Is it really so bad to be fake at work?

Faking tends to get a bad rap. We celebrate authenticity, praise, and honesty, and preach radical transparency—as if the workplace would magically improve if everyone walked around expressing their unfiltered “true selves.”

But, imagine for a moment what unedited human authenticity would actually look like in a corporate setting: colleagues announcing every irritation, managers confessing every insecurity, leaders sharing every impulsive thought or half-baked opinion. Actually, that doesn’t look overly different from many workplaces!

And yet, most of us are well aware of the dangers of pure self-expression, even if the realization comes mostly from analyzing others rather than ourselves. It’s why (most) people don’t shout at their boss when they’re annoyed, why teams don’t openly critique every colleague they find irritating, and why we don’t walk into Monday meetings narrating the full emotional unpacking of our weekend. Okay, some people actually do, but it’s painful to witness and awkward, to say the least. Total honesty is not a virtue, but a reputational hazard.

Strategic self-editing

For that reason, “faking good,” or engaging in strategic self-presentation (adjusting your behavior in order to sacrifice your right of self-expression for the benefit of others, and in turn, yourself), is far more common than we think. Most professionals engage in small, strategic acts of self-editing or impression management every single day; and the best ones are so good at it that they come across as authentic.

Examples include:

1. Smiling politely through a tedious meeting you’d rather not attend, because there’s just no point to it.
2. Pretending to be more confident than you feel before delivering a presentation, because it makes you seem more competent.
3. Downplaying frustration with a colleague to maintain team harmony, because what’s the point of escalating?
4. Expressing enthusiasm for a new initiative you suspect may not survive the quarter, because the alternative (expressing your sincere objection) will jeopardize your political cache.

Social grease

To be sure, the above examples aren’t moral failures, but rather, the lubricant that keeps human groups from falling apart. And more often than not, some degree of faking is preferable to complete honesty or radical transparency. For example, most people prefer fake kindness than genuine rudeness, or fake positive feedback to honest criticism.

In line, consider:

1. A leader who shares every fear or insecurity would destabilize their team.
2. A colleague who offers unfiltered feedback would be unbearable.
3. A customer-facing employee who reacts authentically to rude clients would put the company at risk (and lose their job before this can become a pattern).
4. A manager who “says what they really think” during performance reviews would end up with more resignations than development plans.

To make matters more complicated, faking is extremely hard to assess—partly because people lie to themselves all the time, and often for adaptive reasons. Evolutionarily, self-deception helped humans project confidence, reduce anxiety, and persuade others: fooling others is easier when you can fool yourself first. Cognitive biases such as optimism bias (“I’m more capable than the evidence suggests”) or the illusion of control (“I’ve got this under control”) help people navigate uncertainty and maintain motivation. These subtle self-delusions blur the line between strategic faking and genuine belief.

Curating our corporate persona

So how should we interpret the relentless pressure to “be honest,” “be yourself,” or “bring your whole self to work”? At best, these mantras are idealistic; at worst, they’re hypocritical. We often want others to be radically transparent so we can have more data about their weaknesses and vulnerabilities . . . while we quietly curate our own professional persona to appear competent, composed, and likable.

In truth, workplaces function better when people know how to fake constructively. Impression management is not the enemy; in many ways, it is the behavioral ingredient behind emotional intelligence. People who can regulate their impulses, moderate their reactions, and manage how they come across are easier to follow, easier to collaborate with, and far more effective as leaders.

Crucially, what matters is not how authentic or honest you believe yourself to be, but how authentic and trustworthy others perceive you to be. And herein lies the paradox: the people who are consistently viewed as authentic, grounded, and trustworthy tend to engage in a great deal of strategic impression management.

Examples include:

1. Leaders who rehearse their “spontaneous” town hall remarks to ensure they land with sincerity.
2. Managers who deliberately regulate their emotions to project calm under pressure (more Angela Merkel than Tony Soprano).
3. Colleagues who consciously show empathy, even when they don’t feel it naturally, because they know it strengthens relationships. Note that since empathy evolves as a neural adaptation to prioritize people who are genetically related to us (or part of our tribe), the only way to work with people who are different from us is to fake it, engaging in rational or artificial tolerance and kindness instead.

None of this is fake in the deceptive sense: it is practiced, intentional, and other-oriented, which is precisely why it works.

A balance of honesty and tact

In the end, the real mistake is treating authenticity and faking as opposites. Healthy workplaces actually depend on people who can manage themselves thoughtfully, speak honestly but tactfully, and project the best versions of who they are, understanding where their right to “just be themselves” ends and their obligation to others begins—even when it doesn’t perfectly match how they feel in the moment. The goal is not to eliminate faking; it is to elevate it into a mature, prosocial skill. After all, the best leaders are not those who express their true selves without inhibition, but those who know when to edit, when to filter, and when to perform the version of themselves that helps others succeed. In that sense, it would be logical to redefine honesty as the inability to display emotional intelligence.

View the full article