Authentic Leadership

Authentic Leadership is a leadership approach that emphasizes transparency, ethics, and a leader's genuine self-expression. This style encourages leaders to be true to their values and beliefs, fostering an environment of trust and collaboration within their teams. Authentic leaders are characterized by self-awareness, the ability to foster positive relationships, and a commitment to ethical decision-making. They often engage in open communication and encourage feedback, creating a culture where team members feel valued and empowered. This leadership style is thought to enhance employee engagement and satisfaction, leading to improved organizational performance. Authentic Leadership also acknowledges the importance of diverse perspectives and seeks to build inclusive environments where all voices are heard. Overall, it represents a shift away from traditional authoritative models, advocating for a more humane and relational approach to leadership.

Published in: 2021

By: Zimmer, Scott, MLS

Subject Terms

Authentic Leadership

Abstract

Authentic leadership is a concept that began to emerge in its modern form in the 1960s but can be traced to its theoretical origins as far back as ancient Greece. Fundamentally, authentic leadership characterizes an individual who combines two qualities. The first is a deep level of understanding of one's own internal emotional and psychological state, an awareness of one's values, beliefs, and priorities (Bellin, 2012). The second is a commitment to behaving in ways consistent with these values, beliefs, and priorities. The result is a leader able to inspire trust, projecting an image such that "what you see is what you get."

Overview

A number of different factors have been identified as contributing to the development of authentic leadership, in addition to the traits of self awareness and self consistency noted above. One of these traits is the presence of frequent and effective self monitoring. This requires an individual to make it a personal priority to take time to reflect on his or her behavior and assess whether that behavior seems to be in line with the individual's espoused ideals. Only when a mechanism for self monitoring exists is it possible to embody a commitment to self-consistency (Godino, 2013).

Another factor that supports authentic leadership is optimism. The role of leaders is often to decide what goal an organization will pursue, from among a variety of options. Because managers of organizations do not normally plan to fail, they generally pursue goals that they believe they can attain. Determining an organizational goal requires that a leader have a realistic understanding of the capability of the organization and its members, but it also requires a degree of faith in the organization—a belief that through hard work and careful planning, things will work out. This quality is at the heart of optimism, and it is essential for a leader to project such optimism, because without it there is not much chance that people in the organization will feel inspired to work to their utmost ability. After all, why should staff members do their best if they get the sense from the boss that the project has little chance of succeeding? Furthermore, optimism is difficult to fake, which is unsurprising given its connection with authentic leadership (Watson & Johnson, 2013). If an organization's workers believe that leaders are only feigning optimism in order to lead them into working harder, then the long-term consequences for the organization will usually be worse than if no such deception had been attempted.

Closely related to the quality of optimism, and equally important for authentic leadership to be possible, is a leader's sense of hope. It can be difficult to determine the difference between optimism and hope because there is a large amount of overlap between the two, and in everyday language, people tend to use the words interchangeably. Organizational psychologists distinguish hope and optimism as follows: Optimism is the ability to acknowledge one's own contributions to positive events while also being able to interpret negative events as being partially caused by factors outside of one's control. Hope is defined as an outlook that allows one to develop goals and to perceive how those goals can be achieved. Naturally, it would be difficult for a leader to function without either optimism or hope, because without optimism she would blame herself for setbacks and attribute successes to temporary good luck, while the absence of hope would prevent her from even conceiving of goals to strive for, much less the means of achieving them. On the other hand, a leader armed with hope and optimism is prepared to embark on a journey with her organization, giving and receiving support along the way.

The third major component underlying authentic leadership's practice of self-awareness and self-consistency is resiliency. Resiliency is the ability to recover one’s sense of equilibrium after a stressful event (Woldeyes, 2014). Examples of stressful events include a severe illness, the loss of a job, divorce, or even a promotion that entails additional responsibility. When such events occur, a natural response is to experience stress and discomfort. Some people will have difficulty moving beyond those feelings, while others will adapt within a reasonable time frame to the new circumstances and be able to return to the level of functionality they enjoyed before the stress-inducing event. Those in the latter category are said to be more resilient (Ladkin & Spiller, 2013). Resiliency is needed for authentic leadership because any organization or individual can expect to experience setbacks while working toward a goal; the only cases in which this does not happen are those in which the actor has chosen a goal so simple to achieve that it is virtually without significance.

