When I hear the word authentic I think of
a person or object that I exactly as it appears, there are no surprises behind
the exterior shell. I believe the same
is true of an authentic leader, what you see on the outside is the same as what
is on the inside. Yukl (2013) defined
authentic leadership as consistency in the leader’s words, actions, and
values. Another word for authentic is
true and an authentic leader is true to themselves and their followers.
In the following statement from Wong
& Cummings (2009) “authentic
leadership is proposed as the core of effective leadership needed to build
trust because of its clear focus on the positive role modeling of honesty,
integrity, and high ethical standards in the development of leader-follower
relationships” the process of leading authentically is laid out. An authentic leader possesses certain
qualities and uses those qualities to lead others. Yukl (2013) stated that an authentic leader’s
actions are determined by their values and beliefs, not by a desire to be liked
and admired or to retain their position (p. 352). To the authentic leader, the good of the
followers and the company come before theirs.
They are committed to being transparent and open about themselves and
the company.
On the other hand, Martin and Sims (1956)
and Bailey (1988) wrote that all leaders must be manipulative to succeed. I would have to disagree with this idea, I do
understand that there are times when a leader may not disclose situations to
followers until better or more accurate information can be collected. In other words, a leader often times has to
investigate and explore situations before presenting them to followers. This does not mean they are manipulating
information but rather clarifying before presenting. I would argue that any leader who feels the
need to manipulate a person or situation is not a good leader.
A few things stood out to me in reading
about authentic leadership. Rowe and Guerrero (2012) referred to the idea that self-aware leaders understand
their strengths and weaknesses, are tuned in to how their behavior affects
others, and know who they are and what they stand for (p. 297). In general, as in business, people with high
self-awareness are more apt to act according to their own values and beliefs
they are rarely swayed by others. They
are strong and confident in their situations and truly care about those around
them; this is what makes them great leaders.
They are invested in their followers, and “will resist external
pressures that are contrary to their moral standards” (Rowe and
Guerrero, 2012, p. 297)
According to Yukl (2013), authentic leaders are less
defensive and more open to learning from feedback and mistakes. This may appear to some as a weakness in a
leader, but I feel it is invaluable. The
idea that anyone, especially a leader, is without faults is unrealistic. Leaders are human just like everyone else and
they are going to make mistakes. I would
rather be following a leader who can accept their mistakes and learn from them
than a person who believes they are flawless.
In fact, as a leader, I am most likely to surround myself with people
who compliment my weaknesses, this way there is a person on my team who is able
to fill a need that I am lacking.
In authentic leadership, everything is transparent:
goals, values, beliefs, and expectations.
Followers know what to expect from their leader and the leader
understands what the followers need to excel.
This relationship is vital for success.
One topic brought up by Rowe and Guerrero (2012), was
that of authentic transformational leadership.
By literal definitions, it would seem these two theories would not
combine successfully. In authentic
leadership, it is the leader’s morals, values, and beliefs that are the focus,
however, in transformational leadership the leader is appealing to the follower’s
morals, values, and beliefs. According
to Yukl (2013) transforming leadership appeals to the values of the followers
in an attempt to raise their consciousness about ethical issues and to mobilize
their energy and resources to reform institutions (p. 321). The two theories would work well together
when the follower’s morals, values, and beliefs are the same as the leader, but
what happens when they are different? This
is a topic I am interested in researching further to achieve a better
understanding.
Rowe,
W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2012). Cases in Leadership (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications,
Inc.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th
ed.). Boston: Pearson
No comments:
Post a Comment