In the Eye of the Beholder: Employee Perceptions of Authentic & Inauthentic Leadership

In May 2010 I conducted 10 face-to-face interviews with employees of a non-profit organization in Ann Arbor to find out what authentic and inauthentic leadership means to them. Instead of asking an abstract question about an ambiguous term, I asked them for examples for both of these categories. What emerged from the interviews were fascinating descriptions of real-life leaders of either kind, combined with narratives and explanations of why the participants would describe authentic and inauthentic qualities the way they did.

Authentic Leaders larger than life? – Not at all.

One of my personal goals was to bring the academic concept of authentic leadership to life, because in my perception it was too artificial, too God-like, too perfect. But listening to the participants’ descriptions brought it home to me that we were not talking about ideal leader- images at all, but real-life managers with authentic qualities. This only shows that it is perfectly possible to live the life of an authentic leader – more or less!

Because: What counts is not what leaders think they are, it’s what their followers perceive, remember?

So, topping the list of qualities perceived by employees as authentic are activities related to enabling professional development in others and transparent behaviors:

“he stood up and told everybody: ‘The only person that could tell you No is me. It’s everybody else’s job in the organization to figure out how to make things happen.”

“I would describe them as authentic because I feel like under that type […] I’m able to professionally develop”

“when we were asked for our input, when we were provided freedom and discretion, that that was all genuine […] that there were no traps set out for us.”

“it’s nice to have somebody who thinks, you know: “let’s invest in you, let’s invest in your capacity”

“you just never thought that, what he wasn’t saying was what he felt and how he wanted things to be done”

“I can honestly say, I can’t ever remember doubting or thinking, he’s not being authentic with me.”

“in a sense, he wasn’t dishonest about his dishonesty. I think that’s authentic.”

“He doesn’t sugar coat. He tells it like it is. He lets you know when you are going, when you are walking into […] a hail storm”

Inauthentic leaders: beware!

The participants had equally comprehensive descriptions of the leaders whom they described as inauthentic. Mainly, these managers are perceived to pursue personal goals more than organizational or team goals, and to lack a sense of truthfulness and transparency.

Ironically, whilst inauthentic leaders might hope that their employees won’t notice, I found that they do:

“I was really more a mechanism to them to gain their own success”

“this was a leader who was trying to create a situation for his or her own personal advance”

“he didn’t really want a team of people, he just sort of wanted to move people around the board”

“he also did a certain amount of manipulating, pitting people against each other by little asides”

“you couldn’t have a conversation with her and expect open and honest discussion”

“to me I was like a warm body to him, and that he was working through me”

“it always seemed like there was something, something else driving her behavior, other than the good of the […] company”

“I really wondered if what he was telling me was what he really wanted, or whether it was in some sense a manipulation, versus you say what you mean, you mean what you say and we don’t have to second-guess whether we are in something for real or not”

And much, much more…

Whilst this is obviously only a tiny fraction of the data that I gathered (328 items overall), it allows a glance at the way real-life people perceive their managers to be (more or less) authentic/inauthentic. The subsequent goal of this study was the investigation of temporal patterns in the perception of authentic or inauthentic leadership. Hopefully I’ll find the time in the near future to share some of that information with you.

Meanwhile I’d like to encourage You to send me Your interpretation, perceptions and examples of authentic and inauthentic leadership. You can also email me at andrea.derler@gmail.com.

Thanks!

Who needs heroes? Get yourself an authentic leader.

The practical application of a theoretical leadership concept such as Authentic Leadership has always been at the forefront of my brain and work (sometimes these two are even aligned). In my last blog entry I reported of my current undertaking: to investigate about what employees think of Authentic Leadership. Is it a recognized leadership quality? What do people affiliate with the term authenticity in leadership? Do they consider it as an important leadership trait? Questions like these and more preoccupied eight interviews so far and together the participants and I had pretty intensive conversations about this topic. With surprising results!

Without wanting to talk too much about the materials that are lying partly raw and untouched at the bottom of my iPod I still want to pick out one issue that seems to be important to those people I have already talked to.

Setting up employees for success

The quality employees appreciate most in their managers is a genuine desire to help people succeed. This is a clear outcome of our conversations, no matter what person I spoke to. I heard tales of managers people worked for decades ago, or current bosses; women and men alike, no matter the age or years of work experience: the most admired, recognized, appreciated and liked leader behavior is the active and conscious development of subordinates. It also can come in many forms: direct (working in the same office) or remote (working in a different state); frequent or random; personal or via training seminars.

Whenever an employee feels that their work is not only acknowledged, but that they professional forthcoming and their personal growth is an important objective for their boss, they will return it with great loyalty and good work results.

Implications: the leader’s superiority is at stake

If it is true that authentic leadership, amongst many other qualities, is associated with the development of followers, then we need to consider the implications. First, it is hard work for managers! How many leaders and managers think they have the time and energy to actively support their employees’ professional growth? It takes not only will power but a conscious wish for others to succeed – in addition to their own work loads, their own development, their own career aspirations etc. Second, many leaders might ask themselves: where will it lead? Will I become redundant? Will my employees know more than I do, become more powerful than me, or more valuable for the organization? For less visionary managers these might seem like valid arguments against a conscious decision to want their employees be set up for success – at every single opportunity. They might fear to lose their superior status as the boss, the ‘maker’, the one who knows best.

This issue has been discussed in the German business literature for a long time. In preparation for an exam I’ve been reading about the term “Selbstführung” (self-leadership), leadership that does not make the leader redundant, of course, but assigns her/him different tasks: coaching, advising, facilitating the self-leadership of employees. In the long run, some argue, the leader will become less important, an outcome that some managers may experience as “Narzisstische Kränkung” (narcissistic mortification). Others even question if leaders would still carry the “Feuer der Führung” (the the flame, or spirit of leadership) within them once they have been disillusioned of their own superiority and been made into facilitators of others’ success. This status of managers is called the ‘post-heroische Form der Führung” (post-heroic form of leadership), and it has been pointed out that it might be rare to find the appropriate leadership material for this kind of role for the reasons just mentioned.

Creating new leaders through authentic leadership

Of course, we are all geared towards looking after Number One first. I’m not so naïve to suggest that employees have to come first, regardless of the manager’s own professional and personal situation. But once this is settled, I believe that it is the role of a manager to make sure their employees are supported as intensively as possible. The reasons for me are quite obvious: great employees reflect a positive picture on the leader to outsiders. Unmotivated or unprofessional subordinates do the opposite: they will make their managers look bad, too. Furthermore, many managers wish for more loyal, participating and interested employees. Well, what goes around comes around: if they invest in them, they will get back what they put in. In other words: if managers actively help their followers to become the best that they can be, they will not simply work for them but with them. And third: the organization as a whole will benefit enormously if leaders help create a more independent, stronger workforce.

Hence: the post-heroic leadership concept resembles that of authentic leadership. Authentic leaders are said to create leaders out of their followers and to have a self-transcendent attitude that works in the favor of the greater good. And as we have just learned, it is indeed an appreciated quality of managers in the eyes of employees. The only thing that managers and leaders need to learn if they want to become greater, more authentic leaders is to let go. Let go of their idea of superiority, pride and status.

