Bridging the Gap between Authentic Leadership and Employees Communal Relationships through Trust

Abstract

Authentic leadership has emerged as a positive relational-leadership approach that has gained the attention of academicians and practitioners by stimulating a healthy work environment. This study examined the direct influence of authentic leadership on employees' communal relationships. In addition, the study examined the mediating role of affective-and cognitive-based trust on these relationships. We adopted a cross-sectional study design and collected data from 200 employees working in the private banking sector in Pakistan. The findings indicated that authentic leadership was positively correlated with communal employee relationships. In addition, both affective-and cognitive-based trust were found to have a positive mediating effect on the relationship between authentic leadership and communal employee relationships. The practical implications, limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Full text

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Bridging the Gap between Authentic Leadership and
Employees Communal Relationships through Trust
Sadaf Iqbal 1, †, Tahir Farid 1,†, Muhammad Khalil Khan 2, Qionghon Zhang 1,
Amira Khattak 3and Jianhong Ma 1, *
1Department of Applied Psychology and Behavioral Science, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road,
Hangzhou 310058, China; sadaf@zju.edu.cn (S.I.); tahir_khattak@zju.edu.cn (T.F.);
joannazhang@zju.edu.cn (Q.Z.)
2
College of Media and International Culture, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310058,
China; khan@zju.edu.cn
3Department of Marketing, Prince Sultan University, P.O. Box 66833, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia;
akhattak@psu.edu.sa
*Correspondence: jhma@zju.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-139-5815-9647
†These authors contributed equally to this work.
Received: 3 November 2019; Accepted: 23 December 2019; Published: 30 December 2019


Abstract:
Authentic leadership has emerged as a positive relational-leadership approach that has
gained the attention of academicians and practitioners by stimulating a healthy work environment.
This study examined the direct influence of authentic leadership on employees’ communal
relationships. In addition, the study examined the mediating role of affective- and cognitive-based
trust on these relationships. We adopted a cross-sectional study design and collected data from
200 employees working in the private banking sector in Pakistan. The findings indicated that
authentic leadership was positively correlated with communal employee relationships. In addition,
both affective- and cognitive-based trust were found to have a positive mediating effect on the
relationship between authentic leadership and communal employee relationships. The practical
implications, limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Keywords:
authentic leadership; affective-based trust; cognitive-based trust; communal relationship;
banking sector; Pakistan
1. Introduction
Employees’ positive organizational relationships not only play an important role in shaping
organizational reputation, but also contribute towards the achievement of organizational aims
and boosting employee effectiveness. Likewise, no assignment can be effectively achieved if
disagreement occurs between employees, and their organization [
1
,
2
]. Employees who maintain a
respectable relationship with their leadership and the organization in which they are working consider
organizational problems as their own and try to find solutions for them as if they were their own
problems [
3
]. Employees’ communal relationships are a form of positive relationship, introduced by
Clark and Mills [
4
] as “the efforts to give benefits to other party with no expectation of returns in
future”. Empirical evidence reveals that a communal relationship plays a significant role in assisting
organizational management to pay specific attention to its duties because it then assists its employees
without any expectations [5,6].
Authentic leadership has nowadays appeared as a form of leadership style that has gained the
attention of numerous scholars [
7
–
9
] and practitioners [
10
–
12
]. The interest on authentic leadership
stems from the recent corporate scandals and organizational malfeasance, like leadership dishonesty
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250; doi:10.3390/ijerph17010250 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 2 of 14
and unethical practices [
13
], and the reduction of conventional leadership approaches, such as
transformational and charismatic leadership, which emphasize attaining organizational performance
through leadership. Centering on authenticity and morality, authentic leadership focuses on ethical
dilemmas and motivates firms to establish a positive learning and organizational climate [
14
,
15
].
In addition, authentic leadership has attracted researchers’ attention due to its positive influence on
employees’ job outcomes and organizational-goal achievements [
16
–
18
], and the call for more empirical
work [7,8,19].
Empirical evidence reveals the significant role of authentic leadership in affecting employees’
workplace outcomes [
20
]. For instance, authentic leadership has been revealed to enhance
employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) [
16
,
17
,
21
] positively related to an ethical
culture [
22
], improving employees’ organizational commitment [
23
], increasing employees’ work
engagement
[24,25]
, better employee performance [
26
], and trust [
25
,
27
]. However, little research exists
into investigating the direct impact of authentic leadership and employees’ communal relationships [
9
].
In addition, although empirical evidence reveals a positive association between authentic leadership
and employees’ communal relationships [
9
], the psychological mechanism underlying this relationship
is less clear.
This research makes an important addition to the literature on authentic leadership by examining
a novel mediation framework that explains the procedure through which authentic leaders impact their
subordinates’ communal relationships. Focusing on relational-model theory [
28
] and social-exchange
theory [
29
], we examined the mediating effect of affective- and cognitive-based trust in transmitting the
effect of authentic leadership to enhance employees’ communal relationships. Authentic leadership is
defined as having optimistic beliefs that inculcate qualities of hope, trust, and positive emotions in their
subordinates [
7
,
30
,
31
]. Similarly, Dirks and Ferrin [
32
], in their meta-analytic review, called for scholars
to consider two dimensions of trust, affective- and cognitive-based trust, and to “attempt to distinguish
between the processes involved” (p. 623), however, very few studies have followed this call [
33
–
35
].
In addition, this is the first study that focuses on affective- and cognitive-based trust as a mediating
variable while examining the relationship between authentic leadership and employees’ communal
relationships. It is suitable to explore the mediating effect of affective- and cognitive-based trust at the
individual level, as they were initially theorized as individual-level constructs; an increasing body of
research has also revealed leadership’s influence on individuals and group levels [36].
