Authentic leadership

MANAGEMENT

Recently I was invited to speak to final year class of MBA at a prestigious university. During the conversation with the professor who was coordinating the session, I learnt that the topic I was being expected to speak upon is ‘Authentic Leadership’. Silently, I said to myself authentic…what is authentic? The many meanings of the word are true, actual, real, legitimate, bona fide and the antonym of authentic is, counterfeit, fake, sham, bogus unreal, untrue, deceptive, misleading and so on. So to begin, I said to him, that leaders can only be authentic so why use it as a prefix? Can there be leadership that is unauthentic I asked? He said, yes. So there is a subject at hand to think, we both agreed.

I was puzzled. I was perplexed. Had never heard the term authentic leadership. Aren’t all leaders supposed to be authentic to qualify firstly, as leader? Authenticity as a trait of a leader was never a major enquiry, it is always a given thing. The suffix or prefix we add to any characteristic or trait of personality, inclusive of leadership only supplements the thought or the trait; it does not by mere addition create a major shift in the paradigm of the meaning of the original trait.

Authenticity or authentic is a word (pre-fix) used to add weight and meaning to originality. We commonly say in relation to cuisine ‘authentic Chinese’; ‘authentic Vietnamese’ etc. In doing so we reaffirm the existence of ‘originality’ in the tastefulness of the delicacy and when used as a prefix to leadership we are essentially referring to ‘original goodness’ that has to be pure. That is to say free of impurities, corruption and deception. Hence originality and purity are the main ingredients that go towards creating the meaning of the word, authentic as a prefix.

Authenticity is the condition or quality of being authentic, trustworthy or genuine. Does it mean anything in isolation, that is, if it does have any meaning? Authenticity is therefore a qualifying factor to an idea, service or product or even a characteristic. A book on management (recently published) explains it further, authentic leadership is an approach to leadership that emphasises building the leaders’ legitimacy through honest relationships with followers which value their input and are built upon ethical foundation… authentic leaders believe in emphasising people and ethics over ‘profit and share price’.

Marlene Chism speaker and author of ‘Stop Workplace Drama’ propounds that authentic leadership is about, ‘one who influences others because of who they are more than what their title is’. Leaders walk their talk and lead by example. Now I request the reader to re-read the quote by just deleting ‘authentic leadership’ and replacing it with the regular word, ‘leader’… does it in any manner alter the meaning of leadership? No it doesn’t. A leader cannot pretend to be a victim; nor should he encourage it in his colleagues. Today the same thought, recent management guru’s alter to say, authentic leadership get involved in all situations and do not allow playing out the blame game and never use shame and guilt to obtain results. All leaders have to do that. Isn’t it?

In life we are faced with two opposite ends, one of ‘honesty’ and the other of ‘dis-honesty’. Between these two extremes lies all that is grey; some light, some dark shades but still grey, some areas of grey are so close to the poles that it becomes extremely difficult to gauge where an act resides, is it white or is it black? Or does it lie in between?

Very early in life a decision has to be taken at which pole of the two extremes, honesty (white) and dishonesty (black) that you wish to anchor your life.

If you start on this axis of conduct from honesty and move towards dishonesty through proper justification to self of having to traverse through the highway of the ‘grey area’, then surely it is a pitiable transition. Bad leadership at display. A journey nowhere. A journey to ignominy. And god forbid if the journey starts from the point of dishonesty towards honesty on the conduct axis it is equally shameful. (The plea bargains in vogue are a case in point). The society tends to accept this transition because it romanticise with the Robin Hoods of the society, where Paul is robbed to feed Peter (the deprived). The final outcome maybe noble but the pathway is full of ignominy and hence always remains dispossessed of legal recognition.

Leaders can choose to be at any side of these two extremes. From this we coin ‘honest leader’s’ dedicated leader, ‘doer’ ‘sincere’ and the list of adjectives can be very long; similarly, leaders get classified, if on the wrong end of the spectrum as ‘corruptible’ either financially, morally or even intellectually. Just do an imaginary comparison between Nelson Mandela and Robert Mugabe both leaders from Sub Saharan Africa!

You can add or delete as many prefixes or suffixes to the concept of leadership but for impactful leadership it has to be housed only in the domain of honesty.

Leadership is not possible without followership. So where does following begin? In my concluding remarks to this class of MBA, I remarked and reminded them that those who brought you into this world, nurtured you and cared for you, are the leaders of your life ----- follow them, firstly. Emulate their behaviour. Only a person who is a good and dedicated follower of the norms, values and cultural standards of his family (not just a single unit but the society is meant here) will stand to be fully qualified as a leader for he will invoke and bring to fore in all his action the representative qualities of originality and purity. History is replete with examples of such leadership. In describing authentic leadership almost all practitioners and writers on management go back to solid time tested concepts of being self-aware, genuine, relational transparency, balanced approach, moral perspective, mission orientation, leading by heart, setting the example, openness to criticism, confident behaviour, stance of humility, possession of initiative, insight and ability to influence and impact; all being within the realm of ‘leadership’ concept. By adding the word authentic to it one ends up merely emphasising it, behavioural attitudes have to remain non-negotiable and uncompromising to dishonesty and more so to the arena of shades of grey.

Most aspects reflecting conflict of interest remain within the confines of grey areas; an indulgent therefore seeks approval by legitimacy through declaration. Declared or hidden an act of dishonesty will never have any inherent ability to acquire the status of approval or acceptability. Expediency is an ardent and great supporter to those who wish to lie in the bosom of grey areas.

Isn’t Abraham Lincoln authentic or otherwise a great leader, when he possesses such opinion, “I am not always bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not always bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have.”

You can be dishonest by your own consent. A lion does not seek approval of the sheep for devouring it; similarly no leader ought to seek approval for any of his actions, built on the premise of ‘originality and purity’. Initiatives entrenched in the wholesome world of discipline, sincerity and inclusive intrinsic worth will usher leaders and followers.

If the inner person tells you every day that he dislikes the idea of spending all his life with you, it is time for such leaders to visit the cemetery and not bother the undertaker to make a dwelling; do it with no help. Alas! Such action might give permanent residence to the owls in our parliament buildings.

The writer is a senior banker and freelance columnist