When all of these components are present, authentic leadership is possible. Resiliency, optimism, and hope are required in order for a leader to function effectively—the leader must be able to conceive of worthwhile goals and the means of achieving them, while having the internal strength to avoid being deterred by setbacks and doubts. If these qualities are in place, and the leader is able to exercise self-awareness and self-consistency, then possibilities of transformation can open up at the individual and organizational levels. This is because of the power of authentic leadership to build and maintain trust throughout the organization. Authentic leadership’s main benefit is that it encourages people to have faith in one another and to bring down the protective barriers that most people surround themselves with on a daily basis. By lowering these defenses, new and more powerful connections become possible, and previously isolated members of the organization are able to share their knowledge and experience with one another.

Applications

Some research into the nature and efficacy of authentic leadership has highlighted the fact that it tends to be highly context dependent. In other words, authentic leadership is believed to grow out of an individual’s collected life experiences; it is difficult, if not impossible, to “make” someone an authentic leader. Instead, authentic leadership is a quality that emerges on its own. (Some argue that it can be helped along the way by deliberately engaging in self-reflective activities.) The idea here is that the root of authentic leadership is the leader’s particular combination of life experiences and ethical perspectives, which together produce a set of core beliefs and values (Auerbach, 2012).

If the leader is able to stay in touch with those beliefs and values while continuing her work, then authentic leadership can be achieved. For many leaders, however, it appears that the ability to remain authentic is grounded in the context with which they are most familiar. For example, if one were to take a highly successful corporate executive who is adept at leading his team authentically to achieve greater profits while maintaining a high level of quality, and place him in a position with a nonprofit organization that has as its mission the provision of in-home assistance to the elderly, there would likely be some difficulty experienced by all concerned. The executive would likely still be able to lead the nonprofit, but doing so in an authentic manner would present some challenges (Redmond, 2009). This is because the executive has a fully developed set of values and priorities that pertain specifically to the profit-oriented, corporate sphere of activity. He is so thoroughly familiar with this realm that he is able to fulfill his role authentically with very little conscious effort. This is not so with the demands of the nonprofit leadership role, which is so foreign to him that he must struggle to understand its system of values and will be able to authentically enact them only after he has spent sufficient time becoming accustomed to them and embracing them.

Another perspective on how to develop authentic leaders is largely in agreement with the preceding paragraph but puts the process in a positive light. Instead of being discouraged by the somewhat ineffable nature of authentic leadership, which makes it difficult to train leaders in authenticity, researchers point out that authentic leadership is an emergent property that develops out of how one responds to one’s life circumstances, and this means that everyone has the potential to become an authentic leader. If authentic leadership were an inborn trait, then only a lucky few would have access to it and the rest of the population would be without it (Mundahl, 2013). Happily, that is not the case, according to the more egalitarian branch of authentic leadership research.

In the same way that many scientists have come to believe that an individual’s characteristics are determined by a combination of genetics and environment—nature and nurture—many in the field of authentic leadership research affirm that people from all walks of life have access to the elements necessary for developing into an authentic leader. While there is little doubt that this view tends to gloss over many of the significant obstacles people face—discrimination, poverty, physical or mental illness, and so forth—the idea that at least in the realm of leadership development everyone is equal has attracted many adherents because it is largely in agreement with Western ideas of meritocracy, rugged individualism, and “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps.” It is important to keep in mind that while the benefits of authentic leadership are theoretically attainable by everyone, for most people they will remain elusive without a concerted effort being made to develop the qualities upon which authentic leadership relies.

Viewpoints

There is widespread agreement that self-awareness is the most difficult of authentic leadership qualities to attain, as it requires a level of honesty and introspection that most people do not have either time or courage to pursue. This is because most people spend a large portion of their waking hours trying to fit in with groups of other people, whether at work, at home, at school, or elsewhere. Fitting in usually requires some degree of compromise on the part of each person, and over time these compromises tend to accumulate, bringing one further and further away from one’s core identity. Rediscovering this core identity can be a time-consuming and even painful process, as it forces the recollection of the many compromises one has made, some unwillingly. The more challenges a person faces in her day-to-day life—financial, relational, emotional, etc.—the more difficult it will be to devote the time and energy necessary to developing the self-awareness that is required for authentic leadership (Neider & Schriesheim, 2014).

