Best Self, Whole Self, and the Question of What Leaders Owe Their Teams

Source Attribution

This synthesis draws its core argument from a Harvard Business Review publication.

Source Article: "Why Leaders Should Bring Their Best Self—Not Their Whole Self—to Work"

Author: Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Publisher: Harvard Business Review, July 31, 2025

URL: https://hbr.org/2025/07/why-leaders-should-bring-their-best-self-not-their-whole-self-to-work

Author biography (per HBR): Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is the chief science officer at Russell Reynolds Associates, a professor of business psychology at University College London and at Columbia University, a cofounder of deepersignals.com, and an associate at Harvard's Entrepreneurial Finance Lab. He is the author of Don't Be Yourself: Why Authenticity Is Overrated (and What to Do Instead) (Harvard Business Review Press, 2025).

The core argument, the 'best self vs. whole self' framing, and the leadership-context critique referenced in this article originate from Chamorro-Premuzic's HBR publication. Historical framing on William Kahn's engagement research, the federal and public-sector leadership application layer, and the BeckThom practitioner commentary reflect the synthesis and original perspective of BeckThom HR Consulting.

I. The Corporate Mantra That Needs a Second Look

For much of the past decade, the workplace conversation about authenticity has been shaped by a single phrase: 'bring your whole self to work.' The phrase spread widely across corporate culture initiatives, DEI programming, employee engagement communications, and leadership development materials. It signaled psychological safety, welcomed diverse perspectives, and pushed back against workplace cultures that had historically demanded that employees suppress important parts of themselves.

In a July 2025 Harvard Business Review article, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, chief science officer at Russell Reynolds Associates and professor of business psychology at both University College London and Columbia University, offered a compelling counterargument. The exhortation to bring your whole self to work, he argues, has aged worse than nearly any corporate mantra in recent memory. Initially coined to promote psychological safety and inclusion, the phrase has since morphed into a rallying cry for radical transparency and unchecked self-expression, creating problems at senior leadership levels that its original advocates did not anticipate.

Chamorro-Premuzic's proposed reframing: leaders should bring their best self to work, not their whole self. This article synthesizes his core argument and adds BeckThom's practitioner perspective on how the reframing applies to federal, state, local, and private sector leadership contexts.

II. The Historical Framing — William Kahn and Engagement Research

To understand the origins of the 'whole self' language, it helps to revisit the research that originally inspired it. Psychologist William Kahn introduced the idea of bringing one's whole self to work in the 1990s as one of three psychological conditions enabling employee engagement. Kahn's work identified meaningfulness, safety, and availability as the conditions under which employees fully invest their physical, cognitive, and emotional selves in their work roles.

Kahn's framing was rigorous and specific. It was not a call for radical self-expression or unfiltered transparency. It was a research-based observation that employees who felt safe, valued, and resourced would bring more of their capacity to their work. The 'whole self' language described a psychological state and an engagement outcome, not a prescriptive behavioral instruction.



Over subsequent decades, and particularly in the last ten years, Kahn's framing was popularized in ways that departed significantly from his original meaning. In corporate hands, 'bring your whole self to work' evolved from a description of engagement conditions to an active invitation for employees to share personal identity, vulnerabilities, opinions on non-work topics, and unfiltered perspectives as part of workplace culture. Chamorro-Premuzic's HBR argument is essentially that this evolution went too far, particularly for those in senior leadership roles.

III. The Chamorro-Premuzic Argument — What HBR Actually Says

Chamorro-Premuzic's core argument centers on the distinction between raw authenticity and disciplined leadership presence. For frontline employees, he suggests, some degree of unfiltered authenticity may be harmless or even welcome. For senior leaders whose words and behaviors shape organizational culture, decisions carrying billion-dollar consequences, and the psychological experience of their teams, the calculus is different.

The HBR article surfaces several failure modes that arise when senior leaders interpret 'authenticity' as license for unfiltered self-expression:

• Leaders sharing impulsive thoughts on topics from economic policy to workplace culture, as if consequential decisions could be improvised in real time
• The rise of cult-of-personality leadership styles that blend spiritual language, corporate strategy, and unconventional workplace configurations
• The performance of 'authenticity' that is more curated brand exercise than genuine transparency
• Broadcast philosophies on capitalism, climate, and company values that coexist uneasily with micromanaged operational decisions

The HBR alternative frame, 'best self' rather than 'whole self,' is not a call for phoniness. It is a call for the discipline, foresight, and humility that senior leadership requires. Leaders build positive professional reputations by presenting the version of themselves best suited to the responsibility they carry. That version is authentic in that it is genuinely them, but it is filtered by professional judgment rather than raw impulse.

IV. BeckThom's Practitioner Perspective

The HBR argument resonates with what BeckThom observes across federal, state, local, and private-sector leadership engagements we have supported over three decades. Three practitioner considerations we offer alongside Chamorro-Premuzic's argument:

1. The Frame Applies Especially to Public-Sector Leadership

Federal, state, and local government leaders operate within statutory, ethical, and public-trust frameworks that make the 'whole self' framing particularly complicated. Political appointees, senior executive service (SES) members, and career civil service leaders serve the public, not their personal brand. The 'best self' framing aligns more naturally with public-sector responsibility: bringing the disciplined, prepared, publicly accountable version of yourself to work is not phoniness. It is fitness for the office. The federal ethics regulations that govern senior appointees essentially require a version of this discipline. HBR's argument gives it a modern leadership vocabulary.

