If You Aren’t Changing Who You Are, You Can’t Change How You Lead

Everyday Principal | 1,833 followers | November 8, 2025 | Written by Nom de Plume

Leadership transformation never begins with strategy—it begins with self.

Every principal, superintendent, and instructional leader has, at one point, sought to improve their leadership by refining what they do: new systems, new walkthrough tools, new communication habits, new goals. These efforts often yield progress, but only for a while. Eventually, a familiar fatigue sets in—the same conversations resurface, the same cultural patterns re-emerge, and the same barriers appear, dressed in different language. The reason isn’t a lack of effort. It’s that behavior follows identity. Until we change who we are, we will eventually replicate how we’ve always led.

The Leadership Identity Trap

In education, we often assume that knowing more will make us be more. But research across organizational psychology, adult development, and learning science shows that simply accumulating knowledge rarely produces durable changes in leadership behavior. This is the leadership identity trap: layering new strategies onto an unchanged self-concept. Under stress, we revert to familiar patterns—not because we lack information, but because our identity architecture hasn’t shifted to sustain different choices.

Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) famously named this the knowing–doing gap: organizations (and leaders) routinely fail to convert knowledge into action. The barrier isn’t access to ideas; it’s the internal and cultural conditions that enable enactment. Argyris and Schön’s distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning (1974; 1978) clarifies why. Single-loop learning refines tactics within current assumptions (“Do we need a better walkthrough tool?”). Double-loop learning interrogates and changes the underlying assumptions (“What do my reactions to classroom variability reveal about control, trust, and my role?”). Without that deeper shift, knowledge increases—but behavior snaps back.

Adult-development research reinforces the point. Kegan and Lahey (2009) show that improvement efforts often collide with an individual’s “immunity to change”—competing, often hidden commitments that protect a current identity. Until leaders surface and revise the meaning-making system that organizes their choices, new knowledge competes (and loses) to old protective logics. Mezirow’s transformative learning theory (1991; 2000) further suggests that lasting change requires a reorganization of meaning perspectives, not just new content. In other words, growth is not additive but transformational: the frame changes, and with it, the field of possible actions.

This helps explain why many PD experiences feel powerful but fade. Transfer-of-training research finds that enactment depends less on the information itself and more on the learner’s characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy, goal orientation) and the work environment (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Leaders who evolve their identity—clarifying values, strengthening self-efficacy, and aligning motivation—are more likely to convert ideas into routine practice. Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory (2000) adds that internalized, autonomous motivation (identity-congruent reasons for acting) predicts persistence and performance better than external pressure.

Even in performance science, knowledge alone isn’t the driver. Ericsson’s work on deliberate practice shows that expertise emerges from targeted practice with feedback and mental models that support adaptation (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993). Those mental models are identity-linked: leaders who see themselves as learners invite feedback and iteration; leaders who see themselves as protectors of competence avoid them. Goleman’s emotional-intelligence research (1998) further indicates that self-awareness and self-regulation—not content mastery—predict the quality of leadership decisions under pressure.

Finally, cognitive science cautions that we tend to overestimate what we understand—the “illusion of explanatory depth” (Rozenblit & Keil, 2002)—and mistake having heard ideas for owning them (Sloman & Fernbach, 2017). Without identity work, we collect concepts that feel like capability but don’t survive contact with complexity.

Bottom line: Accumulating knowledge without evolving identity produces linear (and fragile) gains. Changing who you are—your meaning-making, motivations, and self-concept—multiplies the return on what you learn. Identity change creates the exponential curve: each new idea has a larger surface area to adhere to, a more coherent system to live within, and a more resilient self to enact it.

Practical implications for leaders

• Treat identity work (reflection, feedback integration, values clarification) as operational, not optional.

• Design learning with double-loop prompts: don’t just ask what changed; ask what assumption in me must change to support the new practice.

• Build identity-congruent habits: small, visible actions that reinforce “I am the kind of leader who …” so new knowledge finds a ready home.

Leadership as an Inside-Out Discipline

Daniel Goleman’s research on emotional intelligence reframed leadership as an inside-out discipline (Goleman, 1998). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and empathy aren’t soft skills; they are foundational to adaptive decision-making. When we act from self-knowledge rather than self-protection, our leadership gains coherence. We move from reaction to response, from positional authority to personal influence.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of Flow adds a complementary layer: peak performance arises when our internal state—focus, purpose, and challenge level—aligns with our external task. Leaders in flow make fewer ego-driven choices and more purpose-driven ones. Their energy becomes contagious because it originates from clarity, not compliance.

