250 word minimum
JustMe22
LeadingComplexChangewithPost-ConventionalConciousness.pdf
Leading complex change with post-conventional consciousness
Barrett C. Brown Human and Organizational Systems, Fielding Graduate University,
Santa Barbara, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to document how leaders with a highly-developed meaning-making system design and engage in sustainability initiatives.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 32 leaders and change agents were assessed for their meaning-making system, or action logic, using a variation of the Washington University Sentence Completion Test; 13 were identified as holding the three rarest and most complex action logics able to be measured. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews explored their behavior and actions as related to complex change initiatives.
Findings – These leaders appear to: design from a deep inner foundation, including grounding their work in transpersonal meaning; access non-rational ways of knowing, and use systems, complexity, and integral theories; and adaptively manage through “dialogue” with the system, three distinct roles, and developmental practices. Fifteen leadership competencies and developmental stage distinctions for three dimensions of leadership were identified.
Research limitations/implications – The sample size leads to the findings being propositions that require further validation before broader generalization.
Practical implications – The results provide the most granular view to date of how individuals with highly complex meaning-making may think and behave with respect to complex change, offering potential insight into the future of leadership.
Social implications – The study explores how to cultivate leadership with the capacity to address complex social, economic, and environmental challenges.
Originality/value – The paper documents 15 competencies that are largely new to the leadership literature, and that reflect the actions of leaders operating with highly sophisticated meaning-making systems.
Keywords Management, Leadership, Leader development, Sustainability, Adult development, Change management, Metacognition, Organizational change
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction For humanity to achieve important objectives like the Millennium Development Goals and mitigating impact on the climate, significant changes in organizations and social systems are needed. Experience suggests that some change efforts toward a more sustainable world will work, while many may fail (Kotter, 1995). A crucial driver for the success of a change initiative is its design (Doppelt, 2010; Kotter, 1996), and an important influence is the designer’s worldview (Doppelt, 2010; Sharma, 2000). That is the focus of this research. I specifically studied how leaders with very mature worldviews, or meaning-making systems, design and engage in sustainability initiatives. By understanding how such individuals respond to complex challenges, other leaders can be trained to be more effective. This paper details the context, methodology, and findings of the study, and is a further analysis of data collected for my PhD research (Brown, 2011, 2012).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
JOCM 25,4
560
Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol. 25 No. 4, 2012 pp. 560-577 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0953-4814 DOI 10.1108/09534811211239227
Decades of adult development research, specifically in the field of constructive-developmentalism (Cook-Greuter, 1999; Fingarette, 1963; Kegan, 1980; Kohlberg, 1969; Loevinger, 1966; Perry, 1970; Selman, 1974) provide insight into how different ways of meaning-making impact leadership. Scholars who take a constructive-developmental view of leadership (e.g. Harris and Kuhnert, 2008; Joiner and Josephs, 2007; Torbert et al., 2004; Wagner and Kegan, 2006) question the underlying assumptions of many traditional leadership theories. They contend that what makes a difference in leadership is how one epistemologically makes sense of the content that underlies behavior or leadership style. That is, the actual surface content – what the leader does or believes – is less important than the deep structures from which it arises (Eigel, 1998). In sum, how a leader knows is at least as important if not more important than what a leader knows.
Constructive-developmental research shows that human meaning-making develops and becomes more complex over time, roughly growing from pre-conventional to conventional to post-conventional worldviews (Cook-Greuter, 2004; Kegan, 1982; Loevinger, 1976; O’Fallon, 2012). As individuals develop into post-conventional stages of meaning-making, novel capacities arise. These include increased cognitive functioning, strengthened personal and interpersonal awareness, increased understanding of emotions, and more accurate empathy (Kegan, 1994; Loevinger, 1976; Manners and Durkin, 2001). This increase in capacity – in turn – has been correlated with greater leadership effectiveness (Kegan, 1994; McCauley et al., 2006; Rooke and Torbert, 1998; Strang and Kuhnert, 2009; Torbert et al., 2004). As compared with leaders who hold conventional stages of meaning-making, leaders with post-conventional meaning-making are perceived as more effective. This is because they tend to think more strategically, collaborate more, seek out feedback more often, resolve conflicts better, make greater efforts to develop subordinates, and are more likely to redefine challenges so as to capitalize on connections across them ( Joiner and Josephs, 2007). Thus, leaders with mature, post-conventional meaning-making systems have access to enhanced and new capacities that others may not. This seems strengthen their ability to respond to complex, ambiguous, and sophisticated challenges.
In this study I use the action logics framework created by Torbert and colleagues (Fisher et al., 1987; Torbert, 1987; Torbert et al., 2004). Based upon Loevinger’s (1966, 1976) research into ego-development and self-identity, it was expanded upon by Cook-Greuter (1999, 2004). An “action logic” represents how we organize and interpret reality. It describes the developmental stage of meaning-making that informs and drives reasoning and behavior. It includes what we see as the purpose of life, what needs we act upon, what ends we move toward, our emotions and our experience of being, and how we think about ourselves and the world (Cook-Greuter, 1999; Torbert et al., 2004). There are eight action logics prevalent in the adult population (see Table I).
My research focused on very rare leaders who hold one of the three latest, or most mature, action logics (i.e. Strategist, Alchemist, and Ironist). These individuals represent approximately 5-6 percent of the adult population in the US (n ¼ 4,510; Cook-Greuter, 1999, 2004). At these very complex stages of development, many metacognitive (Metcalfe and Shimamura, 1994) and metaemotional (Gottman et al., 1997) capacities arise, beyond those previously mentioned. These include the ability to: take a systems view and even a unitive view on reality; simultaneously hold and
Leading complex change
561
A ct
io n
L o g
ic a n
d F
o cu
s Im
p li
ca ti
o n
s fo
r su
st a in
a b
il it
y le
a d
er sh
ip S
tr en
g th
s a n
d li
m it
a ti
o n
s
P re -c o n v en ti o n a l st a g e
T h
e O
p p
o rt
u n
is t
fo cu
se s
o n
o w
n im
m ed
ia te
n ee
d s,
o p
p o rt
u n
it y
, a n
d se
lf -p
ro te
ct io
n A p p ro x . ti m e h o ri zo n
: N
o w
A p p ro x . sp a ce
fr a m e:
E g
o -
ce n
tr ic
5 p
er ce
n t
o f
U S
a d
u lt
s
W in
s a n
y w
a y
p o ss
ib le
. S
el f-
o ri
en te
d ;
m a n
ip u
la ti
v e;
“m ig
h t
m a k
es ri
g h
t” .
