Embracing Authenticity for Inclusive Leadership

What is your “word of the year?” Merriam-Webster recently announced theirs: authentic. In their announcement, Merriam-Webster unpacked their choice and its importance…

“Authentic saw a substantial increase in 2023, driven by stories and conversations about AI, celebrity culture, identity, and social media…Although clearly a desirable quality, authentic is hard to define and subject to debate—two reasons it sends many people to the dictionary.”  

For many, authenticity means being relatable, honest, and non-performative. But no matter how we define it, we know it when we see it, just like we recognize inauthenticity. Inauthenticity has a way of pricking our ears up and putting us on guard. When a person, leader, organization, or institution comes across as disingenuous, we often pause, question why they aren’t being forthcoming, and assess what they really want from us.

We live in a time when buzzwords and trends dominate our conversations, posts, meetings, and media. In this landscape, being authentic stands out as a powerful and vital concept, and its significance for building trust, fostering inclusivity, and achieving sustainable success is becoming increasingly apparent for leaders, teams, and organizations.

Leading with authenticity includes recognizing the power of diversity and valuing, pursuing, and respecting different perspectives, experiences, and talents. When this is the leadership standard, then team performance improves, and the organizational culture is experienced as one of inclusion and belonging. 

So, what does it mean to convey authenticity, particularly in the context of diverse teams and organizations?

  1. Self-Awareness and Curiosity: Authentic leaders understand their own values, beliefs, and biases. They put in the time, work, and energy needed to identify their strengths and continuously work on opportunities to develop. This self-awareness allows them to lead with integrity and respond with curiosity.

  2. Empathy and Compassion: Leaders who understand the challenges and experiences of their individual team members can better support and motivate them. By listening to and connecting with their employees on a personal level, these leaders foster a sense of belonging and a more compassionate organizational culture.

  3. Adaptability and Growth: Good leaders acknowledge they don’t have all the answers and are willing to listen, learn, and grow, especially when encountering ideas, perspectives, and lived experiences different from their own. This willingness to evolve sets an example and creates space for their teams to do the same.

  4. Consistency and Integrity: Authentic leaders are consistent in their actions and decisions and align their behavior with their values. Essentially, they do what they say and say what they do. This integrity is a powerful force for building trust and credibility, both within the team and throughout the organization.

  5. Humility and Transparency: Being authentic means engaging in honest communication, openly sharing thoughts and processes, genuinely seeking feedback, and admitting mistakes. This transparent communication builds trust and encourages others to do the same.

Authenticity is a guiding principle in leadership. It directly impacts how leaders show up for their teams, embody the standards of their organization, and navigate the opportunities and challenges of a diverse world. Being true to oneself and valuing the unique and authentic qualities of others creates more innovative, inclusive, and impactful work.

As you consider your own “word of the year” and reflect on your leadership journey, perhaps Merriam-Webster’s choice will resonate with you. Either way, I encourage you to embrace the power of authenticity and see how it transforms your leadership.

When Does a Critical Moment Become an Inflection Point?

One significant way we make sense of our worlds is through the structure of stories. And our stories are understood through our frames of reference from family, community, and history. These stories influence what we hear and what we don’t hear, what we tell or don’t tell, and what we chose to edit. Stories are constituted by episodes. And we find grounding in those episodes having a beginning, middle, and end.

We find ourselves now in the middle of a number of powerful episodes that contain critical moments and how we chose to respond is especially consequential to the future we are creating. One of these episodes is the global pandemic and how different geographic regions are dealing with it. Another episode has been ignited by the outrage in response to the murder of George Floyd. How we frame the beginning, middle and end of the episodes that constitute each of these stories continues to shift as the beginnings or roots continue to unfold and the future we are creating is uncertain…

Read the rest of Ilene Wasserman’s post on the CMM Institute blog here

What Might we Learn From Primary Discourse Instead of Primary Debates?

Like many of my peers, I struggled to watch the latest Democratic debate. I admire each of the remaining candidates, but watching them constantly interrupt each other only to share nearly identical visions for the future provides little context to effectively evaluate each candidate’s potential to govern. As an organizational consultant who coaches leaders around communicating vision and shaping the culture of their organizations, I can’t help but wonder whether there could be a better format to help Americans make informed decisions in the voting booth.

What we know from our research and practice is the structure of a conversation dictates its outcome. So what outcomes does the current structure produce? It sews discord between candidates (and their supporters) despite the fact that there is agreement on most of the issues that concern the electorate. And this discord is undermining the very coalition that the Democrats will need in November to realize their shared vision. The format of the debates also creates an illusion that presidents govern by dictate and that a candidate who speaks the loudest and interrupts the most is best equipped to lead. And in so doing, it provides little opportunity for candidates to showcase the qualities that true leaders possess: an ability to analyze complex problems, to engage in conversation with trusted advisors, to make educated decisions, and to bring people together across divides.

If the outcome we want is to learn which candidate is best prepared to lead in such a perilous time, let’s try a new format. Consider what we might learn—and the strong coalitions we might build—if we foster constructive discourse between the candidates and the supporters they hope to gain. Think about how refreshing it could be to replace a line with a circle and to bring audience members who ask questions directly joining the conversation. Imagine if we formulate the “debate stage” in a manner that emulates the environment in which an elected candidate will govern while allowing voters to experience and even engage with the very leadership qualities that best prepare presidents for the cabinet meetings and other meetings they will need to lead, in which important decisions are made.

Learn how we helped 100 top brands gain success