Authentic Leadership in HRD—Identity Matters! Critical Explorations on Leading Authentically

Introduction

The purpose of this issue of Advances is to further the cross-conversation between authenticity and identity by focusing on authentic leadership, otherwise known as AL. Increasingly, the discipline of HRD (Human Resource Development) has focused on leadership as evidenced by three issues of leadership-themed Special Issues in the last two years, and now, this issue focused on authentic leadership and identity. HRD does seem to be well-suited for bridging the research and practice gap in regard to leadership; however, there are cautions that we believe need to be considered for fostering diversity, respect, inclusive workplaces, and furthering social justice aims. Through a critical examination of authentic leadership, we hope that this Special Issue illuminates assumptions, gaps, opportunities, and pitfalls in authentic leadership.

In other words, we are complexifying a topic that on its face offers such a commonsense solution that it seems counterintuitive to argue against. As suggested by Alvesson and Sveningssen (2013), “Drawing on positive psychological capital such as hope and optimism and humanistic values about the inherent goodness of humans, the authenticity approach to leadership has an intuitive appeal . . .” (p. 42). The authenticity approach to leadership does have an appeal especially in these times of social, economic, environmental, and political chaos. However, to be clear, we are not arguing against HRD relying on authentic leadership ideas to guide research or practice! On the contrary, we hope that this Special Issue adds to the existing conversation surrounding authentic leadership in ways that will encourage more practitioners and scholars to consider authentic leadership as a model of choice, albeit with caveats and modifications.

So what exactly is authentic leadership? Authentic leadership (AL) is generally conceived of as a framework or theory focused on individual cognitive and emotional self-knowledge. Ladkin and Taylor (2010) identified three common elements in the AL literature: “1). Being true to yourself; 2) being self-aware of this true self; and 3) this true self being morally good” (p. 41). In the “Historical Foundation of Authenticity and Relevance to HRD” section, we present additional descriptions of AL to further illuminate the diversity of thought in the literature. Ultimately, however, scholars do not share a unified view of AL, and different streams of literature with different foci have emerged over time. As Special Issue editors, at first this diversity was challenging because reviewers asked for a clear definition of AL. After much thought, however, we believe forcing a single definition on all article authors would limit the impact of this issue. So rather than force a consensus, we adopt a plurality of views of AL in the articles, and each article offers a different facet of AL for consideration. This seems to be in alignment with our goal to break through the relatively superficial interpretation of AL that we believe exists in the general HRD community and challenges HRD professionals (both scholars and practitioners) to attend to precision and clarity when adopting AL for research or practice.

Consequently, the purpose of this issue of Advances is to critically analyze the concept of AL to highlight areas of future growth for the concept, as well as to explore areas of critical concern relating to AL and employee empowerment, diversity and inclusion, and societal and cultural norms. Although AL may have the potential to inspire leaders and be the focus of leadership development programs, a more nuanced picture emerges when one poses different questions such as, “Authentic to whom?” “Authentic for what end?” and “Authentic in what context?” Key to our position is the understanding that there is an ideological foundation implicit in the dominant AL literature.

For example, consider a situation that challenges the commonsense view that authenticity in leaders is aligned with the leader’s “true self.” This example illustrates the role of language in expressing an authentic self, as well as a limitation of AL theory. We know that leaders use language to present themselves and, some could say, show up as differently authentic by using different communication strategies. This phenomenon, called “code-switching,” has been described as moving between two languages or dialects to fit in (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/04/13/177126294/five-reasons-why-people-code-switch). “Code-switching” allows us to consider how we use language to be more effective in different contexts and/or speaking to different people. We use language to communicate, and we use language to “show up” to whomever we are in conversation. “Language is a proxy for identity, and so code-switching is an apt metaphor for handling more than one identity” (http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/04/code-switching).

Barack Obama demonstrated code-switching in many public appearances, most notably during the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. PBS NewsHour taped a speech the President gave (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORqKlqONT-s) that clearly displays using language at times presidential and at times folksy. The signals being sent connect to the audience and are connected to the different identities—Mr. President and Mr. Normal Folk—existing within the former President. Are both identities authentic? How does language influence authenticity? Do different identities and different language appear at different times, and if so, why? How does one decide between different authentic selves, and for what purpose?

This example illustrates that authenticity may be more complex than Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) may have portrayed it. This Special Issue considers how contextual issues and individual differences trouble the degree to which AL may be a simplistic guide for leaders, and organizations, in the future.