L it
tl e
se n
si ti
v it
y to
su st
a in
a b
il it
y is
su es
ex ce
p t
w h
en th
ey re
p re
se n
t a
th re
a t
o r
fo re
se ea
b le
g a in
fo r
th e
m a n
a g
er ;
re si
st a n
ce to
p re
ss u
re fr
o m
st a k
eh o ld
er s,
w h
o a re
v ie
w ed
a s
d et
ri m
en ta
l to
ec o n
o m
ic in
te re
st s;
sp o ra
d ic
a n
d sh
o rt
-t er
m m
ea su
re s
S o u rc e o f p o w er
: C
o er
ci v
e (u
n il
a te
ra ll
y ),
e. g
. ex
ec u
ti v
e a u
th o ri
ty H o w in fl u en ce s o th er s:
T a k
es m
a tt
er in
to o w
n h
a n
d s,
co er
ce s,
w in
s th
e fi
g h
t
S tr en g th s:
G o o d
in em
er g
en ci
es a n
d sa
le s
o p
p o rt
u n
it ie
s. M
a y
se iz
e ce
rt a in
su st
a in
a b
il it
y o p
p o rt
u n
it ie
s o r
re a ct
q u
ic k
ly in
a cr
is is
; su
p er
fi ci
a l
a ct
io n
s m
a y
b e
sh o w
ca se
d o p
p o rt
u n
is ti
ca ll
y L im
it a ti o n s:
P u
rs u
it o f
in d
iv id
u a l
in te
re st
s w
it h
o u
t re
g a rd
fo r
su st
a in
a b
il it
y im
p a ct
s; co
m p
re h
en si
o n
o f
su st
a in
a b
il it
y is
su es
li m
it ed
to im
m ed
ia te
b en
efi ts
o r
co n
st ra
in ts
C o n v en ti o n a l st a g es
o f m ea n in g -m
a k in g
T h
e D
ip lo
m a t
fo cu
se s
o n
so ci
a ll
y -e
x p
ec te
d b
eh a v
io r
a n
d a p
p ro
v a l
A p p ro x . ti m e h o ri zo n
: P
a st
a n
d to
d a y
A p p ro x . sp a ce
fr a m e:
E th
n o -
ce n
tr ic
1 2
p er
ce n
t o f
U S
a d
u lt
s
A v
o id
s o v
er t
co n
fl ic
t. W
a n
ts to
b el
o n
g ;o
b ey
s g
ro u
p n
o rm
s; ra
re ly
ro ck
s th
e b
o a t.
S u
p p
o rt
s su
st a in
a b
il it
y q
u es
ti o n
s d
u e
to co
n ce
rn fo
r a p
p ea
ra n
ce s
o r
to fo
ll o w
a tr
en d
in es
ta b
li sh
ed so
ci a l
co n
v en
ti o n
s; co
n ce
rn ed
w it
h so
o th
in g
te n
si o n
s re
la te
d to
su st
a in
a b
il it
y is
su es
w it
h in
th e
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
a n
d in
re la
ti o n
s w
it h
st a k
eh o ld
er s
S o u rc e o f p o w er
: D
ip lo
m a ti
c, e.
g .
p er
su a si
v e
p o w
er ,
p ee
r p
o w
er H o w in fl u en ce s o th er s:
E n
fo rc
es ex
is ti
n g
so ci
a l
n o rm
s, en
co u
ra g
es ,
ca jo
le s,
re q
u ir
es co
n fo
rm it
y w
it h
p ro
to co
l to
g et
o th
er s
to fo
ll o w
S tr en g th s:
G o o d
a s
su p
p o rt
iv e
g lu
e w
it h
in a n
o ffi
ce ;
h el
p s
b ri
n g
p eo
p le
to g
et h
er .
R ea
ct iv
e a tt
it u
d e
w it
h re
sp ec
t to
su st
a in
a b
il it
y p
re ss
u re
s; co
n si
d er
a ti
o n
o f
re g
u la
to ry
co n
st ra
in ts
a n
d th
e im
p a ct
o n
th e
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
a l
im a g
e L im
it a ti o n s:
S u
p er
fi ci
a l
co n
fo rm
it y
to ex
te rn
a l
p re
ss u
re s;
a b
se n
ce o f
re a l
re a p
p ra
is a l
o f
h o w
th in
g s
a re
d o n
e, st
a te
m en
ts o ft
en co
n tr
a d
ic t
a ct
io n
s
T h
e E
x p
er t
fo cu
se s
o n
ex p
er ti
se ,
p ro
ce d
u re
, a n
d ef
fi ci
en cy
A p p ro x . ti m e h o ri zo n
: M
o n
th s
A p p ro x . sp a ce
fr a m e:
E a rl
y w
o rl
d -c
en tr
ic (a
ll h
u m
a n
s)
3 8
p er
ce n
t o f
U S
a d
u lt
s
R u
le s
b y
lo g
ic a n
d ex
p er
ti se
; se
ek s
ra ti
o n
a l
ef fi
ci en
cy .
C o n
si d
er s
su st
a in
a b
il it
y is
su es
fr o m
a te
ch n
ic a l,
sp ec
ia li
ze d
p er
sp ec
ti v
e; re
in fo
rc em
en t
o f
ex p
er ti
se o f
su st
a in
a b
il it
y se
rv ic
es ;
se ek
s sc
ie n
ti fi
c ce
rt it
u d
e b
ef o re
a ct
in g
; p
re fe
re n
ce fo
r p
ro v
en te
ch n
ic a l
a p
p ro
a ch
es S o u rc e o f p o w er
: L
o g
is ti
ca l,
e. g
. k
n o w
le d
g e-
b a se
d o r
a u
th o ri
ta ti
v e
p o w
er H o w in fl u en ce s o th er s:
G iv
es p
er so
n a l
a tt
en ti
o n
to d
et a il
a n
d se
ek s
p er
fe ct
io n
, a rg
u es
o w
n p
o si
ti o n
a n
d d
is m
is se
s o th
er s’
co n
ce rn
s
S tr en g th s:
G o o d
a s
a n
in d
iv id
u a l
co n
tr ib
u to
r. D
ev el
o p
m en
t o f
su st
a in
a b
il it
y k
n o w
le d
g e
w it
h in
th e
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
; im
p le
m en
ta ti
o n
o f
su st
a in
a b
il it
y te
ch n
o lo
g ie
s L im
it a ti o n s:
L im
it ed
v is
io n
a n
d la
ck o f
in te
g ra
ti o n
o f
su st
a in
a b
il it
y is
su es
; d
en ia
l o f
ce rt
a in
p ro
b le
m s;
h a s
d if
fi cu
lt y
w it
h co
ll a b
o ra
ti o n
T h
e A
ch ie
v er
fo cu
se s
o n
d el
iv er
y o f
re su
lt s,
g o a ls
, ef
fe ct
iv en
es s,
a n
d su
cc es
s w
it h
in th
e sy
st em
A p p ro x . ti m e h o ri zo n
: 1 -5
y ea
rs A p p ro x . sp a ce
fr a m e:
W o rl
d -
ce n
tr ic
(a ll
h u
m a n
s)
3 0
p er
ce n
t o f
U S
a d
u lt
s
M ee
ts st
ra te
g ic
g o a ls
.E ff
ec ti
v el
y a ch
ie v
es g
o a ls
th ro
u g
h te
a m
s; ju
g g
le s
m a n
a g
er ia
l d
u ti
es a n
d m
a rk
et d
em a n
d s.
