One of my favourite bloggers out there recently asked the question: Why do we say a leader lacks authenticity, when what we mean is they're a hypocrite?
I think part of the reason for using “not authentic” rather than “hypocrite” is that authenticity is a positive/good character trait whereas hypocrisy is a negative/bad one.
For some reason, there’s a milder tone to being “not good” than to being “bad”.
And therefore, recognizing people as lacking positive traits rather than displaying bad traits is a milder judgment – which in turn makes it easier for us not to walk the talk and in some way express that it’s impossible to work with that person, e.g. by resigning.
That, I think, is at least part of the explanation.
(Translated from Noget om at (ikke) at gå linen ud)