This study developed and tested a theory-based measure of authentic leadership using five separate samples obtained from China, Kenya, and the United States. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a higher order, multidimensional model of the authentic leadership construct (the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire [ALQ]) comprising leader self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing. Structural equation modeling (SEM) demonstrated the predictive validity for the ALQ measure for important work-related attitudes and behaviors, beyond what ethical and transformational leadership offered. Finally, results revealed a positive relationship between authentic leadership and supervisor-rated performance. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Keywords: authentic leadership, construct validation, leadership development, measurement development Authenticity as a construct dates back to at least the ancient Greeks, as captured by their timeless admonition to “be true to oneself” (S. Harter, 2002). Although the concept of authenticity is not new, there has been a resurging interest in what constitutes authentic leadership within both the applied (Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004; George & Sims, 2007; George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007; George, 2003; May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003) and academic management literatures (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Avolio & Walumbwa, 2006; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; see also The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 16, Number 3, 2005). Yet, as these and other authors (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) suggest, there may be much more to authentic leadership than just being true to oneself. We support this position and explore what we propose as a higher order, multidimensional construct of authentic leadership. Taking a macrolevel perspective, an upswing in highly publicized corporate scandals, management malfeasance, and broader societal challenges facing public and private organizations has contributed to the recent attention placed on authenticity and authentic leadership. The convergence of these challenges have in combination elicited calls for more positive forms of leadership in institutions and organizations to restore confidence in all levels of leadership (Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; George, 2003; Lorenzi, 2004). Indeed, in response to repeated and spectacular lapses in ethical judgment by highly visible leaders, the public is demandingThis study developed and tested a theory-based measure of authentic leadership using five separate samples obtained from China, Kenya, and the United States. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a higher order, multidimensional model of the authentic leadership construct (the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire [ALQ]) comprising leader self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing. Structural equation modeling (SEM) demonstrated the predictive validity for the ALQ measure for important work-related attitudes and behaviors, beyond what ethical and transformational leadership offered. Finally, results revealed a positive relationship between authentic leadership and supervisor-rated performance. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Keywords: authentic leadership, construct validation, leadership development, measurement development Authenticity as a construct dates back to at least the ancient Greeks, as captured by their timeless admonition to “be true to oneself” (S. Harter, 2002). Although the concept of authenticity is not new, there has been a resurging interest in what constitutes authentic leadership within both the applied (Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004; George & Sims, 2007; George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007; George, 2003; May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003) and academic management literatures (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Avolio & Walumbwa, 2006; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; see also The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 16, Number 3, 2005). Yet, as these and other authors (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) suggest, there may be much more to authentic leadership than just being true to oneself. We support this position and explore what we propose as a higher order, multidimensional construct of authentic leadership. Taking a macrolevel perspective, an upswing in highly publicized corporate scandals, management malfeasance, and broader societal challenges facing public and private organizations has contributed to the recent attention placed on authenticity and authentic leadership. The convergence of these challenges have in combination elicited calls for more positive forms of leadership in institutions and organizations to restore confidence in all levels of leadership (Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; George, 2003; Lorenzi, 2004). Indeed, in response to repeated and spectacular lapses in ethical judgment by highly visible leaders, the public is demanding