Sweet little excuse…
Dear Readers,
Today I want to share with you the wonderful news of the birth of my son Moritz Rufus Hilscher.
I hope you will forgive the short break in new entries about Authentic Leadership. Be assured that I will return soon with new articles, info and learning points. For now, however, I’m battling sleeplessness with good coffee and during waking hours I’m trying to re-gather my thoughts and ideas.
See you soon!
Yours,
Andrea
Posted: July 1st, 2009 under Uncategorized.
Tags: birth, Moritz Rufus
Comments: none
Hitting 1000 visits - Thank You!
The Authentic Leadership Blog has welcomed one thousand visitors ever since it was founded in 2007!
This is great because it shows that there is interest in the topic of Leadership, especially Authentic Leadership out there. I’m not going to dwell on the fact that we do need more authentic leaders, and how much such leaders make a positive difference - for their followers, associates and organizations. We are all aware of that fact. What I will say, though, whilst raising an imaginary glass of champagne (I’m due to have another baby in a few days) is this:
Authentic Leadership only exists when it is practiced.
All theories, research studies and academic writings dealing with the topic are blank, colorless and without meaning unless they can bring the concept closer to its implementation in real life. The direct result of authentic leadership is authentic followership. Therefore: leaders, if you’d like to learn more about your degree of authenticity, just look at your followers. Their attitudes, behaviors and values can be mirroring your own.
Thanks to all of my readers for visiting this site, for commenting on entries and for recommending the blog to others. Only your interest in the topic can help perpetuate my mission of learning and writing about Authentic Leadership.
Yours,
Andrea
Posted: June 9th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: Authentic Followership, Authentic Leadership
Comments: none
Leadership and Transparency: Here is how and why.
As many of you know, I have recently become affected by the actions of a leader who does everything in his might not to be transparent about his goals, activities and intentions (For what happened please refer to the blog entry: Pseudo-Authentic Leadership: A Case Study in Deception). Still brooding over the consequences and looking for a new (real) University to finish my PhD in Leadership Studies, I became more interested in how it can be possible for leaders to deceive followers. At the same time I also kept my mind open for positive examples of Transparent Leadership. Before I present a great example for transparency in leadership, I’d like to recap some of the authentic leadership literature in order to show why it is such an important component of effective leadership.
Open up, leaders: Maintain Transparency
Please take, for a moment, the perspective of one person you are working with (your employee, your associate, your colleague, your partner). Then, imagine trying to find out what it is like for them to see the intentions behind the things you do and say. It might be difficult, impossible or quite easy. In any case, it might help them to understand your position better. It might encourage them to follow your goals with more enthusiasm, to get involved and inspired by your ideas, or simply to stop them being overcritical about you. Transparency means that you open up to others and share; share your thoughts, ideas, values, goals, as well as your concerns, worries and shortfalls.
“What?” (I can hear you say), “but then they’ll know that I’m not perfect! And, anyway, I have to and want to keep certain things to myself!” – Of course you do, and so you should. But consider carefully what kind of information, if shared, would support your cause, and when secrecy can be stifling for you - and your organization’s success.
The literature about authentic leadership considers transparency in relationships with followers a crucial component. Overall, authentic leaders communicate the objectives, principles and values of their organizations very efficiently; whilst this seems like an obvious thing to do for leaders and managers, it does not always happen. But transparency has also more personal aspects; one would be to give honest feedback on performance because leaders have a genuine interest in their followers’ progress. Another one would be not to shy away from discussing certain personal shortfalls with work associates; this can help leaders finding complementing talents and resources amongst staff members for a more successful completion of complicated tasks.
The equation is really very simple: if you want your workforce to be engaged, interested and working in your favor, then you have no choice but share with them whatever information you judge as appropriate, constructive and valuable for effectiveness. Their increased trust and commitment will be the most immediate effects of a positive change in this direction.
