Faculty Authentic Leadership in the Classroom and First-Year Student Outcomes

The Value of a College Degree and Retention Challenges

The long-term benefits of earning a college degree have been extensively documented. Individuals with higher education credentials experience greater employment opportunities, higher lifetime earnings, and improved quality of life (Baum, 2014; Horowitz, 2018; Miller & Nikaj, 2018). Degree attainment has also been associated with broader social benefits, including increased civic engagement and improved health outcomes (Dennison, 2019; Hout, 2012). For historically underrepresented or economically disadvantaged groups, earning a degree can serve as a pathway to social mobility (Hoffman, 2005; Wilbur & Roscigno, 2016).

Institutional Fit and Sense of Belonging

The concept of institutional “fit” encompasses academic, social, and emotional dimensions of belonging (Strayhorn, 2018). When students perceive themselves as valued members of the campus community, they report higher motivation, stronger academic self-efficacy, and greater intentions to persist (Han et al., 2017; Hausmann et al., 2007). Conversely, students who perceive a lack of fit are more likely to disengage academically and socially, increasing their risk of attrition (UPCEA, 2021). Faculty interactions represent one context through which students encounter institutional norms and expectations, particularly during the first year of college. Inclusive instructional practices and supportive classroom interactions are therefore discussed as important components of students’ early academic experiences and persistence (Chasteen Miller & Mills, 2019).

Faculty Influence and Classroom Leadership

Faculty influence shapes not only what students learn but how they experience the academic environment, particularly during the first year of college (Trolian et al., 2016; Trolian & Parker, 2020). Students frequently interpret faculty care and engagement as indicators of academic support, linking these behaviors to classroom participation and confidence (Chasteen Miller & Mills, 2019). Qualitative studies further emphasize the relational dimensions of classroom experience, suggesting that students’ perceptions of relationship quality, including trust, satisfaction, and commitment, are associated with academic engagement and students’ sense of connection with faculty and staff (Snijders et al., 2021). Additionally, recent retention research identifies student–faculty interaction quality as relevant to persistence, with students’ perceptions of interaction quality associated with continued enrollment into the second year (Loes et al., 2024). Student–faculty interactions have also been linked to variation in academic outcomes, including motivation and course performance, across various student populations (Trolian & Jach, 2025). Collectively, these findings suggest that instructional practice extends beyond content delivery to include important relational aspects, though instructional leadership research has continued to focus primarily on transformational leadership frameworks (Balwant, 2016).

Faculty behaviors associated with authenticity have been linked to trust, credibility, and perceptions of care – qualities commonly associated with effective teaching and student engagement (Balwant, 2016; Crippen, 2012). In instructional settings, behaviors such as openness, consistency, and self-awareness shape the relational context of the classroom and align with broader discussions of engagement and belonging in higher education, particularly during the first year when students are forming early academic expectations (Chasteen Miller & Mills, 2019; Han et al., 2017). Recent work has also examined the measurement and construct validity of leadership instruments used in applied settings, reinforcing the continued relevance of leadership assessment in educational research (Batista-Foguet et al., 2021).

Authentic leadership is conceptualized as a leadership approach grounded in self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). This framework emphasizes how leaders’ values and behaviors are experienced by others. Although research on authentic leadership in educational contexts has focused primarily on administrative and institutional roles (Bamford et al., 2013; Begley, 2006; Harrison Berg & Zoellick, 2019), applying this framework to classroom instruction offers a theoretically grounded lens for examining faculty behaviors within teaching and learning environments.

Research on instructional leadership has more frequently drawn on transformational leadership frameworks (Balwant, 2016; Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009; Pounder, 2014), with more recent work distinguishing authentic and transformational leadership as related but conceptually distinct approaches (Malloy & Kavussanu, 2021). Authentic leadership offers a related, complementary framework that emphasizes moral grounding, self-awareness, and relational transparency (Northouse, 2022; Walumbwa et al., 2008). While authentic leadership research has largely emerged from organizational settings, evidence suggests associations with follower engagement and satisfaction (Gardner et al., 2011; Rego et al., 2012). However, empirical research examining authentic leadership in relation to measurable student outcomes in classroom settings remains comparatively limited.

