Dusseldorf. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic thinks little of a sentence that is sold as a cultural promise in many companies: “Be yourself.”
The business psychologist teaches at University College London. In his book “Don’t Be Yourself” he takes on the cult of authenticity, explains why leadership is similar to good acting – and why the employer promise “Here you can be yourself” often leads to disappointment.
Mr. Chamorro-Premuzic, you say “Being yourself” in the workplace is a bad idea. Why?
The idea that you can live out every spontaneous impulse unfiltered at work is unprofessional - and hardly practical in everyday life. We are successful when we control which version of ourselves we show depending on the situation - depending on the context, goal and counterpart. And when others experience it: we're good to work with. This includes having our emotions under control.
Does this also apply to managers?
Especially. Employees don’t need to know the inner workings of their boss. You must be able to assess how he decides, communicates and reacts in pressure situations.
You cite “emotional intelligence” as the key to success in your job. What do you mean by that – if it’s not about showing feelings?
Emotional intelligence means above all: I understand how my behavior is received by others. And I consciously control my impact - so that collaboration is possible and goals are achievable. In short: social antennas plus self-control.
So do supervisors have a role to play?
Yes. Leadership is always a role - the only question is whether you play it consciously and professionally.
Why is that?
A manager’s first, “authentic” reaction is often the wrong one. Leadership means editing yourself: controlling impulses, measuring words – and still appearing natural. Ideally, this creates the impression of authenticity. The best managers are masters of strategic naturalness: controlled without appearing artificial.
Please give an example from everyday management.
A team member proudly presents a result after a long period of work. The direct and genuine reaction may be: “That’s not possible.” However, if the boss says exactly that, he demotivates his colleague. If the superior reflexively praises the result as “great,” he or she comes across as unbelievable. The middle is professional: honest, but in a way that allows the team member to grow.
What is the appropriate sentence in this case?
Something like this: "I see how much work goes into it. There are two or three points that we need to improve significantly - let's go through them together now."
What is the crucial difference?
They generate trust. It doesn't come from unfiltered honesty, but from feedback that is clear - and enables the other person to act.
Where is the limit so that it doesn't look staged?
What matters is not how authentic you feel. What matters is whether others experience you as authentic. Anyone who shows a professional version of themselves that is likeable without appearing fake is considered “genuine”.
But leadership also means: contradiction, conflicts, power struggles. What is your most important advice?
Separate stimulus and response. Anyone who reacts impulsively usually loses authority.
And how do you specifically train this self-control, especially when your pulse is already up?
I had to learn this myself. I used to answer emails that made me angry immediately and type “No” three times. Today I'll leave the message and reply later. Then a short, factual sentence or even a simple “o.k.” is often enough. Choose your battles – and your words.
Why is this important?
Because in the end it's about impact. To be effective as a leader, you must be seen as authentic – not “being authentic” at your core. If you act on the first impulse unchecked, you will lose this effect. If you edit yourself, you remain connected – and are perceived as reliable.
Does your point also apply to polarizing leaders, such as US President Donald Trump or entrepreneur Elon Musk? Why do they seem “authentic” to some, even though others experience them as erratic?
Yes. Many people confuse erratic behavior – i.e. volatility – with unpredictability. With Trump – an extreme case – the pattern is pretty consistent: disruptive, contrary, controversial, attention-seeking. Anyone who reads this pattern as “real” calls it authentic. Anyone who only sees the volatility at the moment calls it erratic. That is exactly the misunderstanding: authenticity is often simply recognizability.
If leadership is also a role: What should a manager never do for mere staging?
What is non-negotiable is that your behavior must serve the team - psychological safety, clear standards, no toxic atmosphere. Trust does not arise from unfiltered feelings, but from the fact that others sense that you are acting in their interests.
And in what situation might it be necessary for a manager to consciously act against their instincts?
A typical instruction of the cult of authenticity to managers is: “Stay true to your values, no matter what.” But I say: Especially as a leader, you have to be able to put your values aside in the moment to listen first.
What does that mean in practice – at a time when CEOs are supposed to take a stand on everything?
Today, many CEOs are expected to speak out on everything: Ukraine, the Middle East, climate. It's easy to give in and say, "This is how I feel about X." It is much more difficult - and more valuable - as a leader not to reflexively make your own values the standard for everyone, but to accept the possibility that you could be wrong in some ways. And to remain open to learning from others - especially from those who don't think like you do.
And how do you remain credible without appearing arbitrary?
In the end you can definitely end up with the same point of view. The decisive factor is the way to get there: If you want a cohesive, inclusive team, you shouldn't just serve those who are already on the same page.
Why do some leaders change once they're at the top?
Because with power the correctives disappear: less contradiction, fewer consequences, more sovereignty in interpretation. At the beginning you are constantly evaluated and trapped, at the top you are less often. And that's exactly when self-control becomes a breaking point. Power increases the scope and makes a lack of impulse control immediately visible.
How do you specifically prevent this – in everyday life, in the organization?
Through coaching in emotional intelligence and through developing humility and self-awareness. Leaders must understand how their behavior affects others – and learn to listen more than they talk. And they should understand that just because they are the most important person in the room or in the company doesn't mean they should be the only or loudest voice.
Your comments sound uncomfortable: Is the cult of authenticity in many companies ultimately just a nice story?
Sometimes it's marketing to attract young people. Sometimes it's hypocrisy. It becomes dangerous when employers tell people from lower status groups - such as women or ethnic minorities -: “With me you can just be you.” And then they get punished when they are. In the worst case, they believe it - and pay a price, from psychological stress to career losses.
