Cultures and Authenticity. Who am I, really?

Back in the old days, when I used to be the Austrian Andrea, life was simple. I was born into an Austrian family; I grew up the Austrian way. I was 100% Austrian. I lived and breathed Austrian values, mindsets and attitudes. My religious, political and cultural views were strongly influenced by who I came to be in the setting that I grew up in. Had you asked me then, I would have said that I was a true, a real Austrian. An authentic Austrian, maybe.

Then I lived in Germany for a bit and married a German man. Despite the cultural differences between the Austrians and the Germans, we share a similar mindset about the most important questions in life. However, my ‘Austrianness’ softened up and I became a little bit German, too. Then, we lived in the UK for several years and I acquired a chunk of the British culture. So, my already confused ‘Austrianness’ got mixed up with a totally different way of living. Again, I became a little less Austrian. To top it all off, now we have been living in the USA for a number of years, and apart from being even less Austrian, I have two American children. They have three passports; they understand two languages and speak English better than I ever will. How Austrian, or German, or American will they be? And, what bothers me more: how Austrian am I still?

Does culture impact the Self?

Whenever I talk about Authentic Leadership I use the terms ‘true self’, ‘core self’, or ‘identity’. These are crucial terms in the discussion because they summarize the sets of values that make a person. There is lots of literature on identity theory, and it’s fascinating to think about one’s own identity and how it came into existence. Contrary to my previous beliefs (I am one and the same no matter where I live and what I do) I’m starting to see how much of an influence my environment has on me. Back in the USA from a one-month vacation in Europe I realized that, as much as I love Austria, I’m no Austrian anymore. I still embrace many of the Austrian values: the importance of enjoying the little pleasures of everyday life, the genuine friendliness and the relaxed search for perfection. But there are others that I don’t share anymore (the aversion to uncertainty, the sluggish adaptation to modern life, a lack of speed). This means that I have become sensitive to those Austrian values that are less desirable to me, simply because I have been adapting to other cultures over a period of time. I am still me, but what I think and do has been strongly changed by the different environments I live in.

Even in terms of simple every-day behaviors, I can see that I have become a hybrid. For example, I believe that “Cash is King” (Austrian) yet I pay exclusively by credit card (American). I like an elegantly served glass of beer (Austrian) yet I liked the pints of lager in English pubs even more (British). I think it's right to have speed control on motor ways (Austrian) but I usually go crazy on the German autobahn with 180 km/h (German). I much prefer an inner-city shopping trip to strip malls (Austrian) yet I enjoy thankfully the free parking at the Mall (American). I make a point of walking to do errands as much as possible (Austrian/German) yet I adore drive-through banks and coffee houses (American). The list of examples is endless.

Ten years of adaptation to different countries, people and every day habits and behaviors have shown their impact. I might be the same Andrea in some ways that I was before, but in many ways my values have changed and with them my attitudes and behaviors. I learned that right can be wrong, and the other way round.

Can I maintain a sense of Authenticity?

It’s important to understand one’s own Authenticity, because then we can learn about Authentic Leadership. What I know so far is that the development of one’s own authenticity is a process, one whose ending we will not even live to see. Does that mean that there is no authentic Self because for it, there has to be a set of certain values somewhere within us? -  In other words and applied to my own example: did the changing environments do my authenticity more harm than good because it destroyed my fixed value system?

I believe the opposite it true. I think that the “Andrea the hybrid” understands her own Self much better than Andrea the Austrian.  Why? Because it is being tested through regular contact with contrasting cultural values and this process acts like a sieve: only the really important values remain on the surface.

Bottom line is: a heightened sensitivity to the impact of our environments on our own Self helps enormously to figure out Who we are and Who we want – or don’t want – to be. My future research will therefore be directed at the impact of cultures (geographical as well as organizational) on Authentic Leadership. Let's see what I find....

If you have a story to share with us, please feel free to write a comment.

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!

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.

Is it Me, Myself or My Self that's in charge?

When you think back in your career, and think of the people in leadership positions you worked with: have you ever encountered those that seem to be saying one thing but doing another? Or, do you remember the manager who urged commitment and integrity in her employees but resigned at the first chance when things got tough? Or maybe you know the leader who played the power card with his team, but ducked like a beaten dog whenever his own boss was nearby? I have met them all at some point. And sometimes I wondered if it was me, having totally misjudged these people, or if it was them, displaying their multifaceted personalities.

As it turns out, there are thinkers out there who assume that humans can have multiple Selves.

What I need to know now is this: what does this idea mean for the concept of Authentic Leadership, a theory that is based on one, and only one ‘Self’?

You, Yourself and Your Self…

Paul Bloom introduces us to two different viewpoints when it comes to thinking about a person’s “Self”. The traditional view states that humans have a “Self”, a “you” that can make long-term plans, but one that has to fight off impulses, compulsions or addictions of any kind. In contrast to that, he writes, modern research suggests that each of us is a “community of competing selves... which are continually popping in and out of existence. They have different desires, and they fight for control – bargaining with, deceiving, and plotting against each other.” The examples he provides, are taken from our every-day lives: the one Self that wants to lose weight, fights the other Self that wants to eat too much cake. And so on.

Accepting this notion and thinking back at our previous bosses, it becomes crystal clear now why they behave with inconsistency. They (whichever of their Selves that might be) suffer from the Multiple-Self-Syndrome and are torn apart by the complexity of decisions, expectations and principles that rule any leader’s life. Yes, their planning long-term Self might want to be a role-model leader with the best interest of their team in mind, but the selfish short-term Self tells him otherwise. No reason, then, to feel accountable, is there?

No, this is not what Paul Bloom says. He knows that people need to be and remain ‘whole’ and rely on the fact that they are one and the same person today which they were yesterday. He does admit that it can feel ‘wrong’ to assume this theory, because “society and human relationships would be impossible without this form of continuity”, and we would “feel no long-term guilt, love, shame, or pride.”

And yet, he “gives up the idea that there is just one self per head.” - I am confused…

The quest for Authenticity in Leadership continues…

When studying the concept of Authentic Leadership, one is confronted with the assumption of an “authentic Self”. This Self – my Self and your Self, your Managers Self, your Leader’s Self - provides the basis for the choice of principles and values on which every day actions and decisions are based on. Keeping in mind that humans are social beings and leadership is a purely relational phenomenon, however, the view on authentic leadership should be that the (authentic) Self shapes, and is shaped, through exchanges with others.

But there is still only one Self… one Self that makes the decisions, one Self that does or doesn’t follow the rules, one Self that reminds me not to be biased too much, one Self that makes you want to be a Role Model for your associates, one Self that makes your manager want to support you in your role, and one Self that helps your leaders to make the morally sound decision. One Self that takes full responsibility and leads the way for others to follow. Or is there?

In my view, the complexity of human nature with all its colors and shades can be incorporated in the notion that there is only one Self. Our various addictions, competing values, inconsistencies and contrasting traits can become familiar to us by ways of becoming more self-aware. It frightens me to assume that we are all just a sum of many competing Selves, because nobody can really decide which Self makes the decisions. Can we ever find our Authentic Self amongst all these Selves?

And if our leaders don’t even know what their own Self is made up of, haven’t we lost all hope to find our own?

I look forward to your comments and suggestions regarding this topic.

References:
Bloom, P., 2008. First Person Plural. The Atlantic Online. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/multiple-personalities/.

Avolio, Bruce J. & Gardner, William L., 2005. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.

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.

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