One of the things that entrepreneurs, business people, and writers of all stripes struggle with on a nearly daily basis is representing themselves in an authentic manner to potential and existing customers, readers, and audiences. Writers struggle with the issue to an even greater degree, especially if they write OpEd pieces or blogs. I have had the fortune of serving clients and editors alike while walking this line, mostly because I do tend to write what I feel and what I experience as a basis for my blog and columns. With this, I have had to accept that a certain segment of the global "audience" will reject me outright either personally or professionally.
As a consultant in the 90s in the political and professional services fields, I became keenly aware that I couldn't always say or write what I really thought. I even lost a gig or two because I offended a superior or client by telling them my perception of the truth, vs. towing the company line of least resistance to political correctness. The result was sometimes a breakthrough conversation that taught me a lesson, or alternatively taught the other side a lesson. Sometimes, though, it lead to my dismissal from a project or job. That side of the coin kicked me in the tail, teaching some hard lessons along the way.
As a political operative, on the inside of political organizations consultants are encouraged to speak their minds to their clients, and be politically correct to outsiders. Certain politicos are masters at walking the line. David Axelrod, political consultant to U.S. Senator Barack Obama, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and other political luminaries, is an expert at walking the line. He often speaks for his political clients, as an official spokesman, and does well at keeping his "advisory voice" separate from his "public relations voice."
Another example is Donna Brazille, political strategist and regular contributor to CNN's "Strategy Session" segments on CNN's "The Situation Room" hosted by Wolf Blitzer. "Momma Brazille" as her friends know her, is always ready to offer up an opinion, but you never really know what her personal opinion is, or whom she is speaking for--other than as a general "Democratic Party strategist." This is because she is a graduate of the old "keep your personal opinion separate from that of your candidates or clients" school of politics. In her book "Cookin' with Gas," Brazille talks a lot about how she occasionally got herself in trouble with her clients and superiors because she made the mistake of saying a bit too much to one person or another. Much of what she writes about mirrors my own experiences.
On the flip side, both in the political and business worlds, many people make the mistake of giving a direct opinion or speaking an unadulterated fact, when maybe they should have nuanced a particular response and used measured diplomacy in order to protect their job. On occasion as an employee or contractor, a client or superior informed me that they were uncomfortable with my brutally honest and direct nature of dealing with a client or colleague. Over time I grew out of using overt directness in all my business communications, evolving into a better team member by choosing to communicate more effectively.
Along the way I learned that I could offer others the benefit of my sometimes rocky experiences, and counseled several of my clients and team members to learn from my mistakes. I take pride that in my consulting career I actually evolved myself beyond being a one-trick pony, and could in fact point to real world examples of how to and when to as well as when not to speak your mind.
The art of nuance is too often referred to the art of B.S. I don't agree when it comes to business and politics. To create business relationships, establish partnerships, and gain clients across the global spectrum of cultures and business climates, it is often necessary to be politically and culturally sensitive. That is not a bad thing. In fact, if you watch politicians and CEOs of successful businesses, one of the key things they have in common is the ability to create a bridge between their own organizations' cultures and partner organizations' more freewheeling or conservative business cultures. The result is dynamic change as the two businesses adjust to benefit the common business or political mission. Another result can be a catastrophic failure that opens both organizations up to criticism from all angles--press, donor, investor, board member, and pundit alike.
As a columnist and blogger, I have learned over the last year and a half that I may have hit that fence again. I don't yet make real a living wage from my writing, and some potential employers or clients read my blog or column and have a sense of "too much information" or genuine disagreement with the honesty and direct nature with which I write about issues of politics, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and GLBT rights. Even my parents and family members, mostly progressive in thought and highly evolved in their understanding of me, have expressed misgivings about what I've written. Although I love them, and genuinely value their opinions, I have had to express to them that being an authentic writer and columnist meant that I had to engage and connect with my audience in a way that often goes well beyond the limits of political correctness. This single factor has meant that sometimes I've had to be more open, warts and all, about my opinions and experiences—the result being that some people are going to be put off by my writing.
Walking the line between authenticity and political correctness has become less of a challenge for me now than even 5 years ago when I was consulting full time. In evaluating why that is the case, I've made peace with the fact that my experiences and opinions are out there, both in writing and in the minds of my clients and employers. This knowledge freed me to live more authentically now than maybe I did when I was more worried about what people thought. It has also made me a better person, I think, because I generally know myself better and I am not afraid to defend my opinions and take responsibility for the mistakes I've made, offenses I may have caused, and possible polarizing effects of my writing and actions.
Living authentically goes way beyond writing or speaking your mind. It allows me to have a great relationship with my family, and a great relationship with my domestic partner of 3-and-a-half years, which is very complex in its outward appearance, but very simple in reality. The fact is, GLBT relationships are not accepted by most of the world, and even "accepting" parties quite often have difficulty fully understanding them. Unfortunately, in the current conservative business environment, many potential employers or clients will run like mad from me simply because I am a gay man. To add insult to injury, when they find out I write a politically-laden, GLBT-centric, plain-talk column for ChicagoPride.com; some of them run even faster. I've had to accept that reality as part of the deal, and I'm happier having accepted it.
The lesson herein is that when anyone opens up to being more authentic in their persona, living with a "take me as I am warts-and-all" way of self-presentation, it opens one up to being accepted and rejected almost equally to the world. It requires a tougher skin, and a more evolved understanding of the world, precisely because the "mask" is completely off to the rest of the world. It is not an easy jump, and can sometimes radically alter one's self-perception, even the overall lens through which we experience the world. In the end, however, living authentically and communicating more effectively actually fit hand-in-hand, because each skill is an essential part of becoming a more complete human being.
Copyright © 2007 Scott B. Foval