Authenticity (excerpt from Foundational Leaders, a book by Bob Chapman, Ph.D.)

Cindy Trahan — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Authenticity

Leaders Are Only as Effective as They Are Authentic

BY BOB CHAPMAN, PH.D.

Authenticity is “habitual truthfulness” that shines through the leaders actions. Leaders must be perceived as being “the real deal”, or authentic, if they are to be effective in strategic execution. Personal authenticity is highly correlated with effectiveness as a leader of transformation. The converse of this is also valid as those who are not authentic are less successful as leaders of transformation.

Distinguishing Authenticity

Authenticity is best distinguished as “habitual truthfulness”. To reach that conclusion let’s look at the definition of the word “authentic”. The Oxford Dictionary defines authentic as “of undisputed origin or veracity, genuine”. “Undisputed origin” is such a rich description of the authentic leader. People around the leader will say:

- This person is the “real deal.

- This person is “one of us”. This is said even when that is not actually the case. Yet because of their authenticity the person is “adopted” as one of us.

- Clarify and consistency of values.

- We know what he/she stands for.

- We know exactly where he/she is coming from. (Ironically the knowledge of what the person stands for or where they are coming from does not mean that those around the leader agrees with the leader, or “while we do not always like where they are coming from, we never doubt it”.)

Each of these descriptions of knowing the leader’s origins is a high compliment from employees. It indicates clarity of purpose, honesty and realness. All of these are essential attributes if employees are to be inspired by leaders.

Another part of the definition is veracity. Veracity in turn is defined as “conformity to facts, accuracy…” Conformity to the facts and accuracy are great descriptors of authenticity as demonstrated by a leader. It highlights the rigor with which the leader goes about gathering data as well as the quality of decisions that are likely to be made. The last half of the definition of veracity is “habitual truthfulness”. This definition gets to the heart of what I have observed about successful leaders – habitual truthfulness.

An authentic leader places enormous value on the truth, both in hearing the truth and telling it to others. This person seeks out “the unvarnished truth”. There is a strong desire to have the whole truth told. In the phrase used for swearing in witnesses in a court of law there is that classic phrase: “Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…” This is the level of truthfulness that the authentic leader desires and practices. One executive has a colorful expression from bird hunting that is used to ask for the whole truth, “Let’s get the whole story on the table… We want blood, guts and feathers”. This same executive is a strong proponent of “habitual truthfulness” as a core value of his leadership and of the values he wants for his company.

A naïve question would be, “But doesn’t everybody believe in conformity to facts, accuracy and habitual truthfulness?” Of course the answer is no, but a more piercing question is “how come?” Why do people who want to be successful as managers adopt practices that have them be perceived as inauthentic? Do they do that intentionally? My observation is that again the answer is no, they do not do it with “malice of forethought”. Rather it happens slowly over time and in most cases managers are unaware of their own lack of authenticity, and are quite offended when it is pointed out.

Origins of Authenticity

Authenticity begins with, or is sourced by, “habitual truthfulness to self”. Being true to one’s self. It is said that the worst lie is self deception. Authentic leaders are rigorous in confronting the awful truth about situations in the business, the consequences of their behavior, and unintended consequences of their prior actions. Leaders are in continual development of their own authenticity.

Authenticity with Self

Authenticity is sourced by a person’s “habitual truthfulness” to self. That is, authentic leaders practice habitual truthfulness to themselves! Authenticity “begins at home” with oneself. Habitual truthfulness or honesty with oneself is the starting place for developing leadership skills. Another way of saying this is knowing oneself is the door to understanding others. The classic expression of “To thy self be true” is at the heart of developing as a leader.

Another classic expression that demonstrates the importance of knowing oneself as the foundation for leading others is:

The air to a bird,

Water to a fish,

Man to himself….

A person must come to authentically know herself/himself if they are to lead others. This is particularly important when the leadership will involve a business making a transformation.

