My Energy, Not My Identity

My Energy, Not My Identity: A Real Distinction Every Leader Needs

Here’s the deal. I recently brought a genuine problem to my wife Kate. I have historically been a hard nosed superintendent, strict and demanding, though never mean or grumpy about it. What I actually wanted to figure out was how to motivate workers toward genuine total participation because they wanted to meet that standard, rather than relying primarily on zero tolerance enforcement to get there. I do not actually want to send people home. I do not want to lead through constant strictness. I would rather it genuinely flow.

The Insight That Changed How I Think About This

Kate’s response landed harder than I expected. She told me directly that I start to get genuinely controlling specifically when I am worried about protecting my own identity. Not when I am holding a real standard. When my sense of who I am as a leader feels threatened.

She used General Patton as an example, and I think it is a fair one. Patton built his entire identity around being a supremely professional commander destined for real glory. When something challenged that identity directly, most famously his aggressive reactions toward soldiers suffering from what we would now recognize as combat stress, he responded in ways that genuinely damaged his own career and hurt real people in the process. That reaction did not come from a genuine standard being violated. It came from his own identity feeling threatened, and he lashed out to defend it.

What makes that example useful rather than simply a piece of history is how easily it maps onto ordinary leadership moments that have nothing to do with combat at all. Any leader who has built a strong personal identity around being tough, being right, or being the standard bearer for a project is vulnerable to that exact same reaction, just at a much smaller and more ordinary scale.

Recognizing the Same Pattern in Myself

I recognized that exact same pattern in my own behavior. I can get noticeably grumpy in moments that, looking back honestly, were never really about a genuine standard being violated. They were about my own identity as a strict, high standards leader feeling challenged in that moment, and reacting defensively instead of leading from something better.

Admitting that was genuinely uncomfortable, and it was also the useful part. It is far easier to justify a sharp reaction as defending a standard than to admit it was really about protecting how you see yourself. Both feel identical from the inside in the moment. Only one of them is actually leadership.

Watch for these signs a leader is actually reacting to protect their own identity rather than genuinely upholding a real standard.

• Irritation that spikes specifically when someone questions or challenges the leader personally, rather than when an actual safety or quality standard is genuinely violated.
• A pattern of reacting more aggressively to situations that feel personally threatening than to situations that are objectively more serious.
• Discomfort with being wrong or challenged that shows up as control rather than genuine curiosity or reflection.

The Real Reframe: Energy First, Identity Second

Kate’s actual advice was simple and genuinely powerful. Focus on your energy, not your identity. Come to the project site wanting to serve. Come ready to give. Come ready to inspire and lead with real energy. And when hard things genuinely need to be done, enforcing a real standard, having a difficult conversation, holding a firm line, do those things too, but do them from that same positive energy rather than from a defensive identity trying to protect itself.

That distinction matters enormously in practice. A leader operating from genuine energy can hold an equally firm standard, and the people around them experience it completely differently. It reads as care and genuine investment, not as a personal ego being defended.

Two leaders can say the exact same words to a crew, correcting the same mistake with the same firmness, and produce completely different reactions depending on what is actually driving that correction underneath. One leaves people feeling genuinely coached. The other leaves people feeling managed around someone’s temper.

What This Does Not Mean

I want to be clear about something important here. This is not permission to let a project site become chaotic or messy. My actual identity as someone who holds a real standard is still there, and it always will be. Think of it as a genuine backstop, present and real, but no longer the primary thing driving how I show up each day.

The actual goal is winning over the workforce genuinely, doing excellent work alongside them, inspiring people, and catching them doing things right, all while still holding the same real standards I always have. The difference is which one comes first. Energy leads. Identity backs it up when it is genuinely needed, rather than driving the whole interaction from the start.

That ordering sounds subtle, and in practice it changes almost everything about how a correction actually lands with the person receiving it. The same firm boundary, delivered from genuine care rather than from a leader guarding their own reputation, tends to build trust instead of quietly eroding it.

Watch for these signs a leader is genuinely leading from energy and service while still holding a real, uncompromising standard.

• Firm correction delivered calmly and without personal defensiveness, focused entirely on the actual issue rather than on being right.
• Genuine enthusiasm and presence on site, even during a difficult or demanding stretch of work.
• A team that experiences discipline as care rather than as a leader protecting their own reputation or authority.

Why This Distinction Deserves Real Attention

This matters because the two approaches produce genuinely different outcomes over time, even when the actual standards being enforced look identical on paper. A team led primarily through identity protection eventually starts walking on eggshells, managing the leader’s ego as much as managing their own work. A team led primarily through genuine energy and service starts to internalize the standard itself, because it was never really about the leader’s own identity being at stake in the first place.

Over the course of a full project, that difference compounds. A team managing a leader’s ego spends real mental energy predicting moods and avoiding triggers, energy that never goes toward the actual work. A team that trusts the standard itself, separate from any one person’s temperament, can focus that same energy entirely on doing the job well.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuine leadership that inspires real buy-in through energy and service, while still holding the same firm, non-negotiable standards a well run jobsite genuinely requires.

So here is the challenge. Think honestly about the last time you reacted strongly to something on your own project. Was that reaction genuinely about a real standard being violated, or was it about your own identity feeling challenged in that moment. That honest answer tends to reveal more about your own leadership than almost anything else you could examine.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “My energy comes first. My identity comes second.” Lead from that order, and watch how differently your own team responds to the exact same standards you have always held.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article use General Patton as an example of identity driven leadership rather than energy driven leadership?

Because Patton’s documented reactions toward soldiers suffering from combat stress illustrate what happens when a leader’s response comes from protecting a personal identity rather than genuinely upholding a real standard. Those specific incidents damaged his own career and hurt real people, showing how identity driven reactions can cause serious harm even from a leader who is otherwise highly capable and genuinely skilled.

How can a leader tell the difference between holding a genuine standard and protecting their own identity in the moment?

One useful test is noticing whether the reaction intensity matches the actual severity of what happened. A response that feels disproportionately strong relative to the real issue at hand often signals that something personal is being protected, rather than a genuine standard being upheld. Reactions proportionate to the actual situation tend to reflect real standards rather than identity under threat.

Does leading with energy rather than identity mean lowering standards or becoming more permissive?

No, the article is explicit that the underlying standard remains exactly as firm as before. What changes is which one comes first in how a leader shows up each day, genuine energy and service leading, with the standard functioning as a real backstop rather than the primary driver of every interaction. The standard itself never softens.

Why might a team respond differently to identical standards depending on whether a leader is leading from identity or energy?

Because a team can generally sense whether discipline comes from genuine care for the work and the people doing it, or from a leader protecting their own reputation and authority. Identical rules enforced from a defensive identity tend to produce resentment and cautious compliance, while the same rules enforced from genuine service and energy tend to build real trust and voluntary buy-in over time.