Authentic Leadership

Abstract

Authentic leadership has been studied across a variety of disciplines (e.g., education, construction management, and nursing) and from numerous perspectives such as philosophy and psychology. However, the formal study of authentic leadership within the management literature surged following the publication of a seminal book chapter by Luthans and Avolio in 2003. Authentic leadership is most commonly defined 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” (Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure, cited under Empirical Research: Quantitative Research: Measurement, p. 94). Authentic leadership has been linked to a number of positive leader, follower, and organizational outcomes, suggesting that it holds much promise for helping leaders, followers, and their organizations to more effectively address the multitude of ethical and performance challenges found in the 21st-century workplace. Although the preceding definition and core dimensions of authentic leadership represent the most prevalent perspective on the construct, there are alternative perspectives and critiques of this dominant view. Radical Authentic Leadership: Co-creating the Conditions under Which all Members of the Organization Can Be Authentic (cited under Theoretical Foundations of the Authentic Leadership Construct: Philosophical Conceptualizations of Authentic Leadership) advances an alternative philosophical perspective of authentic leadership, and Authentic Leadership: Clashes, Convergences, and Coalescences (cited under Authentic Leadership Books: Scholarly Books) captures some of the “clashes, convergences, and coalescences” that have emerged within the authentic leadership literature in an edited volume on the topic. Questions have also been raised about the applicability of authentic leadership principles across cultural, occupational, industrial, structural, and temporal contexts that merit investigation, as discussed in ‘Can You See the Real Me?’ A Self-Based Model of Authentic Leader and Follower Development (cited under Theoretical Advances in Authentic Leadership). While authentic leadership is clearly related to ethical, spiritual, and transformational leadership, it is also conceptually distinct, as discussed in Taking Stock of Moral Approaches to Leadership: An Integrative Review of Ethical, Authentic, and Servant Leadership (cited under General Overviews/Literature Reviews). Specifically, it is differentiated by its focus on leader and follower authenticity and the emphasis placed on the four core components of self-awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, and an internalized moral perspective. The merits of the conceptual and empirical support for authentic leadership theory have been increasingly discussed and debated in recent years, as evidenced by Alvesson and Einola’s 2019 critique of the theory and the ensuing exchange of leaders in Authentic Leadership Theory: The Case for and Against (cited under Critiques of Authentic Leadership Theory).