Authenticity and theories of administrative behavior
Abstract
The research reported is an attempt at construct validation of a proposed measure of administrator authenticity, Seeman's scale of ambivalence toward leadership ideology. Seeman has implied that leaders who are more ambivalent would be less susceptible to reality distortion. Using Rokeach's dogmatism scale as an indicator of susceptibility to reality distortion, the research reported here failed to support this assumption. This may reflect some doubt on the construct validity of the only existing authenticity index in the current research literature.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Although Seeman developed a scale for measuring inauthenticity, its construct validity was questioned and the construct fell out of favor.
“Although Seeman developed a scale for measuring inauthenticity, its construct validity was questioned (Brumbaugh, 1971), and the construct fell out of favor.”
From Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership (2005) · cites this paper as Brumbaugh, 1971
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001 · Cited by 5,478 · see citing works
The organizational climate of middle schools: The development and test of the OCDQ‐RM
Hoy, W. K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., & Bliss, J. (1996) · Journal of Educational Administration · doi:10.1108/09578239610107156 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brumbaugh, R. B.
- Corresponding author
- Brumbaugh, Robert B.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1971-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 108
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017692233
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- leadership ideology, ambivalence, reality distortion, dogmatism, construct validity, scale validation, administrative behavior, Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