They will not lose anything, quite the opposite: they can only win.

Please send your comments to this blog or email me at andrea.derler@gmail.com

References:

Kieser, A. & Kubicek, H. (1992): Organisation, 3. Aufl., Berlin/New York
Link, J. (2004): Führungssysteme, 2. Aufl., München
Simon, H. (1996): Die heimlichen Gewinner (Hidden Champions): Die Erfolgsstrategien unbekannter Weltmarktführer, Frankfurt am Main/New York
Wimmer, R. (1996): Die Zukunft von Führung: Brauchen wir noch Vorgesetzte im herkömmlichen Sinn? In: Organisationsentwicklung, 4/1996, S. 46-57
Winterhoff-Spurk, P. (2002): Organisationspsychologie: Eine Einführung, Stuttgart

An Authentic Leader of Today (and Tomorrow)

One of the newest developments in leadership studies is the focus on the complexity of social entities. Of course, societies are social systems, and so are organizations. My interest in the Macro-view on leadership was sparked by my involvement in the LEAD Institute and their fantastic work on Executive Development and Organizational Culture Change. Everybody who has ever worked in a company will be able to tell interesting tales about how people did what and why. They will be able to describe prevailing values, rituals and symbols, the work climate, dress code, and the kind of gossip at that work place,  as detailed as they can talk about the purely professional aspects. Humans are social beings, and we just can’t help our desire for involvement in a certain culture, and that way we sometimes help create, perpetuate or destroy an organizational culture.

What has all this to do with Authentic Leadership, you ask?

My interest in Authentic Leadership will be extended to the whole organizational context. It's no secret that authentic leaders will thrive in some contexts but not in others. The details I have yet to figure out.

For now I’d like to refer you to a recent NYT interview with a young top executive and CEO of an online company called Zappos. His responses to an interview at the Corner Office are baffling. His level of unbelievable maturity and personal depth is combined with his sparkling youth and genuine concern for his company in the most inspiring way. He talks about organizational culture, the potential of weird people and – authenticity.

Enjoy the read!

An Authentic Leader of Today (and Tomorrow)

One of the newest developments in leadership studies is the focus on the complexity of social entities. Of course, societies are social systems, and so are organizations. My interest in the Macro-view on leadership was sparked by my involvement in the LEAD Institute and their fantastic work on Executive Development and Organizational Culture Change.

Everybody who has ever worked in any company will be able to tell interesting tales about how people did what and why. They will be able describe the work climate, dress code, and the kind of gossip at that work place as well as they can explain the professional aspects.  Humans are social beings and we just can’t help our desire for involvement in a certain social context. That way we help create, perpetuate or change an organizational culture.

What has all this to do with Authentic Leadership, you ask?

My interest in Authentic Leadership will be extended to the whole organizational context. It's no secret that authentic leaders will thrive in some contexts but not in others. The details I have yet to figure out and I’ll keep you posted. For now I’d like to refer you to a recent NYT interviewZapposCorner Office
Enjoy the read!

Enjoy the read!

How to make an Authentic Decision

When President Obama didn’t give immediately a press conference after the failed bomb attack on Christmas day he was criticized for not talking to the country. (He did, three days later.) Before that, Obama was criticized for taking too long whilst trying to make a decision on the US-strategy in Afghanistan. (It took about three months.)

In short, his critics wish he would make his decisions faster, react quicker. They sense indecisiveness and weakness, qualities they don’t appreciate in their President. (Qualities which certainly aren’t desirable in any leader, for that matter.)

I think there can be a different reason for a time delay in decision making processes:  some leaders want to do it properly.

Information Processing

To be objective is desired and necessary for leaders, and at the same time it is only human not to be. But wouldn’t it be nice if all leaders were aware of the responsibility they have in terms of the outcomes of their decisions? If they could only look at a problem from more than one angle, if they had the ability to overcome their bias, misperceptions, prejudices and fears, and I they were able to form their very own opinions?

Authentic leaders have been described to do just that: avoid following popular opinions and instead come to their very own conclusions about an important matter. They seek alternatives where possible before making a commitment, and try very hard to develop a balanced point of view about a problem. In order to do just that, leaders need the ability to critically assess a situation – as well as their own positioning in it. And all that – takes a little more time than firing away with words, actions and orders on the first hunch.

Authentic Decisions

The ability to recognize that one’s own perspective can always be prone to paradoxes if not errors is called “balanced processing of information”. The term ‘balanced’ refers to the attempt of balancing one’s own viewpoint with inputs from others in order to avoid falling into the trap of self-righteousness.  Especially for leaders it is crucial to see the whole complexity of an issue because it can help minimizing the risk of overseeing important information. To balance information is also useful when it comes to anticipating the consequences of one’s action or the outcome of moral dilemmas.

Now, I think it can be as important how a leader came to a certain decision as the actual outcome of the decision making process. In that sense, making an authentic decision means all the above, as opposed to basing decisions on nothing but belief.

In very complex situations, leaders cannot possibly anticipate all results, consequences, changes and future developments. But they can certainly try to doing so by collecting information and making a careful assessment before making a decision. Can they think too much, and take too long, miss important opportunities and fail by doing so? Yes, of course! But equally, they can fail by not thinking things through properly.

Perhaps you agree with me that a talk to the nation only hours after the failed bomb attack would have set the USA in panic mode. Maybe you also think that the war in Afghanistan is a very complex issue and you are glad that Obama took his time before his decision about the military strategy.

It makes me think that he took these matters very, very seriously. And sometimes, that is all a leader can do.

Resources:

Avolio, B.J. et al., 2009. A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764–784.

Eigel, K.M. & Kuhnert, K.W., 2005. Authentic Development: Leadership development level and executive effectiveness. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa, eds. . Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects and Development. Monographs in Leadership and Management. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 357-385.

Luthans, Fred & Avolio, Bruce J., 2003. Authentic Leadership Development. In Positive organizational Scholarship. Berrett-Koehler.

May, Douglas R. et al., 2003. Developing the Moral Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247-260.

On a Personal Note...

For me, this past year was a year of change and positive turnarounds. The biggest event in my professional life happened when I realized that my previous educational institution had deceived me and many others in the most disappointing way. My discovery about Thierry’s lack of academic accreditation was received with amazement and shock by many colleagues. On a positive note, I managed to make sure that future damage could be prevented; without its proper academic accreditation, this school cannot award (or sell, for that matter) Masters and PhD degrees anymore.

What does 2010 have in stock?

This coming year will be a new beginning for me and my studies of Authentic Leadership. My work and pursuit of a doctoral degree will continue at the Fernuniversitaet Hagen, Germany, and I’m excited about my involvement in the department of Business Administration. I have already started to explore other research areas and established new contacts.

This blog has become an important part of my work on Authentic Leadership. Informal writing about the topic that interests me most helps me to gather my thoughts and forces me to keep academic studies relevant and practical. I see blogging as a form of leadership because it is an influencing tool; I also accept the responsibility that comes with that.

