Developmentalism and Leadership:
Scenarios and Future Studies

A Presentation to the World Future Society panel on Developmentalism, August 1, 2004*
Russ Volckmann, PhD

I would like to beg you to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books in a very foreign language. Don’t search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions. Now.

Rainer Maria Rilke

The Premise: The requirement for fresh approaches to leadership in organizations and communities is both familiar and fits with traditional and challenging approaches to leadership that are rare and even emergent. This requirement is based on the perspective that the present and the technological, social, political, economic and ecological trends that have brought us to the present, if continued, will result in the degradation or transformation of life as we know it on this planet.

This challenge is serious, particularly in the face of instrumental cultures that would prefer a class of managers to a class of leaders. While I cannot prove this assertion, I and some of my colleagues have observed that leadership development should often more aptly be called management development for those who hold the reins of power, authority, accountability and responsibility are loath to risk their negative power being wrested from them.

Nevertheless, our development is going to be a product of the engagement of different value sets, beliefs systems, etc. Our challenge is to forge ways of being and doing that hold hope for a sustainable future. Dr. Don Beck challenged us with our task when he wrote

The focus on the role of productivity in enhancing competitiveness, while generating wealth and cultural well-being, has shifted over time from the micro (personal, team and "circles") to the meso (organizational design and performance) and now the macro (large scale and complex systems). Likewise, the essential thinking around productivity matters has emerged through systemic, strategic, humanistic and now integral patterns and organizing paradigms. The "profound knowledge" as described by Dr. Edward Deming is just now becoming clear to many who applied only surface-level and tentative versions of his massive work. We now recognize that micro-scale solutions depend heavily on both meso-scale and macro-scale insights and that all three must be meshed in the whole-scale application. [1]

Leadership development can be seen as an element in whole-scale generativity.

While leadership is not the only variable, it can and probably will be a significant factor in determining the future of human systems, ecological interactions and potentials for survival. On the other hand, it can be argued and has, that it is too late; we are already embarked on the plunge into that degradation or transformation. Thus, there may be an opportunity for humans to act by engaging with the ecology and with each other and – perhaps somewhat romantically – co-create the conditions for an evolutionary path that supports engagement with a positive future in which we would all want our children to participate. Whatever your position on these potentials, leadership is a factor in whatever the future holds.

Future Studies

The idea of development is not new to Future Studies; indeed without it there would be no future in this dynamic, evolving, organic and messy world we live in. And the idea of integral is not new to future studies. In this paper I am proposing an additional perspective for future studies. This perspective links future studies, integral theory, scenarios, developmentalism and leadership development in a proposal for adding to future studies the relevance of going beyond prediction to preparation.

This may be audacious on my part since I have very little background in future studies, only a bit more in scenarios, only a modest exposure to developmentalism and, despite some experience and some writing in recent years, I am hardly an expert on the subject of leadership development (although I would be delighted if my clients consider me so.) I temper my audacity a bit by suggesting that as in other areas of concern the needs to integrate disciplines in addressing the challenges we face has never been more important.

I choose an integral perspective because it offers an approach for linking all of the facets of our knowledge in common cause for growing awareness and understanding as well as actionable opportunities for engaging more effectively with complexity – its patterns and its unpredictability. The integral perspective is not stagnant. It is not a finished product, but a work in progress. It offers a rich arena of utilitarian distinction and integration across previously impermeable boundaries. Its reach encompasses and sometimes fosters the work of developmental theory.

There is a close association of the integral perspective with Dr. Don Beck’s and Chris Cowan’s work with spiral dynamics – the developmental perspectives of Clair Graves and his apostles. There is an integral foundation to the Emergenics of Mike Jay[2]. This grand scheme seeks to select the elements of integral theory, Spiral Dynamics and other theories across a spectrum of science and social science and make it accessible for those interested in development in the face of our human limitations and challenges.