First-Year Experience and Persistence Theory

Foundational retention theories emphasize the importance of academic and social integration during the first year of college. Tinto's (1993) theory of student departure and Astin's (1999) involvement theory both highlight the role of engagement and interaction in student persistence. Subsequent research has continued to emphasize the significance of early academic experiences and relationships in shaping first-year outcomes.

Strayhorn's (2018) theory of college belonging further emphasizes the importance of validation and supportive relationships during the early stages of college. Faculty interactions are commonly discussed as one context in which belonging-related experiences occur (Hausmann et al., 2007). Authentic leadership aligns conceptually with this literature by emphasizing transparency, ethical behavior, and relational awareness, offering a framework for examining classroom-level interactions during the first year.

The literature emphasizes the role of early academic experiences, faculty–student interactions, and classroom environments in first-year student persistence. Prior research has examined instructional leadership through multiple theoretical perspectives and has increasingly highlighted relational and ethical dimensions of teaching. Authentic leadership offers one framework for examining these dimensions within instructional contexts. Accordingly, this study examines associations between authentic leadership behaviors in first-year seminar courses and early academic outcomes within the broader context of student retention.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to explore associations between authentic classroom leadership behaviors and first-time student outcomes in a first-year seminar context at a private, religiously affiliated regional university. The study addressed the following research questions:

Is there a relationship between authentic faculty leadership and first-time student outcomes?

A corresponding hypothesis proposed that higher levels of authentic faculty leadership would be positively associated with stronger student outcomes.

Research design

This study employed a convergent mixed-methods design informed by authentic leadership theory (Walumbwa et al., 2008) and guided by a pragmatic worldview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Conducted in Fall 2022, the study examined associations between faculty members’ authentic classroom leadership behaviors and first-time college students’ academic outcomes and persistence. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, with quantitative analyses serving as the primary source of inference and qualitative responses providing contextual information.

Quantitative data measured the four dimensions of authentic leadership, self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency, from both faculty and student perspectives. Qualitative data were derived from open-ended student survey responses addressing classroom engagement, motivation, and intent to persist.

Setting and Participants

The study was conducted at a private, religiously affiliated regional university with an enrollment of approximately 1,500 students. Institutional fall-to-spring persistence for the Fall 2022 first-time, full-time cohort was 93%. Data were collected in a required four-credit first-year seminar—a course typically taken during students’ first semester. The course introduces students to the institution's foundational values and academic expectations and is designed to support their transition into university life by establishing study skills and practices associated with collegiate success. Students earn a letter grade in the course, and sections are taught by faculty across academic disciplines.

Sample. Eleven faculty members teaching first-year seminar courses participated in the study. Faculty represented diverse disciplines and completed a self-assessment of authentic leadership using the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ). The student sample included 113 first-time undergraduate students enrolled in participating seminar sections. Students completed a rater version of the ALQ evaluating their instructor's authentic leadership behaviors and responded to three open-ended questions related to classroom engagement, motivation, and intent to persist. Student outcome data, including midterm and final grades for the course, first-term GPA, and persistence, and demographic data were obtained from institutional records.

Instruments

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ). The ALQ is a 16-item instrument measuring four dimensions of authentic leadership: self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Self-awareness reflects understanding of one's strengths, limitations, and impact on others; internalized moral perspective refers to behavior guided by internal moral standards rather than external pressures; balanced processing captures objective consideration of relevant viewpoints prior to decision-making; and relational transparency reflects open and appropriate self-disclosure in interactions. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“frequently, if not always”). Faculty completed the self-version of the instrument, and students completed the rater version evaluating their instructor.

