On being authentic

The first time I ever heard the term authentic used in an organizational setting was only a few years ago and it might have been the last time it made any sense.

I was doing a small project for Nike’s Marketing team at their head office in Portland, Oregon.  They often referred to authentic Nike.  At first I thought it was some meaningless corporate jargon [there’s generally a lot of that going around at HQs wherever they are].  It took me a while, but I finally realized that for them a product was authentic Nike only if it had been designed with a world class athlete to improve their personal performance.  Now, that’s authentic.

Three years ago, The Authentic Enterprise concluded that  “…authenticity will be the coin of the realm for successful corporations and for those who lead them.” And, that “Communicators are uniquely positioned to become experts on the new art and science of organizational trust.”  Now, I need to say up front that I generally find this whitepaper interesting and compelling.  And not surprisingly I’m pretty keen about their conclusions for communicators.

The problem I have is that this paper and the discussion that has followed is based on two flawed assumptions:

1. Institutions can be other than authentic
2. Being authentic is always going to be good.

I don’t believe either of these assumptions are true.

First, how could an institution be anything other than authentic.  They are what they are.  They do what they do. Their behaviours and actions, the decisions they take or don’t take reflect their underlying beliefs and values.  And, whether you like them or not they are a totally authentic.

Second, authenticity has lost its meaning.  For Nike it was real and good.  The challenge for many institutions today is that what is authentic is not that good.  What’s real is not good.  Think of British Petroleum or the Vatican. Their behaviours and actions tells us much about their authentic institution and it’s not good.

Importantly, though authentic and transparent are often talked about in the same breath, you don’t have to be transparent for anyone to get who you really are and what you stand for.  Here’s an example:

A young friend of mine, a recent MBA grad, got a job offer from a fortune 100 global  high-tech company early this summer.  He was told that his candidacy had to go through the CEO.    He stopped his job search – he’d received and accepted a formal offer [reflects his values].  It’s been weeks and still no word.  This one act tells us a lot about this organization.  And, perhaps more than my young friend would like to know.  First, even though one of their 5 values is respect they have put a young debt-ridden new grad in this position.  Second I believe my friend can be confident that control will be one of the most important underlying values – not innovation or accountability.   Two other values that are listed on their site.

On being authentic.  That’s easy.  Now how to make institutions authentic and forces for good?

Tags: Authenticity, Brand, Communications, Creating meaning, Culture change, Ethics, Transparency, Trust