October 2008

Too many organizations feel inauthentic. Some organizations never had authenticity, and they feel empty. Other organizations had authenticity once but have since lost it. These organizations feel hollow.

In an effort to address its own hollowness, Starbucks has over the last year brought back not one but two of its original visionaries, Howard Schultz and now Arthur Rubinfeld. As reported by Brad Stone in the New York Times, Rubinfeld is to focus on the locations, looks and feel of Starbucks stores.  [Think of these stores as outposts of the organization, or as the outcome of the organization's behaviors, rather than as 'retail outlets'. Think about members, not customers.]

Looking backwards to move forwards?

What is it that Rubinfeld should be doing with the Starbucks stores? Stone warns them against trying a "nostalgia flavored turnaround":

But Mr. Schultz and Mr. Rubinfeld say the path out of Starbucks’s mess leads back to its past — re-establishing the company as a responsible social citizen and its stores as a pleasant place for (real and aspiring) young professionals to relax.

Even as far back as January of 2008, when Schultz returned full time at Starbucks’ helm, Joe Nocera of the New York Times and others were questioning the wisdom of trying to recapture what used to be.

In his open letter to Schultz , Nocera advises

Howard, it is completely understandable that you would feel nostalgic for the Starbucks that was — a company that offered both a great cup of coffee and a highflying stock. But this is the problem with founders trying to turn around their own ships — it is so hard to let go of what was . [emphasis mine]

Heritage is important for creating Authenticity .

But history, what the organization once was, is important to authenticity. An organization’s authenticity depends in part on that organization sustaining a sense of ‘who it is’ over time, and in part on that organization’s identity being ‘organic’, and coming from a real place.

Here’s the dilemma for the returning visionary: How can you use your organization’s heritage to restore authenticity, without trying to recapture who it once was?

Any ideas to share?

The McCain Campaign has hired Obama supporters to work as as "paid volunteers ."  As reported by Tom Baldwin in the UK Times, and picked up by The Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, the McCain Campaign is paying temp workers $10 an hour to go door to door handing out absentee ballot requests. Although the hired volunteers work for the McCain Campaign and wear McCain-Palin campaign stickers, some of them actually support Barak Obama .

Paid volunteers are inauthentic.

Paid volunteers fake the expected relationship between the organization and the volunteer who represents the organization. Especially when they are working for an ideological organization, like a political campaign, paid volunteers need to act like and be perceived by others as supporters of the organization and its beliefs, even if they are not. The burden to them of "wearing the brand" of the ideological organization can weigh heavy on volunteers, asking them to be inauthentic to themselves.

As one woman on The Huffington Post concluded:

It’s a sad commentary on our country when people need work so much they will speak against their own ideologies just to collect $10 per hour!

Even more of a concern is that some of these paid volunteers are not only Obama supporters but also African-Americans. This is a concern because the (apparent) race-ethnicity of the "paid volunteer" campaign workers is interpreted by the potential voter who answers the door to infer that these particular African Americans have chosen McCain over Obama. The appearance of a supposedly volunteer campaign worker who is African-American contradicts the voter’s expectation that African Americans support Obama. (And over 84% of African-Americans support Obama, as of 10/21/08.)

The perception that these African Americans have repudiated Obama to volunteer instead for McCain adds extra power to the campaign workers’ perceived endorsement of McCain.

Paid Volunteers look like they support the cause even if they don’t.

When a campaign representative appears at a citizen’s door, the citizen usually assumes that the person herself/himself supports the cause they are there to advocate.  The volunteer is perceived to be someone who believes in the candidate so much that the volunteer will work for the candidate for free. The perception that paid campaign staff are volunteers adds additional power and weight to their inferred endorsement of McCain.

There is a long tradition of campaign workers being volunteers. Although campaigns do hire and pay some workers, it is understood, as one McCain organizer explained, that "paid staff don’t work. "  However, because it’s been hard for the McCain campaign to get enough volunteers, they have been hiring "paid volunteers". Paying for volunteers tactic not only gets the campaign more feet on the street, but also these paid volunteers make it look like support for McCain is more widespread than it actually is. The McCain campaign benefits from the additional staffing and also from the perceptions of broader support than what is real.

"Who You Are" is part of the implied endorsement

The campaign workers’ outward appearance is used as part of the persuasion process, even if the appearance is irrelevant (e.g., if the canvasser is pretty) or inferred (e.g., a uniformed Veteran campaigning against Obama). By using African-American temps who are not McCain supporters , the McCain campaign is playing on citizens’ assumptions about the race-ethnicity and cultural values of the campaign’s African-American hired help. In this way, the McCain campaign benefits from "who these paid volunteers are," particularly their race-ethnicity, to communicate a message that African-Americans support McCain and his policies — even where this is not true.

Two Messages for the Price of One

By hiring African-Americans as paid volunteers, the McCain campaign is getting a two messages for the price of one. The perception that these African-Americans  implicitly endorse McCain comes along with the perception that these African-Americans repudiate Barak Obama.

There are of course African-Americans who do support McCain.  These African-American supporters are authentically committed to McCain and his policies because they truly believe that McCain will represent their best interests, personally and perhaps even in terms of their cultural group.  But, adding ‘fake’ African-American supporters allows others to concluded that McCain has more minority support than he actually does, conveying a doubly inauthentic message.