On the larger scale: Data.gov
The example for increased transparency I found recently in a rather unexpected place: a website by the US administration: The Open Government Initiative. Suddenly, everybody with internet access and an interest in politics can look up what US leaders are up to. It’s not a ground breaking new idea, and some might say that this is the least you can expect as a citizen. Mind you, though, it is not something you should take for granted. They are on the right path, referring to values such as transparency, participation and collaboration. Everybody can read about up the ethical standards that apply for government executives on the Ethics section of the site, or browse the site to learn more about the government’s work on taxes, foreign policy or education.
Data.gov is really an interesting resource providing more transparency on important matters concerning US politics. If they can open up, you can, too. At least consider a more transparent approach with all your work associates, or try to envision what the effects could be of a more communicative strategy. You might wonder why you haven’t done it before.
I look forward to your comments and feedback on this issue. If you’d like to get in touch with me personally, please write to andrea@derlercoaching.com. Thanks.
References:
Illies, R., Morgeson, F.P., Nahrgang, J.D. (2005. Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B.J. (2003). Authentic Leadership: A positive, developmental approach. In K.S. Cameron & J.E. Dutton & R.E. Quinn (eds), Positive organizational scholarship, 241-261. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler
Posted: May 27th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: Authentic Leadership, communication, Data.gov, The Open Government Initiative, transparency, US administration
Comments: none
Let’s be honest. One step towards Authenticity
Most of us like to think of ourselves as civilized individuals who are generally trying to do the ‘right thing’. As Christians, we have a rough understanding of the Ten Commandments; as business people we have a basic idea of business ethics. At least, we can hold a conversation about our strong values and principles, about what we think is right and wrong.
What’s amusing about this is that sometimes we fail miserably when it comes down to actually acting upon these self-acclaimed principles.
An article in the NYT this week describes a related phenomenon: our exaggerated optimism about ourselves – including our sincerity. The so-called “Holier-than-Thou” effect appears when we think that we are better than others (more honest, or more ethical). The crux with this attitude is that we might find ourselves in situations where we suddenly totally compromise our own principles and do the opposite of what we swore we’d do - or not do!
(This painfully reminds me of my own many broken promises: e.g. not ever to cheat at exams in my student years, not ever to be dishonest during sales conversations in my early sales career or not ever to be impatient with my toddler…).
What strikes me more than this well known fact about a mismatch between values and action is the explanation for it. David Dunning, a social psychologist blames our inability to follow our own morals to situational factors:
“… many types of behavior are driven far more by the situation than by the force of personality. What someone else did in that situation is a very strong warning about what you yourself would do.”
In short, our self-inflating bias about our own strong principles can be diminished by circumstances or situational pressures. That means we might think of ourselves, for example, as particularly honest persons but sooner rather than later we might find ourselves in a situation where we fail to live up to our own high expectations.
Recognizing our own potential to fail
This research points at something very important and I’m not talking about our failure to comply with our own standards.
I think it is our claim of integrity and superiority that partly causes this failure. It is the underlying dishonesty with ourselves that makes us forget that, much more important than thinking about the right thing to do, is actually doing it.
Our inclination to talk about values and to think very highly of ourselves despite a lack of actual follow-up is part of our human condition. It points at a lack of self-awareness during every day interactions. If we observed our own behaviors better we would realize that, as much as we try, we are fallible sometimes. A higher level of awareness of this fact will stop us insisting on our own rightfulness.
Whenever we lay down our own (moral) benchmarks for behavior, we are setting very high standards for ourselves. And so we should. But always with the thought in mind that we might, and that we will fail. Am I suggesting not having guidelines for our own behaviors? Not at all. A strong value system is the foundation for an authentic person and indispensable for moral conduct. But by recognizing our own potential for failure, we become more humble, more realistic, more human.
In all honesty: let’s just focus on our behaviors
Authentic Leadership is actually characterized by its clear preference for action as opposed to words. One of the components of the concept refers to the quality of ‘Authentic Behavior’, and has been described throughout the literature:
Authentic leadership is realized when values are acted upon time and again and when there are no gaps between the expressed values and the person’s actions. This means that authentic leaders must convey their principles in every single daily interaction with others, because authentic behavior is only given when leaders act consistently upon values that they promote.
