I was listening to the Seth Godin podcast today on Tribes and there was a lot of talk about being authentic. Now, the question is what is being authentic and is it something that you or your company needs to do?
Well…no.
Let’s take a look at what being authentic means. Essentially authentic means being real and true, not false. We have all been in situations where we wanted to call someone an idiot or curse at a boss, etc. Company executives have all received emails and comments where they want to respond and call the user a moron, but they don’t, why?. Does this mean that people are not being authentic? After all shouldn’t an “authentic person” just be honest all the time and speak their mind?
As Seth mentioned on the call sometimes we are all faking it. It’s not being authentic that counts but it’s making sure that the intent and goals (among other things) are authentic. In other words, being authentic can be interpreted as not manipulating people and ideas to make them think you are doing A when you are actually planning on doing B. It’s not about being a liar or biting your tongue, it’s about respect. It’s about understanding that each person wields a certain influence (leaders more than others) and that influence should not be used to deceive.
If you’re a leader this bit of advice/information particularly applies to you, I will say that I try to be a leader both online and offline.
Are you authentic?
thanks for reading
I think transparency is a more appropriate term for what you correctly describe above, Jacob. Customers demand business transparency in order to establish that the company is acting honestly and in good faith. You are right to suggest that we do not always act authentically. In most cases this isn't a problem. In my opinion though, it is organisational transparency that truly matters when the organisation is looking to achieve a successful relationship with the customer. Transparency, created through an unfiltered dialogue, is amongst the best methods of creating transparency. That's where the social media steps in.
TLR
hi chris, actually the term was “authentic” im referring to what seth godin et al were talking about on the call. i think with transparency there is also a little bit that we hide/censor.
unfiltered dialogue is a problem for many companies/individuals especially when the legal team steps in. chris brogan is among one of the folks i know who curses like a mad man, yet he admits that he filters himself on his blog so as not to scare his readers or put anyone off.
thanks for the comment chris! by the way i definitely want to visit the UK
also id love to read your dissertation on social media and brand equity, any way you can send that to me?
thanks
I think I understand the dilemma, Jacob. And I wonder whether the *word* is the problem and, without having listened to the conversation but relying on your account, whether Seth has perhaps made a “straw man” for the purpose of his argument (I'm thinking of the essentially tongue-in-cheek title o his book “All Marketers are Liars” – he tells a great story 🙂 ) .
“Authentic” is a useful word when, say, you are talking about whether an object designated “Made in the USA” was indeed made there or in fact made in another country. With people it perhaps a less useful word.
See for example the Free Dictionary definition – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authentic
My sense is that, in the olden days 🙂 before “authentic” gained currency in talking about people, we used to talk about “integrity”.
I don't believe Chris Brogan is lacking in integrity if he doesn't curse on his blog. Any of us who are so inclined usually refrain also in front of children, assuming we were, as my mother would have said without any trace of irony, “well brought up”.
There are circumstances where our “natural” behavior can be inappropriate for very good reasons, without that meaning we lack integrity. Or even, perhaps, “authenticity” – although I would rather keep the A word for watches, paintings, antiques, shirts and comestibles.
In business and in personal relationships, I am very interested in whether the other person is known for and demonstrates integrity. I actually don't know whether being told someone is “authentic” or not does much for me, because I don't really know what it means: I think I have an idea of what it means when I'm told someone has integrity.
I think I understand the dilemma, Jacob. And I wonder whether the *word* is the problem and, without having listened to the conversation but relying on your account, whether Seth has perhaps made a “straw man” for the purpose of his argument (I'm thinking of the essentially tongue-in-cheek title o his book “All Marketers are Liars” – he tells a great story 🙂 ) .
“Authentic” is a useful word when, say, you are talking about whether an object designated “Made in the USA” was indeed made there or in fact made in another country. With people it perhaps a less useful word.
See for example the Free Dictionary definition – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authentic
My sense is that, in the olden days 🙂 before “authentic” gained currency in talking about people, we used to talk about “integrity”.
I don't believe Chris Brogan is lacking in integrity if he doesn't curse on his blog. Any of us who are so inclined usually refrain also in front of children, assuming we were, as my mother would have said without any trace of irony, “well brought up”.
There are circumstances where our “natural” behavior can be inappropriate for very good reasons, without that meaning we lack integrity. Or even, perhaps, “authenticity” – although I would rather keep the A word for watches, paintings, antiques, shirts and comestibles.
In business and in personal relationships, I am very interested in whether the other person is known for and demonstrates integrity. I actually don't know whether being told someone is “authentic” or not does much for me, because I don't really know what it means: I think I have an idea of what it means when I'm told someone has integrity.