Alex Karp said he struggled to market his humanities skills to get his first job.
Below, Chris Bailey shares five key insights from his new book, Intentional: How to Finish What You Start.
Chris is an author and lecturer who explores the science behind living a more productive and intentional life. He has written hundreds o…
The state of Indiana is no stranger to underdog stories. Hoosiers and Rudy, two of the most iconic underdog sports films ever made, both take place in the state, and both are based on true stories.
Hoosier nation now has a trilogy.
Indiana …
Below, Chris Duffy shares five key insights from his new book, Humor Me: How Laughing More Can Make You Present, Creative, Connected, and Happy.
Chris is a comedian, television writer, and the host of TED’s award-winning How to Be a Bette…
Anthropic is undoubtedly having a moment right now. First came Claude Code, an AI-powered coding tool for developers, in early 2025, which quickly gained a cult following among that community. “You spent your holidays with your family? That̵…
The average American checks their phone over 140 times a day, clocking an average of 4.5 hours of daily use, with 57% of people admitting they’re “addicted” to their phone. Tech companies, influencers, and other content creators compete for all that a…
For years, leaders have been told that ”being true to themselves” and “ignoring what others think” represent the gold standard of effective leadership, a kind of moral and emotional north star. But in practice, this type of advice often gets leaders into trouble.
For a vivid illustration, consider how two famous fictional (yet hyper-realistic) characters, namely Don Draper (Madmen) and Michael Scott (The Office) embody these two mantras. Draper clings to a rigid, unchanging identity, using “this is who I am” as armor to avoid confronting his insecurities, while Scott approaches management with unfiltered candor, oversharing, and acting on impulse. Both believe they are being true to themselves, so others should appreciate it, but in reality they are trapped behind a rigid self-protective shield that excuses poor judgment and blocks growth.
The real problem arises not so much from being untrue to themselves, but rather, from mis-calibrating how they show up, mistaking self-expression for effectiveness. Leaders who are reduced to this kind of pattern routinely erode trust, exhaust their teams, and undermine their own influence while sincerely believing they are acting with genuineness and integrity.
As psychological research shows, every leader carries internal narratives shaped by early experiences about how to stay safe, earn belonging, or manage uncertainty. These narratives result in behavioral patterns that were once adaptive. But over time, they harden into identity (“this is just who I am”) and limit leaders’ flexibility and versatility.
Leaders are therefore presented with a difficult psychological choice, namely: (a) to resist pressures to conform, and act without consideration for what others think, but, in doing so, risk alienating or antagonizing others; or (b) to adjust their behavior to meet the situational demands—mostly, what other people want and need from them—but risk alienating . . . themselves.
The question, then, is how leaders can skillfully navigate the intricate balance between their self-expression needs and their obligation to others. To this end, here are a few science-based recommendations to consider:
Communicate with greater precision and empathy
Leaders don’t struggle because they speak the truth, but because they speak it without intention, timing, or attunement. Balancing candor with empathy is the discipline of telling the truth in ways that preserve dignity, empathy, and trust. Here’s how:
- Pair honesty with intention. Before speaking hard truths, ask: “What impact do I want this message to have?” Clarifying intent helps you choose language that builds trust rather than simply offloading what’s on your mind. Think of it as an emotional aim: honesty without intention is like firing an arrow without checking what or who is behind the target.
- Slow the reflex. If you feel urgency to “just say it,” pause. Urgency often signals an activated trigger, not clarity. This is your mind’s equivalent of a car engine revving too hot; giving it a moment prevents you from speeding into the wrong lane. Use that pause to let adrenaline fall and cognition rise.
- Practice “empathetic accuracy.” Test your instincts by naming what others might feel, then adjust your delivery in service of effectiveness, not self-expression. Great communicators act like emotional cartographers, mapping the terrain before entering it so they know where the cliffs, rivers, and fragile bridges are.
Regulate emotion before you express it
Vulnerability builds trust only when it is regulated, purposeful, and contained. Grounded vulnerability allows leaders to be real without turning their teams into emotional shock absorbers or co-regulators. Here’s how:
- Share what is useful, not what is unfiltered. Vulnerability should serve others, not the leader’s emotional relief. Raw disclosure is not always courageous; sometimes it is simply an emotional data dump that burdens the listener. Useful vulnerability, by contrast, is like offering a compass: personal, yes, but handed over with the intent to orient others, not to lighten your own load.
- Do emotional processing upstream. Use peers, mentors, or therapists as your primary space, not your colleagues. This preserves your team’s psychological safety while still giving you the support you need. Upstream processing allows you to show up composed, thoughtful, and ready to metabolize complexity on behalf of others rather than through them. For example, employees often report feeling “emotionally hijacked” when leaders vent openly about board pressure or uncertainty, unsure whether they are being informed or enlisted as emotional support.
- Replace unloading with grounding. Before sharing, ask: “Is this helpful to them? Or helpful to me?” Grounding yourself first allows you to express vulnerability as perspective, not pressure. Think of grounding as fastening your oxygen mask before assisting others: when you regulate your own emotional state, your words become stabilizing rather than contagious. Leaders who ground themselves create a conversational climate where honesty feels safe instead of sharp.
