assessing

Assessing Executive Leadership: An Integral Approach

Russ Volckmann, PhD
LeadCoach – July 2005

Abstract

The author offers an example of an approach to translating integral concepts into language that is accessible to executive leaders in business without resorting to introducing integral theory and models. The phase of intervention is data gathering prior to feedback of data, action planning or change interventions. Time availability for “educational interventions,” particularly in the initial phases of an intervention with executives is usually very limited. Having an approach that is integrally-informed supports the gathering and organization of quality data from interviews and lays the foundation for individual and team coaching interventions that may include introduction of integral models and concepts to support executive leadership. The approach clarifies for the individual and the executive team their views of the requisite priorities, skills and processes for effectiveness within the team and in relation to stakeholders. Since contracting for change is a critical element in successful interventions, an integral approach fosters more effective contracting due to the thoroughness of data identified.

Viewpoint (Practice)

Key words: integral, executive, leadership, development, team, assessment

Russ Volckmann is an executive coach. His Ph.D., U.C., Berkeley, is in Political Science and Public Administration. He has taught at the University of Arizona and several other universities. An organization development consultant for 22 years, he has been coaching executives since 1997. He is the publisher/editor of the Integral Leadership Review.

Email: russ@leadcoach.com;

Address: LeadCoach, 733 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950, USA;

Phone: 831.333.9200.

In 1997 I began a process of exploring the application of Ken Wilber’s work to the world of executive leadership. The resulting model may be said to be influenced by his work and not necessarily entirely true to his framework. Nevertheless, it has proved to be useful for assessing executive leadership in the needs assessment phase of a development process, as well as guiding an integral approach to coaching individual leaders and executive leadership teams.

One of the challenges to consultants and coaches attracted to Ken Wilber’s theories (Wilber 1985, 1995, 1996, 2002) and allied approaches (Beck and Cowen 1996, Kofman 2002, Edwards 2001-2003, Cacioppe and Edwards n.d.. Kegan 1982, Cook-Greuter 2002) has been to translate their work in ways that engage business and organizational leaders in effective developmental processes. Some developers of these frameworks caution against introducing their terminology in the workplace. (Beck, 2002) I present an integral perspective and show how it has been used in our work as consultants and executive coaches. The focus here will be on the initial data gathering process that sets the stage for interventions. The approach has been effective in helping executives and their teams to identify change strategies that will help them achieve their objectives as a team of leaders.

Our strategy was to craft a model using business language that is readily accessible to executives and that organizes constructs corresponding to Ken Wilber’s use of holons. In this article we will explore, briefly, the source of the concepts that have guided us, present the model and show how it has been used in initial data gathering prior to data feedback and contracting for work with executive teams.

I recently had the opportunity to ask Ken Wilber what is integral leadership. His response was (paraphrased):

Integral leadership is having a vision others want to follow. An integral leader is a man or woman who knows more, sees more and provides guidance to others who want to move forward. The capacity to lead has to touch all of the areas that humans have to deal with. We need a map, an integral map. An integral leader is a person who has made the map his/her own and embodies it.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to argue for or against this definition. It suggests other definitions that represent the leader as “hero” – but this one with an integral perspective. Rather, we prefer to look at leadership as both the domain of the individual and the system. We agree with James O’Toole (O’Toole 2001) that definitions that focus on the individual are not sufficient. It is time to recognize that leadership is a functional aspect of human activity. Wilber is clearly suggesting that leadership embodies individual and collective as represented in an integral map. The integral approach encourages us to look at leadership as something that is about individuals and collectives (organizations, systems), as well. This article provides such a map.

Our working definitions of leader and leadership have helped us include the individual and the collective. A leader (individual) is an individual who influences others to make choices consistent with the leader’s intention. (Gardner 1995) A leader behaves in response to episodic life conditions of their organizations in a very brief period of time. One moment a CEO may act like a leader and the next a project manager will. The leader role shifts and changes with the demands of the context. (O’Toole 2001) Thus, when we observe a leader it is like looking at a snapshot of activity in a system.

Leadership is the emergence of leader behaviors in a system over time. In the course of a day, a week, a month, etc. different individuals will perform as leaders in relation to different parts of the system. We can begin to look at how leadership patterns form over time and we see the whole as a system of leadership. If leader is the snapshot, leadership is the movie.

