Monday, December 28, 2015

Leadership – Taking the Higher Ground

Introduction:
We want to finish the year on a hopeful note.  It is easy to focus on the what’s wrong, why it’s wrong and what can be done about it.  There remains a tremendous amount of improvement, but by taking the higher ground we hope to explore those leadership qualities that exemplify what can be so good and effective about leadership and being a leader.

Over the years we have tried in our Update articles to examine many different aspects of leadership and management.  At times we focus on issues that directly apply to senior leaders, but always with aspects that apply to lower level leaders also.  In this issue we want to focus on some basic tenets of leadership that are applicable to all levels of leaders – first line supervisors through senior managers and executives.  We believe there are two fundamental tenets that are essential to becoming an effective and high performing leader: Self Awareness and Personal Integrity.  Probably you are thinking, of course these apply to everyone and are “a given”.  However, the business landscape is littered with cases where leaders – and too often the well-publicized examples are CEOs – have destroyed organizations and people by completely forgetting these fundamental tenets.

As a leader – be it first line supervisor, middle manager or executive – you have responsibilities to advance the organization and provide sound direction to your subordinates.  You directly or indirectly also have responsibilities to the shareholders and suppliers.  The goals of the organization, the expectations of the shareholders and the needs and demands of the suppliers can create conflict with your responsibilities to nurture and develop your staff and your own self.  Let’s take a look at that self and all those potential conflicting pressures.

As a reference we are going to use some work done by professors Panos Mourdoukoutas, Ph.D. and Michael Soupios, Ph.D. of Long Island University who published The Ten Golden Rules of Leadership.  In their book they looked at principles from ancient philosophers.  We do not want to discuss ancient philosophers, but do feel that a few of the rules provide the basis of what we think is so important to developing strong and effective leaders at all levels of the organization.  Those rules are “Know Thyself,” “Live Life by a Higher Code” and “Never Underestimate the Power of Personal Integrity.”  Now let’s look at those questions we posed previously and see how these rules can help develop answers to those questions.

Know Thyself:
Who are you?  What is your personal philosophy?  What standards do you hold your employees to and what standards do you hold yourself to?  Should you expect the same from yourself as you do from your employees or should you expect more?  As one might expect, we are going to suggest that as a leader, one should expect more from themselves to be a true leader.  But, we’ve got some thoughts before we get to any conclusion.

We are not going to delve into a deep psychological dissertation or anything close to that.  But, we do think it is important that you take a little time and think about this question.  This can be a difficult task and it not something that many are willing to spend time doing.  One of the first things we do when we embark on a leadership program (not a leadership training event), is to administer an assessment.  We have used both the DISC and Myers Briggs instruments.  These instruments provide a framework to gain an objective perspective of one’s personality.  They also provide insights into the range of profiles others may possess.  So the benefits are many.  First, gaining insight into oneself is essential.  What are one’s profile strengths as well as traits they struggle with?  This information creates awareness and hopefully it guides an individual to leverage their strengths and be cautious of those traits that they struggle with while attempting to improve on them.  It also provides knowledge on how to deal with others who may have the same or different traits.  With this as a baseline additional self-examination can occur. 

The Myers Briggs assessments state:
Knowledge of type (your personality type) can enrich your life in several ways. It can help you
·         Better understand yourself. Knowing your own type helps you understand the assets and liabilities of your typical reactions.
·         Understand others. Knowing about type helps you recognize that other people may be different. It can enable you to see those differences as useful and broadening, rather than annoying and restricting.  You can use this knowledge as a tool in effectively communicating.
·         Gain perspective. Seeing yourself and others in the context of type can help you appreciate the legitimacy of other points of view.

You can then avoid getting stuck in believing your way is the only way. No perspective is always right or always wrong. Reading about type and observing yourself and others from the standpoint of type will enrich your understanding of personality differences and encourage constructive uses of those differences.

To give you another perspective of the MBTI we are providing you with the MBTI Grid illustrating the 16 types and linking them to perhaps the most significant movie franchise.  You may be able to relate to one of these individuals/types.


More so, with self-assessment information, the journey can begin.  This is where values come in.  In addition to one’s personality profile, values are another important component in the puzzle of ‘Who are you?’ Once again, introspection is essential here.  Examining one’s value system is challenging, but keenly important when it comes to leadership. As part of identifying values, identifying their origins is important.  How did I get to the point where these are my values?  Where did they come from?  Research has shown that one’s value system is created around 10 years old.  The point here is this form of introspection is difficult to do, but we consider it essential.  You want to grow and be an effective leader, but first you need to understand where some of what you expect of others comes from – your values system.

With all this said, what do you believe in terms of a moral compass and how you should act?  What are your worries and what are your goals?  We certainly can’t answer these questions for you, but encourage you to spend some time thinking and writing down these self inquiries.  In the context of proactive initiatives, journaling is an effective way to follow along on your journey. 

We suggest, on a daily basis, recording how you react to the events of the day, how you feel about the outcomes, what you might have been able to learn and do better next time, and what you felt you did a good at dealing with.  This can be accomplished in any manner that is easiest for you. With technology as it is now, there are several options available, and we can make recommendations if you would like.  Journaling is an effective tool, takes a bit of time and provides a wealth of learning and perspective as you explore and implement your strengths and challenges.  Periodically go back through your journal and see if what you noted was in fact you or was it what you would like to be or think you should be.  Also, revisit your assessment information/report if available and compare with your notes.  These techniques provide benchmarks for you as well as aid in your self-assessment/introspection and will pay huge dividends.