To begin, in the “Historical Foundation of Authenticity and Relevance to HRD” section, we offer a philosophical discussion about the historical foundation of authenticity and draw connections between authenticity, work, and HRD. The “Contemporary Trends in Authentic Leadership” section presents contemporary trends in AL and describes the different approaches to AL theorizing, research, and practice. A critique of AL follows in the “Critiques of Authentic Leadership: Identity(ies) Matter” section, and the article concludes with a synthesis of the chapters in this Special Issue.

Historical Foundation of Authenticity and Relevance to HRD

To understand authentic leadership, it is first necessary to examine the difference between authenticity and AL. This requires us to look back at its historical and philosophical roots. Although many commentators look to Ancient Greece for the antecedents to authenticity, historians tell us that it was in the 18th century that our current ideas about authenticity were first formulated, specifically in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Berman, 2009). First, Rousseau was fighting against what he saw as the inequities of his time. Not only was the gap between rich and poor excessive, but for men like Rousseau who had to earn their living, they were treated as if their own ideas and person was of no matter. For Rousseau, this was an outrage. The philosopher Charles Taylor (1991) shows us how Rousseau was attempting to develop a different way of thinking about subjectivity. That is, Rousseau was concerned with how important it was for individuals to think about their self outside of the social role. Only then, in Rousseau’s view, could people gain understanding about authenticity.

But there are other influential ways of thinking about authenticity. In Heidegger’s magnum opus, Being and Time, for instance, he argues that there are two aspects of authenticity: resoluteness and care. The idea of resoluteness has been taken up strongly in the AL literature, while there has been less attention on the issue of authenticity and care (Gardiner, 2015; Tomkins & Nicholds, 2017). For Heidegger, authenticity is something that we yearn for but rarely achieve. This is because we spend our time, not as authentic selves, but engaging with others and conforming to societal dictates. In his view, we spend most of our lives trying to fit in and conform to dominant norms. For instance, most of us do not run red lights on a regular basis nor do we regularly steal from the workplace. We know that doing so is wrong. Having some external standards is useful in organization for social interactions. The problem arises when you find yourself at odds with what is the dominant organizational or social norm.

For existential phenomenologists like Heidegger, authenticity occurs in those moments in our lives where we feel that something is wrong, but we are not sure why. Consider, for example, you are in the first meeting of the senior executive team with a new CEO. The CEO wants to make substantial changes to a workplace policy. However, making changes to this policy has proven problematic before and, as everyone in the room knows, trying to get any kind of consensus by revisiting this issue is likely to bring forth a great deal of resistance from employees. And yet all the other senior executives say nothing. Here, you have a choice to voice possible concerns or to remain quiet like the rest of your colleagues. As you are mulling over what to do, you begin to feel anxious. This anxiety might reveal itself as a fluttering in the stomach or the beginnings of a headache. Bodily indications of anxiety are also indicative of the moment of authenticity (Gardiner, 2015; Heidegger, 1962; Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Sinclair, 2013). In this example, it is through speaking out or staying quiet that you chose whether or not you will be true to your values or whether it is in your self-interest to keep quiet and go along with others.

In many of the articles that follow, we see similar issues emerging in different ways. Authors offer us a glimpse of their understanding of authenticity that adds to our knowledge of AL. We see, for example, how it is not always easy to speak one’s mind and to tell the truth as you see it. Yet this is one of the fundamental premises of AL. Moreover, there are problems with always speaking the truth. As Ford and Harding (2011) contend, for a supervisor to constantly say what they think could be counterproductive. There are moments when we need to remain quiet so as not to harm an employee’s confidence. At other times, it is necessary to speak out. Such is the tension that exists within our ideas about what it means to be authentic and our notions of leading authentically.

The concept of authenticity, and its practical application to leadership and HRD practice, is something that the authors in this Special Issue have reflected upon in detail. Some authors have chosen to share specific aspects of what it means for them to be authentic, and others show us just how hard that can be if you come from a marginalized position. Thus, we would argue that authenticity is multifaceted and means different things to different people because of their specific situation. This is important to stress because, as with AL, there is no one definition that can be rich enough to explain what authenticity means. What we can do, however, is demonstrate some of those subtle and not so subtle nuances in the workplace. By doing so, we see how being true to oneself is a very complex, and sometimes contradictory, experience.

