1 – 3 – 18 Identity vs. Ability Driven Motivation (4 minutes)

I listened to an Art of Manliness podcast this morning called “The Motivation Myth”. In it the guest said something that really struck me and I wanted to dive deeper into.

The specific example was coaching people on how to workout consistently. One group was coached to say “I don’t [miss workouts, overeat, etc.]” while another was coached “I can’t […]”. A third group received no specific coaching.

Perhaps not shockingly, the can’t-ers did the worst of all. It reminds me a bit of some writing I did about vocation ownership

There’s a couple primary differences between don’t-ing and can’t-ing. Some that make don’t-ing better than can’t-ing, and some that make can’t-ing even worse than no strategy.

The ability argument (I’m sick of saying “can’t-ing”) is foremost a destruction of agency. Whether one is motivated by exterior punishment (being a member of a sports team), fear of letting oneself or others down, or possible consequences of not doing what one should do (getting fit to stave off heart disease) there’s a disconnect between what the individual actually desires and what they’re doing. Furthermore, because this ability argument lends itself to evaluative and/or external criteria it can detract from an appreciation of the process.

When making the ability argument one’s desires are irrelevant. It does not matter whether you want to do something if you have to do it. Unfortunately for our motivation, but probably fortunately overall, we are very rarely actually compelled to do something. So once we start feeling bad about the activity and want to start quitting it’s quite easy to rationalize and realize that we don’t actually have to do it. Most of us don’t have to do much to satisfy our basic needs and creature comforts.

So if we’re not compelled to do much in our current living situation we have to embrace the importance of desire, even elevate it. The “I do/don’t” mindset acknowledges and leverages this desire by making an identity argument. Many of us have strong desires to be certain kinds of people and the identity argument embraces these desires and uses them as fuel for our actions.

Further than that, this identity argument forces us to look at what it looks like to be a champion or expert, not simply the things these people accomplish. If we are making the ability argument we are entirely focused on our goal.

If I want to run this marathon in November, I can’t miss a day of training between now and then. It’s likely to be a true statement. But it’s results oriented. The metric of success is based on things outside of our control. It may very well be that given our current life schedule and fitness level it’s simply not possible for us to reach that level of fitness in that given time. In the ability frame of mind that would be extremely discouraging.

But if we’re in an identity frame of mind, it’s kind of irrelevant. If we’re focused on what kind of person we want to become we’re less likely to be bothered that it won’t happen until January. Besides, in talking about what kind of person we want to become we’re most likely talking about what kinds of activities and choices we want to be habitual for ourselves. Those things would, by definition, be in our control.

If we’re motivated by an identity statement, such as “I’m not the kind of person who skips workouts” or maybe even better “I don’t want to be the kind of person who skips workouts and I’m going to work to make that happen” it’s pretty hard to definitively fail.

I’m realizing now that this falls a little bit counterintuitive to all the accountability, measurable success wisdom out there. But only if it’s interpreted in its softest form. We can still set goals and hold ourselves accountable for them, but the goals aren’t the focus, because you can’t live a goal, but you can live a process.

So in this identity framework we set the goal, frame the process that would achieve it, and then focus on living that process. In the ability framework, we’re always just staring at that mountaintop that doesn’t seem to be getting any closer. You can immediately see that if we’re attempting anything really ambitious we’ll have a lot easier time psychologically if we focus on the process.

If you’re focused on the process every day you do the thing you planned to do is a victory. You can have resplendent, unqualified success every day of your life! You can go to bed knowing you completely conquered that day and got everything out of it you wanted. How amazing is that?

If you’re focused on the goal you get one victory. You get one day where you achieve the thing, whatever it is. Sure, if it’s big you may have a couple weeks to gloat, be in parades and such. But they don’t feel like the victory did, not nearly as good.

So, if it’s going to take you three years, would you rather experience a thousand victories, or one?