The ALQ assesses observable instructional behaviors. For example, relational transparency includes items assessing whether an instructor communicates expectations clearly and directly, while balanced processing captures whether an instructor considers differing perspectives before making decisions. Self-awareness reflects recognition of one's impact on others and openness to reflection, and internalized moral perspective assesses whether decisions are guided by consistent personal values. The ALQ has demonstrated evidence of construct validity and internal consistency, with reported Cronbach's alpha values typically ranging from .70 to .90 (Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Open-Ended Student Questions. Students responded to three open-ended prompts. The first asked: “What motivates you to succeed academically?” The second asked: “Explain your levels of interest and engagement with your schoolwork as a whole. This includes participating in class, getting your assignments completed on time, and your excitement to learn the material.” The third asked: “Do you anticipate finishing your degree at the University? Why or why not? If yes, how long do you think it will take you to complete your degree?” Responses were used to provide contextual insight into students’ academic motivation, classroom engagement, and intent to persist.

Data collection Procedures

Data collection occurred following institutional review board approval. Faculty were recruited via email and students were recruited in classrooms. Both groups were provided informed consent. Surveys were administered electronically in class or via a secure link, and participation was voluntary. Student outcome data were matched to survey responses using anonymous identifiers provided by the university's Office of Institutional Research.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS. Course midterm and final grades were converted to a 0–4 (A+/A = 4.0, F = 0) for analysis. Midterm and final grades refer specifically to grades earned in the first-year seminar course. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic characteristics. Pearson correlation coefficients examined associations between authentic leadership dimensions and student outcomes. Multiple regression analyses examined the extent to which leadership dimensions were associated with variation in midterm grades, final grades, first-term GPA, and persistence. Independent-samples t-tests examined group differences across faculty and student demographic variables. A classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was conducted as an exploratory, non-parametric technique to identify potential interaction patterns. Open-ended responses were analyzed descriptively to summarize patterns related to classroom engagement, motivation, and intent to persist. Given their scope, qualitative findings were intended to provide contextual information rather than explanatory analysis. Consistent with convergent mixed-methods procedures, quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated during interpretation. Quantitative results formed the primary basis of inference, with qualitative responses providing contextual support.

Quantitative Findings

Descriptive statistics for faculty and student participants are presented in Table 1. Faculty self-ratings on the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) indicated moderate to high perceptions across all four leadership components. On the 0–4 scale, faculty self-ratings averaged 3.36 for relational transparency, 3.52 for moral perspective, 3.21 for balanced processing, and 3.16 for self-awareness, with an overall self-rating of 3.31. Students’ first-term GPA averaged 2.85 (SD = 1.05). For contextual comparison, institutional data indicated minimal differences between participants and non-participants in course performance. Average midterm grades were 3.1 for both groups, final grades averaged 3.3 for participants and 3.1 for non-participants, and first-term GPA averaged 2.85 for participants compared to 2.81 for non-participants. Similarly, 94% of participants returned for the subsequent semester, which is comparable to both non-participants (90%), and the total Fall 2022 first-time, full-time cohort (93%).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Faculty and Student Participants.

Variable	n	M	SD
Faculty self-awareness	11	3.19	0.39
Faculty moral perspective	11	3.57	0.52
Faculty relational transparency	11	3.39	0.30
Faculty balanced processing	11	3.17	0.47
Faculty overall total	11	3.33	0.33
Student midterm grade (in course)	113	3.11	1.39
Student final grade (in course)	113	3.29	1.08
Student first-term GPA	113	2.85	1.05
Student persistence	113	0.94	0.24

Note: Persistence coded as 1 = returned for the subsequent semester; values represent proportions.

Pearson correlation analyses examined relationships between faculty self-ratings of authentic leadership and student outcomes (Table 2). Small to moderate positive correlations emerged between faculty self-ratings and student midterm and final grades in the course, first-term GPA, and persistence to the subsequent term. Student rater scores of authentic leadership showed weaker and less consistent correlations with student outcomes than faculty self-ratings.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Correlations Between Faculty Self-Ratings of Authentic Leadership and Student Outcomes.

Variable	Midterm grade	Final grade	Term GPA	Persistence
Self-awareness	.30**	.30**	.30**	.08
Moral perspective	.44***	.23*	.30**	.31***
Relational transparency	.32***	.20*	.23*	.24*
Balanced processing	.29**	.21*	.18	.18
Overall rating	.43***	.28**	.32**	.26**

Note: n = 113. r values rounded to two decimals. Persistence coded as 1 = returned for the subsequent semester. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Predicting First Term GPA from Overall Self-Rating, Tenure Status, and Pell Status.

Predictor	B	SE B	β	p
Overall self-rating	.866	0.29	.27	<.01
Tenured/tenure track	.385	0.19	.18	<.05
Pell recipient	−.396	0.19	−.19	<.05

Note: Adjusted R² = .15.

A linear regression analysis demonstrated that faculty overall authentic leadership self-rating significantly predicted first-term GPA, F(1, 111) = 12.23, p < .001, accounting for approximately 10% of the variance (R² = .099). Higher overall self-ratings were associated with higher student GPAs. Because the four ALQ dimensions are conceptually related and moderately intercorrelated, the overall self-rating was used as the primary predictor in subsequent regression analyses to reduce multicollinearity.

A multiple regression analysis further examined the contribution of overall self-rating in combination with faculty tenure status and student Pell grant recipient status (Table 3). The model significantly predicted first-term GPA, F(3, 109) = 7.62, p < .001, adjusted R² = .15. Overall self-rating remained a significant positive predictor of first-term GPA after controlling for faculty tenure status and student Pell recipient status.

To further explore potential group differences, independent-samples t-tests were conducted across faculty and student demographic variables. No statistically significant differences emerged in faculty self-reported authentic leadership based on gender, race/ethnicity, or tenure status. Student perceptions of leadership were generally consistent across demographic groups. However, students earning a 3.0 or higher first-term GPA rated instructors significantly higher on the Moral/Ethical component, t(89.47) = 2.13, p = .04, indicating a modest association between perceived moral leadership and academic performance.

A Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was conducted as an exploratory, non-parametric technique to identify interaction patterns not captured in regression analyses.

Across models predicting midterm grade, final grade, and first-term GPA, the primary split consistently occurred on faculty overall self-rating of authentic leadership. Students whose instructors scored above approximately 3.25 on overall self-rating were associated with higher predicted academic outcomes. In the first-term GPA model (Figure 1), students taught by faculty with overall self-ratings above 3.25 demonstrated higher predicted GPAs, with additional splits emerging by Pell status.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Classification and regression tree predicting first-term GPA. The first node represents overall authentic leadership self-rating. Subsequent splits reflect conditional differentiation by Pell status. Terminal nodes display mean GPA values for each subgroup.

In the persistence model (Figure 2), the primary split occurred on the student-rated Moral/Ethical component. Students whose instructors were rated above 2.90 on the Moral/Ethical dimension demonstrated substantially higher predicted return rates (97.8%) compared to those below that threshold (76.2%). While exploratory in nature, these CART findings are consistent with the correlational and regression analyses, reinforcing the modest but consistent associations between authentic leadership behaviors and first-year student outcomes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Classification and regression tree predicting fall-to-spring persistence. The initial split reflects faculty Moral/Ethical authentic leadership rating (2.90). Terminal nodes display the proportion and number of students who persisted (1 = persisted; 0 = did not persist) within each subgroup.

Qualitative findings

Qualitative responses provided contextual information regarding students’ academic motivation, engagement, and intent to persist. When asked what motivated them to succeed academically, students most frequently referenced family influence, career aspirations, financial considerations, and personal goals. As one student noted, “What motivates me is the inspiration of my family and knowing that I am underprivileged,” reflecting how family and personal circumstances shape the student's academic drive.

