In this chapter, we will critically examine the limitations of the theoretical and empirical aspects of the study. First, we address the potential pitfalls associated with using autoethnography as a research method, particularly the risk of unintentionally selecting autoethnographies that validate pre-existing theories and methodologies. To counter this critique, we implemented strategies to mitigate bias, such as systematically separating the description, analysis, and interpretation phases of the autoethnography based on pre-defined criteria. Additionally, we allowed space for alternative interpretations to emerge, such as existential readings of the autoethnographic data. Second, we consider critiques related to the use of theory in the present work. Some may argue that our empirical research merely served as a vehicle to validate the theoretical framework of cultural-psychological leadership. However, we refute this by emphasizing our sensitivity to revising the theoretical model when confronted with contradictory or unexpected findings. Our approach defined leadership not as a fixed role but as an action that takes place within a specific field, thereby ensuring that the theory remains flexible and responsive to empirical insights. Finally, we address concerns about generalizability, acknowledging that, despite the context-sensitive nature of this study, some level of generalization can still be drawn from the empirical findings. These generalizations include the action-theoretical conceptualization of leadership, the importance of constructing and co-constructing leadership, the role of circumvention strategies in altering the permeability of leadership boundaries, and the motivational power of fantasms. While these findings are rooted in specific contexts, they offer broader implications for leadership studies that transcend the immediate environment of the research.