Thecurrent issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
                                            https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7739.htm
         LODJ                                          Onthemotivationalnatureof
         42,2                                       authentic leadership practices:
                                                alatent profile analysis based on
         178                                                    self-determination theory
         Received 20 December 2019                                                                                                    ^ !
                                                                                                  Julie Levesque-Cote
         Revised 26 June 2020                                                                           !
         5 November 2020                                          Psychology, Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada
         Accepted 5 November 2020                                                                       Claude Fernet
                                                                            Department of Human Resources Management,
                                                                               !              !        "                    "                           "
                                                               Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, Trois-Rivieres, Canada
                                                                                                Alexandre J.S. Morin
                                                                              Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, and
                                                                                                         !
                                                                                                    Stephanie Austin
                                                                            Department of Human Resources Management,
                                                                               !              !        "                    "                           "
                                                               Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, Trois-Rivieres, Canada
                                            Abstract
                                            Purpose – Although one of the central premises of authentic leadership theory is that authentic leaders
                                            mobilize their followers, the underlying motivational mechanisms of this process remain poorly understood.
                                            Drawing on self-determination theory, this study aims to fill that gap by examining authentic leadership
                                            practices (ALP) as theoretical antecedents of employees’ motivation profiles.
                                            Design/methodology/approach–Latentprofileanalysesconductedonasampleof501employeesrevealed
                                            four profiles: self-determined, unmotivated, highly motivated and moderately motivated.
                                            Findings – ALP were associated with a higher likelihood of membership into the most adaptive motivation
                                            profiles. Employees in these profiles displayed more optimal job functioning: higher organizational commitment
                                            and performance, and lower intentions to leave their organization.
                                            Originality/value–Thesefindingsunderscorethepredictivepowerofautonomousmotivationforemployee
                                            functioningandprovidenewinsightsintohowALPcanimproveworkmotivation,andhencejobfunctioning.
                                            OurresultsaccountnotonlyforhowALPaffectsthecompleterangeofbehavioralregulationsatworkbutalso
                                            the different patterns in which these regulations combine within employees.
                                            KeywordsMotivation,Authentic leadership, Person-centered approach
                                            PapertypeResearchpaper
                                            Authenticleadership(AL)theory(LuthansandAvolio,2003)proposesthatcertainleadership
                                            behaviors and practices help followers to develop a higher quality of work motivation (Ilies
                                            et al., 2005). These behaviors encompass leaders’ self-awareness (understanding of oneself
                                            and one’s impact on others), relational transparency (honest presentation of one’s authentic
                                            self to others), internalized moral perspective (practices guided by core personal values and
                                            moral standards) and balanced processing of information (objectively analyzing relevant
                                            data in the decision-making process). However, the mechanisms underlying the motivating
                                                                                                                                                                          !                !!
         Leadership & Organization          This work was supported by the financial support of the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Societeet
         Development Journal                culture (FRQSC),theUQTRResearchChaironMotivationandOccupationalHealthandtheResearch
         Vol. 42 No. 2, 2021                Group on Health and Wellness at Work. The third author was also supported by a grant from the
         pp. 178-194
         ©EmeraldPublishing Limited         Social Science and Humanity Research Council of Canada (435-2018-0368) in the preparation of this
         0143-7739
         DOI10.1108/LODJ-12-2019-0522       manuscript.
              role of authentic leadership practices (ALP; Ilies et al., 2005) remain poorly understood. In the          Authentic
              present study, we investigate this issue from the perspective of self-determination theory                leadership
              (SDT; Ryan and Deci, 2017).                                                                           practices and
                                                                                                                       motivation
              Self-determination theory
              SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2017) proposes that employees are driven by different types of                                179
              regulations that differ along a continuum of self-determination. They may invest efforts at
              workforthepleasureandsatisfactionofdoingso(intrinsicmotivation),toachievepersonalor
              professional goals that they valued (identified regulation), to build or maintain their self-
              esteem or avoid unpleasant feelings (introjected regulation), or to obtain rewards or avoid
              negativeconsequences(externalregulation).Anextensivebodyofresearchhasshownthese
              regulations mechanisms to be involved in a variety of individual (e.g. burnout, commitment)
              and organizational (e.g. absenteeism, performance) outcomes (e.g. Deci et al., 2017; Fernet
              et al., 2015). However, most SDT-based studies are variable-centered, and thus have failed to
              consider the combined effects of different types of behavioral regulations on employee
              functioning.Incontrast,aperson-centeredapproachfocusesonsubpopulations(orprofiles)of
              employees characterized by distinct configurations of regulations which may relate
              differentially to work outcomes (Meyer and Morin, 2016). This alternative approach thus
              provides a way to achieve a complementary, and more comprehensive, understanding of
              employees’ motivation (Howard et al., 2016). Whereas studies have documented the role of
              motivation profiles in the prediction of employee functioning, theoretical and empirical gaps
              remain in our understanding of potential antecedents of these profiles, such as ALP.
