The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1120-1145 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda William L. Gardner , Claudia C. Cogliser, Kelly M. Davis, Matthew P. Dickens Texas Tech University, USA a r t i c l e i n f o Available online 21 October 2011 Keywords: Authenticity Authentic leadership Content analysis a b s t r a c t The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in scholarly interest in the topic of authentic leadership. We review this literature with the goal of clarifying the state of knowledge in the field. We begin with a historical overview of the construct's definition and evolution. Next, we present the results of a content analysis of 91 publications that focus on authentic leadership. Specifically, we examined the publication type (theoretical, empirical, and practitioner), contributors (e.g., discipline, nationality, and institutional affiliation), theoretical foundations, research strategies, sample location/type, data collection methods, analytical procedures, and nomological network of authentic leadership. We conclude by presenting an agenda for future research. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Spurred by deep-rooted concerns about the ethical conduct of today's leaders based on chilling examples of corporate and government malfeasance, popular leadership authors such as former Medtronic CEO Bill George (Authentic Leadership, 2003; True North, George & Sims, 2007) and leadership consultant Kevin Cashman (Leadership from the Inside Out, 1998, 2008; Awakening the Leader Within, 2003) called for a new type of genuine and values-based leadership authentic leadership (AL). Sharing these concerns, Luthans and Avolio (2003, p. 244) expressed \"a need for a theory-driven model identifying the specific construct variables and relationships that can guide authentic leader development and suggest researchable propositions\"; henceforth they introduced an initial model for this purpose. Interdisciplinary summits were hosted in 2004 and 2006 by the Gallup Leadership Institute (GLI) of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln with the goal of generating scholarly and practitioner interest in AL development. A subset of papers presented at the 2004 Gallup Leadership Summit were published in a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly (2005, Volume 16, Issue 3) and an edited book (Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005b), further stimulating interest in the topic. The simultaneous proliferation of practitioner and scholarly writings has generated several competing conceptions of AL that have created confusion about the construct. Anticipating these problems, Cooper, Scandura, and Schriesheim (2005) articulated some of the areas of conceptual ambiguity (e.g., levels of analysis) and cautioned scholars to avoid the pitfalls encountered in advancing prior leadership theories by carefully defining, measuring, and rigorously investigating the construct. More recently, Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, and Dansereau (2008) examined the literature from a meso, multi-level perspective, noting several shortcomings, such as a primarily leader-centric focus operating at the individual level of analysis; they also provide specific recommendations for advancing AL theory at and across the individual, dyadic, group, and organizational levels of analysis. Unfortunately, the cautions of these authors have often gone unheeded, as the emergence of multiple practitioner and scholarly conceptions of AL has created ambiguity about what does and does not constitute AL, as well as the efficacy of strategies for its development. These problems are compounded by a limited amount of empirical research, which makes it difficult to assess the validity of assertions regarding the positive effects of AL that are commonly advanced by its proponents. Nonetheless, the Corresponding author at: Institute for Leadership Research, Rawls College of Business, 15th & Flint, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA. Tel.: +1 806 742 1055; fax: +1 806 742 2308. E-mail address: william.gardner@ttu.edu (W.L. Gardner). 1048-9843/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007 W.L. Gardner et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1120-1145 1121 scholarly literature has seen a recent upsurge in empirical investigations of AL that show promise for alleviating some of the conceptual confusion. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the scholarly literature on AL with the goal of clarifying the construct and our knowledge about its antecedents and outcomes. More specifically, we: (1) provide a historical overview of the construct of authenticity; (2) discuss the underpinnings and milestones in the emergence and refinement of AL theory; (3) describe the content analysis methodology employed to codify the various theoretical perspectives, research methods, and findings reflected in the literature; (4) present our findings regarding the underlying theoretical foundations for AL; (5) review the available empirical research on AL, focusing attention on the measurement of the construct and mapping out the nomological network; and (6) recommend future directions for the study and practice of AL. 2. Authenticity and AL dened 2.1. Authenticity Authenticity can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy and is reflected by the Greek aphorism \"Know Thyself\" which was inscribed in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (Parke & Wormell, 1956). Indeed, the etymology of the word authentic can be traced to the Greek word, authento, \"to have full power\" (Trilling, 1972), reflecting the notion of authentic functioning whereby an individual is \"the master of his or her own domain\" (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). An early reference to authentic functioning is Socrates' focus on self-inquiry as he argued that an \"unexamined\" life is not worth living. Aristotle followed with a view of ethics that focused on one's pursuit of the \"higher good\" achieved through self-realization when the activity of the soul is aligned with virtue to produce a complete life (Hutchinson, 1995). Such self-realization is tied to one's well-being or \"eudaimonia,\" a form of happiness that, in contrast to hedonism which seeks happiness and pleasure as desired end states, arises from successfully performing activities that reflect one's true calling (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Harter (2002) describes authenticity as owning one's personal experiences, including one's thoughts, emotions, needs, desires, or beliefs. Hence, it involves being self-aware and acting in accord with one's true self by expressing what one genuinely thinks and believes (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). While the attainment of complete authenticity is an ideal, Erickson (1995) cautions that authenticity should not be conceived as an either/or condition, since people are never completely authentic or inauthentic. Thus, it is more realistic to describe a person as being more or less authentic. The modern conception of the construct emerged in the past 85 years (Erickson, 1995). As Kernis and Goldman (2006, p. 284; italics in the original) note, \"contemporary psychological views of authenticity owe a great deal of debt to the works of philosophy\" where \"authenticity is loosely set within topics, such as metaphysics or ontology, firmly entrenched in particular movements, such as existentialism or phenomenology, and localized to specific authors like Sartre or Heidegger.\" While a complete exposition of the philosophical basis for modern conceptions of authenticity lies beyond the scope of this review, the interested reader is referred to the work of Erickson (1995), Harter (2002), Kernis and Goldman (2006), and Novicevic, Harvey, Buckley, Brown, and Evans (2006) for historical overviews of this literature. Based on their review of the historical literature, Kernis and Goldman (2006) conclude that it documents a range of mental and behavioral processes that explain how people discover and construct a core sense of self, and how this core self is maintained across situations and over time. Moreover, they assert that this literature reflects four central themes: \"authentic functioning of people's (1) self-understanding, (2) openness to objectively recognizing their ontological realities (e.g., evaluating their desirable and undesirable self-aspects), (3) actions, and (4) orientation towards interpersonal relationships\" (p. 284). Moreover, these themes are consistent with their conceptualization of authenticity as encompassing four key components: (1) awareness (i.e., knowledge and trust in one's thoughts, feelings, motives and values); (2) unbiased processing (i.e., objectivity about and acceptance of one's positive and negative attributes); (3) behavior (i.e., acting based on one's true preferences, values, and needs rather than merely acting to please others, secure rewards, or avoid punishments); and (4) relational orientation (i.e., achieving and valuing truthfulness and openness in one's close relationships; Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). This multi-component conceptualization of authenticity, in turn, has provided the theoretical foundation for several theories of AL (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Spitzmuller & Ilies, 2010; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) as described below. 2.2. Denitions of authentic leaders and AL A variety of definitions of leader authenticity or AL have been advanced over the years (summarized in Table 1). The earliest philosophical conceptions of authenticity within the leadership literature arose in the 1960s and reflected an assumption that an organization's authenticity is manifest through its leadership (Novicevic et al., 2006). This is illustrated well by Rome and Rome's (1967) description of authenticity in a hierarchical organization presented in Table 1. For Halpin and Croft (1966), organizational authenticity is posited to be a function of the openness of the organizational climate and is manifest by the degree to which members resist personal change when enacting their leadership and professional roles. Finally, Seeman (1966) proposed that the extent to which leaders are authentic is a function of their ability to reduce ambivalence about their leadership role. 1122 W.L. Gardner et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1120-1145 Table 1 Definitions of authentic leaders and authentic leadership. Source Denition \"A hierarchical organization, in short, like an individual person, is 'authentic' to the extent that, throughout its leadership, it accepts finitude, uncertainty, and contingency; realizes its capacity for responsibility and choice; acknowledges guilt and errors; fulfills its creative managerial potential for flexible planning, growth, and charter or policy formation; and responsibly participates in the wider community.