I’ve got a bone to pick.
Throughout this course, we have learned a variety of approaches to leadership and the science behind them. All of this is well and great, and I think it is very important to be able to understand behaviors and skills and traits that we can look for in a good leader. On the other hand, there are certain approaches that make sense to anyone, but because we can’t use science to explain them, they seem to get the short end of the proverbial stick.
Take for example, authentic leadership. Like all of my favorite aspects of leadership, the authentic approach is a bit of a challenge to define, in part because researchers are still working on figuring it out. At present, it’s primary focus is on whether or not the leader’s practices are genuine and how that translates to their effectiveness (Northouse, 2016). The thing about this approach, is that it is likely applied in conjunction with any variation of the other approaches and used as a complementary factor. Meaning, someone may display those signature traits, styles, or behaviors in line with effective leadership; but if they are lacking authenticity, the effectiveness may not carry through. Similar to the psychodynamic approach, it may also be related to life events that shaped a person’s innate qualities, which we know adds complexity (Northouse, 2016).
Now, I understand why researchers cannot narrow this down, because how does one define any of this? It’s simply not feasible to dissect every great leader and attempt to figure out how they became that, and then use it to shape future leaders. But where my disagreement lies, is to say that the scarcity of knowledge in regard to the topic can be viewed as a criticism, because of course the knowledge is scarce! Peter Northouse actually provides lack of research and inconclusive organizational outcomes as potential negatives to the authentic approach (Northouse, 2016). Additionally, he states that questions remains about “whether authentic leadership is sufficient to achieve organizational goals (Northouse, p. 208);” arguing that one can be authentic, but when lacking certain competencies the leadership process may be ineffective.
My response to this is quite simple; the person is not a good leader in that role, at that point. But it is not the authenticity of a person that decides this. Rather, as previously stated, this authentic aspect has to complement other factors. In Northouse’s example, he cites lacking technical competency as a possible disruption to the effectiveness of an authentic leader’s approach. However, we know from the skills approach that this is necessary in certain instances, and without it, yes a leader may struggle (Northouse, 2016). In that case, they may have positive characteristics of an authentic leader like; self-discipline, passion, and strong interpersonal capabilities, but the “leader” piece is ineffective because they don’t have the skills. The authenticity in their pursuit of leadership is there, but it is that skill set that has halted the process.
Early on in his text, Peter Northouse compares leadership to concepts like love and peace, because all of these things have an individual meaning to the persons involved in those reciprocal processes (Northouse, 2016). I would argue that authenticity be grouped within the likes of these ideas because we’re never going to understand it’s reaches or potential, but that does not have to be a bad thing or something to criticize. Because like giving love or searching for peace, acting as an authentic human being is never something that we should suggest is ineffective. In some cases it may be the missing piece, and in others it may not be enough to make a person effective in their mission. But it is something that should always be encouraged, whether we have the science to back it up or not.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
sma6026 says
What a great post and perspective you have shared! I have to completely agree with you that authenticity should not be a means for criticism, but rather something that is considered beneficial regardless of its extent. It takes a great deal of self-awareness to be authentic, especially in leadership (Northouse, 2016).
I have known and worked for a number of unauthentic leaders who were capable of getting the job done. In this sense, I would criticize their effectiveness simply because in my experience, these are the leaders who sacrifice the people for numbers with unbalanced processing and/or lower levels of moral reasoning, rather than sacrificing numbers to empower and morally support their people (Northouse, 2016).
Furthermore, some of the attributes associated with authentic leadership, such as optimism, are essential for growth from effective application (Northouse, 2016). Without confidence and optimism, it is unlikely that anyone in a leadership role will be capable of leading beyond what is already in place (Northouse, 2016). Authentic leadership in my opinion, in short, is the main “ingredient” for the growth of success, rather than simple maintenance. In order to make positive changes, two-fold (employees and results), within an organization, authenticity is a necessity.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.