We are somewhat wary of definitions of leadership such as that offered by Cacioppe who wrote that wise leadership is “The ability to influence and develop individuals, teams and organisations to achieve a worthwhile vision that meets the present needs of everyone and everything affected by their work.” (Cacioppe 2001) Such a definition presumes that all contexts require a “wisdom” that is based on what might be considered 2nd Tier perspectives. (Beck and Cowen, 1996) This would suggest that wise leadership cannot emerge with 1st tier center of gravity. Since an infinitesimally small percentage of the world’s population is centered in 2nd tier, such an approach discounts virtually all leadership that has occurred in the history of mankind.

One of the challenges of assessment in executive leadership systems is to surface the mental models and values that executive leaders bring to their work. Our approach does not assume that these leaders have developed to high levels such as 2nd tier or the Magician stage in Torbert’s work (Fisher 2001). Rather, it is our responsibility to surface what they see and the meaning they make of it. The developmental journey must proceed from there without preconceived notions as to where wisdom really lies.

Our position is not to be conceived as a neo-values-free stance, but rather the stance of consultants and coaches who contract to support clients in their work. We must start where the client is, not impose our values on them. Nevertheless, we also believe (but cannot prove) that as clients gain more integral perspectives that they will move toward the integral value set represented by the definitions of Wilber and Cacioppe.

A Ken Wilber Contribution

In his major work, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Wilber states,

This is a book about holons––about wholes that are parts of other wholes, indefinitely. Whole atoms are parts of molecules; whole molecules are parts of cells; whole cells are parts of organisms, and so on. Each whole is simultaneously a part, a whole/part, a holon. (Wilber 1995)

Wilber offered the following construct of a holon (See Figure 1). Wilber argues that everything can be described as a holon.

A holon has individual and collective, interior and exterior dimensions or qualities. Wilber has labeled each quadrant as intentional (UL), behavioral (UR), cultural (LL), and social (LR). Everything is a holon? We have taken that to mean that we can construct holons regarding individuals, collectives and social phenomena – as in executive leadership.

Take in Figure 1

Applying the Holon to the World of Executives

Executives have intentions and behaviors. They share some values and beliefs and not others (culture). They create structures and processes that manifest these (social). For example, they share (and withhold) information and perspectives. Each engages in strategic conversations. Collectively, they identify a strategy and a plan of action. They take action (or not). All four quadrants of the holon have been a part of this process.The intentional quadrant (UL) is about an individual leader’s values, beliefs, assumptions, aspirations, goals, etc. All of these are "interior" in that others cannot literally see them. We can see leader behaviors. These show up in the upper right quadrant.

"Great Man" or trait theories treat leaders as "people whose inheritance and destiny made them leaders." (Bennis and Nanus, 1997) Their inheritance is something that is increasingly visible to us in genetic research. We see in the second (UR) quadrant biology and behavior. Our biology is increasingly accessible as we develop our ability to identify genetic factors. This quadrant also represents what we do. It includes what we say, body language and other actions that can be observed by others. Here leaders express their capabilities and beliefs. Examples might include initiating activity, follow-up on commitments or seeking the support of others.

Kouzes and Posner have provided research and analysis of the behaviors of leaders. Leading, in their view is about challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way and encouraging the heart. (Kouzes and Posner, 1987) They suggest that effective leaders behave in certain ways, e.g., recognizing contributions or enlisting others in a shared vision. The behaviors they identify are in the behavioral quadrant of the holon. They have recognized as do other leadership approaches (Hersey and Blanchard 1967, Northouse 2004) that leadership occurs in a relationship. The relationship occurs in a culture and a system.

Leadership as collective phenomena resides in these lower quadrants. In the culture quadrant we find beliefs and assumptions that are held among leaders about their collective. We find their understandings about their relationships to each other and to followers and other stakeholders. We have defined culture – the lower left quadrant -- as the existing values, beliefs, aspirations and assumptions held by all of the members of a collective. It is about valuing and meaning making. However, it is not the valuing and meaning making of an individual, but all of the individuals in a collective. This approach allows us to tap into what is held by individuals and to create a composite of what is held collectively. (Paulson 2002) This is the foundation of the data feedback process and the meaning making generated by the executives.

