Reputation vs. What have you done for me lately?

I recently read an article in INC. Magazine titled 9 Beliefs of Remarkably Successful People, by Jeff Haden, and was struck by several of his key points.

In the article, which is well worth your reading, he points out a number of beliefs that will certainly set your ego-based brain thinking.  A little reflection on each point would be a valuable exercise because you might discover something about yourself that you either like and need to emphasize, or don't like and need to change.

One belief that struck me as particularly important is:

I have never paid my dues.
Dues aren't paid, past tense. Dues get paid, each and every day. The only real measure of your value is the tangible contribution you make on a daily basis.

No matter what you've done or accomplished in the past, you're never too good to roll up your sleeves, get dirty, and do the grunt work.  No job is ever too menial, no task ever too unskilled or boring.

Remarkably successful people never feel entitled--except to the fruits of their labor.

We have all heard people say "I've paid my dues."  What this really means is that I have done a job that I didn't enjoy, or that I now see as below me, and because of my past work I no longer have to do that task.  The job should now be done by someone else.  When I say "I've paid my dues," I also mean that others, perhaps our boss or coworkers, should recognize my past contribution, my "history" in the organization, and give me credit for what I've done.  It's time for someone else to have their turn in the barrel.

The problem is, as Haden points out, history rarely counts.

Don't get me wrong.  Your history is incredibly important in creating your reputation.  Your reputation is the mental picture others carry of you filed away in their heads waiting for just the right moment to bring your name to mind.  It's your reputation that opens doors of opportunity.  It's your reputation that gives people a positive or negative feeling about your skills, knowledge, and abilities.

But, it's what you have done lately that maintains that reputation.  You can have a long history of contributing to the company or organization, but if you are seen as no longer contributing, your prior reputation isn't going to help. 

If your goal is to be noticed, or to be seen as an asset to the organization, it is both the history of outstanding performance, and the current reality of continuing performance at an exceptional level that combine to unlock opportunity.

None of this is to suggest that you have to do every job in the office.  Certainly not!  That's why there are many people in your organization.  It takes lots of people, doing their jobs, to get things done.  (For a little mind-twist on a related subject see the prior blog post 100% Responsibility.)

But, it is important to understand that when someone needs some help, or the work piles up and the whole system starts to grind to a halt, you are not exempt from pitching in, even if the job is menial, dirty, or boring. 

In the end, no, you haven't paid your dues.  But, you certainly have created a reputation.  I hope it's a good one.

_______________________________________________________

PS:  It is probably important to note that there is a difference between your reputation and your character.  For most of us the two are parallel.  But, it is very possible to have a tarnished reputation while retaining an exceptional character.  

Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.                   Abraham Lincoln

This possible polarity might be a good topic for a future blog post.

Also, you might find the prior blog post Changing Minds - The Importance of Character interesting.

Legacy

Let's say you are a manager who has worked in an organization for a number of years.  You have worked hard to create new processes and systems that assure that your division is working at top efficiency.  You have developed a policy manual, written rules, and if you happen to be in government, you have written ordinances, resolutions, and helped create laws that reflect the desires of the community.  And, today you receive an attractive offer to go to another organization.

You have enjoyed your work, put your heart and mind into the tasks of creating a great organization.  You feel invested in the success of your current employer.  But, this offer is too good to pass up.

As you pick up the phone to make the call accepting the offer you pause to think about what will happen to the people and systems you are leaving behind.  You think about your legacy.

Your thoughts may be that things will be just fine.  After all, you created the right rules, and set up the right processes.  What could possibly happen?

Six months after you leave you run into a team member from your old company.  The first thing out of her mouth is "Why did you leave?  Everything has changed.  It's not the same place without you."

This does not take you by surprise.  After all, the manager they hired to replace you changed all of the systems, rules, and processes. 

Your say, "Yes, I have heard that the systems all changed.  We had it running pretty well before I left, didn't we."

But your friend says, "It's not about systems and processes.  The new ones work as well as the old.  It's about how we work together, how we communicate, and how we feel about the organization.  It's about what is valued, and our pride in our work."

