The stories top performers tell themselves
Welcome Entrepreneurs, I'm so glad you're here.
Before we dive in, if you're dealing with a Hard Thing, do yourself a favor and read last week's essay. It was one of my favorite stories to write.
This week, we dive deeper into stories. Specifically, how the stories we tell ourselves dictate the options available to us.
Longtime readers know that none of us live in reality. We live in a bubble made up of our stories about reality. None of these stories are more or less True than any other. But while they are all equally not-True, not all stories are created equal.
In fact, in my work with some of the fastest growing companies in the world, I've found that the best leaders craft their stories in remarkably similar ways...
The stories we tell about our lives dictate the choices available to us, and some stories create more and better choices than others. In my work with leaders, I’ve noticed that the most successful leaders use a fundamentally different framework to create meaning than everyone else. They tell a different type of story about themselves than most people and, in so doing, achieve results that seem impossible to most people.
Etiological vs teleological meaning making
Back at the turn of the 20th century, psychology was just taking off, and the epicenter of it was the Vienna Circle. The two most famous psychotherapists of their time, Freud and Jung, were a part of it, as was a lesser known psychotherapist named Alfred Adler. The distinction between the most common types of stories people tell themselves, and the most effective stories, starts there.
For all their differences, both Freud and Jung saw human behavior through an etiological framework. That is, they believed human behavior was caused by something in a person’s past. Sometimes that thing was a long-buried trauma from childhood, and sometimes it was a bad tuna sandwich, but either way, the cause of a behavior preceded its effect. And the process of understanding (telling stories about) yourself was to look back at your past for the causes of your current ways of being. This has become the default way of thinking for psychologists.
Adler was also a part of the Vienna Circle, but he saw things in nearly the opposite way. According to his teleological framework (which he called “Individual Psychology,”), human behavior existed in service of a purpose. The past was a data point that a person used, but only to properly orient their behavior toward a given goal. And the process of understanding human behavior was to look to the future, and evaluate the purpose that a particular behavior accomplished.
While Freud & Jung’s framework for making meaning is more prevalent and perhaps more familiar, for leaders (and generally those interested in making shit happen) Adler’s framework is actually more useful.
Why?
Stories can either give you reasons, or they can give you choice
Events and circumstances themselves have no inherent meaning. What happens just happens. And then humans make what happened mean something. But depending on whether you’re using an etiological or a teleological framework, the meaning you create can either box you in with all the reasons things are the way they are, or propel you forward by giving you all the tools you need to make a change.
The easiest way to grok this distinction is via example. Let’s take the story of a person who’s scared of speaking up in front of others, and/or of public speaking in general. They’re brilliant, and they want to tell the world about their ideas, they say, but every time they have the opportunity to speak about their views to people, they either freeze up and bumble their presentation, or they turn down the opportunity in anticipation of that outcome. Those are the facts. But that person’s future will be determined by what meaning they make from those facts.
With the etiological, Freudian framework for meaning making, the person might look for the causes of those facts for an explanation. They might remember that one time in sixth grade, when they presented what they wanted to be when they grew up in a competition, they ran out of the gym in tears after losing to stupid Alex Morstadt who recycled his meteorologist presentation three years in a row. They might notice a series of talks and speeches throughout middle and high school that didn’t go well and logically connect all that into a story that they are simply bad at giving speeches. Speeches should be avoided at all costs. It all makes sense and is a valid way of making meaning. But the issue is that there’s essentially nowhere to go from there. The person tells themselves the story that they are bad at talking in public, and they know the exact reasons why. Open and shut.
Now granted, they might invest in a lot of therapy to understand those events and recontextualize them, and in many cases, therapy can shift someone’s experience, but it’s a long path, and is only relevant for a minority of folks. Most simply learn to work around the “fact” that they’re bad at speaking in public.
