Which trait would you prefer in a leader: authenticity or transparency?

Wow. This is like one of those questions you debate freshman year at college at 3 in the morning so you can avoid doing western civ homework.

So if I choose transparency, I get a fake, inauthentic leader who shares everything, but whom I cannot trust.

And if I choose authenticity, I get someone who does it under cover of darkness, which makes me suspicious.

I'd agree with most and vote for both, but if you forced me to choose, I'd rather have someone authentic I can trust, who is less transparent. At least, I can ask that person why they are not sharing information and believe in their answer.

Merriam Webster's defines authentic as genuine, real, and "true to one's own personality, spirit, or character".

I suppose if I had to choose, I'd go with authenticity. In fact, I'd even say that an essential part of being a good leader is knowing when to limit transparency. Some occasions where limited transparency can be very beneficial are in negotiating and bargaining.

Always the lesser of two evils dilemma... :)

I agree with Scott that both are essential. Transparency without authenticity is quite useless at best, and malicious in the worst case.

Would I want to work with someone who was "real", but opaque? How could I be sure that such a person was authentic without transparency?

Would I want to work for someone whose actions were transparent, but whose behavior was scripted or deceptive? How can I believe anything that I'm seeing?

No thanks to either of these options in isolation...

I believe that you can be authentic without being transparent, but not the inverse (because that would devalue transparency).

So I would have to go with 'authenticity' - although ideally the answer would be 'both'

For me, it would be transparency. With true transparency, one cannot lie, cheat and/or hide. Or at the very least, it is harder to pull off.

Being "authentic" is way too easy to game. Assholes, con artists and liars get away it it every single day. So do some of our managers and/or leaders in our businesses.

Being true to oneself is nice but doing so in an open view environment is better.

I would have to agree with William on this one. If one is truly transparent, then there is a level of authenticity that comes with that. But, to Andrew's point, I would not really want one without the other and would hope that any true leader would be transparent and authentic, as a great leader should be.

Well, as others have stated - you would ideally have both. But...if I could only have one or the other I would choose authenticity. I think to be authentic is to be comfortable with who you are and typically, someone who is really comfortable in his own skin, is someone who has some fairly high standards. Again, I would prefer both - but sometimes transparency when it isn't appropriate can cause a lot of problems. I believe in open, honest communication - but I also believe that sometimes there are things that we can't or may not feel are ready to be shared.

I too would agree that if you're transparent, your authenticity is revealed. That however doesn't infer high quality. As William said, authencity doesn't infer goodness. I know quite a few authentic people that I don't admire or like.

An additional perspective is to consider the needs of others as a point of departure. This discussion really begs this question, it seems to me. One perspective for leaders is how we want to be. Another is what those in our organization need from us.

For example, if you are very frustrated with a situation - and what leader truthfully has not been there? - is it best to be "authentic/transparent" to that situational response, or is it the better choice to be "authentic/transparent" to one's higher calling to serve those we lead by showing patience and understanding?

It's a more nuanced question than it might appear at first glance.

interesting question to ponder...If you are transparent, it will be fairly obvious to others pretty quickly if you are authentic. Being authentic alone is often not enough for a leader. I have worked with many great leaders who others assumed were not so great because they did not understand the "why" of their decisions or actions even when those decisions or actions came from good intention. Considering and focusing on both intent and impact are critical for success as a leader today.

Excellent question - while the best scenario would be for a leader to have both traits, I believe that transparency would be best for a leader. This way, employees would understand the corporate objectives, the challenges, the potential solutions, and most importantly, the strategies and tactics. Also, they would know where they fit into the entire company puzzle.

I choose a different choice. Both are required for me. And you can't force me to choose. Yeah, I'm a rule breaker.

I believe that both of these characteristics and more are essential for quality leadership. In our L3 Leadership Development System, "Integrity, Authenticity and Balance are foundational. Developmentally, we work in three distinct areas:

* L1-Leading Self (Achieving Personal Mastery)
* L2-Leading With Others (Cultivating Collaborative Advantage)
* L3-Leading Others (Creating The Best Place To Work)

Becoming the leader you were designed to be is a lifelong process and a wonderful journey.

For more information, see this link.

http://www.glowan.com/leadership_development/leadership_learning.php

If possible i'd choose both. "transparency and authenticity are very much synonymous, particularly when transparency is the primary objective. It is hard to be transparent if one is not authentic. Whether a leader can achieve transparency and authenticity is a different question. Really interesting question by the way."

Perhaps you mean honesty and integrity?

I would have to go with an authentic leader. Someone who is genuine and actually cares about his or her employees. In today's world, it is too easy to become self absorbed and only concerned with appearances. It would be refreshing to find someone in a position of influence that told the truth at the risk of losing political status.