The problem with ‘bringing your whole self to work’

Welcome to McKinsey Talks Talent, featuring McKinsey leaders and talent experts Brian Hancock and Brooke Weddle. I'm Lucia Raheli. Being your true self at work might sound like a liberating and even a productive idea, but author and psychologist Tomas Chamorro per music warns against it. What people want is that you bring your best self. And yeah, sure, if you can identify with your professional persona so that it doesn't feel totally alien, that's good for you. But what's rewarded at work is pro-social, competent behavior that serves others, not your ego. Today we'll hear about his new book, Don't Be Yourself. To help us figure out just how real we should be in the workplace. Tomas, welcome back to McKinsey Talks Talent. It's great to be back. Gratitude to see you all. Congratulations on your book, Don't Be Yourself, such a timely and fun and insightful read. So this research challenges the prevalent mantras. You describe it as authenticity in the workplace, the books should figure out who they are and bring that true self. If such a thing exists to their professional lives and their professional relationships, what exactly does authenticity mean in this context? Authenticity is usually celebrated or even worshipped. I would say often misunderstood and rarely defined and it is important to start with some proper definition. So we see our behavior as authentic if it is aligned with our values or if it's aligned with the person we think we are, so with our identity. When we see other people's behavior as authentic, when it seems genuine, in fact quite obscure but beautiful and very simple definition of authenticity by Abraham Maslow, the guy who gave us the pyramid of the hierarchy of needs, is that it's zero phoniness, that's his definition of authenticity. And by and large, these definitions have cascaded how most people think about the implications of authenticity at work, don't worry about what people think of you, just be you, be a real you, bring your whole self and always be true to your values. And what do you think catalyzed the rise of this imperative that became really part of corporate mantra, as you say, to bring your whole self to work? So actually the beginning of authenticity is quite well intended and well meaning. In the 1990s William Khan introduces the concept of employee engagement, which now everybody knows. And he defined it as the psychological degree to which you identify with your work persona. So imagine if you think you or your professional self is an integral part of your identity, you will work hard, you will be engaged, you will love your job and you know your manager will need to be breathing behind your neck and telling you, hey, hey, hey, hey, be productive. Then we create better workplaces then we are able to offer people a career that has meaning. And then the extreme, maybe an extreme distorted version of that is like, oh, you know, just be you and you know, your need for self expression kind of can override your obligation to others. And if you don't find that you identify almost in a cult like level with your job, you should quit because there's something wrong with what you're doing. And you know, you can see how it starts in a good place, but then like all ideas when you lose nuance and they become too radical, you know, they become diluted and very incoherent or nonsensical. When HR talks about bringing one's whole self to work, who is the intended audience, it almost seems like we're talking about it in terms of employee engagement driving productivity. But there's a power factor to it as well, yes? The idea is that, hey, if you're part of an out group, a minority or a diverse kind of employee manager or leader, we shouldn't put pressure on you to conform and become like the normative group or the in group, right? And so it was a very, I think naive, but good attempt to improve inclusion because diversity with our inclusion doesn't work. If you bring people who are unrepresented of the norm is not enough bringing them. You actually have to help them succeed or remove any barriers. So you know, clearly, if you resemble the status quo, you will be much better able to kind of bring a whole self even at the job interview. And let's not forget that, you know, if you really want to look at this invitation kind of experience, like should I bring my whole self to work if I'm a grumpy me, opinionated me, entitled me, narrow-minded me. So it's a very nice, but again, quite obscure concept in social psychology called self-complexity. In essence, it says that we inhabit multiple selves and work and your job and your organization is not an invitation to unleash or display all of these aspects of yourself, but rather to activate the relevant ones. And by the way, even when companies tell you you should bring a whole self to work, what they're hoping for is that you bring your best professional self. And sure, ideally, that doesn't need to feel like a fraud to you because it's not violating some fundamental moral values or assumptions that you have, but it's about finding the compromise, you know, not taking it from one extreme to the other. One of the central ideas of the book is it success comes from adapting behavior to context. And as I was going through, I was wondering why is adaptability more valuable than saying true to your own sense of self at work? First of all, we've all seen people being in situations even when you debrief them and you give them feedback and you