically developed, authentic leadership does not explain the mechanisms to achieve the proposed outcomes for both leaders and followers of positive self-development and positive psychological states (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Two key points for future research are noted. One, research should be conducted using individuals in leadership positions in organizations as a way to ensure sampling validity. While this study is cautiously optimistic the results here are indicative of the key connection between authenticity and implicit theory, experience coupled with cognitive alertness can support the connection. The link between authentic leadership and implicit theory is operationalized in scenarios used in the experiment by describing ethical and transformational leadership using items from the MLQ by Bass and Avolio (1990), and an ethical leadership measure by Brown et al. (2005). This operationalization should be replicated and verified to validate the measure, using alternative testing methods to confirm reliability. In addition, the scenarios used to invoke forward thinking issues may be revised based on the critical input of experienced leaders. Second, we noted ILT are an ongoing process involving cognitive matches between leader behavior and previous categorizations of ideal leader behavior by follower. Research in the context of varied organizational settings is needed to provide a construct that is free from distortion and bias found in varied missions and values of firms and current leadership. For leaders, several points of consideration for leadership application are noted. First, leaders should use the mechanisms of leadership (inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and idealized influence) to achieve organizational outcomes. This creates the follower perception of authenticity in leadership. Second, descriptions of authentic leaders are based on a more accurate definition of authenticity and that suggests authentic leaders know who they are and what they believe and are transparent and consistent in their values and actions, though not necessarily altruistic. Leadership development in this self-awareness is an imperative as noted by this study. Further, authentic leadership is not a paradigm within itself, but must be studied in conjunction with effective leadership and implicit theory to discover the contribution to positive organizational outcomes. Unless we link leadership behavior to outcomes, the study of leadership is hardly a relevant pursuit; and since so often belief drives behavior, it is important to understand the connection between authentic leadership behavior and the expectations we have for our leadership. References Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-38. Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F. and May, D.R. (2004), “Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 801-23. Authentic leadership and theory 191 LODJ 34,2 Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) 192 Bass, B.M. (1998), “The ethics of transformational leadership”, in Ciulla, J. (Ed.), Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 169-92. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-217. Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 117-34. Calder, B.J. (1977), “An attribution theory of leadership”, in Staw, B. and Salancik, G. (Eds), New Directions in Organizational Behavior, St Clair Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 179-204. Chelimsky, E. (1998), “The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice”, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 35-56. Conger, J. and Kanungo, R.N. (1998), Charismatic Leadership in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Conger, J.A. (1999), “Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 145-69. Coomber, R. (1997), “Using the internet for survey research”, Sociological Research Online, Vol. 2 No. 2, available at: www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/2.html Eden, D. and Leviathan, U. (1975), “Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 736-41. Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2004), “Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor sructure, generalizability, and stability over time”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 293-310. Flere, S. and Lavric, M. (2008), “On the validity of cross-cultural social studies using student samples”, Field Methods, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 399-412. Foti, R.J. and Luch, C.H. (1992), “The influence of individual differences on the perception and categorization of leaders”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 55-66. Gardner, W.L. and Schermerhorn, J.R. (2004), “Unleashing individual potential: performance gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 270-81. George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1997), “Experiencing work: values, attitudes, and moods”, Human Relations, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 393-416. Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. and Dormfan, P.W. (1999), “Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-56. Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 891-902. Hunt, J.G., Boal, K.B. and Sorenson, R.L. (1990), “Top management leadership: inside the black box”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 41-65. Kam, C.D., Wilking, J.R. and Zechmeister, E.J. (2007), “Beyond the ‘narrow data base’: another convenience sample for experimental research”, Political Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 415-40. Kanungo, R.N. and Mendonca, M. (1996), Ethical Dimensions in Leadership, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) Keller, T. (1999), “Images of the familiar: individual differences on implicit leadership theories”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 589-607. Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1992), “Conceptualizing leadership processes: senior managers in a financial services company”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 761-82. Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1991), Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance, Routledge, Boston, MA. Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.C. and Alliger, G.M. (1986), “A meta-analysis of the relations between personality traits and leadership perceptions: an application of validity generalization procedures”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 402-10. Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Authentic leadership: a positive developmental approach”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 241-61. May, D.R., Chan, A.Y.L., Hodges, T.D. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Developing the moral component of authentic leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 247-60. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. and Brass, D.J. (1998), “At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 441-52. Offermann, L.R., Kennedy, J.K. and Wirtz, P.W. (1994), “Implicit leadership theories: content, structure, and generalizability”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-58. Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., vanKnippenberg, D. and Kruglanski, A.W. (2005), “Leader group prottypicality and leadership effectiveness: the moderating role of need for cognitive closure”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 503-16. Robinson, S. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psycological contract”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 574-99. Sankowsky, D. (1995), “The charismatic leader as narcissist: understanding the abuse of power”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 57-71. Shaw, J.B. (1990), “A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 435-54. Sheehan, K.B. and Hoy, M.G. (1999), “E-mail surveys: response patterns, process and potential”, Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertisers, Orlando, October 24-27. Suen, H.K. (1990), Principles of Test Theories, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. van Knippenberg, B. and van Knippenberg, D. (2005), “Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: the moderator role of leadership prototypicality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 25-37. Weick, K.E. and Bougon, M.G. (1986), “Organizations as cognitive maps: charting ways to success and failure”, in Sims, H.P. and Gioia, D.A. (Eds), The Thinking Organization – Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 102-35. Further reading Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2005), “From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 659-76. Appendix Scenarios and measure for H1 Condition 1: Joe is an employee in Average American Company. Frank is Joe’s leader in the company. Joe completely trusts Frank, and has been heard to comment that Frank is an “excellent” supervisor. If asked, Joe would say that Frank is a good and very effective leader. Authentic leadership and theory 193 LODJ 34,2 Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) 194 Condition 2: Joe is an employee at Average American Company. Frank is Joe’s boss in the company. Joe, however, does not trust Frank, and has been heard to comment that Frank is a terrible supervisor. If asked, Joe would say that Frank is a bad and very ineffective leader: (1) To what degree do you believe Joe will incorporate Frank’s behaviors into his idea of ideal leadership? (2) To what degree do you think Joe forms his opinions about leadership based on Frank’s behavior? (3) To what degree do you think Joe would behave the same as Frank if he found himself in a similar leadership position? (4) To what degree do you think Joe would change his personal theory about ideal leadership based on Frank’s behaviors? (5) To what degree do you think Joe and Frank have the same personal theory about ideal leadership? (6) To what degree do you think Joe rejects Frank’s ideas about leadership? Scenarios and measure to test H1a Condition 1: Frank is a leader in Average American Company. After a six-month period of behaving like he normally does, Frank receives a leadership evaluation that is negative. He then thinks about his behavior over the past six-month period. Condition 2: Frank is a leader in Average American Company. After a six-month period of behaving like he normally does, Frank receives a leadership evaluation that is positive. He then evaluates his behavior over the past-six month period: (1) To what degree do you think Frank would behave the same as he has over the last six-months during the next six-month period? (2) To what degree do you think Frank will maintain his leadership behaviors of the last six months? (3) To what degree do you think Frank will continue acting as he has over the last six months? (4) To what degree do you think Frank’s personal theory about leadership will remain the same? Example scenario and measure to test H2a Conditions 1 and 2: Frank is a leader in Average American Company. If asked, those around Frank would say that he conducts his life in an ethical manner. He defines success not just by results, but also the way those results are obtained. He listens to what employees have to say, and disciplines those employees who violate ethical standards. He is known for making fair and balanced decisions, and can always be trusted. He often discusses business ethics or values with employees, and sets an example of how to do things the right way, in terms of ethics. He has the best interests of employees in mind, and when making decisions, asks “what is the right thing to do?” Additionally, Frank makes personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. He is known for remaining calm during crisis situations. He instills pride in those he leads, just for being associated with him. He goes beyond his own self-interest for the good of the group, and provides reassurance that obstacles will be overcome. He displays extraordinary talent and competence in whatever he undertakes. His actions garner respect from his followers, and he displays a sense of power and confidence. Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) Frank is known to set high standards, and envisions exciting new possibilities. He talks optimistically of the future, expressing confidence that he and his followers will achieve their goals. He provides continuous encouragement to those he leads, focussing the attention of his followers on “what it takes” to be successful. He talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished, and arouses an awareness of what is essential to consider in those he leads. He articulates a compelling vision of the future, and shows determination to accomplish whatever he sets out to do. Frank also emphasizes the value of questioning assumptions. He re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate, and encourages those he leads to rethink ideas which had never been questioned before, including the traditional ways of doing things. He seeks differing perspectives when solving problems, and suggests new ways of looking at how they do their jobs. He encourages those he leads to express their ideas and opinions, and gets those he leads to look at problems from many different angles. He encourages non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional problems, and encourages addressing problems by using reasoning and evidence, rather than unsupported opinion. Frank also treats those he leads as individuals, rather than just members of a group. He listens attentively to the concerns of those he leads, and provides useful advice for their development. He focusses on developing his followers’ strengths, and spends time teaching and coaching them. He treats each of those he leads as individuals with different needs, abilities, and aspirations. He also teaches those he leads how to identify the needs and capabilities of others. He promotes self-development among his followers, and gives personal attention to those who seem neglected. Condition 1 ending: Joe is one of Frank’s followers, and has observed Frank’s leadership behaviors. Joe agrees with Frank’s leadership style and would probably act the same way Frank does if he were in a similar leadership position. Condition 2 ending: Joe is one of Frank’s followers. He has observed all of the above behaviors in Frank, and does not necessarily agree with Frank’s leadership style. Whereas he acknowledges that leaders may behave as Frank does, Joe believes there are other behaviors that may more appropriately represent good leadership. He might not necessarily act the same way Frank does if he were in a similar leadership position. To what degree do you agree with the following statements: (1) Joe places trust in Frank. (2) Joe believes Frank is an excellent supervisor. (3) Joe believes Frank is a good leader. (4) Joe believes Frank is a very effective leader. (5) Joe does not believe Frank is a successful leader. Corresponding author Thomas W. Nichols can be contacted at: tnichols@txwes.edu To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints Authentic leadership and theory 195 Downloaded by Cleveland State University At 03:02 08 October 2018 (PT) This article has been cited by: 1. SubramaniamAnusuiya, Anusuiya Subramaniam, SambasivanMurali, Murali Sambasivan. Leadership expectation gap and LMX quality: ethnic and nationality dissimilarities as moderator. Industrial and Commercial Training, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 2. Terrance W. Fitzsimmons, Victor J. Callan. 2016. CEO selection: A capital perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 27:5, 765-787. [Crossref] 3. Terrance W. Fitzsimmons, Victor J. Callan. 2016. Applying a capital perspective to explain continued gender inequality in the C-suite. The Leadership Quarterly 27:3, 354-370. [Crossref] 4. Melanie Sue Burkhardt, Shelley Gower, Helen Flavell, John Taplin. 2015. Engagement and Creation of Professional Identity in Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Convention-Style Orientation Event. Journal of Nursing Education 54:12, 712-715. [Crossref] 5. Joan Marques. 2015. The changed leadership landscape: what matters today. Journal of Management Development 34:10, 1310-1322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 6. Heather Cairns-Lee. 2015. Images of Leadership Development From the Inside Out. Advances in Developing Human Resources 17:3, 321-336. [Crossref] 7. Mohamad Azizal bin Abd Aziz, Jamaliah Said, Md. Mahmudul Alam. 2015. An Assessment of the Practices of Leadership Quality in the Public Sectors of Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance 31, 909-918. [Crossref] 8. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Role of Ethical Leadership in Ethical Organizations 1406-1430. [Crossref] 9. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Role of Ethical Leadership in Ethical Organizations 135-168. [Crossref] Leader-Member Exchange theory Leader-Member Exchange theory is a relationship-based perspective that emphasizes the dyadic relationship between followers and their leaders (Northhouse, 2016). According to the LMX theory, leadership is evident in the quality of the exchange relationships that are developed between the leaders and their followers. Mutual respect and trust between leaders and followers are results of the high-quality exchanges involved. The quality of the relationship influences employees' well-being, responsibility and decision making at their workplaces. These relationships are based on respect and trust. This theory has a primary role in explaining how leadership affects teams and organizations involved (Guan, Luo, & Peng, Wang, Sun, & Qiu, 2013). Strengths and Weaknesses of the LMX Theory Many organizations that have at one point employed the LMX theory argue that it is the most effective style of leadership. Just like any other leadership approaches, the LMX model has its shortcomings. A smooth functioning of the LMX model results in the parties involved enjoying