Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic on “Don’t Be Yourself” and Why Authenticity is Overrated | Adaptive Futures Live

Speaker A: Welcome to the Adaptive Futures podcast. Conversations at the intersection of AI leadership and systems design. I'm, um, Al Adamson. Today's guest is Tomas Chamar Pruzik, psychologist, author, educator and innovator. In his latest book, Don't Be why Authenticity Is Overrated and what to Do Instead, he unpacks the four authenticity traps and how we can consciously avoid them, and in turn, limitations lead, contribute and grow with greater self awareness and situational awareness. We also discuss how authenticity impacts feelings of inclusion, identity, and how feedback is both given and received. As with Tomas's earlier works, I found this book and this discussion both immensely enjoyable and uniquely valuable. I have a very strong sense his insights and ideas will impact you similarly. So without further ado, let's get into it. Tomas, how are you?

Speaker B: Very good. Nice to see you all.

Speaker A: I am so thrilled that you're joining me and that you've spent time and effort to create a new book called Don't Be Yourself. For me, when I saw it come through, I got a big smile because I'm like, okay, you're going to talk about something that's affected my life and I really would like to understand first and foremost the inspiration for it. Why did you do it?

Speaker B: Yeah, you know, it's a topic that has been bugging me for a while, I think, you know, maybe five or six years. The book itself took two or three years to, uh, put together. A lot of research went into it. I guess I mostly get obsessed by topics where the popular or mainstream view has become so irrational that a data driven perspective is controversial or, or a rational perspective is controversial. So, you know, the title, Don't Be Yourself, why Authenticity Is Overrated and what to Do Instead. The Don't Be yourself part came from the publisher from Harvard Business Review. I think, you know, they have more experience with titles than myself and enjoy the kind of controversial, uh, clickbaity aspect of it. But really it's a, uh, book that attempts to inject much needed nuance to the debate on what it actually means to be authentic at work. And fundamentally I'm trying to make the case, which you will find not controversial at all, that at some point your right to be you ends and your obligation to others begins. That's all. So, you know, I'm trying to kind of, uh, rethink authenticity in a way that is less self centered and less narcissistic.

Speaker A: Well, let's just jump into it because the idea of being authentic, bringing your whole self to work, the power of vulnerability. Brene Brown. This has been well, socialized over the past 20 years and we researched it and psychological safety. Amy M. Emerson, who I know you partnered with recently. So why are you coming at it in this way? Obviously you mentioned hbr, you know, supporting the idea, but you know, where's the nuance? You know, why was it dangerous to bring your whole self to work?

Speaker B: Yeah. So, you know, first, uh, it's really interesting actually to acknowledge where this notion of authenticity or being true to thyself kind of uh, originates. Because you can go back to ancient Greece. Aristotle talked about it. I mean, you know, in like, uh, Eastern cultures the theme comes up, obviously Shakespeare and Hamlet and then in kind of a, uh, romanticism and philosophy. If you think about Jean Paul Sartre and then the industrial age, you know, when Karl Marx warned against the kind of, uh, alienation of workers in what he saw as the dark side of capitalism. We've come a long way since then creating cultures that are much more employee centric. And you know, if you think about, I know you care a lot about employee engagement. If you think about the original definition of employee engagement by a guy called Kahn in 1990, he saw it as a beautiful definition, as the degree of identification that you have with your work Persona. So in essence, you know, if you see your work self as an integral and critical part of your self concept or your identity, you're going to be happy at work. And then there's also a chance that you're going to be more productive. Although, you know, a lot of people are happy without being productive and other people are productive without being that happy. Now if then we take the notion of being yourself too far so far as to tell people that if they go to a job interview, they don't have to worry about what others think of them. They can just be, you know, their, their unfiltered or uncensored self. Good luck getting a job, by the way, if that's the advice you follow, or if you tell people that they can bring their whole self to work, which by the way, would include grumpy you, impulsive you, opinionated you, and you know, indulging in broadcasting your unsolicited views about controversial topics with others to a point that you're obnoxious and annoying. I think there are limits to bringing your whole self to work or exposing others to every single dimension of your self concept, when in fact it is absolutely clear that we are rewarded for creating a version, uh, of ourselves that is more sanitized. You know, we are not paid to unleash our real or unfiltered self on others. We're paid to display the best possible version of ourselves, and that doesn't mean being a fraud. You can exercise what I call strategic self presentation to, you know, come across as genuine and authentic, but while making an effort to please others and to basically be, um, perceived in a positive way or positive aim by others.

Speaker A: I love where you're coming from so much. For me, as a longtime mindfulness practitioner, what I'm hearing is this is setting boundaries and really and clear intention and having an appropriate response to achieve that intention. So the question embedded within this is how do you identify in what way do you show up? You know, how do you identify what that looks day to day?