It hurts to wear the brand that contradicts your beliefs.

Some of the paid volunteers described their discomfort with being McCain Campaign employees:

"This is embarrassing. We’re doing this because we have to live. At least none of our friends can see us."

Asking Obama supporters to override their own beliefs to sell the competition sets up contradictions for these employees.  The employees have to appear as though they believe in a candidate that they in fact don’t support, which can be emotionally and philosophically burdensome. But the burden is even worse when the employees are actually Obama supporters. Then, the employees are actively working against their values, beliefs and best interests.  The employees not only have to endure the self-contradictory behavior of looking "like the brand" by presenting beliefs that are not their own, but also they must manage the reality that they are hurting themselves.

Asking African-American Obama supporters to override their beliefs adds an extra sting.

These employees must cope not only with pretending to support McCain and being assumed to repudiate Obama, they must also cope when others assume that they are betraying their social identity group.  Of course, no African-American automatically supports Obama just because they are both Black. Rather, most African-Americans support Obama because they believe that Obama uniquely understands the position of their group within US culture and history, in part (but not only) because he identifies as Black. For an African-American citizen to reject Obama as a candidate can be seen as them rejecting the idea that being Black matters, either to the citizen or to the candidate.

What must it be like to know that you working against your own candidate and against what you perceive as your best interests, just because you desperately need the money?  Isn’t this just another kind of exploitation?

How could the McCain Campaign be more Authentic?

Should the McCain campaign hire only white workers who actually support McCain?

No one who needs a job should be pushed aside because their beliefs don’t match those of the organization, or because members of their social identity group don’t match the organization’s expected target demographic. The job market is too small, and grocery bills are too high, for this to be the best option.

However, perhaps the McCain campaign could put these temporary workers in different jobs, where the work they do has nothing to do with the assumptions anyone would make from their appearance or about their beliefs. Better to give these workers hourly jobs where there is no assumption that the job holder endorses the candidate…. jobs like coordinating canvassing routes, organizing mailings, and data entry. After all, these jobs all pay the same, and none is a stepping stone to a career.

For jobs with citizen contact, the campaign should strive to hire employees who are genuine, authentic McCain supporters, if at all possible. Better to pay people to promote what they believe in than to pay them to lie.

Alternatively, the McCain campaign could give each hired hand a name tag that reads:

I am a paid employee of the McCain campaign.
No personal endorsement of McCain should be inferred.

That would be the most authentic, least misleading, and least exploitative option. Do you have other ideas?

(If you enjoyed this post, please consider Digging it. I’d love for more people to read it. Thanks. )

For an interesting contrast with the Obama Campaign, check out my earlier post: Obama’s Website Made Me Cry .

For more information: There is a video by Sam Mayfield , a reporter from UpTake and the Center for Media & Democracy , available on YouTube.  She interviews a McCain campaign official who explains that "paid staff don’t work" (at 0:50). He argues that the job of these paid employees is to retrieve absentee ballot requests, and as such "It’s functional in nature" he explains. "It’s not about persuasion." Yet the employees all wear McCain-Palin campaign stickers on their shirts, putting the lie to the claim that the employees’ aren’t expected to appear to endorse the candidates.

The Body Shop is Republican? Anita Roddick must be rolling over in her grave.

Released last week were the results of a study that shows how organizations have supported the Republican and Democratic parties. The data include direct corporate support (through Political Action Committees) and/or the support of these organizations’ employees (through individual donations). You can check our the data at GoodGuide.com.

As I scanned the dynamic graphic that shows where organizations fall on the spectrum from Democratic to Republican, there are a number of completely predictable placements. No one would be surprised to see Dreamworks Entertainment firmly in the Democratic column, or Cracker Barrel in the Republican column.

However, could somebody please explain —

What’s The Body Shop doing over with the Republicans?

If the Body Shop stands for sustainability, fair trade , and defending human rights, what does it mean to say that it supports the Republican Party?

Another surprise? Whole Foods is almost as Republican (45%) as it is Democratic (55%).

This data on political contributions suggest that some organizations lean one way, while our beliefs about who they are (e.g., their corporate images, their organizational identities) lean the other way.

Contradictions Suggest Inauthenticity

Where the political leanings of an organization are different from what their identity suggests, we are getting a contradictory message. What we’d infer from the organization’s behavior does not support what we believed about the identity, because the brands of the products and/or the identity of the company ’say’ one thing while the organization’s behavior says another. These contradictions can confuse stakeholders.

When the messages are contradictory, we can expect Inauthenticity, so that:

• Customers will be confused about what values their purchases are supporting.
• Customers will be confused about what their purchases from this company are communicating. They will ask themselves "what am I telling other people about who I am by buying these products?
• Current employees will wonder: Who is this organization I’m part of, really?
• Current employees will wonder: What does being part of this organization say about me? How does it brand me?
• Potential employees and potential business partners will be surprised, and maybe even turned off, if they were counting on the organization to share one set of values or the other.
• Any stakeholder will wonder: Which matters more, politics or identity? Is politics or corporate image a better predictor of the organization’s actual values and priorities?
• The organization itself will be confused about which of its values its customers are supporting, its employees are connecting through, and which should guide its future.
• The organization’s cultural (value based) influence will be confusing.

