Here lately, I’ve been reflecting on a radical idea I took from business school years ago: “authenticity.” As a business student, I was taught that the most successful brands are “authentic” and that it is their authenticity that naturally facilitates and crystalizes their status in greatness. When we’re talking about the identity of an organization (and this holds equally true for a personality), authenticity is about being true to the core values that one proclaims. When this happens, the end product or service is sure to be consistent and therefore “true” (authentic). But frankly and unfortunately, as a former civil servant, it’s been my experience that this basic principal is not getting the merit it deserves in the civil service.

When I was studying business, the idea of “authenticity” was all the rage. Though I can’t recite one person specifically without going back and doing some back referencing. It is an idea I saw in texts by world class faculty from the likes of Wharton School of Business and other Ivy League business schools and one that reverberated(es) under many different subtopics: branding, marketing, loyalty (both in terms customers and employees) and leadership (to name a few).

When I worked at the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS), it was very evident that there was an active and thoughtful effort to give focus to creating a “positive culture.” I participated in conversations with various levels of leadership about concerns relating to this. In an email correspondence, Director Terry Stigdon once lamented to me about how it was so unfortunate that the media too often focused on the negative when it came to DCS. This was about three years ago when I alerted her to the fact that a certain television reporter was trying to make contact with me (on a matter that’s not important in regards to the subject of this letter). Multiple times and at multiple levels of leadership, I heard that “poor morale” was the utmost concern to management and that this concern went all the way to the top and that there was an active and overt effort to improve the culture.

I too believe that it is ideal to strive for a “positive culture” in any work place but what I have been taught is that this can only truly occur if it’s also “authentic.” Logic dictates that to sustain the positive, the authenticity comes first.

It is true that someone is more likely to exceed when you acknowledge the merit of what they do or the skill in which they do it. But to tell someone they are “the best” at what they do if they are not would be manipulation. That would be unauthentic. The short term gains in productivity and confidence might be greatly enhanced but if the claim is also not true then the end service or product is also not going to be authentic—it could be disastrous. Part of being authentic is being honest.

When I was at DCS, I made more than a few complaints but the one thing I never heard was DCS accept fault. I heard rumors that in one adjacent county, the ethics officer had to give multiple presentations to staff one year after multiple cases of scandal of one sorts or another occurred. I am not sure if that is true or not and I have never experienced anything like that in my own county; but, if it is true, then it means there were issues at DCS that in the least merited acknowledgment. In six years of service, I never heard DCS management acknowledge being wrong on an issue in in any moral sense (at-least in an official capacity). Nobody and no organization is without faults.

I like to think that I can own my faults. I know that when I worked for DCS, I made numerous mistakes and I owned them when I recognized them. I always admitted to it when when I deferred to my own judgement on occasions when there have been questions regarding any of my investigations. I have never had any issue with accepting ownership for my work and I have certainly made mistakes. In fact, my supervisor wrote in my last performance review that I aways take ownership for my mistakes and never blame others. On one occasion in the more distant past, I made a mistake that I would have accepted as a terminal offense had it been treated as such. I confessed to sending a child for a CT scan after a doctor called and accused me of “illegally” “prescribing unnecessary radiation” without the legal authority to do so. He was right… I had misread our orders from the Child Protection Team at Riley. But I did not get in any kind of trouble; instead, my supervisor called the hospital and complained about the doctor’s attitude. The point is, I made a lot of mistakes but I owned them when I recognized them. 

It is Ironic that my greatest mistake (from a career perspective) was to criticize DCS leadership and management. I accessed information that was by large openly staffed with me and for which I had no specific restrictions and I used that information to illustrate a complaint. I was terminated for it. I can assure you that, internally, the Department justified it on grounds of my attack being a detriment to the “positive culture” they so eagerly sought. But the threat itself was that I threatened their public image.

This is a fault that I hope our other civil service agencies are not repeating. I too agree that a positive work climate is important and worthy of a conscientious effort. But to do it by degrading and ignoring criticisms is the wrong approach. The so called “realist” may disagree but they are going against the wisdom of what’s being taught in the world’s best business schools. These realists are what are called the Machiavellians. They adhere to (or emulate) the cold philosophy of a 16^th century Italian Statesman, whose book The Prince is often considered a treatise on governance with an emphasis on overt manipulation and ruthlessness. But Machiavellianism is both too often overstated and misunderstood.

In fact, Machiavellianism (as we understand it) more often than not reveals a poor foundation, a fragile system and an insecure leadership. I like to think that the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. transcended and raised above Machiavellianism in the most uncertain of times.

In my quarrel, with DCS, I have had DCS employees ask me not to place them on the witness stand because they fear retaliation. And their concern is legitimate. If this sector of our government was being run “authentically” this would not be the case. Our employees would not have to fear for their honesty. The fact that DCS assures us that this is not the case does not change the very real fears of otherwise stellar employees. And the reason for this fear is simple: DCS and perhaps other elements within State Government are apt to protect management. The higher up the ladder you are, the greater this standard holds true. The justification is no doubt that an attack on the chain of command is a threat to the credibility of the leadership and organization as a whole. The shuffle to protect management for the sake of credibility is inherently Machiavellian and the degree to which leadership is motivated to protect management demonstrates both a tremendous flaw in the core values of the organization (not as they are stated but as they are demonstrated) and an incredible level of insecurity.

It’s unfortunate that a State bureaucracy cannot grasp (and implement) a radical idea like “authenticity” when it is being taught as a pillar of success for truly world-class business leadership. Authenticity, after all, is is akin to the idea of being honorable. If “public image” takes precedence over honesty and transparency, then we must begin to ask serious questions because something is being hidden! Not only is it likely morally wrong it is indicative of mismanagement and future failure. 

Though my undergraduate thesis, Virtue as a Competitive Advantage, explicated these very ideas in a generic sense, I am in a debt of gratitude to my former colleagues for reminding me of my own values and the values we seek to instill in government. On this this issue, I give a special shout out to my campaign manager, Christina Taylor. Thank you!