Trust Series: Flexing without faking

“Be yourself” is probably one of the most common pieces of advice out there. It’s not exactly wrong, but it is incomplete, especially if you’re in a leadership role.

The leaders in my Organisational Psychology research who built the strongest trust weren’t just ‘being themselves’. They were being themselves whilst constantly adjusting how they communicated to meet different people where they were. Same values, same authenticity but different tone, pace, detail, and approach depending on the person and the situation.

That’s not fakery. That’s emotional intelligence in action. And it turns out it’s one of the most powerful trust-building tools a leader can have.

Every leader I interviewed described adapting their communication style. One talked about having a team member who needed frequent check-ins and another who just wanted a clear brief and then be left to crack on. Same leader, same values, completely different conversations.

Another described leading with what matters to each individual. If someone values relationships, start with a genuine personal check-in. If someone is direct and task-focused, cut to the chase more quickly. If someone needs the big picture, give them the big picture. If detail bores them, keep it tight.

This isn’t about becoming a different person for every conversation. It’s about paying attention to what helps each individual feel respected, understood, and able to do their best work. And that builds trust.

Some of the most thoughtful reflections came from leaders describing how they adapted for neurodiversity and mental health needs. One leader, self-described as “quite booming” in style, had to consciously lower their energy and tone for a team member who found that overwhelming. Not because they were doing anything wrong, but because they understood the unhelpful impact they were having with that person.

Another described needing to make multiple caveats before even beginning a conversation with a team member whose mental health meant they interpreted any direct communication as personal criticism. That takes patience, self-awareness, and genuine care.

These aren’t grand leadership gestures. They’re small, daily adjustments that say: I see you, I understand you, and I’m adapting because you matter.

This is something I found particularly insightful. Several leaders, particularly those in CEO and Director level roles, talked about understanding their “leadership shadow”. This describes the impact they can have simply by virtue of their position, whether they intend it or not.

One CEO reflected on how even a casual question about someone’s personal life could be interpreted differently depending on the power dynamic. They explained that what feels like genuine interest from a peer could feel like surveillance from a senior leader. They’d learned to be led by how much people wanted to share, rather than continuing to ask questions out of genuine curiosity.

Another leader talked about the ripple effect of their behaviour. For example, when recruiting, it’s not just the candidate who’s invested in the process, it’s also their family and their wider network. Every interaction sends a signal about who you are as a leader and as an organisation.

Being aware of your leadership shadow doesn’t mean tiptoeing around. It’s understanding that your words and actions carry more weight than you may think, so communicating more thoughtfully as a result.

This was one of the most fascinating findings. Leaders described vulnerability as a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, openness and honesty about your own challenges can build connection. People trust leaders who are human, who admit they don’t have all the answers, who share something of themselves.

On the other hand, showing too much vulnerability at the wrong time, with the wrong person, in the wrong setting, or before a relationship is established, can undermine trust rather than build it. One leader described it as “a bit flaky” when leadership vulnerability is poorly calibrated. Another saw it as a leap of faith that deepens over time as relationships strengthen.

The takeaway is that vulnerability builds trust when it’s intentional, contextual, and earned. Share enough to connect. Not in a contrived way but not so much that people start questioning your ability to lead them well.

How well do you adapt your communication to different personalities and needs? Are you conscious of your leadership shadow and its potential impact? When it comes to vulnerability, are you sharing to connect, or over-sharing?

The best leaders don't treat everyone the same. They treat everyone with the same respect whilst adapting how they communicate to suit different people and situations. This research demonstrates that trust grows when leaders read the room, adjust their approach to match individual needs (including neurodiversity and mental health), tune in to their leadership shadow, and practise vulnerability in a calibrated, intentional way. Authenticity isn't about being the same in every situation. It's about being true to your values whilst meeting people where they are.

In Blog 3, I explored how leaders create psychological safety, and why boundaries are just as important as care. Together, these two pillars show that trust is both relational and adaptive. In Blog 5, I'll tackle what happens when trust gets tested: the power of explaining "why", involving people in solutions, and why trust repair might be the most important conversation a leader ever has.

You can also download my white paper, Building Trust Through Conversations, for an overview of the full research findings.

If you're a leader who wants to develop your ability to flex your communication style, understand your impact, and build stronger relationships as a result, that's exactly what Savvy Conversations coaching and leadership development programmes are designed to do. We also use DISC personality profiling to give leaders and teams deeper insights into communication preferences, which is a brilliant starting point for understanding how and when to adapt.