Risk of being real: authenticity, vulnerability, and the line we walk at work

Authenticity has become one of the most celebrated ideals of contemporary leadership. Organisations encourage people to “bring their whole selves to work”, leaders are praised for being open and human, and workplace cultures increasingly aspire to be emotionally intelligent rather than purely transactional. Yet the practice of authenticity is far more complex than these slogans suggest. Openness does not always build trust, and vulnerability does not automatically create safety. The question is not whether sharing matters, but when and how it does.

Leslie John’s book Revealing offers a useful and evidence-based lens on this tension. Her research shows that sharing personal information is one of the fastest ways humans form connection, yet it is also one of the easiest ways to misjudge boundaries and create unintended harm. People routinely overestimate how welcome their disclosures will be and underestimate how uncomfortable they might make others feel. The paradox is simple: we crave authenticity, but we are uneasy with unfiltered disclosure. For leaders, who shape both relationships and culture, navigating this paradox is not optional. It is part of the work.

Why sharing builds trust

At its best, self-disclosure functions as social glue. When someone shares a value, a mistake, or a personal challenge, it signals trust and invites reciprocity. This is why new teams often bond quickly through storytelling, and why leaders who admit uncertainty are often perceived as more approachable. Decades of social and organisational psychology support this dynamic. The norm of reciprocity suggests that people feel compelled to respond in kind when trust is offered. The concept of the vulnerability loop shows how small interpersonal risks, met with care, accelerate connection. Leader–member exchange theory further demonstrates that high-quality working relationships are built through mutual respect and appropriate personal exchange.

In this sense, vulnerability can be a catalyst for trust. It humanises authority, reduces unnecessary distance, and creates space for learning. When a leader acknowledges an error or names a value guiding a difficult decision, they are not weakening their position; they are strengthening relational credibility.

Where sharing breaks down

However, John’s research also highlights how easily disclosure can go wrong. Oversharing can blur boundaries, create discomfort, shift emotional labour onto colleagues, and undermine professional credibility. In some cases, it can reduce psychological safety rather than increase it, especially when people feel obliged to hold someone else’s emotional experience or respond in ways they did not consent to.

This is where Brené Brown’s work on vulnerability is often misunderstood. Vulnerability is frequently equated with emotional exposure without limits, but Brown is explicit that vulnerability must be accompanied by boundaries and intention. It is not about saying everything one feels, nor about using others as a place to offload distress. A helpful distinction is that vulnerability involves sharing in service of learning, connection, or clarity, whereas oversharing is often driven by a need for relief, reassurance, or emotional caretaking. The behaviour may look similar on the surface, but the purpose and impact are very different.

Authenticity as contextual, not absolute

Herminia Ibarra’s research on leadership identity adds a further layer to this discussion. She argues that authenticity is not a matter of radical transparency or fixed self-expression. Instead, it is about acting in alignment with one’s values while remaining responsive to context. Leadership is inherently relational, and what is authentic in one moment may be inappropriate in another.

This reframes authenticity as something adaptive rather than absolute. A leader can be honest without being raw, open without being boundaryless, and human without making others responsible for their emotions. Authenticity, in this sense, is not self-indulgent expression but credible presence. It is less about revealing everything and more about choosing what to reveal in ways that serve the relationship and the work.

How disclosure shapes trust, friendship, and culture

Trust

Trust develops when disclosure is proportionate, relevant, mutual, and well timed. Leaders who share selectively — a mistake they have learned from, a value guiding a decision, or a challenge they are thoughtfully navigating — communicate humility and self-awareness. These forms of disclosure signal that imperfection is allowed and that learning is valued, without transferring emotional burden to others.

Friendship at work

Workplace friendships naturally deepen through shared stories, humour, and moments of vulnerability. Yet they exist within organisational systems that involve power, accountability, and performance. When disclosure shifts into venting, trauma dumping, or intimate detail, it can strain these relationships and create uneven emotional dynamics. Healthy workplace friendships honour both the personal and the professional, recognising that closeness does not require the removal of all boundaries.

Culture

Organisational culture is shaped by what is spoken and what is withheld. A culture where nothing personal is shared becomes brittle and transactional. A culture where everything is shared risks becoming emotionally unsafe and unfocused. High-trust cultures tend to find a middle path. They normalise reflection and learning, model openness with boundaries, and create space for emotion without allowing it to dominate or destabilise the work. In such cultures, people feel safe to speak honestly, but not compelled to disclose more than they wish.

High-performing teams

Research by Amy Edmondson on psychological safety shows that high-performing teams are characterised by behaviours such as admitting mistakes, asking for help, raising concerns early, and giving candid feedback. These behaviours require interpersonal risk-taking, but they do not require emotional exhibitionism. They represent vulnerability in service of the task: speaking up to improve outcomes, not to seek emotional reassurance.

A practical framework for leaders

One way to navigate the line between authenticity and oversharing is to apply three simple tests before disclosing something personal.

The first is the purpose test: why am I sharing this? Is it to build trust, model learning, or clarify expectations, or is it primarily to relieve my own emotional state? If the main purpose is self-soothing, it is often better to pause.

The second is the proportion test: is this the right amount for this context? Small, relevant disclosures tend to build connection, while large, emotionally charged ones can overwhelm.

The third is the impact test: how might this land for others? Will it help them understand me, or will it burden them? Will it support the work, or pull attention away from it?

Authenticity without awareness risks becoming self-centred. Awareness without authenticity risks becoming performative. Leadership requires both.

What This Looks Like in Practice

In practical terms, this means sharing stories rather than open wounds, naming values rather than emotional spirals, and modelling fallibility without collapse. It involves holding boundaries and recognising that colleagues and teams are not substitutes for therapy or intimate support networks. It also means inviting openness rather than demanding it, and acknowledging that people differ in what they feel safe to share. Over time, cultures that normalise reflection and learning create connection without sacrificing professionalism or psychological safety.

Conclusion

Authenticity, vulnerability, and disclosure are powerful forces in shaping trust and culture, but they are not inherently good or bad. They are tools. Used with intention and care, they build connection, strengthen teams, and support high performance. Used without boundaries, they blur roles, create discomfort, and increase emotional risk.

The challenge of leadership is not choosing between openness and restraint, but learning how to hold both.