Clarify who you’re becoming by reflecting on the people you admire and why. A structured coaching exercise grounded in evidence-based self-reflection.
When you think about someone you genuinely admire — what specifically do they have or do that you find yourself drawn to?
A recently promoted engineering manager is struggling to articulate her leadership identity. She knows she doesn't want to replicate her previous manager's style but has no positive model to work from.
Frame this as an indirect approach to leadership identity. 'Rather than asking what kind of leader you want to be — which often produces a list of competencies — let's start with people you genuinely admire and work backward.' Some clients resist this framing because it feels soft. Name the resistance: 'This isn't a values exercise — it's a pattern recognition exercise. The three people you choose will tell us something specific.'
Watch who the client chooses. All three from the same domain (all tech leaders, all women, all people who succeeded under adversity) suggests the client is working within a narrow reference frame. The most generative choices are usually heterogeneous — someone from professional life, someone personal, someone surprising. If all three are professional, ask what the exercise looks like with a different third choice.
Start with the synthesis section, not the individual entries. Ask her to read aloud what she wrote in response to 'what common thread runs through the qualities you named.' That sentence — often tentative and underwritten — is the one to stay with. Then work backward: 'Where in your current role do you already have access to that quality? Where is it most constrained?'
If the client cannot name a single specific behavior for any of the three people — only general traits like 'strong character' or 'authentic' — the reflection has stayed surface-level. Push for a concrete moment or decision before moving to the synthesis section. Without behavioral specificity, the synthesis will also stay generic.
A VP is moving into a C-suite position in a domain she knows well but has never led at that scale. She is highly competent but uncertain which qualities she will most need to develop at the next level.
Position this as a stretch-mapping exercise. 'You have a clear picture of what got you here — let's build a picture of who you need to become next, using people who already operate at that level as reference points.' Clients at this level often choose role models who are already in their network. Encourage at least one outside her industry — the outside-domain choice often surfaces qualities that industry-specific examples obscure.
If the 'how could you develop that quality' column is vague for all three entries — 'spend more time listening,' 'work on my strategic thinking' — the development commitments are not real. The quality of that column is the real product of the exercise. Push for a specific context, relationship, or practice that would produce the development she is naming.
Start with the development column, not the admired-quality column. Ask her to look across all three and identify the one she has the most concrete answer for — that's the one to act on first. Then ask: 'Which of these three qualities would your current team say you already have and don't use enough?' That question usually opens something.
If all three chosen role models are people the client has idealized rather than observed closely, the admired qualities may be projections rather than concrete behaviors. If she cannot name a specific example for any of the three, the exercise is working from aspiration rather than observation. Redirect toward people she has actually watched operate.
A project manager whose high-profile initiative failed publicly is in a confidence recovery phase. He has been consistently strong throughout his career but is struggling to reconnect with his strengths after the failure.
Use this tool to reconnect him with a values-based identity rather than a performance-based one. 'The people you admire don't just have competencies — they have qualities that hold up even when things go wrong. That's what we're mapping here.' Some clients in post-failure states resist choosing current role models because the failure feels like disqualification. Steer toward historical figures or people from outside the work context if needed.
Watch whether the qualities he names are resilience-adjacent — 'ability to recover,' 'doesn't let failure define them,' 'gets up and keeps going.' These choices signal that the exercise is being driven by the failure narrative rather than genuine admiration. The quality is useful information about what he needs right now, but the synthesis section will be limited if all three are variations on the same theme.
After the synthesis section, ask: 'The quality you named — when did you last demonstrate it?' If he can name a specific instance, even a recent minor one, the bridge between role model and self-recognition has been built. If he cannot, the development direction becomes clearer: where and how to create conditions to demonstrate that quality in the near term.
If the client chooses all three role models based on how they handled failure specifically, and the entire exercise stays in the frame of the failed project, the coaching engagement may need to address the failure more directly before developmental reflection can produce meaningful output. Severity: moderate. Consider whether the failure requires more explicit processing before forward-looking work lands.
A CFO nearing the end of a thirty-year career is thinking about what he wants the last three years to stand for. He has achieved his professional goals and is now working on a question he has not previously engaged: what does he want to be remembered for?
Frame this as a legacy-mapping exercise rather than a development exercise. 'At this stage, it's less about what you need to build and more about what you want to stand for in the time you have left. The people you admire most are a good place to start that inquiry.' Some clients at this stage choose historical figures or deceased mentors — that is entirely appropriate and often produces the most honest synthesis.
Watch whether the synthesis section moves toward legacy framing or stays in achievement framing. 'The common thread is excellence and high standards' is an achievement narrative. 'The common thread is people who made others feel capable' is a legacy narrative. Both are valid, but the distinction matters for the question he is working on.
Start with the synthesis. Ask him to read his common-thread statement and then ask: 'In your current role, who experiences that quality from you, and who doesn't?' That question tends to reveal where the gap between aspiration and current reality is largest, and where the last three years could be most meaningfully directed.
If the client chooses all high-achieving, high-performing role models with no relational or mentorship-oriented examples, and his stated goal is legacy, there may be a gap between what he says he values and what his reference frame actually prioritizes. Severity: low. Name the observation gently and invite him to consider whether the choices are pointing somewhere different than the stated goal.
A client making decisions that feel off but can't say why
LifeMy client says they know what they value but their choices don't reflect it
LifeA client feels successful but unfulfilled and wants to understand why
Step 2 of 6 in A client struggling to articulate what makes them professionally distinctive
Next: Conflict Resolution Planner → Explore all pathways →
