The ‘authentic self’ - what is it, and does it help to try to find the elusive ‘real me’?

We live in a moment where the concept of ‘authenticity’ shows up just about everywhere. We might debate and denigrate the lack of real, raw and unfiltered versions of people showing up on social media platforms. We might see wall art and online posts (which may or may not be AI generated) encouraging us to just be ourselves. We might offer coaching and facilitation that, in part, is about supporting people to show up or communicate authentically – okay, that last one might only be applicable to a few of us, but it’s what led me to being curious about the concept of being our authentic selves and what that might mean. There’s potential for this thought thread to unravel to an existential level, so please consider this a disclaimer in case it leads you into vaguely cosmic territory.

I started engaging with a question around what our most authentic selves might be when I described a programme I was delivering to a wonderfully analytical friend. I used a phrase along the lines of ‘supporting people to show up as their authentic selves’, and we debated the meaning and usefulness of the term for a while. I felt sure that there was something meaningful and relatable in the idea of feeling safe and welcome enough in a shared space to be able to communicate openly and honestly, let go of excessive self-monitoring and masking, and feel valued for the unique combination of traits, skills, ideas and experiences we bring to the table. There’s something in this that, for me, is about being able to let go and just be. I’m both lucky enough to know what it feels like to experience this, and unlucky enough to have experienced dangerous environments where it was necessary to adapt, hide or try to proverbially puff myself up to seem intimidating in hopes of staying safe. So, on some level, it’s a question of safety and belonging – who are we when we don’t have to look over our shoulder, or squeeze our square peg self into a round hole in order to be accepted?

My friend agreed about the importance of developing spaces and communities where everyone can experience this feeling of letting go and being themselves. But digging into the concept of what ‘being yourself’ actually means, things got a little more complicated. We’re probably all aware of the ways that we adapt our language, speech patterns, tone, clothing, body language etc. to fit the culture and expectations of the different places and groups we find ourselves in. We might be aware of our brains’ use of specific neurons to subconsciously mirror others’ movements and expressions as a way to fast-track relationship building. That is to say, as humans, we’re interdependent animals who are profoundly influenced by each other. There’s a philosophical question here about whether one of the ways we present is the one that truly represents who we are, with others being adaptations that we’ve developed as a strategy for social cohesion. Is the ‘authentic’ self the one that shows up when nobody’s watching? This seems like an over-simplification - we are continuously changing as we learn from experience, adapt to environment and experience our bodies first growing and then ageing. And even if the unfiltered ‘self’ is the most authentic one, is there value to bringing that part to the front in any given situation? Like so many of the themes I’ve been reflecting on lately, this speaks to a dance between individualist and collectivist approaches – in other words, do the needs of the individual or the needs of the group take precedence here? I have spent many years supporting clients to advocate for themselves, speak up about their needs, be unapologetic about who they are, and (when safe to do so) share how they really feel. These are skills that I believe are essential for everyone, and doubly so for those whose voices and needs have been sidelined, dismissed or weaponised by people and systems driven by a need to keep a tight grip on power and resources. And yet, if we all focus primarily on ensuring our own needs are met and our own authentic responses are honoured in every situation, the balance of considering self and considering others is likely to be skewed. Sometimes, our most authentic response or way of showing up might be unhelpful – perhaps we need a little time to process and make sense of our feelings before sharing them. Or maybe something that would bring comfort, joy or a little more ease to our day is conflicting with someone else’s needs. This seems to suggest a dichotomy between self-interested authenticity and inauthenticity in the name of compromise. I don’t believe that it’s necessary to be less of ourselves in order to consider the needs of others, especially since many of the people I work with tend to have gone in the other direction and developed people pleasing tendencies as a strategy for maintaining belonging. What I am considering is the problem with an individualist construction of the ‘authentic self’ (you know, the one that all of those Instagram ads tell you that you can express more fully if you buy one more supplement). Going to the opposite end of the individual-collective scale, family, community, duty and tradition may be significantly more important than the needs, desires and idIosyncracies of any individual. In this context, the focus on interdependence is clear, but the potential pressure to suppress any aspects of self that don’t fit with cultural expectations can tip over into causing harm. This pressure to suppress aspects of ourselves is something I’m acutely aware of as a queer person. I’m tempted to wander down the rabbit hole of exploration about whether queer identity is a fundamental and fixed aspect of the ‘authentic self’, but perhaps the philosophy is less important than the ways that we make space for, celebrate and create safety for the different aspects of each other’s identities (especially when those identities and experience have been met with oppression). And we might extend this idea to the concept of the ‘authentic self’ in general. We might theorise that each human has an eternal, unchanging soul; that we are the products of a combination of environment and genetic inheritance; that there is no true ‘self’; or that our sense of reality and self is essentially a hallucination. It’s a fascinating and potentially destabilising thread to pull a little, and it’s quite possible that our beliefs and assumptions on this existential level have an influence on how we think and behave. But when it comes to allowing people to show up authentically, what seems more important is the intention and action required to create spaces that feel safe and welcoming enough for people to let their guard down and just be.

