Creating Authenticity

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?

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.

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

It moved me from intent to action. It snuck past my shield of cynicism. It struck me at the core of what I care about. And it made me remember that what really connects people and organizations is the chance for them both to be authentic.

What hooked me wasn’t the way the Campaign organization asked for money. Instead, what hooked me was the way the Campaign responded to my contribution. Through a deft web-based innovation and a few minutes of ‘user interface’, the Obama Campaign forged a connection with me that was simultaneously personal and political.

By shifting my contribution from something monetary and generic to something personal and value-specific, the act of contributing to the campaign became a mutual confirmation of values and identity .

For the few minutes I was on the website, and then each time since as I’ve reflected on my experience of contributing to the Campaign, I have felt a connection with this organization that is based on who I am and what I care about.

How it worked

I wasn’t all that interested in making a connection to the Campaign organization . For the last few months, I’ve been hounded by the DNC to make a contribution to the presidential campaign. Because I’ve been disappointed with the DNC as an organization, because I had already contributed to another candidate’s primary campaign, and because I’d already contributed to some social initiatives I care about, I’d been reluctant to go ahead and give the Obama Campaign more money. Still, since I’m on their mailing list, I’ve been getting regular campaign updates and solicitations, and I realized it was probably time that our family made another contribution directly to the Obama Campaign.

This particular email solicitation was different enough that it caught my attention. They were using my favorite fundraising tactic: dollar for dollar matching of my contribution. I’m a sucker for this tactic because it makes me feel like my contribution is more powerful. So I clicked through to their website, where I was promised:

Contribute to the Campaign today and your contribution will be matched dollar for dollar by another campaign supporter.

No totebag offered, but otherwise just like what they do on PBS, right?

The Innovation

At first the whole thing seemed like any online financial transaction. I clicked the amount we wanted to contribute, entered my Visa number, etc., and pressed the "make a contribution" button. But instead of the next page being ‘a confirmation of the transaction that you can print out for your convenience’ blah blah, the next web page was a personalized reply. A reply to me. From another other person. (I paraphrase from memory):

‘CVH, your contribution has been matched by Rosa M. Rosa M. writes "I am matching your contribution in honor of Luis P., Pfc. US Army, who died in Basra in July 2006. Luis was on his second tour of duty under a "stop loss" order. He asked me to do whatever I could to Stop The War. I’m doing what I can by contributing to the Obama for President campaign. Thank you for joining me."’

The Effect of the Innovation

I "knew" intellectually that this message was generated automatically by the website function. Despite what I "knew", what I felt was an emotional connection established through that personal message from a real person. Rosa was not only matching my contribution and sharing my support of Obama; she was also matching my motivation and my values.

Although I absolutely support Obama, I’m not so much a fan of Obama per se as I am a fan of what Obama stands for . I am against the Iraq war . I am for making the world a better place, starting here at home with economic and social justice .

When I received Rosa’s message, the financial transaction disappeared beneath a connection between who I am and who Rosa is, about what I believe in and what Rosa believes in. The two of us were connected (however abstractly) by a commitment to a shared goal (ending the war), a shared tactic (electing Obama), and a shared set of values.

And there was more

The coup de grace was that the website offered me the opportunity to take another step. I could connect again, in a different way, by sending a response to Rosa herself.

What do you say to a woman you don’t know, who has just donated money in honor of a friend who died in an illegitimate war that neither of you support?

First I had to decide whether to send a message at all. It took me more than a minute to figure this out. Then I had to figure out what to say. That took another minute or two.

In those minutes, feelings rose up that surprised me. Sorrow, despair, impotence, marginality, the fear that my values didn’t matter . Pain at the thought of Luis’s sacrifice for a war he didn’t support. Empathy for Rosa in her effort to find a way to protest, a way to respond. I thought that all I was going to do was give a bit of money. Instead, I was being invited to give a little of myself, as a person. I took a deep breath, and I plunged in with a real, personal, heartfelt response.

I thanked Rosa for matching my contribution. I thanked her for doing her best to fulfill her promise to Luis. I told her that I would hold her, Luis, and their families "in the light ". I told a woman I have never met that I would pray for her and her family. Because we both believe in ending the war.

The genius behind this campaign? Matching who we are and what we care about to create a connection between us and the organization.

It all started with a set of values at the Obama Campaign about grassroots participation . Some one or many people at the campaign kept the focus on the organization’s values. Drawing on these values, someone had the idea to match person to person. Someone else turned this idea into a function on their website, making it a feature of the campaign. They took who they are as an organization, what they believe in, and put it into action. Even better, they created a system, so that this matching process worked over and over, not just for me but for other people who contributed that day. That was all it that it took for the Obama Campaign to become real, to become authentic, and to forge an emotional connection with me.

The innovation was that the Obama Campaign shifted the terms on which I was making a connection as a campaign "supporter". My contribution wasn’t just about who I, a generic American voter, support for President. It became about who I am and what I believe in, about who Rosa is and what she believes in, and about who Obama is and what he believes in . The organization transformed my financial contribution into a contribution of who I am and what I believe in, by matching and engaging my values.

