2023-10-202023-10-202023https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2723https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/61253Since the Gallup Leadership Summit, authentic leadership has ascended as a central topic of inquiry owing to practitioners and academicians' desire for more positive types of leadership (Braun and Peus, 2018; Ilies et al., 2005; Luthans and Avolio, 2003; Weiss et al., 2018). Like much of the extant literature, our article centers on authentic leadership as defined and operationalized by Walumbwa et al.'s (2008) four-part framework, which views authentic leaders as individuals who possess high levels of (a) self-awareness, (b) balanced processing, (c) relational transparency, and (d) having an internalized moral perspective. This definition originated from positive psychology and gained popularity, in part, because it offers a morally grounded response for organizations seeking to rebuild confidence, hope, and optimism amid growing corporate and societal problems (e.g., Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004). As a result, scholarly research on authentic leadership has surged (see Gardner et al., 2011, for a review), quickly gaining traction with a wide array of stakeholders who desire leaders that promote behavioral integrity (Leroy et al., 2012), encourage creativity (Semedo et al., 2017), and foster intra-team trust as well as helping behaviors (Hirst et al., 2016).authentic leadershipauthenticityexistentialismArticleCC BY-NC-ND 4.0