Here’s another thought in the context of self-examination.  “What do people say about you when you are not in the room?”  We realize this may not be the most ‘modern’ concept.  Much of today’s society minimizes the notion of worrying about what other people think, but let’s put it in a leadership context.  As a leader, you are essentially on stage.  You are being evaluated all the time. Those you lead see you, place judgement and see both your strengths and struggles.  Their view may not seem fair or accurate but it is how they see you.  Remember perception is reality to those perceiving. We believe one behavioral trait that is keenly important is consistency.  Inconsistent leadership is essential like no leadership.  But consistency is tough to accomplish.  Just look at any politician and it’s readily evident that consistency is difficult.  Again, if as a leader you are aware of the importance of consistency, and you keep a quality journal, you will be able to assess your behavior and adapt as appropriate.

Your Standards: “Live Life by a Higher Code”
As a leader you undoubtedly have expectations for your employees.  Some may be as basic as getting to work on time each day or following the company rules or completing the work assigned to them.  These are good but they certainly are not really standards that will help the employees develop and grow and help your organization grow stronger.  Have you thought about more in-depth standards that will benefit the employees, the organization and in the long run yourself? 

Let’s go back to values.  As part of a value system, there is a ‘band-width’ around each value.  What we are suggesting that living one’s set of values or a specific value can have a range of standards by which several individuals measure their adherence to the value. As examples, some values include; cooperation, trust, dependability as well as many others.  In the context of our discussion of standards, different people most probably have different ideas of what the standard of cooperation means; a band-width of understanding.  What one person does and believes they are cooperating may not be the same for another and most likely is not. We will leave it to our readers to think about how this concept fits the other listed values or their own values.  In the context of leadership and living life by a higher code, the leader must be the example that he/she expects from their people.  If there is a high and low end of the bandwidth, the leader has to aspire and behave on the higher end.  In here lies the issue, what is the higher end look like?  We provide an example.

Let’s look at it from an organizational perspective.  There are certainly company rules and maybe regulatory rules that an organization must follow.  However, those are just that – rules.  The rules impact the operation but they alone should not define the character of the organization.  Much the same, there is the letter of the law, but there is also the intention of the law.  As a leader one has great influence. 

How you interact with your organization; how you treat your employees; how you behave in front of them and away from them all influence the support and dedication you will get from them.  Yes, they have a job to do and are expected to do that job but the atmosphere in which the job is performed and the smooth functioning of them as a team is influenced by how you behave.  If you demand timeliness from your employees but you yourself come and go at will sends a message that you don’t really care about timeliness.  If you are a stickler for grammar and spelling in documents produced, but you put out sloppy or grammatically incorrect memos to the team, it shows a different standard for yourself.  We contend that as a leader in the organization you should have a different standard for yourself.  That standard should be higher than what you hold your employees to.  This actually goes back to a topic we wrote about several years ago, Servant Leadership.  Leadership is not a privilege nor an entitled position to be taken advantage of, or that has disproportionate benefits.  Leadership is servitude to the people you are responsible for as well as the mission of the organization.  That means the standards by which you behave and are the role model must be the high water mark and goal for those who you lead.
Personal Integrity:
Integrity defined:
The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. "he is known to be a man of integrity."

There are several examples of leaders who demonstrate high levels of integrity.  Some of them include Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa.  To illustrate both the quality of integrity, and how complex real life situations can be, we provide a few brief descriptions/case studies.

Colin Powell (excerpted from a paper authored by Hale C. VanKoughnett U.S. Department of State, titled Integrity: The Foundation of Leadership
On his first day as Secretary of State, a crowd in the Department of State main lobby gave him an unprecedented welcome. This greeting was because of his status as a war hero and respected leader. During his tenure at State, he was sidelined from White House decision making concerning the Iraq War. Some believe that Powell surrendered his integrity when he did not make a stronger case against invasion—or resign—rather than support a position with which he did not agree. One can also posit that he was either loyally supporting his Commander in Chief or attempting to remain on the inside to influence policy. But no matter how one feels about his actions regarding Iraq, it would be very difficult to argue that Powell proceeded with an eye toward personal gain. I, therefore, do not believe that this incident calls into question his integrity. Powell’s emphasis on leadership, training, increased staffing, and accountability made him a respected figure at State long after he last passed through the lobby of the Harry S. Truman Building.

Regarding Abraham Lincoln (excerpted from Lincoln’s Honesty by Gordon Leidner of Great American History, reprinted from Washington Times Civil War Page on February 20, 1999. Copyright 1999 by New World Communications, Inc.
By the time Lincoln was president, statements he had made previously, such as "I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor tried to deceive anyone in reference to them," and "I am glad of all the support I can get anywhere, if I can get it without practicing any deception to obtain it" had become a source of strength for him as a leader.
Everyone, even his bitterest political opponents, knew exactly where they stood with Lincoln. Because he didn't have to waste time convincing his opponents of his sincerity, he was able to devote his energies to solving political issues and winning the war.
Lincoln as commander in chief was honest and straightforward with his generals, always telling them directly what he did and did not appreciate about them. An example of his candor is the following excerpt from a letter to Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker in early 1863:
"I have placed you at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course I have done this upon what appear to me to be sufficient reasons, and yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe you to be a brave and a skillful soldier, which of course I like . . . I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship."
Finally, in search for the reason Lincoln was so adamant about honesty, a quote by one of his closest friends, Leonard Swett, is revealing:
"He believed in the great laws of truth, the right discharge of duty, his accountability to God, the ultimate triumph of the right, and the overthrow of wrong."

