artificial intelligence Authentic leadership Education electronic visual aids Ethics foreign language instruction Foreign Language Teaching and Learning for Specific Purposes global challenges higher education metacognitive learning Organizational trust pedagogical technology sustainability Workplace transformation

According to Parke & Wormell (1956), the concept of authenticity has its roots in the antient Greek philosophy. Greek maxim “Know Thyself” was inscribed in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi and means: “Anyone who had true understanding of themselves, and who knew their place in the world, would live wisely”. Although the roots of authenticity go back several thousand years, but more than twenty years ago the AL field was little explored by scholars. Concerned that AL would be interpreted differently and recognizing the need for a theory-based model identifying AL, the Gallup Leadership Institute (GLI) of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in June 2004 organized summit to stimulate scholarly and practitioner interest in the topic.

As the result of this summit, Bruce J. Avolio and William L. Gardner presented special issue (2005): Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership – the collection of articles with a wide variety of theoretical traditions on what might constitute authentic leadership.

Anyone who had true understanding of themselves, and who knew their place in the world, would live wisely

As the result of this summit, Bruce J. Avolio and William L. Gardner presented special issue (2005): Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership – the collection of articles with a wide variety of theoretical traditions on what might constitute authentic leadership.

“In the lead article, we present a comprehensive, self-based model of authentic leader and follower development (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumba, 2005). Our central premise is that through increased self-awareness, self-regulation, and positive modeling, authentic leaders foster the development of authenticity in followers. In turn, followers’ authenticity contributes to their well-being and the attainment of sustainable and veritable performance.” (Avolio and Gardner 2005).

The second model by Ilies, Morgeson and Nahrgand (2005)  advances authentic leader and follower development “that focuses on the elements of authenticity and the processes whereby authentic leadership contributes to the eudaemonic well-being of leaders and followers.” (Avolio and Gardner 2005).

“Both of these models draw heavily from the work of Kernis (2003), although there are some differences in their application of his ideas. As part of a larger theory of optimal self-esteem, Kernis identifies four core elements of authenticity: self-awareness, unbiased processing, relational authenticity, and authentic behavior/action. Although Ilies et.al. (2005) use the same terms in their model, we modify them slightly to better reflect our conception of authentic leadership.” (Avolio and Gardner 2005).

Except A.H. Eagly (2005) study, when she considers cases where leaders who transparently expressed and acted upon their core values, nonetheless failed to achieve what she calls relational authenticity with followers, Bruce J. Avolio and William L. Gardner concluded that AL make positive impact and Emphasizes the importance of further in-depth research: “We have reviewed and extended an emerging perspective on authentic leadership development and performance that helps to explain the underlying processes and factors by which authentic leaders and their followers can positively impact sustained performance. In doing so, we believe the perspective advanced makes several important contributions and suggests additional directions for future theory building and research.”

Since leadership implies the successful management of a team, research on the influence of personal identity and collective (group) identity on AL seems more important than ever. Authentic leadership research has placed little emphasis on the way in which collective processes are shaped by leaders’ relationship with their group, and it has largely overlooked how individuals respond to leaders as a function of their relationship with the group they lead. “Our findings draw attention to the importance of the collective for authentic leadership in showing that beliefs about leader authenticity are shaped by others perceiving them as having an awareness not only of their personal identity.“ (Steffens, N. K., Wolyniec, N., Okimoto, T. G., Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., & Kay, A. A. (2021).

The experimental study investigates the impact of authentic leadership on followers’ morality, operationalized as ethical decision-making, in the face of temptation. “Ethical decisions and behaviors are the result of a complex set of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. We have highlighted the important role of authentic leadership as a critical interpersonal, contextual factor that morally strengthens followers and promotes them to make more ethical decisions when faced with temptation.” (Cianci, Hannah, Roberts, Tsakumis, 2014)

Most research emphasizes the influence of authentic leadership on the team and the organization, but what influence does such leadership have on the leader himself, whose mental well-being affects others in one way or another? Several studies demonstrate the overall positive effects of authentic leadership on follower behavior, meanwhile the effects of authentic leadership on leaders themselves remain poorly understood (Gardner et al., 2011). “This is problematic, given that leaders represent the backbone of organizations, even beyond the domain of business, and their effective functioning and well-being is essential for an organization’s success. Specifically, research has shown that leaders’ mental well-being has an important influence on both employees’ well-being and leaders’ effectiveness.” (Weiss, M., Razinskas, S., Backmann, J., Hoegl, M. (2018).

               Susanne Braun and Karolina W.A.M. Nieberle created the work-home resources model to understand individual and team perceptions of authentic leadership in relation to followers’ work-family conflict (WFC) and enrichment (WFE). “This research sheds light on authentic leadership as a resource at the work-family interface. Authentic leadership relates negatively to followers’ WFC and positively to WFE. We also demonstrated the importance of teams’ shared perceptions of authentic leadership for followers’ WFE and the role of leaders’ WFC as a boundary condition. We hope to inspire future work considering authentic leaders’ conflicts at the work-family interface as well as shared perceptions of authentic leadership.“ (Braun, S., Nieberle, K. W. (2017).

               The lack of comprehensive studies of authentic leadership opens up even more serious problems. Mats Alvesson and Katja Einola (2019): “We study authentic leadership as a prominent but problematic example of positive leadership that we use as a more general “warning” against the current fashion of excessive positivity in leadership studies. Without trying to cover “everything”, we critically examine the principal tenets of mainstream authentic leadership theory and reveal a number of fundamental flaws: 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.” They claim that authentic leadership as it is currently practiced in leadership studies is not helpful. It is a pseudo-solution, risking making organizational life even more full of faking and contradictions camouflaged by rosy images than it already is. “Leadership” is hardly referred to at all in authentic leadership theory; there is almost nothing on how the authentic leader is supposed to act.” (Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019).

None of these studies has produced a clear profile of the ideal leader, but “No one can be authentic by trying to imitate someone else. You can learn from others’ experiences, but there is no way you can be successful when you are trying to be like them. People trust you when you are genuine and authentic, not a replica of someone else.” (George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N., & Mayer, D. (2007).

“Fortunately, there are ways of increasing outsight and evolving toward an “adaptively authentic” way of leading, but they require a playful frame of mind.” – Herminia Ibarra (2015) says. Her research suggests three important ways to get started: “1. Learn from diverse role models. 2. Work on getting better. 3. Don’t stick to “your story.” (Ibarra, H. (2015).

The early 21^st century challenges prompted scholars and business leaders to propagate new leadership theory that could be effective. “Authentic leadership is a construct that incorporates traits, behaviors, styles and skills to promote ethical and honest behavior and thus has greater positive long-term outcomes for leaders, their followers and their organizations. According to proponents of the theory, authenticity is believed to make leaders more effective, lead with meaning, purpose, values and be better equipped to deal with organizational challenges.” (Covelli and Mason, 2017).

Findings and Insights

In summary, it can be said that authentic leadership can successfully serve organizations and individuals. As authentic leaders cultivate self-awareness, it helps them become better decision-makers and gives more self-confidence. Leaders with high levels of self-awareness tend to achieve better financial results. Authentic leaders work on themselves and improve themselves; it helps employees grow and develop. Authentic leaders make decisions driven by their core values and they inspire faith; the more they are trusted by others, and it leads to better relationships with colleagues. Being mission driven, authentic leaders provide a sense of collective purpose that drives employee engagement and leads to greater success and greater productivity.
The biggest gap is lacking a theory-based model identifying AL, the clear rules how authentic leader is supposed to act. The lack of a clear definition of AL leads to confusion of authenticity and sincerity and provokes speculation. All studies show that it is unclear influence of authentic leadership on the leader himself.
Authenticity becomes a challenge when too much of a burden is placed on adhering to some rigid idea of a “true self”, because the real “me” may not be perfect.