In the social quadrant leaders engage with each other through structures and processes to accomplish objectives. This would include communications systems and methods, reward systems, virtual communication, problem solving strategies, methods for supporting ethical action, etc. (O’Toole 2001, Volckmann 2004a, 2004b) These are all contained within executive leadership as a system, although there is no doubt a tight relationship with the rest of the organization, industry, economy, etc.

One potential source of confusion may be that we could be suggesting the quadrants are separate entities. In integral theory a holon is a representation of a whole. The quadrants are not separate parts. However, we have drawn boundaries (Wilber 1985) in using a four-cell matrix. These boundaries are conveniences to allow us to tease out elements that are in co-existence with other elements: values with behavior, individual behaviors in relation to collective behaviors, and so on.

The Domains of Executive Leadership

Executive leadership shows up as a holon in four domains of leadership. There is a relationship among the domains. Generally, the effectiveness of a domain of leadership is dependent on the effectiveness of the other domains. What that is for a specific executive team is to be discovered in our process. Thus, in using the approach described below, we are teasing out the influences and dimensions operating within and between the domains.

We have no objective criteria for these elements of culture. Rather, we are gathering opinions from individuals, feeding back to the collective of executives an overview of the data and facilitating them in clarifying meaning and identifying what is important individually and collectively. We tap into perceptions of culture and systems held by executives. The lower quadrants are not the actual culture and the actual system. They are the representation of those by individual leaders. Only in the data feedback process are we able to construct a more collective view of culture and systems.

The Context

Leadership has a context. The context is the business, industry, society, and global conditions influencing the organization. Leaders influence the context through the strategic directions and change efforts that they are attempting to implement. To begin our exploration of the state of executive leadership in an organization we look first at such efforts. We use a Balanced Scorecard approach to gathering information about these strategic directions. We ask about internal, external, financial and developmental strategies.

We find that strategies are understood, generally, at a very high level, but detailed knowledge tends to be somewhat compartmentalized by silo or functional specialty. We help executives identify whether this is severe and, if so, determine an approach to building in greater clarity and shared understanding. In the meanwhile, we gather data about other aspects of executive leadership.

We hypothesize that leadership has variable aspects in all four quadrants. We use domains of development to represent these. This is an important point and is where we take liberty with Ken Wilber’s work. For the purposes of this paper we simply acknowledge that there are a number of issues related to the use of the holons that are still subject to experiment. Our approach represents but one.

There is a developmental (or anomic) correspondence in the movement among the domains through the related quadrants. For example, development of executive competencies impact participation in organizing activities as well as teamwork. The domains we have chosen are leadership group, organization, team and enterprise. Individuals hold different beliefs and assumptions about their own roles in the domains, engage in different behaviors and comprehend the collective quadrants differently.

We hypothesize that for individuals moving among member, contributor, player and entrepreneur roles it is desirable to develop more refined skills. We also hypothesize that there is not a sequential relationship in the use of capabilities related to roles, but that these are in dynamic, emergent interplay. The quality of development in each domain is dependent on the presence and relationships among all quadrants of each domain.

We developed a map of executive leadership using the holon with domains. These are represented in Figure 2. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide the rationale for the model further than we have. Suffice it to say that these variables are hypothesized to be in relationship. As a set of constructs they are comprehensible to executives and useful in gathering data that is integrally-informed. The relationships are emergent and it is the task of data gathering to capture how executives understand those relationships. The terms are briefly defined in Table 1.

Take in Figure 2

The domains are represented as rectangles that relate among quadrants. A way to read Figure 2 is as four phrases that relate to individuals and the collective:

A committed member of a purposeful group;
A competent contributor to a resourceful organization;
An innovative player on an inspired team; and
A connected entrepreneur in a vital enterprise.

Each domain represents an aspect of leading for executives. One difficulty with this taxonomy is that it uses terms in very specific ways related to leadership that could potentially be confusing to people in organizations. An example is the use of organization. Here we are talking about the leadership organization – how leaders organize themselves and their work. Each term refers to leaders or leadership and not to larger systems. Clarification is created with clients in the data gathering process.

Take in Table 1

Table 1: Summary Definition of Terms

It is important to remember that these elements do not exist in isolation. This is often demonstrated in the ways executives respond to questions.. An answer to a question about one frequently leads to comments about another.

The domains and definitions are used to guide the change agent in formulating questions that can capture the essential information required for an executive team to assess its current state, as well as where they would like to be – usually in 6 to 12 months, although longer perspectives are possible. Generally, the shorter perspective fits better with immediate concerns and aspirations and can be used to build longer perspectives where useful.

