It’s the latest corporate buzzword. Authenticity. A quick search of LinkedIn posts for the word will reveal thousands of examples of content evangelising the apparent virtues of authentic approaches:
- Authentic leaders have more discipline, self-awareness, and are more liked and trusted
- Projecting a single version of yourself is considered a fundamental right
- Living your values is the “ultimate bridge to business success”
The word implies that we are honest, faithful, and reflect our established personal beliefs, values and preferences. We’re true to ourselves. The opposite suggest that inauthenticity is dodgy, dishonest and insincere.
But is it actually true? Is it a good thing?
For many years, we’ve used other seemingly immutable phrases that might also be considered an ultimate bridge to business success. For example, “The customer is king” informed decision making within organisations to always do what a customer required. We now know that, whilst this might be advantageous most of the time, it can also be a costly, resource-intensive and unsustainable way to conduct business when unreasonable requests mount up.
Authenticity might, on the surface, be similar. Most of the time it may seem to be a good thing. But what happens if you don’t like, trust or admire someone that you work with? Are you being inauthentic if you don’t show it? Is it worse if you show or imply that you do like, trust or admire them?
In psychology, there are several concepts that relate to the idea of authenticity, which might help us to explore this subject further.
Impression Management
Sociologist Erving Goffman coined the term “impression management” in his 1959 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, which suggests the concept as a common way for people to influence one another to obtain various goals.
The process might be conscious or subconscious, and involves modifying one’s behaviour, communication or appearance in social interactions to project a certain image or to fit into societal norms and expectations – usually to encourage others to form positive judgments.
This concept might be considered a form of dissimulation. This is a type of deception where someone intentionally hides or distorts their psychological symptoms. It can also refer to concealing one’s ability or information.
A simpler – less academic – expression might be lying.
It’s what we do at selection interviews. Psychometric assessors consider this as part of any questionnaires. Whether it’s through self-promotion (exaggerating experiences), ingratiation (being friendly), conformity (using similar language), or a range of other approaches, we each tend to manage the impression we have on others.
Goffman described it as three difference personas. “Front stage” is where we’re aware of our behaviours and are performing in front of others; “Backstage” we have no make-up, no lines, no acting, and are being authentic; and “Offstage” is where a person is neither front nor back, and is unaware of being observed.
In this trifecta of personas, is an authentic person the same regardless of whether they’re on-stage or backstage? Are they the same if the audience is different?
Before we claim that we are, consider this: Is your language different between speaking with colleagues versus clients versus your family?
Political Agility
Office politics might be considered a bad word. Indeed, it can be a synonym for exclusionary practices. But understanding the political skills and savvy required within a social group – including within an organisation – is important. As unsavoury as some might find the idea of playing the game, studies have shown that political skill is a predictor of success at work.
Being able to effectively understand others at work and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organisational goals is the definition of political skill. It’s also an implicit requirement of leadership roles.
Being socially astute, perceptive to others’ needs and appreciating the nuances within individuals and groups might be considered a superpower. Having the influential skills to persuade in different contexts, appearing sincere, building networks and then flexing and adapting our own approaches are also key tenets of leadership. Often, it’s what we recruit for.
In short, being able to look interested, committed and sincere is a useful skill to have – even when it means that we might be outwardly expressing feedback, connection or appropriate emotions that we’re not actually feeling.
This has implications for authenticity too. If we’re appearing sincere or displaying the emotional nods and noises needed for a specific context, could these be considered inauthentic?
Self-Monitoring
Psychologists talk about levels of self-monitoring within individuals – the ability to notice cues for socially-acceptable behaviours and, more importantly, one’s ability and capability to modify their behaviour accordingly.
Low self-monitors tend to be more insensitive to social cues and, as a result, may behave similarly across multiple contexts. Conversely, high self-monitors are characterised by their sensitivity to different social contexts and flex their approaches.
High self-monitors are more comfortable dealing with diplomacy, politics, PR and theatre. They often choose these professions. They present well, and play an active role in quickly conforming to a group’s social norms.
With their greater persona consistency, low self-monitors prefer to be in groups where members are like themselves or whom accept them for who they are more readily. The less need to adapt their style, the greater the more comfortable a low self-monitor might be.
Interestingly, there are also impacts on how self-monitoring levels affect influence to advertising. High self-monitors tend to prefer image-related adverts and will pay more for appealing products. Low self-monitors react more favourably to quality-focused adverts, which appeal to their more serious-mindedness.
If we consider our talent attraction processes, we might see how different role adverts could appeal to different self-monitor levels – and how they might also respond in interview. The flashy high self-monitor might fit in as the role or occasion demands. But is that more or less authentic, given their natural approach of adapting their approach to suit the group?
Superficial Charm
We also have to consider potentially dark sides of inauthenticity, especially when these masquerade as genuine authenticity.
Psychopathy is a trait which is often advantageous. The ability to make tough decisions and to separate the emotion from the transaction can be advantageous in high-stress situations. But it can also be a derailer – particularly for those around the psychopath.
One of the key markers of psychopathy is their superficial and glib charm. They are often considered to be smooth-talking and engaging. CEOs with high psychopathy scores tend to be considered more charismatic, creative, and better listeners than their low psychopathy counterparts. They’re praised for their insight and courage; their ability to influence and adapt.
Unlike Machiavellians – who are adept at long-term strategic influence of others – psychopaths lack the hampering effect of guilt or conscience. If we consider that psychopaths can be intelligent, high self-motivating and with learned political skill, we can see how they might appear to be authentic. But it is not true authenticity; it’s to further their own ends.
So, is Authenticity a good thing?
During COVID, my partner and I both put on weight. Like most of the locked-down northwest of England, we seemed to pass time making (and eating) sourdough bread, whilst having far less exercise.
When asked, “How do I look?”, is it better to tell the truth – to be authentic? Or is a small white lie that protects their feelings and our relationship more appropriate?
Can you be authentic whilst telling a white lie?
People tell white lies when telling the truth would be too complicated, uncomfortable, or hurtful. The argument is that white lies function to censor harmful, socially awkward facts, and prevent the hurt that would result from cold, unflinching honesty.
Should that hurtful “truth” be celebrated for its authenticity?
Success at work (and in life) requires tact and diplomacy. It requires us recognising our own approaches, understanding our audience and communicating appropriately. It requires us understanding the situation and context, and adapting accordingly.
For me, an authentic leader is the one that knows when and how to express what they really feel.
But there are times when recognising the nuance of the lay of the land, being politically agile, genuinely caring, and managing our impression on others might require an authentic leader to flex their approach in a way that might be considered to be inauthentic.
Authenticity has its place. But it is situational, contextual and, as any good psychologist will answer to any given question, it depends.