It was that authentic connection that made me cry.

=> The Take-away for Authentic Organizations

To create authentic relationships between the organization and your stakeholders:

– Create an opportunity for your stakeholders’ identities to connect with your organization’s identity

– Create a way for stakeholders to see themselves and to be themselves in their relationship with your organization

— Create a way for people to see and share your organization’s values, its ideology if you will

— Create a way for stakeholders to connect around the values and issues that matter most to them.

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

Who knew that the New York Jets knew so much about being authentic?

The New York Jets moved into their new training facility in Florham Park, NJ, just last week. Stories about the new building (designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP) describe it as huge, high-tech, state of the art, and light filled. Take a look at the photos on the Jet’s website and the New York Times .

The Jets demonstrate in their new facility ways that your organization can use its physical environment — the space where you put yourselves– to help it be more authentic.

Here’s what the New York Jets know:

1. If your organization requires people to punt, build ceilings that are 96 feet high.

Sometimes, to get the job done, the New York Jets have to kick the ball pretty high, and pretty far. In their former practice space, the Jets had to worry about balls bouncing off the ceiling! And, once a ball hit the ceiling, there was no way for the kicker to confirm his aim and improve his kicks with correct feedback.

Now, in a fieldhouse with 96 ft ceilings, Jets who are practicing their kicks can actually see where the ball goes when it is unimpeded, just like in a real game. Players get to practice and refine the skills that they need to get their job done– without making any physical compromises.

=> To help your organization be authentic, create a physical space that has room for ‘who you are’ and ‘what you do’.

2. If your organization requires focus, mark your territory in ways that frame how you want to think.

At the New York Jets ‘ training center, the design of the physical space helps the entire organization focus its attention on the game of football. Two features are particularly clever. First, the view from every window emphasizes what the organization is there to do: play football. All that members can see when they look outside are football fields. Not highways, not billboards, not parking lots. Just football fields.

Second, there are yard-line markers not only outside on the football fields, but also inside the building, on the floors, the walls — yes, even the ceilings. You read that right– there are yard-line markers everywhere you look. What do these yard-line markers do for the organization, you ask? They teach everyone in the organization — from accountants to word processors — just how far you need to go to get a first down.

The yard-line markers also reinforce the idea that everyone in the organization plays an important position on the field. And, the yard-line markers remind the entire organization that what matters most is what happens on the football field .

=> To help your organization be authentic, use physical space to shape the ways people think and focus everyone’s attention on what’s most important.

3. If your organization requires professionalism and a winning spirit, create a space that is uplifting and inspiring.

The New York Jets training center is beautifully, thoughtfully designed to be completely professional and ’state of the art’. The bright, airy entryway looks right out onto the practice field. The materials, fittings and finishes are the highest quality. The classrooms, media booths, and weight room showcase the latest in technology. Everything is designed so that the players, the coaching staff, and the office staff feel proud and professional.

The emotional effect of this design attention? Energy and enthusiasm.

Altogether, as Randy Lange writes on the New York Jets’ website:

The essence of the new complex can be captured in a phrase: competitive advantage.

=> To help your organization be authentic, use physical space to uplift, inspire and energize everyone.

So what can the New York Jets teach you about authenticity?

A physical space

– that has room for ‘who you are’ and ‘what you do’,

– that helps to focus and shape the organization’s attention, and

– that generates enthusiasm and energy throughout the organization

can make it easier for your organization to be authentic.

Does your organization have the kind of physical space that lets you collectively be who you want to be?

Technorati Tags: New York Jets ,football ,training facility ,Florham Park ,Brett Favre ,authentic ,organizations ,leadership ,office design ,inspiring architecture ,sports psychology

The System isn’t working at Omnicom.

Omnicom says “we are committed to ensuring that we use our position to promote socially responsible policies and practices”. Yet, Omnicom’s agency, Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO (AMV/BBDO) , creates advertising that is anti-gay. Because Omnicom is not addressing the contradiction between who it says it is as an organization and how it acts, Omnicom is not being authentic.

Last week, in an effort to challenge a homophobic advertisement for Snickers candy bars , Bob Garfield’s column in Advertising Age admonished John Wren, the CEO of the Omnicom Group, by asking him to “tell his agencies how to behave.”

Most of the ensuing commentary about the offensive ad and about Garfield’s column discussed whether or not the ad was homophobic and whether or not Bob Garfield was overly sensitive, and this diverted attention from discussing how to eliminate anti-gay advertising altogether. Meanwhile, some advocacy organizations, particularly the Human Rights Campaign applied direct pressure on the client (Mars) and got the advertisement taken off the air .

Problem solved– at least this time.

But what about the next time, and the time after that? And what about action that could stop anti-gay ads from being created in the first place? A week later, and after another 230 plus comments on the issue – this time, facilitated by Chris Martin writing at The Consumerist - there is still no reflection about how to banish homophobia from the organization’s products.

The big-picture problem that created the biased ad is that the organization is acting inauthentically .

