We are all, in one way or another, leaders.  Whether it’s running your own business, being a role-model for your kids (or other peoples’ kids), being a ‘thought leader’ or a senior manager in an organisation, it’s all leadership.  In recent years, there’s been a call for more authentic leadership, led by Bill George and others.

In the Authentic Leadership model, the leader aspires to be true to themselves and their values, to walk their talk.  Leadership models are generally the antithesis of authenticity.  Yet this doesn’t stop the ‘Leadership’ market from producing new models of  ‘best practice’.

In a recent article produced by researchers at the London School of Economics, one of the key conclusions is that leaders are more successful when they adopt a more participative style:  ‘…while leaders who exhibit a powerful demeanor may boost their appearance of competence, they also risk stifling follower voice precisely because they appear more competent.’

But what happens if your own, authentic style leans more towards command and control?  One of the authors of the LSE report observed that when leaders deliberately try to be more influential, for example by increasing eye contact and thinking about their body language, they often come unstuck.  We have very good inbuilt b/s detectors: we tend to intuitively know when someone is trying to fool us, and we push back against it.

As a coach, I have worked with some really excellent leaders: their people enjoyed working for them, and they got excellent results.  I have also worked with some real ‘one trick ponies’.  People who got results by sheer force of personality, but managed to demotivate their staff, who would have performed even better if the boss had behaved differently.  And there are those who still think that command and control is the order of the day, and don’t even manage to get the results.

Most observers agree that the days of ‘you’ll do what I tell you, and you’ll do it like I tell you, otherwise I’ll…..’ are over, even though there are still some dinosaurs out there.  What they don’t agree on is whether we should apply the more prescriptive models (which don’t agree with each other anyway) or go the authenticity route.

I believe there is a case for a middle ground.  If you read or listen to Bill George, it’s clear that he changed his style over time. He admits that he had to!  He also figured out who he was and became comfortable with his own identity.  In too many models, the concept of knowing who you really are and what you stand for and being comfortable with it doesn’t seem to have much place.

As an individual, you can’t be all things to all people all of the time.  It’s too exhausting.  When leaders really start to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and figure out strategies for dealing with their weaknesses (being honest about what these are is a good start), then they can step into their own power.  It’s what most leaders want to do anyway, if they only knew how.

The less successful ones often go about it the wrong way, either seeing ‘power’ as a game of me versus you, or believing if they deliberately apply every trick in the leadership handbook, they will have people lining up to follow them.

The most comforting thought in all of this, as a recent article in The Director identified, is that leaders are made not born.  You can work at becoming a leader, and ‘those who’ve worked at it have more to offer the modern workplace.’  So if you dream of leading from the top of a great organisation, but secretly wonder if you have what it takes, take cheer. You can still be authentic AND develop the skills to become a successful leader.