In a small West Virginia county a few years ago, Wanda (pseudonym) asked her employer for some time off to deal with a situation at home. Her employer turned her down.
Not long after, Wanda’s situation at home, the abusive partner she’d been trying…
If work-life balance is hard to come by for many American workers, then it’s virtually impossible to achieve for working parents. A new study from the Pew Research Center captures just how porous the boundary is for parents who are struggling to juggl…
In a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing on Tuesday, Robinhood said it would cut 10% of its full-time workforce of 2,900 and close a “small number” of open roles. The Menlo Park, California-based financial services platform is joining the …
When I published The Most Powerful Woman in the Room Is You in 2019, I thought I was launching a book. I didn’t realize it at the time, but what I was actually building was a brand.
In my first meeting with a creative director to design a simple we…
Most people believe they are far more capable of changing their personality than they actually are. This is hardly surprising. Humans are deeply invested in flattering illusions about themselves. We routinely overestimate our intelligence, morality, attractiveness, and future prospects. Psychologists refer to this as the “better-than-average effect,” though “wishful narcissism” might be more precise. Unsurprisingly, personality is no exception. We like to imagine ourselves as unfinished masterpieces rather than stubbornly repetitive creatures of habit who have already maxed out on their limited potential. (Not sure about you but, in my case, the former is definitely true!)
And yet all it takes is attending one of those excruciating high-school reunions to realize how little people really change. The former class bully may now wear Patagonia vests and discuss real-estate investments, but the same appetite for dominance usually lingers beneath the surface. The class clown still hijacks conversations for attention. The agreeable people remain agreeable, the anxious remain anxious, and the narcissists, now armed with social media and AI, become even more efficient at self-promotion. Physically, of course, many people change quite dramatically, usually in directions that inspire nostalgia rather than envy. Psychologically, however, most remain recognizable versions of their younger selves, both for good and for bad.
Fiction understood this long before psychology did. At the end of The Godfather, Michael Corleone assures Kay that things will be different, that he will become a better man than the one circumstances and ambition have turned him into. By the sequel, personality has won. Shakespeare built entire tragedies around the same premise: Character is destiny. Modern psychology, though less poetic, reaches broadly similar conclusions. Personality traits are remarkably stable across adulthood, especially after the age of 30. Longitudinal research consistently finds that traits such as conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, and agreeableness remain relatively enduring over time.
Why? Because personality is not merely a collection of moods or preferences. It represents deeply ingrained dispositional habits: recurring patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that shape how we respond to the world. Personality is effectively our psychological operating system. We can update the software slightly, but rewriting the code is considerably harder.
Still, there is no reason for fatalism. In fact, the desire to change is not only admirable but essential for growth. As I argued in Don’t Be Yourself, the most effective leaders and, indeed, the most effective humans are not prisoners of their default tendencies. They develop adaptive range. They learn to activate different versions of themselves depending on context. They become less rigid and more psychologically versatile.
Think of people like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who evolved from bodybuilder to actor to politician to climate advocate, or Madonna, who treated reinvention as an Olympic sport (and is very much still going). Think of Bill Gates, whose evolution from ruthless tech monopolist to global philanthropist and public-health advocate required a remarkable psychological reinvention. The intensely combative, hypercompetitive founder who once treated business like geopolitical warfare gradually cultivated a more reflective, collaborative, and humanitarian identity. Whatever one thinks of Gates today, few would deny that he learned to activate very different versions of himself across different stages of life. Even historically rigid figures often evolved under pressure. Abraham Lincoln became markedly more emotionally intelligent and politically sophisticated during his presidency, shaped by repeated failures and crises. Personality may be stable, but adaptability can still be cultivated.
Think of Oprah Winfrey, whose transformation from a difficult childhood in rural poverty to local news presenter, daytime TV host, media mogul, philanthropist, and global cultural authority required not merely career progression but repeated psychological reinvention. At each stage, she cultivated different dimensions of herself: broadcaster, entrepreneur, interviewer, activist, intellectual tastemaker, and leader. Few modern figures better illustrate the capacity to evolve without entirely abandoning one’s core identity.
