Definition

Walumbwa and colleagues (Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008, p. 94) defined AL as ‘a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster 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. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) identified and discussed a number of alternative definitions of AL. However, as our systematic review will reveal, the Walumbwa et al. (Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008) definition is the one adopted most often. Nonetheless, this definition has also been criticized as being problematic for several reasons (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019; Fischer & Sitkin, Reference Fischer and Sitkin2023; Sidani & Rowe, Reference Sidani and Rowe2018). Chief among these is the fact that it includes both posited antecedents to AL (it draws upon ‘both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate’) and effects of AL (it promotes ‘both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate’ and fosters positive self-development). As Fischer and Sitkin (Reference Fischer and Sitkin2023) explained in their critique of leadership style research, a definition that encompasses antecedents and/or effects of the construct muddies causal relationships and makes it impossible to test them. To address these concerns, we support the refined definition of AL that Lux and Lowe (Reference Lux and Lowe2025)introduce in their Editorial and provide an expanded discussion of its underlying 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 refined research agenda, we first discuss current conceptualizations of AL.

Four-component model

As the definition of AL proposed by Walumbwa et al. (Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008) 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. The theoretical roots of this perspective are provided by Kernis and Goldman’s (Reference Kernis, Goldman and Zanna2006) conceptualization of authenticity as cognitive 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 identified four components of authenticity: (1) awareness (i.e., knowledge and trust in one’s values, thoughts, motives, and emotions); (2) unbiased processing (i.e., objectivity regarding and acceptance of one’s 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 (Reference Kernis, Goldman and Zanna2006) multicomponent notion of authenticity provided the conceptual foundations for early perspectives of AL (e.g., Ilies et al., Reference Ilies, Morgeson and Nahrgang2005), including the four-component model (Walumbwa et al., Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008). However, although the latter drew from the multicomponent view of authenticity, it also modified the components in some respects to apply them to the leadership context. Specifically, 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, including that of an ego-threatening variety, in a relatively balanced fashion. Additionally, inspired by Kernis and Goldman’s (Reference Kernis, Goldman and Zanna2006) conception of the behavior component of authenticity as reflecting a commitment to act upon one’s true values, preferences and needs, the more descriptive label of internalized 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 attention, it is important to recognize that there are alternative perspectives. Three of these appeared in the 2005 Special Issue of The Leadership Quarterly devoted to AL (Michie & Gooty, Reference Michie and Gooty2005; Shamir & Eilam, Reference Shamir and Eilam2005; Sparrowe, Reference Sparrowe2005), and are discussed in the Gardner et al.’s (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) review. Three 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 (Reference Ladkin and Taylor2010), Algera and Lips-Wiersma (Reference Algera and Lips-Wiersma2012), and Sidani and Rowe (Reference Sidani and Rowe2018). Ladkin and Taylor (Reference Ladkin and Taylor2010) 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 (Reference Algera and Lips-Wiersma2012) criticized extant AL theory as being limited because insufficient effort was made to secure an understanding of the ontological roots of authenticity. After 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 one’s own meaning; 3) authenticity does not imply goal and value congruence; and 4) authenticity is not intrinsically ethical’ (p. 118). The implications of these themes formed a basis for proposing a more radical form of AL whereby the emphasis shifts from the individual leader to focus on the conditions by which all organizational members can behave authentically.

Finally, Sidani and Rowe (Reference Sidani and Rowe2018) discussed challenges encountered within the extant study of AL that arise from how the construct is conceptualized and measured. They presented a model of AL that views it as a legitimation process, rather than a leadership style. They posited that AL constitutes legitimated follower perceptions of the authenticity of a leader that are invoked based on moral judgments. Specifically, 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, alleviate 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 authenticity, 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 relationship. 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 definition of AL proposed by Lux and Lowe (Reference Lux and Lowe2025) in their Editorial and recommended in our future directions section as a promising direction for the refinement of AL theory.

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 remaining 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 oriented.Footnote ² It is worth noting that the 34 identified 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 AL’s 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 context of health care (Alilyyani et al., Reference Alilyyani, Wong and Cummings2018), 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., Reference Iszatt-White, Whittle, Gadelshina and Mueller2019), one discussed how AL should be adopted in leading knowledge workers (Walumbwa et al., Reference Walumbwa, Christensen and Hailey2011), one is a meta-analysis of antecedents and outcomes of AL (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Guo, Zhang, Xu, Liu and Newman2022), 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, Reference Gill and Caza2018). The sixth article is the review by Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) which sets the starting date of our review. These results show that in the years since the Gardner et al.’s (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) review, there has not been any comprehensive review of the AL literature examining 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 business journals rated as 1 or 2 on the CABS journal quality scale, due to concerns about a lack of rigor that too often produces suspect findings 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 articles 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. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) considered AL research at the time to be in the nascent stage of theoretical progression as defined by Reichers and Schneider (Reference Reichers, Schneider and Schneider1990). These stages are (1) concept introduction and elaboration; (2) concept evaluation and augmentation; and (3) concept consolidation and accommodation. Based on the types of articles identified in our review, we now consider AL scholarship to fit in the second stage of theoretical progression, characterized by concept evaluation through empirical research, and the emergence of critical reviews that identify problems related to the definition and operationalization of the construct. As is characteristic of this stage, concerns about the validity of empirical findings 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

The 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., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011). The 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. The 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 definitions that used an unfolding process. We first coded whether a definition of AL was provided in the focal article. Although 86.14% (N = 261) of the articles provided a definition, the remaining 42 did not, which we consider very troubling for theory advancement. If a definition was provided, we coded whether the Walumbwa and colleagues’ (Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008) definition was used, finding that it was in 202 (66.67%) articles, demonstrating a convergence on a single conceptualization of AL. If an alternative definition was provided, we recorded this definition and its citation. Most commonly, alternative definitions referenced prior work by Avolio, Gardner, and colleagues (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, Reference Avolio and Gardner2005; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa2005) although there were exceptions where authors crafted their own definition based on alternative perspectives.

Study characteristics: Theoretical foundations

Based on the theoretical foundations for AL described by Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011), we coded the underlying theory for each article using nine conceptual categories (see Table 1). Reflecting 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 authentic identity) is the second most-referenced frame, with 18.15% (N = 55) of the articles. The third 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.

Table 1. Types of articles by theoretical foundation

N = 258. Examples of other include social identity theory, uncertainty-identity theory, conservation of resources theory, and social information processing theory.

Study characteristics: Number of studies

Of the 242 empirical articles coded, only 24 reported multiple studies. The 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, affiliation, and discipline

In this section, we highlight key attributes of authors who published on AL, namely: the authors’ country of affiliation, their affiliation, 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 official university websites at the time of publication. These 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 multiple disciplines and cultural backgrounds would facilitate unique studies and findings that consider multiple perspectives of AL. Table S1 reveals that the top five 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%). This represents a significant uptick in non-US-based researchers since the Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) review of AL. Table S2 indicates that the authors who published the most AL articles are affiliated 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%). The author disciplines 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 fifth largest category, ‘other’ (N = 44; 6.8%), consists of authors affiliated 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. The popularity of AL across diverse countries and disciplines speaks to its potential for understanding how AL may manifest in different contexts.

Table 2. Types of articles by author discipline

Note: N = 650. Where authors had multiple discipline affiliations, 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 field surveys, demonstrating a consistent preference in alignment with the prior review (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011). 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%), field 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 sampling (N = 2; .78%), computer simulations (N = 1; .39%) and judgment tasks (N = 1; .39%) remained rare. The limited utilization of these data collection techniques indicates untapped opportunities for future research.

Table 3. Data collection methods

Note: 255 of 303 studies reported a data collection method. N = 255.

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%). This is unsurprising given the standard data reporting expectation of a correlation matrix with descriptive statistics. This 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%). These findings are mostly consistent with the results of the previous review (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011), which found the most common analytical techniques were correlational analysis, multilevel techniques, linear regression, and SEM/path analysis. Additionally, Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) 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. Though progress has been made, opportunities for novel and more rigorous analytical techniques remain.

Table 4. Types of quantitative analyses

N = 219.

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. This trend is consistent with Edmondson and McManus’s (Reference Edmondson and McManus2007)framework that notes as research programs mature, the methods deployed tend to shift from qualitative to quantitative.

Using Cresswell and Poth’s (Reference Cresswell and Poth2018)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 afford greater access to elements that might otherwise be inaccessible. However, few of these studies took steps to assess confirmability (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 (Reference Lincoln and Guba1985). Over one third of these studies (N = 8; 34.78%) took no steps to validate their findings. This continues a concerning trend to which Gardner and colleagues (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) called for greater attention. Hence, we reiterate their call for the assessment of qualitative findings, as well as a call by Iszatt-White and Kempster (Reference Iszatt-White and Kempster2018) for greater use of qualitative methods to surface indicators of AL.

Methodologies utilized: Sample characteristics

Table 5 presents our findings 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 random sampling, adopted by only 4.64% (N = 11) of studies. Although such reliance is no doubt attributable to the difficulty of collecting random samples in the field, it nevertheless raises serious concerns about the representativeness of the findings.

Table 5. Types of sample designs

N = 206 studies that reported sample design information.

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 contributions 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. This is problematic because such studies omit a key element of the context and potential boundary conditions (Gardner, Gullifor et al., Reference Gardner, Gullifor, Carlson, Cogliser, Williams, Dulebohn, Murray and Stone2021; Oc, Reference Oc2018). Future research should make the national context explicit and consider the role of societal level factors such as power distance (Maak, Pless, & Voegtlin, Reference Maak, Pless and Voegtlin2016).

A summary of the types of populations sampled is provided in Table 6. The 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 employees 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, Reference Gordon, Slade and Schmitt1986).

Table 6. Types of populations sampled in the review

Note: N = 205. Public organizations include government, municipalities, and education.

We also recorded the sample size per study. Empirical studies of AL at the individual level incorporated 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

The vast majority of studies focused on the individual level of analysis with 93.19% (N = 219), compared with 71.8% in the 2011 review. The 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 only 2.98% (N = 7). Echoing the 2011 review and others (e.g., Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, & Dansereau, Reference Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim and Dansereau2008), 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). The 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 common method variance being the most common (N = 162; 81.00%). As Table 8 shows, few used any of the methods Antonakis and colleagues (Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010) 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, Reference Bernerth, Cole, Taylor and Walker2018) 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 effects of endogeneity, as well as appropriate statistical tools for addressing them, such as difference-in-difference models and simultaneous equations.

Table 7. Sources of endogeneity from studies in the review

N = 176.

Table 8. Methods of addressing endogeneity from studies in the review

N = 180. Note other includes randomized experimental design, parallel design, common method models, and Harman’s one-factor test.

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., Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008) and the Authentic Leadership Inventory (Neider & Schriesheim, Reference Neider and Schriesheim2011) were used in 67.47% (N = 197) and 16.10% (N = 47) of studies, respectively. However, we find that existing measures were often modified (N = 82; 24.33%) with items dropped or changed, raising concerns about construct validity (Heggestad et al., Reference Heggestad, Scheaf, Banks, Hausfeld, Tonidandel and Williams2019). Only eight (2.37%) studies manipulated AL in an experimental 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, Reference Avolio, Wernsing and Gardner2018).

AL is most often 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, Reference Oc2018), leader and follower personality attributes (Anderson & Sun, Reference Anderson and Sun2024), and work outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment, leader and follower well-being, work engagement; Cha et al., Reference Cha, Hewlin, Roberts, Buckman, Leroy, Steckler and Cooper2019; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011; Gill & Caza, Reference Gill and Caza2018) is needed.

Construct validation

We coded the types of construct validation methods used in the studies that we examined (see Table 9). The most common was Cronbach’s alpha (N = 290; 93.25%), followed by confirmatory 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%) modified existing measures by dropping or changing items from validated scales, and some failed to report reliability information of any kind (N = 20; 6.43%). Hence, the lack of demonstrated construct validity is a source of concern.

Table 9. Authentic leadership construct validation methods from studies in the review

N = 284.

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?’), respectively. Typically, raters were reporting on someone else’s AL (e.g., a leader or a manager; N = 264; 90.10%). The ‘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%). The 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., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010), future research should focus on mitigating common method variance (and other endogeneity concerns) by assessing the AL of leaders/managers/supervisors from more diverse sources such as peers, customers, and team members, or manipulating AL through experimental means.

Table 10. Authentic leadership construct rater, source, and target

N = 293.

Dependent variables predicted by AL

Table S4a presents a summary of the dependent variables that AL is posited to predict, while tabulating 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. The most examined dependent variables were key work outcomes including performance (N = 66), creativity (N = 40), organizational citizenship behaviors (N = 34), job satisfaction (N = 34), trust (N = 30), psychological 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 empirical support for AL theory. However, nearly all of these hypotheses are subject to endogeneity bias due to omitted variables (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010), because antecedents of AL (e.g., leader personality) were typically not measured or controlled. Hence, the relationships identified 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. The 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 fit (N = 6). 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 AL→dependent 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), identification (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., Reference Gardner, Gullifor, Carlson, Cogliser, Williams, Dulebohn, Murray and Stone2021).

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., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010). The 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 moderating variable, respectively. Of the 24 mediating hypotheses tested, 18 were supported and three partially 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 independent→dependent 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.

Stronger theory building

In their review, Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) observed that the majority (59 out of 91) of AL publications were conceptual, with 55 reflecting a positivist, four an interpretive, and none a critical social science tradition (Neuman, Reference Neuman2015). Of the positivist-oriented publications, only 30 offered conceptual models and only 15 propositions – both of which are components of theory building that positivists recommend for making a theoretical contribution (Bacharach, Reference Bacharach1989). Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) noted that articles appearing in The Leadership Quarterly, the top specialty journal in the field, 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, Reference Cashman1998, Reference Cashman2003, Reference Cashman2008; George, Reference George2003; George & Sims, Reference George and Sims2007; George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, Reference George, Sims, McLean and Mayer2007; Goffee & Jones, Reference Goffee and Jones2005) that advanced lay theories of AL. Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) suggested that such mixed levels of conceptual rigor reflected the nascent state of AL research. They 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 reflected by underlying assumptions about values, time, and space (Bacharach, Reference Bacharach1989), 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 refinements of the four-component model of AL (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa2005) have been advanced (e.g., Karam, Gardner, Gullifor, Tribble, & Li, Reference Karam, Gardner, Gullifor, Tribble and Li2017), along with the alternative conceptualizations previously discussed, critiques of AL raised several concerns about the conceptual foundations of AL research (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019; Reference Alvesson and Einola2022; Einola & Alvesson, Reference Einola and Alvesson2021; Fischer & Sitkin, Reference Fischer and Sitkin2023; Gardner, Karam et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021; Lemoine, Hartnell, & Leroy, Reference Lemoine, Hartnell and Leroy2019; Sidani & Rowe, Reference Sidani and Rowe2018). The first 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 grounding 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, Reference Algera and Lips-Wiersma2012; Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019; Gardner, Karam et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021). The second pertains to the inclusion of a moral component that is inconsistent with philosophical conceptions of authenticity (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, Reference Algera and Lips-Wiersma2012; Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019; Iszatt-White & Kempster, Reference Iszatt-White and Kempster2018; Sidani & Rowe, Reference Sidani and Rowe2018; Sparrowe, Reference Sparrowe2005). The third concern is that extant AL theory and research reflects an ‘entity’ rather than a process perspective that underappreciates the dynamic nature of leadership (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019; Reference Alvesson and Einola2022; Einola & Alvesson, Reference Einola and Alvesson2021; Gardner, Karam et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021). The fourth notes that by changing the label of the behavior dimension posited by Kernis and Goldman (Reference Kernis, Goldman and Zanna2006), Walumbwa et al. (Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008) diluted the focus on actions that they identified as a key theme of the authenticity literature by focusing instead on a ‘perspective’ (Helmuth et al., Reference Helmuth, Cole and Vendette2023). The fifth involves the previously noted observation that the most commonly adopted definition by Walumbwa et al. (Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008, p. 94) is problematic because it includes both posited antecedents (e.g., positive psychological capacities) and effects (e.g., fosters positive self-development). These concerns have led to calls to either refine or abandon the four-component conceptualization of AL.

Because the first three concerns have been discussed in detail in the letter exchanges between Gardner, Karam, and McCauley with Alvesson and Einola (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2022; Einola & Alvesson, Reference Einola and Alvesson2021; Gardner, Karam et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021; Gardner & McCauley, Reference Gardner and McCauley2022a; Reference Gardner and McCauley2022b), we only briefly revisit them here. With respect to the first concern, we agree that it is unrealistic to assume that leaders and followers can be consistently authentic across time and organizational contexts. Indeed, that is why Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Avolio and Walumbwa2005) adopted an aspirational perspective that assumes certain leaders and followers 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 shortcoming, alternative perspectives that build upon existentialistic views on authenticity have been proposed (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, Reference Algera and Lips-Wiersma2012; Gardiner, Reference Gardiner2016, Reference Gardiner2023; Sparrowe, Reference Sparrowe2005). To date, however, these perspectives 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 (Reference Lux and Lowe2025) propose.

The second point was addressed by Gardner and Karam in the first letter of their exchange with Alvesson and Einola (Gardner, Karam et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021). Specifically, they justified the inclusion of a moral component of AL by invoking Ciulla’s (Reference Ciulla2014) 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, Reference Shamir and Eilam2005), and especially those informed by existential views on authenticity (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, Reference Algera and Lips-Wiersma2012; Gardiner, Reference Gardiner2016, Reference Gardiner2023; Sparrowe, Reference Sparrowe2005), 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 leadership theories, such as Burns’s (Reference Burns1978), Bass’s (Reference Bass1985), Podsakoff et al.’s (Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter1990), and most recently Stock et al.’s (Reference Stock, Banks, Voss, Tonidandel and Woznyj2023) theories of transformational leadership. The 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 reflects 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., Reference Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa2005). 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 (Reference Lux and Lowe2025), lead us to propose a signaling theory (Connelly et al., Reference Connelly, Certo, Ireland and Reutzel2011) lens to explicate the processes whereby authentic leader and follower identities are claimed and granted (DeRue & Ashford, Reference DeRue and Ashford2010). The convergence of Lux and Lowe’s (Reference Lux and Lowe2025) 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, Reference Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart and Shamir2016), ethical (Banks, Fischer, Gooty, & Stock, Reference Banks, Fischer, Gooty and Stock2021; Banks et al., Reference Banks, Ross, Toth, Tonidandel, Mahdavi Goloujeh, Dou and Wesslen2022), and transformational (Stock et al., Reference Stock, Banks, Voss, Tonidandel and Woznyj2023) leadership processes.

Regarding the fourth point, we agree with Helmuth and colleagues (Reference Helmuth, Cole and Vendette2023) that Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Avolio and Walumbwa2005) diluted Kernis and Goldman’s (Reference Kernis, Goldman and Zanna2006) focus on authentic actions. We think that adoption of 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 conflation raised by Fischer and Sitkin (Reference Fischer and Sitkin2023), as we are in agreement with Lux and Lowe (Reference Lux and Lowe2025) that this is one of the most important issues that AL scholars must address to move the field forward. In their assessment of the literature on eight positive and two negative styles of leadership, Fischer and Sitkin (Reference Fischer and Sitkin2023) identified several conceptual shortcomings for all ten leadership styles, including AL, that contribute to valence-based conflation. Such conflation stems from the specification 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 effects. Ultimately, such valence-based conflation results in causal indeterminacy for the empirically investigated relationships among the leadership styles with their antecedents, mediating processes, and behavioral effects.

Despite their concerns, Fischer and Sitkin (Reference Fischer and Sitkin2023) do not call for the abandonment of AL research. Instead, they state that they ‘find it plausible that authentic leadership causes positive outcomes because authenticity can improve credibility, which in turn can help in wielding social influence’ (p. 342). To gain greater confidence in the evidence base for AL, they advocate deconflating the construct and its operationalization. We agree with Fischer and Sitkin (Reference Fischer and Sitkin2023) that the conceptualization of AL requires refinement to avoid conflation with its antecedents and effects. To do so, we embrace signaling theory (Connelly et al., Reference Connelly, Certo, Ireland and Reutzel2011) as a promising lens for explicating the dynamic influence process whereby leaders signal their authenticity to followers and offer a refined definition of AL.

A refined AL definition

To preface our discussion of the signaling theory perspective of AL, we do not recommend abandoning the four component conceptualization of AL, as it is grounded in social psychological research on authenticity (Kernis, Reference Kernis2003; Kernis & Goldman, Reference Kernis, Goldman and Zanna2006), and hence reflects important components of AL that we consider to be fundamental to the phenomenon. Instead, we adopt the Lux and Lowe’s (Reference Lux and Lowe2025, p. xx) refined definition of AL that removes the posited antecedents and effects and reflects 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 definition removes all references to ‘positive psychological capacities’, ‘a positive ethical climate’, and ‘positive self-development’ which reflect values-based conflation.

Toward a signaling theory perspective of AL

In a review of applications of signaling theory in the management literature, Connelly and colleagues (Reference Connelly, Certo, Ireland and Reutzel2011, p. 42) ‘focus on the role of signaling in understanding how parties resolve information asymmetries about latent and unobservable quality, which constitutes the majority of management studies that explicitly invoke signaling theory’. They define quality as ‘the underlying, unobservable ability of the signaler to fulfill the needs or demands of an outsider observing the signal’ (p. 43). Signaling theory identifies the actions that insiders (parties with private information) take to intentionally communicate positive, imperceptible attributes of the insider to outsiders. Effective 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 difficult 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 (Reference Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart and Shamir2016, 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 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, Reference Dufour, Maoret and Montani2020; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, Reference Leroy, Anseel, Gardner and Sels2015). To enhance the efficiency of the information signaled, followers in turn use countersignals (Connelly et al., Reference Connelly, Certo, Ireland and Reutzel2011) 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 identifies charisma (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart and Shamir2016) and ethical values/principles (Banks et al., Reference Banks, Fischer, Gooty and Stock2021, Reference Banks, Ross, Toth, Tonidandel, Mahdavi Goloujeh, Dou and Wesslen2022), 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 difficult to fake for a sustained period of time. That 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 perspective implies that leaders (senders) who strive for authenticity (intentions) seek to communicate their authenticity to followers (receivers) through signals that accurately reflect personal attributes (e.g., values, motives, emotions, strengths, weaknesses) to effectively (quality) reduce information asymmetries about the leader and secure status and support from followers (effects). The implications 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 countersignals 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 (Reference Hahl and Ha2020) 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 fulfill their commitments, especially when such commitments threaten short-term gains. To further explain this perspective of authenticity, they rely on Goffman’s (Reference Goffman1959) frontstage versus backstage metaphor. The frontstage is where the desired identity of an actor is presented and meant to be seen. In contrast, the backstage reflects 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.

This argument for a ‘disinterested’ signal of an authentic leader identity is consistent with AL theory, which posits that more authentic leaders are less interested in extrinsic rewards, and are instead motivated intrinsically to follow their values (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa2005). In contrast, less authentic leaders with less defined 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, Reference Forestier, de Chanaleilles, Boisgontier and Chalabaev2022). 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 benefits.

We concur with Lux and Lowe (Reference Lux and Lowe2025) that signaling theory constitutes a promising lens for mapping out the underlying intentions, behavioral signals, effectiveness in execution, and effects 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 Lowe’s (Reference Lux and Lowe2025) revised definition and recommendation to apply signaling theory to flesh 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. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) called for further mapping of the nomological network for AL. Specifically, they called for research focused on the posited antecedents, mediators, and moderators of AL, including individual differences and contextual variables. As our discussion of the expanded nomological network for AL indicates, progress has been made along these lines, with the identification 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 often substituted ‘references, data, diagrams, variables, and hypotheses’ – all elements that Sutton and Staw (Reference Sutton and Staw1995, p. 371) astutely point out ‘theory is not’ – for an explanation of why the focal variables are related, which is the essence of theory. Second, given the weak research methods that reflect 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 confidence in the relationships identified. Third, the research models examined are typically very simplistic, as they often include only one or two independent variables, one or two dependent variables, zero to few mediating variables, and zero to few moderating variables. As such, endogeneity arising from omitted variables (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010) 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 affect toward the leader (Hoch et al., Reference Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn and Wu2018; Martinko et al., Reference Martinko, Mackey, Moss, Harvey, McAllister and Brees2018), the fact that measures of these variables are commonly omitted and rarely controlled for raises concerns that the variables identified 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 confident inferences about causal relationships (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010). 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 identified mediating relationships are operative and which may be spurious.

For these reasons, we view the relationships reflected in the updated nomological network as tentative and in need of stronger theorizing and further study before any definitive 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 single source data among the quantitative empirical studies’ (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011, p. 1140). Although this quotation is taken from the 2011 AL review, it sadly remains applicable today. The lack of attention 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’ (Reference Appels2023) application of signaling theory to explore how CEO sociopolitical activism signals AL to prospective employees. Specifically, he posited that CEO sociopolitical activism, which he defined as public and costly expressions of personal political values by a firm’s most visible and highest-ranking leader, serves as an effective signal that job seekers can use to make attributions of leader authenticity. To investigate these leader signaling predictions, three field experiments and one field study were conducted.

To appreciate the rigor of Appels (Reference Appels2023) research, consider his first field experiment. A parallel design for assessing the causal accuracy of the proposed independent, mediating, and dependent variables was used as participants reacted to a CEO’s 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 concurrent double randomization manipulation-of-mediator design where AL is manipulated (and thus exogenous) using vignettes developed by Cianci and colleagues (Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014). 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, Reference Neider and Schriesheim2011). A measure of participants’ assessment of the attractiveness of the CEO’s firm as a prospective employer served as the dependent variable. The extent to which the participants’ 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. The online labor platform Prolific 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 attributions and moderated by political incongruence. The other three studies shared similar strengths, particularly as used in combination to triangulate the findings.

We consider Appels (Reference Appels2023) work to be encouraging for several reasons. The first is his use of signaling theory, which provides a strong theoretical basis for the hypotheses, and reinforces our and Lux and Lowe’s (Reference Lux and Lowe2025) enthusiasm for a signaling conception of AL. The second stems from the combination of field experiments and a field survey, along with varied experimental manipulations and construct measures, to triangulate the findings. Here, it is important to recognize that the use of Cianci et al’s (Reference Cianci, Hannah, Roberts and Tsakumis2014) hypothetical vignettes to manipulate AL is not ideal, because they are rather artificial. To address this concern in future research, we echo Lonati et al.’s (Reference Lonati, Quiroga, Zehnder and Antonakis2018, p. 22) recommendation to employ ‘non-traditional stimulus material, which can enhance the psychological realism and immersion in hypothetical experimental environments (video-based vignettes rather than written ones, virtual reality interactions’). Nonetheless, as Appels (Reference Appels2023) noted, the combination of field experiment and field survey designs addressed potential endogeneity issues (Antonakis et al., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010). The third strength stems from the use of Prolific Academic to secure a sample of actual jobseekers as participants. Appels (Reference Appels2023, p. 10) argued that such platforms serve ‘as field settings 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 deconflating operationalizations of AL. For instance, applications of experience sampling in social psychology to track relationship trajectories (Eastwick, Finkel, & Simpson, Reference Eastwick, Finkel and Simpson2019; Gable, Reis, & Downey, Reference Gable, Reis and Downey2003), suggest that such methods have the potential to deconflate the intent, content, execution, and effects of AL signaling behavior. Despite some exceptions (e.g., Weiss, Razinskas, Backmann, & Hoegl, Reference Weiss, Razinskas, Backmann and Hoegl2018), our review identified few studies that adopted experience sampling. The potential utility of combining qualitative and experimental methods to study AL is apparent from Hahl and colleagues’ application of mixed methods to explore the role of authenticity in diverse settings including Major League Baseball (Hahl, Reference Hahl2016), U.S. presidential elections (Hahl, Kim, & Sivan, Reference Hahl, Kim and Sivan2018), ‘lowbrow culture’ (Hahl, Zuckerman, & Kim, Reference Hahl, Zuckerman and Kim2017), and corporate diversification (Hahl & Ha, Reference Hahl and Ha2020). Implicit measures also show promise for studying AL. For instance, Randolph-Seng & Gardner (Reference Randolph-Seng and Gardner2013) used implicit measures of self-esteem including signature size (Dijksterhuis, Reference Dijksterhuis2004) and the attractiveness of one’s initials (Stapel & Blanton, Reference Stapel and Blanton2004) to obtain partial support for Kernis’ (Reference Kernis2003) prediction that authenticity (in this case AL) is positively related to optimal self-esteem.

Finally, we speculate that other alternatives to traditional survey methods (e.g., Likert-based measures) may have utility in operationalizing AL. For example, the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, Reference Greenwald, McGhee and Schwartz1998) employs a stimulus-sorting task (e.g., valanced associations with gender, race, etc.) to predict affect, cognitions, and behavior (Greenwald & Banaji, Reference Greenwald and Banaji2017). 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 profits. However, an application of the IAT to measure such values reveals that, although social responsibilities are indeed central and profit objectives peripheral for one leader, the opposite pattern is revealed for the second. Such a pattern of results would suggest that the first 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 often more accurate (Ekman, Reference Ekman and Martin2009). Coders can be trained using the Micro Expression Training Tool (Ekman, Reference Ekman2002). This 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 reflect deception, providing an indicator of inauthenticity. Other physiological measures (Heaphy & Dutton, Reference Heaphy and Dutton2008) likewise have promise.

As Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021) observed, many theories from scientific fields 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 support or reject them. Our review indicates that despite exceptions such as Appels’s (Reference Appels2023) four-study article, the criticisms that AL research suffers from issues of conflation 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

The final two future research recommendations made by Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens2011) called for more extensive research into authentic followership and AL development. Our review identified some conceptual (e.g., Hinojosa, Davis Mccauley, Randolph-Seng, & Gardner, Reference Hinojosa, Davis Mccauley, Randolph-Seng and Gardner2014) and empirical (e.g., Biermeier-Hanson, Wynne, Thrasher, & Lyons, Reference Biermeier-Hanson, Wynne, Thrasher and Lyons2021; Leroy et al., Reference Leroy, Anseel, Gardner and Sels2015; Tak, Seo, & Roh, Reference Tak, Seo and Roh2019) articles focused on authentic followership. Similarly, we found some theoretical (Hinojosa et al., Reference Hinojosa, Davis Mccauley, Randolph-Seng and Gardner2014; Wilson, Reference Wilson2013) and empirical (Baron, Reference Baron2016; Baron & Parent, Reference Baron and Parent2015; Liang, Reference Liang2017; Martínez-Martínez et al., Reference Martínez-Martínez, Molina-López, Mateos de Cabo, Gabaldón, González-Pérez and Izquierdo2021) articles focused on AL development. Nonetheless, these remain understudied topics. Hinojosa and colleagues (Reference Hinojosa, Davis Mccauley, Randolph-Seng and Gardner2014) adopted an attachment theory lens to advance a model of authentic leader–follower relationships 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, Reference Deci and Ryan2000) as a guiding framework, Leroy and colleagues (Reference Leroy, Anseel, Gardner and Sels2015) found that AL, authentic followership, and their interactions were positively associated with follower basic need satisfaction, which is, in turn, was positively associated with follower work role performance. Similarly, Tak et al. (Reference Tak, Seo and Roh2019) obtained support for their hypotheses that AL is positively related to follower’s psychological 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., Reference Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart and Lalive2010) that muddy interpretation of the findings.

Two studies by Baron (Reference Baron2016, Reference Baron and Parent2015) highlight the potential utility and challenges of studying AL development. Using semi-structured interviews with 24 mid-level managers, Baron and Parent (Reference Baron and Parent2015) explored the process of AL development within a training context. They applied the Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton (Reference Gioia, Corley and Hamilton2012) method for theory building to advance a process model for developing AL skills. The model includes five sequential steps: (1) developing self-awareness; (2) identifying possible behaviors; (3) trying out new behaviors; (4) the trigger – recognizing the benefits of change; and (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, Reference Demiray, Mehl and Martin2018).

To address limitations of the Baron and Parent (Reference Baron and Parent2015) study, Baron (Reference Baron2016) 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 (Reference Baron and Parent2015) study. Baron (Reference Baron2016, p. 296) concluded that all ‘participants evolved through the leadership development program’ because their ‘self-reports of AL and mindfulness increased significantly and linearly’.

There are many commendable aspects of the Baron and Parent (Reference Baron and Parent2015) and Baron (Reference Baron2016) studies. Collecting qualitative and quantitative data in the field using a sample of leaders participating in a leadership development program allows for triangulation and contributes to the ecological validity of this research (Neuman, Reference Neuman2015). Moreover, the use of mixed-methods and the inclusion of a comparison group by Baron (Reference Baron2016) addresses some of the limitations of the Baron and Parent (Reference Baron and Parent2015) 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, Reference Orne, Rosenthal and Rosnow1969), make it impossible to draw causal inferences about the efficacy of the training. Together, these studies highlight the challenges of assessing leadership development programs (Day, Reference Day2000), which are certainly not unique to those focused on AL development (Avolio, Reference Avolio, Nohria and Khurana2010). Still, advances in leadership development (Day & Dragoni, Reference Day and Dragoni2015; Day, Riggio, Tan, & Conger, Reference Day, Riggio, Tan and Conger2021) and its assessment hold promise for future research that yields more definitive conclusions regarding its effectiveness. Estimates of the return on development investment (Richard, Holton, & Katsioloudes, Reference Richard, Holton and Katsioloudes2014) suggest that such leadership development and its assessment are well worth the effort.