Authenticity: Virtue, Performance, or Power Play?

“Just be authentic.”

It’s common advice, especially in leadership and team culture. Authenticity is framed as the antidote to spin, bureaucracy, and performative cultures. But the more we celebrate it, the more slippery it becomes.

Is authenticity about emotional transparency? Acting from core values? Refusing to conform? Saying the hard thing, no matter the impact? Or is it, increasingly, a story we tell about ourselves to get what we want?

This article explores some of the major perspectives on authenticity and why the concept is so contested—especially in organizational life.

The classic view: living in line with your “true self”

In philosophy and psychology, authenticity is often described as acting in alignment with your real values, beliefs, and desires, rather than simply complying with social expectations. Existential thinkers like Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Sartre framed authenticity as a kind of radical honesty with oneself: acknowledging the absurdities and constraints of life and still choosing one’s path consciously.Wikipedia+1

Modern psychology has run with this idea. Reviews of the research suggest that authenticity is strongly associated with well-being, self-esteem, and a sense of meaning; people who feel they can be themselves report higher life satisfaction and lower distress.University of Southampton+1

From this angle, authenticity looks like:

• Self-knowledge: I’ve done the work to understand what really matters to me.
• Congruence: My words and actions line up with those values.
• Ownership: I recognize my choices as mine—not just what others expect.

But even here, there are questions: Which “self” are we being true to? The one shaped by childhood survival strategies? The one that emerges as we grow and change? The one that feels safe in some contexts and not in others?

Researchers like Sedikides and Schlegel point out that authenticity has been defined in multiple, sometimes conflicting ways—self-accuracy (seeing yourself clearly), self-consistency (behaving in line with your sense of self), self-ownership (feeling that your actions are truly yours), and self-enhancement (seeing yourself positively).University of Southampton

That complexity matters when we bring authenticity into workplaces and teams.

Authenticity as performance: “being real” on a stage

Another school of thought starts from a very different premise: we are always performing.

Sociologist Erving Goffman famously described everyday life as a series of performances—front stage (how we present ourselves to others) and back stage (where we drop or change that performance).PSU | Portland State University+1

From this perspective:

• There is no pure, untouched “authentic self” outside of context.
• We are constantly adjusting, curating, and managing impressions.
• “Authenticity” is itself a performance—one that audiences have to find believable.

This lens is particularly powerful when we look at social media. Research on online identity and selfies shows that people work to look “real”: they choose the “imperfect” photo carefully, share curated vulnerability, and chase an aesthetic of effortlessness that is anything but effortless.firstmonday.org+1

Recent critiques note that the culture of “being real” can become a new, exhausting standard. Studies of platforms like BeReal show that authenticity norms can turn toxic when people feel pressured to overshare or compete over who is “most authentic.”arXiv+1

In this view, authenticity is not a static inner state but an ongoing negotiation: between who we feel we are, who we want others to see, and what our culture currently rewards.

Authentic leadership: powerful and problematic

In leadership literature, authenticity has been positioned as a core virtue. Authentic leaders are described as:

• self-aware and reflective
• guided by internal moral standards
• transparent in relationships
• consistent across situations

Research links authentic leadership to trust, engagement, and psychological safety; people generally respond well to leaders who feel real and grounded, rather than overly polished or opaque.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy+2sciencedirect.com+2

But the story isn’t all positive.

Recent work on authentic leadership highlights some shadow sides. Leaders, being human, have “negative self-aspects”—traits like irritability, impatience, or rigidity. When authenticity is defined as “just being myself,” it can legitimize behaviour that is, frankly, unhelpful or harmful.Taylor & Francis Online

This is where your concern shows up so clearly in the literature and practice:

“I’m just being authentic” becomes
“I don’t have to regulate my impact or do my own work.”

Psychologists writing about authenticity at work warn that people sometimes use it to resist feedback, stay in their comfort zone, or avoid developmental stretch.Greater Good+1

For example:

• A manager dismisses concerns about their blunt communication style with,
  “That’s just who I am. I don’t do sugar-coating.”
• A leader refuses to adapt to a more inclusive way of working because
  “It wouldn’t be authentic to me.”

In these moments, authenticity is being invoked as a shield: to protect existing habits rather than support growth.

When authenticity is weaponized

A growing conversation focuses on “weaponized authenticity”—when the language of being real is used to justify harm, centre one’s own needs, or shut down others.

