What makes me, me?
Ten years ago, in Dodge City, Kansas, I was facilitating a leadership development session for a U.S. company.
A woman in the first row stood up in front of 20 other managers and said, “Thank you, thank you. All my life I had thought there was something wrong with me.” And she then added something like, “Now I know more about what makes me, me.”
As part of that session, I had used one of the many personality tests available to help people get a sense of their preferred managerial styles. Most test results are divided into four styles. The styles are modern refinements that can be traced back to the Greek physician Hippocrates. He believed that humans could be divided into four temperaments — distinct yet overlapping personalities.
As the theory goes, we each have a dominant style. But sometimes our natural preferred style is overdone. And our supposed strength becomes a negative in the workplace as well as in our personal lives.
The Dodge City lady tested as having an analytic personality. Such individuals want specific answers, no dillydallying with maybes. They are precise and measured. For example, if the question were,
“How cold and deep is this swimming pool,” how would they answer it?
A group of non-analytics might have a meeting first. They would discuss their approach and then dive in and casually swim across the pool. Fifteen minutes later they would report that the pool was cold and deep.
Analytics would dip a measuring rod and a thermometer into the pool. Almost immediately they would say, “It’s deep and cold.” They would then state the exact depth (“10 feet”) , the exact temperature “78 degrees”) and then say, “Next question!”
One approach in this situation is not necessarily better than the other. It’s more about what the individual who asked the question is trying to accomplish. One approach might do better than the other in certain circumstances.
Two weeks ago in Grand Prairie, Texas, I thought of my Dodge City lady. Managers, also in a leadership session, were trying to figure out what their styles were before completing the questionnaire. That led me to think about what makes each of us who we are. At times we all want to know the answer to that question.
And we look for ways of trying to find out. We take online quizzes. Some of them supposedly score how smart we are. When the results are positive we feel uplifted. We may also share the outcomes with friends and family.
If we do poorly, mum becomes the word. We’re apt to keep the results to ourselves. And possibly look for easier tests to validate our “smartness.”
My guess is that more New York Times readers (including me) do the easier Monday crossword puzzle and shy away from the progressively more challenging ones throughout the week. The Sunday puzzle is a “killer.” I wouldn’t dream of even looking at it.
So, how do we go about uncovering what makes each of us who we are? Will a couch visit to a psychologist or psychiatrist give us clues? That is an extreme step for many of us. Especially when an interest in delving into ourselves is more of out of curiosity. And not for any medical reasons.
How about a visit to an astrologer? Apparently their services are in demand. For sure in San Francisco. I was there earlier this week and found a listing online for the 10 best astrologers in that city as of this August. I wondered how many other such astrology practitioners are there below the top 10?
The quest to know oneself goes far back in history. Socrates, the Greek philosopher, implores us to do that with his suggestion “Know Thyself.” But is it possible to really know who we are and how we got that way?
Chances are most people would say no. That’s my opinion subject to correction by those more in the know. It just seems to me we are too complex to understand every strand of what goes into our being.
Yet some will say the road to begin grasping who one is starts with a deliberate attempt to fine tune your self-awareness skills. Many books and articles have been written on this topic. And of course, the information on the internet is endless. This seems to me like a logical and plausible start.
So, you may wonder what happened with the Dodge City lady. I had remained in contact with the human resources person for that company. Last week I phoned him and told him about my column. He remembered my sharing with him what the woman in that leadership session once said. I was pleased to hear that she had been promoted to head a section of the company’s operations in another city.
It may be a stretch to conclude her realization a decade ago that there was nothing wrong with her had anything to do with her job success. But removing her imagined stigma got rid of something that had long bothered her.