Authenticity and Power: Navigating Influence with Emotional Intelligence

Power alters how a room feels and how a team operates. At times, it clears friction and advances good ideas. At other times, it distorts communication. People share less, hedge more, and the truth struggles to be acknowledged. The practical question for leaders isn’t whether you have power, it’s whether your influence stays authentic as your power grows.

The EQ-i 2.0 provides a clear lens for this: in the Leadership model, Authenticity is defined as “modeling moral and fair behavior” through a transparent approach that earns trust. The subscales most closely tied to that dimension include Self-Regard, Emotional Self-Awareness, Social Responsibility, Reality Testing, and Independence. Adjacent skills, such as Assertiveness, Empathy, Interpersonal Relationships, and Impulse Control, help maintain balance within the system.

Why power drifts—and how EI corrects the course

Power often narrows perspective: titles grow larger, dissent grows quieter, and our own convictions start to masquerade as evidence. The antidote is contact with reality and contact with people. In EQ-i terms, that’s Reality Testing, remaining objective, especially when emotions run high—and Empathy/Interpersonal Relationships—staying tethered to how decisions land on others.

On the Leadership Report, EQ-i links these subscales to leader outcomes via four dimensions (Authenticity, Coaching, Insight, Innovation) and benchmarks them against a leadership norm bar. As a group, leaders score meaningfully higher in EI than the general population, and subscales cluster to predict performance on those leadership dimensions. In short, emotional intelligence isn’t a soft add-on; it’s part of how effective power behaves.

The EQ-i coalition behind authentic influence

• Self-Regard (steady center). Respecting oneself while accepting limits reduces posturing and makes it safer to invite dissent. Guard it with Reality Testing and feedback.
• Independence (principled judgment). Decide without emotional dependence—and keep listening so independence doesn’t become detachment.
• Assertiveness + Emotional Expression (clear voice). Say the hard thing intentionally, not impulsively; match the intensity and timing to the room.
• Empathy + Interpersonal Relationships (trusted access). Maintain strong bonds and seek the unspoken; better relationships yield better data.
• Reality Testing (contact with facts). Validate assumptions and surface disconfirming evidence before making significant decisions.
• Impulse Control (the go-slow lever). Create space between stimulus and response so conviction doesn’t outrun verification.

What the research says (and why it matters)

A broad research base suggests that feeling powerful can reduce perspective-taking and impair accuracy in reading others’ emotions—leaders tend to anchor on their own vantage point and under-adjust to others. That’s the drift away from authenticity. The intentional practice of Empathy and Reality Testing is the counterforce.

Meta-analyses indicate that leader emotional intelligence predicts follower task performance, commitment, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors, even after accounting for personality and cognitive ability. EI isn’t just pleasant; it explains unique variance in how people experience your power.

A final lens from social cognition helps translate “authentic influence” into day-to-day behavior: people rapidly read leaders on two dimensions—warmth (benevolence/intent) and competence (capability). EI helps you signal both: Empathy and Social Responsibility raise perceived warmth; Reality Testing and Assertiveness raise perceived competence.

Four failure modes that quietly corrode authenticity (and fixes)

1. Authenticity theater. “I’m just being honest” becomes a cover for unfiltered impulse.
   Fix: Pair Emotional Expression with Impulse Control; script the message, deliver it once, and require a disconfirming datapoint before finalizing the call.¹
2. Consensus drift. Empathy turns into avoidance; decisions track the loudest room.
   Fix: Re-anchor in Self-Regard and Assertiveness—name the value, tradeoffs, and timeline; then decide and disclose.
3. Conviction without verification. Strong “why,” weak evidence.
   Fix: Use Reality Testing rituals, such as opening the books, validating assumptions, and running premortems for high-stakes moves.
4. Independence into detachment. “I’ll own it” becomes “I don’t need input.”
   Fix: Explicitly solicit perspectives and track how feedback changes the decision; independence stays principled, not isolating.

Bottom line:

Authenticity isn’t the opposite of power; it’s the discipline that makes power worthy of trust. Leaders who balance Self-Regard, Independence, Assertiveness, Empathy, Reality Testing, Interpersonal Relationships, and Impulse Control turn authority into service—and influence into a renewable resource for the team.

Bonus: Build the muscles: two focused practices for the next 30 days

• Reality Testing × Self-Regard. After major decisions, jot three lines: (a) what I believed; (b) what evidence contradicted it; (c) what I changed (or why I didn’t). This protects conviction from overconfidence.
• Independence × Relationships. Before key meetings, list non-negotiables (values/standards) and flexibles (where you’ll adapt). Afterward, note how stakeholder input shaped the path.