It is critical that we learn to distinguish and differentiate our roles from our self. We get into trouble when we lose ourselves in our role instead of thinking in a detached way about how the role is viewed by others...we forget that others in our organizations are reacting to the role we represent in their work lives, not necessarily the interesting and thoughtful people we think we are. — Harvard Business Review
When we identify who we are with what we do professionally, set backs at work can often prompt us to spiral down emotionally. When something is merely an organizational issue we take it as a personal issue. Harvard University Lecturer, Timothy O’Brien, talks about the importance of distinguishing who we are as individuals from what we do at work. People tend to relate to us based off of the role we play in their lives. So for example, if we are in a leadership role, those working under us may not invite us to social gatherings, not because of who we are as people, but because of our relationship to them at work. O’Brien says that many leaders struggle to “be a boss and a friend at the same time.” But, when we embrace our role and the inevitable repercussions that come along with it we are better equipped to draw the line between ourselves and our role.
4 Comments
this is kind of a weak article aimed at fairly ordinary concerns for immature staff, but addresses an interesting question. at a different level this is uniquely pertinent to architects who are literally identified by their work.
consider the recent trend towards firms adopting names based on a concept or joke rather than the partners names. OMA is the outstanding recent precedent (and I often wonder if it was a little bit of a joke, Oma being Dutch for grandma) but probably started with TAC and Gropius.
In both cases OMA/Koolhaas and TAC/Gropius the firms remain identified with their founders, but also both firms represent the leader as an idealized editor who improves ideas but draws nothing themself.
i wonder to what extent this is an attempt by firms to break away from the notion of genius authorship, a repudiation of the hero-architect solving big problems through sheer individual talent.
i'm skeptical of this non-individualistic ideal. once you get to letter-name big firms like DLR HKS HOK there really is no distinction; these services are commodity products backed up only by the habit of strong management and the brute force of large labor pools.
i guess my feeling on this is: be yourself. figure out what you do, assert that, and live it. work is and always will be part of a professional identity, so live up to what you want to be.
Thanks for the note midlander. A more in depth analysis is definitely appropriate for this topic. The idea is just to guide the reader to the HBR source for further reading. But your points are very interesting regardless, thanks a lot for leaving a nice thought out response.
Sean, have you seen “Jiro Dreams of Sushi”?
People don’t need to find their identity in work, but should find some purpose. That purpose can be found directly in the task, or the way it provides for something else.
I actually have not seen it! But you are probably the fifth person to recommend it to me. Now, I think I am going to watch it this weekend finally. You make a very good point. personally, I need some degree of fulfillment in my work as well.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.