FEATURE and you begin to adjust accordingly, not because you are trying to be inauthentic, but because you are trying to operate effectively in a system that rewards alignment.
At the same time, many organisations talk about authenticity.
Who is invited into the room and who is not.
Over time, those signals carry more weight than any statement about values ever could, and people begin to understand that authenticity is welcomed, but only within a certain range. as capable before they have even contributed, while those who sit outside of it, even slightly, can find themselves questioned in ways that are difficult to articulate. They are not overtly challenged, but instead are quietly assessed. And whilst they may not be rejected, they are not fully endorsed either.
They encourage people to bring their whole selves to work, to speak openly, to be real, to contribute honestly, and on the surface those messages are well intentioned.
But they sit alongside something just as powerful, which is the consistent reinforcement of what is acceptable in practice.
Who is described as professional.
Who is seen as credible.
This is where something more subtle begins to take hold.
It is not just that there is a way of showing up that is considered acceptable, but that acceptability becomes associated with credibility.
The two become intertwined in ways that are rarely examined but widely felt.
People who fit the mould are more readily trusted and more easily described
A Member of Parliament, Hannah Spencer, was recently described as inappropriate for wearing green trousers and a pink top. It became the focus of that moment, and the significance of her speech was diluted as a result. This reflects how quickly deviation can be linked to judgement.
The observation is not really about the clothing. It is about whether the person still fits the expectation of what someone in that role should look like, and once that question is introduced, however subtly, it www. intelligentcxo. com
25