And, this is when you learn about your legacy.

All of this time you were thinking that the things you built, the words you wrote, the rules or laws you helped create, the way you made things run, was your legacy - what you were passing on to the next generation.

But, in reality, your legacy was found in the minds you touched, the values you instilled, the environment you created, and in your authenticity, your ethics, your vision, and your courage.

Systems and rules can be changed.  Structures can be torn down or sold.  Political tides can (and will) ebb and flow.  Corporate climate can change.  None of these contain your legacy.

The only thing you leave behind with any certainty is what is carried in the hearts and minds of those you have touched.

Use your time wisely, for whether it is short or long, it is not unlimited.  Give those who will carry on when you step out of the organization the gift of a legacy that will serve them well when they stand in your shoes.

-
-
-

Keat's Epitaph
Here lies one whose name was writ in water.

-

-

-

For another look at the concept of legacy, you might enjoy this blog entry found on the Fast Company web site - What Is Your Leadership Legacy by Craig Chappelow

Self As Instrument

No matter where you go, there you are. 
(Source: possibly Confucius, biblical, or Star Trek)
____________________________________

Many people go through life taking the events of each day as they happen, happily addressing each challenge, and then heading home with the sense that they did the best that they could, given the circumstances.  Tomorrow is another day, not to be worried about until the morning comes.

But for those who find themselves in situations that require change, where their vision of the future is different from the realities of today, and where they have made the choice to play an active part in achieving that vision, such a laissez-faire approach does not work.  If change is to occur, some sort of intervention is required.  And the only tool that any individual has to bring about change is themselves - their actions, behaviors, dialog, questions, and choices.  They must choose to use their skills and abilities in deliberate and thoughtful ways to influence others.  In short, they must use themselves as the instrument of change, a concept often referred to as self as instrument.

As with any instrument, before one becomes a virtuoso there is learning, practice, and performance.  A musician does not decide to become a pianist and immediately leap onto the stage at Carnegie Hall.  Practice and preparation is necessary before the performance.  Nor does a leader decide to become an instrument of change and immediately charge forward to success without introspection and learning.

Katherine Curran, Charles Seashore, and Michael Welp summarized the concept of self as instrument best in their November 1995 presentation to the ODN National Conference:

Perhaps the most powerful instrument we have in helping our clients navigate change is ourselves. Our ability to use ourselves potently relies in large part on the level of awareness we have about the impact we make, and our ability to make choices to direct and modify that impact.

Awareness is the key.  Developing the mind so it is aware of self, others, situations, and patterns is the beginning of being able to use yourself as an instrument of change.  Self-awareness and self-management become the first requirements.

In Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman lists these as the first two dimensions of what he has termed emotional intelligence.  True self-awareness requires reflective self-examination, feedback from others, and knowledge of who you are, where you are going, and why you are going there.  Self-awareness is not something that is intrinsic, it is developed over time, often with the help of others guiding the self-discovery process.

In his book Leadership From The Inside Out, Kevin Cashman suggests:

Leadership is not simply something we do.  It comes from somewhere inside us.  Leadership is a process, an intimate expression of who we are.  It is our being in action.  Our being, our personhood, says as much about us as a leader as the act of leading itself.

Cashman's statement about leadership is also applicable when we are becoming an agent of change; it is not simply something we do.  It is a process, an intimate expression of who we are.  It is moving from passive observer to active participant.

But, why all this talk of self when what we want is to influence others to join us in the pursuit of our vision?  The answer is: through the understanding of yourself, you become a more authentic leader, one who "aligns both actions and behaviors with [your] core values and beliefs". (An Overview of Self as Instrument Using a Leadership lens and a Coaching Application, Debbie Kennedy, December 29, 2006)  This authenticity is visible to those who would be followers and companions on the journey to the desired future, and encourages the development of trust between the leader and the followers.  Also, "Followers learn by observing the positive values, psychological states, behaviors and self-development being modeled by the authentic leader..." encouraging the same behavior in the followers. (Kennedy)

You have the ability to become a leader who makes a huge difference in your organization if you are willing to devote the time to develop the tools you need to be an effective instrument of change - to develop your "self as instrument".  The journey to virtuosity begins inside by learning about who you are, developing self-awareness and self-management (and as Goleman would suggest, in the development of social-awareness and relationship management).  It continues by becoming clear on what you want to accomplish as a result of your effort, and why it is important to create a particular vision of the future.