These contradictory experiences tell us something about how authenticity is taken up in the workplace. Peter Fleming (2009) argues that the management ethos to be oneself is often shallow and false. In his view “[t]he corporatized ‘truth of being’ encourages superficial displays of difference, identity and lifestyle—represents the transposition of authenticity into an instrumental discourse.” (p. 5). He argues that some companies, such as Google, “trade in the sibylline of a frictionless capitalism in which the liberty to display a tattoo or confess one’s sexual preference is tantamount to a social revelation.” (p. 7). Nowadays, instead of a Taylorized bureaucracy, what we have is a way of making people think that their differences are celebrated whereas what is being furthered, Fleming argues, is profit. Thus, he sees the popular and academic commentary on authenticity in the workplace as seeming to empower employees but, in reality, part of a “managerial celebration of authenticity” (p. 18). What is being celebrated is not authenticity but a manufactured version of it.

In our view, authenticity and authentic leadership need to be teased apart, because while we may feel ourselves to be true to our own moral compass, but this is may not be the same as leading authentically in an organizational context. As an example, what is vital about AL is that it is not only relational but also contextual. Thus, a leader in one context may come across as a genuine person who cares for others. Yet, in another, this caring may not come to the fore. Who we are, and how we act, depend in part upon how we are received by others. There is a performative aspect to how leaders enact authenticity but whether their actions will be perceived by others as authentic will depend on many factors, such as how their actions fit in with the dominant organizational culture (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010). By teasing apart authenticity and authentic leadership, as others in this Special Issue demonstrate, we begin to understand some of the complexities and contradictions affecting these concepts.

Contemporary Trends in Authentic Leadership

There are many different definitions of AL. Chief amongst them, as stated, is the positive definition that derives from the work of Bruce Avolio and colleagues. In contrast to our more fluid idea, for these scholars, not only is authentic leadership something that can be described, it can also be measured (Avolio, 2013; Avolio & Mhatre, 2011). We are not in agreement with this notion of measurement, precisely because it may encourage leaders to act in particular ways that are seen to be authentic. This act is more akin to a performance, not necessarily something that is real or unique to that person. Moreover, the more we try to define what authentic leadership is, more restrictions we place upon leaders to lead in what they perceive as an authentic manner. Thus, instead of genuine leaders, we end up with people who conform to a particular manner of leading. In following AL, paradoxically, a leader may actually be inauthentic to their personal values and beliefs.

A theoretical approach to authentic leadership gained popularity over the last decade and Bill George (2003) was one of the early popularizers of the conversation. To George (2003), AL provides long-term value for organizations by focusing on leaders with a deep sense of purpose. These types of leaders can, George argued, ameliorate the impact of organizational scandals. More recently, Northouse (2013) identified three distinct approaches to AL. The first approach suggests that authentic leaders are individuals who choose their own path (Eilam & Shamir, 2005). Understanding their life story helps leaders gain the self-knowledge to lead authentically. The second approach focuses on the effects of gender on leader and follower relationships (Eagly, 2005). To Eagly (2005), “the role incongruity that (women) leaders often experience in leadership roles makes the advice to “know yourself and act on your beliefs ring hollow” (pp. 471-472).

The final and dominant approach to AL is the development perspective put forward by Bruce Avolio and colleagues. From this perspective, authentic leadership has four dimensions. These dimensions are self-awareness, balanced information processing, relational transparency, and internalized moral perspective (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Self-awareness enables leaders to understand their strengths and weaknesses and their effect on others. Balanced information processing improves a leader’s decision-making process, allowing them to analyze data objectively. Relational transparency refers to a leader’s trustworthiness and demonstration of appropriate emotional response. And finally, internalized moral perspective suggests that leaders are guided by inner values. Genuine in their self-presentation, authentic leaders ensure that there is no fake” self on display.

According to Avolio (2013), AL scholars have produced a body of work that has significantly contributed to the world’s understanding of leadership:

. . . through rigorous theoretical development and subsequent research spanning every method, population, culture and context, we have discovered a number of consistencies that provide a very practical foundation for advancing the assessment, evaluation and development of leaders and this form of leadership. (p. xxii)

The definition of AL for this group of scholars suggests that AL is a

pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, and internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development. (p. xxvi)

With such a positive definition, it is easy to see how attractive this type of leader would be, and how and why so many students, scholars, and practitioners gravitate to AL. Yet, as described earlier, we see the opportunity to expand AL theory to be more inclusive, more aware of its hidden assumptions, and more able to address context and power. The “Critiques of Authentic Leadership: Identity(ies) Matter” section introduces some of the critiques of AL in the literature to illuminate these opportunities.

