Although scholars like Cooper et al. (2005) warn against prematurely prescribing solutions for authentic leadership development interventions, an explicit motivation of several theories from the outset has been to propose ways through which authentic leaders can be developed (Caza and
Jackson, 2011). Again, perspectives of authentic leadership development vary depending on whether an essentialist or interactionist understanding of authenticity is adopted. Essentialist views draw on previous studies of leadership development and propose that meaningful life events will trigger personal growth and transformation towards authenticity in the leader (Cooper et al., 2005). Such perspectives follow from studies conducted by Bennis and Thomas (2002: 40), who examined what they called the ‘crucibles’ of leadership, defined as “a transformative experience through which an individual comes to a new or an altered sense of identity”. While most often these crucibles are conceived of as violently traumatic events: for instance, Bennis (2004) notes Winston Churchill, who responded to World War II and the New York mayor, Rudolph Giuliani who faced the 9/11 terrorist strikes as examples of leaders who rose from times of crises; trigger events are not necessarily traumatic. Rather, other theorists conceptualise that the life-changing events that can act as catalysts for authentic leadership development can be more mundane: such as experiencing prejudice; having a demanding mentor (Bennis and Thomas, 2002); or even just reading a significant book (Luthans and Avolio, 2003). They can even be entirely positive, such as the birth of one’s child or an unexpected promotion (Spreitzer, 2006). This suggests that through the experience, and even accumulation of trigger events, the leader can gradually come to a sense of identity that is most closely aligned with their ‘true self’, thus achieving greater self-awareness and authenticity. In line with the essentialist perspective, the notions of crucibles and trigger events see the development of authentic leadership as unfolding within the individual. The survival of life-changing events and experiences is seen to develop “true leadership” (Bennis and Thomas, 2002: 45).
Essentialist theorists are concerned with how interventions can be employed by organisations to replicate leadership crucibles in order to develop authenticity. Cooper et al. (2005) consider that the conventional methods of leadership training can be limiting. For example, it seems unlikely that authenticity can be taught during a workshop that expounds the desirable leadership traits and behaviours followed by role-playing exercises to practice ‘being authentic’ in simulated real-life situations. Others argue that authentic leadership development needs to be ongoing, as leaders are not likely to ‘become authentic’ as the result of a one-off event (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). These considerations reflect a trend in the literature that has shifted towards a preoccupation with how to authentically develop leadership as opposed to developing authentic leadership, of which the former is a far broader question (Caza and Jackson, 2011). Caza and Jackson (2011) warn that it is important for authentic leadership theories to more explicitly distinguish which of the two aims they are intending to pursue to avoid confusion. However, the idea that leaders can eventually be developed to be more ‘authentic’ through the formulation of a training program continues to take for granted that a leader’s ‘true self’ is given and followers will readily accept the leader as authentic once he or she fosters self-awareness. Consequently, like other essentialist notions of authentic
leadership, it fails to consider the socially constructed nature of leadership authenticity where what it means to be ‘authentic’ is a product of the social and historical context.
Similarly, the interactionist view of authentic leadership development tends to assume that what it means to be ‘authentic’ is fixed, but incorporates a more explicit consideration of others and the context. For example, Goffee and Jones (2005) suggest that authentic leadership can be developed with a balanced combination of knowing oneself, others, and the context achieved with a gamut of activities such as taking risks outside of their comfort zones, becoming emotionally invested in the work that others perform, as well as honing their sensitivity to social cues and respecting the cultural mores of their setting. They emphasise the importance of follower perception and assert that “great leaders understand [their] reputation for authenticity needs to be painstakingly earned and carefully managed” (Goffee and Jones, 2005: 94). Goffee and Jones’ theory can be seen as integrating the essentialist notions of maintaining the ‘true self’ (leader’s core values) with interactionist views of authenticity as constituted in relation to others.
Another way through which Goffee and Jones (2005) suggest leaders can develop their awareness of self and enhance their authenticities is to explore their autobiographies. The role of narratives in the development of authentic leadership has received particular attention in the existing literature, including Sparrowe’s (2005) perspective of the narrative self and Shamir and Eilam’s (2005) life story approach. Psychologists have observed the tendency of people to begin conceptualising their identities and organising their personal pasts in the form of coherent life stories during late adolescence and young adulthood (McAdams, 1985, 1993, 1996). While they are often based on biographical facts, they also transcend them as selective inclusion and omission creatively integrate past and future into a meaningful narrative for themselves and their audience (McAdams, 2001). An organised life story can thus provide a coherent structure for the authentic leader—a cognitive and emotional legend—to understand their realities in a personally meaningful way (Shamir and Eilam, 2005).
Both the essentialist and interactionist views of authentic leadership development assume a sense of neutrality in the way the self is utilised as a resource in the pursuit of authenticity (Carroll and Levy, 2010). A social constructionist approach towards leadership development, such as the Carroll and Levy (2010)’s study, calls into question the idea that a set of tools of a step-by-step process could be adopted in the name of leadership. Rather, a social constructionist view of leadership development focuses on how leaders construct their leadership identities by drawing on narratives that reflect wider discourses of identity and leadership (Carroll and Levy, 2010). Similarly, this study seeks to uncover deeper understandings of identity and leadership by analysing the ways in which leaders’ development of authenticity is framed in the media.
In terms of how authentic leadership is practiced, Shamir et al. (2005: 24) argue for the power of life stories to “reflect leaders’ self-concepts, values, traits and behaviours”. Life stories provide a benchmark against which the leader’s future behaviours, actions, and other narratives can be compared (Shamir and Eilam, 2005). Life stories can also reveal the ways in which leaders have developed an authentic sense of the self. In their analysis of leadership life stories, Shamir et al. (2005) found that life stories are organised around four major archetypal plots, or ‘proto-stories’, which can be employed by leaders in recounting their leadership development. These were comprised of development as a natural process, development through struggle, development through learning, and development as finding a cause (Shamir et al., 2005). Development as a natural process frames the leader as possessing inherent talents and capabilities for leadership, either as displayed from a young age or discovering them later in life; but in both cases, leadership development is portrayed as an effortless and ‘natural’ process (Shamir et al., 2005). Development through struggle emphasises how the leader came from positions of socioeconomic disadvantage, earning their positions of leadership by coping through hardships with resilience and self-belief (Shamir et al., 2005). Development through learning focuses on self-improvement after learning from experience as well as significant role models (Shamir et al., 2005). Finally, development as finding a cause was observed specifically among political leaders, which entails leadership development as identifying with a political or ideological outlook or movement (Shamir et al., 2005).
By drawing on these proto-stories, authentic leaders can thus make sense of how they came to be the leaders they are and how seemingly disparate events can nevertheless contribute to a coherent identity (Shamir and Eilam, 2005). It is said that authentic leaders are particularly adept at organising their life events into a coherent identity via the use of proto-stories, while non-leaders tend to characterise themselves as having unintentionally drifted into the role, attributing their leadership success to uncontrollable external forces such as luck more than their personal skills and qualities (Shamir and Eilam, 2005). While Shamir et al. (2005: 24) argue for the power of life stories to “enable leaders to lead and exert influence on followers”, it is also important to consider how power is also afforded to others to sustain or challenge leaders’ life stories in the construction of authenticity. A social constructionist examination of authenticity has the potential to more critically explore how a coherent narrative identity is negotiated between leaders and other social agents such as the media, while recognising that followers and the public also have the agency to interpret and contest the leader’s life stories.
In considering how authentic leadership is practised, Ladkin and Taylor (2010) call for an integration of essentialist and interactionist understandings of authenticity in their theory of ‘embodied authentic leadership’. They offer a conceptual framework that seeks to understand the
‘act’ of leadership as a performance, recognising that it is through the leader’s physical form that authenticity is read and understood. Ladkin and Taylor (2010) propose that the embodiment of authentic leadership is enacted via three key components. These comprise of self-exposure, relating, and making ‘leaderly’ choices. Self-exposure is akin to Walumbwa et al.’s (2010) concept of relational transparency; relating refers to experiencing communion with the self and others in a given context; and making ‘leaderly’ choices suggests that an embodied authentic leader is able to articulate a group’s identity and foster follower identification of them as a legitimate champion for their cause (Ladkin and Taylor, 2010).
While this study resonates with Ladkin and Taylor’s (2010) view of leadership as a performance, seeing authentic leadership as enacted through discourse, it breaks from the dominant notion within the current body of authentic leadership theory of the self as fixed within a real- self/fake-self dichotomy (Tracy and Trethewey, 2005). From a social constructionist standpoint, whether or not a leader acts and behaves in line with an ‘inner self’ is not the key concern. Rather, this study endeavours to investigate discourses of consistency and coherence that manifest in the everyday talk and practices of authentic leadership.