Association between Authentic Leadership and Job Performance—The Moderating Roles of Trust in the Supervisor and Trust in the Organization: The Example of Türkiye

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between authentic leadership and employee job performance and explores the moderating roles of employee perceptions of trust in the organization and trust in their managers in this relationship. It was carried out with a quantitative method using a correlational research design. The research was cross-sectional. The participants were employees from five service industry companies operating in Türkiye. The results indicate that authentic leadership, trust in the supervisor, and trust in the organization strongly and positively affect employee job performance. The findings show that authentic leadership substantially impacts employees’ job performance as employees are followers of the internalized moral values of their supervisors. The moderating roles of the two key concepts of employees’ perception of trust in the supervisor and trust in the organization are consistent with the relevant theoretical framework. If leaders of organizations can behave honestly and focus on establishing constructive relations with their employees regarding the ideas and reasons behind business strategies, employees will be able to accept their leaders as role models and motivate themselves at work. It would benefit managers to demonstrate to their employees that fairness is a top priority in their managerial methods, actions, and activities.

1. Introduction

In today’s rapidly changing social, political, financial, and post-crisis contexts and in a business environment where uncertainty is increasing, authentic leadership behavior has become a popular topic because of its positive effect on employees and organizational productivity. The applicability of authentic leadership has increased since the early 2000s, and the concept is now more clearly understood and accepted [1].

Authentic leadership behavior in the spectrum of positive psychology is characterized by the ability to increase self-awareness, create a supportive organizational culture and climate, and positively affect employees’ work-related attitudes [2,3]. Authenticity, the etymology of which is Greek in origin, can be described as truthfulness, self-knowledge, morality, honesty with oneself, and transparency. Authentic leadership as a practice in organizations is developing and increasing in many countries worldwide [4,5,6]. Studies conducted within both specific country contexts and transnationally indicate a positive correlation between leaders exhibiting authentic leadership behaviors—having a constructive approach to those around them and a strong ability to establish relationships—and their employees’ perception of the concept of trust [7,8,9]. Studies have also shown that organizational trust leads to positive behaviors among employees at all levels, increases socialization and the quality of organizational functions, and provides managers with an advantage in business planning [10,11,12].

The concept of trust in a manager is the belief that employees of an organization act fairly in making and implementing decisions regarding business processes within the framework of their relations with their superiors. Developing a sense of mutual trust between employees and their managers helps employees focus on their work and fulfill their duties more meticulously. Organizational trust can be defined as the increase and integration of the quality of relations between subordinates and their superiors; it is based on the principle of honesty, in practices related to planned strategic moves, and in the work to be done. This integration or unity among an organization’s members results in a functional effect that increases the business’s overall performance and helps it reach its organizational goals [12,13]. Various studies have shown that when members of an organization work with an authentic leader, their self-confidence and commitment to their work increase [14]. Employee job performance in the process of achieving the organization’s goals and employees’ awareness of their responsibilities are of great importance to every firm. Therefore, employee effort to achieve the desired result by performing their duties with precision will determine the level of job satisfaction and performance overall [15]. Various studies have also shown a relationship between employee perception of trust, attitude toward work, and positive job performance [16,17,18].

This study aims to examine the relationship between authentic leadership and employee job performance. In line with the above-mentioned descriptions, it explores and sheds light on the moderator role of employee perceptions of trust in the organization and trust in management within this relationship. The fact that the research was conducted in a collectivist work culture like the one found in Türkiye will also contribute to the literature on authentic leadership, the primary source of which is predominantly the Western world.

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Authentic Leadership

Authenticity is a term of Greek origin meaning an individual’s self-knowledge or a combination of self-knowledge and honesty (thine own self be true) [6]. The concept of authentic leadership, derived from the original meaning, signifies that the individual is at peace with him or herself, as well as open, honest, and sincere in relationships with individuals in his/her circles—and able to use his/her empathy and positive psychological capacity to create a perception of awareness [8,19]. In their study on the historical development of the concepts of authenticity and authentic leadership, Tabak et al. (2012) defined them—when taken together—as the modern understanding of leadership [4]. The philosophical idea that forms the basis of the positive psychology approach, which has gained importance in the field of organizational behavior, is not centered on the negative aspects of those around us but, instead, on understanding and appreciating other individuals’ positive and productive qualities [20].

