Queen Essays

9 AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP

DESCRIPTION Authentic leadership represents one of the newer areas of leadership research. It focuses on whether leadership is genuine and “real.” As the title of this approach implies, authentic leadership is about the authenticity of leaders and their leadership. Unlike many of the theories that we have discussed in this book, authentic leadership is still in the formative phase of development. As a result, authentic leadership needs to be considered more tentatively: It is likely to change as new research about the theory is published.

In recent times, upheavals in society have energized a tremendous demand for authentic leadership. The destruction on 9/11, corporate scandals at companies like WorldCom and Enron, deliberate misinformation and claims of “fake news,” and civil unrest resulting from incidents of racial injustice have all created anxiety and uncertainty. People feel apprehensive and insecure about what is going on around them, and as a result, they long for bona fide leadership they can trust and for leaders who are honest and good. People’s demands for trustworthy leadership make the study of authentic leadership timely and worthwhile.

In addition to the public’s interest, authentic leadership has been intriguing to researchers: It was identified earlier in transformational leadership research but never fully articulated (Bass, 1990; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Burns, 1978; Howell & Avolio, 1993). Furthermore, practitioners had developed approaches to authentic leadership that were not evidence based and so needed further clarification and testing. In attempts to more fully explore authentic leadership, researchers set out to identify the parameters of authentic leadership and more clearly conceptualize it, efforts that continue today.

Authentic Leadership Defined

On the surface, authentic leadership appears easy to define. In actuality, it is a complex process that is difficult to characterize. Among leadership scholars, there is no single accepted definition of authentic leadership. Instead, there are multiple definitions, each written from a different viewpoint and with a different emphasis (Chan, 2005).

One of those viewpoints is the intrapersonal perspective, which focuses closely on the leader and what goes on within the leader. It incorporates the leader’s self-knowledge, self-regulation, and self-concept. In their description of the intrapersonal approach, Shamir and Eilam (2005) suggest that authentic leaders exhibit genuine leadership, lead from conviction, and are originals. This perspective emphasizes the life experiences of a leader and the meaning one attaches to those experiences as being critical to the development of the authentic leader.

A second way of defining authentic leadership is as an interpersonal process. This perspective outlines authentic leadership as relational, created by leaders and followers together (Eagly, 2005). It results not from the leader’s efforts alone, but also from the response of followers. Authenticity emerges from the interactions between leaders and followers. It is a reciprocal process because leaders affect followers and followers affect leaders.

Finally, authentic leadership can be defined from a developmental perspective, which is exemplified in the work of Avolio and his associates (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005b; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). This perspective, which underpins the approaches to authentic leadership discussed in the following section, views authentic leadership as something that can be nurtured in a leader, rather than as a fixed trait. Authentic leadership develops in people over a lifetime and can be triggered by critical life events, such as a severe illness or a new career.

Taking a developmental approach, Walumbwa et al. (2008) conceptualized authentic leadership as a pattern of leader behavior that develops from, and is grounded in, the leader’s positive psychological qualities and strong ethics. They suggest that authentic leadership is composed of four distinct but related components: self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). Over a lifetime, authentic leaders learn and develop each of these four types of behavior.

Approaches to Authentic Leadership

Formulations about authentic leadership can be differentiated into two areas: (1) the practical approach, which evolved from real-life examples as well as the training and development literature; and (2) the theoretical approach, which is based on findings from social science research. Both approaches offer interesting insights about the complex process of authentic leadership.

Practical Approach

Books and programs about authentic leadership are popular today; people are interested in the basics of this type of leadership. Specifically, they want to know the “how to” steps to become an authentic leader. In this section, we discuss Bill George’s (2003) authentic leadership approach.

Bill George’s Authentic Leadership Approach.

The authentic leadership approach developed by George (2003; George & Sims, 2007) focuses on the characteristics of authentic leaders. George describes, in a practical way, the essential qualities of authentic leadership and how individuals can develop these qualities if they want to become authentic leaders.

Based on his experience as a corporate executive and through interviews with a diverse sample of 125 successful leaders, George found that authentic leaders have a genuine desire to serve others, they know themselves, and they feel free to lead from their core values. Specifically, authentic leaders demonstrate five basic characteristics: (1) They have a strong sense of purpose, (2) they have strong values about the right thing to do, (3) they establish trusting relationships with others, (4) they demonstrate self-discipline and act on their values, and (5) they are sensitive and empathetic to the plight of others (George, 2003).

Figure 9.1 Authentic Leadership Characteristics

Source: From Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value by Bill George, copyright © 2003.

Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Figure 9.1 illustrates five dimensions of authentic leadership identified by George: purpose, values, relationships, self- discipline, and heart. The figure also illustrates each of the related characteristics—passion, behavior, connectedness, consistency, and compassion—that individuals need to develop to become authentic leaders.

In his interviews, George found that authentic leaders have a real sense of purpose. They know what they are about and where they are going. In addition to knowing their purpose, authentic leaders are inspired and intrinsically motivated about their goals. They are passionate individuals who have a deep-seated interest in what they are doing and truly care about their work.

A good example of an authentic leader who exhibited passion about his goals was Terry Fox, a cancer survivor, whose right leg was amputated above the knee after a malignant tumor was discovered. Using a customized leg prosthesis, Terry attempted to run across Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to raise awareness and money for cancer research. Although he died before he finished his run, his courage and passion affected the lives of millions of people. He also accomplished his goals to increase cancer awareness and to raise money for cancer research. Today, the Terry Fox Foundation is going strong and has raised more than $800 million (Canadian) for cancer research (www.terryfox.org). Of the dimensions and characteristics in Figure 9.1, Terry Fox clearly demonstrated purpose and passion in his leadership.

Authentic leaders understand their own values and behave toward others based on these values. Stated another way, George suggests that authentic leaders know their “True North.” They have a clear idea of who they are, where they are going, and what the right thing is to do. When tested in difficult situations, authentic leaders do not compromise their values, but rather use those situations to strengthen their values.

An example of a leader with a strong set of values is Nobel Peace Prize laureate Nelson Mandela. Mandela was a deeply moral man with a strong conscience. While fighting to abolish apartheid in South Africa, he was unyielding in his pursuit of justice and equality for all. When he was in prison and was offered early release in exchange for denouncing his viewpoint, he chose to remain incarcerated rather than compromise his position. Nelson Mandela knew who he was at his core. He knew his values, and his leadership reflected those values.

A third characteristic of authentic leadership in the George approach is strong relationships. Authentic leaders have the capacity to open themselves up and establish a connection with others. They are willing to share their own story with others and listen to others’ stories. Through mutual disclosure, leaders and followers develop a sense of trust and closeness.

George argued that people today want to have access to their leaders and want their leaders to be open with them. In a sense, people are asking leaders to soften the boundary around their leadership role and to be more transparent. People want to have a trusting relationship with their leaders. In exchange, people are willing to give leaders greater loyalty and commitment.