How changeable are you, really?
In this sense, some people possess what we might call a more “changeable personality”: not because their core traits magically fluctuate, but because they are better equipped to revise habits, experiment with new behaviors, and respond constructively to feedback. Research suggests that four characteristics are especially important.
The first is curiosity. Curious people are more likely to seek novelty, challenge assumptions, and expose themselves to unfamiliar experiences. They are less attached to defending their current identity because they view learning as intrinsically rewarding. In personality psychology, curiosity overlaps strongly with openness to experience, one of the best predictors of intellectual flexibility and adaptation. Curious individuals are psychologically exploratory. They ask questions rather than protect egos.
This matters enormously because meaningful change almost always begins with discomfort. If you are curious enough to wonder why your relationships fail, why your team avoids honest conversations with you, or why your career has plateaued, you have already crossed a threshold many never reach. Curiosity transforms criticism from a threat into useful data.
The second ingredient is humility. This is increasingly rare in cultures that reward certainty and self-promotion. Humility does not mean low self-esteem or submissiveness. It means accurately understanding your strengths and weaknesses without becoming emotionally defensive about either. Humble people are willing to admit they might be wrong, which is essential for change because self-improvement begins with acknowledging imperfection.
Ironically, many highly successful individuals struggle precisely because achievement reinforces inflexibility. If your arrogance helped you become a billionaire founder, senior executive, or political star, why would you suddenly abandon it? Success can fossilize personality. Humility acts as an antidote by preserving openness to correction.
Third comes emotional intelligence, particularly self-awareness. This is perhaps the most misunderstood dimension of personal growth. Self-awareness is not endless introspection or journaling about your feelings while drinking herbal tea. It is understanding how your behavior affects others. In practice, self-awareness is largely other-awareness.
Research consistently shows that individuals who accurately understand how they are perceived by colleagues, bosses, and direct reports perform better as leaders. The problem is that most people dramatically overestimate their self-awareness. One well-known study found that while around 95% of people believe they are self-aware, only about 10% to 15% actually meet objective criteria.
This gap exists partly because modern workplaces have become extraordinarily polite. Most organizations are now civilized enough to avoid direct confrontation but not courageous enough to provide honest feedback. People, therefore, drift through careers protected from the social consequences of their own behavior. The aggressive executive is described as “passionate.” The narcissist becomes “visionary.” The indecisive leader is “thoughtful.” Euphemism replaces truth.
Which is precisely why tools like 360-degree feedback and psychological assessments matter. Their greatest value is not prediction but revelation. They help individuals see themselves through the eyes of others. Without that external mirror, personality change becomes almost impossible because people continue operating under distorted assumptions about how they come across.
The fourth ingredient is ambition. This may sound surprising because ambition is often associated with ego rather than growth. Also, as the brilliant 17th-century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza noted, ambition can be interpreted as an unnatural yearning for other people’s approval—which, to most people, sounds like a negative or weakness. Yet ambition frequently compensates for deficits in the previous three traits. Plenty of successful people are not naturally curious, humble, or emotionally intelligent. What they do possess is an overwhelming desire to succeed. That motivation can still drive adaptation and actually turn selfish, socially awkward, arrogant, and uncurious people into great leaders, and even a force for good.
Painfully ambitious executives may force themselves to become more diplomatic simply because they realize abrasive behavior limits promotion prospects. Actors learn emotional sensitivity because audiences demand it. Politicians become more disciplined because electoral survival requires it. Pure self-interest is not morally glamorous, but it can still fuel behavioral evolution. Indeed, some of the most coachable individuals are not naturally reflective saints. They are intensely motivated pragmatists. They change because the status quo becomes too costly.
