Do we have only one true self, or multiple selves as our culture demands? Can we see through the smokescreen to where authenticity and identity meet? By Lindsay Wittenberg
Authentic leadership has been around for some time as a model of leadership.
Avolio and Gardner (2005) describe authentic leaders as “anchored by their own deep sense of self; they know where they stand on important issues, values and beliefs. With that base they stay their course and convey to others, oftentimes through actions, not just words, what they represent in terms of principles, values and ethics.”
While this suggests that the authentic leader has only one self, in fact, we may all have multiple ‘selves’.
The Center for Creative Leadership suggests (November 2020) that people who are authentic bring their whole selves to their jobs and participate fully and honestly in the workplace. Ah – but which is my whole self, and, importantly, which is my client’s whole self?
How do they understand and work with the smokescreens that (like most of us) equip them to apparently maximise their chances of surviving and thriving, having learnt what they need to do to belong in their systems of family, school, work and other communities?
If I don’t have an insight into my client’s whole self, my coaching risks touching only a part of their ‘self’. How might I more effectively understand my client’s understanding of who they understand themselves to be? How, for example,
might I work with a leader who needs to bring more of her personal power to her role at board level, but whose self-concept is around humility?
Having had the privilege of attending Simon Cavicchia’s recent programme on ‘Narcissism, shame and vulnerability’, I’m intrigued by who the multiple ‘selves’ are, and how this relates to our sense of identity. Our self-image is who we take ourselves to be, which is necessarily in relation to an imagined concept of, for example, being ‘good enough’ or being successful (rather than to a notion of absolute truth).
And I’m exploring how who we take ourselves to be will flex depending on a whole range of factors – for example, the demands of our culture, the emotional or psychological stimulus we experience, and the extent to which we trust the observer(s) of our behaviour.
If a situation demands assertive, directional leadership, we may identify with a self-image that reflects this behaviour: this self-image and sense of identity may come from actually believing the message that we want our behaviour to convey (eg, I’m a strong, resilient leader who knows what’s right). This may differ from the self-image we feel vulnerable enough to get in touch with in the context of a trusting, safe coaching relationship which embraces risky thinking, and in which we dare to identify with the scared and lonely child of decades ago who feels unsupported through a traumatic experience.
I’m reflecting on my task as coach as working towards, and enabling, an understanding of my client and their relationship to their various self-images and, using that, equipping them to be authentic in their role – to be safely their own selves, to prioritise and make judgments in ways which satisfy both them and their organisational agenda, and to encounter the inevitable tensions and paradoxes in a spirit of learning and curiosity.
Reference
B J Avolio & W L Gardner, ‘Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership’ in The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338, 2005
- Lindsay Wittenberg is director of Lindsay Wittenberg Ltd. She is an executive coach who specialises in authentic leadership, career development and cross-cultural coaching
- www.lindsaywittenberg.co.uk