\" Henderson and Hoy (1983, pp. 67-68) \"Leadership authenticity is therefore defined as the extent to which subordinates perceive their leader to demonstrate the acceptance of organizational and personal responsibility for actions, outcomes, and mistakes; to be non-manipulating of subordinates; and to exhibit salience of self over role. Leadership inauthenticity is defined as the extent to which subordinates perceive their leader to be 'passing the buck' and blaming others and circumstances for errors and outcomes; to be manipulative of subordinates; and to be demonstrating a salience of role over self.\" Bhindi and Duignan (1997, p. 119) \"In this article the authors argue for authentic leadership based on: authenticity, which entails the discovery of the authentic self through meaningful relationships within organizational structures and processes that support core, significant values; intentionality, which implies visionary leadership that takes its energy and direction from the good intentions of current organizational members who put their intellects, hearts and souls into shaping a vision for the future; a renewed commitment to spirituality, which calls for the rediscovery of the spirit within each person and celebration of the shared meaning, with purpose of relationship; a sensibility to the feelings, aspirations and needs of others, with special reference to the multicultural settings in which many leaders operate in the light of the increasing globalizing trends in life and work.\" Begley (2001, p. 353) \"Authentic leadership may be thought of as a metaphor for professionally effective, ethically sound, and consciously reflective practices in educational administration. This is leadership that is knowledge based, values informed, and skillfully executed.\" George (2003, p. 12) \"Authentic leaders use their natural abilities, but they also recognize their shortcomings, and work hard to overcome them. They lead with purpose, meaning, and values. They build enduring relationships with people. Others follow them because they know where they stand. They are consistent and self-disciplined. When their principles are tested, they refuse to compromise. Authentic leaders are dedicated to developing themselves because they know that becoming a leader takes a lifetime of personal growth.\" Luthans and Avolio (2003, p. 243) \"[W]e define authentic leadership in organizations as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates into leaders themselves. The authentic leader does not try to coerce or even rationally persuade associates, but rather the leader's authentic values, beliefs, and behaviors serve to model the development of associates.\" Avolio, Luthans et al. (2004, p. 4) as cited in Avolio, Authentic leaders are \"those individuals who know who they are, what they think and behave and Gardner et al. (2004, pp. 802, 803) are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others' values/moral perspective, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, resilient, and of high moral character.\" Begley (2004, p. 5) \"Authentic leadership is a function of self-knowledge, sensitivity to the orientations of others, and a technical sophistication that leads to a synergy of leadership action.\" Ilies et al. (2005, p. 374) \"Authentic leaders are deeply aware of their values and beliefs, they are self-confident, genuine, reliable and trustworthy, and they focus on building followers' strengths, broadening their thinking and creating a positive and engaging organizational context.\" Shamir and Eilam (2005, p. 399) \"[O]ur definition of authentic leaders implies that authentic leaders can be distinguished from less authentic or inauthentic leaders by four self-related characteristics: 1) the degree of person role merger i.e. the salience of the leadership role in their self-concept, 2) the level of self-concept clarity and the extent to which this clarity centers around strongly held values and convictions, 3) the extent to which their goals are self-concordant, and 4) the degree to which their behavior is consistent with their self-concept.\" George and Sims (2007, p. xxxi) Authentic leaders are \"genuine people who are true to themselves and to what they believe in. They engender trust and develop genuine connections with others. Because people trust them, they are able to motivate others to high levels of performance. Rather than letting the expectations of other people guide them, they are prepared to be their own person and go their own way. As they develop as authentic leaders, they are more concerned about serving others than they are about their own success or recognition.\" Walumbwa et al. (2008, p. 94) \"[W]e define authentic leadership as a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development.\" Whitehead (2009, p. 850) \"In this article, a definition of an authentic leader is adopted as one who: (1) is self-aware, humble, always seeking improvement, aware of those being led and looks out for the welfare of others; (2) fosters high degrees of trust by building an ethical and moral framework; and (3) is committed to organizational success within the construct of social values.\" Rome and Rome (1967, p. 185) W.L. Gardner et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1120-1145 1123 The first attempt to formally define and operationalize the constructs of leadership authenticity and leadership inauthenticity per se was made by Henderson and Hoy (1983). As Table 1 indicates, these authors view leadership authenticity as encompassing three components: (1) acceptance of personal and organizational responsibility for actions, outcomes and mistakes; (2) the nonmanipulation of subordinates; and (3) the salience of the self over role requirements. Leadership inauthenticity involves low levels of these components, i.e., a lack of accountability, manipulation of subordinates, and salience of role over self. Although the components overlap somewhat with the dimensions of authenticity proposed by Kernis and Goldman (2006), they also appear to be confounded with other constructs such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007), organizational politics (Ferris & Kacmar, 1995) and accountability (Hall, Blass, Ferris, & Massengale, 2004). Of the three dimensions proposed, salience of self over role comes closest to the philosophy-based conception of authenticity, as it \"refers to the tendency to behave in a genuine manner relatively unconstrained by traditional role requirements. Such a person is viewed as being real and authentic\" (Henderson & Hoy, 1983, p. 66). Fourteen years elapsed before AL reemerged as a focus of interest within the social sciences, again within the field of education (Begley, 2001, 2004, 2006; Bhindi & Duignan, 1997; Duignan & Bhindi, 1997). As Table 1 indicates, Bhindi and Duignan (1997) defined AL as being composed of four components: authenticity, intentionality, spirituality, and sensibility. Begley (2001) introduced an alternative perspective that is both broad in scope and narrow in context, as it equates AL with effective and ethical leadership and is confined to the context of education administration (see Table 1). He argued that \"[a]uthentic leadership implies a genuine kind of leadership a hopeful, open-ended, visionary and creative response to circumstances\" (p. 354). Hence, Begley's AL view encompasses some components (e.g., hopefulness; Luthans & Avolio, 2003) that are shared by subsequent definitions. Moreover, his later definition (Begley, 2004, p. 5; see Table 1) recognizes the importance of self-knowledge, a quality central to most conceptions of authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and AL (e.g., Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; George, 2003; Ilies et al., 2005; Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005). As noted earlier, George's books (George, 2003; George & Sims, 2007) have contributed greatly to the emergence of both practitioner and scholarly interest in AL. Given his practitioner background, it is not surprising to see that his definitions of authentic leaders and AL are primarily descriptive (see Table 1). Nevertheless, they do an excellent job of vividly capturing popular conceptions that reflect many of the central components of scholarly definitions. For George, the five dimensions of AL are: (1) pursuing purpose with passion; (2) practicing solid values; (3) leading with heart; (4) establishing enduring relationships; and (5) demonstrating self-discipline. While the language is different, several of these align well with the components of authenticity that were identified by Kernis and Goldman (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). For example, establishing enduring relationships is consistent with a relational orientation, and practicing solid values coincides with authentic behavior. The work that has been most instrumental in reigniting scholarly interest in AL is Luthans and Avolio's (2003) conceptualization of AL and its development. As these authors explain, the theoretical underpinnings of their AL model include positive organizational behavior (POB) (Luthans, 2002), transformational/full-range leadership (Avolio, 1999), and ethical perspective-taking (Kegan, 1982). Because of this confluence of perspectives, their definition of AL (see Table 1) includes POB states such as confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience that later became the basis for Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman's (2007) psychological capital (PsyCap) construct. This is also true of Avolio, Luthans, and Walumbwa's (2004) refined definition [as cited in Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, and May (2004)] (see Table 1). As a consequence, the distinction between AL, psychological capital, and transformational leadership, is not clear from these definitions, raising early concerns about discriminant validity (Cooper et al., 2005). However, these definitions also encompass the core components of self-awareness, positive selfregulation, positive self-development, and/or a positive moral perspective that are often reflected, either explicitly or implicitly, in prior and subsequent conceptions of AL. Through their research agenda, GLI associates Bruce Avolio, William Gardner, Fred Luthans, Doug May, Fred Walumbwa, and their colleagues worked on a more refined definition of AL (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005b). This research program yielded a model of AL development (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005) that is grounded in Kernis' (2003) multi-component conception of authenticity. As a testament to the scientific process, Ilies and colleagues (2005) independently developed a model of AL (see Table 1 for their definition) that is likewise based on Kernis' perspective, and thereby reinforced the utility of this framework. The GLI research program culminated with the definition of AL advanced by Walumbwa et al. (2008). As the definition presented in Table 1 indicates, this perspective identifies four primary components of AL - self-awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, and