Friend or fiend? An interpretative phenomenological analysis of moral and relational orientation in authentic leadership

Abstract

Authentic leadership has been developed with insufficient empirical challenge to its definitional components, and alternative conceptualizations have largely been ignored. The theory remains heavily criticized and its distinctiveness from other higher-purpose leadership theories remains in doubt, leading to a circular debate as to its usefulness in practice. In response to the call to return to the definitional drawing table, this article presents the findings of an interpretative phenomenological study that reimagines authentic leadership as a two-component moral and relational model that is closer to Heidegger’s notions of ‘being true’ and ‘care’. The study inductively explores how leaders themselves make sense of authenticity in practice, when it is enacted by their own leaders within the social exchange relationship. It richly describes how managers perceive and attribute authenticity to their leaders within the lived experience of contemporary work. The study also identifies that working for a leader who is perceived as authentic feels like a friendship and is beneficial to followers’ own psychological experience of work, facilitates their own authentic expression and is worthy of retention as a distinct leadership theory that explains how performance is enabled within proximal leader relationships.

The gaslighting of authentic leadership

“…We contend that the reason why ALT has such appeal is that it captures a real phenomenon that even its critics have experienced. Hence, we think it is more productive to advance alternative perspectives of this phenomenon and suggest refinements to the theory, as is the case for many of the articles published in the Leadership special issue (Bradley-Cole, 2021; Larsson et al, 2021; Whittle, 2020; Iszatt-White et al, 2021) and elsewhere (e.g. Iszatt-White and Kempster, 2019), rather than attempting to gaslight scholars and practitioners alike by trying to convince them that a phenomenon they have personally witnessed is not real.…”

Reconstructing authenticity through a multi-paradigmatic umbrella: A process perspective

“…2 This secondary perspective 3 has been used to describe peripheral views that problematized the dominant conceptualization of authentic leadership being offered by positive psychology. While criticalists have used diverse lenses to voice their skepticisms – such as indigenous (Spiller, 2021), phenomenological (Bradley-Cole, 2021), Arendtian (Gardiner, 2016), Bourdieusian (Fox-Kirk, 2017), and psychoanalytics (Ford and Harding, 2011) – they are united in their belief that much of the research from positive psychology attenuated authentic leadership’s theoretical development (Ladkin and Spiller, 2013). Indeed, criticalists posit that positive psychology’s a priori framing is plagued with definitional, theoretical, and empirical shortcomings (Einola and Alvesson, 2021).…”

“…While the special issue articles collectively emphasized authentic leadership’s shortcomings, some authors still advanced the notion that authenticity within a leadership context holds value, albeit unrealized at present (e.g. Bradley-Cole, 2021). For all authentic leadership’s many shortcomings, the themes of authenticity, inauthenticity, and leadership are pervasive in critical works – and in Leadership ’s special issue – signifying that despite ontological differences between positivists and criticalists both perspectives are mulling over a way ahead.…”

Exploring the authenticity, or lack thereof, of the discourse of talent management

“…The term "authentic otherness" has recently been taken up by leadership scholars to explore the practice of trying to lead authentically in diverse organizational contexts. For example, Bradley-Cole (2021) illustrates how authenticity is a multi-faceted notion that cannot be contained by any particular formula. We strongly concur with her sentiment.…”