Speaker B: Yeah, and this is, you know, it's difficult not to kind of, uh, refer to the academic research here because, you know, we can all have opinions about authenticity and what it means to be you. Uh, it's actually very much in line with sort of the narcissistic version of authenticity. Well, that's how I define it. So, you know, it's my truth. Uh, but then we can never have a discussion, right? There is a lot of systematic research in this area. And I know al you care about data and evidence, which is super interesting because, you know, the point of defining something is that you can then measure it, right? And if you can't measure something empirically or get data, or break it down into observable indicators or data points is just metaphysics. It's philosophy. Now in the workplace as organizational scientists and psychologists, we care about defining things, properly measuring them in a way that predicts something valuable or useful. And all decades of scientific research show that there are only two ways to measure how authentic somebody is. One, um, is you ask themself on a one to ten point scale how authentic are you in general or how authentic were you when you did that. Now, this won't surprise you, right? If you ask a thousand people how authentic they are on a 1 to 10 point scale, the average will be like 9.5. Absolutely. Everybody sees themselves as authentic, just like everybody sees themselves as funny, creative, and a good person, including some of the worst human beings in history. And then the other approach is, okay, so first still, when you ask people to report how authentic they feel, not in general, but in a specific situation. The research is also very interesting here. When you do something that, you know leads to success or that elevates your status or that is appreciated by others, you then interpret that as your authentic self. Whereas if you screw up or you do something that leads to failure or that wasn't my real self, you know, I was forced to do it. So in other words, we rationalize our behaviors and interpret good things as our authentic self and bad things as acting out of characters. And what that means is that authenticity is a self enhancing strategy that we use. And then there's the other approach, which is much more important. What matters really is not how authentic you feel or you think you are, but how authentic other people think you are. Why? Because that's how you build trust as a leader. You mentioned psychological safety. Absolutely. You know, if other people trust you, you can build safety in your team and then that leads to positive outcomes, innovation, performance, productivity, et cetera. Even uh, you know, uh, the kind of balance or moderate approach to vulnerability. Not breaking down in tears all the time or kind of being the center of ATT and being needy and wanting a hug every single time you get to work, but actually strategically opening up so that you encourage your followers to be mature enough and to understand that you're not a superstar or a superhero, you're a leader or somebody in charge. Well, how authentic other people think you are. So authenticity as an attribution is very important. It predicts objective success. But again, the research finds that people find you authentic when A, they like you, when B, they agree with your political views, beliefs or your values, or uh, C, when you actually have high levels of emotional intelligence, which means you engage in skilled self presentation and you know how to engage in self control and how to limit what you communicate, you know, in other words, you're uh, a strategic self presentational person or you have political skills. In other words, you engage in successful impression management. When you call it impression management, it sounds really bad when we call it eq, we love it. But in essence high EQ leads to other people seeing you as authentic even though what it means you're probably a method actor that has become really comfortable with his or her professional self. You know, ask the question, is Obama authentic? Is Trump authentic? We have no way of knowing, objectively speaking whether they are. You can ask them, but we shouldn't trust them. And if we find them authentic, that's probably a reflection of whether we align with their political views, whether we like them and whether they, whether they do things that we find valuable from a self centered or egotistical point of view. So you can see how difficult it is to quantify this in objective way. In fact, maybe Elon Musk will give us neuralink and will have a brain AI interface to see what you really Think about something. But you know, Freud tried together and it's not a good idea. It's opening a can of worms.

Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. All kinds of hard. No on that. Um, as you're sharing this, some words are coming to mind. Adaptability, agility, improv, uh, situational intelligence. Things that might not have been valued as m much historically. Would you be fair to say that this skill set, number one, can be learned and practiced over time, but it takes the right language and the right mental model to approach it?

Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. I was speaking to, you might know Ann Sugar, she writes a column for Forbes and she does a lot of executive coaching. And you know, we're talking about the book earlier today and she told me, I have uh, an executive that I coach and he tells me, I don't want to change. This is my way. You know, I don't want to adapt to others, they have to adapt to me. What would you say to that? It's like, well, you know, it's like a fundamental feature of a self centered narcissistic executive. Right. The world should evolve around them. I mean, you know, granted, sometimes if you're really powerful and very rich, you can afford that. Right. As I note in the book, authenticity, which has been, you know, co opted or utilized as a tool to increase diversity and inclusion, when those programs existed before they were demolished, you know, by so many organizations. But well, intendedly it had been utilized as a kind of, uh, sort of uh. The narrative of the story was let's help out group individuals not feel repressed and feel safe to express hidden or ostracized or condemned aspects of their identity. But the irony is that, that authenticity is a privilege for the elite. If you have a lot of power, you can indulge. Right. Let's look at Elon Musk as an example. He has his own social media platform. He is the richest man in the world minus, you know, one week or two. So he can do whatever he wants. Uh, not a very good role model to copy. Right. But it's important to see kind of that you mentioned situational awareness and adaptability. So important. There is no virtue or no kind of uh, really strength to somebody not wanting to flex at all when they go from one situation to the other and having the behavioral and psychological rigidity that makes them act in the same way all the time. That isn't a bastion of like uh, authenticity or it's not a moral quality, it shows poor social skills. It's basically by definition what somebody who isn't aware of the situation or doesn't care about the situation at all. So they're either on the spectrum or they're a psychopath or have psychopathic tendencies would show. And I give you a concept that I think you love. Decades of psychological research have shown that one of the most important parts of our self concept, our identity, is this notion of self complexity. Who you are comprises multiple dimensions. You know, there's the you who is the podcaster, the you who is the consultant, the you who is the businessman, the you who is the father, the spouse, the son, et cetera. Work or any other situation isn't an invitation to display or express each and one of these dimensions. It's an invitation to express and display relevant elements of our self concept. So, you know, just because you are bringing to work one or two aspects of your dimension doesn't mean you should quit, doesn't mean you should despair and find another job. I mean, unless your definition of a career is joining a cult, you should be comfortable working somewhere where some elements of yourself are met, expressed, fulfilled by other people's values and some are not. And then life is full of other areas or situations where you can express them. I know it sounds like common sense, but it has become so uncommon that it's controversial to say, look, I don't bring my whole self to work, I bring my professional self, and there's more to life than work.

Speaker A: Help me think through this. Because I had an interaction, uh, it was about two years ago, it was with a very prominent business leader. And I shared something personal with that individual. And after I got off the call, I felt sad, I felt dirty, I felt like I did something wrong. Um, to put it in more simple language, I felt like I over shared and that, I don't want to say that's a wedge between us, but it was something that I'm, um, like, no, I wasn't wrong. I was being honest, I was being vulnerable. I was being my, you know, authentic self. But what you're sharing, that actually puts it in a different context where, you know, I probably did say too much. I didn't set a proper boundary. I wasn't playing the role that he saw me being in that moment. Now, can you, can you help me process that even a couple years later? Could it be that in certain times, not only in that example, but some of us might have a propensity to overshare and kind of lose the context of why we're having and interaction with somebody?

Speaker B: If humanity didn't have that propensity, there will be no social media Right. I mean clearly, clearly there are billions of people oversharing and engaging in inappropriate self disclosure on a daily basis. Some of them, I mean I would say outside social media, in the real world or in one on one interactions, it's really valuable to have the capacity to internalize the feedback from others. By the way, Al, uh, is no different from I feel comfortable in my team as a team member or as a leader to crack a joke right now. What if that joke is offensive to somebody? What if it upsets somebody? Well, in that case I'm probably better off realizing that and feeling bad so that I apologize and I do that again. Right? So no different in the example that you gave. Reputation isn't imposed on others, it's negotiated through the interactions you have with others. In any interaction you are trying to get others to perceive you in the way you want to perceive yourself. You are trying to kind of sell your aspirational self to others. But at some point others give you feedback and it might be, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, you're oversharing and you're making me uncomfortable because you overstep the boundaries. And you know, uh, I think the beauty of it is that we can engage in these self conscious emotions and this can stay with us even for years. You know, because fundamentally what you learn about yourself is that uh, there is going outside your comfort zone, but there is also regretting going outside your comfort zone in certain elements. I think your reaction shows emotional maturity. Somebody who said, uh, ah, well whatever, you know, I don't care about the other person. Shows a lack of emotional maturity or infantile interaction with others.

Speaker A: Well, I'm going to take that compliment and run with it. Thank you, thank you for that. I just. Because it is, I remember I was influenced, like you know, uh, you know, being courageous, you know, power, vulnerability to reference, uh, Brene Brown's work, you know, again, which I believe has a lot of goodness in it. But it also could set a trap which arguably I walked into on that particular day with that particular in interview or uh, that not interview, but that situation and with that person. So, and I know you in the book you talk about, you know, these four traps. Can you speak to those traps and how to potentially avoid them?

