An authentic leader is supposedly able to further the success of an organization within the confines of social and ethical values, even when that seems impossible.
Authentic leadership is claimed to be a superior model due to the greater trust and motivation it invokes in subordinates.
Ancient Greek philosophers stressed authenticity as an important state through an emphasis on being in control of one's own life and the ubiquitous admonition: "Know thyself".
[1] Some believed that an entire organization could act authentically like a single person through responsibility, reactions to uncertainty, and creativity.
[9] Recently, authentic leadership has garnered more attention among scholars and practitioners because of publications from Harvard professor and former Medtronic CEO Bill George[10][11] and other calls for research.
This shift may be indicative of a nascent emergence of the construct from an introduction and elaboration evolutionary stage to one marked by evaluation and augmentation.
An authentic leader reflects on their decisions, asks for feedback and opinions (both supporting and opposing), and believes to resolve the conflicts in non-manipulative (Henderson & Hoy, 1982, as cited in Gardner et al., 2011 ) and balanced (Kernis and Goldman, 2006) way; through unbiased, honest and ethically and morally uplifting practices (Duignan & Bhindi, 2009).
Moreover, the prime focus of an authentic leader is the success of the organization within the construct of social values; even if they have to struggle with challenging situations (Whitehead, 2009).
These distinct habits have been described as "leading with the heart" and generally keeps a softer approach with the main basis being goal making, relationship building, self discipline etc.
For instance, both leader self-knowledge and self-consistency have been shown to act as antecedents for authentic leadership (the former being a static process of understanding one's own strengths and weaknesses and the latter consistency between their values, beliefs, and actions).
[22] Other research has shown that the relationship between authentic leadership and both organizational citizenship behavior and empowerment is mediated by identification with supervisors.
[19][22][25] This is not necessarily surprising as the model itself arises from successful leaders who simply described what they did and put the label "authentic leadership" on that description.
Both research scientists and practitioners have an interest in measuring the level of authentic leadership exhibited by individual leaders.
Practitioners such as management consultants and human resource professionals measure levels of authentic leadership to help assess leader behaviors within an organization.
The LAS measures the leader's tendency to behave genuinely regardless of formal job titles (referred to as salience of self over role), to acknowledge accountability for mistakes, and to avoid manipulation of subordinates.
The LAS was developed by education researchers who identified leader authenticity as an important indicator of organizational climate in schools.
The measure, developed specifically with the emerging authentic leadership theory in mind, includes sixteen items grouped into four major subcategories: self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing.
Development of authentic leaders involves guided self-reflection, building self-awareness through the use of a life-stories approach.
[34] The end of the twentieth century saw a rise of new theories of leadership that attempt to understand how leaders not only direct and manage, but also inspire their followers in unique ways.
[39][40] Moreover, there have been some recent high-profile criticisms of the theoretical basis of the construct,[41][42] which has been said to be built on "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".
[1] Moreover, there have not been any properly causally-identified empirical tests of the construct[44] given the difficulty (or more likely impossibility) of manipulating authenticity in a consequential setting.