Conducting research related to authentic leadership and OCB in the context of Pakistan is
important because most research related to these topics has been conducted in Western cultures, which
are quite different from South Asian cultures (specifically Pakistani culture); this is a new contribution
by examining this relationship in Pakistan’s collectivistic culture.
In addition, past studies have urged for more empirical research to examine authentic-leadership
types globally [
7
,
20
]. This study is an attempt to respond to this call, and it explores the role of authentic
leadership in affecting employees’ communal relationships by focusing on the collectivistic culture of
Pakistan, which is quite different from Western culture. In addition, this is a three-way study in which
authentic leadership influences employees’ communal relationship through two sequential mediators,
namely, affective- and cognitive-based trust. By investigating processes through which these two
dimensions of trust transmit the effects of authentic leadership on employees’ communal relationships,
our study extends the authentic-leadership and trust literature in a new important direction.
2. Theory and Hypothesis
2.1. Authentic Leadership
Authentic leadership (AL) appeared as a significant area of research in the academic arena with the
emergence of the positive-psychology movement [
13
]. According to Avolio, Luthans, and Walumbwa
(2004), authentic leaders are those “who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are
perceived by others as being aware of their own and others values/moral perspectives, knowledge

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 3 of 14
and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic,
resilient, and of high moral character” (p.4). The definition of authentic leadership given by Walumbwa,
Avolio [
16
] is the one most commonly used in the academic literature. They define AL as: “a pattern
of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a
positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced
processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers,
fostering positive self-development” (p. 94).
Walumbwa, Avolio [
16
] suggested four components of authentic leadership. Self-awareness
is related to the awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, and their values and beliefs [
37
].
Authentic leaders have a stable sense of self-knowledge [
38
]. Relational transparency is related to
presenting one’s true self to other people, assisting in forming trust and cooperation, and nurturing
teamwork among colleagues [
31
]. Balanced processing is related to a leader’s ability to be unbiased in
considering all relevant information before reaching any decision [
39
]. Internalized moral perspective
is related to the leaders beliefs and moral values that are compatible with their behaviors [
16
]. Leaders
are considered to be authentic when they represent these four components. The theoretical and
empirical findings of past studies also recommend that authentic leadership can be the association
between the four aforementioned components [16,31,40,41].
2.2. Authentic Leadership and Employees’ Communal Relationships
Authenticity plays a significant role in influencing employees’ organizational relationships in
the subject of organizational behavior. Employees’ experiences of authentic organizational behavior
depend on transparency, trustfulness, and consistency in leadership approaches [
42
]. In addition,
even though many scholars examined the employees’ organizational relationships [
43
,
44
], uncertainty
still remains. Hon and Grunig [
5
] emphasized that management must develop communal relationships
with their employees in order to enhance the importance of employees’ organizational relationships.
Such types of actions could enable management to concentrate on their duties, profiting employees
without any hope of returns [
5
]. Recent empirical evidence revealed the positive role of authentic
leadership in influencing employees’ communal relationships [9].
The association between authentic leadership with employees’ communal relationships can
be discussed from the perspective of relational-model theory [
28
,
45
], which comprises four major
mental schemas: communal sharing, equality matching, authority ranking, and market pricing.
Communal-sharing schemas indicate showing care and concern for other people and satisfying their
necessities [
28
]. Similarly, Iqbal, Farid [
9
] demonstrated that communal-sharing schemas could be
linked with authentic leadership, as authentic leaders could increase social interactions with their
subordinates, show concern for other members in a neutral manner, and gain precise information before
making any decision. Therefore, on the basis of the theoretical component of the communal-sharing
mental schema, it was conceived that, when employees perceive their leader’s behavior as authentic,
they exhibit more interest in their work and show care for organizational reputation, which helps the
organization become more successful. Hence, it is suggested that authentic leadership is positively
related with employees’ communal relationships (Figure 1) and the following is proposed:
Hypothesis 1. Authentic leadership is positively correlated with employees’ communal relationships.
2.3. Authentic Leadership and Trust
Trust refers to “a psychological state including the intention to accept vulnerability based upon
optimistic expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” [
46
]. On the basis of the aforementioned
definition, we can say that the extent to which employees show their willingness to subject themselves
to work, in the interest of their leader, depends upon the exchange relationship between employee
and leader. Social-exchange theory [
29
] also suggests that the actions of individuals depend on the
rewards they received from others in the past or expect to receive in the future [
47
]. Konovsky

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 4 of 14
and Pugh [
48
] stated that trust was a basic element in developing and fostering exchange-based
relationships. In addition, leadership and trust could also be perceived as an exchange relationship
between leaders and followers [
49
]. We chose the two-dimensional trust model of McAllister [
50
]
(affective- and cognitive-based trust) to better understand how affective- and cognitive-based trust
mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and employees’ communal relationships.
We adopted McAllister’s [
50
] model of trust for several reasons. First, although past studies revealed
a strong association of authentic leadership with trust, previous scholars have typically ignored
the multidimensionality of the trust construct [
25
,
27
,
51
–
53
]. Second, in recent years [
50
], the model
of affective- and cognitive-based trust has been profoundly examined and validated in different
contexts [
27
,
32
,
34
]. Finally, the McAllister [
50
] model of trust is more commonly used in leadership
studies relative to other existing trust models [35,54,55].
Affective-based trust is a relation-based approach, developed on the basis of ongoing exchanges of
social relationships rather than economic exchanges, and it is comprised of care, concern, and mutual
obligation, and an understanding of reciprocated sentiments [
32
,
50
,
54
–
56
]. Cognitive-based trust
is a character-based approach about the character of a leader. Dirks and Ferrin [
32
] observed that
“trust-related concerns about a leader’s character are important because the leader may have authority
to make decisions that have a significant impact on a follower and the follower’s ability to achieve his
or her goals (e.g., promotions, pay, work assignments, layoffs)” (p. 612).
Moreover, an employee’s inclination to trust a leader is affected by the actions and character of
that leader [
57
]. Authentic leaders are those who show authenticity and can enhance respect, dignity,
integrity, and trust among followers [
24
]. Authentic leadership is likely to show to subordinates
that the leader is concerned about their welfare through the leader’s lack of bias in considering all
relevant information before reaching any decisions [
39
]. In addition, Gardner, Avolio, Luthans and
Walumbwa [
31
] argued that an authentic leader is aware of their own strengths and weaknesses,
can present their true self to other people, assists in constructing trust and cooperation, and nurtures
team work among colleagues. Such behavior fosters the development of affective-based trust.
In addition, an authentic leader can act in accordance to their beliefs and moral values that are
compatible with their behavior [
16
]. From the social-exchange perspective, when followers believe in
their leader’s authenticity, competence, and honesty, that leader is signaled as an appropriate partner
with whom to engage in a social-exchange relationship, which is the characteristic of cognitive-based
trust [
50
]. Past studies indicated a positive and significant association between leadership and
followers’ cognitive-based trust [
35
,
54
,
58
]. As mentioned in the earlier sections, past studies have
examined the McAllister [
50
] model of affective- and cognitive-based trust on the association between
transformational or ethical leadership and employees’ job outcomes [
35
,
54
]. However, to the best of
our knowledge, no study has been conducted to date on the direct effect of authentic leadership on
affective- and cognitive-based trust. To fill this gap, we investigated the impact of authentic leadership
on followers’ affective- and cognitive-based trust (Figure 1), and hypothesized the following.
Hypothesis 2. Authentic leadership is positively associated with affective-based trust.
Hypothesis 3. Authentic leadership is positively associated with cognitive-based trust.
2.4. Affective- and Cognitive-Based Trust, and Employees’ Communal Relationships
Affective-based trust is more interpersonal in nature [
33
] and indicates an exchange-based
perspective that happens when a leader engages in a social-exchange relationship with their
subordinates [
34
]. Most relationships between organizational management and employees originate
from exchange-based relationships. In order to strengthen these relationships and make them more
durable, much depends upon the leadership to propagate them in communal relationships. Empirical
evidence showed that affective trust had a strong influence on followers organizational citizenship
behavior when compared to cognitive-based trust [
55
]. However, no study has examined the effect

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 5 of 14
of affective-and cognitive-based trust on employees’ communal relationships. Both affective- and
cognitive-based trust are also crucial determinants of the extent to which employees tend to enhance
their individual relationships with theirs coworkers and leaders, which ultimately helps in building
communal relationships with them. To fill this gap, we assumed that affective- and cognitive-based
trust were positively related with employees’ communal relationships (Figure 1), and hypothesized
the following:
Hypothesis 4. Affective-based trust is positively associated with employees’ communal relationships.
Hypothesis 5. Cognitive-based trust is positively associated with employees’ communal relationships.
2.5. Mediating Role of Affective- and Cognitive-Based Trust on the Relationship between Authentic Leadership
and Employees’ Communal Relationships
We examined subordinate trust (affective- and cognitive-based trust) on leaders as a mediating
mechanism through which authentic leadership translates its positive influence on communal employee
relationships. Trust has been identified as a potential mediator in past studies [
59
]; previous research
using a social-exchange-based perspective for understanding the effect of authentic leadership has not
included a clear measure of this key mediating mechanism. Therefore, this was a pioneering study that
tested social exchange as a theoretical background for understanding the effect of authentic leadership
by integrating affective- and cognitive-based trust as a mediating variable.
As discussed above, authentic leaders are those “who are deeply aware of how they think and
behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others values/moral perspectives,
knowledge and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful,
optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character” [
30
], (p. 4). Moreover, recent empirical evidence
reveals the positive effect of authentic leadership on employees’ communal relationship [
9
]. Past studies
have also examined the mediating mechanism of trust in the effect of authentic leadership on followers’
workplace attitudes and behaviors [
25
,
51
–
53
]. As discussed above, all mentioned studies have
used trust as a unidimensional construct. Focusing on the uniqueness of the McAllister [
50
] model
of affective- and cognitive-based trust, we assumed that trust mediated the relationship between
authentic leadership and employees’ communal relationships for several theoretical reasons. First,
authentic leaders may enhance subordinates’ affective-based trust by inculcating a sense of obligation,
which, in turn, may stimulate subordinates’ sense of a communal relationship. Second, subordinates’
cognitive-based trust is grounded on an authentic leader’s character and positive attributes that helps
in reducing the perceived risk in their relationships. In turn, subordinates are more willing to engage in
communal relationships. Therefore, on the basis of the aforementioned discussions, we suggested that
affective- and cognitive-based trust positively mediates the relationship between authentic leadership
and employees’ communal relationships (Figure 1), and posited the following:
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 5 of 13
trust were positively related with employees’ communal relationships (Figure 1), and hypothesized
the following:
Hypothesis 4. Affective-based trust is positively associated with employees’ communal relationships.
Hypothesis 5. Cognitive-based trust is positively associated with employees’ communal relationships.
2.5. Mediating Role of Affective- and Cognitive-Based Trust on the Relationship between Authentic
Leadership and Employees’ Communal Relationships
We examined subordinate trust (affective- and cognitive-based trust) on leaders as a mediating
mechanism through which authentic leadership translates its positive influence on communal
employee relationships. Trust has been identified as a potential mediator in past studies [59];
previous research using a social-exchange-based perspective for understanding the effect of authentic
leadership has not included a clear measure of this key mediating mechanism. Therefore, this was a
pioneering study that tested social exchange as a theoretical background for understanding the effect
of authentic leadership by integrating affective- and cognitive-based trust as a mediating variable.
As discussed above, authentic leaders are those “who are deeply aware of how they think and
behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others values/moral
perspectives, knowledge and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are
confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character” [30], (p. 4). Moreover, recent
empirical evidence reveals the positive effect of authentic leadership on employees’ communal
relationship [9]. Past studies have also examined the mediating mechanism of trust in the effect of
authentic leadership on followers’ workplace attitudes and behaviors [25,51–53]. As discussed above,
all mentioned studies have used trust as a unidimensional construct. Focusing on the uniqueness of
the McAllister [50] model of affective- and cognitive-based trust, we assumed that trust mediated the
relationship between authentic leadership and employees’ communal relationships for several
theoretical reasons. First, authentic leaders may enhance subordinates’ affective-based trust by
inculcating a sense of obligation, which, in turn, may stimulate subordinates’ sense of a communal
relationship. Second, subordinates’ cognitive-based trust is grounded on an authentic leader’s
character and positive attributes that helps in reducing the perceived risk in their relationships. In
turn, subordinates are more willing to engage in communal relationships. Therefore, on the basis of
the aforementioned discussions, we suggested that affective- and cognitive-based trust positively
mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and employees’ communal relationships
(Figure 1), and posited the following:
Hypothesis 6. Affective-based trust has a positive mediating effect on the relationship between authentic-
leadership behaviors and employees’ communal relationships.
Hypothesis 7. Cognitive-based trust has a positive mediating effect on the relationship between authentic-
leadership behaviors and employees’ communal relationships.
Figure 1. Hypothetical model of relationship between authentic leadership (independent variable),
affective- and cognitive-based trust (mediators), and communal relationships (dependent variable).
Figure 1.
Hypothetical model of relationship between authentic leadership (independent variable),
affective- and cognitive-based trust (mediators), and communal relationships (dependent variable).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 6 of 14
Hypothesis 6.
Affective-based trust has a positive mediating effect on the relationship between
authentic-leadership behaviors and employees’ communal relationships.
Hypothesis 7.
Cognitive-based trust has a positive mediating effect on the relationship between
authentic-leadership behaviors and employees’ communal relationships.
3. Materials and Methods
We adopted a cross-sectional study design and collected data from 200 employees working in
different private-sector banking organizations in the city of Peshawar of Pakistan. We highlighted
the study’s significance to every bank manager and motivated staffmembers to participate. After the
formal approval of managers, the self-administered questionnaire was distributed among all bank
employees, ensuring the confidentiality of the respondents’ responses.
Through a convenient sampling technique, we circulated 300 questionnaires, but received
200 completed questionnaires. Table 1indicates that out of the 200 total respondents, the majority (143;
71%) were male, and 57 (29%) were female. Most of the respondents (104; 52%) were 21–30 years old,
79 (40%) respondents were 31–40 years old, and the remaining 17 (8%) were 41–50 years old. In addition,
the majority (120; 60%) of respondents were married, and 80 (40%) were unmarried; 53 (26%) had a
bachelor’s degree, 118 (59%) had a master’s degree, and the remaining 29 (15%) had an MPhil or above
level of education. Further, the majority (108; 54%) of respondents had 1–5 years of work experience,
50 (25%) had 6–10 years of experience, 21 (11%) had 11–15 years of experience, and the remaining
12 (6%) had 16–20 years of experience. Lastly, out of the total respondents, only 49 (25%) worked as a
bank manager, and the majority (151; 75%) worked as banking staffmembers.
Table 1. Demographic variable results.
Demographic Variables Frequencies Sample Percentage
Respondent Gender
Male 143 71%
Female 57 29%
Respondent Age
21–30 years 104 52%
31–40 years 79 40%
41–50 years 17 8%
Respondent Marital Status
Married 120 60%
Unmarried 80 40%
Respondent Education
Bachelor’s degree 53 26%
Master degree 118 59%
MPhil and above 29 15%
Respondent Work Experience
1–5 years 108 54%
6–10 years 50 25%
11–15 years 21 11%
16–20 years 12 6%
Respondent Job title
Manager 49 25%
Staffmember 151 75%
Total 200 100

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 7 of 14
3.1. Measurement
We used a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, to measure all
scales used in the study.
3.2. Authentic Leadership
The authentic-leadership scale was measured by using a self-reported scale developed by
Walumbwa, Avolio [
16
]. The scale comprised of 16 items, and sample items included “My manager
seeks feedback to improve interactions with others,” “My manager admits mistakes when they are
made,” and “My manager demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions”. The alpha was 0.873.
3.3. Communal Relationships
The communal-relationships scale developed by Clark, Oullette [
60
] was adopted for the study.
The scale comprised 14 items. Example items included “When making a decision, I take other people’s
needs and feelings into account” and “I expect people I know to be responsive to my needs and
feelings”. The alpha was 0.795.
3.4. Affective- and Cognitive-Based Trust
Affective- and cognitive-based trust were measured by using a self-reported scale developed
by McAllister (1995). The scale of affective-based trust comprised five items, and cognitive-based
trust comprised six items. Sample items of affective-based trust included “My manager and I have
a sharing relationship. We can both freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes” and “If I shared my
problems with my manager, I know he would respond constructively and caringly”. The alpha of the
affective-based-trust scale was 0.754. Sample items of cognitive-based trust included “My manager
approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication” and “I can rely on my manager not to
make my job more difficult by careless work”. The alpha of the cognitive-based-trust scale was 0.726.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
The main characteristics of the sample, including means, standard deviations, and variable
correlations, are shown in Table 2. Correlation between authentic leadership and communal
relationships (r=0.339, p<0.01) was found to be positive and significant, as expected; likewise,
the correlation between authentic leadership and affective-based trust (r=0.511, p<0.01) was also
found to be positive and significant. The correlation between authentic leadership and cognitive-based
trust was r=0.382, p<0.01. In addition, correlation between communal relationship and affective-based
trust (r=0.410, p<0.01) was found significant, as expected. Communal-relationship correlation
with cognitive-based trust (r=0.347, p<0.01) was also found to be positive and significant, as
expected. Finally, correlation between affective- and cognitive-based trust (r=0.566, p<0.01) was also
found significant.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, mean, standard deviation (SD), and correlation of variables.
Heading Column Mean SD 1 2 3 4
Authentic leadership 3.573 0.55903 1
Communal relationship 3.6014 0.56811 0.339 ** 1
Affective-based trust 4.0130 0.60420 0.511 ** 0.410 ** 1
Cognitive-based trust 3.9183 0.76129 0.382 ** 0.347 ** 0.566 ** 1
Note: N=200; ** p<0.01

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 8 of 14
4.2. Confirmatory-Factor Analysis (CFA) for Authentic Leadership, Communal Relationships, and Affective-
and Cognitive-Based Trust
To examine the convergence and discriminant validity of the scales, CFA was performed by
using SPSS Amos version 20. First, authentic leadership, communal relationships, affective- and
cognitive-based trust were compared in a hypothesized four-factor model (Model 1) with three other
models. Second, communal relationships and affective-based-trust items were combined into a new
single factor in the three-factor model (Model 2). Third, communal relationships, and affective- and
cognitive-based-trust items were combined into a new single factor in a two-factor model (Model 3).
Finally, we loaded all items of the studied variables (authentic leadership, affective- and cognitive-based
trust, and communal relationships together into a new single factor in a one-factor model (Model
4). Confirmatory-factor analysis with maximum-likelihood estimation was performed for all three
proposed models. Factor-loading for each component was found positive and significant, and indicated
good convergence validity. Average extracted variance of all proposed variables was checked, and the
square root of every average variance extracted (AVE) was found to be greater than all variable
coefficients [
61
]. Results shown in Table 3indicate a good model fit for the hypothesized three-factor
model (Model 1; chi square/degree of freedom (CMIN/DF) =1.366, comparative fit index (CFI) =
0.918, incremental fit indices (IFI) =0.920, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) =0.907, root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) =0.043) compared to other alternative models.
Table 3.
Confirmatory-factor-analysis results for authentic leadership, affective- and cognitive-based
trust, and communal relationships.
Measurement Models CMIN/DF CFI IFI TLI RMSEA
M1. Hypothesized four-factor model. 1.366 0.918 0.920 0.907 0.043
M2. Three-factor model: affective-based trust and communal
relationships were merged. 1.550 0.876 0.880 0.869 0.053
M3. Two-factor model: Affective- and cognitive-based trust, and
communal relationships were merged. 1.636 0.857 0.861 0.838 0.057
M4. One-factor model, authentic leadership, affective- and
cognitive-based trust, and communal relationships were merged. 1.830 0.819 0.825 0.789 0.065
Abbreviations: CMIN/DF, chi-square/degree of freedom; CFI, comparative fit index; IFI, incremental fit indices: TLI,
Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.
4.3. Regression Analysis of Authentic Leadership, Affective- and Cognitive-Based Trust, and Communal
Relationships
Multiple linear regression was performed to examine the main hypotheses of the study.
Results presented in Table 4indicate the influence of the independent variable (authentic leadership)
and control variables (gender and age) on the dependent variable (communal relationships).
Table 4.
Regression analysis of authentic leadership, affective- and cognitive-based trust, and
communal relationships.
Variables Affective-Based Trust Cognitive-Based Trust Communal Relationships
Constant
Gender 128 0.348 ** 0.119
Age −0.023 −0.009 0.044
Authentic leadership 0.553 *** 0.520 *** 0.344 ***
Affective-based trust 0.386 ***
Cognitive-based trust 0.259 ***
R20.262 0.146 0.115
∆R20.258 0.142 0.110
F 70.152 *** 33.863 *** 25.631 ***
Note: N=200; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.0001.
Results presented in Table 4indicate the positive association of authentic leadership with
communal relationships (
β
=0.344, p<0.0001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicted

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 9 of 14
the positive relationship between authentic leadership with affective-based trust. Results revealed
that authentic leadership had a positive association with affective-based trust (
β
=0.553, p<0.0001);
hence, Hypothesis 2 was also fully supported. Hypothesis 3 predicted the positive association between
authentic leadership with cognitive-based trust. Results revealed that authentic leadership had a
positive association with cognitive-based trust (
β
=0.520, p<0.0001); hence, Hypothesis 3 was also
fully supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted the positive association between affective-based trust with
communal relationships. Results indicated that affective-based trust had a positive and significant
association with communal relationships (
β
=0.386, p<0.0001); hence, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
Similarly, Hypothesis 5 predicted a positive association between cognitive-based trust with communal
relationships. Results indicated that cognitive-based trust had a positive and significant association
with communal relationships (β=0.259, p<0.0001); hence, Hypothesis 5 was also fully supported.
4.4. Mediation Analysis
In the current study, the process program for SPSS developed by Hayes [
62
] was used to analyze
the mediating hypotheses. For this, we selected Model 4 from the Hayes templates to find the direct
influence of authentic leadership on communal relationships, as well as the mediating role of affective-
and cognitive-based trust on the association between authentic leadership and communal relationships.
Moreover, a 95% correct bias confidence interval with 5000 bootstrapping-procedure sample estimates
was selected.
In Hypothesis 6, we hypothesized that affective-based trust had a positive mediating influence
on the association between authentic leadership and communal relationships. The results (Table 5)
showed that affective-based trust mediated the association between authentic leadership and communal
relationships (β=0.177, p<0.02), supporting Hypothesis 6.
Table 5. Mediation coefficient and bootstrapping.
Testing Paths Unstandardized Coefficient TSig Bootstrapping
Standard Coefficient Error LLCI ULCI
IV→M (a) 0.553 0.066 8.376 0.0001 0.423 0.683
M→DV (b) 0.302 0.070 4.300 0.0001 0.163 0.440
IV→M→DV (c’) 0.177 0.076 2.331 0.02 0.028 0.327
IV→DV (c) 0.344 0.068 5.063 0.0001 0.210 0.478
Indirect effects 0.167 0.048 0.083 0.327
Note: IV (Authentic leadership), MV (affective-based trust), DV (communal relationships).
Similarly, in Hypothesis 7, it was hypothesized that cognitive-based trust had a positive mediating
influence on the association between authentic leadership and communal relationships. The results
shown in Table 6revealed that cognitive-based trust mediated the association between authentic
leadership and communal relationships (β=0.177, p<0.02), supporting Hypothesis 7.
Table 6. Mediation coefficient and bootstrapping.
Testing Paths Unstandardized Coefficient TSig Bootstrapping
Standard Coefficient Error LLCI ULCI
IV→M (a) 0.520 0.089 5.819 0.0001 0.344 0.697
M→DV (b) 0.190 0.052 3.632 0.0001 0.087 0.294
IV→M→DV (c’) 0.245 0.071 3.432 0.001 0.104 0.386
IV→DV (c) 0.344 0.068 5.063 0.0001 0.210 0.478
Indirect effects 0.099 0.035 0.042 0.182

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 10 of 14
5. Discussion
The present study explored the direct effect of authenticity on employees’ communal relationships
as well as the indirect effect of an authentic leadership on employees’ communal relationships through
affective- and cognitive-based trust.
This study indicated the vital role of authentic leadership in affecting employees’ communal
relationships. As discussed in the literature section, authentic leadership has attracted researchers’
attention due to its positive role in affecting employees and organizational-goal achievements [
16
–
18
],
calling for more empirical work [
7
,
8
,
19
]. We filled this gap by investigating the impact of authentic
leadership on communal relationships among employees working in the banking sector of Pakistan.
Moreover, in line with past studies [
9
], this study revealed the positive role of authentic leadership in
affecting employees’ communal relationships, supporting Hypothesis 1.
On the basis of relational model theory by Fiske [
28
] and its theoretical component, specifically the
communal-sharing mental schema, we argue that, when employees perceive their leader’s behavior as
authentic, they display more concern for their work and take care of organizational fame, which aids
the organization in accomplishing its goals. By adding relational-model theory, this study makes an
important theoretical contribution to the literature in the field of psychology.
In addition, the current study significantly contributes to the existing literature related to authentic
leadership and trust by giving a more comprehensive understanding of the mediating role played
by trust on the association between authentic leadership and employees’ workplace-relationship
outcomes than past studies, which typically hypothesized trust as a one-dimensional construct. Dirks
and Ferrin [
32
], in their meta-analytic review, urged researchers to consider multiple constructs of
trust, including affective- and cognitive-based trust, and “attempt to distinguish between the processes
involved” (p. 623), but very few studies have followed this call [
35
–
37
]. We filled this breach and
explored the indirect effect of authentic leadership on employees’ communal relationships through
affective- and cognitive-based trust. In agreement with our initial expectations, authentic leadership
was found to be positively associated with affective- and cognitive-based trust. In addition, affective-
and cognitive-based trust both positively mediated the relationship between authentic leadership
and employees’ communal relationships. From a social-exchange perspective, our findings have also
revealed that trust stimulates positive workplace-relationship outcomes, which is important; this is
pioneering, as it examined both affective- and cognitive-based trust as a mediating mechanism on
exploring the relationship between authentic leadership with employees’ communal relationships,
making a new contribution to the authentic-leadership literature.
Practical Implications, Limitations, and Future Research
The current study has confirmed that leadership plays an important role in influencing employee
attitudes and behaviors within organizations. The results of the study suggested that an organization
needs to pay specific attention to authentic leadership and to enhance follower workplace-relationship
outcomes, such as employees’ communal relationships. To gain the full benefits of authentic leadership,
organizations should consider integrating components of authentic leadership into their development,
appraisal, and selection processes. For instance, an organization may give more importance to training
both leaders and subordinates to advance their concerns with regard to workplace issues. This results
in more authentic behavior by leaders, as well as enhancing the receptivity of subordinates to such
behaviors. The current study also revealed the vital role of the affective- and cognitive-based-trust
mediating mechanism underlying the relationship between authentic leadership and communal
relationships. This study suggests that leaders should rationally consider approaches they utilize to
influence their subordinates’ behaviors in the workplace. Specifically, our study suggests that authentic
leadership may be used as an instrument by managers to influence employees’ communal relationships
through the development of trust.
This study also had some limitations. First, we only focused on the private banking sector.
Hence, it is suggested that the study should be extended to other work settings to further develop the

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 11 of 14
understanding of relationships between the studied variables. Second, common-method bias was also
a limitation. Furthermore, studies should be expanded to other departments and groups as well. Third,
the current study should be replicated in other countries to increase the generalizability of our findings.
Future studies are encouraged to consider other organizational variables, such as work engagement
and well-being, while focusing on authentic leadership and trust.
