Authentic Leadership and Employee Trust During COVID-19–Measurement Model

Abstract

The Authentic Leadership and Employee Trust During COVID-19—Measurement Model (Zheng, Dong, & Zhang, 2024) is a psychometric evaluation tool designed to assess the multidimensional structure of authentic leadership and its subsequent influence on employee trust during acute public health and organizational crises. The instrument integrates validated operationalizations of authentic leadership—encompassing self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral perspective—with dual dimensions of interpersonal organizational trust (affective trust and cognitive trust) and organizational fit indices. Developed and tested during the prolonged uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic among employees in the United States, the 19-item measurement model uses a uniform seven-point Likert scale. Psychometric testing revealed robust construct integrity: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the specified measurement structure (χ²(137) = 436.7, p < .001, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] = 0.04, Non-Normed Fit Index [NNFI] = 0.95, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.95, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.07). All latent dimensions exhibited high internal consistency, with both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) values exceeding the 0.80 benchmark, alongside standardized factor loadings exceeding 0.50. Discriminant validity was empirically affirmed against rival measurement models via chi-square difference testing. This measurement model provides researchers and organizational diagnosticians with a rigorous tool to evaluate how managerial transparency, ethical behavior, and vulnerability manifest under extreme ambient stress, revealing nuanced dynamics such as potential boundary conditions and backfire effects of relational transparency in crisis environments.

Keywords

authentic leadership, employee trust, affective trust, cognitive trust, relational transparency, balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, self-awareness, COVID-19 crisis, psychometrics

Authors

The measurement model was developed and psychometrically validated by:

• Qi Zheng — Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States.
• Chuqing Dong (Corresponding Author) — Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States. ORCID: 0000-0003-1522-7577. Email: [email protected].
• Yafei Zhang — School of Journalism and Communication, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Authentic Leadership and Employee Trust During COVID-19—Measurement Model is to systematically evaluate how constituent components of authentic leadership influence distinct facets of employee trust—specifically cognitive-based trust and affect-based trust—in times of severe systemic disruption. While traditional organizational literature largely positions leadership transparency and moral integrity as universally beneficial, unprecedented crisis environments such as the COVID-19 pandemic generated unique communicative vulnerabilities, existential stress, and profound workplace disorientation. In such contexts, indiscriminate information sharing or emotional disclosure may not automatically lead to organizational stability. Thus, this instrument was engineered to clarify the mechanisms through which supervisory authenticity stabilizes or paradoxically complicates employee-organizational relationships.

Beyond theoretical inquiry, the instrument serves both clinical-organizational diagnostic and corporate communication research functions. In research, it allows scholars to dissect the distinct predictive pathways linking leadership self-awareness, balanced processing, internalized morality, and relational transparency to relational capital and perceived organizational alignment (person-organization fit and needs-supplies fit). It enables cross-sectional and longitudinal modeling of how supervisory behaviors mitigate employee cynicism, mitigate turnover intentions, and bolster psychological safety. In organizational consulting and diagnostics, human resource practitioners and executive coaches can deploy this 19-item tool as an audit mechanism to assess employee perceptions of direct supervisors. Such assessments pinpoint whether leadership deficits stem from perceived technical competence lapses (cognitive trust deficits) or perceived empathy and benevolence failures (affective trust deficits), particularly during remote, hybrid, or crisis-altered work arrangements.

Psychological Construct

The operational framework of this measurement model centers on two psychological domains: Authentic Leadership and Interpersonal Workplace Trust. Rather than treating either domain as a monolithic entity, the model operationalizes them as distinct, interrelated psychological constructs.

1. Authentic Leadership

Rooted in positive organizational psychology and grounded in the conceptualizations of authentic leadership formulated by Luthans, Avolio, and Walumbwa, this domain captures a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate. It encompasses four foundational sub-dimensions:

• Self-Awareness (Items 1–4): The degree to which a leader demonstrates an understanding of their personal strengths, limitations, emotional triggers, cognitive blind spots, and the impact their demeanor has on subordinates. Example indicator: “My leader clearly knows who he/she is.”
• Relational Transparency (Items 5–8): The leader’s behavioral presentation of their genuine self, involving open information sharing, emotional sincerity, minimization of inappropriate displays of masked emotions, and the candid admission of procedural errors. Example indicator: “My leader openly shares information with others.”
• Balanced Processing (Items 9–10): The leader’s objective, non-defensive analysis of all relevant operational and relational data prior to making strategic determinations, deliberately seeking and evaluating perspectives that challenge their own prior beliefs. Example indicator: “My leader carefully listens to alternative views before reaching conclusions.”
• Internalized Moral Perspective (Items 11–13): An internal, self-regulatory moral anchor that guides decisions and ethical conduct regardless of external environmental pressures, political expediencies, or group conformity pressures. Example indicator: “My leader makes decisions based on high moral standards.”

