Consumers and clients are increasingly demanding the quality of authenticity from organizations. Employees are also
looking for authenticity from their leaders, as are recruits from their prospective employers, and investors from the
people who lead the corporations in which they invest. What then is authenticity? There's no simple answer for it
means different things to different people. Following, however, are some reflections on the elements of meaning in
the concept of authenticity that I hope will add to understanding of an issue in which realization of satisfying and
productive relationships of all kinds is increasingly at stake.
Both the adjective "authentic" -- a root of the word “authenticity” -- and the noun "author" begin with the same
sound: that of the word "awe". Should we conclude from this that authenticity is a quality of energy reminiscent of
what we feel when we experience some person, event, or thing as awesome? We often confer the title of "author"
on someone who has had his or her writing published but conventionally refer to those whose writings have not
been (officially) published as “just writers”. Does this reflect our experience that there are very many writers but
that authors are rarer and their work therefore more awesome? If so, the idea that awe is at the root of the word
"authenticity" has something to be said for it.
looking for authenticity from their leaders, as are recruits from their prospective employers, and investors from the
people who lead the corporations in which they invest. What then is authenticity? There's no simple answer for it
means different things to different people. Following, however, are some reflections on the elements of meaning in
the concept of authenticity that I hope will add to understanding of an issue in which realization of satisfying and
productive relationships of all kinds is increasingly at stake.
Both the adjective "authentic" -- a root of the word “authenticity” -- and the noun "author" begin with the same
sound: that of the word "awe". Should we conclude from this that authenticity is a quality of energy reminiscent of
what we feel when we experience some person, event, or thing as awesome? We often confer the title of "author"
on someone who has had his or her writing published but conventionally refer to those whose writings have not
been (officially) published as “just writers”. Does this reflect our experience that there are very many writers but
that authors are rarer and their work therefore more awesome? If so, the idea that awe is at the root of the word
"authenticity" has something to be said for it.
Reading Material Sample
Services to Leaders
Coaching Essay: Authenticity
Coaching Essay: Authenticity
| Authenticity: A Learning Approach (c) 2007-8 by Angus Cunningham President, Authentix Coaches angusc@authentixcoaches.com |
You won't find much of these definitions or distinctions in a dictionary or encyclopedia. But should we always be
bound by expert's definitions? Dictionaries and encyclopedias do reflect common usage, so we are wise to know what
they tell us. But common usage is reactive and imprecise and dictionaries often disagree, whereas our purpose in
using a word is not to conform blindly with "what common thoughts have been thunk", but rather to convey, and
hopefully to gain receipt of, a clear and, hopefully vitalizing, message. For this we need to keep to a single meaning
for each word within the confines of a particular conversation, and we also need clarity in the distinctions we and our
audience make between the meanings of each word we use. Moreover, although the range of messages needing to
be conveyed is usually much more philosophical outside of an emergency than within one, such clarity is always
preferable to mere brevity. Keeping this in mind helps one select, just as renowned authors do, precisely the word
that conveys exactly the message one intends to convey.
Lastly, the idea of personal change may, paradoxically, be a socially morbid one. In our work to facilitate the growth
of individuals and teams, Authentix coaches often observe the release of enormous amounts of energy that have
been trapped by authoritative diagnoses or brusquely insensitive, if also earnest, judgments. For example, have you
noticed that psychiatrists feel obliged to make diagnoses -- perhaps because that is how they get paid -- and that
families not infrequently misuse diagnoses by presuming the member who has had a psychiatric diagnosis must be the
one who is "wrong"? A carefully vitalizing assessment of what is true about both "who's doing what to whom" and
"what else might be life-enhancing" releases trapped energies. Issues become much easier to solve than when a
hapless diagnosee feels impotently burdened by the moral obligation to "change". Diagnosees are not machines.
Both diagnoser and diagnosee are human beings who automatically grow because we are all alive and life always
grows until it ends. That, actually, is the rational conclusion of Erich Fromm's thinking, and although Authentix
Coaches is only advocating a small word difference (from change to growth), the effect of doing so is to make social
hierarchies much more flexible, displays of fuller authenticity safer for all, and thus vital learning faster for everyone in
organizational life.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 080605-080815
bound by expert's definitions? Dictionaries and encyclopedias do reflect common usage, so we are wise to know what
they tell us. But common usage is reactive and imprecise and dictionaries often disagree, whereas our purpose in
using a word is not to conform blindly with "what common thoughts have been thunk", but rather to convey, and
hopefully to gain receipt of, a clear and, hopefully vitalizing, message. For this we need to keep to a single meaning
for each word within the confines of a particular conversation, and we also need clarity in the distinctions we and our
audience make between the meanings of each word we use. Moreover, although the range of messages needing to
be conveyed is usually much more philosophical outside of an emergency than within one, such clarity is always
preferable to mere brevity. Keeping this in mind helps one select, just as renowned authors do, precisely the word
that conveys exactly the message one intends to convey.
Lastly, the idea of personal change may, paradoxically, be a socially morbid one. In our work to facilitate the growth
of individuals and teams, Authentix coaches often observe the release of enormous amounts of energy that have
been trapped by authoritative diagnoses or brusquely insensitive, if also earnest, judgments. For example, have you
noticed that psychiatrists feel obliged to make diagnoses -- perhaps because that is how they get paid -- and that
families not infrequently misuse diagnoses by presuming the member who has had a psychiatric diagnosis must be the
one who is "wrong"? A carefully vitalizing assessment of what is true about both "who's doing what to whom" and
"what else might be life-enhancing" releases trapped energies. Issues become much easier to solve than when a
hapless diagnosee feels impotently burdened by the moral obligation to "change". Diagnosees are not machines.
Both diagnoser and diagnosee are human beings who automatically grow because we are all alive and life always
grows until it ends. That, actually, is the rational conclusion of Erich Fromm's thinking, and although Authentix
Coaches is only advocating a small word difference (from change to growth), the effect of doing so is to make social
hierarchies much more flexible, displays of fuller authenticity safer for all, and thus vital learning faster for everyone in
organizational life.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 080605-080815
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Authenticity for me, therefore, is a quality of energy that either induces me to respect its author extraordinarily or
that I myself want to manifest in a narrative of my experience or in a presentation of a proposal to which I feel
passionate commitment. How any particular person assesses what s/he observes as authentic or not is, I believe,
very largely, but not entirely, a matter of whether what s/he perceives affirms what s/he already believes or wants to
believe. How, then, can someone be successful in gaining appreciation, or at least recognition, of his or her genuine
authenticity? The answer for me is that a scrupulously and consistently honest person is always perceived as
authentic, but not always in a sense (or to a degree) with which he or she will be satisfied. Indeed, one can rarely
be sure of enjoying the satisfaction of being recognized as being as authentic as one may want; but one certainly
increases one's chances of such recognition if one gives care to staying true to one’s own unfolding experience and
also to the assumptions one may learn are held by one's colleagues or audience concerning one's expected social role
and values. One appears at one's most authentic when one seeks – consciously but not too consciously – to give
expression to one's own vision, ideation, or narration in terms credible to one's companions or audience. In the case
of a true visionary this requires extreme courage. But "screwing one's courage up" into bravado, will not be
successful for long, for such expressions will eventually be sensed as either unreal or false or else meaningless,
tasteless, immoral, or impractical -- by even modestly skeptical others.
In my coaching practice I often myself called on to make distinctions between the meanings of words that refer to
concepts out of which the present interest in the idea of authenticity seems to me to have emerged:
A valid expression is one whose logic is recognized as derived closely from the implicit value system of those
who consider it valid. Example: “His application for sick pay is not valid”. Pronouncements of validity or otherwise
typically come from someone having an officially sanctioned power to announce the verdict of his or her
organizational mandate in regard to another’s request or application. Implicit in use of the words “valid or invalid” is
the existence of a value system taken to be unimpeachable by both parties in a relationship in which such words are
properly used. The party not having power in a relationship can, however, sometimes feel violated by what s/he
believes to be a serious lack of reasonability or irrationality in the value system to which the party having power
expects conformity, in which case a serious dispute/conflict is in the offing.
A logical expression is a representation of an idea in words that, sounding OK, evokes in another little need to
examine its truth with any degree of profundity. Example: "Time is money". A logical statement is rarely
challenged, but when it is, someone has recognized that, if it were taken as entirely reliable truth, it would become
problematic. In the example, although time is not exactly money, the two are closely related in circumstances in
which the nature of the relationship between time and money is both precisely known and paramount. Although
many will agree with a logical statement, its lack of intrinsic coherence in some (usually unforeseen) circumstances
can seriously mislead people, especially the members of one's immediate affinity group, who will usually accept a
logical statement without question. Moreover, many logical statements are clichés, i.e. thunk thoughts unlikely to
have much specific relevance to the actual present (although they will have a superficial pertinence to the immediate
topic), and so they will be unlikely to add much insight to the conversation. Charmingly charismatic politicians (like
former British PM Tony Blair or US President Bush) frequently use logicality to portray scenarios in which the courses
of action they prefer, for whatever reason(s), seem, amongst their fans to be the "right thing to do".
A reasonable expression is a representation of an idea in words that someone else who is in the habit of
questioning finds "right" and in any case inoffensive. Example: "A shock and awe invasion of Iraq will cow the
Baathists into accepting it". This might have seemed a reasonable assertion to those accustomed to having others
awed by might. But actions based more or less on that so-called reasonable assertion triggered, in actuality, severe
covert resistance to the point of a majority of observers commenting that the US had got itself into a "Vietnamesque
quagmire", notably in the Sunni Triangle around the Baathist stronghold of Tikrit. Reasonable statements used
amongst groups larger more than one's natural affinity group add some thinking value to a conversation; but, if they
are to be accepted as reasonable, they require care to eliminate assumptions likely to offend or draw contempt from
those outside one's natural affinity group.
A rational expression is one representing an idea whose truth someone has tested profoundly. Example: "A
rational statement is likely to meet with 'flak' both from ideologically rigid opponents and from thoughtless people, to both
of whom a rational statement is unlikely to appear either logical or reasonable". Rational statements, while having value
precious to humanity at large, are best kept limited in exposure to audiences to whom raw truth is considered to be
more vital than "psychologically smoothed sooth". Rational statements require the investigative diligence of expert
researchers and detectives. Their successful communication will typically require heroic commitment unless
addressed to people who believe they are on what management author Daryl Conner refers to as "a burning
platform", i.e. in must-grow/change-to-survive circumstances!
that I myself want to manifest in a narrative of my experience or in a presentation of a proposal to which I feel
passionate commitment. How any particular person assesses what s/he observes as authentic or not is, I believe,
very largely, but not entirely, a matter of whether what s/he perceives affirms what s/he already believes or wants to
believe. How, then, can someone be successful in gaining appreciation, or at least recognition, of his or her genuine
authenticity? The answer for me is that a scrupulously and consistently honest person is always perceived as
authentic, but not always in a sense (or to a degree) with which he or she will be satisfied. Indeed, one can rarely
be sure of enjoying the satisfaction of being recognized as being as authentic as one may want; but one certainly
increases one's chances of such recognition if one gives care to staying true to one’s own unfolding experience and
also to the assumptions one may learn are held by one's colleagues or audience concerning one's expected social role
and values. One appears at one's most authentic when one seeks – consciously but not too consciously – to give
expression to one's own vision, ideation, or narration in terms credible to one's companions or audience. In the case
of a true visionary this requires extreme courage. But "screwing one's courage up" into bravado, will not be
successful for long, for such expressions will eventually be sensed as either unreal or false or else meaningless,
tasteless, immoral, or impractical -- by even modestly skeptical others.
In my coaching practice I often myself called on to make distinctions between the meanings of words that refer to
concepts out of which the present interest in the idea of authenticity seems to me to have emerged:
A valid expression is one whose logic is recognized as derived closely from the implicit value system of those
who consider it valid. Example: “His application for sick pay is not valid”. Pronouncements of validity or otherwise
typically come from someone having an officially sanctioned power to announce the verdict of his or her
organizational mandate in regard to another’s request or application. Implicit in use of the words “valid or invalid” is
the existence of a value system taken to be unimpeachable by both parties in a relationship in which such words are
properly used. The party not having power in a relationship can, however, sometimes feel violated by what s/he
believes to be a serious lack of reasonability or irrationality in the value system to which the party having power
expects conformity, in which case a serious dispute/conflict is in the offing.
A logical expression is a representation of an idea in words that, sounding OK, evokes in another little need to
examine its truth with any degree of profundity. Example: "Time is money". A logical statement is rarely
challenged, but when it is, someone has recognized that, if it were taken as entirely reliable truth, it would become
problematic. In the example, although time is not exactly money, the two are closely related in circumstances in
which the nature of the relationship between time and money is both precisely known and paramount. Although
many will agree with a logical statement, its lack of intrinsic coherence in some (usually unforeseen) circumstances
can seriously mislead people, especially the members of one's immediate affinity group, who will usually accept a
logical statement without question. Moreover, many logical statements are clichés, i.e. thunk thoughts unlikely to
have much specific relevance to the actual present (although they will have a superficial pertinence to the immediate
topic), and so they will be unlikely to add much insight to the conversation. Charmingly charismatic politicians (like
former British PM Tony Blair or US President Bush) frequently use logicality to portray scenarios in which the courses
of action they prefer, for whatever reason(s), seem, amongst their fans to be the "right thing to do".
A reasonable expression is a representation of an idea in words that someone else who is in the habit of
questioning finds "right" and in any case inoffensive. Example: "A shock and awe invasion of Iraq will cow the
Baathists into accepting it". This might have seemed a reasonable assertion to those accustomed to having others
awed by might. But actions based more or less on that so-called reasonable assertion triggered, in actuality, severe
covert resistance to the point of a majority of observers commenting that the US had got itself into a "Vietnamesque
quagmire", notably in the Sunni Triangle around the Baathist stronghold of Tikrit. Reasonable statements used
amongst groups larger more than one's natural affinity group add some thinking value to a conversation; but, if they
are to be accepted as reasonable, they require care to eliminate assumptions likely to offend or draw contempt from
those outside one's natural affinity group.
A rational expression is one representing an idea whose truth someone has tested profoundly. Example: "A
rational statement is likely to meet with 'flak' both from ideologically rigid opponents and from thoughtless people, to both
of whom a rational statement is unlikely to appear either logical or reasonable". Rational statements, while having value
precious to humanity at large, are best kept limited in exposure to audiences to whom raw truth is considered to be
more vital than "psychologically smoothed sooth". Rational statements require the investigative diligence of expert
researchers and detectives. Their successful communication will typically require heroic commitment unless
addressed to people who believe they are on what management author Daryl Conner refers to as "a burning
platform", i.e. in must-grow/change-to-survive circumstances!
What, in any case, are we implying when we refer to someone as the author of a document, or
sometimes as the author of a deed? We are recognizing in them the power to initiate or
originate -- whether we consider that power to have been used admirably, legitimately, or
disgracefully. We also speak of an authority requiring authentication of an identity before the
authority will be ready to issue, for example, a driver's licence, a passport, a franchise, a
mandate, or a certificate.
These ideas help me articulate the meaning I attach to the word "authenticity". They lead me
to conclude that authenticity is the quality by which I sense that some object or idea is "an
original" or that some person is remarkably individual or that some expression is intimately
drawn from a certain person's experience or that some behaviour or event is especially true to
what I believe is the character of the people involved. In other words, if I consider something
to be so original, or an evaluation to be so much more true or aptly just than any principle of
moral rectitude or ethical depth of which I have hitherto been aware, then I will feel a touch at
least of nothing less than awe. If I, as an observer, feel that the presenter of an object or idea
or the issuer of a work of writing or of another art exhibits such an unusual degree of honesty,
sincerity, thorough-going insight and/or sheer beauty, then, regardless of what others may
think, I feel virtually compelled to acknowledge the presence of genuine authenticity.
sometimes as the author of a deed? We are recognizing in them the power to initiate or
originate -- whether we consider that power to have been used admirably, legitimately, or
disgracefully. We also speak of an authority requiring authentication of an identity before the
authority will be ready to issue, for example, a driver's licence, a passport, a franchise, a
mandate, or a certificate.
These ideas help me articulate the meaning I attach to the word "authenticity". They lead me
to conclude that authenticity is the quality by which I sense that some object or idea is "an
original" or that some person is remarkably individual or that some expression is intimately
drawn from a certain person's experience or that some behaviour or event is especially true to
what I believe is the character of the people involved. In other words, if I consider something
to be so original, or an evaluation to be so much more true or aptly just than any principle of
moral rectitude or ethical depth of which I have hitherto been aware, then I will feel a touch at
least of nothing less than awe. If I, as an observer, feel that the presenter of an object or idea
or the issuer of a work of writing or of another art exhibits such an unusual degree of honesty,
sincerity, thorough-going insight and/or sheer beauty, then, regardless of what others may
think, I feel virtually compelled to acknowledge the presence of genuine authenticity.
