 is related to three really important things. The first thing is that it provides an answer. So there's been a lot of different modes of leadership, transformational leadership, authentic leadership. And it says, here it is, there is a way to do this. Secondly, it has been a response to bad leadership. So people know that there have been leaders who have taken people right down the wrong path and taken away their houses and taken away their jobs and led them to do things that are awful. So authentic leadership is a term that kind of captures the idea of leaders that are good and that are connected to what is right and their true selves. But the third thing of late is that authenticity has had a come back. And the come back seems to be connected to the rise of post-modernism and the whole idea that we don't know what's real anymore or that what's real is on the move. So authenticity can seem like a way of saying we can grab reality and we can hold it firm and we can know what it is. Authenticity held in that way is not the answer. It is very problematic. Firstly, it implies that the leader is who he or she is separate from others. So it creates the idea of individuals who are not in relationship. And leadership is the last place where you want to conjure up that notion. So what leaders need is the ability to be connected and responsive in the moment. So it's really not that useful to have an idea of a solid and enduring self disconnected from whatever is going on in the environment, let alone in environments that are uncertain, ambiguous and changing. So if you think about leadership and relationship or in actual fact, if you pop relationship into authenticity, you get a different idea. So I can be my true self and I may have looked back at my past life and know what's influencing me, but what does that actually mean in the moment in particular circumstances? And I'll give you an example of somebody I was working with yesterday who said, I know why I am so dominating in conversations. It's because I come from an Italian family and we fight like mad and we all leave as friends and he said to his team, and that's the way it is, isn't it? Well, I actually know because he's not in his Italian family right now. He's in a situation where half the team are not contributing and God knows he needs that. They all need that for the work that they have to do. So his sense of who he is is only partial. It needs to be connected to what are we here to do and what is going on in my relationship with others. The idea of an enduring self is appealing and we like it and it's accessible. It means we can truck off and have a look at our life stories and then we know who we are. And it's so attainable. The idea that we are many different selves is a harder idea for people to swallow and it can sound superficial. What can sound as if in this situation I am needing to be this and that situation I'm needing to be that. And it can get separated from authenticity, I think for folks. So where it's important, what is helpful with that is to think about what is being called from me in this situation. So I'm responding in a situation not just because of who I am but of who you are and what you're eliciting from me. And followers elicit stuff from leaders. They elicit, give us, save us, you know. Give us the clear, firm, simple answers that we're craving. And so in actual fact, authenticity requires an awareness of who you are being in the situation, what is being elicited in terms of yourself and what other dimensions of yourself you have to draw on that are gonna better meet the purpose of that situation because leadership is for something. It's not an end in itself. So the idea that you will sort of call up other dimensions of yourself because of the needs of the situation is actually a really challenging idea. It requires a hell of a lot more of leaders than self-reflection and reviewing the life story. So authenticity tends to stop there, it's I am who I am. And I know who I am, I've done that work. But this requires growing sort of new dimensions. Leadership requires growing new dimensions. It requires the courage to throw yourself into dimensions of yourself that you really haven't developed. So it's kind of like a muscle, you know, you haven't used it. And so it's really easy just to stick with the ones that you do use. And so that is the work. The work is not reviewing your life story. It's going into realms that you're not familiar with and having the courage to do that and having the courage to be different. So one of my favorite organizational theorists says, in leadership, you need to drop your tools. So we're carrying these tools and they weigh us down. And some of the old tried and true tools, do my life story, self-reflection, yeah, they pick them up from time to time. But in authenticity, the work is even more about putting those tools down and going into new territory. So if we think about the dynamic that gets set up, it actually takes some sophistication and clarity of purpose on behalf of a leader to cut through the dynamics that build the leader up to be someone that they can't possibly be in terms of taking on the needs and problems of others. And to get people involved in the work that they are there to do. An example of that that I really like is when Tom Peters came into one of my colleagues' classrooms and it was a graduate class. And Peters was talking about leadership with a small group. A small group probably are quite select students who are in a graduate business program. And the conversation was people were inspired and they were delighted and here they were with Tom Peters kind of like his colleagues. So they were worth a great man and participating as equals and colleagues with him. And the vibe in the room was exciting for people. And at some point a student said, Tom, can you tell us about one of the toughest points in your career or lessons from your career? And probably was quite pleased with himself with the question. And Tom responded with hard tales that were personal about the cost of being in the limelight. And it blew the bubble, it punctured the bubble to some degree of what was going on in that room. And I would argue that Tom had his eye on what he was there to do. He was there to contribute to their learning and to help them learn. And he actually broke an emerging idea of a leader as a special person.