The concept of Personal Integrity dovetails well with our earlier articles of this year regarding Authenticity.  When we overlay leadership on these concepts we can see how they all fit together resulting in effective leadership. 

Our first article of 2015 introduced the relationship between Values, Power and Consistency in the context of leadership authenticity.  Our second article provided real life examples of authenticity or lack of it.  Realizing that we had more questions than answers we highlighted the questions as follows:
·         Can authenticity be taught or even learned?
·         How might one actually teach authenticity?
·         Does it take practice to achieve authenticity in leadership?
·         How would one know if they are making progress or can one even achieve an end point?
·         Is there an end point?
·         What are the measures along this journey?

With this article, we reinforce the self-awareness and introspection component that we addressed in the last two articles on authenticity, but now we are tying in the concept of living one’s beliefs and values with integrity.  But how does that translate into something we can tangibly suggest that should be done differently?  As expected there is a wealth of writing on this subject by scholars and practitioners.  As an example one practitioner suggests.

“The root of all integrity judgments is a sense of consistency or congruence between seemingly disparate elements. To have integrity means that things fit together in a coherent form.”

“More expansive definitions of integrity suggest that not only is integrity defined by internal consistencies (such as word/deed consistency), it is also defined by the external consistency of those actions with either individual moral frameworks or community moral frameworks.”

Again, like everything we write about there is no silver bullet answer or magic answer that applies to all. The process is holistic and an ongoing journey.  But, we truly believe that even though there is no straight line path to excellent leadership there are things that a person can do to straighten the path while achieving positive results along the way. You have heard us say that we don’t believe in “to do” lists, so we are going to provide some techniques that have proven effective throughout our careers.  The difference between these techniques and “to do” lists is every person must contextualize the technique for themselves, but we hope that the sequence provides the framework along with a commitment to self- assessment along the journey.

Suggested Techniques to consider
This is typically not a straight forward endeavor, but is worth doing.
  1.  Participate in a formal personal assessment.  In some cases, use different instruments and compare the findings.  Consider a 360-degree assessment in which you get feedback from your boss, your peers and your subordinates.  Gives you different perspectives.  (360-degree assessments are provided by the Center for Creative Leadership, and we have the certification to administer them as one of the tools in our leadership workshops)
  2. Identify your values that includes:
          Common understanding of what is and what is not a value
  • What should our organization, company, team stand for?
  • What should be the values by which we operate?
  • What do we want our customers to say about our organization when we are not in the room?
  • How do we want our employees to answer the question, "What's it like to work here?"
  •  What are our organization's priorities in terms of which behaviors are rewarded and which are punished?
  • As leaders, what can we do that will demonstrate the future state?
  • Do any of the organizational expectations conflict with my internal views?  How do I or should I reconcile this conflict?

    Define each value specifically for you – what does it mean to you?
    How am I going to live each value on a day-to-day basis?
    What is the expected outcome or measure?
An example for the value of Respect is provided below:
Respect is fundamental to my value system.  I am very specific about what Respect means to me.  It includes:
•     Showing appreciation for others
 •     Being open to other’s ideas and their validity
 •     Treating others as I expect to be treated
 •     Showing consideration for individual differences
 •     Treating our people with fairness without favoritism
 •     Providing for individual growth by recognizing needs
 •     Providing recognition for accomplishments

In my day-to-day endeavors, respect sets a standard for how I interact with each other.  It establishes a positive, productive, and open work environment.  In our future, the value of Respect enhances relationships with my coworkers, clients and vendors.

    3. Make a commitment to keeping a daily journal, as difficult as it may initially seem, stick with it. Document the good and the not so good along with what was going on that may   have impacted your behavior.

    4.  Periodically review your assessment result reports and make adjustments

    5. Routinely review your journal – look for patterns

    6.  Be very conscious of your interactions with others – especially your subordinates – and try to        sense how you are being perceived/accepted.  Is there a positive or negative vibe in the    interactions?  This may be impacted by the type of discussion you are having, but still you need to be conscious of the interaction.  Talk with and not to people.


Summary:
Our focus in this article is on introspection and trying to understand your personal values, your moral compass and the importance and impact of personal integrity.  It builds on our previous two articles which focused on Authentic Leadership.  We are trying to take this to a more personal level so that you, our readers, can focus on your own self and how you live your life and interact with people at all levels.  The techniques we suggest will aid you in your business and your personal life.  You could well find that once you understand yourself you are not in harmony with what is expected by your organization.  That of course will lead you to making hard decisions; but we suggest that being at peace with your moral compass and your personal integrity is much more important in your life.  As always, we ask for your feedback and suggestions.  We try to write these articles to cause you to think and to, we hope, eventually lead to stronger leadership skills regardless of the industry or business.

Looking forward to 2016

While we  continue our quest for answers to some of the most perplexing leadership issues, we are also probing ways to support and enhance the quality of leadership.  One of the biggest leadership challenges to Executives and CEOs is getting honest, truthful, candid, objective, qualified inputs and feedback, in a safe, non-threatening environment, to help in sorting out issues, ideas and problems and strategies.  

We also recognize that living at the top of an organization is a lonely place to be.  Decisions impact employees, clients, customers, families, stockholders, and stakeholders.   Leadership is a difficult role, constantly requiring assessment/feedback, adjustment in style, methods and measures.  In addition, objective input prevents narcissism, builds and retains effectiveness and authenticity as a leader, and ensures ongoing support of those being lead.