Speaker B: Yeah. So, you know, so the four traps are kind of the typical mainstream or the most famous, if you like, mantras that underpin the mainstream kind of notion, uh, of authenticity. Um, I call them traps because even though they are presented as well meaning self help advice designed to make us more effective, actually they're Very, very difficult to follow. And if you did manage to follow, or even if you tried to follow them, it creates more problems than, uh, it actually solves. So the first is this notion that you should always be honest, not just with others, but also with yourself. It's interesting to think about both sides, right? I mean, can you even be honest with others if you're not honest with yourself? Probably not. You know, I have a young son and I asked him over the weekend, did you finish the, you know, jam jar? And he said, no, I didn't. And I actually think he probably truly thought he didn't, but I know he did. Right? So he wasn't lying to me, he was lying to himself. Actually, adults are a lot like a five year old. We lie to ourselves all the time because it is a successful strategy for deceiving others. If you go to an interview thinking you are the hottest thing since sliced bread and you're amazing, even though that's not true, you're more likely to get that interview than if you say, look, in reality, I have no idea about this job, but I will try to work it out and learn it. So please hire me, even though I'm not very well qualified. So, you know, self honesty is very rare, and delusions and self deception actually lead to success in interpersonal interactions. And then there's the other part, right? Like there are many, many instances. Even Ray Dalio, one of the champions of radical candor, will tell you, look, uh, we love radical transparency. But if somebody just came back from maternity or paternity leave and showed you a picture of the newborn baby and they told you, isn't my baby cute? You wouldn't say, no, they're very ugly. Right? Because social skills also mean showing empathy and caring for others. So that's the first one. Second one. Second trap is don't worry about what people think of you. Well, actually, you know, unless you're a narcissist, a psychopath, or on the spectrum, worrying and paying attention to what people think of you is a fundamental way to get better, to evolve, to improve, and to display social skills. There is an advantage in knowing how your behavior impact others. And that doesn't mean that you should engage or you will engage in Machiavellian strategies of, uh, manipulation. I mean, it's a fundamental ingredient of social skills and interpersonal effectiveness. Third trap, which I love, is always be true to your values. Follow your heart no matter what. Sounds great, right? Well, what if your values are crooked? I mean, if you're Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao. Should you be true to your value? Most of the damage that we have seen caused to the world not due to natural disasters, but due to human induced pain weren't people who failed to follow their values. There were people with crooked, destructive and toxic values who were really, really good at following them. And by the way, they met most of the traditional definitions of authenticity, like consistency between what they say and what they do. Unfortunately, what they did was horrific. Right. And so, on a more minor level, the world is already very tribalized and polarized because we have lost the ability to question our own values. I don't know if you do this, Al, but I spent a lot of time listening to podcasters and broadcasters and media journalists that I don't agree with. It's quite masochistic, not very cathartic, but it helps me understand the other perspective on things, and it helps me often understand that my values are not right or are questionable on certain issues. And then the final one is bring your whole self to work. As I always say, my whole self isn't even welcome at home. You know, people at home are still waiting that I take certain aspects of my whole self somewhere else. Preferably not to work. But, uh, you know, your whole self includes undesirable tendencies that even your best friends aren't capable of enjoying for the whole duration of, uh, the vacation or the Christmas lunch. What I try to do in the book is to present an alternative to this that leads to higher levels of career success, more leadership effectiveness, and actually more diverse and inclusive organizations, which is helping people understand that more often than not, they're better off trying not to be their past or present self, to sculpt or curate a future version of themselves that is better, that is more aspirational, and that actually even includes the ability to do things they haven't done before because that makes them better and improves their reputation.

Speaker A: So. Good. Just there's so many things come to mind because I, uh, as you know, I work with students, early career professionals, and those in career transition, in addition to business leaders. And it's inviting. The question for me, you know, at what point does someone in their life journey learn this and practice this? I, I mean, I see it being so valuable for young people as well as established and emerging leaders. So can you speak to that? I mean, you're raising, you know, young kids.

Speaker B: And you have kids as well, right? You have kids?

Speaker A: Yeah, they're older now, 24 and 22, but you know, they're still growing and figuring out, I guess, uh, that at

Speaker B: some point they were very young, they realized that, uh, you know, they have to behave better when they're invited into other people's homes than in your own home. Right. At what age? 3, 4, 5? Well, let's not lose that ability as grownups. You know, whatever happened to smiling to your boss and bitching about them when you get home? It worked for ages, so let's keep it that way. A fundamental feature or hallmark of psychological maturity is to understand that it's advantageous to kind of decouple the stimulus response chain. You know, that even if somebody says something that annoys you, it's advantageous to count up to 10. Even if, uh, if you don't do mindfulness and you're not kind of a, uh, Buddhist monk, you will understand that a lot of the times when we act based on impulse and we follow our gut feel, it leads to regrettable experiences. Right? So I think self control is a beautiful trait and we seem to have kind of, uh, lost sense of that. You know, it never features very highly in conversations about leadership success. We talk about integrity and what's integrity, but the ability to resist temptation, the ability to resist under, like basically succumbing to short term influences that might be good for you as an individual in a selfish short term kind of sense, but might harm the group and the system of which you are part. You know, so fundamentally I think that's one of the healthy, rational antidotes to this. You know, just be you, they will adjust. Don't worry what uh, people think of you. If you, if you think you're great, you are, go girl, or hey, you know, just do it, believe in yourself. Well, all of those things I think started in a well intended or well meaning way, but they're too easily distorted and exacerbated to the point that what we preach is this radical and antisocial version of individualism. Uh, it's like when people say, well, you know, that is how I see it. And therefore we won't have a discussion or a conversation or that's my truth. So, you know, we're done with it. If we lose the ability to collaborate, to see things from somebody else's perspective, and again to understand when the right to be ourselves ends and our obligation to others begins. It's very difficult to have a highly functioning society, let alone a healthy work culture.

