1 INTRODUCTION

We agree with Helmuth et al.'s (2024) assertion that authentic leadership (AL) has had a meteoric rise in attention and continues to appeal to the hearts and minds of many scientists and practitioners. Helmuth et al. (2024) further noted that AL is likely being applied in policy-related decisions, and as such, a renewed scientific conversation on the topic is warranted. That is, given the ubiquity of AL and its operationalization, the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), it is important that we as a community consider what exactly AL is (and is not), how we are measuring it, and what “good” might come of it. There has been no dearth of critiques of AL, and the concept is quickly rivaling emotional intelligence (Antonakis et al., 2009; Dasborough et al., 2022; Murphy, 2014) and Leader–Member Exchange (Gooty et al., 2012; Gottfredson et al., 2020; Schriesheim et al., 2001) in the attention (and criticism) it is garnering.

Despite noteworthy and unique new insights from Helmuth et al. regarding the separation of AL and authentic action, we suggest that this clarification is currently insufficient for building a strong theoretical foundation for the domain. In our response to the focal article, we first note some points of agreement, followed by points of disagreement and our view of the future of the popular but troubled concept of AL. As a preview of our counterpoint, we call for a deeper engagement with the assumptions underlying the notion of authenticity in the AL domain. This includes addressing a conflation of concepts (e.g., behaviors, evaluations of the intentions of the behavior, and evaluations of the behavior itself) and recognizing AL's reliance on the existence and knowability of a true self.

Such an engagement opens a dialectical view of authenticity (Nguyen et al., 2022). It remains to be seen if such a dialectical conceptualization of authenticity, while intriguing, is necessary in leadership science. If it is, questions remain regarding how it might be reconciled with and explored via the dominant empirical approaches that the mainstream leadership sciences are built on.

中文翻译：

---

真实性是“真实的自我”、多重自我、行为、评价还是一团糟？对 Helmuth 等人的回应

1 简介

我们同意 Helmuth 等人 ( 2024 ) 的观点，即真正的领导力 (AL) 受到的关注度迅速上升，并继续吸引着许多科学家和从业者的心和思想。赫尔穆斯等人。( 2024 ) 进一步指出，AL 很可能应用于与政策相关的决策，因此，有必要就该主题进行新的科学对话。也就是说，考虑到 AL 的普遍性及其可操作性，即真实领导力问卷 (ALQ)，我们作为一个社区必须考虑 AL 到底是什么（和不是什么）、我们如何衡量它以及什么是“好”。可能会由此而来。对 AL 的批评并不缺乏，而且这个概念很快就与情商（Antonakis et al.,  2009；Dasborough et al.,  2022；Murphy,  2014）和领导者-成员交换（Gooty et al.,  2012； 2014 ）相媲美。 Gottfredson 等人，  2020 年；Schriesheim 等人，  2001 年）引起了人们的关注（和批评）。

尽管 Helmuth 等人提出了值得注意且独特的新见解。关于 AL 和真实行动的分离，我们认为这种澄清目前不足以为该领域建立坚实的理论基础。在我们对焦点文章的回应中，我们首先指出了一些一致点，然后是不同点以及我们对流行但麻烦不断的 AL 概念的未来的看法。作为我们对位的预览，我们呼吁更深入地探讨 AL 领域真实性概念背后的假设。这包括解决概念的合并问题（例如，行为、行为意图的评估以及行为本身的评估），并认识到 AL 对真实自我的存在和可知性的依赖。

这种参与开启了对真实性的辩证观点（Nguyen et al.,  2022）。这种对真实性的辩证概念虽然有趣，但在领导力科学中是否必要，还有待观察。如果是这样，那么如何与主流领导力科学所建立的主流实证方法相协调并对其进行探索的问题仍然存在。