Imagine walking into a new job and being met with an enthusiastic call to “bring your whole self to work.” It sounds welcoming, progressive, and deeply affirming. However, for many professionals from marginalized groups, particularly employees of color and women, this well-meaning directive presents a complex daily puzzle. The sociopolitical climate in many organizations has led to a push for diversity, equity and inclusion but yet minority employees persistently face a subtle vulnerability and profound uncertainty regarding how their identities will actually be perceived by their peers and leaders. How do you decide which parts of your background to share and which to hide?
This continuous decision-making process is what organizational psychologists refer to as “identity management”. For decades, research in business psychology has focused on two primary paths employees take to manage their social identities: expression and suppression. Now, a shift in the academic literature has identified a third highly complex strategy called “curation” which blends both approaches. While it sounds like the perfect compromise, deep psychological research reveals it is surprisingly destructive. To understand this paradox, we must explore how these strategies work in the minds of professionals.
The Traditional Playbook: Expression vs. Suppression
Historically, employees have relied on two main strategies to navigate their differences. The first is “identity expression.” Think of this as the open book approach. It involves intentionally integrating one’s identity into the workplace by openly embracing and bringing attention to it.
This can look like engaging in positive distinctiveness which involves educating coworkers about cultural traditions, speaking up about social issues or sharing how one’s identity shapes their life. Expression allows an employee to leverage their identity as a valuable resource and a source of insight. However, it comes with the professional risk of accidentally triggering negative stereotypes or being viewed as disruptive by colleagues.
The second strategy is “identity suppression.” Think of this as the chameleon effect. It involves going out of one’s way to downplay, minimize or conceal an identity to blend in. Suppression takes many forms, such as code-switching (altering one’s accent or speech to mirror dominant workplace norms), modifying one’s name or dodging conversations about personal weekend activities to avoid bias. While suppression serves as a highly effective shield for career advancement, it carries a heavy internal cost: hiding important aspects of the self is psychologically depleting and leaves employees feeling disconnected and exhausted.
Enter the “Curator”
Faced with the double-edged sword of expression and suppression, many marginalized employees adopt a third approach: “curation.” Just as a museum curator carefully selects which artifacts to display in the public gallery while locking the riskier or more fragile items in the basement, an employee who curates frequently uses both expression and suppression.
Consider Mei, a first-generation Asian American executive navigating a predominantly white corporate environment. On one hand, Mei might actively educate her colleagues about less-understood cultural traditions she celebrates and openly share her family’s challenging story during casual team lunches which are clear forms of identity expression. However, Mei might simultaneously suppress other aspects of her background. For instance, she might purposely alter her name to a more mainstream nickname to mirror dominant workplace norms and allow for easier pronunciation, intentionally hide the traditional foods she genuinely enjoys eating by only bringing generic meals to the office or shift the conversation away from identity-related topics during meetings to dodge potential stereotypes.
On paper, this portfolio of identity management seems productive, appearing to be a socially adept and highly optimal compromise. It theoretically allows Mei to reap the psychological benefits of authenticity while utilizing the protective armor to secure her career goals.
The Hidden Trap: Chronic Ambivalence
Despite its logical appeal recent organizational studies, including a multi-wave longitudinal study tracking hundreds of white-collar professionals over time, reveal a massive hidden intrapersonal cost to curation. The danger lies in a psychological phenomenon known as “chronic ambivalence.”
In layman’s terms, ambivalence does not mean apathy, it means being intensely pulled in two opposite directions at the exact same time. When employees frequently express and suppress, they adopt what psychologists call a compromise response. By doing both, the employee is constantly forced to view their own identity as both a “resource” (a valuable superpower to be shared) and a “liability” (a dangerous vulnerability to be hidden).
Imagine trying to drive a car while slamming your feet on the accelerator and brake simultaneously. This mental tug-of-war keeps contradictory thoughts accessible in the brain. It violates our fundamental human need to feel internally consistent. In contrast, employees who strictly express or strictly suppress use a “domination response” which they commit to one strategy and mentally downplay the other by protecting their psyche from feeling torn. Curators do not have this luxury because they are engaged in relentless mental gymnastics, constantly second-guessing the consequences of their everyday actions and feeling uncertain about whether they are safe.
The Breaking Point: Psychological Strain and Turnover
This internal conflict does not stay in the mind but it manifests physically and emotionally. The ambivalence generated by curation leads directly to “psychological strain,” an academic term encompassing severe emotional exhaustion, acute stress and anxiety. Studies show that people who enact high levels of both expression and suppression experience the highest levels of emotional exhaustion. Employees burn out not from their actual job duties but from the exhausting invisible performance of managing their curated image.
This psychological strain serves as a behavioral alarm bell. When humans experience persistent exhaustion in a specific environment and they cope by seeking an escape. The research confirms that the distress caused by curation triggers “turnover intentions” which may appear as a strong calculated desire to quit. Organizations are inadvertently losing their
most diverse and talented professionals because these employees are seeking relief in new environments where they hope they won’t have to work so hard just to exist. While core findings center on employees of color, exploratory evidence suggests this exhaustion applies equally to women navigating gender dynamics in corporate spaces.
The Root Cause: Mixed Messages from Leadership
Why do employees feel forced to curate in the first place? Often, it is because organizations send “mixed messages”. A company might publicly state that it values diversity but its internal culture might subtly penalize employees who speak up too loudly or who disrupt the status quo. Following the cue that diversity is valued, the employee expresses yet sensing the undercurrent of risk, the employee suppresses. To fix this, leaders must move beyond performative inclusion. Organizations must actively reframe perceived liabilities into celebrated assets, ensuring that diverse traits are genuinely valued rather than just tolerated.
Food for Thought: Look closely at the “museum” of your own organization’s culture: Are your inclusion initiatives genuinely creating psychological safety or are they sending mixed messages that inadvertently force minority professionals to curate an exhausting perfectly polished version of themselves just to survive?