A640.6.4.RB – AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
Northouse (2016) defined authentic leadership into three different viewpoints. First, authentic leadership in an intrapersonal perspective which integrates self-regulation, self-concept, and self-knowledge that is focused on the leader’s personal experiences and how that leader connects those experiences as essential elements for his/her personal development as an authentic leader. Second, authentic leadership defined in an interpersonal perspective where the authenticity of the relationship between the leader and the follower is equally reciprocated by each other. And third, authentic leadership described in a developmental perspective that claims that authentic leadership is nurtured rather than a naturalistic trait that can be triggered by a significant life event such as a big career change.
As Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, (2012) described it, authentic leadership is a transparent and ethical pattern of behavior of a leader that inspires unregulated information sharing that is essential to the leader’s decision-making process while considering or accepting the follower’s recommendations. With authentic leadership, individuals generate meaningful workplace, encouraging reciprocal relationships within their colleagues and managers, building sanguinity and trust, and most importantly, promoting a positive climate of inclusion. A leader who is authentic sets a high standard of moral and ethical behavior and practices self-awareness through understanding how their weaknesses and strengths affect others.
An excellent example of an authentic leader that I can think of was the late Dr. Dean Montgomery, Past Chief Financial Officer of Bethune-Cookman University. Laschinger et. al. (2012) said that an authentic leader creates trust and healthy environment and operates a balance workplace process combined with soliciting other viewpoints and opinions before any significant decision-making. When Dr. Montgomery was hired as the CFO under Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed’s University Leadership, he was given the task to fix the financial state of the institution. Instead of making a drastic decision such as eliminating positions or significant departmental budget cuts, he established a Financial Steering Committee assigned to gather data and recommend ways to save the University money while operating in a healthy financial environment.
An authentic leader is very knowledgeable of who they are and has a high degree of emotional maturity (Yukl, 2012). Dr. Montgomery led from his conviction and never compromised. He was very dignified yet very embracive of the University’s family culture, but he was very true to his words and only utter the truth in any given situation. Authentic leaders are individuals who are passionate and deep-rooted interest in everything they do and care about their work (Northouse, 2016). During his first tenure as a Cabinet Member, Dr. Montgomery was very aware of the resistance that he may receive from other Members of President Reed’s Cabinet, but he did not let their resistance bother him. He was consistent with his recommendation to lower the Cabinet’s reimbursement expenses from 10k to 5k every fiscal year, and he implemented a freeze on the Cabinet’s lavish expenditures. Dr. Reed was 100% supportive of his decisions. Dr. Montgomery’s authenticity was responded with respect and trust from his fellow Cabinet Members as well as the University’s faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders.
Boas & Galit (2005) claimed that knowing our true or real self may include some instance of self-delusion which meant that there might be some leaders who believed that they have been endowed with exceptional qualities and who are acting purely on such belief. It is very unfortunate to think that for leaders to be successful, one has to know or learn how to manipulate or deceive members of the team. Authentic individuals know who they are, and perhaps the egotistical side of them catches them at times. There may be times also that they justify the actions they take as morally sound that whatever decisions they make do not matter. As long as they are doing what is best for the organization and the majority of their employees, customers, stakeholders, that violating some moral codes or principles to manipulate the desired outcome is okay. This may sound politically correct to some who believed in collectivism rather than individualism.
Authentic leadership may be the right fit for someone, but it cannot be for everyone else. Knowing who you are is not enough to be an effective leader. Building an excellent leadership character rather than leadership style is much more significant. As an authentic leader, it is to the individual's benefit to have the ability to be flexible depending on the situation and the team members’ expertise. Making tough decisions such as terminating employees due poor performance or reduction-in-force can be accomplished without losing once authenticity. Other leaders may have the ability to deceive their team members but inevitably, the truth will be revealed, and their authentic self as a manipulative leader will come to an end. Admitting when at fault and having the willingness to grow as a leader is a practice of authenticity continuously.
References:
Laschinger, H., Wong, A., & Grau, A. (2012). Authentic Leadership, Empowerment, and
Burnout: A Comparison in New Graduates and Experienced Nurses. Retrieved from:
Northouse, Peter (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publishing
Northouse, P. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. (6 ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publishing.
Shamir, Boas, & Eilam, Galit (2005). “What’s your story? A life-stories Approach To Authentic
Leadership Development”. The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 395-417. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. School of Business Administration, Ono Academic College, Israel.
Yukl, Gary (2012), Leadership in the Organization (8th ed.). Upper Saddle Riv
Comments
Post a Comment