Background

Ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates talked about authenticity. Socrates said that living without reflecting on your life is not meaningful. They also wrote ‘Know Thyself’ on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi to emphasize the importance of self-awareness. From a more contemporary perspective, Goffman’s book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Reference Goffman1959) focuses on the ways in which individuals manage their self-presentation and social interactions, emphasizing the role of impression management and the construction of social identity. Modern insights on authenticity in psychology largely come from these ancient philosophical ideas. These ideas suggest that authenticity happens when people freely choose to be themselves and take control of their actions. In modern discussions on leadership, authenticity is highly valued. More and more leaders are trying to become authentic by being self-aware and accountable. This is a shift from the past when authenticity was mostly about individual virtues and ethical choices in philosophy, and individual traits and identities in psychology (Novicevic, Harvey, Ronald, & Brown-Radford, Reference Novicevic, Harvey, Ronald and Brown-Radford2006). However, researchers in AL are struggling to balance the tension between a leader’s internal values (authenticity) and their actions, which signal to the external world and originate from within.

Concept clarity

One of the initial problems related to both authenticity and AL theory is the lack of definitional clarity of the construct (Cooper et al., Reference Cooper, Scandura and Schriesheim2005; Iszatt‐White, & Kempster, Reference Iszatt‐White and Kempster2019; Vendette et al., Reference Vendette, Helmuth, Intindola and Spiller2022). The major problem appears to be an insufficient definitional agreement around AL, and authenticity, overall. Prominent psychologists and philosophers, such as Abraham Maslow and Jean-Paul Sartre, consider knowing oneself and, thus, perhaps reaching authenticity as a life aspiration goal that only a few, if any, can ever reach. Similarly, Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt, and King (Reference Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt and King2009) pose the question rooted in existentialism – ‘could you ever know who you really are?’ While these insights help clarify the meaning of authenticity, they do not address how individuals might experience authenticity through self-regulatory processes, nor do they clarify how experienced authenticity aligns with externally perceived authenticity. Other authors focus on elements of self-regulation, but none presents a comprehensive model linking self-regulation and authenticity. For example, Kernis and Goldman (Reference Kernis, Goldman and Zanna2006) portray authenticity as emerging when individuals voluntarily dedicate themselves to actively participate in their endeavors, effectively shaping their own sense of self. That is, authentic actions are self-determined rather than being imposed or forced (Ryan & Ryan, Reference Ryan and Ryan2019).

This self-determination focus resurfaces in many definitions of authenticity and AL as other scholars have struggled with defining the more specific concept of AL, yielding a range of diverse definitions (Novicevic et al., Reference Novicevic, Harvey, Ronald and Brown-Radford2006), ranging from reflection of the leader’s genuine nature (Brumbaugh, Reference Brumbaugh1971) to commitment to continuous self-development, recognizing that leadership demands a lifelong journey of personal growth (George, Reference George2003). For example, Luthans and Avolio (Reference Luthans, Avolio, Cameron, Dutton and Quinn2003) argued that personal experiences and trigger events act as catalysts, fostering positive self-development through ‘self-awareness’ and ‘self-regulation behavior’, ultimately leading to the cultivation of authenticity in individuals. Similarly, Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, and Walumbwa (Reference Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa2005) described self-awareness as closely linked to self-reflection, a process that nurtures authenticity in leaders while enhancing clarity and alignment with ‘their core values, identity, emotions, motives, and goals’ (p. 347). They also introduced a ‘regulatory system’ believed to be internally driven by a leader’s intrinsic or core self, rather than external influences or expectations. In short, although there is diversity in defining authenticity and AL, self-awareness and self-regulation are predominant themes.

Challenges of AL

AL theory and its models come with additional problems, many of which are tied to its overreliance on positive psychology (Bradley-Cole, Reference Bradley-Cole2021; Ford & Harding, Reference Ford and Harding2011). It has also been argued that AL is not an all-or-nothing condition; rather, leaders may adapt their behavior based on the specific situational context, aligning with either personal or other values (Helmuth, Cole, & Vendette, Reference Helmuth, Cole and Vendette2023; Vendette et al., Reference Vendette, Helmuth, Intindola and Spiller2022). Therefore, a theory grounded solely in positive psychology risks oversimplifying the complex nature of the AL phenomenon.

Furthermore, due to situational factors, leaders may struggle with a dissonance between their authentic selves and their actions. This discrepancy arises from the idea that AL may not comprehensively consider the unconscious dynamics influenced by an individual’s value system, which can significantly influence a leader’s choices and behaviors (Kernis, Reference Kernis2003). This notion gains further credence from the argument that AL can inadvertently prompt leaders to suppress certain aspects of their identity to conform to a specific image of authenticity imposed by their work environment or peers. Additionally, the conceptualization and measurement of AL face challenges in adequately addressing intra- and interpersonal processes (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019).

Similarly, AL falls victim to the broader limitations of leadership doctrine (Crawford, Dawkins, Martin, & Lewis, Reference Crawford, Dawkins, Martin and Lewis2020). A recent critique found that the concept of AL is unclear, repeats itself, is driven by specific beliefs, and is not suitable for in-depth research (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2019). For instance, if a leader’s genuine self is negative and leads to behaviors like being overly critical, not communicating well, or being judgmental, they might be true to themselves but not exhibit positive, AL qualities, and he/she could be viewed as untrustworthy.

