Replying to LO29048 --
Fred said:
Having looked into this a little further, I think I'll stand by my
off-the-cuff remark above.
------------ (and talking to one's self is perhaps one of the best modes
of development.<G>)
There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding, which might have been
inferred from a remark that somehow there is some kind of us vs. them
issue regarding classification of folks into conventional/post
conventional.
Actually Fred, et al, there is a significant amount of empirical evidence
to help us understand the ability to develop a more complex "order of
mind" as a result of increasing complexity in life conditions (usually
created by successful coping). Torbert has actually shown that
postconventional (or whatever you want to call it--say we call it "more
complex" leadership) predicts organizational success in a small but
longitudinal study of organizations.
I guess any time someone brings up a hierarchy there are those that would
respond in a deficiency-based way to polarize the issue, so perhaps I'll
either add fuel to the fire or become part of it.<G>
Early on, perhaps with Graves, Loevinger, Piaget, then Kolberg, Kolb,
Kegan, Jaques and a myriad of others, including Cook-Greuter, now Wade,
Wilber, Beck, Cowan, etc. there seems to be a general agreement that
development occurs as an occillating spiral of transcendence, enfolding
and then growth/regression of coping systems, established as "I, we,
its"(Buber), individual/collective-interior/exterior (Wilber) and of
course Spiral Dynamics from Graves research to indicate that we develop
the genetic and memetic infrastructure of mind/body/spirit towards
increasing levels of complexity.
In Kegan, we find the emphasis on subject/object: what we are subject to
and thus embedded in versus having a relationship with and holding as
objective. In whatever manner the "mechanism" of development is organic,
plastic and biopsychosocial, as Graves purported...or at least in this
oversimplication--a way to discuss the ability to hold greater numbers of
perspectives which are required to cope with the dislocation of cause and
effect among numbers of variables. (complexity)
Since I started this, my summary and attempt/contempt is to draw specific
distinctions between what happens in a person, business and network
explicitly as it manifests the implicate order. There are of course a
number of opportunities in which to either attempt "to act on or be acted
upon" in the environment and depending on where one sees the
advantage/surrender, one might propose to understand.
In my view, we have two decidedly different camps: adult development
(personal) and organizational development, which as of yet remain somewhat
isolated in terms of the models and how they are integrated--all
attempting to arrive at learning organizations (which both are/often not).
While the tension of opposites is certainly a powerful force...
I'll end with Frost...
But yield who will to their separation, My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation. As my two eyes make one in sight
Only where love and need are one, And the work is play for mortal
stakes,
Is the deed ever really done, For Heaven and the future's sakes.
Mike
www.spiralcoaching.com
--"Mike Jay" <coach@leadwise.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.