As we discussed in Chapter 7 (leader–member exchange theory), effective leader–follower relationships are marked by high- quality communication in which leaders and followers demonstrate a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation

toward each other. Leaders and followers are tied together in productive ways that go beyond the stereotypical leader–follower relationship. This results in strong leader–member relationships, greater understanding, and higher productivity.

Self-discipline is another dimension of authentic leadership and is the quality that helps leaders to reach their goals. Self- discipline gives leaders focus and determination. When leaders establish objectives and standards of excellence, self- discipline helps them to reach these goals and to keep everyone accountable. Furthermore, self-discipline gives authentic leaders the energy to carry out their work in accordance with their values.

Like long-distance runners, authentic leaders with self-discipline are able to stay focused on their goals. They are able to listen to their inner compass and can discipline themselves to move forward, even in challenging circumstances. In stressful times, self-discipline allows authentic leaders to remain cool, calm, and consistent. Because disciplined leaders are predictable in their behavior, other people know what to expect and find it easier to communicate with them. When the leader is self-directed and “on course,” it gives other people a sense of security.

Last, the George approach identifies compassion and heart as important aspects of authentic leadership. Compassion refers to being sensitive to the plight of others, opening one’s self to others, and being willing to help them. George (2003, p. 40) argued that as leaders develop compassion, they learn to be authentic. Leaders can develop compassion by getting to know others’ life stories, doing community service projects, being involved with other racial or ethnic groups, or traveling to developing countries (George, 2003). These activities increase the leader’s sensitivity to other cultures, backgrounds, and living situations.

In summary, George’s authentic leadership approach highlights five important features of authentic leaders. Collectively, these features provide a practical picture of what people need to do to become authentic in their leadership. Authentic leadership is a lifelong developmental process, which is formed and informed by each individual’s life story.

Theoretical Approach

Although still in its initial stages of development, a theory of authentic leadership is emerging in social science literature (see Kumar, 2014; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2015; Peus, Wescher, Streicher, Braun, & Frey, 2012). In this section, we identify the basic components of authentic leadership and describe how these components are related to one another.

Background to the Theoretical Approach.

Although people’s interest in “authenticity” is probably timeless, research on authentic leadership is rather recent. Luthans and Avolio (2003) published one of the first articles on the topic, focusing on authentic leadership development and positive organizational scholarship. Initial writing on authentic leadership gave rise to a leadership summit at the University of Nebraska. This summit was sponsored by the Gallup Leadership Institute and focused on the nature of authentic leadership and its development. From the summit, two sets of publications emerged: (1) a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly in the summer of 2005, and (2) Monographs in Leadership and Management, titled “Authentic Leadership Theory and Process: Origins, Effects and Development,” also published in 2005.

Interest in authentic leadership increased following 9/11, a time in which there was a great deal of societal upheaval and instability in the United States. The attacks of 9/11, widespread corporate corruption, and a troubled economy all created a sense of uncertainty and anxiety in people about leadership. Widespread unethical and ineffective leadership necessitated the need for more humane, constructive leadership that served the common good (Fry & Whittington, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003).

In addition, researchers felt the need to extend the work of Bass (1990) and Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) regarding the meaning of authentic transformational leadership. There was a need to operationalize the meaning of authentic leadership and create a theoretical framework to explain it. To develop a theory of authentic leadership, researchers drew from the fields of leadership, positive organizational scholarship, and ethics (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005b).

A major challenge confronting researchers in developing a theory was to define the construct and identify its characteristics. As we discussed earlier in the chapter, authentic leadership has been defined in multiple ways, with each definition emphasizing a different aspect of the process. For this chapter, we have selected the definition set forth by Walumbwa et al. (2008), who defined authentic leadership 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. (p. 94)

Although complex, this definition captures the current thinking of scholars regarding the phenomenon of authentic leadership and how it works.

Different models have been developed to illustrate the process of authentic leadership. Gardner et al. (2005b) created a model that frames authentic leadership around the developmental processes of leader and follower self-awareness and self- regulation. Ilies, Morgeson, and Nahrgang (2005) constructed a multicomponent model that discusses the impact of authenticity on leaders’ and followers’ happiness and well-being. In contrast, Luthans and Avolio (2003) formulated a model that explains authentic leadership as a developmental process. In this chapter, we will present a basic model of authentic leadership derived from the research literature that focuses on the core components of authentic leadership. Our discussion will examine authentic leadership as a process.

Components of Authentic Leadership.

In an effort to further our understanding of authentic leadership, Walumbwa and associates (2008) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature and interviewed groups of content experts in the field to determine what components constituted authentic leadership and to develop a valid measure of this construct. Their research identified four components: self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency (Figure 9.2). Together, these four components form the foundation for a theory of authentic leadership.

Description

Figure 9.2 Authentic Leadership

Sources: Adapted from “Authentic Leadership Development,” by F. Luthans and B. J. Avolio, in K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, and R. E.

Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 241–258), 2003, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; and “‘Can You See the

Real Me?’ A Self-Based Model of Authentic Leader and Follower Development,” by W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, F. Luthans, D. R. May,

and F. O. Walumbwa, 2005, The Leadership Quarterly, 16, pp. 343–372.

Self-awareness refers to the personal insights of the leader. It is not an end in itself but a process in which individuals understand themselves, including their strengths and weaknesses, and the impact they have on others. Self-awareness includes reflecting on your core values, identity, emotions, motives, and goals, and coming to grips with who you really are at the deepest level. In addition, it includes being aware of and trusting your own feelings (Kernis, 2003). A meta-analysis including 11 studies and more than 3,500 respondents found that emotional intelligence is significantly and positively related to authentic leadership (Miao, Humphrey, & Qian, 2018). Leaders with high emotional intelligence are more self-aware and able to benefit from reflection on their past experiences to improve their authenticity.

When leaders know themselves and have a clear sense of who they are and what they stand for, they have a strong anchor for their decisions and actions (Gardner et al., 2005b). Other people see leaders who have greater self-awareness as more authentic. More recently, research has shown that self-knowledge and self-consistency also have a positive impact on followers’ satisfaction with leaders, organizational commitment, and perceived team effectiveness (Leroy et al., 2015; Peus et al., 2012).

Internalized moral perspective refers to a self-regulatory process whereby individuals use their internal moral standards and values to guide their behavior rather than allow outside pressures to control them (e.g., group or societal pressure). It is a self- regulatory process because people have control over the extent to which they allow others to influence them. Others see leaders with an internalized moral perspective as authentic because their actions are consistent with their expressed beliefs and morals.

Balanced processing is also a self-regulatory behavior. Although not completely clear from its title, it refers to an individual’s ability to analyze information objectively and explore other people’s opinions before making a decision. It also means avoiding favoritism about certain issues and remaining unbiased. Balanced processing includes soliciting viewpoints from those who disagree with you and fully considering their positions before taking your own action. Leaders with balanced processing are seen as authentic because they are open about their own perspectives but are also objective in considering others’ perspectives.

