To be considered an authentic person, one must be seen as being “true” or “genuine” or “real” (Lehman et al., 2019). However, what exactly does this mean? In the case of leadership, this is a complicated question that has become even murkier with the emergence of various definitions of authentic leadership. In ChatGPT (which relies on a variety of sources), authentic leadership is defined as including self-awareness, transparency, consistency, empathy, relational focus, moral and ethical grounding, resilience, and positive role modeling (ChatGPT, 2023). Wow—that is a lot of components! This certainly goes beyond the meaning of “true” or “genuine” or “real” and beyond the four components represented in the commonly used measure of authentic leadership (ALQ: see Avolio et al., 2018; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Along with other scholars, I question how often and how many of these components we need to witness to perceive someone as an authentic leader? Clearly, there is room for scholarly debate about what authentic leadership is and is not. In this point–counterpoint (PCP) exchange, the authors of the focal article and commentaries do a deep dive into leader authenticity through a variety of lenses.

The focal article, by Helmuth and colleagues, raises questions over the utility of empirical authentic leadership research which they argue has mistakenly conflated authentic actions with the notion of authentic leaders. They present arguments highlighting that a single instance of authentic or inauthentic behavior from leaders does not make leaders wholly authentic (or inauthentic). Instead, these authors suggest that such actions contribute to shaping their authenticity over time, either enhancing or diminishing it. The key point made in the focal article is that authenticity should be attributed to actions over time, and not to the individual leaders themselves. Helmuth et al. conclude by presenting some potential pathways that scholars could take in the future to learn about authenticity within a leadership context. Following this focal article, a series of four commentaries are presented where scholars share their unique views on authenticity and authentic leadership.

In the first commentary, which happens to be the most skeptical in this PCP exchange, Einola and Alvesson pose questions about the nature of authentic leadership and about the focal article itself. In their conclusion, they ask “Is the article by Helmuth et al simply playing with semantics to save a shipwrecked theory from sinking?” They are not supportive of introducing a new measure to this field of study, but they are in favor of intellectual humility and “rocking of the boat” (even if only modest rocking).

The second commentary by Gardiner also calls for scholarly debate (yes, it is fun!) regarding how to study authentic leadership. Her reflections in this commentary stem from her doctoral student days when she explored authenticity and leadership through the dual lens of existential hermeneutic phenomenology and feminist theory. She brings a unique viewpoint with less focus on developing consensus and new measures; and instead, she calls for scholars to dive deeper into authenticity's philosophical lineage and to examine authenticity's etymological beginnings.

Next, Gooty, Banks, McBride, and van Knippenberg also call for a return to the theoretical foundations of authenticity. Like Gardiner, they highlight the need to examine the philosophical roots of authenticity (existential humanist philosophy). In terms of counterpoints, they raise concerns about conflation of concepts, the unverifiability of the assumption of the true self, the question about multiple selves, and the utility of “authentic action” in the case of non-prototypical leaders. These authors call for scholars to continue developing the nomological network of authenticity and authentic actions via an inclusive lens and considering counterfactuals.

In the final commentary, Ostermeier, Cooper, and Medina-Craven agree that a morally neutral conceptualization of authentic leadership might more closely align with authenticity's philosophical origins. They state that the proposed alternative approach (“authenticity of actions”) could help to answer questions that are focused on authentic behavior in particular contexts and see the study of authenticity of actions as an intriguing extension to existing approaches. Despite their enthusiasm, they also call for more empirical testing to ascertain how much “authenticity of actions” adds value to the field. They question: Can subordinates accurately perceive their supervisor's identities or values? Should authenticity research take a “best self” perspective or a “true self” perspective? What about other established related constructs, such as behavioral integrity? These authors express concern that introducing a new approach such as “authenticity of actions” could lead to further confusion in the field.

The great interest in authentic leadership continues to grow (e.g., Kim et al., 2023; Lux et al., 2023) and so does scholarly debate, as evidenced by this PCP exchange. While the terms and phrases used by the authors in this exchange may seem somewhat pessimistic at times (“hot mess,” “sinking ship,” and “minefield”), the broad range of ideas presented in this exchange gives me hope for the future of authentic leadership research. Perhaps studying authentic actions, instead of authentic people, is the way forward? Only time and authentic empirical research will tell ….