tell them they just say, well, it's just who I am, you know, like that's a valid answer to kind of not wanting it. And if you want to be an effective leader, of course, all the time you have to be sensitive to the nuances of the situation and flex versatility is one of the most important skills a leader can harness and develop. We've known for decades that emotional intelligence is one of the fundamental ingredients that successful managers and leaders utilize to be effective. What's EQ is to exercise empathy, to understand how people think of you, how they see you and to flex your behavior, because you fundamentally understand that your right for self expression must not override your obligation to others. So why have we forgotten the values of adaptability and flexibility? One, because when people overdo it, it just looks very phony and very fake. So there's a reason why political skills overdone make you a politician. And even if you look at now the rise of kind of unconventional contrarian leaders in politics around the world is because people are fed up with politicians who seem so fake, right? So if you overdo it, then we say, no, no, just be it, but that isn't good either. And then the other part to understand kind of this, this down for flexibility and autobility is really that the culture in which we're living is quite narcissistic. When we had you on the podcast the last time, we talked about narcissists becoming leaders, advancing in the organization because they were perceived as confident and had a perspective and had a view that people would follow. Here you say, hey, actually, we need to be adaptable to succeed. How do you see those two strands that you've had on narcissists connect together? I think we need to distinguish between emergence, the factors or the qualities that help you become a leader. And unfortunately, narcissism is often conflated, not just with perceptions of authenticity, with overconfidence, self-belief, communicational skills, megalomaniac visions that make people feel better about themselves. And there's a big halo effect here, you know, the leaders we like, we're seen as authentic and as confident and as intelligent because we project what we see. But if you look at leadership effectiveness, then for sure, you need to be able to flex to adjust to adapt. In fact, so effectiveness is enhanced by not being limited by your authentic self or what you've always done. But the people who just exude charisma, confidence, often because they are narcissistic, tend to emerge as leaders more frequently. And you know, by the time they become leaders, they're even more entitled and less likely to flex their behavior to adjust to the concerns of the demands of others. So what goes through how to manage for self-presentation successfully, given that as we've said, we're all operating in certain contexts where the perception of authenticity is often more important than authenticity itself. So we all talk about the virtues of self-awareness, of course, is important. But if I'm deluded to the point that I go to a job interview to be president of a country or a company or CO, and I have no insecurities whatsoever, because I think I'm the best or greatest thing since sliced bread, I'm going to ace the interview. Right? On the other hand, if I'm self-aware and honest and authentic and you ask me, could you do this? I'm going to say, well, you know, to be honest, I've never done that before. And I don't know if I will be able to learn it. But I'll try hard. It's like, okay, gone. Bring back an artist. Great. You know, when it comes to impressive others. Actually, it helps not even to be honest with yourself can be an advantage. But then, if I want you to be a good leader, a good employee, whatever, oh, I better give you a reality check and help you understand how you impact others. Or you will end up to quote a naive and seemingly kind of funny example like David Brandt or Michael Scots in the office. Why are they so fun? They represent, you know, the whole spectrum of the problems with authenticity. People who think they're funnier than they actually are, who have no inhibitions, who are cringey and their behavior. We laugh, it's cathartic because we don't have to work for them. And maybe we did a past and now we appreciate that we don't. Tomas, maybe as you talk about some of the ways in which to do things better in the context of authenticity, I wonder if we just take a half step back. You actually define four authenticity traps. Do you mind just recapping those traps? Yeah. And so the traps are, you know, they're traps because when people try to follow them, either they will experience some conundrum and kind of paradox and it's not so easy to navigate these traps if you try to action them. And the other possibilities is that actually it worsens their interpersonal competence and behavior. So the first one is always be honest with yourself and others. As I just said, you know, being overly honest with yourself, actually the term for that is depressive realism. Obnographic delusions tend to be rewarded in most areas of life. Like, for example, you don't get a job or you don't get a promotion, far better to blame your boss or the company than yourself. And when it comes to being honest to others, I mean, if you're going to be brutally honest with others, you're not going to be trusted by others. You're going to be seen as an agent of stress and, you know, when people comment, tell you, hey, what could have done better with my presentation