Authenticity is demonstrated by the persons being intensely honest with themselves about the condition of the business, the challenges facing the business, the competitive forces at play, the strengths of the management, capabilities of the organization, etc. The persons are equally as candid with themselves about themselves. There is no hiding from biases, blind spots, character flaws, strengths, temperament, tendencies, and weaknesses. Authenticity comes from habitual truthfulness to self about self and one’s situation.

Continued Development of One’s Authenticity

Effective leaders continue to develop and expand their level of authenticity. While authenticity is ingrained during childhood it must also be nurtured and developed as an adult. The motivation to develop effectiveness as a leader calls for a person to continue to develop their own authenticity. As a value, being authentic with self begins early in life. Successful leaders come with a value for authenticity that is started in their upbringing. In addition, successful leaders actively develop and mature their authenticity. The motivation for this development comes from their commitment to be effective as a leader. Said in other ways, at least some elements of authenticity are intentionally developed. The leader is intentional in developing and expanding their leadership effectiveness. Working to be as authentic as possible is a key element of this development.

In talking with effective leaders, I notice that they have been good students of their mentors. They have either patterned themselves after their mentor’s strengths, or in some cased developed themselves in areas that they perceived to be a weakness of their mentors. One attribute that I have heard described about the mentors is that they were “present”. “Present” is both a state of being as well as physical presence. As a state of being, the mentors were “here with me”. In conversations, the mentors listened intently and then asked good questions. Another great gift a mentor gave to the leaders was demonstrating their commitment through paying close attention to the ones being mentored. Being present is then developed by authentic leaders. When employees are around them, the employees report that they had the experience of being present with a real leader. The authenticity of the leader’s commitments supersedes whatever is said and is clearly communicated to the employees. Employees experience the genuineness of their leader. This is often described as this person is “the real deal”. What can be more important that having employees think that their leader is genuine and real?

As leaders mature they come to appreciate the special power of being authentic. It is seen with great clarity, as is the lack of authenticity in others. I was working with a CEO who was an authentic leader. His direct report, who was a de facto COO, was an incredibly bright and talented person. He had impeccable credentials and was most adept in dealing with the Board. The problem was that when he was in groups of employees he came across as hollow and plastic. The CEO was most concerned about this, as he knew that it would eventually lead to significant operational problems. The CEO tried to counsel the direct report on how to interact differently with employee groups. In retrospect, I can now see that the problem was that the COO was not authentic, and the employees knew it. The employees figured it much sooner than the CEO or I.

Importance of Authenticity

Strategic Execution depends on excellent leaders. In turn, this calls for authenticity in leaders at all levels of the business. Leaders must be perceived as being authentic if they are to be effective in strategic execution. Personal authenticity is highly correlated with effectiveness as leaders of transformation. Let’s look at Chart One which illustrates the relationship of authenticity and results:

Chart 1 illustrates the relationship between authenticity and results

Authenticity in Action

Authenticity in action can be described with many adjectives like:

- Acts responsibly

- Veracity

- Constancy in being authentic

- Authenticity in communications

- Makes personal changes as needed to improve as a leader

- Authentic desire for a better future

- Honor boundaries that matter to others

- Tolerance of mistakes

- Chaotic nature of transformation

- What to say and what not to say

- Expands learning for all

- Avoids relying on excuses

- Accepts responsibility rather than blaming others

- Acknowledges facts and avoids using denial

- Avoids relying on excuses

Each of these will be discussed in some detail. However, please remember that it is the whole picture of authenticity created by these that is more important than any individual attribute.

Acts Responsibly

Leadership is demonstrated by initiating action. The actions that are consistent with the prior statements of intent by the leader are important to having the employees see that the leader is authentic, and that there is a path in which they can participate. The authenticity of leaders and employees pays off when there are actions that improve the relations and delivery to customers.

Acts responsible is a hallmark of a successful leader. When I am with great leaders I am always struck with how responsible they are for themselves and others. Not only do they act responsibly, they are preoccupied with being responsible. That is, having their commitment to responsibility be clear and evident. This responsibility goes beyond the obvious being responsible for the business and the consequences of the actions taken. It applies to deep concern for families of employees, employees’ health and well being, the impact the business is having on the community, etc.