Relational transparency refers to being open and honest in presenting one’s true self to others. It is self-regulating because individuals can control their transparency with others. Relational transparency occurs when individuals share their core feelings, motives, and inclinations with others in an appropriate manner (Kernis, 2003). It includes the individuals showing both positive and negative aspects of themselves to others. In short, relational transparency is about communicating openly and being real in relationships with others.

Factors That Influence Authentic Leadership.

There are other factors such as positive psychological capacities, moral reasoning, and critical life events that influence authentic leadership (Figure 9.2). Individuals perceive the critical events that occur in their lives according to their capacities for confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience and for moral reasoning, which is related to how they cultivate the qualities needed to be authentic leaders.

The four key positive psychological capacities that have an impact on authentic leadership—confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience—have been drawn from the fields of positive psychology and positive organizational behavior (Table 9.1; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Positive attributes predispose or enhance a leader’s capacity to develop the components of authentic leadership discussed in the previous section. Each of these attributes has a trait-like and a state-like quality. They are believed to be malleable and can be enhanced with training.

Table 9.1 Related Positive Psychological Capacities

Confidence Optimism

Hope Resilience

Source: Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship

(pp. 241–258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Confidence refers to having self-efficacy—the belief that one has the ability to successfully accomplish a specified task. Leaders who have confidence are more likely to be motivated to succeed, to be persistent when obstacles arise, and to welcome a challenge (Bandura, 1997; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Hope is a positive motivational state based on willpower and goal planning (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Authentic leaders with hope have goals they know can be accomplished; their hope inspires followers to trust them and believe in their goals. Optimism refers to the cognitive process of viewing situations from a positive light and having favorable expectations about the future. Leaders with optimism are positive about their capabilities and the outcomes they can achieve. They approach life with a sense of abundance rather than scarcity (Covey, 1990). Resilience is the capacity to recover from and adjust to adverse situations. It includes the ability to positively adapt to hardships and suffering. During difficult times, resilient people are able to bounce back from challenging situations and feel strengthened and more resourceful as a result of them (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).

Moral reasoning is another factor that can influence authentic leadership (Figure 9.2). It is the capacity to make ethical decisions about issues of right or wrong and good or bad. Developing the capacity for moral reasoning is a lifelong process. Higher levels of moral reasoning make it possible for the authentic leader to make decisions that transcend individual differences and align individuals toward a common goal. They enable leaders to be selfless and make judgments that serve the greater good of the group, organization, or community. Moral reasoning capacity also enables authentic leaders to use this ability to promote justice and achieve what is right for a community. An extended discussion of how moral reasoning develops is provided in Chapter 13.

Critical life events are major events that shape people’s lives, and therefore also shape individuals’ development as authentic leaders (Figure 9.2). The events can be positive, like receiving an unexpected promotion, having a child, or reading an important book; or they can be negative, like being diagnosed with cancer, getting a negative year-end employment evaluation, or experiencing the death of a loved one. Critical life events act as catalysts for change. Shamir and Eilam (2005) argued that authentic leadership rests heavily on the insights people attach to their life experiences. Authentic leaders often express their genuine emotions and values through telling stories about their pasts—particularly stories that are sensitive, negative, and even embarrassing (Lemoine, Hartnell, & Leroy, 2019). When leaders tell their life stories, they gain greater self- knowledge, more clarity about who they are, and a better understanding of their role. By understanding their own life experiences, leaders become more authentic.

Critical life events also stimulate growth in individuals and help them become stronger leaders (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). For example, Howard Schultz (founder and chairman emeritus of Starbucks) tells a story about when he was little: His father, who was a delivery driver, fell and was hurt on the job but did not have health insurance or workers’ compensation. Seeing the problems that resulted from his father’s difficulties, when Schultz built Starbucks he provided comprehensive health insurance for employees who worked as few as 20 hours a week. Schultz’s style of leadership was triggered by his childhood experience (“Howard Schultz,” 2008).

Authentic leadership is a unique approach to understanding leadership due to its focus on leaders’ self-concept and their corresponding self-expression (Lemoine et al., 2019). As such, authentic leadership is consistent with the movement of positive organizational behavior with its emphasis on an individual’s personal experiences, traits, and development to enhance organizational performance (Yavuz, 2020).

As the theory of authentic leadership develops further, other antecedent factors that influence the process may be identified. To date, however, it is positive psychological capacities, moral reasoning, and critical life events that have been identified as factors that are influential in a person’s ability to become an authentic leader.

HOW DOES AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP WORK? In this chapter, we have discussed authentic leadership from a practical and theoretical perspective. Both perspectives describe authentic leadership as a process that develops in leaders over time; however, each perspective provides a different description for how authentic leadership works.

The practical approach provides prescriptions for how to be authentic and how to develop authentic leadership. For example, the George approach focuses on five characteristics leaders should develop to become authentic leaders. More specifically,

George (2003) advocates that leaders become more purposeful, value centered, relational, self-disciplined, and compassionate. The essence of authentic leadership is being a leader who strongly demonstrates these five qualities.

Rather than simple prescriptions, the theoretical approach describes what authentic leadership is and what accounts for it. From this perspective, authentic leadership works because leaders demonstrate self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency. Leaders develop these attributes through a lifelong process that is often influenced by critical life events. In addition, the literature suggests that positive psychological capacities and moral reasoning have a significant impact on authentic leaders.

Authentic leadership is a complex process that emphasizes the development of qualities that help leaders to be perceived as trustworthy and believable by their followers. The job of authentic leaders is to learn to develop these qualities and apply them to the common good as they serve others.

Throughout this chapter, we have focused on the development of authentic leadership in the leader. Recent research has focused on the effects of authentic leadership on followers, and the impact of followers on authentic leadership development. Xu, Zhao, Li, and Lin (2017) and Semedo, Coelho, and Ribeiro (2016) not only found that authentic leadership correlates directly to followers who thrive at work, but also found a positive relationship between employee creativity and authentic leadership. Rego, Sousa, Marques, and Pina e Cunha (2014) found similar results regarding creativity, and also found positive relationships between authentic leadership and employees’ hope. Stander, Beer, and Stander (2015) found that authentic leadership led significantly to optimism and trust, and that those qualities led directly to stronger work engagement. Finally, research has shown that the four key positive psychological attributes that have an impact on authentic leadership— confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience—explain why authentic leaders may have followers who are more proactive. Authentic leadership is related to the psychological state of followers and indirectly influences them to invest in their work, maintain passion for what they do, and solve problems proactively (Hu et al., 2018).

Furthermore, Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang, and Wu (2014) directly investigated, and positively correlated, the impact of authentic leadership on follower performance. Azanza, Moriano, Molero, and Lévy Mangin (2015) extended the findings of positive relationships between authentic leadership and work engagement to also include employee satisfaction and intent to stay while Kumar (2014) studied the effects of authentic leadership on followers’ psychological ownership of their organizations. Wei, Li, Zhang, and Liu (2018) report that authentic leadership increases followers’ task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. This effect is enhanced by followers’ views of the leader’s competence and their own work engagement.

