Leadership Behaviour Under Pressure: Why Authenticity Alone Fails

Why behavioural adaptation, not self-expression, determines trust, accountability, and performance

Authentic leadership has become one of the most widely promoted ideas in leadership development, particularly in response to declining trust, disengagement, and frustration with performative corporate values. At a time when employees are wary of scripted language and perceived hypocrisy, the promise of leaders who are “real”, transparent, and true to themselves is understandably attractive.

However, when pressure increases, many organisations discover a gap between leadership intent and leadership impact.

For HR and L&D professionals, this gap often shows up as leadership behaviour under pressure. Managers escalate people issues instead of handling them, avoid accountability in difficult situations, or behave inconsistently when tension rises. What appears to be a values issue on the surface is more often a capability issue under strain.

This article examines whether authentic leadership is truly attainable, whether it is even desirable in its purest form, and why behavioural adaptation grounded in an understanding of personality dynamics is a more reliable foundation for trust, consistency, and performance in complex organisations.

The Contemporary Case for Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership theory traditionally rests on the assumption that leaders who are self-aware, morally grounded, transparent, and consistent will foster trust and positive follower outcomes. Earlier research associated authentic leadership with outcomes such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and psychological safety.

For HR, the practical question is not whether authentic leadership is theoretically appealing, but whether it leads to consistent, accountable behaviour when pressure is high.

Recent scholarship has shifted from celebrating authentic leadership as an unqualified good to interrogating its boundary conditions, unintended consequences, and conceptual ambiguities. A 2024 review by Alilyyani et al. explicitly frames authentic leadership as a “for better and for worse” phenomenon, noting that its effects vary significantly depending on context, follower characteristics, and how authenticity is enacted.

The central question is no longer whether authenticity can be beneficial, but under what conditions it may become counterproductive.

The Problem of “True” Authenticity

At the heart of the debate lies a deceptively simple question: what does it actually mean to be authentic at work?

If authenticity is defined as acting in alignment with one’s inner thoughts, feelings, and impulses, then full authenticity is neither realistic nor appropriate in organisational life. Leaders are human, and their internal experience inevitably includes frustration, defensiveness, bias, resentment, and self-interest. These are not moral failings; they are normal psychological states.

The problem arises when authenticity is interpreted as permission for unregulated expression rather than responsibility for regulation.

In practice, this tension often surfaces when managers justify unhelpful behaviour as “just being authentic”, often leaving HR to manage the downstream consequences within the organisation. Behaviour that feels honest to the leader can feel unsafe, unpredictable, or unfair to others, particularly in hierarchical relationships.

When Authenticity Becomes a Risk

Several recent studies highlight how authentic leadership can inadvertently create relational and performance risks.

From an HR perspective, this often translates into informal complaints, inconsistent management responses, and a higher likelihood of issues escalating into formal processes.

These findings challenge the assumption that authenticity is inherently beneficial. They suggest instead that how leaders behave under pressure matters far more than how true they feel to themselves.

Leadership Is Relational, Not Introspective

One of the most consistent findings across leadership research is that leader intention and follower experience frequently diverge.

From an organisational perspective, leadership behaviour is evaluated not by sincerity, but by observable impact and consistency. Authenticity without awareness of relational impact is not integrity; it is self-referential leadership.

Adaptation Is Not Deception

Leadership scholarship increasingly positions adaptability, agility, and behavioural flexibility as core leadership competencies, not ethical compromises. Research consistently shows that behavioural flexibility under pressure is a stronger predictor of leadership effectiveness than authenticity alone.

The Role of Personality Dynamics

Understanding personality dynamics allows leaders to recognise how their default behaviours are interpreted, anticipate friction points before they escalate, regulate stress responses that others experience as threat, and adapt communication without compromising ethical consistency.

When these dynamics are not understood, HR is often left managing the consequences of behaviour that feels reasonable internally but disruptive externally.

Implications for HR and L&D Practice

For HR and L&D professionals, this has significant implications. Improving leadership outcomes requires moving beyond authenticity as an ideal and focusing instead on how leaders behave when pressure is high.

For organisations seeking clarity, early intervention, and defensible action, a Manager Capability Evaluation provides the evidence needed to act before issues escalate.

Conclusion

Authenticity is an appealing ideal. Adaptation is a demanding discipline.

High-performing organisations are built not by leaders who express themselves freely, but by leaders who understand themselves deeply and choose their behaviour responsibly.

Authenticity may feel virtuous. But behavioural maturity at system level is what sustained performance requires.

References

Alilyyani, B., Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. (2024). Authentic leadership – for better and for worse? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 33(2), 145–160.

Chen, Y., Li, X., & Sun, J. (2025). Unpacking the dynamics of authentic leadership in shaping organizational outcomes: The roles of person–job fit and organizational identification. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(63).

Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2025). Advancing positive leadership: An integrative review and future research agenda. Strategic Leadership Review, 15(1), 1–25.

Kernis, M. H., Goldman, B. M., & Whitaker, B. G. (2024). Rethinking authentic leadership: Dynamic identity regulation and contextual adaptation. Journal of Management & Organization, 30(4), 567–584.

Widodo, W., Putra, A., & Rachman, M. (2024). The effect of authentic leadership on work readiness: The mediating role of agility. BMC Nursing, 23(362).

Zhang, Y., Li, N., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2025). Authentic leadership and employee voice: A self-verification perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 40(3), 289–304.

Further Reading / Practitioner Resources

For those interested in how leadership behaviour under pressure can be assessed in practice, further information is available here.