The impossibility of the ‘true self’ of authentic leadership

Abstract

'Authentic leadership' is increasingly influential, with its promise to eliminate, and thus surpass, the weaknesses of previous models of leadership. This article uses object relations theory to argue, firstly, that authentic leadership as an indication of a leader's true self is impossible and, secondly, that attempts at its implementation could lead to destructive dynamics within organizations. The authentic leadership model refuses to acknowledge the imperfections of individuals and despite its attestations to seeking 'one's true, or core self ' (Gardner et al., 2005: 345), it privileges a collective (organizational) self over an individual self and thereby hampers subjectivity to both leaders and followers. The paper thus contributes to emerging critical leadership studies by introducing the psychoanalytic approach of object relations theory to the study of leadership.

Doing Authenticity: The Gendered Construction of Authentic Leadership

“…Only in recent years has critical analysis exposed the tensions inherent in the concept of authenticity (Ford and Harding, 2011;Ladkin and Spiller, 2013). Existential examinations in particular question the literature's essentialist treatment of authenticity as a trait that leaders can possess or acquire (Algera and Lips-Wiersma, 2012;Lawler and Ashman, 2012).…”

Creative Leadership: A Multi-Context Conceptualization

“…These findings are of interest, however, the construct of authentic leadership has been criticized for its broad definitions its possible overlap with other positive forms of leadership such as transformational and ethical leadership, its loose interpretation of the philosophical works that are used as its theoretical foundation, such as Heidegger's (1962) notion of "resoluteness", as well as its favoring a collective self at the expense of the individual self and subjectivity. Concerns have also been raised regarding the validity and generalizability of existing measures (e.g., Ford & Harding, 2011;Gardiner, 2011;Gardner et al, 2011). Eagly (2005) criticized the one-sided perspective of existing authentic leadership models and suggested that authenticity must be acknowledged by followers for it to produce positive outcomes, naming this two-sided concept relational authenticity.…”

Nature‐Based Training Program Fosters Authentic Leadership

“…Seeking authenticity is a process in which the self continuously transforms through compromises regarding social norms and standards (Heidegger, ; Sartre, ). In concordance, the transformation processes of true selves in relation to their social contexts are important perspectives that are represented in the leadership literature as well (Ford & Harding, ; Shaw, ). Some literature on authentic leadership suggests people do have a fixed authentic self that needs to be found and emphasized in one's leadership orientation (Avolio & Gardner, ; Bass & Steidlmeier, ).…”

“…Yet, an implicit suggestion does not imply that the same authors believe the premise is true. There is no a priori reason to assume that emphasizing one's authenticity (whether fixed or perpetually constructed) leads to good behavior (Algera & Lips‐Wiersma, ; Ford & Harding, ; Nyberg & Sveningsson, ). In addition, the notion of good behavior is in itself problematic, as behavior in complex settings is rarely purely right or wrong (Lawler & Ashman, ) and what is right or wrong depends on the observer's perspective.…”