The primary purpose of positive psychology is to increase people’s abilities and mental capacities and enable them to be more successful, and managers should consider this. The honesty and sincerity of a leader displaying this type of work philosophy, coupled with a strong positive psychological capacity, moral values, and the ability to communicate constructively and calmly within his/her environment, are the main elements of positive psychology’s theoretical framework. Avolio and Gardner (2005) drew attention to the difference between sincerity and authenticity; they further explained that the term ‘sincerity’ can mean conveying one’s true feelings to another; however, the authors considered authenticity to be the act of being honest with oneself and being aware of one’s inner thoughts and feelings [6]. Chen and Sriphon (2022) believed that “Authentic leadership comprises self-awareness, flow experience, self-esteem, and self-expression, and has an influence on social exchange relationships and positive emotions between leaders and followers and their well-being” [10] (p. 4).

If a leader is honest, sincere, and able to establish high-quality, mutual trust-based relationships with employees, this individual becomes a role model for staff, positively affecting the work-related attitudes and behaviors of members of the organization. Various studies have been carried out on the concept of the authentic leader, the primary sub-dimensions of which are examined and measured below [4,6,13,21].

• Self-awareness: This first sub-dimension means that the individual knows him or herself best and is aware of his/her personality traits, active and weak points, knowledge and abilities, instincts, life principles, and values. The leader is aware of his/her weaknesses and able to anticipate the consequences of the impact of his/her behavior on employees;
• Balanced processing: This is the sum of the ethical standards that determine the leader’s personal integrity and how he/she treats others and himself or herself. This dimension, considered the heart or center of the leader’s character, is the awareness of all his/her behaviors within the organization; it is the leader’s objective and balanced behavior in his/her relations with the people around him/her and in the decisions made at work. It is also the ability to protect ethical principles in his/her relationships with employees and behavior towards themselves and others;
• Internalized moral perspective: The leader has high moral values and principles in his/her behavior and the planning and implementation of organizational business processes—and acts accordingly. The critical aspect of this leadership style is not the leader’s self-satisfaction but the ability to constantly prioritize the goals of the organization he/she works for;
• Relational transparency: The main objective is for the leader to share information, opinions, and positive feelings with other members of the organization constructively and be transparent in the process of conveying them. It is essential to develop a sense of mutual trust between management and employees by encouraging cooperation within the organization and ensuring all employees observe this.

The conceptual sub-dimensions listed above describe the overall quality of the authentic leader and the essence of the abilities he/she should possess. In general, the main takeaway of the authentic leadership style is that the leader can empathize with other members of the organization in real terms, strive to increase his/her psychological capacities, use his/her knowledge objectively, demonstrate transparent attitudes and behaviors in the decisions and practices related to the business, and instill confidence in others in the work environment.

2.2. Organizational Trust

The concept of trust used here is not the typical behavior linked to the discipline of psychology; rather, in terms of the manager-employee dynamic, it describes an individual who instills confidence in others and is willing to have positive expectations [22]. To achieve organizational goals and ensure that the agreed-upon business activity is efficient, team spirit and cooperation between employees and supervisors are crucial. This is essentially the basic principle of modern management. As Tabak et al. (2012) emphasized in reference to Turhan’s study (2007), the primary characteristic of an authentic leader is that he/she is consistently reliable and respects and strictly abides by ethical principles [4,23]. The force enabling members of an organization to act cooperatively comes from the high level of mutual trust perception between employees and their supervisors.

In the frequently cited studies of Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995), the authors stated that management’s support of its employees—if there is a moderate organizational climate—can lead to a strong team spirit and effective communication network and that this, in turn, can improve trust between employees in the organization [24].

According to several other studies, this positive atmosphere can be created within an enterprise and will positively affect employee work performance. Asanakutlu (2007) and Yılmaz’s work (2008) showed that in an enterprise where organizational trust is effective and employees can share their thoughts on decisions they are primarily responsible for, this freedom enables them to focus more on their work and increases their motivation [25,26].

Employee perception of trust in managers is directly proportional to the quality of communication. However, the important point here is that the reliability of this relationship is related to the organizational culture and climate and the functionality of the organization in general because the perception of trust between employees and the manager within the organization functions as a force that binds them together—similar to a strong corporate culture [8].

When the theoretical explanations on the subject are examined, the concept of trust can be broken into four sub-dimensions: competence, openness, trust, and interest—all included in the model developed by Mishra (1996) [27,28]. In Alston and Tippett’s model (2009), there are five conceptual sub-dimensions: interest, honesty, reliability, organizational acceptance, and capabilities [29].

