I like the recommended action here... but it brings up so many questions for me around if this a long term strategy to be used quite consistently or if there might be issues with a leader doing this all of the time.
Do the leaders you know who do this practice the behavior in a sparing way?
Good question, Steve. The leaders who use this identity-framing approach should be strategic about it rather than applying it universally.
Using identity labels consistently with the same people can actually diminish their impact over time. When overused, these identity frames can start to feel manipulative or like empty flattery. People might think, "Oh, they're just calling me an 'Innovator' again to get me to do something."
Here are a few specific nuances you might consider...
First, reserve identity labels for moments when you genuinely see that potential in someone. When a leader authentically believes someone has the capacity to be a "Strategist" or "Decision-Maker," that authenticity comes through and makes the identity label more meaningful.
Second, match the identity to the person's aspirations or self-image. If someone secretly sees themselves as a creative thinker but hasn't had the chance to show it, being called an "Innovator" resonates deeply. But if you mislabel someone with an identity they don't connect with, it falls flat.
Third, use different identity frames with different people based on their unique strengths and potential. One team member might be the "Connector" while another is the "Guardian of Quality." This specificity makes each person feel uniquely valued.
What makes this approach powerful isn't just labeling people, but helping them see themselves in a new light that aligns with both their potential and the team's needs. When someone starts to internalize an identity, they begin making choices consistent with that identity without needing to be asked.
Does that help address your question, Steve (or others reading)?
We would always be curious if you've tried this approach yourself?
Spot on. But I'd like to point out a language distinction. What you are calling identities are actually roles. Roles are attached to a task, and identities are innate. I believe the distinction is important because identities aren't always flexible, and don't always evolve, but roles are and do.
Is the distinction important for the person who uses this behavior, Blair?
Is it significant for the person receiving the input?
If a leader simply practices the behavior instead of pontificating on what they are doing... would it ever come up?
The distinction you bring up might only become a problem if the leader feels the need to explain the strategy to the person receiving the input... but we'd probably advise against ever doing that, right?
I’m not usually a stickler for semantics, and your secret is such a powerful intervention because it involves the act of seeing another and calling out their potential which is tremendously influential.
And yet, in this day and age, when the subject of identity is both sacred and fraught, even the way we speak to ourselves transmits something. I prefer the term role because inherent in it is a choice. We may not have control over the task, but we do have control over how we accomplish it. When it comes to identity, choice is not always in the mix.
I like the recommended action here... but it brings up so many questions for me around if this a long term strategy to be used quite consistently or if there might be issues with a leader doing this all of the time.
Do the leaders you know who do this practice the behavior in a sparing way?
Good question, Steve. The leaders who use this identity-framing approach should be strategic about it rather than applying it universally.
Using identity labels consistently with the same people can actually diminish their impact over time. When overused, these identity frames can start to feel manipulative or like empty flattery. People might think, "Oh, they're just calling me an 'Innovator' again to get me to do something."
Here are a few specific nuances you might consider...
First, reserve identity labels for moments when you genuinely see that potential in someone. When a leader authentically believes someone has the capacity to be a "Strategist" or "Decision-Maker," that authenticity comes through and makes the identity label more meaningful.
Second, match the identity to the person's aspirations or self-image. If someone secretly sees themselves as a creative thinker but hasn't had the chance to show it, being called an "Innovator" resonates deeply. But if you mislabel someone with an identity they don't connect with, it falls flat.
Third, use different identity frames with different people based on their unique strengths and potential. One team member might be the "Connector" while another is the "Guardian of Quality." This specificity makes each person feel uniquely valued.
What makes this approach powerful isn't just labeling people, but helping them see themselves in a new light that aligns with both their potential and the team's needs. When someone starts to internalize an identity, they begin making choices consistent with that identity without needing to be asked.
Does that help address your question, Steve (or others reading)?
We would always be curious if you've tried this approach yourself?
Good question. I'm hear for the answer too.
My first thought was, ‘Wow, that’s a bit manipulative’, then I read your response to the first comment.
Bringing out team strengths is a sign of a great leader, and if naming those strengths does the trick, that’s awesome.
Spot on. But I'd like to point out a language distinction. What you are calling identities are actually roles. Roles are attached to a task, and identities are innate. I believe the distinction is important because identities aren't always flexible, and don't always evolve, but roles are and do.
Is the distinction important for the person who uses this behavior, Blair?
Is it significant for the person receiving the input?
If a leader simply practices the behavior instead of pontificating on what they are doing... would it ever come up?
The distinction you bring up might only become a problem if the leader feels the need to explain the strategy to the person receiving the input... but we'd probably advise against ever doing that, right?
Thanks for pushing the conversation here.
I’m not usually a stickler for semantics, and your secret is such a powerful intervention because it involves the act of seeing another and calling out their potential which is tremendously influential.
And yet, in this day and age, when the subject of identity is both sacred and fraught, even the way we speak to ourselves transmits something. I prefer the term role because inherent in it is a choice. We may not have control over the task, but we do have control over how we accomplish it. When it comes to identity, choice is not always in the mix.