              Aperson-centeredapproachtoworkmotivation
              Although previous studies have focused on the identification of work motivation profiles,
              most of these studies have relied on cluster analyses which are (1) sensitive to variables’
              distributions and clustering algorithms, (2) rely on strict assumptions about the exact (non-
              probabilistic) assignment of cases to profiles and (3) require two-step procedures to test the
              associations betweenprofiles, predictors and outcomes (Meyer andMorin,2016).Incontrast,
              latent profile analysis (LPA) is a model-based approach that effectively addresses these
              limitations (Meyer and Morin, 2016). To date, three studies, summarized in Table 1, have
              relied on LPA to study work motivation profiles.
                 First, Graves et al. (2015) identified six motivational profiles (N 5 321) and showed that
              managerswhoreportedreceivinglowsupportfromtheirsupervisorandbeingexposedtohigh
              organizationalpoliticsweremorelikelytobelongtoalessdesirableprofile.Incontrast,Howard
              et al. (2016) identified a four-solution profile in two samples, and noted employees who
              presented greater likelihood of belonging into an amotivated profile were characterized by the
              lowest work performance and well-being. Finally, Gillet et al. (2017) also identified a four-
              solution motivation profiles among two samples. The profiles characterized by the highest
              levels of autonomous motivation were associated with the most desirable outcomes (positive
              affect and work engagement) and with the highest levels of perceived organizational support
              and communication, whereas those characterized by low to moderate levels of autonomous
              motivation were associated with more negative outcomes (negative affect).
                 Basedontherarityofpreviousstudies,weleaveasanopenresearchquestionthespecific
              number of profiles, and the nature of these profiles, which will be observed in the present
              study. However, based on these empirical findings, we expect that the best solution will
              include between 4 and 6 profiles which will differ from one another both in terms of their
              overall level of motivation (high, moderate, low) and configuration (intrinsic, identified,
              introjected, external).
       LODJ                      Profiles    Graves et al. (2015)               Howardet al. (2016)                  Gillet et al. (2017)
       42,2
                                 1           Very low        Very low           Amotivated       Very high           Low             Lowonall
                                             internal        intrinsic,                          amotivation;                        regulations
                                                             identified and                      average to low
                                                             introjected;                        on all other
                                                             average                             regulations
       180                                                   external
                                 2           Low             Lowintrinsic,      Moderately       Lowtoverylow        Self-           Moderate to
                                             internal        identified and     autonomous       amotivation,        determined      high intrinsic
                                                             introjected                         external, and                       andidentified;
                                                             regulations;                        introjected;                        low
                                                             average                             moderately high                     introjected
                                                             external                            intrinsic and                       and external
                                                                                                 identified
                                 3           Moderately      Moderately         Highly           Low                 Mixed           Highintrinsic,
                                             low internal    low intrinsic,     motivated        amotivation;                        identified and
                                                             identified and                      moderately high                     introjected;
                                                             introjected;                        external and                        low external
                                                             average                             introjected; very
                                                             external                            high identified
                                                                                                 and intrinsic
                                 4           Moderately      Moderately         Balanced         Average on all      Moderate        Moderate on
                                             high            high on all                         regulations                         all regulations
                                                             regulations
                                 5           High            High intrinsic,
                                             internal        identified and
                                                             introjected;
                                                             average
                                                             external
                                 6           Self-           High intrinsic
                                             determined      and identified,
                                                             moderately
                                                             low
       Table1.                                               introjected,
       Workmotivation                                        and low
       profiles                                              external
                                 TheroleofALPasapredictorofmotivationprofiles
                                 Although some of studies described above have considered managerial characteristics as
                                 predictors of work motivation profiles, none has considered the role of AL. AL refers to “a
                                 pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological
                                 capacities and a positive ethical climate” (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 94). Authentic leaders
                                 inspirefollowerstoengageintheirjobandprofessionalrelationshipswiththeautonomyand
                                 senseofownershipthatcharacterizeinternalizedmotivation(Iliesetal.,2005).Inmotivational
                                 terms, ALP should foster more adaptive motivation profiles as they support employees’
                                 autonomythroughtheprovisionofnon-controllingpositivefeedbackandbyacknowledging
                                 their personal perspective (Ilies et al., 2005). This is because ALP should facilitate the
                                 internalization process (or the acquisition and acceptance of values and goals) that results in
                                 employees becoming more autonomously (and less controllingly) motivated to engage in
                                 behaviors that express these values and goals (Ryan, 1995).
