The AL framework draws from the concept of authenticity (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Authenticity – as derived from an ancient Greek aphorism – refers to knowing the self and being true to the self (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). In this study, AL was conceptualised as (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008):

Authentic leadership is a higher-order construct that consists of four lower-order dimensions. Balanced processing constitutes a leader’s objectivity when analysing information for decision-making (Walumbwa et al., 2008), whereas possessing an internalised moral perspective is regulating one’s thoughts and actions through the guidance of one’s moral standards and values against other external factors (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). Relational transparency relates to a leader’s openness and transparency during interactions with others (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Finally, self-awareness refers to the self-knowledge of leaders and the extent to which they are aware of their characteristics (including strengths and areas of development) (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). In the current study, the extent to which leaders display AL behaviours was measured from the subordinates’ perspectives. In this study, a follower is regarded as the authentic leader’s subordinate.

Authentic leaders have a significant influence on their followers’ PsyCap levels (Amunkete & Rothmann, 2015; Wu & Nguyen, 2019). Derived from positive organisational behaviour (POB; Luthans, 2002), PsyCap concerns ‘who you are’ (the actual self) and ‘who you are becoming’ (your possible self) (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). Positive organisational behaviour analyses and applies human strengths and psychological capacities that meet the criteria of a nomological network because they are measurable, developable and can be managed for performance improvement (Luthans, 2002).

Psychological capital refers to (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007):

These four capacities are conceptually distinct from one another, state-like and work synergistically to facilitate positive outcomes (Luthans et al., 2007; Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017).

In their early development of AL, Luthans and Avolio (2003) identified that PsyCap acts as a personal resource for the authentic leader. Therefore, authentic leaders draw from their own personal resources to contribute to their followers’ PsyCap (Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang, & Wu, 2014), allowing for positive outcomes (Luthans et al., 2007; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). For instance, an authentic leader is able to encourage open collaborative relationships that provide feedback and input for growth, providing followers with the confidence to bounce back from setbacks and improve on their work and the ability to keep a positive outlook and create alternative options in reaching their goals (Luthans, Youssef-Morgan, & Avolio, 2015). Empirical research supports AL’s positive association with followers’ PsyCap (Alilyyani et al., 2018; Amunkete & Rothmann, 2015; Du Plessis, 2014; Malila et al., 2018):

Organisational citizenship behavior became relevant across diverse industries and organisations as a result of employees being required to do more with fewer resources (Perreira & Berta, 2016; Podsakoff, Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Maynes, & Spoelma, 2014). Daniel Katz identified three types of behaviours that can contribute to the effectiveness of the organisation (Selamat, Nordin, & Fook, 2017). The first behaviour is that people must enter and be part of a system where they remain in the system; the second behaviour requires people to legitimately carry out their in-role duties; and the third behaviour involves employees going beyond their expected roles in carrying out their work innovatively and spontaneously to achieve the organisational objectives (Bolon, 1997; Selamat et al., 2017). The latter behaviour led to the establishment of OCB (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).

Organ (1988, p. 4) defined OCB as ‘individual behaviours that are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognised by the formal reward system and in the end promotes the functioning of the organisation’. He later refined this definition to ‘contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance’ (Organ, 1997, p. 91). According to Barrett (2018), OCB refers to behaviour: (1) that goes beyond formal work requirements, (2) that is spontaneous and not enforced by an organisation and (3) that is voluntarily performed. In this study, OCB is conceptualised as (1) employees’ willingness to assist co-workers by going beyond what is expected (interpersonal orientation) and (2) employees’ willingness to exert extra effort to help the organisation (organisational orientation) (Rothmann, 2010).

These two dimensions of OCB are aligned to Smith et al.’s (1983) descriptions of altruism and generalised compliance. Altruism refers to behaviour that seeks to help a specific person, such as voluntarily assisting with tasks that are not required, showing courtesy to a colleague by helping when they are absent or going out of one’s way to include new colleagues into the group (Smith et al., 1983). Generalised compliance refers to impersonal behaviours of compliance to an organisation’s norm of what constitutes a good employee, for instance, being punctual, offering ideas that are good for the organisation or defending the organisation (Smith et al., 1983).