In te
g ra
ti o n
o f
su st
a in
a b
il it
y is
su es
in to
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
a l
o b
je ct
iv es
a n
d p
ro ce
d u
re s;
d ev
el o p
m en
t o f
su st
a in
a b
il it
y co
m m
it te
es in
te g
ra ti
n g
d if
fe re
n t
se rv
ic es
; re
sp o n
se to
m a rk
et co
n ce
rn s
w it
h re
sp ec
t to
ec o lo
g ic
a l
is su
es ;
co n
ce rn
fo r
im p
ro v
in g
p er
fo rm
a n
ce S o u rc e o f p o w er
: C
o o rd
in a ti
n g
(c o o rd
in a ti
n g
th e
so u
rc es
o f
p o w
er o f
p re
v io
u s
th re
e a ct
io n
lo g
ic s)
H o w in fl u en ce s o th er s:
P ro
v id
es lo
g ic
a l
a rg
u m
en t,
d a ta
, ex
p er
ie n
ce ;
m a k
es ta
sk /g
o a l-
o ri
en te
d co
n tr
a ct
u a l
a g
re em
en ts
S tr en g th s:
W el
l su
it ed
to m
a n
a g
er ia
l ro
le s;
a ct
io n
a n
d g
o a l
o ri
en te
d .
E ffi
ci en
t im
p le
m en
ta ti
o n
o f
IS O
1 4 0 0 1
ty p
e m
a n
a g
em en
t sy
st em
s; fo
ll o w
-u p
o f
su st
a in
a b
il it
y p
er fo
rm a n
ce ;
m o re
w id
es p
re a d
em p
lo y
ee in
v o lv
em en
t; p
ra g
m a ti
sm L im
it a ti o n s:
D if
fi cu
lt q
u es
ti o n
in g
m a n
a g
em en
t sy
st em
s in
p la
ce ;
co n
v en
ti o n
a l
su st
a in
a b
il it
y g
o a ls
a n
d m
ea su
re m
en ts
; la
ck o f
cr it
ic a l
d et
a ch
m en
t w
it h
re sp
ec t
to co
n v
en ti
o n
s
(c o n ti n u ed
)
Table I. The eight most prevalent action logics amongst US adults, framed for sustainability leadership
JOCM 25,4
562
A ct
io n
L o g
ic a n
d F
o cu
s Im
p li
ca ti
o n
s fo
r su
st a in
a b
il it
y le
a d
er sh
ip S
tr en
g th
s a n
d li
m it
a ti
o n
s
P o st -c o n v en ti o n a l st a g es
o f
m ea n in g -m
a k in g
T h
e In
d iv
id u
a li
st fo
cu se
s o n
se lf
in re
la ti
o n
sh ip
to th
e sy
st em
a n
d in
in te
ra ct
io n
w it
h th
e sy
st em
A p p ro x . ti m e h o ri zo n
: 1 -1
0 þ
y ea
rs A p p ro x . sp a ce
fr a m e:
E a rl
y p
la n
et -c
en tr
ic (a
ll se
n ti
en ce
)
1 0
p er
ce n
t o f
U S
a d
u lt
s
In te
rw ea
v es
co m
p et
in g
p er
so n
a l
a n
d co
m p
a n
y a ct
io n
lo g
ic s.
C re
a te
s u
n iq
u e
st ru
ct u
re s
to re
so lv
e g
a p
s b
et w
ee n
st ra
te g
y a n
d p
er fo
rm a n
ce .
In cl
in ed
to d
ev el
o p
o ri
g in
a l
a n
d cr
ea ti
v e
su st
a in
a b
il it
y so
lu ti
o n
s, to
q u
es ti
o n
p re
co n
ce iv
ed n
o ti
o n
s; d
ev el
o p
m en
t o f
a p
a rt
ic ip
a ti
v e
a p
p ro
a ch
re q
u ir
in g
g re
a te
r em
p lo
y ee
in v
o lv
em en
t; m
o re
sy st
em ic
a n
d b
ro a d
er v
is io
n o f
is su
es S o u rc e o f p o w er
: C
o n
fr o n
ti n
g ;
u se
d to
d ec
o n
st ru
ct o th
er ’s
fr a m
es o r
w o rl
d v
ie w
s H o w in fl u en ce s o th er s:
A d
a p
ts (i
g n
o re
s) ru
le s
w h
en n
ee d
ed ,
o r
in v
en ts
n ew
o n
es ;
d is
cu ss
es is
su es
a n
d a ir
s d
if fe
re n
ce s
S tr en g th s:
E ff
ec ti
v e
in v
en tu
re a n
d co
n su
lt in
g ro
le s.
A ct
iv e
co n
si d
er a ti
o n
o f
th e
id ea
s a n
d su
g g
es ti
o n
s o f
d iv
er se
st a k
eh o ld
er s;
p er
so n
a l
co m
m it
m en
t o f
th e
m a n
a g
er ;
m o re
co m
p le
x ,
sy st
em ic
a n
d in
te g
ra te
d a p
p ro
a ch
L im
it a ti o n s:
D is
cu ss
io n
s th
a t
m a y
so m
et im
es se
em lo
n g
a n
d u
n p
ro d
u ct
iv e;
id ea
li sm
th a t
m a y
la ck
p ra
g m
a ti
sm ,
u se
le ss
q u
es ti
o n
in g
o f
is su
es ;
p o ss
ib le
co n
fl ic
t w
it h
E x
p er
ts a n
d A
ch ie
v er
s
T h
e S
tr a te
g is
t fo
cu se
s o n
li n
k in
g th
eo ry
a n
d p
ri n
ci p
le s
w it
h p
ra ct
ic e;
d y
n a m
ic sy
st em
s in
te ra
ct io
n s;
se lf
-d ev
el o p
m en
t a n
d se
lf -a
ct u
a li
za ti
o n
A p p ro x . ti m e h o ri zo n
: O
w n
h is
to ry
o r
li fe
ti m
e A p p ro x . sp a ce
fr a m e:
P la
n et
- ce
n tr
ic (a
ll se
n ti
en ce
)
> 4
p er
ce n
t o f
U S
a d
u lt
s
G en
er a te
s o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
a l
a n
d p
er so
n a l
tr a n
sf o rm
a ti
o n
s. E
x er
ci se
s th
e p
o w
er o f
m u
tu a l
in q
u ir
y , v
ig il
a n
ce , a n
d v
u ln
er a b
il it
y fo
r b
o th
th e
sh o rt
a n
d lo
n g
te rm
. In
cl in
ed to
p ro
p o se
a p
ro -s
u st
a in
a b
il it
y v
is io
n a n
d cu
lt u
re fo
r th
e o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
, m
o re
in -d
ep th
tr a n
sf o rm
a ti
o n
o f
in -h
o u
se h
a b
it s
a n
d v
a lu
es ;d
ev el
o p
m en
t o f
a m
o re
p ro
a ct
iv e
a p
p ro
a ch
co n
d u
ci v
e to
a n
ti ci
p a ti
n g
lo n
g te
rm tr
en d
s; m
a rk
ed in
te re
st fo
r g
lo b
a l
su st
a in
a b
il it
y is
su es
; in
te g
ra ti
o n
o f
ec o n
o m
ic ,
so ci
a l
a n
d su
st a in
a b
il it
y a sp
ec ts
S o u rc e o f p o w er
: In
te g
ra ti
v e;
(c o n
sc io
u sl
y tr
a n
sf o rm
a ti
v e)
H o w in fl u en ce s o th er s:
L ea
d s
in re
fr a m
in g
, re
in te
rp re
ti n
g si
tu a ti
o n
so th
a t
d ec
is io
n s
su p
p o rt
o v
er a ll
p ri
n ci
p le
, st
ra te
g y
, in
te g
ri ty
, a n
d fo
re si
g h
t
S tr en g th s:
E ff
ec ti
v e
a s
a tr
a n
sf o rm
a ti
o n
a l
le a d
er .
