Contesting “Authenticity” in Authentic Leadership through a Mad Studies Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Mad Studies/social model of mental distress lens was used to critique authentic leadership. We deconstructed the dilemma of authenticity and leadership by exploring how authentic leadership (dis)allows the inclusion of people with mental illness. We found that their minds are treated as disruptive and rarely ever read as authentic. For followers to view “mentally ill” leaders as authentic requires candidness, disability disclosure, and emulating norms typical to their ingroup membership. We conclude this paper by challenging HRD to rethink its stance on disruptive leadership as symptomatic of mental illness. Employees with mental health marginality can develop an authentic identity in the workplace through authenticity building experiences such as connecting mad leaders to peer-support training, offering specialized leadership development, and co-producing a mental health awareness curriculum that challenges unhealthy workplace discourses that stigmatize mad leaders and workers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".