Being responsible often occurs as being of service to others in the organization; for example, any number of times I have been flying with leaders on corporate aircraft and observed that the leader was the one who was getting up to get food and drinks and making sure that everyone on board was comfortable. The same leaders are also quite concerned with making sure that the flight plan would assure safety over everything else, e.g., avoiding of storm cells. These leaders literally are “being responsible” for those around them.

Being responsible includes “owning” one’s own authenticity, and on occasion, lack thereof. “Ownership” is of the personal characteristics, temperament and traits. A leader “owns” these aspects of self and “manages self”. In contrast, managers who do not “own their characteristics” are often at the effect of them. When a manager is at the effect of personal characteristics they are not going to be successful in leading change.

One of my favorite examples is an executive who was responsible for his own misbehavior:

My partner and I were working with the president of the U.S. subsidiary of a European company. We were working on some particularly “knotty issues” at the request of the president. In our work we discovered that the president was actually the culprit, or the cause of much of the “knottiness”. With appropriate deference we confronted the president about his behavior, and wondered what would be his response. The president listened intently, and then leaned back in his chair and said, “Well that is just one small smudge on a very dirty window”. With that, it was clear to me that the President was aware of what he had done, and how the consequences had turned out to be different than he expected. Rather than blaming others or making the consultants wrong, he “owned” what he had done and the consequences.

Veracity

The one attribute that cannot be in question for employees with their leaders is honesty. Authentic leaders can be counted on to tell the truth. They will tell the truth to the best of their abilities. They will avoid lying and misleading their people at all costs. They know that their integrity is key to their credibility and in turn to their effectiveness as leaders.

In contrast, managers whom have struggled with honesty are ultimately not effective as leaders. They may get away with it for a while, but employees eventually catch on and the person loses credibility. A loss of credibility with employees and managers becomes an irreconcilable problem at some point, at least in good companies. Frankly, in lousy or weak companies lying seems to thrive as long as the company survives.

The classic example of lack of veracity is a manager who makes a practice of saying what they think others want to hear. This usually begins as a technique for “managing up”. Telling the boss what he wants to hear is an effective technique for getting along in many corporations. The drawback is that the manager soon develops a reputation for telling the boss and others what they want to hear and loses the respect of peers, direct reports and others in the business. These managers often become so skilled at saying what others want to hear, that they come to believe their “tales” as though there were the truth. In fact, these managers will often chastise direct reports for providing data and information that contradicts the “tale”. The “tales” that were made up to satisfy a boss often turn into myths that are promoted throughout the business. Some classic examples are “Our customers prefer to do business with us rather than our competition, our products and services are better than our competitors; our costs are lower than our competitors, and etc.” These myths persist even when there is hard data to the contrary. There is always another explanation or story that supports the myth and invalidates the data.

Consistently Authentic

Consistency is a characteristic of authentic leaders. These leaders have consistently been authentic in each of their positions. When employees check out the manager’s reputation with employees who worked with this person in the past, they hear very consistent reports of a manager who is authentic and effective as a leader.

It is a significant challenge when a manager who has a reputation for not being authentic attempts to guide a transformation. This person’s past behavior is often described as inconsistent and at time suppressive. The person is also associated or linked with difficult times in the organization, and this person is “blamed” for negative events that occurred in the past. There is a reservation of employees to believe this person or to trust them to lead. Any sign of defensiveness on the part of the manager is viewed as more evidence that the person should not be trusted. In some ways, this manager is considered guilty until proven innocent.

Authenticity in Communications

Effective leaders are skilled at communication, and authenticity is a cornerstone of those communications. This is not to say that they are charismatic and gifted orators. No, many are not. However their authenticity shines through so brightly that any limitations with language are ignored.

A leader will say what needs to be heard, whether it is popular or not. Their communications are focused, direct and as “plain as possible”. The desire is to speak to the heart of the matter so that genuine communications may occur. Even in challenging situations, an authentic leader is consistent and factual in describing the situation, the intent and the request for changes.