Speaker A: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And this actually makes me reflect on something that I've been putting forth for 20 years or so years now, based on where I was at that Time. However, I sensed that it has been a healthy construct. So I have been pressed, uh, around leadership competencies over the years. Like I'm sure you have been heavily involved and how do I prioritize them, how do I create learning experiences, how do I assess for them? This certainly echoes and was validated because it came later by Carol Dweck's work around growth mindset. And I used the term compassionate curiosity. So where I'll land with this is that when asked the number one leadership competency, for me, my answer has been the willingness and capacity to learn and in turn take action on that learning. And I'm not necessarily asking for validation of that. What I am asking about particularly is that willingness part as well as the capacity. Because yeah, we might have the ability, but we need to have the willingness to show up differently, to show up appropriately and learn what's called for in that particular instance. Does this align with what you just shared?

Speaker B: Yeah. So in the book I talk about the importance of curiosity and you know, so there's a lot of growth mindset there because, you know, you need to have, at least on the intellectual level, an aspiration to change and get better. But I think the most difficult part of that, you know, because everybody loves change until they have to do it themselves. And even then what people love is to have changed, not to undergo the painful process of change. I always say, you know, work, um, New Year's resolutions are broken within the first two months. And that's something that people truly want to change. It's not change imposed by a manager, by a coach. You know, it's things that you truly want to do. And yet after two months it's broken and then you recycle it year after year. So everybody loves change until they have to do it themselves. I think the most difficult part is to have the intellectual humility and self criticism to entertain the idea that maybe we are wrong and other people are right. I, uh, always quote this research. Something like 95% of people describe themselves as open minded. And what they have in common is that, uh, they all hang out with people who are exactly like themselves. You know, they can't even expose themselves to. So I think that's the part that is really, really, uh, tricky. You know, when I talk about the importance of sort of like not being yourself in leadership, I think fundamentally, you know, with leaders, the main question is, can people change? Yes, but mostly they don't. Also, when people change, leaders are no exception. They tend to change in two ways, which are not very beneficial. We either become a more boring version of our earlier selves, which is called psychological maturity. So in other words, you become more agreeable, more pro social, less neurotic, you know, kind of, uh, more empathetic or more tolerant. That's the best case scenario. The other one is you become a more exaggerated version of your early selves, which you can see how you know, even good things are bad when taken too far. It is also true that changeability and if you like growth mindset or coachability is actually a part of leadership potential, which creates this incredible paradox, right, which is that uh, basically coaching works the best or works best with those who need it the least. Uh, if I'm coaching you and you are open minded, curious, not defensive, when I'm giving you critical, constructive feedback and you're eager to change and you have growth mindset, you probably didn't really need that much coaching. You would have improved by yourself. Think about somebody at the other end of the spectrum. Whatever you say about Trump and Musk, they might be geniuses and amazingly successful, but let's agree they're not that coachable, right? They don't change very much. It's not controversial to say that. So, you know, so coaching works best with those who need it the least. And I think my advice in general for leaders is that uh, it's a very underrated but important quality to learn and master to learn to go against your nature. Because we are all kind of, we're all trapped or constrained by our own personality or preferred predispositions and adaptations. You know, it's easy. It's like playing to your strengths. It sounds great because it's the easiest thing to do. But if you can learn to go against that, you learn new adaptations. That's when you can say, look, simple examples, but people, it will resonate with people. I used to have terrible fear and phobia of public speaking and I hated it. But I trained myself, I practice, I put myself in situation. I still don't enjoy it, but now I can do it. And then if you do it, people say, I don't believe that you were ever afraid of, uh, that's because you learn to go against your nature. Same for a leader who is comfortable being the center of attention and mansplaining and suddenly learns to shut up and listen. Each and one of these examples are examples of inauthentic behavior, if you like, because you're not letting your past and present self limit your future self. You're learning to not just be yourself, but to be somebody. Better. And that's the aspiration that I'm trying to kind of uh, if you like preach about in my book. That's the positive side. Bringing down kind of narcissistic authenticity is the negative and the critical part. But there is a positive kind of uh, end and practical recommendations for leaders and employees.