An authentic leader’s influence on follower outcomes is an integral part of the AL theoretical framework (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Meta-analytical studies posit that perceived AL accounts for variance in follower OCB, based on the leader’s key behaviours that influence followers to identify themselves with the leader, which in turn elicits higher citizenship behaviours (Valsania, Léon, Alosono, & Cantisano, 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2008). The variance in follower OCB, explained by AL, is expounded by the increased levels of trust, hope, positive emotions and optimism amongst followers (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Authentic leaders can empower followers to make positive changes by improving on their job performance and going beyond expectations (Alilyyani et al., 2018; Malila et al., 2018). In sum, AL is a critical factor in eliciting the OCB of followers (Valsania et al., 2012):

Intention to leave is a conscious and well-thought-through decision to leave the organisation (Tett & Meyer, 1993), and it can be described as the last stage before the employee does leave the organisation (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Winterton, 2004). An individual on this level is either in a preparatory stage, where they are gathering available information about job opportunities, or they are actively searching for a job by sending out résumés (Griffeth et al., 2000). Research on turnover intention sought to discover predictors of ITL before the employee quits (Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007; Ritter, 2011). When evaluating the determinants of ITL, one can distinguish between ‘push factors’ (i.e. those that will lead to employees leaving) and ‘pull factors’ (i.e. those encouraging employees to stay) (Sasso et al., 2019). Leadership and participation in hospital matters are important ‘pull factors’ (Sasso et al., 2019), as supportive leadership buffers job dissatisfaction experienced by employees (Laschinger & Fida, 2014b).

Authentic leaders help build healthy work environments through their availability and exemplary behaviours that are conducive to positive employee outcomes, for example, lowered intentions to leave the organisation (Blake, Leach, Robbins, Pike, & Needleman, 2013; Laschinger & Fida, 2014b). Empirical studies support the negative relations between AL and employees’ ITL (Fallatah et al., 2017; Laschinger et al., 2016; Munyaka, Boshoff, Pietersen, & Snelgaret, 2017):

Despite the importance of PsyCap in its own right, the organisational outcomes of PsyCap also matter. Corporate decision-makers need evidence-based information regarding the impact of PsyCap on the bottom line as well as on performance (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). Consequently, OCB (as a performance indicator) and ITL (which potentially impacts on performance and the bottom line) are essential outcome measures. Previous studies indicated that PsyCap has significant positive effects on individual, group and organisational outcomes (Du Plessis & Boshoff, 2018; Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). More specifically, these studies indicate that PsyCap acts as a positive resource to enhance OCB (Newman, Ucbasaran, Zhu, & Hirst, 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Wu & Nguyen, 2019) and intention to stay with the organisation (Dhiman & Arora, 2018; Maloney, Boxall, Parsons, & Cheung, 2018):

Using the job demands–resources (JD-R) theory, PsyCap is posited as a mechanism through which AL has an impact on OCB and ITL. The JD-R theory states that each job consists of job resources that play a motivational role in ensuring performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017). The JD-R theory also postulates that individuals possess intrapersonal resources that enable them to influence the environment (Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu, & Westman, 2018) and that job resources activate personal resources (Van Veldhoven et al., 2020). Consequently, AL is seen as a job resource that can directly foster discretionary behaviours (i.e. OCB) whilst lowering employees’ ITL. It can also indirectly do so by activating personal resources (i.e. PsyCap) that help employees display positive discretionary behaviours and attitudes towards the organisation (Alilyyani et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2014). This is likely because PsyCap implies that individuals have the perception that they can influence their environments and that they can engage intentionally and autonomously when pursuing set goals. These individuals can also make positive attributions about future success even when confronted by challenges (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). Empirical research supports the mediating properties of PsyCap. For example, PsyCap mediates the relationship between AL and employee creativity (Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Cunha, 2012) and between AL, commitment and job performance (Woolley, Caza, & Levy, 2014):

Based on the above discussions, the hypothesised model can be depicted as follows (Figure 1).

A quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional approach was used (Gravetter & Forzano, 2012) to explore relationships between the AL, PsyCap, OCB and ITL. Cross-sectional designs are often used to determine whether variables are related before investing resources in longitudinal studies (Spector, 2019).

This article adheres to the ethical guidelines for research. Ethical clearance was obtained from the North-West University (no. NWU-HS-2014-0143, 10-03-2015).

The hypothesised model consisted of four constructs: AL (one latent variable indicated by four manifest indicators or parcels), PsyCap (one latent variable indicated by four manifest indicators or parcels), OCB (latent variable) and ITL (latent variable). Parcels were created by averaging the items (as recommended by Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013) for the four dimensions of AL and PsyCap, respectively. Authentic leadership and PsyCap were modelled as unidimensional in line with previous research (Coxen et al., 2016; Stander et al., 2015) and theory (Luthans et al., 2004). Organisational citizenship behaviours and ITL were modelled in line with theory. The model fitted the data well (χ² = 494.96*; df = 129; RMSEA = 0.07* CI: [0.06, 0.07]; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; and SRMR = 0.07) and was used as a basis for the structural model.

The descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations are reported in Table 1. All of the scales were reliable, ranging from 0.72 to 0.93. All the relationships between the variables were statistically significant in the expected directions. Practically significant relationships included AL with PsyCap (r = 0.41; medium effect), AL with OCB (r = 0.31; medium effect) and PsyCap with OCB (r = 0.55; large effect). Authentic leadership, PsyCap and OCB were statistically related to ITL, but only with a small practical effect: AL (r = −0.24), PsyCap (r = −0.28) and OCB (r = −0.10).

Regression paths between the constructs were added in a structural model with direct and indirect pathways specified. The model fit results were identical to those of the measurement model. The results, as shown in Figure 2, indicate that the estimated path coefficient from AL to PsyCap (β = 0.41, p < 0.01) was significant. Authentic leadership explained 16% of the variance in PsyCap (medium effect). Therefore, Hypothesis 1, stating that perceived AL associates positively with PsyCap, was accepted.

The results also indicated that the estimated path coefficients from AL to OCB (β = 0.10, p < 0.05) and ITL (β = −0.15, p < 0.01) were both significant. Hypothesis 2, stating that perceived AL associates positively with follower OCB, and Hypothesis 3, stating that perceived AL associates negatively with follower ITL, were accepted. The path coefficient from PsyCap (β = 0.51, p < 0.01) to OCB was significant. Additionally, the path coefficient from PsyCap (β = −0.22, p < 0.01) to ITL was also significant. Hypotheses 4 and 5, stating that PsyCap associates positively with OCB and ITL, were accepted.

As indicated in Table 2, the indirect effect from AL to OCB via PsyCap (estimate = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.27) was statistically significant as the CI did not include zero. Similarly, the indirect effect from AL to ITL via PsyCap (estimate = −0.09; 95% CI: −0.14, −0.05) was also statistically significant, with the confidence interval excluding zero. These results support the main aim of the study, namely to establish PsyCap as a mediator in the relationship between AL and follower outcomes.

Hypotheses 6, stating that AL has an indirect impact on OCB through PsyCap, and 7, stating that AL has an indirect impact on ITL through PsyCap, were accepted.

Authentic leadership contributes to the self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism of followers. For positive outcomes to be reached, the presence of AL is an important stimulator of employees’ personal resources to enable them in their work, which in turn may help them contribute to quality client care (Alilyyani et al., 2018). With this said, AL development should be considered for all managers and supervisors. As ineffective leadership contributes to the current public healthcare crises (Doherty et al., 2018), leadership development is essential. In this regard, coaching and mentoring can play an essential role in developing authentic leaders (Kinsler, 2014; Maldanado, 2013).

Because PsyCap also led to employees exhibiting OCB whilst lowering their ITL, development from the perspective of POB is suggested. In line with this suggestion, Luthans and Youssef-Morgan (2017) developed a psychological capital intervention (PCI) model and discussed at length the conditions under which these interventions should be administered for an optimal impact. A typical PCI entails setting goals, generating pathways to achieve these goals, mentally rehearsing pathways and developing plans to overcome envisaged obstacles (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). Human resource practitioners or industrial psychologists in the healthcare industry can initiate AL and PsyCap development initiatives to foster positive employee outcomes (such as OCB and reduced ITL).

The study was cross-sectional, which limited the ability to make causal inferences. Although the hypotheses are in line with theory, a longitudinal approach is encouraged for a confirmation of the predictive effect of AL on OCB and the intentions of employees to leave the organisation. A carefully designed longitudinal study (see Spector, 2019 for recommendations) is essential for establishing a mediating effect (Hayes, 2017). Another limitation is attributed to self-report surveys being the only source of information for the study, as well as the contextual understanding of the variables in the study. These two factors can be the reason for the common method bias (i.e. variance that is attributed to the measurement method instead of the constructs that the measures represent), which can lead to measurement errors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). To address this limitation, future studies could consider obtaining measurements of AL from respondents other than the subordinate (follower) or from the leader directly. Authentic leadership only explained a certain proportion of the variance in PsyCap; therefore, other antecedents of PsyCap should be explored. Similarly, little variance was explained in ITL, and more research is needed to identify the determinants of ITL, given the importance of the public healthcare sector. Authentic leadership and PsyCap research is at an early stage in the South African context, particularly in the healthcare sector; more research is needed to determine the replicability of the current findings. According to Gilmartin and D’Aunno (2007), the concept of leadership should be explored because the health sector differs from most other sectors. The sample consisted of employees from all departments, and future research could perhaps focus on core frontline staff, such as healthcare professionals. Lastly, the current study did not control for the impact of demographic variables in the model. Although there were no significant differences between different socio-demographic groups (e.g. age, gender, occupation and race) on the latent variables, it is recommended that researchers consider the influence of demographic variables in future studies. It is also recommended that they do so in line with the recommendations by Bernerth and Aguinis (2016).