Formulating the Questions

In any needs assessment the questions asked are going to shape the information that is gathered. The advantage offered by an integral approach is that it is likely to generate more relevant data than would otherwise be surfaced, because it is less likely that there will be “blind spots” in the data gathering process since the approach is considering an integral whole. Here are some examples related to strategic direction.

The context of development includes critical factors that guide leaders and their organizations in addressing requirements for change. We have chosen strategic direction as the category for establishing what that is. It represents a level of commitment to change. Useful questions here include:

What is important for the company to be doing in the next six to 12 months in each of the following areas (using the Balanced Scorecard variables ):

Internal,
External,
Financial,
Developmental.

What is your role in each of these?
What are the accomplishments to date?

The answers to these questions set the stage for the questions related to the domains. For example, in one client system one of the internal strategic directions involved a major change in the structure and strategies for the Sales organization. It was clear that all members of the executive team knew about this strategy. Only three seemed to be conversant with critical elements of the strategy, the CEO regarding structure, the VP of Sales who was thoroughly knowledgeable about all aspects of this strategy, and the Director of HR who was knowledgeable about compensation systems and recruiting for the Sales organization.

On the other hand, only the CEO was familiar in any detailed fashion with a marketing strategy in the external category. The other members of the executive team knew the CEO was engaged in activities here, but had little or no knowledge about it nor could they identify a role for themselves. Since the strategy involved the use of outside firms, even the HR Director did not see a role for himself.

This type of information is not, in itself indicative or conclusive of anything. Rather it is data that allows the consultant to paint a verbal picture of executives’ current reality. The process uses this data for developing a shared picture among the executives.

Two more questions are of value here:

• Are there other strategies in these categories that you believe are more important or have higher potential than the ones identified?

• What is the current status of these strategies?

These questions have elicited unresolved issues among the executive team on where they should be focused. Cost containment strategies, for example, are seen as competing with R&D strategies.

Example: One client team identified 23 distinct strategies in the internal arena alone. All members of the team identified five categories within which some strategies fit; other strategies did not fit. This led to a discussion among the executive team about strategy and the status of prior work in this area. The result was that the team developed a collective focus on four key strategies, one in each of the balanced scorecard categories. This is critical for executive team development. The lack of a shared perspective on strategy usually results in slowing the change process, lack of coordination of executive resources (e.g., time), lack of focus in team meetings and – in the case of this client – divisions within the executive team that were seriously undermining their collective competence, particularly in relation to stakeholders.

The focus on strategy is also a way of establishing the context for the executive leadership related questions that follow. Before reviewing these, consider how the responses to the questions are used in our process. The purpose of data gathering is to do an assessment of the executive team and to support them in identifying change and development strategies that make sense to them. We are not there to sell individual and team coaching or other interventions, although we do point out how both are effective ingredients in development and in improving performance. We do support clients in identifying other resources that are important to their change efforts. We work at not being a solution in search of a problem.

This intervention can be divided into two segments. The first, represented by Quadrants 3 (Culture) and 4 (Social, Systems) are the source of data that we feedback to the CEO and the executive team in supporting their planning and decisions about how they will proceed. Quadrants 1 (Intentional) and 2 (Behavior) are fed back to each individual on the team, but using only their data. This helps individual clients prepare to address questions about their own development and performance improvement strategies. Clients are given the opportunity to share their individual data.

Below are examples of our data gathering approach addressing each of the domains of executive leadership. Following the question(s) are examples of responses drawn from actual interviews with our clients. There is at least one question to ask for each quadrant in each of the domains. In actual interviews this is an opening question that usually leads to several follow up questions. One consideration is the approach to data gathering – whether it is problem oriented or appreciative . While we highly value the appreciative approach we find that it is most valuable to have questions from both perspectives, e.g., what are you doing well, what could you do better?

The Group Domain of Executive Leadership

Quadrant 3 (Cultural): Here we want to unearth elements of culture within the executive team. What is important? What is the purpose of the executive team in relation to the strategic directions? What is most important about the role of the leadership group in achieving these strategic directions?

Response Example: “It is important for all of us to buy into the fact that we want to grow the business; our role is to mentor and develop people so we can grow. We have the expertise to lead new acquisitions in directions we want to grow.”