The Change Paradox: The more you need it, the less you get it
This creates a fascinating paradox: The people most likely to benefit from coaching are often the ones who need it least. Curious, humble, emotionally intelligent, and ambitious individuals tend to improve continuously through ordinary experience because they naturally absorb feedback and adapt. Meanwhile, the leaders who most desperately need coaching are often precisely the least capable of benefiting from it. A leader lacking curiosity, humility, emotional intelligence, and ambition will resist introspection, dismiss criticism, avoid accountability, and ultimately remain unchanged despite expensive developmental interventions. This helps explain why executive coaching sometimes produces transformational results and sometimes resembles pouring Evian onto concrete.
Several broader rules about personality change follow from this.
First, left to their own devices, people generally become either more adjusted or more exaggerated versions of their earlier selves. Traits that are healthy in moderation often become destructive in excess. Confidence morphs into arrogance. Attention to detail becomes perfectionism. Caution becomes paralysis. Charm becomes manipulation. Under stress and over time, personality tends to intensify rather than soften.
Second, coaching only works when individuals genuinely want to change. There is an old joke among psychologists: “How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb?” The answer: “Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change.” Like most good jokes, it survives because it is true. External pressure can create compliance, but meaningful behavioral change requires internal motivation.
Third, self-awareness is foundational. People cannot improve what they cannot see. Unfortunately, most individuals construct identities based not on reality but on self-serving narratives. This is why feedback often feels shocking. People are not discovering who they are so much as discovering how differently others experience them.
Fourth, modern society unintentionally deprives people of the feedback required for growth. Social norms emphasize niceness over honesty. Managers fear conflict. Friends avoid uncomfortable truths. Romantic partners eventually give up trying. As a result, many people spend decades without receiving sufficiently candid information to understand their interpersonal impact.
Fifth, psychological assessments and structured feedback mechanisms are among the few reliable shortcuts to self-awareness. Properly validated personality assessments are not magical truth machines, but they provide something invaluable: comparative data and behavioral insight grounded in evidence rather than intuition.
Sixth, sometimes the smartest way to “change” is not to change at all. Instead, it is to make life choices more compatible with your existing personality. An introvert need not become a charismatic salesperson if they would thrive as an analyst, writer, or engineer. A highly disagreeable person may never excel at consensus-building leadership but could flourish in entrepreneurial or specialist roles requiring independence and bluntness. Good career choices often reflect fit rather than transformation.
Finally, everybody loves change until they personally have to do it. Most people prefer a world in which everyone else adapts to them. They want colleagues to become more reasonable, spouses more understanding, bosses more supportive, and society more accommodating. Unfortunately, this narcissistic model of adaptation rarely produces either career success or relational happiness. The universe remains stubbornly indifferent to our preferred operating instructions.
The good news is that personality is not entirely fixed. The bad news is that meaningful change is difficult, effortful, and uncommon. It requires curiosity to question oneself, humility to accept imperfection, emotional intelligence to recognize interpersonal consequences, and ambition to persist through discomfort. Without those ingredients, people usually remain psychologically familiar versions of who they have always been—merely older, slightly more tired, and considerably more convinced of their own correctness.
In the end, the real mark of maturity is not becoming a completely different person. It is developing enough self-awareness and adaptability to avoid becoming an exaggerated caricature of yourself. You perhaps even develop the necessary skills to appear less predictable than you are and convince others that, even if they know you quite well, they have reason to hope you are able to display the best version of yourself, at least when they need it most.
A few years ago during a financially uncertain time for our family, I tried to motivate my husband the same way I motivate myself: with anxiety. I’d paint the worst-case scenario, hoping that fear would make him more engaged with our strained household finances. Fear and anxiety motivate me brilliantly, because I’m an anxious achiever. Fear and anxiety made him check out.
This was a pattern in our marriage, and it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize I wasn’t dealing with a character flaw or a communication problem; no one was right or wrong. My husband and I are simply wired differently. The engine that ignites my performance isn’t his engine. We are motivated by different things.
Most of us understand this about motivation in a vague way. What we underestimate is how much that mismatch extends into every dimension of how we work, not just what drives us, but when we work best, what conditions we need to give our best attention, and how much control we need over our day to function at all. When those conditions are misaligned—with our job, our manager, our environment—we don’t just underperform. We exhaust ourselves trying to compensate.