In addition, in a more recent paper, Einola and Alvesson (Reference Einola and Alvesson2021, p. 5) maintain that leaders as individuals will struggle immensely to cope with being authentic while adapting to situations that require ‘flexibility, diplomacy, and compliance’. Extending these concerns, critical leadership scholars argue that it is not possible for leaders to possess one ‘true self’ as depending on specific situations, leaders have to accommodate different expectations that may conflict with a core truth and one’s different identities (Ibarra, Reference Ibarra2015; Ladkin & Taylor, Reference Ladkin and Taylor2010). Further, individuals have multiple selves that are situationally dependent and may vary across work situations (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2022; Vendette et al., Reference Vendette, Helmuth, Intindola and Spiller2022). Also, AL theory tends to overlook contextual factors, neglecting the environmental, organizational, and cultural factors that play an essential role in how AL is perceived and developed (Costas & Fleming, Reference Costas and Fleming2009; Liu, Cutcher, & Grant, Reference Liu, Cutcher and Grant2017).

In sum, current challenges in AL highlight the need for alternative perspective on authenticity that addresses a number of concerns. First, there is tension between being an authentic leader and achieving social acceptance. AL is defined as a values-based signaling of marked by self-awareness, moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency (Lux & Lowe, Reference Lux and Lowe2024). However, if a leader’s values are socially undesirable – like self-protection or entitlement – this can diminish trust and foster social isolation, suggesting that authenticity is not always beneficial, especially when it conflicts with group values. Additionally, the transparency and consistency of AL may produce inflexibility. Leaders striving for consistency may struggle to adapt to changing demands, potentially reducing their effectiveness. This raises important questions about how much of one’s true self should be expressed at work and how organizations can create environments that accept diverse authentic expressions. Hence, there is a need for a more flexible approach to AL, explaining how leaders can adjust their authentic selves in response to external demands while maintaining core values. Addressing these issues requires an expanded view of AL theory.

Definitions of authenticity and AL

The prevailing and the most general psychological definition of authenticity is a match between one’s internal sense of self and outward appearance (Caza, Moss, & Vough, Reference Caza, Moss and Vough2018; Harter, Reference Harter, Snyder and Lopez2002), which implies an underlying regulatory process that attempts to create this match. Nevertheless, different streams of authenticity research have developed (Cha et al., Reference Cha, Hewlin, Roberts, Buckman, Leroy, Steckler and Cooper2019). One stream argues that the authentic self is represented by the extent to which one is true to him/herself – experienced authenticity. Hence, the authentic self may be hidden from others and not be accessible for external evaluation (Golomb, Reference Golomb2012), but it would be internally experienced and internally regulated. Another literature stream argues that other-evaluated authenticity is a more relevant perspective – externally perceived authenticity. Others’ perceptions are an important basis of leadership and power, and positive evaluations by others facilitate effective leadership and validate one’s identity. Therefore, we believe that externally perceived authenticity depends on a social authenticity regulation process.

A third stream of thinking focuses on alignment with socially acceptable standards (Potter, Reference Potter2010) – normative authenticity. Normative authenticity should be most important when cognitions emphasize interdependent self-knowledge, which occurs when collective identities predominate (Kuhnen, Hannover, & Schubert, Reference Kuhnen, Hannover and Schubert2001), implying authenticity regulation by cultural processes. Sutton (Reference Sutton2020) notes that authenticity research is limited by focusing on Western/individualistic conceptualizations and measures. Similarly, contextual factors (e.g., gender, environment, organization, and structural constraints; Bunjak et al., Reference Bunjak, Bruch and Černe2022) play an important role in how authenticity and leadership are enacted and perceived (Johns, Reference Johns2006; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Cutcher and Grant2017). Thus, including normative authenticity creates a structure relevant to Asian cultures and cultures that emphasize interdependence, collective norms, and collective identities (Markus & Kitayama, Reference Markus and Kitayama1991).

We view all three perspectives on authenticity as valid and important in challenging the definition of AL. As noted previously, we advocate an integrative approach that defines authenticity and AL as an outcome based on active self-identify, regulatory focus, and self-regulatory strategies as an evolving alignment between self, others, and social norms. One may be more or less authentic at different times or in a different situation, yet there may also be long-term developmental trends. Thus, authenticity and AL involve a dynamic and continuous process requiring self-regulation and evaluation relative to (1) the self (experienced authenticity); (2) others (externally perceived authenticity); and (3) social norms (normative authenticity), although the activation of these aspects may also vary differentially over time and contexts as aspects of identity change. Leaders may need to engage in self-regulatory processes differentially depending on active self-identity and external situations. These ideas lead to Proposition 1.

Active self-identity, authenticity, and AL

Following Markus and Wurf (Reference Markus and Wurf1987) and subsequent research, we view the self not as a unitary, monolithic entity but rather as a multifaceted phenomenon that involves diverse mental structures (i.e., images, schemas, goals). These aspects can differ in their temporal focus (past, present, future), positivity, or negativity. The multifaceted self is dynamic in two respects. One is that it develops over time as one makes sense of experiences, and the other is that various aspects of the self take prominence in different situations. That is, not all aspects of this structure are active at any moment, but it is the active portions that regulate intra-personal and inter-personal behavior. This online or highly accessible aspect of the self varies with a particular context and has been labeled the WSC by Markus and Wurf (Reference Markus and Wurf1987). The WSC has broad effects, regulating information processing, motivation, and social processes.

This variability in active identities creates problems for AL research focusing on being true to a fixed self. We maintain that it is more helpful to focus on understanding how leaders self-regulate regarding conflicting demands than emphasizing the degree of authenticity. Understanding the many alternative views on authenticity is facilitated by recognizing that there are multiple selves or WSCs. When active, these self-schemas influence an individual’s sense of identity, shifting one’s psychological state and self-presentation (Stern, Reference Stern1985). These multiple selves can be represented at alternative levels – individual, relational, and collective (Brewer & Gardner, Reference Brewer and Gardner1996; Sedikides & Brewer, Reference Sedikides and Brewer2003). Individual-level representations emphasize the comparison of self-views to others and activate a social motivation based on self-interests. In contrast, relational levels exhibit enhanced sensitivity to how specific others view us and a motivational focus on benefits to others (Brewer & Gardner, Reference Brewer and Gardner1996; Grutterink & Meister, Reference Grutterink and Meister2022; Lord & Brown, Reference Lord and Brown2004; Lord et al., Reference Lord, Gatti and Chui2016). A relational self-representation also emphasizes roles and positively reflected appraisals from others as the basis for self-evaluation rather than individual-level traits. Finally, identities can also be represented at the collective level, representing group, organizational, or societal identities. Here the self is defined in terms of membership in the collective, the predominant motivational focus is the collective welfare, and self-evaluation involves comparison to a group prototype.

It is crucial to distinguish our approach from the constructs of social identity theory and personal identities (Ashforth & Mael, Reference Ashforth and Mael1989; Ozyilmaz & Koc, Reference Ozyilmaz and Koc2022). These theories emphasize that identities can involve different levels of aggregation (group vs. individual), but they focus on the content at each level. For example, social identity theory emphasizes group norms (prototypes), which may interact to either reinforce or counteract individual tendencies, that are often represented in trait-like variables (Ozyilmaz & Koc, Reference Ozyilmaz and Koc2022).

In contrast, our approach focuses on the activation of different identity levels. The main idea of our theorethical proposition is that when one level of identity is highly active, others are less likely to be active. In this way, identity levels may interact within individuals over time, rather than across individuals. This means that authenticity and AL effects associated with one level of representation may be less prominent when other levels predominate. That is, one level can at times or in specific contexts, moderate the operation of processes at another level. Therefore, in our hypotheses testing, interactions among different identity levels should be examined across time and contexts. Our conceptual model is also proposing that these processes are dynamic within individuals and vary with context, unlike social identity theory and personal identity theory, which focus on stable individual differences, that is, between-person effects.

There is good theoretical and empirical support for this proposed alignment of the level at which identity is presented and aspects of authenticity and AL. First, research has shown that individual-level identities accentuate the importance of internal norms and values (Ybarra & Trafimow, Reference Ybarra and Trafimow1998), consistent with experienced authenticity. The linkage between relational identity and externally evaluated authenticity is consistent with social-cognitive theory, which maintains that significant others have profound emotional-motivational significance that activates evaluative standards (Shah, Reference Shah2003) and can help shape identities (Finkel, Reference Finkel2019; Ryan & Ryan, Reference Ryan and Ryan2019). Finally, Ybarra and Trafimow (Reference Ybarra and Trafimow1998) found that when collective identities are salient, people give more emphasis to norm compliance, which is consistent with the concept of normative authenticity. The same logic applies to AL. Thus, self-regulation changes over time and contexts in terms of its internal, social, or normative grounding depending on the level of the active identity. These dynamics are emphasized in Proposition 2.

Dynamic and authentic identity

As mentioned above, it is important to note that not all aspects of the self are active at any time; thus, we introduce the construct of dynamic and authentic identity in our AL theory. The active portion of the self or WSC depends on social and organizational contexts. It gives us selective access to self-relevant information, which defines authenticity and creates one’s subjective experience of who one is (Chen, Reference Chen2019). This conceptualization of the dynamic self-concept has important implications for understanding AL. The self is a fundamental mental structure consisting of expansive and richly connected brain networks that provides an ‘integrative glue’ that gives coherent meaning to internal and external information and the temporal flow of events (Sui & Humphreys, Reference Sui and Humphreys2015). Many AL researchers (e.g., Shamir & Eilam, Reference Shamir and Eilam2005; Sutton, Reference Sutton2020) maintain that constructing such a coherent meaning manifests one’s true self. The critical point often missed by critiques of the AL construct is that as contexts change and the active self-changes, one can still behave in a self-authored and genuine way that involves different forms of self-representation. For example, when leaders’ relational identity is shaped by significant others, leaders may become more concerned with meeting expectations and creating harmony in relationships than with distinguishing themselves from others. This adaptation process provides an opportunity for leaders’ self-transformation and the adoption of different self-identities in various contexts, ultimately resulting in a dynamic and authentic identity. These ideas lead to Proposition 3.

Regulatory focus

Higgins (Reference Higgins1998) has developed a theory concerning the motivational underpinning of goal pursuit linked to different identities. He maintains that seeking to attain an outcome is associated with an ideal self, which is a desired self that one aims to achieve, and results in a promotion regulatory focus; whereas seeking to avoid an outcome is associated with an ought self, which is a duty or obligation that one feels compelled to be (Carver & Scheier, Reference Carver and Scheier1998), and is associated with a prevention regulatory focus. Ideal selves are also associated with an eagerness to attain outcomes and a global orientation in contrast to ought selves which are associated with caution in pursuing outcomes and focusing on details. Regulatory focus also may be related to chronic levels of identity. Specifically, in five studies, Lee, Aaker, and Gardner (Reference Lee, Aaker and Gardner2000) found that individuals with dominant independent self-construals emphasized a promotion regulatory focus. In contrast, individuals with a dominant interdependent regulatory focus emphasized a prevention regulatory focus. These findings imply that one needs to consider identity level and regulatory focus in testing our propositions on authenticity and AL because activating a particular identity may also activate associated regulatory focus. Leaders with a promotion focus value personal growth and are inclined to seek opportunities that align with their values, passions, and genuine selves. As a result, they express their true selves and pursue goals that resonate with their authentic identity, thus experienced authenticity and AL.

On the other hand, prevention-focused leaders may prioritize conformity and avoiding mistakes over personal expression and externally perceived authenticity and AL. Consequently, they often feel more pressure to conform to external standards or rules, which can sometimes conflict with experienced AL but resonate with externally perceived and normative AL. It is important to note that regulatory focus is separated into both chronic focus, with is treated as a trait, and situational focus, which is a state. As such, while chronic focus is often represented as an antecedent or moderating factor in models, situational focus is generally represented as a mediating mechanism (Kark & Van Dijk, Reference Kark and Van Dijk2019).

Ironic processes of mental control

In general, the theory of ironic processes holds that normal and successful mental control occurs through two processes that work together to promote desired mental states: an intentional operating process that consciously searches for the mental contents that will yield the desired state and an ironic monitoring process that unconsciously searches for mental contents that signal the failure to achieve the desired mental state and thus need to be suppressed (Wegner, Reference Wegner1994b; Wenzlaff & Wegner, Reference Wenzlaff and Wegner2000). In other words, ironic monitoring processes search for the presence of to-be-suppressed thoughts, the errors in self-regulation that need to be corrected.

The ironic processes occur when mental load interrupts the conscious, intentional operating process that searches for self-distractions from unwanted thoughts (Wegner, Reference Wegner2009, p. 7). This is a problem because several studies show that thoughts, emotions, or actions we try to suppress, in contrast, just gain activation (Klein, Reference Klein2007; Lord & Harvey, Reference Lord, Harvey, Lord, Klimoski and Kanfer2002; Wegner & Erber, Reference Wegner and Erber1992). For example, in a word association task, when under time pressure, people asked not to think about a particular word tended to offer precisely the forbidden word as a solution to the problem (Wegner & Erber, Reference Wegner and Erber1992). As Alvesson and Einola (Reference Alvesson and Einola2019) and Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021, Letter 2) point out, self-regulation failures can harm leaders in organizations, limiting their influence and career growth, and leading to feelings of losing control and low self-confidence (e.g., emotional instability; Soral, Pati, Singh, & Cooke, Reference Soral, Pati, Singh and Cooke2022). Hence, leaders who suppress authentic aspects of their inner self (e.g., doubt and negative emotions) to conform to contexts may express these aspects under high cognitive load and challenging circumstances. Accordingly, we suggest the following proposition:

It is important to note that ironic processes may also allow leaders to become more authentic over time as they go through different experiences in life (Vendette et al., Reference Vendette, Helmuth, Intindola and Spiller2022). Ironic processes can help align a leader’s active self-identity with their outward actions by guiding authentic choices that reflect their core self, promoting personal growth and transformation. In this sense, ironic processes are valuable in authenticity overall as they induce leaders to intentionally or unintentionally be authentic, independent of external recognition. Thus, we propose the following proposition:

Self-regulatory strategies of mental control

Self-regulation is the heart of authenticity and AL, and it can facilitate consistency between one’s inner self and outward expression (Avolio & Gardner, Reference Avolio and Gardner2005; Collins & Jackson, Reference Collins and Jackson2015; Kernis, Reference Kernis2003; Sparrowe, Reference Sparrowe2005; Yeow & Martin, Reference Yeow and Martin2013). However, self-identities are complex and socially constructed, and not all aspects are active at any one time to guide self-regulation (Ashforth & Schinoff, Reference Ashforth and Schinoff2016; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021; Lord et al., Reference Lord, Gatti and Chui2016; Markus & Wurf, Reference Markus and Wurf1987). Consequently, there is an unavoidable selectivity of the active aspects of a leader’s identity that relate to self-regulation at a specific moment and in a particular context. We theorize that how this selectivity occurs has critical effects on a leader’s authenticity.

More precisely, stemming from the theory of ironic processes of mental control, leaders may engage in one of the two possible self-regulatory strategies – a concentration or a suppression strategy relative to authenticity. (These strategies are often called identity manifestation and identity suppression in the identity literature; Cha et al., Reference Cha, Hewlin, Roberts, Buckman, Leroy, Steckler and Cooper2019; Madera, King, & Hebl, Reference Madera, King and Hebl2012) A concentration strategy enables mental focus on desirable thoughts, that is, being and acting in a way that reflects leader’s active self. When engaging in a concentration strategy, the disruptive ironic processes of mental control are less likely to occur, and the expression of leader’s active self should proceed smoothly. A concentration strategy also emphasizes consistency with an active self-identity and the feeling that this identity authors behavior in a self-determining way. Although leadership scholars emphasize the expression of the active aspects of a true self, this concentration strategy would be particularly difficult in some contexts and for a member of a stereotyped group (e.g., gender, racial, sexual identity). Expressing their identity and value may have negative social consequences, such as a failure to achieve relational transparency with others (Eagly, Reference Eagly2005). However, hiding their true identity creates tensions and the potential for ironic processes.

A suppression strategy pertains to rejecting thoughts or actions consistent with the active self-identity, such as when conforming to social or organizational demands that may conflict with the active self-identity or doing something with purely instrumental value. Consequently, a suppression strategy, besides requiring additional cognitive resources, denies self-determination and implies external control. Therefore, it would likely produce feelings of inauthenticity in a leader. Suppression may be common in organizations because of the need to comply with strong contextual standards supporting organizational values and identities, an emphasis on displaying positive rather than negative emotions, or conformity to behavioral or other social norms (Cha et al., Reference Cha, Hewlin, Roberts, Buckman, Leroy, Steckler and Cooper2019). Thus, we predicted the following propositions:

Reference Lux and LoweLux and Lowe (this issue) emphasize that AL has important signaling consequences. However, it is not clear what specific leader behavior signal AL if one’s active self-identity varies across contexts. Considering the benefits of concentration and suppression strategies may help reduce this ambiguity. We propose that the smooth, relatively effortless, and perhaps automatic processes that generate leadership behavior when following a concentration strategy would signal authenticity to others, whereas the effortful, deliberate, careful, and controlled process that generate leadership behavior when following a suppression process would tend to signal inauthenticity to others. That is, how one produces leadership behavior may be as important as what behavior actually occurs in signaling authenticity.