Speaker A: It's such a wonderful distinction and very sticky example and it actually explains my journey quite clearly as well because I had a similar. I wouldn't go so far as call it a phobia but it's like this is, it's not a natural thing to do. You don't just wake up and you have hundreds and thousands of people in front of you. So yeah, it is a learned behavior. I have a few more questions and if you're listening, watching and you have a question, by all means ask uh, it here on LinkedIn and we'll get to as many as we can or do some follow ups. I want to pick up on something that you shared earlier around being wrong. And in the social sciences, in life I find very few things being truly binary. Right and wrong, there's different ways of showing up, different ways of doing things. So in terms of how we express ourselves, realizing that limitation and also when we hear other people's perspectives and ideas, ensuring that that's just that a perspective or idea doesn't mean that we were quote unquote wrong. Can you speak to again how we process other people's perspectives and ideas? Yeah.

Speaker B: So obviously I agree with you and a few things come to mind. I mean I'm still a scientist at uh heart and an academic by training. So one of the most beautiful quotes that I remember from PhD student, uh, was examining their thesis and uh, the uh, dedication acknowledgements they quoted hasn't been attributed to anybody specific or is misattributed. But there's this wonderful quote about the goal of science being finding better ways of being wrong. Which is beautiful, right? Because you're probably always going to be somewhat wrong and perfection or ultimate truth is unattainable. But you can find better ways of being wrong or you can be less wrong about things. And that's a beautiful thing about science. The other one is that you know, science is the uh, belief in the ignorance of experts. Just because you are paid a lot or you're famous or you have titles, you know, doesn't mean I have to believe you. There is a methodology for testing the um, you know, the, the kind of ah, believability or trustworthiness of what you're saying. But then there's the reality of life. And I think, you know, at some point I thought of writing a book about radical moderation or the need to kind of re. Embrace nuance. But then I thought, if I'm right, then nobody will read it because the argument is that as the world becomes more complex, we become lazier and lazier and try to find simpler and simpler heuristics about things, right? So just, I mean, I'm going to use a very trivial example, but even the world of podcasting, there are millions of new shows and podcasts out there. Imagine if you had to listen to all of them to decide whether you agree with somebody or not. And it's a lot easier to say, okay, this friend likes us, so therefore it's to the right, and I won't listen to it. This friend, like this, it's to the left, so therefore, you know, like the need to make radical, overly simplistic and probably wrong categorical classifications, uh, of everything. It's a, uh, coping strategy that we leverage or use in a world that is becoming more and more complex. Same, by the way, every time there is a democratic political election, imagine like if we had to sit down and think about the track record of candidates and the nominations, it's a lot easier to watch them debate and say, oh, I like this person. I would rather go out for a beer with this and not that. And, you know, so we cling to these primordial hunter gut instincts. In the old days, it was easy to decide whether we trust somebody or not because you hang out with 20 people all your life and it was easy to judge competition. Now you almost need to have a PhD on everything to spend five or seven years making up your rational might. And then there is AI to tell us something. But AI is increasingly optimized to tell us what we want to hear and what we want to read. So you can see how, in essence, you're right, Al. Uh, but the sad thing is that our desire to basically be right or feel smart eclipses our interest in understanding the world as it really is. And that is maybe, you know, that is the most kind of, uh, worrying or concerning part about us as a species. We're so smart that we invented AI. Wow, Amazing. You know, we can even now outsource slow thinking to a machine and not do any thinking at all, which of course is worrying. But then that machine will be fine tuned or optimized to tell us what we want to hear and what we want to see. You know, it doesn't bode well, but that's why we need to fight, and we need to kind of, uh, even if nobody pays attention, we need to kind of highlight the nuance underlying thing. You know, I think actually Adam Grant is doing such a wonderful thing about that because even though he has this incredible following and he's a superstar and he's so prolific and a bestselling author and has millions of people, he always still tries to show both sides of things and nuances. And it's really, really hard to get attention or keep people's attention by being nuanced. But we need to try because otherwise we're just, you know, kind of throwing gasoline to the fire.