2. Employee Interpersonal Trust

The measurement model builds upon dual-process trust theory, capturing two interconnected psychological constructs that define interpersonal employee trust:

• Affective Trust (Items 14–16): Emotionally driven interpersonal bonds rooted in mutual care, psychological safety, reciprocal benevolence, and perceived concern for employee personal welfare. It reflects the employee’s vulnerability anchored in the belief that the leader acts with genuine goodwill. Example indicator: “I feel that my leader cares about my well-being.”
• Cognitive Trust (Items 17–19): Rational, evidence-based confidence in the leader’s technical competence, domain expertise, reliability, professionalism, and cognitive capability to execute tasks successfully under crisis conditions. Example indicator: “I see no reason to doubt my leader’s competence and preparation for the job.”

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the measurement model integrates Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), the Dual-Process Model of Trust (McAllister, 1995), and Sensemaking Theory in Crisis Situations (Weick, 1995).

Social Exchange Theory posits that interpersonal relationships evolve across time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments, provided that relational parties abide by certain “rules” of reciprocity. When leaders exhibit internalized moral standards, balanced processing, and operational support, employees interpret these behaviors as socio-emotional investments. In turn, employees reciprocate with elevated cognitive and affective trust, heightened organizational citizenship behavior, and deeper organizational identification.

Concurrently, McAllister’s (1995) differentiation between cognition-based and affect-based trust serves as the cognitive foundation for the trust sub-scales. Cognitive trust functions as a baseline requirement: individuals assess peer and supervisory track records, credentials, and behavioral consistency before granting functional confidence. Affective trust, by contrast, requires emotional investment and perceived socio-emotional safety. In acute crisis settings—such as pandemic lockdowns, layoffs, and health emergencies—these two constructs can diverge. For example, a leader may be perceived as intellectually capable (high cognitive trust) yet unapproachable and cold (low affective trust), or vice versa.

Finally, Karl Weick’s Sensemaking Theory contextualizes the model within organizational crises. Crises are characterized by high ambiguity, shifting information environments, and acute threat perceptions. Leaders function as primary sensegiving agents. The Authentic Leadership and Employee Trust During COVID-19—Measurement Model explicitly formalizes how authentic sensegiving attributes (e.g., admitting mistakes, transparently sharing data, soliciting dissenting inputs) help subordinates construct stable mental models of ongoing events, thereby anchoring their relational trust and perceived person-organization fit.

Validity

The measurement model was subjected to empirical construct validation using modern psychometric techniques on a diverse sample of U.S. employees across varied organizational tiers, positions, and demographic profiles.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates whether indicators of a specific construct converge or share a high proportion of common variance. In this measurement model, all 19 standardized indicator factor loadings on their designated latent factors exceeded the recommended psychometric threshold of 0.50 (with most loadings exceeding 0.70 to 0.85, p < .001). Furthermore, the calculated Composite Reliability (CR) values for all operationalized latent variables exceeded 0.80, corroborating that each subscale shares substantial common variance with its underlying conceptual construct.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity assesses whether the latent constructs are statistically unique from one another. Zheng, Dong, and Zhang (2024) tested discriminant validity through a competitive structural equation modeling strategy, employing the Chi-square difference test (Δχ²). The hypothesized multidimensional baseline measurement model was systematically contrasted against two plausible alternative models:

• Alternative Model 1: A restricted model collapsing distinct authentic leadership dimensions and trust dimensions into fewer aggregate factors, which yielded substantially degraded fit indices: χ²(152) = 2201.2, p < .001, CFI = 0.72, RMSEA = 0.18.
• Alternative Model 2: A further constrained model exhibiting poor structural properties: χ²(158) = 2038.5, p < .001, CFI = 0.74, RMSEA = 0.17.

The comparative chi-square difference test revealed that the unconstrained, hypothesized multidimensional measurement model demonstrated a statistically superior fit (p < .001) over both competing specifications, establishing discriminant validity across all latent factors.

Reliability

The reliability of the measurement model was assessed via both internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha, α) and structural equation modeling composite reliability coefficients (CR). In psychometric theory, composite reliability provides a more rigorous estimate of scale reliability than Cronbach’s alpha because it does not assume tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all observed indicators).

Empirical analyses confirmed that both Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability values exceeded 0.80 across all latent constructs in the model:

• Authentic Leadership Sub-dimensions (Self-Awareness, Relational Transparency, Balanced Processing, Internalized Moral Perspective): All individual dimensions produced α > .80 and CR > .80, indicating high measurement precision and minimal item-specific error variance.
• Affective Trust: The three-item affective trust cluster produced α > .85 and CR > .85, confirming reliable capture of socio-emotional connection, perceived leader benevolence, and reciprocal safety.
• Cognitive Trust: The three-item cognitive trust cluster produced α > .80 and CR > .80, confirming reliable measurement of perceived competence, reliability, and professional respect.

These values comfortably surpass the standard psychometric threshold of 0.70 for research instruments, confirming high reproducibility and low measurement error.

Factor Analysis

To evaluate the structural integrity and dimensionality of the instrument, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation. The hypothesized structural model incorporated six focal latent constructs: Self-Awareness, Relational Transparency, Balanced Processing, Internalized Moral Perspective, Employee-Organization Fit, and Trust.

Goodness-of-Fit Indices

The CFA yielded fit indices meeting or exceeding established psychometric thresholds (Hu & Bentler, 1999):

• Chi-Square Statistic: χ²(137) = 436.7, p < .001
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.04 (threshold ≤ 0.08 indicates excellent fit)
• Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI): 0.95 (threshold ≥ 0.95 indicates superior fit)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.95 (threshold ≥ 0.95 indicates superior fit)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.96 (threshold ≥ 0.95 indicates excellent fit)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.07 (90% CI within acceptable parameters ≤ 0.08)

Collectively, these indices confirm that the observed covariance matrix among the 19 survey items closely matches the hypothesized latent structural framework, demonstrating that authentic leadership behaviors and dual trust facets function as empirically separable psychometric phenomena.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics, administrative guidelines, and scoring mechanisms of the instrument are summarized below:

• Instrument Type: Standardized multi-item self-report questionnaire / psychometric inventory.
• Target Population: Working adults across organizational sectors, departments, and hierarchical levels.
• Total Item Count: 19 items across authentic leadership and trust dimensions.
• Item Allocation by Dimension:
  • Self-Awareness: Items 1, 2, 3, 4 (4 items)
  • Relational Transparency: Items 5, 6, 7, 8 (4 items)
  • Balanced Processing: Items 9, 10 (2 items)
  • Internalized Moral Perspective: Items 11, 12, 13 (3 items)
  • Affective Trust: Items 14, 15, 16 (3 items)
  • Cognitive Trust: Items 17, 18, 19 (3 items)
• Authentic Response Scale: Seven-point Likert scale (e.g., 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree).
• Scoring and Factor Calculation: Items within each latent dimension are summed or averaged to create distinct subscale scores. Higher scores indicate greater perceived supervisor authenticity, higher cognitive confidence, or stronger affective trust. The model retains distinct sub-dimension scores to capture nuanced interactions (e.g., analyzing when relational transparency correlates differently with trust outcomes compared to balanced processing).
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 7 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Authentic Leadership and Employee Trust During COVID-19—Measurement Model was developed and published in 2024. The original validation paper is published in Corporate Communications: An International Journal (DOI: 10.1108/CCIJ-05-2023-0066) by Emerald Publishing Limited.

The scale items were adapted from classic and contemporary open scientific literature (including Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Rego et al., 2022; Ausar et al., 2016; McAllister, 1995). For academic, educational, and non-commercial research purposes, the items are available for use under fair use conventions with appropriate scholarly citation of the original publication. For commercial applications, executive consulting packages, or systematic commercial survey platforms, users should consult Emerald Publishing Limited’s copyright policies or obtain permissions from the corresponding author, Chuqing Dong ([email protected]).

References

• Ausar, K., Kang, H. J., & Pinkham, R. (2016). The impact of authentic leadership on employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hospitality industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(4), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2016.1148567
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–258). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727
• Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1146–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008
• Rego, P., Leite, E., & Cunha, M. P. (2022). How authentic leaders promote employee affective commitment: The role of trust and work engagement. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(4), 856–874. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.15
• Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913
• Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE Publications.
• Zheng, Q., Dong, C., & Zhang, Y. (2024). When relational transparency backfires: Examining the various impacts of authentic leadership on employee trust during the COVID-19 pandemic. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 29(3), 430–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-05-2023-0066

Items of the Scale