Alignment suggests Authenticity

In contrast, where the political leanings of the organization and the organization’s identity are aligned, we would expect authenticity, so that:

• Customers will be confident about what values their purchases are supporting.
• Customers will be confident about what their purchases from this company are communicating.
• Current employees will feel secure that they know what the organization values (whether or not they individually share these values), who the organization is, and how the organization will behave in the future.
• Potential employees and potential business partners will be confident that they can count on the organization to act according to its values.
• Any stakeholder will trust that the organization to be who it says it is and to act accordingly.
• The organization itself will be clear about what it values, and how these values will direct its future actions.
• The organization’s cultural influence will be focused and more effective.

Some important caveats:

Your ’surprise’ mileage may vary. What I found surprising was the contrast between what I thought these organizations stood for (i.e., the brand, their image, their corporate values) and what their pattern of political contributions showed that they supported. If you have different beliefs about these organizations, based on your own knowledge of them, your reactions may vary.

GoodGuide is itself a "progressive" organization. "GoodGuide provides the world’s largest and most reliable source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of the products in your home." GoodGuide is also a "for benefit" corporation (a B Corporation ). The political leanings of the data gathering organization do not necessarily influence the data collected, how the data are presented, and how the data are intended to be used… but neutrality and/or preference must be demonstrated, and not assumed.

The data is not all that solid. For some organizations, the actual amount of the contributions is meager, and for several it appears that only a few individuals’ contributions composed the whole assessment. (For example, some organization’s total contributions are $2,000 and $3,000.) And, I’d be more inclined to conclude that the organizations’ political leanings were displayed through PAC contributions (which are made by the organization itself). However, the quality of the data does not detract from the discussion of how contradictions between political contributions and organizational identity/image might affect perceptions of authenticity.

Action steps? Well, I think I either have to throw away my Peppermint Foot Scrub, or donate more money to the Democrats to compensate for buying a Republican product. And, at Whole Foods, I’ll just be ambivalent about the politics and continue to be annoyed by the prices.

Organizations need to be aware that their political contributions will brand them and influence how stakeholders feel about them. Organizations should consider whether their political contributions are aligned with their actual or desired identity, and make adjustments where they conflict. And, where there are conflicts, the organization should devote some energy to identifying its real values.

Go play with the data yourself, check out the results and see if anything surprises you. What do you make of this?

Sarah , Sarah , Sarah . Just when I’m ready to move on to other topics, you serve up yet another opportunity to understand organizations and authenticity. This time, the lessons are all about image, and the relationship between how we present ourselves and who we really are.

If Palin’s wardrobe upgrade had been well-executed, perhaps we would have heard only the usual sexist complaints about how much time and money women (need to) spend on clothes, or the chatter of armchair fashionistas regarding how pantsuits are "too sensible" and red pumps "too tacky". Instead, we’ve got a media-pundit-blog bonanza. (Check out Princess Sparkle Pony’s Sarah Palin Neimansgate Link Roundup .) And in this bonanza? A chance to think more about authenticity.

Let’s start by appreciating the smart move : paying attention to image. It all starts with The Wardrobe.

The Wardrobe

The upgrade of Palin’s wardrobe by RNC operatives was absolutely appropriate and even necessary. A wardrobe upgrade was necessary because:

• Image matters.
  Every organization and leader needs to project how it wants to be seen. And, since we all contain multitudes of attributes, we need to be choosy and shape our images so that we project the specific attributes and characteristics that will help us achieve our goals.
• Context matters.
  Images that look fine at the hockey rink are just not right for the national stage. Similarly, the face your organization shows to the community in which it is located is probably not what it needs to show to the NYSE. You need to shape your image to fit the context (in this case, the campaign and the audience).
• Palin needed a new wardrobe.
  Consider what Palin wore as Governor — These outfits are fine near the Arctic circle, but not hot enough for the heartland. Consider the blue parka and green scarf (ouch) (photo from Michelle Malkin ) and the oh-so-80’s eyewear. Enough said.

Look at it this way: What would we think of a leader– especially a politician– who didn’t bother to adjust her appearance and self-presentation when moving from a provincial podium to a national stage? We’d think she was naive. And maybe even unprofessional. Plus, we’d all make fun of her. So let Palin be thankful that at least she didn’t do the shopping herself. — Not only is clothes shopping an appropriate task for an executive’s stylists assistants, but just imagine the field day we’d have if Palin had spent more campaign time in Nordstrom’s than she has in press conferences.

But moving on, what about …

The Lyin’

The occasional fashion gaffe is inevitable and forgivable (and sometimes just funny. See this faux pas, from MakePalinAVerb .) But a full wardrobe of mistakes? That makes you wonder what’s really going on. Like when an organization misspells its name in its logo , and then tries to suggest the misspelling disappears if you squint a little. While Palin’s stylists were busy considering cut, color, fabric and fit, they forgot two important things. First, they forgot about the brands and how brands communicate the symbolism that goes along with a product’s function. Then they forgot that when you stick together brands that contradict each other, you create conflicting messages and leave your audience wondering what is intended and what is accidental, and what is true and what is not .