Thank you all for reading my posts, for participating and for spreading the word in 2009 – let’s continue this path in 2010 together.
Let me wish you all a fantastic New Year 2010!

The Image Problem of Authentic Leadership

Authentic Leadership is suffering from an image problem. The majority of non-academic writings that I see do not look at it as the complex social phenomenon which it is. Even people who genuinely want to understand authentic leadership and feel very strongly about its importance in business, only look at it in a one-dimensional way. After a lengthy online-discussion about the nature of authentic leadership, I was utterly frustrated because I hadn’t learned anything new. All I did was to defend my position as a leadership scholar against some people who haven't thought things through yet (which is fine, but doesn't do the topic any favors). Consequently, I tried to figure out what it was that separated our points of view in such a fundamental way.

After a few days of brooding over this question I realized that the core of our (friendly) disagreement constituted not only a difference in world views, but I know now where some of the misperceptions about authentic leadership  come from.

Tunnel view, or: why we need to look beyond the Self

In short, many people get stuck in focusing on the Self. I totally agree that self-awareness (knowing yourself) is the basis for authentic leadership and many of my discussions cover that issue. Yes, authentic leaders must look inward, this being a totally personal and individualistic act. They must know themselves well, and be able to coordinate actions and behaviors with their true Self. For many managers, the discovery of their Self can be a life-changing event and help them become happier people and better leaders.

But self-awareness is only the starting point for our studies of authentic leaders. If you look further down the line, considering the social interactions leaders have and the complex organizational structures they are in, we realize that we need to understand more than the process of self-awareness. Leaders have to be able to look beyond their own Self, too. They need to incorporate the needs, expectations and opinions of their followers, in order to respond to them as effective leaders.

I am aware that is tricky, not only in theory. Many opposing concepts, principles, values and consequences between their Self and the outside world will pop up, and any leader has to struggle with these dichotomies on a daily basis. Still, it is through interactions and experiences with the outside world (= people) that leaders enhance their own, their followers’ and their organizations’ development and growth. Change can only happen when the status quo is being questioned, and that always involves opening up our own mind to others - and genuinely consider, as well as question, the expression of our own Self in our actions and behaviors.

Bottom line: If authenticity would only refer to my need to “accept myself as I am without apology” or to celebrate my “uniqueness” I could not only end up being pretty lonely but also as a rather ineffective leader.

The halo of Authentic Leadership

Another argument that I keep hearing is that we can’t study authenticity/authentic leadership scientifically. To me this sounds as if the topic is too personal, too precious, too complicated to understand- yes, too holy. I argue: we express our authenticity (and lack thereof) in tangible actions and behaviors. And the latter can be studied very well.

I have failed in the past to critically look at the concept of Authentic Leadership, too. Whilst I think it’s the most interesting concept I’ve come across, I’m also aware that it has flaws. It's not the only way to lead, and probably not the best strategy in all circumstances. Nevertheless, I know for sure that an esoteric approach to authenticity and authentic leadership renders us blind to its actual practicability and its use for managers and leaders, practitioners and coaches. Everyone seems to "know" what authenticity means, and most people then conclude that the discussion around authenticity should look the same as the discussion around authentic leadership.

Well, life and leadership are a bit more complicated than that.

With the awareness that there are many people out there who might disagree, I look forward to their critical comments and feedback.

Executives as Moral Agents

If I was a cynical person I would say that the two terms “executive” (as in corporate executive) and “moral agent” (as in ethical individual) seem at odds with each other sometimes. However, cynicism isn’t a nice trait and that’s why I will make an attempt to reconcile the two. In this spirit, I investigated the following two questions:

1)    Why are Executives Moral Agents? (the one way or the other) and
2)    How can Executives understand their role as Moral Agents?

Organizations as Moral Institutions

Some of you might already assume that the writings about Chester Barnard, an American Business Executive in the 20th century, must have been on my post natal reading list... right... (;-)

Unknown to many people, Barnard’s ideas have influenced the literature about Authentic Leadership immensely, particularly its moral aspect. He was the first management scholar to portray formal organizations as social systems that reflect a certain ‘culture’ (convictions, beliefs) and to suggest that management decisions are to a great extent concerned with moral issues. If you look at organizations under this light, then many decision executives make, the objectives they lie out and the actions they perform get a whole new meaning. Meaning which they can ignore, or meaning which they can accept, along with an increased importance of their managerial and leadership role that they have.

“Functions of the Executive”

In his book with the same title (1938) he brings up the aspect of morality in Leadership, but more than describing a philosophical ideal he assigns a great honor/burden to executives: he challenges them to become moral creators of values:

“The distinguishing mark of executive responsibility is that it requires not merely conformance to a complex code of morals but also the creation of moral codes for others.”

In order to be elevated to this level of responsible leadership, the executive needs to be able to:

a)    Recognize the moral intensity of each situation,
b)    Exhibit moral imagination by rising above normative solutions in order to
c)    Create moral efficacy in form of solutions that impact the moral climate of the organization.

Now, hopefully we all have met executives of that caliber!

Managers or – Leaders after all?

Barnard even uses the word ‘Authenticity’ in Leadership when he talks about the responsibility that executives have in their capacity as moral leaders. For him, there are two aspects to successful leadership that need to be ‘harmonized’ by all means:

•    Quality of competence to perform the formal role (technical aspect)
•    The quality of the role responsibility (moral aspect)

So, for all of those executives, managers and leaders who like to hide behind their technical expertise, behind their formal role in the organizational hierarchy, or simply behind their glass tower office desks: there is no escaping the harsh reality that they shape their follower’s moral agency as much as they shape their every day work. To the better, or to the worse, mind you.

Can we recognize the manager from the leader by assessing how much of the moral agency and the awareness of that responsibility they display in their actions and behaviors? I’m happy to hear your point of view.

Authentic Leadership

In any case, as fashionable as the concept of Authentic Leadership seems to us today, Barnard already talked about it in 1938. He answered the two questions asked at the beginning:

Ad 1) Executives are Moral Agents due to the powerful position they are in. Unknowingly or not, they shape their environment and the people working with them. (I think they might as well make use of that and do it well.)

Ad 2) They can do this by being aware of that very fact, and by following Barnard’s suggestions as listed above (a-c)

The Authentic Leader is one who not only follows the existing moral code within an organization, but who helps to shape the existing moral culture. And along with that comes a whole lot of responsibility for the outcome.

----

As usual, I welcome your comments on this issue. If you’d like to get in touch with me personally, please write to andrea@derlercoaching.com. Thanks.

References:

Novicevic, Milorad M. et al., 2005. Barnard on conflicts of responsibility; Implications for today's perspectives on transformational and authentic leadership. Management Decision, 43(10), 1396.

Hitting 1000 visits - Thank You!

The Authentic Leadership Blog has welcomed one thousand visitors ever since it was founded in 2007!

This is great because it shows that there is interest in the topic of Leadership, especially Authentic Leadership out there. I'm not going to dwell on the fact that we do need more authentic leaders, and how much such leaders make a positive difference - for their followers, associates and organizations. We are all aware of that fact. What I will say, though, whilst raising an imaginary glass of champagne (I'm due to have another baby in a few days) is this:

Authentic Leadership only exists when it is practiced.

