Asking Candidates ‘What Do You Want to Be(come)?’—Why You’d Better Know the Difference

 It’s almost certain that when you were a kid, somebody asked you, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” Or “What do you want to become when you grow up?” You may have replied, “I want to be a….” or “I want to become a….”, without any regard for whether you were saying two different things.

Now that you are older and presumably wiser, you can handle the revelation that indeed these are different, and that you can and had better use that difference in the employment market to size up job applicants.

By “use that difference effectively”, I mean understanding when and why to ask the one question and when and why to ask the other while interviewing candidates—or, even better, why you should, with some candidates, ask both.

Effectively using the difference between them means knowing not only when and why to ask a candidate both of these questions, but also being prepared to hear two very different answers. To do that requires, in the first place, grasping the difference and its implications.

Those Who Want to Be vs. Want to Become: Four Personality Types

So, exactly what is the difference between wanting to be and wanting to become something, say, project manager within five years?  As I see it, the difference between “want to be” and “want to become” differentiates four different employee personality types.

1. BE>BECOME: This candidate  is looking forward to being a lawyer, doctor, etc., more than becoming one. In the extreme case, this is the law school student who wishes getting a law degree were as easy as saying “I’m a lawyer!”, “abracadabra!” or “shazzammm!”. For this type, the destination matters much, much more than the journey, the product—much, much more than the process, being more than becoming. Presumably, this will also be true of presidential candidates who find election campaigns painfully grueling, compromising and boring.

Identifying this type is extremely important for positions that require prolonged and costly in-house training, since the BE>BECOME type may mislead both of you into believing that because (s)he is looking forward to being a software engineering project leader that (s)he is also thrilled with taking on all that is required in your company to become one.

2. BECOME>BE: “It’s the chase, not the fox!” sums up this type. Candidates with this mind set will enjoy chasing success more than having it, working toward a goal than having achieved it, e.g., the lawyer who will enjoy becoming a senior partner more than being one. Here too, in interviewing a BECOME>BE type, being misled is a real risk.

Q: “How do you feel about becoming a senior partner here?”

A: “It’s what I want more than anything else in the world!”

Maybe you just got bad news, but didn’t realize it. That go-getter, “chase-not-the-fox” attorney told the truth—but it wasn’t heard: “I want to become a lawyer more than anything else—including more than being a lawyer!”  If you’re not sure, ask the other question, “How do you feel about being a senior partner here?”

This word to any among the previously unwise should be sufficient.

     3, BE=BECOME (fact): This candidate doesn’t distinguish “want to be” from “want to become” as concepts or separate aspects of a career. When (s)he says, “I want to become a senior partner”, (s)he means “I want to be a senior partner”, much as when some people say, “I don’t want to become old”, they mean “I don’t want to be old”—failing to grasp that these are in fact as different as dying is from being dead.

In such cases, not distinguishing “being X” from “becoming X” may merely reflect a candidate’s fuzzy grasp of semantics. On the other hand, it may be a marker for a belief that being and becoming are so inextricably intertwined, that they are in some sense, in fact indistinguishable. 

This mind set includes the belief that wanting to be something necessitates becoming it, in the sense of having to actually go through the steps to that goal (unlike the case of the law or medical school student who wishes there were a single “smarter pill” to swallow that would quickly and painlessly accomplish all of that before you can finish shouting “shazzammm!”)

This mentality may also equate becoming and being in the sense that to be X is an entitlement earned after and by putting up with or otherwise completing the processes and steps of becoming X, e.g., licensing exams, interning.

The difference between these two aspects of equating being and becoming is the difference between becoming X as a sufficient condition for being (entitled to the role of) X vs. becoming X as a necessary condition for being (and maybe remaining) X (other, additional necessary conditions including the likes of adhering to the profession’s code of ethics after having become X).

Combining these two ways of connecting being and becoming (without regard to “remaining X”), this personality type sees “wanting to be” and “wanting to become” as factually equivalent, in virtue of “becoming an X” being necessary and sufficient for “being an X”.

The practical consequences of this mind set include the likelihood that the candidate will not find shortcuts attractive—maybe not even acceptable.  Candidates with a “no pain, no gain” mentality may be more likely than others to harbor this attitude.

On the other hand, the same seriousness of purpose manifested as insistence on following procedures, completing all the required steps, experiencing the entire process of becoming an X, may morph into a sense of entitlement to be X upon having reached the targeted career goal.

This can be the seed of some serious problems in some cases, e.g., professional inflexibility, arrogance or complacency.

     4.BE=BECOME (value): When being and becoming are regarded as equivalent in value, the candidate’s mind set is very different from those of the other three types. In this instance, the candidate will sharply and factually distinguish “want to be” from “want to become” as product and process, but will equate them with respect to their value. This is the candidate who believes that, although factually clearly distinguishable, the journey matters and is worth as much as the destination.

This mentality differs from a pure #3 type, above, because the equation is formulated in terms of the value of being and of becoming, rather than as a presumed factual or logical equivalence. So, this is good, right?—Maybe even perfect. After all, what can be wrong with a candidate who recognizes the differences between completing the steps to a career and having the career, yet values these equally intensely?

One possible, however unlikely risk is that if the company has to cut corners or even eliminate some of the training and other lead-up steps, e.g., through budget cuts, siphoning off of material resources (such as computers or machinery), reorganization or reassignment, this kind of gung-ho candidate may react negatively—perhaps with feelings of disorientation, disappointment or even betrayal.

This is one of the drawbacks of the “true believer” mentality: When those strong beliefs and correlated expectations are squelched, things can get ugly. In contrast to this, the BE>BECOME type (#1) is almost certain to shrug off, if not welcome, changes in training. The fox-chasing BECOME >BE mentality may even thrive on such detours, setbacks, etc., as enhancements of the thrill of the chase.  Type #3 may merely be surprised and carry on.

Although the differences between wanting to “be” and wanting to”become” may be too subtle to  explicitly verbally distinguish or raise in an interview, understanding the personality that prefers one to the other or equates them in fact or value can be critically important in candidate screening …

…or at least become so.