I’ve spent years studying what actually separates leaders who thrive from those who grind and burn out, and I am especially interested in people who feel like work “doesn’t work for them.” I study leaders with different brains: those who might identify as neurodivergent or neurodistinct, who manage diagnoses like ADHD, anxiety, autism, bipolar disorder, or learning differences like dyslexia. Here’s what I know, from hundreds of conversations with leaders and quantitative research with almost 1300 professionals. The struggle almost always comes down to four forces: Time, Attention, Agency, and Motivation—what I call TAAM. Whether you’re neurodivergent or neurotypical, you have a TAAM!
When was the last time I felt energized, attentive, and motivated at work?
TAAM isn’t a personality test or a productivity hack. It’s a framework for understanding your brain’s operating requirements and the specific conditions you need to do your best work and sustain it over time. Everyone has a TAAM profile. Most of us have never articulated ours. And here’s what that costs: when you don’t know what your brain actually needs, you spend years adapting yourself to a work life that isn’t designed for you—and feeling like it’s your fault. And so understanding your TAAM profile is a crucial piece of self-understanding. It’s as simple as knowing that 8:30 a.m. meetings aren’t when you’re going to shine (your Time profile), and as complex as unpacking why you’re at war with your boss who insists on dictating how you manage every step of the project you’re working on (your Agency profile).
Time isn’t just about scheduling. It’s about your chronotype, when your brain actually comes online, and whether your workday is designed around that reality or fighting it. Most of us are expected to come into work in the morning and go straight through until the evening. Very few of us are actually wired to perform that way!
If linear clocktime doesn’t come naturally to you, pacing can be more helpful than scheduling. Many people function better when time is broken into chunks, externalized with tools like timers, alarms, or playlists, and structured around energy rather than the clock. People who feel some agency over their time tend to be happier at work, and it’s not hard to see why. Pacing protects energy. It allows you to mobilize anxiety for moments that require performance—a big meeting, a difficult conversation—while preserving calmer stretches for focused or restorative work. Something as simple as moving a stressful meeting earlier in the day can free up more mental space than any productivity system ever could.
The key insight underneath all of this is that your schedule should fit your brain—not the other way around. Years ago I interviewed entrepreneur Lindy Huang Werges, who grew her financial services staffing firm by 300% in a single year. Werges had one of the most insightful takes on this I’ve encountered. She schedules her day in deliberate bursts—creative work in the mornings, meetings and admin tasks in the afternoons, and a “blackout” period from 4-8 p.m., because her brain is full. She gave me permission I didn’t know I needed: to design my day around my actual presence of mind, not an idealized version of it.
Most workplaces are designed as if everyone runs on the same clock. When your peak hours and your calendar don’t match, you’re not disorganized. You’re working against yourself. Ask yourself: What time of day do I have the most energy, and when do I feel kaput?
Attention is more complex than focus. It’s about the conditions under which your mind can actually engage—and what it costs you when those conditions are missing. I don’t know about you, but most days I feel like I simply cannot pay attention for a minute, because there’s so much incoming information and interruption in the day. That’s a recipe for burnout and misery.
Amy Wilson is a marketing executive who is neurodivergent. She describes the sensory load of busy environments in visceral terms: she’s light-sensitive, sometimes wears sunglasses indoors, and finds certain sensory input physically draining in ways that can consume her cognitive resources before the workday has really begun. The environment drains her attention (I relate—fluorescent lights are like my Kryptonite!). But she’s also developed something remarkable from that same attentional sensitivity—the ability to read a room in real time. In client pitches, she deliberately positions herself to watch the audience rather than present to it, tracking who’s engaged, where attention is drifting, and where to redirect. What could be a liability, managed deliberately, became a strategic advantage.
This is true for many leaders: the attention profile that makes you difficult in one context makes you exceptional in another. The question isn’t how to fix your attention. It’s whether your current work gives it the right conditions. Ask yourself: In what conditions am I at my most attentive? Alone in quiet? With lots of people around? After a run? When I have deep focus, or when I’m feeling really busy?