Balance identity with adaptability
Many leaders confuse integrity with sameness. True reliability comes not from repeating the same behaviors, but from expressing the same values with greater responsiveness and emotional range. Here’s how:
- Redefine consistency. Anchor to values, not behaviors. Values stay largely steady; behaviors can evolve. When leaders treat consistency as performing the same behaviors in every situation, they confuse predictability with rigidity. True consistency comes from being reliably guided by the same principles even as contexts shift.
- Try 10% adjustments. Micro-flexibility builds confidence without threatening identity. A modest shift in tone, timing, or format can expand your influence far more than sweeping reinventions, demonstrating that authenticity and adaptability can coexist.
- Name what rigidity protects. When you feel resistant, ask: “What part of me feels endangered right now?” Identifying the fear beneath the resistance opens the door to more adaptive choices. This self-reflection keeps self-expression honest while ensuring that protective impulses do not override responsibilities to the people they lead.
Demonstrate values with judgment, not dogma
Strong values don’t require rigid postures. Moral maturity allows leaders to stand for what matters while remaining curious, connected, and oriented toward collective impact rather than personal righteousness. Here’s how:
- Distinguish values from validation. Ask: “Am I standing in a principle or hiding behind it?” This distinguishes conviction from ego. By interrogating whether a stance is truly principle-driven or simply self-affirming, leaders prevent rigid authenticity from becoming a shield for stubbornness.
- Expand the aperture of “right.” Seek nuance in situations that challenge your certainty. Curiosity reduces the need to treat disagreement as a moral referendum. By widening their interpretive frame, leaders move from defending their identity to understanding the system they are operating in.
- Prioritize impact over insistence. Sometimes the most ethical choice is the one that maintains relationships, not the one that wins the argument. Insisting on being right can satisfy the ego but damage the social fabric leaders rely on to get things done.
In short, if you are interested in being a better leader who is true to her/himself, focus on being your best possible self rather than your unfiltered or uncensored self. Why? Because the less you care about your reputation, the more others will care—and not in a good way.
Leadership is fundamentally relational, so leaders’ professional selves must be optimized to the needs of others. People don’t need leaders to share every inner thought but to provide clarity, stability, and a responsible, human presence. Effective leaders prioritize impact over self-expression and treat authenticity as an active, intentional process. By contrast, misguided self-expression creates friction that slows decisions, distorts information, and weakens execution, even in otherwise capable teams.
The best leaders commit to continuous improvement and becoming more effective in their roles. This demands self-awareness and emotional intelligence, recognizing what traits to emphasize or adjust to meet the moment’s demands. Instead of unfiltered self-expression, leaders engage in thoughtful self-presentation tailored to the collective needs of their teams and organizations. As a result, leaders’ professional reputation becomes a practiced skill of managing how to show up powerfully while staying true to core values, not a static identity to be discovered or defended at all costs.
In summary, effective leadership is less about rigid self-identity and more about strategic self-curation aimed at adaptive effectiveness and relational impact. Leaders who understand this evolve beyond trapped patterns and refine themselves to lead with clarity, competence, and integrity.
A relatively new category of solopreneur is booming, and its ascent is challenging perceptions of what it means to be self-employed.
Since 2018 demand for fractional expertise—or specialized talent that works for one or many firms on a limited or p…
Balancing gut feelings with hard data isn’t a soft skill.
It’s a strategic advantage.
In an era where AI, automation, and ubiquitous dashboards flood us with metrics, it’s tempting to believe that better spreadsheets alone will yield better decisions. But our most consequential choices rarely emerge from a cell in column D. They arise from an ongoing negotiation between intuition and rational analysis.
The paradox is this: as technology becomes more sophisticated at processing information, the human capacity to notice what matters—the intangible signals of opportunity or risk—becomes more valuable. Yet most organizations force a false choice. We either romanticize intuition (“I just know this investment is a winner”) or we bury it under rationalizations (“The model says no”). A healthier—and more innovative—approach is to design for both.
The Science Behind the Marriage of Modes
Recent research reveals something counterintuitive. According to a Science Direct article about entrepreneurs’ decision making, when entrepreneurs with domain expertise integrate AI-driven analysis with their intuitive insights, they achieve the most balanced outcomes, excelling simultaneously in novelty, depth, and innovation. A controlled study of 124 entrepreneurs found that while AI assistance increased the number of recognized opportunities and the depth of evaluation, it simultaneously reduced novelty and contextual sensitivity. But here’s the interesting thing: sector knowledge and intuitive judgment restored this creative dimension. The entrepreneurs who combined both sources of intelligence outperformed those relying on either alone.
Separately, research into human-AI collaboration in decision-making found that expertise in the decision-making domain is a necessary condition for intuition to be effective. Organizations attempting to eliminate intuition in favor of pure analytics often find themselves unable to navigate ill-structured problems—you know, the kind that have no precedent and require human judgment. Conversely, intuition without analytical rigor falls prey to bias and incomplete information.