For a time, the brands of the nominee’s new clothes were overlooked. Even the Washington Post’s fashion columnist, Robin Givhan, missed the brands — and so Givhan described Palin’s wardrobe as "exceptionally ordinary ". Without the brand, the silk jacket is pretty but let’s pay attention to her speech. Knowing the brand, it’s a $2400 Valentino top- and who has that kind of money?

Still, although true fashionistas took note of the brands, the luxury labels in Palin’s Wardrobe might have escaped public acclaim if the total costs had not been outed by Politico . Struggling to understand how any person, even a candidate for national office, can spend five times the average American’s household income on clothing, we look at the brands and we find our explanation. All that extra money, the money that separates the silk jacket from the $2400 Valentino top, is the cost of sending a message of wealth , luxury, and high style.

My friends, these are not the priorities of ‘the real America’.

And this is what has everyone’s boxers tied in knots… With all the effort and cost budgeted for overdoing Palin’s wardrobe, the RNC is displaying ‘elitist’ values, values that it publicly mocks yet cannot resist, even at full price.

The symbolism of the luxury brand outfits clashes with the RNC’s claimed values. And contradicting your own values never looks good.

If your organization’s brand is all about the "real America" and Main Street values, you can’t brand your spokesperson with luxury-priced designer clothes. Similarly, if your organization is offended by $400 haircuts , it can’t argue that a $4,000 handbag is a necessary expense.

Forgetting about the values conveyed by the brand is like a corporation of spending all its communication resources on a nice logo, while forgetting about the text that goes along with the visual. What you end up with are conflicting messages, and an audience unsure which message(s) are true and which message(s) are lies.

The Which?

Through the magical door of the RNC’s Wardrobe, which Palin do they want us to see now?

• The authentic Palin who expressed ‘who she was’ by how she appeared, and behaved — like a real hockey mom governor?
• The Palin who was savvy enough to upgrade her appearance as she upgraded her ambitions?
• The not-quite-so-autonomous-and-competent Palin who is ‘groomed’ and ‘fashioned’ by backstage employees of the RNC?
• The Palin who comes from the "real America" (you know, the America where Everyfamily, like hers , has has a $500,000 lakeside home, 2 vacation properties, a plane, and an annual income of $230,000 )?

Images matter. The messages that candidates and organizations create and send through their manufactured images are important. In the case of the "real American" wearing an elitist luxury wardrobe, the mixed messages simultaneously confirm what we know (e.g., the Palin’s are wealthy enough, the Republicans are out of touch with real Americans’ budget constraints) and project what we desire (e.g., anyone (you?) can seamlessly move from the frontier to the front stage). Images can even tap into long standing cultural concerns that were once authentic and are now just put on and cast off when it’s convenient for the organization.

Looking like a hypocrite has its own high price.

In Dante’s Inferno , hypocrites walk endlessly ’round and ’round the 8th circle of hell, wearing heavy lead cloaks that have been painted with gold. Lucky for Sarah Palin, she only has to wear Escada jackets– and she might even be released by November 5th. But, no matter how polished she looks, Palin will forever carry the burden of tarnished "authenticity".

Ultimately, the fault lies with the RNC stylists. They understood only part of what’s important about images.

Yes, images matter. Yes, it’s okay– even necessary– to shape the image of your organization and your spokesperson as your objectives and your contexts change. But also, you must pay attention to the assortment of messages, the message ‘wardrobe’ , if you will. Messages have to be styled so that they coordinate rather than clash, because contradictory messages leave your audience wondering who you really are.

What should an organization do to avoid creating the perception of lying and the raising the question of which image to believe?

—Follow the Inviolable rules of Authentic Organizations , and sustain a relationship between your image and your substance.

—Never stretch your claims about who you are too far from the reality of who you are. It’s okay to create an image that is aspirational; it’s not okay to create an image that is hypocritical.

And, organizations could consider this thoughtful suggestion from arch-conservative, vice-presidential speechwriter (and my Bryn Mawr classmate) Lisa Shiffren . Usually, I respectfully disagree with Lisa, but here, writing for The National Review, she makes a lot of sense:

"Because I like Sarah Palin, and want her to succeed, I would be really happy to know that, should she find herself back in Alaska for the next four years, (or, for that matter, in D.C.) she chose to spend a little of the money that would otherwise go to her clothing budget on a personal library of conservative classics. Going upmarket intellectually will complete the transformation, and make her truly" (i.e., authentically) "prime-time ready."

What do you think? Share your thought in the comments, below.

In my previous post, Can Taking Responsibility for the Financial Crisis Be Good For You ? ,  I argue that taking responsibility is the one thing that you and your organization can do , right now, to improve your organization’s financial future.

When an organization takes responsibility, it shifts how it sees itself. It moves from being a bystander to being an influential participant. In contrast, an organization that doesn’t take responsibility ends up reinforcing its own passivity, leaving it at the mercy of other organizations. An organization that takes responsibility moves itself into the fray and positions itself to make a difference.

Taking responsibility lets your organization take (back) control.

When your organization takes responsibility for its contribution to a bad situation, your organization changes how you (the organization’s members) see the organization’s role in the current crisis and also how you see the organization’s role in creating a better situation. By taking responsibility, your organization shifts itself away from being a victim or a bystander and towards being an influential participant.   Here are 6 Reasons why taking responsibility can be good for your organization, even in a bad situation:

1. Taking responsibility makes action possible.

Organizations that take responsibility move from being impotent to being influential. Organizations that see themselves as influential assume that it is possible to move into a bad situation and change it. In contrast, organizations that believe themselves to be impotent have no reason to even try to make a difference.

2. Taking responsibility sets the expectation, within your organization, that action is forthcoming.

Accepting responsibility for a negative outcome can lead to increased commitment by your organization to do better, because saying you’re wrong sets up a tension to be right the next time.  Have you ever heard someone say they’re sorry without suggesting that they’ll try harder or do something different the next time?  The same is true with organizations.

Within the organization, members recognize that taking public responsibility for contributing to a failure is quickly followed by expectations by outsiders and insiders that the organization will do better in the future. The organization expects to be held accountable by others, and by itself, for trying to do better. The expectation the you’ll be held accountable increases the chance that you’ll at least try to do something.

3. Taking responsibility leads your organization to take a new look at the bad situation that it helped to create, and to understand what and how it contributed to the situation.

By taking responsibility for its part in creating a bad situation, your organization shows that it has recognized that its earlier actions have somehow contributed to the negative result. The organization’s next step is to understand what it did and what it could have done but chose not to do. Being able to see both the road taken and the roads not taken gives the organization a bigger picture of what actions were possible. 

4. Taking responsibility makes it possible for your organization to learn and creates the possibility that your organization will get it right the next time.

Once it accepts that other actions were possible and that these other actions might have made a more positive contribution, your organization can analyze and understand why it chose the path it did. This builds the organization’s capacity for self reflection and self-understanding. This capacity for self reflection allows your organization to investigate the relationship between its actions, its intent, and the actual outcome.  And, when organizations are able to diagnose why they acted a certain way, they can make changes to their processes so that their future actions take these ‘whys’ into account.  This is called organizational learning .

5. Taking responsibility leads your organization to take more responsibility, and expand its circle of influence .

Organizations that take responsibility for their part in a bad situation can learn from this experience to become more responsible in other areas and at later times.  Taking responsibility in one arena can be the first step towards creating a culture of responsibility.  In an organization with a culture of responsibility, members share the belief that what they do has an impact. This is critical for helping organization members stay motivated and engaged in the organization’s work.

6. Finally, taking responsibility gives your organization the energy to move on to problem-solving.

Your organization knows, deep down, when it is culpable. But, if your organization is denying its responsibility, it is wasting a lot of precious energy– energy that could be better used to make a positive difference.  By giving up its claims of innocence and accepting responsibility, your organization frees up energy that can be used to solve problems, create new opportunities, and even help other organizations.

With regard to the current financial crisis…

… it’s not as though any financial organization’s culpability is in question — there seems to be more than enough blame and more than enough collective collusion to go around at least once. Few if any business organizations can legitimately claim to be without fault. And even those organizations that are less culpable than others still need to move forward and take charge of their future.

Of course, once your organization sees itself (and presents itself) as a participant that helped to create the current bad situation, your organization needs to be prepared to accept blame for what it has done wrong or poorly.  But being blamed seems a small price to pay for empowerment and forward motion that is created when your organization takes responsibility.

Thoughts? Please share in the comments, below.

In a word, yes. You’d never know it from the conversation we’ve been having about our current financial crisis, but it’s true: Taking responsibility for your organization’s part in the financial crisis can actually be good for you.

We’ve seen a variety of explanations for what’s been happening, some finger-pointing over who’s to blame, and a few big picture recommendations for taking charge of federal monetary policy. What’s largely been missing is a discussion of how individual organizations have contributed to the crisis and w hat individual organizations can do to repair our national and international economy.

Organizations (and their spokespeople) are afraid of having this discussion, because they don’t want to be blamed. But if your organization is backing away from any analysis of your role in the financial crisis, your organization is not really protecting itself. It is hurting itself. That’s because taking responsibility is the one thing that you and your organization can do , right now, to improve your organization’s financial future. And if your organization works to improve its own financial future, it will help to revise and revive its industry and our economy.

What should your organization take responsibility for?

We all understand that the implosion of our national economy was never predetermined or inevitable. The causes are even more complex than the proposed remedies. Still, it’s clear that actors at every level were part of the problem.

Your organization should take responsibility for what was potentially within its control. This might include taking responsibility for inept oversight, over-expansion, too much debt, extending too much credit, inadequate performance evaluation and training, underestimating risk, failing to learn, pretending your were experts where you were novices, or simply managerial hubris. Nearly every organization did something to contribute to the problem, and every organization can do something to contribute to the solution(s).

What does taking responsibility have to do with Authenticity?

An organization acts authentically when it uses ‘who we are’ to drive ‘what we do’, and aligns its actions with its self-understanding. Similarly, an organization acts authentically when it understands how its actions — and the impact of these actions on the organization’s situation– reflect who they are as an organization. An organization that takes responsibility for its actions is acting authentically, because it is taking charge of the link between ‘who we are’ and ‘what we’ve done’.

