I tend to throw around, in conversation, the phrase "authentic engagement." I know what I am thinking as I use that language, but not everybody I talk with does.
I've been reading a book by Robert Quinn, entitled: Building the Bridge As You Walk On It: a guide for leading change. Quinn gives a definition of 'authentic engagement'
this person is principled and ethical while also involved and engaged. The person thus brings an integrated, whole, or authentic self to his or her activity. When this happens, he or she experiences increased awareness and accesses resources not available in a less integrated state. The person loves what he or she does, which becomes a calling or labour of love.
When I use the phrase it is often in the context of leadership in Christian community. That is, we need principled, disciplined, self-aware, vulnerable, teachable leaders who bring all of those qualities to the practice of their everyday involvement with people who are seeking spiritual direction and those who are actively following Jesus. The tendency is always to swing to one side or the other -- the principled, ethical person who is not actively engaged, which comes across as self-righteous -- or the commited, active, engaged person who is lacking principles or spiritual foundation, which comes across as pragmatic or compromised.