                                     Toourknowledge,onlytwovariable-centeredstudieshaveinvestigatedtheimpactofAL
                                 onmotivation. Leroy et al. (2015) showed that AL tended to satisfy the needs for autonomy,
                                 competence and relatedness at work, proposed by SDT as the foundation of autonomous
             motivation. Guerrero et al. (2015) examined the motivational effect of board chairs’ AL on         Authentic
             nonexecutivessittingontheboardsofaCanadiancreditunion.Theyfoundpositiverelations                  leadership
             between chairs’ AL and nonexecutives’ motivation and commitment, partially mediated by         practices and
             the board’s participative safety climate. Unfortunately, this study failed to consider the full   motivation
             range of behavioral regulations proposed by SDT and was limited to a specific context
             (executiveboards).Thepresentstudyaddressestheselimitationsbyfocusingontherelations
             between ALP and motivation profiles within a more “typical” sample. Based on AL theory                    181
             and of these limited prior empirical results, we propose the following hypothesis:
                Hypothesis1(H1). Employeeswhoperceivetheirimmediatesuperiorasauthenticwillbe
                                    more likely to present motivation profiles characterized by higher
                                    levels of autonomous forms of motivation.
             Jobfunctioning outcomes of motivation profiles
             Previous person-centered studies of work motivation have underscored the importance of
             autonomousmotivationforemployeefunctioning.Forexample,Gravesetal.(2015)foundthat
             managers with a profile characterized by high autonomous motivation presented higher job
             satisfaction and organizational commitment, whereasthosewithprofilescharacterizedbylow
             autonomous motivation were at risk of turnover. However, additional results bring nuance
             regarding the combined effects of autonomous and controlled forms of motivation. For
             example,Howardetal.(2016)revealedthatemployeescorrespondingtoprofilescharacterized
             by high autonomous and controlled motivation displayed higher work performance,
             engagement and satisfaction, and lower burnout. These results suggested that controlled
             motivationmaynotunderminefunctioningaslongasautonomousmotivationremainsequally
             high.Thisisbecauseself-motivationtendstoprovideadvantageswhenbehavioralregulations
             are congruent with personal values (Ryan and Deci, 2017).
                Accordingly, we expect motivation profiles to be differently associated with a range of
             with a range of important attitudinal (organizational commitment, job satisfaction, turnover
             intentions), affective (work engagement), and behavioral (in-role performance) indicators of
             job functioning (Demerouti and Cropanzanno, 2010). Organizational commitment reflects an
             employee’s affective attachment to the organization that is important to job performance
             (Leroy et al., 2015). Another essential factor to organizational effectiveness (Jalagat, 2016) is
             jobsatisfaction,whichisrelatedtoorganizationalcommitmentandlowerturnoverintentions
             (Yang, 2010). Turnover intentions refer to the conscious willfulness of an employee to leave
             the organization (Tett and Meyer, 1993). It is recognized as the most important predictors of
             actual turnover (Meyer et al., 2002). Work engagement is a positive, fulfilling work-related
             state of mind (Schaufeli et al., 2006) that has been associated with job performance and lower
             turnover intentions (Yalabik et al., 2013). Finally, in-role performance refers to work
             behaviors required by the job (Williams and Anderson, 1991) that are important to
             organizational performance (Salminen et al., 2017). Based on the aforementioned theoretical
             and empirical considerations, we propose that:
                Hypothesis 2a (H2a). Profiles characterized by higher levels of autonomous forms of
                                       motivation will be associated with the most desirable work
                                       outcomes (higher commitment, satisfaction, engagement, in-role
                                       performance, coupled with lower turnover intentions) irrespective
                                       of their levels of controlled motivation.
                Hypothesis2b(H2b). Profilesdominatedbycontrolledmotivationwillbeassociatedwith
                                      the less desirable outcome (lower commitment, satisfaction,
                                      engagement and in-role performance, coupled with higher
                                      turnover intentions)