Acting authentically influences the organization’s external reputation and the organization members’ collective behavior in ways that contribute to financial success.

What does taking responsibility have to do with your organization’s financial future?

How’s this for an interesting research finding:

When compared to organizations that blame external actors and conditions for their negative business outcomes, organizations that take responsibility for their role in creating negative business outcomes have a higher stock price one year later
(Lee, Peterson, & Tiedens, 2004 ).

How does taking responsibility affect future share price?

The impact of a positive reputation. One link between publicly taking responsibility and an improved stock price is how taking responsibility influences an organization’s reputation . Researchers explain that when an organization blames its situation, the organization contradicts all of its earlier efforts to portray itself as in charge of its results. In contrast, an organization that takes responsibility for negative outcomes lives up to its claims of being in charge. By appearing to be in charge, just as it claims it is, the organization creates a reputation for itself that, even if it made some mistakes this time, it will take more effective actions the next time.

Bottom line: Whether or not the organization appears to be in charge has a more powerful effect on its reputation than whether the organization always has good results.

An organization that claims to have done nothing to cause a negative outcome can’t be expected to do anything to improve its future situation. In contrast, an organization that takes responsibility and acts as though it can and will influence its future will be expected to do better the next time. And that kind of organization is seen to be more valuable, hence the higher stock price.

The impact of a "take charge" attitude. A second link between taking responsibility and an improved stock price is the impact of responsibility on an organization’s attitude. Taking responsibility influences how the organization’s members collectively understand their role in the current crisis, their organization’s contribution to the current crisis and their organization’s opportunity to do better. Taking responsibility for its situation helps an organization take charge of its future.

When an organization takes responsibility, it shifts how it sees itself. It moves from being a bystander to being an influential participant. In contrast, an organization that doesn’t take responsibility ends up reinforcing its own passivity, leaving it at the mercy of other organizations. An organization that takes responsibility moves itself into the fray and positions itself to make a difference.

If it seems rather simplistic to argue that taking responsibility for contributing to the financial crisis will help organizations get out of the financial crisis, understand that taking responsibility is just the first step. It is a necessary step, though, because taking responsibility shifts the focus of a host of other organizational processes. In my next post, I’ll explain more about how taking responsibility reorients the organization towards assertive, positive action . Stay tuned.

Lee, F., Peterson, C., and Tiedens, L. Z. (2004) Mea Culpa: Predicting Stock Prices From Organizational Attributions, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Vol. 30, No. 12, 1636-1649.

People are hungry for authentic leaders and authentic organizations .  Assessing an organization’s authenticity or a candidate’s authenticity is one way that we gauge where to place our trust. To entice people to trust us, we need to make them think the organization is authentic. Sometimes, we may even want to create "Fake Authenticity" in areas where the organization doesn’t have real authenticity.

In the first two posts I’ve written about "Fake Authenticity", I argued that Sarah Palin is a useful role model for organizations. Organizations can  Use Real Authenticity to Establish Fake Authenticity: Sarah Palin shows organizations how.

There are two steps to establishing Fake Authenticity. We already addressed Step 1: 4 ways Palin Creates a Fake "Reality". Now, we move on to Step 2: Mixing fake reality with the truth.

How to Mix Fake and Real

1. Loosen up the Real to make room for the Fake

2. Elevate the Fake to the same status as the Real

1. Loosen up the Real to make room for the Fake

– Make room by enabling more than one interpretation of the characteristics of the organization or the candidate . Let stakeholders have their own understanding of what you mean when you say "Our organization is faith-friendly ", or whatever. Describe the real in ways that let people assume that you and they have the same understanding of what it is. Let people read into your ‘real’ statements whatever they want. This way, should you ever disappoint them, you can always argue that it was their fault for misinterpreting you– you have been portraying yourself honestly.

— Make room by describing yourself/your organization and your values in vague terms. Terms that are general, abstract, and ambiguous make it easy for stakeholders to agree with you. For example, it’s easier for people to agree that you "support equal pay" than it is for them to agree with your actual voting record  on equal pay legislation.

Vague terms and abstractions seem to communicate your beliefs or your plans without actually offering information that stakeholders can evaluate. Plus, the more vague you are, the harder it is to verify whether what you say is true. The lack of actual information offered combined with the difficulty of verifying your claims makes it easier for people to overlook the details and facts that are required for a data-based evaluation.

Remember:  Abstractions make it easy to agree, generalities make it hard for people to hold you accountable.  Emphasize both.

– Categorize your real and fake attributes with a broad label that’s so attractive, no one thinks to ask if it’s accurate. People are drawn to broad, attractive claims. They’ll think you’re great if you say you want to "save the planet" and "stand up for freedom", and they won’t even notice if you are unwilling to fund research in wind power or refuse to pressure the Saudis to let women drive.

A great example of broad and attractive label is "Maverick ". What does it really take to be a maverick? If you look closely at the definition of a maverick, and then at some of the so-called maverick’s behavior … hmm. Some of the behavior is maverick-y. But the term "maverick" is stretched to accommodate behavior that is all about the status quo- not maverick-y at all.