Critiques of Authentic Leadership: Identity(ies) Matter

Authenticity work and identity work have so much in common that the two bodies of literature on AL and academic identity would benefit from greater cross-fertilisation in future research. (Tomkins & Nicholds, 2017, p. 11)

The leadership literature suggests that there are three broad areas of critique of AL in the scholarly literature: context, relationships, and identity. Leadership in general has been strongly critiqued for its lack of focus on context (Kellerman, 2012). In failing to take context into account, scholars and practitioners may not adequately understand the multiple differences that exist among leaders, their employers, and the wider community (Eagly, 2005). Likewise, overlooking the relational aspect of leading hinders HRD research and practice. We agree with Ladkin and Spiller’s (2013) assertion that leading should be conceptualized as a relational phenomenon and, consequently, leadership theories need to attend to others (e.g., followers and/or others). As a relational phenomenon, unequal power relations have been leveled against proponents of AL. For example, AL has been criticized as controlling rather than allowing difference (Costas & Fleming, 2009). Furthermore, AL may “encourage and reinforce hierarchical relations and power dependencies” (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2013, p. 44).

Most importantly, for this Special Issue, identity(ies) matter to AL, as will be demonstrated below. Because of our commitment to diversity and inclusion as HRD scholars and practitioners, we question the existence of a single “self” that shows up as authentic while leading. As the articles in this Special Issue make clear, leaders can tune into different identities—selves—while leading.

For this Special Issue, therefore, we focus on the identity critique to illuminate the complicated social and relational processes that inform the enactment of a particular “self” in a particular leadership moment. One complicated social/relational process relevant to AL has to do with stereotypes and the impact of stereotype threats on a leader’s identity. Thinking about the diverse ways in which our working lives are influenced by structural and individual prejudice is thus critical to understanding our critique of AL in a broader context. For example, how we perceive leaders is influenced by individual preferences and social factors. Depending upon each situation, different axes of identity come to the fore. Sometimes, a leader may experience discrimination because of her gender. In another location, however, a leader may experience prejudice as a result of her racial or sexual orientation (Eagly, 2005; Gardiner, 2015). As many of the subsequent articles demonstrate, an intersectional approach, guided by specific contexts, may offer insight into a new way of understanding AL by revealing the different ways in which identity(ies) matter.

As several authors in this Special Issue argue, when leaders are perceived as marginalized, then it will be more difficult for them to lead in an authentic manner. Not only is authenticity something that is complex and, at times, contradictory, but the desire to be seen as an authentic leader can be thwarted by societal prejudice. Such societal prejudice may—whether implicitly or explicitly—have specific notions of what being authentic looks like.

In addition, scholars have pointed to the emphasis of authenticity in the modern workplace. Peter Fleming (2009), for example, argues that flatter organizations encourage people to be more open in the workplace about their feelings and to bring their private selves to work. The problem here is that this crossing of the private/public dimension is not always a productive one. There are times when being rational at work is necessary and that full on emotional encounters may not necessarily be good organizational practice. Yet, as Spicer (2011) explains, the kind of authenticity that we see in the workplace is actually something other. For him, this search for authenticity is something that makes us feel guilty. This guilt arises because it is not always possible to be ourselves (Tompkins & Nicholds, 2017). Workplaces are not set up for employees to express themselves in full, and perhaps that it is a good thing. However, alongside the positive organizational scholarship from which AL emerges, we see worrying trends in our organizations. Over the last decade, there has been a steady increase rise in stress levels, which is having negative effects on people’s overall well-being (Crary, 2013). Thus, despite being told to be ourselves, this is not making workers happy. In fact, it is doing the opposite (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016). These are complex societal issues. It may be that a more nuanced understanding of authenticity can help us comprehend some of the complexities surrounding AL.

Overview of Articles

Each article that follows considers AL from a different perspective. Taken together these diverse perspectives offer us a rich tapestry of narratives from which we HRD scholars and practitioners can further develop AL. Some articles are primarily theoretical, others are more personal. But each author offers a new way of thinking about AL that can increase not only our theoretical knowledge base but also our overall understanding of the place of authenticity in leadership.

There are three connections running through the articles in various ways: (a) the connection between authenticity and one’s identity/ies, (b) the connection between one’s identity/ies) and power, and (c) the connection between the assumptions/norms and power found within AL theory. Aligned with the scholarship by critical leadership theorists, the articles in this Special Issue suggest that one’s multiple identities problematize the facile understanding of AL theory and that the “who” that shows up at a particular point in time is a function of context, distribution of power, and the norms and expectations held by the culture.