Once you have developed the ultimate instrument (yourself), no matter where you are, you will have with you everything you need to be an authentic leader who can make a difference.

100% Responsibility

If you search the Internet for articles on the concept of 100% responsibility you will find many entries that talk about taking responsibility for your own life, or how managers and leaders are always 100% responsible for the organization's results.  These are good ways to view 100% responsibility, but I don't believe they get to the heart of the true meaning.

This concept was first introduced to me by Robin Reid, an organizational development consultant who worked with my organization in the 1980s (see note below).  As our management team worked through this concept with Robin, there was a great deal of push-back and resistance.  Managers didn't like the concept.  It flew in the face of how they viewed their role in the organization. 

However, in my experience, this concept had a huge impact on me and how I approached my role as an employee, manager, and leader in my organization.

The concept itself is relatively simple:

• We are all (employees, managers, leaders) 100% responsible for our organization's success, products, and results.  

"How can that be?", I hear you say.  You are thinking, "I am only an employee.  I am not responsible for the final product.  I am not responsible for the output of other departments.  I am not responsible for decisions made by the board, or council.  I am only responsible for my own actions."  And, these statements are, in part, true.

But, consider an extreme situation.  You are in a car that is headed over a cliff.  The driver is oblivious to the problem.  Do you blithely head off into oblivion, or do you pull the hand break? My guess is that you would feel a certain sense of self-preservation (responsibility), and might do something to prevent your ultimate demise.

In this admittedly extreme example, you are a passenger, not the driver.  But, your status as a passenger does not preclude you from acting when the situation calls for it.  The driver has the primary responsibility for the safety of the journey, and this responsibility is not changed in any way by your responsibility as a passenger.  The driver's job is to operate the controls; you cannot operate the controls for the driver.  But, when things begin to go badly, you have the right to express your concern.  You have the right to influence in whatever way you can.  And, in the end, you have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the occupants of the car.

Your expression of concern, and ultimate action, may cause conflict later.  However, there are long term consequences that are important enough to allow for a little conflict.

Responsibility is not something that can be divided easily.  When I am only 50% responsible for the outcome, I can do what I think is proper, and still have the project fail.  I can feel good that my part was done perfectly.  But, if my responsibility stops when I hand off to the next person in the chain, doing my part 100% right is little comfort when the end product is flawed or broken.

I may not be the one who "operates the controls" for all stages of the production or project, but my concern should be similar to that of the passenger in the car.  When things are not going well, I have a duty to participate in getting the system back on track.  My feeling of responsibility does not diminish the responsibility of the other people involved in the project.  Each person is responsible for his or her contribution to the whole.  And, if each person feels ownership in the final product, we are more likely to work as a team, welcome the help of others, and strive for a successful outcome instead of simply the success of one person's portion of the project.

On a deeper level, this acceptance of full responsibility, to be "...accountable for all the implications of our actions [or inactions] grows directly out of accepting the fact of our free will." (Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block, Freedom and Accountability at Work, P. 78-79)   Responsibility is a choice.  Our choice to speak up when we identify something that requires the attention of others, or to remain silent and tell ourselves that "it wasn't our fault" is exactly that, a choice.  Our decision to speak up does not diminish another person's responsibility to carry out their job in a responsible manner.  But our decision to act expresses our ownership of the result, not just pieces of the system.

A decision to be 100% responsible is something anyone within the organization can make.  And, every time someone makes a decision to be 100% responsible, for ownership of the result, everyone wins.



Note: Robin Reid gives credit to Hyler Bracey, from The Atlanta Consulting Group, for introducing him to the concept of 100% responsibility.  I can find no Internet site for this organization, but I did find a link and reference to Hyler Bracey, author of Managing from the Heart.

Opening Your (Johari) Window

Back in the 1950s two fellows names Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham developed a tool to help people better understands their interpersonal relationships and communications. Over the past 50 or 60 years this tool, known as the Johari Window (that’s a combination of Joe and Harry), has been used countless times to help individuals and groups learn more about themselves, and their managers, subordinates, and leaders.

The concept of the Johari Window is relatively simple. Consider the fact that there are things about yourself that you know, and very likely things about yourself that you don’t know. Also, it is fairly obvious that there are things about you that others know, and there are things about you that others don’t know.

This simple premise forms the basis of a very interesting conversation about who you are, your blind spots, what you are willing to share with others, and the great unknown.


If you read the earlier blog post on Trust, you might remember that part of what makes a leader trustworthy, and therefore successful, is communications – letting people know what you are thinking, and what drives you. And, as this communications is going on, you are exposing things about yourself to others. You are enlarging the part of the Johari Window called the Arena – the part that both you and others know about you.

The larger the Arena (this area of shared knowledge) the better your understanding of how others see you, and the better others understand the characteristics that make you who you are. Because you are open, your coworkers do not need to interpret or insert meaning. They can understand your words and actions for what they are. This openness contributes to a more trusting relationship.

Do not confuse openness with agreement. People will still disagree on policies, direction, and goals. But, by removing the need to insert meaning, or imply motives, the debate can focus on the topic of the work. I do not have to agree with someone to trust them; but, I do need to understand them, and have an understanding of what drives them.

The Johari Window below shows what happens as self disclosure and communications begin to expand the Arena. Your Blind Spot shrinks, you are seen as more genuine (the Façade shrinks), and there are fewer questions about your motives and how you will react to your team (the Unknown shrinks).


If you are interested in doing an online exercise using the Johari Window there is one at this URL - http://kevan.org/johari. Instructions are found on the web site.

If you are interested in doing the exercise in person, talk to that coach I suggested you get in the Trust blog entry, or contact me and maybe I can give you a referral. My contact information is on the right side of the blog page.
.
.
.

Skills, Knowledge, And Talent

Please note that there are several great comments posted at the end of this blog. Be sure to click on the "comment" link at the bottom of this entry to see the comments. And, thank you to all who have shared their views.

______________________________________

We often read or hear about leaders who are described as skillful, knowledgeable, or talented. But, what does it mean to be skillful, knowledgeable, or talented? And, can a person who wants to be a successful leader become skillful, improve their knowledge base, or expand their leadership talent?

Part of the answer lies in the definition of skills, knowledge and talents. Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman examine the difference between skills, knowledge and talents in their book First Break All The Rules.

According to Buckingham skills are the "how-to's of a role" (p. 83). Skills can be transferred from one person to another. A person can learn a how to hold a golf club, build a house, write a sentence, or do arithmetic. Skills are an important part of being successful at any endeavor. And, without skill any resulting action or effort will be clumsy and ineffective.

Knowledge is "what you are aware of" . There are basically two types of knowledge: "...factual knowledge - things you know, and experiential knowledge - understandings you have picked up along the way." (p. 83)

Factual knowledge would be the rules of mathematics, accounting, scientific principles, or other similar fact-based information. Like skills, fact-based knowledge can be learned from others and/or gained through some form of education. (p. 83)

Experiential knowledge is harder to teach. It is less tangible, more related to patterns and connections. To gain experiential knowledge you must take time to stop, reflect on past experiences, and find meaning. Experiential knowledge may be different for each person because each will experience a different pattern of life. (p. 83-84)

Talent is a totally different phenomenon. Talent is the pattern of thinking and feeling that comes from the very core of the individual. Some people care deeply about precision and accuracy, discipline, and responsibility. Others have a drive to compete, be competent, strive to achieve a mission, or dedicate themselves to a certain belief. And, others may feel strong empathy, value interpersonal relations, dedicate themselves to the success of a team, or exhibit great courage in overcoming resistance. (p. 84-85) Buckingham breaks talents into three categories: striving talents, thinking talents, and relating talents.

• Striving talents explain the why of a person. They help you understand why a particular person cares deeply, and why they try a little harder than others in certain circumstances.
• Thinking talents explain the how of a person. They explain how a person analyzes situations, how decisions are reached, whether thinking is linear or intuitive process, or is the person systematic or creative.
• Relating talents explain the who of a person. They explain the relationships the person is likely to build, in whom will the person trust, the way the person will relate to strangers, and expose deep feelings about the way the person will manage interpersonal relationships. (p. 85)
  

Buckingham says that talents cannot be taught. If a person does not have a particular talent, there is very little a person can do to inject it into themselves or others. Talents are difficult (if not impossible) to transfer from one person to another.

If Buckingham is right, this creates an interesting situation for us in our role as leaders. It becomes essential to understand ourselves deeply; a process that takes dedicated self-examination.

Knowing our own skills, knowledge, and talents is the start. We can then develop ourselves through purposeful learning, receiving coaching, and reflection (making sense of our experiences). We can also make use of this self-knowledge to help us identify people who bring skills, knowledge, and talents to the organization or team that are complimentary to our own.

This self-development takes courage and the ability to admit that we may not have every attribute necessary to create success (or as Dr. Peter Koestenbaum would say, "Greatness").

Relying on others is easier for people who already have a strong relationship awareness skills, or what Buckingham calls "relating talents". (P. 252) It may be harder for people who tend to be autonomous thinkers. But, regardless of your personal talents, being able to bring the right people together at the right time is essential to the success of any endeavor.

If you are interested in doing some meaningful self-reflection, nothing beats having a great coach to guide you along the path. As one of my colleagues (and one of my unofficial coaches) Ray Patchett pointed out to me one day "Even Michael Jordan has a coach." No matter where you are in your career, the corporate hierarchy, or how good you think you are, there is no substitute for having someone who can help you take a realistic look at yourself.

In his article "Teaching Smart People How to Learn" (Harvard Business Review, May , 1991), Chris Argyris points out that professionals often find learning about themselves most difficult. Self-examination and questioning our own behavior is extremely difficult, particularly for those who have achieved some professional status. Having someone who can help you through the discovery process, who cares about your success, opens pathways to greatness that many never discover.

The more you understand about yourself the more you are going to be able to understand others. Also, the better you understand your own skills, knowledge, and talents, the better you can identify where to improve yourself, and when to bring others close to you to help fill in gaps.

Trust

Trust is the essential ingredient in any successful relationship. Whether that relationship is between two people, within a family, organization, community, or government, trust is the element that allows the relationship to function effectively.

In their book "The Leadership Challenge" Kouzes and Posner express the importance of trust this way:

Trust is at the heart of fostering collaboration. It's the central issue in human relationships within and outside organizations... Individuals who are unable to trust other people fail to become leaders. (The Leadership Challenge - P. 163)

In "The Speed of Trust", Stephen M. R. Covey notes that in high trust organizations the speed of every aspect of the business goes up and costs go down, whereas in low trust organizations speed suffers while costs can rocket upward. (The Speed of Trust - P. 13)

Trust is the lubricant that lets an organization work smoothly and quickly. In high trust situations ideas are communicated with a minimum of effort, tasks are completed without excessive oversight, processes flow without excessive rules, and people feel valued and empowered. In a low trust environment, a cultural friction develops that causes the slowing of systems, growth of management structures to oversee and monitor work, establishment of new bureaucracies, and creation of rules. In these environments true leadership becomes almost impossible.

Because they can't bear to be dependent on the words and work of others they [leaders] either end up doing all the work themselves or supervise work so closely that they become overcontrolling. Their demonstration of lack of trust in others results in others' lack of trust in them. (The Leadership Challenge - P. 163)

The leader's own assumptions about the organization play an important role in creating a high trust environment. Edgar Schein says that "... a fully connected [communication and information] network can only work if high trust exists among all the participants and that high trust is partly a function of leader assumptions that people can be trusted and have constructive intent." (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 370)

If a leader starts from the position that people cannot be trusted, communication and information networks cannot function quickly. The cultural friction slows every aspect of the organization.

A lack of trust is often translated into a feeling of suspicion. A leader working in a suspicious system feels that everything that is done should be questioned. Employees feel that they have to cover their backside with extra work, and that everything will be checked, and double-checked. Within all of this effort, the lack of trust (suspicion) robs the leader and the organization of time and money.

Mahatma Gandhi believed that "When there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted." (The Speed of Trust, p. 8) Therefore, in organizations where there is low trust, no matter how much additional work is done, it is the underlying motives of the leader or workers that will be questioned. There will always be the search for the hidden agenda or conspiracy.

In his Leadership Diamond Model, Dr. Peter Koestenbaum expresses the belief that trust is an essential part of the ethics of the leader. (The Philosophic Consultant, P. 46) Koestenbaum would agree with Schein that a leader's assumptions about the organization, and the leader's ability to behave in an ethical manner toward the organization (an attitude of care and empathy for humanity, and how our actions affect others), contributes to the environment of trust within an organization.

But, if the experts agree that trust is so important to a leader's success, 1) why do so many leaders fail to understand that their inability to succeed is tied to their own inability to establish trust within their organizations? And, 2) what can a leader do to create trust when it does not naturally exist?

Before a leader can start to build (or rebuild) trust, a leader must understand that a trust gap exists. This is a bit like starting any 12 step program - the first step is recognizing that you have a problem, and need help. Without recognition, you can never cross the gap because you are unaware that it exists.

As to why so many leaders fail to see the trust gap, it is hard to say. But it is likely that the answer lies within the leader. Kouzes and Posner show that managers and leaders "... with the highest control scores have the lowest personal credibility." (The Leadership Challenge - P. 166) Credibility is an essential element in trust; we tend to trust people we see as credible. Highly controlling behavior on the part of the leader sends a signal that is received as "You don't trust me." When I see myself as trustworthy, and receive the signal that says I am not trusted by the leader, I respond in kind; I will not trust the leader.

Let's say you are the leader in question. Breaking this cycle starts with you. Before you can ask others to trust you, you must first demonstrate your trust in others. This means going first, being willing to risk, and communicating.

Communications - letting people know what you are thinking, when you are thinking it, and why you are thinking it - is the starting point. Constant, person to person, open, and honest communications is a step in recreating a trusting relationship. Self-disclosure, and a willingness to be vulnerable to others whose behavior you cannot control is all part of this process. (The Leadership Challenge - P166-170)

There is more to the process. And, if you are interested in taking the journey required to rebuild trust, I recommend both The Leadership Challenge, and The Speed of Trust. In addition, a good coach could be worth their weight in gold (literally speaking). Creating trust within your organization could make the difference between success and failure, for both you and the organization.

-

Self Knowledge and Awareness

What is it that sets top leaders apart from the average performer? Why are some people better at moving an organization forward than others? In the book Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman puts a microscope on these and other questions about leadership to discover what sets the great leaders apart from the rest of the crowd.

One of the first discoveries Goleman shares is that there are four competencies of Emotional Intelligence (EI) - and not a single technical or purely cognitive competency - exhibited by these top performers. (P. 36-37, Primal Leadership) This discovery puts Goleman in the camp of authors who believe that it is not necessary to be born a leader. Leadership can be learned. (This is good news for all of us.)

These four dimensions of Emotional Intelligence identified by Goleman fall into two categories - Personal Competence, and Social Competence: (P. 39, Primal Leadership)

Personal Competence:

• Self-Awareness
• Self-Management

Social Competence:

• Social Awareness
• Relationship Management

Each of these competencies is worthy of study. I recommend Primal Leadership as an easy and accessible way to learn more about these and other aspects of leadership.

The first EI competency that Goleman discusses is self-awareness. On the surface, that may seem like a simple thing - "Of course I am aware of myself. So what's the problem?" However, I don't think the topic is quite that simple.

True self-awareness requires reflective self-examination, feedback from others, and knowledge of "who you are, where you are going, and why you are going there." (For more about this read the blog titled: Asking the Right Questions, and Cashman's book Leadership from the Inside Out.) These questions get to the heart of defining what matters most to you, and the values that drive you.

There are a number if instruments you can use to get an understanding of who you are and what drives you. For example, tools like the Strengths Deployment Inventory (SDI) give you an insight into how you relate to others (relationship awareness), your motivations, and how you change when things are not going well. This information prepares you to both be more self-aware and socially aware in your relationships. This is also a very useful to use in groups or teams that gives each member a boost in their self-awareness, as well as a better understanding of social awareness and relationship management styles that help the group work more effectively. (For more on the SDI instrument, email me - jelliott2k@gmail.com - and I'll send you some background.)

Self study is essential. Tools for improving self-awareness and receiving feedback help. But underlying it all, you must have a desire and openness to new information; a desire to know more about yourself and how you relate to others, and the openness to take in new knowledge about yourself, even when that knowledge may not be consistent with you prior image of yourself.

If you have that inner drive, you will gain self-awareness, and take a fateful step toward being an emotionally intelligent leader.

Authenticity

The entries in this blog over the past year hopefully have made it clear that there is more to leadership than sitting down in an office with your name on the door and giving orders. We have all worked with people who approached leadership from this perspective, but I doubt that many of us would consider these people good role models, or the kind of leaders we would want at the helm when crossing the unknown sea.

There are also leaders who inspire in us a willingness to tackle the most difficult problems, or to go where no one has gone before. And, they are able to do this without having to raise their voice or demand our compliance.

What is the difference between these two types of leaders? Why are we bored and demotivated by one, and inspired to reach for the stars by the other?

There are probably many reasons, but I want to suggest one answer that deserves your consideration.

When we believe that we have a leader who truly cares for us and our success, who believes in our abilities, who listens and considers our suggestions, who supports us in success and failure, and who communicates his or her thoughts and feelings; in short, when we have a leader who is authentic in every way, we feel valued, and are willing to invest ourselves in the success of that leader and our organization.

In August of 2001, Peter Koestenbaum described Authenticity in the following way:

Authenticity includes:

1. Underscoring the centrality of both caring and integrity in helping people to feel valued and treated fairly. This is ethics.


2. Supporting people in mastering the anxiety of grave uncertainty, the insecurity of frequent failures, and equip them to rely on their inner resources to maintain their dignity as well as their obligations to the future of the whole organization. This is courage.


3. Strengthening people to survive amidst the chilling environment of a harsh economy, bitter competition, political infighting, and unforgiving stock exchanges. This is reality.


4. Lighting up the intellect to fashion new, creative and imaginative solutions to intractable problems. This is Vision.

(Peter Koestenbaum - August 6, 2001)

Peter Block, an organizational development consultant who has spent many years working with leaders, describes authenticity in the following way:

Deeply understanding the other person's point of view gives feeling of authenticity. The first order of business is to understand the situation rather than correct the other person's perception. (The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion, p. 168-169)

Authentic behavior... means you put into words what you are experiencing... as you work. (Flawless Consulting, second edition, p.37)

Authentic leaders listen, support others, express their feelings and thoughts, make visible what is going on inside their heads,

Also, authentic leaders help others move from dependency (the theory that the leader or manager is totally responsible) to an understanding that each person is responsible for exercising their own free will and choice.

Paternalistic behavior on the part of a leader removes power, choice, and freedom from the employee. Authentic behavior leads to empowerment, and an understanding that the individual must exercise his or her free will to affect the work environment.

It must be noted that authentic behavior on the part of a leader can create anxiety in those who follow. Anxiety should not be seen as a negative emotion. In fact, growth cannot happen without anxiety. Every time you enter a new situation you experience some level of anxiety. The important thing is how you deal with the anxiety. Do you try to remove yourself from the situation that is causing the anxiety, or do you embrace the anxiety and allow it to give you the energy and courage to face the new situation? Removing yourself assures that the anxiety will go away. But, facing the anxiety and leaning into your discomfort assures that you will grow and develop new skills and abilities.

This entry is a work in progress. For me, authenticity remains one of those things that we all know when we see it, but is hard to describe in words. Your suggestions and thoughts on how to improve this description of authenticity would be appreciated.