2.3. Job Performance

Although the literature often mentions that the concept of job performance is problematic to a certain extent, an important point to consider is that the behavioral and outcome dimensions of the concept should be considered and that a measured aspect of the concept of job performance reflects this result [30]. According to this rationalization, the concept of job performance in organizations refers to the contribution made by each employee as a result of his or her work.

Similarly, Andrade, Queiroga, and Valentini (2020) defined this concept as the whole of individual purpose-oriented behaviors that measure the job performance of employees [15]. In this respect, regardless of their field of activity, the responsibility of human resources specialists in organizations is of great importance. Uyargil (2008) drew attention to the fact that it is the HR department’s responsibility to determine the needs of an organization’s staff—including the newly recruited—to increase employee working capacity and organize training programs when necessary [31].

It is understood that the perception of trust in an organization and a manager will increase employee motivation and the quality of relations between employees and managers. As a result, this dynamic positively impacts the organization’s general functionality and efficiency, and the number of studies supporting this idea is quite extensive in the relevant literature [7,11,30].

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants and Sampling Process

The participants were employees from five service industry companies (large-scale insurance and finance firms) operating in Istanbul, Türkiye: 53% of the data were obtained from large-scale insurance companies, 24% of which belong to two different finance firms, and 23% were obtained from a health institution and one tourism company. Data were collected between June and August 2022 using the convenience sampling technique by contacting HR managers of the above-mentioned firms. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, of which 305 were deemed valid. It should be mentioned that although a much larger sample size would have benefitted academic society, this is the case for this study.

3.2. Research Design

The research was carried out with the quantitative method using a correlational design. The nature of the relationship between authentic leadership, job (work) performance, and the role of trust in the organization and trust in the supervisor as moderating variables was examined. The research is cross-sectional.

3.3. Research Model

The Research model is shown in Figure 1.

3.4. Hypotheses

H1. 

There is a strong and positive association between the key concepts (authentic leader, trust in the organization, trust in supervisor, and job performance) in the study.

H2. 

The relational transparency and self-awareness dimensions of authentic leadership explain most of the variance in the dependent variable of job performance.

H3a. 

The variable of trust in supervisor moderates the relationship between authentic leadership and job performance.

H3b. 

The variable of trust in the organization moderates the relationship between authentic leadership and job performance.

3.5. Research Question

Do the concepts of trust in the supervisor and trust in the organization strongly influence the dependent variable of job performance?

3.6. Measurement Instruments

Three different scales were used to measure the basic concepts of the research.

• Authentic Leader Scale: How the employees of the organization perceive authentic leader behaviors, created by Walumbwa et al. (2008) and adapted into Turkish by Tabak et al. (2012) [3,4]. This is a 16-item and 5-point Likert-type scale;
• Organizational Trust Inventory: Developed by Nyhan and Marlove (1997) and called the Organizational Trust Scale by Demircan and Ceylan (2003), who adapted it into Turkish [11,32]. The scale consists of two sub-dimensions: trust in the supervisor (eight items) and trust in the organization (four items). The scale covers 12 items and is a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire;
• Job Performance Scale: The original scale was developed by Kirkman and Rosen (1999), preferred by Sigler and Pearson (2000), and adapted into Turkish by Çöl (2008) [33,34,35]. This measurement tool consists of 4 items and is a 4-point Likert-type scale.

4. Results

4.1. Participants

The participants involved in this study are employees from five different companies operating in the service industry. The measurement instruments were collected from 337 respondents, and 305 valid responses were obtained. In total, 56.7% of the respondents were female, and 43.3% were male. Precisely 61% of the participants were in the 21–25 age group, and 31% were in the 26–30 age group; 5.6% of participants were over 31 years of age.

4.2. Validity and Reliability Level of the Scales

The reliability coefficient values of the four scales used in the present study are highly satisfactory, as shown in

Table 1. Reliability analyses of the scales.

Scales	Cronbach Alpha Value	Number of Items
Authentic Leader	0.909	16
Trust in Supervisor	0.831	8
Trust in Organization	0.824	4
Job Performance	0.687	4

.

The reliability coefficient values of the first three scales are highly satisfactory, and the Cronbach value for the concept of organizational trust, which is the sum of two subscales, is also satisfactory. Although the fourth scale, which has only four items, has a C. Alpha value of 0.687, it is surely acceptable as a rule of thumb [36].