The authentic leader is highly consistent when meeting or talking with employees. The employees appreciate and are assured by the leader’s consistency. Consistency should not be confused with condescending or telling employees what they want to hear. Often it is just the opposite, where the leader has a strong message that needs to be heard.

The authentic leader does not duck hard questions, but rather speaks directly to the hard questions and asks to get all of the hard questions out on the table. What is more elegant than someone who is plain spoken and talks directly to the point?

In contrast, managers who are not effective as leaders are often not authentic in their communications. Inauthenticity in communications includes misrepresenting and misleading employees. There is a long miserable past of managers communicating data and interpretations to employees with the intention of getting a compromise, change in work practices, more advantageous labor contracts, and/or wage concessions.

Other managers seem unable to be authentic in their communications. Often these managers are attempting to impress others with their education and intellect. Rather than talking directly and to the point, they go off on tangents filled with theory. They seem to practice the fine art of obfuscation, which assures that the employees do not fully appreciate or understand what is being communicated. What these managers do not appreciate is how much credibility they lose with the employees.

On occasion there is a desire to “pump up the troops”, and so the manager will say things that are not factual and, in fact, may know not to be accurate. The excuse given is that “our team needed to hear positive things”. It is like a coach of a sports team that is in the final minutes of a game and is trying to exhort the players to give the final bit of energy in hopes of winning the game. “You look great”, “You can do it”, “You’ve got them where you want them”, etc. are all typical comments from coaches. Of course, for the fatigued players, that probably is better than “You look like a dirty dish rag,” “Your incompetence is amazing,” “This game is so lost that I do not know why I stay here watching you”, etc. Yet, business teams are seldom in the final minutes of a game in which “white lies” are appropriate. Yet, there are many managers who justify saying “good things” that simply are inaccurate. The predicament is that these managers often come to believe the “white lies” they have told to the troops, i.e., the white lies become their reality.

Making Personal Changes

Authentic leaders are passionate about learning how to be more authentic and effective as a leader. They are committed to their own personal development. A leader must be willing to make personal changes as part of providing leadership for a business in midst of transformation. The leader gets to go first in personal change. The leader must be “in the game of transformation”, and “being in the game” invariably means discovering things about oneself that will need to be altered or changed as the business transforms. Authentic leaders push on through developing self and making changes as needed. Inauthentic managers do not. In fact, I would say that managers who are unwilling to deal with their own developmental issues are one of the biggest factors in failed or sub-optimized transformation efforts.

Being authentic with oneself is essential for growth and change. Being authentic or practicing “habitual truthfulness” gives the leader an accurate reading on where to start in their personal changes. That is, more awareness of what needs to be worked on and developed. Changing oneself does not always come through formal coaching or coursework, although in most cases that is helpful. Usually the authentic executive is a very good student in learning about how to be a better leader and how to engage and inspire others to be involved in changing the business.

A leader’s knowledge of self combined with continual learning also serves to guide the leader during the challenging periods of a transformation. This guiding mechanism is for the leader as a person as well as the organization. The leader is continuously looking to develop the skills that will be required for success.

Let me provide a rich example of this. My father was a reluctant soldier in World War II. He was drafted, and after completing the various training, was sent to Europe. He was a young officer who was assigned to lead platoons on the front lines in France against the German army. One skill that he realized that he needed was to know where he was located, especially on night patrols. This was long before the day of GPS, and so the key instrument was a compass. However, it was dangerous to look at a compass at night because of the light. My dad taught himself to always know which way was north, which would allow him to have a good estimate of his location. This was a leadership skill that he developed to protect his men and himself. In less dramatic ways, leaders develop skills from continuously learning to enable them to provide better leadership to their organization.

Just as a leader is always a work in progress, no two strategic executions or transformations are the same. What worked for a leader in one transformation may not work at all in the second one. It is this challenge to adapt and continuously learn that makes leading a transformation so special.

