TY - JOUR
T1 - Authentic leadership theory
T2 - The case for and against
AU - Gardner, William l.
AU - Karam, Elizabeth p.
AU - Alvesson, Mats
AU - Einola, Katja
PY - 2021/12/1
Y1 - 2021/12/1
N2 - Scholarly and practitioner interest in the topic of authentic leadership has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Running parallel to this interest, however, have been a number of concerns regarding the conceptual and methodological underpinnings for research on the construct. In this exchange of letters, the cases for and against the current authentic leadership theory are made. Through a dialogue, several areas of common ground are identified, as well as focal areas where the cases for and against the utility of authentic leadership theory for scholars and practitioners sharply diverge. Suggestions for future theorizing and research that reflect areas of common ground are advanced, along with divergent perspectives on how research on authenticity and leadership should proceed. Despite their differences, both author teams found the dialogue in itself to be a healthy process for theory development and encourage constructive future dialogue on other areas where theoretical perspectives diverge.
AB - Scholarly and practitioner interest in the topic of authentic leadership has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Running parallel to this interest, however, have been a number of concerns regarding the conceptual and methodological underpinnings for research on the construct. In this exchange of letters, the cases for and against the current authentic leadership theory are made. Through a dialogue, several areas of common ground are identified, as well as focal areas where the cases for and against the utility of authentic leadership theory for scholars and practitioners sharply diverge. Suggestions for future theorizing and research that reflect areas of common ground are advanced, along with divergent perspectives on how research on authenticity and leadership should proceed. Despite their differences, both author teams found the dialogue in itself to be a healthy process for theory development and encourage constructive future dialogue on other areas where theoretical perspectives diverge.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85100466070
U2 - 10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101495
DO - 10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101495
M3 - Article
SN - 1048-9843
VL - 32
SP - 101495
JO - Leadership Quarterly
JF - Leadership Quarterly
IS - 6
ER -