The mean values of the key concepts show that employee perception of authentic leadership behaviors level is acceptable. Employee perception of the concepts of trust in the organization and job performance is also at a moderate level. The skewness and kurtosis values of the key variables of the study are within acceptable limits, as well (statistical range: +1.5 and −1.5); this indicates that the distribution of the research data is normal (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

		Authentic Leader R	Trust in Supervisor	Trust in Organization	Job Performance
N	Valid	305	305	305	305
	Missing	0	0	0	0
Mean		50.5132	25.0852	12.9180	13.2197
Standard Deviation		11.22585	5.50830	3.86318	2.59699
Skewness		0.252	0.187	−0.478	−0.156
Standard Error of Skewness		0.140	0.140	0.140	0.140
Kurtosis		−1.047	−0.756	−0.660	0.346
Standard Error of Kurtosis		0.279	0.278	0.278	0.278

).

Although there are other normality analyses (i.e., Kolmogorov’s), it should be mentioned that the sample size (n = 305) of the study is sufficient to examine the research subject. In other words, a small sample size will affect the magnitude of the effect. Moreover, Q-Q tests were run to understand the level of normality, and although there were some deviations, there was no obstacle when parametric statistics were used, considering the highly satisfactory reliability values and the high KMO values of the factor analyses.

In terms of common method bias [37], all questionnaires used in the present study went through validity and reliability tests. Construct validity measures how well the items (variables) used for the measurement device measure the construct. According to Hair et al. (2016), the average variance extracted is greater than 0.4 as a result of factor analysis. If composite reliability is higher than 0.6, the convergent validity of the construct is acceptable [38]. As shown in Table 1, all reliability tests are statistically meaningful and satisfactory. Moreover, the factor analyses of the key research concepts indicate no problem with the construct validity of the key concepts.

Factor analyses were performed for each of the four key concepts in the study, and while the first (AUT) scale resulted in four factors (

Table 3. Authentic leader factor analysis.

	Factor Labels	Components
Variables (items)		Internalized Moral Values Related Transparency & Self-Awareness	Moral Balanced Processing	Self-Awareness & Moral Balanced-Processing	Transparency
VARath07 Factor decisions values		0.869
VARath08 positions values		0.795
VARath02 admits mistakes		0.789
VARath01 says means		0.777
VARath05 emotions feelings		0.746
VARath12 listens viewpoints		0.699
VARath14 others capabilities		0.693
VARath16 actions impact		0.640
VARath09 ethical decisions		0.577
VARath06 beliefs actions			0.928
VARath10 challenge position			0.862
VARath13 feedback improve			0.830
VARath15 reevaluate positions				0.842
VARath11 analyses data				0.698
VARath03 speak mind				−0.679
VARath04 tells truth					0.918
Cumulative variance:		(%) 0.833
KMO: 0.81; Bartlett’s Test value: p = 0.000		66,478

), the second (TrstinSup) yielded two. The remaining third (TrstinOrg) and fourth (JobPerf) scales resulted in single factors. The KMO and Bartlett’s test values of all measurement scales are satisfactory.

Although factor analysis yielded four factors, the fourth one covers only one item but should be considered three factors. Only variables with a factor loading greater than 0.40 were taken into account. There were only a few double loadings, which resulted in no real issues, and these are accepted as a component. The first component, consisting of the three subdimensions of the AUT concept, is labeled Internalized Moral Values. The second and the third factors are labeled Moral Balanced-Processing and Self-Awareness/Moral Balanced-Processing, each consisting of three items. However, one item in the third factor (transparency) has a negative value because the respondents tend to score low on this variable. One item in the third factor (transparency) has a negative value which shows the respondents tend to score low on this variable.

The second-factor analysis applied to the concept of trust in the supervisor, and the analysis resulted in two factors, as presented in

Table 4. Factor analysis: Trust in Supervisor.

