The Authenticity Paradox
Today’s class in Reputation Management benefited from a panel of GSB Alumni, who kindly took time out of their reunion activities to share their thoughts and experiences “in the real world” since graduation. Their comments and feedback touched upon one of the most perplexing concepts I have been grappling with since I arrived on The Farm; authenticity.
The concept of “authentic leadership” was first introduced by Bill George, HBS, back in 2003 and since then has triggered multiple responses in business management literature. The company I work for, Shell, introduced “Authenticity” as one of the four leadership qualities around five years ago when it reformed its leadership framework. It was met with confusion and debate: what does being an “authentic leader” mean? George’s definition is:
“People of the highest integrity, committed to building enduring organizations … who have a deep sense of purpose and are true to their core values who have the courage to build their companies to meet the needs of all their stakeholders, and who recognize the importance of their service to society.”
For the last year, and today’s panel was no exception, I have been taught and told the importance of being authentic and aspiring to be the authentic leader described above. Well, I guess not by everyone…Jeff Pfeffer’s Paths to Power class, controversially advocates that “being yourself” is terrible advice and “the last thing a leader needs to be at crucial moments is authentic.” But how do you balance “authenticity” with the realities of social media and the negative impact showing your true self in your private life can have on your professional?
One of our panelists candidly shared his deliberate filtering and use of Facebook privacy settings to cultivate an image that is both authentic, but also restricts information to a certain audience. As he correctly stated, “(not) being out there is not an option” so the key is to look natural but to be deliberate. He admitted the amount of work this can take to cultivate, which played to another panelist’s advice that “it takes so much work to be inauthentic, you are better off being authentic.” So, in all of this, where is the balance between being open, honest and “authentic”, and safeguarding your private life, including preventing future employers from seeing photographic evidence of your beer pong talents at The Patio?
I find it helpful to distinguish between authenticity and transparency. Back in my first quarter here, I received quite a lot of feedback about how I did not come across in an “authentic” way. It shocked me and affected my confidence, because up until this point, I would have always listed authenticity as a strength of mine. Was I really lacking so badly in self-awareness? Thankfully the people giving me that feedback (my summer study group) were considerate, kind and keen to help me unravel what was going on. They have emerged as some of my strongest confidantes, friends and supporters this year in many ways. As Edwardo on the panel correctly pointed out, seeking out feedback from people that do not know you well is invaluable and is almost always met with friendliness and eagerness to help. In my case, I was not being transparent enough in articulating my thoughts and feelings but now and again, I would show my obvious (and normally adverse!) reaction to things through facial expressions. My team felt I was holding back what I really thought, was not focused and did not share why I was, or least appeared, frustrated.
My leadership journey up until this point has been built primarily on a “fake it until you make it” mindset. In line with advice echoed today, one clear leadership quality is consistency. I have always struggling to balance authenticity with consistency. I felt that being a good leader meant turning up to work as the same person, day in and day out, regardless of challenges, doubts or events going on in my personal life. There is a great deal of academic study underway about when the right time is to share fears and weaknesses. Within a British culture and as a young, female in a male-dominated industry, being “authentic” about my feelings of fear, being a fraud and doubting my own ability to lead, seemed like career suicide. The way I rationalize this after over a decade in the workplace, is that I remain authentic as a table stake, but I can control how transparent I choose to be in different circumstances. I should focus on tailoring my style to audience and situation, but remain true to my authentic self. In turn this allows me to be consistent as a leader in the face of adversity, but candid and unashamed in sharing my weaknesses in the right setting. I am by no means perfect at this, but having spent the last year pondering over this paradox, it will remain a focus of mine as I re-enter the workplace.
Perhaps the most significant piece of advice from today’s talk was the idea that our reputation capital is effectively borne out of hundreds of micro-impressions. How I come across in a five-minute interaction could well determine whether someone recommends me in years to come. While it is a nice idea to say first impressions do not count, I believe everyone should focus on being their authentic self in first interactions with others. In order to do that, I need to be self-aware of how a lapse in focus or a day feeling tired, could affect the way in which I come across. I need to focus on adapting and tailoring my style, without compromising my character. And above all else, I need to remember that before any of these interactions even happen, it is often my reputation proceeding me in the room.
