The Illusion of Being Watched

One Thursday afternoon, I slipped into the multipurpose hall during a short break in our leadership meeting. The students were rehearsing for the upcoming graduation and awards ceremony. The hall echoed with music, movement, and youthful energy. Yet the moment I stepped inside, several froze. They stopped mid-practice, almost as if a mistake had been caught on camera. Their eyes flickered toward me, nervous, uncertain.

The irony is that I was not even watching them. I was simply passing through on my way to the toilet. But to them, my presence had shifted the room. They thought my eyes were on them.

That scene stayed with me. How often in life do we assume people are watching, scrutinising our every move, when in truth they are far too absorbed in their own concerns to notice? We exhaust ourselves polishing our image, adjusting posture, choosing words carefully, managing expressions, only to discover that the audience we fear is distracted. The paradox is that our obsession with image does not strengthen leadership. It weakens it.

The Weight of Image in an Asian Context

This struggle between image and authenticity is deeply cultural, especially in Southeast Asia. Here, the idea of “face” carries enormous weight. To lose face is to lose credibility. To preserve face is to preserve status, sometimes even at the expense of truth.

Yet the danger of overvaluing face is that it shifts leadership into performance. The Japanese saying “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down” reflects the pressure to conform. In Chinese contexts, the phrase 要面子 (to want face) describes the compulsion to appear strong or faultless. Across Asia, leaders are taught to guard image, never admitting weakness, never letting cracks show.

But modern followers, especially Gen Z, are not satisfied with image alone. A 2023 Deloitte survey showed that 65 percent of Gen Z employees say they value authenticity in leadership above authority. In Malaysia and Singapore, surveys of youth leadership programs revealed a recurring theme: younger generations prefer mentors who are “real” over those who are “perfect.” The face culture that once preserved order now risks alienating the very followers it seeks to impress.

From Flawless Icons to Human Leaders

In earlier generations, great leaders were expected to project strength, certainty, and near flawless command. Think of Nelson Mandela walking free after decades in prison, his image radiating resilience. Think of Washington on the battlefield, or Lee Kuan Yew in the founding years of Singapore. Their image carried nations through uncertainty. Followers accepted their role as receivers of direction, and image provided stability.

But today the dynamic has shifted. Harvard Business Review reported that 58 percent of employees trust leaders more when they admit mistakes. Google’s landmark Project Aristotle confirmed that the single most important factor for high-performing teams is psychological safety, not flawless image. In fact, employees reported higher engagement when their leaders admitted frustration or exhaustion than when they pretended to be untouchable.

The flawless leader says without words, “I do not need you.” The human leader, through vulnerability, says, “You matter here.”

Rehearsal vs. Performance

The students in that hall were only rehearsing. Their performance would come later at the graduation ceremony. Yet they froze as though the final performance was already underway. How often do we do the same in leadership? We treat every rehearsal as if it were the final act, terrified that one mistake will tarnish our reputation.

But rehearsals exist for a reason. They are places of learning, error, adjustment, and growth. No audience expects a rehearsal to be flawless. In fact, a rehearsal without mistakes is a wasted one. Life too is a journey of rehearsal. The true test is not whether we impress in every practice, but whether we grow steadily so that when the performance matters, we are ready.

Leadership is no different. John Maxwell’s Law of Process reminds us that leadership develops daily, not in a day. The daily rehearsals, our choices, our conversations, our moments of honesty, are what prepare us for the real performance when it matters most. Image seeks applause in every rehearsal. Authenticity seeks growth so the performance can shine when the curtain rises.

The Philosophy of Form and Function

This tension is also about form and function. Forms change. Functions endure.

When I was in my twenties, wedding photography was my craft. The popular trend of the time was Same Day Edit. If you could produce photos or videos quickly enough to show them at the dinner reception that very evening, you could charge 30 to 50 percent more as a premium service. Many photographers thrived on this form.

But I realised that speed itself was not the real value. Couples were not paying for fast delivery, they were paying for meaningful memory. So I created what I called “photo-mation,” combining still photographs with short GoPro clips into three-minute highlights played at the wedding dinner. It closed a gap in the market and gave couples something that felt alive. For a while, it became my signature, my blue ocean.

Today, even a smartphone with AI can generate instant highlights at near cinematic quality. What was once a premium edge is now ordinary. The form has changed again. But the function remains. People do not pay for form. They pay for meaning.

Leadership works the same way. Defending an image is defending form. It fades. Leading with authenticity is defending function. It endures.

What Research Reveals About Authenticity

The evidence for authenticity is not only anecdotal. It is statistical.

• A 2022 PwC survey showed that 79 percent of employees globally believe that leaders who show vulnerability foster stronger trust and loyalty.
• Gallup’s 2023 State of the Workplace report highlighted that employees who strongly agree that their leaders are authentic are 3.1 times more likely to be engaged at work.
• In Southeast Asia, a Korn Ferry study found that 67 percent of high-potential employees cited “authenticity of leadership” as the key reason they stayed with their organisation.

This is the new reality. Teams no longer rally behind flawless titles. They rally behind trusted relationships. Maxwell’s Law of Influence captures it well: leadership is influence, nothing more and nothing less. Titles may open doors, but authenticity sustains trust.

The Entrepreneur vs. the Businessman

I do not see myself as a businessman. A businessman looks at what cannot be done. An entrepreneur looks at the same situation and asks, “Why not?”

Business is often about maintaining form, defending established processes, and preserving image. Entrepreneurship is about challenging form, finding gaps, and creating new value. In that sense, authentic leadership is entrepreneurial leadership. It does not perform to preserve face. It creates to pursue truth. It values function over form, philosophy over fashion, and presence over performance.

The Reverse That Redefines It All

In the end, the real danger is not that people are watching too closely. The true burden is that people can see through you. Image may dazzle for a season, but when it cracks, what remains is the leader’s substance, or lack of it.

Authenticity cannot be manufactured. Manipulation can wear a mask, but followers sense when it is false. They do not need perfection. They need consistency. They need sincerity.

Legacy is not destroyed by failure. Followers forgive mistakes. Legacy is destroyed by façade. When image becomes performance, trust collapses. And when trust collapses, influence disappears.

So the question is not, “How do I appear flawless?” The better question is, “How do I live consistently so that when people do notice, they see alignment between word and deed?” Because in the end, leadership is not about rehearsing for an audience that may never watch. It is about rehearsing for a legacy that always will.