In a world of constant change and disruption, organizational leaders are often preoccupied with the future – where the industry is headed, new technologies on the horizon, and the skills and attributes needed to thrive in an uncertain tomorrow. However, this fixation on becoming our "future self" can undermine our effectiveness as leaders in the present. Rather than focusing so much energy on who we hope or plan to be, we would do better embracing our authentic strengths and experiences to lead with purpose today.
Today we will examine the research on leadership self-awareness, authenticity and presence, and suggest that leaders achieve more by anchoring themselves in their true qualifications of the moment instead of an imagined future version of themselves.
Research Foundation: The Risks of Inauthentic Self-Projection
Extensive leadership research has linked effectiveness with self-awareness - truly understanding one's distinct capabilities, weaknesses, values and motivations (Day, 2000; George, 2003). Yet constantly envisioning an ideal future self can undermine this self-knowledge. Projecting an image of who we want to become versus who we genuinely are breeds inauthenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Inauthentic leaders fail to connect with followers and inspire trust (Gardner et al., 2005). They may make choices based on perception management rather than principle or context. Over-focusing on becoming a future, projected self can displace presence - fully engaging with reality as it exists presently (Brown, 2012). Without presence, leaders miss opportunities, fail to address emerging problems and distance themselves from what followers truly need.
Practical Application: Accepting What You Have To Offer Now
To avoid these pitfalls, leaders must stop aspiring to an imagined future identity and start appreciating their legitimate qualifications of the moment. For example, when a new CEO of a tech startup constantly talked about acquiring future skills but didn't recognize her proven track record overseeing multiple successful product launches, team motivation declined. By refocusing on her real experience and strengths instead of an idealized future Self, she rebuilt trust and momentum. Leaders in any industry can apply this by taking inventory of competencies developed over years - managerial savvy, financial oversight, client relationship abilities - and bringing these present qualifications into sharp focus for meeting current needs. With authentic confidence in themselves as they are, not as they aspire to be, leaders connect better with those around them today.
Research Foundation: The Benefits of Anchoring in Experience
Research confirms that focusing on experience-backed capabilities presently available leads to surer decision-making (Kahneman, 2011). Experience provides a database for making good judgments under uncertainty (Sadler-Smith & Shefy, 2004). In contrast, envisioning an inexperienced future self risks choices based more on wishful thinking. anchoring leaders in a record of achievement. Experience also aids presence. With grounding in the realities of their expertise so far, leaders maintain laser-like focus on addressing specific conditions at hand (Langer, 1989). A track-record provides legitimate authority when influencing change agendas versus change envisioned from a place of aspiring for future authority alone (Kotter, 1995).
Practical Application: Leading with Confidence from Achievements to Date
For example, when a hospital CEO leaned on her long career managing complex medical teams during staffing shortages caused by the pandemic, her judgment and directives guided the organization effectively. Rather than worrying about future qualifications, she anchored decisions in decades of problem-solving healthcare logistics. Likewise, a manufacturing VP drew on a proven ability to streamline processes when cutting costs amid difficult economic times. Leaders in any field can build confidence and make wise choices now by anchoring in verified experience over promising an idealized future self. With legitimacy from achievements to date as a solid base, leaders address pressing needs and influence positive change today.
Research Foundation: The Power of Self-Acceptance
Psychological research further affirms that self-acceptance - being at peace with strengths and weaknesses as they stand presently - correlates strongly with well-being, productivity and healthy relationships (Wang et al., 2017). And healthy, balanced leaders have more capacity to care for others. In contrast, constantly envisioning an idealized future self breeds dissatisfaction and distress (Hewitt, 2009). This self-critical state impairs focus, connection and performance. Research also links self-acceptance to authentic behavior, as leaders embrace instead of deny or exaggerated aspects of themselves (Wood et al., 2008). Authentic behavior cultivates trust among followers essential for change-management roles.
Practical Application: Leading with Humility and Grace
For example, during an industry downturn, a manufacturing division head acknowledged shortcomings transparently but maintained belief in her team based on their collective qualifications to date. Rather than overpromising future transformations, she rallied workers through humble reliance on proven abilities and a spirit of shared challenges. Her calm, self-accepting approach stabilized performance. Leaders in any sphere can stay anchored through times of uncertainty and change by accepting limitations graciously while highlighting legitimate strengths - engendering confidence through humility, not hollow aspiration. Overall workplace culture and resilience benefit when leaders stop striving for perfect futures and guide growth from places of authentic self-endorsement instead.
Specific Industry Examples
Technology Leadership: A software CEO effectively pivoted her startup during economic turmoil by anchoring in proven engineering expertise rather than aspiring for untested future skills. Rather than chasing emerging technologies speculatively, she focused R&D on refining products successful to date in new ways aligned with changing customer needs. Steady progress resulted from staying true to foundations while accepting limitations of the present moment realistically.
Healthcare Management: A hospital administrator weathered nursing shortages amid the crisis by anchoring in authenticated experience allocating staff efficiently rather than aspiring to future operational visions. With humility and acceptance of constraints presently, she leaned on verified problem-solving talent over improbable aspirations. Stability followed for the facility from relying on proven managerial background anchored currently versus hypothetical future qualifications.
Education Administration: A college president embraced budget cuts transparently while maintaining commitment to student support programs verified as valuable thus far. Rather than aspiring to wholly transformed idealized future structures, she anchored the institution's vision in authenticated strengths of educational mission concretely helping learners today. Stakeholder trust in leadership came from being present and rooted in experience, not distant aspirational promises.
Conclusion
In constantly visualizing an aspired future identity, leaders run risks of inauthentic projection, impaired decision-making and strained well-being. However, embracing legitimate qualifications verified at present allows one to offer purposeful guidance, influence needed change and weather uncertainty with balance, connection and resilience. anchoring in an established record of competence, wisdom gained, relationships built and achievements realized to date provides legitimate confidence for present demands. Overall, leadership proves most effective when anchored presently in authenticated abilities, experience and self-acceptance - rather than constantly aspiring after some ideal future self yet unseen. Leaders achieve more by stopping to strive and starting to thrive from places of authentic strength right now.
References
Brown, N. J. L. (2012). Mindfulness enhances salience network connectivity and balance between executive and default mode brain networks. Scientific Reports, 2, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00572
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048- 9843(00)00061-8
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003
George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Jossey-Bass.
Hewitt, P. L. (2009). Perfectionism self-presentation and psychological distress. Journal of Personality, 77(3), 1235–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00576.x
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 137–173). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60307-X
Sadler-Smith, E., & Shefy, E. (2004). The intuitive executive: Understanding and applying 'gut feel' in decision making. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2004.15133332
Wang, C., Puri, C., Saxena, D., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Meditation-based therapies for self-regulation of negative emotions: A meta-analysis. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 10, 149–172. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S126609
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Comments