Authentic Leadership –Part 4

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts examining the subject of “Authentic Leadership.”

Part 1 was posted on June 6, 2016; Part 2 was posted on June 13, 2016; Part 3 was posted on June 20, 2016.

Abstract

What does it mean to be authentic? What does authentic leadership look like? What are the qualities and characteristics of an authentic leader? What deterrents are there to being authentic? Is authenticity a help or deterrent to strategic communication? What is the place of vulnerability and truthfulness in being authentic? To what leadership models should authentic leaders be compared? In this series of blog posts we will address these questions along with the postulation that authentic leadership must be measured universally against the servant leadership model exemplified by Jesus Christ, and individually against the specific gifts and purpose each individual has been endowed with by their Creator.

Authentic Leadership – Part 4

In parts 1 and 2 of this series we have defined what it means to be authentic: Conforming to, copying, reproducing or having the same characteristics as an original. We have suggested that the best model of leadership to be emulated and conformed to is the selfless leadership exemplified by Christ. Last week, in part 3, we looked at a lack of social awareness and the misuse of power as deterrents to authentic leadership. In regard to the use of power in leadership, this week we will consider whether truthfulness and vulnerability are a help or a hindrance.

Is Being Vulnerable and Truthful Prerequisite to Being Authentic?

Does a leader lose power in finding their authentic voice as leader if this includes actions such as truth-telling and being vulnerable? Being open and honest, especially about your feelings, certainly opens you up to vulnerability. Whenever we drop our defenses and approach another person with open arms, we risk the chance of being hit with a cheap shot. The opposite, keeping ourselves behind a wall of protection, renders us incapable of meaningful interchange with other people. Simon and Garfunkel (1965) recorded a sad song titled I am a Rock that expresses the feeling of vulnerability that causes one to hide from relationships with others. The lyrics in part go like this:

            I am a rock.

I am an island.

            I’ve built walls;

A fortress deep and mighty,

That none may penetrate.

            I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.

Its laughter and its loving I disdain.

I am a rock.

I am an island.

I am shielded in my armor,

Hiding in my room,

Safe within my womb.

I touch no one and no one touches me.

I am a rock.

I am an island.

And a rock feels no pain,

And an island never cries.

To seal oneself off from relationships with others for fear of the pain is to relegate oneself to pain of another kind—the pain of loneliness, lack of joy, and want of purpose.

Cloud and Townsend (2003) profess that successful confrontation always involves balancing grace and truth. “Grace is your being on the side of, of ‘for,’ the other person as well as the relationship. Truth is the reality of whatever you need to say about the problem” (p. 42). Jesus Christ was the perfect balance of these two elements. “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (NIV Bible, John 1:17). People need both grace and truth in relationships with God and with each other. With Christ-like authenticity, power is not lost, but gained through truth and vulnerability.           

(to be continued)

_______________ 

NOTE: Please visit this blog site each week (a new blog is posted every Monday). This blog entry is part 4 of a series of blog posts examining the subject of Authentic Leadership. Part 1 was posted on 2017-07-10, Part 2 was posted on 2017-07-17, Part 3 was posted 2017-07-24.

Next week: Part 5 - “What are the Qualities and Characteristics of an Authentic Leader?”

References:

Simon, P. (1965). I am a Rock [Recorded by Simon and Garfunkel].

On Sounds of Silence. Retrieved June 26, 2016, from http://sglyrics.myrmid.com/sounds.htm#track11  

Cloud, H. & Townsend, J. (2003). Boundaries Face to Face.

How to have that difficult conversation you’ve been avoiding.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Authentic Leadership - Part 3

This is the third in a series of blog posts examining the subject of “Authentic Leadership.”

Part 1 was posted on June 6, 2016; Part 2 was posted on June 13, 2016.

Abstract

What does it mean to be authentic? What does authentic leadership look like? What are the qualities and characteristics of an authentic leader? What deterrents are there to being authentic? Is authenticity a help or deterrent to strategic communication? What is the place of vulnerability and truthfulness in being authentic? To what leadership models should authentic leaders be compared? In this series of blog posts we will address these questions along with the postulation that authentic leadership must be measured universally against the servant leadership model exemplified by Jesus Christ, and individually against the specific gifts and purpose each individual has been endowed with by their Creator.

Authentic Leadership – Part 3

In parts 1 and 2 of this series we have defined what it means to be authentic: Conforming to, copying, reproducing or having the same characteristics as an original. We have suggested that the best model of leadership to be emulated and conformed to is the selfless leadership exemplified by Christ.

What Deterrents Are There to Being Authentic?

Since authenticity is relative to a model of some kind, it should be noted that not all models are good. There are leaders who are authentically bad or even evil. However, since we are examining authenticity against the model of Christ and our created purpose, we will consider deterrents to being authentically good. There are many ways and means by which authentic Christ-likeness may be deterred. Anything that separates one from God has the capability to keep them from being authentic. We will touch on only a few potential deterrents.

A lack of social awareness can be a hindrance. Albrecht (2006) observes that those who are self-centered, preoccupied with their own feelings, needs and interests, and not open to the needs, feelings and interests of others, will find it difficult to gain acceptance and cooperation from others (p. 34). Albrecht also points out that extreme narcissism that renders one incapable of engaging in two-way relationships of mutuality, sharing and support is certainly a hindrance (p. 98). Perhaps one of the greatest deterrents is the misuse of power by a leader.

Power can be viewed in many different ways from corruptive power to benevolent

exertion of influence. Eisenberg, Goodall & Trethewey (2007) cite French and Raven with describing, “five types of social power, following the assumption that person A has power over person B when A has control of some outcome B wants” (p. 168). These five types are listed as: Reward power, Coercive power, Referent power, Expert power, and Legitimate power. Research conducted by McClelland & Burnham (1976) finds that managers that have a high “power motivation” achieve better results, as judged by the morale of those working for them. But they note that “power motivation” does not refer to dictatorial behavior but rather a strong desire to exert influence and to have impact (p. 120).

J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is a study in the corruption of power. The narrator of the story bemoans, “Nine rings were gifted to the race of men who, above all else, desire power… The hearts of men are easily corrupted and the ring of power has a will of its own” (Walsh, 2001, Fellowship of the Ring). Bolman and Deal (2003) state, “There is no guarantee that those who gain power will use it wisely or justly” (p. 201). They further state, “there will always be temptation whenever gargantuan egos and large sums of money are at stake. Top managers too rarely think or talk about the moral dimension of management and leadership” (p. 219). That’s where the greatest potential for destructive use of power lies, when the moral dimension is ignored and personal egos and selfish gain are at the forefront. What is the antidote? If it is true that the moral dimension is “too rarely” thought about or talked about, then it should be brought to the forefront and addressed. Again, this is where the selfless model of servant leadership exemplified by Christ must be championed and continuously rehearsed to maintain authentic leadership. Strategic planning, effective communication, sound team building, achievement of goals, and accomplishment of objectives will only be enhanced when this model of authenticity is adhered to.   

(to be continued)

_______________ 

NOTE: Please visit this blog site each week (a new blog is posted every Monday). This blog entry is part 3 of a series of blog posts examining the subject of Authentic Leadership. Part 1 was posted on 2017-07-10, Part 2 was posted on 2017-07-17

Next week: Part 4 - “Is Being Vulnerable and Truthful Prerequisite to Being Authentic?”

References:

Albrecht, K. (2006). Social Intelligence. The new science of success.

San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L. & Trethewey, A. (2007). Organizational Communication.

 Balancing creativity and constraint. Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s

McClelland, D.C. & Burnham, D.H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard

Business Review. Jan 2003, Reprint RO301J. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing

Walsh, F., Boyen, P. & Jackson, P. (2001). The Lord of the Rings. Fellowship of the ring.

            Screenplay. New Line Cinema, Wingnut Films Production.

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice, and

leadership. San Francisco: Josey-Bass

Authentic Leadership –Part 2

This is the second in a series of blog posts examining the subject of “Authentic Leadership.”

Part 1 was posted on June 6, 2016.

Abstract

What does it mean to be authentic? What does authentic leadership look like? What are the qualities and characteristics of an authentic leader? What deterrents are there to being authentic? Is authenticity a help or deterrent to strategic communication? What is the place of vulnerability and truthfulness in being authentic? To what leadership models should authentic leaders be compared? In this series of blog posts we will address these questions along with the postulation that authentic leadership must be measured universally against the servant leadership model exemplified by Jesus Christ, and individually against the specific gifts and purpose each individual has been endowed with by their Creator.

Authentic Leadership – Part 2

To What Models Should Authentic Leadership Be Compared?

We began this series last week by defining what it means to be authentic. We found that authenticity has to do with conforming to, copying, reproducing or having the same characteristics as an original. We continue this week suggesting that the best model of leadership to be emulated and conformed to is the selfless leadership exemplified by, arguably the greatest and most influential leader of all time, Christ Jesus.

First, Compare Against the Servant Leadership Model of Jesus Christ

⁵ Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

⁶ Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷ but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸ And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! (NIV Bible, Philippians 2:5-8).

To the men Jesus himself was mentoring for future leadership, he taught…

²⁵ …“You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. ²⁶ But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, ²⁷ and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. ²⁸ For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (NLT Bible, Matthew 20:25-28).

Don Howell (2003) notes that, “Those who stand out in Scripture as leaders are designated, first of all, ‘servants of the Lord’” (p. 4). Christ exemplified leadership that brought righteousness through freedom, greatness through servanthood, and salvation through the courage of sacrifice. The apostle Paul admonished those who followed his leadership that they should in turn follow Christ's example: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:1).

Second, Compare Against the Gifts and Purpose for Which God has Created You

Secondly, authentic leadership must be compared against the specific gifts and purpose each individual has been endowed with by their Creator. Servant leadership means that one will not think more highly of themselves than they ought. The servant leader will realize the s/he is an equal member of an interdependent team.

⁴ Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, ⁵ so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. ⁶ We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. (NIV Bible, Romans 12:4-6).

Authenticity, in this vein, is when one is doing and being exactly what the Creator has created them to do and be. This is hopefully in concord with others who are doing the same. Nevertheless, regardless of others, an authentic leader will be true to who they have been destined by their Creator to be.

  

(to be continued)

_______________ 

NOTE: Please visit this blog site each week (a new blog is posted every Monday). This blog entry is part 2 of a series of blog posts examining the subject of Authentic Leadership. Part 1 was posted on 2017-07-10.

Next week: Part 3 - “What Deterrents Are There to Being Authentic?”

References:

Howell, D.N. (2003). Servant of the Servant. A biblical theology of leadership.

Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Authentic Leadership –Part 1

This is the first in a series of blog posts examining the subject of “Authentic Leadership.”

Abstract

What does it mean to be authentic? What does authentic leadership look like? What are the qualities and characteristics of an authentic leader? What deterrents are there to being authentic? Is authenticity a help or deterrent to strategic communication? What is the place of vulnerability and truthfulness in being authentic? To what leadership models should authentic leaders be compared? In this series of blog posts we will address these questions along with the postulation that authentic leadership must be measured universally against the servant leadership model exemplified by Jesus Christ, and individually against the specific gifts and purpose each individual has been endowed with by their Creator.

Authentic Leadership – Part 1

Being Authentic

What Does it Mean to be Authentic?

I remember watching Kevin Kostner’s (1990) Academy Award winning motion picture Dances with Wolves for the first time. The opening scene panned across a hodgepodge of civil War gear strewn about among wounded and bleeding soldiers. I was immediately impressed with the detail of the authentic looking items as they passed by the big screen. Even the stitching on the boots and the nails used to attach the heels were definitely different from what would be seen today. Later, I saw a behind-the-scenes feature about the making of the movie. The producers explained how they went to great lengths to be sure that every prop and costume was made authentically to the same specifications as what was actually used in the Civil War. These were not genuine Civil War artifacts, but authentic reproductions. In this sense, being authentic is not the same as being genuine.

Merriam-Webster (2016) defines the word authentic as…

…worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact… conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features… made or done the same way as an original… not false or imitation: real, actual… true to one’s personality, spirit, or character (Mirriam-Webster, 2016).

In each definition, authenticity has to do with conforming to, copying, reproducing or having the same characteristics as an original. Even being “true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character” implies comparing one’s behavior against previous norms. Therefore we may surmise that authenticity occurs only in comparison to something. This should not, however, imply that being authentic means something or someone is false or merely an imitation. A Civil War boot that is made with the same materials, using the same tools, and to the same specifications as the original boots is as real as the genuine article even if not the original. With this understanding of what it means to be authentic, we must also ask what we are comparing authenticity against.

Susan Scott (2004) expresses the belief that one cannot enjoy the life, make the decisions or be the leader they are capable of being unless their actions represent an authentic representation of who they really are. As authenticity relates to conversation, she admonishes, “You must deliberately, purposely come out from behind yourself into the conversation an make it real—at least your part of it” (p. 67). Scott’s definition of being authentic accentuates individualism. It is a process that begins “—when you cease to compare yourself with others and choose, instead, to live your life… It is a deepening integrity—when who you are and what you live are brought into alignment” (pp. 72-73). Karl Albrecht (2006) echoes this idea, suggesting that authenticity is the dimension of, “how honest and sincere you are with people and with yourself, in any given situation” (p. 87). Certainly individuals need to live their own life, discover their own gifts and fulfill their own purpose. This involves taking responsibility for our own actions. Steven Covey (1990) suggests that individuals should, “Look at the word responsibility as ‘response-ability’—the ability to choose your response” (p. 71). We must take responsibility for ourselves and be proactive. We cannot make our experience the same as anyone else’s. The measure of our authenticity as leaders is not in comparison to anyone else’s experience. Yet, by definition, authenticity requires that it be validated as compared against some original, norm or standard. If comparing ourselves with others is being inauthentic, to what then should an authentic leader compare him/herself?

