The Strengths That Make You a Leader Are the Ones That Will Undo You

Bad Advice

A managing director about to enter an executive position, proudly told me that he only works with people who can match his pace and intellectual competence. He added: “this is who I am, and it made me successful, so I am not going to change that anytime soon.”

One of the most common pieces of advice in leadership development is to “be authentic”. For C-suite executives, it is often presented as the foundation of trust. For first-time managers struggling with imposter syndrome, it is offered as reassurance: “just be yourself, and you’ll be fine.”

Recent research in organizational psychology and sociology suggests this advice is not just simplistic, it can be dangerously misleading. In some cases, it may even encourage incompetent, ineffective, or destructive leadership.

How psychology defines “authenticity” 

In psychology, authenticity is not a single, simple concept. It generally refers to how accurately, consistently, and genuinely people express their inner experience in life and relationships.

Kernis (2003) and Burks & Robbins (2012) define authenticity as “the unobstructed operation of one’s true, or core, self in daily life.”

Many psychologists also define authenticity as the alignment between a person’s inner thoughts, beliefs, and feelings and their outward behavior and self-presentation (Burks & Robbins, 2012; Wood et al., 2008).

Lehman (2019) adds that people value authenticity in themselves and often see authentic, or “true,” selves as morally good.

For that reason, radical authenticity can become a trap that limits professional growth. If you only do what feels natural to your former self, you may never develop the adaptability and “chameleon skills” leadership demands.

A related trap in modern management is the idea of bringing your “whole self” to work. Supporters argue that full transparency creates psychological safety, but the reality is more complex. Your “whole self” also includes traits that do not belong in the workplace, such as irritability, impulsiveness, strong opinions, or bias.

Your Authentic Self Might Be the Problem

Leaders are not paid to unload their raw, unfiltered feelings onto their teams; they are paid to present the best version of their professional self. When leaders treat work as a stage for unedited self-expression, it often leads to “authentic jerks” or narcissistic behavior that puts ego ahead of the collective mission.

In our daily work at Otolith Consulting, we often see “Be yourself” become quiet permission for behavior that derails capable people. “Lean into your strengths” can become the story a leader tells as that same strength turns into a toxic habit. The hero who carries the team can also become the bottleneck that drains it. In our executive leadership conversations, we start from an uncomfortable premise: the qualities leaders are most praised for are often the ones that undo them.

An operations executive at a successful fintech start-up always spoke first in team meetings. He presented his ideas in a tone that left little room for debate. After a few months, his team had stopped generating the creative ideas the fast-moving business environment required.

Psychologist Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic argues that popular calls to “just be yourself” are fundamentally flawed. He defines effective leadership as the ability to stay true to your core values while showing empathy, civility, and deliberate social awareness in how you connect with others.

According to Chamorro-Premuzic in his book Don’t Be Yourself, whatever we may hear about the virtues of authenticity, most people work in teams and organizations that reward strategic self-presentation over unfiltered self-expression.

The traits leaders call “authentic” are often just habits they have never questioned. Being consistently impatient is not authenticity; it is simply unexamined. Being consistently blunt is not authenticity either; it is unexamined behavior in a context that may require something else from the team’s leader.

As Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic notes, your right “to be you” ends where your obligation to others begins. True authenticity does not mean blurting out every unfiltered thought or excusing toxic behavior as “being real.” Instead, it means showing up as your best professional self and editing your responses out of respect for those around you.

Effective authenticity requires knowing when your natural tendencies help you succeed and when they hinder collaboration. Radical authenticity that consistently alienates your team, colleagues, or clients is not authentic leadership; it is an ego trip.

The Authenticity Trap in Leadership 

For first-time managers, the pressure to be “authentic” often triggers a crippling sense of imposter syndrome. When you step into a new role, the behaviors needed for success - such as networking, selling a vision, or managing difficult personalities - may feel unnatural or inauthentic compared with your previous identity as a technical expert.

Herminia Ibarra’s research on the authenticity paradox shows that rigidly clinging to a familiar past self can stifle professional growth. To grow into a new leadership role, you must be willing to step outside your comfort zone, try new behaviors, and “act your way” into a new leadership identity—even when it initially feels fake or uncomfortable.

Ibarra argues that a narrow view of authenticity can limit leaders’ growth and effectiveness. Too often, leaders use authenticity as an excuse to stay in their comfort zone.

The central tension she identifies is this: leadership often requires learning and adapting to new roles and challenges by adopting new behaviors - behaviors that may feel inauthentic, at least at first.

The idea of clinging to one “true self” can mislead leaders because it conflicts with what research shows about how people evolve through experience. Authenticity does not mean an inability to grow.

Ibarra characterizes the paradox as a rigidity problem: commitment to an authentic self can impede learning and adaptation. She illustrates this with leaders who, by insisting on being “true to themselves,” either overshare vulnerability at the wrong moment or resist the political work of gaining buy-in—both of which undermine their effectiveness.

The ideal Ibarra points to is being “adaptively authentic”: genuinely yourself, but as a self that is always evolving.

