ArticlePDF Available

‘Let’s get real’ … when we lead: A systematic review, critical assessment, and agenda for authentic leadership theory and research

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Scholarly and practitioner interest in authentic leadership has grown at an accelerating rate over the last decade, resulting in a proliferation of publications across diverse social science disciplines. Accompanying this interest has been criticism of authentic leadership theory and the methods used to explore it. We conducted a systematic review of 303 scholarly articles published from 2010 to 2023 to critically assess the conceptual and empirical strengths and limitations of this literature and map the nomological network of the authentic leadership construct. Results indicate that much of the extant research does not follow best practices in terms of research design and analysis. Based on the findings obtained, an agenda for advancing authentic leadership theory and research that embraces a signaling theory perspective is proposed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Management & Organization (2024), page 1 of 27
doi:10.1017/jmo.2024.68
RESEARCH ARTICLE
‘Let’s get real’ when we lead: A systematic review,
critical assessment, and agenda for authentic leadership
theory and research
William L. Gardner1, Elizabeth P. Karam2, Farzaneh Noghani3, Claudia C. Cogliser1,
Daniel P. Gullifor4, Ketan Mhatre5, Shucheng Ge6, Ran Bi1, Zhen Yan1and Dara Dahunsi1
1Rawls College of Business, Area of Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA; 2College of Business,
Department of Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA; 3College of Business, Department of
Management, University of Houston at Clear Lake, Houston, TX, USA; 4College of Business, Department of Management
and Leadership Programs, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI, USA; 5Business Administration and
Management, University of Redlands, Redlands, CA, USA and 6College of Business and Technology, Department of
Management, University of Nebraska-Kearney, Kearney, NE, USA
Corresponding author: William L. Gardner; Email: william.gardner@ttu.edu
(Received 29 June 2024; revised 2 October 2024; accepted 9 October 2024)
Abstract
Scholarly and practitioner interest in authentic leadership has grown at an accelerating rate over the last
decade, resulting in a proliferation of publications across diverse social science disciplines. Accompanying
this interest has been criticism of authentic leadership theory and the methods used to explore it. We con-
ducted a systematic review of 303 scholarly articles published from 2010 to 2023 to critically assess the
conceptual and empirical strengths and limitations of this literature and map the nomological network of
the authentic leadership construct. Results indicate that much of the extant research does not follow best
practices in terms of research design and analysis. Based on the ndings obtained, an agenda for advancing
authentic leadership theory and research that embraces a signaling theory perspective is proposed.
Keywords: authenticity; authentic leadership; signaling theory; systematic review
Introduction
Although occasional use of the terms authentic leadership (AL) or ‘leader authenticity’ appeared
in the leadership literature during the 1980s (e.g., Hoy & Henderson, 1983), interest in the topic
and authenticity in general exploded during the new millennium (Cha et al., 2019). e best-selling
books of former Medtronic CEO Bill George, Authentic Leadership (2003) and True North (George &
Sims, 2007), fueled this growth, as they piqued the interest of practitioners for whom the construct
resonated deeply. Scholarly interest was likewise stimulated by the 2004 and 2006 Gallup Leadership
Institute summits, with the former producing a special issue of e Leadership Quarterly (2005) and
Volume 3 of Elsevier’s Monographs in Leadership and Management edited series (Gardner, Avolio, &
Walumbwa, 2005) devoted to AL.
In the last comprehensive review of this literature, Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, and Dickens (2011)
identied 91 articles; since then, we have witnessed a further expansion of AL publications. Along
with this increase has been skepticism about current conceptualizations of AL and the methods
used to test them (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Helmuth, Cole, & Vendette, 2023; Iszatt-White &
Kempster, 2018). Some of the harshest criticism was advanced by Alvesson and Einola (2019, p. 389)
© e Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management.
is is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
2 William L. Gardner et al.
in a scathing indictment of AL research by making the case that authenticity and leadership are
inherently incompatible, should remain separate, and attempts to measure AL constitute mission
impossible.
Using a point–counterpoint format, Gardner, Karam, Alvesson, & Einola (2021) expanded on the
arguments for and against AL through an exchange of letters. In making their case ‘for AL, Gardner
and Karam examined the literature published over the last decade in search of supportive evidence.
Without conducting an exhaustive or in-depth review, they identied 128 scholarly articles published
since 2010, many of which appeared in well-respected outlets, which they interpreted as evidence
of rigor in this research stream. On the against’ side, Alvesson and Einola raised concerns about
the conceptualization of AL and the feasibility of studying it using questionnaires. is debate has
continued back and forth in subsequent publications (Alvesson & Einola, 2022; Einola & Alvesson,
2021; Gardner & McCauley, 2022a,2022b). is ongoing exchange highlights a need for a new review
to assess AL theory, explore critiques, and examine the rigor of empirical ndings. Further, a review
by Fisher and Sitkin (2023) that focused on eight positive (including AL) and two negative styles
of leadership, revealed extensive value-based conation of the intent, content, quality and eects of
leader behavior that these styles purportedly capture, raising concerns about their conceptualization
and operationalization.
e purpose of this manuscript is threefold. e rst is to provide a systematic review of the
AL literature published since Gardner et al.s (2011) review. Our review is guided by the following
research question: what are the conceptual underpinnings, empirical ndings, and methodologies
utilized to examine AL since 2011? In doing so, we examine the theoretical foundations of the dom-
inant social psychology-based approach (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, &
Walumbwa, 2005; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008), as well as alternative
philosophy-based perspectives (e.g., Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012), to identify opportunities for the-
oretical renements. Additionally, we contribute to knowledge about AL via a presentation of data
that highlights key ndings and maps the nomological network. Second, as part of this review, we
provide a critical assessment of extant AL theory and the methods employed to study it. ird, we
advance an agenda for future AL theory and research. is agenda includes a recommendation to
use signaling theory (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011) to deconate the AL construct and
its components, along the lines suggested by Lux and Lowe (2025) in their Editorial for this special
issue. Additionally, our agenda includes recommendations for enhancing the rigor of future empirical
research into AL.
Conceptual underpinnings of AL research
In their 2011 review, Gardner and colleagues traced the history of AL research back to the 1980s
and the writings of Henderson and Hoy (1983) regarding leadership authenticity and inauthenticity.
However, the 2011 review indicated that the genesis for the dominant social psychology-based con-
ception of AL was provided by the 2004 and 2006 interdisciplinary summits hosted by the Gallup
Leadership Institute of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Several theoretical perspectives emerg-
ing from these summits (e.g., Eigel & Kuhnert, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrang, 2005; Klenke,
2005; Michie & Gooty, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005), including a self-based model of
authentic leader and follower development proposed by Gardner et al. (2005), provided the concep-
tual underpinnings for much of the empirical research that followed. e inuence of this model grew
with the development of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio, Gardner, & Walumbwa,
2007; Walumbwa et al., 2008), which has since become the most used tool for operationalizing AL.
Definition
Walumbwa and colleagues (2008, p. 94) dened AL as ‘a pattern of leader behavior that draws
upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 3
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’. In
their review, Gardner et al. (2011) identied and discussed a number of alternative denitions of
AL. However, as our systematic review will reveal, the Walumbwa et al. (2008) denition is the one
adopted most oen. Nonetheless, this denition has also been criticized as being problematic for sev-
eral reasons (Alvesson & Einola, 2019; Fischer & Sitkin, 2023; Sidani & Rowe, 2018). Chief among
these is the fact that it includes both posited antecedents to AL (it draws upon ‘both positive psy-
chological capacities and a positive ethical climate’) and eects of AL (it promotes ‘both positive
psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate and fosters positive self-development). As
Fischer and Sitkin (2023) explained in their critique of leadership style research, a denition that
encompasses antecedents and/or eects of the construct muddies causal relationships and makes it
impossible to test them. To address these concerns, we support the rened denition of AL that Lux
and Lowe (2025) introduce in their Editorial and provide an expanded discussion of its underly-
ing theoretical premise in the ‘Revisiting and Updating an Agenda for AL Research section of our
manuscript. To set the stage for our review and our rened research agenda, we rst discuss current
conceptualizations of AL.
Four-component model
As the denition of AL proposed by Walumbwa et al. (2008) indicates, the four components of self-
awareness, balanced processing of information, relational transparency, and an internalized moral
perspective lie at the core of their social psychology-based view of AL. e theoretical roots of this
perspective are provided by Kernis and Goldmans (2006) conceptualization of authenticity as cog-
nitive and behavioral processes that highlight how people develop a core sense of self, and how this
self is maintained across time and contexts. Further, they identied four components of authenticity:
(1) awareness (i.e., knowledge and trust in one’s values, thoughts, motives, and emotions); (2) unbi-
ased processing (i.e., objectivity regarding and acceptance of ones positive and negative qualities);
(3) behavior (i.e., acting on one’s genuine values, preferences, and needs rather than merely acting to
secure rewards, avoid punishments, or please others); and (4) relational orientation (i.e., achieving
and valuing openness and truthfulness in one’s close relationships).
Kernis and Goldman’s (2006) multicomponent notion of authenticity provided the conceptual
foundations for early perspectives of AL (e.g., Ilies et al., 2005), including the four-component
model (Walumbwa et al., 2008). However, although the latter drew from the multicomponent view
of authenticity, it also modied the components in some respects to apply them to the leadership
context. Specically, the unbiased processing component was relabeled balanced processing out of
recognition that no leader (or follower) is ever completely unbiased when processing information,
while positing that more versus less authentic leaders (and followers) process information, includ-
ing that of an ego-threatening variety, in a relatively balanced fashion. Additionally, inspired by
Kernis and Goldman’s (2006) conception of the behavior component of authenticity as reecting a
commitment to act upon one’s true values, preferences and needs, the more descriptive label of inter-
nalized moral perspective was applied. Finally, they relabeled the relational orientation component
as relational transparency to better emphasize the importance of transparency and a free exchange of
information, without secrecy and obfuscation, within the context of leader–follower relationships.
Alternative perspectives
Although the four-component model of AL has gained the most theoretical and empirical atten-
tion, it is important to recognize that there are alternative perspectives. ree of these appeared in
the 2005 Special Issue of e Leadership Quarterly devoted to AL (Michie & Gooty, 2005; Shamir &
Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005), and are discussed in the Gardner et al.’s (2011) review. ree additional
promising alternative perspectives of AL that emerged in the wake of the initial surge of AL theory
building have been advanced by Ladkin and Taylor (2010), Algera and Lips-Wiersma (2012), and
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
4 William L. Gardner et al.
Sidani and Rowe (2018). Ladkin and Taylor (2010) asserted that although AL may be grounded in
the concept of a ‘true self’, it is only through the embodiment of one’s ‘true self that others come to
view leaders as being authentic. To support this claim, they explained how one’s somatic sense of self
(emotional bodily reactions) promotes a felt sense of authenticity, and how through the engagement
of somatic cues, leadership can be enacted in a way that both the leader and followers experience as
authentic.
Algera and Lips-Wiersma (2012) criticized extant AL theory as being limited because insu-
cient eort was made to secure an understanding of the ontological roots of authenticity. Aer
systematically addressing the paradoxes’ and limitations of current AL theory, they proposed a
perspective that draws on ‘four existential authenticity themes: 1) inauthenticity is inevitable; 2)
authenticity requires creating ones own meaning; 3) authenticity does not imply goal and value con-
gruence; and 4) authenticity is not intrinsically ethical’ (p. 118). e implications of these themes
formed a basis for proposing a more radical form of AL whereby the emphasis shis from the
individual leader to focus on the conditions by which all organizational members can behave
authentically.
Finally, Sidani and Rowe (2018) discussed challenges encountered within the extant study of AL
that arise from how the construct is conceptualized and measured. ey presented a model of AL
that views it as a legitimation process, rather than a leadership style. ey posited that AL consti-
tutes legitimated follower perceptions of the authenticity of a leader that are invoked based on moral
judgments. Specically, they described how follower-centered assessments of the moral component
of AL account for leadership dynamics in contexts involving ethical relativism, and in so doing, alle-
viate commonly expressed concerns about this presumed moral component. Further, they posited
that the overlap between the value systems of leaders and followers elicits impressions of authentic-
ity, even when there are no clear universal moral standards. Finally, they asserted that the behavior of
an authentic person does not qualify as ‘leadership unless a follower embraces it and thereby grants
moral legitimacy to the leader.
Although each of these alternative perspectives adds conceptual richness to the AL literature,
they have received relatively little empirical attention, as documented by our systematic review.
Nonetheless, they share a common theme that it is important to recognize the role that perceived
authenticity of the leader plays in the development and continuance of the leader–follower rela-
tionship. Moreover, while these perspectives do not directly promote a signaling theory of AL, their
common focus on AL perceptions is consistent with the signaling theory denition of AL proposed
by Lux and Lowe (2025) in their Editorial and recommended in our future directions section as a
promising direction for the renement of AL theory.
Systematic literature review
To address our review goals, we followed best practice guidelines for systematic reviews (Siddaway,
Wood, & Hedges, 2019). We established a list of keywords that comprised of authentic leader-
ship, ‘authentic leader’, ‘authentic leading’, and authentic leaders. ese keywords were then used
to conduct searches on the following databases: Web of Science, EBSCO (including Business Source
Complete and PsycINFO), and ABI Inform. e time period of our search was from January 1, 2010
(the ending date of the Gardner et al., 2011, prior review) to December 31, 2023. Our search was lim-
ited to peer-reviewed journals in the English language and, aer combining the results and removing
duplicates, yielded 3,282 articles. We reviewed this initial set of articles to identify those to exclude
and which ones to keep for eventual inclusion. As the rst step, we removed documents that were not
scholarly articles (e.g., books, book chapters, book reviews, letters) or were not relevant to AL. is
resulted in 1,065 articles that were moved to the next step of screening.
With the rise in popularity of the AL construct, many articles have appeared in less-highly rated
outlets that lack the standards for rigor of higher-rated journals, producing a proliferation of suspect
ndings. To devote sucient attention to the theoretical issues and address the rigor of the research
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 5
published in more reputable outlets, we decided to limit our coding to articles that appear in higher-
rated journals. To do so, we ranked the publication outlets of our initial set of 1,065 articles using the
Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) (https://charteredabs.org) 2021 Academic Journal
Guide (adapted from Harvey, Kelly, Morris, & Rowlinson, 2010), which rates business-related jour-
nals from higher to lower levels of quality, respectively, using the following scale: 4*, 4, 3, 2, and 1.1
ree raters considered multiple indicators, including Impact Factor, CiteScores, and acceptance rates
to rate unranked journals using the 5-point CABS journal quality scale. We then retained all articles
published in journals that were ranked 4*, 4, or 3. is resulted in a sample of 326 articles that were
retained for coding. Each article was coded by two members of the author team, who achieved an ini-
tial level of 88.4% agreement: all disagreements were reconciled until 100% agreement was reached.
Any article that was deemed to be irrelevant during the coding stage was subsequently removed from
the analysis. is resulted in a nal sample of 303 articles that were included in the analysis.
To conduct our content analysis of AL articles, we coded many of the variables examined in
Gardner et al.’s (2011) prior review of the AL literature, as well as several coded in other system-
atic reviews of the leadership literature (Dinh et al., 2014; Gardner et al., 2020), while adding some
new features. A description of the coding scheme is provided in Appendix A of the online supplement
(https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68). Due to space constraints, some of the larger tables summariz-
ing results for selected variables are included in an online supplement (https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.
2024.68) and labeled as Table S#.
Empirical findings
To provide a comprehensive review of the empirical ndings, we explored study characteristics
including article type, article purpose, AL denitions, theoretical foundations, and the number of
studies in each article. We also explored author characteristics including author(s)’s country, al-
iation, and discipline. Further, we examined data collection methodologies both qualitative and
quantitative as well as sample characteristics; levels of analysis; data collection timing; endogeneity
issues; AL measures utilized; and AL raters, sources, and targets. is detailed review and coding then
allows us to present a comprehensive nomological net of research on AL.
Study characteristics: Article type
Because of the nascent nature of the AL literature in 2011, only 25 of the 91 articles were empirical
at that time. In contrast, our coding reveals that 242 of the 303 articles examined are empirical, with
219 (72.28%) using quantitative methods and 23 (7.59%) using qualitative methods. Of the remain-
ing articles, 34 (11.22%) provide reviews of the literature, 27 (8.91%) are theoretical, 19 (6.27%) are
critiques, 3 (.99%) are pedagogical, 3 (.99%) are methods articles, and 2 (0.66%) are practitioner ori-
ented.2It is worth noting that the 34 identied review articles did not necessarily provide a systematic
review of AL research. Rather, they include articles that (a) review other constructs but also include
a discussion of AL, (b) meta-analyses that examine ALs relationship with a focal construct, or (c)
articles that review the leadership literature in general. Among the 34 review articles, only 6 articles
exclusively focused AL. Among those, one article reviewed 38 empirical studies of AL in the con-
text of health care (Alilyyani et al., 2018), one is a review of the use of AL in the discourse of British
press during the 2015 labor party leadership election (Iszatt-White et al., 2019), one discussed how
AL should be adopted in leading knowledge workers (Walumbwa et al., 2011), one is a meta-analysis
of antecedents and outcomes of AL (Zhang et al., 2022), and one article reviewed 53 empirical works
published between 2010 and April 2014 which had examined the relationship between follower-rated
AL and follower outcome variables (Gill & Caza, 2018). e sixth article is the review by Gardner
1For a description of the CABS journal rating methodology, see https://charteredabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/
Academic_Journal_Guide_2021-Methodology.pdf.
2Because articles could be coded as more than one type, the total count for article types is 331, rather than 303.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
6 William L. Gardner et al.
et al. (2011) which sets the starting date of our review. ese results show that in the years since the
Gardner et al.’s (2011) review, there has not been any comprehensive review of the AL literature exam-
ining both conceptual and empirical strengths and limitations, while providing a critical assessment
and mapping the nomological network of the AL construct.
We know from the early stages of our systematic review that AL remains an extremely popular
topic in the popular press, a fact that necessitated our decision to exclude articles appearing in busi-
ness journals rated as 1 or 2 on the CABS journal quality scale, due to concerns about a lack of rigor
that too oen produces suspect ndings and/or highly speculative theory. Hence, there are a host of
practitioner-focused AL publications that we intentionally omitted from our review. A list of the arti-
cles coded, the article reference number, the type of publication, and the research purpose is provided
in Appendix B as an online supplement (https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo2024.68).
Gardner et al. (2011) considered AL research at the time to be in the nascent stage of theoretical
progression as dened by Reichers and Schneider (1990). ese stages are (1) concept introduction
and elaboration; (2) concept evaluation and augmentation; and (3) concept consolidation and accom-
modation. Based on the types of articles identied in our review, we now consider AL scholarship to
t in the second stage of theoretical progression, characterized by concept evaluation through empir-
ical research, and the emergence of critical reviews that identify problems related to the denition
and operationalization of the construct. As is characteristic of this stage, concerns about the validity
of empirical ndings have been raised, mediators and moderators have been introduced to clarify the
processes underlying AL, and debate about how to move the theory forward has emerged.
Study characteristics: Article purpose
e results reveal that the primary purpose of AL research is to extend and link current theories
(N=257; 84.82%), aligning with the conclusions from the earlier review (Gardner et al., 2011).
e secondary purpose is to summarize and review existing theory (N=30; 9.90%), emphasizing
the importance of consolidating knowledge, evaluating the progress, and pinpointing directions for
future research. e results also show that the proportion of articles aiming to develop new theories
over the past 12 years declined from 9.8% (N=9) to 6.93% (N=21). Only a small number of
publications focused on contradicting current theories (N=14; 4.62%), and a minor portion (N=5;
1.65%) fall under the ‘other’ category.
Study characteristics: AL definitions
Given the surge in research on AL during the past 13 years, we developed a coding scheme for AL
denitions that used an unfolding process. We rst coded whether a denition of AL was provided in
the focal article. Although 86.14% (N=261) of the articles provided a denition, the remaining 42
did not, which we consider very troubling for theory advancement. If a denition was provided, we
coded whether the Walumbwa and colleagues (2008) denition was used, nding that it was in 202
(66.67%) articles, demonstrating a convergence on a single conceptualization of AL. If an alternative
denition was provided, we recorded this denition and its citation. Most commonly, alternative
denitions referenced prior work by Avolio, Gardner, and colleagues (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005;
Gardner et al., 2005) although there were exceptions where authors craed their own denition based
on alternative perspectives.
Study characteristics: Theoretical foundations
Based on the theoretical foundations for AL described by Gardner et al. (2011), we coded the under-
lying theory for each article using nine conceptual categories (see Table 1). Reecting an increasing
convergence around the four-component model of AL, we note that this theory is foundational
in 90.75% (N=275) of articles. Authenticity (or other elements of the authentic self or authen-
tic identity) is the second most-referenced frame, with 18.15% (N=55) of the articles. e third
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 7
Table 1. Types of articles by theoretical foundation
Theory Count Percentage
Authentic leadership theory 232 89.92%
Authenticity/self/identity 51 19.77%
Ethics/values/ethical leadership 11 4.26%
Positive psychology/positive
organizational behavior
8 3.10%
Philosophy 7 2.71%
Aective processes 1 .39%
Neo-charismatic leadership 1 .39%
Attribution theory/social perception 0 .00%
Well-being/vital engagement 0 .00%
Other 6 2.33%
N=258. Examples of other include social identity theory, uncertainty-identity theory,conservation of resources theory, and social information
processing theory.
most-frequent category is ethics/values/ethical leadership found in 4.62% (N=14) of the articles
reviewed. Concepts that were coded in the other’ category include complementary congruity theory,
a combination with servant leadership, and conservation of resources theory.
Study characteristics: Number of studies
Of the 242 empirical articles coded, only 24 reported multiple studies. e total number of studies is
285, and the number per given article ranged from one to 12, with a mean of 1.18 studies. For articles
with more than one study, the mean was 2.79 studies.
Author characteristics: Country, ailiation, and discipline
In this section, we highlight key attributes of authors who published on AL, namely: the authors’
country of aliation, their aliation, and their discipline based on the university/organization and
department listed in the article bylines. In cases where this information was unclear or unavailable,
we consulted additional sources, such as academic databases and ocial university websites at the
time of publication. ese results are critical given authenticity’s roots in other disciplines and unique
experience across contexts. Examining AL among a more diverse pool of researchers that spans mul-
tiple disciplines and cultural backgrounds would facilitate unique studies and ndings that consider
multiple perspectives of AL. Table S1 reveals that the top ve countries where AL authors reside are
the United States (N=162; 21.57%), China (N=100; 13.32%), Canada (N=54; 7.19%), the United
Kingdom (N=51; 6.79%), and Australia (N=48; 6.39%). is represents a signicant uptick in
non-US-based researchers since the Gardner et al. (2011) review of AL. Table S2 indicates that the
authors who published the most AL articles are aliated with Maastrich University (N=10; 1.33%),
the University of Queensland (N=10; 1.33%), the University of Alberta (N=9; 1.12%), Aston
University (N=8; 1.07%), and the University of Western Ontario (N=8; 1.07%). e author disci-
plines most represented are business/management (N=342; 52.86%), medicine (N=100; 15.46%),
and psychology (N=85; 13.14%; see Table 2). We also observed that the h largest category, other’
(N=44; 6.8%), consists of authors aliated with a variety of disciplines such as sports and exercise
science, applied statistics and research methods, and hotel management. Again, these results indicate
a broadening investigation of AL across disciplines since 2011. e popularity of AL across diverse
countries and disciplines speaks to its potential for understanding how AL may manifest in dierent
contexts.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
8 William L. Gardner et al.
Table 2. Types of articles by author discipline
Discipline Count Percentage
Business/Management 342 52.86%
Medical 100 15.46%
Psychology 85 13.14%
Other 44 6.80%
Business-Other 37 5.72%
Education 15 2.32%
Economics 14 2.16%
Sociology 4 .62%
Political science 3 .46%
Not reported 3 .46%
Engineering 2 .31%
Philosophy 1 .15%
Note: N =650. Where authors had multiple discipline ailiations, all were recorded.
Methodologies utilized: Summary
A summary of the data collection methods used in AL research is provided in Table 3. Among all data
collection methods, 74.12% (N=189) adopted eld surveys, demonstrating a consistent preference
in alignment with the prior review (Gardner et al., 2011). An encouraging trend is an increase in lab
experiments from 0 to 33 (12.94%). However, interviews (N=13; 5.10%), archival studies (N=12;
4.71%), eld experiments (N=11; 4.31%), meta-analyses (N=9; 3.53%), content analysis (N=5;
1.96%), observation (N=4; 1.57%), quasi-experiments (N=2; .78%), diary studies/experience sam-
pling (N=2; .78%), computer simulations (N=1; .39%) and judgment tasks (N=1; .39%) remained
rare. e limited utilization of these data collection techniques indicates untapped opportunities for
future research.
Methodologies utilized: Quantitative analyses
A summary of the analytical techniques employed in quantitative studies can be found in Table 4. By
far, the most common was correlational analysis with descriptive statistics (N=208; 94.98%). is is
unsurprising given the standard data reporting expectation of a correlation matrix with descriptive
statistics. is was followed by linear regression (N=118; 53.88%), SEM/path analysis (N=84;
38.36%), nonparametric techniques (N=51; 23.29%), ANOVA/MANOVA (N=49; 22.37%), and
multilevel analysis (N=32; 14.61%). ese ndings are mostly consistent with the results of the
previous review (Gardner et al., 2011), which found the most common analytical techniques were
correlational analysis, multilevel techniques, linear regression, and SEM/path analysis. Additionally,
Gardner et al. (2011) expressed optimism because more sophisticated tools (e.g., HLM, ANOVA,
linear regression) had been adopted in the later studies. Our results provide support for this optimism,
as evidenced by the increase in studies utilizing more sophisticated techniques. ough progress has
been made, opportunities for novel and more rigorous analytical techniques remain.
Methodologies utilized: Qualitative methods
Of our sample of 303 articles, only 23 employed a qualitative methodology (7.59%); this is a far lower
proportion than that found in the 2011 review where 9 of 25 (36.00%) publications did so. is trend
is consistent with Edmondson and McManus’s (2007) framework that notes as research programs
mature, the methods deployed tend to shi from qualitative to quantitative.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 9
Table 3. Data collection methods
Type of data collection Count Percentage
Survey 189 74.12%
Lab experiment 33 12.94%
Interview 13 5.10%
Archival 12 4.71%
Field experiment 11 4.31%
Meta-analysis 9 3.53%
Review 9 3.53%
Content analysis 5 1.96%
Observation 4 1.57%
Diary study/experience sampling
method
2 .78%
Experimental simulation 2 .78%
Quasi-experiment 2 .78%
Computer simulation 1 .39%
Judgment tasks (e.g., raters) 1 .39%
Other 2 .78%
Note: 255 of 303 studies reported a data collection method. N=255.
Table 4. Types of quantitative analyses
Analysis type Count Percentage
Correlation/descriptive statistics 208 94.98%
Linear regression 118 53.88%
SEM/path analysis 84 38.35%
Nonparametric techniques (e.g., Bayesian, bootstrapping) 51 23.29%
ANOVA/MANOVA 49 22.37%
Multilevel analysis 32 14.61%
PLS (partial least squares) 7 3.19%
Techniques for categorical DVs 5 2.28%
Time series/event history/LGM 4 1.83%
Simulation 2 0.91%
N=219.
Using Cresswell and Poth’s (2018) typology of qualitative methods, the most common approaches
included case studies (N=6; 26.09%), grounded theory (N=6; 26.09%), discourse analysis (N=4;
17.39%), and other (N=7; 30.43%). We commend researchers on the use of these context-rich
techniques that aord greater access to elements that might otherwise be inaccessible. However, few
of these studies took steps to assess conrmability (N=10; 43.48%), credibility (N=8; 34.78%),
dependability (N=3; 13.04%), and transferability (N=3; 13.04%), as recommended by Lincoln and
Guba (1985). Over one third of these studies (N=8; 34.78%) took no steps to validate their nd-
ings. is continues a concerning trend to which Gardner and colleagues (2011) called for greater
attention. Hence, we reiterate their call for the assessment of qualitative ndings, as well as a call
by Iszatt-White and Kempster (2018) for greater use of qualitative methods to surface indicators
of AL.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
10 William L. Gardner et al.
Methodologies utilized: Sample characteristics
Table 5 presents our ndings for the sampling designs employed. Nonprobability designs were used
extensively (N=220; 91.67%), with convenience samples being especially prevalent (N=193;
81.43%). Probability sampling designs were used infrequently, with the most common, simple ran-
dom sampling, adopted by only 4.64% (N=11) of studies. Although such reliance is no doubt
attributable to the diculty of collecting random samples in the eld, it nevertheless raises serious
concerns about the representativeness of the ndings.
To investigate the extent to which researchers addressed national context adequately, we coded the
country from which the samples were taken (as shown in Table S3). Most of the data were collected
from the United States (N=49; 20.85%). Germany is second and has the highest percentage of con-
tributions from Europe, making up 12.34% (N=29) of the studies. China is next, and the largest
Asian contributor, at 10.21% (N=24). Note that 68 out of the 303 articles did not report the country
from which the sample was collected. is is problematic because such studies omit a key element
of the context and potential boundary conditions (Gardner, Gullifor et al., 2021; Oc, 2018). Future
research should make the national context explicit and consider the role of societal level factors such
as power distance (Maak, Pless, & Voegtlin, 2016).
A summary of the types of populations sampled is provided in Table 6. e most common
were private companies (N=81; 34.32%), followed by health-care organizations (N=44; 18.64%).
Undergraduate and graduate student samples accounted for a smaller number of studies than employ-
ees at 11.44% (N=27). We view this as a strength of this literature, given the external validity
concerns stemming from an overreliance on student samples found in other management research
streams (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt, 1986).
We also recorded the sample size per study. Empirical studies of AL at the individual level incor-
porated data from 81,814 respondents with an average sample size per study of 378.8. Sample size at
this level ranged from 2 to 7,225 individuals. Studies at the event level incorporated 2,285 events with
an average size of 326.4 and a range of 1–606 events. At the dyad level, a total of 2,051 dyads were
examined with a range of 144–348 and an average of 227.9 dyads per study. At the team level, AL
researchers studied a total of 2,933 teams, ranging from 13 to 433, and with an average of 83.8 teams
per study.
Methodologies utilized: Level of analysis
e vast majority of studies focused on the individual level of analysis with 93.19% (N=219), com-
pared with 71.8% in the 2011 review. e team level of analysis was adopted in 14.89% (N=35) of
studies, compared with 11.5% in 2011. Dyadic studies were 3.83% (N=9) and event level studies
Table 5. Types of sample designs
Method Count Percentage
Nonprobability: Convenience 167 81.07%
Nonprobability: Theoretical/purposive 16 7.77%
Probability: Simple random 10 4.85%
Nonprobability: Snowball 6 2.91%
Probability: Stratified random 5 2.43%
Probability: Cluster 2 .97%
Probability: Proportionate stratified 2 .97%
Nonprobability: Other 1 .49%
Nonprobability: Quota 0 .00%
Probability: Systematic 0 .00%
N=206 studies that reported sample design information.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 11
Table 6. Types of populations sampled in the review
Sample population Count Percentage
Private company 74 36.10%
Health care 38 18.54%
Public organization 30 14.63%
Qualtrics panel 17 8.29%
Other online third-party source 10 4.88%
Undergraduate students (work status
unavailable) UG Students (work status
not reported/nonworking)
9 4.39%
Graduate students (working) 7 3.41%
Graduate students (work status
unavailable)
5 2.44%
Undergraduate students (working) 5 2.44%
Mturk 4 1.95%
Military 2 .98%
Snowball 2 .98%
Nongovernmental organizations 1 .49%
Other 16 7.80%
Not reported 12 5.85%
Note: N =205. Public organizations include government, municipalities, and education.
only 2.98% (N=7). Echoing the 2011 review and others (e.g., Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, &
Dansereau, 2008), more attention to the event, dyadic, team, and organization-levels is warranted.
Methodologies utilized: Data collection timing
In terms of data collection time, cross-sectional research was still widely used in current AL studies,
at 60.43% (N=142). e second most-used strategy collects cross-sectional data with a time lag in
26.81% (N=63) of studies. Longitudinal research focused on changes over time was less common,
representing only 12.77% (N=30) of studies.
Methodologies utilized: Endogeneity issues
As Table 7 indicates, most AL studies were susceptible to numerous sources of endogeneity, with com-
mon method variance being the most common (N=162; 81.00%). As Table 8 shows, few used any
of the methods Antonakis and colleagues (2010) recommended for addressing endogeneity, other
than control variables (N=123; 61.19%). Even in such cases, the control variables selected were
typically inadequate. Moreover, there is little evidence that guidelines for selecting control variables
based on theory (Bernerth, Cole, Taylor, & Walker, 2018) were followed. Given the reliance on cross-
sectional survey methods, the vulnerability to endogeneity is not surprising and highly concerning.
Here again, we recommend the use of more rigorous designs such as laboratory experiments and
quasi-experimental methods to minimize the confounding eects of endogeneity, as well as appro-
priate statistical tools for addressing them, such as dierence-in-dierence models and simultaneous
equations.
Methodologies utilized: AL measures
We provide a preliminary analysis of the studies examined to ascertain how AL was measured.
Existing survey measures including the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008)
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
12 William L. Gardner et al.
Table 7. Sources of endogeneity from studies in the review
Endogeneity source Count Percentage
Common-method variance 140 79.55%
Inconsistent inference 125 71.02%
Model misspecification 121 68.75%
Measurement error 157 89.20%
Omitted selection 142 80.68%
Omitted variables 154 87.50%
Simultaneity 139 78.98%
N=176.
Table 8. Methods of addressing endogeneity from studies in the review
Method of addressing endogeneity Count Percentage
Control variables 110 61.45%
Dierence-in-dierences models 1 .56%
Propensity score analysis 5 2.79%
Regression discontinuity models 0 .00%
Selection models (Heckman models) 0 .00%
Simultaneous-equation models 1 .56%
Statistical adjustment 1 .56%
Other 9 5.03%
None 64 35.75%
N=180. Note other includes randomized experimental design, paralleldesign, common method models, and Harman’s one-factor test.
and the Authentic Leadership Inventory (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011) were used in 67.47%
(N=197) and 16.10% (N=47) of studies, respectively. However, we nd that existing measures
were oen modied (N=82; 24.33%) with items dropped or changed, raising concerns about
construct validity (Heggestad et al., 2019). Only eight (2.37%) studies manipulated AL in an experi-
mental setting. Less than a quarter examined AL’s dimensions (N=58; 21.80%). For future research,
we advocate examining AL as a higher order construct with the four lower-level dimensions, as
conceptualized by the construct’s developers (Avolio, Wernsing, & Gardner, 2018).
AL is most oen modeled as an independent variable (N=209; 61.11%) or a dependent variable
(N=77; 22.51%); examinations of AL as a mediator (N=24; 7.02%) or moderator (N=17; 4.97%)
are less common. To obtain a more complete understanding of AL in the workplace, more research
that explores how it mediates or moderates relationships between antecedents, such as situational
variables (Oc, 2018), leader and follower personality attributes (Anderson & Sun, 2024), and work
outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment, leader and follower well-being, work engagement; Cha
et al., 2019; Gardner et al., 2011; Gill & Caza, 2018) is needed.
Construct validation
We coded the types of construct validation methods used in the studies that we examined
(see Table 9). e most common was Cronbachs alpha (N=290; 93.25%), followed by conrmatory
factor analysis (CFA) (N=146; 46.95%), discriminant validity (N=48; 15.43%), and convergent
validity (N=26; 8.36%). As noted previously, a sizeable number of studies (N=82; 24.33%) mod-
ied existing measures by dropping or changing items from validated scales, and some failed to
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 13
Table 9. Authentic leadership construct validation methods from studies in the review
Construction validation method Count Percentage
Cronbach’s alpha 269 94.72%
CFA 131 46.13%
Discriminant validity 42 14.79%
CFA with higher order model 25 8.80%
rwg/ICC(1)/ICC(2) 24 8.45%
Convergent validity 19 6.69%
EFA 14 4.93%
Manipulation check (experiments) 5 1.76%
Scale development paper 4 1.41%
Interrater reliability 3 1.06%
Other 3 1.06%
Face validity (only if they discuss it) 2 .70%
Predictive/criterion validity 2 .70%
Test/retest 1 .35%
Cohen kappa 0 .00%
Split-half 0 .00%
N=284.
report reliability information of any kind (N=20; 6.43%). Hence, the lack of demonstrated construct
validity is a source of concern.
Methodologies utilized: AL rater, source, and target
For measures of AL, we coded the rater, source, and target (see Table 10). We coded rater as ‘Self’
or ‘Other’ to indicate if the respondent was rating characteristics or behaviors of themselves (e.g.,
‘How do I feel?’) or another party (e.g., ‘How does my leader/team/organization behave?’), respec-
tively. Typically, raters were reporting on someone else’s AL (e.g., a leader or a manager; N=264;
90.10%). e ‘Data Source was coded to indicate the role of the respondent, as opposed to who the
respondent was rating. Persons occupying a subordinate/follower role (N=237; 80.89%) served as
the most common data source, followed by leaders/managers/supervisors (N=30; 10.24%). e data
target is the referent of the variable/measure and was generally someone in a leadership, managerial,
or supervisory position (N=282; 96.25%). Given the emerging concerns regarding endogeneity
in leadership research (Antonakis et al., 2010), future research should focus on mitigating common
method variance (and other endogeneity concerns) by assessing the AL of leaders/managers/super-
visors from more diverse sources such as peers, customers, and team members, or manipulating AL
through experimental means.
Mapping the nomological net for AL
To map ALs nomological network, we coded AL hypotheses to indicate the independent variable,
dependent variable, mediating variables (if applicable), and moderating variables (if applicable). For
each hypothesis, we coded if the predicted relationship was posited to be positive, negative, con-
tingent (for moderation hypotheses and mediation hypotheses where the direction of the predicted
relationship varied across stages), nondirectional, or multiple. Finally, we recorded if the hypothesis
was supported, partially supported, or not supported.
In total, 768 hypotheses were coded across 205 quantitative studies. Given the number of
hypotheses, we were unable to graphically depict the nomological network of AL that included all
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
14 William L. Gardner et al.
Table 10. Authentic leadership construct rater, source, and target
Count Percentage
Rater
Other 264 90.10%
Self 29 9.90%
Data source
Subordinate 237 80.89%
Leader/manager/supervisor 30 10.24%
Self 19 6.48%
Rater 6 2.05%
Team member 1 .34%
Data target
Leader/manager/supervisor 282 96.25%
Subordinate 6 2.05%
Other (e.g., presidential candidates) 3 1.02%
Team 2 .68%
N=293.
antecedent, mediator, moderator, and outcome variables. Instead, we created tables to summarize the
following hypothesized relationships: (1) dependent variables predicted by AL (Table S4a); (2) medi-
ating variables predicted by AL (Table S4b); (3) moderating variables for ALdependent variable
relationships (Table S4c); (4) independent variables related to AL as the dependent variable (Table
S4d); (5) independent variables related to AL as a mediating variable (Table S4e); and (6) AL as a
moderator of independentdependent variable relationships (Table S4f). Because dierent names
were oen used for conceptually identical or similar variables across studies, it wasnecessary to assign
common names to such variables. Online Appendix C (https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo2024.68) provides
a list of the original and assigned variable names.
Dependent variables predicted by AL
Table S4a presents a summary of the dependent variables that AL is posited to predict, while tab-
ulating the directions of the relationship and the number of times it was supported. In total 569
hypotheses predicted relationships between AL and a dependent variable. e most examined depen-
dent variables were key work outcomes including performance (N=66), creativity (N=40),
organizational citizenship behaviors (N=34), job satisfaction (N=34), trust (N=30), psycholog-
ical capital (N=26), engagement (N=23), turnover intentions (N=16), commitment (N=15),
and well-being (N=14). Other frequently examined dependent variables include stress (N=16),
leader–member exchange (N=15), and transformational leadership (N=9). Despite exceptions, 445
of the hypothesized relationships were supported, and 33 were partially supported, providing empir-
ical support for AL theory. However, nearly all of these hypotheses are subject to endogeneity bias
due to omitted variables (Antonakis et al., 2010), because antecedents of AL (e.g., leader personality)
were typically not measured or controlled. Hence, the relationships identied must be interpreted
with caution until they can be examined using more rigorous research designs.
Mediating variables predicted by AL
Table S4b shows the mediating variables associated with AL. e most common predicted mediator
was trust (N=20), followed by engagement (N=11), psychological capital (N=10), empowerment
(N=9), work–life balance (N=8), leader–member exchange (N=7), and person-job t (N=6).
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 15
Of the 209 hypotheses tested, 159 were supported, again providing tentative support for AL theory
that should be tempered by endogeneity concerns.
Moderating variables for ALdependent variable relationships
Table S4c presents a summary of the moderating variables that were posited to alter the relationships
between AL and a dependent variable. Most common were interactions (N=7), leader behaviors
(N=6), values (N=4), identication (N=4), and competency (N=4). Of the 81 moderating
hypotheses tested, 51 were supported, providing tentative support for the predicted relationships
along with insight into potential boundary conditions (Gardner, Gullifor et al., 2021).
AL as the dependent variable
Table S4d provides a summary of the variables that have been examined as predictors of AL. Such
studies are welcome for two reasons. First, in their 2011 review, Gardner and colleagues observed
little research focused on antecedents to AL. Second, antecedents to AL could be useful in addressing
endogeneity issues, if they serve as viable instrumental variables (Antonakis et al., 2010). e most
studied predictors of AL were mindfulness (N=11), leader gender (N=6), and (rater) gender
(N=6). Unfortunately, these variables are unsuitable to qualify as instrumental variables because
they are also likely to be endogenous variables that are correlated with the error term of the dependent
variable.
AL as mediating and moderating variables
Tables S4e and S4f provide summaries of the hypotheses for which AL was a mediating and a moder-
ating variable, respectively. Of the 24 mediating hypotheses tested, 18 were supported and three par-
tially supported. Of the 27 moderating hypotheses tested, 8 provided support for posited contingent
relationships and 9 for positive moderation. No critical mass or pattern of independentdependent
variable relationships for which AL serves as a mediator or moderator is discernable. Future research
that explores such relationships is needed to fully map and add nuance to the nomological network
for AL.
Revisiting and updating an agenda for AL research
In their review of the early AL literature, Gardner et al. (2011) concluded with an agenda for future
AL research. For our review of subsequent AL research, it is informative to revisit their conceptual
and methodological recommendations to assess the extent to which they have been followed. In the
sections that follow, we recap their recommendations, provide an assessment of the extent to which
progress has been made in following them, and oer our recommendations moving forward that are
derived from our review. Table 11 provides a summary of the 2011 agenda and the extent to which it
has been enacted.
Stronger theory building
In their review, Gardner et al. (2011) observed that the majority (59 out of 91) of AL publications
were conceptual, with 55 reecting a positivist, four an interpretive, and none a critical social science
tradition (Neuman, 2015). Of the positivist-oriented publications, only 30 oered conceptual models
and only 15 propositions both of which are components of theory building that positivists rec-
ommend for making a theoretical contribution (Bacharach, 1989). Gardner et al. (2011) noted that
articles appearing in e Leadership Quarterly, the top specialty journal in the eld, were more likely
to include models, propositions, and other key elements of theory. Not surprisingly, these features
of theory were missing from most of the practitioner-oriented writings (Cashman, 1998,2003,2008;
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
16 William L. Gardner et al.
Table 11. AL review (2011) future directions revisited
AL future directions
identified (2011) AL future directions revisited (2024)
Stronger theory
building
The need for stronger theory building has arguably received the most
consideration from researchers, including refinements to existing models, the
development of alternative perspectives, scathing critiques, and exchanges
between AL researchers. While much has been done in terms of identifying
concerns over AL research, the opportunity for future researchers to shore up
these concerns remains.
Expansion of the
nomological network
for AL
From a volume perspective, much progress has been made in the expansion of
the nomological network. However, that volume has not always been
accompanied by the theoretical/methodological rigor that would provide the
confidence in the expanded network. As such, we advise researchers to
consider many of these results as tentative, not conclusive, and in need of
further study.
More rigorous and
diverse methods
Arguably the least progress (and most disappointing) has been regarding the
(lack of) rigor and diversity of methods employed in AL research. Just as in the
2011 review, AL research has relied heavily on surveys, cross-sectional designs,
and single source data, resulting in endogeneity issues. We implore researchers
to adopt more rigorous and innovative methods such as experimental designs,
experience sampling methodologies, and non-survey operationalizations of AL.
Attention to
authentic
followership
Though our review identified several conceptual and empirical studies on
authentic followership, nearly all of these studies either lack empirical support
entirely or they suer from methodological concerns (i.e., endogeneity) that
weaken the confidence in their findings. As such, this topic remains
understudied and an avenue worthy of continued exploration.
Focus on AL
development
The focus on AL development continues to be limited. There have been several
studies that examine AL development, but methodological limitations have le
the findings inconclusive. Though assessing leadership development programs
is challenging, recent advances are promising, and the results would have
considerable theoretical and practical implications.
George, 2003; George & Sims, 2007; George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007; Goee & Jones, 2005)
that advanced lay theories of AL. Gardner et al. (2011) suggested that such mixed levels of conceptual
rigor reected the nascent state of AL research. ey went on to argue that for AL theory and research
to realize its ‘potential, greater attention to the basic components of theory, including the boundary
conditions reected by underlying assumptions about values, time, and space (Bacharach, 1989), is
required’ (p. 1140).
In the ensuing 13 years, empirical research most of which was grounded in the four-component
model of AL expanded dramatically, accompanied by heightened criticism of AL theory. Indeed,
as indicated during our discussion of article type, 219 of the 303 articles (72.28%) reviewed used
quantitative methods and 23 (7.59%) qualitative methods, whereas only 27 (8.91%) purely conceptual
articles surfaced. Additionally, 19 (6.27%) articles were coded as critiques of AL theory.
Although some renements of the four-component model of AL (Gardner et al., 2005) have
been advanced (e.g., Karam, Gardner, Gullifor, Tribble, & Li, 2017), along with the alternative con-
ceptualizations previously discussed, critiques of AL raised several concerns about the conceptual
foundations of AL research (Alvesson & Einola, 2019;2022; Einola & Alvesson, 2021; Fischer & Sitkin,
2023; Gardner, Karam et al., 2021; Lemoine, Hartnell, & Leroy, 2019; Sidani & Rowe, 2018). e rst
asserts that AL scholarship has demonstrated a lack of recognition of the fundamental philosophical
assumption of existentialism (which has a much longer history and extensive theoretical ground-
ing than the social psychology conceptions) that inauthenticity is unavoidable for humans, creating
unrealistic expectations regarding the capacity for leaders (and followers) to achieve authenticity in
organizational contexts (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Alvesson & Einola, 2019; Gardner, Karam
et al., 2021). e second pertains to the inclusion of a moral component that is inconsistent with
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 17
philosophical conceptions of authenticity (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Alvesson & Einola, 2019;
Iszatt-White & Kempster, 2018; Sidani & Rowe, 2018; Sparrowe, 2005). e third concern is that
extant AL theory and research reects an entity’ rather than a process perspective that underappre-
ciates the dynamic nature of leadership (Alvesson & Einola, 2019;2022; Einola & Alvesson, 2021;
Gardner, Karam et al., 2021). e fourth notes that by changing the label of the behavior dimension
posited by Kernis and Goldman (2006), Walumbwa et al. (2008) diluted the focus on actions that they
identied as a key theme of the authenticity literature by focusing instead on a ‘perspective (Helmuth
et al., 2023). e h involves the previously noted observation that the most commonly adopted def-
inition by Walumbwa et al. (2008, p. 94) is problematic because it includes both posited antecedents
(e.g., positive psychological capacities) and eects (e.g., fosters positive self-development). ese
concerns have led to calls to either rene or abandon the four-component conceptualization of AL.
Because the rst three concerns have been discussed in detail in the letter exchanges between
Gardner, Karam, and McCauley with Alvesson and Einola (Alvesson & Einola, 2022; Einola &
Alvesson, 2021; Gardner, Karam et al., 2021; Gardner & McCauley, 2022a;2022b), we only briey
revisit them here. With respect to the rst concern, we agree that it is unrealistic to assume that lead-
ers and followers can be consistently authentic across time and organizational contexts. Indeed, that
is why Gardner et al. (2005) adopted an aspirational perspective that assumes certain leaders and fol-
lowers strive for authenticity in their interactions with others, even though they frequently fall short
in doing so. Moreover, we agree that proponents of the four-component model of AL have given too
little attention to the philosophical roots for the construct of authenticity. To address this shortcom-
ing, alternative perspectives that build upon existentialistic views on authenticity have been proposed
(Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Gardiner, 2016,2023; Sparrowe, 2005). To date, however, these per-
spectives have garnered little empirical attention, as our coding of the theoretical foundations for AL
research indicates. We encourage research that embraces these alternative approaches to enrich our
understanding of AL. Indeed, given the emphasis that each places on understanding the implications
of perceived AL, we think they may inform and complement future research that embraces a signaling
theory perspective of AL, as we and Lux and Lowe (2025) propose.
e second point was addressed by Gardner and Karam in the rst letter of their exchange with
Alvesson and Einola (Gardner, Karam et al., 2021). Specically, they justied the inclusion of a moral
component of AL by invoking Ciulla’s (2014) observation that because the actions of leaders have
consequences (either good or bad) for others, ethics lies at the ‘heart of leadership, including AL.
Nonetheless, we also recognize that other scholars (e.g., Shamir & Eilam, 2005), and especially those
informed by existential views on authenticity (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Gardiner, 2016,2023;
Sparrowe, 2005), argue against a moral component of AL. From our point of view, such diversity
in perspectives is not surprising and healthy, and not unlike those that characterize other leader-
ship theories, such as Burnss (1978), Bass’s (1985), Podsako et al.’s (1990), and most recently Stock
et al.’s (2023) theories of transformational leadership. e key is for scholars to explicitly state the
perspective and underlying assumptions of AL that guide their research.
With respect to the third point, we disagree that the four-component model of AL reects an entity
perspective, as the interactive process whereby leaders and followers form authentic relationships has
been a key element of the theory since its inception (Gardner et al., 2005). Nevertheless, we agree
with the spirit of this critique in that we think there is a need for greater recognition of AL as a
process, which, like Lux and Lowe (2025), lead us to propose a signaling theory (Connelly et al.,
2011) lens to explicate the processes whereby authentic leader and follower identities are claimed and
granted (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). e convergence of Lux and Lowes (2025) conclusion regarding
the promise of signaling theory as a lens for studying AL with our own is hardly surprising given
the emerging precedents for applying signaling theory to clarify charismatic (Antonakis, Bastardoz,
Jacquart, & Shamir, 2016), ethical (Banks, Fischer, Gooty, & Stock, 2021; Banks et al., 2022), and
transformational (Stock et al., 2023) leadership processes.
Regarding the fourth point, we agree with Helmuth and colleagues (2023) that Gardner et al.
(2005) diluted Kernis and Goldman’s (2006) focus on authentic actions. We think that adoption of
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
18 William L. Gardner et al.
the signaling theory perspective of AL that we advocate along with Lowe and Lux (2025) addresses
this issue by putting the focus on leader signaling behaviors as actions that leaders take to elicit
attributions of authenticity.
Finally, we focus in particular on the issue of construct conation raised by Fischer and Sitkin
(2023), as we are in agreement with Lux and Lowe (2025) that this is one of the most important
issues that AL scholars must address to move the eld forward. In their assessment of the literature
on eight positive and two negative styles of leadership, Fischer and Sitkin (2023) identied several
conceptual shortcomings for all ten leadership styles, including AL, that contribute to valence-based
conation. Such conation stems from the specication of leadership behaviors as inherently positive
or negative and contributes to the intermingling of the behavioral content with the assessment of the
leader’s underlying intentions, quality of execution, and subsequent eects. Ultimately, such valence-
based conation results in causal indeterminacy for the empirically investigated relationships among
the leadership styles with their antecedents, mediating processes, and behavioral eects.
Despite their concerns, Fischer and Sitkin (2023) do not call for the abandonment of AL research.
Instead, they state that they nd it plausible that authentic leadership causes positive outcomes
because authenticity can improve credibility, which in turn can help in wielding social inuence’ (p.
342). To gain greater condence in the evidence base for AL, they advocate deconating the construct
and its operationalization. We agree with Fischer and Sitkin (2023) that the conceptualization of AL
requires renement toavoid conation with its antecedents and eects. To do so, we embrace signal-
ing theory (Connelly et al., 2011) as a promising lens for explicating the dynamic inuence process
whereby leaders signal their authenticity to followers and oer a rened denition of AL.
A refined AL definition
To preface our discussion of the signaling theory perspective of AL, we do not recommend abandon-
ing the four component conceptualization of AL, as it is grounded in social psychological research on
authenticity (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006), and hence reects important components of AL
that we consider to be fundamental to the phenomenon. Instead, we adopt the Lux and Lowes (2025,
p. xx) rened denition of AL that removes the posited antecedents and eects and reects a signaling
theory and process perspective: AL is a concordant, values-based leader signaling of self-awareness,
internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency’. Note that this def-
inition removes all references to ‘positive psychological capacities’, a positive ethical climate, and
‘positive self-development’ which reect values-based conation.
Toward a signaling theory perspective of AL
In a review of applications of signaling theory in the management literature, Connelly and colleagues
(2011, p. 42) ‘focus on the role of signaling in understanding how parties resolve information asym-
metries about latent and unobservable quality, which constitutes the majority of management studies
that explicitly invoke signaling theory’. ey dene quality as ‘the underlying, unobservable ability
of the signaler to fulll the needs or demands of an outsider observing the signal’ (p. 43). Signaling
theory identies the actions that insiders (parties with private information) take to intentionally com-
municate positive, imperceptible attributes of the insider to outsiders. Eective signals possess two
key qualities: (1) they must be observable such that outsiders notice the signal and (2) there must be
costs associated with the signal such that it is dicult to fake, and some parties are better positioned
to absorb these costs.
Information asymmetry operates in two directions: receivers desire information about senders,
but senders likewise seek information from receivers so they can assess what signals are most reliable,
receive attention, and how they are interpreted. Antonakis and associates (2016, p. 304) explain that,
through signaling, ‘leaders can win selection tournaments or be accorded status by followers, whether
they are formal or informal leaders. As for followers, leaders signal to them the types of behaviors they
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 19
should engage in via role modeling and/or the value systems they advocate, as well as their support
for authentic follower self-expression (Dufour, Maoret, & Montani, 2020; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, &
Sels, 2015). To enhance the eciency of the information signaled, followers in turn use countersignals
(Connelly et al., 2011) to provide feedback on how leaders are perceived through their enthusiasm
for the leader’s message and the extent to which they enact it.
When applied to charismatic and ethical leadership, signaling theory identies charisma
(Antonakis et al., 2016) and ethical values/principles (Banks et al., 2021,2022), respectively, as leader
attributes that are costly to acquire and hence not available to all parties. We likewise suggest that
leader authenticity is costly to signal and dicult to fake for a sustained period of time. at is,
because authenticity is an attribute that is not possessed equally by all persons, including leaders, it
is valuable as a signal that can secure support from others. Viewing AL from a signaling theory per-
spective implies that leaders (senders) who strive for authenticity (intentions) seek to communicate
their authenticity to followers (receivers) through signals that accurately reect personal attributes
(e.g., values, motives, emotions, strengths, weaknesses) to eectively (quality) reduce information
asymmetries about the leader and secure status and support from followers (eects). e implica-
tions for AL theory are clear: (1) behavioral signals of leader authenticity must be observable; (2)
there are costs associated with authenticity signals such that more versus less authentic leaders are
in a better position to signal authenticity without experiencing debilitating costs; and (3) the coun-
tersignals sent by potential and actual followers provide feedback regarding the extent to which they
attribute authenticity to the leader. Moreover, leader signals of the authenticity of espoused values and
behavioral intentions lessen information asymmetry and thereby reduce moral hazards for followers.
To further explain why we view authenticity as a costly signal, we draw on Hahl and Ha’s (2020)
argument that authenticity is an identity characteristic of an entity (individual, leader, organization)
that indicates it is what it claims to be. Audiences attribute authenticity to actors who fulll their
commitments, especially when such commitments threaten short-term gains. To further explain this
perspective of authenticity, they rely on Goman’s (1959) frontstage versus backstage metaphor. e
frontstage is where the desired identity of an actor is presented and meant to be seen. In contrast,
the backstage reects the true intentions and character of the actor. An actor is authentic when the
frontstage and backstage are aligned. However, because the backstage cannot be seen, opportunities
arise to present a frontstage that is inconsistent with the backstage to secure rewards associated with
the desired identity. In contrast, when an actor expresses disinterest in these extrinsic rewards, the
audience can infer that the backstage and frontstage are aligned.
is argument for a disinterested’ signal of an authentic leader identity is consistent with AL the-
ory, which posits that more authentic leaders are less interested in extrinsic rewards, and are instead
motivated intrinsically to follow their values (Gardner et al., 2005). In contrast, less authentic lead-
ers with less dened moral values are more easily tempted by external rewards. Consequently, they
must engage in a greater degree of self-regulation to resist indulgences, leading to self-control fatigue
(Forestier, de Chanaleilles, Boisgontier, & Chalabaev, 2022). An authentic leader identity is signaled
to address commitment concerns of followers that the leader is willing to behave consistently even if
doing so is costly because it requires forgoing short-term benets.
We concur with Lux and Lowe (2025) that signaling theory constitutes a promising lens for map-
ping out the underlying intentions, behavioral signals, eectiveness in execution, and eects of AL
and its four components. Although a complete reconceptualization of AL from a signaling theory
perspective is beyond the scope of this review, we encourage scholars to embrace Lux and Lowes
(2025) revised denition and recommendation to apply signaling theory to esh out the processes
whereby leaders signal, and followers attribute, authenticity to the leader.
Expansion of the nomological net for AL
Given the paucity of empirical investigations into AL at the time of their review, it is not surprising
that Gardner et al. (2011) called for further mapping of the nomological network for AL. Specically,
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
20 William L. Gardner et al.
they called for research focused on the posited antecedents, mediators, and moderators of AL, includ-
ing individual dierences and contextual variables. As our discussion of the expanded nomological
network for AL indicates, progress has been made along these lines, with the identication of several
antecedents (see Tables S4d and S4e), mediators (see Table S4b), and moderators (see Table S4c) of
authentic leader–follower relationships.
Nevertheless, caution should be exercised in interpreting the expanded network for several
reasons. First, in many cases, the theoretical rationale for the posited relationships was weak, as
researchers too oen substituted ‘references, data, diagrams, variables, and hypotheses’ all elements
that Sutton and Staw (1995, p. 371) astutely point out theory is notfor an explanation of why the
focal variables are related, which is the essence of theory. Second, given the weak research methods
that reect a reliance on survey measures, cross-sectional designs, convenience samples, inadequate
or missing controls, and limited assessments of construct validity, endogeneity issues are rampant
in AL research, undermining condence in the relationships identied. ird, the research models
examined are typically very simplistic, as they oen include only one or two independent variables,
one or two dependent variables, zero to few mediating variables, and zero to few moderating vari-
ables. As such, endogeneity arising from omitted variables (Antonakis et al., 2010) is a major concern,
especially given the high correlations among many of the variables. Indeed, given that AL is highly
correlated with other forms of leadership including ethical, servant, transformational, and leader–
member exchange, as well as positive aect toward the leader (Hoch et al., 2018; Martinko et al., 2018),
the fact that measures of these variables are commonly omitted and rarely controlled for raises con-
cerns that the variables identied in the nomological network may be only spuriously related to AL.
Further, all leadership styles are endogenous because antecedents (e.g., personality, organizational
culture) precede them; hence, the common place omission of such antecedents and/or instrumental
variables renders it impossible to make condent inferences about causal relationships (Antonakis
et al., 2010). Similarly, the high correlations among the mediators of AL relationships including trust,
empowerment, engagement, leader–member exchange, and psychological capital makes the fact that
they are typically examined in isolation problematic, in that it is impossible to determine which of
the identied mediating relationships are operative and which may be spurious.
For these reasons, we view the relationships reected in the updated nomological network as ten-
tative and in need of stronger theorizing and further study before any denitive conclusions about
the nature and causal directions of these relationships can be made. We are hopeful that a signaling
theory perspective of AL would provide greater guidance in identifying focal antecedents, outcomes,
mediators, and moderators to examine in mapping the nomological network for AL. Additionally,
stronger research methods that address endogeneity concerns and make it possible to draw causal
inferences are essential to distinguish between variables that belong in AL’s nomological network
and those that are only spuriously related.
More rigorous and diverse methods
‘Our content analysis revealed an overreliance on survey measures, cross-sectional designs, and sin-
gle source data among the quantitative empirical studies (Gardner et al., 2011, p. 1140). Although
this quotation is taken from the 2011 AL review, it sadly remains applicable today. e lack of atten-
tion to endogeneity issues reinforces the need for more rigorous research designs. Moreover, the lack
of diversity of methods and scarcity of articles with multiple studies and complementary methods
indicate there is much room for improvement. In this section we discuss innovative research designs
and measures that have promising potential for studying AL.
An article that is moving in the right direction in terms of addressing conceptual and endogeneity
issues is Appels (2023) application of signaling theory to explore how CEO sociopolitical activism
signals AL to prospective employees. Specically, he posited that CEO sociopolitical activism, which
he dened as public and costly expressions of personal political values by a rm’s most visible and
highest-ranking leader, serves as an eective signal that job seekers can use to make attributions of
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 21
leader authenticity. To investigate these leader signaling predictions, three eld experiments and one
eld study were conducted.
To appreciate the rigor of Appels (2023) research, consider his rst eld experiment. A parallel
design for assessing the causal accuracy of the proposed independent, mediating, and dependent
variables was used as participants reacted to a CEOs support for women’s abortion rights. Half of
the participants were randomly assigned to a measurement-of-mediation design where the posited
mediator, AL, was measured (and thus endogenous). In parallel, the other half were assigned to a con-
current double randomization manipulation-of-mediator design where AL is manipulated (and thus
exogenous) using vignettes developed by Cianci and colleagues (2014). Only the CEO sociopolitical
activism (activism vs. neutral) treatment was manipulated in the measurement-of-mediation design
group, while the mediator, AL attributions, was measured by the Authentic Leadership Inventory
(Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). A measure of participants assessment of the attractiveness of the
CEO’s rm as a prospective employer served as the dependent variable. e extent to which the par-
ticipants’ political values (conservative vs. liberal) were congruent with those expressed by the CEO
was examined as a moderator; it was hypothesized that more versus less congruent political values
would elicit higher levels of attributed AL. e online labor platform Prolic Academic was used
to recruit study participants. Results supported the hypotheses that CEO sociopolitical activism is
positively associated with job seekers evaluations of employer attractiveness as mediated by AL attri-
butions and moderated by political incongruence. e other three studies shared similar strengths,
particularly as used in combination to triangulate the ndings.
We consider Appels (2023) work to be encouraging for several reasons. e rst is his use of
signaling theory, which provides a strong theoretical basis for the hypotheses, and reinforces our
and Lux and Lowe’s (2025) enthusiasm for a signaling conception of AL. e second stems from
the combination of eld experiments and a eld survey, along with varied experimental manipu-
lations and construct measures, to triangulate the ndings. Here, it is important to recognize that
the use of Cianci et al’s (2014) hypothetical vignettes to manipulate AL is not ideal, because they
are rather articial. To address this concern in future research, we echo Lonati et al.s (2018, p. 22)
recommendation to employ ‘non-traditional stimulus material, which can enhance the psychologi-
cal realism and immersion in hypothetical experimental environments (video-based vignettes rather
than written ones, virtual reality interactions’). Nonetheless, as Appels (2023) noted, the combina-
tion of eld experiment and eld survey designs addressed potential endogeneity issues (Antonakis
et al., 2010). e third strength stems from the use of Prolic Academic to secure a sample of
actual jobseekers as participants. Appels (2023, p. 10) argued that such platforms serve ‘as eld set-
tings for job-seeking behavior in particular, as platforms users are observed in a natural setting
in which they actively search for employment without compromising internal validity or ethical
principles’.
Innovative methods from other disciplines suggest promising alternatives to survey methods for
exploring and deconating operationalizations of AL. For instance, applications of experience sam-
pling in social psychology to track relationship trajectories (Eastwick, Finkel, & Simpson, 2019; Gable,
Reis, & Downey, 2003), suggest that such methods have the potential to deconate the intent, con-
tent, execution, and eects of AL signaling behavior. Despite some exceptions (e.g., Weiss, Razinskas,
Backmann, & Hoegl, 2018), our review identied few studies that adopted experience sampling.
e potential utility of combining qualitative and experimental methods to study AL is appar-
ent from Hahl and colleagues application of mixed methods to explore the role of authenticity in
diverse settings including Major League Baseball (Hahl, 2016), U.S. presidential elections (Hahl,
Kim, & Sivan, 2018), ‘lowbrow culture’ (Hahl, Zuckerman, & Kim, 2017), and corporate diversi-
cation (Hahl & Ha, 2020). Implicit measures also show promise for studying AL. For instance,
Randolph-Seng & Gardner (2013) used implicit measures of self-esteem including signature size
(Dijksterhuis, 2004) and the attractiveness of ones initials (Stapel & Blanton, 2004) to obtain partial
support for Kernis (2003) prediction that authenticity (in this case AL) is positively related to optimal
self-esteem.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
22 William L. Gardner et al.
Finally, we speculate that other alternatives to traditional survey methods (e.g., Likert-based mea-
sures) may have utility in operationalizing AL. For example, the Implicit Association Test (IAT;
Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) employs a stimulus-sorting task (e.g., valanced associations
with gender, race, etc.) to predict aect, cognitions, and behavior (Greenwald & Banaji, 2017). We
suggest that the IAT could be applied to measure leader authenticity. Consider, for example, two
leaders who both profess to value corporate social responsibility initiatives over prots. However,
an application of the IAT to measure such values reveals that, although social responsibilities are
indeed central and prot objectives peripheral for one leader, the opposite pattern is revealed for the
second. Such a pattern of results would suggest that the rst leader is more authentic in the values
signaled than the second. As a second example, consider the research on displayed emotions, which
indicates that microexpressions as opposed to macroexpressions of emotions are oen more accurate
(Ekman, 2009). Coders can be trained using the Micro Expression Training Tool (Ekman, 2002). is
technology could be applied by training coders to use the Micro Expression Training Tool to detect
microexpressions exhibited by leaders either in person or on video that reect deception, providing
an indicator of inauthenticity. Other physiological measures (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008) likewise have
promise.
As Gardner et al. (2021) observed, many theories from scientic elds as diverse as physics,
biology, chemistry, astronomy, psychology, and sociology, could not initially be tested because the
requisite measures were lacking. Eventually, however, the methods caught up to the theories as
tools for operationalizing the core constructs were developed, making it possible to either sup-
port or reject them. Our review indicates that despite exceptions such as Appels’s (2023) four-study
article, the criticisms that AL research suers from issues of conation and endogeneity are well
founded. We encourage AL scholars to consider the merits of the proposed signaling perspective
while experimenting with innovative methods for operationalizing the construct.
Greater attention to authentic followership and AL development
e nal two future research recommendations made by Gardner et al. (2011) called for more exten-
sive research into authentic followership and AL development. Our review identied some conceptual
(e.g., Hinojosa, Davis Mccauley, Randolph-Seng, & Gardner, 2014) and empirical (e.g., Biermeier-
Hanson, Wynne, rasher, & Lyons, 2021; Leroy et al., 2015; Ta k, Seo, & Roh, 2019) articles focused on
authentic followership. Similarly, we found some theoretical (Hinojosa et al., 2014; Wilson, 2013) and
empirical (Baron, 2016; Baron & Parent, 2015; Liang, 2017; Martínez-Martínez et al., 2021) articles
focused on AL development. Nonetheless, these remain understudied topics. Hinojosa and colleagues
(2014) adopted an attachment theory lens to advance a model of authentic leader–follower rela-
tionships and proposed interventions to promote the development of AL and followership. As such,
empirical tests of their propositions could yield insights into both topics. Using self-determination
theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) as a guiding framework, Leroy and colleagues (2015) found that AL,
authentic followership, and their interactions were positively associated with follower basic need sat-
isfaction, which is, in turn, was positively associated with follower work role performance. Similarly,
Tak et al. (2019) obtained support for their hypotheses that AL is positively related to follower’s psy-
chological capital and project performance, as mediated by authentic followership. However, because
both studies relied exclusively on survey measures of the focal variables and cross-sectional data
collection methods, they are susceptible to endogeneity issues (Antonakis et al., 2010) that muddy
interpretation of the ndings.
Two studies by Baron (2016,2015) highlight the potential utility and challenges of studying AL
development. Using semi-structured interviews with 24 mid-level managers, Baron and Parent (2015)
explored the process of AL development within a training context. ey applied the Gioia, Corley,
and Hamilton (2012) method for theory building to advance a process model for developing AL
skills. e model includes ve sequential steps: (1) developing self-awareness; (2) identifying possible
behaviors; (3) trying out new behaviors; (4) the trigger recognizing the benets of change; and
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 23
(5) transfer. Quotations from leader participants on their growth and development throughout the
training process attested to the promise of this model. At the same time, it is important to recognize
that the interviews were conducted following years 1-, 2-, or 3 of a 3-year training program, and hence
susceptible to retrospective bias (Demiray, Mehl, & Martin, 2018).
To address limitations of the Baron and Parent (2015) study, Baron (2016) used a mixed-
methods design to assess AL and mindfulness development for the same training program. A
quasi-experimental sequential cohort design with a comparison group was used to collect self-
evaluations from 143 participants up to six times over the duration of the 3-year program. Qualitative
data were collected through semi-structured interviews with the same 24 managers who participated
in the Baron and Parent (2015) study. Baron (2016, p. 296) concluded that all ‘participants evolved
through the leadership development program because their ‘self-reports of AL and mindfulness
increased signicantly and linearly’.
ere are many commendable aspects of the Baron and Parent (2015) and Baron (2016) studies.
Collecting qualitative and quantitative data in the eld using a sample of leaders participating in a
leadership development program allows for triangulation and contributes to the ecological validity of
this research (Neuman, 2015). Moreover, the use of mixed-methods and the inclusion of a comparison
group by Baron (2016) addresses some of the limitations of the Baron and Parent (2015) study. At the
same time, the simultaneous inclusion of multiple forms of training (e.g., mindfulness and AL) and
the reliance on retrospective data coupled with the susceptibility to demand characteristics (Orne,
1969), make it impossible to draw causal inferences about the ecacy of the training. Together, these
studies highlight the challenges of assessing leadership development programs (Day, 2000), which
are certainly not unique to those focused on AL development (Avolio, 2010). Still, advances in lead-
ership development (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Day, Riggio, Tan, & Conger, 2021) and its assessment
hold promise for future research that yields more denitive conclusions regarding its eectiveness.
Estimates of the return on development investment (Richard, Holton, & Katsioloudes, 2014) suggest
that such leadership development and its assessment are well worth the eort.
Conclusion
AL is a construct that resonates with practitioners, as many report that they have witnessed and/or
strive to exhibit this form of leadership at work. e extant research provides tentative evidence that
AL is related to a variety of work outcomes for followers (e.g., work engagement, job performance, job
satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviors), leaders (e.g., well-being, positive modeling), and
their organizations (e.g., nancial performance). Despite such promise, the literature suers from a
host of conceptual and empirical limitations. ese limitations are certainly not unique to the study of
AL, as similar deciencies have been observed for other positive approaches to leadership (Alvesson
& Einola, 2019; Banks et al., 2021,2022; Fischer & Sitkin, 2023; Stock et al., 2023). In this review, we
address the pitfalls of the current AL research, while recommending more rigorous research practices
and innovative methods that could serve to benet other positive approaches to leadership as well.