To change how we lead, then, we must interrogate the stories that drive us. What assumptions about worth, success, or control still operate unseen? What past experiences are scripting our present reactions? Without reflection, our leadership identity becomes reactive—a set of inherited responses instead of an evolving consciousness.

The Mirror Test: Identity in Action

A useful diagnostic for any leader is what might be called the mirror test: If your team mirrored your mindset for a month, what would your school or district look like?

Would meetings feel exploratory or defensive? Would teachers experiment or wait for direction? Would students sense possibility or pressure?

Culture is a projection of leadership identity. Teams mirror what leaders model. If a leader’s self-concept is anchored in fear of failure, their organization becomes risk-averse. If it’s anchored in curiosity, their organization becomes innovative. Edgar Schein (2010) observed that culture forms through the shared learning of a group—and that learning begins with what leaders pay attention to, measure, and react to emotionally. That reaction is rarely strategic; it’s deeply personal.

Changing identity doesn’t mean fabricating a new persona. It means surfacing and shedding the outdated defenses that once served survival but now limit growth. Authenticity in leadership is not transparency about everything; it’s alignment between inner conviction and outer action.

The Work of Becoming

Transformational leadership, at its core, is an act of becoming. James MacGregor Burns (1978) argued that transformational leaders elevate both themselves and their followers to higher levels of motivation and morality. This elevation can’t occur through tactics alone—it demands internal evolution.

In practical terms, that means leaders must treat self-reflection as operational work, not indulgence. Scheduling time to examine who we are becoming is as essential as analyzing assessment data or visiting classrooms. The latter tells us what’s happening; the former tells us why we lead the way we do.

Three guiding practices anchor this work of becoming:

1. Intentional Self-Inquiry. Regularly ask: What do my reactions reveal about my values? Reflection journals, peer coaching, and leadership cohorts can surface blind spots that static self-assessments miss.

2. Feedback Integration. Seek descriptive feedback about impact, not personality. Research by London and Smither (2002) shows that leaders who integrate multi-source feedback into self-concepts demonstrate greater adaptability and resilience.

3. Identity Experimentation. Purposefully act “as if” the next version of yourself were already leading. Behavioral experimentation—trying new scripts, responses, or tones—helps the nervous system build comfort with change. Growth follows embodiment.

Over time, these practices rewire both neural pathways and organizational patterns. When a leader’s internal model evolves, their systems evolve in tandem. Decision cycles shorten, trust deepens, and communication shifts from performative to purposeful.

From Change Management to Self-Management

School systems often invest heavily in change management—strategies, tools, and frameworks to guide others through transformation. But sustainable leadership begins with self-management. Before leaders can move others through resistance, they must understand their own.

Why do we resist changing who we are? Because identity is familiar, even when it’s outdated. Psychologists call this ego fatigue—the discomfort of reconciling competing selves. Yet paradoxically, leaders gain strength by confronting that discomfort directly. As Parker Palmer (1998) writes, “We teach who we are.” The same is true for leading. If we do not attend to who we are, we unconsciously teach our limitations.

When leaders commit to inner change, they create coherence between belief and behavior. That coherence builds trust faster than any initiative because people sense alignment before they hear it.

The Call to Action: Lead from Becoming

Leadership isn’t a static role; it’s a dynamic relationship between who we are and the world we’re shaping. The future of our schools depends on leaders who evolve faster than their challenges, or at least alongside them.

So, the next time you seek to improve a system, pause first. Don’t ask, “What should I do differently?” Ask, “Who do I need to become to do this work differently?” Because every sustainable change in how you lead begins in the invisible terrain of who you are becoming.

References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass. 

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley. 

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105. 

Boyatzis, R. E. (2018). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. John Wiley & Sons. 

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. 

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row. 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. 

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. 

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books. 

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to Change. Harvard Business Press. 

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100. 

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation. Jossey-Bass. 

Palmer, P. (1998). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life. Jossey-Bass. 

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Harvard Business School Press. 

Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562. 

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. 

Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2017). The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone. Riverhead Books.