	Factor Labels	Components
Variables (Items)		Job Itself	Knowledge
VARtrSp04 level of understanding		0.940
VARtrSp08 think through doing job		0.856
VARtrSp05 job in an acceptable manner		0.776
VARtrSp03 through on assignment		0.702
VARtrSp07 without causing any			0.913
VARtrSp02 thought out decisions			0.884
VAtrSpo1 technically competent			0.773
VARtrSp06 through what he/she says			0.760
Cumulative variance: (%) 0.757
KMO: 0.81; Bartlett’s Test value: p = 0.000

. The first factor is labeled the “Job Itself”, and the second one is labeled the “Knowledge Level of the Supervisor”.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

The study’s first hypothesis (there is a strong and positive association between the key concepts of authentic leader, trust in organization, trust in supervisor, and job performance) was tested using the Pearson correlation coefficient (

Table 5. Correlation analysis for the key concepts.

		Authentic Leader	Job Performance	Trust in Supervisor	Trust in Organization
Authentic Leader	Pearson Correlation	1	0.794 **	0.931 **	0.770 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	305	304	304	304
Job Performance	Pearson Correlation	0.794 **	1	0.883 **	0.607 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000		0.000	0.000
	N	305	305	305	305
Trust Supervisor	Pearson Correlation	0.931 **	0.883 **	1	0.705 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000		0.000
	N	305	305	305	305
Trust Organization	Pearson Correlation	0.770 **	0.607 **	0.705 **	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	305	305	305	305

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

) analysis. Two different Pearson correlation tests were used to ensure no multicollinearity. First, a correlation test was used; second, all of the research variables were centered; and third, a second Pearson’s test was performed to compare the results. No difference was observed between these analyses. The results of the two correlation tests were identical. Moreover, the Harman Single factor technique was also run to identify common method variance. Since the result indicated the total variance as [36], 44.62% and not exceeded 50%, common method bias is not present in this study.

Consequently, the results indicate highly strong and positive relations between the four key concepts of the study, indicating that there is no multicollinearity. Thus, the first hypothesis is supported.

To test H2 (the relational transparency and self-awareness subdimensions of authentic leadership explain most parts of the variance in the dependent variable of job performance), a regression analysis was performed, as shown in

Table 6. Regression analysis coefficients.

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig.	Correlations
		B	Std. Error	β			Zero Order	Partial	Part
1	(Constant)	3.053	0.381		8.013	0.000
		0.780	0.029	0.843	27.286	0.000	0.843	0.843	0.843
2	(Constant)	2.530	0.367		6.893	0.000
	Self-awareness	0.602	0.039	0.651	15.583	0.000	0.843	0.668	0.452
	Relational transparency	0.188	0.029	0.268	6.427	0.000	0.736	0.347	0.187
3	(Constant)	3.134	0.342		9.166	0.000
	Self-awareness	0.903	0.051	0.977	17.569	0.000	0.843	0.712	0.464
	Relational transparency	0.223	0.027	0.319	8.289	0.000	0.736	0.432	0.219
	Balanced processing	−0.492	0.061	−0.421	−8.028	0.000	0.635	−0.421	−0.212
4	(Constant)	2.513	0.367		6.841	0.000
	Self-awareness	0.999	0.055	1.081	18.008	0.000	0.843	0.721	0.463
	Relational transparency	0.252	0.027	0.359	9.253	0.000	0.736	0.472	0.238
	Balanced processing	−0.388	0.065	−0.332	−5.967	0.000	0.635	−0.326	−0.154
	Internalized morals	−0.177	0.044	−0.241	−4.043	0.000	0.677	−0.228	−0.104

Dependent variable: job performance.

.

As Table 6 shows, the two sub dimensions of an authentic leader explain 75% of the variance in job performance. Model 4 shows that the effect of self-awareness (β = 1.081, p < 0.001) and relational transparency (β = 0.359, p < 0.001) on employee job performance is statistically significant. Thus, H2 is accepted.

Another regression analysis was employed to test H3a (the variable of trust in the supervisor moderates the relationship between authentic leadership and job performance); after the first step, all variables were centered, and the variables were entered into regression analysis. Since the moderating variable (t = −3.262; p = 0.001) is statistically highly significant, H3a is also supported. The results are shown in

Table 7. Regression analysis coefficients for the moderator.