(to be continued)

_______________ 

NOTE: Please visit this blog site each week (a new blog is posted every Monday). Over the next few weeks we will be continuing more parts on this subject of Authentic Leadership.

Next week: Part 2 - “To What Models Should Authentic Leadership Be Compared?”

References:

Kostner, K. (Producer/Director). (1990). Dances with Wolves [Motion picture].

            United States: Orion Pictures.

authentic. (2016). In Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Retrieved June 6, 2016,

            from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic

Scott, S. (2004). Fierce Conversations. Achieving success at work and in life, one conversation

at a time. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group

Albrecht, K. (2006). Social Intelligence. The new science of success. San Francisco: Josey-Bass

Covey, S.R. (1990). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Restoring the character ethic.

            New York: fireside/Simon & Schuster

Some Thoughts on Effective Leadership Habits

Eisenberg, Goodall and Tretheway in their book, Organizational Communication (2007) suggest that great leaders possess a unique combination of habits: habits of mind, habits of character and habits of authentic and compelling communicative performance (p. 281). Let’s briefly think about each of these.

Habits of Mind

Eisenberg et al. (2007) describe habits of mind as patterned ways of thinking that define how a person approaches issues and conceives of resolving or dealing with them (p. 281). They cite Quinn as proffering that, “leadership is less a prescribed set of behaviors than it is a uniquely expansive mindset, one that is focused on the creation of possibility” (p. 281).

As we think about the habits of the mind, I am reminded of the importance of how we direct our thinking. Philippians 4:9 in the Bible tells us. “…whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things” (NIV Bible, Philippians 4:8-9). Developing the habit of mind that accentuates our thinking toward good and positive things will help to train ourselves toward more positive attitudes. Maxwell (2003) advises leaders that, “If you are willing to change your thinking, you can change your feeling. If you change your feelings, you can change your actions. And changing your actions—based on good thinking—can change your life” (p. 5). Interesting food for thought.

Habits of Character

Eisenberg et al. state the belief that habits of character revolve around the virtue of modesty which they purport is the essential quality of character. “Modesty—personal humility about one’s accomplishments and a profound commitment to the good of the company—is vital to leadership because it is inspiring” (p. 284). The authors point out that the unique blend of professional will, with personal humility, is what is found in the concept of “servant leadership” (discussed in earlier entries on this blog).

I can certainly relate to each of these three leadership “habits,” but the habits of character and the relationship to servant leadership particularly resonates with me. Habits of character certainly involve looking out for the interests of others, not just your own. From a Christian point of view, servant leadership must first be compared against the selfless model of servant leadership exemplified by Christ.

            ⁵ Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

⁶ Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷ but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸ And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross! (NIV Bible, Philippians 2:5-8).

Don Howell (2003) notes that, “Those who stand out in Scripture as leaders are designated, first of all, ‘servants of the Lord’” (p.4).

Habits of character also seek to include others rather than merely leading them. Sashkin & Sashkin (2003) suggest that the best leaders lead in a way that, “when the work is done and the goal attained, the people say, ‘we did it ourselves’” (p. 7).

Habits of Authentic Communicative Performance

Habits of authentic communicative performance deal with the coupling of effective communication skills with genuinely held values and beliefs. Eisenberg et al. (2007) suggest that leadership today is dependent upon 1) the ability to create and verbalize a compelling vision for the future, 2) the development of a credible life story, and 3) the ability to “use language performatively to inspire others to choose those desirable future actions and to work hard to help you attain them” (p. 286).

As we think of “authentic” communication, Ford (1991) refers to the Master communicator—Jesus…

                                                                                         

If we go to Jesus expecting to find a conscious philosophy of communication or specific speaking techniques, we will be disappointed. If, however, we see communication not as a technique, but as an expression of all that we are, then we find in Jesus the model of a master communicator (p. 230).

With all the means of communication available to us today, we may forget that principles of good communication are not new. Ford (1991) cites Aristotle as setting forth enduring principles for effective persuasion. “He (Aristotle) taught the importance of combining logos (the essence of the message), ethos (the credibility of the message) and pathos (the appeal to the inner motives of the hearer)” (p. 230).

Next week, as pertaining to the idea of being “authentic” touched upon above, we will begin a series on the subject of “Authentic Leadership.” So tune in again next week!

_______________________

References:

Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L. & Tretheway, A. (2007). Organizational communication. Balancingv crativiety and constraint. Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s

Maxwell, J.C. (2003). Thinking for a change. 11 ways highly successful people approach life and work. USA: Warner Books

Howell, D.N. (2003). Servants of the servant. A biblical theology of leadership. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers

Sashkin, M. & Sashkin, M.G. (2003). Leadership that matters. The critical factors for making a difference in people’s lives and organizations’ success. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Ford, L. (1991). Transforming leadership. Downer Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press