All theories, research studies and academic writings dealing with the topic are blank, colorless and without meaning unless they can bring the concept closer to its implementation in real life. The direct result of authentic leadership is authentic followership. Therefore: leaders, if you'd like to learn more about your degree of authenticity, just look at your followers. Their attitudes, behaviors and values can be mirroring your own.

Thanks to all of my readers for visiting this site, for commenting on entries and for recommending the blog to others. Only your interest in the topic can help perpetuate my mission of learning and writing about Authentic Leadership.

Yours,

Andrea

Leadership and Transparency: Here is how and why.

As many of you know, I have recently become affected by the actions of a leader who does everything in his might not to be transparent about his goals, activities and intentions (For what happened please refer to the blog entry: Pseudo-Authentic Leadership: A Case Study in Deception). Still brooding over the consequences and looking for a new (real) University to finish my PhD in Leadership Studies, I became more interested in how it can be possible for leaders to deceive followers. At the same time I also kept my mind open for positive examples of Transparent Leadership. Before I present a great example for transparency in leadership, I’d like to recap some of the authentic leadership literature in order to show why it is such an important component of effective leadership.

Open up, leaders: Maintain Transparency

Please take, for a moment, the perspective of one person you are working with (your employee, your associate, your colleague, your partner). Then, imagine trying to find out what it is like for them to see the intentions behind the things you do and say. It might be difficult, impossible or quite easy. In any case, it might help them to understand your position better. It might encourage them to follow your goals with more enthusiasm, to get involved and inspired by your ideas, or simply to stop them being overcritical about you. Transparency means that you open up to others and share; share your thoughts, ideas, values, goals, as well as your concerns, worries and shortfalls.

“What?”  (I can hear you say), “but then they’ll know that I’m not perfect! And, anyway, I have to and want to keep certain things to myself!” – Of course you do, and so you should. But consider carefully what kind of information, if shared, would support your cause, and when secrecy can be stifling for you - and your organization’s success.

The literature about authentic leadership considers transparency in relationships with followers a crucial component. Overall, authentic leaders communicate the objectives, principles and values of their organizations very efficiently; whilst this seems like an obvious thing to do for leaders and managers, it does not always happen. But transparency has also more personal aspects; one would be to give honest feedback on performance because leaders have a genuine interest in their followers’ progress. Another one would be not to shy away from discussing certain personal shortfalls with work associates; this can help leaders finding complementing talents and resources amongst staff members for a more successful completion of complicated tasks.

The equation is really very simple: if you want your workforce to be engaged, interested and working in your favor, then you have no choice but share with them whatever information you judge as appropriate, constructive and valuable for effectiveness.  Their increased trust and commitment will be the most immediate effects of a positive change in this direction.

On the larger scale: Data.gov

The example for increased transparency I found recently in a rather unexpected place: a website by the US administration: The Open Government Initiative. Suddenly, everybody with internet access and an interest in politics can look up what US leaders are up to. It’s not a ground breaking new idea, and some might say that this is the least you can expect as a citizen. Mind you, though, it is not something you should take for granted. They are on the right path, referring to values such as transparency, participation and collaboration. Everybody can read about up the ethical standards that apply for government executives on the Ethics section of the site, or browse the site to learn more about the government’s work on taxes, foreign policy or education.

Data.gov is really an interesting resource providing more transparency on important matters concerning US politics. If they can open up, you can, too. At least consider a more transparent approach with all your work associates, or try to envision what the effects could be of a more communicative strategy. You might wonder why you haven’t done it before.

I look forward to your comments and feedback on this issue. If you’d like to get in touch with me personally, please write to andrea@derlercoaching.com. Thanks.

References:

Illies, R., Morgeson, F.P., Nahrgang, J.D. (2005. Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B.J. (2003). Authentic Leadership: A positive, developmental approach. In K.S. Cameron & J.E. Dutton & R.E. Quinn (eds), Positive organizational scholarship, 241-261. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler

Let's be honest. One step towards Authenticity

Most of us like to think of ourselves as civilized individuals who are generally trying to do the ‘right thing’. As Christians, we have a rough understanding of the Ten Commandments; as business people we have a basic idea of business ethics. At least, we can hold a conversation about our strong values and principles, about what we think is right and wrong.

What’s amusing about this is that sometimes we fail miserably when it comes down to actually acting upon these self-acclaimed principles.

An article in the NYT this week describes a related phenomenon: our exaggerated optimism about ourselves – including our sincerity. The so-called “Holier-than-Thou” effect appears when we think that we are better than others (more honest, or more ethical). The crux with this attitude is that we might find ourselves in situations where we suddenly totally compromise our own principles and do the opposite of what we swore we’d do - or not do!

(This painfully reminds me of my own many broken promises: e.g. not ever to cheat at exams in my student years, not ever to be dishonest during sales conversations in my early sales career or not ever to be impatient with my toddler…).

What strikes me more than this well known fact about a mismatch between values and action is the explanation for it. David Dunning, a social psychologist blames our inability to follow our own morals to situational factors:

“… many types of behavior are driven far more by the situation than by the force of personality. What someone else did in that situation is a very strong warning about what you yourself would do.”

In short, our self-inflating bias about our own strong principles can be diminished by circumstances or situational pressures. That means we might think of ourselves, for example, as particularly honest persons but sooner rather than later we might find ourselves in a situation where we fail to live up to our own high expectations.

Recognizing our own potential to fail

This research points at something very important and I’m not talking about our failure to comply with our own standards.

I think it is our claim of integrity and superiority that partly causes this failure. It is the underlying dishonesty with ourselves that makes us forget that, much more important than thinking about the right thing to do, is actually doing it.

Our inclination to talk about values and to think very highly of ourselves despite a lack of actual follow-up is part of our human condition. It points at a lack of self-awareness during every day interactions. If we observed our own behaviors better we would realize that, as much as we try, we are fallible sometimes. A higher level of awareness of this fact will stop us insisting on our own rightfulness.

Whenever we lay down our own (moral) benchmarks for behavior, we are setting very high standards for ourselves. And so we should. But always with the thought in mind that we might, and that we will fail.  Am I suggesting not having guidelines for our own behaviors? Not at all. A strong value system is the foundation for an authentic person and indispensable for moral conduct. But by recognizing our own potential for failure, we become more humble, more realistic, more human.

In all honesty: let’s just focus on our behaviors

Authentic Leadership is actually characterized by its clear preference for action as opposed to words.  One of the components of the concept refers to the quality of ‘Authentic Behavior’, and has been described throughout the literature:

Authentic leadership is realized when values are acted upon time and again and when there are no gaps between the expressed values and the person’s actions. This means that authentic leaders must convey their principles in every single daily interaction with others, because authentic behavior is only given when leaders act consistently upon values that they promote.

