The Authentic Leadership Racket

For the past couple of decades, “authentic leadership” has been slapped on books, keynote speeches, and corporate training decks like a shiny, feel-good badge. After a wave of corporate meltdowns and trust issues, everyone was desperate for leaders who weren’t, well, fake. And voila! Authentic leadership™ rode in on a wave of positive psychology, promising a remedy for society’s lack of optimism and confidence.

The widely accepted academic version boils it down to four key traits: being self-aware, processing information in a balanced way, being transparent in relationships, and having an internalized moral perspective. Sounds great on paper, right? Who wouldn’t want a leader like that? But here’s where the wheels start to come off this particular bandwagon.

What Exactly Is This “Authenticity”? 

There may be a fundamental screw-up at the conceptual level. The academic idea of authentic leadership, as it’s been measured and studied, largely skipped over where the idea of authenticity actually came from: existential philosophy, thinkers like Sartre and Heidegger. In that world, authenticity isn’t some fixed state of “Being” that a leader either has or doesn’t have. Authenticity resides in the action, the choice made in a specific moment.

Leaders are constantly faced with pressure from “the Other” – organizational norms, team expectations, bosses. An authentic action is when a leader resists that external pull and acts according to their “Self”. Inauthenticity is giving in to the pressure. You don’t become an authentic leader, you have moments of acting authentically or inauthentically. It’s a continuous process, something you move towards (or away from), not a destination you arrive at.

But the standard authentic leadership model, rooted in social psychology rather than existentialism, dropped this crucial focus on actions and instead focused on the leader’s “Being”. It also added a moral component, saying authentic leaders must have an “internalized moral perspective”. Philosophically, though, authenticity and ethics are separate; an authentic action doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an ethical one. Acting “true to self” might not always align with what others consider morally right. This addition was a significant departure from authenticity’s theoretical origins.

The tools used to measure authentic leadership often just ask people to rate how much certain statements fit a “leadership style,” not whether specific actions were authentic or inauthentic. This further solidifies the academic field’s conflation of a leader’s potential “Being” with the authenticity of their specific actions.

Promises, Promises… And Not Much Else

Despite these fundamental conceptual problems, scholarly interest in authentic leadership has exploded. The literature is flooded with studies linking this “authentic leadership” (as measured by questionnaires) to a laundry list of good outcomes: follower trust, well-being, job satisfaction, performance, reduced burnout – you name it, authentic leadership supposedly fixes it.

But here’s the cold reality. Most of this research is based on simple correlation studies using questionnaires. People rate their boss as “authentic” (based on behaviors often seen as positive, regardless of underlying “authenticity”) and also report positive feelings or outcomes. This isn’t exactly ironclad proof that the specific authenticity part of the leader is driving those results, or that the measure is even capturing “authentic leadership per se” as a style. It risks making “false promises” to organizations looking for a silver bullet. The sources suggest the behaviors measured might just be generally beneficial leadership behaviors, which could be enacted authentically or inauthentically.

While one source argues for “authentic transformational leadership” as being superior and leading to positive outcomes and managerial excellence, linking specific characteristics like transparency, trust, and wisdom to positive results, this doesn’t necessarily resolve the core critique about defining and measuring authenticity itself. It just adds another layer to the “dysfunctional family of positive leadership theories”.

So You Wanna Be “Authentic”? Good Luck With That.

Perhaps the most dangerous part of this hype is the pressure it puts on individuals. The focus on “who the leader is,” emphasizing the “true self” over the demands of the “role,” can cause real identity trouble. Trying to live up to the idealized, constant state of authenticity proposed by the mainstream theory is exhausting and possibly impossible.

Leadership requires navigating complex, messy situations, often calling for diplomacy, compromise, and adapting your behavior. An uncompromising pursuit of being “true to yourself” without considering the context or the impact on others can lead to conflict and getting in trouble. The theory conveniently ignores these potential negative outcomes and tensions. It sets an unrealistically high bar and can leave individuals feeling like failures for not meeting an impossible ideal.

Cut the BS, Focus on Actions

The concept of “authentic leadership,” as it’s predominantly defined and measured, is a flawed construct. It missed the philosophical boat, confused a dynamic process with a static state, and added questionable moral baggage. Its supposed benefits are often based on shaky research methods.

Instead of chasing the unicorn of the perfectly “authentic leader,” we should focus on understanding the authenticity of specific actions. How do leaders make choices under pressure? What are the consequences of acting authentically (true to self) versus inauthentically (conforming to external forces) in different situations? This is where the real, messy, and insightful work lies, not in rating leaders on a questionnaire about whether they fit a pre-defined, questionable ideal. Actions are authentic, not people. Let’s start studying that.

Sources:

Einola, K., & Alvesson, M. (2021). The perils of authentic leadership theory. Leadership, 17(4), 483-490.

Helmuth, C. A., Cole, M. S., & Vendette, S. (2023). Actions are authentic, but are leaders? A reconceptualization of authenticity and leadership practice. https://repository.tcu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/b0a083de-0ae4-4dd8-afaa-ad1403539593/content

Murari, K., & Mukherjee, U. (2021). Role of authentic transformational leadership for managerial excellence and sustainability. Psychology and Education, 58(4), 3612-3628.