C h
a n
g es
in v
a lu
es a n
d p
ra ct
ic es
; re
a l
in te
g ra
ti o n
o f
th e
p ri
n ci
p le
s o f
su st
a in
a b
le d
ev el
o p
m en
t; h
a rm
o n
iz a ti
o n
o f
th e
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
w it
h so
ci a l
ex p
ec ta
ti o n
s; lo
n g
-t er
m p
er sp
ec ti
v e
L im
it a ti o n s:
A p
p ro
a ch
th a t
m a y
se em
d if
fi cu
lt to
g ra
sp a n
d im
p ra
ct ic
a l;
ri sk
o f
d is
co n
n ec
t w
it h
p re
ss u
re s
to p
ro d
u ce
sh o rt
-t er
m p
ro fi
ts ;
sc a rc
it y
o f
S tr
a te
g is
ts
T h
e A
lc h
em is
t fo
cu se
s o n
th e
in te
rp la
y o f
a w
a re
n es
s, th
o u
g h
t, a ct
io n
, a n
d ef
fe ct
s; tr
a n
sf o rm
in g
se lf
a n
d o th
er s
A p p ro x . ti m e h o ri zo n
: M
u lt
i- g
en er
a ti
o n
a l;
g lo
b a l
h is
to ri
ca l
A p p ro x . sp a ce
fr a m e:
K o sm
o s-
ce n
tr ic
(m a n
if es
t a n
d u
n m
a n
if es
t)
1 p
er ce
n t
o f
U S
a d
u lt
s
G en
er a te
s so
ci a l
tr a n
sf o rm
a ti
o n
s. In
te g
ra te
s m
a te
ri a l,
sp ir
it u
a l,
a n
d so
ci et
a l
tr a n
sf o rm
a ti
o n
. R
e- ce
n te
ri n
g o f
th e
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
’s m
is si
o n
a n
d v
o ca
ti o n
w it
h re
g a rd
to so
ci a l
a n
d en
v ir
o n
m en
ta l
re sp
o n
si b
il it
ie s;
a ct
iv is
t m
a n
a g
er ia
l co
m m
it m
en t;
in v
o lv
em en
t in
v a ri
o u
s o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
s a n
d ev
en ts
p ro
m o ti
n g
h a rm
o n
io u
s so
ci et
a l
d ev
el o p
m en
t; su
p p
o rt
fo r
g lo
b a l
h u
m a n
it a ri
a n
ca u
se s
S o u rc e o f p o w er
: S
h a m
a n
is ti
c (t
h ro
u g
h p
re se
n ce
) H o w in fl u en ce s o th er s:
R ef
ra m
es ,
tu rn
s in
si d
e- o u
t, u
p si
d e-
d o w
n ,
cl o w
n in
g ,
h o ld
in g
u p
m ir
ro r
to so
ci et
y ;
o ft
en w
o rk
s b
eh in
d th
e sc
en es
S tr en g th s:
G o o d
a t
le a d
in g
so ci
et y
-w id
e tr
a n
sf o rm
a ti
o n
s. A
ct iv
e in
v o lv
em en
t in
th e
co m
p re
h en
si v
e tr
a n
sf o rm
a ti
o n
o f
th e
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
a n
d so
ci et
y ;
co n
ce rn
fo r
a u
th en
ti ci
ty ,
tr u
th a n
d tr
a n
sp a re
n cy
; co
m p
le x
a n
d in
te g
ra te
d v
is io
n L im
it a ti o n s:
R is
k o f
sc a tt
er in
g m
a n
a g
er ia
l a n
d o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
a l
ef fo
rt s,
to th
e b
en efi
t o f
th e
co m
m o n
g o o d
; lo
si n
g to
u ch
w it
h th
e p
ri m
a ry
v o ca
ti o n
o f
th e
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
; ex
tr em
e ra
ri ty
o f
A lc
h em
is ts
(c o n ti n u ed
)
Table I.
Leading complex change
563
A ct
io n
L o g
ic a n
d F
o cu
s Im
p li
ca ti
o n
s fo
r su
st a in
a b
il it
y le
a d
er sh
ip S
tr en
g th
s a n
d li
m it
a ti
o n
s
T h
e Ir
o n
is t
fo cu
se s
o n
b ei
n g
a s
w el
l a s
o n
w it
n es
si n
g th
e m
o m
en t
to m
o m
en t
fl u
x o f
ex p
er ie
n ce
, st
a te
s o f
m in
d ,
a n
d a ri
si n
g o f
co n
sc io
u sn
es s
A p p ro x . ti m e h o ri zo n
: (U
n d
er re
se a rc
h )
A ll
ti m
e; b
ey o n
d ti
m e
A p p ro x . sp a ce
fr a m e:
(U n
d er
re se
a rc
h )
K o sm
o s-
ce n
tr ic
0 .5
p er
ce n
t o f
U S
a d
u lt
s
(U n
d er
re se
a rc
h )
In st
it u
ti o n
a li
ze s
d ev
el o p
m en
ta l
p ro
ce ss
es th
ro u
g h
“l ib
er a ti
n g
d is
ci p
li n
es .”
H o ld
s a
co sm
ic o r
u n
iv er
sa l
p er
sp ec
ti v
e; v
is io
n a ry
S o u rc e o f p o w er
: (U
n d
er re
se a rc
h )
U n
it iv
e w
o rl
d v
ie w
, tr
a n
sc en
d en
t a w
a re
n es
s H o w in fl u en ce s o th er s:
(U n
d er
re se
a rc
h )
S tr en g th s:
(U n
d er
re se
a rc
h )
C re
a te
s th
e co
n d
it io
n s
fo r
d ee
p d
ev el
o p
m en
t o f
in d
iv id
u a ls
a n
d co
ll ec
ti v
es L im
it a ti o n s:
(U n
d er
re se
a rc
h )
N o te s :
T h
e d
ir ec
ti o n
o f
d ev
el o p
m en
t fo
r a ct
io n
lo g
ic s
is fr
o m
th e
O p
p o rt
u n
is t
to th
e Ir
o n
is t
(a n
d p
o te
n ti
a ll
y b
ey o n
d ).
S a m
p le
si ze
fo r
U S
p o p
u la
ti o n
p er
ce n
ta g
es :
n ¼
4 ,5
1 0 .
T a b
le co
m p
il ed
fr o m
fo u
r so
u rc
es ,
w it
h p
er m
is si
o n
: B
o ir
a l et
a l.
(2 0 0 9 ),
C o o k
-G re
u te
r (2
0 0 4 ),
R o o k
e a n
d T
o rb
er t
(2 0 0 5 )
a n
d O
’F a ll
o n
(2 0 1 2 )
Table I.
JOCM 25,4
564
manage conflicting frames, perspectives and emotions; and deeply accept oneself, others, and the moment, without judgment. Such individuals also report deep access to intuition and perceive their rational mind as a tool, not as the principal way to understand reality. They appear to heavily tolerate uncertainty and even collaboratively engage with ambiguity to create. Finally, they experience frequent “flow” and “witnessing” states of consciousness (Cook-Greuter, 1999, 2000, 2005; Joiner and Josephs, 2007; Nicolaides, 2008). I was curious about how leaders with such complex action logics and access to these advanced capacities engage in change initiatives.
Besides constructive-developmentalism, I also drew upon sustainability leadership theory (Ferdig, 2007; Parkin, 2010; Quinn and Dalton, 2009). This field goes by various names, including corporate social responsibility leadership (D’Amato et al., 2009; Maon et al., 2009), ecocentric leadership (Shrivastava, 1994), environmental leadership (Berry and Gordon, 1993; Egri and Herman, 2000), ethical leadership (Banerjea, 2010; Ciulla, 1998), and green entrepreneurship (Pastakia, 1998; Walley and Taylor, 2002). Although there is are calls for strong and courageous leadership to drive sustainability (Kakabadse and Kakabadse, 2007; Senge, 2008), few studies describe it in action (Cox, 2005; Van Velsor, 2009). I reviewed literature concerning sustainability leaders’ values and worldviews (Boiral et al., 2009; Shrivastava, 1994; Visser and Crane, 2010), competencies (Boiral et al., 2009; Cox, 2005; Hind et al., 2009; Kakabadse et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2006), and behaviors (Doppelt, 2010; Hardman, 2009; Portugal and Yukl, 1994; Quinn and Dalton, 2009). Most of that research was exploratory and none of it empirically measured the influence of complex meaning-making on sustainability leadership. Nonetheless, some studies strongly advocate for and describe the behaviors of sustainability leaders that have a sophisticated worldview (Boiral et al., 2009; Doppelt, 2010; Hames, 2007; Hardman, 2009) or intellect (Waldman et al., 2006).
2. Methodology and participant sample This qualitative study employed semi-structured, open-ended interviews and was based upon Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) naturalistic inquiry. Participants enrolled through a nomination process underwent psychological assessment to determine their action logic. My sample consisted of leaders and change agents who had designed and implemented major sustainability initiatives within the past two years. This was defined as a program, intervention, or strategic project that aimed to improve social, economic, and/or environmental metrics for at least 1,000 people. The participants came from the private, public, and civil society sectors, and held mid- or senior-level positions.
I used a variation of the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT; Loevinger and Wessler, 1970) to assess the meaning-making capacity, or action logic, of 32 leaders and change agents. The WUSCT has been extensively refined and validated (Cohn and Westenberg, 2004; Hauser, 1976; Loevinger, 1979; Manners and Durkin, 2001), and has been revised several times (Cook-Greuter, 1999; Hy and Loevinger, 1996). It is one of the most widely used measures of human development (Bartunek et al., 1983; Cohn and Westenberg, 2004). From my original sample of 32, 13 assessed at the three latest stages measured by the instrument, resulting in a final sample of six Strategists, five Alchemists, and two Ironists. No other leadership study has had as many participants with documented, advanced
Leading complex change
565
meaning-making capacity. The five female and eight male participants came from the European Union, North America, Oceania, and South America. Eight were from the private sector (including consultancies), one from the public sector, and four from civil society, with an average age of 43.6. I conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews about their experience designing and engaging in sustainability initiatives. Through thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998) of the data, and building upon constructive-developmental and sustainability leadership theory, I developed my findings.
3. Summary of findings and discussion I make three major propositions based upon the study. These leaders:
(1) design from a deep inner foundation;
(2) access powerful internal resources and theories to distill and evolve the design; and
(3) adaptively manage the design.
Each proposition is supported by two or three major findings (see Figure 1).
Design from a deep inner foundation with profound trust An example of my first proposition – regarding designing from a deep inner foundation – comes from Luz. An executive director of an NGO, she was assessed as an Ironist. Rather than viewing sustainability work as being of service to or acting on behalf of a greater other (e.g. humanity, nature), she experiences herself being in service as spirit, grounded in oneness. From this basis of operation she engages in sustainability initiatives.
Luz: What I do [to design a sustainability initiative] is follow the evolutionary arc. Right from the outset [I ask], “What is the first emanation of spirit and how can I align to that?” This might sound really weird but it just helps me to anchor [in the One] first and foremost. . . . What this mainly is as a design process is attuning to the fabric of consciousness as it’s evolving itself and going, “Okay, so where are we here?” . . . At the deepest essence, it feels like a quality of yoga, of seeing the One in whatever Many that is arising and attuning to that.
Figure 1. Summary of findings
JOCM 25,4
566
And then if there is suffering or there is pain, work to alleviate it. . . . But as much as I can, anchoring from that One.
My findings also suggest that these leaders are willing to not know, and will work with the uncertainties of the design process. They trust themselves, other actors, and the process they have created to navigate through ambiguity. This appears to help them manage complex initiatives in environments replete with unforeseen changes and influences. An example of this trust comes from Edward. He served a senior role within the United Nations system and was assessed as a Strategist. He responds to ambiguity with the belief that the group he is working with has the wisdom needed for its situation, and that the process for uncovering it simply needs to be trusted.
Edward: When I’m facilitating with a group, my deep belief . . . is that the answer is present in the room. [People] are pregnant with solutions, with answers, with wisdom, with understanding, with strategy . . . I design the initiative . . . based on the assumption that the people involved are the right people [and have] the power, the knowledge, the insight, the wisdom, and the capacity [to do this] . . . You have to trust the process and not panic.
Access powerful internal resources and theories My second proposition concerns the internal resources these leaders access as well as three theories they utilize. When designing sustainability initiatives, all participants cited use of intuition and other ways of knowing than rational, logical analysis. They do use an objective, rational, and conceptual way of understanding to gain insight into the design, yet they also draw upon subjective, intuitive and/or other (nonrational) types of knowledge. Some claimed that by including intuitive insights their designs had better results, were easier to build, and that the process opened up an inspired, integrated design capacity. For example, Giselle is a leader focused on urban development and assessed as an Alchemist. She consciously engages with a “field of knowing” to design her sustainability initiatives. In this process, she shifts from believing she has control of the design to experiencing the design coming through her, such that she embodies it. She claims a far superior outcome as a result of not trying to rationally control production of the design.
These leaders also drew upon three theoretical frameworks to support and guide their approach:
(1) systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1968, Laszlo, 1972);
(2) complexity theory (Kauffman, 1995, Stacey, 1996); and
(3) integral theory (Edwards, 2009, Torbert et al., 2004, Wilber, 1995, 2000).
These theories seem to help them understand and navigate complexity. Most had had significant exposure to integral theory and cited it frequently. They used it for environmental scanning and assessment of situations, to support their own and others’ development, to design interventions, and to tailor communications to different worldviews. Edward, an international development practitioner for 40 þ years, noted that he and colleagues built large-scale, multi-country development programs based upon the integral framework.
Leading complex change
567
Use adaptive design management The third proposition concerns the actions these leaders took to develop and manage their designs, summarized as adaptive design management. The first aspect of this is that the participants consistently adapted their design as the context (e.g. systemic, cultural) shifted. They appeared to dialogue with the system(s) they worked with by listening for what was needed and responding accordingly. Specifically, they probed and tested the system, experimented with different interventions, and then regularly altered the design based upon feedback.
As they engaged initiatives with this rolling design approach, they also demonstrated different change leadership roles, perspectives on service, and design styles depending on their action logic (see Table II). This is the second aspect of adaptive design management. The Strategists focused more on assertively trying to catalyze change. They appeared to operate on the system, pushing and prodding it and influential stakeholders to change. The Alchemists and Ironists, in contrast, tended toward a softer approach. They tended to hold a more intersubjective or unitive relationship, respectively, with the systems in which they engaged. In that space, they focused on establishing the conditions for systemic development, including holding a creative tension (Fritz, 1999) that supported novel emergence.
The third aspect of adaptive design management is that these leaders developed themselves and/or cultivated development of key stakeholders/organizations as part of the initiative. They claimed that to foster a successful change initiative, those involved may need to change. For example, they worked to strengthen their own abilities, broaden others’ knowledge, or increase trust between groups. They focused on three types of self-development: intrapersonal (practices for self-understanding), interpersonal (practices for understanding others), and cognitive (practices for understanding the world). When supporting the development of others, they tended toward perspective-related practices. These included exposing people to new concepts, questioning assumptions, and inviting people to drop mental constructs. Roger’s case exemplifies this. As a senior leader within a large multinational and assessed as a Strategist, he was co-responsible for development of the company’s sustainability strategy. He went through extensive measures (involving almost 200 influencers, globally) to engage broad perspectives and educate decision-makers to support the sustainability strategy design. By bringing in 40 external experts, he exposed people to perspectives he claimed they never would have encountered internally.
Fifteen advanced leadership competencies Based upon these findings, I identified 15 leadership competencies the participants exhibited (see Table III). These are most appropriate for leaders who hold an Achiever, Individualist or Strategist action logic. Their development may help facilitate growth into later action logics, thereby unlocking the capacities offered by those more complex worldviews. This is not a definitive list, but rather a first step toward a competency model for leaders with post-conventional meaning-making.
4. Conclusion and implications for theory and practice This is the first empirical research that describes leadership at the intersection of sustainability and advanced adult development. It offers new insights into the behaviors and competencies of leaders who hold the very complex meaning-making
JOCM 25,4
568
Principal role Perspective on service Principal design approach for change initiatives
Strategists Catalyze. Point toward a greater vision; expose people to new perspectives; push their edges; support and enable their fullest growth and greatest potential; remove problems and barriers; reframe, integrate information for others
As an individual, be of service to others and the world. Service is grounded largely in personal meaning
Operate on systems by actively influencing those with authority, power, and influence to make the perceived changes needed in the system
Alchemists Create supportive conditions. Create space and processes for vital dialogue and development of individuals and collectives; seed new ideas and meaningful connections; address blockages in systems to improve flow; create an energetic field and the spaces for innovation to emerge and group meaning-making to develop
As an individual, be of service to others, the world, and the development of a greater Other (e.g. spirit, consciousness). Serve on behalf of that greater Other, acting as a vehicle or vessel for its will. Work to alleviate suffering. Service is grounded in trans-personal meaning
“Dialogue” with systems via experimentation and probing, while concurrently creating conditions that help systems and the individuals that constitute them to develop themselves
Ironists Hold and wonder. Hold a unified perspective with the other as “One”; hold a partnership of beyond us and them; hold and rest in the tension of not knowing and wonder into the moment – without predefined constructs and perspectives – to allow what is needed to emerge; each time a solution arises, wonder and inquire into it; hold the space for the integrative nature of consciousness to express; hold a mirror up to individuals and groups so that they may see themselves, self-reflect, and wonder; attune to the evolving nature of consciousness and wonder “where are we?” “what are we becoming?” and “what is needed and wanted next?”
Serve spirit as spirit itself. Sit with all suffering that is arising from a position “outside” of the space-time continuum. Rest in it as an expression of what is arising. Take action as deemed appropriate. Service is grounded in unitive meaning
Anchor in “Oneness” and design as the system. That is, wonder into what the system needs and wants to become next, listen closely, and principally hold the energetic tension for that next stage of maturity to emerge. Support the individuals and the system to bring forth that new way of being, in whatever ways are needed
Table II. Differences in role, service, and design
approach of sustainability leaders
with late action logics
Leading complex change
569
Competency Description
Deeply connect Ground sustainability practice in deep meaning
Honor the work of sustainability as a spiritual practice, as a sacred expression. See sustainability work as a vehicle for transformation of self, others, and the world. Act in service of others and on behalf of a greater other (e.g. universe; spirit; consciousness; god; collective intelligence; emptiness; nature)
Intuitive decision-making and harvesting
Use ways of knowing other than rational analysis to harvest profound insights and make rapid decisions. Be able to easily access this type of information alone or collectively, and facilitate individuals and groups to do so
Embrace uncertainty with profound trust
Willingness to not know, to wonder into the mystery of what will emerge next. Able to humbly rest in the face of the unknown, ambiguity, and unpredictable change, and not need to “push” for an immediate answer or resolution. Deeply trust oneself, co-designers, and the process to navigate through uncertainty
Know oneself Scan and engage the internal environment
Able to quickly become aware of and aptly respond to psychological dynamics in oneself so that they do not inappropriately influence one’s work. Deep attunement to emotional, shadow, and personality-driven forces; able to “get out of the way” and be “energetically clean” when engaging with others
Inhabit multiple perspectives Able to intellectually and emotionally hold many different perspectives related to an issue, without being overly attached to any of them. Able to argue the position of and communicate directly from different viewpoints. Be open, curious, and inviting of new perspectives, especially those that challenge or counter one’s own
Adaptively manage Dialogue with the system Able to repeatedly sense into what is needed to help a
system develop (e.g. make it more sustainable), try different interventions (e.g. prototype; experiment; seed ideas), observe the system response, and adapt accordingly (see, Snowden and Boone, 2007). Able to look at the system, through the system, and as the system as part of the dialogue
Go with the energy Able to identify and take advantage of openings and opportunities for system changes that are well received by members of the system, thereby building on momentum and moving around obstacles. Also, able to identify blockages or tensions (in individuals, groups, or systems) that hinder progress, and inquire into them
(continued)
Table III. Fifteen competencies of sustainability leaders with a Strategist, Alchemist or Ironist action logic
JOCM 25,4
570
Competency Description
Cultivate transformation Self-transformation Able to consistently develop oneself or create the
environment for self-development in the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cognitive domains, as well as other areas. Based upon deep self-knowledge, including personality dynamics and shadow issues. Able to create communities and engage mentors that consistently invite/challenge a deeper self to come forth
Create developmental conditions Able to create the initial conditions (e.g. environment) that support and/or challenge development of individuals, groups, cultures, and systems. Able to sense what the next developmental step might be for others or a system, and create fertile ground or an intervention that increases the likelihood of development or the emergence of novelty. Requires a general understanding of how individuals, groups, and systems develop
Hold space Able to effectively create the appropriate (e.g. safe; challenging) space to help a group progress (e.g. work through an inquiry; build trust; self-reflect), holding the tension of the important questions. Able to hold the creative tension or energetic potential of what is needed in the space, and/or what is needed for development of the individuals and collectives involved, thereby creating the environment for the emergence of answers/outcomes and developmental movement (see, Fritz, 1999)
Shadow mentoring Able to support others to see and appropriately respond to their psychological shadow issues and their “programming” (e.g. assumptions; limiting beliefs; projections; stories). This is not psychotherapy work, but the use of basic “maintenance” tools like the 3-2-1 process (Wilber et al., 2008) to address shadow issues
Navigate with sophisticated theories, frameworks Systems theory and systems thinking Understand the fundamental concepts and language of
systems theory. Be able to apply systems thinking to better understand sustainability issues and support the development of systems (see, Bertalanffy, 1968, Laszlo, 1972)
Complexity theory and complexity thinking
Understand the fundamental concepts and language of complexity theory, especially as it relates to leadership. Be able to apply complexity thinking to better understand critical issues and support the development of complex adaptive systems (see, Kauffman, 1995, Marion and Uhl- Bien, 2001, Stacey, 1996, Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2008)
(continued) Table III.