6. Conclusions
This study contributes to the existing literature by examining trust-based mechanisms on the
relationship between authentic leadership and employees’ communal relationships. In addition,
it also makes an important contribution by clearly presenting how authentic leadership influences
employees’ communal relationships through affective- and cognitive-based trust. Our results revealed
that both cognitive- and affective-based trust positively mediate the relationship between authentic
leadership and employees’ communal relationships. We hope that the present study will encourage
future researchers to examine the trust-based mechanisms by which authentic leadership influences
employee work outcomes.
Author Contributions:
S.I. and T.F. equally contributed to writing the original draft, the conceptualization, data
collection, formal analysis, and methodology. J.M. provided resources and administered the project. M.K.K.,
Q.Z., and A.K. reviewed and edited the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number
(71871201). The APC was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number (71871201).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Bajaj, R.; Sinha, S.; Tiwari, V. Crucial Factors of Human Resource Management for Good Employee Relations:
A Case Study. Int. J. Min. Metall. Mech. Eng. 2013,1, 90–92.
2.
Tansel, A.; Gazîo˘glu, ¸S. Management-employee relations, firm size and job satisfaction. Int. J. Manpow.
2014
,
35, 1260–1275. [CrossRef]
3.
Kim, J.-N.; Rhee, Y. Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations:
Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. J. Public Relat. Res.
2011
,23, 243–268.
[CrossRef]
4.
Clark, M.S.; Mills, J. Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
1979,37, 12. [CrossRef]
5.
Hon, L.C.; Grunig, J.E. Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations; Institute for Public Relations:
Gainesville, FL, USA, 1999.
6.
Hung, C.-J.F. Exploring types of organization–public relationships and their implications for relationship
management in public relations. J. Public Relat. Res. 2005,17, 393–426. [CrossRef]
7.
Gardner, W.L.; Cogliser, C.C.; Davis, K.M.; Dickens, M.P. Authentic leadership: A review of the literature
and research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 2011,22, 1120–1145. [CrossRef]
8.
Avolio, B.J.; Walumbwa, F.O. Authentic Leadership Theory, Research and Practice: Steps Taken and Steps
that Remain. In The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK,
2014. [CrossRef]
9.
Iqbal, S.; Farid, T.; Ma, J.; Mehmood, Q. Cultivating Employees’ Communal Relationship and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior through Authentic Leadership: Studying the Influence of ProceduralJustice. Psychol. Res.
Behav. Manag. 2018,11, 545. [CrossRef]
10.
Cashman, K.; Forem, J. Awakening the Leader within: A Story of Transformation; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2003.
11.
George, B. Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value; John Wiley and Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003.
12.
George, B.; Sims, P.; McLean, A.N.; Mayer, D. Discovering your authentic leadership. Harv. Bus. Rev.
2007
,
85, 129.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 12 of 14
13.
Avolio, B.J.; Luthans, F. Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In Positive Organizational
Scholarship; Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E., Quinn, R.E., Eds.; Barrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003;
pp. 241–258.
14.
Avolio, B.J.; Walumbwa, F.O.; Weber, T.J. Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009,60, 421–449. [CrossRef]
15.
Crossan, M.M.; Lane, H.W.; White, R.E. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999,24, 522–537. [CrossRef]
16.
Walumbwa, F.O.; Avolio, B.J.; Gardner, W.L.; Wernsing, T.; Peterson, S. Authentic leadership: Development
and validation of a theory-based measure. J. Manag. 2008,34, 89–126. [CrossRef]
17.
Walumbwa, F.O.; Wang, P.; Wang, H.; Schaubroeck, J.; Avolio, B.J. Retracted: Psychological processes linking
authentic leadership to follower behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 2010,21, 901–914. [CrossRef]
18.
Walumbwa, F.O.; Luthans, F.; Avey, J.B.; Oke, A. Retracted: Authentically leading groups: The mediating
role of collective psychological capital and trust. J. Organ. Behav. 2011,32, 4–24. [CrossRef]
19.
Alilyyani, B.; Wong, C.A.; Cummings, G. Antecedents, mediators, and outcomes of authentic leadership in
healthcare: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2018,83, 34–64. [CrossRef]
20.
Boehm, S.A.; Dwertmann, D.J.G.; Bruch, H.; Shamir, B. The missing link? Investigating organizational
identity strength and transformational leadership climate as mechanisms that connect CEO charisma with
firm performance. Leadersh. Q. 2015,26, 156–171. [CrossRef]
21.
Ed
ú
Valsania, S.; Moriano Le
ó
n, J.A.; Molero Alonso, F.; Topa Cantisano, G. Authentic leadership and its
effect on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviours. Psicothema 2012,24, 561–566.
22.
Morris, J.T. The impact of authentic leadership and ethical firm culture on auditor behavior.
J. Behav. Stud. Bus.
2014,7, 1.
23.
Gatling, A.; Kang, H.J.A.; Kim, J.S. The effects of authentic leadership and organizational commitment on
turnover intention. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2016,37, 181–199. [CrossRef]
24.
Bamford, M.; Wong, C.A.; Laschinger, H. The influence of authentic leadership and areas of worklife on
work engagement of registered nurses. J. Nurs. Manag. 2013,21, 529–540. [CrossRef]
25.
Hassan, A.; Ahmed, F. Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci.
2011
,
6, 164–170.
26.
Leroy, H.; Anseel, F.; Gardner, W.L.; Sels, L. Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need
satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. J. Manag. 2015,41, 1677–1697. [CrossRef]
27.
Wong, C.A.; Spence Laschinger, H.K.; Cummings, G.G. Authentic leadership and nurses’ voice behaviour
and perceptions of care quality. J. Nurs. Manag. 2010,18, 889–900. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Fiske, A.P. Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations: Communal Sharing, Authority
Ranking, Equality Matching, Market Pricing; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
29. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Transaction Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
30.
Avolio, B.J.; Gardner, W.L.; Walumbwa, F.O.; Luthans, F.; May, D.R. Unlocking the mask: A look at the
process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadersh. Q.
2004
,15, 801–823.
[CrossRef]
31.
Gardner, W.L.; Avolio, B.J.; Luthans, F.; May, D.R.; Walumbwa, F. “Can you see the real me?” A self-based
model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadersh. Q. 2005,16, 343–372. [CrossRef]
32.
Dirks, K.T.; Ferrin, D.L. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice.
J. Appl. Psychol. 2002,87, 611. [CrossRef]
33.
Schaubroeck, J.; Lam, S.S.; Peng, A.C. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior
influences on team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011,96, 863. [CrossRef]
34.
Yang, J.; Mossholder, K.W. Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. Leadersh. Q.
2010,21, 50–63. [CrossRef]
35.
Zhu, Y.; Akhtar, S. How transformational leadership influences follower helping behavior: The role of trust
and prosocial motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 2014,35, 373–392. [CrossRef]
36.
Dansereau, F.; Yammarino, F.J.; Kohles, J.C. Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some
implications for theory building. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999,24, 346–357. [CrossRef]
37.
Avolio, B.J.; Gardner, W.L. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of
leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2005,16, 315–338. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 13 of 14
38.
Laschinger, H.K.S.; Fida, R. A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying,
burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2014,23, 739–753. [CrossRef]
39.
Leroy, H.; Palanski, M.E.; Simons, T. Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower
commitment and performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2012,107, 255–264. [CrossRef]
40.
Kernis, M.H.; Goldman, B.M. From thought and experience to behavior and interpersonal relationships:
A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity. In On Building, Defending and Regulating the Self:
A Psychological Perspective; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2005; pp. 31–52.
41.
Rego, A.; Sousa, F.; Marques, C.; e Cunha, M.P. Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological
capital and creativity. J. Bus. Res. 2012,65, 429–437. [CrossRef]
42.
Shen, H.; Kim, J.-N. The authentic enterprise: Another buzz word, or a true driver of quality relationships?
J. Public Relat. Res. 2012,24, 371–389. [CrossRef]
43.
Kim, H.-S. A multilevel study of antecedents and a mediator of employee—Organization relationships.
J. Public Relat. Res. 2007,19, 167–197. [CrossRef]
44.
Moon, B.; Rhee, Y. Organizational culture, employee communication strategies, and employee–organization
relationships. Korean J. J. Commun. 2008,52, 122–150.
45.
Haslam, N.; Fiske, A.P. Social expertise: Theory of mind or theory of relationships. In Relational Models
Theory: A Contemporary Overview; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 147–163.
46.
Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.; Burt, R.S.; Camerer, C.F. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998,23, 393–404. [CrossRef]
47.
Penger, S.; ˇ
Cerne, M. Authentic leadership, employees’ job satisfaction, and work engagement: A hierarchical
linear modelling approach. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2014,27, 508–526. [CrossRef]
48. Konovsky, M.A.; Pugh, S.D. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 1994,37, 656–669.
49.
Hsieh, C.-C.; Wang, D.-S. Does supervisor-perceived authentic leadership influence employee work
engagement through employee-perceived authentic leadership and employee trust? Int. J. Hum.
Resour. Manag. 2015,26, 2329–2348. [CrossRef]
50.
McAllister, D.J. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.
Acad. Manag. J. 1995,38, 24–59.
51.
Clapp-Smith, R.; Vogelgesang, G.R.; Avey, J.B. Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital:
The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud.
2009
,15, 227–240.
[CrossRef]
52.
Wang, D.-S.; Hsieh, C.-C. The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement.
Soc. Behav. Pers. 2013,41, 613–624. [CrossRef]
53.
Agote, L.; Aramburu, N.; Lines, R. Authentic leadership perception, trust in the leader, and followers’
emotions in organizational change processes. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2016,52, 35–63. [CrossRef]
54.
Newman, A.; Kiazad, K.; Miao, Q.; Cooper, B. Examining the cognitive and affective trust-based mechanisms
underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and organisational citizenship: A case of the head
leading the heart? J. Bus. Ethics 2014,123, 113–123. [CrossRef]
55.
Zhu, W.; Newman, A.; Miao, Q.; Hooke, A. Revisiting the mediating role of trust in transformational
leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference? Leadersh. Q. 2013,24, 94–105. [CrossRef]
56.
Colquitt, J.A.; Lepine, J.A.; Piccolo, R.F.; Zapata, C.P.; Rich, B.L. Explaining the justice–performance
relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? J. Appl. Psychol.
2012
,97, 1.
[CrossRef]
57.
Heyns, M.; Rothmann, S. Dimensionality of trust: An analysis of the relations between propensity,
trustworthiness and trust. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2015,41, 01–12. [CrossRef]
58.
Den Hartog, D. Trusting others in organizations: Leaders, management and co-workers. In The Trust Process
in Organizations: Empirical Studies of the Determinants and the Process of Trust Development; Edward Elgar Pub:
Cheltenham, UK, 2003; pp. 125–146.
59.
Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag.
2005
,
31, 874–900. [CrossRef]
60.
Clark, M.S.; Ouellette, R.; Powell, M.C.; Milberg, S. Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987,53, 94. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 250 14 of 14
61.
Fornell, C.; Lacker, D. Evaluating structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. Part
B Methodol. 1981,37, 1–25.
62. Hayes, A.F. Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved Dec. 2013,12, 2013.
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).