A concept frequently associated with authentic leadership is that of transparency. This refers to an absence of subterfuge and to an affirmative effort to be as open as possible with one’s team and with other actors in the environment. By definition, one cannot practice authentic leadership if one feels the need to conceal one’s motives or behavior, because the very act of concealment is contrary to the nature of authenticity (Heminsley, 2013). When a leader strives for transparency, she makes it a priority to communicate to her constituents not simply the nature of a decision and its immediate consequences but also the reasons for taking the decision, particularly if the matter at hand is a sensitive one.

For example, when a company finds it necessary to lay off some of its employees in order to stay in business, the situation is extremely difficult for those who are being let go and for those who remain but fear that they might be next. The anxiety that surrounds the issue makes it easy for people to look for someone to blame and to try to avoid being the target of blame. For this reason, many leaders facing the situation simply announce the cuts and terminate the discussion, hoping to put an end to unrest. Usually this approach has the opposite effect, as it increases feelings of anger, mistrust, and fear. An authentic leader would likely take a different approach, by including with the announcement an explanation of what factors contributed to the decision. To continue the example, it might be that the company’s online sales have taken off while its brick-and-mortar sales have steadily declined, leading management to the conclusion that if someone has to be cut, it should be from the retail locations the firm operates. This information may not make it any easier for the employees who are affected to cope with the dire news, but it does make it more difficult for people to interpret the reductions as attributable to malice or incompetence.

The result is that people are more likely to have a sense that they are being dealt with fairly, even if the situation remains an unpleasant one. It should be remembered, however, that transparency is not always as simple as it sounds, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to implement. Situations that involve confidential information or legal liability may sometimes prevent leaders from being as transparent as they might wish to be, although even in these situations it may be possible to at least share a description of the constraints preventing disclosure.

Terms & Concepts

Extrinsic motivation: A set of factors that are outside of oneself and encourage one to grow and develop. Extrinsic motivation can relate to physical items (wanting to earn more money to afford a new car or new house) or to intangible qualities and relationships with other people (wanting to achieve so that one’s spouse or boss will be proud, for example). Extrinsic motivation is often seen as less reliable because one has less control over it.

Hope: A positive outlook that allows one to conceive of worthwhile goals and to imagine realistic means by which those goals may be accomplished.

Internalized moral perspective: The moral “touchstone” that an authentic leader uses as a frame of reference when interacting with others; the set of assumptions about what is right and wrong and what is important and trivial, which guide the leader’s actions.

Intrinsic motivation: Intrinsic motivation comes from within and encourages one to develop one’s skills for reasons of personal satisfaction rather than to achieve an outward result or to gratify another person. Intrinsic motivation is seen as more powerful than extrinsic motivation, because it is less subject to change.

Optimism: The ability to accept credit for one’s part in success and to properly attribute failure to outside factors beyond one’s control.

Resiliency: The ability to recover from stressful events rather than being burdened by them for an extended period of time.

Transparency: Operating in an open and honest manner, sharing as much information as possible about decisions and internal functions of the organization so that the organizations members and clients are more likely to trust that they are being treated fairly and honestly.

Bibliography

Auerbach, S. (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bellin, W. (2012). Self mastery and mindful leadership: How to maximise your capacity for authentic and effective leadership. Edgecliff, Australia: Jane Curry.

Godino, P. (2013). The business alchemist: A road map to authentic and inspirational leadership. Australia : Hay House.

Heminsley, T. (2013). Awaken your authentic leadership: Lead with inner clarity and purpose. Vancouver, Canada : Authentic Leadership Global.

Kehan, X., Weipeng, L., Jenny C., L., & Lei, W. (2016). Employee trust in supervisors and affective commitment: The moderating role of authentic leadership. Psychological Reports, 118(3), 829–848. Retrieved December 21, 2016, from EBSCO online database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=116000220&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Ladkin, D., & Spiller, C. (2013). Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Mundahl, S. (2013). The alchemy of authentic leadership. Bloomington, IN: Balboa Press.

Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. (2014). Advances in authentic and ethical leadership. Charlotte, NC : Information Age.

Redmond, K. (2009). Leadership by engagement: Leading through authentic character to attract, retain, and energize. Newmarket, Canada: Centre for Character Leadership.

Watson, L. W., & Johnson, J. M. (2013). Authentic leadership: An engaged discussion of LGBTQ work as culturally relevant. Charlotte : Information Age.

Woldeyes, B. S. (2014). Transformative spaces: Enabling authentic female leadership through self transformation—the case of AWiB. Wien: Lit Verlag.

Authentic Leadership

On this Page

Subject Terms

Authentic Leadership

Abstract

Overview

Applications

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading