Discussion: View Thread

Actually, I do not!  Especially in the age of publication bias towards newness, we are prone to "invent" a new angle of phenomena that were optimally fine and validated without it.  In the times of apparent disdain for replication studies in top journals, we receive signals that, unless there is something "substantially new," we should not dream of publishing there...  So, we are constantly and authentically (no pun intended) on the lookout for intellectual promiscuity masqueraded as -- and sometimes rising to the level of -- true rigor and time-tested discovery. 

Thanks Quy for the link to Natalia's current research on AL.  The piece really drives home 'definition proliferation' in the AL space and supports your earlier observation that often, we are talking past each other.  It looks like this research subverts some central/prominent ways of defining AL while supporting others.  Food for thought and conversation.

Patrice 

---

From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of HUY Quy [quy.HUY@INSEAD.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 3:29 AM
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Authentic Leadership for Change: Really? kindness trumps authenticity

Please read this research just coming out on INSEAD knowledge website, from my colleague Natalia: kindness more important than authenticity

 

http://knowledge.insead.edu/career/when-authenticity-doesnt-translate-4672?utm_source=INSEAD+Knowledge&utm_campaign=ad016c9821-12_May_mailer5_12_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e079141ebb-ad016c9821-249980129

 

 

Quy Huy

 

 

From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Julie Smendzuik-O'Brien
Sent: Thursday, 12 May, 2016 15:10
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [ODC-L] Authentic Leadership for Change: Really?

 

Greetings, All -

About "authentic leadership" .... another origin story prompted by Andre's question as to whether the phrase originated with Bill George ...

In the late 1980s I was a participant in a year-long program at the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey (HHH) School of Public Affairs in what was then called the Reflective Leadership Program.  The dean of the HHH School at the time was Harlan Cleveland and the reflective leadership program director was Robert (Bob) Terry.  Ours was an interesting group of participants - corporate, consultants, public sector and nonprofit leaders. It was an intentional mix, along with the overall program design, the brainchild of its director.

Bob Terry was led to the topic of reflective leadership through his experiences with racism, although the program in which I participated went way beyond that.  During the year, we were exposed to Bob's theory of action - later called the action wheel - which leaders could use to determine the type of action that would genuinely address issues and decisions they faced.

I attached a photo of Bob, but he is no longer with us.  His organization, AWL (Action Wheel Leadership), still exists and continues under the leadership of his associates. Bob's definition of authentic leadership and other particulars about the AWL organization can be found at http://www.action-wheel.com/authentic-leadership.html.

 

I am not sure that Bill George ever met Bob Terry, but it could have happened.  Both operated in my home state of Minnesota.  In any case, I wanted to throw my two cents into the conversation because Bob's book, Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action (1993) was published a full decade before Bill George's book on authentic leadership (2003). 

Bob's book is still available from Amazon (and perhaps elsewhere; Amazon was the only place I checked). If you have time, please read its foreword by Harlan Cleveland. Or read the whole book.  It reflects a mix of social ethics, theology, philosophy, and practice that was integral to Bob's life.

I hope readers of this post will find it helpful in terms of how scholarship (Bob's) and practice (my own and others') came together over the topic of leadership.  The problem of racism led Bob to want to do something about it ... his books, the still-in-use action wheel, and decades of graduates from the Reflective Leadership Program and Center at the University of Minnesota I believe attest to the strength and enduring outcomes of scholar-practitioner collaboration.

Best wishes,

Julie

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Julie Smendzuik-O'Brien
Ph.D. Candidate, Fielding Graduate University

Membership Engagement Coordinator

Academy of Management - Organization Development and Change Division

 

 

   

 

 

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Andre Avramchuk <aavramchuk@email.fielding.edu> wrote:

As a bilingual person, I also see Quy's important point as what I would call a "political translation" problem -- when (in many cultures and languages) people invent more situationally acceptable words and phrases and disregard or render obsolete an arsenal of previously useful ones (only to celebrate their "renaissance" later)...  

 

There is a trend in social acceptance of process for constantly -- and often circularly -- changing racially or ethnically sensitive descriptors due to political correctness or discovery of "flaws" or gaps in history lines, for example.  Somewhat similarly, we as social scientists try to be tolerant with the process of augmenting our vocabulary (e.g., terms, concepts) due to situational refinement or discovery -- sometimes without balancing it against the need for common understanding and the test of usefulness or added value for the consumers of our applied science.  In a larger world where we are charged with seeking common ground, we drift farther apart and, albeit inadvertently, tend to foster intellectual segregation and lack of understanding...  But I digress...

 

Actually, I do not!  Especially in the age of publication bias towards newness, we are prone to "invent" a new angle of phenomena that were optimally fine and validated without it.  In the times of apparent disdain for replication studies in top journals, we receive signals that, unless there is something "substantially new," we should not dream of publishing there...  So, we are constantly and authentically (no pun intended) on the lookout for intellectual promiscuity masqueraded as -- and sometimes rising to the level of -- true rigor and time-tested discovery. 

 

So, what does it all have to do with our "fashionable uncle" AL?  Perhaps nothing...  because I am sincerely intrigued by the idea of looking at authenticity in leadership as an aesthetic category, and I appreciate Steve bringing it up.  It makes sense to me.  It feels as real, and I can delineate and relate to what I see in localized politics (e.g., Trump), academia (e.g., our Chancellor), and world affairs (e.g., German Chancellor).  It allows me to stretch my mind in understanding leadership authenticity outside of where Harvard's Bill George (a "Father" of AL?) located it in his original AL circa 2003 (e.g., integrity, honesty, enduring good values)...  It prompts me to be more open to the 50 shades of AL...  

P.S.  Forgive me, Father Bill...

:)

 

Let's keep the juices flowing, and Dorianne may hear more voices for her edited volume...  Great topic, Patrice!

 

Cheers to all,  

 

Andre

 

 

 

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Patrice E. Rosenthal <prosenthal@fielding.edu> wrote:

Thanks Quy.  With regard to AL, I agree that we have been talking past each other.  (But not on this thread!)  You put the definitional dilemma very well.  Some convergence beyond where we are now seems important.. the kitchen sink could use some clearing?

Patrice
________________________________________
From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of HUY Quy [quy.HUY@INSEAD.EDU]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 2:25 PM
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Authentic Leadership for Change: Really?

Steve's point underlines one key issue with AL, but not only restricted to AL. That is, the same phrase means different things to different groups of people. So we talk past each other. If we have a very precise and tight definition of AL, then the concept risks being perceived as utopian, unrealistic, useless in practice. If we have a very broad definition of AL, then we can throw almost everything into the proverbial kitchen sink--similar to power and culture.
Quy Huy

-----Original Message-----
From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Taylor, Steven S
Sent: 9 mai 2016 22:58
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [ODC-L] Authentic Leadership for Change: Really?

I think that Authentic Leadership is quite important and not well understood. I think that when people talk about authenticity in regards to  leadership they are talking about an aesthetic category. So there is a felt sense of the interaction that we name to ourselves as authentic in the same way that we might name the felt sense as beautiful or sublime. I think this felt sense that we name as authentic is very interesting, however, it probably has little to do with most traditional definitions and ideas of authenticity. Instead it has more to do with resonance and connection. (see Ladkin and Taylor 2010 in LQ for more on this.)

Steve

  Steven S. Taylor, PhD
[cid:63B233A7-6A17-4EAC-8A33-661370A984C8]

From: Organization Development and Change Listserv <ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>> on behalf of Andre Avramchuk <aavramchuk@EMAIL.FIELDING.EDU<mailto:aavramchuk@EMAIL.FIELDING.EDU>>
Reply-To: Organization Development and Change Listserv <ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>>
Date: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 4:47 PM
To: "ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>" <ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>>
Subject: Re: [ODC-L] Authentic Leadership for Change: Really?

Oh, boy... I've been sick for a week and missed all the fun here!!
NOTE: I copied and pasted Ron's comment as well, for continuity...

Hi, all, and thank you, Patrice, for this fascinating topic!

May I, at a risk of going rouge, say something bold?  I think the whole notion of Authentic Leadership (AL) is absurd. It also tries to operationalize the intent (whether as measured by perception of followers or by self-assessment).  One wise person once reminded me, "Never question anyone's intent, only judgment in action."  That was not because we should not question the intent, but rather because it seems impossible to determine in social settings/sciences.  In a controlled lab environment, someone may perhaps get close to it, but the real OD&C life we study is far from a controlled lab.

In this sense, I empathize with Margaret's lived description of politics, where anyone called a "leader" might not find themselves on an authentic ground.  I now realize that I certainly have general "authenticity issues," as Patrice also cleverly self-diagnosed, in part because I sometime think AL is a sexy fad.

The "bigger" (or, in reality, a smaller and more nimble) question for me is, Why authenticity is important, particularly in leadership?  Who cares, and for what reasons?  Siding with Henry Mintzberg's longstanding pleading for management scholars not to insist on terms/concepts/notions useless in practice, I tent to think that is is time to burry our fashionable uncle AL for good...

RIP, AL

Cheers,

Andre



On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Patrice E. Rosenthal <prosenthal@fielding.edu<mailto:prosenthal@fielding.edu>> wrote:
Hi Ron and thanks for your post.  I agree that clarity around what we mean by leadership is important to the conversation on AL... also that leadership best is thought of as an influence process.  And I appreciate the communication/audience lens.  I do wonder from the perspective of AL research whether we need some convergence on a conceptualization of authenticity that can be applied in various contexts... whatever that might best be?

Thanks,
Patrice


________________________________
From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>] on behalf of Wastyn, Ronald [000000755f89095c-dmarc-request@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:000000755f89095c-dmarc-request@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 7:30 PM

To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Subject: Re: ODC-L Digest - 24 Apr 2016 to 27 Apr 2016 (#2016-32)

An interesting discussion but I would ask what the context is.  That is, what is your understanding of leadership?  Is leadership the practice of those in authority positions or is leadership a process of influencing people to change that can be exercised by anyone within an organization or society.  I think a definitional component is required so that an understanding of authenticity would have a context.  As someone formally trained in communication I approach this from the perspective of the audience.  As such, authenticity is operationalized in the mindset of those being influenced.

Ron


______________________________________
Ronald Wastyn, Ph.D.
Director, Master of Organizational Leadership Program Interim Chair, Managerial Studies Department St. Ambrose University, Davenport, IA
(o) 563-333-6437<tel:563-333-6437>


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Patrice E. Rosenthal <prosenthal@fielding.edu<mailto:prosenthal@fielding.edu>> wrote:
Hi Margaret, thanks.  I think you raise a lot of great issues here with respect to authenticity, personality, and context.  Your comments on personality directed my attention back to definition.  What does it mean to be authentic in organizations?  Is it about self-awareness and acceptance of consequences of agency?  Or does there have to be consistency between some internal state (values?  emotions?) and behavior?  I agree with you ... to be authentic will be more feasible (risky) in some contexts than others, but risk always is present.  I also agree with your overall conclusion but it doesn't depress me too much ... I see organizations as places of (interesting) inauthenticity.  I think this is inescapable and not necessarily a bad thing. Depending on the definition, of course!

Best

Patrice
________________________________
From: Organization Development and Change Listserv [ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>] on behalf of Margaret Rudolf [margaret.rudolf@GMAIL.COM<mailto:margaret.rudolf@GMAIL.COM>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 11:32 AM
To: ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU<mailto:ODC-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Subject: Re: ODC-L Digest - 24 Apr 2016 to 27 Apr 2016 (#2016-32)

Hi Dorianne and Patrice: Great discussions. So what's the Real Deal?  I think it's highly contextual and personality driven.

Reflecting on a work environment familiar to me, which is a national government, I'd agree that being authentic and true to self is a function of where you work, and the degree to which your work environment is open to .... Being open and sincere with one's self. I've concluded that, in a political arena (with reference to Patrice's comment) it's not possible to be authentic to self. Being political, in my world, implied compliance to authority and power. Where there was challenge, there came the inevitable and often forced 'career move' obliging those who chose to be 'authentic' to .... Move on. I think there is ample anecdotal evidence to prove this is often the case, though I'm not aware of quantitative research on this topic.

I also believe that personality plays a big role; it takes a special skill set to be deeply self-aware and conscious of interactive responses, and aware of the consequences of choice. To comply, or not, or find a hybrid solution, and live with the results.

A conclusion, based on career and life experience, is that being authentic and true to self isn't possible in this crazy competitive organizational work environment which now has the added complexity of social media where, at its early stages, we naively thought it possible to be 'authentic' in sharing one's life with the world without realizing the potential damage to our working lives.

Looking forward to more exchanges!

On 3 May 2016 at 09:08, Dorianne Cotter-Lockard <dcotter-lockard@email.fielding.edu<mailto:dcotter-lockard@email.fielding.edu>> wrote:
I am grateful to Patrice Rosenthal for the important questions she raises and I hope that others will join in the conversation on this topic of Authentic Leadership. It is my hope that the volume I am editing will highlight the voices of those who have different definitions of authenticity. The question of power in relationships and organizations is certainly one important aspect, but not the only one. I think that self-awareness and other-awareness plays a key role. And since "awareness" is filtered by an individual's world view, what it means to be self- and other- aware will again differ depending on culture and context. The question of how authenticity affects power-relationships and the capacity for organizations to change (or evolve, to use another perspective) is intriguing. What do others have to say in response Patrice's question? What's the "real deal" here?

Best regards,
Dorianne

Dorianne Cotter-Lockard, PhD
Fellow, Institute for Social Innovation
Fielding Graduate University
805.428.2600<tel:805.428.2600>
SKYPE: dorianne.cotter
www.collectivevirtuosity.com<http://www.collectivevirtuosity.com>
www.phdconfidential.wordpress.com<http://www.phdconfidential.wordpress.com/>
www.cotterconsulting.net<http://www.cotterconsulting.net/>

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:00 AM, ODC-L automatic digest system <LISTSERV@aomlists.pace.edu<mailto:LISTSERV@aomlists.pace.edu>> wrote:
There is 1 message totaling 103 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Authentic Leadership for Change:  Really?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:38:37 +0000
From:    "Patrice E. Rosenthal" <prosenthal@FIELDING.EDU<mailto:prosenthal@FIELDING.EDU>>
Subject: Authentic Leadership for Change:  Really?

I have some authenticity issues.  That's to say, I have questions around authentic leadership (AL) as a growing issue in our  field.  AL is intriguing, without doubt.  But it raises big questions.  I'm wondering where we are as a community on AL, a decade or so after it became a 'thing' in our scholarship and practice.

Here are some questions.  Reading across the literature, I can't grasp the meaning of authenticity that's at play.  Authenticity seems to have as many meanings as individuals may have selves.

Some of my questions are about evidence.  The field's still young so the jury's still out.  But are we moving in the right direction re exploration of viability and impact?

Most of my questions relate to power.  Some of these intersect with diversity (eg possible 'authenticity traps' for women managers; cultural differences).  Others concern the concept of authentic followership. To me, AL (if we are still talking about position power here, which I think we are), seems a piece of cake compared to the vulnerabilities of upward authenticity in organizations.  Can we authentically call for this and if so, where ..... in what kinds of organizations?

I'll stop here with a question.  Is AL a new example of a classic issue in OD... the question of how to bring positive (values) change to the (inescapably) political arenas that constitute organizations?  Political skills are essential in these efforts and I wonder whether AL facilitates or sidelines that issue.

I'm glad to see the recent call from Dorianne Cotter-Lockard for proposals for a new volume on AL.  It looks like the collection will touch on many of the issues raised in this post and I look forward to it.

Meanwhile there's no time like the present for a conversation about whether AL is the real deal.  I'd be interested in hearing colleagues' views.

Cheers,

Patrice

------------------------------

End of ODC-L Digest - 24 Apr 2016 to 27 Apr 2016 (#2016-32)
***********************************************************




--
Margaret M. Rudolf, Ph.D
Human and Organizational Systems
Vancouver tel: 778-279-0277<tel:778-279-0277>
Mobile: 778-919-4701<tel:778-919-4701>
E-mail: margaret.rudolf@gmail.com<mailto:margaret.rudolf@gmail.com>

SKYPE: margaretrudolf