What might that look like in practice?

Some examples…

-Providing accessible spaces that offer accommodations and, where possible, pay attention to the sensory environment (can background noise be minimised, can lighting be adjusted, is there a quiet breakout space?)

-Getting into a practice of checking in and finding out how people really are (the boundaries and appropriate level of depth with this is context dependent)

-Developing a practice of encouraging compassionate and appropriate challenge

-Inclusive, diverse and non-tokenistic representations and celebrations of different identities in a space

-Challenging assumptions and thinking critically about how we police and restrict language, appearance/style, body language etc., especially in work contexts – consider who decides which dialects, clothing choices etc. are deemed the most professional

-Explicitly and equally valuing different forms of intelligence and skill sets

-Providing gender neutral spaces, not making assumptions about people’s gender or orientation

-Staying curious and developing awareness of assumptions about others’ experiences (e.g. asking questions that assume a particular family structure, experience of a cultural celebration or identity)

-Developing good negotiation and compromising skills to manage competing needs

-Valuing rapport building, while understanding that different people have different ways of making connections

Essential Skills for Socially Conscious Leadership - Using the Seven Cs Model to Drive Change

In recent years, there’s been a cultural shift in many parts of the working world, from top-down, ‘command and control’ leadership to more socially conscious, collaborative approaches to leading teams. For some, this may still be seen as a fluffy optional extra or an invite to waste precious time by crowd-sourcing decision making processes. But I’d argue that developing leaders who are emotionally intelligent, skilled communicators with good boundaries and socially conscious values is a necessity, not an option. Even now, it’s often still the case that career paths can involve becoming proficient in a specific role, then being promoted into a leadership role  on the strength of experience that may or may not require good people skills. If organisations don’t invest in supporting emerging leaders to develop the relational skills necessary to support healthy, happy, successful teams, they risk their people’s wellbeing, the quality of their work and the potential for innovation and creativity. So, what are these skills and why are they important?

One framework that might be helpful in defining good social leadership is the ‘7 Cs’ – part of the social change model of leadership development created by the Higher Education Research Institute of the University of California Los Angeles. This model highlights that anyone can develop these qualities and be a leader, regardless of their position in a hierarchy. It identifies seven qualities and skills that socially conscious leaders need to have in order to succeed. They are:

Consciousness of self

Self-awareness is an important starting point in any successful endeavour, especially as it relates to being and working with others. Understanding our own preferences, needs, areas for growth and development and communication styles can help to prevent misunderstandings and conflict, as well as supporting each person in a team to play to their strengths. Of course, being aware of our own needs and preferences is only the beginning of the story. I’ve often encountered examples of leaders and teams taking quizzes to determine their communication preferences, personality structure or archetype, only to then use their findings as a way to absolve themselves of unhelpful behaviours and responses – ‘what can I do, I’m a [insert category here]!’ Don’t’ get me wrong, I’m not here to denigrate any of these categorisations – they are as useful as their application. Ideally, self-awareness will be an impetus for further personal development, asking for support where needed, and negotiating with others about how to get the best from communications with us. When I was training in Performance Psychology, my supervisor had me develop what was essentially a ‘how-to’ manual that explained the quirks, needs and preferences that might help others to work well with me. I’ve never handed over the physical document to a new contact (perhaps a slightly overwhelming prospect). But it has often been helpful for me to explain to people I line managed that, for example, my brain needs time to transition between tasks, and as such, if I’m focusing on a task and am interrupted unexpectedly with a request, my initial response might be a blank stare or a clipped tone. I’ll generally manage to mentally change gear after a minute or so, but I’ve found that it’s kinder and more efficient to negotiate ways to check my availability for a chat, rather than launching into a discussion of which I’ll miss the first few sentences. This doesn’t mean that I have no responsibility to do my part in getting the most from both my brain and my relationships with colleagues, but in this case, the thing I’ve developed an awareness of and communicated to others is related to an ADHD trait – it’s not something I can easily change. That is to say, sometimes we can become aware of a tendency, communicate it and realise that we need to make a change within ourselves. And sometimes, it’s enough to develop the awareness, communicate a need and negotiate a workaround.

