The Hidden Influences Behind Feeling Stuck. Part 1: Uncovering the Roots

A couple of years after leaving my engineering job, I had lunch with my previous boss. At one point he asked me: “Eri, why is it that most engineers get stuck in their leadership path? It’s like they are super motivated up to the middle-management role, and there they completely lose all motivation?” It was a question I didn’t have an answer for, but for that exact reason, it stayed stuck in the back of my head.

While working with my clients, I noticed a pattern in their behaviour. Which I don’t think is a surprising find for anyone, saying that engineers are logic- and value-driven. Of course, you need data, facts, formulas, and the laws of physics to create something valuable. That being the second common trait: they needed to know that the work they are doing is valuable, that they are making a change in the world. While these might seem like noble characteristics, they are also the reason why most of them were coming to coaching: not being able to satisfy these needs.

Then, during a class on developmental psychology at the university, I noticed that the need for values, logic, and fixed frames is probably not an innate trait but a consequence of upbringing, more precisely a result of the parenting style. And thus my hypothesis was born: those people who are now in middle management roles are not only deep in their midlife re-evaluation of choices, but besides that, they might have initially chosen a career in engineering either because of parental influence or because it was a socially prestigious career to follow. This was soon confirmed by a statement one of my interview subjects made:
“My father told me, everyone should have a respectable profession…”

The Organising Principles of Our Generation

The above statement is more than just a pet title for my thesis; it is a strong and deep organising principle that shaped the life decisions of our generation, raised under strong parental control in a post-socialist collectivist culture. The social norms of those days revolved around social prestige and security, far outweighing personal curiosity and intrinsic interest in career choices. Growing up in an environment where obedience is prioritised over dialogue, we should not wonder if we reach our forties with polished résumés and that unsettling question of whether our professional self matches the authentic self at all.

During my qualitative research using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), I sat across from six engineering managers currently working in a multinational corporate environment. As they shared their stories, a common thread emerged: most of them had never truly chosen their careers. Even if convinced that the choice was theirs, the narrative just uncovered an unconscious “choice” made sometimes as early as middle school. Reliant on the narratives of their well-meaning parents, they prioritised social prestige over personal passion. The passion they put into their engineering studies and early work years became the sublimation of their initial and lost personal passion that slowly starts crawling to the surface again.

The Science Behind These Early Influences

The above phenomenon is not uncommon, although sometimes the mechanism behind it is not quite understood (not in the field of psychology in general, just in our own understanding of ourselves). It’s not at all hard to understand. Parenting style has an influence on the child’s identity formation. Diana Baumrind (1991) identified four distinct parenting styles, revolving around two dimensions: how much control the parents exert and how emotionally responsive they are to their children’s needs. You can already guess that authoritarian parents operate high on the control dimension and mostly low on the emotional scale. The focus is on compliance, discipline, and little to no dialogue or exploration. Authoritarian parenting is always preferred in difficult times when resources are scarce and the child’s exploration can be a source of crisis, considering that maybe medical care is not readily available or of proper quality. So it’s best to “do as I say.” In contrast, authoritative parents define clear expectations but also support them with emotional availability and flexibility in their demands, leaving space for the child to explore while knowing that their parents are there to provide guidance and enforce boundaries.

The differences are not quite subtle, and the impact is profound.

Michael Berzonsky’s (2003) research revealed that these early parenting experiences shape how we process identity-relevant information throughout our lives. Children raised in authoritarian homes often develop what he called a “normative identity processing,” characterised by the tendency to rely heavily on others’ expectations rather than an intrinsic need for exploration. So next time you are getting frustrated because your employees need your guidance, consider that there might be more under the surface than them being lazy or needy. This type of identity processing in childhood leads to what James Marcia (1966) called “identity foreclosure.” This means we take on an identity without exploring our options. This can be based on either parental or societal expectations. Speaking in career terms, this means that we don’t end up exploring the world, evaluating our options, and making the choice that best fits our needs, but the decision is taken somewhere along the line of the father making a statement like: “This kid likes to take everything apart… He’ll surely be an engineer!” And so, most of the time unconsciously, “we make” the choice, as early as 10 years of age, of what we want to be when we grow up.

Uncovering the Pattern

My research centered on deep, semi-structured conversations with engineering leaders about their childhood memories, career decisions, and current career satisfaction. I analysed their narratives using Smith’s (2003) IPA approach, trying to connect the dots between the early childhood experiences and current professional motivation.

The emerging themes and stories painted a clear picture. As expected, most of the participants were “lucky” to have had an authoritarian upbringing, sharing remarkably similar patterns. Parentified children who had to learn early in life what duty is. The field of exploration and play was reduced to household chores that had to be done. The restrictions around independent decision-making led to them making career choices that were heavily reliant on external influences, resulting in the long run in a lack of autonomous decision-making, a drive for performance, and a need to continuously perform according to high external expectations. External validation was still eating internal motivation for breakfast.

In contrast, those raised in authoritative environments told different stories. They described self-directed career exploration. The larger family and friends were involved, discussing a wide variety of possibilities and personal aspirations, with the decision coming sometime as late as university admissions. According to Berzonsky’s (2003) framework, they are using an “informative identity processing” style, meaning mindful self-reflection, critical thinking, and autonomous decision-making. This results in a career choice based on internal drivers, with personal interest playing a key role in their decision-making process. These choices were also later reflected in the way they transitioned to leadership roles. The same patterns of external and internal drivers emerged: for some, just because it was an opportunity for more responsibility, while for others, a genuine interest in others’ wellbeing and growth.

What effect these early childhood experiences have on job satisfaction at midlife, we’ll explore in the upcoming post.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In R. M. Lerner et al. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746–758).

Berzonsky, M. D. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does commitment matter? Identity, 3(2), 131–142.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558.

Smith, J. A. (2003). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Sage Publications.