Episode 97: Your Identity is Created by the Stories You Share

Family Narratives Can Impact Your Identity - For Better or For Worse

Dr. Kate McLean

Dr. Kate McLean was raised by a man who loved to share stories. Her father is a master storyteller, entertaining family and friends for hours with his sense of humor and insights. It’s not surprising that Kate found herself compelled by the narratives she heard in her first research position, focused on attachment theory in human development and psychology. She was so touched by the trust of people sharing their most intimate memories and experiences, that she knew her area of focus would revolve around the impact of telling those stories on the people sharing them and on the people hearing them.

Some of her colleagues focus their research on early childhood narrative, Kate’s area of interest revolves more around the transformative years between young adulthood and adulthood, roughly 17 - 22 years old.

She finds that the stories parents and caregivers share about their children in front of them, can have positive and negative effects in terms of their relationship, and how the young adult moves through those transformative years.

If the stories a parent or caregiver share about the young adult’s childhood don’t fit how that young adult sees themselves and how they are transforming into adulthood, conflict develops between them, and the transformation can become stilted.

On the other hand, if the narrative continues to resonate with the young adult, it may help them move forward with confidence in their identity as they move into adulthood.

Our conversation took some twists and turns, one thing that struck me was our mutual respect and admiration for those who share their stories with us. When someone chooses to trust you with their most intimate memories, we must respect that story and the person sharing it.

---

Learn more about Dr. McLean’s work, and check out her book, The Co-Authored Self.

Kate C. McLean, Professor of Psychology at Western Washington University, was trained in Developmental and Personality Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz (Ph.D., 2004). Her research focuses on adolescent and emerging adult identity development. She is on the governing council for the Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood, and is an Associate Editor for the Journal Personality and Social Psychology: PPID. She teaches courses in Developmental and Personality Psychology, as well as research methods. She currently serves as the Director for the Center for Cross-Cultural Research at WWU.

Episode 95: Are You a Good Ambassador for Your People?

If you’ve ever worked in a large corporation or for a public sector agency, you have seen some pretty ridiculous policies that feel either far too broad to apply to every employee, or far too specific.

The reason these unnecessary policies exist is that many managers and leaders struggle with conflict, and it’s much easier for them to replace good management with bad policy.

You can have an impact on this by being a good ambassador for your people.

An email arrived in my Inbox when I worked in a small agency for the state government.

View from a government office, Helena, Montana

As of August 1, personal cell phone use is prohibited during working hours, except for emergencies.

The talk around the office about the policy centered on the ridiculousness of it, few people took it seriously, and others were simply insulted.

Here’s the story I imagined was behind the creation of that policy:

Boss: I’m so tired of seeing Dan sitting at his desk and staring at his phone. He never meets deadlines, and I think it’s because he’s constantly distracted with texting and playing games on his phone. I’ll bet he spends hours on Facebook and Instagram. I know what I’ll do! I’ll create a policy that people can no longer use their personal cell phones at work. That way he will have to put that stupid thing away and get his work done!

Dan: I’m so bored. I’ve gone to my boss multiple times to ask for more interesting projects to work on, and I’ve given him a list of ideas, but the only tasks he gives me require resources I don’t have, and input from so many others that I there’s no way I can meet his deadlines.

Does this scenario sound familiar to you?

There are so many ways this situation could be resolved. Every one of them requires actually talking to each other, and working to speak each other’s language.

Instead of creating a broad policy that impacts every single employee, just to address the behavior of one, or a small number of employees, consider this: Talk to them. 

Ask them what they need to do their job well, and let them know you’re concerned about the time they’re spending on their phone. Document the conversation and make sure to follow up with an email with bullet points to confirm what was agreed to in the discussion.

The employee also has a role to fill here to, of course, which includes recognizing when they are not representing themselves or other employees well. If Dan was aware that his activities on his personal cell phone would impact ALL of his colleagues, he might have behaved differently.

The way you behave, no matter where you are, is a reflection on all the different people you may represent, a public employee, a woman, a young adult (Millennial), a father. You are an ambassador for your people everywhere you go, based on your outward identity.

Here’s another scenario:

A local government hears from a variety of visitors and residents that their town is known as dog friendly, but that it’s also known for irresponsible pet owners – they don’t pick up after their dogs at the dog park, on the trail system, or in town on other people’s properties and sidewalks.

Toblerone on Mt. Helena Summit, Helena, Montana

The elected officials come up with a solution that involves more enforcement of the policies that exists, higher fines for those who are caught not cleaning up after their dogs, and other penalties. This will not solve the problem for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it’s never going to be a police priority to cite a dog owner for not picking up after their dog (and it shouldn’t be), and it’s difficult to catch people in the act. Plus, without some entertaining, engaging education around the why behind the changes, people won’t see the point.

But what if dog owners decided to be great ambassadors for their people - other dog owners? If we knew our behavior was contributing to a negative impression of our town, and was the reason for an increase in fines, and may have impact on our public safety budget, would we change that behavior?

As I hiked down the mountain behind my house with my friend, who is not a dog-owner, we saw a filled poop-bag next to the trail. I could tell my friend was tempted to judge the person who left it there, her expression said what her words didn’t.

I’ve done that before, I’ve left the dog poop bag near the trail on my way up so I don’t have to carry it for the entire hike, and then come back down this way to pick it up on my way home. I have to admit, though, that sometimes I forget, and come back down via a different path. That’s why (and I bent to pick up the other dog-owner’s poop bag), sometimes I call myself the Dog Poop Fairy, and pick these up when I see them.

There. Did you hear that? I explained why people leave the bags, admitted that I’m sometimes at fault, and then demonstrated what a good ambassador for dog owners look like. It wasn’t hard.

Even if no one sees your dog poop on public or private property, you still represent all dog owners when you don’t pick that shit up.

Are you a good ambassador for the people you represent at any given time? It’s not easy, and it’s not fair that people generalize so quickly based on first and physical impressions, but that’s the way it is. If people know me to be a dog owner, I represent all dog owners with my behavior. If people know me to be Jewish, a woman, a public sector employee, then I represent all of those people and my behavior has an impact on all of those people.

And on the flip side of this:

When was the last time you generalized a judgment based on an experience with a single person in a specific situation? Did you notice yourself passing a judgment on all dog-owners, on all Millennials, on all New Yorkers or Parisians based on very limited experience with people who fit that description?

My friend Amber Johnson offered some guidelines at the beginning of the Women’s Leadership Network annual conference a few days ago, and the one that really struck me was this:

Don’t freeze someone in time.

Amber asked the audience of around 150 women in the room whether they had ever said or done something they wish they could undo. She asked if they ever said something stupid and rash. Everyone in the room raised their hands, of course.

And then she explained that we often freeze someone in time – making a judgment about them based on one thing they said or did, and allowing that judgment to impact their relationship with the person. She suggested that when we heard something in the room we weren’t sure of, to ask clarifying questions before jumping to conclusions about the person.

Addressing these challenges requires we look at them from both points of view: Am I a good ambassador for my people? Am I making judgments of a person or on a whole community of people based on limited experience?

This week, think about all the communities of people you represent. Try being aware of your behavior in terms of how you’re representing those people and yourself. And try to acknowledge your own snap judgments based on limited experiences with certain people.

I certainly don’t like to be lumped in with a description of “all Americans are” one thing or another. And when I hear people say anything, good or bad, about an entire community of people: all Americans, all Parisians, all Californians, I think about the diversity of this incredible world, and how unlikely it is that any community could possibly be ALL one thing or ALL another.