Alternatively, with a teleological, Adlerian framework for meaning making, the person looks to the purpose their current behavior serves for explanation. Starting with the notion that every behavior is doing something positive for them, even if its purpose isn’t immediately apparent, they might notice that one positive effect of their glossophobia is that they haven’t had to learn why their idea for a new startup is bad. They might notice that by not speaking in public, they also don’t have to risk getting rejected in public, and losing what self esteem they have. If they’re honest with themselves, they might admit that getting rejected in public would be the worst, and that their fear of public speaking is actually a really useful adaptive move by their subconscious to prevent them from that embarrassment.
Now, this interpretation is neither more nor less correct than the previous one. But with this interpretation, the person understands that their difficulties speaking in public are due not to some external, unchangeable events from the past, but rather to their continuing in the present to make a choice that it’s better to keep their ideas unexpressed rather than risk being rejected.
And with that understanding, the person has a choice. They can continue to keep going as they have been, staying small so as not to risk rejection, or they can consciously decide that the opportunity for growth is worth the potential for embarrassment, and muster up the courage to move forward.
With one interpretation, the person has reasons why they are the way they are. And with the other, they have a choice to be different.
“But wait,” you say, “what if the person really does have trauma from their past that prevents them from moving forward? Isn’t it a little cold to tell them that in fact they’re making a choice to stay stuck?”
I understand that reaction. That’s most people’s reaction when, having grown up with a Freudian, etiological worldview, they are first confronted with teleology. That’s what it feels like to have your story about reality confronted by another story that is different and mutually exclusive. But remember that your current story is no more or less correct than any other interpretation. It’s not reality, it’s just a story you’re choosing to tell. And because you’re choosing your current story, you can also choose to change it to a different story.
It goes beyond trauma
The same logic can apply to everything else as well. You might be short. Or uneducated. Or have a stutter. And with an etiological lens, those can all be really great reasons why you aren’t living the life you want. But with a teleological lens, they are simply, and unavoidably, data you’re choosing to use as an excuse to stay where you are.
It may be more comfortable telling yourself etiological stories. Pointing out the “factual” reasons that have caused you to be where you are, and ignoring the interpretation that you might actually be choosing to stay stuck there. In fact I’m sure it is more comfortable, or you wouldn’t be doing it.
But recognize that choosing etiology is also, in and of itself, a choice. And if you’re going to choose the story you tell yourself, you might as well pick the one that helps you create a better future.
Things I read this week
One: Schlaf's Annual review
Before there was the Inside-Out Annual Review, there was the Ultimate Annual Review, created by a friend I greatly respect, Steve Schlafman. The amount of time and care put into this reflection structure is inspiring, and it shows. If you're looking to get a jump start on reflecting on 2022 and planning for 2023, I highly recommend checking it out.
LINK >>
Two: Three waypoints on the journey (CLG)
CLG is inspiring for many reasons. But the primary one is that they are unabashed in talking about the spiritual journey to no-self within a business context. I've written about this before as well, but I love how up front they are about its role in leadership.
Three: Opportunity for founders to get $1m angel fund (Powerset)
With the caveat that I don't know this guy, on its face this opportunity for founders to leverage their networks to get access to a $1m angel fund looks legit, and if it's legit, it's definitely appealing. If you check it out, let me know how it goes.
LINK >>
Want to dive deeper?
If you liked this, check out this list of my top posts, read and shared by thousands of entrepreneurs.
Here are a few of my favorites:
Executive Coaching for Entrepreneurs
There’s a reason every elite athlete in the world works with a coach. You need more than one perspective to see your best work.
I’m an executive coach and the founder of Inside-Out Leadership, a boutique leadership development agency supporting founders to rapidly scale themselves as leaders, so they can thrive professionally and personally as their company changes the world. Leveraging 15-years as a founder/CEO, along with deep training in mindfulness, psychology, Neurolinguistic Programming, psychedelic integration and more, I have helped leaders from some of the fastest growing companies and VC funds in the world design a more conscious life and make key changes to improve their performance and satisfaction.
I coach leaders how I want to be coached:
Focused on the person, not the role.
Focused on results, without the fluff.
To learn more about working with me, click here.