Moreover, based on the promising insights that have been generated by signaling theory perspectives
of ethical (Banks et al., 2021,2022) and transformational (Stock et al., 2023) leadership, we share
Lux & Lowes (2025) optimism that applying a signaling theory lens to AL will serve to clarify and
deconate the AL construct, and ultimately generate valuable knowledge that can help leaders and
followers to be their best selves at work.
Supplementary material. e supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68.
Conflict(s) of interest. Because the rst author is a co-author of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), which is a
survey instrument marketed by Mind Garden forwhich he receive royalties, he has a potential conict of interest in conducting
this systematic review of the AL literature. However, the actual review does not advocate use of the ALQ, and instead devotes
considerable attention to recommend alternatives to survey measures of AL. As such, we do not think his authorship of this
review constitutes a conict of interest.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
24 William L. Gardner et al.
References
Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members
of the organization can be authentic. e Leadership Quarterly,23(1), 118–131.
Alilyyani, B., Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. (2018). Antecedents, mediators, and outcomes of authentic leadership in
healthcare: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies,83, 34–64.
Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019). Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership and other traps in leadership studies.
e Leadership Quarterly,30(4), 383–395.
Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2022). e gaslighting of authentic leadership 2.0. Leadership,18(6), 814–831.
Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. T. (2024). Re-envisioning a hierarchy of leadership behaviours using insights from the
psychological literature on personality traits. Journal of Management Studies,61(4), 1165–1735.
Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-dened and ill-measured gi. Annual Review
of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,3(1), 293–319.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. e
Leadership Quarterly,21(6), 1086–1120.
Appels, M. (2023). CEO sociopolitical activism as a signal of authentic leadership to prospective employees. Journal of
Management,49(8), 2727–2765.
Avolio, B. J. (2010). Pursuing authentic leadership development. In N. Nohria, and R. Khurana (Eds), e handbook of lead-
ership theory and practice: A Harvard Business School centennial colloquium on advancing leadership (pp. 739–768). Boston,
Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.
e Leadership Quarterly,16(3), 315–338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Authentic leadership questionnaire. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Wernsing, T. S., & Gardner, W. L. (2018). Revisiting the development and validation of the authentic leadership
questionaire: Analytical clarications. Journal of Management,44(2), 399–411.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review,14, 496–515.
Banks, G. C., Fischer, T., Gooty, J., & Stock, G. (2021). Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future
research agenda. e Leadership Quarterly,32(2), 101471.
Banks, G. C., Ross, R., Toth, A. A., Tonidandel, S., Mahdavi Goloujeh, A., Dou, W., & Wesslen, R. (2022). e triangulation of
ethical leader signals using qualitative, experimental, and data science methods. e Leadership Quarterly,34, 101658.
Baron, L. (2016). Authentic leadership and mindfulness development through action learning. Journal of Managerial
Psychology,31(1), 296–311.
Baron, L., & Parent, É. (2015). Developing authentic leadership within a training context. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies,22(1), 37–53.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bernerth, J. B., Cole, M. S., Taylor, E. C., & Walker, H. J. (2018). Control variables in leadership research: A qualitative and
quantitative review. Journal of Management,44(1), 131–160.
Biermeier-Hanson, B., Wynne, K. T., rasher, G., & Lyons, J. B. (2021). Modeling the joint eect of leader and follower
authenticity on work and non-work outcomes. e Journal of Psychology,155(2), 140–164.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cashman, K. (1998). Leadership from the inside out: Seven pathways to mastery. Executive Excellence Publishing.
Cashman, K. (2003). Awakening the leader within: A story of transformation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cashman, K. (2008). Leadership from the inside out: Becoming a leader for life (2nd ed.). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., Roberts, L. M., Buckman, B. R., Leroy, H., Steckler, E. L., Cooper, D. (2019). Being your true
self at work: Integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals,13(2),
633–671.
Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2014). e eects of authentic leadership on followers’ ethical
decision-making in the face of temptation: An experimental study. e Leadership Quarterly,25(3), 581–594.
Ciulla, J. (2014). Ethics, the heart of leadership (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of
Management,37(1), 39–67.
Cresswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Chossing among ve approaches. ousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Day, D. B. (2000). Leadership development: A review in content. e Leadership Quarterly,11(4), 581–614.
Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,2(1), 133–156.
Day, D. V., Riggio, R. E., Tan, S. J., & Conger, J. A. (2021). Advancing the science of 21st-century leadership development:
eory, research, and practice. e Leadership Quarterly,32(5), 101557.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). e “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs andt he self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry,11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Journal of Management & Organization 25
Demiray, B., Mehl, M. R., & Martin, M. (2018). Conversational time travel: Evidence of a retrospective bias in real life
conversations. Frontiers in Psychology,9.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction
in organizations. Academy of Management Review,35, 627–647.
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). I like myself but I don’t know why: Enhancing implicit self-esteem by subliminal evaluative condition-
ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,86(2), 345–355.
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new
millenium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. e Leadership Quarterly,25(1), 36–62.
Dufour, L., Maoret, M., & Montani, F. (2020). Coupling high self-perceived creativity and successful newcomer adjustment in
organizations: e role of supervisor trust and support for authentic self-expression. Journal of Management Studies,57(8),
1531–1555.
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2019). Relationship trajectories: A meta-theoretical framework and theoretical
applications. Psychological Inquiry,30(1), 1–28.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological t in management eld research. Academy of Management
Review,32(4), 1155–1179.
Eigel, K. M., & Kuhnert, K. W. (2005). Authentic development: Leadership development level and executive eectiveness. InW.
L. Gardner,B. J. Avolio,and F. O. Walumbwa (Eds), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, eects and development
(pp. 357–386). Oxford. UK: Elsevier Science.
Einola, K., & Alvesson, M. (2021). e perils of authentic leadership theory. Leadership,17(4), 483–490.
Ekman, P. (2002). Micro Expression Training Tool (METT). University of California.
Ekman, P. (2009). L ie catching and microexpressions. In C. Martin (Ed.), e philosophy of deception (pp. 118–133). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Fischer, T., & Sitkin, S. B. (2023). Leadership styles: A comprehensive assessment and way forward. Academy of Management
Annals,17(1), 331–372.
Forestier, C., de Chanaleilles, M., Boisgontier, M. P., & Chalabaev, A. (2022). From ego depletion to self-control fatigue: A
review of criticisms along with new perspectives for the investigation and replication of a multicomponent phenomenon.
Motivation Science,8(1), 19–32.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Downey, G. (2003). He said, she said: A quasi–signal detection analysis of daily interactions between
close relationship partners. Psychological Science (0956-7976),14(2), 100–105.
Gardiner, R. (2016). Gender, authenticity and leadership: inking with Arendt. Leadership,12(5), 632–637.
Gardiner, R. A. (2023). Reections on authenticity, action, and leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior,45(1), 142–144.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model
of authentic leader and follower development. e Leadership Quarterly,16(3), 343–372.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, eects, and
development (Vol. 3). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and
research agenda. e Leadership Quarterly,22(6), 1120–1145.
Gardner,W.L., Gullifor, D. P., Carlson, J. D., Cogliser, C. C., & Williams, M. L. (2021). Barriers to authentic leader-follower rela-
tionships: Implications for human resource management. In J. H. Dulebohn, B. Murray, and D. L. Stone (Eds.), Leadership:
Leaders, followers, and context (pp. 181–218). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Gardner, W. L., Karam, E. P., Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2021). Authentic leadership: e case for and against. e Leadership
Quarterly,32(6), 101495.
Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Meuser, J. D., Noghani, F., Gullifor, D. P., & Cogliser, C. C. (2020). e leadership trilogy: A review
of the third decade of e Leadership Quarterly.e Leadership Quarterly,31(1), 101379.
Gardner, W. L., & McCauley, K. D. (2022a). e gaslighting of authentic leadership. Leadership,18(6), 801–813.
Gardner, W. L., & McCauley, K. D. (2022b). e gaslighting of authentic leadership revisited. Leadership,18(6), 832–840.
George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review,
85(2), 129–138.
George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
George, W. W., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Gill, C., & Caza, A. (2018). An investigation of authentic leadership’s individual and group inuences on follower responses.
Journal of Management,44(2), 530–544.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia
methodology. Organizational Research Methods,16(1), 15–31.
Goee, R., & Jones, G. (2005). Managingauthenticity: e paradox of great leadership. Harvard Business Review,83(12), 86–94.
Goman, E. (1959). e presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). e science of the sophomore revisited: From conjecture to empiricism.
Academy of Management Review,11(1), 191–207.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2017). e implicit revolution: Reconceiving the relation between conscious and
unconscious. American Psychologist,72(9), 861–871.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.68 Published online by Cambridge University Press
26 William L. Gardner et al.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual dierences in implicit cognition: e
implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74(6), 1464–1480.
Hahl, O. (2016). Turning back the clock in baseball: e increased prominence of extrinsic rewards and demand for
authenticity. Organization Science,27(4), 929–953.
Hahl, O., & Ha, J. (2020). Committed diversication: Why authenticity insulates against penalties for diversication.
Organization Science,31(1), 1–22.
Hahl, O., Kim, M., & Sivan, E. W. Z. (2018). e authentic appeal of the lying demagogue: Proclaiming the deeper truth about
political illegitimacy. American Sociological Review,83(1), 1–33.
Hahl, O., Zuckerman,E. W.,& Kim, M. (2017). Why elites love authentic lowbrowculture: Overcoming high-status denigration
with outsider art. American Sociological Review,82(4), 828–856.
Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H., & Rowlinson, M. (2010). Academic Journal Quality Guide, Version 4. e Association of
Business Schools.
Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work: Linking organizations and
physiology. Academy of Management Review,33(1), 137–162.
Heggestad, E. D., Scheaf, D. J., Banks, G. C., Hausfeld, M. M., Tonidandel, S., & Williams, E. B. (2019). Scale adaptation in
organizational science research: A review and best-practice recommendations. Journal of Management,45(6), 2596–2627.
Helmuth, C. A., Cole, M. S., & Vendette, S. (2023). Actions are authentic, but are leaders? A reconceptualization of authenticity
and leadership practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior,45(1), 119–135.
Henderson, J. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1983). Leader authenticity: e development and test of an operational measure. Educational
and Psychological Research,3(2), 63–75.
Hinojosa, A. S., Davis Mccauley, K., Randolph-Seng, B.,