As previously mentioned, managers who are unwilling to deal with their own developmental issues are one of the biggest factors in failed or sub-optimized transformation efforts. I have seen very different results from the decisions made by two managers facing similar personal challenges and provided with the same developmental opportunity. One was eagerly engaged with the opportunity. The term eager should not be interpreted as each day was a piece of cake. It was not. Personal development in the areas of one’s authenticity is uncomfortable, if not down right scary. There are many feelings that are aroused, and invariably one’s personal history gets revealed. An authentic leader views this as part of the price to be paid in developing the capacity to lead more effectively in ever increasing business environments. By the way, in case you are thinking that this person must be a soft, touchy feely type, let me assure you that you are far from the truth. This person is a strong, tough operator whose commitments are bigger than the fear.

A second manager was given the same coaching and developmental opportunities. This person voiced their strong commitment to leading transformation in the organization. This person said all the right things and appeared to be doing the right things until that fateful day when it became apparent that personal changes would be needed. At that point the manager simply stopped. The manager withdrew from active developmental coaching and began “pulling the plug” on transformation. The transformation effort was quietly shifted to an internal continuous improvement program, which assured that it would not require any personal development by the manager.

Other managers are craftier in how they avoid personal development. Some of my favorite methods for crafty avoidance are:

• “I’m all for you guys creating a transformation and increasing the value of this business, but do not expect me to be involved.”

• “I’ll stand on the sideline and watch.” (The implied message is: “If it works out, I’ll take the credit, and if it does not work out, you’ll take the blame.”)

• “I’m too busy with corporate matters, but you go ahead.”

Authentic in Desire for a Better Future

A successful leader is concerned with the future of the business, and what will be required to achieve that future. A leader creates possibility. This possibility is what allows employees to engage and ultimately commit to being involved in the transformation. The authentic desire for a future that is more fulfilling and rewarding lives in the possibilities that are created together by the leader and the employees.

Part of what is so sad about failed attempts at strategic execution and transformation is the residue that remains with the employees. Usually the managers move on to another assignment or another company, but the majority of the employees remain. When a change effort fails, among the biggest causalities is the sense of possibility for the future among the employees. Repeated failures at strategic execution can “suck the possibility” out of the employees, and make them hardened and resigned that little can be accomplished. This is a tragedy for all concerned, and is quite common.

Honoring Boundaries that Matter to Others

Authenticity and self knowledge translates into the ability to see the boundaries that are in existence. These are the boundaries that need to be honored as well as those that need to be challenged and changed. Those of you who work in global or international companies have a vivid example of how boundaries differ from country to country and culture to culture. The point is to be aware that boundaries exist for group of people that need to be honored.

There are many boundaries that need to be observed and managed. That could be an entire article in itself. However, three areas of boundary will be discussed. The first is tolerance of mistakes. The second is chaotic nature of change and the third is what to talk about, and not talk about.

Tolerance of Mistakes

The first boundary is the tolerance of mistakes and managing how mistakes are identified and addressed. Mistakes happen in the day-to-day running of a business. Mistakes really happen in transforming a business. If the mistakes are punished, transformation will simply not happen. So the leader must develop an approach that has the mistakes identified as soon as they are seen and talked about in an open manner. It is essential that those associated with the mistake not be punished, as future mistakes will be “swept under the rug” and covert operations will commence all around. To complicate matters, a transformation will not likely be successful until those involved with it come to appreciate the importance of mistakes, celebrate the discovery and mobilize people to learn from the situation.

The Chaotic Nature of Transformation

A second boundary to be managed is the chaotic nature of transformational change. Incremental change is usually linear and predictable. Transformational change is discontinuous, and by definition not linear. However, if managers are not careful they will respond by trying to control or reduce the chaotic nature of change in a transformation, which of course serves to thwart the transformation and push the business backwards. The manager who starts a transformation and then tries to control or thwart it when it gets too chaotic will be perceived by others as inauthentic, i.e., not a leader. A common description of this type of person is “he or she is not serious, and never was”. This is a strong accusation to be made about a manager, especially by key employees who work for that manager. In the end, these effort look like “more of the same”, which will make the organization even more resistant to change when the next attempt at strategic execution is made.