Agency—the ability to shape when, where, and how you work—turns out to matter more to performance than most people realize. In my survey, it was the single most cited workplace need: nearly two-thirds of respondents named flexibility as their number one requirement.
Research bears this out. People often value autonomy over workload—franchise owners routinely work longer hours than the corporate jobs they left, and report being happier, because control over those hours changes the experience entirely. Agency isn’t a lifestyle preference. For many people, it’s what makes effort feel sustainable rather than suffocating.
Amy Wilson is blunt about her own needs here. She has left jobs when she felt constrained. What’s made her current role work is a CEO who sets clear goals, provides adequate resources, and then gets out of the way. “If he told me, Amy, I want you to do X, Y, Z,” she said, “it would be the first way out the door.”
Agency isn’t about doing whatever you want. It’s about having enough control to align your work with your energy, attention, and motivation, rather than constantly fighting them. Most of us want to be treated with respect and we want to be treated like grownups who can manage our own workflow and decisions. But agency needs vary, and how much autonomy you need at work probably differs from your colleagues. Think about it: When did you last feel genuinely trusted at work, and what did that look like in practice? And if your manager gave you complete control over how you did your work, what would you change first? How do you react when someone gives you an instruction or directive that you think is dumb?
Motivation—the force we most often moralize and misread—is actually a neurobiological process that works differently in different people. Some are driven by meaning and purpose. Some by challenge and novelty. Some by recognition, external accountability, and yes, sometimes fear. The trap is assuming your motivational engine is universal, or that the “right” kind of motivation is purely internal.
In one of my recent focus groups of professionals, a participant captured the challenge precisely: “I’m not motivated by power. I’m motivated by challenge. When performing in positions that value out-of-the-box thinking and tackling complex challenges, I thrive where others struggle.” That’s not a character trait. It’s a motivational profile, and when that person is stuck in a role that rewards consistency over creativity, no amount of willpower will bridge the gap.
My husband is motivated by challenge and novelty. I’m motivated by external recognition and, if I’m honest, anxiety. Neither of us is right. Both of us are legible, once you know what you’re looking for.
Here’s what I’ve learned from years of studying leaders and listening to professionals describe their work lives: many struggles at work are actually TAAM mismatches. The person who seems checked out may be in an attention environment that’s draining them before they even start. The one who resists his manager’s process may have unmet agency needs. The one who can’t seem to get started might be running on a motivational fuel their current work simply doesn’t provide.
The question stops being what’s wrong with me? and becomes which of my operating requirements is out of alignment, and what would bring it back?
Try this: Think about one recurring pattern in your work life that’s frustrated you—something you’ve tried to fix before, or blamed yourself for. Now run it through the TAAM lens. Is this a Time issue? (Are you working at the wrong hour, or in the wrong rhythm?) An Attention issue? (Is your environment draining your focus before you even start?) An Agency issue? (Is something about how your work is structured making you feel controlled rather than engaged?) A Motivation issue? (Is the fuel that actually drives you simply missing from this work?)
Don’t try to solve it yet. Name the mismatch first. That clarity—more than any productivity system—is where real change begins.
In July, Xbox may be the next company hit with major changes to its workforce.
According to Bloomberg, people familiar with Xbox’s strategy said that the company is “planning major job cuts next month,” although the scale and details of the c…
Every June, my coaching conversations change. The leaders I work with are still talking about strategy and succession, but underneath, a second operating system is running. One client described her summer as “a staffing plan involving three camps, four children, three pickup times, and one car.” Another scheduled our session for her car, in a parking lot, between a board call and a camp release that happened at the exact same instant as her other child’s, twenty minutes away.
The American school summer runs roughly 10 to 12 weeks. The standard American job offers nowhere near that in vacation. Into the gap, working parents pour a privately assembled patchwork: multiple camps with different hours, different locations, and different start dates. Securing even this patchwork is a competition—registration for the most sought-after programs opens in January and many fill within hours.