There is a gap between the organization’s claimed commitment to acting in a socially responsible way and the behavior that was socially irresponsible. By focusing on this gap between claims and actual behavior, a push for organizational authenticity could pressure the organization to change its behavior. If advocates were able to get the organization to act more authentically re: its claims, advocates could influence not only the organization’s homophobic actions, but also other actions that contradict the organization’s claim to be socially responsible.

So, let’s try a different tack on the question of eliminating homophobia. Let’s talk about designing an organization that acts authentically. …

Want Bias? Design Homophobia in .

Among the handful of absolute truths about organizations and leadership that I wanted my MBA executive students to learn, is this simple statement about an organization’s results:

Organizations are designed to get the results they get.

I have never been able to find a pithier way to state this truth. Nonetheless, I’ve always found this truth to be a useful starting place for diagnosing any kind of problem in an organization. So, let’s take this approach to considering the CEO’s role in aligning the orgnization’s products & external actions with the organization’s statement of commitments. Keep in mind that this approach works only for organizations that already claim to be against bias, because this is all about making the organization accountable for those claims .

Want to Banish Bias? Design Homophobia Out .

If an organization claims to be “committed to ensuring that we use our position to promote socially responsible policies and practices and that we make positive contributions to society across all of our operations”, then it should not be creating and selling advertising that denigrates the GLBT community. But where do we go to create change, so that the organization’s ignoble actions come closer to its lofty claims?

Let’s start with a diagnosis. Many would say that the offensive ad got through the Ad Agency because:

• - Some employees at AMV/BBDO are homophobic
• - Some employees at AMV/BBDO are unable to recognize an anti-gay sentiment
• - Some employees at AMV/BBDO are unable (or unwilling) to speak out against an anti-gay creative idea
• - Some employees at AMV/BBDO lack the power and influence to convince their peers that the ad is problematic

Any and all of these explanations could be true, and any of these issues could be addressed as a part of a program to prevent anti-gay advertising concepts. But, if you take to heart the idea that "Organizations are designed to get the results they get ," could there be something about the way the Omnicom agencies are designed that permits anti-gay advertising to be created?

If AMV/BBDO is producing some ads that are anti-gay, then something in the design of the agency is making homophobic ads possible.

Want to change the organization’s outcome? Change the organization’s systems .

The way to prevent the agency from creating anti-gay advertising to recognize that there is something about the way that the agency is organized that is creating and/or letting pass ideas that are anti-gay. The job of top management is to analyze the organization’s systems ( its routine, procedures, policies, rewards, etc.), to identify places where bias could be created and/or filtered out, and to make changes in the system.

The CEO is responsible for changing the organization’s design

But let’s be realistic— Should eliminating homophobia from an agency’s advertisements be the responsibility of John Wren, the CEO of the Omnicom Group? Mark Horn points out that Wren is merely the CEO of the agency’s holding company. There are several layers of corporate hierarchy between Wren and any of ABM/DDBO’s processes. Horn suggest that, instead of addressing Wren, perhaps it is the CEO of AMV/BBDO (Farah Ramzan Golant) who should take action here. [Mark, I’m with you on that one, as are the folks who commented on my initial post .]

The CEO should modify the systems for creating and approving ads.

The CEO should consider system changes to eliminate anti-gay and otherwise biased advertising, and system changes that will promote clever advertising that is generously humorous. Golant should modify the ways that advertisements get created and executed (e.g., adjusting the idea generation processes already in use, or adding standards and checkpoints alongside the evaluations that each idea goes through as the creative quality is vetted.)

The CEO should establish systems that will align the organization’s actions with its claims.

1. Golant should establish a system for managers and employees to compare the organization’s products with the organization’s statements of purpose and value.
2. Golant should hold herself and the agency’s employees accountable for producing ads that reflect the creative and social standards that the agency claims to hold.
3. Golant should create regular opportunities for the organization to assess, reflect on and adjust its actions so that they align with the organization’s claimed commitments.
4. Golant should establish a process whereby the agency could ask itself:
   How does the advertising we create "use our position to promote socially responsible policies and practices?"

With these changes in the design of the organization, Golant can lead AMC/DDBO towards being more authentic.

Remember, too, that the behaviors of individual employees still matter.

Arguing that the CEO should change the organization’s systems does not let employees off the hook; employees are still responsible for their own actions and for supporting the organization’s claims through their own behavior. Employees’ sensitivity to anti-gay ideas, employees’ commitment to producing bias-free advertising, and employees’ ability and willingness to speak out against an anti-gay creative concepts are very important. But the actions and commitments of individual employees are not enough to eliminate homophobia in the organization’s products.

It takes heroic effort by employees to override an organization’s systems, and no amount of hard work can consistently overcome bad design.

To overcome a system that allows homophobia in, you have to design your organization to keep bias out.

Technorati Tags: Bob Garfield , Organizational authenticity ,homophobia ,Snickers ,Human Rights Campaign ,Omnicom ,Farah Golant ,organizational design ,leadership