Reading Material Sample
Services to Leaders
Coaching Essay: Authenticity
Coaching Essay: Authenticity
| Authenticity: A Learning Approach (c) 2007-9 by Angus Cunningham President, Authentix Coaches angusc@authentixcoaches.com |
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, purchasers from those
trying to sell to them, salesmen interested in the needs of their prospects, investors dependent on the people who
direct or lead the organizations in which they invest, and lonely people desperate for dependable companionship.
And authenticity shared amongst colleagues, friends, and family members is, of course, a paramount expectation.
What then is authenticity? There's no simple answer for authenticity means different things to different people.
Following, however, are some reflections on the elements of meaning evoked by the word "authenticity". I hope
they will stimulate further 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: the same as 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? When we refer to
someone as the author of a document, or sometimes as the author of a deed, we are recognizing as present 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.
looking for authenticity from their leaders, as are recruits from their prospective employers, purchasers from those
trying to sell to them, salesmen interested in the needs of their prospects, investors dependent on the people who
direct or lead the organizations in which they invest, and lonely people desperate for dependable companionship.
And authenticity shared amongst colleagues, friends, and family members is, of course, a paramount expectation.
What then is authenticity? There's no simple answer for authenticity means different things to different people.
Following, however, are some reflections on the elements of meaning evoked by the word "authenticity". I hope
they will stimulate further 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: the same as 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? When we refer to
someone as the author of a document, or sometimes as the author of a deed, we are recognizing as present 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 become aware of the meaning I attach to the word "authenticity". They lead
me to conclude that authenticity is the quality by which one senses 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 person or people involved. In other words, if I consider an act to be
so original, or an observation 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
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 in another.
But what about my own authenticity? Need I have concern about that? For a period of my life, I
had no doubts about my own authenticity. But, knocked about in the school of hard knocks, I
began to notice, in reviews after the event, that I was not expressing myself honestly. Not always
aware of this in the moment of expression, I became perplexed as to why people were not trusting
me as much as I felt justified in expecting. It was toward the end of that period of perplexity that I
began calling my firm by the name Authentix Coaches. By then, the word "authenticity" was
signifying for me 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. But how any particular person assesses what s/he observes
as authentic or not is, I believe, very largely a matter of whether what s/he perceives is affirming
what s/he already believes or wants to believe.
me to conclude that authenticity is the quality by which one senses 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 person or people involved. In other words, if I consider an act to be
so original, or an observation 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
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 in another.
But what about my own authenticity? Need I have concern about that? For a period of my life, I
had no doubts about my own authenticity. But, knocked about in the school of hard knocks, I
began to notice, in reviews after the event, that I was not expressing myself honestly. Not always
aware of this in the moment of expression, I became perplexed as to why people were not trusting
me as much as I felt justified in expecting. It was toward the end of that period of perplexity that I
began calling my firm by the name Authentix Coaches. By then, the word "authenticity" was
signifying for me 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. But how any particular person assesses what s/he observes
as authentic or not is, I believe, very largely a matter of whether what s/he perceives is affirming
what s/he already believes or wants to believe.
How, then, can someone gain appreciation for, or at least recognition of, his or her own genuine authenticity? The
answer for me is that a scrupulously and consistently honest person is always perceived as authentic, but not always
in the degree to which he or she will be satisfied. Indeed, one can rarely be sure of enjoying the satisfaction of
being recognized as behaving authentically; 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 has ascertained 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 so consciously as to be considered freakish) – 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" will not, however, be
successful for long, for such expressions will eventually be sensed as bravado -- either unreal or false or else
meaningless, tasteless, impractical, immoral, or even disgraceful -- by even modestly skeptical others.
Authenticity may also be conceived as the strength of one's "I concept". It begins when we first try using the word
"I" and it grows from there in the measure that we get validation from those around us for the way we use it relative
to the equanimity, clarity, and poise with which we were using it when we got a reaction or response to our
subsequent use of it. In my coaching practice I often feel called 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 consistent with 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 either reasonability or rationality 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, evoke in another little need to
assess their truth with any degree of rigour or 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 misleading. 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 present circumstances (although they do have a superficial connection), and so they
will add very little insight to the conversation. Charmingly charismatic politicians (like former British PM Tony Blair or
former US President Bush) have frequently taken advantage of simplistic logic 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 used to winning by intimidation.
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". Reasonable statements articulated to groups a little larger than one's natural affinity group add
educational value; but, to be accepted as reasonable, care is required to eliminate from them assumptions likely to
offend or evoke contempt.
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 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 and honest
researchers and detectives. Their successful communication will typically require heroic commitment unless
addressed to people who believe they are on what change-leadership author Daryl Conner refers to as "a burning
platform", i.e. in must-grow/change-to-survive circumstances!
Following is a table summarizing these definitions:
answer for me is that a scrupulously and consistently honest person is always perceived as authentic, but not always
in the degree to which he or she will be satisfied. Indeed, one can rarely be sure of enjoying the satisfaction of
being recognized as behaving authentically; 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 has ascertained 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 so consciously as to be considered freakish) – 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" will not, however, be
successful for long, for such expressions will eventually be sensed as bravado -- either unreal or false or else
meaningless, tasteless, impractical, immoral, or even disgraceful -- by even modestly skeptical others.
Authenticity may also be conceived as the strength of one's "I concept". It begins when we first try using the word
"I" and it grows from there in the measure that we get validation from those around us for the way we use it relative
to the equanimity, clarity, and poise with which we were using it when we got a reaction or response to our
subsequent use of it. In my coaching practice I often feel called 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 consistent with 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 either reasonability or rationality 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, evoke in another little need to
assess their truth with any degree of rigour or 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 misleading. 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 present circumstances (although they do have a superficial connection), and so they
will add very little insight to the conversation. Charmingly charismatic politicians (like former British PM Tony Blair or
former US President Bush) have frequently taken advantage of simplistic logic 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 used to winning by intimidation.
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". Reasonable statements articulated to groups a little larger than one's natural affinity group add
educational value; but, to be accepted as reasonable, care is required to eliminate from them assumptions likely to
offend or evoke contempt.
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 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 and honest
researchers and detectives. Their successful communication will typically require heroic commitment unless
addressed to people who believe they are on what change-leadership author Daryl Conner refers to as "a burning
platform", i.e. in must-grow/change-to-survive circumstances!
Following is a table summarizing these definitions:
You won't find much of this in a dictionary or encyclopedia. Dictionaries and encyclopedias do reflect common usage,
but our purposes, if they are both authentic and ethically well-considered, is to convey, and hopefully to gain receipt
of, a clear and, hopefully vitalizing, message, or else vitalizing feedback. 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 revered authors do, precisely the
word that conveys exactly the message one intends to convey.
This learning approach to working with the idea of authenticity has a consequence for the practice of empathy
because 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"? So, while a diagnosis may appear to be the authentic truth of an expert, it cannot
be a healing factor unless the diagnoser takes the time to summon the empathy to explain, non-judgmentally, its
ramifications to all the people significantly in relationship with the diagnosee:
Empathy: The discipline/capacity of being actively present to hear the needs, wants and aims of others
affected by one's behaviour (action or speech), and of anticipating accurately the sensitivities likely to be
excited by one’s instinctive inclinations to share (or hide) potentially painful or frightening possibilities with
(or from) others.
Diagnosees are not machines to be changed. Both diagnoser and diagnosee are human beings who automatically
grow because we are all alive and life always grows until it ends -- although perhaps not as fast as some may
desire. 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 add empathy to authenticity,
and thus a vitalizing balance to any professional approach. At the level of a society, the effect of an individual
combining empathy with authenticity may one day be 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, 071203-090529
Excerpted from "Rational Presence", to be published in 2009
but our purposes, if they are both authentic and ethically well-considered, is to convey, and hopefully to gain receipt
of, a clear and, hopefully vitalizing, message, or else vitalizing feedback. 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 revered authors do, precisely the
word that conveys exactly the message one intends to convey.
This learning approach to working with the idea of authenticity has a consequence for the practice of empathy
because 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"? So, while a diagnosis may appear to be the authentic truth of an expert, it cannot
be a healing factor unless the diagnoser takes the time to summon the empathy to explain, non-judgmentally, its
ramifications to all the people significantly in relationship with the diagnosee:
Empathy: The discipline/capacity of being actively present to hear the needs, wants and aims of others
affected by one's behaviour (action or speech), and of anticipating accurately the sensitivities likely to be
excited by one’s instinctive inclinations to share (or hide) potentially painful or frightening possibilities with
(or from) others.
Diagnosees are not machines to be changed. Both diagnoser and diagnosee are human beings who automatically
grow because we are all alive and life always grows until it ends -- although perhaps not as fast as some may
desire. 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 add empathy to authenticity,
and thus a vitalizing balance to any professional approach. At the level of a society, the effect of an individual
combining empathy with authenticity may one day be 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, 071203-090529
Excerpted from "Rational Presence", to be published in 2009
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Last updated: 090529