2. The Frame Does Not Argue Against Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion

Some readers may worry that 'best self, not whole self' framing walks back the diversity and inclusion progress that 'whole self' language was originally intended to support. BeckThom's read of the HBR argument is different. Chamorro-Premuzic is not arguing that leaders should suppress their identity, mask their cultural background, or perform a false version of themselves. He is arguing that senior leaders should bring their best version, which absolutely includes their full identity, with disciplined professional judgment about which parts belong in which contexts. Diversity of leadership remains essential. Discipline about how leadership operates is a separate question.

3. Middle Managers Face a Harder Version of This Question

The HBR article focuses on senior leaders. BeckThom's observation from HR consulting engagements is that middle managers face a more complicated version of the same question. They are close enough to their teams to feel the pull of 'authentic connection' but carry enough organizational responsibility that unfiltered self-expression carries real risk. Guidance to middle managers on how to translate this frame, bring the best professional version of yourself, and be genuinely warm within appropriate professional boundaries is often more valuable than guidance to the C-suite, which typically already understands the discipline required.

V. What the Research Actually Supports

Setting aside the popularization of 'whole self' language, the underlying research on workplace authenticity remains valuable. Studies generally find that employees who feel safe being their authentic selves at work meaning aligned with their values, culturally welcomed, and psychologically safe- experience higher engagement, greater job satisfaction, stronger retention, and improved creativity.

The nuance that Chamorro-Premuzic surfaces is that 'authentic' does not require 'unfiltered.' The research consistently supports:

• Psychological safety to share ideas and take reasonable risks
• The ability to align personal values with professional actions
• Freedom from having to hide identity in ways that produce cognitive load and reduce engagement
• Trust in leadership integrity, meaning consistency between stated values and observed behavior

None of these outcomes require senior leaders to broadcast their unfiltered opinions on every topic. The research supports the environment; the popularized 'whole self' language over-extends into behavior prescriptions the research does not actually demand.

VI. What This Means for HR Leaders

For the HR leaders BeckThom serves, the practical implications of Chamorro-Premuzic's argument include:

Refine Leadership Development Curricula

Leadership development programs that lean heavily on 'authenticity' language may benefit from more nuanced framing. Teaching leaders to bring their best professional selves, with warmth, cultural authenticity, and integrity, differs from teaching them that unfiltered self-expression is a virtue. The distinction shows up in how leaders show up to hard conversations, respond to crises, and communicate change.

Rethink Employee Engagement Communications

Employee engagement campaigns that invite 'whole self' behavior may inadvertently produce the failure modes Chamorro-Premuzic describes. Rethinking the language toward psychological safety, cultural welcome, and values alignment preserves the underlying intent without carrying the popularized baggage.

Support Middle Managers with Practical Guidance

The 'best self' frame is easier to describe than to practice. HR leaders can support middle managers with practical guidance, sample scenarios, coaching frameworks, and peer learning opportunities, helping them translate the frame into everyday leadership behaviors.

VII. Conclusion — From Popularization to Practical Discipline

William Kahn's engagement research made a valuable contribution to how organizations think about employee investment in their work. Its popularization into 'bring your whole self to work' captured cultural attention but drifted from the underlying research in ways that produced predictable problems, particularly at senior leadership levels.

Chamorro-Premuzic's HBR reframing — 'best self, not whole self' — is a useful correction. It preserves the underlying commitment to psychological safety, cultural welcome, and identity affirmation while restoring the professional discipline that senior leadership responsibilities require.

BeckThom's counsel to HR leaders is to receive both the original research and the HBR reframing with equal seriousness. The environment employees need to bring their capacity to their work has not changed. What has changed is the vocabulary we use to describe leadership discipline within that environment. Getting the vocabulary right helps leaders and their teams operate more effectively, particularly in the public-sector and mission-critical settings where BeckThom's federal and state clients operate.

Full Source Attribution

This article's central argument and the 'best self vs. whole self' framing draw from "Why Leaders Should Bring Their Best Self—Not Their Whole Self—to Work" by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, published in Harvard Business Review on July 31, 2025. For the complete HBR article, visit hbr.org.

Historical framing on William Kahn's engagement research, the federal and public-sector leadership application layer, and BeckThom's practitioner commentary sections reflect the synthesis and original perspective of BeckThom HR Consulting, LLC.



Additional supporting reference: Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2025). Don't Be Yourself: Why Authenticity Is Overrated (and What to Do Instead). Harvard Business Review Press.

Let's Connect

To discuss leadership development, employee engagement strategy, or organizational culture work in your organization, BeckThom offers a complimentary 20-minute consultation with Dr. Beckford.

info@beckthomhrconsulting.com · 703-881-1340

www.beckthomhrconsulting.com

YOUR CAPABILITIES. EVALUATOR-READY.

One concrete brick at a time. A proven, intentional journey.