In contrast to IQ, which basically does not change in one’s adult lifetime, EQ can be developed. People with high IQs and low EQs can hardly be called authentic leaders. The essence of authentic leadership is emotional intelligence, or EQ, as articulated by Daniel Goleman.
The key is to have the self-awareness to recognize these times and listen to close colleagues who point them out. No one can be authentic without fail everyone behaves inauthentically at times, saying and doing things they will come to regret. Being authentic as a leader is hard work and takes years of experience in leadership roles. Rather than trying to redefine what it means to be authentic, research and leadership development programs should focus on how leaders develop their authenticity. This lifelong developmental process is similar to what musicians and athletes go through in improving their capabilities. They don’t hide behind their flaws instead, they seek to understand them. This is the antithesis of authentic leaders, who are constantly developing themselves to increase self-awareness and improve relationships with others. Ibarra’s second critique of authentic leaders is that they are often locked into a rigid sense of themselves, much like their immature teenage selves. They do so because they are sensitive to the impact their words and actions have on others, not because they are “messaging” the right talking points. Leaders who do this, such as telling a colleague, “I’d like to go to bed with you,” as Grant proposes, are anything but authentic.Īuthentic leaders monitor their words and behaviors carefully to be attuned to their audiences and to enroll their colleagues and teammates. This distinction creates a false dichotomy because low self-monitoring is the opposite of being authentic, and is a sign of immaturity and insensitivity to the feelings of others. Ibarra postulates two types of authentic leaders: “low self-monitors” and “high self-monitors.” Low self-monitors tend to say whatever comes to mind, whereas high self-monitors watch carefully what they say for its impact on others. Webster defines authenticity as “real or genuine not copied or false true and accurate.” It comes from the Greek word for author, which led author Warren Bennis to say, “You are the author of your life.” While these writings have garnered plenty of press attention, their critiques of authentic leaders reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of authenticity. In Leadership BS, Stanford’s Jeff Pfeffer says, “the last thing a leader needs to be at crucial moments is authentic.” Insead’s Herminia Ibarra adds, “We have to find a way to fake it till we become it.” The most recent salvo comes from Wharton’s Adam Grant, who wrote in the June 5 New York Times, “’Be yourself’ is actually terrible advice… Nobody wants to see your true self.” "Authentic leaders monitor their words and behaviors carefully to be attuned to their audiences and to enroll their colleagues and teammates" Like all movements-Harvard University Professor Michael Porter’s famous five forces of strategy comes to mind-growing acceptance of an idea often attracts contrarian critiques, which ultimately are healthy in clarifying our understanding. Critiques of authenticityīut recently three leading scholars at Insead, Stanford, and Wharton challenged the concept of authentic leadership. Previous generations of business people spent more time trying to “market” themselves as leaders, rather than undertaking the transformative work that leadership development requires. We also challenged older models of leadership, including the “great man theory” and competency-based leadership models. In 2003, our book Authentic Leadership proposed a new kind of leader, whose character was the ingredient that mattered most-more than characteristics or style. As the Harvard Business Review declared in January 2015, “Authenticity has emerged as the gold standard for leadership.” Executive courses at Harvard Business School in authentic leadership development are oversubscribed and expanding every year. Most leading companies globally are focusing on developing "authentic leaders" within their ranks.
The debate over which form of leadership works best seems settled, in my view.
0 kommentar(er)