Finally, Lyubovnikova, Legood, Turner, and Mamakouka (2017) found that authentic leadership was effective in directing teams. Because authentic leaders encourage team members to reflect on team goals and strategies and openly communicate about them, these followers often exhibit more flexibility and higher performance.

STRENGTHS Authentic leadership has several strengths. First, it fulfills an expressed need for trustworthy leadership in society. During the past 20 years, failures in public and private leadership have created distrust in people. Authentic leadership helps to fill a void and provides an answer to people who are searching for good and sound leadership in an uncertain world. When a leader is authentic, it gives followers a clear picture of who the leader is and how the leader will act. It informs their understanding of the leader and whether or not they can depend on this person’s leadership.

Second, authentic leadership provides broad guidelines for individuals who want to become authentic leaders. Both the practical and theoretical approaches clearly point to what leaders should do to become authentic leaders. Social science literature emphasizes that to be authentic it is important for leaders to have self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency. Taken together, these approaches provide a map for becoming an authentic leader.

Third, similar to transformational, inclusive, and servant leadership, authentic leadership has an explicit moral dimension. Underlying both the practical and theoretical approaches is the idea that authenticity requires leaders to do what is “right” and “good” for their followers and society. Authentic leaders understand their own values, place followers’ needs above their own, and work with followers to align their interests to create a greater common good. Steffens, Mols, Haslam, and Okimoto (2016) found that when a leader champions the collective good, followers are more inspired, and the leader’s authenticity is enhanced.

Authentic leadership emphasizes that authentic values and behaviors can be developed in leaders over time. Authentic leadership is not an attribute that only some people exhibit: Everyone can develop authenticity and learn to be more authentic. For example, leaders can learn to become more aware and transparent, or they can learn to be more relational and other- directed. Leaders can also develop moral reasoning capacities. Furthermore, Luthans and Avolio (2003) contended that leaders can learn to develop positive psychological capacities such as confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience, and can use these to create a positive organizational climate. There are many ways that leaders can learn to become authentic leaders over a lifetime.

Finally, authentic leadership can be measured using the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ). The ALQ is a validated, theory-based instrument comprising 16 items that measure four factors of authentic leadership (Avolio et al., 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Nearly a decade after its development, Avolio, Wernsing, and Gardner (2018) reexamined the ALQ and concluded that the four-factor structure of the measure (self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency) is supported using recently developed statistical techniques. As research moves forward in refining authentic leadership theory, it is valuable to have an established instrument of this construct that is based in theory and can be used to measure authentic leadership in future research.

CRITICISMS Despite increased research on authentic leadership, a number of questions still need to be addressed about the theory. First, the concepts and ideas presented in George’s practical approach are not fully substantiated. While the practical approach is interesting and offers insight on authentic leadership, it is not built on a broad empirical base, nor has it been tested for validity. Because of its reliance on a leader’s personal experiences, the authentic leadership approach can make it difficult to predict the course of action an authentic leader will take. Without research support, the ideas set forth in the practical approach should be treated cautiously as explanations of the authentic leadership process.

Second, the moral component of authentic leadership is not fully explained. Whereas authentic leadership implies that leaders are motivated by higher-order end values such as justice and community, the way that these values function to influence authentic leadership is not clear. Authentic leaders judge what is moral based on personal experience and not societal norms. This raises a number of questions. For example, how are a leader’s values related to a leader’s self-awareness? Or, what is the path or underlying process through which moral values affect other components of authentic leadership? In its present form, authentic leadership does not offer thorough answers to these questions.

Third, researchers have questioned whether positive psychological capacities should be included as components of authentic leadership. Although there is an interest in the social sciences to study positive human potential and the best of the human condition (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003), the rationale for including positive psychological capacities as an inherent part of authentic leadership has not been clearly explained by researchers. In addition, some have argued that the inclusion of positive leader capacities in authentic leadership broadens the construct of authentic leadership too much and makes it difficult to measure (Cooper et al., 2005). In a review of the authentic leadership theory and research, Alvesson and Einola (2019) concluded that the foundations of the theory are too shaky for the theory to have inspired the popularity it has among scholars and that the promise offered by consultants and inspirational talks are not well grounded in research evidence. It is fair to say that at this point in the development of research on authentic leadership, the role of positive psychological capacities in authentic leadership theory needs further clarification.

In addition, new research is required to determine if the millennial generation can be effectively led by authentic leaders. This generation’s individualism, commitment to work–life balance, and subsequent preference for extrinsic rewards have been identified by Anderson, Baur, Griffith, and Buckley (2017) as potential stumbling points for effectively leading millennials as followers using the model of authentic leadership.

Finally, it is not clear how authentic leadership results in positive organizational outcomes. Given that it is a relatively new area of research, it is not unexpected that there are few data on outcomes. Research has begun to come out on organizational outcomes (see Azanza et al., 2015; Gatling, Kang, & Kim, 2016; Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Pina e Cunha, 2012; Semedo et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2017), but more data are necessary to substantiate the value of the theory. In addition, Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, and Wu (2018) questioned the degree to which authentic leadership contributes to explaining differences in follower performance and work attitudes. They conducted a meta-analysis and found that authentic leadership failed to explain significant incremental variance in these outcomes over and above transformational leadership, leaving the authors to conclude that the authentic leadership approach’s utility is low. Although authentic leadership is intuitively appealing on the surface, questions remain about whether this approach is effective, in what contexts it is effective, and whether authentic leadership results in productive outcomes. In some contexts, authenticity may be counterproductive. For example, in some organizations, expressing what one really thinks might be risky and lead to being fired or marginalized by one’s boss and/or coworkers (Alvesson & Einola, 2019).

Relatedly, it is also not clear in the research whether authentic leadership is sufficient to achieve organizational goals. For example, can an authentic leader who is disorganized and lacking in technical competence be an effective leader? Authenticity is important and valuable to good leadership, but how authenticity relates to effective leadership is unknown. Sidani and Rowe (2018) reconceptualized authentic leadership as a process of followers legitimizing a leader’s authenticity based on moral judgments. They provide the example of former U.S. president Donald Trump, whose followers view him as having self-awareness and relational transparency (Mintz, 2015). These followers share Trump’s value system and believe that he is genuine, and while those with a different value system may disagree, his influence lies in the followers who make his behavior legitimate. Clearly, future research should be conducted to explore how follower perceptions of authentic leadership translate into the attainment of organizational outcomes.

APPLICATION Because authentic leadership is still in the early phase of its development, there has been little research on strategies that people can use to develop or enhance authentic leadership behaviors. While there are prescriptions set forth in the practical approach, there is little evidence-based research on whether these prescriptions or how-to strategies actually increase authentic leadership behavior.

In spite of the lack of intervention research, there are common themes from the authentic leadership literature that may be applicable to organizational or practice settings. One theme common to all of the formulations of authentic leadership is that people have the capacity to learn to be authentic leaders. In their original work on authentic leadership, Luthans and Avolio (2003) constructed a model of authentic leadership development. Conceptualizing it as a lifelong learning process, they argued that authentic leadership is a process that can be developed over time. This suggests that human resource departments may be able to foster authentic leadership behaviors in employees who move into leadership positions.

Another theme that can be applied to organizations is the overriding goal of authentic leaders to try to do the “right” thing, to be honest with themselves and others, and to work for the common good. Authentic leadership can have a positive impact in organizations. For example, Cianci, Hannah, Roberts, and Tsakumis (2014) investigated the impact of authentic leadership on followers’ morality. Based on the responses of 118 MBA students, they found that authentic leaders significantly inhibited

followers from making unethical choices in the face of temptation. Authentic leadership appears to be a critical contextual factor that morally strengthens followers. Cianci et al. suggest that the four components of authentic leadership (i.e., self- awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency) should be developed in organizational leadership to increase ethical organizational behavior.

Last, authentic leadership is shaped and reformed by critical life events that act as triggers to growth and greater authenticity. Being sensitive to these events and using them as springboards to growth may be relevant to many people who are interested in becoming leaders who are more authentic. Avolio and Wernsing (2008) describe the importance of trigger events as a way to enhance self-awareness. Self-awareness means asking questions: When am I showing my best? When am I being my true self? How can I improve? Such questions are asked as part of training programs in authentic leadership that increase self-awareness. Reflecting on trigger events encourages leaders to consider the meaning and implications of the event for their leadership style.

CASE STUDIES The following section provides three case studies (Cases 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3) of individuals who demonstrate authentic leadership. The first case is about Sally Helgesen, author of The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership (1990). The second case is about Kassandra Gutierrez, a preschool teacher whose life story is inextricably connected to her teaching. The final case profiles Dr. Brené Brown, a best-selling author and speaker who has a large following around her study of difficult topics including shame, vulnerability, courage, and empathy. At the end of each case study, questions are provided to help you analyze the case using ideas from authentic leadership.

Case 9.1

Am I Really a Leader?

Sally Helgesen was born in the small Midwest town of Saint Cloud, Minnesota. Her mother was a housewife who later taught English, and her father taught speech as a college professor. After attending a local state college, where she majored in English and comparative religion, Helgesen spread her wings and moved to New York, inspired by the classic film Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

Helgesen found work as a writer, first in advertising and then as an assistant to a columnist at the then-influential Village Voice. She contributed freelance articles to magazines such as Harper’s, Glamour, Vogue, Fortune, and Inside Sports. She also returned to school, completing a degree in classics at Hunter College and taking language courses at the city graduate center in preparation for a PhD in comparative religion. She envisioned herself as a college professor, but also enjoyed freelancing. She felt a strong dichotomy within her, part quiet scholar and part footloose dreamer. The conflict bothered her, and she wondered how she would resolve it. Choosing to be a writer—actually declaring herself to be one—seemed scary, grandiose, and fraudulent.

Then one day, while walking on a New York side street in the rain, Helgesen saw an adventuresome black cat running beside her. It reminded her of Holly Golightly’s cat in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, an emblem in the movie for Holly’s dreamy temperament and rootlessness. It made her realize how much the freedom and independence offered by her “temporary” career as a writer suited her temperament. Helgesen told the cat she was a writer—she’d never been able to say the words before—and decided she was going to commit to full-time writing, at least for a time. When she saw the opportunity to cover a prominent murder trial in Fort Worth, Texas, she took it.

While covering the trial, Helgesen became intrigued with the culture of Texas, and decided she wanted to write a book on the role of independent oil producers in shaping the region. Doing so required a huge expenditure of time and money, and for almost a year Helgesen lived out of the trunk of her car, staying with friends in remote regions all over Texas. It was lonely and hard and exhilarating, but Helgesen was determined to see the project through. When the book, Wildcatters (1981), was published, it achieved little recognition, but Helgesen felt an enormous increase in confidence and commitment as a result of having finished the book. It strengthened her conviction that, for better or worse, she was a writer.

Helgesen moved back to New York and continued to write articles and search around for another book. She also began writing speeches for the CEO at a Fortune 500 company. She loved the work, and particularly enjoyed being an observer of office politics, even though she did not perceive herself to be a part of them. Helgesen viewed her role as being an “outsider looking in,” an observer of the culture. She sometimes felt like an actor in a play about an office, but this detachment made her feel professional rather than fraudulent.

As a speechwriter, Helgesen spent a lot of time interviewing people in the companies she worked for. Doing so made her realize that men and women often approach their work in fundamentally different ways. She also became convinced that many of the skills and attitudes women brought to their work were increasingly appropriate for the ways in which organizations were changing, and that women had certain advantages as a result. She also noticed that the unique perspectives of women were seldom valued by CEOs or other organizational leaders, who could have benefited if they had better understood and been more attentive to what women had to offer.

These observations inspired Helgesen to write another book. In 1988, she signed a contract with a major publisher to write a book on what women had to contribute to organizations. Until then, almost everything written about women at work focused on how they needed to change and adapt. Helgesen felt strongly that if women were encouraged to emphasize the negative, they would miss a historic opportunity to help lead organizations in a time of change. The time was right for this message, and The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership (1990) became very successful, topping a number of best-seller charts and remaining steadily in print for nearly 20 years. The book’s

prominence resulted in numerous speaking and consulting opportunities, and Helgesen began traveling the world delivering seminars and working with a variety of clients.

This acclaim and visibility was somewhat daunting to Helgesen. While she recognized the value of her book, she also knew that she was not a social scientist with a body of theoretical data on women’s issues. She saw herself as an author rather than an expert, and the old questions about fraudulence that she had dealt with in her early years in New York began to reassert themselves in a different form. Was she really being authentic? Could she take on the mantle of leadership and all it entailed? In short, she wondered if she could be the leader that people seemed to expect.

The path Helgesen took to answer these questions was simply to present herself for who she was. She was Sally Helgesen, an outsider looking in, a skilled and imaginative observer of current issues. For Helgesen, the path to leadership did not manifest itself in a step-by-step process. Helgesen’s leadership began with her own journey of finding herself and accepting her personal authenticity. Through this self-awareness, she grew to trust her own expertise as a writer with a keen eye for current trends in organizational life.

Helgesen continues to be an internationally recognized consultant and speaker on contemporary issues and has published five books. She remains uncertain about whether she will finish her degree in comparative religion and become a college professor, but always keeps in mind the career of I. F. Stone, an influential political writer in the 1950s and 1960s who went back to school and got an advanced degree in classics at the age of 75.

Questions

1. Learning about one’s self is an essential step in becoming an authentic leader. What role did self-awareness play in Sally Helgesen’s story of leadership?

2. How would you describe the authenticity of Sally Helgesen’s leadership? 3. At the end of the case, Sally Helgesen is described as taking on the “mantle of leadership.” Was this important

for her leadership? How is taking on the mantle of leadership related to a leader’s authenticity? Do all leaders reach a point in their careers where embracing the leadership role is essential?

Case 9.2

Kassy’s Story

Kassandra Gutierrez is a preschool teacher at Living Stones Academy, a private faith-based (Christian) school in Michigan serving a diverse student population in preschool through sixth grade. Forty-four percent are students of color, while nearly 60 percent come from lower socioeconomic status households. Gutierrez recently shared her story about being yourself with the school community:

As a child, it was a challenge for me to find a sense of community. I felt a lack of belonging growing up with my peers because of the difference in my ethnic background, socioeconomic status, and family dynamics.

I am Mexican-American; my dad was born in Oaxaca, Mexico, one of nine children. He came to the United States at 16 to find work to support his family after his father passed away.

My mom, who is white, was raised in Mentone, California, with a mom and step-dad, dad and step-mom, sister, and two half-brothers; you could say I understand “complicated” when it comes to family dynamics.

Growing up as a biracial child, I felt empowered by the fact that I was able to embrace two different cultures. Unfortunately, I felt others around me did not embrace this aspect of me. I often felt overwhelmed and torn between my two identities.

My father’s family members would call me “gringa” and “weda” because I had a white mom who didn’t cook mole or menudo, I didn’t speak Spanish to my parents, and there was a perception that I had money because I went to a private Christian school.

There were many days I would walk onto that school’s campus and feel utterly alone among my peers. I was appreciative of having the opportunity to go to a private school, but something didn’t feel right. There was a lack of diversity and cultural awareness around me. I didn’t see myself represented in the textbooks or within the school’s staff and student body. From kindergarten to 8th grade, I didn’t have a single teacher that was a person of color. There were two other Mexican-Americans in my classes; but even then, I felt different from them because of my lower socioeconomic status.

My dad started his own landscaping business and early in the morning he would pull up to school in his work truck to drop me off. I felt embarrassed because my classmates would always tease me about his business. All they saw was a Mexican man working a stereotypical job. But I saw a hardworking man who came to the U.S. for a better life, learned English, and started his own business. When my mom would pick me up from school, my classmates made comments and asked questions about her being white and me having dark skin. Sometimes we received curious stares as to why we looked so different. It was exhausting having to explain my family dynamics so many times.

I was bullied quite often. I was called a lot of racial slurs on the playground and was excluded from playing games because of my ethnic background. At home, when I would tell my mom about these experiences or ask questions, she didn’t provide support and encouragement in embracing my two cultures or help as I tried to understand why I felt so different from others.

Sadly, those same racial slurs I heard on the playground were being used by my mom towards my dad. My parents had a toxic marriage and they would fight with each other daily. During these arguments, my mom would use hateful and racially derogatory language towards my dad. That kind of hate was not easy to listen to or watch as a child. Why my mother would express that hatred towards a part of who I am was very confusing to me. Also, my father’s family would express their dislike about my mom being white. These conflicts between my parents and their families, along with hearing racial slurs towards myself, led me to question my own identity and have thoughts of how easy it would be if I were just white.

So, I grew up as the little Mexican girl who doubted herself everywhere she went. At school, she felt like an outcast because she didn’t have white skin or light eyes like many of her teachers and classmates. At home, she doubted herself among her family members who looked like her but had their own stereotypes for her.

Where did I belong? I felt voiceless against those who would tell me who I was or what I should be based on stereotypes they held.

Providing Space for Others

When I look back on my experiences—as a child that was searching for belonging, it is essential for me now as an educator to create an environment that is welcoming, safe, and a place to feel embraced. My classroom is a space where families, children, and I can be vulnerable and transparent to build relationships. There have been children in my class who have experienced hard challenges and trauma, whether it’s separation from their parents, conflicts in their households, and insecurities within themselves.

Because of the challenges in my childhood, I can relate to and have conversations with my students. There have been moments where I’ve embraced a child who was in tears because of the trauma they experienced. It reminds me that there’s a reason for the challenges we may face and how God will use them to strengthen us and the relationships we have with one another.

I had a student who was dealing with trauma at home. She was asked questions from other curious 5-year-olds about why her skin was so dark. I could tell she felt insecure about the differences in her appearance from the other children. To ensure a safe community in the classroom, I did not ignore the situation but made it a priority to address it. Through the help of my colleagues, books about diversity, and honest conversations, I made sure to remind her of how God created his daughter in His image. It was a time I could remind all my children the beauty of how God created us to look, speak, and think differently, but all in his image.

Being Authentic and Promoting Authenticity

Belonging is not only essential to my class but in every classroom, preschool through 6th grade at school where I teach. The environment our staff has created is radically inclusive. There is a deep commitment to teaching students to embrace all cultural, economic, and racial diversities.

We welcome children will all kinds of needs, circumstances, and learning abilities. We are intentional with giving every child, from preschool to 6th grade, a time to use their voice. Time from the academic curriculum is set aside to provide a space for these children to share while teaching the importance of listening. We practice proactive circles to check in on our students and talk about the praises in their lives with their peers and teachers. We also encourage working through hardships they may have with one another through the practice of restorative circles. Proactive and restorative circles have become a part of the daily routine to teach social skills and problem-solving while building a positive classroom community.

Our staff is also intentional about building trustworthy relationships with their students and their colleagues. One day, a student came to school with her hair down naturally after having her hair in braids the week before. She was feeling insecure because her peers had noticed a difference and were asking questions. This student talked to her teacher about her feelings towards her hair and how others were responding. Her teacher encouraged her through her feelings but took it one step further to ensure that this student felt empowered. After talking with her student, she asked a colleague, who is a person of color, to have a one-on-one conversation with the student because she knew her colleague could relate.

Once the student was able to connect with the teacher, the student’s confidence increased—not only was she able to connect with someone who looked like her, but she felt supported by not just one teacher, but two.

As a teacher here at this school, I no longer question my own belonging. I bring a feeling of belonging to work with me every day and use it to help my students and colleagues feel the same.

—Reprinted with permission of Kassandra Gutierrez.

Questions

1. In the chapter, Bill George’s approach to authentic leadership suggests that truly authentic leaders exhibit passion, strong values, connectedness, consistency, and compassion. In what way has Gutierrez shown these qualities? Which characteristics are most representative of Gutierrez? Discuss.

2. The Model of Authentic Leadership (Figure 9.2) posits that critical life events shape an individual’s development as an authentic leader. In what way do you think this has been true for Gutierrez?

3. When leaders tell their life stories, they gain greater self-knowledge and a clearer picture of who they are and their role. Do you think telling her story has been helpful to Gutierrez and the school community? If you were

Gutierrez, would you have shared your story so openly? What are the implications for a leader when sharing personal stories with the public? Discuss.

4. As illustrated in Figure 9.2, authentic leaders use their internal moral perspective to guide their behavior and are motivated by higher-order values such as justice and community. Describe Gutierrez’s moral perspective and the impact it has on her behavior as a leader. How does her moral perspective impact how she is viewed by others?

Case 9.3

The Arena of Authenticity

Note: This case study provides insights into Dr. Brené Brown’s personal history, her strengths, and the trajectory of her career. You might find it informative to also view her Netflix special, The Call to Courage, or her videos on TED.com, which can provide additional insight into her leadership behavior.

It is not the critic who counts. It is not the man who sits and points out how the doer of deeds could have done things better and how he falls and stumbles. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena whose face is marred with dust and sweat and blood. . . . But when he’s in the arena, at best, he wins, and at worst, he loses, but when he fails, when he loses, he does so daring greatly.

This passage, inspired by a speech by former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt (Dalton, 2002) is one that Dr. Brené Brown teaches, preaches, and lives by.

The author of five number-one New York Times best-selling books who has become a world-renowned thought leader and sought-after speaker, Brown is more likely to bill herself as simply a “research professor.” She is, in fact, a professor at the University of Houston with a $2 million endowed chair funded by the Huffington Foundation, but also an entrepreneur, CEO, mother, and wife who has built a very large following around the study of such difficult topics as shame, vulnerability, courage, and empathy.

Brown is a high-energy Harry Potter fan who prefers “shit kickers” (cowboy boots) or clogs and jeans to just about any form of business attire and doesn’t hesitate to wear these even for her most visible engagements. She would be the first to say that authenticity and courage do not happen without vulnerability. In her words, “vulnerability is not a weakness . . . it is our most accurate measurement of courage—to be vulnerable, to let ourselves be seen, to be honest” (Brown, 2012).

Brown’s research data, as well as her personal life experiences, clearly support what she says. The “man in the arena” quote, a rallying cry in many of her books, came to her at a particularly low point. She had recently delivered a TEDxHouston talk on the subject of vulnerability. Rather than deliver a comfortable academic talk complete with academic terminology and data, she opted instead to share a very personal story of her own challenges with vulnerability and an emotional breakdown she experienced when faced with the truth of her own data. That truth—that vulnerability, a topic she despised and personally avoided—and the courage to be imperfect were necessary ingredients to living what she coined as a “whole-hearted life.” They could not be separated.

She had chosen research as her livelihood because, in her words, “the definition of research is . . . to study phenomena for the explicit reason to control and predict.” But her research results challenged this premise. What she found was the way to live is with vulnerability and to stop controlling and predicting (Brown, 2010).

While the talk was well received, it left Brown feeling exposed and regretting sharing such a deeply personal and revealing story. She found some solace in convincing herself that the talk would likely only be watched by perhaps 500 or so local people. Instead, it went viral. The Power of Vulnerability has become one of the most accessed TED Talks with nearly 50 million views (TED, n.d.).

Instantly propelled into the public spotlight, her mortification was heightened by the anonymous ugly comments made about her on social media, which led her to seek comfort in a jar of peanut butter, binge-watching Downton Abbey, and not leaving her house for three days (Winfrey, 2013). Curious about the time period depicted in the show, Brown did a little research and happened upon Teddy Roosevelt’s famous words. It became a turning point for her.

“The fear of shame, the fear of criticism, was so great in my life up until that point—I mean, just paralyzing—that I engineered smallness in my life. I did not take chances. I did not put myself out there. I mean, I just didn’t. It wasn’t worth it to me to step into my power and play big, because I didn’t know if I could literally, physically withstand the criticism” (Efros, Findlay, Mussman, & Restrepo, 2019).

Interestingly, Brown wasn’t a stranger to withstanding criticism and marching to the beat of her own drum. Her career was shaped by choices to remain true to her own path.

A fifth-generation Texan, Cassandra Brené Brown was a plucky, curious young girl who grew to be tenacious and outspoken with a quick and infectious wit. However, she spent most of her young adult life feeling like an outsider. This sense of not belonging followed her throughout her school years. In high school, she was not selected for the school’s drill team (the Bearkadettes) despite her years of dance lessons, knowing the try-out routine by heart, and weighing six pounds under the required weight. She would later learn that, though she was considered a solid dancer, she just wasn’t thought to be “Bearkadette material,” leaving her heart broken and ashamed (Brown, 2017).

But these formative years shaped her later success. “I owed my career to not belonging. First as a child, then as a teenager. I found my primary coping mechanism for not belonging in studying people. I was a seeker of pattern and connection. I knew if I could recognize patterns in people’s behaviors and connect those patterns to what people were feeling and doing, I could find my way,” she said. “I used my pattern recognition skills to anticipate what people wanted, what they thought, or what they were doing. I learned how to say the right thing or show up the right way. I became an expert fitter-in, a chameleon” (Brown, 2017, p. 16).

After high school, Brown had unsettled years of rebellion, hitchhiking across Europe and working as a bartender and waitress, gaining a variety of life experiences. She returned to college and, at 29, graduated at the top of her class with a bachelor’s degree in social work and went on to graduate school. Through her studies, Brown found a passion for social work and qualitative research. She became interested in and trained in a methodology known as grounded theory, which starts with a topic rather than a theory and, through the process of collecting and analyzing data based on discussions with the study participants, reveals patterns and theories. The grounded theory model fit Brown’s gift for storytelling and her ability to connect patterns in her subjects through the listening and observation skills she developed as coping mechanisms in her teens.

“I fell in love with the richness and depth of qualitative research,” she said. “Storytelling is my DNA, and I couldn’t resist the idea of research as story-catching. Stories are data with a soul and no methodology honors that more than grounded theory” (Brown, 2019b).

Unfortunately, the grounded theory model is a departure from traditional academic research, which tends to place higher value on the cleaner, more measurable outcomes of quantitative research. Despite being discouraged by other academics and counseled to not use the methodology for her doctoral dissertation, Brown pushed forward. And like the research method she espouses, Brown allowed the stories emerging from the data to shape her explorations, and she began to study the emotion of shame.

“I didn’t sign on to study shame—one of the most (if not the most) complex and multifaceted emotions that we experience. A topic that not only took me six years to understand, but an emotion that is so powerful that the mere mention of the word shame triggers discomfort and avoidance in people. I innocently started with an interest in learning more about the anatomy of connection,” she says. “Because the research participants had the courage to share their stories, experiences, and wisdom, I forged a path that defined my career and my life” (Brown, 2019b).

Those research participants, who often asked Brown to share her findings, inspired her to once again deviate from a traditional academic trajectory by publishing her work in more mainstream publications and journals rather than as peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. Soon her work became available for the masses and later became best- selling books.

Brown brings herself totally to every speaking engagement, despite efforts to temper the subject matter of her talks or her way of delivering them. She has been asked by some not to talk about uncomfortable things like shame and vulnerability, even though those are her areas of expertise. Religious groups have requested she not cuss, and business groups have asked she not use the word God in her talks. She has been asked to dress differently. But Brown says the only way she can be effective is by being completely herself, knowing that you can’t impress on others the importance of vulnerability, and how it relates to courage, if you don’t have the courage to be authentically yourself.

Being able to maintain this authenticity isn’t an innate skill, Brown says, but requires using “shared language, skills, tools, and daily practices that can support us through the rumble.” She defines “the rumble” as a discussion, conversation, or meeting defined by a commitment to such things as being vulnerable, sticking with the messiness of problem identification and problem solving, being fearless in “owning our parts,” and “listening with the same passion with which we want to be heard” (Brown, 2019c).

“More than anything else, when someone says, ‘Let’s rumble,’ it cues me to show up with an open heart and mind so we can serve the work and each other, not our egos” (Brown, 2019c).

The fearlessness of owning who you are and risking vulnerability to find the courage to bring yourself authentically into your work, your family, and your community is what Brown is all about. In living by the ideals she espouses to millions of followers, she has unwittingly achieved the true belonging that had eluded her. She encapsulates her philosophy with a simple observation: “True belonging doesn’t require us to change who we are. It requires us to be who we are” (Brown, 2017, p. 40).

Questions

1. Do you find Brené Brown to be an authentic leader? Why or why not? 2. This chapter discusses three different perspectives—intrapersonal, interpersonal, and developmental—used to

define authentic leadership. Discuss how these perspectives do or do not fit Brené Brown. 3. Discuss how each of the five dimensions of authentic leadership identified by George apply to Brené Brown:

a. Purpose b. Values c. Relationships d. Self-discipline e. Heart

4. Discuss how each of the components of the theoretical approach apply to Brené Brown: a. Self-awareness b. Internalized moral perspective c. Balanced processing

d. Relational transparency 5. This approach describes four key positive psychological attributes that impact authentic leadership. Discuss

each in relationship to Brené Brown. a. Confidence b. Hope c. Optimism d. Resilience

6. Critical life events are a key component in the authentic leadership model (see Figure 9.2). What do you think are the critical events that shaped Brené Brown and who she has become?

—Barbara Russell, MBA, BSCS, BBA, Chemeketa Community College

Leadership Instrument

The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) was created by Walumbwa and associates (2008) to explore and validate the assumptions of authentic leadership. It is a 16-item instrument that measures four factors of authentic leadership: self- awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency. Based on samples in China, Kenya, and the United States, Walumbwa and associates validated the dimensions of the instrument and found it positively related to outcomes such as organizational citizenship, organizational commitment, and satisfaction with supervisor and performance. To obtain this instrument, contact Mind Garden Inc., in Menlo Park, California, or visit www.mindgarden.com.

In this section, we provide an authentic leadership self-assessment to help you determine your own level of authentic leadership. This questionnaire will help you understand how authentic leadership is measured and provide you with your own scores on items that characterize authentic leadership. The questionnaire includes 16 questions that assess the four major components of authentic leadership discussed earlier in this chapter: self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency. Your results on this self-assessment questionnaire will give you information about your level of authentic leadership on these underlying dimensions of authentic leadership. This questionnaire is intended for practical applications to help you understand the complexities of authentic leadership. It is not designed for research purposes.

Authentic Leadership Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Purpose: The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess facets of your authentic leadership.

Instructions: This questionnaire contains items about different dimensions of authentic leadership. There are no right or wrong responses, so please answer honestly. Use the following scale when responding to each statement by writing the number from the scale that you feel most accurately characterizes your response to the statement.

Key: 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree

1. I can list my three greatest weaknesses. 1 2 3 4 5

2. My actions reflect my core values. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I seek others’ opinions before making up my own mind. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I openly share my feelings with others. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I can list my three greatest strengths. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I do not allow group pressure to control me. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I listen closely to the ideas of those who disagree with me. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I let others know who I truly am as a person. 1 2 3 4 5

9. I seek feedback as a way of understanding who I really am as a person. 1 2 3 4 5

10. Other people know where I stand on controversial issues. 1 2 3 4 5

11. I do not emphasize my own point of view at the expense of others. 1 2 3 4 5

12. I rarely present a “false” front to others. 1 2 3 4 5

13. I accept the feelings I have about myself. 1 2 3 4 5

14. My morals guide what I do as a leader. 1 2 3 4 5

15. I listen very carefully to the ideas of others before making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

16. I admit my mistakes to others. 1 2 3 4 5

Scoring

1. Sum the responses on items 1, 5, 9, and 13 (self-awareness). 2. Sum the responses on items 2, 6, 10, and 14 (internalized moral perspective). 3. Sum the responses on items 3, 7, 11, and 15 (balanced processing). 4. Sum the responses on items 4, 8, 12, and 16 (relational transparency).

Total Scores

Self-Awareness: ______

Internalized Moral Perspective: ______

Balanced Processing: ______

Relational Transparency: ______

Scoring Interpretation

This self-assessment questionnaire is designed to measure your authentic leadership by assessing four components of the process: self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency. By comparing your scores on each of these components, you can determine which are your stronger and which are your weaker components in each category. You can interpret your authentic leadership scores using the following guideline: high = 16–20 and low = 15 and below. Scores in the upper range indicate stronger authentic leadership, whereas scores in the lower range indicate weaker authentic leadership.

Summary

As a result of leadership failures in the public and private sectors, authentic leadership is emerging in response to societal demands for genuine, trustworthy, and good leadership. Authentic leadership describes leadership that is transparent, morally grounded, and responsive to people’s needs and values. Even though research on authentic leadership is still in the early stages of development, the study of authentic leadership is timely and worthwhile, offering hope to people who long for true leadership.

Although there is no single accepted definition of authentic leadership, it can be conceptualized intrapersonally, interpersonally, and developmentally. The intrapersonal perspective focuses on the leader and the leader’s knowledge, self-regulation, and self-concept. The interpersonal perspective claims that authentic leadership is a collective process, created by leaders and followers together. The developmental perspective emphasizes major components of authentic leadership that develop over a lifetime and are triggered by major life events.

The practical approach to authentic leadership provides basic “how to” steps to become an authentic leader. George’s (2003) approach identifies five basic dimensions of authentic leadership and the corresponding behavioral characteristics individuals need to develop to become authentic leaders.

In the social science literature, a theoretical approach to authentic leadership is emerging. Drawing from the fields of leadership, positive organizational scholarship, and ethics, researchers have identified four major components of authentic leadership: self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency.

In addition, researchers have found that authentic leadership is influenced by a leader’s positive psychological capacities, moral reasoning, and critical life events.

Authentic leadership has several positive features. First, it provides an answer to people who are searching for good and sound leadership in an uncertain world. Second, authentic leadership provides broad guidelines about how leaders can learn to become authentic. Third, it has an explicit moral dimension that asserts that leaders need to do what is

“right” and “good” for their followers and society. Fourth, it is framed as a process that is developed by leaders over time rather than as a fixed trait. Last, authentic leadership can be measured with a theory-based instrument.

There are also negative features to authentic leadership. First, the ideas set forth in the practical approach need to be treated cautiously because they have not been fully substantiated by research. Second, the moral component of authentic