Leadership

Character

Certain character traits enhance a leaders performance and engagement with their team, such as being easy to engage with, a good listener, being firm but fair, being courteous and respectful. Other character traits can destroy a leader’s support base very quickly. Untrustworthiness, disingenuous, flippant with people’s emotions and general dishonesty are certainly qualities that will undermine a leader’s credibility in the eyes of their workers.

A leader ‘faking it until they make it’ may be able to generate some results and fool people into trusting them in the short term, but eventually their true character will be tested within their specialist field. This may be resolving a sensitive issue or perhaps their personal discipline is compromised on an ethical issue. Either way, how leaders deal with and respond to such matters will not only be judged by their superiors, but also their subordinates. If a breach of trust or their behaviour within the workplace has been questionable, the leader’s character will automatically be brought into question.

Ghandi was an authentic leader

One such example of an authentic leader that demonstrated the quality of character is Mahatma Ghandi. As a civil rights leader for most of his adult life, Mahatma Ghandi began his life as an Indian expatriate lawyer in South Africa partitioning against laws that marginalised the Indian community he believed to be unjust. This later inspired him to return to his home country of India, in 1915, and lead a civil rights movement against the British Empire employing nonviolent civil disobedience as their weapon of choice. 

Whilst Ghandi organised the impoverished people of India against their British rulers in an attempt to pursue civil rights and self rule, Ghandi experienced numerous incarcerations for extended periods. He could have lived a comfortable life as a lawyer and partitioned against the British with relative comfort, but chose to live a simple life, void of extravagance or excess in an attempt to be closer to the people he represented. This was one way of demonstrating his true character to not only his followers, but also his detractors that attempted to undermine his position amongst the people.

As Ghandi continued his struggle against injustice where ever he saw it, right up until his assassination in 1948, he demonstrated his true character. On a daily basis he followed through his statements with actions (such as fasting and confinement) and lived his life in a manner that represented his values, beliefs and made decisions in accordance with his moral compass. Mahatma Ghandi did more to help shape modern society in the developed world than any other person in the last century. By living his life with a true understanding of himself, what he believed in and what he was and was not prepared to do to achieve his goals, Mahatma Ghandi encapsulated what it truly means to be an authentic leader.      

Authentic leaders do not have to worry about being found wanting in the character department as they have enough equity to draw on that they will behave and decide on matters in accordance with their true personality. Rather than relying on a leadership style, an authentic leader understands that their role is reliant on character attributes, not a particular style.

Integrity

Of all the qualities effective leaders possess, integrity certainly deserves consideration as being vital to authentic leaders. Businessman, Warren Buffet, considers the qualities of integrity, intelligence and a high level of energy when considering hiring a new employee. He was attributed to having stated ‘if you don’t have the first, the second two don’t matter’.

Employees, supervisors and even customers expect constant displays of personal integrity and honesty from leaders within their community and business, rather than improving shareholder returns or improving the bottom line. An authentic leader can demonstrate this by consistently displaying clear messaging in regards to values and expectations along with consistent displays of a high level of integrity.            

Over a short period of time, a non-authentic leader may produce positive results, but as time passes, employees are likely to grow frustrated and disgruntled with the standard of leadership provided. This is likely to cause the transition of employees to other teams or organisations within the company or even separation from the company. The training of new staff consumes not only valuable time, but also represents a significant yearly cost to a lot of businesses. Senior management may see the positive results a dishonest unauthentic leader generates and tolerate this for a short period,  but in the long te­­rm are unlikely to tolerate a high staff turnover and cost of training new employees due to the toxic work environment a poor leader creates because of their lack of integrity.            

An authentic leader that communicates clearly with consistency in the message and demonstrates constant behaviour that has a high standard of integrity and honesty will foster a more productive and happier work place in the medium to long term. Therefore, of all the qualities that are encapsulated around the concept of authenticity in regards to leadership, integrity is vital.

Conclusion

Self awareness, self assessment, communication, character and integrity are all key themes of authentic leadership. When a leader has truly elevated levels of these qualities, they are considered to be authentic leaders. Individuals may demonstrate more of one, than another, throughout their professional lives with varied degrees of success. The lack of one compared to another may not be considered vital to the overall success of a leader or an organisation, but when considering whether or not authenticity is vital to leadership in the context of the long term, the answer has to be in the affirmative. Without authenticity as part of a leader’s creed, development as a leader and person is unlikely to take place. The leader will never promote a healthy and productive environment which will in turn contain loyal dedicated staff focused on the long term goals of the organisation. The leader will struggle in maintaining the loyalty and respect of their people when the team face difficulties and challenges. All of these things combined prove that authenticity is vital to truly effective leadership.    

Self assessment is crucial for authentic leadership

Critical self assessment and being honest with one’s self during periods of reflection, demonstrates maturity and a heightened knowledge of strengths and weaknesses. For an authentic leader, this is a constant process and strengthens their ability to make good choices when presented with decisions that need to be made based off limited information in situations of potential turbidity.

This particular quality is developed over time, as a leader experiences triumphs, but more importantly from the perspective of personal development, failures and defeats. This is due to the fact that more is learnt from mistakes and failures than from victories. It is easy for a leader to congratulate themselves and receive praise when everything is going well for them and their team, but it is harder for a leader to perform their function during times of adversity, turmoil and heading in an unknown direction.

By conducting critical self assessment, an authentic leader not only learns and evolves as a leader, but they also develop self confidence. Self confidence is generated by having a heightened level of self awareness, realistic process of self assessment and a tough and affirmative sense of self worth. For a leader to demonstrate the attributes and attitude required to install confidence within their followers, they must have a heightened level of self confidence in order to feel comfortable in making decisions under pressure and stress.  

A leader that lacks the ability to look at their own performance, attitudes and behaviours with a focus on critical self analysis, may be able to achieve limited outcomes that are acceptable in the short term, but they will never fully develop and improve their authentic leadership qualities or personality in the medium to long term.    

Communication is critical for genuine leaders

As a leader travels through the constant process of self evaluation, a genuine leader will rarely conduct this process in isolation, and will seek input from mentors, peers and even subordinates. The ability to have honest conversations, without hubris, in order to gain others opinions and observations on a leaders performance is vital to improvement and self reflection. Only by having open channels of communication, that dialogue can travel to and from a leader, can an individual be made aware of flaws in their performance or character.

Criticism is not always easy to process as the natural reaction to negative feedback is to immediately feel defensive and justify why decisions or actions have been made. These negative emotions can cause a leader to become ‘closed off’ to feedback, both positive and negative, when it is given from an individual a leader may consider inferior in experience, status or capability.

Maturity and Openness

Authentic leaders have the quality of maturity and openness with the people around them. They engage with their personnel regularly, both formally and informally, in settings their employees feel comfortable in, promoting the sharing of information. They demonstrate active listening techniques and listen more than they talk, coaxing information from the other person.   

Without this, a leader can potentially go through the process of self reflection, only using information they have self generated to guide them. Authentic leaders have the humility, honesty and maturity to listen to and assess others observations and assessments of their performance as part of the ongoing self awareness process. A leader that does not ask for, seek or accept input from the people around them will not promote communication as a key theme within their team. As part of their leadership ethos, their work force needs to feel that they can freely pass information vertically and laterally.

A genuine leader will be thirsty for input in an attempt to improve themselves and to not just validate decisions that have been made, but to learn from them. A leader that does not promote communication, up and down the organisation, will lack the ability to remain in touch with not only their people, but also themselves. In short, communication should be considered vital for leadership to be effective.           

“People are always judging you based on where you’re from, where you went to school, how you look, how you talk. But at the end of the day, you’re going to have to look into the mirror and accept who you are. It’s all about being authentic.”

Andre Carson

Authentic leaders and authenticity describes the quality or condition of being authentic, trustworthy or genuine. Self awareness, self assessment, character and integrity are qualities that effective leaders have possessed throughout history, in endeavors ranging from religion, politics, business and war. Of all the character traits effective leaders possess, authenticity is a common theme throughout history.

Fundamentally, a leader must possess the ability to inspire, motivate, cajole, coerce and lead people to achieve goals or outcomes. These goals may not be considered personally important or personally worthwhile by their followers. These outcomes are unachievable in the long term if a leader is considered to lack authenticity. Authenticity within a leader is vital, particularly when considering a long term approach.