Descriptions of engagement emphasized individual behaviors, such as completing coursework, managing time, and meeting academic expectations, rather than specific instructional practices. For example, one student wrote, “I get my assignments done on time and I’m excited about class but normally don’t participate verbally,” illustrating descriptions of engagement centered on individual behaviors.

References to faculty leadership or classroom interactions were relatively infrequent in responses related to intent to persist. Instead, students most often framed their intentions to remain enrolled in terms of degree completion, career preparation, financial factors, or personal reasons. One student explained, “Yes, I do [intend to complete my degree at the University] because I have a strong community and a good scholarship.” Collectively, these patterns suggest that within this dataset, students primarily attributed persistence decisions to broader personal and structural influences, even as quantitative analyses identified modest associations between faculty leadership behaviors and early academic outcomes.

Integration of findings

Quantitative and qualitative findings were considered together to support interpretation of the results. Quantitative analyses identified modest associations between select dimensions of authentic leadership and early academic outcomes. Qualitative responses did not provide evidence of faculty leadership as a primary motivator but offered contextual insight into students’ broader motivational influences. These findings suggest that authentic leadership behaviors were associated with variation in early academic outcomes during the first year, even as students described multiple influences on their persistence decisions.

Implications for retention theory

These findings align with retention theories that emphasize the relational nature of the first-year academic experience. Authentic leadership theory highlights self-awareness, transparency, balanced processing, and moral/ethical consistency as core leadership behaviors (Walumbwa et al., 2008), which may be reflected in instructional practices that shape students’ early academic environments. Although causality cannot be inferred from the present design, the observed associations suggest that faculty authentic leadership behaviors may be associated with variation in early academic performance within first-year instructional contexts. This interpretation is consistent with prior research emphasizing the importance of faculty–student interactions during the first year of college (Trolian et al., 2016; Trolian & Parker, 2020).

One possible interpretation of these findings is that authentic leadership behaviors may be associated with academic outcomes through relational processes central to first-year retention theory. For example, moral and ethical leadership behaviors may correspond with perceptions of fairness and instructor credibility, constructs often linked to trust and academic engagement in prior research. Similarly, relational transparency may align with students’ sense of belonging within the classroom environment, a construct strongly associated with persistence (Strayhorn, 2018). Although these mediating constructs were not directly measured in the present study, the observed associations are consistent with theoretical frameworks emphasizing the role of faculty relational behaviors in student integration and academic performance.

Instructional leadership implications

By applying authentic leadership theory to a first-year instructional context, this study contributes to the literature at the intersection of leadership theory and pedagogy. While authentic leadership has been widely examined in organizational and administrative settings, its application to classroom instruction, particularly in relation to first-year student outcomes, has received comparatively limited empirical attention. The present findings suggest that authentic leadership offers a useful framework for examining instructional leadership behaviors associated with early academic success.

Methodologically, the study demonstrates the application of a convergent mixed-methods design in which quantitative analyses serve as the primary basis for inference and qualitative responses provide contextual insight. This approach offers a structured way to examine classroom-level leadership behaviors while maintaining appropriate limits on interpretation.

From a practical standpoint, these findings suggest that faculty development initiatives for first-year instructors may benefit from incorporating elements of authentic leadership, including reflective self-awareness, transparent communication practices, and explicit discussion of ethical grading standards. Embedding leadership-informed reflection into faculty orientation, workshops, or first-year seminar training may provide a structured way to support instructional behaviors associated with early academic success.

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. The study was conducted at a single institution with a small faculty sample, which limits generalizability. Faculty self-ratings and student perceptions were based on self-reported survey data, which may introduce response bias. Qualitative responses were brief and provided limited insight into faculty leadership as a motivating factor. In addition, the observational design limits causal interpretation.

Recommendations for future research

Future research should build on these findings in the following ways:

Replicate this study across diverse institutional types, disciplines, and geographic regions to assess generalizability and examine potential cultural variations in authentic leadership's effects.