With this said, in 2016, we will be  introducing “The Inner Circle.”  The Inner Circle is a resource to senior executives, on their terms. The Inner Circle can be a sounding board, a place where CEOs can solicit our thoughts, assessments, and insights on issues, as well as individualized coaching, mentoring and/or assistance. We will say more about this in the coming year.  Best wishes for 2016!



Tuesday, October 06, 2015

Authenticity—Where do we go from here?


Prologue  - Why we are so obsessed with Leadership?


Development Dimensions International (DDI) conducts and publishes its Global Leadership Forecast bi-annually.  The below graphic and paragraph have been excerpted from their 2014-2015 Global Leadership Forecast report. This graphic illustrates the overall state of leadership.  This trend is disturbing to us and we have authored several UPDATE articles on the topic.  See our those articles at www.themacrisgroup.com.  
DDI continues as follows:
“Development Efforts Have Stalled
When compared to our last two forecasts, the number of leaders who expressed confidence in the overall quality of leadership in their organization increased just slightly: 40 percent of leaders rated current quality as high (see illustration above). According to HR professionals, however, the needle hasn't moved at all. Only one in four organizations evaluated their overall leader quality as high, the same percentage as our 2011 forecast.*

Why is leader quality going nowhere fast? Apparently, because leadership development efforts have stalled, despite the fact that it is estimated that some $50 billion a year is being spent on developing leaders worldwide.** As in the last two forecasts, only 37 percent of leaders in the current study rated their organization’s leadership development program as effective, indicating no improvement over the past seven years. The overwhelming majority of leaders are still saying they are not satisfied with their organization’s development offerings. It’s no wonder that, with leaders reporting a lack of improvement in their development, we aren’t seeing a vast difference in overall leader quality.
If organizations aren’t doing enough to push the needle, then the outlook for the future is even gloomier. Only 15 percent of organizations rated their future bench strength as strong, a slight decrease from our last forecast. Most organizations are not confident that they have the leadership to address current and future needs. So, what can they do to improve? The message from leaders is loud and clear: Organizations need to refocus on improving their development efforts.”
*  Boatman, J., & Wellins, R.S. (2011), Global Leadership Forecast 2011: Time for a Leadership Revolution, Pittsburgh, PA, Development Dimensions International.
** Kellerman, B. (2012), The End of Leadership, New York, HarperCollins.

How does the DDI Global Leadership Forecast tie in with this the second article on Authentic Leaders?  For those who have followed our writings over the past number of years, we have tried to focus on different aspects of leadership in an attempt to get our readers thinking about scope and breath of effective leadership, along with the vast number of factors involved in actually changing or moving the needle more than what is indicated above.  We hope this and our other articles will give you cause to think about leadership in your organization and within your span of influence.


Introduction
We thank those of you who took the time to respond to our last article on Authenticity and leadership – What does it really mean?  We received both written and verbal comments that present even more questions.  Our intention with UPDATE Newsletter articles is to stimulate thought and dialogue.  An example of a few of our comments are:
General Comments
Once again you have peeled back the onion skin to learn about what makes good leaders, both in context and authenticity....not any easy learning assignment to say the least but you have used good examples to stimulate the discussion…


It all seemed so clear to me when I first thought about the topic:  OF COURSE a leader should be AUTHENTIC on all levels….otherwise she/he is just a puppet, an actor, a FAKER!   But then I kept getting deeper into more levels as you raised such good questions and my brain and emotions got activated!   

This article was excellent, I’d love to actually discuss it sometime in the future.

About Leaders you’ve worked for:
He taught me many things about his corporate stewardship and core values, but above all, he mentored me to be honest and frank in disclosing my deliberations on important corporate matters.  To never be tempted to exaggerate the truth in order to make a case, nor fail to shy away from telling the truth (as I saw it), in fear of "what others" (meaning hierarchical executives) might think or conclude, or the possible retaliatory actions/intimidations they might impose upon me.  I was always to behave "in truth to myself" and my own conscience.  This is what the "old wise man of the sea" taught me.  He was authentic and a very real leader to me....no other has ever come close.

I’ve been guided in my career both by leaders who possessed a moral compass and some who I would consider ruthless. I can attest that I learned from both brands of leaders. I have worked on being aware of how my position affects the many people who follow me simply as a result of where they are positioned in the hierarchy. I’ve determined that it is more rewarding as a leader to see the success in others than to succeed yourself. Maybe the reason is that when you are successful, the confident you have and the joy you live makes you want to share that feeling or place in society.

Reflections: Leadership Authenticity lessons learned
U.S. Navy – One Commanding Officer was insecure.  His experience had not been with fast attack submarines and he was assigned to a very sensitive and critical mission.  His leadership style was inconsistent on areas of operations.  His leadership made the life of his wardroom officers; non-nuclear department heads and division officers somewhat miserable.  The nuclear department officers were exempt – he knew the nuclear side of submarining very well.  As much as he was a good person, I would not place him in the category of an effective leader.  In contrast, another Commanding Officer was completely transparent.  He was a particularly intelligent person and a very honest Commanding Officer.  He plainly stated to his wardroom officers that there were wartime and peacetime Commanding Officers.  While I was young and his comment seemed so obvious at that time, I gave it little thought.  Several years later I realized the essence of what he was actually saying.  While many in the wardroom respected the CO for his intelligence, I am not sure many believed he was a wartime CO.  His realization of the difference was commensurate with his intelligence and has had a significant impact on my thinking on leadership.

In my first job following the Navy, I had the good fortune of working for a person who was quite enlightened in leadership and management concepts, particularly since this was close to 40 years ago. Things that ­­­employees value today like flex time, initiative leading to higher remuneration and leadership opportunities, and innovative profit sharing plans, were part of the way he ran his company.  I learned a tremendous amount about the consulting business there.  But, along with all these positive aspects, there was an Achilles heel.  I might characterize the vulnerability as inconsistent behavior, and a tendency to be highly volatile and reactive.  Which was authentic behavior the enlightened person who was ahead of his time or the volatile tyrant in disguise?   

Regarding Authenticity
One of our readers brought up an interesting point; the FAKER comment.  That comment is based in the Myers Briggs Personality Profile.   The point is straight forward – some people’s MBTI profile may be inconsistent with the requirements of their leadership demands. These demands may require a person to move away from their comfort zone and actually do things that are very difficult for them to do (fake the way they really are) not being true to themselves which challenges their authenticity.  “Faking” might not be truly what the word denotes.  Even a good authentic leader will find themselves in situations where they are not comfortable.  To achieve organizational and personal goals, the leader may have to do things differently from what they would naturally do.  It could be faking to survive or it might be assuming a different response to move the organization along, but still driving to achieve the same goals.  If it is Jekyll and Hyde behavior, as in the example from above, then authenticity is probably lost.  If it is moving out of a comfort zone to keep the organization heading toward stated goals then it may well be an uncomfortable flexibility that is not really a departure from true authenticity.

How does one recognize a real ‘Faker’ though?  A real faker is certainly not authentic.  One way is simple, a faker tries to take the attention away from their shortcomings by diverting attention to things they think, the people they are leading, will respond to.  What do we mean here?  Fakers assume the people they are leading may want to see certain things from them.  Like a nice office, coffee machines, artwork on the walls etc. in lieu of their involvement, engagement and leadership.  The superficial things have a short half-life.  Another way to recognize a real Faker which I learned a long time ago, was; that a faker is one who speaks to an engineer as psychologist and an art collector as a scientist.  Once again, camouflaging their shortcomings or lack of authenticity.

Defining authenticity is not easy, particularly as we are using it in this and the preceding article. Who’s to say what or who is authentic?  As an example, take a restaurant.  If it is Italian or Mexican, we tend to judge it as being authentic or not.  But, who’s to judge?   In this simple example, it is the experience of the diner who has either experienced what they believe to be authentic ethnic food, or one who has the same ethnic background with first-hand experience preparing their ethnic foods.  The point here is that authenticity is judged not by the restaurant owner, but by the patrons.  This flies in the face of the ‘true to oneself theory.’


To complicate the issue even more, looking at the theory of truth to oneself, this leaves a wide range for interpretation.  Having worked for authentic leaders (based on observation and interaction) and for leaders who are leaders only because of the position they hold and not because of any ability to lead; we find that it is still very difficult to define, but let’s take a shot.

There are leaders who command attention by their personalities and their decisive decision making ability.  We have found these to be people who seek input from all levels, who listen to others, but then have the ability to distil that into sound decisions.  These are people who you want to follow, who you want to learn from and who you may not initially agree with but respect the decisions and will carry them out as if they are your own.  These are generally leaders who are very clear about their feelings and convictions.  But they are also, viewed by their people as trustworthy, consistent, having the best interests of all concerned in mind.  These are authentic leaders.

Then there are other leaders who may not be as dynamic and may not have that charisma. However, they can be as effective.  These leaders have the support of their organizations and achieve goals.  Sometimes they are outside their comfort zones but they still build effective teams.  Do they have to “fake” some things on occasion – probably but that does not make them inauthentic.  We are not all gifted with the charisma that some dynamic leaders have.  Sometimes we must move out of our comfort zones to keep an organization moving forward.  The key is maintaining personal integrity and the value system we discussed in our first article.  A leader can force him/herself out of a comfort zone to act in different ways, but as long as they can maintain their personal integrity and values they stay authentic leaders.

There is then a third group who are in leadership positions, but who have no real leadership skills.  They tend toward being dictators who instill no confidence or trust in their employees.  When things go wrong, and they do frequently, scapegoats are generally found and the blame quickly assigned to others for the failures.  This type of organization can quickly become dysfunctional and trust erodes in the leader and among the others in the organization.  We have witnessed instances where executive management or a board of directors fails to recognize the true problems and allows the dysfunction to build and allows the mantra “off with their heads” to reign until they realize, generally too late, that the only head that needs to be gone is the leader.  It then takes a long time for a new leader to rebuild trust and function in such an organization.

Mounting questions
We suspected that as we drilled into the issue of authenticity and leadership we would find there to be more questions than answers.  We see this as our charge here, in hopes we may be able to eventually arrive at some algorithm or paradigm that might point us in a direction to make a change.  At this point the questions mount.

· Can authenticity be taught or even learned?
· How might one actually teach authenticity?
· Does it take practice to achieve authenticity in leadership?
· How would one know if they are making progress or can one even achieve an end point?
· Is there an end point?
· What are the measures along this journey?

As we have said before, the dilemma for a leader is that she cannot be all things to all people, which begs the question: can a leader be authentic at all?  Maybe that’s why the current thinking defaults to being ‘true to oneself’.  A default alternative is the concept of ‘values’, despite the fact that people are motivated or guided by a multitude of different values, yet objectively can see inconsistencies, double standards and conflict within a set of values.  Referent Power, as we discussed in our last article, where leaders consistently apply a set of values and goals, results in respect from subordinates, whether the subordinates like or dislike the leader as a person.  The issue is not whether employees or followers share the same values, but rather the leader’s commitment to consistent application of their (and/or the organization’s) values.   Now, let’s look at a current news story about Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky who would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples. We use this example to illustrate a point.  Was she being true to herself?  Is she authentic?  Was her behavior that of an authentic person who stood by her beliefs?  It would seem so.  But, if she really was true to herself, and felt she could not perform the job she was hired for, should she have resigned?  Here again we may deal with a person (in this case not a leader – to illustrate the point) or leader who must “fake it” where he or she are not comfortable personally with what is required but they are doing what is necessary to fulfill their job requirement or to move the organization toward common goals.