2. Elevate the Fake to the same status as the Real

– Don’t treat the fake reality as any less important than the real reality. Describe the real and the fake with the same enthusiasm, the same frequency, and in the same venues. If you issue a press release, don’t bold only the verifiable claims– make the fake claims bold too ! If you don’t distinguish between the fake and the real when you present yourself, stakeholders might forget to parse out any distinctions between where you are really and where you are fake.

–Put the real and the fake next to each other, so that the fake benefits from the halo of the real. Consider what happened during the debate when Palin offered a most genuine moment, when she talked about her children, her brother and education. She’s a "strong believer in home schooling, virtual schools, and other innovative education options" and many viewers could feel that there was substance behind her claims about the importance of education. Our desire to see authenticity is so strong that, when we get a glimpse of it– even if it’s next to a bunch of inauthenticity–  our desire to resolve our cognitive dissonance in a positive way helps us gloss over what isn’t so real.

Putting it all together….

Use Real Authenticity to Create Fake Authenticity:

Step One: Create a Fake Reality
– Craft a good story
— Prepare thoroughly, offstage,
— Work your message
– Act like you believe your story

Step Two:  Mix the Fake Reality with the Real
– Loosen up the Real to make room for the Fake
– Elevate the Fake to the same status as the Real

Combine real substance with good fiction and offer this mix to an audience that desperately wants to believe in someone or some organization "like" you, and you might look authentic enough to entice their trust in you.

For a while, at least.

What is true?

What is true matters less that what people believe is true. Similarly, what is authentic matters less than what people think is authentic.

Cynical as it seems,  "truth" is what seems "real", not what is real. While we might be saddened when what seems authentic is treated as though it were authentic, we ignore reality at at our peril.

In my earlier post, Use Real Authenticity to Establish Fake Authenticity: Sarah Palin shows organizations how , I argue that Palin is a useful role model for organizations in the way that she has gone about creating "Fake Authenticity."

Establishing Fake Authenticity has two steps, and in this post I’ll discuss Step 1: Creating a fake "reality". I’ll discuss Step 2: Mixing fake reality with the truth, in a future post.

What’s Fake Authenticity?

Fake authenticity is the appearance of authenticity without the substance of authenticity. Fake authenticity is when it "looks like" claims and actions align when they actually don’t.

In the simplest of terms, here’s how you create Fake Authenticity:
Start by making stuff up. Make it seem plausible.  Do it so well that it looks real. Then, mix the stuff that looks real with the stuff that is real, so that people can’t tell the difference. Once the fake and the real are mixed, their/our desire to see what we want to see (in this case, our hunger for the real) leads us to treat it all as authentic.

I know, it’s all so confusing. That’s actually the point of the strategy.

4 Ways to create Fake "Reality"

1.  Craft a good story

2.  Prepare thoroughly, offstage

3.  Work your message

4.  Act like you believe your story

1.  Craft a good story

–  Rely on the "transitive property" to stretch the truth. Remember that idea if A=B and B=C, then A=C? This is how Palin effectively uses expertise in one area to claim expertise in other areas. Of course knowing how to slaughter field dress a moose means you’re able to evaluate different solutions to global warming!!  If moose = nature, and nature = global warming, then moose = global warming!  Try this at home with "oil & gas regulator" and "alternative & clean energy expertise".

–  Make it easy for people to remember your message. Use catch phrases, simplistic factoids, and simplifications of complex issues to distill you message into pieces that are easy to remember–even that means you have to simplify the truth beyond recognition. Also, let go of the need to make much sense.

–  Maintain consistency within specific messages, but don’t worry about ‘big picture’ consistency. Few stakeholders will hold you accountable for reflecting the same values in your sustainability policy and your hiring plans. Many stakeholders are focused only on one or two domains, and others are distracted. Take advantage of this by saying whatever you need to say to appear competent in one domain, and contradict yourself when you discuss another domain.

2.  Prepare thoroughly, offstage

–  Practice, practice, practice. How do you turn that well-crafted, prepackaged message into a  superficial facsimile of a knowledgeable response ? As Palin herself recommends, "Drill, baby, drill!" If that seems like a lot of work, remember that smooth responses make you appear competent and wise, even if you are simply well-trained.

–  Do your prep work off-stage. People want to think your message is from the ‘real’ you. They don’t want to see you reading off note cards, as though you’re not sure of your own thoughts. Make it look like your beliefs belong to you, as though they come from experience rather than word-processing.

3. Work your message

– Repeat your messages over and over. Offering the same message over and over reinforces your message and it makes you look consistent. Plus, there is an added benefit of repeating your message–  Research shows that if you repeat something false long enough and often enough, people will come to believe it’s true .  You can say things that are patently false , or distort the truth, and soon stakeholders will treat your claims as facts. It works again and again.

–  Don’t feel bad about your own misstatements and untruths. Misstatements and untruths will only feel like lies the first few times you say them. According to the "Saying is Believing" effect , you’ll eventually convince yourself that these fake statements are true. It’s truly a forgiving tactic, and has the added benefit of enhancing your own opinion of yourself.