Most workplaces treat this as a personal logistics problem. It isn’t. It’s a predictable, recurring operational reality affecting a large share of the workforce, and the way organizations handle it—mostly by pretending it doesn’t exist—costs them more than they think.
The work you can’t see
Here’s what makes the summer gap different from ordinary busyness: the labor is cognitive, continuous, and invisible.
The parent managing summer—still disproportionately the mother, even in dual-career households—is holding eleven (or so) weeks in her head as a single optimization problem. Which weeks are uncovered. Which child falls apart without structure. Whether the 9:00 a.m. drop-off survives the 8:30 call. Seven programs means seven registration portals, seven packing lists, seven sets of pickup rules. None of this appears on any org chart, and its output looks like leisure, which is precisely why it goes unrecognized.
What organizations do see is the performance of seamlessness: the employee who never mentions the logistics operation she’s running, because she has learned that visible parenting reads as diminished commitment. That performance is itself a tax on focus and energy. And it lands unevenly. When summer planning defaults to mothers, the cost shows up in exactly the population many organizations say they’re trying to retain and promote.
This isn’t a law of nature
Other wealthy countries face the same structural fact—school stops, work doesn’t—and treat it as a public infrastructure problem rather than a private failing.
In France, municipalities run centres de loisirs: leisure centers, typically housed in school buildings, open through the summer for children roughly ages three to fourteen, staffed by trained youth workers and priced on a sliding scale tied to family income. In Paris, a full day including lunch tops out around 25 euros. In Sweden, the Education Act requires municipalities to provide care for children up to age twelve to the extent necessary for their parents to work or study; the leisure-time centers known as fritidshem operate during the times of day and year when school is closed. The system is built on the assumption that parents have jobs in July. Germany simply shrinks the gap: summer break is about six weeks, and the states stagger their holiday dates.
None of these systems is frictionless. But where the answer to “who watches the children while parents work” is public and assumed, employees don’t have to engineer a private solution—or apologize for needing one.
American employers can’t build municipal childcare. But they’re not powerless, either, and waiting for policy to catch up is not a strategy.
What leaders can actually do
The interventions that matter most cost little. They’re mostly about converting an unspoken problem into a planned-for one.
Treat early summer like late December. Most organizations already plan around the week between Christmas and New Year’s as a known slowdown. The last week of June and the week of July 4th function the same way for working parents—every camp transition and program gap clusters there. Plan launches, offsites, and deadline-heavy sprints around it, openly, instead of forcing parents to perform full availability while running a logistics operation from their cars.
Make the gap discussable. The biggest cost of the summer scramble isn’t the hours; it’s the concealment. Leaders who name the reality—”camp transition weeks are chaos; flag your constraints and we’ll plan around them”—convert hidden stress into a schedulable fact. This costs nothing and signals everything.
Audit your meeting culture against camp hours. Many summer programs end at 3:00 or 4:00. A standing 4:30 meeting in July is a recurring crisis for some portion of your team. Moving it is a small act with outsized retention value.
Protect predictability. For working parents, a schedule that shifts with 24 hours’ notice is more destabilizing than a heavy one that holds. In summer, predictability is the benefit.
The deeper point
We already accept collective responsibility for children 180 days a year. Then summer arrives, and American work culture quietly reassigns the gap to individual families while expecting output to continue uninterrupted.
The organizations that handle this well aren’t being generous. They’re being accurate: acknowledging a real, recurring condition of their workforce and planning for it the way they’d plan for any other seasonal reality. The ones that don’t aren’t avoiding the cost. They’re just paying it in distraction, attrition, and the quiet exit of people—disproportionately women—who concluded that competence shouldn’t be a debt the workplace collects every July.
Over the next two decades, roughly $124 trillion is expected to change hands in what analysts describe as the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history. A growing share of that wealth is moving to women through inheritance, entrepreneurship…
The barriers to getting a formal ADHD diagnosis are many: cost, time, the availability of qualified clinicians, a general lack of awareness.
Plus, those with inattentive ADHD—which is believed to be more common in women and girls—often struggle wit…
