What does it mean to be an ‘authentic organization’?
I’ll be trying to answer this question in a number of different ways, but for this particular post, let me offer a somewhat academic perspective:
- Authenticity is a quality of experience that a member has of an organization, when the member feels a congruence between what organization believes it is, how it presents itself to others, and what it does.
- Authenticity is an ongoing organizational process — more an activity than an achievement – where these three elements of the organization communicate the same message and reinforce each other.
- Authenticity is a state of being where the elements of an organization’s identity are actively aligned with each other so that they all represent the same ‘truth’ about the organization.
An organization’s identity is defined by three components: by beliefs about its identity, by projections of its image, and by action choices that express its priorities. It is the relationship between these three organizational identity elements that determines whether and to what degree an organization feels authentic.
In an authentic organization, members experience fidelity between their beliefs about the organizations, the image they see the organization projecting, and the organization’s choice of actions. When an organization’s actions seem to reflect what it tells others about itself and what it believes about itself, when the organization’s projected image seems to reflect what members believe and seems congruent with the behaviors the organization chooses, and when the organization’s self-definitions feel like valid explanations for the organization’s actions as well as valid demonstrations of the organization’s projected image, members can experience the organization as authentic.
To put it more simply, the authentic organization will express its identity beliefs through the action choices it makes, what it says about itself to others will be faithful to how it defines itself, and how it acts will be congruent with how defines itself.
Organizational Identity
Beliefs
ñ ò ò ñ
Projected Image ó Action Choices
Each of the three identity elements reflects the two others, and as a trio they create the full experience of "who the organization is". Each of these identity elements is an effort to represent, in a particular form, the ineffable, fundamental nature of an organization, its identity.  When taken together, these three identity elements can be triangulated so that a member or stakeholder can get a sense of who the organization really is. However, taken individually, an element of the organization’s identity does not need to be a perfect reflection of the two other elements; it only needs to be a plausibly truthful reflection of them. That’s where the idea of fidelity comes in.
Fidelity is a notion that implies a truthful connection to a source. For an organization, that source is the organization’s identity. Fidelity is not only the accuracy of a representation but also the principal that forbids misleading or deceiving others while representing a source. Fidelity is achieved when the three components of the organization’s identity are consonant with each other, and when this consonance is the result of all three representing the organization’s identity in a way that is accurate, truthful, and intentionally not misleading.
Because the reflection of beliefs, projected images and action choices by each other will never be perfect or complete, there will always be a gap between one identity element and the others it should reflect. This "identity gap " exists because beliefs are hard to communicate fully through words and actions, because projected images are only abstract, partial representations of beliefs, and because actions can have multiple interpretations.
The identity gap is not something to bemoan or to regret, because the gap can be quite functional. When the gap between the identity elements is relatively small, the gap can provide the organization with flexibility. The gap provides room for identity beliefs, projected images, and action choices to adjust to specific situational demands. In addition, the identity gap provides the organization with an opportunity for growth and space for innovation that can occur when members try to align action choices, projected images, and identity beliefs.
On the other hand, an identity gap can sometimes cause problems for an organization. Sometimes, the gap between identity elements is so severe that it is dysfunctional. For example, people feel let down when the organization does not live up to or act in accordance with the expectations they have based on their identity beliefs and projected images. People feel misled when projected images — what they’re told to believe — is far from what they (objectively) see in the organization’s chosen actions. In addition, people feel betrayed when the organization’s actions don’t reflect their identity beliefs or the organization’s projected image. At minimum, a large identity gap makes the organization unstable, because one or more of the identity elements has to change significantly to re-establish dynamic equilibrium .
An identity gap presents the organization with a constant, ongoing challenge: how can employees sustain fidelity between the organization they are part of, the identity beliefs they hold, the images they see the organization projecting, and the action choices the organization makes?
An identity gap creates "cognitive dissonance": a tension between beliefs, images, and action choices. Organization members can work to resolve this tension by changing any or all of the three identity elements. Members can evolve their identity beliefs, adjust the image the organization projects, and/or adapt the organization’s action choices to better reflect identity beliefs and projected images. Each element is a potential lever to pull the organization in one direction or another, and efforts to resolve the tension cause by an identity gap be used to change the organization’s direction. Changes in direction can lead the organization to grow or they can hold the organization back.
I am an organizational consultant, change advocate, and organizational identity/reputation scholar with a PhD in leadership & organizations. I research, write about, and consult with organizations on the relationships between organizational identity, actions, and purpose. I teach Technology Management, part-time, at Stevens Institute of Technology.
My current research focuses on how social technologies in the workplace can drive organizational change, generate meaning, and catalyze purpose. See the 
Comments on this entry are closed.