Most of us think of ourselves as being authentic; however, each of us in certain situations, and each of us in certain ways, is consistently inauthentic. And, because we avoid at all costs confronting our inauthenticities, we are consistently inauthentic about being inauthentic – not only with others, but with ourselves as well. The point is, you are inauthentic and don’t know that you are inauthentic – that’s called fooling yourself about fooling yourself, and that’s truly foolish. Quoting Harvard Professor Chris Argyris (1991), who after 40 years of studying us human beings, on the subject of our inauthenticity says:
“Put simply, people consistently act inconsistently, unaware of the contradiction between their espoused theory and their theory-in-use, between the way they think they are acting, and the way they really act.”
Examples of Our Inauthenticities
We all want to be admired, and almost none of us is willing to confront just how much we want to be admired, and how readily we will fudge on being straightforward and completely honest in a situation where we perceive doing so threatens us with a loss of admiration. Admiration is the highest coin in the realm. We will do anything to be admired and the loss of authenticity seems a small price to pay, especially when you don’t even notice that you are being inauthentic and even if you did, are unaware that being inauthentic costs you being whole and complete as a person.
We also all want to be seen by our colleagues as being loyal, protesting that loyalty is a virtue even in situations where the truth is that we are acting “loyal” solely to avoid the loss of admiration. And, in such situations, how ready we are to sacrifice our authenticity to maintain the pretense of being loyal, when the truth is that we are “being loyal” only because we fear losing the admiration of our colleagues.
In addition, most of us have a pathetic need for looking good, and almost none of us is willing to confront just how much we care about looking good – even to the extent of the silliness of pretending to have followed and understood something when we haven’t. And by the way, looking good does not look good.
Just the threat of looking bad (wrong, stupid, irrational, naïve, silly, etc.), for most of us destroys even the possibility of being authentic. The need to avoid the embarrassment or humiliation we imagine to be the result of looking bad leaves us defensive, posturing, or petulant (childishly sulking or bad tempered). And by the way, being defensive, posturing, or petulant does not look good.
This being inauthentic about being wrong, etc., like any inauthenticity, costs us the power required to be a leader and to exercise leadership effectively. If you’re going to be a leader, you need the courage to be straight when you’re wrong, stupid, irrational, naïve, silly, etc. – and you will be.
Each of Us is Inauthentic in Certain Ways
While this may sound like a description of this or that person you know, it actually describes each person in this room, including your instructors. We are all guilty of being small in these ways – it comes with being human. Great leaders are noteworthy in having come to grips with these foibles of being human – not eliminating them, but being the master of these weaknesses when they are leading. If you don’t recognize being inauthentic when you are and if you are not willing to confront that you are being inauthentic, you have no chance of being authentic.
Quoting former Medtronic CEO and now Harvard Business School Professor of Leadership, Bill George (2003, p. 11):
“After years of studying leaders and their traits, I believe that leadership begins and ends with authenticity.”
Being authentic is critical to being a leader. Inauthenticity is one of the barriers to being a leader and to the effective exercise of leadership. However, attempting to be authentic on top of your inauthenticities is like putting cake frosting on cow dung, thinking that that will make the cow dung go down well.
Materials from:“Being A Leader And The Effective Exercise Of Leadership: An Ontological / Phenomenological Model”,
WERNER ERHARD and MICHAEL C. JENSEN