Bottom Line…

So, no matter what the circumstances and situational factors are, genuinely honest people will do what their own principles tell them to do. Aren’t we back at square one again, where we determined that this is exactly where we fail? Actually, no. Because the argument pursued here is not that we must follow our values more (that, too), but we shouldn’t constantly claim that we do when we aren’t.

What we need to understand in order to become authentic (leaders) is not to focus too much on our values and principles and guidelines, but on our behaviors and the impact they have on other people. We actually shape our identity by action, and not by trying to convince others and ourselves rhetorically of our superior ethical viewpoints.

Of course it is a lot more convenient to claim being the bearer of strong values than observing ourselves in every interaction with other people. But once we start this journey into our own behavioral patterns, we will discover things that we haven’t known about ourselves and this can be very interesting. A little painful at first, perhaps. But certainly a lot more authentic.

I look forward to your comments. If you’d like to get in touch with me personally, please write to andrea@derlercoaching.com. Thanks.

References:

Hitlin, S. (2003) Values as the Core of Personal Identity: Drawing Links between Two Theories of Self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118-137.

Luthans, Fred & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: A positive, developmental approach. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn, eds. Positive organizational scholarship.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 241-261.

May, Douglas R. et al., (2003). Developing the Moral Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247-260.

Shamir, Boas & Eilam (2005). "What's your story?" A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417.

About Scapegoats and Escapers of Responsibility

This week I'd like to refer you to another article on the True North Blog by Bill George.

Bill George has made the reality of Authentic Leadership tangible for us as successful CEO of Medtronic of many years. Today he is a leadership educator, author and writer of his blog and I'd like to point your attention to his latest entry.

He describes the position of AIG's new CEO, Ed Liddy, from a very different point of view. He also describes how the real culprits deal with their share of responsibility. Not at all.

Read on, it's a very interesting article.

Andrea

New Year’s Resolution for Authentic Leaders

In the past, I’ve considered New Year’s resolutions kind of annoying. They simply didn’t work, or maybe I should say, I simply didn’t work with them. The excitement over the new plan whereby I would follow a new path in life as of the 1st of January was wearing off pretty quickly and soon I was stuck with the frustration over my own lack of discipline, or the strength of my old habits. The other option seemed much more attractive: don’t make New Year’s resolutions in the first place! Don’t bother with thinking about values and goals if you already know that you won’t be able to keep to them, I told myself. But that was taking the easy way out; secretly I knew that real change and positive development would not happen if not instigated consciously by me. Secondly, following through with any new plan is more difficult and important than I realized at first, but it is an indispensable part of becoming an authentic leader.

Particularly when experiencing severe problems, or after big scandals, people want radical change, immediately. Or so they say, because it seems as if they didn’t. The authors of the True North Blog summarized the gist of the two major corporate scandals of the past decades, Enron and the current Mortgage Crisis, in their article “Since Enron, little has changed.”

“Enron’s board ratified a cocktail of financial incentives and compensation contracts that promoted reckless gambling with shareholder money….Lacking the recapture of bonus payments for unprofitable contracts, executives had little accountability in deploying shareholder capital. Finally, short-term quantitative criteria displaced qualitative measures of executive performance.”

And then they go on to describe what happened rather recently:

“….In the current subprime crisis, mortgage bankers and some commercial bankers utilized similar incentives to achieve short-term gains….The result of these perverse incentives was as predictable for these bankers as it was at Enron: excessive risk-taking was rewarded to achieve short-term gains.”

The lack of our ability to learn, adapt and change, however, is omnipresent. Think back at the news about a major decrease in sales of SUVs in the USA. When gas prices were high, Americans stopped buying large cars. A lot of talk was heard about the future of energy efficient cars, the urgency to stop drilling for oil and instead invest in research for fuel alternatives. Great, the Europeans thought (who by the way pay about double the price for gas anyway), the Americans will soon adapt the view that smaller cars are cool and in turn care more for the environment. Maybe they did, but not for long because in autumn this year we read on the news:

“Despite the down economy, falling gas prices have driven consumers back to the sport utility vehicles they once gave the cold shoulder” (ref)

“And while automakers continue to shut down SUV production, some dealers say that even interest in conspicuous consumption machines like the Escalade began to rise once gas fell back below $3.50 a gallon.” (ref)

So, why are we shocked about corporate scandals, and more so if these same destructive behaviors are repeated over and over again? Why is it so hard for humans to reconsider their worldview, decide on new strategies and actually stick to them? Because the desire to change for the better, paired with the awareness of failure is part of the human condition.

Suggested New Year's Resolution for 2009

Learning means to challenge existing habits, ideas, opinions and practices; it takes awareness of one's  own way of working and its impact on the environment.  People make the same mistakes twice because they either lack this awareness of their own actions, or they don't manage to pull through with new plans, or they simply don't care. Effective leaders are aware of the fact that most people have trouble changing, but they know about the positive influence their behaviors can have. By  testing their own standpoints regularly and acting in accordance with their (adapted) values, they can set the stage for long lasting change by inspiring people to do the same.

We expect leaders to be different and so they should be: ideally, they can be role models for change. The academic literature on Authentic Leadership is very clear on the quality of 'consistent authentic behavior', referring to the small gap between values and actions of authentic leaders; it ‘simply’ means: figure out the principles according to which you want to lead, and follow through on them, every day. - "Nothing New there!" You say? - "Very true", I say, "and the proof of the pudding is in the eating..."

It is a tough exercise, to reconsider current stand points, to find new ideals and to actually act upon them over a long period of time. For everyone who wants to become an authentic leader, however, this could be their New Years Resolution for 2009. It certainly will be one of mine.

Happy, Healthy and Successful New Year 2009 to you all!

Black Sheep, or: What Authentic Leadership is NOT

It’s truly funny. Whilst I’m still trying to understand all aspects of Authentic Leadership – the serious academic approach to effective leadership, that is - others seem to have no difficulties to simply grab a few words from the starry sky to describe what they think it means. The latest blog entry that made my skin crawl is by an American self-acclaimed “spiritual teacher and visionary thinker” who thought the world has been waiting for his definition of Authentic Leadership. (I’m referring to his blog ("http://www.andrewcohen.org/andrew/authentic-leadership.asp") with great caution and I have to warn you: what he describes is neither ‘Authentic’ nor ‘Leadership’. I decided to comment on this issue only because I have become somehow obsessed with the mission of clearing the name of Authentic Leadership off all its misconceptions.)

Spiritualists often try to validate the contents of their speeches by borrowing business-like terms; unfortunately, words like ‘authenticity’ and ‘leadership’ due to their multifaceted nature are indeed terms that can be stretched beyond recognition. The author of this website states that Authentic Leadership means to Stand alone, Live fearlessly, Act heroically, Want to be free and true more than anything else, Take unconditional responsibility for oneself, Face everything and avoid nothing, At all times see things impersonally, and Live for a higher purpose.

