Authenticity... spot the difference

I have been thinking about the concept of authenticity. Particularly, how much does one person's authenticity - their ability to spite the status quo in order to live their own path - inspire others towards action (not only admiration)?

How much is authenticity a 'tactic' that a boss could use to motivate an employee?

And then these two performances came my way in the last 24 hours. Spot the difference between these two.




...David Milliband taking 'the vomit principal' to a whole new, pretty low, patronising and downright boring level.

Compared to the lady above. With her hat and that intellect. And glass of wine (or water, but I like the idea of her opening a crisp white). And fantastic feminism/femininity. And balls - Q&A gets reasonable ratings.

Then Charles Waterstreet's unscripted and wonderfully true-to-self answer. Which so won him dividends in terms of popularity amongst Australia's (slightly-intellectual-Q&A-watching) twitterati. Penny Wong's response, albeit restrained, did a whole lotta good for her personal ranking also.

I am not a psychologist. But my suspicion is that what motivates people, particularly in the relationship between a boss and an employee, is, well, complex. Sometimes it just has to do with pleasing another, and therefore peer pressure, and nothing to do with authenticity at all. But this only works in the short term, and even then, can leave one feeling like they have given more than they have received.

At least over the long term, the way to gain true respect, endearment and loyalty is surely, at least somewhat, by 'living to your own keel' and being authentic.

So a nod to two very different and wonderfully inspiring Authentics...

My religion is very simple.

My religion is kindness.

HH, the Dalai Lama - an angel on this earth.

Debbie Harry. She still does her own make up. She's still cool.

Here's proof.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/castaway/0bddfe9c

Warning on World News Australia

Two news articles appeared back-to-back on SBS World News this evening, which will send a sobering message to executives and boards regarding their supply chains.

Harvey Norman is being accused by environmental group, Market for Change, and political activists, Get Up!, of using non-sustainable, native Australian forests within its furniture manufacture.

This was closely followed by an Al Jazeera story on Bangladeshi production of leather. In the tanneries of Dhaka, leather workers are being exposed to large amounts of chromium, which is carcinogenic at such levels. The element is also being distributed in the water around the villages, which is killing off fish and other organisms that a just decade ago, thrived in these waterways. The leather produced in these villages is exported to western nations to be made into bags and shoes.

The tales highlight how organisations need to take responsibility and control of all components of their products, prior to manufacture. Respected businessman Gerry Harvey was active in defending his company practices, calling himself an environmentalist and suggesting that sometimes native forest wood 'slips through,' alongside that of plantation wood. But his protestations seemed flimsy coming from such a corporate giant. And although Get Up! may not get permission to air an advertisement it has produced on the issue in a bought slot during this week's State of Origin, the Get Up! team will be celebrating the SBS World News coverage this evening.

Corporate communications teams take note. The issue of climate change may not be rousing the same levels of consumer concern as it did just few years ago (see last week's Lowy Institute Poll), but poor sustainability practices, both pre, during and at end-of-life for products, can still provoke reputational damage. Brainstorming with senior management to consider where gaps in organisational practices could be, and where companies may be criticised, is an essential first step. This should lead to more in-depth auditing of procedures, roadmaps for improving practices and the development of issues preparedness plans, to help organisations manage and improve their reputations - via more responsible practices.