 |
|
|
|||||
Faking tends to get a bad rap. We celebrate authenticity, praise, and honesty, and preach radical transparencyas 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 doesnt 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. Its why (most) people dont shout at their boss when theyre annoyed, why teams dont openly critique every colleague they find irritating, and why we dont walk into Monday meetings narrating the full emotional unpacking of our weekend. Okay, some people actually do, but its painful to witness and awkward, to say the least. Total honesty is not a virtue, but a reputational hazard. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} 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: Smiling politely through a tedious meeting youd rather not attend, because theres just no point to it. Pretending to be more confident than you feel before delivering a presentation, because it makes you seem more competent. Downplaying frustration with a colleague to maintain team harmony, because whats the point of escalating? 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 arent 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: A leader who shares every fear or insecurity would destabilize their team. A colleague who offers unfiltered feedback would be unbearable. 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). 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 assesspartly 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 (Im more capable than the evidence suggests) or the illusion of control (Ive 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, theyre 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: Leaders who rehearse their spontaneous town hall remarks to ensure they land with sincerity. Managers who deliberately regulate their emotions to project calm under pressure (more Angela Merkel than Tony Soprano). Colleagues who consciously show empathy, even when they dont 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 beginseven when it doesnt 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. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
Large language models are quietly reshaping the way people write research papersand scientists are catching colleagues using AI to do their work.
Category:
E-Commerce
Generative artificial intelligence has become widely accepted as a tool that increases productivity. Yet the technology is far from mature. Large language models advance rapidly from one generation to the next, and experts can only speculate how AI will affect the workforce and peoples daily lives. As a materials scientist, I am interested in how materials and the technologies that derive from them affect society. AI is one example of a technology driving global changeparticularly through its demand for materials and rare minerals. But before AI evolved to its current level, two other technologies exemplified the process created by the demand for specialized materials: cars and smartphones. Often, the mass adoption of a new invention changes human behavior, which leads to new technologies and infrastructures reliant upon the invention. In turn, these new technologies and infrastructures require new or improved materialsand these often contain critical minerals: those minerals that are both essential to the technology and strain the supply chain. The unequal distribution of these minerals gives leverage to the nations that produce them. The resulting power shifts strain geopolitical relations and drive the search for new mineral sources. New technology nurtures the mining industry. The car and the development of suburbs At the beginning of the 20th century, only 5 out of 1,000 people owned a car, with annual production around a few thousand. Workers commuted on foot or by tram. Within a 2-mile radius, many people had all they needed: from groceries to hardware, from school to church, and from shoemakers to doctors. Then, in 1913, Henry Ford transformed the industry by inventing the assembly line. Now, a middle class family could afford a car: Mass production cut the price of the Model T from US$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916. While the Great Depression dampened the broad adoption of the car, sales began to increase again after the end of World War II. With cars came more mobility, and many people moved farther away from work. In the 1940s and 1950s, a powerful highway lobby that included oil, automobile, and construction interests promoted federal highway and transportation policies, which increased automobile dependence. These policies helped change the landscape: Houses were spaced farther apart, and located farther away from the urban centers where many people worked. By the 1960s, two-thirds of American workers commuted by car, and the average commute had increased to 10 miles. Public policy and investment favored suburbs, which meant less investment in city centers. The resulting decay made living in downtown areas of many cities undesirable and triggered urban renewal projects. Long commutes added to pollution and expenses, which created a demand for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. But building these required better materials. In 1970, the entire frame and body of a car was made from one steel type, but by 2017, 10 different, highly specialized steels constituted a vehicles lightweight form. Each steel contains different chemical elements, such as molybdenum and vanadium, which are mined only in a few countries. While the car supply chain was mostly domestic until the 1970s, the car industry today relies heavily on imports. This dependence has created tension with international trade partners, as reflected by higher tariffs on steel. The cellphone and American life The cellphone presents another example of a technology creating a demand for minerals and affecting foreign policy. In 1983, Motorola released the DynaTAC, the first commercial cellular phone. It was heavy, expensive, and its battery lasted for only half an hour, so few people had one. Then in 1996, Motorola introduced the flip phone, which was cheaper, lighter, and more convenient to use. The flip phone initiated the mass adoption of cellphones. However, it was still just a phone: Unlike todays smartphones, all it did was send and receive calls and texts. In 2007, Apple redefined communication with the iPhone, inventing the touchscreen and integrating an internet navigator. The phone became a digital hub for navigating, finding information, and building an online social identity. Before smartphones, mobile phones supplemented daily life. Now, they structure it. In 2000, fewer than half of American adults owned a cellphone, and nearly all who did used it only sporadically. In 2024, 98% of Americans over the age of 18 reported owning a cellphone, and over 90% owned a smartphone. Without the smartphone, most people cannot fulfill their daily tasks. Many individuals now experience nomophobia: They feel anxious without a cellphone. Around three-quarters of all stable elements are represented in the components of each smartphone. These elements are necessary for highly specialized materials that enable touchscreens, displays, batteries, speakers, microphones, and cameras. Many of these elements are essential for at least one function and have an unreliable spply chain, which makes them critical. Critical materials and AI Critical materials give leverage to countries that have a monopoly in mining and processing them. For example, China has gained increased power through its monopoly on rare earth elements. In April 2025, in response to U.S. tariffs, China stopped exporting rare earth magnets, which are used in cellphones. The geopolitical tensions that resulted demonstrate the power embodied in the control over critical minerals. The mass adoption of AI technology will likely change human behavior and bring forth new technologies, industries, and infrastructure on which the U.S. economy will depend. All of these technologies will require more optimized and specialized materials and create new material dependencies. By exacerbating material dependencies, AI could affect geopolitical relations and reorganize global power. America has rich deposits of many important minerals, but extraction of these minerals comes with challenges. Factors including slow and costly permitting, public opposition, environmental concerns, high investment costs, and an inadequate workforce all can prevent mining companies from accessing these resources. The mass adoption of AI is already adding pressure to overcome these factors and to increase responsible domestic mining. While the path from innovation to material dependence spanned a century for cars and a couple of decades for cellphones, the rapid advancement of large language models suggests that the scale will be measured in years for AI. The heat is already on. Peter Müllner is a distinguished professor in materials science and engineering at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||