Authentic Leadership: Getting Back to the Roots of the ‘Root Construct’?

• Author: Steve Kempster,Marian Iszatt‐White
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12193
• Published date: 01 July 2019
• Date: 01 July 2019

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 21, 356–369 (2019)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12193

Authentic Leadership: Getting Back to the

Roots of the ‘Root Construct’?

Marian Iszatt-White and Steve Kempster

Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK

Corresponding author email: m.iszattwhite@lancaster.ac.uk

In their 2011 review paper, Gardner et al. (Authentic Leadership: a review of the

literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 1120–1145) concluded

that the authentic leadership (AL) construct was still in the first stage of evolution,

that of concept introduction and evaluation. At that time, the field was characterized

by two types of contribution: conceptual expositions and largely quantitative research

seeking to map out its antecedents and consequences, moderators and mediators. The

current review aims to: (1) critically evaluate the development of the AL construct to

the present time; and (2) taking this evaluation as a point of departure, propose the

need for a radical re-grounding of understanding of AL aimed at countering what

the authors believe to be the substantive flaws in both its philosophical underpinnings

and empirical grounding. The authors propose that these shortcomings have arisen

owing to the failure of existential and other critiques of the dominant (normative and

functionalist) discourse of AL to gain traction, and owing to an absence of practice-

based, qualitative research. As a strategic platformfor the potential re-grounding and

relaunch of AL, the authors propose a radical return to the existential and practice

roots of authenticity as the basis for a broader understanding of ‘authentic leadership’

as a ‘central organizing principle’ in leadership studies. Despite the flaws identified in

the AL construct, the authors suggest that the notion of authenticity may still have a

valuablerole to play in the studyof leadership: that role, however,can only be determined

through a thorough understanding of AL as a practice-based phenomenon.

Introduction

In the broadest possible context, ‘authenticity’ has

been subject to two very different symbolic interpre-

tations (Carroll and Wheaton 2009): ‘type authen-

ticity’, which refers to whether an entity is true to

its associated type, category or genre; and ‘moral

authenticity’, where ‘the issue concerns whether the

decisions behind the enactment and operation of an

entity reflect sincere choices (i.e. choices true to one’s

self) rather than socially scripted responses’ (Carroll

and Wheaton 2009, p. 255). Typeauthenticity – asso-

ciated most commonly with products, tourist attrac-

tions and the like – is relatively easy to assess and

establish. There exist a number of recognized authen-

tication processes – from hallmarks on silver, through

patents on product designs, to historical listings on

buildings – to establish the innate qualities of the

‘product’ and its right to be described as belonging to

a particular type. It is when we consider moral authen-

ticity, as it relates to people and roles, that the issues

become more complex. For example, Harter (2002,

p. 382) tells us that authenticity occurs when ‘one

acts in accord with the true self, expressing oneself

in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and

feelings’. On this view, authenticity is clearly a prop-

erty of that which is claiming to be authentic, and

arises as a natural or spontaneous occurrence. Yet,

as most leaders will know to their cost, it is possible

to have authentic intentions and yet appear inauthen-

tic, or effectively to ‘fake’ authenticity for others and

yet not feel it. In relation to leadership authenticity,is-

sues of intention vs. attribution (Martinko et al. 2007)

become particularly salient. In a related qualitative re-

search project exploring the relationship between au-

thenticity and emotional labour, the ability of leaders

C2018 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA