What if the self is not simply “me”?
Much of modern psychology, leadership development and even coaching language is organised around the individual: my identity, my goals, my values, my resilience, my wellbeing, my development. This emphasis on the individual has enormous value. Yet psychiatrist and interpersonal neurobiology pioneer Daniel J. Siegel MD asks us to consider what may be missing when we understand ourselves primarily as separate individuals.
His answer is captured in an unusual little word: MWe = Me + We
Siegel developed MWe as a way of expressing an integrated identity in which our differentiated individuality is retained while our fundamental relationality is also recognised.
It is a deceptively simple idea with profound implications for self-awareness, relationships, leadership, coaching and collective change.
1. The problem with the “solo self”
Siegel challenges what he calls the assumption of the separate or solo self: the idea that who I am can essentially be understood as the individual organism bounded by my skin and skull. This doesn’t mean that individuality is unreal.
There is unquestionably a me: my body, my subjective experience, my memories, my perspective and my capacity to act. The problem arises when “me” becomes the whole story.
Siegel argues that our minds are shaped not only by activity within the individual brain but also through relationships and interconnected systems. His interpersonal neurobiology perspective therefore places relationship at the centre of understanding human development.
As he puts it, we need to hold together two truths: “I am a differentiated individual” AND “I am also fundamentally relational.”
Hence: Me + We = MWe
2. MWe is not “me becoming we”
This distinction is crucial. MWe isn’t asking us to dissolve the individual into the collective. It isn’t: Me → We BUT It is: Me + We → MWe
Siegel describes this as integration: the differentiated nature of the “me” is maintained while it is linked with the “we.”
This avoids two opposite problems: Excessive individualism: “I am completely independent. My needs, interests and identity come first” AND Excessive collectivism: “I must lose myself in the group.”
MWe offers a third possibility: “I can remain fully myself while recognising that who I am is inseparable from my relationships and belonging.” That is a much more sophisticated understanding of identity.
3. From independence to interdependence
The developmental movement here is subtle. In adult development, maturity is described as moving from dependence → independence → interdependence.
MWe gives us another way of understanding interdependence. The mature self isn’t simply an autonomous individual who happens to have relationships. Rather, relationship is constitutive of the self. Our identities are continually shaped through interactions with parents, colleagues, friends, communities, cultures and institutions.
Siegel extends this relationality beyond human relationships toward the natural world and larger systems. His concept of intraconnectedness deliberately goes beyond the idea of separate entities that merely happen to be interconnected. This is a significant shift: “I don’t merely exist in a system. I am formed through my participation in systems.”
4. MWe and belonging
One of the most powerful implications of MWe concerns belonging. Belonging is sometimes confused with fitting in. Fitting in says: “How do I adapt myself so that I am accepted by this group?” MWe suggests something different: “How can I belong without losing myself?”
Siegel describes MWe as an identity that allows us to maintain our individuality while experiencing ourselves as genuinely part of a larger relational whole. This distinction matters enormously in organisations. A team member who merely fits in may suppress disagreement. A team member who experiences MWe can say: “This is what I see” while simultaneously holding: “And I care about what we are trying to accomplish together.” That is a very different form of participation.
5. MWe and The Integrated Self
MWe also connects with Siegel’s broader concept of integration. In his work, integration involves differentiating parts while linking them together. The goal isn’t to eliminate difference but to create a larger whole in which differences can coexist. This is reflected in his Wheel of Awareness, where awareness distinguishes different elements of experience while simultaneously recognising their relationship within a larger field of consciousness.
The same logic applies to identity: differentiate → connect → integrate
We might therefore see MWe as an identity practice: Me: Recognise my own experience → We: Recognise the experience and existence of others → MWe: Hold both simultaneously
This is more than being “nice” or relational. It is a different way of organising perception.
6. Why this matters for leadership
MWe has particular relevance to leadership because leadership is fundamentally relational. Consider a leader facing a difficult organisational decision.
A purely individualised perspective might ask: “What do I think is right?” A purely collective perspective might ask: “What does everyone else want?”
A MWe perspective asks something more complex: “What is true from my perspective, what are others experiencing, and what might become possible when we hold these perspectives together?”
The leader doesn’t abandon personal agency. Instead, agency becomes relationally intelligent. MWe also asks: “Who am I becoming through my participation in this relational system?”
7. MWe and sensemaking
This is where MWe becomes especially interesting from a sensemaking perspective. Sensemaking is never simply an isolated cognitive activity. We make meaning from experience through interaction, language, narratives and social contexts. The self who says: “This is what is happening” is already situated within a web of relationships and meanings.
Therefore: “I make sense of the world.” AND also: “We make sense of the world together.”
And then something deeper happens: The “I” that makes sense is itself shaped by the “we” within which sensemaking occurs.
MWe therefore invites us to examine the relationship between identity and sensemaking.
We don’t simply make meaning as individuals. Through our meaning-making with others, we continually construct and reconstruct who we are.
8. MWe and agency
This also offers an interesting refinement of agency. Agency is sometimes conceptualised as: “I can choose and act.”
MWe doesn’t diminish this. Instead, it asks us to recognise that agency is exercised within relationships and systems. My choices affect you. Your responses affect me. Our interaction changes the situation. The situation changes what becomes possible for both of us. Agency therefore becomes distributed and relational without becoming passive. This is an important distinction.
MWe does not mean: “I am not responsible because everything is interconnected.” Rather: “Because I am interconnected, my responsibility extends beyond myself.”
9. MWe and coaching
For coaching, this creates a fascinating shift from self-development to relational development.
Instead of asking only:
- What do you want?
- What matters to you?
- Who do you want to become?
- What action will you take?
the coach might also invite:
- Who are you becoming in relationship with others?
- What happens to your sense of self when you are with this person?
- Where are you over-identifying with the “me”?
- Where might you be losing yourself in the “we”?
- What would it look like to remain fully yourself while remaining connected?
- What larger “we” does your action serve?
These questions move coaching beyond individual performance toward relational identity and systemic agency.
10. From “self-awareness” to “self-and-other awareness”
This also challenges a common limitation in leadership development.
We often teach: Self-awareness → better leadership BUT MWe suggests a more complete developmental movement: Self-awareness → Other-awareness → Relational awareness → Systemic awareness → Integrated agency
The leader becomes increasingly capable of holding multiple perspectives without prematurely collapsing them into one. Development isn’t merely acquiring more knowledge; it involves expanding the complexity with which one can perceive and participate.
11. The deeper invitation
Perhaps the most provocative aspect of MWe is that it changes the question. Instead of asking: “Who am I?” we might ask: “Who am I in relationship?” And then: “Who are we becoming through our relationship?” And eventually: “What larger whole are we participating in?”
These questions move progressively outward without abandoning the self. That may be the deepest contribution of MWe. It doesn’t tell us to choose between self and community. It asks us to develop the capacity to hold both.
12. From “Me” to “MWe”
For leadership, coaching and adult development, I would summarise Siegel’s proposition like this:
ME: I have a perspective → WE: Others have perspectives → RELATION: Our perspectives influence one another → MWE: I remain differentiated while recognising that I am relationally and systemically connected → GENERATIVE ACTION: What can we create together that none of us could create alone?
This final step is particularly important.
MWe is not merely a philosophical statement about interconnectedness. It can become a practice of leadership: holding onto one’s own centre while expanding one’s field of awareness to include others and the larger system. In an increasingly polarised world, perhaps the developmental challenge is not simply learning to say “we” instead of “me.” It is learning to become a MWe.
Reference
D. J. Siegel MD (2022). IntraConnected: MWe (Me + We) As the Integration of Self, Identity and Belonging, W. W. Norton & Co
