Authenticity: An Organisational Value or a Relationship?

Photo by charlesdeluvio on Unsplash

It’s a simple truth: when someone is authentic, people trust them. Yet the fallacy is that authenticity is not a trait, or a leadership style, or even a value, it’s a relationship. As a valued characteristic of business models, we love to promote authentic leadership, employee wellbeing and organisational ‘values in action’, but what happens to these values in times of crisis? Under strain, the unfiltered and sometimes painfully honest truth behind the promise of authenticity reveals itself. Authenticity is not produced by an organisation, its people decide if authenticity is present. It is not owned by business owners, but by its people, who can see through fake scripts and model cracks when stakes are high.

Researchers call this work ‘authenticity-building’: the ongoing effort an organisation must make to prove its intentions to its people. The definition of real here is meaningful, consistent and grounded in lived experience, and not a performance of vulnerability. When a business enters into crisis, the size of the gap between authentic intent and employee perception is determined by how meaningful that intent is. Authenticity either deepens or collapses, there is no in between.

It should not be confused that crisis causes problems in authenticity, but, rather, exposes them. In the example of the COVID-19 pandemic, early on, it was the intention of many organisations to demonstrate care, stability and humanity, but not all succeeded. The research points to something rarely discussed; authenticity is not judged by what leaders say, but how employees interpret what they do. Good intention can still be perceived as indifferent, support can feel intrusive or perhaps employers are saying they will put people first, when their actions prioritise productivity. People don’t respond to actions; they respond to the meaning they make of them. This is how authenticity is social rather than individual, it’s a negotiated and it’s dynamic, and these qualities are what set the organisations apart, the ones who grew closer to their people in crisis from the ones who accidentally pushed theirs away.

And what of wellbeing?

Most organisations talk about wellbeing as if it’s a product: ‘We offer wellbeing initiatives’ and ‘We invest in wellbeing’…and this leaves interpretation open. Does this demonstrate care or is it a box ticking exercise? The outcome relies entirely on the people doing the interpreting. A daily wellbeing email may feel supportive to one person and hollow to another, checking in may feel compassionate, or it might feel like surveillance – these alternative perspective determining whether authenticity thrives or dies.

There is great emphasis, also, on mutuality; the notion that employment relationships benefit both sides through honest negotiation. This, however, can be misinterpreted as alignment, or that everyone gets what they want, and this is a common mistake to why mutuality as a value doesn’t emerge in practice. Instead it’s the acknowledgement that both parties are working in the same reality, even if they want different things, noticing how different people feel seen – the real heart of authenticity-building, especially during crisis.

In some cases of extreme upheaval, mutuality can be intensified, but this is provided the organisation is willing to engage in the relational labour required for authenticity, and if not, reveals the transparency of the relationship.

The subversive nature of this research is in the reframing of life within an organisation, as opposed to the systems, procedures and initiatives within it. The organisation is a relational ecosystem, it is existential in nature, and requires acknowledgement of the human condition to thrive. Who decides what is fair? What do people owe one another? How can people be supported when the narrative is no longer under control?

Authenticity is not a brand asset. It is a fragile, living relationship, constantly shaped by perception and negotiation. The real, human, work comes from deciphering the difference between declaring authenticity and allowing others to experience it, instead of defaulting to control, allow co-creation.

The depth psychology perspective offers a darker suggestion; the unconscious contracts navigated between organisations and their people. The amalgamation of unmet needs, projections and past experiences from both leaders and employees are all amplified in times of organisational distress. Leaders may overextend themselves, hoping to be perceived as benevolent. Employees may put their organisation on pedestals, classing them saviours, or opposingly as villains, destroying authenticity with every unmet promise. Authenticity-building is successful when the those within the organisation have committed to the delicate work of recognising and renegotiating unconscious psychological bonds. Without connection to ones shadow, the surface level expectations may create a divide which intercepts authenticity; idealisation, dependency and fear of abandonment take centre stage. Authenticity does not only require external strategy, but also internal reckoning.

For the full study published in the British Journal of Management, Vol. 33, 2022, find the link here: Authenticity in the Pursuit of Mutuality During Crisis

Follow The Heretic for psychological perspectives on mutuality, authenticity and human relations