Leading complex change
571
systems. This exploratory data can be used to help guide the development of leaders into post-conventional meaning-making which may, in turn, aid them to more effectively address global challenges.
Although exploratory, these findings have significant implications for leadership theory in general and sustainability leadership theory in particular. With few exceptions, leadership researchers regularly build frameworks and competency models, and study exemplars, without accounting for the vast differences in meaning-making amongst their sample and target populations. However, the development of a leader’s meaning-making system is a key determinant of leadership effectiveness. This primary and secondary research has demonstrated important variances in how leaders with different meaning-making systems engage in complex change. These findings call into question the credibility of leadership theory that has not incorporated a constructive-developmental perspective. More importantly, they highlight the opportunity to strengthen the efficacy of future leadership research. Findings from constructive-developmentalism should therefore be incorporated into leadership studies and leader development practice.
If society is to achieve the difficult and complex objectives of global sustainability, we will likely need myriad leaders with advanced meaning-making capacities. Numerous resources explore how to cultivate these capacities; interested parties are encouraged to review them (see, Chandler, 1990; Eigel, 1998; Gauthier and Fowler, 2008; Harris and Kuhnert, 2008; Kegan and Lahey, 2001, 2009; Pfaffenberger, 2005, 2006; Reams, 2002; Rooke and Torbert, 1998; Scott, 2009; Wagner and Kegan, 2006; Wilber et al., 2008).
References
Banerjea, P. (2010), “Wholesome ethical leadership”, The ICFAI Journal of Corporate Governance, Vol. 9, p. 7.
Bartunek, J.M., Gordon, J.R. and Weathersby, R.P. (1983), “Developing ‘complicated’ understanding in administrators”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 273-84.
Competency Description
Integral theory and integral reflection Understand the fundamental concepts and language of integral theory. Be able to use integral theory to: assess or diagnose an issue and design an intervention; tailor communications to different worldviews; support the development of oneself, others, groups, cultures, and systems. (see, Beck and Cowan, 1996, Edwards, 2009, Torbert, 2000, Torbert et al., 2004, Wilber, 1995, 2000)
Polarity management Understand the fundamental concepts and language of polarity management. Be able to recognize and effectively engage important polarities such as: subjective-objective; individual-collective; rational-intuitive; masculine-feminine; structured-dynamic; challenge-support; and big picture- details (see, Johnson, 1992, Johnson, 1993)Table III.
JOCM 25,4
572
Beck, D.E. and Cowan, C.C. (1996), Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Berry, J.K. and Gordon, J.C. (1993), Environmental Leadership: Developing Effective Skills and Styles, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Bertalanffy, L.V. (1968), General Systems Theory, Braziller, New York, NY.
Boiral, O., Cayer, M. and Baron, C.M. (2009), “The action logics of environmental leadership: a developmental perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, pp. 479-99.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Brown, B.C. (2011), “An empirical study of sustainability leaders who hold postconventional consciousness”, in Millar, C. (Ed.), Ashridge International Research Conference on the Sustainability Challenge: Organisational Change and Transformational Vision, Ashridge Business University, Berkhamsted.
Brown, B.C. (2012), “Conscious leadership for sustainability: how leaders with late-stage action logics design and engage in sustainability initiatives”, Human and Organizational Systems, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA.
Chandler, H.M. (1990), “Transcendental meditation and awakening wisdom: a 10-year longitudinal study of self-development”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 51, UMI No. 9107332.
Ciulla, J.B. (1998), Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Cohn, L.D. and Westenberg, P.M. (2004), “Intelligence and maturity: meta-analytic evidence for the incremental and discriminant validity of Loevinger’s measure of ego development”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 760-72.
Cook-Greuter, S.R. (1999), “Postautonomous ego development: a study of its nature and measurement”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 60, UMI No. 993312.
Cook-Greuter, S.R. (2000), “Mature ego development: a gateway to ego transcendence?”, Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 227-40.
Cook-Greuter, S.R. (2004), “Making the case for a developmental perspective”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 275-81.
Cook-Greuter, S.R. (2005), “Ego development: nine levels of increasing embrace”, unpublished manuscript.
Cox, C.K. (2005), “Organic leadership: the co-creation of good business, global prosperity, and a greener future”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 66, UMI No. 3180735.
D’Amato, A., Henderson, S. and Florence, S. (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development: A Guide to Leadership Tasks and Functions, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Doppelt, B. (2010), Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society, Greenleaf, Sheffield.
Edwards, M.G. (2009), Organizational Transformation for Sustainability: An Integral Metatheory, Routledge, London.
Egri, C.P. and Herman, S. (2000), “Leadership in the North American environmental sector: values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 571-604.
Eigel, K.M. (1998), “Leader effectiveness: a constructive developmental view and investigation”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 59, UMI No. 9836315.
Leading complex change
573
Ferdig, M.A. (2007), “Sustainability leadership: co-creating a sustainable future”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 7, p. 25.
Fingarette, H. (1963), The Self in Transformation, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Fisher, D., Merron, K. and Torbert, W.R. (1987), “Human development and managerial effectiveness”, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 257-73.
Fritz, R. (1999), The Path of Least Resistance for Managers: Designing Organizations to Succeed, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Gauthier, A. and Fowler, M. (2008), “Integrally-informed approaches to transformational leadership development”, paper presented at 1st Biannual Integral Theory Conferece, JFK University, Pleasant Hill, CA.
Gottman, J.M., Katz, L.F. and Hooven, C. (1997), Meta-emotion: How Families Communicate Emotionally, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Hames, R.D. (2007), The Five Literacies of Global Leadership: What Authentic Leaders Know and You Need to Find Out, Jossey-Bass, Chichester.
Hardman, G. (2009), “Regenerative leadership: an integral theory for transforming people and organizations for sustainability in business, education, and community”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 70, UMI No. 3353763.
Harris, L.S. and Kuhnert, K.W. (2008), “Looking through the lens of leadership: a constructive developmental approach”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 47-67.