Think about the things that challenge leaders and their leadership.  Politicians are a unique and interesting group.  Despite efforts to establish ethics guidelines and codes of conduct, it’s the inconsistencies between their talk and their actions. This inconsistency is highly visible and recognizable and when they try to sweep it under the rug, it usually comes back to bite them, followed by the apologies. How many times have you wondered why high profile people say and do what they say and do?  With all their advisors and speech writers and staffers, one would think there should be someone who is overseeing whether their ‘guy or gal’ is speaking consistently or from different sides of their mouth.  So can authenticity be taught and learned? Are politicians a different breed of people?  Should they be?  We would like your take on this. 

Along with that, how might one actually teach authenticity – is a set of principles or guidelines, a review of ones values?  Again, your thoughts?  One of the premises we cover in our leadership classes is achieving mastery in a field/profession it takes approximately 10,000 hours of practice (from Malcolm Gadwell’s book Outliers).  Particularly in the context of our discussion of faking it until you make it.  Now, how might one practice their authenticity?  We have a few thoughts, such as self-checking and self-assessment.  Mentoring along with objective feedback is another, but for any of these approaches to be truly effective the person who is being mentored must recognize the need and want to make changes.  Does that become an authenticity issue – might the new person in fact not be true to themselves by virtue of going through the process?  Finally, the last two questions above are equally difficult to deal with.  At this point we certainly don’t have our thoughts solidified, but we see this important enough to continue the dialogue.  

Conclusion
In conclusion, we feel as though we are in a bit of a never ending spiral on this issue, which further reinforces our feeling that the existing authenticity thinking is narrow, because any expansion beyond the current thinking presents far too many variables and dynamics to simply deal with in any kind of traditional fashion.  But, the key point here is we believe that authenticity in leadership is real and can yield significant improvements in the functioning and effectiveness of a leader which parlays into a better work environment, which in turn can be measured with an improved business result.  Stand by and we once again ask and welcome your comments and thoughts on authenticity in leadership.






Saturday, May 30, 2015

Authenticity and Leadership—What does this really mean?

Prologue
We are jumping into another very interesting topic, Authenticity and Leadership.  Similar to other self-help and leadership development programs, there are lists galore of characteristics of authentic leaders.  As  examples, some of these characteristics include: self-awareness and being genuine, mission driven and focused on results, leading with their heart, demonstrating initiative, exerting influence, exercising integrity, speaking their truth, being courageous, committing to excellence rather than perfection, etc. etc.    Our guess is that if you ask any leader if they possess these qualities and/or characteristics they will say yes.  But, if you ask those they lead if their leaders possess these qualities, would the answers be yes?  We are not so sure, in there lies the issue regarding authenticity and leadership.  We are focusing on this topic for many of the same reasons we developed the concept of Contextual Leadership.  There is no elixir of leadership, there is no “answer key” to being an effective leader.  Authenticity is keenly important to effective leadership, but once again we are seeing perhaps a singular focus inward, rather than a more holistic perspective where authenticity is both internal to the leader and evidenced/validated by those being led.  Once again we are taking some risks here, and sincerely appreciate your thoughts and even criticism.

 Introduction
As we continue our quest on the essence of leadership, authenticity is another aspect of leadership that we believe needs addressing.   Similar to the overall topic of leadership; authenticity is evasive and difficult to characterize in such a way to make it both easy to understand and possible to achieve.  We certainly are not profound in our search here – a simple Google search of the topic yields a significant amount of information.  In addition, the number of books on the subject is equally as impressive.  We have even purchased and read selected volumes.  So what is it about this topic that Larry and I feel we can contribute?  It turns out after extensive notes and conversations we realized that there are many more questions than there are answers.  Despite the challenges we see, we believe authenticity in leadership is a significant contributor in achieving effective leadership.


 A simple definition of authentic leadership is: ‘True to one’s own personality, spirit or character despite external pressures.’  Sounds good, but what does that mean in the context of leadership?   We do not believe the topic of Authentic Leadership has been explored sufficiently, and as we were doing our research we realized there are more questions than answers .  This article, for the most part, will present our thinking and the dilemma as we see it.  Our intention and expectation is, that as we hear from you on this topic, and delve more into authenticity and its connection to leadership effectiveness, we will follow-up on your comments and our thoughts in future UPDATE articles. So here we go.
 Most of us in our careers have worked with, or been involved with, some authentic leaders and others who were the opposite.  In our respective cases, we didn’t think in terms of authenticity at the time, but as we look back we can see how genuine, effective and authentic certain leaders were; and on the flip side how superficial, uninspiring and two dimensional other leaders were.  Until recently, authenticity was not a common view of a leader nor a common term in the lexicon of leadership, but we believe it is a valid characteristic of a successful leader. 
      Do you really believe leaders think about whether they are authentic or not?  How do they know?  Walk back in your memory and recall leaders in any aspect of your life. Did you ever have the impression that they considered whether they were authentic in their leadership?  Better yet, how would you have known if they were really authentic, or how would you recognize an authentic leader?  Perhaps you didn’t consider that concept as we call it out here, and hopefully retrospectively, you can recall an experience or a person who came across as the “real deal” in your past leaders.
 This brings up yet another question; who is authenticity for?  The definition above, along with many other similar ‘individual focused being true to oneself' definitions, are inward looking.  While knowing oneself is keenly important, and introspection is one of the focal points for our leadership development programs; does an inward focus parlay into authenticity as a leader?  We think there is more to it than just an inward focus.
 So, let’s flip it around – Who are leaders leading?  Leaders are not “leading” themselves.  They are leading others.  No matter how leaders view themselves, it is how those being lead perceive the leadership that is critical to the success of the organization and the effectiveness of the leader.  We think another factor in authenticity is the context of the leadership situation and environment.  In other words, someone can be an effective and authentic leader in one situation but not in a different situation.  We’ll explore this later.   This is where our Contextual Leadership concept comes in. 

 What is Authentic Leadership?
Most commonly the thinking on authentic leadership is inwardly focused; following inner guidance built on experience, a skill set, knowledge, compassion, empathy and a focus on what is the best organization and the employees and not necessarily what is best for themselves.   As we mentioned at the onset of this article, we are not suggesting we have the answer key to this issue.  What we are attempting to do is frame out the argument in the dimensions beyond a leader looking inward.
 The current thinking on authenticity certainly is not new.  “Secular and religious notions of authenticity have coexisted for centuries under different guises; perhaps the earliest account of authenticity that remains popular is Socrates' admonition that "the unexamined life is not worth living".  Plato's account of the trial of Socrates
In aesthetics, "authenticity" describes the perception of art as faithful to the artist's self, rather than conforming to external values such as historical tradition, or commercial worth.  A common definition of "authenticity" in psychology refers to the attempt to live one's life according to the needs of one's inner being, rather than the demands of society or one's early conditioning. [1][2][3]”    
1. Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., Joseph, S. (2008) The authentic personality: "A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the development of the Authenticity Scale"Journal of Counseling Psychology 55 (3): 385–399. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
2. Authentic life. Psychology Centre Athabasca University.
3.  "Existential Psychology". Eastern Illinois University.

Shakespeare, one of the greatest leadership gurus of all time, said it thus "And this above all, to thine ownself be true, and thou cans't not then be false to any man." Finally, Kierkegaard suggests, “One must make an active choice to surrender to something that goes beyond comprehension, a leap of faith into the religious.”[5] Even if one does not want to put forth the effort of developing his own views, he must do so in the quest for authentic faith.  The goal of Kierkegaard’s existentialist philosophy is to show that, in order to achieve authenticity, one must face reality and form his own opinions of existence.
 But who says you’re authentic or not? If you are true to yourself is that the only criteria?  How do people recognize authenticity in themselves?  Is this not based on their values and not the ones of the leader?   Then there comes the issue of authenticity and effectiveness as a leader. Can one be authentic in all contexts – this goes to the above question as to who says one is authentic.
An authentic leader probably doesn’t think in terms of authenticity.  And they shouldn’t, because you cannot declare yourself an authentic leader.  Only those following the leader can make that call.  Again though they probably don’t think in terms of authenticity but rather in terms of trust and willingness to follow this leader.
We believe authenticity is in the eyes of the beholder or follower.  We are confident that there are many leaders who conform to the traditional perspective of being true to themselves and have examined their lives as stated above, but are/were viewed as a lousy leaders. 
As always is the case, there is the opposite; leaders who were recognized as a good and effective but may not have possessed these qualities.  The interesting point here is how would any of us know?   Please send us your thoughts on leaders you have known or observed in either context.
For the purposes of this article, we will examine three aspects of leadership; power, values and consistency in the context of authenticity.

Power
One thought about authenticity – if a leader is authentic, does that convert into power?  In our workshops we probe the issue of leadership characteristics, verifying that a person is a leader, questioning why they are a leader, and then examining their source of their leadership power.  As an example, a military officer with more stripes is the legitimate authority over those with fewer stripes.  The power comes from the position/rank and not necessarily the person.  Whether the person is authentic or not, the position provides the power.    Many leaders who hold positional power can be authentic and of course there are some who are not.  The “troops” will follow the orders but they may not respect or even trust the person giving the orders if they do not perceive the leader as being authentic.
 Leadership and power possess interesting relationships.  Leaders typically hold positions of power.  How that power is used and exercised is dependent on many different cultural situations.  Some leaders use their power to dictate, ridicule or coerce their people.  Some possess Referent Power, where they consistently apply a set of values and goals, which are respected by the subordinates whether the subordinates like or dislike the leader as a person.  Some leaders have Charismatic Power and are followed based on who they are and their charisma alone.  This can be good or bad as we have seen through history.  Finally there are some who have Expertise Power where knowledge and skill is the key to their power.  Again, we have seen through history knowledge does not always make an effective leader.  While many famous people exemplify these sources of power, and there is a combination that seems to be particularly effective. Referent, Charismatic and Expertise sources of power are a uniquely potent combination.  Think of a person who possessed all three of these characteristics and how you perceived their leadership and authenticity.