Bottom Line…
So, no matter what the circumstances and situational factors are, genuinely honest people will do what their own principles tell them to do. Aren’t we back at square one again, where we determined that this is exactly where we fail? Actually, no. Because the argument pursued here is not that we must follow our values more (that, too), but we shouldn’t constantly claim that we do when we aren’t.
What we need to understand in order to become authentic (leaders) is not to focus too much on our values and principles and guidelines, but on our behaviors and the impact they have on other people. We actually shape our identity by action, and not by trying to convince others and ourselves rhetorically of our superior ethical viewpoints.
Of course it is a lot more convenient to claim being the bearer of strong values than observing ourselves in every interaction with other people. But once we start this journey into our own behavioral patterns, we will discover things that we haven’t known about ourselves and this can be very interesting. A little painful at first, perhaps. But certainly a lot more authentic.
I look forward to your comments. If you’d like to get in touch with me personally, please write to andrea@derlercoaching.com. Thanks.
References:
Hitlin, S. (2003) Values as the Core of Personal Identity: Drawing Links between Two Theories of Self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118-137.
Luthans, Fred & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: A positive, developmental approach. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn, eds. Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 241-261.
May, Douglas R. et al., (2003). Developing the Moral Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247-260.
Shamir, Boas & Eilam (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417.
Posted: May 7th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: Authentic Leadership, authenticity, behavior, business ethics, ethics, Holier-Than-Thou Effect, moral failure, social psychology, values
Comments: none
Pseudo-Authentic Leadership: A Case Study in Deception
When talking to people about positive leadership concepts such as Authentic Leadership I often get the same reaction: they enjoy arguing that there are many examples for inauthentic leadership. I’ve always been aware that there are inauthentic leaders (those who don’t even pretend to be authentic), or pseudo-authentic leaders (those who pretend to be authentic but aren’t) out there. From now on I can even claim to know one example for a pseudo-authentic leader.
I’ve experienced a truly pseudo-authentic leader. What’s worse: I have personally been affected deeply by his actions and behaviors. The story in a nutshell: on March 27th I terminated my PhD candidacy at the Thierry Graduate School of Leadership, founded and conducted by Mr. Jean-Pierre Bal. The reason: against my long lasting beliefs to the contrary, it turned out that neither school nor programs or degrees had ever been formally accredited.
The Background: Trust and Leadership
Of course it was foolish of me to believe and not to look for verification before enrolling in the Masters, and later the PhD program. I believed the website contents where Mr. Bal referred to his school’s proper accreditation and recognition. I have to admit I didn’t confirm all details because if I had I would have noticed the complete lack of references, links or names of external accrediting institutions. Yes, I blindly trusted him, a Professor of Leadership Studies. I dismissed uncritically the fact that he didn’t have a PhD degree despite offering PhD programs. Like a good follower, I looked for positive confirmation of my beliefs about the validity of the school and I found plenty. Stating in a newsletter from 2001, Mr. Bal wrote about: “our accredited Masters, PhD and Coryphaeus programs”, and in a letter to students he confirms in 2005 that “accreditation of our degree-programs was obtained, and ratified.” In a different letter from 2006 where he again confirmed the school’s compliance with academic norms, and he added: “I save you the details.” I wish he hadn’t.
The face of Pseudo-Transformational Leaders
In Authentic Leadership research we call what happened here a ‘trigger event’; it means that events which shatter a person’s worldview can be utilized as a learning experience. And that’s what I’m trying to do whilst looking for another school to continue my PhD program. In due course I dug up an article about Pseudo-Transformational Leadership. The authors point out the fact that there are authentic and pseudo-transformational leaders. In real life, it can be very hard to tell them apart at first.
“Pseudo-transformational idealized leaders may see themselves as honest and straightforward and supportive of their organization’s mission but their behavior is inconsistent and unreliable. They have an outer shell of authenticity but an inner self that is false to the organization’s purposes.”