Hauser, S.T. (1976), “Loevinger’s model and measure of ego development: a critical review”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 83, pp. 928-55.
Hind, P., Wilson, A. and Lenssen, G. (2009), “Developing leaders for sustainable business”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Hy, L.X. and Loevinger, J. (1996), Measuring Ego Development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Johnson, B. (1992), Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems, HRD Press, Amherst, MA.
Johnson, B. (1993), “Polarity management”, Executive Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, p. 28.
Joiner, B. and Josephs, S. (2007), Leadership Agility: Five Levels of Mastery for Anticipating and Initiating Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kakabadse, A.P. and Kakabadse, N.K. (2007), CSR in Practice: Delving Deep, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Kakabadse, N.K., Kakabadse, A.P. and Lee-Davies, L. (2009), “CSR leaders road-map”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 50-7.
Kauffman, S.A. (1995), At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-organization and Complexity, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Kegan, R. (1980), “Making meaning: the constructive-developmental approach to persons and practice”, The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 373-80.
Kegan, R. (1982), The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kegan, R. (1994), In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kegan, R. and Lahey, L.L. (2001), How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work: Seven Languages for Transformation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
JOCM 25,4
574
Kegan, R. and Lahey, L.L. (2009), Immunity to Change: How to Overcome It and Unlock Potential in Yourself and Your Organization, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Kohlberg, L. (1969), “Stage and sequence: the cognitive developmental approach to socialization”, in Goslin, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research, Rand McNally, New York, NY.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change: why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Laszlo, E. (1972), Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought, Gordon & Breach, New York, NY.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Newbury, CA.
Loevinger, J. (1966), “The meaning and measurement of ego-development”, American Psychologist, Vol. 21, pp. 195-206.
Loevinger, J. (1976), Ego Development: Conceptions and Theories, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Loevinger, J. (1979), “Construct validity of the sentence completion test of ego development”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 3, pp. 281-311.
Loevinger, J. and Wessler, R. (1970), Measuring Ego Development: Vol. 1. Construction and Use of a Sentence Completion Test, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
McCauley, C.D., Drath, W.H., Palus, C.J., O’Connor, P.M.G. and Baker, B.A. (2006), “The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 634-53.
Manners, J. and Durkin, K. (2001), “A critical review of the validity of ego development theory and its measurement”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 77, pp. 541-67.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2009), “Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: an integrative framework grounded in theory and practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, Suppl 1, pp. 71-89.
Marion, R. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2001), “Leadership in complex organizations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 389-418.
Metcalfe, J. and Shimamura, A.P. (1994), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nicolaides, A. (2008), “Learning their way through ambiguity: explorations of how nine developmentally mature adults make sense of ambiguity”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 69, UMI No. 3327082.
O’Fallon, T. (2012), “Leadership and the interpenetration of structure and state stages”, Integral Leadership Review, January.
Parkin, S. (2010), The Positive Deviant: Sustainability Leadership in a Perverse World, Earthscan, London.
Pastakia, A. (1998), “Grassroots ecopreneurs: change agents for a sustainable society”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 157-73.
Perry, W. (1970), Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, NY.
Pfaffenberger, A. (2005), “Optimal adult development: an inquiry into the dynamics of growth”, The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, p. 279.
Pfaffenberger, A. (2006), “Exploring the pathways to postconventional personality development”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 67, UMI No. 3246553.
Leading complex change
575
Portugal, E. and Yukl, G. (1994), “Perspectives on environmental leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 271-6.
Quinn, L. and Dalton, M. (2009), “Leading for sustainability: implementing the tasks of leadership”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Reams, J.H. (2002), “The consciousness of transpersonal leadership”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 63, UMI No. 3053701.
Rooke, D. and Torbert, W.R. (1998), “Organizational transformation as a function of CEO’s developmental stage”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 11-28.
Rooke, D. and Torbert, W.R. (2005), “Seven transformations of leadership”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83, p. 66.
Scott, S. (2009), “The effects of personal growth activities on individuals in post-conventional stages of ego development”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 70, UMI No. 3343849.
Selman, R. (1974), The Development and Conceptions of Interpersonal Relationships, Vols. 1-2, Harvard-Judge Baker Social Reasoning Project, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Senge, P.M. (2008), The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Sharma, S. (2000), “Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, p. 681.
Shrivastava, P. (1994), “Ecocentric leadership in the 21st century”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 223-6.
Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M.E. (2007), “A leader’s framework for decision making”, Harvard Business Review, November, pp. 1-8.
Stacey, R.D. (1996), Complexity and Creativity in Organizations, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Strang, S. and Kuhnert, K.W. (2009), “Personality and leadership developmental levels as predictors of leader performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 421-33.
Torbert, W.R. (1987), Managing the Corporate Dream: Restructuring for Long-term Success, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Torbert, W.R. (2000), “A developmental approach to social science: integrating first-, second-, and third-person research/practice through single-, double-, and triple-loop feedback”, Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 7, pp. 255-68.
Torbert, W.R., Cook-Greuter, S.R., Fisher, D., Foldy, E., Gauthier, A., Keeley, J., Rooke, D., Ross, S., Royce, C., Rudolph, J., Taylor, S. and Tran, M. (2004), Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and Transformational Leadership, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Uhl-Bien, M. and Marion, R. (Eds) (2008), Complexity Leadership, Part 1: Conceptual Foundations, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.
Van Velsor, E. (2009), “Introduction: leadership and corporate social responsibility”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-6.
Visser, W. and Crane, A. (2010), “Corporate sustainability and the individual: understanding what drives sustainability professionals as change agents”, SSRN Working Paper Series.
Wagner, T. and Kegan, R. (2006), Change Leadership: A Practical Guide to Transforming Our Schools, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Waldman, D.A., Siegel, D.S. and Javidan, M. (2006), “Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility”, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 1703-25.
JOCM 25,4
576
Walley, E.E. and Taylor, D.W. (2002), “Opportunists, champions, mavericks . . .? A typology of green entrepreneurs”, Greener Management International, Vol. 38, pp. 31-44.
Wilber, K. (1995), Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Shambhala, Boston, MA.
Wilber, K. (2000), A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality, Shambhala, Boston, MA.
Wilber, K., Patten, T., Leonard, A. and Morelli, M. (2008), Integral Life Practice: A 21st Century Blueprint for Physical Health, Emotional Balance, Mental Clarity and Spiritual Awakening, Integral Books, Boston, MA.
Wilson, A., Lenssen, G. and Hind, P. (2006), Leadership Qualities and Management Competencies for Corporate Responsibility: A Research Report for the European Academy of Business in Society, Ashridge, Berkhamstead.
About the author Dr Barrett C. Brown is President of the MetaIntegral Academy and Executive Director of the Integral Sustainability Center. He specializes in leader development and organizational transformation. He has served on the leadership team or advisory board of 12 companies, NGOs, and foundations, consulted to many others, and presented widely, including to CEOs and government ministers. The author of several dozen articles and white papers on sustainability, leadership, and organizational change, his writings are used in universities in North America and Europe as well as in the UN system. His doctoral studies were in human and organizational systems at Fielding Graduate University. Barrett C. Brown can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Leading complex change
577
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
