Recent criticisms levied against authentic leadership scholarship suggest there is little reference to gender, or to lived experience more generally (Ladkin and Spiller, 2013; Sinclair, 2013). My purpose in this book is to explore authentic leadership through a broader lens by asking questions such as: What does it mean to lead authentically? And does gender make a difference? Hence, I want to encourage scholars to engage in a re-visioning of authentic leadership that accounts for the diverse ways in which we live and lead. Specifically, in considering the interconnections among gender, authenticity and leadership, I consider how thinking with Hannah Arendt can deepen our understanding of what it might mean to lead authentically. On the surface, authentic leadership seems to be concerned with ethics; yet, at a deeper level, this discourse is a narrowly defined quest for knowledge. Such a quest for knowledge is problematic, states Arendt (1971), because a constricted focus may serve to cover over what is meaningful about a phenomenon. Arendt's work is rarely taken up in leadership studies; I aim to show how her thinking offers new insights into contemporary debates on leadership. Born in 1906, Arendt was a German Jew who managed to escape from Nazi Germany, moving first to Paris, and later to New York. Her books, The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition, were to bring her fame. However, she became infamous with her portrayal of Adolf Eichmann, one of the Nazi officials most implicated in the detailed organization of the Holocaust. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, she argues that evil, rather than being heinous is, in fact, banal. People were more likely to commit evil, in Arendt's opinion, whenever they chose not to think. For Arendt, it was Eichmann's thoughtlessness, rather than him malevolent intent, which encouraged his action against the Jewish people. For this comment on the banality of evil, together with her suggestion that some members of the Jewish leadership may have aided the Reich, Arendt was vilified (Young-Bruehl, 1982). Although she was devastated by the criticism and hate mail she received, nevertheless, Arendt did not waver from this view. Indeed in her last work, The Life of the Mind, unfinished at the time of Arendt's death in 1976, she is still concerned with Eichmann and the notion of evil as thoughtlessness. In short Arendt's inquiry into the nature of evil, as well as her critique of the bureaucratic mindset, has much to offer leadership studies.

The Problem. Authentic leadership (AL) has been viewed as an attractive leadership model to combat destructive forms of leadership. On a simple level, it is difficult to argue against authenticity when leading and developing leaders. However, on a deeper level, many scholars have challenged the ideas supporting authentic leadership to highlight the model's theoretical assumptions and implicit values. Of the critiques, one of the most relevant challenges for HRD (Human Resource Development) is the critique based on identity because this critique aligns with HRD's focus on diversity and inclusion. The problem is that HRD researchers and practitioners need to understand more about how authentic leadership, as described typically in scholarly and practitioner journals, homogenizes the workplace and discounts diverse ways of being authentic. The Solution. The articles in this Special Issue offer a variety of different perspectives on the connection between authentic leadership and identity to make transparent the hidden assumptions, power dynamics, and contextual forces at play. When these unexamined and implicit factors are considered, HRD scholars and practitioners will be in a better position to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace, as well as in teaching, research, and service. The Stakeholders. Researchers and practitioners interested in authentic leadership, diversity and inclusion, and power.

The Problem. Authentic leadership (AL) focuses on enhancing the capabilities and capacities of leaders. Instead of focusing on the leader, this article considers the ethical challenges of fostering authenticity among employees. One such challenge is that marginalized groups may feel unable to be true to their values, a key premise of authentic leadership. To foster workplaces where marginalized groups feel able to be true to themselves, we must consider the cultural and structural barriers that can negatively affect people's ability to express themselves in the workplace. Hence, when considering the merits of AL, it is important for human resource development (HRD) professionals to consider what occurs when employees do not fit institutional norms. The Solution. Creating the conditions for a relational authentic approach to AL that allows authentic otherness to flourish is an important and complex ethical task, one that HRD scholars and practitioners are uniquely placed to encourage. The Stakeholders. HRD scholars and practitioners interested in creating the conditions that encourage the flourishing of authentic otherness among employees.

No abstract

Building upon a series of blog posts and conversations, two feminist scholars explore how political community, trust, responsibility, and solidarity are affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic. We explore the ways in which we can engage in political world‐building during pandemic times through the work of Hannah Arendt. Following Arendt’s notion of the world as the space for human togetherness, we ask: how can we respond to COVID‐19’s interruptions to the familiarity of daily life and our relationship to public space? By extending relational accounts of public health and organizational ethics, we critique a narrow view of solidarity that focuses on individual compliance with public health directives. Instead, we argue that solidarity involves addressing structural inequities, both within public health and our wider community. Finally, we suggest possibilities for political world‐building by considering how new forms of human togetherness might emerge as we forge a collective “new normal.”