Being Yourself: How Much is Too Much?
How much of “yourself” you put on display should be dependent on the situation and those around you.
How
many times have you prepared for an interview, a meeting with a new
client, or a presentation and you get the rallying calls to: ‘just
be yourself’, ‘be authentic’, ‘show people who you really
are’ and ‘be totally honest’? It reflects our viral
existence where ‘public privacy’ is the norm. It’s another part
of the growing social revolution to ‘let it all hang out’. I
would suggest that nothing could be further from the right thing to
do.
My
comments are not just for effect or to be controversial, although
they do fly in opposition to current wisdom. Instead, they are
inspired by an often underappreciated scholar, Erving Goffman, a
Canadian sociologist and writer and one of the most cited authors of
books in the humanities sitting with Foucault, Derrida and even more
quoted than Freud. He has influenced much of what we now take
for granted in the fields of impression management, how we frame our
context and rituals in social interaction and groups. Inspired
by his works, I add caution.
Reasons why being yourself is flawed
Let’s
look at the research. For instance, take people who are high on
self-monitoring, a personality preference defined as ‘active
construction of public selves to achieve social ends’. A
highly cited study
by Ajay Mehra, Martin Kilduff and Daniel Brass,
found that “chameleon-like high self-monitors” were more likely
than true-to-themselves “low self-monitors” to occupy central
positions in social networks, which affords them greater levels of
social capital and influence. Together these characteristics
predict individual workplace performance.
There
is also considerable evidence to suggest that people who present
themselves as warm and competent are more likely to be liked and
conferred higher levels of social status. Furthermore, those
who act with
higher levels of confidence are given greater credence in the eyes of
others.
Thus,
it appears that just being yourself has some distinct drawbacks. In
fact, naive authenticity may do more harm than good. It presumes you
know who you are; it puts the focus on the intrapersonal rather than
the contextual interaction; it seems to set up you up for a
narcissistic injury.
Read
the room
Goffman
also believed that social exchanges are forms of rituals and these
take place in a situated context. Here he argues that we should
study “situations
and their men” rather
than “men and their situations”. Thus, it reframes
interpersonal exchanges in terms of social, interactional processes
rather than purely on individual motives and dispositions. We
can elaborate by using three of Goffman’s further ideas: ritual
interactions, face work, and the notion that we have a front
stage and back stage to our lives.
Rituals: The
possibility that each social encounter is a form of ritual, a series
of prescribed or formal activities, sets the stage for explicit and
implicit norms. ‘Being yourself’ can upset the rituals and
may create disappointment and anxiety. It’s called a social
faux pas. An example might be your mobile phone ringing in an
interview. No doubt there will be an immediate loss of face, which
tarnishes the positive social values a person effectively claims
for themselves.
Face
work is
the continual interpersonal negotiation of personal status within
this ritualised context. When we succeed in this social dance,
we maintain face for both ourselves but more importantly others, who
are part of the ritual. For instance, shaking hands (or not in
some countries) is part of the ritual context of a good start. But
when we fail it affects the whole context, people become embarrassed
on our behalf. That’s why we all cringe when the TV character,
David Brent, from The Office makes a social gaff. He’s
crossed the line.
Front
stage and back stage work:
Brushing teeth is usually back stage work, performing in an interview
or presentation is front stage. Being your naïve self can sometimes
be like teeth cleansing in public. Something best avoided.
Take
the middle ground
It
may not be natural for you to be high on self-monitoring or to ‘fake
it until you make it‘. I am not proposing that we all become
sociopaths: even though they are pretty good at presenting
themselves. Neither, should you betray your ideals and
beliefs. The point is simple: being yourself, lauding naive
authenticity, is a potential recipe for disaster (in the worst case)
and perhaps some disappointment. Not just for you but also
the people around you. Instead I propose a twist, and act from
the position of situated authenticity, which means think about the
context and others, not just you.
I
conclude with a quote from William Shakespeare.
“All
the world’s a stage,
And
all the men and women merely players.
They
have their exits and their entrances,
And
one man in his time plays many parts”.
William
Shakespeare. Act II Scene VII, As
You Like It
Michael
Jarrett is
a Senior Affiliate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at INSEAD
where he is also a programme director of the Strategy
Execution Programme,
one of the school’s executive development programmes.
http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/being-yourself-how-much-is-too-much-3417?utm_source=INSEAD+Knowledge&utm_campaign=5d31e529d4-26_June_mailer6_26_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e079141ebb-5d31e529d4-249840429
No comments:
Post a Comment