Vasant Kunj, New Delhi | +91 9810 232 822
Authentic leadership has become a fashionable phrase these days. There are many research in this space and scholars and professing various tools, techniques and models to achieve this. Some of the literature in this space is very interesting and at the same time intriguing. Sadhguru says living an authentic life comes naturally to any individual. It is the best thing to do, because you have nothing to gain and nothing to lose. That is the most natural way to live – like yourself.
Organisational life on the other hand prepares, encourages and sustains a very different set of values. Organizations Desirability, Displays and Dissonance avoidance are some values that most organizations profess or promote.
During 3 decades of my corporate career, I heard a few times that I should learn to say NO. I was possibly over-committing and in the process bringing pressure to myself as well as team working with me. I consciously say heard because may be I was not ‘listening’ to the feedback. May be by overcommitting, I was trying to push my boundaries beyond the reasonable and was exposing myself as inauthentic. May be I was trying to please others and in the process creating pressure and displeasure around.
I have worked in a variety of organizations – small, growing organisations on one hand and very large organisation employing over 100,000 employees on the other; public organisations on one hand and private organisation on the other; domestic organizations on one hand and multinational organisation on the other; India on one hand and a variety of international locations on the other. What I could share with personal experience is that organizations of all hues and from all nations have similar challenges – their frequency and complexity may be different from country to country and company to company.
Being authentic is highly desirable. But that is simply living the way ‘we are’. In recent times, it has become an expression of desirability and fad. On one hand this is what ‘we are’, on the other hand people are talking about ‘authentic leadership’ by ‘becoming something’. Do we need to learn who/ what we are? Trying ‘to be’, is not being authentic. How can I ‘try’ to become that I already am? The real meaning of authenticity is therefore lost in this pursuit. If we can’t try to be more authentic, then how can we become more authentic? That is the authenticity paradox. Dr Sunita Chugh, Founder Director of On Last Mile (www.onlastmile.com) says “authenticity is to be ‘true to self’ for which not just ‘awareness’ and ‘knowing’ is important. But ‘acceptance’ of that self is important”. She further argues that in a dynamic world of business, this ‘acceptance’ is very difficult.
Stephen Joseph, psychology professor at Nottingham University and author of a recently published book on authenticity, explains that “When people are authentic, when they’re themselves, they’re self-actualized”. Joseph says that “When our needs are met, we move towards self-actualization. So that’s the natural, normal state for human beings.” Does it mean that unless you have lower level needs filled, you don’t need to be authentic? We should question this premise both at individual as well as organisational level. May be this is a premise on which most western organisations work. But is this culture agnostic? My sense is that when we adopt such things without questioning social and cultural relevance, it spread cultural misgivings and maladjustments.
I am raising a cultural angle here because in India it is ingrained since childhood to ‘behave’ in a particular way to please ‘elders’ in the family and society. Children in our society are often discouraged from displaying and labelling their emotions. Being emotional or expressing emotions is considered ‘unworthy’. This also undermines self-efficacy in growing up years and affects EI skills, while growing as well as when grown up. Are we therefore trained to become inauthentic? At another level, organisational induction could also be viewed as indoctrination to become inauthentic. Organisational values, work norms and social culture enforce becoming inauthentic. How can you suddenly expect someone to learn being an authentic leader? Deviance is not a virtue in Indian society. It is true in some other asian societies too.
Any organisational role therefore that requires people interface, requires to build lasting relationships, build and sustain engagement must essentially be helped to identify their inauthenticity and encouraged to become authentic. If personal values of an individual does not match and this value-incongruence is a bottleneck then such people should be encouraged and retrained to find a better suited role outside. At the time of hiring therefore ascertaining individual value system and congruence with organisational value system should be the primary selection criteria used. Everything else could be skilled/ trained mechanically, over a period of time. But to be fair to organisational systems, how many hiring managers are trained to assess ‘right-fit’?
A human being is a bundle of emotions. Being authentic therefore mandates that we work with and through our emotions. Emotions are also an anchor or operating compass that gives us concurrent feedback about congruence with our values or its absence. I am sure you have often heard from colleagues that ‘being emotional’ is referred to as a weakness. People are even trained to use this phrase for job and promotion interviews. So when we encourage and support people to not show and use their emotions – can we sincerely expect them to be authentic? Can they sincerely behave without emotions? Is being ‘professional’ really about ignoring/ avoiding emotions? Do we need to redefine being ‘professional’ and ‘use of emotions at work’. Every single inspiring talk that a leader is expected to deliver, touches emotional chord. It inspires colleagues because it is delivered to rake up emotions. Yes, we must know how to handle emotions and do not allow it to become dysfunctional. But authenticity builds on and survives on adequate and careful handling/ expression of emotions or emotional expositions. Susan David in her book ‘Emotional Agility’ says that undertaking activities that are a sure mismatch with our values, results in ‘emotional labour’.
What does being authentic means? Some of the attributes that help demonstrate authenticity (especially at work) are – being transparent in giving feedback, being open in receiving feedback, understanding one’s own emotional anchors and appreciative of emotional anchors of others too, willingness and readiness to share relevant information and details, lack of pretence, being natural self most of the time (and not being apologetic for other times).
In the Managerial Grid framework propounded by Dr Blake and Mouton, they refer to a 9,9 leader, that matches with authentic leadership style. 9,9 has a high task orientation but also a high people orientation. People orientation primarily means understanding and meeting individual expectations and aspirations. But this is done in a context of transparent sharing – both pleasant as well as not-so-pleasant things. But when the same person deviates slightly and does these to patronise, it shifts to a 9+9 style. Grid is a very interesting and comprehensive framework. I am a certified Grid Leadership Trainer so can say this will authenticity (pun intended) that it offers a very robust framework for leadership competency development.
Setting expectations and sharing experiences could be important tools in all kinds of social systems including business orgnaizations. Allowing your values to determine and drive actions – acting in congruence with your values is a critical solution, to become authentic. Whether you are a leader or not, being authentic is more important. If you are authentic people will like to follow you and hang around you, with or without title.