Examples from organizational and coaching contexts include:

• A team member reacting to feedback with,
  “This is me being authentic, and everyone should just accept it,” using authenticity to dismiss the impact of their behaviour.KAY HUGHES+1
• Leaders sharing highly emotional or personal stories in ways that draw focus back to themselves, rather than serving the team or purpose—a kind of performative vulnerability. I worked with a leader years ago who often said "at the risk of being vulnerable" - multiple times a day - that was often experienced as performative.
• Online influencers or professionals who build a brand on “raw honesty,” but selectively curate what they show to drive engagement and sales.LinkedIn

Digital culture researchers note that when authenticity becomes a commodity—something that generates clicks, likes, or market value—it can be strategically exaggerated or staged.ResearchGate+1

Weaponized authenticity typically has a few tell-tale features:

1. Impact is minimized. The focus is on my right to express myself, not on how my behaviour lands with others.
2. Power is ignored. The person claiming authenticity often has more positional or social power than those affected.
3. Accountability is sidestepped. Apologies and repair are framed as “inauthentic,” as though growth were a betrayal of self.

This doesn’t mean authenticity is bad. It means the story of authenticity can be used in service of self-protection, dominance, or avoidance just as easily as it can serve connection and integrity.

The paradox: authenticity, roles, and belonging

Authenticity gets even more complex when we consider roles and identity.

From a systems and sociological perspective, we all occupy multiple roles—leader, colleague, parent, partner, friend. Each comes with expectations and norms. Goffman’s work suggests we are always navigating what is expected in the role and what feels true to us; there is no neutral, context-free self.PSU | Portland State University+1

Layer onto that the realities of power and identity:

• Some people—often those in dominant groups—experience more freedom to “be themselves” without consequences.
• Others may have to code-switch, downplay aspects of identity, or perform safety for others just to stay employed or included.

For marginalized or under-represented groups, the demand to “just be authentic” can feel naïve or unsafe. Authenticity without a lens on power can unintentionally put more pressure on those who already carry the most risk.

So we face a paradox:

• We do want environments where people can bring more of themselves.
• We also need to acknowledge that not all selves are received equally, and not all contexts are safe enough for full disclosure.

Towards a more grounded, relational authenticity

Given all these tensions, is authenticity still useful?

Many contemporary scholars and practitioners suggest reframing authenticity away from “I say whatever I feel” and towards relational integrity—being as real as we can while also staying accountable for impact and open to change.PMC+1

A more grounded, team-friendly take on authenticity might include:

1. Self-awareness
   I’m in ongoing inquiry about my patterns, triggers, and values. I notice what’s mine, what’s the system’s, and what’s the history I bring into the room.
2. Alignment with values
   I try to act in ways that are consistent with my deeper commitments (e.g., respect, equity, learning), not just my momentary feelings.
3. Transparency with boundaries
   I share enough of what’s real to build trust and clarity, without oversharing or making others responsible for my emotional processing.
4. Accountability for impact
   I don’t use “this is just who I am” to avoid repair. If my authentic expression causes harm, I own it and work to make it right.
5. Openness to being changed
   Authenticity doesn’t mean being fixed. It means being honest about where I am and willing to be influenced by new insight.

For leaders and teams, a few practical questions can help distinguish grounded authenticity from its weaponized cousin:

• Whose needs are being served by this “authentic” move—just mine, or the team’s as well?
• What impact might this have on people with less power or safety here?
• Am I willing to listen and adjust if others tell me this harmed or excluded them?
• Is this about connection and clarity, or about control and being right?

Why this matters for teams and organizations

Authenticity is not going away. If anything, expectations for “realness” in leaders, brands, and teams are intensifying.

For organizations and team coaches, the opportunity is to:

• Name the complexity. Rather than romanticizing authenticity, acknowledge that it’s contested and can be misused.
• Connect authenticity to responsibility. Celebrate leaders and team members who are honest and willing to own their impact.
• Design for safety and choice. Build cultures where people have real options about what they share, rather than pressure to disclose.
• Treat authenticity as a practice, not a personality trait. Support people in developing the skills of reflection, feedback, repair, and boundary-setting.

Perhaps the most authentic move we can make right now is to admit that we don’t have a simple, final definition.

Instead, we can treat authenticity as an ongoing inquiry:

• How real can we be with ourselves and each other in this context?
• How do we honour our values without turning them into weapons?
• And how do we, collectively, build cultures where being more fully ourselves also means being more accountable to one another?

That’s where authenticity stops being a slogan and starts becoming shared work.