Congruence

This is a core concept in many therapeutic schools of thought. It’s about honesty, integrity and alignment of thoughts, feelings and behaviours. We are social animals, evolved to be (for the most part) sensitive to social dynamics and signs of potential conflict. As such, many people are at least subconsciously aware that something feels ‘off’ when someone is being inauthentic. When our language, behaviours, body language, micro-expressions and signs of energy levels seem to contradict each other, trust can be eroded. This might call to mind the debate about ‘bringing your whole self to work’ and how much authenticity is appropriate in specific work related situations. We often have a concept of ‘professionalism’ which suggests that we should leave our real emotions and thoughts at the door in favour of a more polished version that carries less risk of conflict or discomfort. I’m a fan of diplomacy, professional boundaries and appropriate challenge, and I don’t think these are particularly at odds with an approach to leadership that gives permission and encouragement for leaders to be unashamedly human, with emotions, flaws and the ability to come back from making mistakes. This permission can help us to cultivate more congruence – we might feel more able to say things like ‘I’m really sorry – I do want to help you with this but I’m a feeling bit overwhelmed with working on task x and might struggle to give you my full attention right now. Can we find a time where we can sit down and really get stuck into problem solving the issue?’ or ‘I’m noticing a bit of resistance in myself as you talk about this idea. I think I need to go away and explore what that’s about – I don’t want to shut you down. Can you give me a bit of time to ponder it and then we can discuss it again over a coffee later today?’

Commitment

This seems like an obvious point in the context of good leadership, but commitment to the cause is essential. Given that, as previously mentioned, we’re all human, there will likely be times when we feel less motivated or more overwhelmed with our work and find it difficult to connect with our commitment. There’s a real watch-out for burnout here – if we begin to feel a sense of apathy and disconnection from the mission, vision and values we’re working towards, and struggle to find compassion for the people we’re supporting, we need to listen to the warning signs and take action (including the sort of action that leads to taking genuinely restorative breaks). But when not at risk of burning out, it’s important for leaders to be able to find and demonstrate motivation and some level of passion for their work. Personally, I was never especially passionate about management roles in and of themselves, but I’ve always loved supporting people to develop and recognise their skills, find their passion and bring their unique skills and insights to their work. I loved using a coaching approach in my leadership work, even before I trained as a coach. That passion offered enough leverage to get me through the aspects of management roles that I found less inspiring. Even in leadership contexts where the commitment isn’t related to the core activities of a business or organisation, a deep commitment to supporting people is essential.

Common purpose

Ideally, establishing shared values and purpose begins at recruitment. And it falls to leaders to support others to connect to that sense of purpose, particularly when things are feeling difficult or stuck. This can link back to congruence – it’s worth interrogating and discussing how (and indeed, if) an organisation or team’s stated values and purpose actually live beyond the pages they’re stated on. And there may be a need to establish a set of specific values, aims and purposes beyond those of a wider organisation – what do people really care about, feel motivated by and want to get out of a project? Again, the concept of leverage is often useful when motivation is low or it seems there is no end in sight – how can we connect with the wider purpose and the reasons behind our efforts? There are a couple of caveats attached to this, however: firstly, it’s important not to abuse or over-use this tactic in a bid to push people beyond what can reasonably be expected of them. Having spent around two decades working in the third sector, I’m very familiar with the ways that people’s passion for social justice can be exploited and used as a reason for being overworked and underpaid. And secondly, it feels important to inject a little realism (or perhaps cynicism?) about the realities of the working world for many people. We live under a capitalist system for the time being, and selling our labour is necessary for survival. Not everyone takes on a job out of a sense of passion for a cause, and many people prefer to show up, tackle the tasks at hand, and go home to enjoy the remaining hours in their day. So I’m not suggesting that we need everyone to demonstrate commitment to a shared purpose at all times; but if we’re thinking about the sort of work that asks for shared values and commitment to a cause, establishing a good fit at recruitment and support to connect to purpose are key. A final watch-out here is conflating shared values with groupthink – while it's important to have everyone pull together in the same direction, conformity and a restrictive sense of ‘culture fit’ can really deprive a team of diverse perspectives.

Controversy with civility

This is about appropriate challenge and leaning into discomfort without creating a hostile working environment. It’s a difficult thing to achieve and, I believe, very much worth investing the effort into. As mentioned above, a sense of common purpose doesn’t negate disagreement, conflicting needs and challenge. These will inevitably arise (and if not, that may present its own set of concerns to be addressed), and how leaders respond and help to cultivate a safe enough environment to contain them is crucial. I’ve found myself in groups of leaders where the majority view was that challenge and disagreement were negative and to be avoided at all costs. I found this deeply uncomfortable, as it seemed obvious to me that this would likely lead to festering resentments, a lack of congruence  and missed opportunities for learning and growth. I’m very committed to creating environments where difficult conversations can be held with compassion and curiosity… and yet, I’m also quite conflict avoidant, so I understand the urge to smooth things over, rather than get them out in the open. I believe that good social leadership involves being grounded, compassionate, sensitive and robust enough to make and discuss difficult decisions, to hear challenge from a place of openness, to speak up when something feels wrong or unjust and to encourage others to do likewise. ‘Civility’ in this case isn’t about polite avoidance, a stiff upper lip approach or an aversion to disagreement; but rather, might involve things like the use of ‘I statements’ (where we take responsibility for our own reactions to others and start with describing our own feelings, e.g. ‘I feel frustrated when you keep missing and pushing back this deadline, because it stops me being able to do my next task. I’d prefer it if you could give me an honest assessment of what’s getting in your way, whether you need any additional support, and when you realistically will be able to get it done’). It might involve unpacking our own sense of defensiveness when we’re challenged and taking time to formulate a more thoughtful response. It might involve some reflective work around your organisational culture around challenge and controversy.

Collaboration

Collaboration has become something of a buzzword over the years, and with good reason. There are levels of collaborative work, from consulting with and incorporating others’ ideas and views into planning a project, right through to structures with flattened hierarchies and equal decision making power. But the spirit of collaboration in any context is about genuinely valuing each person’s contribution, understanding the benefits of bringing different ideas, perspectives, experiences, skills and ways of working together, and making space for others. Sometimes, collaboration can be the most effective, efficient and energising way of working, because it can allow people to draw on their strengths and to support each other. Alternatively, it can feel slow and laborious compared to a more top-down or stoic ‘I’ll just do it myself’ approach. But the benefits tend to far outweigh the frustrations of inviting colleagues further into decision-making, planning and carrying out tasks. Multiple studies have shown that collaborative approaches increase healthy working relationships, fostering an environment where trust and good communication grow. And that collaboration supports significant improvements in innovation and business outcomes in general. What good collaboration looks like in practice will vary from team to team and from project to project – it’s worth taking time to do the groundwork around this, as well as considering factors such as whether increased responsibility within a particular project will add pressure to colleagues’ capacity (in this case, it’s worth considering how their time and workload might be protected).

Citizenship

This seems to me like the most nebulous of the 7 Cs, but it offers a valuable opportunity to think beyond the confines of the project or organisation that the socially conscious leader is part of. It’s about the leader, and the team they are part of, connecting to their wider community and society, and considering what they might contribute. How might we utilise the skills and insights that we have learned through leadership development to benefit the communities we are part of? And how might the leadership work that we are doing be part of the change we want to see in the world? It can be helpful to step back from time to time and look at the bigger picture, re-establish our goals and vision, and decide whether we need to make any changes or new commitments in service of this. However, I do acknowledge that this can feel like a huge responsibility, and am conscious of a need to work within our sphere of influence without over-stretching ourselves. It seems possible to hold both positions though – we can aim to make change on a realistic, sustainable level that protects us from burnout, while considering how this links to the bigger picture and how we might best use our skills to be a small part of bigger changes.