Why Authentic Leadership Feels Impossible (and What to Do About It)
The chasm between what leaders preach and what they practice isn't just hypocrisy—it's a systemic issue. My exploration of Henrik Ibsen's "Brand" highlighted the challenge of undivided leadership, but is this gap between stated values and actual behavior simply a matter of individual will, or do deeper forces drive this disconnect?
The answer reveals a more complex reality that transcends simple moralism
—one where leaders are both creators and captives of the systems they inhabit.
The Leader-System Paradox
Leaders often aspire to integrity yet find themselves enacting contradictions.
They preach autonomy while requiring multiple approvals for decisions.
They celebrate learning while punishing failure.
They advocate innovation while rewarding conformity.
This persistent pattern suggests powerful systemic forces at play, explaining why calls for mere authenticity often fall short. Understanding these forces doesn't excuse leadership inconsistency, but it illuminates why simple exhortations to "be more authentic" rarely create lasting change.
The Game Master's Dilemma
A friend of mine, Rune Ulvnes, recently offered a compelling metaphor: "If we look at the organization as a game, the leaders are the true game masters, training everyone in how to play. But if we choose to change the rules of the game, or change the game we are playing, leaders will no longer be game masters."
The leader's role presents a paradox, as a "game master" who simultaneously:
Creates and enforces rules through rewards and punishments
Shapes culture through daily actions and decisions
Establishes metrics and incentives driving organizational behavior
Yet, organizational reinvention demands these same leaders become "game changers," questioning established rules and modeling new behaviors—a profound psychological shift from mastery to vulnerability.
Organizational Architecture as Hidden Director
Organizational design itself often enforces fragmentation through:
Conflicting Incentive Systems: Rewarding behaviors that contradict stated values undermines credibility. Example: A technology executive championed innovation in every company meeting while her budgeting process required detailed ROI projections before any initiative could begin—making meaningful experimentation virtually impossible.
Fragmented Decision Structures: Approval processes with competing priorities force contradictory actions. Example: One healthcare organization simultaneously demanded cost reductions from operations teams while quality teams required additional documentation steps—leaving leaders appearing inconsistent as they tried to serve both masters.
Legacy Processes: Outdated workflows silently contradict new strategies. Example: A manufacturing firm announced a shift to customer-centricity while maintaining production metrics that rewarded batch efficiency over responsiveness—forcing middle managers to choose between contradicting metrics or contradicting messaging.
These structural elements aren't just background context—they actively shape leadership behavior, sometimes more powerfully than conscious intention.
The Rule Book Paradox
"Maybe they are trying to understand the new game by the old rule book?" my friend suggested. This insight captures how cognitive frameworks constrain leadership adaptation.
Years of experience build implicit mental models in leaders. When organizations reinvent themselves—shifting from projects to products, hierarchies to networks, or control to empowerment
—leaders often unconsciously apply these outdated frameworks to new challenges.
A leader who mastered command-and-control management may intellectually embrace autonomy while interpreting problems through established patterns. Under pressure, they revert to familiar approaches – essentially engaging leadership "muscle memory" that can't be easily retrained. This automatic response creates the very fragmentation between values and behavior they consciously wish to avoid.
This isn't simple resistance to change—it's the challenge of rewriting deeply embedded cognitive patterns reinforced through success. As my friend noted, many leaders have "experience in projects, trying to understand product organizations through the old rule book. This will only drive confusion."
From Game Master to Game Changer
Moving forward requires recognizing that undivided leadership isn't solely about individual will; it demands engaging with the systems that shape behavior. Truly integrated leaders become "game changers" by:
Gaining Systemic Awareness: Understanding how structures, incentives, and norms impact alignment
Embracing Deliberate Experimentation: Testing new approaches to challenge existing patterns
Cultivating Comfort with Vulnerability: Accepting the shift from mastery to learning
Driving Progressive Alignment: Systematically adjusting systems to reflect stated values
Leaders focused only on individual willpower often miss the systemic roots of fragmentation. Effective leaders address both personal alignment and system redesign for sustainable change.
The Courage of Systemic Intervention
The most courageous leadership act isn't simply maintaining personal consistency—it's addressing the root causes of fragmentation throughout the organization by:
Redesigning incentive systems to reward behaviors that align with stated values
Simplifying governance to reduce competing demands that force contradictions
Creating reflective practices that make implicit assumptions explicit
Building feedback mechanisms that reveal disconnects between intention and impact
These interventions require more than personal discipline—they demand questioning fundamental aspects of organizational design. As my friend notes, "The only solution to effective change is to either hire a new leadership team, or if leaders take on the role as game changers."
What's critical to understand is the iterative relationship between leader behavior and system evolution.
The systems constraining leaders today were often shaped by yesterday's leadership decisions.
A financial services executive I advised discovered that the approval process frustrating her innovation efforts had actually been expanded under her own direction three years earlier following a risk event. This dynamic cycle means leaders aren't just victims of systems—they're active participants in creating, maintaining, and potentially transforming them. Each leadership decision either reinforces existing patterns or begins reshaping the system toward greater alignment.
The Wholeness Imperative Revisited
Returning to Ibsen, we can now see his challenge in a new light. "Be - what you are with all your heart" isn't just about individual moral courage—it's about creating systems that enable and reinforce wholeness throughout the organization.
The leader's task is not simply to model consistency but to build organizations where alignment between words and actions becomes the default rather than the exception. This doesn't diminish the importance of personal integrity—it places it within a context that acknowledges the powerful systemic forces that shape behavior.
Undivided leadership requires both individual commitment and systemic awareness.
The most effective leaders recognize they are simultaneously shaped by and shapers of organizational systems,
creating virtuous cycles where personal integrity and organizational design reinforce each other.
By addressing the systemic roots of fragmentation, leaders can move beyond synchronized swimming toward authentic alignment—not just for themselves, but for the entire organization.