Authentic leadership is proposed as the core of effective
leadership needed to build trust because of its clear focus on the positive
role modeling of honesty, integrity, and high ethical standards in the
development of leader-follower relationships (Wong & Cummings, 2009).
Critics attribute authentic leadership as a way to
manipulate and deceive followers. Martin and Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988)
wrote that all leaders must be manipulative to succeed.
These two statements are two very different streams of
thought. How could a form of leadership that advocates honesty and ethics be
related to manipulation? A quick google search for the words “deceive and
manipulate” renders articles about psychopaths.
After binge watching Marvel’s Jessica Jones all weekend the
first thought I had went to the character, Kilgrave, who manipulates people
using mind control. In order to have power he usurps control by force,
constantly claiming he wants Jessica to have freewill in her decision making
but always has a failsafe in place in order to keep her in check and in line
with his demands, even going as far as harming other people so that she remains
compliant. When leaders use manipulations tactics are they trying to keep control
by any means possible because they realize they do not have true leadership?
One component of authentic leadership relies upon
interpersonal definitions. Northouse (as cited in Rowe & Guerrero, 2013)
states that positive outcomes stem from authentic leadership only when
followers identify with the values of the leader and requires a high degree of
buy-in for authentic leadership to be effective. Furthermore, most
interpretations of authentic leadership center on “the notion that it is the
opposite of the selfish and self-serving portrayals of corporate greed that
dominated the headlines” (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013, p. 299).
It is difficult to accept that authentic leadership could encompass
these positive things and have such negative connotations. When considering
another form of leadership, servant leadership, it seems doubtful that the only
way a leader can succeed is to be manipulative. Perhaps there is another way to
view the word manipulative, another point of view, or frame to filter the
negative first impression of the vocabulary. To manipulate means to handle or
control typically in a skillful manner or to control and influence cleverly,
unfairly, or unscrupulously with synonyms of exploit, maneuver, or engineer.
Another word rests in the same grouping: steer. If our leaders
are an organization’s sculptor and the mission and its goals are like a
malleable slab of clay, then it would be permissible and appropriate to guide
the various pieces and parts toward the best outcomes through use of relational
transparency and fostering a positive climate that relies upon self-awareness
and an internalized moral perspective. Is manipulation as bad as we make it
seem?
Or, for argument’s sake, flipping back to the other side of
the coin and playing devil’s advocate is this line of thinking simply a hall
pass for the ends justifying the means? After all, buy in usually results from
followers already identifying with the espoused values. Do we see what we want
to see? Does this type of leadership only recruit from likeminded individuals
and if so, is that wrong? Or is there more to it, such as true caring, consideration,
and development of our followers?
I am confident to say that authentic leadership demands us
to consider these questions in order to find balanced information and follow
the path of moral reasoning to reach ethical decisions. For now, it is okay to
leave this as an open ended line of questions. Over time our life events,
learning, and growing help all individuals become stronger, more authentic
leaders.
Reference:
No comments:
Post a Comment