Research into authentic leadership has surged since the mid-2000s. Authentic leaders’ high levels of self-awareness, balanced processing of information, authentic behaviors, and transparency in relationships. This concept, rooted in Kernis's notion of authenticity, has predominantly been explored from a positivist perspective, emphasizing measurable positive impacts. However, there is a growing call to examine the experiences of minorities, particularly the challenges faced by women in male-dominated leadership roles.

Despite strides in gender equality, recent World Economic Forum data highlights a regression in women's senior leadership roles to 2021 levels. In the 1970s, Schein coined the term, "think manager, think male”. This male-leadership association represents the tendency to highly value ‘male’ leadership behaviours such as assertiveness, ambition and self-confidence. Recent research shows that masculine leadership behaviours are still more highly valued than more feminine leadership behaviours, such as empathy, collaboration and support. There are signs though that this association is weakening over time.

The ability to be authentic at work is crucial as it links to well-being, reducing stress and depression, and improving engagement. Women have also shown less interest in roles in male-dominated environments when they are unable to be authentic. Ensuring women can feel authentic in all work environments, is critical in addressing the senior leadership gender gap.

Historical and Theoretical Context

The idea of authenticity within leadership was initiated in the transformational leadership framework by Bass & Steidlmeier, who emphasised a strong moral foundation as a key component of authentic leadership. This is influenced by work by Kernis on Authenticity. Avolio & Gardner's conceptualisation further defined authentic leaders as individuals with a clear sense of self and adherence to ethical principles. The development of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) helped cement authentic leadership as a standalone construct, linking it to various positive workplace outcomes, including performance and job satisfaction.

Are Authentic Leaders Moral?

A key debate in the literature is between the original proponents of Authentic Leadership who pertain that authentic leaders must be highly moral and critics who argue that if we are to follow the original (Kernis) construct of authenticity that means embracing both positive and negative human traits. The vast majority of the AL literature follows the highly moral perspective. Scolars argue that the level of self-awareness that is required to be an Authentic Leader is incompatible with low moral development. i.e. to really know yourself requires a level of self-examination and questioning which people with low morals just wouldn’t do.

Critics suggest that authentic leadership can include a values element, without ascribing what those values should be. It is a-moral and allows for human flaws and machiavellian behaviours.

I have thought a lot about the moral aspect of Authentic leadership, far more than this paper actually needed. Ultimately, I concluded that while combining authentic leadership and morality shifts authentic leadership away from the philosophical foundations of authenticity, authentic leadership without a moral perspective would lack appeal, be open to misinterpretation and fail to provide a developmental perspective. These elements are important for both academic and industry interest. Authentic leadership is a move away from the construct of Authenticity because it includes ‘leadership, and while morals and authenticity may not be inextricably linked, morals and leadership should be.

Multiple Selves in Leadership

One key debate in authentic leadership literature is the concept of a singular self versus multiple selves. Authentic leadership traditionally assumes a single core self, expressing consistent values. However, leaders often navigate complex and conflicting values, thoughts and emotions and can act differently depending on the situation and people they are with. To put this argument into context it’s helpful to take a step back and consider two different ways of seeing the world and two different foundations of academic research – positivism and interpretivism. A positivist paradigm assumes there is a singular ‘truth’ of the world waiting to be discovered. Research from this perspective seeks to quantify, measure and find cause and effect. On the other hand, an interpretivist perspective assumes there is no singular version of reality. Realty is socially constructed and dependent on each individual experience of the world. Research in this paradigm is about understanding experiences and less about finding generalizations. The early Authentic Leadership research was conducted by positivist researchers. They sought to codify, measure and track authentic leadership, and its impacts on employee and organisational outcomes. In this paradigm having a single measure of Authentic Leadership is important to be able to track its impacts. For more interpretivist research (this is where my study sits) the measurement of authentic leadership is less critical than the described experience of being (or trying to be) an authentic leader.

Authentic leadership scholars, both positivist and interpretivist, agree that humans are multifaceted and capable of conflicting values, beliefs, thoughts and feelings. This presents a challenge for people wanting to measure authentic leadership. For other researchers and for practitioners it is easier to embrace the complexity of the human self. To know that a leader is trying to be authentic is enough to work with them on their authenticity. Psychometrics to measure authentic leadership can be helpful as a conversations starter but they are never going to be able to capture the full complexity of human nature.

Emotional Expression and Authenticity

Emotional awareness and expression are central to authentic leadership. However, there is a tension between expressing genuine emotions and conforming to acceptable emotional 'display rules.' According to Gardner and his colleagues, authentic leaders are deeply connected to their emotions and understand how these feelings affect both themselves and the people they lead.

Leaders often face a tough balancing act: being true to their emotions while following workplace norms about what’s “appropriate.” Positive emotions, as noted by Avolio and team, play a big role in how authentic leaders inspire their followers. To be leader is at times conceal negativity, boost morle and inspire people around an optimistic vision.

