On authenticity as an ideal

Authenticity has become one of the central ideals of contemporary self-development discourse. People are encouraged to "be themselves", to discover their "true" identity, and to make professional or relational choices that permit this identity to be expressed without obstruction. The term appears frequently in coaching, leadership writing, and organisational language, where it often carries an immediate moral force. Authenticity is associated with integrity, courage, and psychological health.

I understand its appeal. Many people have spent long periods adapting to institutional expectations, family roles, or professional cultures that leave little room for their own experience. In such circumstances, the wish to speak more freely, to act with greater congruence, or to make choices that reflect one’s values can be important. Yet the concept itself deserves closer examination, especially when it is used as an unquestioned objective in coaching.

Psychological research usually defines authenticity through some form of congruence between a person’s behaviour and their values, motives, or self-understanding. At the same time, scholars disagree about what the "real" self is, how authenticity should be measured, and whether authenticity is always desirable in every situation. Jongman-Sereno and Leary (2019) describe these difficulties as central to the concept, rather than as minor methodological problems. Recent work in social psychology likewise distinguishes several possible meanings of authenticity, including self-accuracy, self-consistency, self-ownership, and self-enhancement (Sedikides & Schlegel, 2024).

The problem of a stable inner self

The everyday appeal to authenticity often presupposes a relatively stable inner core that exists before the roles, relationships, and contexts in which a person moves. The person’s task then appears to consist in locating this core and expressing it consistently. I find this picture difficult to reconcile with the complexity of lived experience.

People speak differently with a colleague than with a sibling. They may be more direct in one language than in another. A person who holds responsibility for others may present themselves with a degree of reserve that would be unnecessary in a close friendship. These variations need not indicate deception or alienation from oneself. They may express sensitivity to context, an awareness of power relations, or a practical understanding of what a particular situation requires.

A singular ideal of coherence can become burdensome when it treats situational variation as evidence of personal failure. Someone may feel insufficiently authentic because they cannot speak openly at work, because they have to manage an unequal relationship carefully, or because they use professional language that differs from the language of private life. Such experiences deserve examination, although they should not automatically be understood as proof that a person has lost contact with their "true self".

Authenticity and social recognition

Authenticity also has a social dimension. A person can experience themselves as genuine and still find that their way of speaking, dressing, or relating is treated by others as excessive, inappropriate, or insufficiently credible. The social recognition of authenticity depends on cultural norms, institutional expectations, and relations of power.

Research from interactional sociology approaches authenticity as something constructed and negotiated within social relations. It distinguishes between self-authenticity, which concerns a person’s own experience, and social authenticity, which concerns how identities are recognised or disputed in public interaction (Williams & Schwarz, 2020). This perspective is useful because it directs attention towards the conditions under which certain forms of self-expression become legible, valued, or contested.

The political implications are significant. Members of marginalised groups are often expected to present their identity in forms that a majority can understand and approve of. They may be invited to disclose personal history in order to establish credibility, while others move through the same environment without such demands. A public celebration of authenticity can therefore become a subtle mechanism of regulation, rewarding recognisable forms of difference and placing pressure on people whose self-presentation remains ambiguous, private, or strategically reserved.

Implications for coaching

In coaching, the ideal of authenticity can quietly become normative. A coachee may feel that they should function effectively while also maintaining a transparent relation to their inner life. Dissonance can then be interpreted too quickly as a sign that something is wrong: perhaps the person has chosen the wrong career, has betrayed their values, or has failed to be sufficiently courageous.

I prefer to approach authenticity as local and relational. The question shifts from "Am I being my true self?" towards questions that are more precise: "What is this situation asking of me?" "What am I trying to preserve?" "Which forms of expression are available to me here?" These questions make room for context without dissolving personal responsibility. They also allow a person to examine whether a particular adaptation serves them, costs them too much, or has become unsustainable.

This approach is especially relevant for people navigating unequal institutional settings, migration, minority stress, or economic dependency. Strategic self-management may provide safety or preserve access to work. It may also generate fatigue, self-doubt, or a sense of distance from one’s own values. Coaching can become a space in which these consequences are explored without demanding immediate resolution.

A more situated orientation

For me, the value of authenticity lies less in the achievement of a final state of inner coherence than in developing a more differentiated awareness of one’s own ways of being. This includes noticing when a role feels viable, when an adaptation becomes too costly, and when a person wants to take a greater risk in making something visible.

Such an orientation does not require a coach to identify the coachee’s hidden essence. The work concerns the concrete conditions in which different versions of a person appear, the meanings attached to those versions, and the choices that remain possible within a given situation. Coaching can then support a person in developing a relationship to themselves that is reflective, flexible, and attentive to the social world in which every self is formed.

References

Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Leary, M. R. (2019). The enigma of being yourself: A critical examination of the concept of authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000157

Sedikides, C., & Schlegel, R. J. (2024). Distilling the concept of authenticity. Nature Reviews Psychology.

Williams, J. P., & Schwarz, K. C. (Eds.). (2020). Studies on the social construction of identity and authenticity. Routledge.