“Every great leader you admire went through a phase of feeling like a fraud. That’s not a flaw—it’s part of the process.” — Herminia Ibarra

The through-line in Ibarra’s work is that the “authentic jerk” is not someone who lacks values - they often have very strong ones. The problem is that they confuse self-consistency with good leadership, when in fact leadership requires constant calibration to context, audience, and relationship. This is the rigidity problem Ibarra describes: commitment to an authentic self can impede learning and adaptation. The problem is not authenticity itself, but the refusal to let the Self evolve.

In our work as leadership consultants, we deliberately treat reputation - not self-perception - as the data that matters, because leaders are often poor judges of how others perceive them. We see derailer awareness as routine maintenance, not crisis management, and behavioral flexibility as a muscle to train. Leadership requires the ability to move between forceful and enabling, between steering and supporting, depending on what the situation demands. 

The goal is never to turn a leader into someone else, but to make them more of a leader and less of a habit. (Placeholder for Habit Breakers blog link.)

The Bounded Authenticity Model: A Better Framework

A recent study by Kark and Cohen (2024) in the Journal of Management & Organization proposes an alternative to the “what you see is what you get” approach: “leadership-bounded authenticity.”

Leadership-bounded authenticity is a display of authenticity in which the leader expresses authenticity within the expectations of the role and their responsibility toward followers (Kark & Cohen, 2024).

The leader aligns behavior with inner values and convictions but voluntarily constrains how much - and in what way - those are expressed, to avoid undermining role requirements, abusing power, or harming followers and stakeholders.

The framework involves three essential disciplines:

• Strategic Self-Awareness: Understanding your “dark side” traits and how others perceive your behavior, rather than relying on your own biased self-assessment.
  
  “I had no idea that my strong preference for extraversion could be perceived as domineering, impulsive, or overly competitive. But what can I do? That’s just who I am.” (an executive during his Hogan Leadership debriefing session)
   
• Managed Sincerity: Recognizing that authenticity is something others attribute to you, not a fact you can claim for yourself. People perceive you as authentic when you are consistent, predictable, and pro-social. 
   
• Contextual Flexibility: Developing “chameleon skills” - the ability to adapt your style to different audiences without losing your moral center. 

Leadership authenticity remains contested because leaders must balance “being true to themselves” with meeting role expectations, protecting followers, and navigating organizational pressures. The idea of bounded authenticity captures this tension by recognizing that full, unfiltered authenticity can sometimes be harmful or impractical in leadership.

A 2023 meta-analysis of 55 studies found that self-monitoring - managing how others perceive you - was more strongly associated with leadership effectiveness than maintaining a sense of authenticity. Being a “chameleon” who adapts to different people and situations appears more effective than relying on a fixed set of values and strategies.

Conclusion: Authenticity as a Practice, not a Personality

Authenticity is not a static trait you either have or lack; it is a dynamic practice of alignment. The question for any leader—whether in the C-suite or on day one of management - is not “Am I being myself?” but “Is the self I am being right now worthy of followers?”

A UK plant manager had built a successful career by being direct, decisive, and results focused. But when her site expanded and became more complex, projects stalled and improvement initiatives dried up. During her 360° feedback debrief, she pushed back:

“This is just who I am. Why should I change now?”

Her question captures a dilemma many leaders face: when does authenticity become a reason not to grow?

Together, we started a series of executive leadership conversations focused not only on her leadership behaviors, but also on the underlying mindset driving them. At first, the process was challenging. Letting go of long-held assumptions about what had made her successful required considerable reflection and experimentation. Gradually, however, she began to adapt to her approach without losing her sense of self. As trust increased, her team opened again, ownership and initiative returned, and conversations became more constructive. What initially felt like a threat to her authenticity ultimately became an opportunity for growth.

Creating a workplace where others can thrive requires leaders to regulate, filter, and discipline their impulses in service of the group’s mission. The most authentic thing a leader can do is recognize that effective leadership means showing the best version of their professional self—and that this is exactly what the organization needs.

References

• Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823
• Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2025). Don’t be yourself: Why authenticity is overrated and what to do instead. Harvard Business Review Press.
• George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 129.
• Ibarra, H. (2015). The authenticity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 53–59
• Ibarra, H. (2015). Act like a leader, think like a leader. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Jongman-Sereno, K., & Leary, M. (2019). The Enigma of Being Yourself: A Critical Examination of the Concept of Authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23, 133 - 142. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000157.
• Kark, R., & Cohen, B. (2024). The Crown must always win: Rethinking authentic leadership through ‘The Crown’ series. Journal of Management & Organization, 30, 1699 - 1727. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.70.
• Lehman, D., O’Connor, K., Kovacs, B., & Newman, G. (2019). Authenticity. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0047.
• Lei, L., Wang, C., & Pinto, J. (2023). Do Chameleons Lead Better? A Meta-Analysis of the Self-Monitoring and Leadership Relationship. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 51, 1139 - 1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231210778.
• Vannini, P., & Franzese, A. (2008). The Authenticity of Self: Conceptualization, Personal Experience, and Practice. Sociology Compass, 2, 1621-1637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00151.x.
• Ryan, W., & Ryan, R. (2019). Toward a Social Psychology of Authenticity: Exploring Within-Person Variation in Autonomy, Congruence, and Genuineness Using Self-Determination Theory. Review of General Psychology, 23, 112 - 99. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000162.
• Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126