It’s not the individual recommendations for better behaviors and attitudes that bother me but the fact that they do not correlate with authentic leadership. To pick on one, let’s look at “stand alone”, probably referring to the necessity of a lonely but brave ‘maverick-status’ of an authentic person. Fact is that authenticity cannot be an alienated function of a leader’s qualities because it is exactly the interaction with others (subordinates) that renders a leader authentic. In short, whatever a leader or manager thinks his individual degree of authenticity is, it can only be confirmed by the people around him. To stand alone would be no good sign of an authentic leader but a lonely superior at the top of the crowd. In sum, all these alleged signs of authentic leadership are exclusively self-directed and would preoccupy the leader with sorting out his own purpose in life. They go far beyond the foundation of authentic leadership, self-awareness, and do not mention once their impact on other people.

Once again I want to stress that authentic leadership is a highly complex activity that can only be understood by a lively interaction between a leader, the one who leads others, and followers, those who want to follow. Hence, if we want to utilize the concept of authentic leadership to actually understand the complexity of effective human relationships for practical use in business contexts, we must separate the wheat from the chaff:

1) Spirituality is NOT the foundation for Authentic Leadership

(Previously: Delete the word “Spirituality” from our understanding of Authentic Leadership)

Spirituality lives in another galaxy; Authentic Leaders live on earth.

2) Remember that Leadership is Interactive

It’s follower’s perceptions that make authentic leaders.

For links, articles and references contact andrea@derlercoaching.com

About Bias and Austrians

Lately, I have been so preoccupied with getting acquainted with the topic of Statistical Analysis that I nearly forgot about the intellectual loves of my life, Authentic Leadership and Positive Sales. You bet I thought about boring you with formulas and numbers on this blog just to make you share my hardship whilst finishing my PhD curriculum. But then I thought better of it. Instead, I decided, I will share with you a discovery I made online: an Austrian academic in the USA who is doing impressive work on Attribution theory, amongst many other research topics. During a statistics-less lunch break one day I came across one of his publications and a piece of Almond Joy nearly got stuck in my throat: his findings seemed to shatter part of my PhD-hypothesis!

But let me start at the beginning.

In short, the correlation between Attribution theory and Authentic Leadership that some researchers see, is based on one particular trait that authentic leaders have: they are less biased when it comes to information about themselves and their subordinates. That means, that they can form more accurate perceptions about who’s done what and why, and they can assess successes and failures more objectively by taking lots o information into account. Why is this special? Because we are all human and prone to lots of biases: terms like ‘leader bias’ (form of self-serving bias) and ‘actor-observer bias’ being most relevant here. The proper word for ‘leader-bias’ is self-serving bias because it refers to our tendency to take more accountability for successes than for failures. Translated into leadership situations this could represent the tendency of a manager to take the praise for his team’s good work because he thinks it was down to his leadership, whilst blaming them for their setbacks, attributing the failure to others. (Can you guess why this can be detrimental to the relationship between leaders and associates?!).

The actor-observer bias is an old psychological hypothesis that has been supported by dozens of researchers since the 70’s; it says that an observer (i.e. leader) will attribute the reasons for his subordinate’s behavior to their own disposition (subordinate’s ability, motivation, mood etc) whilst the actor (i.e. subordinate) refers mainly to situational circumstances (hard job, difficult customer, tough environment). This mismatch of attributions from both parties can be counterproductive and does not really help in performance development reviews. But there is a silver lining on the dark bias-horizon: if leaders are authentic, some say, they are aware of these biases – theirs and others – and they can handle these difficult situations more accurately and fairly. Sounds logical to me!

And then the bombshell by Professor Bertram Malle who did a comprehensive study about the actor-observer bias just to find out that there is a lack of support for the actor-observer-bias. Normally I would have faked blindness and ignored the article because it seemed counterproductive for my great PhD-undertaking (only joking, of course!!), but the fact that B.F. Malle stems from Austria, and earned his Masters Degrees at the Karl-Franzens-University in Graz (like me) was too strong an indicator for quality work to be disregarded. After working through some of his articles it turns out, there is an actor-observer asymmetry after all but it is more complicated than what’s been assumed before. He says that if you look for a simplistic way for people to explain behavior in terms like “person causes” and “situation causes” and have them rate it, then the old actor-observer bias isn’t really there. But if you get people to explain other people’s behaviors in their own words and distinguish between reasons such as desire or belief, and in causes and causal histories, then the expected difference between attributions an actor and an observer have, appear again.

Uff, my PhD hypothesis has been resuscitated. I can still try to find out whether it is actually true that authentic leaders for all their qualities are able to overcome, or at least work around their own attributional bias about their subordinates' performance.

So what else have I learned from that encounter with an Austrian alumni?

1.    Leaders be aware that you might be biased towards your subordinates behaviors

There is scientific support for an actor-observer asymmetry. If you find that you are affected, please contact me to discuss ways to overcome it.

2.    Karl-Franzens-University in Graz, Austria is a good place to study.

Servus to all their students and alumni all over the world!

For links, articles and references contact andrea@derlercoaching.com

Obama's Potential, or: My dream for Authentic Leadership

I just can’t help it. I too belong to the vast number of people who see in Senator Barack Obama a striking agent of change and hope that he will become the next President of the United States of America. Last time I listened to one of his campaign speeches, he spoke about Hope, Change and Unity and I have to admit the message touched me to the bottom of my heart. As soon as the speech ended and the rationalization process kicked in, I asked myself what it is that fascinates me about Obama’s personal approach to politics. After giving it some careful thought, incorporating everything I’ve read about him so far, I found some fundamental values that Senator Obama carries throughout his campaign and which make him look like an authentic leader to me:

POSITIVITY
A powerful force in leadership is to convey a positive message to people. It sounds simplistic and naïve but is a basic truth about human nature: we crave for a positive spirit that guides us through complex times. We need something to look forward to, rather than fearing our future. To be hopeful and positive about change is inspiring and motivating; we all know what difficulties lay ahead of us but we want affirmation that we can deal with them. What Obama does is not lead us blindfolded into a ‘golden era’ of his presidency by telling us everything will be fine; but he tells us about his vision filled with the positive anticipation for what could come our way. Obama’s main catch phrase is that of Hope but don’t take it as a cheesy idealistic construct for the weak amongst us. Through the feeling of Hope, authentic leaders convey an important emotional message: that of positive action. According to psychologists, Hope is bi-dimensional, involving the willpower of a person as well as his waypower. That means a hopeful person is more likely to possess the will and capacity to decide and act, and to plan strategies to meet specific goals. If this is the strategy Obama has for this country, then he has a great attitude to offer. And sometimes, attitude trumps experience.

DIALOGUE
A description of Barack Obama as leader in practice caught my eye in the IHT. He is described as someone who has a “deep philosophical commitment to dialogue”, who in meetings wants to “suck the room of every idea”, someone who “orchestrates debate, playing participants off each other – and then highlighting their areas of agreement.” How often have we experienced such inquisitive characteristics in our leaders? The ability to take all available viewpoints into consideration is an indispensable behavior of effective - and authentic – leaders. It shows an awareness that some issues need to be looked at from different viewpoints and it is a commitment to constant learning and change. Instead of imposing their own ideas, oblivious to the fact that there could be better ones out there, these leaders want to utilize the enormous potential that lies within all associates. It can be an art for leaders to not only surround themselves with the best of all advisors, but to listen attentively and incorporate their inputs.
The advantages of open dialogue are manifold and yet few leaders manage to look beyond their status when confronted with useful comments by their subordinates. If Senator Obama continues to follow that path in his presidency, real and positive change will be possible.