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	Correlations			Collinearity Statistics
		B	Std. Error	β			Zero Order	Partial	Part	Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)	13.232	0.069		191.422	0.000
	TrustSupvsr_centered	0.421	0.013	0.887	33.303	0.000	0.887	0.887	0.887	1.000	1.000
2	(Constant)	13.481	0.093		144.546	0.000
	TrustSupvsr_centered	0.440	0.013	0.928	32.990	0.000	0.887	0.885	0.859	0.857	1.167
	Auth_trstSup_moderatr	−0.004	0.001	−0.109	−3.866	0.000	0.243	−0.218	−0.101	0.857	1.167
3	(Constant)	13.448	0.093		144.256	0.000
	TrustSupvsr_centered	0.521	0.034	1.099	15.495	0.000	0.887	0.667	0.399	0.132	7.567
	Auth_trstSuModerator	−0.004	0.001	−0.093	−3.262	0.001	0.243	−0.185	−0.084	0.818	1.222
	AutLeader_centered	−0.044	0.017	−0.190	−2.622	0.009	0.794	−0.150	−0.068	0.127	7.902

Dependent variable: job performance.

. The variables are centered, and the VIF values of 1.222 and 7.902 are within the statistically accepted limits, so there is no multicollinearity, and the result of the analysis is correct. As seen in the tables, the variables are centered, the VIF values of 1.222 and 7.902 are within the statistically accepted limits [39], and there is no multicollinearity. In addition, the VIF value of the moderating variable is only (1222), and the result of the analysis is correct. Therefore, H3a is accepted.

The moderation effect of trust in the supervisor is shown in Figure 2. Since the moderation variable has a negative β value, the respondents are divided into three equal groups to understand the effect of the moderating variable (trust in supervision x authentic leadership) according to the respondents’ different levels of perceptions. As seen in the figure, when trust in the supervisor is perceived at moderate and high levels by respondents, it moderates the relationship between authentic leadership and job performance.

A final regression analysis was used to test H3b (the variable of trust in the organization moderates the relationship between authentic leadership and job performance). First, all variables were centered, entered into regression analysis, and the same procedure was repeated as explained for the previous moderation testing. Since the moderating variable (t = 14.571; p = 0.000) is statistically highly significant, H3b is also supported. As can be seen, the variables are centered and the VIF value of 4.049 is within the statistically accepted limits, so there is no multicollinearity, and the result of the analysis is correct. Thus, H3b is accepted. The results are shown in

Table 8. Regression analysis for testing the moderating variable.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	0.794	0.630	0.628	1.58637	0.630	256.737	2	301	0.000

Predictors: (constant) Authl_TrstOrg_product, TrustOrgnzt_centered.

and

Table 9. Regression analysis coefficients for the moderator.

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	Correlations			Collinearity Statistics
		B	Std. Error	β			Zero Order	Partial	Part	Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)	13.217	0.091		145.262	0.000
	TrustSupvsr_centered	−0.191	0.048	−0.283	−4.020	0.000	0.608	−0.226	−0.141	0.247	4.049
	Auth_trstSup_moderatr	0.185	0.013	1.027	14.571	0.000	0.781	0.643	0.511	0.247	4.049

Dependent variable: job performance.

.

The moderation effect of trust in the supervisor is shown in Figure 3. As seen in the figure, when trust in the supervisor is perceived at moderate and high levels by respondents, it moderates the relationship between authentic leadership and job performance.

Another Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was made to provide an answer to the research question (whether the concept of trust in the supervisor and the concept of trust in the organization have a strong influence on the dependent variable of job performance). The correlation coefficient values of the analysis are r = 0.883 (p = 0.000) for trust in the supervisor and r = 0. 607 (p = 0.000) for trust in the organization. Consequently, the concept of trust in the supervisor is more influential than trust in the organization.

Additional analyses were employed to understand whether the gender and age of employees influenced the key concepts of the study. An ANOVA test indicated no difference in the perception of the key concepts by age. An independent t-test showed that while there is no difference in employee perception of authentic leader behaviors by gender, a difference was found in employee perception of trust in the supervisor and trust in the organization in male participant responses.

5. Discussion

The primary aim of the present study was to gain a deeper understanding of the association between authentic leadership behavior, job performance, trust in the supervisor, and trust in the organization. In the literature, there is an increasing focus on this topic. By drawing on the findings of recent studies by foreign and Turkish academics, this research contributes to the literature by examining the Turkish case in depth. The study was conducted in Istanbul, Türkiye. Turkish adaptations of three different scales, namely, Authentic Leader Scale, Organizational Trust Inventory, and Job Performance Scale, were used.

The findings of this study might be interpreted as deriving from cultural differences between Western countries and Türkiye, where people are often highly emotional and like to display their feelings but tend to accept inequalities (power distance) and avoid uncertainties both in their professional work and private lives. However, the results show that authentic leadership and the two additional components (trust in the supervisor and trust in the organization) positively affect employee job performance.

