"be yourself" could mean a lot of things, and I don't think this author pins down what definition he wants to use, and conflates it with a tendency to self-moni

"be yourself" could mean a lot of things, and I don't think this author pins down what definition he wants to use, and conflates it with a tendency to self-monitor. Additionally, be yourself to what? The author assumes that you really want successful external outcomes. Perhaps in "being yourself" you really just want to enjoy the activity. He makes a decent case that high self-monitoring will get you more "conventional external success." From biographies and things I've read, when people have a really strong role model, they'll often try to copy them so slavishly that they'll do things their role model did and that they have no aptitude for or real interest in. They usually find this doesn't work well for them in any way, in the end, and have to find the way they work. I'd say these people find out they need to build on their strengths, and they can execute on the vision of their role model in a way that really suits them, to the extent it suits them, and that works better. If your role model had a relative with cancer and felt strongly motivated to fight that by raising money for non-profit organizations fighting cancer, you might find that the cause of fighting heart disease really stirs you up more. I'd propose "capitalize on your personal strengths" pins down what you'd really want out of the phrase "be yourself". I usually tell junior employees at work something along the lines of "I do it this way. You should find out how you do it." Well, I don't really know my point with this comment. I'll just throw it out for contemplation.