CONSISTENCY
Looking back at the campaign so far, not even the harshest critics of Obama can say that he changed his story or original message to gain momentum(if they are honest). He never attacked his opponents personally or disrespectfully, whoever they were. He always stayed with the issue at hand and focused on his own vision than loosing energy on talking bad about others. Despite the most despicable attacks aimed at his person he managed to remain calm. It seems as if no destructive force in the world could make him stumble, because he knows what’s important to him and this country. It seems as if he has decided on some fundamental values a long time ago, and whilst allowing others to participate, he is perfectly able to manage the challenges ahead on the basis of his deepest beliefs.

Knowing how to reach his goal, however, does not make him an authentic leader. He obviously has to prove that he will do it, consistently over the coming four to eight years as president. But what strikes me and probably millions of others, is the consistency of his message, his plans for positive change and his whole public demeanor that is one of thoughtfulness, inner strength and genuine care. He communicates a feeling of reliability and trust, values that people crave for and which are indeed desirable in any leader.

Now, you may agree with me or not about my perception of Barack Obama and both is fine, of course. The above mentioned principles that I see displayed in this public figure stay with me regardless and I decide to project them into his type of leadership. If Senator Obama actually has the energy and willpower to enact an authentic leadership style once he enters the White House remains yet to be seen; for me, he certainly shows all the signs that he will.

For links, articles and references contact andrea@derlercoaching.com

Book review: The Myth of Authenticity (R. Niermeyer)

Recently I stumbled upon a book by the German psychologist, leadership trainer and keynote speaker Rainer Niermeyer, titled the “Myth of Authenticity: The art of playing the right leadership role”. What instilled my great interest in his writing at first soon turned into disappointment about the lack of academic research Niermeyer conducted for this book. What I’m most surprised about is the fact that he falls for the most common misconception about the concept of authenticity and authentic leadership. By summarizing the term Authenticity as an “empty in-word” that has wrongly been promoted by dozens of other leadership experts to its truly transformational status, he shows insufficient knowledge about the concept. Hence, what will haunt Niermeyer most in the aftermath of this book is the fact that he completely ignored the huge stream of research and theoretical studies about Authentic Leadership that has been conducted over the past years.

The core of Niermeyer’s argument is that Authenticity (and Authentic leadership) means to ‘be who you are’ in all life situations; however, to ‘be who you are’, he writes, is not possible because you play many different roles during your life time (Manager, parent, board member, life partner etc). By stating that being authentic means to openly display emotions and mood swings,  to follow spontaneous impulses, or to share inappropriate information with others, he totally misconstrues the concept of authenticity. He  furthermore conveys the idea that we cannot be authentic (leaders) and show a variety of behaviors with different audiences at the same time. Despite the fact this this is not a book written for academia but for managers and leadership practitioners, Niermeyer would have benefited from looking across the pond for more research on the topic.

(Just as a side note: the current list of articles and books for my literature review of Authentic Leadership is many pages long, just to give you an idea of the complexity of this issue. In this article I will only be able to shortly reply to the above mentioned basic criticism of the simplicity of authenticity/authentic leadership and the different roles we all need to play.)

Authenticity and Authentic Leadership

Pointing the way in terms of these studies are Prof Michael Kernis (University of Georgia) and Prof. Bruce Avolio (University of Nebraska-Lincoln). Kernis’ work on authenticity describes 4 components of authenticity and serves as the basis for the concept of authentic leadership as well:

•    Authentic people/leaders know who they are and who they need to be.
(Awareness of and trust in, one’s motives, feelings, desires and self-relevant cognitions.)

•    Authentic people/leaders don’t distort or exaggerate their own experiences or feedback from others
(Unbiased Processing of Self-Relevant Information)

•    Authentic people/leaders have the ability to express their core motives. It does NOT mean that they follow a compulsion to live their’ own self’ at all costs despite external pressure and circumstances.
( Acting according to true Self.)

•    Authentic people/leaders value and achieve open and trusting relationships with others, letting them see their real selves. This does not include inappropriate actions with relevant others (work, family etc).
(Relational Orientation.)

Authenticity, therefore, requires a deep sense of humility and complex understanding of oneself and one’s relationship to other people. It is far from the idea of showing your ‘true face’ in all situations just to make a point, and integrates the necessity to adapt to different situations, circumstances and audiences.

When we enter the arena of Authentic Leadership, it gets even more complicated, because then the values, motives and ideas that we have about ourselves, are further influenced by the responsibility we have for our associates and business goals. Then, the concept of authentic leadership has to integrate the ability to create an ethical climate and by following one’s own rules in a consistent manner.

The question whether an authentic person/leader can still live out different roles, and how this is possible from a theoretical point of view, has been approached by me in my previous blog entry titled: “Is there a thing like an authentic chameleon?” Feb 2nd 2008), even if not to my own full satisfaction. However, many months of research further I know that there are core values which an authentic person/leader has and develops over time, that make up his self and his identity. Self-Awareness is the foundation on which authenticity rests, and which enables us to get to know ourselves in relation to others, which allows us to become a little less biased, helps us to communicate more openly and eventually renders us more effective leaders.

Research describing the effects of authentic leadership and its transformational character has been conducted and more is in process. This branch of a new stream of organizational studies called "Positive Organizational Behavior" (POS) will further grow and make a long lasting mark in leadership studies. I  just wish books like Rainer Niermeyer’s would integrate more different points of view and research results on a topic so important as authentic leadership. We could then work more efficiently on ways to develop more authentic leaders instead of trying to defend this highly complex human phenomenon to a repetition of misconceptions.

For links, articles and references contact andrea@derlercoaching.com

Is your Organization Authentic enough for Change?

Many organizations crave for more creative talent amongst employees. They wish their staff would come up with workable solutions for existing problems more often. They recruit new people with the hope for winning competitive advantage through external expertise and outsider experience. They urge for more brain power in form of resourcefulness and innovation in their work force, to gain and maintain more market share.
The reality often looks different. Hopeful appeals of managers and leaders for great and practical ideas from their employees are met by silence. It seems as if people would leave their creativity, positive spirits and ambitions at home and instead wait for instructions in plain language from their bosses. Where is their interest and imagination for new thought? Does an improved work strategy always have to come from the top?
Managers and leaders, who are faced with this challenge of a lack of creativity and willpower for change in their departments and organizations, need to ask themselves only one question:
Do we genuinely want our people to take part in any change process, or are we only paying lip service to the demand for more creativity? Or phrased differently: Is our Organization Authentic enough for Change?

