LAUSR

In a recent critique of authentic leadership theory, Einola and Alvesson (2021) assert that the theory “is not only wrong in a harmless way, but it may be outright perilous to leadership scholars, scholarship, and those who believe in it” (p. 483). They describe four “perils” of authentic leadership theory to support their arguments; in this response paper, we address each “peril”. Unfortunately, their criticism is based, in part, on misleading and inaccurate information about authentic leadership theory, which we identify and correct in this article. We contend that their arguments are at odds with the experiences of authentic leadership that both practitioners and scholars have personally encountered. In essence, through their critique, Einola and Alvesson are engaging in the practice of gaslighting, as they try to convince others to doubt their perceptions of and experiences with authentic leadership, along with the extensive empirical support that has accumulated. Further, Einola and Alvesson suggest that encouraging leaders to strive to be authentic by enhancing their self-awareness, processing positive and negative self-relevant information in a balanced fashion, establishing open and transparent relationships with followers, and living by their core values, is dangerous. We ask readers to consider the merits of their criticism, as well as our alternative, more positive perspective of authentic leadership theory. We suspect that, for many, such introspection will yield a realization that Einola and Alvesson are gaslighting them into questioning their own reality about what it means to lead with authenticity.