Construct · 3 names · 3 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one construct, many model names Nearest construct by meaningeudaimoniacompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to authentic leadership is eudaimonia.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
Authentic leadership treated as a set of four measurable behaviours a leader shows: knowing one's own strengths and limits, being open and honest in relationships, holding to an internal moral standard, and weighing information in a balanced way before deciding. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson's 2008 Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure built the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire around these four parts and tested it as a single higher-order construct. This treatment fixes the word to a specific rated instrument, which differs from the broader developmental account that names authenticity the root of all positive leadership, and from the account that defines authentic leadership by the well-being it produces.[1]
Authentic leadership treated not as one style among many but as the base from which every positive form of leadership grows, developed over time through self-awareness and self-regulation and shaped by a leader's life history and personal values. Avolio and Gardner's 2005 Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership argued that transformational, charismatic, servant, and ethical leadership all draw on an underlying authenticity, and framed it as something that develops rather than a fixed trait. This treatment makes the word a foundational process, which is broader than the fixed four-part instrument of the questionnaire model and more concerned with origins than with the follower well-being that the eudaimonic model puts at the centre.[2]
Authentic leadership treated through the well-being it creates for the leader and the followers, built on the idea of eudaimonia, a life lived in line with one's true self and one's deeply held values rather than for momentary pleasure. Ilies, Morgeson, and Nahrgang's 2005 Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes proposed four parts, self-awareness, unbiased processing, authentic behaviour, and authentic relations, and linked them directly to flourishing on both sides. This treatment ties the word to a theory of human flourishing and its outcomes, which sets it apart from the questionnaire model built for measurement and from the developmental model concerned with where positive leadership comes from.[3]
Next
See how authentic leadership sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct