Mentoring is essentially a reflective practice vehicle. A mentor metaphorically holds up a ‘mirror’ for the mentee to see their current situation and goals in a different light.

Self-reflection is a skill, and as for most skills, it improves with practice. While mentees may have different goals, their reflective skills and insights tend to share common elements. Several of these have been canvassed on this blog over the years, but each new crop of mentees offers further insights about the underlying elements and dynamics of reflection. The concept of ‘identity mode processing’ is an instance of this.

This post is the first in a two-part series on that theme.

Identity Mode Processing and the TWLDA Framework

The TWLDA framework uses the term ‘identity modes‘ to highlight the dynamic, process-based ways individuals engage with selfhood. These modes are not fixed traits, but shifting functions of thinking, observing, learning, deciding, & acting. These modes or ‘lenses’ reflect how identity is actively constructed and expressed in real time. Thinker, Watcher, Learner, Decider, and Actor modes have therefore been used to shape the TWLDA Identity Mode Framework (as illustrated in the header image above).

This pentagonal relational framework is a type of systems/interaction map, which illustrates the dynamic interplay of identity modes. While the modes are arranged sequentially around the outer rim, they also interact non-sequentially, and usually unconsciously. Distinguishing these modes may assist the reflective practitioners (both mentor and mentee) in recognising where they are bypassing a mode, especially the Watcher. Balancing attention across all modes can help a person with self-actualisation – translating thought into meaningful action.

Abraham Maslow described self-actualising individuals as autonomous, reality-oriented, creative, problem-centered (rather than self-centered), and open to “peak experiences”. In his Hierarchy of Needs (1943, 1954, 1970), self-actualisation represents the highest level of psychological development. It is:

• The realisation of one’s full potential — becoming everything one is capable of becoming.
• An ongoing process, not a fixed state — about growth, creativity, authenticity, and meaning rather than a permanent “achievement.”
• Qualitatively distinct from deficiency-needs (D-needs) — it is a being-need (B-need), concerned with fulfillment, purpose, and intrinsic motivation.

The two charts that follow provide alternative ways of describing the functions of each of the framework’s five identity modes, and the processual nature of the outer pentagon:

• The first explains the lens used by each mode, and the ways those modes might promote the achievement of self-actualisation.
• The second suggests that the identity mode process nominally starts with the thoughts of the Thinker, and moves sequentially through the Watcher, Learner, and Decider modes to arrive at Actor, who executes the decision/s made by Decider mode.

Identity Modes and Dimensions

The chart describing Identity Modes and Dimensions brings together two layers of identity work: the enduring identity modes (Thinker, Watcher, Learner, Decider, Actor) and the variable identity dimensions (frames, roles, states, contexts, behaviours, and identity axes/markers). The modes represent the lifelong capacities through which people process experience, while the dimensions capture the shifting circumstances, influences, and strategies that shape identity over time. Used in reflective practice, the chart helps individuals or groups examine how their current states, roles, and contexts interact with deeper modes of thinking, learning, deciding, observing, and acting. It encourages a holistic and dynamic view of self and identity — highlighting areas of alignment, tension, or growth — and provides a structured way to notice patterns, explore choices, and cultivate more intentional strategies for development.

Executive Function and Metacognitive Skills

The term ‘executive function‘ is often associated with leadership, but its roots lie in education, where it describes the skills that enable students to stay on task. These include organisation, flexible thinking, task initiation, impulse control, working memory, planning and prioritisation, self-monitoring, and emotional control. Far from being confined to the classroom, these skills remain vital throughout life, underpinning our ability to manage responsibilities, adapt to change, and align daily action with long-term goals.

Closely related are ‘metacognitive skills‘ — planning, monitoring, evaluating, questioning, and strategy selection. While executive function emphasises decision-making and task execution, metacognition foregrounds the observing, reflecting, and questioning processes that support intentional learning. The two sets of skills overlap in areas such as planning, but differ in emphasis: one manages action, the other manages awareness, as shown in this table.

The TWLDA framework enriches both domains by providing a reflective structure for moving between modes of identity processing. The Thinker and Decider strengthen organisation and prioritisation by clarifying structure and values, while the Learner and Watcher enhance flexibility through perspective-shifting and reframing. Task initiation flows from the alignment of decision and action in the Decider and Actor, while impulse control is reinforced by the Watcher’s pause and the Decider’s deliberate choice. Working memory is supported by the Thinker’s integration of knowledge and the Learner’s synthesis of insight. Self-monitoring becomes a dialogue between Watcher and Actor, and emotional regulation is advanced through the noticing of the Watcher and the meaning-making of the Learner.

Taken together, TWLDA transforms executive function and metacognition from sets of skills into a conscious practice of identity refinement. It adds coherence and intentionality to everyday regulation, ensuring that reflective self-awareness translates into ethical, grounded action at any age or stage of life.

Unique Contributions of the TWLDA Framework

What sets TWLDA apart from other identity models is its processual, recursive architecture. Where many frameworks treat identity as a fixed status (Marcia), a personal narrative (McAdams), or a social construct (Tajfel), TWLDA conceives of identity as a dynamic operating system — a set of functional modes (Thinker, Watcher, Learner, Decider, Actor) that activate and interact in real time. This makes it especially suited for moment-to-moment self-regulation and transformation, complementing the more sequential pathways of developmental theorists such as Erikson or Kegan.

Because it draws on multiple traditions — cognitive psychology, mindfulness, experiential learning, moral reasoning, and embodied action — TWLDA provides an integrative platform for reflective practice. Each mode functions like a module in a larger system, performing distinct identity tasks while looping and feeding back into the others. The framework highlights not only how thinking becomes acting, but also how observing shapes choosing, and how learning transforms perceiving. These dynamic relationships are illustrated below, with arrow labels offering reflective prompts for mentor and mentee dialogue.

This systemic perspective also emphasises transitions: the conscious movement from thinking to acting, from observing to deciding, or from being stuck to becoming aware. Like an operating system managing inputs and outputs, TWLDA helps individuals process inner experience (emotions, memories, beliefs) alongside external demands (conflict, stress, feedback), guiding them toward choices that align with values and goals. A range of contexts and catalysts that can trigger such reflective processing are highlighted in the following diagram.

Another distinctive feature is the framework’s capacity to sustain identity coherence under pressure. Just as an OS integrates diverse processes without conflict, TWLDA reduces dissonance between modes, supporting ethical volition (Decider) and embodied congruence (Actor) — qualities essential in leadership and change work. An alternative visualisation highlights how each mode also carries “shadow expressions” that, if recognised, can become opportunities for transformation.

By foregrounding intentionality, ethical reflection, and systemic coherence, TWLDA goes beyond defining who we are; it provides a structured means of practicing how we become. In this way, it complements more structural or social models of identity, including Intersectionality, Social Identity Theory, and Role Identity Theory.

Adaptability for Groups

Reflective Governance is a concept that involve directors in collectively employing decision-making processes that support the use of the ‘Watcher’ and ‘Learner’ modes, beyond the standard thinking, deciding and acting modes. Another set of labels and descriptors for the modes and connecting arrows are offered in the next chart. This version of the framework aims to support collective reflection, ethical alignment, & integrated decision-making by ensuring each identity mode contributes to strategic governance processes.

A Reflective Practice Stack

In addition to the framework functions outlined above, it can also be used in combination with other frameworks and models so that it forms part of a ‘reflective practice stack’. The next chart suggests using the TWLDA Identity Mode Framework in combination with Michael Beckwith’s Stages of Consciousness (just one example out of many such models), and Ann Wilcock’s Dimensions of Identity. A combination of this kind can inform your reflection on the way you are framing your identity and life experience, and potentially open up options for adjustment.

Part 2 follows

The second and final part in this series suggests combining the TWLDA identity mode framework with each of several other models – to enhance your reflective practice.

See also:
Hurry Up and Slow Down
Regret: Your Improvement Catalyst
X Marks the Spot for Reflexive Practice
Temporal Sensemaking and Reflective Governance
Reflective Governance: The MELD Model
How Effective is Your Board – Part 4