要被认为是一个真实的人，一个人必须被视为“真实”或“真实”或“真实”（Lehman et al.,  2019）。然而，这到底是什么意思呢？就领导力而言，这是一个复杂的问题，随着真正领导力的各种定义的出现，这个问题变得更加模糊。在 ChatGPT（依赖于各种来源）中，真实的领导力被定义为包括自我意识、透明度、一致性、同理心、关系焦点、道德和伦理基础、适应力和积极的榜样（ChatGPT，2023  ）。哇——有很多组件！这当然超出了“真实”、“真诚”或“真实”的含义，也超出了常用的真实领导力衡量标准中所代表的四个组成部分（ALQ：参见 Avolio 等人，  2018 年；Walumbwa 等人，  2008 年） 。与其他学者一样，我质疑我们需要多久见证这些要素以及有多少要素才能将某人视为真正的领导者？显然，对于什么是真正的领导力、什么不是真正的领导力，学术界还有争论的余地。在这次点对点（PCP）交流中，焦点文章和评论的作者通过各种视角深入探讨了领导者的真实性。

赫尔穆斯及其同事撰写的这篇焦点文章对真实领导力实证研究的实用性提出了质疑，他们认为这些研究错误地将真实行动与真实领导者的概念混为一谈。他们提出的论点强调，领导者的真实或不真实行为的单一实例并不能使领导者完全真实（或不真实）。相反，这些作者认为，随着时间的推移，这些行为有助于塑造其真实性，要么增强要么削弱它。焦点文章中提出的关键点是，真实性应归因于一段时间内的行动，而不是个别领导人本身。赫尔穆斯等人。最后提出学者们将来可以采取的一些潜在途径，以了解领导力背景下的真实性。在这篇焦点文章之后，提出了一系列四篇评论，学者们分享了他们对真实性和真实领导力的独特看法。

在第一篇评论中，埃诺拉和阿尔维森对真正的领导力的本质以及焦点文章本身提出了质疑，这恰好是本次 PCP 交流中最持怀疑态度的评论。在他们的结论中，他们问道：“Helmuth 等人的文章是否只是在玩语义游戏，以挽救失事的理论免于沉没？” 他们不支持在这一研究领域引入新的措施，但他们赞成知识谦逊和“摇摆不定”（即使只是适度摇摆）。

加德纳的第二条评论还呼吁就如何研究真正的领导力进行学术辩论（是的，这很有趣！）。她在这篇评论中的反思源于她的博士生时代，当时她通过存在主义解释学现象学和女权主义理论的双重镜头探索真实性和领导力。她带来了独特的观点，不太注重达成共识和新措施；相反，她呼吁学者们更深入地研究真实性的哲学血统，并研究真实性的词源学起点。

接下来，古蒂、班克斯、麦克布莱德和范尼彭伯格也呼吁回归真实性的理论基础。和加德纳一样，他们强调有必要审视真实性的哲学根源（存在主义人文主义哲学）。在对立点方面，他们提出了对概念混淆、真实自我假设的不可验证性、多重自我问题以及“真实行动”在非典型领导者情况下的效用的担忧。这些作者呼吁学者们通过包容性的视角并考虑反事实，继续发展真实性和真实行为的法理网络。

在最后的评论中，奥斯特迈尔、库珀和梅迪纳-克雷文一致认为，道德中立的真实领导力概念可能更符合真实性的哲学起源。他们指出，提出的替代方法（“行为的真实性”）可以帮助回答关注特定背景下真实行为的问题，并将行为真实性的研究视为现有方法的有趣延伸。尽管他们充满热情，但他们还呼吁进行更多的实证测试，以确定“行动的真实性”为该领域增加了多少价值。他们质疑：下属能否准确感知上级的身份或价值观？真实性研究应该采取“最佳自我”视角还是“真实自我”视角？其他已建立的相关结构（例如行为完整性）又如何呢？这些作者担心引入“行为真实性”等新方法可能会导致该领域进一步混乱。

人们对真实领导力的兴趣持续增长（例如，Kim 等人，  2023 年；Lux 等人，  2023 年），学术辩论也在不断增长，本次 PCP 交流就证明了这一点。虽然作者在这次交流中使用的术语和短语有时看起来有些悲观（“一团糟”、“下沉的船”和“雷区”），但这次交流中提出的广泛想法给了我对未来的希望真实的领导力研究。也许研究真实的行为，而不是真实的人，才是前进的方向？只有时间和真实的实证研究才能证明……。