The Dark Side of Authentic Leadership
On June 4, 1940, Winston Churchill gave his famous "We Shall Fight on the Beaches" speech to the House of Commons, rallying the British people with his iconic lines about fighting on beaches, landing grounds, and fields, concluding with "we shall never surrender!" His speech is legendary.
After this stirring oration, he sat down, allegedly leaned toward a colleague and whispered, “And we shall fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that’s bloody well all we’ve got!”
How interesting. It was as if he questioned the very remark he’d just made in his speech. He gave a confident challenge, and then in private, whispered a very human doubt about the campaign. It happens to every leader. They say what needs to be said to their people and yet retain their humanity behind closed doors. I do not believe this makes a leader inauthentic. I think it makes them responsible.
What’s Fake and What’s Real
There is a tension in our culture today about what authenticity looks like. Younger generations rightfully demand it in their leaders, having seen pretense and facades in so many places. “People are so fake,” one Gen Zer told me recently. “When I join a company, I want authentic leadership.” While I respect his aspiration, I am pretty sure he’s never led an organization. There is a time for transparency and even vulnerability, but the responsibility of leadership requires us to muster the courage to say and to do what may feel artificial; to put our game face on and perform. Leaders must project public hope while maintaining private realities. John Maxwell reminds leaders: “Where there is no hope in the future, there is no power in the present.”
Effective leaders recognize the difference between their intent and their impact.
In 2020, Janelle (not her real name) was a new leader on our team. She was young and had never served in a leadership role before. We were facing a difficult post-pandemic season, and team members felt anxious and unsettled. What they needed was clear direction from Janelle, but they got the opposite. In her commitment to transparency, she shared with her team that she didn’t think we were going to make it. She expressed doubt that her fellow leaders knew what they were doing. The bottom line? Janelle confused her intent with her impact. She intended her team to bond over her candor. She had no idea how her brutally honest words would impact her team’s morale. Soon, rumors spread, trust plummeted, and division surfaced. Leaders damage teams when they fail to distinguish between their intent vs. their impact. Being transparent doesn’t mean you share everything you feel. The team needed measured transparency: “This will be hard, but let’s do it together.”
People need leaders to be sensitive, but strong.
People need leaders to be candid and yet calculated.
People need leaders to have compassion and also conviction.
People need leaders who are tough and tender, in the right moments.
People need leaders who are honest but use discretion in how much they share.
An image I’ve used for decades to balance both sides is the “velvet-covered brick.” Imagine a brick, hard and heavy, covered with velvet, soft and smooth. The best leaders lead with velvet—expressing belief, hope, affirmation and support. Inside, however, is the brick—which expresses clear decision-making, makes tough calls, unpopular moves, and can even let poor performers go. They do what must be done for the sake of the mission. Think about a flight attendant. When a plane is flying through frightening turbulence, every passenger is looking at her: is she poised or panicked? That flight attendant knows she needs to assure people that they’re going to make it.
Leaders are like good flight attendants.
There will always be people who don’t understand leadership. They want honesty and authenticity, knowing everyone deserves transparency from those who lead them. Leaders understand, however, a bigger picture. They are genuine, but they don’t air other people’s “dirty laundry.” They don’t divulge to the point that others begin feeling sorry for them. They don’t let the private, harsh realities they face sabotage public hope. The criteria for what good leaders share is simple: is it helpful and hopeful? Those leaders are real but responsible. Mindful of their impact, their sense of duty prevails. Consider Franklin D. Roosevelt. Voters knew he had battled polio since he was a young man, but he frequently hid his wheelchair from the public when he made speeches. Why? He wasn’t lacking authenticity. He wanted to highlight his hopes, not his handicaps. He wasn’t concealing. He was calculated. He had his game face on.
During her “Eras” tour, Taylor Swift embodied this kind of leadership, particularly after the Southport stabbing in England, July of 2024. Three young girls were stabbed to death in a Taylor Swift themed party. Moved by this tragedy, Swift met with the families and survivors right before her concert. She sat down and listened to them, then broke down and wept after they left the room. Yet, alas, she had to immediately step on stage and perform her concert. And she turned it on. She wasn’t inauthentic. With a grieving heart, she did her job. She knew people had paid for that concert and she didn’t want them feeling sorry for her if she couldn’t pull herself together. She later explained there are times when leaders must compartmentalize for the sake of the bigger picture.
Great leaders are both human and dutiful.
Subscribe to future articles from Tim.
Book Tim for an event.