Speaker A: Yeah. Uh, thank you for calling that out because, yes, our brains want simplicity, yet we live in a complex world, and the idea that we need the patience and grit to actually understand complex topics like running an organization. And I have spent some time recently, and I wrote an article about why I am working to debunk myths, you know, the stories that we're telling ourselves, calling some of these out and providing evidence and that to the contrary. And not to say that it's to another. Right. But we do have these stories that we're reinforcing. And to your point, AI oftentimes reinforces this, this narrative. So my question, and you know, again, I have a couple more after this. I have long cited this Chinese proverb, the beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names. So the language that we're using, whether it be authenticity, vulnerability, oftentimes they're ill defined, not only by others in alignment, but by, you know, ourselves. So what you have given me and other, uh, readers of your book, the G is to define authenticity in a real, actionable, appropriate way to serve as an asset as opposed to fall into, you know, one of these. So my question to you, number one, does that align with kind of your purpose for writing the book? And number two, can you talk to the power of words and the language that we use and tell ourselves?

Speaker B: And, you know, you are making. I don't say this in the book, but you're asking such an interesting and deep question that you're actually, you know, helping me understand that, you know, fundamentally, I think what I'm trying to do is to say, let's spend less time worrying about whether somebody is authentic and whether we are authentic, and especially less time trying to work out what people really think deep down or who they are deep down, because you'll never get there. Freud said you need 15 years of therapy and you might realize that you're really neurotic and then you understand there is no meaning or you're psychotic and then you should be institutionalized. Right? So I mean, those are still the uh, but and more time really deciding whether we can trust somebody or not. So fundamentally I want to replace all the discussion around authenticity for a discussion around integrity, which is more important. And integrity is critical because it's the main reputational currency that we use to decide whether somebody should be trusted or not. And of course, when you make mistakes, they're costly. And when Warren Buffett famously said it takes 20 years to harness a positive reputation and one minute to lose it. Absolutely right. But the fundamental advantage that we have in human interactions and in civilization is that we don't need to know the whole self of somebody or what they think deep down on every single issue to decide whether they can be trusted or not. All we need to do is to focus on how they behave and how they treat others. And that's enough. And likewise, if you're seeing that from the point of view of the actor, don't worry so much about telling people what you really think or what you really feel. Just behave in a way that makes you a uh, trustworthy, good corporate citizen. And by the way, in order to do that, you're going to have to have the ability to not tell them everything you say, you think, everything you feel, and to keep certain aspects of your self concept away from work, you know, So I think integrity is key. You know, as Yuval Harari says, the two fundamental kind of strengths or superpowers of Homo sapiens are storytelling and our ability to collaborate. Both go hand in hand. For you to be good at collaborating with others and useful to others, you need to tell them a story about yourself, but others will choose to believe you or not based on how you behave otherwise. You know, if we believe, maybe the biggest example of this is like when somebody tells you they're authentic. You know, it's a bit like when a restaurant tells you it's an authentic Mexican, authentic Chinese, authentic Taiwanese. You probably can assume if it has authentic there, it probably isn't authentic. And people are the same, you know, let's just stop falling or paying attention to those who tell us they are an authentic leader, an authentic person, and pay more attention to how people behave the most. My hypothesis is that, or my assumption is that the most trustworthy people with the highest integrity are not going around telling you I'm so authentic, they let their actions speak.

Speaker A: Love it. Love it. And so I see some questions Coming in. I'm going to get to those as a follow up because we're coming up on time and I want to ask one more potentially, uh, quote, unquote, big question. Um, and it's around this. You mentioned feedback earlier. And when, let's say a manager gives feedback to somebody else, they often come from a knowing place. They make a host of assumptions that they might be aware of or unaware of. And then on the other side, I see people, because they're in a hierarchical situation, feel that they have to, quote, unquote, take the feedback without having been heard. And truly, you know, they know that manager just doesn't understand the. And they're not curious about the situation that led them to, you know, a decision. So I want to frame this a bit more. So I had the privilege of being at UT Austin earlier this year. Brene Brown was, uh, being interviewed by Ethan and Harris, UT Austin business school. And they were talking a lot about feedback, feedback. And I was trying to behave. I was in the back of the room. And Brene, uh, Brown shared that we have to move past the Welshan definition of leadership. You know, working out the bottom 10%. And so me being me, I got up during, uh, the Q and A and asked, well, if we are going to move past the Welshan definition of leadership, should we be moving past the McKinseyest definition of feedback? Because there's research that shows that disengages not only a person being given the feedback, the provider of the feedback themselves. And it also is the case where it's not trained, it's not coached, it's not. So what I put forth is that rather than give feedback, let's talk about something different. You know, I advocate OQIs, observations, questions and ideas on the premise that we as human beings need to be seen, heard and empowered. We don't want to be invisible, we don't want to be ignored, and oftentimes we don't want to be told what to do, particularly when we're not understood. So I know I shared a lot there, but I just want to get your. In relation to, you know, why not be authentic and showing up as the smart person? Is it worthwhile to redefine, use different language of how we show up and collaborate with others, whether it be in a hierarchical situation or with peers or otherwise. Your thoughts?

Speaker B: So, look, I think there's a lot to unpack there, and I know we are kind of almost on time, but I think, you know, the problem with feedback is that most of it is rubbish. And so you know, I'm less bothered about kind of what strategy approach or formal kind of uh, uh, you know, process you want to opt for and really more interested in kind of uh, the expertise of the source, the intention of the source, and of course the social skills to that. So, you know, it's a cliche to say feedback is a gift, right? That's like saying our company is like a family. It might be a dysfunctional, dysfunctional like most families. Or like, and feedback is a gift like, like that ugly, itchy sweater that your aunt gifted you for your birthday and you have to wear because it's uncomfortable. You. We need to train people to be better at providing feedback and we need to train people to be better at receiving feedback as well. In the book, I quote a, uh, segment of another book that came out recently called Infantilized how the Workplace Killed Adulthood, which starts with an anecdote of a young employee who was having her performance review. And the manager says, you know, you did really great. You hit your target, you know, you're very productive. Uh, you exceeded your performance here and here and here. But if I have one opportunity for improvement or one kind of constructive critical feedback, it's this. It'll be good if you pay a little bit more attention to your spelling in emails because particularly when you're communicating to clients and key stakeholders, it's a little bit sloppy and there are mistakes and you say, what do you mean? Like for example, what. And then the manager says, well, these are examples of words. Uh, and her answer is, but this is how I spell it. And then goes home and her parents call the manager and say, how dare you tell our daughter? You know, so I think, you know, when people talk about the importance of grit and resilience and really being a, uh, highly functioning mature adult in a workplace, what we mean is that is like probably your biggest opportunities or your biggest kind of, um, uh, I would say raw ingredients that can help you improve and evolve are going to come from fairly uncomfortable interactions. And by the way, the people, especially because we are building, we're interested in building cultures that are more and more pro social and more employee centric and nicer. And we evolved, right? The workplaces now look a little bit like adult amusement parks or you know, kind of, they have all these features. It goes overboard when we basically lose the ability to tell others, hey, uh, Al, you know, you sucked in this presentation. But of course I'm telling you this because I want you to improve. And actually so you have to find the tools and the way to do it. And there has to be an intent. So all this is to say that it's probably Safe to ignore 80% of the feedback that is out there, especially the one that is positive and reinforcing your ego and not authentic. But at the same time, the 20% that might make you uncomfortable and might highlight a gap between who you think you are and who you want to be, you should treasure it. That is the gift, the ugly sweater that you don't like to wear, but actually it can make you a better person.

Speaker A: Yeah. And it's also the case where I'll just add, if I may, as we start to wrap up here, is that when somebody gives you that feedback, that sample size of 1, and you as a scientist know, you know, get more sound, get more data, get more perspectives that can help inform.

Speaker B: Well, let me, let me just finish on this. One executive that I was coaching once told me, you know, he literally asked his coach, I said, you speak really highly about 360 degree feedback, you know, multi source feedback, and I see that you really like them. And he said, personally, I had really bad experiences with them. So can you give me another tool for, uh, kind of, uh, getting to know myself? If you have bad experiences, what do you think that means? If absolutely everybody tells you that you don't listen, that you are impulsive and that you are grumpy and irritable and unpredictable, there might be something there. I quote the great David Bowie in the book when he said, I am only the person the greatest number of people think I am. Because our reputation is fragmented and dispersed. It's sort of like scattered around all the people who know you. And if you really want to know who you truly are, you have to get them all together and get to exchange stories. That usually happens at your funeral. Luckily so. Because until then, you don't want them to exchange stories. Some, yes, but not others.

Speaker A: I couldn't agree more. Hey, Tomas, I think you have your book in reach. Do you?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Well, again, thank you for sharing, thank you for writing the book, thank you for being your awesome self, and, uh, thank you for staying on a bit longer than we had originally planned.

Speaker B: I'll make sure you get a copy so it will look great behind you since you have the previous two there as well. So I'll make sure you get. Thank you so much for the invitation, my friend.

Speaker A: Of course, my friend. You be well. Thank you. Thanks for joining me and Tomas Chamarra permusic on the Adaptive Futures podcast. At Adaptive Futures, we provide content courses and community to help people lead themselves and others in the age of AI and ongoing disruption. You can find this episode's transcript, related resources and more conversations like it at adaptivefutures IO and to explore Tomas latest work, including Don't Be Yourself, Visit him@drtomas.com I'm, um, Al Adamson. Thanks for listening. I look forward to seeing you next time and to leading with compassionate curiosity, creativity and courage. Now get after it.