In my adopted hometown of New York City, startups bloom and wither like flowers that try to grow in the sidewalk cracks. I met an exception in 2015 while attending pitch events. He was a tech founder with a brilliant idea and chaotic execution. As soon as their funding round hit the bank, he hired a COO to manage the latter. The three of us had lunch soon after the hire, and I asked the COO about his secret to success. He replied, “I can’t compete on being loud or brilliant, so I observe.” 

He had a background in organizational psychology, not operations, so he came equipped to align disjointed teams. In a culture where data scientists, product designers, and salespeople spoke entirely different languages, he needed it. 

He did this slowly by spending his first month just watching. He sat in on meetings without talking. He walked the office floors, noting how people worked, argued, solved problems, and celebrated. He was preparing to adapt his leadership to fit the rhythms of others.

• With the engineers, he adopted a structured, data-first communication style. Brief, logical, and full of whiteboard sketches.
  
• With the creatives, he became a storyteller, using metaphors and visuals to evoke emotion and inspire vision.
  
• With sales, he was fast-paced and goal-oriented, setting clear targets and celebrating wins with happy hours.
  

Over time, they all began to trust him not because he changed who he was, but because they saw themselves in him.

About two years later, I read that his firm was acquired by a private equity firm. A quick search of the press release revealed that he was identified specifically as the primary driver who put the company in this position. 

He took his earnout and retired, but it did not last. He was identified by one of my private equity firm clients as a turnaround CEO for one of their distressed assets. His selection required an executive assessment with me. 

One question we ask early in our executive interview is “What capability do you have that is unique or rare?” He was consistent with what he said at lunch a couple years back. He was clear that adaptability was his greatest strength.

I had seen other people whose incongruent ego helped them succeed to a point. I hypothesized that adaptability may be code for incongruence. In this new role, bending at the whim of those around him could be catastrophic. 

But this was not the case. In fact, according to our psychometric assessment, the common predictors of incongruence suggested that he had solid integrity. Most importantly, scales that measure ego revealed that his was healthy enough to set it aside in his relationships and be the leader others needed.

Like a chameleon, he avoided “standing out” and focused on what was useful for the organization. Unlike incongruent leaders, he did not do this at the expense of his core self and values; he merely adjusted his approach. 

What is the difference between incongruence and the chameleon?

The chameleon changes their outside, but the inside remains the same. Incongruent leaders constantly change the inside.

For a couple of years, my company aligned with a firm that could sell our solutions to their clients. One of their executives was quintessentially incongruent.

Like the chameleon, he would change based on the people he was with, but the change was different from my opening story. When with younger members, his clothing would be exaggerated and out of style. For example, he would wear a “Route 66” baseball cap, and then turn it backwards, like Will Smith in the early seasons of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. 

At lunch, he would complain about his peers to his staff, knowing that they were frustrated with them. Later the same day, he praised one of these peers in a meeting. I thought he was just overly political until we spoke. 

Unlike the chameleon, he changed his identity from the inside out. 

In preparation for this article, I reviewed emails and found 12 of his emailed promises to me. They ranged from making introductions, meeting for dinner, providing data or insights, and so on. He never once followed through. 

The pattern was always the same: he would call me out of the blue, excited to share an opportunity with me. I knew that the enthusiasm was real, but the call was more likely an attempt to re-engage. Once that need to connect with someone who cared about him was met, he would change again to meet the next need. At the writing of this article, he has never taken the first step to deliver on a promise.  

Are you the adaptable chameleon or incongruent?

The reality of my psychodynamics and everyone reading this article is that we are all sometimes incongruent. The following checklist may help you determine how much incongruence dominates your personality.

You are the Adaptable Chameleon if you:

• Intentionally adapt your style based on what you observe
• Maintain your core values and beliefs, but know when to keep them to yourself
• Change from the inside only in response to data and evidence
• Primarily focus on the style of interaction others need

You are incongruent if you:

• Change your behavior unintentionally without a clear goal
• Regularly behave in ways that you later don’t recognize
• Change your stated core values and beliefs in the direction of important others
• Change from the inside in response to emotional pressure
• Have been confused by feedback that you are inconsistent or unreliable
• Feel like a different person during conflicts
• Confuse your thoughts and emotions

What if I am incongruent?

Incongruence is the mind’s unconscious attempt to manage relationship anxiety and disconnection. Most people who are incongruent suffer from loneliness, even when they are around others. 

Here are a few goals to reduce incoherence. The terms may seem unfamiliar, but they are common among human systems thinkers and theorists:

1. Differentiation of Self

• Focus on maintaining your identity while remaining emotionally connected to others.
• Self-regulate without cutting off or being consumed by others’ emotions.

2. Fusion vs. Genuine Relationship

• Reject the idea that genuine connection means sameness.
  • Many leaders mistake emotional fusion (attempting to avoid conflict or maintain harmony) for a healthy relationship, when in fact it blocks interpersonal growth.

3. Growth Through Conflict

• Lean into conflict; it diminishes the subconscious drive for incongruence.
  • Conflict isn’t a sign of a bad leader, it’s often a catalyst for growth.
• Encourage your team to grow by facing discomfort, tolerating anxiety, and pushing past the need for constant validation.

4. The Importance of a Solid “I-Position”

• State your beliefs and desires clearly, without blaming or needing approval.
• Exert your identity and engage in the dialogue it creates. You will learn that a difference of opinion or values is not fatal to the relationship.
  • This is an act of strength, not aggression or withdrawal.

5. Emotional Reactivity and Triangulation

• In stressful situations, avoid the desire to bring in third parties to reduce anxiety (triangulation). It is a version of incongruence in which the leader defers their agency to another. 
• Refocus on taking responsibility rather than offloading anxiety. The anxiety will eventually resolve. 

7. Self-Confrontation as a Path to Change

• Engage in confronting yourself, rather than trying to change your coworkers. You have the most access to understanding when you are not asserting your opinions.
• Embrace the idea that as you grow, the system will change around you. Power lies in changing the system by improving your differentiation of self.  

Summary

Although my personal journey to be more congruent began in my early 30s, my greatest insights occurred when I was in my 40s. Healthy, effective people like to be told the truth. When I first started telling powerful people the truth, I felt like I was stepping off a cliff, risking my entire career. This was especially terrifying in the early days of being a consultant when losing even one client had serious consequences. I was relieved when the opposite occurred and credit this approach as a major component in my current success. 

This article contrasted two leadership styles: the adaptable “chameleon” leader and the incongruent leader by sharing the story of a successful COO who observed his teams, adjusted his external style to meet their needs—structured with engineers, visionary with creatives, goal-focused with sales—while staying true to his core values. The incongruent executive, by contrast, not only changes his style but also his identity to please others, often failing to follow through on promises and leaving people confused or disappointed. 

I hope you will consider reflecting on your level of incongruence using the checklist and applying the strategies—such as strengthening self-differentiation, embracing conflict for growth, and resisting emotional triangulation—to build integrity and more authentic leadership.