Authenticity is a theme that has resonated throughout the ages and across multiple disciplines. From the inscription ‘know thyself’ on the oracle at Delphi, to Polonius’s words in Hamlet ‘to thyself be true’, to the modern quest to be our true self: the suggestion has echoed across time that without a degree of authenticity we will never fully unleash our potential. This ubiquitous concept has also permeated the coaching world, where discussions on effective coaching often espouse the need for us to be authentic. So, should we accept this without compromise or should we hold back a little before wholeheartedly accepting that unless we are fully authentic, our coaching effectiveness will be compomised?

 But what does authenticity mean? When related to coaching, it can be considered a style which demonstrates high standards of integrity, where coaches take responsibility for their actions, and where decisions they make are based on principles and values, rather than on simply achieving short-term success. Few would argue with these ideals; integrity and principled actions will always play a fundamental role in effective coaching – the foundations of our practice. But definitions and perspectives of authenticity often extend further than these principled arguments. Psychology Today, for example, states that: ‘Individuals considered authentic are those who generally strive to align their actions with their core values and beliefs, and then act in sync with their true selves’. Acting in accordance with our core values and beliefs is laudable, but it is this emphasis on the true self where potential problems can occur and which can result in an oversimplistic application of authenticity. 

Acting in sync with our true selves can be interpreted as living without compromise – a ‘take me or leave me’ approach, where we are free to express our personalities and live according to what we believe without worrying what other people think. This may have a superficial appeal, but a deeper look at potential consequences of this approach reveals a darker side. At its extreme, it suggests that our actions should simply reflect who we are, and that they should not adapt to the situation we are in. Yet how effective would such an approach be? Although it may be successful in some situations, it could have disastrous effects in others. 

Many situations will require us to act in direct opposition to our natural personality traits. For example, we may have a tendency to introversion, but some coaching situations require us to drive energy; we may have a tendency towards agreeableness, but sometimes we have to take tough decisions and make a stand against behaviour that goes against our values; we may see ourselves as a straight talker but there will be situations where the wise path is probably to hold our tongue. Does acting in accordance with these types of situational needs make us inauthentic or just smart? As any intelligent human being knows, there are times where we simply have to wear a mask, where we have to make decisions that are difficult and go against our natural inclinations, but where principles and longer-term goals outweigh short-term difficulties. 

Another important consideration is that being true to ourselves also implies that we have one true self – and yet how accurate is this? How many of us act in the same way in all situations? Isn’t it more likely that we have many selves, ones that we use in the different roles that we play? Some research even suggests that the concept of a true self is flawed, that instead we are subject to constant evolution and even the odd transformation as we journey through life. How many of us would say we are the same now as we were 10 or more years ago? We evolve in response to our experiences – the roles we play, the challenges we face, the influences we experience, our successes and failures. During this evolution, always acting in accordance with our true selves can actually be pernicious, potentially limiting our growth. It can be used as a reason to stick within our comfort zone and not explore different challenges or different ways of doing things that don’t fit our selfperception. It can also be used as an excuse, explaining away actions that have been detrimental to us as ‘that’s just the way I am – take it or leave it’, rather than looking at them as an opportunity to improve. 

Being authentic should not be about doing things the same way all the time; rather, it is something that is more of an adaptive and evolutionary process. We should feel free to change tactics, to develop our persona and ultimately to grow. Incremental changes in the way we present ourselves, in our communication, in the way we interact with people and in the way we deal with challenges, are not fake changes – as long as we are true to our deeply held values and principles. Paradoxically, it could be that only by challenging ourselves and evolving that we will ever discover our potential self. Returning to Hamlet, but this time the words of Ophelia: ‘we know what we are, but know not what we may be’.