One of the key findings was that the two subcomponents of authentic leadership— self-awareness and relational transparency—were the most influential factors in employee job performance. Citing Hughes (2005), Valsania et al. (2012) stated that “relational transparency is a result of the leader’s self-awareness of his goals, motives, identity, values, and emotions.” [40,41] (p. 565). It is also clear that internalized moral values have a strong influence as a subcomponent of authenticity.

The results presented in this study show that authentic leadership influences work-related employee outcomes and are in line with the results of earlier studies conducted by Wang and Hsieh (2013), Avolio and Gardner (2005), and Çeri-Booms (2009) [6,8,42]. These studies show that authentic leaders can support their followers in participating in decision-making processes and make them feel more secure in their work settings [43].

A supervisor’s authenticity has a major impact on the development of employee trust in the organization; this authenticity is probably due to the consistency in the supervisor’s verbal messages and actual behaviors, and the reason self-awareness and relational transparency were found to be the two most important factors in this study. Other findings that deserve attention are the moderating roles of employee perception of trust in the supervisor and trust in the organization; these results are also consistent with the relevant theoretical framework [7,17,20,44].

In terms of the self-determination theory, the results show that authentic leadership has a strong impact on employee job performance because staff members internalize the moral values of their supervisors. Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) seminal work also emphasized the influential role of the authenticity of supervisors on the job satisfaction and performance of staff [3].

In general, the study findings show that if an organization’s leader can prioritize honest behavior and establish constructive relations with employees regarding ideas and reasons involved in business decisions and strategies, employees will be better able to motivate themselves and accept the supervisor as a role model. Furthermore, as Wang and Hsieh (2013) stated, “Employee work motivation primarily comes from support from and psychological trust in supervisors.” [8] (p. 621). Organizational trust plays a major role in supporting employees to initiate team spirit during managerial functioning. An important implication of the present study is the central role of authentic leadership behaviors and the need for leaders to have authentic characteristics for overall organizational performance. Senior managers should realize the importance of authentic leadership and help others learn its advantages during managerial functioning [3,45].

Finally, it should be noted that the sampling frame of this study covers a limited number of companies operating only in the service sector in Türkiye; hence, it would be useful to conduct similar studies in organizations of different sizes and more varied manufacturing and service sectors. Future research could investigate the differences related to the components of authentic leadership behaviors in two different economic sectors (i.e., manufacturing and service sectors), also focusing on the moderating or mediating roles of trust in supervisor. The present body of knowledge on authentic leadership and its associated outcomes was primarily obtained from and conducted in Western countries; however, studies focusing on a collectivist work culture like the one found in Türkiye are lacking. An ideal research project on authentic leadership and its effects could be a comparative study of these work-related aspects in Türkiye and a Western country; comparing the two work cultures would be informative and contribute to the literature on authentic leadership, employee trust, and organizational commitment.

In terms of the link between the aim of the present study and sustainability, the overall goal of authentic leadership is positive development, positive psychological capacity, and the creation of a positive climate in organizations. This study would be helpful for senior managers of companies to have a better understanding of the connection between the four characteristics of authentic leadership: the establishment of a positive organizational climate supporting the members of the organization, effective social exchange relationships, and team spirit and high levels of motivation enabling workers to focus on their job duties.

Social, human, and financial capital alone are not sufficient enough to provide a sustainable competitive advantage, but these are required for any corporation. While strategic management focuses on developing and maintaining a competitive advantage, entrepreneurship is a tool used to identify and exploit opportunities. The author of this study believes that no single research study presents a method for sustainability due to the fact that there are many issues such as cultural differences, global economic and financial obstacles, and different company visions of various, all of which are a trade-off between leadership styles, the presence of a creative and innovative climate, the formation of trust among members of organizations, and climatic and environmental objectives.

It should be noted that technological innovations are the most important factor for long-term growth rates; however, if the corporate culture of companies does not support openness to change and employees do not perceive organizational support, it would be difficult for these organizations to establish a link between the leadership style and a notion of fairness; in addition, trust in the overall performance of organizations will not be good enough for sustainability nor competitiveness.

In conclusion, authentic leaders will be more successful in motivating and encouraging employees for the sake of both individual and organizational well-being as long as they can assure their followers who perceive support from their managers. Undoubtedly, in such a group of employees, job performance will be at a higher level than that of their competitors.