By constantly confirming the school’s accredited status and building up a comprehensive information structure on his website, Mr. Bal made current and future students believe that Thierry Graduate School of Leadership is a recognized educational institution. In short, the picture of transparency was conveyed. Today I know that the words were never actualized, as the alleged accreditation was never received.
Ambiguity and the consequences
Most interesting is how this deception got revealed: after having been a loyal student of Thierry School for 6 years it was Mr. Bal’s own behavior that triggered my mistrust and consequent outcomes. Much more than a straightforward answer did his behavior make me wary and encourage my own research into this matter. In the end, this led to the uncovering of the sad truth. But make up your own mind with excerpts from my last email exchange with Mr. Bal in March 2009*:
Andrea: I was wondering whether you can send me the information of your school’s up-to-date accreditation.
Mr Bal: On accreditation. What info do you need?
I expected my leader to be more than willing to provide information on such an important matter, because ”transformational leadership incorporates an open architecture dynamic into processes of situation evaluation, vision formulation and patterns of implementation”. What I didn’t know at the time was that: “The intellectual stimulation of pseudo-transformational leaders manifests a logic containing false assumptions to slay the dragons of uncertainty. Pseudo-transformational leaders overweight authority and underweight reason.” That can look like this:
Andrea: What I need is the information of external bodies that officially recognize the degrees awarded by your school.
Mr. Bal: I do not want to enter here into a lengthy discussion about recognition of institutions and accreditation of their degrees, which in any case are two different things.
It was this response that planted the seed of mistrust and a bad feeling started to creep up inside me. Why did I not get a straightforward answer? I found the explanation in the article: “Pseudo-transformational leaders may create the impression that they are doing the right things, but will secretly fail to do so when doing the right things conflict with their own narcissistic interests. They are less likely to listen to conflicting views and more likely to be intolerant of the differences of opinion between their followers and themselves.” OK, that’s why!
Andrea trying to clarify a few points in regards to accreditation, asking specific info on external accreditation bodies.
Mr. Bal: Sorry to say: you’re way off-base, and you’re mixing up things. I’m really upset now with your line of thinking and way of going about this.
At that point I was pretty sure that there was something wrong with the accreditation of this school. What’s worse, though, is the way this was handled. Now I know that: “They [pseudo-transformational leaders] substitute emotional argumentation for rational discourse.” True!
Andrea : If I were to apply for a teaching job in any college/university anywhere in Europe or the USA, would my degree be recognized?
Mr. Bal: It’s very disappointing to read that you have entered a motion of doubt and mistrust.
Andrea: …it is every of your student’s right to know what the official status of their program is once they want to apply for jobs. Why do you not want to share this information with me?
Mr. Bal: I really cannot believe what you are undertaking here… Please stop this nonsense ‘policing work’ …I’m now extremely disappointed, and will not pursue this here email discussion thread any further.
These words without provision of a satisfactory answer concluded my communication with Mr. Bal and prompted the start of my own research about the accreditation issue of Thierry Graduate School of Leadership. Weeks of research resulted in the following letter from a Dutch agency dealing with issues of accreditation:
“Thierry Graduate School of Leadership holds no valid recognition nor any valid accreditation anywhere in the world. Degrees of this institution are not recognized anywhere in the world. … For all of the above reasons, Thierry Graduate School of Leadership is listed as an unaccredited institution by the Oregon Office for Degree Authorization and by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board”.
Final Words, or No Feelings of Guilt
Fascinating is also Mr. Bal’s response to this whole matter. As a result of this revelation, the school has ceased to offer Masters and PhD degrees, and current students have been put into the position of accepting a diploma instead of a PhD, or being invited to leave the school. However, not one word of an apology from Mr.Bal. Quite the opposite; in a letter to his students he admitted that the:” Belgian higher education systems could not ‘host’ our institution and program”, was not really honest when he stated that “… in some cases the degree is deemed as not-accepted in some countries” and of course, he mentioned no other accrediting bodies on an international scale. But hey, in the same letter he reminds us that: “The true worth of a program can, as everyone knows, only be measured by the success of its alumni.” Amazing. As if to say: Who needs accreditation anyway?