I am proposing that future studies is well positioned to use its expertise (although the lack of a shared approach may be problematic) in scenario development as an analytic tool to incorporate developmental perspectives in its frame of reference and bring the product to business, organizational and public leadership development. Leadership in our private and public institutions is a critical factor for our future. We need to integrate a variety of disciplines for opening leader and leadership development (I will explain the distinctions I make between these terms below) to its potential for helping us deal with our limitations, challenges and opportunities.

This is not a novel notion in Future Studies. Since the late 1990s Richard A. Slaughter has been exploring the relationship between integral theory and future studies for several years now. Recently, he wrote,

Finally we are witnessing the emergence of integral futures work…as it has emerged from the work of Ken Wilber and other colleagues around the world. The central feature of the integral approach is to honor all truths and acknowledge the value of many different ways of knowing across all significant fields.[3]

Others, like Keith Bellamy, former futurist for Barclay’s Bank in England, have been exploring integral theory and its applications to future studies.[4]

Slaughter also wrote:

The WFSF has always been the context I have gone back to when I needed to remember that I [am] part of a globally-distributed group of people who are deeply, passionately, concerned with the future, and its many implications in the evolving present... The human energies that created the WFSF are both universal and transpersonal in nature. Properly understood, these energies are inexhaustible. They are, as futurist Sohail Inayatullah once put it, 'an eternal spring of inspiration'.

Here are the seeds of the invitation I wish to extend: “concerned with the future, and its many implications in the evolving present,” leadership development and developmentalism generally are essential aspects of that evolving present.

Yet, in the face of this inspiration is the peril of our own genius. Bill Joy’s well read article in Wired in 2000 is one example of scientists who, over the decades, particularly since the Manhattan Project have warned us of the folly of are mad rush into the development of technologies that may be used to destroy us all. Dystopia has guided the thinking of many of us since the Club of Rome report in the ‘70s.

Joy wrote,

I realize now that she [his grandmother/nurse who had cautioned him against the indiscriminate use of anti-biotics] had an awareness of the nature of the order of life, and of the necessity of living with and respecting that order. With this respect comes a necessary humility that we, with our early-21st-century chutzpah, lack at our peril. The commonsense view, grounded in this respect, is often right, in advance of the scientific evidence. The clear fragility and inefficiencies of the human-made systems we have built should give us all pause; the fragility of the systems I have worked on certainly humbles me.[5]

Our advances are not without their costs – to us and to the world around us. We are challenged to know when to act and when to delay or withhold action. Acts of leadership are necessary to guide us. Richard Slaughter stated,

Unfortunately, the most likely futures are pretty awful--scenarios that no sane person would wish to live in. This scenario is based on the continuing human impact on the global environment. Global warming is bad enough, but there's also the impact on other species, on wildlife extinctions, on soil loss or tropical forests--basically, gross and sustained simplifications of Earth's life- support systems. We have to learn to rein in this growth. But growth is the engine of a capitalist economy, so this is a very tough question--how to move to a form of development which satisfies human needs but doesn't wreck the life support systems while we are doing it.[6]

Joy also quotes Jacques Attali and states, “In his book Fraternités, Attali describes how our dreams of utopia have changed over time:

At the dawn of societies, men saw their passage on Earth as nothing more than a labyrinth of pain, at the end of which stood a door leading, via their death, to the company of gods and to Eternity. With the Hebrews and then the Greeks, some men dared free themselves from theological demands and dream of an ideal City where Liberty would flourish. Others, noting the evolution of the market society, understood that the liberty of some would entail the alienation of others, and they sought Equality.’

Jacques helped me understand how these three different utopian goals exist in tension in our society today. He goes on to describe a fourth utopia, Fraternity, whose foundation is altruism. Fraternity alone associates individual happiness with the happiness of others, affording the promise of self-sustainment.

Whether inspired or in fear of the risks we as a species face it has never been more clear that the world is in need of leadership that will lead to this notion of Fraternity or risk the loss of the species, just as we have brought about the destruction of so many other species. One challenge we face is to comprehend what will be required for leadership to help us continue in development without destroying ourselves in the process.

Developmentalism, in general, and Spiral Dynamics and Emergenics, in particular, offer perspectives on how we can bring leadership to the complexity of human systems. One way they do this is by recognizing that different levels of development coexist on significant scales, both among individuals, as well as among the societies they have formed. Fraternity may be a representation of a particular level of development. But it is not present in others. Leaders and leadership will be required to engage this diversity in creative ways for sustainable futures.

Leaders and Leadership

I start with a distinction. It is a distinction that should help you track with the message I am offering:

Thus, leadership is about individual and system.

Some additional ideas I hold about leaders and leadership:

  1. From Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics we have learned that leaders have the potential to act from any level of development, given the life conditions that support that action, including their own development.
  2. While much of our understanding of leaders and leadership has been focused on the top levels of systems, there is a growing recognition that leaders can be found and leadership emerges at all levels of systems. James O’Toole notes that we got it wrong:
    " While this [American] obsession on a single personality is occasionally appropriate—particularly when the founding entrepreneur is still running a company—evidence offered here indicates that this perspective often skews analysis away from organizational factors, which are the more important drivers of performance."[7]
  3. From a developmental point of view, there is interesting work done by Bill Torbert and his associates in England that suggest that higher levels of development of leaders at the top of systems is correlated with higher levels of business performance.[8]
  4. That there are a host of studies of leaders and leadership that focuses on traits, character and even some variables in relationships, but that the question of life conditions or context is rarely factored into the analysis.[9]
  5. From Integral Theory we learn that there are multiple lines of development; that these lines of development are relevant for leaders and followers, alike, as well as those who prefer to stand aside and observe. In other words, integral development is a potential for everybody (given life conditions/individual capacity), leader or not, and does not guarantee that leadership will emerge in any given situation.
  6. The evidence that significant development occurs in the lifetimes of individuals is less optimistic than in some systems. While culture is difficult to change, systems (particularly business institutions) tend of have life cycles that at least offer a perspective of developmental paths.[10]

Therefore, development of leaders and support for the emergence of leadership in any system requires a developmental approach in all four integral dimensions.

Implications for the Development of Leaders and Leadership in Systems

  1. Since everyone is potentially a leader under some circumstances and the life conditions calling for leadership are unpredictable, everyone would be served by developing integrally – on multiple lines. However, it is highly unlike that most people will do this.
  2. If in our institutions we wish to assure the presence of leadership talent, we must not only develop individuals integrally, but we must develop our institutions to foster the qualities of leadership that are required.
  3. Given that life conditions in many institutions are increasingly unpredictable, an essential element of development is growing the capacity for resilience on the part of individuals and institutions.[11]
  4. Developmentalism is a perspective that suggests the importance of including both individual and collective development as vital areas for the emergence of effective leadership in systems.

Perhaps an unusual example of what institutions can do is the history of leadership development in the military. Not only are qualities associated with leadership drilled into (quite literally) cadets at West Point, but officers and enlisted men alike go through training that simulates the life and organizational conditions under which leadership must emerge. Under these conditions there is no way to anticipate who might emerge as a leader when the situation calls for it, except by rank. Even then, those of lower rank in times of battle, particularly, demonstrate their capacities as leaders.

Ongoing military training approaches an integral strategy. Not only are members of the military trained and educated cognitively, but physically. They are taught rapid decision making under challenging conditions. They are taught to use the tools of war and defense. Emotional self-control is key to the training of plebes at West Point and is very much an element in the training of all military personnel.

The military spends extraordinary amounts of time in training such that businesses and other institutions cannot match. The military approach to training is not unlike that of a professional athlete. The athlete may spend 90% of his or her time practicing and only 10% or less in actual performance. Contrast that with the leader in business and life. Maybe 10% is given over to education and training and 90% is execution. It is doubtful that is going to change a great deal. Therefore we need to find ways to more effectively develop leadership that is prepared for the future. Scenarios offer us one such possibility.

Scenarios

Shell Oil used scenarios as a way of developing leadership states of mind among key executives and potential leaders. These scenarios simulate the potential situations that will call forth leaders. According to Keith Bellamy, the use of scenarios at Shell occurred in three phases[12]. In phase one Peter Schwartz’s question, “What if oil prices were to drop?” was used as the basis for exploring scenarios. When oil prices did drop, Shell executives were well prepared, not with scripts or lock step capacity for dealing with that scenario, but with the capacity to understand and respond to those conditions.

However, some at Shell saw the utility of scenarios as increasingly for the purpose of predicting. The next two phases in Shell’s use of scenarios treated them as predictive tools. Their success as predictive tools was less than satisfactory.

While Future Studies has an interest in tools that will support accurate prediction the means for doing so are dubious or, at best, limited. Where did I read that most, if not all, British banks (and US and others, too?) have astrologers on their staffs to help them predict. They give them other titles to disguise their particular skill set, but they are using astrological prediction as at least one source of input into decision making about the future.

While not wishing to limit the earning capability of astrologers or any other futurists I would like to suggest that the use of scenarios (and other tools?) in Future Studies be viewed less as predictive and more as devices for preparing us for dealing with the unpredictability of the future. And here is where I believe Developmentalism can make a significant contribution.

The notion of applying an integral approach to the use of scenarios in FS has been explored by Richard Slaughter and by Chris C. Stewart[13]. Each has drawn on Wilber’s notion of the holon/holarchy and Mark Edwards’ discussion of the cycle of knowledge[14]. I have not found a presentation that includes consideration of Edwards’ differences with Wilber in the construct of the holon.

By way of illustration of what I have in mind, I offer the case of leadership development: How can we be more effective in developing leaders for dealing with the unpredictability of the future at any level, in any institution or community? I offer developmental scenarios as a high potential strategy for this purpose.

Developmental Scenarios

A development scenario could follow a number of approaches. Voros provides one example in his extension of the application of Spiral Dynamics to the holon. His is an extension of the 4Q8L approach developed by Ken Wilber and Don Beck[15]. Voros’ work builds on that of Slaughter.

Thus, once again, we have an approach that does not address the difference between Mark Edwards’ approach to the holon/holarchy and that of Wilber.

Integral theorists are not of one voice on even the nature of the holon – the basic mapping tool of integral theory. Wilber’s approach has been critiqued by several, most notably Mark Edwards. It is the latter’s approach that will be followed in this presentation.[16]

Voros does provide us an entry into shifting to Edwards’ approach.

There are actually two key aspects of scanning which need to be analyzed: the level from which the scanning is being done, and the level at which it is being directed…[This] cross-level analysis distinguishes both the (epistemological) perceptual filters of the subject doing the viewing as well as the (ontological) level of existence of the object being viewed.[17]

And it is the potential for this cross-level analysis that makes scenarios a powerful tool in leadership development while developmentalism offers a number of frameworks to make this possible. Two examples -- Spiral Dynamics and Bill Torberts’s work – provide us with models to use for this purpose. Each can be applied to the individual and collective frameworks.

Developing scenarios for leadership development would require the application of a framework like one of these. Voros also makes a good case for using the Edwards approach to holons when he observes his prior career as a theoretical physicist. Even in this approach (for some) to scientific rationality, Voros notes the importance of considering the worldview of the scientist and the scientific community’s culture for framing reality. Separating individual and collective holons provides a solid approach to constructing scenarios.

It is essential to have a developmental approach that considers both individual and collective. In leadership development the level of development that an individual is centered in will direct attention to those factors in the environment that have meaning for her. In leadership development scenarios we can construct the key variables in the collective holon, identify corresponding variables in the individual holon and work with individuals in their development for leader roles.

While noting the many variations on scenario development, Keith Bellamy offers the following summary of steps in the creation of a scenario :

As I mentioned earlier, there are many sub-schools within the overall school of Scenario Planning. Each has it’s own distinctive “flavour” but in general, they all follow the same 6-step process:[18]

Step 1:
Identify the issue that you need to understand better (e.g. what impact will fuel cells have on traffic pollution in 2010?). This allows you to ensure that you keep focused throughout the process (it also reduces the chances of serendipity arising, a strength of Trend Projection);
Step 2:
Isolate the critical driving forces that will impact on the question. These are normally considered to come from one of four sources Political, Economic, Societal, and Technological (and at this step, the process jumps straight into flatland thinking);
Step 3:
Assess the impact of each identified force on the question in mind. Each force is attributed a two dimensional rating – probability if impact (H,M,L) and scale of impact (H,M,L). Most processes then reduce their discussion those forces that have High probability and High or Medium Impact. In an attempt to be pseudo-scientific, these forces are then attributed to two Axes (any more and the process gets chaotic) around which scenarios can be developed;
Step 4:
Create scenarios that tell the story of the how the forces might possibly combine in different ways to impact on the issue in question;
Step 5:
Identify responses for your organisation to respond to each scenario; and finally
Step 6:
Develop indicators that will help determine which of the scenarios is coming to reality and therefore which of the responses developed in step 5 should be activated.

One of the interesting effects of a Scenario Planning is that many who join the process at the outset are quite happy to make predictions of the future. As they gain greater knowledge they are less likely to make such predictions.

For leadership development purposes these steps can guide us as we consider what needs to be included in the scenario.

Step 1: The Issue:
virtually any issue can be chosen. It can be about internal or external challenges or opportunities. Here are a some examples:
Step 2: Critical Driving Forces
Here our integral and developmental approach will introduce a level of complexity, If an integral approach is to be taken seriously, driving forces can show up in the potential leader, in the context and in the exchange between them. Figure 1 sets the stage.

Figure 1: Holons and Driving Forces

If we take Edwards’ approach to holons what we have represented in Figure 1 are the individual and the collective holons as mirror images. This identifies the arenas for the driving forces. There are nine of them: eight quadrants and the area of exchange between the individual and the collective holons.

The individual holon is on the left and the collective holon is on the right. An example of parallel development between the two holons is offered by Bill Torbert and his associates.

Table 1: Parallels between Personal and Organisational States of Development[19]

Stage - Personal Development - Organisational Development

1 - Impulsive, Impulses rules reflexes - Conception, Dreams about creating a new organization

2 - Opportunist, Needs rule impulses - Investments, Spiritual, social network, and fincial investments

3 - Diplomat, Norms rule needs - Incorporation, Products or services actually rendered

4 - Expert, Craft logic rules norms - Experiments, Alternative strategies and structures tested

5 - Achiever, System effectiveness rules - Systematic Productivity, Single structure/strategy institutionalized

6 - Individualist & Strategist, Self-amending principle to rule system - Collaborative Inquiry, Self-amending structure match dream/mission

7 - Magician/Witch/Clown, Process (the interplay of principle/action) rules principle - Foundational Community of Inquiry, Structure fails, spirit sustains

8 - Ironist, Intersystemic development rules process - Liberating Disciplines, Widens members’ awareness of incongruities among mission/strategy/operations/outcomes and skill at generating organizational learning

Clearly this is not definitive. But it is suggestive of variables that distinguish stages of leader development and that of the organization in parallel. This is a challenge in developing scenarios for leadership development. We need to select a framework that accounts for what is operative in all of these states. After all, we will not be dealing only with an individual and a collective holon, but with individual and collective holarchies as well. Each stage of development is represented by a holon for the individual and the collective.

From the individual holon perspective, let’s look at Torbert’s list and locate the personal development side among the quadrants. Presumably all four quadrants can be related to these stages, but there appears to be variable quadrant emphasis.

