Stop telling me I should be myself. And no I don’t want to bring my whole self to work. I don’t even know who I am, philosophers/psychologists/economists and others have debated the ‘self’ and what that means for millennia, how the hell do you think I’m supposed to know.

The trend over the last decade, in particular, the last few years, has been companies having one of their values being ‘be yourself’ or ‘bring your whole self to work’ or even ‘be you’. It must stop, right here, right now. I’ll sheepishly admit I was one of those on this bandwagon. The thinking goes if people can be themselves then this will allow honesty in the workplace, vulnerability and psychological safety will go up and we’ll become more productive and happier employees. That’s before you think about the diversity and inclusion properties of allowing individuals to express themselves freely. It all seems so logical, a no brainer that will improve the workplace and when put alongside the always-on culture where the lines of work and home blur (another blog on this soon!) mean you’re not in a place where you must balance two personas and are unsure when you’re in each mindset.

I believe this doesn’t work in a practical sense nor does it work from a theoretical point of view.

First, the idea is that you’re a different person at work and that that person is inferior and/or not an honest representation so, therefore, reduces your productivity as you keep up the façade. I really don’t see why the different person is inferior, in fact, the structure and implicit and explicit rules of work could actually help you be a better person. A simplistic example is a person with road rage will happily shout and swear at all the other road users but put some work colleagues in the car, in particular, their boss, and I imagine the vast majority would work that much harder to control their urges and be a more considerate road user. The correlation with productivity is unclear in this case, is being calmer likely to make you a better road user? I’m not certain but I know how I would answer.

Second, the idea that you have a ‘home self’ and a ‘work self’ doesn’t fit into any psychology manual that I’ve ever read. Psychologists seem to mostly agree that ‘self’ is a constant but we can behave in many different ways depending on the context, although how many, anywhere from a handful to infinite seems to have more debate. The way we interact with the world means we treat each situation on its own merits; we draw on experiences, social customs and cues, environment, context etc and especially the other people we are in proximity to. Personally, I subscribe to us having an infinite number of different behaviours made up of an infinite number of different characteristics that we dial up or down. So, which one is this mythical person we’re meant to bring to work?

Thirdly, even if this person existed why are people required to bring them to work. Talking from personal experience my partner and I often laugh that we use up all our sympathy and empathy trying to be great people at work and all our ‘care units’ are used by the time we get home. As a result, I’m more vulnerable at work, I’m more understanding than the everyday me, isn’t that what this trend was aiming for in the first place? I know that I’m not the only one for whom work is a place where I can try to be the best version of me, a version I can only hold for a time-limited period and no one knows that I go home and tear my hair out!

So some more practical examples for some of the doubters out there. In the positions I’ve occupied over the last few years you see some of the best and the worst of human nature and I can’t count the number of times I have been put in a bind testing opposing values against each other. People can justify some terrible behaviours; sexism, aggression and discrimination by just being themselves. For example, say you come from a family where everyone shouts at each other and that’s par for the course over dinner, but you bring that into work and shout at a colleague who’s from the opposite background. The former was just being themselves, but the latter is intimidated and not able to be themselves out of fear.

Another practical example is ‘being yourself’ stops people trying. We, fortunately, work in a society where we try very hard to embrace and share in each other’s differences cultural and otherwise. I’ve seen people (I would say men as I’ve only seen men do this but don’t want to be sexist), use the be yourself value to stop trying to understand others completely. The “I am what I am, take it or leave it” line is regularly rolled out since when is this sort of ignorant behaviour something we want to encourage in the workplace? Very few people would argue against tolerance and understanding but this value encourages that in people and without remorse as that phrase demonstrates.

I’m nearly done but before I finish I’ll ask a question I can’t answer; how much can we actually control the person who shows up? From my small sample, I believe somewhat, but when under pressure we engage our base instincts and core values the most, therefore becoming least adaptable. A pressurised situation where we may need to be able to dial up or down characteristics the most is where our ability to control is the least!

This blog is a departure from trends at the moment, so I’d love to hear from people who disagree and how they handle the issues above. As far as I’m concerned, I plan to be the person that the situation and context dictate I be to get the best result, at least that’s the plan!