– Never deviate from your script. Even if it means appearing temporarily irrelevant, or even disrespectful, stick to your own talking points.  Sticking to your talking points gives you a few extra chances to repeat your message (see above).  And, while you’re sticking to your own points, you might also drown out what others are saying.

– Ignore or evade any question you don’t like or can’t really answer. Instead of answering questions, offer statements that have the look of answers (i.e., are smooth, wordy and enthusiastic) but that address a different topic entirely. This tactic is actually a double play– (1) ignoring the question dismisses its validity as a challenge to you, and (2) offering an irrelevant yet glib statement hides the fact that you have no "real" answer.  Palin has a great record in this strategy of the non-answer — the VP debate was only its most recent demonstration.

(Check out this great "Interview Palin" website for real examples of Palin’s non-answer strategy .)

4. Act like you believe your story

– Share your messages with passion, conviction, and enthusiasm. When people show emotion, we assume that they care deeply about something. And, emotion and passion are easy to fake. So, whether the emotion is real or fake, show emotion when you care and when you don’t care. People will then believe that you’re truly committed to what you say, even when you aren’t. How great is that!

– Use charm and humor. Charm and humor makes you likable , and the more likable you are the more people will want to believe you.

Once you’ve (1) crafted your fake reality, (2) practiced it,  and (3) performed it (4) with passion, you can move on to Step 2: Mixing fake reality with the truth.

Again, Sarah Palin shows us how to do it! Check out my next post, Mixing Fake and Real, the Palin Way .

Almost anywhere we look at this election season there’s something to learn about authenticity.  This is especially true when we’re able to draw analogies between individuals and organizations. Watching the ways that individuals work to present themselves as authentic , we can learn tactics that organizations can use.

Sarah Palin has been very effective at "extending" her authenticity. She has expertly used her real authenticity — the authenticity we can verify , to create the perception that she is authentic anywhere /anyway she claims.  To extend her authenticity, Palin has simultaneously  (1) created a fake "reality" about who she is, and (2) mixed this fake reality with the truth , (3) to make an attractive big picture of who she will be as a leader. Palin has tapped into our "hunger for the real," and so can your organization.

Why we look for signs of Authenticity

People are hungry for authentic leaders and authentic organizations . We want leaders and organizations that have the expertise to solve difficult problems, that listen to us, and that we can trust. Assessing an organization’s authenticity or a candidate’s authenticity is one way to gauge how much we should trust them .

Where Palin is Authentic

Sarah Palin comes atcha with a lot of personality. She’s got an identifiable, positive life story . She demonstrates her ambition, her commitment, and her confidence with her every move. Even when you push aside the way that her candidacy taps into our hopes about transcending sexism, our vision of balancing work and family, and our vision of women holding our nation’s highest offices, Palin looks a lot "like" what we want in a leader.

In many different domains, Palin comes across as authentic. She’s an Alaskan who knows how to hunt and fish. Palin’s not only a working mom , Palin’s a hockey mom who’s chauffeured her kids from school to hockey practice. As a small business owner along with her husband, she wants lower business taxes. Palin has a gay friend, so she’s tolerant . She links her claims about who she is to the actions she has taken.

Where Palin Needs to Convince Us She’s Authentic

The challenge for Palin comes when she makes claims about the future - - claims about who she will be as a vice president. When Palin claims that her experience in one area demonstrates how she’ll act in the future in that same area , she seems authentic. It makes sense to expect that the kind of mom she is now demonstrates the kind of mom she’ll be in the future.

But what does Palin as a mom demonstrate about her policies about conflict in the Middle East?   

Palin (like many politicians) claims that she will be able to manage all kinds of new responsibility, based on what she has already done in unrelated areas. In many cases, the relationship between her actual experience and what she will need to be an expert in is more like a "bridge to nowhere."  The link between the cited experience and the promised behavior is imaginary.

An extreme example of an imaginary link is Palin’s claim that, because you can see Russia from some parts of Alaska, she’s got foreign policy experience. Most everyone sees through this claim. However, many of Palin’s claims look more real than they really are . They have the appearance of authenticity without actually being authentic.

So, what’s Palin doing to convince us that her foreign policy expertise is as authentic as her love for hunting & fishing?

Palin is using Real Authenticity to establish Fake Authenticity.

Fake Authenticity?  Fake authenticity , otherwise known as verisimilitude, is the appearance of authenticity without the substance of authenticity. It’s a condition that is similar to truth, but actually not truth. Fake authenticity is when it "looks like" claims and actions align when they actually don’t.

Establishing Fake Authenticity has two steps:

Step 1: Create a fake "reality"

Step 2: Mix this fake reality with the truth

Both steps, working together, help to extinguish doubts about authenticity while enhancing the perception of authenticity.

Organizations can mimic these tactics, to encourage stakeholders to think of them as authentic - and credible- in areas where they have expertise and areas where they don’t.

Want to know more specifics about using Real Authenticity to establish Fake Authenticity?

Check my next posts:  3 4 Ways Palin Creates a "Fake" Reality , and  Mixing Fake and Real, the Palin Way .

(See? I said there was a lot to learn about authenticity…..)

Photos: Vogue Magazine  &  Everett Bogue; Photos: Getty Images