Quadrant 4 (Social – or Systems): How does the executive team demonstrate clarity about its leadership purpose or role?

Response Example: “We aren’t doing a very good job of this. For example, I can’t remember our ever asking what the purpose of our leadership is?”

Quadrant 1 (Intentional -- Commitment): Here we focus on the individual and their beliefs, values, assumptions, etc. What is important about your commitment to the leadership purpose? How would you describe your commitment to the purpose of the executive team? Follow up questions usually address areas of variance in commitment, as well as what is important to the individual in relation to the purpose.

Response Example: “Lend my expertise; I don’t want to be CEO; I love sales; I want to use my expertise to help the team. I would love to see this company be highly successful.”

Quadrant 2 (Behavior -- Member): How do you demonstrate your commitment to the leadership purpose? What actions do you take; what statements do you make?

Response Example: “I am fully supportive and committed to all; I am more passionate about some strategies than others because I am involved.”

Comment: Issues begin to surface just by asking about what is important for leadership in relation to strategic direction and surfacing the individual’s role-based perspective on that. For example, a belief that was surfaced was that other executives were concerned that the CEO was feeling at risk or thought other executives were potential rivals.

The Organizational Domain of Executive Leadership

Quadrant 3 (Culture -- Resources): What are the resources the executive team needs to realize their leadership purpose? What is important about how they use those resources to move in strategic directions?

Response Example: “We need to come together as a group and have the ability to trust each other 100%. We need confidence and support each other’s abilities to do the job. We need to get better at making decisions -- we put things off – spend two or three meetings on same subject. We need to be understanding and sensitive about and not interfere in each others roles.”

Quadrant 4 (Social -- Organization): How is the executive team using those resources?

Response Example: “We ready aim, aim… We seek certainty over clarity as a result of the number of financial backgrounds on the team.”

Quadrant 1 (Intentional – Competence): What competencies are important for you to have to use your leadership resources?

Response Example: “I am an analytical person. I am good at idea bouncing, what if analysis. I am loyal and committed to the firm. I have excellent discernment; I am able to sense things, put things into context. I understand where people are coming from, why they think the way they do. I have knowledge of the history of the company and the industry to draw from. I am a harmonizer. I have empathy. I follow through.”

Quadrant 2 (Behavior – Contributor): What are you doing to bring your competence to the executive team in the use of resources?

Response Example: “The major contribution I have made is to get us to focus, even though I get teased about it. I am pretty honest; I don’t B.S. people!”

Comment: In these examples, once again, many potential issues on the collective and individual level are surfaced. They provide grist for the mill of taking stock and setting goals, as well as clarifying the required strategies for moving ahead.

The Team Domain of Executive Leadership

Quadrant 3 (Culture – Inspiration): What is needed to inspire teamwork among the executives?

Response Example: “We need all of our abilities to accomplish our goals. The group has diverse abilities; all have strengths more than others. The parts need to be a whole in order for us to be successful.

Quadrant 4 (Social – Team): In what ways does the team work effectively, not effectively?

Response Example: “We are here to manage change. Team members bring different time frames to the table: some look at immediate gratification; some have to manage long term. Team members are judging each other without complete information. This is destructive to the team. If we had trust, were naked, and had a united front this team would be effective. The rest is there.”

Quadrant 1 (Intentional – Innovation): What is important to you about change and innovation in realizing the leadership purpose?

Response Example: “ I like to be part of change, part of the solution. I am a champion of innovation.”

Quadrant 2 (Behavior – Player): What do you do to foster the change and innovation required by the team? What do you do that gets in the way?

Response Example: “Sometimes I am hesitant with change – like the automation thing. I didn’t support it initially as I should. I needed the CFO to help me figure out what my issue was. I didn’t want managers typing info. I need to take the time to work through the process and understand it.”

Comment: In these examples more issues emerge, as well as strengths that will support development and performance. For example, the confidence of one team member in the CFO provided a partial foundation on which to build. This approach is based on the notion that the primary purpose of any executive team is to work with the design and implementation of change.

The Enterprise Domain of Executive Leadership

Quadrant 3 (Culture – Vitality): What is important for the team in relationships with stakeholders regarding strategic directions?

Response Example: “We have to focus on customer needs. Our motto is a good motto, but we are not doing it [the motto is about service]. There has to be something distinctive about when a person comes into our operations that they won’t see elsewhere. We need to push that down from the executive level.

Quadrant 4 (Social – Enterprise): What is the team doing to foster effective relationships with stakeholders?

Response Example: “Most executive interaction with customers is around problems. We should be doing public speaking and meeting with groups more.”

Quadrant 1 (Intentional – Connectedness): What is important about your connections with stakeholders?

Response Example: “My relationship with front line managers is critical for our operations. It must be built on trust.”

Quadrant 2 (Behavior – Entrepreneur): What are you doing to foster relationships with stakeholders in relation to strategic directions?

Response Example: “I am who I say I am. Managers don’t trust corporate people around IS. I build solid relationships with them based on open communication and integrity.”

Comment: Stakeholder here can refer to employees, customers, investors, etc. The choice of the term entrepreneur reflects the possibility that an executive will engage in generative discussions and interactions with internal and external stakeholders to move strategy forward.

These are some examples of questions and responses built on an integral framework. A final question I ask in interviews is, “Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you wish I had?” or “Are there additional comments you would like to make?” Sometimes the executives will add additional information that they think will clarify earlier responses. Generally, their responses are along the lines, “Wow! I think we have covered it all!” This suggests a vote of confidence in the integral framework.

The organization of variables that the integral framework suggests also supports the data feedback and reality testing process with the executive team. The progression from strategy to purpose to resources to inspiration to vitality is one they resonate with and can build on to develop change approaches for performance, team development and individual development, as well as identify other interventions that might be useful. These could include meeting management, the use of technology, formal team building processes, expert input on identified topics and other expertise that would support their effectiveness.

Conclusion

This approach is about surfacing the perspectives of individuals about themselves as leaders and the leadership system of which they are a part. It is about surfacing data for reflecting and dialoguing about those perspectives until an understanding is created that can be used as the basis for action. The questions and responses are but one step in a generative process of examining meaning and determining action appropriate to that meaning. It is an aspect of action research, a foundation for action inquiry .

While the particular integral model used in this method – the holon and the domains of executive leadership – is but one of a number of possible models, it has been demonstrated to be effective in guiding data gathering for focusing strategic conversations during feedback processes and identifying action strategies for development and performance improvement, both for the executive team and for individual executives. The approach has (1) surfaced perspectives and information that had been undiscussable, (2) provided a basis for action planning and follow-up by individuals and the team, and (3) fostered an atmosphere of hope where participants had reported resignation or discouragement.

There is nothing set about the particular questions. The way they are framed can be adjusted to the style of the consultant/interviewer and the culture of the organizational context in which executives operate. Having the framework alone is no substitute for the development of effective interviewing skills and the development of presence with those being interviewed. Perhaps most important of all, this approach demonstrates that one can reframe theoretical language to fit the worlds of executives.

References

Beck, D. (2002), Lecture at Spiral Dynamics I and II Certification Workshop, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Beck, D. and Cowan, C. (1996), Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change, Blackwell Business, Malden, MA.

Bennis, Warren and Burt Nanus, (1997). Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper Business, New York.

Cacioppe, R. and Edwards, M., (n.d.), “Seeking the Holy Grail of Organisational Development: A Synthesis of Integral Theory, Spiral Dynamics,Corporate Transformation and Action Inquiry,” Integral Leadership Centre, University of Western Australia.

Cook-Greuter, S, (2002), ‘A Detailed Description of the Development of Nine Action Logics: Adapted from Ego Development theory for the Leadership Development Framework,” http://www.harthillusa.com/.

Edwards, M., (2002-3), ‘Through AQAL Eyes - Part 1: A Critique of The Wilber-Kofman Model of Holonic Categories, Parts 1-7,’ http://www.integralworld.net/

Edwards, M., (2004), ‘Good For Business: An Integral Theory Perspective Of Spirituality In Organisations,’ http://www.integralworld.net/

Fisher, D., Rooke, D. and Torbert, B., (2001), Personal and Organisational Transformations through action inquiry, Edge\Work Press, Boston.

Hersey, P and Blanchard, K., 1977, Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Edgewood Cliffs, N.J.

Gardner, H., (1995), Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, Basic Books, New York.

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D., (1996), The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press, Boston:.

Katzenbach. J., (1998), Teams at the Top: Unleashing the Potential of Both Teams and Individual Leaders, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Kegan, R., (1982), The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kofman, F., (2002), ‘Conscious Business: Transforming Your Workplace (and Yourself) by Changing the Way You Think, Act and Communicate,’ [Audio CDs] SoundsTrue, Boulder CO.

