On the topic of (not) walking the talk

One of my favourite bloggers out there recently asked the question: Why do we say a leader lacks authenticity, when what we mean is they're a hypocrite?
I think part of the reason for using “not authentic” rather than “hypocrite” is that authenticity is a positive/good character trait whereas hypocrisy is a negative/bad one. For some reason, there’s a milder tone to being “not good” than to being “bad”.
And therefore, recognizing people as lacking positive traits rather than displaying bad traits is a milder judgment – which in turn makes it easier for us not to walk the talk and in some way express that it’s impossible to work with that person, e.g. by resigning.
That, I think, is at least part of the explanation.
(Translated from Noget om at (ikke) at gå linen ud)

On the topic of originals, copies and collages

While discussing authenticity, I came to think of a quote, which we Danes like to attribute to Søren Kierkegaard - symptomatically enough, I think it actually originates from the English poet Edward Young, who died about half a century before Kierkegaard's birth:

We are all born originals - why is it so many of us die copies?

For that question, I think I know a good answer: we die copies, because we have gathered inspiration from people, we have met over time, from whom we have let inspiration rub off. And the fascinating part is that hardly anyone - maybe not even in totalitarian regimes, eventhough, fortunately, my knowledge of said regimes is limited - die as exact copies of a certain other person. Rather, we die as collages of numerous other people, who then again themselves were collages of those people who inspired them.
Which is quite fortunate, I think. Otherwise, none of us could reach higher by standing on the shoulders of giants of the past.
(Translated from Noget om originaler, kopier og collager, originally published October 17, 2015)

On the topic of being authentic and natural

I have in recent times grown into somewhat of a fan of psychology professor Adam Grant, and therefore, I am paradoxically pleased , when I manage to find something written by him, with which I disagree - as it shows me that I still carefully consider the impressions I take in, rather than just blindly accepting them and passing them on because they are rubber-stamped by the trust (very much in line with yesterday's post), I have in the person from whom I have gotten the impression.
Thus, I read over the weekend in the Sunday Review of the New York Times a post by Mr. Grant under the heading "Unless You're Oprah, 'Be Yourself' Is Terrible Advice". In this, he concludes that "Next time people say, “just be yourself,” stop them in their tracks. No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head. They just want you to live up to what comes out of your mouth."
Initially, it made somewhat of an impression with me - partly because a few weeks ago I stood in front of a couple of dozen people and made a speech with the main conclusion: "Be yourself. Act naturally." - and is Adam Grant not opposed to this?
The more I read Grant's post, I think that the question lies in what you put into "being yourself". For if it means to be yourself, without filters, right down to the level where you release all your innermost thoughts - well, then I completely agree with Grant that it is not the best advice; who may well disagree with that? Then we would go all the way to the level where I need to tell people if I prefer cats to dogs, and at this level you can go terribly wrong, even though it has no relevance at all to the relationship, one has the people to whom it is disclosed. But on the other hand, I think that the second part of Grant's conclusion with advantage can be reversed to support my point. "No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head. And they do not want anything to come out of your mouth, if you are not able to live up to it."
So yes: Be yourself and act naturally - to the extent applicable within the framework set by the relationships you have to the people in front of whom you should be yourself and act naturally . It is relevant for the boss to know that you are not a dog person, if you apply for a job in a kennel. Not if you apply for a job at a factory where the boss happens to have dogs as a hobby.
Interesting enough, later on, Brené Brown - another person, I am somewhat of a fan of - wrote a piece defending autenticity and vulnerability, and Adam Grant replied to it; when the last word is said between them, I am pretty sure they have ended up in an agreement on how one can apply authenticity, sincerity and vulnerability to become one's best self. I will follow the debate with great interest.
(Translated from Noget om autencitet og naturlighed)