Gardner and others point out that negative situations can push leaders to fake their feelings (think “putting on a brave face”), which risks compromising their authenticity and could lead to burnout.

This tension is also explored by Ladkin and Taylor, who focus on “embodied authentic leadership.” They argue that authentic leaders don’t just let emotions fly; instead, they consciously choose how to express their emotions, taking into account the needs of their team. This isn’t about being fake, but about navigating the messy reality of leadership by knowing how to navigate contradictory emotions and deciding when to hold back for the greater good.

For women leaders, this balancing act can be even trickier. Research shows that women are judged harshly for expressing both typically feminine and masculine emotions! This double bind means many women self-censor and carefully consider how their emotions might be perceived.

Critics argue that being too “authentic” at work, could backfire, potentially leading to career setbacks or social isolation. Modern workplaces, they say, aren’t always kind to leaders who fully express their emotions, especially women. They emphasise the importance in many workplaces of ‘fitting the mould’ and displaying the ‘right’ behaviours and emotions so as not to be perceived as too different.

Still, emotions are a huge part of leadership. Helmuth and his team suggest that a leader’s true authenticity is tested during moments of high anxiety, when it’s hardest to keep emotions in check. Learning how to navigate these emotional high-stakes moments could help leaders—particularly women—strike a balance between honest expression and effective leadership.

The big question remains: Can leaders stay authentic with their emotions and still be seen as competent? And for women, how can they balance negative emotions with a desire to lead authentically? There’s no clear answer yet, but exploring this dilemma is a vital step toward understanding what it means to lead with authenticity in today’s world. Authentic leadership involves navigating the balance between honesty in emotional expression and maintaining a competent appearance, especially when stakes are high. Knowing more about techniques used by leaders to regulate their emotions, especially in moments of anxiety, could provide guidance for others navigating these dilemmas.

The Challenges of Authentic Leadership for Women

With the proponents of Authentic Leadership largely being white, American men, the construct has faced critique for a lack of inclusivity and understanding of the experiences of minorities. It is reasonable to assume that the ability for a white man working in a predominantly white, male organisation will be different to that of a black female trying to be authentic in the same company. This is an area that has been largely overlooked by the mainstream Authentic Leadership literature but one that is getting more attention.

For women they face the challenge of embracing more feminine behaviours, and risk being seen as incompetent, or displaying masculine behaviours and being seen as inauthentic, even if these behaviours come naturally. Adding to this complexity, Ladkin notes that leaders who are different to the group they lead (e.g. women leading teams of men, minorities leading white employees) are less able to express their authentic selves. Eagly suggests that women face greater challenges in achieving leader legitimacy as male followers are less likely to identify with their values.

Some studies suggest that adopting masculine behaviors might help women feel authentic in leadership roles. For example, women who embraced traits like competitiveness and self-promotion reported less personal conflict about their authenticity. However, other research paints a different picture. Studies of women in male-dominated fields like advertising reveal that many women engage in impression management—downplaying femininity, taking shorter maternity leaves, or even adopting aggressive behaviors—to fit in, at the cost of their authenticity and wellbeing.

Perceptions of leadership roles and gender biases also influence how authentic female leaders feel they can be. Followers often judge women more harshly, particularly in male-dominated environments. Women are often expected to take on nurturing, servant-leader roles, while men are seen as more naturally authoritative. This dynamic can leave women feeling constrained, especially when their authenticity doesn’t align with these biases.

Men also face their own challenges, such as restrictions on expressing positive emotions or being recognized for ethical behavior, which aren’t traditionally associated with male leadership roles. However, research suggests that men’s gender stereotypes are generally more aligned with leadership expectations, giving them an advantage in being themselves at work.

Despite these insights, there’s still much to explore about authentic leadership for women. How does intersectionality shape these experiences? How do challenges vary across industries and career stages? These unanswered questions highlight the need for more research into how women navigate authenticity in the workplace—and what can be done to support them.

Conclusion

The literature on authentic leadership predominantly follows a positivist paradigm, with emerging works focusing on interpretivist experiential interpretations. Despite critiques regarding its moral implications and feasibility, the alignment of morals with leadership remains a crucial dimension for both industry and academic discourse. Authentic leadership challenges include understanding the self as multifaceted, emotional expression in leadership, and gender dynamics in authentic expression.

The existing research indicates the challenges that exist for women in expressing their authenticity. However, significant gaps remain in our understanding of this issue.

Note – this is an adapted version of the Literature review from my dissertation - An exploration of female leaders' experiences of authenticity and inauthenticity while working in male dominated leadership teams through the lens of values, thoughts and emotions. Academic language has been softened and additional context added. References have been removed. To request a copy of the full academic paper with references please email holly@sevenlevelsconsulting.com