Kouzes, J. and Posner, B., (1987), The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Northouse, P., (2004), Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

O’Toole, J., (2001), ‘When Leadership is an Organizational Trait,’ in Bennis, W., Spreitzer, G. and Cummings, T., eds., The Future of Leadership: Today’s Top Leadership Thinkers Speak to Tomorrow’s Leaders, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Packard, V., (1962), The Pyramid Climbers. McGraw Hill, New York.

Paulson, D., (2002), Competitive Business, Caring Business: An Integral Business Perspective for the 21st Century, Paraview Press, 2002.

Senge, P., Scharmer, C., Jaworski, J. and Flowers. B., (2004), Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future, Society for Organizational Learning, Cambridge, MA.

Smith, A., (2001), “ALL FOUR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL: A (Somewhat Biased) Comparison of the Four Quadrant and One-Scale Models of Holarchy. http://www.integralworld.net/index.html.

Srivasta, S. and Cooperrider, C., (1990), Appreciative Management and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Torbert, B and Associates, (2004), Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership, Berrett-Kohler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco.

Volckmann, R., (2003), ‘A Conversation with Fred Kofman,’ http://www.leadcoach.com/archives/interview/fred_kofman.html.

Volckmann, R., (2000), A Leadership Opportunity, http://www.leadcoach.com.

Volckmann, R., (2001-2004), Integral Leadership Review, http://www.leadcoach.com/archives_e-journal.html.

Volckmann, R., (2004a forthcoming), “Leadership as an Organizational Trait: A Conversation with James O’Toole,” Integral Leadership Review, http://www.leadcoach.com/archives_e-journal.html.

Volckmann, R., (2004b forthcoming), “Scenarios and Lines,” Integral Leadership Review, http://www.leadcoach.com/archives_e-journal.html.

Wilber, K., (1996), A Brief History of Everything. Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston.

Wilber, K., (2002), A Theory of Everything, Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston.

Wilber, K., (1985), No Boundaries, Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston.

Wilber, K., (1995), Sex, Ecology and Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston.

Figure 1: The Ken Wilber Holon (Adapted).

Figure 2: Executive Leadership Domains – A Map for Discovering the Executive Leadership System and Individual Roles

1. Purpose	The function and/or goal for the role of collective leadership for moving in strategic directions	2. Group	The collection of individual leaders who join together in the definition and pursuit of strategic directions and the systems that support group effort
3. Commitment	The level of focus and integrity an individual leader brings to the purpose of the collective	4. Member	Individual behaviors associated with manifesting commitment in relation to the purpose of the leadership group
5. Resources (Time, focus, experience, knowledge, allocation of political capital, etc.)	The requirements for the collective leadership to invest in moving toward strategic directions and realizing the purpose of leadership	6. Organization	The use of resources for realize the leadership purpose and move toward strategic directions
7. Competence	The skills an individual leader brings to realizing the purpose of leadership and using resources to move in strategic directions	8. Contributor	Individual leaders use of their competence to realize leadership purpose and move toward strategic directions

9. Inspiration	That which is required to support the collective leadership in working as a team	10. Team	The collective leadership engaged in collaborative work on designing and implementing change
11. Innovation	The attitudes, beliefs and capacities of an individual leader toward change	12. Player	The actions of individual leaders in engaging with the other leaders in collaborative work on designing and implementing change
13. Vitality	The culture of relationship with leadership stakeholders	14. Enterprise	The systems and methods with which the collective leadership engages with stakeholders
15. Connection	The attitudes, beliefs and capacities of the individual leader for engagement with specified stakeholders	16. Entrepreneur	The behaviors of an individual leader in relation to specified stakeholders

Kaplan and Norton, The Balanced Scorecard.

See also Mark Edwards (2002-3), Paulson, D., 2002 and Smith, A., 2001.

For further information on the selection and use of these terms see Russ Volckmann, A Leadership Opportunity, http://www.leadcoach.com.

More detailed descriptions of this model may be found in Volckmann, R., 2000, and 2001-2004.

Kaplan and Norton, op. cit.

Srivasta, S. and Cooperrider, C., 1990

Jon R. Katzenbach, Teams at the Top

Torbert, B. 2004

Senge, P. (2004)