Authentic leadership theory has gained significant attention in both academic and practitioner communities in recent years. The theory suggests that leaders who are aware of their core values, personal strengths, and limitations, and who strive to live by those values through transparent relationships with followers, are likely to form more positive and trusting connections that ultimately enhance their effectiveness as leaders.

Recently, however, a critique published in the journal Leadership claimed that authentic leadership theory is not merely flawed but actually “perilous” to scholars, scholarship, and those who believe in it.

In response, Professor William Gardner at Texas Tech University and Professor Kelly Davis McCauley at West Texas A&M University argue that this critique represents a form of “gaslighting” that attempts to make people doubt their own positive experiences with authentic leadership despite substantial evidence supporting its value.

The now often used term “gaslighting” comes from a 1938 play that was later made into a popular film. In the story, a husband manipulates his wife into doubting her own perceptions by subtly altering their environment and denying the changes when she notices them. Therefore, in modern usage, gaslighting refers to psychological manipulation that causes someone to question their own thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions. Gardner and McCauley argue that by claiming authentic leadership is dangerous despite its intuitive appeal and empirical support, critics are engaging in a form of academic gaslighting.

The authors identify several inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the critique. First, they address a claim about the origins of authentic leadership theory, which the critics attributed primarily to Bill George’s practitioner-oriented books. Gardner and McCauley point out that scholarly work on leadership authenticity actually dates back to the 1980s, with Henderson and Hoy studying and measuring leadership authenticity in educational settings. They note that an influential chapter on authentic leadership was published by Luthans and Avolio in 2003, the same year as George’s first book, suggesting parallel development rather than academic researchers simply adopting a practitioner concept.

A second misrepresentation they identify concerns the assertion that authentic leadership theory requires leaders to be authentic “all at once and at all times,” which the authors characterize as intellectually dishonest. They cite multiple early publications demonstrating that authentic leadership scholars have consistently recognized authenticity as an aspirational goal rather than a fixed state, acknowledging that no one can be completely authentic in all situations. The authors note that this point had already been agreed upon in a previous scholarly exchange with the critics.

The authors also address philosophical differences in how they and the critics view authenticity within the leadership role. Gardner and McCauley argue that who we are cannot be separated from our leadership role, since we bring our values, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses, and preferences to that role. This connection makes the study of authenticity within leadership both valuable and necessary, rather than suggesting the concepts should be studied separately.

The critics of authentic leadership theory identify “four perils” of authentic leadership theory. Gardner and McCauley first address the critics’ assertion that authentic leadership theory undermines academic work. They note that extensive empirical research on authentic leadership has been published in well-respected journals and subjected to rigorous peer review processes by trained scholars. This suggests the theory has sufficient conceptual and empirical support to merit inclusion in the scholarly literature.

The second claimed peril, that authentic leadership research “delegitimizes institutions,” focused on methodological criticisms, particularly the use of Likert scales in surveys. While acknowledging limitations in measurement approaches, the authors reject the dramatic claim that using such methods somehow threatens academic institutions. They point out that many prestigious institutions that teach authentic leadership concepts have maintained or enhanced their legitimacy.

Further, they note that the critics selectively ignored more rigorous research supporting authentic leadership theory, including multi-source studies, laboratory and field experiments, and factor analyses that validate the components of authentic leadership. Studies examining authentic leadership in retail stores, using objective performance outcomes, and employing experimental designs were all overlooked in the critique.

Regarding the third claimed peril, that authentic leadership makes “false promises” to organizations, the authors clarify that authentic leadership has never been presented as a solution to all organizational problems. Rather, they explain that authentic leadership was developed partly in response to corporate ethical scandals, with the understanding that leaders who are connected to their values are more likely to act ethically. They argue that the appropriateness of authentic leadership training depends on organizational objectives and culture and should be complemented by other approaches when needed.

The final claimed peril concerned “identity trouble,” suggesting that authentic leadership’s aspirational standards might cause feelings of failure in leaders who cannot meet them. Gardner and McCauley emphasize that authentic leadership has always been presented as a developmental journey rather than a set of rigid requirements. They note that the theory recognizes contextual factors that may make authenticity more challenging in certain situations, and that no one is expected to fully achieve these ideals.

The authors highlight several important factors about authentic leadership that are often misunderstood. They explain that authenticity exists on a continuum, allowing for varying degrees of self-expression depending on the situation. Social context and emotional display rules may require leaders to regulate their emotions in certain circumstances without necessarily being inauthentic. For example, a pastor who must officiate both a joyful ceremony and a funeral in the same day needs to manage emotional expressions appropriately for each context.

Research on emotional labor and authenticity has shown that leaders who can express genuine emotions at work tend to feel more authentic, but the authors acknowledge that situations requiring emotional regulation are inevitable. They suggest that prioritizing one core, higher order value (such as serving followers’ needs) over another (such as emotional transparency) in specific contexts represents value-based decision-making rather than inauthenticity.

Both spatial and temporal contexts may affect how easily leaders can achieve authenticity. For instance, psychological safety in a team may make it easier for leaders to acknowledge limitations, while highly competitive environments might make such disclosures seem risky. Authentic leadership scholars have published numerous conceptual works exploring these boundary conditions, showing recognition of the challenges leaders face when striving for authenticity.

The authors emphasize that scholarly critique is essential to the scientific process but should meet the same standards of rigor and accuracy as the work being assessed. They argue that the significant body of research supporting authentic leadership published in respected journals reflects its value as a legitimate construct worthy of continued study. While acknowledging the theory’s limitations and opportunities for refinement, they maintain that authentic leadership provides a promising perspective for helping leaders and followers be their best selves at work, rather than representing a danger to those who embrace it.

To close their case that readers are being gaslit by particular critics, Gardner and McCauley ask readers to consider a straightforward question: Does the argument that authentic leadership theory is “perilous” for those who embrace it make sense? To help readers answer this question, they ask them to first reflect on a series of more experiential questions. Have they ever encountered persons who occupied a leadership role that they considered to be authentic? Were they convinced that such leaders could be trusted to behave ethically based on a core set of values? Were they confident that such leaders would be transparent regarding their strengths and weaknesses and in disclosing the factors that inform their decisions? Did such leaders help others grow and develop through their guidance and support? Or was their seeming enactment of authentic leadership merely a perilous illusion, as some critics contend?

Then Gardner and McCauley ask readers to dig deeper and answer some more personal questions. Do they, when assuming a leadership position, strive to learn and grow in this role through self-reflection? Do they consider their core values when faced with ethical decisions as a leader? Do they attempt to be open with persons who follow their lead, at times making themselves vulnerable, to earn followers’ trust? And, bottom line, do they consider themselves to be authentic leaders, or, at minimum, someone who aspires to lead in a way that reflects their best self? The authors suggest that if readers responded “yes” to some or all of these questions, that is evidence that authentic leadership is not so dangerous after all. They conclude by arguing that, for most people, the idea that authentic leadership can play an important role in enhancing ethical conduct and performance in modern organizations makes more sense than the idea that it is dangerous. As such, Gardner and McCauley urge readers to reject efforts to gaslight them into doubting authentic leadership theory and instead use the theory to help them bring their own unique and best selves to work and to their leadership.