Why self-awareness is crucial

Effective authentic leaders possess one of the most important qualities required; self awareness. A clear understanding of their personality and inner workings assists a leader in judging, understanding and controlling their emotions when in difficult situations. This in turn enables them to maintain their composure and have a clear understanding of what it is they are trying to achieve and how they are going to do it.

An effective leader must have a very clear understanding of their personal values and morals as well as what is considered ethical. These act as a barometer for measuring decisions as right or wrong. They may be ethical decisions, or morally based, that will be made in accordance with their internal ‘moral compass’. Our moral and ethical compass is set for human beings from a very young age. The way people are raised by not only parents, but also a community, shapes the definition of what is considered right and what is considered wrong during the formative years.

Develop your moral compass

When a leader is presented with choices of a moral or ethical nature, they may need to conduct a quick self assessment against what they consider to be acceptable. History is heavily populated with examples of leaders that made poor decisions based on their moral and ethical compass. One example is that of cyclist and seven time Tour de France winner, Lance Armstrong.

Armstrong dominated professional cycling having survived testicular cancer from 1999 to 2005 by winning the Tour de France consecutively. Having aggressively denied doping allegations for most of his professional career, he eventually admitted to systemic performance enhancing drug use throughout all seven victories, in 2013.

The example set by Armstrong is a good illustration of when a leader makes a decision that is clearly wrong and against a set of morals and ethics, yet somehow justified internally. As the lie and the actions are repeated it becomes easier to subdue the effect of the moral reasoning to a point where the lie becomes a version of the truth.             

A good man has a moral compass

In more recent times, numerous examples of white collar crime represent poor choices that have been made by leaders when presented with opportunity for personal gain. These leaders may have achieved their positions through effort, performance and results, but were ultimately brought undone, over the long term, due to having a lack of understanding of what was consider ethically right and morally acceptable. 

One very good example of an individual listening to their moral compass was a former employee of President Nixon’s administration in the United States of America, in 1972, by the name of Jon Huntsman. He accepted a position working directly for President Nixon’s chief of staff, essentially the second most powerful person in the USA, if not the world. When instructed to take unscrupulous actions against a congressman, that had not been supportive of the administration, he refused.

Huntsman accredited the values he had carried with him since childhood as the guiding force that prevented him from following the directions that would have caused the downfall of an innocent rival politician. Within six months, Jon Huntsman had sought employment elsewhere as he was considered to be disloyal by the chief of staff from that point forth. He was to later enjoy a very successful life as a businessman and philanthropist working to fund cancer research. 

Know thy self

The example set by Jon Huntsman is a clear illustration of what leaders can achieve by having a well developed sense of self. Only by having a very clear understanding of where their moral compass is pointing will a genuine leader have the ability to measure their decisions during periods of reflection. A leader that has a loose moral compass may generate effectiveness for a short period of time, but at some point they are highly likely to make bad decisions that will have serious consequences attached to them. One such example would be the late Alan Bond of Australia.

The infamous businessman, yachting sponsor, corporate criminal and former Australian of the year achieved notoriety when he pleaded guilty to using his position to embezzle funds from a company in 1997 and was subsequently sentenced to seven years’ incarceration. Alan Bond may very well have started his business dealings in an honourable manner initially, but at some point made decisions that were not only illegal, but also knowingly morally and ethically wrong.         

Therefore, a strong self awareness with regard to personal values may not be vital to a leader’s performance and success in the short term, but most certainly is crucial in the medium to long term success of authentic leaders their company or organisation.         

“I have been put in a group with Alex and I hate him! He never contributes and I end up having to do all the work.”

I’ve just walked through the door and made the fateful mistake of asking one of my daughters how her day was and she has launched into a rant about how frustrated she is with having to work on a project at school with a boy she doesn’t like.

The usual mature adult response passes my lips consisting of noble statements such as “You don’t need to like him. You just need to work with him” and “You won’t get to choose who you work with after you leave school so figure it out”. Other pearls of wisdom are dispensed but seem to fall flat. The reality is that I get it. It never gets easier and it never changes no matter how much older you get. You always come across people you don’t like and never will. You will always struggle to greet them in the morning with a polite and friendly smile and meaningless warm words. But does it really need to be this way?

I recall having to work with a guy that was younger and less experienced than myself, but due to the nature of the industry, he was actually in charge of our team of about 25 people. He held the position of authority and responsibility for the success or failure of our group. Behind the scenes though, the discussion was always focused on what I was doing to help him or was I undermining him. That chewed away at me because I knew that if I undermined him the consequences would be dire for both of us, so I worked at maintaining a workable relationship with him.

Sometimes you don’t get a choice

Coming to work in the mornings I would feel sick at the thought of having to greet him and share space with him. The members of our team knew there was friction between us and started to question his directions by looking at me during team briefings for an indication if I agreed with what he was saying or not. I did my best to maintain a neutral expression and give nothing away to what I actually thought for fear of being perceived as being unsupportive. Difficult with a young and inexperienced work force that were looking to me for some indication as to whether or not our team was on the right path.

So what options did I have in front of me? I had numerous options. The problem at the time was I didn’t have the experience to recognise them let alone use them. I hadn’t had any really education or training in conflict resolution and even the communication skills to tackle the problem. So I continued to struggle through with a date on the calendar when it would end due to the team being split up for a different task. It was only afterwards that I recognised the options I had in front of me and recognised that I should have dealt with the problem much earlier. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, this is what I would have done.

What to do first

The first thing I should have done is look inwards first and conduct some serious self-assessment. With the benefit of some hindsight, I came to the realisation that I was in fact a big part of the problem. My ego had felt threatened by being the number two to a guy that had the education to be in charge but not the experience to fulfill the role as I thought he should. My ego had taken a hit and I felt that my status within the organisation was threatened. And in other ways I felt my competence and subject knowledge was being questioned when my suggestions weren’t being implemented.

In reality, they were being considered, they just weren’t being implemented 100% of the time. My ego didn’t like it and I either consciously or subconsciously thought that the other team members were questioning my own credibility because of this. If I could go back and do it all again, I would have sat with myself and investigated what I was actually thinking and pulled apart the issue to see what I was contributing to the problem. It would have hurt and felt uncomfortable, but I really should have shelved my ego and looked inwards.

Good men open up the communication

The second thing I would have done much earlier is actually open the subject up for discussion with the person and explained in detail what I thought the problem was. And the first part of that conversation would have been me owning my part of the issue. I certainly wouldn’t have rolled into it using words such as ‘You’. It would have sounded more along the lines of “I think I have….” or “I’m not happy with how I have handled this because…”. Basically, I would have shelved my ego and thrown myself on the humility grenade early to get the hardest bit out of the way early. That way all of the uncomfortable bits of the dead cat for myself would have been on the table at the start.

Communication skills, both verbal and non-verbal ,and humility in a situation like this is imperative. So no crossing of arms or legs if you’re sitting. No hands on hips or pointing with your hand and most certainly no raised voices or swearing. It’s not about allocating blame. It’s all about owning the problem and being honest.

Good men establish some common ground

Lastly, I would have made sure we had found some common ground to operate on at the end of the conversation having accepted that our goals and hopes for success were in fact entwined. As difficult as this would have been for us to admit, it was true. The people you get saddled up with aren’t there because they have set out to fail or do a bad job. They are pursuing success themselves and are motivated to achieving it. So with the benefit of hindsight, even if the conversation in step two went badly, I would have made sure we both left understanding that we wanted the same thing at a minimum.

Hindsight is beautiful

So if I could go back and do it all again, of course it would have been different. I would have conducted some self-assessment first. And I mean that real stuff where you feel uncomfortable. Secondly, I’d have followed that up by actually communicating with the other half of the problem like a mature adult. Kept it simple and honest by explaining what I thought was happening, without allocating blame, and accepting that I was half of it. And lastly, I would have ensured we both left the conversation with a very clear understanding that, regardless of future disagreements, we would both approach things in the future from a position of mutual respect and understanding that we both wanted the same thing. Success.

Trying to explain these ideas to an emotional teenager with even a remote expectation of them either understanding or attempting to use them is probably expecting too much, but for adults, it should be easily relatable. We’ve all been in these situations before and look back with hindsight wishing we had done things differently. So I challenge you to do it differently the next time you have conflict in a relationship at work or a sporting team. Perhaps even within your own family. Lean into the problem, take ownership of the problem and take action to make it better rather than thinking it will improve by itself because it won’t.