Comments on: It ain’t about authenticity, people

By: Tamsen

Tamsen — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:13:26 +0000

The tricky thing about both authenticity and integrity is that we bring our own biases to it. There is no single form of “authenticity,” nor of “integrity.” Nike is authentic, cheap outsourced labor and all. And they have perfect integrity with their own corporate values, which may include finding the cheapest way to make their product to their standards. We may not agree with it–and I do not–but since Nike does not promote fair labor practices as one of its core values, I don’t see them as being inauthetic…I just don’t like them very much.

You raise an excellent point: the damage comes when there’s a disconnect between what a company says it stands for and what it actually does. At that point we actually introduce a fourth concept into the discussion: credibility.

By: Michelle Tripp

Michelle Tripp — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:14:01 +0000

Yes, a lot of times people use the word authenticity when they mean transparency or integrity. I tend to they don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Authenticity is such a broad word that it can mean different things to different people. To me, when I use the word authentic I mean “staying true to yourself,” “not behaving with hidden intentions,” and “having honest communication.” I think integrity is an internalized version of the same concept, while authenticity is external.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:01:21 +0000

I can’t help but think that the parroting of “authenticity” is less about the value of authenticity and more about the damage of those who are inauthentic. Let’s face it, an authentic jerk is much MUCH better than a deceptive jerk being in-authentically kind; a wolf in sheep’s clothing, if you will. In that sense, there is an inherent value to authenticity that is separate from integrity. If a corporation wears its heart on its sleeve, it has more incentive to change if consumers are aware of all it’s doing wrong.

Or if Nike could change its slogan from “Just Do It!”(tm) to “We use cheap labor in China so we can price gouge you!” then maybe they’d lose some of their market share.

By: Tamsen

Tamsen — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:37:10 +0000

I love it, Kat! My personal mantra is: “Be useful, be passionate, be thoughtful, be kind.” I guess I split #2 in two!

By: Sue Spaight

Sue Spaight — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:18:35 +0000

Thanks for the credit, Tamsen but I was really just building on what you said first – that you can be a total d-bag, and still be authentic. (And who among us does not know one or two authentic d-bags?)

I especially like your point about how we expect every company to “act predictably in a way that we agree with”. That, of course, being a total impossibility, since we will all never agree on exactly how any one company should act. How fortunate then that we can vote with our words and our dollars.

Your post is incredibly well-thought and articulate. And I love the way that Kat sums it up in her comment, too. What client can’t understand “Be good, be real, be nice?”

And finally, I think the best outcome of this post is an awareness that — while sometimes frankly the semantic debates can get tiresome — we do need to actually think about our words and choose them with intention, instead of just parroting “authenticity” over and over again because it appeared in a great article in Fast Company a few years ago.

By: Kat Jaibur

Kat Jaibur — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:14:07 +0000

It’s a new day. The bar has been raised. The tolerance for b.s. is very low.

So I think what we really mean is:
1. Be good
(offer good products/services/information/sharing)

2. Be real
(make sure your words & actions match up…)

3. Be nice
(be someone/some company that is generous, helpful, positive, etc.)

If you’re not those things, get crackin’. If you are, your integrity will shine through.

Great post, Tamsen. It needs to be said.

By: Tamsen

Tamsen — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:56:14 +0000

Well said, Jeremy. In the wise and (paraphrased words) of the Cheshire Cat, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.” In other words, if you don’t know what your own code is, it’s easy to justify just about anything…and that, of course, leads very quickly to brand diffusion and calls of “inauthenticity.” There’s not nearly enough attention paid to helping companies (and people, for that matter) figure out what they stand for, which is the first step in determining what value you do or don’t have in the marketplace.

It’s hard to listen if you don’t know what you’re listening for.

By: Tamsen

Tamsen — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:46:38 +0000

You’ve gotten directly to to the heart of it, Kathryn: there is often great tension between what we are and what we want to be. And that fact gets infinitely more complicated the moment we introduce others’ expectations into the mix.

So much of the conversation around authenticity and integrity seems, at root, to be about us projecting our own codes of behavior onto others. The most heated conversations seem to spring from a disconnect between two of those codes: I follow one, you follow another, now let’s see who’s “right.” But “right” is an ephemeral concept, entirely relative, and–perhaps–irrelevant, except for reasons of self-esteem. Our sense of truth is based on our experience. Different experience = different truths, which is why (to my mind) there is no one “right” way to do any of this.

Authenticity is easy. You don’t have to do anything to be authentic. The reason integrity is elusive is because we have to do the hard work of figuring out what we stand for, and be willing to stand for it in the face of others who disagree.