The liar.

The self-help and popular coaching literature are inundated with suggestions such as “just be your- self ”, “don’t worry about what people think of you”, and “if you think you are great, you are”. Although such feel- good advice is obviously comforting (wouldn’t it be nice if others just celebrated the most spontaneous, unfiltered, and impulsive version of ourselves, and we had no pressure whatsoever to “behave”, even in critical work situations?) it is in stark contrast with the rather more sobering and tedious reality, namely that “faking it” is a critical ingredient of leadership talent. In fact, if you are unable (or unwilling) to adjust your behavior to meet social expectations, adhere to the dominant etiquette, take into account other people’s perspectives, and make an effort to manage impressions to present yourself in a desirable rather than unrepressed, uninhibited, or un- censored way, then you won’t just fail to be an effective leader, but also fail to be a leader in the first place.

A quick glance at the current state of affairs in leadership should make it pretty clear to anyone that authenticity comes at a high price, paid not only by leaders but also, and especially, their followers. Most of the social, political, and economic problems leaders cause are a direct result of their unwillingness or inability to inhibit their authentic self, usually because they feel too powerful, immune, or entitled to care about the consequences of acting with too little consideration for what others need, and too much consideration for their own selfish interests.

We are at a point in time where power is seen as a right, an entitlement that has to be pursued and begotten at any cost. This has leaders faking it in order to blend in or appeal to the masses, a phenomena as old as civilization itself. Nobody wants to follow a leader who comes across as a fake, but this has little to do with whether leaders are being themselves, or even honest with themselves, in their decisions and behaviors. Leaders benefit a great deal from being perceived as authentic by others, but that requires a great deal of practice, attention, and focus: it requires being consistent in one’s actions and words, and maintaining your professional persona across settings, keeping your personal self private.

Importantly, it requires leaders to get to terms with the fundamental fact that the authentic and unfiltered version of themselves is someone who perhaps 4 or 5 people have learned to love, or at least tolerate. Everyone else, and particularly those who work for them or depend on them, expects them to display the best version of themselves and act in a smart, controlled, and effective (rather than authentic) way.

The opportunity is to distinguish between style and substance, and between what’s good for the leader and what’s good for everyone else. On the former the issue is pretty intuitive: authenticity, just like confidence and charisma, is about style rather than substance. We shouldn’t care so much about whether leaders really mean what they say and do “deep down”, so long as what they do is good for us. This applies to the issue of whether leaders are true or truthful to their own values. This can be good or bad, depending on what those values are. For instance, if Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were true to their values, we would have been better off if they hadn’t.

To a lesser degree, this applies to any leader, including corporate leaders. If their values or judgment are wrong, then all we can hope for is that they are not themselves, and that they learn to follow other people’s guidance and decisions instead. On the latter we have a clear choice, to either continue seeing leadership as a personal privilege, a sign of status and power, and admire those who get to the top irrespective of what they do for others, in which case authenticity may be regarded as an “extra skills” or dimension of talent - as in, wow, they got there by just being themselves! Or start focusing on what it means to have certain people in charge of others, controlling resources, and being responsible for other people’s welfare and well being.

It seems clear to me that between a leader who is authentic but incompetent, and one who has worked hard to against her nature, act in a competent way and have a beneficial impact on others, the choice should not be too hard. Its human nature to flock towards what seems enigmatic or bloated out of proportion. We turn on our natural intuitive and curious assertions, assumptions and fears, leading to more severe scrutinizing of the situation or the person involved, hence reaching conclusions. Every individual has a way in which [s]he reaches to a conclusion, some are lured in by the visual, others are the analytical type, and better yet there are believers. Those among us who subscribe to the manifesto of the speaker by the sheer believe in the idea or the vision that the leader portrays. This has brought a lot of confusion among societies. Reason being that there is always room to maneuver, to act or talk in a manner that is not of our own making.