Authentic leadership
Authentic leadership, while having no formal or unequivocal definition, is a growing field in academic research.[1] The idea has also been embraced by leaders and leadership coaches, who view it as an alternative to leaders who emphasize profit and share price over people and ethics. There appears to be some consensus in the literature about the qualities an authentic leader must have. These include self-awareness, the ability to trust one's thoughts, feelings, motives and values, self reflection, responsiveness to feedback, and the ability to resolve conflict in honest and non-manipulative ways. An authentic leader is supposedly able to further the success of an organization within the confines of social and ethical values, even when that seems impossible. Authentic leadership is claimed to be a superior model due to the greater trust and motivation it invokes in subordinates. Much of the evidentiary basis for authentic leadership has been called into question[2] and papers have been retracted.[3][4][5]
Historical background[edit]
The concept of "authenticity" can trace its history back to ancient Greece. Ancient Greek philosophers stressed authenticity as an important state through an emphasis on being in control of one's own life and the ubiquitous admonition: "Know thyself".[6][7] Authentic leadership as we know it today evolved from the history of these terms. It originated in the 1960s as a means to describe how an organization reflects itself authentically through leadership.[1] Some believed that an entire organization could act authentically like a single person through responsibility, reactions to uncertainty, and creativity.[8] Others believed that authentic leadership is actually more about how the leaders define their own role within an organization.[9]
Recently, authentic leadership has garnered more attention among scholars and practitioners because of publications from Harvard professor and former Medtronic CEO Bill George[10][11] and other calls for research.[12] The past decade has seen a surge in publications about authentic leadership, producing new models, definitions, and theories. The emphasis on conceptual development suggest that the concept is still in the initial stages of construct evolution, though as the scholarly research on the topic progresses, the types of publications produced appear to be shifting from mostly conceptual pieces to more and more empirically based articles. This shift may be indicative of a nascent emergence of the construct from an introduction and elaboration evolutionary stage to one marked by evaluation and augmentation.[1]
Becoming an authentic leader[edit]
The basis of authentic leadership comes from the leader's personal history, including life-events (often called trigger events) that direct the flow of leadership formation.[29] How leaders interpret these personal histories and trigger events will inform their self-identity as leaders and influence their moral development and values, two essential components in the development of authentic leaders.[30] Because authenticity in leadership is rooted in being true to one's own ideals of leadership and ethical values, authentic leadership is brought about through a lifetime of experiences and is resistant to traditional training programs. Development of authentic leaders involves guided self-reflection, building self-awareness through the use of a life-stories approach. An authentic leader who is aware of their core beliefs is unlikely to stray from them. There is now emerging evidence that group-coaching is an effective approach to Authentic Leadership Development.[31][32][33] It may also be facilitated by the intervention of developmental trigger events coupled with directed self-reflection.[30] Recognizing leadership contingency theory, which suggest that leaders must adapt their styles and behaviors to be effective across different situations, some leadership development theorists have pointed out that only the most expert of leaders can incorporate the needs of varying situations and different or diverse followers into their own underlying value system so as to remain authentic while also being effective across diverse leadership contexts.[34]
Relationship to other leadership theories[edit]
The end of the twentieth century saw a rise of new theories of leadership that attempt to understand how leaders not only direct and manage, but also inspire their followers in unique ways. The construct of charismatic leadership was introduced in Max Weber in the 1920s but greatly expanded upon by leadership theorists beginning in the 1970s and continuing to today.[35] Charismatic leadership theories attempt to capture the attributes and behaviors of extraordinary leaders in extraordinary situations (including variances of either dimension) in order to understand unusual or unique responses of followers.[36] A short time later, transformational leadership theory was developed extensively. This theory differentiated "transformational" leadership behaviors from "transactional" leadership behaviors; transformational leaders inspire extraordinary action by providing insight to followers regarding the importance of their work and its outcomes, by calling on followers to subordinate their self-interest to that of the organization, and by motivating followers through activation of higher-order needs.[35] More recent examples of what have been called neo-charismatic leadership theories include servant leadership, ethical leadership, spiritual leadership, and visionary leadership.
Authentic leadership proponents and scholars suggest that authentic leadership is conceptually distinct from these other approaches to leadership. There is empirical support for this position, as studies have shown that authentic leadership can explain variance in leadership performance over and above that explained by other leadership theories, such as transformational leadership and ethical leadership.[13] At the same time, some theorists have suggested that authentic leadership is but one (albeit important) aspect of other forms of leadership.[37] This ambiguous understanding of what distinguishes authentic leadership theory from other leadership theories may be considered a signal that, despite growing research into authentic leadership, the theory remains at the beginning stages of construct development; more research will be required to draw distinctions among these various leadership theories.[1] Many of these theories are also underdeveloped; thus the differentiation problem cannot be strictly attributed to authentic leadership theory development.[38]
Criticism[edit]
Despite the popularity of the construct, many foundational papers on this topic have recently been retracted or called into question because of issues surrounding the reporting of data and the inability of the authors to produce their original data.[39][40] Moreover, there have been some recent high-profile criticisms of the theoretical basis of the construct,[41][42] which has been said to be built on "shaky philosophical and theoretical foundations, tautological reasoning, weak empirical studies, nonsensical measurement tools, unsupported knowledge claims and a generally simplistic and out of date view of corporate life".[43]
Future research[edit]
Since authentic leadership is still in its infancy from a research point of view, it is necessary to further develop the theory behind it. Most articles written on the topic so far have been theoretical, suggesting that the pursuit of more empirical research is an appropriate next step.[1] Moreover, there have not been any properly causally-identified empirical tests of the construct[44] given the difficulty (or more likely impossibility) of manipulating authenticity in a consequential setting.[43]