Values
We also speak a lot about values in our workshops.  Typically the focus is on corporate values, and leadership living the corporate values.  In the context of leadership authenticity, for this article we focus on individual values. 
Easy Values – like the Ten Commandments – thou shall not kill, honesty, trust
Hard Values – Integrity, money, not lying
Conflicting Values – when values collide
Double Standard Values – when one set of values is good for you but not for me - entitlement
So is authenticity a case where the leader is true to his values (easy and hard ones) and has no conflicting values?  Most people can agree and will conform to the easy values (mostly).  Most people would never think of killing someone, are mostly honest, and value a trusting relationship.  The hard values are the ones that cause problems.  These are ones that cause conflicts.  Integrity is a good one.  Integrity can be characterized as:  dictionaries characterize integrity as follows:  “Having integrity means doing the right thing in a reliable way."  It's a personality trait that we admire, since it means a person has a moral compass that doesn't waver.  It literally means having "wholeness" of character, just as an integer is a "whole number" with no fractions.
What constitutes the ‘right thing’ in a ‘reliable way?’  The comment about ‘moral compass’ is also challenging. 
 One might think that a priest has a strong moral compass and does the right thing reliably.  I think we are talking about more than any human can assimilate. Lying is another value - most people would not blatantly tell a “Big” lie, but I might suggest that most people will tell ‘little white lies.’  Money becomes yet another value that presents challenges.  Perceptions of money and an amount anyone person feels they need or want is a very personal thing and a very comparative thing.  Money gets us what we want or what we see other people having.  But as leaders money is a hard value because it causes conflicts.  As we see in many corporate scenarios, big salaries and bonuses for corporate leaders, and meager increases if any for the ‘proletariat’ of the organization. 
 In our quest to get our arms around authenticity, we feel that when values collide authenticity suffers.  When a double standard of values exists, authenticity suffers.  To illustrate this point, we will use a very positive event in the recent news.

Dan Price, the CEO of a credit card payment processing company gave up his million dollar salary and set in motion the wheels to bring all his employees to much higher pay scale.  The New York Time reported:
“The idea began percolating, said Dan Price, the founder of Gravity Payments, after he read an article on happiness. It showed that, for people who earn less than about $70,000, extra money makes a big difference in their lives.

His idea bubbled into reality on Monday afternoon, when Mr. Price surprised his 120-person staff by announcing that he planned over the next three years to raise the salary of even the lowest-paid clerk, customer service representative and salesman to a minimum of $70,000.

“Is anyone else freaking out right now?” Mr. Price asked after the clapping and whooping died down into a few moments of stunned silence. “I’m kind of freaking out.” If it’s a publicity stunt, it’s a costly one. Mr. Price, who started the Seattle-based credit-card payment processing firm in 2004 at the age of 19, said he would pay for the wage increases by cutting his own salary from nearly $1 million to $70,000 and using 75 to 80 percent of the company’s anticipated $2.2 million in profit this year."  He balanced his values.
Consistency
We spoke about conflicting values, but consistency in values, behavior and decision-making are major components of authenticity.  Perhaps one of the most disconcerting characteristics of poor leadership is inconsistency.  Saying one thing and doing something else.  What’s good for you is not good for me.  The lack of consistency on the part of leaders parlays into perceptions of entitlement and privilege despite how deserving it the privilege may be.  We constantly send the message that leadership is not a privilege, it is a huge responsibility, requires sacrifice and truly is more of a stewardship/servitude position than one of privilege.
Another way of looking at this is from a leadership style perspective.  We all know or have known leaders who have been really difficult to deal with, but they were consistently difficult to deal with.  As a follower you knew what the standard was, you knew the expectation and you knew the consequence of not meeting the standard or the expectation.  Despite the ‘style’ of the leader, you learn how to deal with the person.  It may not be pleasant, but it’s known.  In contrast, a leader who appears to be your friend under a particular situation, and then misuses their power in a coercive manner, creates a high level stress in the organization.  You never know who or which person you will encounter and when.  The reality is some leaders use and like this style of leadership. We find it extremely disconcerting.  Authenticity is non-existent.

In Summary
Our fundamental premise is while introspection and knowing oneself is key to a leader knowing their attributes, personality profiles and understanding how their experience fits into their leadership requirements; authenticity is really based on how a leader is perceived, accepted and followed by his/her people or constituency.  Are people willing to follow this leader and why?  This premise is not an easy one to get one’s arms around.   This concept of authenticity is not new but is appears to be becoming a new way of looking at leaders and leadership.  There are many other aspects of an authentic leader such as their values and how they apply their values.  There are the competencies of the individual and how they impact the authenticity.  There are the experiences of the individual and how they shaped the person.  There are the attributes or characteristics of the individual that also impact the leadership performance.  And of course there is the context of the leadership situation.  We have long talked about contextual leadership, which is a significant factor in this discussion.  Someone can be a very effective and authentic leader in one situation but not in another.  The example is often given of Winston Churchill who led Britain through the darkest days of World War II but was not nearly as effective post-war as a peacetime leader.  Churchill was the same person, but the context changed and the results were different.  While Churchill was the same person in both situations, his performance was viewed differently, and how his leadership was perceived by those he led changed drastically.
Think of leaders with whom you have worked.  Were they effective?  How did you feel about working with them?  What was the type of power they used – did they use it in positive ways or negative ways?  Think about the feedback you have received about your own leadership.  Do people view you as authentic?
A leader seeks data and information but does not blindly follow the data.  This leader listens to the staff and the market but uses instinct and inner guidance to select the path and make decisions.  A psychological definition would be someone who works to live their life according to the needs of their inner being, rather than the demands of society.  How is all of this perceived by the rest of the organization?  Is the leader viewed as authentic?  Pretty heavy stuff.  Please give us your feedback and your experiences.  We want to do a follow up article talking more about how competencies, experience and attributes or personal characteristics shape a leader and help define their authenticity.  However, we would very much like your thoughts and feedback and your experiences.  We seek not names, but why you viewed certain people as authentic and how their performance impacted you and your career.