Originally published in Forbes, March 2021

Chris “Mitch” Mitchell

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” While the 1987 classic film The Princess Bride is not usual fodder for leadership discussions, this famous line provides a meaningful entry into an important conversation surrounding the concept of authenticity. Increasingly trendy across business sectors, the idea of authenticity has become little more than a buzzword diluted by those who project their own views onto its meaning.

In other words, it does not mean what many people think it means.

In truth, authenticity — being genuine or “real” — is an essential aspect of building trust within any business. Trust is foundational to aligning people so that they can accelerate toward achieving an organization’s success. And the standard playbook for new executives and first-time CEOs almost always suggests that trust can be built by “being authentic.”

It’s critical, therefore, that senior leaders understand the true meaning and value of authenticity, as well as recognize common myths and misperceptions surrounding the concept.

Myth One: Authenticity means expressing unfiltered thoughts, opinions and feelings.

Like those who have overcorrected via the "radical candor" movement, many leaders misuse the concept of authenticity as a license to say and do whatever they think or feel at a given moment. The concept then justifies what is frequently a default — and problematic — approach to leading. To illustrate, those who buy into this myth might browbeat their subordinates, provide unconstructive feedback, or worse, all while thinking they’re merely following the tenants of an approved management philosophy. They hide behind the belief that “I’m just being authentic.”

Those who subscribe to this dangerous notion of authenticity add significant risk to an organization’s human capital machinery. They erode trust, deplete morale, erect barriers to communication, and even create legal liabilities. While the early days of Covid-19 and its emphasis on empathy temporarily made such behavior largely verboten, pandemic fatigue and a laser-sharp focus on growth in spaces like private equity have led many to revert, newly embrace or normalize this ill-advised approach.

Authenticity does not give leaders a pass to say or do whatever they want or feel. Likewise, it doesn’t invalidate other best practices concerning how to be an effective leader. It simply means bringing one’s most genuine self to their professional space and colleagues. Leaders are perfectly able to maintain their authenticity while, for example, refraining from saying what they suspect is the wrong thing or saving a critique for a specific moment. This is not inauthenticity. It’s restraint, even wisdom. It is leading well as well as creating better team climates and more effective, efficient, profitable organizations.

Myth Two: Authenticity is 'soft' and, therefore, optional.

Historically, “soft skills” have been devalued in organizational settings — selectively or universally neglected or merely tolerated. While an increasing proportion of top leaders have now grasped that those with an aptitude for so-called soft skills play a crucial role in helping organizations meet their goals, the need for authenticity continues to get short shrift, often regarded as good to have but not required.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Authenticity is a foundational quality for building the essential trust that leads to cohesion, purpose and efficiency among team members. Individuals are motivated to work harder and more collaboratively under the management of those they feel they know well and respect. Organizations that ask a lot of their people — for example, corporate settings that require long hours or healthcare settings that might pose higher Covid-19 risks — must be especially focused on their leaders’ authenticity.

By the same token, the absence of authenticity is no small matter. It is palpable and unmistakable in team environments, creating dysfunctional human dynamics that hinder organizations’ potential.

Myth Three: Authenticity can’t be taught.

Too often, people believe soft skills are inherent capabilities, meaning individuals either have an aptitude for them or they do not. This narrow perspective has extended to leaders’ capacity for authenticity, with organizations viewing the concept in a manner similar to a person’s height. Some people are short, and some are tall. There is nothing you can really do to change one to another. Some people are authentic; some people are not.

This is patently false. Leaders are certainly able to learn how to be more authentic, just as they are capable of learning other new and difficult skills. Executive coaches can play a vital role in facilitating this process, working one-on-one with leaders and helping them get over their own fears and misperceptions about showing up for their teams in a way that’s real and meaningful and shows their vulnerability.

Of course, authenticity may come more easily to some than others. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to helping leaders get where they need to be. Again, this points to the value of an experienced coach who has helped myriad personality types bring their authentic selves to the workplace.

Facilitating a full embrace of the real meaning and value of authenticity often first requires executives to understand the importance of setting aside what is familiar and comfortable in favor of what their business — and team — need to succeed. Recognizing this core leadership tenant represents a key step in any leader’s journey to meaningful authenticity and effective leadership. Anything less would be.…inconceivable.

---

Read this article as it originally appeared in Forbes here.

---

About the Author

Chris “Mitch” Mitchell leads the coaching practice at FMG Leading, a human capital strategy and advisory firm. A seasoned and motivating leader, coach, advisor, and speaker with over 25 years of experience, Mitch's expertise lies in his ability to successfully guide executives through times of upheaval and transformative change.