Authenticity, however, is not just an internally-based process, whether generated by concentration or suppression processes. Indeed, external perceptions regarding AL, that is, externally perceived authenticity and normative authenticity, are also important. There are many reasons for leaders to be concerned with how others in the workplace perceive them. These beliefs about how others see us are integrated into meta-perceptions with personal significance (Grutterink & Meister, Reference Grutterink and Meister2022). In turn, these meta-perceptions affect the social construction of identities (Asforth & Schinoff, Reference Ashforth and Schinoff2016). Hence, authenticity and AL may benefit from meta-perceptions that align with active self-identities.

We expect that the consistency of behavior would be a key determinant of external perceptions as it would lead to trait rather than situational attributions because concentration strategy would lead to consistent behavior grounded in the self rather than context. Suppression strategy may promote less externally perceived and normative AL because they provide little information about what leader should do (Carver & Scheier, Reference Carver and Scheier1998) and, therefore, less behavioral consistency than concentration strategy. Such inconsistency would likely be reflected in others’ perceptions, making social aspects of identity construction less clear. Observers may also view behavior that seems natural as authentic. Because it is tied to a specific active self-identity, behavior produced by a concentration strategy may be more practiced and natural, and as just discussed, this aspect of underlying processes may signal authenticity. Further, suppression strategy requires more cognitive resources and thus may seem slower, effortful, and perhaps somewhat clumsy, signaling inauthenticity. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following proposition:

Regulatory focus and use of self-regulatory strategies

Individual differences relate to self-regulation and authenticity, which we believe also are highly related to concentration versus suppression strategies. We propose that promotion-focused leaders will tend to emphasize a concentration strategy which may help them translate positive psychological capacities (self-efficacy, self-esteem, and optimism) into AL (Fladerer & Braun, Reference Fladerer and Braun2020, Study 2). In contrast, a prevention-oriented leaders will favor a suppression strategy that narrows leader’s focus to reduce ambiguity and avoid errors. Promotion concerns are associated with growth and advancement, while prevention concerns emphasize safety and security (Higgins, Reference Higgins1997; Förster & Higgins, Reference Förster and Higgins2005; Förster, Higgins, & Bianco, Reference Förster, Higgins and Bianco2003). Also, supporting this proposal, Kark and Van Dijk (Reference Kark and Van Dijk2007) examined the motivation of leaders. They maintained that promotion focus emphasizes openness and self-direction, whereas prevention focus was associated with safety and conformity. Thus, chronic differences in regulatory focus may influence leader’s strategic approach to self-regulation and, ultimately, authenticity. Because these effects reflect chronic individual differences, they can be sufficiently practiced that they occur without much conscious awareness. Thus, we predicted the following propositions:

In sum, there are process-related aspects to self-regulation (concentration vs. suppression) and authenticity. In addition, there are individual differences related to active regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention), and these aspects may also vary with identity levels, as previously noted. Figure 1 depicts the self-regulation strategies for active self-identity levels, showing that concentration strategy can occur with all active self-identity levels but that suppression strategy is likely when individual identity and either relational or collective identities are simultaneously activated.

Figure 1. Authenticity and authentic leadership components, self-regulation strategies, and active identities. Note: – Self-evaluation; – Other-evaluation; – Social norms; WSC – Active identity; – Conflicting area; – Overlapping area.

Whatever the active self-identity, it may influence information processing by limiting the domain of self-aspects that ironic processes of mental control search. Identities also help leaders formulate context-appropriate goals, limiting automatic mental activities (Johnson, Chang, & Lord, Reference Johnson, Chang and Lord2006). However, it is also important to recognize that tasks, social relations, organizational roles, and other aspects of organizations may sometimes simultaneously activate aspects of multiple identities, which we show in Fig. 1 as potentially conflicting areas bounded by wavey lines. For example, a leader may need to manage norms associated with organizational identities, specific role relations associated with relational identities, and his/her values associated with individual identities when dealing with subordinates. We think a suppression strategy is particularly likely to be used in such conflicting situations. Because relational and collective identities reflect interdependence (Sluss & Ashforth, Reference Sluss and Ashforth2008), they may coexist without much conflict (represented by overlapping area on Fig. 1). In contrast, individual/relational or individual/collective identities may reflect incompatible values and competition between personal and social identity, creating more significant mental regulation challenges. Thus, we propose the following propositions:

It is important to recognize that as the context changes, leaders need to adjust their identity, raising the question of how they maintain authenticity throughout a workday, which typically shows substantial variation in state authenticity (Fladerer & Braun, Reference Fladerer and Braun2020; Lenton et al., Reference Lenton, Slabu and Sedikides2016). Such daily changes would be less of a problem for leaders high in active self-identity integration and for whom authenticity is more consistent (Ebrahimi et al., Reference Ebrahimi, Kouchaki and Patrick2020). We would expect that leaders with high self-integration would be prone to use promotion focus due to the coherent nature of the active self, whatever the identity level. With an integrated identity, activation could spread from one aspect to another, creating coherence and a sense of approaching an ideal self grounded in consistent values a leader aspires toward. In contrast, leaders with lower identity integration often have to suppress aspects of their previously active self-identity that are not suitable for the current context. This can lead to more frequent ironic processes, where their active self conflict with external expectations. This situation reflects the concept of the ‘ought self’ and a prevention focus, emphasizing compliance with shifting norms influenced by social dynamics. However, we propose that this conflict is less likely to arise when a leader’s identities are fully integrated. Hence, we propose the following proposition:

The propositions we have developed reflect the assumptions that active self-identity and regulatory focus are causally antecedents to regulating AL. Furthermore, we suggest that concentration and/or suppression strategies serve as mediators, bridging the gap between the aforementioned individual characteristics and the outcomes of AL. From this logic, it follows that identity is dynamic, changing the meaning of authenticity (experienced, externally perceived, or normative) in different contexts and over time. Ironic processes of mental control and regulatory focus help to define how active self-identities are translated into authenticity and AL, both cognitively and behaviorally. Furthermore, these strategies represent central mediating mechanisms in the process of a leader experiencing different forms of authenticity.

Figure 2 depicts the theoretical perspective in a dynamic authenticity and AL model that we have developed. It shows two antecedents (level of active self-identity and regulatory focus) and two mediating strategies related to ironic processes of mental control theory (concentration and suppression). It also depicts three outcomes of the self-regulatory processes (experienced, externally perceived, and normative authenticity and AL).

Note: The thicker lines convey stronger effects of concentration strategy on experienced and externally perceived authenticity and authentic leadership (AL).

Figure 2. Flow chart of theorized authenticity and authentic leadership.

AL components and identity level

As initially framed in the leadership literature (Walumbwa et al., Reference Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and Peterson2008), AL may be explained by four dynamically interrelated components that were generalized from Kernis and Goldman’s (Reference Kernis, Goldman and Zanna2006) work on authenticity: awareness (understanding of the self), unbiased processing (the evaluation of ego relevant information), moral behavior (alignment between thoughts and deeds), and relational transparency (sharing the information openly with others; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021, Letter 3). We explain these components of AL by examining the dynamic interplay between internal processes, such as self-awareness and balanced processing, and external processes, including moral perspective and relational transparency. As described by Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021), self-awareness reflects a leader’s ‘understanding’ of meaning-making processes, but this can involve both personal and collective self-awareness; balanced information processing refers to ‘unbiased’ evaluations of both positive and negative self-relevant information, as well as an openness to alternative views from others (Steffens et al., Reference Steffens, Wolyniec, Okimoto, Mols, Haslam and Kay2021). Further, we maintain that self-awareness and balanced information processing gain activation depending on a leader’s active self-identity. At the individual level, we expect leaders to manage self-awareness regarding their core values and goals effectively, but personal self-awareness can accentuate this effect (Steffens et al., Reference Steffens, Wolyniec, Okimoto, Mols, Haslam and Kay2021). At this level, leaders would commit to their core values rather than fully adjusting to external demands, and they are likely to emphasize a promotion focus and a concentration strategy. Also, their actions may be oriented toward achieving an ideal self. Further, self-awareness is expected to accentuate the discrepancy-reducing aspects of self-regulation (Carver, Reference Carver, Leary and Tangney2012).

In contrast, balanced processing might be easier to navigate when relational and collective identities are active and emphasize feedback from others creating a collective self-awareness (Steffens et al., Reference Steffens, Wolyniec, Okimoto, Mols, Haslam and Kay2021). Here two distinct processes are involved; one is revealing aspects of the self, and the other is receiving feedback from others. Surprisingly, due to ironic processes of mental control, a suppression strategy might eventually lead one to reveal more about the self due to ironic expressions of to-be-hidden aspects. Ultimately, that may become a basis for a more genuine, open relationship with other people. For example, attempts to suppress emotions in the workplace may cause others to perceive leaders as cold or uncaring. Still, ironic processes of mental control of such emotions may lead others to perceive a leader as more human. Thus, broadening the basis for social exchanges.

Unlike internal antecedent processes, relational transparency and internalized moral perspective refer to self-regulatory outcomes with an important social component (Cheng, Usman, Bai, & He, Reference Cheng, Usman, Bai and He2022; Kalay, Brender-Ilan, & Kantor, Reference Kalay, Brender-Ilan and Kantor2020; Lux, Grover, & Teo, Reference Lux, Grover and Teo2023). Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021) describe relational transparency as a ‘sharing of genuine thoughts and feelings openly…’ and they represent an internalized moral perspective in terms of a ‘demonstration of commitment through words and deeds …’ (p. 15). Thus, both describe outcomes of a process that has social aspects and thus could be facilitated by relational and collective identity levels. Indeed, sharing genuine aspects while maintaining appropriate dignity involves a focus on other individuals or groups and demonstrates an inclusiveness that characterizes social identities. Thus, relational transparency should increase with relational or collective identity activation when externally perceived or normative authenticity are emphasized. However, relational identity also implies a particular aspect to relationships that involve suppression of some aspects of the self to accommodate the preferences or expectations of others, particularly when coupled with a prevention regulatory focus, as well as one’s tendency to use a concentration strategy for actions attempting to benefit others. Concentration coupled with a promotion regulatory focus may yield greater consistency across contexts and a sense of experienced authenticity. Because there is more normative uniformity with collective than relational identities, we would expect that a concentration strategy focused on enacting collective norms would be common.

Although demonstrating commitment through words and deeds implies an external consequence of leadership actions, an internalized moral perspective also emphasizes one’s core values most consistent with individual identities. Thus, we expect moral perspective to include less social components when individual identity and experienced authenticity are salient. Here a concentration strategy and promotion regulatory focus also seems likely. In contrast, leaders who prioritize relational or collective identity – focusing more on externally perceived or normative authenticity rather than their own experienced authenticity – may more frequently feel a ‘loss’ of their uniqueness and core values, leading to a greater sense of alienation. In Fig. 3, the right panel illustrates how outcome-related aspects of authenticity relate to identity from an external process perspective. In contrast, the left panel of Fig. 3 displays the internal antecedent process perspective, specifically focusing on active self-identity.

Figure 3. Active identities and internal and external process perspective of authentic leadership.

In sum, as Fig. 3 shows, we expect that all the components of authenticity typically addressed in the leadership literature also vary as identity processes change. Thus, variability in the active self-representation components may be a key to understanding how the components of AL change over time. These ideas lead to Proposition 15.

Stability and variability in AL

Our process perspective applies that authenticity and AL are better conceptualized in state than trait terms. Figures 1–3 put all the components we discussed into a comprehensive context that changes as identity activation changes throughout a workday as individuals address different events, interact with others, and fulfill different social roles (Nieberle, Acton, Braun, Lord, & Fu, Reference Nieberle, Acton, Braun, Lord and Fu2023; Ryan & Ryan, Reference Ryan and Ryan2019). These variations would likely also create variation in a leader’s active self-identities, regulatory strategies, and authenticity. Consistent with this expectation, experience sampling research (Lenton et al., Reference Lenton, Slabu and Sedikides2016) shows that more than twice as much variance in state authenticity is associated with within-person compared to between-person differences. Other research showed less but still substantial percentages of within-person variation (37%; Fladerer & Braun, Reference Fladerer and Braun2020). Thus, the effects of short-term changes in context appear to produce substantial variation in state authenticity.

Consistent with the state perspective, organizational theorists (Ashforth & Schinoff, Reference Ashforth and Schinoff2016; Lord et al., Reference Lord, Gatti and Chui2016) maintain that identities are situationally constructed, and the construct of a WSC (Chen, Reference Chen2019; Markus & Wurf, Reference Markus and Wurf1987) has a long history. This unique, situated identity makes a specific subset of self-knowledge accessible, ideally knowledge needed to address leadership challenges. It is this short-term experience of the self to which authentic individuals are aligned (Chen, Reference Chen2019), and this emergent self can be an ideal self that gives rise to a promotion regulatory focus or an ought self that elicits a prevention orientation. Further, depending on context and stable individual differences, the emergent self can reflect an individual, relational, or/and collective identity. The crucial issues for authenticity are whether this situated self elicits a subjective experience of being true to who one is or whether it is alienating (Vess, Reference Vess2019); and, finally, how behavior unfolds signals authenticity to others. We maintain that authenticity and AL tend to be associated with concentration rather than suppression regulatory strategies.

However, attempted mental control may produce ironic processes if we suppress aspects of the self which are supported by social expectations or a coherent life story because they may be highly activated. As previously mentioned, when trait-like or situationally activated content reflects an inconsistent mixture of these processes or an overlap of the individual/relational or individual/collective selves, managing the activated content can be particularly challenging because of ironic processes of mental control associated with suppression. More specifically, multiple and strong retrieval cues may activate the to-be-suppressed information, leading to suppression difficulty or rebound effects, and feelings of inauthenticity. These ideas lead to Proposition 16.

Process view of AL and dynamic self-identity system

We discussed the leadership implications of each definition of authenticity in conjunction with our description of ironic processes of mental control theory, as we advocate a more integrative view of authenticity (see Figs. 1–3). Ideally, integrations occur in conjunction with the situational construction of individual, relational, or/and collective identities (Ashforth & Schinoff, Reference Ashforth and Schinoff2016; Chen, Reference Chen2019; Lord et al., Reference Lord, Gatti and Chui2016) which foster associated definitions of authenticity. That is, who one is and what one does now changes with contexts, and adjustments to these contexts can occur without being inauthentic. Table 1 summarizes our 16 propositions and provides the core for a theory of dynamic AL, reflecting active self-identities effects on self-regulatory processes and AL as an outcome.

Table 1. Propositions for a dynamic theory of authenticity and self-regulation

Note: IP: ironic processes of mental control; AL: authentic leadership.

Two aspects of this theory should be emphasized. First, it is process-oriented, addressing processes that lead to successful and unsuccessful self-regulation. In this vein, our dynamic model extends the process perspective on AL (Vendette et al., Reference Vendette, Helmuth, Intindola and Spiller2022) by indicating the importance of understanding authenticity as a dynamic characteristic that can be developed over time based on self-regulatory processes. Second, it is testable because all the components – cognitive load, active self-identity level, regulatory focus – have been manipulated experimentally, and sound measures of key components exist. Thus, it is possible to create experiments that test components and allow clear causal interpretations.

With this framework in mind, it is useful to consider the criticism of leadership authenticity theory that it reflects ‘amalgam thinking’ (Einola & Alvesson, Reference Einola and Alvesson2021; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021, Letter 2) because it lumps together four unrelated qualities (self-awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, and an internalized moral perspective) that are not easily combined into a higher order factor. We emphasize that resolving this issue comes from realizing that different aspects of authenticity pertain to aspects of the self-regulatory processes we have described. More specifically, self-awareness and balanced processing are likely antecedents to AL, whereas relational transparency and moral perspective will likely be outcomes of this process (Fig. 3).

Potential moderators

Finally, we note that all these areas represent future areas of exploration in our framework. This includes the potential for numerous moderator effects and boundary conditions in our model of AL. Nevertheless, to avoid unnecessarily complicating our framework, we focus on core mechanisms, and recommend authors seek out discussion of moderators of self-regulation and authenticity in other works, including in this special issue (e.g., Lux & Lowe, 2024).

