"Who Do I Want to Become?" vs. "What Do I Want to Be?"

Which question are you asking yourself?

Your choice will help determine the depth of your life as well as the comfort-level of your career.

I've been watching a new CEO client begin his tenure at a global company. He is very comfortable listening, talking, giving direction, and saying "I don't know. That sounds good to me. Go ahead and do it." (Whatever the "it" is).

What I'm really seeing is a man who has, over a lifetime, decided to "become" the kind of person he wanted to be. I know for a fact that he didn't set out to be a CEO. In fact, he was invited into the role. The reason he received the invitation, I believe, rests in great part on who he is to the people around him.

Yet "who he is" was shaped by not ambitiously jumping into a position that was too far ahead of "who he was" at the moment. His career path shows a progression that was slow and steady, building solid relationships and new knowledge along the way.  And each step on the ladder reflected genuine accomplishment.

Now he has become a CEO; he doesn't have to play the role of CEO.

And that's the distinction between where the two questions above will lead you.

Who do you want to become?

Or do you want to play a role?

Think about the how the difference will affect your life.

Comments

[peter vajda]

Hello Steve,

You write, "Who do you want to become? Or do you want to play a role? Think about the how the difference will affect your life."

and, I might suggest,"... how it will affect your legacy."

Your CEO seems to be comfortable in his own skin - for me, a major factor that tutors who one is and how one is in life at work.

Also, for me, this relates your your post about how to live in the matrix experience. My experience is that there is a continuum, labeled, "How I choose to view folks". At one end is "function" at the other is "human being".

You write:

"A matrix depends on highly collegial relationships within the organization...inherently trust...others...nearly impossible to influence others without professional respect. And that comes from a recognition of professional competency by one's colleagues."

And, for me, the interrelationships begin with "me." So, one who is secure in one's skin, self-assured and self-confident (from the inside, not ego), often can see others as "human beings" who, by the way are "executives", "functional managers", etc. Coming from this place adds a different tone, tenor and energy (read: positive, mutual respect, trust...) to the relationship.

The less one is in touch with, and truly comfortable with, one's self, and the more one needs to emotionally depend on "playing the role" to feel secure, to have control, etc, the more prone one might be to see others on that continuum as "objects" and "functions." But, that's just me and my experience.

[Steve Roesler]

Thanks intermingling your and reactions, Peter. You sparked some reflection and now I'm thinking about this: Those who are comfortable with themselves exercise power with others; those who have to play a role try to over-power others.

What do you think?

[peter vajda]

I think you have it, Steve, altho' I might say the former collaborate (we) on many levels and the latter compete (me vs. you) on various levels. Does that work?

[Ellen Weber]

Great post Steve, and a moving story of success. Thanks for the inspiration. Whether a person elects to lead or is elected to lead it seems to me that a question that person might ask and chase down is this: HOW CAN I BECOME THE PERSON I'D LIKE OTHERS TO SEE IN ME?

Loved your insights, Peter. Seems to me that to be compfortable with ourselves - we also have to connect to what others think, and my question might help that growth at some level.

Thoughts?

[Steve Roesler]

Ellen and Peter,

Thanks for weighing in in meaningful ways.

I'm thinking that this is the kind of conversation on which to focus executives; they already know a lot about business functions. The ultimate question addresses our own functionality!