their tasks and are characterized by high levels of motivation. Leaders who are in a healthy working relationship with their subordinates recognize their employees' areas of specialization and weakness (OmilionHodges, & Baker, 2012). It is therefore easy for such leaders to help these employees in overcoming these weaknesses. Another influence brought about by treating all members fairly is that it helps them negotiate the roles they are willing to take and this, in turn, helps in building trusts between the involved parties. A working Leadership Member Exchange relationship gives members a sense of loyalty towards their seniors (Northouse, 2016). Explain the impact these strengths and weaknesses might have on leadership. LMX theory also draws most of its focuses on the importance of communication in leadership. It is through dialogue that subordinates and leaders develop and maintains healthy relationships and trust (Omilion-Hodges, & Baker, 2012). If aspects like devotion and respect accompany the communication, the outcomes are effective leadership and high levels of production in the organization; as well as positive organizational outcomes.LMX also plays a vital role as it warns leaders against biases through their consciousness or unconsciousness. Examples of these biases include gender, ethnic and racial biases. Good relationships lead to improved attitudes from members, less turnovers and great achievements for the organizations. A weakness to the LMX model, on the other hand, leads to low production because members lack the motivation required since they don't feel like they are not treated fairly. Members also lack motivation as a result of little or no appreciation from the top leadership. Unequal treatment of individuals leads to jealous, and some members become resentful. The effect of jealous and resentfulness is an inevitable conflict between the involved parties (Northouse, 2016). It is also questionable how LMX helps in fighting inequalities since the theory does not give a clear indication of how free in-group and out-group members are free to interact. LMX also does not address the issue of fairness. These issues include equal salary increments and job promotions. Another major weakness of the LMX model is that the theory misses details on how leadership relationships are to be fostered. There is also the lack of training in involved companies. In combating these weaknesses, I suggest that organizations planning to use this model should provide clarity and direction on how they are plotting to deploy this method. Creation of good training policies and should also be considered (Northouse, 2016). Similarities between LMX and Transformational Leadership The ability to influence other people is called leadership. Leadership, just like leaderperformance relationships has direct effects on team performance. The exchange quality that occurs between the leader and the subordinate is the base through which the transformational leadership works. Scholars have also argued that transformational leadership is customized through the LMX model (Guan, Luo, & Peng, Wang, Sun, & Qiu, 2013). LMX and transformational leadership are similar in that they both play mediating roles and their impacts on their followers (Guan, Luo, & Peng, Wang, Sun, & Qiu, 2013). The two models are also similar in that they are used to predict extra efforts by the followers. Therefore LMX and transformational leadership play relative contributions in helping in the prediction of employees' additional efforts. Follower satisfaction is another aspect of similarity between LMX and transformational leadership since they both advocate for employee satisfaction with their leaders (Omilion-Hodges, & Baker, 2012) Explain the relationship between the characteristics of LMX Theory and Transformational Leadership. LMX has three distinctive characteristics; follower characteristics, interpersonal relationships, and leader characteristics. Just like in transformational leadership, in LMX the evaluation of followers is based on their competence levels and openness. Leaders' evaluation is based on the supervisory expectations that the followers have, extraversion and their transformational leadership skills. In both LMX and transformational leadership, the leader takes a commanding role to ensure the relationship works as planned. The two models are also similar in that they are used to predict extra efforts by the followers. Therefore LMX and transformational leadership play relative contributions in helping in the prediction of employees' additional efforts. Follower satisfaction is another aspect of similarity between LMX and transformational leadership since they both advocate for employee satisfaction with their leaders (Northhouse, 2016). The concepts held by the LMX model can be applied by leaders across wide scopes of organizations. An example is how LMX can be used to clearly explain how special relationships between CEOs and a few leaders in top-rank management can be used to realize strategic corporate goals. For example, in the US, just like most countries in the world, a president has the powers to choose their cabinet. This power allows one to handpick select people who run different departments within the government to attain specific set goals. References Guan, K., Luo, Z., & Peng, J., Wang, Z., Sun, H., & Qiu, C. (2013). Team networks and team identification: The role of leader-member exchange. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41(7), 1115–1124. Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications. Omilion-Hodges, L. M., & Baker, C. R. (2012). Contextualizing LMX within the workgroup: The effects of LMX and justice on relationship quality and resource sharing among peers. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 935–951.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hi, please see the attached pape...


Anonymous
Really helped me to better understand my coursework. Super recommended.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags