Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 22 Issue 4

Consequently, an authentic leader possesses sound level of emotional intelligence and is empathetic to the needs of others including any personal issue that might derail an employee/follower from tapping his/her full potentials at work. Historically, it was Bill George’s 2003 published book on “Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value” that projected the authentic leadership approach into widespread acceptance by managers and chief executives of corporations. The leadership expose spurred the 21st leaders-managers to lead with heart, mind, and passion (Nikol-ic, Kvasic and Grbic, 2020). Advocates of authentic leadership avow that this approach to leadership is best fitted to inspire trust, loyalty, and strong performances from employees; because the leader acts in a real, genuine, and sincere way that is true to whom he/she is as an individual. Pratt (2021) affirm that authentic leaders focus on transparent and ethical leadership behaviour, make room for others (even listens to the opinion of the least of the ranked employees and accept their inputs) encouraging open sharing of information for the best decisions. Charismatic Leadership: With this approach the leader doesn’t just dish out instructions but demonstrates to subordinates what he/she expects from them by setting high standards through examples, rather than mere communicated enthusiasm (Balogun, 2015). Similar to transforming leadership, charismatic leadership approach stimulates passion to excel at tasks in their teams and is strong spirited in inspiring others to move forward; however, the difference is that the “Do as I do” mentality is actually high with charismatic leaders. Laisssez-faire Leadership: Though the origin of the Laissez-faire leadership concept is not certain, but its French meaning “Allow to do” was a politico-economy doctrine in the 19th century. The notion was that individuals pursuing their own desired ends by themselves would consequently achieve the best results for the society; hence the state was to maintain order/security and avoid interference with the initiative of individuals in pursuit of their own desired goals (Nikoloski, 2015). Thus, laissez-faire leaders do not offer too much instruction or guidance, neither do they interfere nor get too involved in the leadership process itself; instead, they let employees use their creativity, resourcefulness, and experience to achieve set goals. Adebayo and Bharat (2016) clearly note that laissez-faire approach to leadership is absolutely hands-offish and is also referred to as delegated leadership where subordinates or group members not only make decisions, but the one leading does not perform leadership duties. In order words, the individual is more a mannequin leader who practically does not engage or involve in any meaningful management or control activities. b) Leadership Subterfuge Leadership subterfuge has long been a major issue in organisations and political systems, but lacks empirical research exposition, making it a nascent concept in organisational psychology and management sciences. Some scholars describe leadership subterfuge as “hyper autocratic leadership” and some others describe it as “destructive leadership”. Fidelis and Ezika (2021) aver that just as autocratic approach to leadership is characterised by the centralization of decision-making and concentration of directive power in a single dominant leader; leadership subterfuge heightens the dictatorship tendencies by denying followers all opportunities to participate in decision- making, making it a catalyst for arbitrariness and authoritarianism. They further buttress that leadership subterfuge is the most domineering, demanding and controlling form of leadership where those at the helm of affairs design and change things the way it pleases their personal interest, issuing commands with expectations of outright compliance without any objection whatsoever. Gastil (2020) argue that such leadership lacks fair-mindedness, transparency and accountability, equity, and justice in handling affairs; and could be as destructive as violating social contract agreements of fundamental human rights and liberties. B. C. Smith in his 1998 work, described leadership subterfuge as a system where followers are treated as objects in their participation in schemes, and though they are those most affected by the decisions or policies, yet they make no iota of contribution. Smith further revealed that the leadership-followership relationship rather becomes a forced labour with inauthentic participation. Ominisi (2015) conceptualised leadership subterfuge as a leaders’ volitional behavior that places employees in jeopardy by encouraging them to pursue the leaders’ personal objectives that contravene the legitimate common interests of the organisation. He further argues that such leaders go to the length of employing coercive methods of influence with followers, like physical or economic exchanges. Some other scholars define leadership subterfuge as the antithesis of authentic approach to leadership, where leaders adopt personas different from what they truly are. Krasikova, Green and Lebreton (2013) aver that it is subterfuge because a leader employs exaggerated assurances to spur support and compliance from followers, but none of the promises they intend to fulfill. And for governmental leaders who are employers of labour in public organisations, they not only default in fulfilling their obligations, but also become inaccessible to their followers or employees. In other words, leadership subterfuge is the manifestation of the direct and indirect behavioral deception of leaders in projecting the opposite of what they claim to be. Implications of Leadership Subterfuge on Collective Bargaining and Organisational Crisis Management: A Case of Nigeria Public Universities 4 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue IV Version I Year 2022 ( ) A © 2022 Global Journals