Can a leader be authentic <i>and</i> cruel? What happens when a vice becomes a virtue

There is now a substantial literature on the desirability of authentic leadership. While the concept has its critics, overwhelming this literature sees authentic leadership as a virtuous practice that benefits all: the leaders themselves, their followers, and the organizations they lead. But what if were possible for a leader to be seen as both authentic and cruel? For this to happen it would require a vice to be reconstrued as a virtue. Drawing on the work of Judith Shklar, I argue that it is indeed possible for a leader to be both authentic and cruel under circumstances where cruelty is seen by followers as a legitimate means to a desirable end. I support this claim by examining the way that some political leaders advocate cruelty toward refugees in the name of the common good. Shklar has shown that, under such circumstances, a leader is more likely to be challenged by their followers for being hypocritical (the antipode of authenticity) than for being cruel. From this I draw conclusions about the nature of authentic leadership as a performative and productive practice. I end by encouraging research on the organizational and institutional antecedents that enable leaders who are deemed to be authentic to thrive, even when they act cruelly.