The Positivity Trap: Why We Keep Misreading Leadership
Based on Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019). Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership and other traps in leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(4), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.04.001
How we overvalue honesty and transparency
Honesty and transparency have become the modern markers of good leadership. Leaders who speak openly, admit mistakes and share their views are celebrated as more trustworthy and, increasingly, as more “authentic”. But this is where many leadership conversations go wrong. When we start equating openness with authenticity, likeability becomes the dominant filter. Leaders who make people feel comfortable are viewed as “true” and “real”, while those who create discomfort are viewed as inauthentic.
Alvesson and Einola’s paper shows that much of authentic leadership theory rests on this confusion. The field has embraced the idea that being honest, steady and emotionally expressive equals being authentic, even when there is no evidence that these qualities reveal anything about a person’s deeper identity. This tendency has fuelled a wider shift in leadership studies toward excessive positivity, uplifting narratives and simple solutions that avoid the complexities of organisational life.
What is going wrong: Authenticity has become a popularity contest
The core issue, the authors argue, is that authentic leadership theory is built on weak foundations. Its central measurement tool, the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), does not assess authenticity at all. It measures whether followers see a leader as honest, approachable, steady and socially smooth. These are interpersonal impressions, not indicators of a true inner self. A leader skilled at impression management can rate as “more authentic” than someone who is genuinely self-examining.
A deeper conceptual flaw is that authentic leadership is defined partly through its outcomes. Trust, engagement and wellbeing are assumed to flow from authenticity, so when these outcomes appear, the leader is labelled authentic. When they do not, the leader becomes inauthentic. This circular logic makes the theory unfalsifiable. Nothing is actually being explained.
The theory also ignores the realities leaders face. Full transparency is not always wise. Personal values often conflict with organisational expectations. Power differences shape how much authenticity people can safely express. For many leaders, being fully themselves at work would lead to conflict, exclusion or loss of credibility. Yet positive leadership models continue to promote the fantasy of a universally trusted, emotionally open leader who improves morale simply by being more “real”.
What we can do next: More reality, less ideology
The paper calls for a shift from idealised leadership to leadership as it is actually lived. Practical steps include:
· Focus on leadership episodes, not leader essences
Authenticity should be understood as something that appears in moments, not as a fixed personality trait. Leaders can reflect on where honesty helps and where it harms.
· Analyse follower interpretations, not leader purity
Instead of chasing an inner truth, pay attention to how people interpret a leader’s decisions, constraints and actions. This relational view is more accurate and more useful.
· Explore dilemmas, contradictions and trade-offs
Leaders operate within competing priorities and values. Studying how they navigate these pressures gives a more realistic picture than any attempt to define “true selves”.
· Bring context, power and identity back into the conversation
Authenticity is not equally accessible to everyone. Leadership development should acknowledge the influence of hierarchy, culture and identity rather than pretending these differences do not exist.
Future Focus
Leadership is not an exercise in emotional purity or self-revelation. It is a social, political and contextual process shaped by interpretation, constraint and negotiation. If we want leadership theory to help real people in real organisations, we need less ideology, fewer idealised models and a stronger focus on how leadership actually happens.