Between
our coaching calls, Naveen, an Indian vice president of a technology company
based in Bangalore, diligently read the handful of articles I had asked him to
look over. In our next call, he seemed
perplexed by the term “authentic leadership” that he had seen in a couple of
the readings. What does it mean to be an
authentic leader, he asked me. He had
looked up the dictionary definition of authentic and its synonyms, which
included genuine, real, not a fake. Well
and good, he agreed. But he seemed a bit
confused. To be genuine and real with
your team, how much do you have to “self-disclose” by letting them know about
your strengths and weaknesses, your likes and dislikes? And does being genuine and real imply
behaving and only using a leadership style that comes naturally to you?
Take
a recent article by Goffee and Jones in Harvard Business Review. In that piece, they write that one of the
qualities of inspirational leaders is that they reveal their weaknesses. “When leaders reveal their weaknesses, they
show us who they are – warts and all.
This may mean they’re irritable on Monday mornings, that they are
somewhat disorganized, or even rather shy.
Such admissions work because people need to see leaders own up to some
flaw before they participate willingly in an endeavor. Exposing a weakness establishes trust and
thus helps get folks on board.”
Part
of Naveen’s discomfort was a particular concern about the cultural
appropriateness of such self-disclosure, especially in countries where the
expectations of what an effective leader is may not tolerate such complete
transparency, at least initially. In
fact, a couple of more recent articles in Harvard Business Review suggest such caution
in this regard. For example, Rosh and
Offerman urge leaders to understand the organizational and cultural context
before they self-disclose. Similarly,
Ibarra writes that many models of authentic leadership are particularly
American, especially in the advice to tell a personal story about a hardship
they have overcome. He points out that these
are based on Western ideals of individualistic triumph over adversity.
In
a recent study, two researchers examined how different cultures perceive
“authenticity” in others based on their self-expression. The countries representing these cultures,
Germany and China, are on different ends of the spectrum in terms of their
individualistic and collectivistic orientation.
An important facet of collectivism is contextualism, the extent to which
the context is crucial in understanding other people. Easterners more than Westerners tend to consider
the context when explaining behavior. On
the other hand, in individualistic cultures such as Germany, dispositional
information, such as the person’s personal preferences, is more important. Therefore, according to these researchers, a
person expressing both his likes and dislikes will be perceived to be more
authentic by Westerners. They predicted that Germans learning about a person who
expresses only his likes (culture-incongruent) would seek more dispositional
information (culture-congruent), whereas Chinese learning about a person
expressing both likes and likes (culture-incongruent) would seek more
contextual information (culture-congruent) to better understand this person. Their sample consisted of 73 German students
and 87 Chinese students in universities in Germany and China who were randomly
assigned to two scenarios. In one
scenario, they read about the likes and dislikes of a certain person named
George (in Germany) or Yong (in China).
In the other scenario, they read about his likes only.
The
participants were then asked how much each of 12 statements described George
(or Yong). These statements were based
on a scale of authenticity developed by other researchers. A sample item was the following: George is true to himself in most situations. Finally, participants were asked how useful
they would find each one of six additional pieces of information to get to know
George better.
What did
they find? In brief, the Germans found
the person expressing both likes and dislikes to be more authentic than the
person expressing only likes, whereas the opposite was true for the
Chinese. They also validated their
prediction: that Germans reading about a person expressing only his likes
(culture-incongruent) would seek more dispositional information
(culture-congruent), whereas Chinese reading about a person expressing both
likes and likes (culture-incongruent) would seek more contextual information
(culture-congruent) to better understand this person. The Chinese rated
contextual information as more helpful to better
understand a person expressing likes and dislikes than a person expressing only likes
So
in answer to the first of Naveen’s questions, the choice for a leader is not
necessarily whether or not to self-disclose, but how much. Authentic leadership, as one of its pioneers
Bill George has stated, is about practicing your values and principles. It’s also about being honest. In their surveys of over 75,000 leaders
globally, Kouzes and Posner have pointed out that honesty is one of the four
characteristics of admired leaders selected by their respondents in over 50
countries: “We simply don’t trust people who can’t or won’t disclose a clear
set of values, ethics and standards and live by them.”
I propose
the following principles for leader self-disclosure. The first principle is to inform
honestly. Whether you are talking about
your accomplishments or your failures, embellishing them with exaggerations or
half-truths will not work in the long term.
We have all read about leaders who have padded their resumes or told
stories about their past that, with a bit of fact-checking, turned out to be
distorted. This does not mean that you
cannot tell a good story about your past or frame your experience in a way that
helps you send a clear message to your team.
Just don’t play fast and loose with your facts.
A second
principle is to consider organizational and cultural norms in selecting what to
disclose. Pay attention to these norms
and make sure you do not violate them for they can quickly undermine your
effectiveness as a leader. The research
study cited above is simply one example of how different cultures react to what
they perceive to be authentic behavior. I know of several organizations with very
formal cultures – where employees dress very conservatively, managers and
executives are addressed with their last names, and where meetings are run
following strict guidelines. As a new
leader coming into such an organization, you may think that behaving this way
is not being authentic, but behaving counter-culturally, at least initially,
will not make you an effective leader.
A third
principle is to consider your audience and, specifically, the relationship you
have with your team and colleagues. Imagine
calling a meeting with your new team, most of whom have been with the company for
a while, and confessing to them your skepticism at the extent to which people
who have been in their jobs for a long time can adapt to change. This is what happened to Marty, an executive
from outside the company who was brought from the outside to head a business
unit that had seen its profits and market share shrink. He had a hard time recovering from his
misguided attempt at being authentic.
These
principles should address Naveen’s two questions above. Fundamentally, authentic leadership starts
with having a deep understanding of yourself and how people perceive you. Bill George and others written about the
importance of self-awareness, and the challenges of arriving at this
self-knowledge. However, knowing your
reputation, what others think about you, is also important. You may believe that you are being genuine,
that you are acting as an authentic leader, but if others do not perceive you
that way, then there is a gap that you will need to address, and not simply
dismiss it by saying, “I don’t care what others think of me.”
George, B. et
al. (2007). Discovering your authentic
leadership. Harvard Business Review, February.
Goffee, and
Jones, G. (2000). Why should anyone be led by you? Harvard Business Review, September-October.
Ibarra,
H. (2015). The authenticity paradox. Harvard
Business Review, 93, 52-59.
Kokkoris, M.
and Khunen, U. (2014). “Express the real you”: cultural differences in the perception of
self-expression as authenticity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
45(8), 1221-1228.
Kouzes,
J. and Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th
edition). New York: Wiley.
Rosh,
L. and Offermann, L. (2013). Be yourself, but carefully. Harvard
Business Review, 91, 135-139.