an internalized moral perspective - that are based on the awareness, unbiased processing, relational orientation, and behavior/action components described by Kernis and Goldman (2006). Some refinements were made to the four components to reflect both conceptual and empirical insights about their composition. Specifically, the unbiased processing component was renamed balanced processing (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005) out of recognition that all humans are inherently biased and flawed processors of information, particularly regarding selfrelevant information (Tice & Wallace, 2003). The behavior/action component was renamed internalized moral perspective to better reflect the leader's commitment to core ethical values. Additionally, two dimensions of AL - internalized regulation and a positive moral perspective - that had previously been posited to be conceptually distinct (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005), were combined to form the internalized moral perspective component. The rationale for combining these is based on a content analysis of open-ended descriptions by GLI doctoral students of a person they deemed to be an authentic leader. The results revealed that these dimensions could not be reliably distinguished because both involve the display of behavior that is consistent with internal standards and values (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 97). The four-component model of AL was subsequently operationalized and validated by Walumbwa and colleagues (Walumbwa et al., 2008) through the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ; to be discussed further below). 1124 W.L. Gardner et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1120-1145 Table 1 includes Shamir and Eilam's (2005) definitions of the terms authentic leader and AL, which reflect an alternative to the perspectives based on Kernis and Goldman's (2006) conceptions of authenticity. Specifically, Shamir and Eilam (2005) propose a life stories approach to the development of authentic leaders. In defining the authentic leader construct, they apply the dictionary description of the word authentic as \"original,\" \"genuine,\" and \"not fake\" to identify a set of four defining characteristics. First, \"authentic leaders do not fake their leadership\" (p. 396). Instead, they lead as an expression of their \"true\" and \"real\" self. Second, they lead from conviction in pursuit of a value-based mission or cause. Third, \"[a]uthentic leaders are originals, not copies\" (p. 397) who are driven by deeply rooted values that they experience to be true, not values imposed by others. Finally, because they take action based on their values and convictions, there is consistency between what they say and do. Shamir and Eilam (2005) also note that their conception of authentic leaders says nothing about the content of the leader's values, in contrast to other definitions that include considerations of morality. Shamir and Eilam's (2005, p. 398) definition rests on leaders' self-concepts and the relationships between their self-concepts and behaviors. They describe authentic leaders as those who possess high degrees of person-role merger (i.e., the leadership role is salient in their self-concept), self-concept clarity, self-congruence, and behavioral consistency. They define AL as a process that includes not only the authentic leader, but also encompasses authentic followership, as followers choose to follow the leader for genuine reasons to form an authentic relationship. Finally, in advancing their life stories approach to AL development, they describe how leaders' life stories can produce insight into the meanings they attach to key life events and which, over time, facilitate positive self-development through reflection. Other notable alternatives to those based in Kernis and Goldman's (2006) conception of authenticity include: Sparrowe's (2005) application of hermeneutic philosophy to describe the narrative process whereby the leader's authentic self develops; Michie and Gooty's (2005) exploration of the role that self-transcendent values and positive other-directed emotions play in the development of AL; Eagly's (2005) application of role incongruity theory to explain why incongruities between gender role and leader role requirements sometimes make it difficult for women to achieve authenticity as leaders; and Ladkin and Taylor's (2010, p. 64) consideration of the \"ways in which a somatic sense of self contributes to the felt sense of authenticity, and how through engaging with somatic cues, leadership can be performed in a way which is experienced as authentic, both to the leader and to those he or she seeks to lead.\" Finally, Whitehead (2009) recently introduced a definition of AL that includes three components: (1) self-awareness, other awareness, and a developmental focus; (2) the creation of high levels of trust built on a firm ethical and moral framework; and (3) commitment to organizational success grounded in social values (see Table 1). While the content and labels for these dimensions differ somewhat from earlier definitions, there is also clear overlap. We consider these alternative perspectives in more detail below as part of our content analysis of the AL literature. 3. Content analysis of AL publications 3.1. Sample To identify publications for inclusion in our review, we searched EBSCO/Host databases using specific keywords linked to AL such as \"authentic leadership\" and \"authenticity\" paired with \"leader\