on my pitch, you know, what they want is affection. Not, yeah, you suck and why they're not you prepared, right? So there are cultures, of course, of like radical candor and transparency, but there are mostly horrible places to work for. Second trap would be don't worry about what other thing or don't listen to others. As we know, the only way people and especially leaders get better is by internalizing feedback from others. Why is psychological safety so important because you create the conditions for people to tell you when you're good and when you're not good at something and that can make you better? The only way you have to improve is to care about what other people think of you. And our reputation is basically distributed and how people think of us. Third trap is always be true to your values, no matter what. So uncompromisingly loyal to your values. I mean, history is repeat full of examples of the most brutal leaders in history were actually true to their values over and over again. So I mean, be true to your values unless they're toxic, unless they're anti-social. If you're leading a diverse team or people who are different, do you need to broadcast in an unsolicited way how you think about everything and alienate people or do you have the ability to kind of bring people together and unite as opposed to divide? And the last one is bring yourself to work, which I think we debunked already, but in essence, you know, what people want is that you bring your best self. And yeah, sure, if you can identify with your professional persona, so that it doesn't feel totally alien, that's good for you. So as an alternative, you encourage this notion of what you call organizational citizenship. Could you give us some examples of what that might look like and how it differs from what we've been discussing? So the best way to define it is don't be a jerk and be a nice person. Can you be somebody that actually has the ability to function as part of a cohesive collective unit and has a desire or at least the intention to set aside their selfish and egotistical drives to make some compromises and do something for others? We cannot collaborate or cooperate effectively unless we have the ability to self-sense or some of our individualistic or negative tendencies. So the difference between a good culture and a toxic culture is not so much around task competence or task performance, but around organizational citizenship. Why we know that when you bring toxic individuals to a team or organization, they function very much like parasites that pollute or corrupt the environment and then it kind of cascades or snowballs into more person because they can have a negative effect on others. So what we talk about with organizational citizen is the opposite of anti-social, negative, selfish, toxic behavior. Tomas, you write quite a bit about reputation and how to understand what your reputation truly is versus what you think it is and then also connected to that, how to be more self-aware overall of the environment you're operating in and then how to show emotional intelligence about that environment to be more kind. Self-awareness is really about other awareness. It's the interpersonal tradition that is much richer. So there's a guy called Charles Cooley who said I think in the 1930s or 40s, I am not who I think I am. I am not who you think I am. I am who I think you think I am, right? And that's the beauty because even when people say okay you know this is just me and you have your identity, where do you think that comes from? It doesn't come from your genes or the DNA. It's about internalizing maybe what your parents or caregivers told you when you're little and unfortunately too many people enter the workplace thinking that they're as smart as their parents told them when they were little and you know it's not the clearest and best sign of maturity is something that they need to work on but for adjusted adults work is an opportunity to permanently get feedback on who we are and what we're good at and what we're not good at. The anti-authenticity alternative that I propose is the opposite is like great quote by David Bowie when he was asked who are you really because he would change artistic persona from one year to the next and he said I am only the person the greatest number of people think I am. And of course reputation matters more than identity. We all get hired, fired, demoted, promoted, not based on what we think of ourselves but based on what other people think of us. But it makes the skill of a courageous conversation particularly important because if you are always just sourcing what the crowd wants you may not have the instinct as to where it is important to make a real difference in a situation. So as we're doing that what would be your recommendations on how to amp up the edge in terms of you know having empathy but with an edge where you do have a performance outcome when you're playing to the crowd in some ways. It still starts with feedback from others. In essence you need to get some feedback from others as to whether you're too direct, too authentic to yourself or too vague and actually we need to find that kind of middle gradient. What's really important to understand is again going back to reputation is that the kind of authenticity that really matters most is in the eye of the beholder is not how authentic you think you are that matters. It's how authentic other people think you're and the research shows that leaders who are seen as authentic spend a lot of time in skilled strategic self-presentation precisely because they don't want to overdo it you know. What did people say up historically about people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton you know you can agree or not with how I ended up doing their parts but they always said when you speak to them they make you feel like you're the most important person in the world. Now I can assure you they didn't really think that but they make you feel that and that's because they're very very skilled at they're almost like method actors and that sounds Machiavellian it doesn't have to be if it makes others better. Did you grapple with the implications of AI as it intersects with this thesis and how might AI change what we think of or value about authenticity? It actually started precisely because of what you just mentioned which is what does it even mean to be authentic or authentically human in an age or time where synthetic creative or intellectual production done by AI or machines is indistinguishable in the touring test kind of a sense from human creation and actually if you think about what's happening is like AI is so good at emulating and replicating human activity that it is forcing us to act in a different way so people are now copying and pasting emails and memos or linkeding updates and then when you get an email or a message from somebody it's impossible now to know if it's a human or not social media is a huge huge issue but it's very interesting to look at the fact that throughout most of the social media platforms we're apparently incentivized for posting authentically which sadly also means engaging in an inappropriate self-disclosure and then when people do that and digital narcissism is a dominant etiquette in the world online today they get fake positive feedback from others and you know in some areas it's actually quite morbid and sinister it's hard not [BLANK_AUDIO] be a little bit sad or cynical about this because actually the kind of authenticity that is celebrated and rewarded online seems so sanitized, so manufactured, so narcissistic that people go, "Well, that's not the real person," but it certainly is a very obnoxious and not very likeable version of that person, you know? Exactly, which is whatever young person sees, including my children. So you have all sorts of recommendations for what individuals can do right with these insights in mind. What would be the one or two things you would say to a chief human resource officer if they're thinking about the insights from your book and what to do about them? I think, you know, treat people like mature and well-adjusted adults and don't overdo it with things like, you know, you can just be you, bring yourself to work, whatever. I think you have an obligation to help people understand again that the right for self-expression shouldn't override their obligation to others and that creating a prosocial environment where a culture can be put in place or evolved or developed that works for the majority of people and less people be their best self is where it's up. And if all they do is to create a condition for people to be their best professional self, there's not much they need to worry about other than that. I'll ask you one last question to us. You just mentioned being your best self, you teed that up earlier in the conversation, you conclude the book with this question, why be yourself when you can be someone better, which is a really vital message at a moment of so much change, given AI and the notion now that the future of work that we've talked about for so long is finally here. That said, I wasn't sure whether or how that relates to what the Silicon Valley folks have been undertaking for so long in the pursuit of self-optimization or rings, etc, etc. Does it differ or does it rhyme with that more tech-inflicted mantra? Yeah, I mean self-optimization sounds now so much like treating people like machines and it's so cold and you know a bit cruel at times, right? But I do think that if you look at Silicon Valley is a good example of it because I think it's taken this wave of positive psychology that said, hey, let's care more about well-being, engagement and individualistic kind of subjective feelings, but co-opted it for the purpose of productivity, right? So it has created this age of the spiritual workaholic. If you have somebody who you persuade is there almost in a cult and they are experiencing this degree level of psychotic identification with their work persona, they're going to work so hard without burning out because they're going to feel a sense of spiritual fulfillment there. I don't think we need all of that. For people to just appreciate their work environment and feel that they're improving, doing something better and that actually the person that their colleagues bosses clients see at work is somebody that they can be proud of and if that feedback is real and they see an improvement, I think something is probably happening there. By the way, AI makes it even more important that we try to do this because if we stagnate, we're going to be out. You've heard of we went from FOMO to FOMO fear of becoming obsolete, I think, is the real thing. Oh, I actually even heard that. Have you guys heard that? It's new to me too. Yeah, I haven't heard that. There you go. Tamas, thanks so much for joining us. Always a pleasure. Thanks so much for listening. I'm Lucia Raheli with Brian Hancock and Brooke Whittle. Follow my Kinsey Talks talent wherever you get your podcast.