By highlighting the diverse power relations of multiple identities as a root of the critique of AL, the authors in this Special Issue make AL theory more nuanced. Over 30 years ago, in Composing a Life, Bateson (2001) wrote “ . . . if one attends to multiple dimensions, superiority becomes as illusive as simple equality” (p. 105). Bateson was commenting on the norms of social science to categorize research subjects on the basis of one characteristic, for example, male or female, old or young, and black or white. Contemporary scholars and practitioners now understand the importance of multiple dimensions, and the authors in this Special Issue address this important issue, albeit in diverse ways.

According to Faith Wambura Nguriji and Kathy-Ann Hernandez (this issue), AL is often perceived as acontextual and unproblematic. As such, because leaders are told to “know thyself” and “to thine own self be true,” AL remains uncontextualized for those whose social identities set them apart from the majority within organizations and society. Through a collaborative autoethnographic process, these scholars bring an intersectional approach to explore the challenges for Black Women leaders who wish to lead authentically. These authors illustrate the complexity of enacting authentic leadership as immigrant women of color who are leaders within predominantly white institutional contexts.

Susan Fairclough (this issue) presents an indigenous view of authenticity and authentic leadership, and her struggle at work offers a powerful example of how AL can actually be destructive to those lying outside the norms and accepted standards of the organization. She presents a detailed and nuanced view of the issue and suggests that indigenous people may resonate with some—but not all—of the ideas within AL theory.

Geoff Proknow, Toni Rocco, & Sunny Munn (this issue) tackle another important dimension—disability—and suggest that the unspoken assumptions undergirding AL theory are especially consequential—in a bad way—for people with physical, mental, or other disability. These authors highlight the assumptions undergirding AL and make recommendations for HRD scholars and practitioners.

Leigh Fine argues that there are three major barriers preventing gender and sexual minority (GSM) persons from putting AL into practice. First, full authenticity with all social actors could carry risk in a world where heterosexuality and conformity to the gender binary remain the norm. Second, because of norms that surround the embodiment of leadership, GSM leaders who may wish to practice authenticity may not be able to be authentic in a way that is intelligible to others. Third, the term authenticity is problematic since if authenticity is dependent on other’s interpretations of behavior as authentic, then there can be no such thing as an authentic self.

Gelaye Debebe examines authentic leadership and talent development. She develops a novel framework that connects the talent development and leadership authenticity literatures to conceptualize contrasting ways in which people cope with social identity ascription, resulting in the development or attenuation of authentic talent. By framing talent development in the context of leadership, her framework emphasizes the potential contribution individuals can make to society if learning environments are constructed for the purpose of enabling learners to discover what they are good at and love to do.

Wendy Fox-Kirk contends that AL theory may result in a flawed notion of leadership. She argues that unquestioning acceptance of the core ideas within AL theory may have the effect of HR professionals behaving as if they are true, and hence, unwittingly perpetuating gender bias in leadership development practices. As such, it is important to consider the contextual factors, such as structural power, that involve the expression and development of authenticity. Fox-Kirk uses Bourdieu’s theory of social action to explore the core concepts of AL to illuminate the role of power and privilege inherent in this theory. For any leadership theory to be useful to practitioners and researchers, this author maintains it is essential that the issue of structural power is taken into account. This will help HR specialists to develop impactful leadership development programs, which provide opportunities to consider the relational nature of leadership and authenticity.

In her article, Maylon Hanold maintains that traditional descriptions of AL are highly individualistic and based on rational processes. She argues that this view of authentic leadership reproduces the power and privilege of the all-knowing individual as uniquely situated as the problem solver. Such conceptions do not facilitate collaboration, a dynamic in which shared power plays a critical role. Although recent critiques of authentic leadership consider the relational aspects of authentic leadership, they do not go far enough to help us understand how to navigate these power differentials. Hanold’s article presents an embodied, dialogical model of authentic leadership that attends to how shared power can be developed within the context of authenticity. Using a case study of student experiences in a graduate leadership development course, this article provides insights into how individual power is relinquished and rational thinking is subordinated to embodied dialogue. As such, leadership development practitioners and HRD specialists can benefit from this relational model of authentic leadership because it enables diverse understandings of authentic leadership such that all individuals can feel empowered to be authentic leaders.

In the final article, Rita A. Gardiner contends, we need to move beyond an acknowledgment of relational authenticity to create the conditions for authentic otherness to flourish. HRD practitioners are especially well-placed to become leaders in this area because of their focus on learning and development. If we want to promote AL in the workplace, she argues that we must allow sufficient space for authentic otherness, in all its rich diversity, to emerge. HRD scholars and practitioners are ideally placed to move the AL conversation forward.