What neuroscience reveals is even more compelling. Research shows that leaders who cultivate interoceptive awareness, which is your ability to sense and interpret internal bodily signals, experience improved self-regulation and more grounded decision-making. A study published in NeuroImage found that individuals with higher interoceptive awareness showed increased activation in the insular cortex during decision-making tasks, suggesting a direct link between bodily awareness and cognitive processes.
In other words, learning to read your physical responses during deliberation literally changes how your brain processes information.
Redesign How You Think
One practical shift is to separate your phases of thinking. In the first phase, privilege expansive, intuitive work: walking meetings, whiteboard sessions, voice notes, even practices like yoga nidra (a guided relaxation technique) or non-sleep deep rest that loosen our grip on linear problem-solving. The job of this phase is not to decide; it’s to notice. What’s tugging at your attention? What feels unexpectedly alive or off? What pattern are you sensing before you can articulate it?
This isn’t meditation or mysticism. It’s the recognition that your brain’s pattern-recognition systems, honed by years of experience in your domain, often detect signals faster than your conscious, analytical mind can process them. Honor that system.
Later, in a distinct evaluative phase, invite rigor back in. We interrogate assumptions. We ask: What data supports this hunch? What contradicts it? Who would disagree, and on what grounds? Who benefits if this decision goes our way? Who bears the costs? Simply naming that we are in “intuitive mode” or “rational mode” reduces the unspoken power struggle between the two. It also prevents the common organizational mistake I see all the time: abandoning the intuitive insight midway through because the data is messy, or defending an intuitive pull long after contradicting evidence has emerged.
Treat Hunches as Hypotheses
The next step is to treat intuition as a hypothesis, not a verdict. A gut feeling about a hire, a product direction, or a market pivot can be translated into small, testable experiments. Pilot the idea with a narrow customer segment. Run an A/B test instead of a full rollout. Offer a time-bound consulting or project role before committing to a full-time leader.
This shifts the conversation from “Should I trust my instinct?” to “What would I need to see to strengthen or challenge this intuition?” That’s rigor without self-betrayal. It’s also how learning accelerates. You’re not choosing between data and gut; you’re using data to train your gut.
The Interoceptive Edge
Of course, not all gut feelings are wisdom. Some are simply our biases wearing a confident costume. This is where building interoceptive awareness matters. Paying attention to how your body feels before and after major decisions can, over time, distinguish between expansive intuition and constricting fear.
Research on interoceptive training demonstrates that after just one week of focused practice, participants showed enhanced interoceptive accuracy and significantly more rational decision-making. They also reported reductions in anxiety and somatic symptoms. The implication for leaders is clear: developing the capacity to read your internal signals isn’t indulgent—it’s foundational.
Consider keeping a brief “intuition log”: What did I feel? What did I decide? How did it turn out? Are there patterns? You’re effectively training your inner instrument. Over time, you become more reliable at distinguishing between a genuine signal and noise.
Counter Implicit Bias
To counter cultural and implicit bias, organizations need deliberate friction in decision-making. Research on affinity bias (our tendency to favor people similar to us) reveals that this bias operates silently and persistently. One study found that male candidates are 1.5 times more likely to advance to screening than equally qualified women. More broadly, diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones on measures of innovation, problem-solving, and financial returns, yet affinity bias remains one of the most common barriers to building such teams.
Designate someone in key meetings to challenge assumptions: How might affinity bias be shaping this decision? If this candidate or idea looked nothing like our past successes, would we still be excited? Would we hire or promote this person if they came from a different background? If this market opportunity came from a woman rather than a man proposing it, would we fund it?
Pairing intuitive pulls with structured dissent helps ensure we’re not just re-inscribing “this is how we do things around here.” It also reveals when our intuition is actually convenience masquerading as wisdom.
The “Both/And” Decision Framework
Ultimately, the goal is a “both/and” review of major decisions. On one side of the page: data, constraints, risks, what the models say. On the other: gut feel, emotional tone, bodily cues, pattern recognition from experience, what feels alive. Include the assumptions that underlie each. Include the people who would gain and lose with each choice.
The closing question is simple: Given both columns, what is the smallest, most reversible next step?
Make It Visible
When leaders narrate this process out loud—”Here’s what my intuition is telling me, here’s what the data says, and here’s how I’m reconciling them”—then they normalize a culture where neither spreadsheets nor gut checks are taboo. This transparency also models the kind of thinking that develops over time. Junior leaders see that confidence isn’t about certainty; it’s about integrating multiple sources of information and taking action despite genuine uncertainty.
In the imagination era, where ideas are our true currency and markets move faster than data can track the shifts, the organizations that thrive won’t be those that worship logic or intuition alone. They’ll be those that have the courage and discipline to let them dance.
Want to be wealthier? Get married. According to a study published in Journal of Sociology, the net worth of a married person grows approximately 75 percent more during their thirties, forties, and fifties than the net worth of an unmarried p…
