Authentic reflections on authentic leaders and their actions: Introducing the point–counterpoint exchange

Abstract

To be considered an authentic person, one must be seen as being “true” or “genuine” or “real” (Lehman et al., 2019). However, what exactly does this mean? In the case of leadership, this is a complicated question that has become even murkier with the emergence of various definitions of authentic leadership. In ChatGPT (which relies on a variety of sources), authentic leadership is defined as including self-awareness, transparency, consistency, empathy, relational focus, moral and ethical grounding, resilience, and positive role modeling (ChatGPT, 2023). Wow—that is a lot of components! This certainly goes beyond the meaning of “true” or “genuine” or “real” and beyond the four components represented in the commonly used measure of authentic leadership (ALQ: see Avolio et al., 2018; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Along with other scholars, I question how often and how many of these components we need to witness to perceive someone as an authentic leader? Clearly, there is room for scholarly debate about what authentic leadership is and is not. In this point–counterpoint (PCP) exchange, the authors of the focal article and commentaries do a deep dive into leader authenticity through a variety of lenses.

The focal article, by Helmuth and colleagues, raises questions over the utility of empirical authentic leadership research which they argue has mistakenly conflated authentic actions with the notion of authentic leaders. They present arguments highlighting that a single instance of authentic or inauthentic behavior from leaders does not make leaders wholly authentic (or inauthentic). Instead, these authors suggest that such actions contribute to shaping their authenticity over time, either enhancing or diminishing it. The key point made in the focal article is that authenticity should be attributed to actions over time, and not to the individual leaders themselves. Helmuth et al. conclude by presenting some potential pathways that scholars could take in the future to learn about authenticity within a leadership context. Following this focal article, a series of four commentaries are presented where scholars share their unique views on authenticity and authentic leadership.

In the first commentary, which happens to be the most skeptical in this PCP exchange, Einola and Alvesson pose questions about the nature of authentic leadership and about the focal article itself. In their conclusion, they ask “Is the article by Helmuth et al simply playing with semantics to save a shipwrecked theory from sinking?” They are not supportive of introducing a new measure to this field of study, but they are in favor of intellectual humility and “rocking of the boat” (even if only modest rocking).

The second commentary by Gardiner also calls for scholarly debate (yes, it is fun!) regarding how to study authentic leadership. Her reflections in this commentary stem from her doctoral student days when she explored authenticity and leadership through the dual lens of existential hermeneutic phenomenology and feminist theory. She brings a unique viewpoint with less focus on developing consensus and new measures; and instead, she calls for scholars to dive deeper into authenticity's philosophical lineage and to examine authenticity's etymological beginnings.

Next, Gooty, Banks, McBride, and van Knippenberg also call for a return to the theoretical foundations of authenticity. Like Gardiner, they highlight the need to examine the philosophical roots of authenticity (existential humanist philosophy). In terms of counterpoints, they raise concerns about conflation of concepts, the unverifiability of the assumption of the true self, the question about multiple selves, and the utility of “authentic action” in the case of non-prototypical leaders. These authors call for scholars to continue developing the nomological network of authenticity and authentic actions via an inclusive lens and considering counterfactuals.

In the final commentary, Ostermeier, Cooper, and Medina-Craven agree that a morally neutral conceptualization of authentic leadership might more closely align with authenticity's philosophical origins. They state that the proposed alternative approach (“authenticity of actions”) could help to answer questions that are focused on authentic behavior in particular contexts and see the study of authenticity of actions as an intriguing extension to existing approaches. Despite their enthusiasm, they also call for more empirical testing to ascertain how much “authenticity of actions” adds value to the field. They question: Can subordinates accurately perceive their supervisor's identities or values? Should authenticity research take a “best self” perspective or a “true self” perspective? What about other established related constructs, such as behavioral integrity? These authors express concern that introducing a new approach such as “authenticity of actions” could lead to further confusion in the field.

The great interest in authentic leadership continues to grow (e.g., Kim et al., 2023; Lux et al., 2023) and so does scholarly debate, as evidenced by this PCP exchange. While the terms and phrases used by the authors in this exchange may seem somewhat pessimistic at times (“hot mess,” “sinking ship,” and “minefield”), the broad range of ideas presented in this exchange gives me hope for the future of authentic leadership research. Perhaps studying authentic actions, instead of authentic people, is the way forward? Only time and authentic empirical research will tell ….

There is no conflict of interest.