Concentration and suppression strategies

Our framework implies that a concentration rather than a suppression strategies enable an authentic self-presentation and helps overcome ironic processes of mental control. We showed that leaders might experience ironic processes more frequently due to the lack of transparency at the individual identity level than when engaging in relational or collective identities where external demands are established and their importance is emphasized. Also, overlapping activation of personal/relational or individual/collective identities from context may create inconsistencies that require active management. Relying primarily on experienced authenticity can be a poor strategy since the lack of information from the outside world increases the chances of poor evaluations by others. As we noted before, a leader trying to avoid specific thoughts may paradoxically engage more in such action later on (Erskine & Georgiou, Reference Erskine and Georgiou2011). Because concentration and suppression strategies are also likely to vary with regulatory focus, certain types of leaders (e.g., prevention-focused leaders) may be especially prone to ironic processes of mental control. Such leaders might benefit from training in more effective ways to express identities and achieve authenticity. Suppression strategy would be less of a problem for individuals high in identity integration (Ebrahimi et al., Reference Ebrahimi, Kouchaki and Patrick2020).

Cognitive load

Thought suppression occurs not only about socially desirable goals but can often be linked to personally imposed goals (Wegner, Reference Wegner2009). Thus, leaders with strong personal motivation to hide their active selves from others would be prone to reveal the signs of their (self)deception. The harder leaders try to hide a salient self, the more susceptible they may be to the ironic or rebound effects.Footnote ¹ Overall, leaders who suppress the less desirable aspects of the self under load may behave more authentically due to ironic processes of mental control, but their reputation may suffer.

Effects of stress and ironic processes of mental control

Researchers indicate that little work has examined the physiological concomitants of stressful events and their consequences for AL (Alvesson & Einola, Reference Alvesson and Einola2022; Ryan & Ryan, Reference Ryan and Ryan2019; Vendette et al., Reference Vendette, Helmuth, Intindola and Spiller2022). However, leaders are exposed to stressful events frequently, and worries are shown to be triggers for ironic processes (Koster, Rassin, Crombez, & Näring, Reference Koster, Rassin, Crombez and Näring2003; Wegner, Erber, & Zanakos, Reference Wegner, Erber and Zanakos1993) in part because they sap processing resources. Here, it could be most beneficial to accept the situation as it occurs, or when problems arise, disclosing them openly (Wegner, Reference Wegner2009) instead of trying to mask the reality and act inauthentically. Wegner (Reference Wegner2009) further suggests that the best strategy to overcome ironic processes of mental control is to avoid avoiding. Thus, the trick leaders may use to avoid ironic processes, especially under cognitive loads, might be concentrating on authentic aspects of a situation or reframing the situation to better align with the self. A promotion regulatory focus would trigger these strategies, whereas a prevention regulatory focus can accentuate reactions to adverse events or situations. Another practical approach to reducing the occurrence of ironic processes, hence achieving consistency in authenticity, would be to engage in both/and rather than either/or thinking (Smith & Lewis, Reference Smith and Lewis2011). This would mean that leaders, rather than masking aspects of themselves, would engage in open communication and not try to sugarcoat issues. This approach would also mean that leaders can consider the alternatives over cut off solutions, increasing the chance for optimal decisions while not ‘hurting’ themselves.

Feedback from others

Besides increasing the chances for ironic processes, lacking feedback from others would jeopardize self-growth, thus undercutting a leader’s aspirational endeavors toward improving authenticity at work (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Karam, Alvesson and Einola2021, Letter 1). On the other hand, leaders who make sense of the active self based on externally perceived and normative authenticity would be more open to receiving feedback from others and allow themselves more opportunities for self-growth (Finkel, Reference Finkel2019; Ryan & Ryan, Reference Ryan and Ryan2019). We also showed that feedback from significant others as well as established social norms, provide a focus for a concentration strategy that is generally acceptable, which decreases self-regulatory errors and increases the opportunity for concentration strategy to be employed. From the feedback perspective, leaders who emphasize experienced authenticity would most likely fit with individualistic organizational cultures, where top-down opinion on core-self values and goals is dominant and resistant to frequent changes. Encouraging a collective sense of authenticity would fit the collective organizational cultures that are de-centralized and support diversity or more Asian cultures. There are also limits on the willingness of others to provide negative feedback, particularly when the power associated with organizational hierarchies is emphasized. However, leaders whose salient active identity is relational or/and collective identity likely would experience less trouble receiving feedback from others.

Leadership training

Our framework also has implications for potential interventions and training. For example, a helpful approach would involve leaders in self-control training, which may involve different practices that enhance mental control and awareness of what is happening in the present moment. In this sense, a specifically helpful guideline at the workplace might be the practice of mindfulness which purposely brings one’s attention to the present moment (Good et al., Reference Good, Lyddy, Glomb, Bono, Brown, Duffy and Lazar2016; Kabat-Zinn, Reference Kabat-Zinn1994; Vess, Reference Vess2019), similar to self-leadership concept practices (Knotts et al., Reference Knotts, Houghton, Pearce, Chen, Stewart and Manz2022; Manz & Sims Jr, Reference Manz and Sims1980) or career and personal development program that can develop authenticity in young adults (Kipfelsberger et al., Reference Kipfelsberger, Braun, Fladerer and Dragoni2022). Indeed, Nübold et al. (Reference Nübold, Van Quaquebeke and Hülsheger2020) showed that mindfulness predicted authenticity through both correlations and experimental manipulations. Practice emphasizing concentration rather than suppression strategies may also be associated with activating a WSC at the appropriate identity level, hence authenticity. Leaders can also prime identities in others (Lord & Brown, Reference Lord and Brown2004). Training in these aspects of leadership may be beneficial.