A patient walks into a therapist’s office five minutes late. The therapist notes: Passive-aggressive. Resistant. The next week, the patient arrives exactly on the dot. The note changes: Obsessive. Controlling. The third week, the patient is ten minutes early, sitting nervously in the waiting room. The diagnosis: Anxious. Insecure. It is an old joke in psychology circles, but it carries a sharp truth. It suggests that once we decide on a label, the person’s actual behavior stops mattering. Everything they do simply becomes more evidence for the box we’ve already built for them, or sometimes, that we've built for ourselves.
In the beginning, labels feel like a relief. When a coaching client says, "I’m a procrastinator," or "I’m a perfectionist," they are handing me a map. It’s a shorthand that says, “Here is the general neighborhood of my pain.” We use these words because they are efficient. They save us the exhausting work of looking at the messy, unorganized reality of a human life. If I accept the label "Perfectionist," I think I know the solution: just coach them to help them see that "good enough" is enough. If I accept "Procrastinator," I just need to help them value the future over the present.
The problem is that a label is an abstraction. It tells me everything about "people in general" and nothing about the person sitting in front of me.
When we rely on the label, we stop looking. We fail to see that this "procrastinator" is actually someone who feels they have to answer every email immediately to prove they’re helpful, leaving no time for their own big project. Or this "perfectionist" is a manager who is so afraid of letting their team down that they check a spreadsheet five times before hitting "send."
If I just see "procrastination," I might recommend my client a better calendar app. But if I see a person who is over-committing out of kindness, a calendar app won't help. The more "sure" we are of the label, the less equipped we are to help the actual human being.
There is also a systemic dimension to this. A label doesn't just change how we see someone —it changes how we treat them. And how we treat them influences how they respond. And how they respond can become evidence that confirms the label. The expectation produces the behavior it predicted, partly because the person holding the label may unconsciously behave in ways that elicit it, and partly because the person being labeled may begin to internalize it themselves. This is how closed systems sustain themselves —which is precisely what makes them so difficult to examine once they are in place. The only way to interrupt this process is to pay genuine attention to what is actually happening, rather than accept uncritically what the label has already decided is true.
I’ve realized that our identities often work like this, too. We spend our lives trying to figure out "who we are," but in that search, we often end up building a cage rather than painting a portrait.
We find a label that offers a bit of reassurance –"I'm just a shy person" or "I'm not a creative type"–and we step inside. It feels safe because it’s defined. But quietly, that label begins to dictate what we are allowed to imagine, what we are allowed to try, and who we are allowed to become.
Real change is a "liquid" process. We are always more interconnected, more in flux, and more open-ended than any category can capture.
The work of coaching –and the work of living–isn't about finding the right label. It’s about learning to hold them all lightly. It’s about staying curious enough to look beneath the abstraction to see what is actually happening in the quiet, unlabeled moments.