Our goals are to preview the themes of the class, discuss our theoretical framework and describe the course assignments and syllabus.

Corporate scandals, corruption in politics, and false claims of people in leadership roles seem to abound in the news. We can name more shameful failures to lead well than inspirational and exemplary ones. For the past decade or so, leadership scholars have articulated, studied and debated a model of authentic leadership based on the subfield of positive psychology—the study of human flourishing. We will discuss the components of authentic leadership theory and the context that makes it so challenging.

We will explore the role of personality in leading others, how personality is constructed and developed, and examine two major psychological constructs for personality. What do personality assessments reveal about us that could help us live more integrated lives? What is the role (and danger) of self-monitoring and charisma for building trust? Is self-monitoring the same as impression management and are there danger in it?

In this session we will deal with the question, “Does personality really capture who we are deep down?” We will use an ancient system called the Enneagram (Any-a-gram) with its 9 types to discuss personality as a defense mechanism, going beneath the “surface” to core motivational and patterns of thought that drive our behaviors and habits. Students will take the Enneagram assessment to identify their dominant type and explore the ways in which it has shown up in his or her experience and could impact the way in which they build trust with others.

We will explore the second domain of authentic leadership called “balanced processing” in the literature, but we will think of it as the art of staying curious and checking your bias. Good leaders recognize their limitations and thus approach dilemmas in a more open way. Through case studies and interactive activities we will explore the practice of authenticity and the role bias plays in making decisions in teams.

Authentic leaders are those that become more human to those within their sphere of influence and beyond. But for honest conversations to truly take place, leaders must reduce the interpersonal risk of disclosing personal views and information. How does one create the conditions in which people are more honest and transparent? How should followers pursue authenticity in relation to leaders?

The fourth component of authentic leadership is the practice of behaving in concert with one’s deepest values. This also requires humility and more sophisticated levels or moral and cognitive reasoning. We will discuss the inherent morality of a leader’s stories through Kohlberg’s model of moral development and Carol Gilligan’s ethic of care. We will discuss examples as counter points to the dangers and ethics revealed in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Now that we have become familiar with the theory of authentic leadership, we need to delve into the debate about it. These readings will cast doubt on authentic leadership theory, but this will be very important for a fuller understanding of what it means to lead authentically. Leadership theory can too often fall into the trap of being “a love song to whiteness” or privileged male perspective and if we don’t see this, we miss put on a fuller view of what it means to lead and follow well. We will explore Karl Jung’s theory of individuation as a possible way to a fuller understanding of the concept of authenticity.

One of the main criticisms of authentic leadership theory is that it does not account for power differences. Power affects the way leaders and followers collaborate. The corrupting influence of power is the typical explanation for the moral failings of any high ranking official. Yet how and why does power corrupt? Does one lose authenticity in the pursuit/obtaining of status? We need to understand the “shadows” of inauthenticity and bad leadership to cast light on good leadership.

We will discuss and critique Goleman and others’ work on emotional intelligence as a key competency for leaders. We will reflect on the role that the human vulnerabilities of shame and fear play in leadership. Have we confused vulnerability with weakness? We will compile our findings about failure in the interviews conducted with mentors/role models. In leadership, failure is inevitable. What does psychology offer in terms of guidance on how to recover from failure? We will discuss the conditions under which a greater service of others results from perspective-taking and empathy during adversity. Research has shown that the key to personal growth and well-being in not self-criticism as many assume, but in the practice of self-compassion. Why is that? We will explore the components of self-compassion and apply research-based principles of personal growth.

Ancient philosophers such as Socrates spoke about the imperative of wisdom to “know thyself” and emphasized the good life as “caring for the soul.” In the 20th Century, existentialist philosophers, like Jan Patočka (Czech)—a student of Edmund Husserl—and Gabriel Marcel (French), advanced an ontological ethics that rooted the self in relationships and concrete experience. Psychology is a much younger discipline than philosophy but the two have long been in conversation. We will explore another criticism of authentic leadership theory in serration of the psychology of authenticity from the concept’s philosophical basis and week to restore it within the frame of the leader-follower relationship. This class lesson we will be joined by philosopher Dr. Zuzana Svobodova to explore the concept of the open soul, responsibility, and application to leadership ethics.

Spiritual leadership theory emerged at the same time as authentic leadership, both influenced heavily by positive psychology. In this session we will explore the weaknesses of positive psychology and pathways for fuller understanding of the core concept of hope. We build on the previous lesson and apply it more directly to leadership studies in order to construct and a more durable for today’s complex problems. If leaders and followers are to live in hope they will have to draw on more than optimism in facing such existential threats as AI, climate change and other challenges.