Dear leaders: to get more out of your work associates, don’t just organize more workshops, team building events and think tank sessions. Look at your own philosophy of thought that guides everyone from top executives to shop floor supervisor. How open are you towards new ideas on a daily basis? Are you really interested in what your people have to say? Are you aware that when it comes down to actually implementing a different way of thinking, you might be hesitant to do so, because you are not only sharing resources but also a degree of power with your employees?
Businesses that embrace the notion of openness and exploration of new ideas have an organizational culture that is flexible and adaptable. Their employees are encouraged to get involved in the design of work processes on a daily basis, and their performance development exceeds the training of certain skill and behaviors. I admit to actually manage a creative mindset on a day-to-day basis can be enriching as well as arduous for leaders. First, it challenges one’s own ways of working and requires more time and communication with staff members. Second, it gets much harder to assess a person’s performance on behaviors that exceed a restricted list of competencies and key performance indicators. And, by the way, the creative talent you are looking for might just be hidden in your most rebellious employee or that walking question mark in your team. Meaning: they could be where you least expect it.
But if you would like others to follow, you need to be the one to lead. That goes also for opening up for new ways of thinking. Authentic leaders provide several pre-conditions to encourage creativity in their employees; if you are a leader, try those out:

Provide an example by leaving your own intellectual comfort zone sometimes.
Don’t just lean on to your expertise and let others be brave by experimenting with new ideas. Think outside the box yourself. Actively search for other people’s opinions and listen with an open heart.

Be open about professional success and failure.
Transparency will help your people see that it can be worth taking a plunge. Trying new things is risky, even if you only lose time. Talk about the benefits and risks by following a new lead. This will help to assess new projects responsibly.

Conduct Performance Review without the paperwork for once.
Go beyond your rating scales and actually look at your staff member’s individuality. Instead of aligning the person to a list of desired behaviors, focus on what you really value about them. This will be an encouragement to follow your lead for progressive change beyond the performance measures used at your organization.

Experience and Practice steps 1-3 on a daily basis.
Only your consistency can break old habits. Show them that you mean it.

Real and constant improvement of daily work procedures as well as long lasting change is no straightforward process. The genuine willingness to explore new ideas, learning and growing has to be embodied in leaders first before they can expect them in all others. Hence, for those of you who are looking for more creative people, I recommend to ‘authenticize’ your organization: be authentic in what your want from others yourself. The spirit will spread all by itself.

Why Salespeople are Leaders, too

Selling is very much like Leadership.  The provider of a product or service (= salesman or woman = leader) guides another person (= customer = follower) through the process of a purchase. A good saleswoman takes an active role of leading the conversation to gain an understanding of the customer’s wishes and needs to see if she can provide a good match to her products. In the world of Positive Sales the salesman takes his role as leader of this process serious, also on a moral account. By genuinely striving towards a win-win situation at the end of the sales transaction he knows how to utilize wording and timing efficiently. He has respect for the client and his needs and doesn’t see him as a means to his own end. Great sales people are aware of their capability to get results through accepting the full responsibility for the outcome. That’s why they are the leaders for that moment - with all the strings attached.

The ethical side of Positive Sales doesn’t mean that you should give in during negotiations, to sell your services off cheaply or to make a foul compromise. Positive Sales stands for high sales performance through the right attitude paired with professional skill and ethical awareness.

One useful tool to becoming a Positive Salesman or woman is the use of an agenda, a specific plan that guides your own questions and actions throughout the sales process. To know what to do and say, when to do and say it and how to listen and talk in the most efficient way helps provide you with confidence and conveys your attitude of leadership. Leaning on to an agenda helps especially in more complex sales situations. It involves preparation for the sales meeting, anticipating outcomes and seeking inspiration for a successful business relationship.

You can start by answering questions such as:

• What do I know about my customer?


• Why do I want to work with him/her?


• What questions will I need to ask (open and closed) and when?


• How long should the conversation take?


• Do I know my products (Quality and Value)?


• What would be an ideal/acceptable/inacceptable result?


• (and many more)

The actual sales meeting – be it live or via other means – will be the demonstration of your sales leadership. First, consider your attitude towards the sales process and your client. Only wish for the best possible outcome, serving yours and your client’s needs. Second, be sure of taking the lead throughout the conversation in order to provide a service to your client not just a nice atmosphere: have a plan, an agenda, some map guiding you through effectively. Design it, change it, but follow it. Third, take accountability for the result of the process. Learn, change, lead.

If you are interested in learning more about the Positive Sales process, or if you wish to design a sales agenda with me, please contact me at andrea@derlercoaching.com.

"Who" is the boss in your business?

Wouldn’t it be great if your employees followed you because they really share your goals and not just because you are the boss? Do you sometime wish they understood more deeply what you are trying to accomplish? Maybe you sense a lack of commitment to your values, and attempts to rebuild it has been difficult if not fruitless?

One reason for this mismatch in standards could be that your people don’t share your beliefs because you are unclear about them yourself. Communicating effectively what’s important to you and your business philosophy is a science in itself; before that, however, you need to be very clear what message it is that you want to convey. None of your attempts to claim authority will be as strong as it can be without your transparency. No leadership style, whether authoritarian, democratic or laissez-faire, can be as appropriate as bringing your own personal set of values to the table. Don’t try to copy other successful leaders but become an original; you will have followers for life.

One strategy as suggested by Israeli anthropologist and business scholar Shamir and Eilam is to work with your past, to figure out why you are who you are today. Reflection on your life-story, they argue, makes you gain self-knowledge and self-concept clarity; these are important features of an authentic leader who is aware of priorities, values, goals, strengths and weaknesses. The act of reflective thinking is ‘the process of creating and clarifying the meaning of experience (past or present) in terms of self.’ (Boyd & Fales, 1983).

Esoteric nonsense, you say? Think again. Try to remember an instance in your history as leader, be it a very successful moment or an unpleasant memory of failure. Then ask yourself:

1) Why did I act like I did? (e.g. external pressure, experience, knowledge etc.)

2) What was the impact of my behavior on others?

3) Which values do I still maintain/which ones have I abolished?

4) (And many more)

Analyzing and re-evaluating your actions at the time is a rational act of understanding yourself better on a multi-dimensional way. By thinking through the events of the past, you might discover more of your strengths, or your limitations; you might not want to repeat certain actions, but don’t miss asking yourself: why? You will certainly want to revive some of your special characteristics that made you a great, and proud and strong leader of others. Self-knowledge is one thing, and the formation of your personal value-system is quite another. Figure out (an this is not easy, believe me) where you want to go from here. Which priorities do you have for yourself and your business? What are the thoughts and actions that you want embedded in your employee’s behaviors, because they represent you? What is your vision for the next few weeks and months ahead, and what do you not want to see as consequence of your leader behaviors?

If you don’t have an answer to these questions, how should your people have? They might ask themselves:”Who is my boss?”

And yes, it’s getting personal, like the nature of leadership is. You have only two options: letting your followers float around working on their own agendas yet on your payroll, or involve them in your idea of the business. The main message is to find your own clarity, so that others know the person they should follow. And they will, that’s for sure.

For links, articles and references contact andrea@derlercoaching.com

P.S. An easier way than doing it yourself is to work with a leadership coach, who simply asks the right questions so that you have more time to find your answers. For inquiries about the different coaching options, contact me at andrea@derlercoaching.com