What to Say and What Not to Say

A third crucial boundary for the leader to observe and manage is what to say and what not to say. A leader is concerned with saying what will make a contribution or a difference for those that are working to improve the business. A leader has speaking as the primary tool, so it is essential that boundaries of what not to talk about are maintained. An example of what NOT to talk about is getting involved in organizational politics. Organizational politics will not forward the leader. Further, those who are involved in organizational politics are usually not leaders and in many cases are opposed to the leaders. That is, those who engage in organizational or “palace politics” are seldom effective leaders. The converse of that seems to be accurate. Those who are unable or unwilling to be leaders are the ones who are actively involved in “palace politics”. Palace politics are heightened during times of transformation as the dramatic changes that are being implemented are often threatening to those not in leadership positions. Palace politics are often directed at trying to stop the transformation and those associated with it.

Expands Learning for All

People learn around leaders. They are challenged by the questions and inspired by the attitudes, passion and velocity. In turn, leaders learn from supporting others to learn. One of the clear signs of an authentic leader is the thirst for learning and knowledge that is seen around them. In contrast, the evidence for lack of authenticity by false leaders is their people say, “Sure there is much that we could do better but there is no use given (the name of person) is here”. Learning comes from inspiring people to find better ways to do their jobs and improving the processes and operations in the business.

Avoids Reliance on Excuses

The greatest threat to authenticity comes from excuses, whether self generated or given by others. That is, if a person grows up with a belief or value that a good excuse justifies an action or non-action, it is hard for them to emerge as an authentic adult. This pattern continues into adulthood and the workplace. Authentic leaders do not broker excuses or live in a world of excuses. Excuses are seen as irrelevant and a threat to successful execution. In contrast, inauthentic managers are characterized by the extensive use of excuses. I have consulted in companies where the capacity to make excuses appeared to be a primary criteria for promotion.

Let me give you an example. There was a company who prided itself as performance-based and excelling in management rigor. Each month the executives from the business units had a variance meeting with the chairman. For two days in advance, the executives focused on how best to tell their story. Then there was the all-day meeting, which was typically followed by a one-day post-mortem. The executives spent about four days a month preparing for this variance meeting. What made this more stunning to me was that there were seldom consequences of not meeting performance targets as long as there was a good excuse or story. Those business units where the executives were the most skilled presenters seemed to excel and get the additional capital for expansion, regardless of the poor performance of their units.

An attribute of non-leaders is their unwillingness to face the facts and reliance on good excuses to offset actions/no actions. I have recommended to several companies that they adopt the slogan “Result ≠ No Result + Good Excuse”. This recommendation is based on a practice that developed where a good explanation for why something did not happen was a “pass”. This was most commonly applied to expected results that did not happen, e.g., we missed the plan this month because of X. What I noticed was the same business units would miss plan each month and yet there was a new and novel explanation. These business units were not skilled at producing results, but were very clever in producing excuses.

It is common to find companies where making good excuses is considered a core skill for developing as a manager. I observed a financial services company where there were monthly variance meetings with the CEO. The intention of these meetings was to discuss performance in the last planning period on key metrics. These variance meetings were well orchestrated by various corporate staff groups, and the preparation by the line organizations were also intense. In some cases, the business unit management teams would spend a couple of days in preparation for what was about a two hour meeting. What amazed me was the time and effort spent by the staff groups in preparing their strategies to “attack” the business unit management teams. Of course the management teams spent a similar amount of effort in preparing their defenses. When I asked “what happens in these meetings”, I was told that the executives who “win” are those who can tell the best stories, i.e., make the best excuses. In fact, I was told that a key factor for career progression in this company was the capacity to tell a believable story about real poor performance. Needless to say, authenticity was not a key value of executives in this company, nor was this leadership team able to achieve a transformation. It took a new CEO and “house cleaning” to accomplish that.

Accepting Responsibility Rather than Blaming Others

Authentic leaders do not play the “blame game”. Rather, they step forward and factually describe what happened. To some of you this may seem obvious as the right thing to do. While it may seem obvious, it is not the management practice in many companies.

The dynamic of looking for who to blame while avoiding being blamed is too common in business. In some organizations there is such a blame-based culture that there is a continual process of avoiding blame vs. looking for who to blame. As one employee described it to me, “We let no good deed go unpunished.” I have seen organizations where avoiding blame had been taken to the level of art form. While intriguing to watch, these behaviors in no way contribute to results being accomplished or value-added. Employees notice who “dances around to avoid blame”, rather than stepping up to deal directly with events in the business. I am often amazed at the frequency with which prospective leaders blatantly deny or ignore that important events happened. It is a sense that an event will go away “if I pretend it did not happen”. Pretending is a clear sign of lack of authenticity and leadership. There is an old pop/rock song with the lyrics, “Yes, I’m the great pretender, pretending that you’re still around …” While the song was a hit, pretenders in business are not.

I have often seen managers who spend enormous energy and time avoiding blame that it becomes a primary “organizing feature for them”. It is as though there is an active conspiracy to blame them, much like the paper donkey must have felt in the old children’s game of “pin the tail on the donkey”. So much attention is spent in avoiding blame that it is hard for employees to determine what these managers believe in or stand for. There is another song that captures this avoidance of blame. It is from the musical “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”. There is a scene in which the Governor of Texas is being confronted about the existence of a brothel in the state, which conveniently was located not too far from the state capital of Austin. When the news reporter was about to corner the Governor, he broke into a song and dance entitled “Ooh, I Love the Side-step”. Too many managers are specialists in their version of the “Side-step song and dance”.

Acknowledges Facts and Avoids Denial

Denial is a common trait of managers who are not effective as leaders. There is a common expression that has developed, which is a testimony of how frequently denial is used:

Denial is not a river in Egypt

Denial is a special problem if exhibited by prospective leaders. While denial is easy to do, the consequences on perceived authenticity are disastrous. Employees see the denial and quickly draw conclusions of “what this person is made of”. The negative impressions created by “getting caught in denial” cannot readily be explained away or forgotten.

Denial is a primitive defense mechanism, commonly used by children. We are not surprised when we see young children trying out denial. For example:

Father: Billy, have you been eating the chocolate chip cookies?

Billy: No dad.

Father: Well how did you get chocolate all over your fingers?

Billy: I do not know. I guess my sister Susie must have put it there ….

In this situation Billy’s father would have chuckled to himself and then sat his son on his lap for a father-son chat about “We tell the truth in this family; do not tell me lies”. At the end of the conversation the father would welcome this opportunity to teach his young son. It is a very different circumstance when the father is an executive who is dealing with managers who exhibit similar levels of denial, rather than being responsible for what is happening in the business.

Conclusion

Authenticity is at the heart of the inspiring actions of employees. Think about it, can there be any attribute that is more motivating to employees than working with an authentic leader? The employees can see that the leader is committed, which in turn serves to inspire the employees to action as well as becoming more committed.

Authenticity Self Study Guide

Summary

Authenticity is “habitual truthfulness” that shines through the leader’s actions. Leaders must be perceived as being “the real deal”, or authentic, if they are to be effective in strategic execution. Personal authenticity is highly correlated with effectiveness as a leader of transformation and achievement of business results.

Key Points

1. Authenticity begins with the leader being candid with self, and practicing “habitual truthfulness”.

2. Self deception is the worst lie of all.

3. Authentic leaders “know themselves” (warts and all).

4. Authenticity is not an accident. Leaders strive to develop and expand their capacity to be authentic in all their dealings.

5. Leaders act responsibly.

6. Leaders practice constancy in being authentic, and in wanting to create a better future for the organization.

7. Leader’s authenticity is demonstrated in their communications.

8. Leaders go first in making personal changes that are required for success in strategic execution. They do not ask employees to make changes that they are unwilling to make.

9. Leaders honor boundaries that matter to others. The appreciation of others boundaries is a walking demonstration of consideration and authenticity.

10. People grow and learn about leaders.

11. Authentic leaders do not:

a. Rely on excuses.

b. Blame others.

c. Live in denial.

24-Sep-09 3:00 PM

King Chapman & Broussard - Articles

Authenticity (excerpt from Foundational Leaders, a book by Bob Chapman, Ph.D.)