The best way to solve a difficult problem may be to stop solving it as yourself
Most of us approach every situation with the same identity.
We try to build a product, make a difficult decision, sell an idea, handle criticism, lead a team, or solve a creative problem as the same person.
But the version of you that is good at analyzing risks may be terrible at generating bold ideas.
The version of you that wants everyone to approve of you may struggle to negotiate.
The version of you that carefully improves a product may never feel ready to launch it.
So perhaps the question should not always be:
“How do I solve this problem?”
A better question might be:
“Who would be best equipped to solve this problem?”
I recently read The Alter Ego Effect by Todd Herman. One of its central ideas is that we already play different roles across different “fields of play.” The goal is not to create a fake personality, but to intentionally activate the traits that a specific situation requires.
For example:
When brainstorming, you may need to become the explorer—curious, playful, and willing to suggest bad ideas.
When making a final decision, you may need the strategist—calm, detached, and focused on trade-offs.
When publishing, you may need the shipper—decisive, pragmatic, and comfortable with imperfection.
When talking to users, you may need the investigator—someone who listens, asks simple questions, and avoids defending the product.
When facing rejection, you may need the competitor—someone who treats the result as feedback rather than as a judgment of personal worth.
This is different from asking:
“What would Steve Jobs do?”
Blindly imitating another person can be superficial. The useful part is identifying the specific qualities the situation demands and temporarily embodying them.
A simple process could look like this:
1. Define the field
Be specific about the situation.
Not “my business.”
Instead:
Writing the landing page
Calling a potential customer
Choosing which feature to remove
Publishing the first version
Responding to negative feedback
2. Identify what is actually blocking you
Is it fear?
Perfectionism?
A lack of imagination?
Emotional attachment?
The need for approval?
Confusion between too many options?
3. Choose the role that would handle it better
Ask:
“What kind of person would naturally deal with this situation well?”
Not necessarily a real person. It can be an archetype:
The scientist
The detective
The diplomat
The ruthless editor
The curious beginner
The calm commander
The experimental founder
4. Define three operating rules
For example, my experimental founder might follow these rules:
Every assumption must become a test.
Small evidence beats long speculation.
A failed experiment is still useful information.
The role becomes practical because it changes the rules guiding your actions.
5. Give the role a trigger
It could be:
A specific notebook
A pair of glasses
A playlist
A different desk
A jacket
A phrase you repeat before beginning
Todd Herman describes these objects as a form of activation: a concrete signal that helps someone enter the identity they have chosen for that particular field.
The deeper insight is that many problems are not caused by a lack of intelligence.
They are caused by bringing the wrong version of ourselves into the situation.
A careful analyst is useful before a decision—but destructive during an early brainstorming session.
A visionary is useful when defining direction—but dangerous when reviewing financial details.
A perfectionist can improve quality—but prevent anything from being released.
There is no single perfect personality for every situation.
The real advantage may be developing a small internal team of roles and knowing who should take control at each moment.
So I’m curious:
Do you already use different roles when building or solving problems?
And which role do you think you currently need most?
Replies