I am not referring to a mixture of positive & negative but rather letting the PBI consist of all negative items.

My reasons for suggesting this are theoretical rather than methodological: is  perceived misalignment not going to be a better predictor than perceived alignment?

Is it not more theoretical sound to measure promises broken than promises kept.

In most of the articles I read I find referral to perceived misalignment as having determental effects while perceived alignment just serves the status quo.

I was wondering why the items in the BI-survey are all positively formulated?

If I understand the theory correctly, it would seem that perceived misalignment would be a more powerful predictor?

(easier to keep promises rather rectify a broken promise)

I cannot find the exact reason for this in the literature.

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? 

as to affect-based trust and cognitive-based trust:  i am not persuaded of McAllister & Lewicki's distinction... if the two trust types are distinct, there must be tremendous spillover between them.  That said, I appreciate your intuition and you might be right.

I do not fully agree with denoting authenticity as perceived self-disclosure. In essence, authenticity is a self-referential construct and integrity is a perception by others. Authenticity depicts the process that leads to perceived integrity.

However, suppose I use the terms of perceived behavioral integrity and perceived authenticity. Am I correct to infer that perceived reliability will be the main driver of perceived behavioral integrity and perceived value/goal congruence as the main driver of perceived authenticity? And will behavioral integrity be cognitive-based trust and perceived authenticity affective-based trust?

A second question you raise is about the role of self-disclosure and thus authenticity.  I think people will make some inference about authenticity from the level of BI they see.  And I also think that a leader's authentic personal alignment behind espoused and enacted values will facilitate alignment between the two and so facilitate BI.  I am not sure what other factors followers examine in assessing their leaders' authenticity... but I suspect it is mostly or wholly inference based on very indirect evidence.

Did I get at your underlying question?

One passage in this paper defines behavioral integrity as the perceived alignment between words and deeds. Furthermore, this definition distinguishes it from more traditional vision of integrity that espouses a moral undertone. I believe this an important conceptualization in the integrity domain as it effectively deals with the fact that these morales are often subjective and in this sense integrity often becomes a normative concept.

A remark to this however: later the paper states that because of this view on integrity and a possible mismatch on values between persons: "one might not support the colleague's actions or seek vulnerability to him". However is vulnerability not one of the key antecedents or components to building trust? Later trust is defined as "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party." (rather than positive expectations based largely on the ascription of benevolence and value or goal congruity). Nevertheless it is hypothesized that "that BI is likely to affect trust and mistrust through both the mechanisms of perceived reliability and of ?perceived value or goal congruity?" Can someone clarify my confusion?

Perhaps an example may further clarify my problems with this. If my manager is consistent in words and actions, I probably will see him as a just person and I even might believe that he will not mislead me. However I have no way of telling if his words reflect his underlying values. In other words, I still have no way of telling whether he is manipulating the situation. Doesn't he need to open up first, so people know what he stands for. In research terms: Will the amount of self-disclosure (cf. vulnerability) influence the relationship between behavioral integrity and trust? Or in other words will self-disclosure help distinguish in the impact of behavioral integrity on the difference between trust and mistrust as defined by Sitkin and Roh (1993) and described by Fox (1974)?

My main problem here is with the value or goal congruence as a necessary ingredient. If we fully agree in values and goals with our boss, we might lose the potentially creative individuals that some businesses desperataly need.

These are just some firsthand thoughts on rereading the paper. Perhaps I need to delve into the literature a little bit further to solve my own conundrum. Any suggested readings that may clarify this further?