THERE comes a time in every professional journey where circumstances will test the core of our values.
When faced with difficult decisions, the temptation to shift perspectives, adapt narratives or compromise principles can be overwhelming, especially when survival in an organisation depends on it.
The question then becomes: Are we shaping our identity or are we merely responding to the pressures around us?
I witnessed this firsthand when someone who had once spoken with conviction about a particular stance abandoned it entirely the moment their position was threatened.
Their shift was not driven by new insights or evolved thinking; it was a survival instinct, a performance adjusted to meet the demands of the moment. It was unsettling, not because of the change itself, but because it revealed how easily authenticity can be sacrificed in exchange for security.
Yet, no matter how complex the circumstances, we always have a choice. The idea that we must abandon personal values to protect ourselves is a myth – a convenient justification we tell ourselves when the pressure mounts.
Integrity does not mean refusing to adapt or being rigid but rather it means ensuring that adaptations do not come at the expense of self-respect and credibility.
Authenticity is easy to maintain when the stakes are low. But when financial stability, career growth and social standing come into play, the pressure to conform can make people feel they have no choice but to abandon their values.
The fear of professional exile, reputational damage or being seen as “difficult” can create an environment where self-preservation overrides sincerity.
This behavioural shift is often justified through situational ethics – the idea that our moral decisions should be flexible, bending to fit the demands of our environment.
It allows individuals to rationalise contradictions in their actions while maintaining an illusion of integrity. In reality, these shifts can create long-term consequences, eroding trust, credibility and one’s sense of identity.
Another key driver is external validation. Many professionals shape their public personas based on what is rewarded within their organisations, adapting their views to align with what will secure favour rather than standing firm in their principles.
In cultures where loyalty to the system is valued over independent thought, it becomes easier to justify compromising one’s stance to maintain status and security. Yet, despite the pressures, authenticity remains a choice. The decision to preserve integrity may be difficult but the cost of abandoning it can be even greater.
When survival instincts override authenticity, the effects are far-reaching.
Erosion of trust:
A person who changes their stance too easily becomes unpredictable, making it difficult for colleagues, peers and even leadership to fully trust their words or actions.
Loss of identity: Over time, repeated compromises can lead to an internal disconnect. When people consistently prioritise survival over sincerity, they may struggle to recognise their true values.
Toxic workplace culture:
When ethical flexibility is normalised within an organisation, it fosters an environment where people will prioritise status over substance. This will lead to manipulation, resentment and a system that rewards opportunism rather than leadership.
Short-term gain, long-term instability:
While changing colours
may secure a position temporarily, it does not create lasting credibility.
Eventually, individuals who continually compromise their authenticity will lose respect, making long-term success unsustainable.
These consequences demonstrate why maintaining integrity, even in
high-stakes environments, is crucial.
The ability to navigate professional pressures without sacrificing authenticity is not just about ethics; it is about long-term self-preservation in its most meaningful sense.
Holding onto authenticity does not require drastic defiance or public confrontations; it is about strategic integrity – making thoughtful, intentional choices that allow individuals to succeed without betraying their values.
Reflexive decision-making:
Before making a decision under pressure, take a moment to ask: Am I adapting for strategic reasons or am I betraying my core values? Not every adjustment is a loss of authenticity; the key is knowing the difference.
Courage over compliance:
Ethical consistency should be seen as an act of resilience, not naivety. Leadership comes from standing firm even when it is inconvenient.
Value-based communication:
Professionals can maintain their positions while reinforcing their principles by framing conversations strategically. Instead of outright resistance, articulate perspectives in ways that align with organisational goals while keeping personal integrity intact.
Cultivate trust beyond transactions:
Shallow alliances built for status can make it harder for some to maintain authenticity. Deep, value-driven relationships provide support systems that make integrity more sustainable.
Practise micro-authenticity:
Integrity is not just about grand gestures. Small, everyday decisions – choosing honesty in discussions, standing by commitments and refusing to engage in performative shifts – can create a foundation for authentic leadership.
The ability to balance authenticity with professional survival is a skill that takes time to refine. But those who master it can earn credibility not just for their decisions but for the consistency of their character.
In the end, what remains of us when the circumstances change? Are we merely products of survival, adapting as necessary?
Or do we stand as individuals who act with conviction, even when the stakes are high?
Integrity is not an accessory to leadership; it is leadership. It is what allows us to navigate difficult environments knowing that when the turbulence clears, we have not lost ourselves in the process.
Dr Praveena Rajendra is a certified mental health and awareness practitioner specialising in narcissistic abuse recovery. Comments: [email protected]
