**3. Methods**

#### **3.1. Participants and procedure**

In order to test the foregoing hypotheses, a survey was conducted on employees working in manufacturing firms, financial firms, and public enterprises in Korea. First, we obtained consent from the HR personnel of each firm after explaining the intent and importance of this study. We stated that the results of the research analysis are to be used for research purposes only and feedback of the results would be provided. We conducted three interviews with the HR personnel to ensure the adequacy and comprehension of the terms used in the survey. We then distributed the revised questionnaire to 1100 participants. After eliminating copies of the questionnaire that contained inappropriate and omitted responses for the key variables, an analysis was conducted on the data of 950 participants. These participants consisted of 98 employees in manufacturing, 570 in finance, and 282 in public enterprises. The demographic characteristics of the participants show that 48% are male and 50% are female and that their 20s' age is 528 and 30s' age is 312, with 83% of them college graduates.

In order to reduce common method bias that may damage the validity of measurement in the survey and contaminate the study results [36]), a survey on authentic leadership was conducted first. *Relational cohesion* and *well-being* variables were measured from the same employees after 2 weeks to allow for a time interval.

#### **3.2. Measures**

who perform the tasks with them. Based on the foregoing argument, a strong perception of relational cohesion in the sense that team members have an extremely close, collaborative, and united relationship with their teammates increases their level of well-being, thereby pro-

According to social exchange theory, social exchange formed as team members perform tasks creates positive or negative global feelings, which promote intrinsic motivation and may affect employees' emotions [15]. A team's performance is determined by the success of exchange tasks, which further motivates employees who strongly perceive that relational cohesion maintains positive relationships with teammates. Because relational cohesion shows high immersion for a team since it focuses on the relational aspect of team members [35], it makes such team members perceive that they are currently living satisfactory lives. They also feel hedonic well-being because they have achieved the things they wanted. If teammates have a relationship that is too distant, conflicting, breakable, disruptive, and individual-oriented, they have a lower level of trust among themselves. This may result in negative effects on the well-being of individuals. However, if teammates perceive high relational cohesion, they have an improved ability to deal with a situation and experience hedonic well-being, which lowers stress. Employees working in a team must have more active contact and cooperation with their teammates to successfully perform the team's tasks. Thus, if they perceive high relational cohesion, they tend to maintain positive relationships with their teammates, thereby feeling more high-dimensional psychological well-being. Consequently, they experience eudaimonic well-being by making efforts to constantly develop their potential and give meaning and purpose to their lives beyond hedonic

The effects of authentic leadership of a team leader who strives to understand team members' motives and needs, and truly care for them, lead to the greater hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing of employees because of the interaction with relational cohesion. In this sense, the fol-

**H3:** Relational cohesion will have a moderating effect on the relationship between authentic leadership and employees' hedonic well-being. In other words, higher relational cohesion will increase the positive effects of authentic leadership on employees' hedonic well-being.

**H4:** Relational cohesion will have a moderating effect on the relationship between authentic leadership and employees' eudaimonic well-being. In other words, higher relational cohesion will increase the positive effects of authentic leadership on employees' eudaimonic

In order to test the foregoing hypotheses, a survey was conducted on employees working in manufacturing firms, financial firms, and public enterprises in Korea. First, we obtained

ducing a strong synergy with the effect of authentic leadership.

well-being.

198 Leadership

well-being.

**3. Methods**

lowing hypotheses are established.

**3.1. Participants and procedure**

#### *3.2.1. Authentic leadership*

The operational definition of authentic leadership is "being honest to oneself with high moral and ethical values and acting consistently with the values they expressed." The survey consisted of 21 items representing awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and relational orientation [37]. Higher scores indicate higher perceptions of a team leader's authentic leadership. See **Table 1** in Section 4 for the detailed items of the questionnaire.

#### *3.2.2. Relational cohesion*

The operational definition of relational cohesion is "perceiving one's relationship with teammates as collaborative, close, and highly cohesive." It was measured by seven adjectives developed by [35] as semantic differential scales. Conflicting words such as "cooperative" for higher scores and "conflictual" were arranged for the opposite side, making participants mark the words that best described their relationships with teammates.

#### *3.2.3. Hedonic well-being*

The operational definition of hedonic well-being is "achieving the things they wanted and enjoying a satisfying life." It was measured by five items using the satisfaction with life scale of [38].

#### *3.2.4. Eudaimonic well-being*

The operational definition of eudaimonic well-being is "clearly having goals and directions of life for introspection and self-realization." It was measured by five items related to the purpose of life and individual growth among the measurement items of [39].


*3.2.5. Control variables*

Completely standardized solution.

**Table 1.** Results of confirmatory factor analysis (n = 950).<sup>1</sup>

**Model fit<sup>2</sup>**

1

2

respect.

**4. Results**

**4.1. Preliminary analysis**

Finally, the study's results may be distorted by other factors that were not selected in verifying the effects of authentic leadership on employees' well-being. Accordingly, *gender*, *education level*, *marital status*, *duty*, *individualism*, and *collectivism* were controlled. In particular, it was intended to verify the pure effect of authentic leadership by controlling the effects of transformational leadership, which is known to be very effective thus far [40]. Transformational leadership is known to be a leadership style with systematically established construct validity. It can be applied quite universally [41, 42]. In this context, the effects of ethical leadership were also controlled. Ethical leadership is based on factors such as authentic leadership [43] and has many similar characteristics in the sense that such leaders are highly empathic with others, do not pursue their own interests, and treat others with

**Eudaimonic well-being Factor loading**

The Effects of Authentic Leadership on Employees' Well-Being and the Role of Relational Cohesion

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76427

201

(1) I have a sense of mastery and competence in managing the environment 0.82 (2) I acknowledge and accept multiple aspects of self 0.86 (3) I have goals in life and a sense of directedness 0.91 (4) I am able to choose or create contexts suitable to personal needs and values 0.91 (5) I have aims and objectives for living 0.90

df is degrees of freedom; RMSEA is root mean square error of approximation; and GFI is goodness of fit.

χ2 = 4430.94 (df = 554, p = 0.00), IFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.11, GFI = 0.72

First, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on four variables established in this study, and a further analysis was conducted excluding three items with low factor loadings of authentic leadership. The results and questionnaire items are shown in **Table 1**. The incremental fit index (IFI) and comparative fit index (CFI), which [44] argued must be reported in order to determine the goodness of fit of the model, both exceed 0.90. In addition, the measurement variables are loaded significantly on variables as originally intended, thereby securing the construct validity of variables. Cronbach's alpha was measured by conducting a reliability analysis based on the above. The results show that authentic leadership is 0.92, The Effects of Authentic Leadership on Employees' Well-Being and the Role of Relational Cohesion http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76427 201


**Table 1.** Results of confirmatory factor analysis (n = 950).<sup>1</sup>

#### *3.2.5. Control variables*

**Authentic leadership (my team leader…) Factor** 

(1) Actively tries to understand which of him/herself aspects fit together to form his/her true self 0.82 (2) Has a very good understanding of why he/she does the things he/she does 0.80 (3) Actively attempts to understand him/herself as best as possible 0.81 (4) Often questions whether he/she really know what he/she want to accomplish in his/her lifetime (R) 0.76 (5) Is in touch with his/her motives and desire 0.74 (6) Frequently pretends to enjoy something when in actuality he/she really doesn't (R) 0.85 (7) Has often done things that he/she doesn't want to do merely not to disappoint people 0.81 (8) Finds that his/her behavior typically expresses his/her personal needs and desires 0.76 (9) Is willing to endure negative consequences by expressing his/her true beliefs about things 0.83 (10) Is very uncomfortable objectively considering his/her limitations and shortcomings (R) 0.88 (11) Finds it very difficult to critically assess him/herself (R) 0.81

(12) Tends to have difficulty accepting his/her personal faults, so he/she tries to cast them in a more

(14) Often denies the validity of any compliments that he/she receives (R) 0.58 (15) Wants close others to understand the real he/she rather than just his/her public persona or image 0.55 (16) Makes it a point to express to close others how much he/she truly cares for them 0.68 (17) The people he/she is close to can count on him/her being who she/he is regardless of what setting

(18) It is important for him/her to understand his/her close others' needs and desires 0.63

(1) Distant - close 0.72 (2) Conflictual - cooperative 0.83 (3) Fragmenting - integrating 0.91 (4) Fragile - solid 0.95 (5) Cohesive - divisive 0.94 (6) Diverging - converging 0.90 (7) Self-oriented - team-oriented 0.85

**Relational cohesion Factor loading**

**Hedonic well-being Factor loading**

(1) In most ways my life is close to my ideals 0.88 (2) The conditions of my life are excellent 0.91 (3) I am satisfied with my life 0.89 (4) So far I have gotten the important things in my life 0.77 (5) If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing 0.74

(13) If a close other and he/she is in disagreement he/she would rather ignore the issue than

positive way (R)

200 Leadership

we are in

constructively work it out (R)

**loading**

0.48

0.44

0.62

Finally, the study's results may be distorted by other factors that were not selected in verifying the effects of authentic leadership on employees' well-being. Accordingly, *gender*, *education level*, *marital status*, *duty*, *individualism*, and *collectivism* were controlled. In particular, it was intended to verify the pure effect of authentic leadership by controlling the effects of transformational leadership, which is known to be very effective thus far [40]. Transformational leadership is known to be a leadership style with systematically established construct validity. It can be applied quite universally [41, 42]. In this context, the effects of ethical leadership were also controlled. Ethical leadership is based on factors such as authentic leadership [43] and has many similar characteristics in the sense that such leaders are highly empathic with others, do not pursue their own interests, and treat others with respect.

#### **4. Results**

#### **4.1. Preliminary analysis**

First, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on four variables established in this study, and a further analysis was conducted excluding three items with low factor loadings of authentic leadership. The results and questionnaire items are shown in **Table 1**. The incremental fit index (IFI) and comparative fit index (CFI), which [44] argued must be reported in order to determine the goodness of fit of the model, both exceed 0.90. In addition, the measurement variables are loaded significantly on variables as originally intended, thereby securing the construct validity of variables. Cronbach's alpha was measured by conducting a reliability analysis based on the above. The results show that authentic leadership is 0.92, relational cohesion is 0.96, hedonic well-being is 0.92, and eudaimonic well-being is 0.95, satisfying the condition that reliability is secured when it is at least 0.70 in general [45].

Prior to the actual testing of the hypotheses, a correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relevance among variables. The correlation among control variables shows that male and married employees have high positive correlations with hedonic well-being/ eudaimonic well-being. Moreover, college graduates or higher show a positive correlation with hedonic well-being. Individualism and collectivism also showed a positive correlation with hedonic well-being/eudaimonic well-being. Above all, transformational leadership and ethical leadership show strong positive correlations with the key variables, increasing their validity as control variables. The correlation among the key variables shows that authentic leadership has strong positive correlations with hedonic well-being (0.246, p < 0.01) and eudaimonic well-being (0.313, p < 0.01). *Relational cohesion* (a moderating variable) also shows strong positive correlations with hedonic well-being (0.381, p < 0.01) and eudaimonic well-being (0.387, p < 0.01). These results suggest the validity of the hypotheses. **Table 2** presents the results of the correlation analysis.

#### **4.2. Test of hypotheses**

A hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. The results are presented in **Table 3**. Model 1 shows the effects of control variables. College graduates or higher and employees with a strong collective disposition tend to perceive higher hedonic well-being (respectively, β = 0.26, p < 0.05; β = 0.30, p < 0.001). Moreover, employees in manufacturing show lower hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being compared with those in finance and public enterprises, indicating that there are differences among industries (respectively, β = −0.31, p < 0.01; β = −0.29, p < 0.01). In addition, employees with high individualism and collectivism perceive higher eudaimonic well-being (respectively, β = 0.12, p < 0.001; β = 0.28, p < 0.001). Lastly, the effects of ethical leadership on well-being are not significant; however, the direct effects of transformational leadership on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are strong, thereby showing validity as a control variable (respectively, β = 0.28, p < 0.001; β = 0.30, p < 0.001).

As presented in Model 2, which shows the direct effects of authentic leadership, these effects on hedonic well-being are not significant, thereby rejecting Hypothesis 1 (β = −0.03, ns). However, as expected, authentic leadership has positive effects on eudaimonic well-being, thereby confirming Hypothesis 2 (β = 0.10, p < 0.10). Model 3 shows the effects of relational cohesion. These effects on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are both significant (respectively, β = 0.26, p < 0.001; β = 0.22, p < 0.001).

Finally, Model 4 verifies the moderating effect of relational cohesion. Here, the interaction effect on hedonic well-being is positive (β = 0.04, p < 0.10). In other words, although the direct effects of authentic leadership on hedonic well-being are not significant, if relational cohesion is highly perceived, as shown in the graphs of **Figure 1**, the effects of authentic leadership are positive. Likewise, the interaction effect on eudaimonic well-being is also positive, thereby proving that the moderating effect of relational cohesion is significant (β = 0.10, p < 0.001).

**Variables** (1) Industry 1 (2) Industry 2 (3) General employee

(4) Gender (5) Marital status

(6) Education (7) Individualism

(8) Collectivism (9)Transformational leadership

(10) Ethical leadership

(11) Authentic leadership

(12) Relational cohesion

(13) Hedonic well-being

(14) Eudaimonic well-being

Means

SD 1\* p <

2Industry 1 =

3Industry 2 =

**Table 2.**

0.05, \*\* p <

0.01 (two-tailed).

manufacturer; others

public enterprise; others

4General employee, male, married, and college graduate

 =

0 dummy variables.

 = Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the key variables (n

 = 950)1

.

1; others = 0 dummy variables.

 =

0 dummy variables.

−0.09\*\*

.10 .30

.46

.50

.50

.50

.34

1.01

.82

1.22

1.23

1.03

1.16

1.16

1.10

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76427

203

.30

.45

.49

.49

.87

4.03

4.85

5.12

5.23

5.15

4.99

4.45

4.92

0.14\*\*

−0.06\*

0.12\*\*

0.08\*

0.05

0.17\*\*

0.35\*\*

0.40\*\*

0.31\*\*

0.31\*\*

0.38\*\*

0.64\*\* 1

The Effects of Authentic Leadership on Employees' Well-Being and the Role of Relational Cohesion

−0.09\*\*

0.15\*\*

−0.12\*\*

0.10\*\*

0.15\*\*

0.08\*\*

0.09\*\*

0.32\*\*

0.36\*\*

0.27\*\*

0.24\*\*

0.38\*\* 1

−0.03

−0.00

−0.01

0.10\*\*

0.05

0.02

0.12\*

0.33\*\*

0.36\*\*

0.35\*\*

0.34\*\* 1

−0.03

0.10\*\*

0.00

0.10\*\*

0.03

−0.01

0.05

0.35\*\*

0.65\*\*

0.84\*\* 1

−0.03

0.08\*

−0.02

0.16\*\*

0.07\*

0.00

0.14\*\*

0.41\*\*

0.69\*\* 1

−0.03

0.27\*\*

−0.06

0.12\*\*

0.13\*\*

0.02

0.09\*\*

0.37\*\* 1

−0.02 0.21\*\* −0.05

0.03 0.06\* −0.02

0.06

−0.12\*\*

0.19\*\*

0.12\*\*

0.02

0.23\*\*\* 1

−0.25

−0.01

0.22\*\*

0.02

−0.03

1

0.06

−0.08\*\*

0.16\*\*

−0.00

1

0.26\*\*

−0.57\*\*

0.24\*\* 1

−0.08\*\*

−0.31\*\* 1

−0.25\*\* 1

**(1)**

1

−0.22\*\* 1

**(2)**

**(3)**

**(4)**

**(5)**

**(6)**

**(7)**

**(8)**

**(9)**

**(10)**

**(11)**

**(12)**

**(13)**

**(14)**


relational cohesion is 0.96, hedonic well-being is 0.92, and eudaimonic well-being is 0.95, sat-

Prior to the actual testing of the hypotheses, a correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relevance among variables. The correlation among control variables shows that male and married employees have high positive correlations with hedonic well-being/ eudaimonic well-being. Moreover, college graduates or higher show a positive correlation with hedonic well-being. Individualism and collectivism also showed a positive correlation with hedonic well-being/eudaimonic well-being. Above all, transformational leadership and ethical leadership show strong positive correlations with the key variables, increasing their validity as control variables. The correlation among the key variables shows that authentic leadership has strong positive correlations with hedonic well-being (0.246, p < 0.01) and eudaimonic well-being (0.313, p < 0.01). *Relational cohesion* (a moderating variable) also shows strong positive correlations with hedonic well-being (0.381, p < 0.01) and eudaimonic well-being (0.387, p < 0.01). These results suggest the validity of the hypotheses. **Table 2**

A hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. The results are presented in **Table 3**. Model 1 shows the effects of control variables. College graduates or higher and employees with a strong collective disposition tend to perceive higher hedonic well-being (respectively, β = 0.26, p < 0.05; β = 0.30, p < 0.001). Moreover, employees in manufacturing show lower hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being compared with those in finance and public enterprises, indicating that there are differences among industries (respectively, β = −0.31, p < 0.01; β = −0.29, p < 0.01). In addition, employees with high individualism and collectivism perceive higher eudaimonic well-being (respectively, β = 0.12, p < 0.001; β = 0.28, p < 0.001). Lastly, the effects of ethical leadership on well-being are not significant; however, the direct effects of transformational leadership on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are strong, thereby showing validity as a control variable

As presented in Model 2, which shows the direct effects of authentic leadership, these effects on hedonic well-being are not significant, thereby rejecting Hypothesis 1 (β = −0.03, ns). However, as expected, authentic leadership has positive effects on eudaimonic well-being, thereby confirming Hypothesis 2 (β = 0.10, p < 0.10). Model 3 shows the effects of relational cohesion. These effects on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are both significant (respec-

Finally, Model 4 verifies the moderating effect of relational cohesion. Here, the interaction effect on hedonic well-being is positive (β = 0.04, p < 0.10). In other words, although the direct effects of authentic leadership on hedonic well-being are not significant, if relational cohesion is highly perceived, as shown in the graphs of **Figure 1**, the effects of authentic leadership are positive. Likewise, the interaction effect on eudaimonic well-being is also positive, thereby proving that the moderating effect of relational cohesion is significant

isfying the condition that reliability is secured when it is at least 0.70 in general [45].

presents the results of the correlation analysis.

(respectively, β = 0.28, p < 0.001; β = 0.30, p < 0.001).

tively, β = 0.26, p < 0.001; β = 0.22, p < 0.001).

(β = 0.10, p < 0.001).

**4.2. Test of hypotheses**

202 Leadership

**Table 2.** Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the key variables (n = 950)1 

.


**Table 3.** Result of hierarchical regression analysis (n = 950)1.

**5. Conclusion**

implication.

**5.1. Discussion and conclusions**

**Figure 1.** Moderating effect of variance in relational cohesion.

them to seek true happiness [

goals and directions in life.

This study introduced the need for authentic leadership, which still has a short history and lacks empirical research, and identified the possibility of authentic leadership in Korean organizations through an empirical study. It verified the effects of authentic leadership, as an alternative to various leadership styles, on employees' well-being. It also considered the moderating effect of relational cohesion among team members, with the following theoretical

The Effects of Authentic Leadership on Employees' Well-Being and the Role of Relational Cohesion

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76427

205

First, this study determined the relationship between leadership and well-being by adopting well-being as a soft performance, beyond tangibly displayed employee behaviors and organi

zational performance [12], as an outcome variable. As a result, authentic leaders who are hon

est with themselves and express consistent behaviors through self-regulation have positive effects on employees' well-being. Authentic leaders themselves display leadership based on clear missions and values, through which they help employees to develop their utmost poten

tial and strive for self-realization. The self-sacrifices of authentic leaders and their aspects as social leaders lead employees to identify themselves with a given mission, thereby helping

psychological well-being that help employees to find out exactly who they are and set clearer

Second, this study determined the moderating effect of relational cohesion in the effects of team leaders' authentic leadership on employees' well-being. In particular, although there are no direct effects of authentic leadership on employees' hedonic well-being, whereby team members per

ceive that they are united, team-oriented, and highly cohesive, team leaders' authentic leadership may contribute to increasing the current satisfaction of employees. This finding indicates that the relationship among team members who perform tasks together is very important in addition to a

team leader's authentic leadership in order for employees to feel hedonic well-being.

5]. In other words, authentic leaders have positive effects on





The Effects of Authentic Leadership on Employees' Well-Being and the Role of Relational Cohesion http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76427 205

**Figure 1.** Moderating effect of variance in relational cohesion.
