Both concepts are suggested to be able to help leaders cope with a business environment that is in a constant flux of change.

Indeed in an ever evolving business environment, it has become important to have a clearly defined vision & mission for the future (transformational leadership) as well as living by this vision and mission (behavioral integrity).

This is a very insightful article. I am somewhat confused however whether BI is a root contruct for transformational leadership. Bass & Steidlmeier (1999) differentiated the terms authentic transformational leadership from pseudo-transformational leadership. The differences between both is whether the proposed vision and mission are really acted upon. Whether intentions also meet reality in some way.

In this regard these authors give the example that some may see Hitler as a transformational leader, but that in no way his efforts were in the authentic best interest of the people.

In personal communication with Bill Gardner at the recent AoM meeting, I heard that some recent authors see authenticity as an important qualifier to other leadership theories, similar tot the ideas of Bass & Steidelmeier (1999) above. For instance, you can be a charismatic leader and drive your employees to excellent performance with brilliant visions for the future. However, if you yourself do not believe in those visions ... it might still enhance motivation in the short term ... but it will be seen as manipulative and trust-eroding in the long run.

Given this background, I am curious just exactly how BI would tie in with transformational leadership in reserch. What would we expect of both construct in terms of work-related outcomes (e.g. commitment). Do they have an independent contribution, is the effect of transformational leadership mediated by BI-perceptions or do they interact?