For an up-to-date example for his reckless behavior see his response to my entry on an online-university forum.
My own failure to recognize a pseudo-transformational leader is what bothers me most. It was my blindness to certain details about a leader who I trusted that caused the situation to go on for so long. I have learned my lesson and this case will probably occupy my own learning about leadership for quite some time. If this is all I learned in the past 6 years, it’s probably still worth it.
For comments, feedback or questions, please contact me at andrea@derlercoaching.com
Reference:
Bass, B.M. & Steidlmeier, P. (1999) Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 181-217
* Personal Communication March 2009 between Andrea Derler and Mr Jean-Pierre Bal
Posted: April 20th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: ambiguity, deception, pseudo-authentic leadership, pseudo-transformational, Thierry Graduate School, trust
Comments: none
Opposing Authenticity: Destructive Leaders
For followers, the experience of crisis in their relationship with their leader often turns their worldview upside down, especially when hidden facets of their leader’s personality are revealed. The realization of deception by their leader is very painful but the learning outcomes can be enlightening and fascinating. What’s more, though, is that as followers or leadership students and/or educators we need to consider more than our own disappointment with the leader’s behaviors and actions: we have to think of the long-term implications for past, present and future individuals that are affected.
In their article: “The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments” (Padilla et al, 2007), the authors present a comprehensive review on destructive leaders. I tried to distill the elements from it that seemed most relevant for the use of learning to recognize destructive leaders that operate in our midst. Let’s keep one consideration in mind, however: the authors point out that when we focus on the outcomes of destructive leadership we should note that most leadership can result in both desirable and undesirable outcomes. I think that’s important. Black and White thinking does not really help us when we want to categorize good or bad, authentic or inauthentic, or constructive or destructive leadership. Leadership is one of the most complex phenomena of human behavior because it is almost always embedded in an external environment and influenced by ideological, emotional, social, economic, or political factors. This makes it hard to identify clear types of leadership from an epistemological viewpoint.
Signs of destructive leader behavior
What followers can do is look at leader behaviors. The above mentioned article points at a few signs of destructive leader behaviors: ignoring reality, overestimating personal capabilities and disregarding the view of others. If we stick to a benevolent definition of leadership for now we soon recognize these behaviors as counterproductive to the organization’s goals as well as the welfare of all constituents.
Let me give a few examples: For a leader to ignore reality can involve denying negative long-term implications of current policies, or simply lacking transparency about the status quo. To overestimate personal capabilities can mean to be impulsive, irresponsible and extraordinary punitive; a lack of delegation skills, control mania and the claim of exclusive knowledge about a certain topic are examples that I have witnessed. To disregard the view of others can reach from not listening to their concerns and opinions to blaming dissenters of dishonesty and (gross) misconduct.
Sometimes, these leaders show signs of narcissism, embodied by grand visions powered by grandiose dreams of success. The problem is only that narcissistic people spoil their own potential for succeeding by demanding unquestioning obedience because they think they are entitled to ignore input by others.
Preconditions for destructive leadership
The authors also stress the fact that destructive leaders can grow under certain circumstances: they have vulnerable followers and a favorable environment for their purposes. I claim that for the purposes of guarding themselves from destructive leaders, followers need to be more self-aware. For example they need to be aware of the degree to which they need the safety and security of group membership, and predictability in an uncertain world. That includes the knowledge that destructive leaders let some individuals prosper, particularly those that are closer to the leader. Ambitious followers may be willing to follow the leader’s policies and ideologies to advance their own agendas; to avoid falling prey for a destructive leader, therefore, followers must be more aware of their own priorities.
Interesting is also the environment these leaders create: the article describes these environments as “systems without sharing of control – for example corporations lacking independent board oversight…”. Leaders might justify this as “discretion”, the freedom from institutional constraints, but that also allows them to abuse their power. The authors point out that the “concept of managerial discretion suggests that destructive leadership is most likely in senior jobs (where there is less supervision), in younger and smaller organizations with limited governance mechanisms, and in high-growth and rapidly transforming industries.” Good to know.
Quick Reference Check for Destructive Leadership
Sometimes it can be hard to see the wood for the trees. The wish to belong to a group is an inherently strong desire of human nature and strong leaders can convey the message of exclusivity and belonging convincingly. And, negative leaders come in many varieties: from ineffective and incompetent to unethical and evil.
The authors’ summary when it comes to identifying destructive leadership is this:
“Deciding whether leadership is constructive or destructive is a matter of long-term group performance: how well did the team perform relative to its competition in achieving its goals? The test of toxic leadership, from this perspective, is a matter of outcomes…”
Therefore, followers should also take on the responsibility of foresight and anticipation when they first feel that they might be witnessing destructive leadership. The long-term implications and consequences of future generations of followers could be at stake.
For comments, feedback and questions please contact me at andrea@derlercoaching.com
Reference:
Padilla, A., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B., 2007. The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Posted: March 31st, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: Destructive Leadership, Follower Awareness, Leader behavior, Long-term implications, Narcissism
Comments: none
About Scapegoats and Escapers of Responsibility
This week I’d like to refer you to another article on the True North Blog by Bill George.
Bill George has made the reality of Authentic Leadership tangible for us as successful CEO of Medtronic of many years. Today he is a leadership educator, author and writer of his blog and I’d like to point your attention to his latest entry.
He describes the position of AIG’s new CEO, Ed Liddy, from a very different point of view. He also describes how the real culprits deal with their share of responsibility. Not at all.
Read on, it’s a very interesting article.
Andrea
Posted: March 25th, 2009 under Leadership, Uncategorized.
Tags: AIG, Authentic Leadership, Bill George, Ed Liddy, Responsibility, True North Blog
Comments: none
Leadership beyond the Gender Issue
Maybe my lack of experience with prejudice against women in business goes back to my childhood and adolescence. My mother has been the bread earner for the family as a successful business owner ever since I was a child, my grandmother ran a mild matriarchy at home and I went to an all-girls boarding school with a 1:5 male-female ratio of teachers and educators. In short, I have always been surrounded by strong, intelligent women-leaders who braved the world without much support of their male counterparts. I know that I was lucky to have the opportunity to develop confidence that helps me handle attempts of sexism against my person with ridicule and dismissal. However, I’m aware that not all women feel the same and that many are unhappily disadvantaged and prejudiced against in leadership contexts.
The most primitive and out-dated form of sexism against women in leadership positions has been described by an author for CareerBuilder in an article published at CNN online. Anthony Balderrama just portays a familiar thought pattern for us when he writes:
“A female boss who is every bit as assertive and goal-oriented as the archetypal businessman will be deemed by some employees as mean and ruthless. If she’s not as aggressive as the male stereotype, she’s an emotional pushover. Essentially she can’t win.”
What this means is that different standards are applied to men and women for reasons only comprehensible with a mindset stuck in the middle ages. Such sexists make two mistakes at the same time:
1) Instead of looking at the whole person when assessing behaviors in leaders, some people see the gender first and – maybe - the individual later. If their image of a female (e.g. soft, forgiving and accepting) does not correspond with the actual behaviors observed in the leader (e.g. assertive), they are startled and go on to making mistake number 2):
2) Instead of questioning the behaviors (“I don’t like assertiveness”), they question the person’s gender (“this is not a woman but a dragon”). Consequently, they lose respect of their female boss simply because the observed behaviors were incompatible with their own narrow mindset.
Good Morning, 21st century!
The attitude that leaders, as well as men and women should have certain traits reminds me of the ‘trait theory’ in leadership. It refers to the notion that leaders are born with certain traits, full stop. It does not allow much room for the development of leadership skills, and means you need to pick only certain individuals who are ‘real leaders’. Nowadays, this notion is mostly outdated in leadership studies, because it is too constrained to a certain set of qualities. We know now that effective leadership is often situational and dependent on many different factors. And we also have learned that great leaders don’t just have certain traits, but they show the right behaviors and skills, factors that can be acquired, learned and developed. By women and men alike, no difference!
For those of us who do not think they are sexists but still fall for the gender trap sometimes, please consider the following:
a) When you work with a female leader whose behaviors you do not appreciate, look at the human being between her earrings. It will strip you of some stereotypes in terms of female and male traits
b) Discard of that intolerant idea that there are certain traits reserved for certain genders. It’s not only untrue but counterproductive to working together.
What can (female) leaders learn from that discussion? Maybe something similar. For example, instead of trying to represent a certain image of a great leader (remember, images often made up of traits!) focus on the behaviors that you consider as important. Forget about the ideal of a perfect leader and become more aware of your environment, your employees and your impact on them. It will not resolve problems caused by sexists in your organization, but it will make you concentrate more on your own ability to grow into a more effective leader.
I look forward to your comments and feedback on this matter. You can also email me at andrea@derlercoaching.com.
Posted: March 17th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: Gender Issues, Leadership, Prejudice, Sexism, Trait theory, women in leadership
Comments: none
Leaders: Does your Ego prevent Change?
Potentially, we could all be authentic leaders. That means that most of us have the intellectual ability to be aware of ourselves and our interactions with the people we work with; that we are perfectly able to be objective decision makers and holders of strong values. In theory, humans can learn how to be open and honest in their dealing with others, and they can be socialized so that they can be ethical role models. I mean, it should really be possible for leaders to do and be all that – plus so much more.
Those of us who have met such leaders know it is achievable; but we also know it can be very hard to maintain a leadership role with integrity, consistently and in the face of all adversities and challenges of today’s business environment. Still, I believe it is not a basic lack of capability that drives some of us off the right path, or makes us inefficient, incredible and weak leaders. The culprits are those dimensions of our human nature that work counterproductively to our will for advancement: psychological forces that hinder us from seeing ourselves in bright light and consequently prevent us from changing.
I like to deny my limitations. What’s Your favorite Ego Defense Mechanism?
Particularly for people in leading positions it can be difficult to admit that they are not universally talented or incredibly gifted with all necessary professional and personal qualities and skills. Their subordinates, colleagues, shareholders and associates have high expectations which they want to fulfill. To recognize shortfalls in oneself that lead to less productive outcomes is painful, for some it is impossible. And to a certain extent, that is normal. In psychology it is called ‘Ego Defense Mechanism’ and refers to those internal processes that help us deal with pain, anger or self-devaluation. Our immediate response to unhappy events that threaten our Ego is to maintain a positive picture of ourselves. We might do so in many ways: some of us like to compensate, that is to cover up one weakness by emphasizing another, more desirable trait. Others prefer to rationalize, meaning they try to prove that their behavior is ‘rational’ and justifiable and thus worthy of self and social approval. We might have observed some people to simply deny the unpleasant reality by refusing to face it (my favorite strategy). Then there are some who project: they place the blame for difficulties upon others or attribute their own unethical desires to others. Nice! The most interesting one (there are many more, though) that I read about is Identification: some people actually identify their Self with other people or institutions of illustrious standing in order to increase their feeling of worth.
Wow, human beings are just fascinating. And so incredibly creative when it comes to inventing strategies to avoid looking at their own limitations, rather than just facing them and turning them into strengths.
How Authentic Leaders deal with Weakness
Now, I mentioned that there are those leaders out there who can evolve constantly and never cease to learn and grow. Some of them might just be authentic leaders, because they know not only about their shortfalls but also about their Ego defense mechanisms. But you know what? They don’t fall so much for the latter. For them, self-verification is more important. They want to know the worst in themselves in order to overcome it. They make accurate and balanced self-assessments whilst sticking to their core beliefs. They are able to more objectively evaluate and accept both positive and negative aspects, attributes and qualities of themselves, including skill deficiencies and negative emotions. Instead of losing their sleep over some of their weaknesses, they deal with them and increase their self-esteem and confidence in the process.
Because if you can overcome yourself, you can overcome anything. (Can you tell that I’m a Nietzschean?)
In any case, my point was that most of us can do it. Authentic leaders show us that it is possible. If we are ready to do it, is quite another story.
Your comments and feedback are welcome. Your criticism is, too. Even if I will deny its existence at first.
References:
Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R., & Walumba, F.O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372
Kernis, M.H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26
http://www.crescentlife.com/psychstuff/ego_defense_mechanisms.htm
Posted: March 1st, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: authentic leaders, ego defense mechanism, limitations, Nietzsche, psychology
Comments: none
Ethics and Business: for Dreamers?
It is interesting how far people can go to further their own advantage. How little they seem to care about the implications of their actions, or simply the message they convey. This week I couldn’t help wondering if the CEO’s of those banks that received bailout money and spent it on themselves - rather than on getting the economy back on track as they were supposed to- were really content with the choices they made. I mean, did they think it was the ‘right thing to do’ to spend millions of other people’s money and prefer not to disclose what they did with it? Or was it more a matter of seeing whether they would get away with paying their executives extraordinary bonuses, private jets, or exclusive holiday trips for their 3% top customers? (Ref Bloomberg.com). We will probably never know, because almost all of these banks will return the money rather than offer transparent explanations as of the whereabouts of these emergency funds. “We’d like nothing better than to pay it back early,” said Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis (same source); isn’t that nice, but why, you’d ask, if that money was needed so desperately after the financial meltdown? - “They (all these banks) don’t want the government involved in their business, it’s as simple as that.” So I suppose they weren’t really in a cash crisis, then?
Ethics as a sign of weakness
For these banks to return the moneys rather than become constructive aids in a deep economic crisis tells us exactly what their working principles are. I read about them in a completely different but equally depressing context, but they somehow seem to fit:
“To use everything as a means and themselves as an end.”
Considering how much positive transformative work could have been done by powerful institutions such as banks if they really would have put their heads to it, is sad and frustrating. It seems as if most of them only thought about enriching themselves whilst millions of other people lost their homes, went bankrupt, stopped going to college, or have to work three jobs now. Their major leadership mistakes were:
First, their lack of Transparency in their dealings with the bailout funds which made everyone wary about their use (rightly so, as it turns out.) Second, they showed no foresight and will to work towards the common good. They didn’t see the enormous potential not only to rescue thousands of individuals but maybe to do their bit to boost the economy (which would have helped them, too).
But let’s wake up now from our dream of ethically responsible banks. Many simply follow the same hard-core business philosophy as summarized in this book that I’m reading:
“Whoever says that it’s amoral, that life can’t exist without ethics, that the economy has limits and must obey certain rules, is merely someone who has never been in command, who’s been defeated by the market. ”
There you go. And let’s add one more:
“Ethics are the limit of the loser, the protection of the defeated, the moral justification for those who haven’t manage to gamble everything and win it all.”
These sentences keep taking my breath away. Do you think that this is what some leaders believe? Can you seriously do business with other human beings whilst maintaining an attitude like this? Well, thinking of Madoff & Co and what wonderful example we experience again this week by watching banks with names such as JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs und Lloyd Blanfein, screwing their way back out of deep trouble, I think the answer to both questions is Yes.
Where did I get these references from? The real-life thriller Gomorrah by Roberto Saviano provides us with (almost too) deep insights into the human soul in this mind blowing book. The fact that he describes the attitude of the Camorra clan, business-Mafiosi operating in Southern Italy, is a sheer coincidence. I swear.
I look forward to your comments, or emails to andrea@derlercoaching.com
Posted: February 12th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: bailout money, banks, business ethics, Camorra, ethics, Gomorrah, Mafiosi, Roberto Saviano
Comments: none
© 2009 Authentic Leadership Blog - Entries (RSS) - Comments (RSS) - Log in
Powered by WordPress - Theme design by Andreas Viklund