For the individual, we would ask what is relevant about

and how do we include or account for them in the scenario? The implication is that all of these are potentially present and their presence or absence has implications for leadership development. A system, for example that requires leaders at the process level will set the life conditions that will call forth the magician.

Ruach Borah suggests that different types will engage with scenario planning differently. His typology parallels that offered by Bill Torbert. It is likely that this would apply to individuals participating in the use of scenarios for learning and development[20]. Observing – including observing self – in relation to such a typology -- would further the quality of actionable learning that would occur through the scenario process.

From a developmental point of view, we would need to consider the factors that are present and what is required for individuals to recognize them and respond to them at a corresponding leader level. Thus, in our work with the scenario we are after individual leader responses and we are also concerned with the characteristics of the systems and how those characteristics can be influenced.

Chris C. Stewart adapted Wilber’s notion of lines of development as a tool for integral scenario development[21]. Figure 2 is patterned after his work and is intended to show the corresponding lines of development in each quadrant.

There is no magic labeling approach for these lines. The “standard” lines of development for the upper left quadrant UL include emotional, relationship, intellectual, spiritual, kinesthetic and so on. We could as well use Torbert’s list to focus the construction of the scenario (particularly the collective) and the learning objectives for the individual. What will need to be considered is what are the lines of development of the individual that need to be included for leadership development?

Developmentalism offers us some additional possibilities. There is nothing magic in any of the taxonomies we could choose from. The question would be how do they facilitate our gaining clarity about the lines of development required for consideration of leadership in a social system.

Figure 2: Corresponding Lines of Development

Spiral Dynamics offers us some clues here. Jenkins and Visser [2] offer a perspective on the development of level 5 leadership after the work of Jim Collins. Here is their summary of Collins’ levels of leadership[23] :

Level 1 is a Highly Capable Individual who "makes productive contributions through talent, knowledge, skills and good work habits."

Level 2 is a Contributing Team Member who "contributes individual capabilities to the achievement of group objectives and works effectively with others in a group setting."

Level 3 is the Competent Manager who "organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives."

Level 4 is an Effective Leader who "catalyzes commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and compelling vision, stimulating higher performance standards."

Level 5 is the Executive who "builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will."

Every one of the good-to-great companies has level 5 leaders in the critical transition phase. None of the comparison companies did. These leaders are described as being timid and ferocious, shy and fearless and modest with a fierce, unwavering commitment to high standards.

Figure 3 you can see some of the variables and the steps in a developmental process using Spiral Dynamics. Constructs such as these could be used to design the life conditions or collective holarchy of the scenario. Analysis of individual actions could be viewed through this type of lens. In processing learning self-awareness is enhanced as is the potential for learning and development. Of course, development does not just occur on an intellectual level through learning. It also involves all of the other lines of development. Scenarios offer the opportunity to engage multiple lines of development simultaneously, thus preparing them for future events that will challenge them on all or many of these lines and levels of development.

COLOR: Mode Level 1 - Unhealthy | Level 2 - (but) Becoming Resilient | Level 3 - (through) Motivation | Level 4 - (to) | Level 5 - (for) Optimal (Results)

RED: Force |Self-Control | Power | Impulse Control | Agreeable (Tough)

BLUE: Fear | Causal Analysis | Avoidance | Realistic Optimism | Open (Execution)

ORANGE: Apathy | Strategic | Achievement | Self-Efficacy | Ethical (Initiatives)

GREEN: Subjectivity | Objectification | Affiliation | Empathy | Adaptable (Teams)

Figure 3: Phases of Spiral Development in the First Tier

In any given scenario we would build in life conditions that relate to each of these levels of the Spiral. In addition we might include life conditions that would support yellow or turquoise leadership emergence. It should be noted that there are additional levels represented by yellow and turquoise at the higher levels and beige and purple at the lower levels.

Ultimately, we would be looking for the implications of individual choices in the face of the life conditions posed by the scenario. Developmental models would serve as guidelines for the design of the scenario and a basis for examining individual responses and strategies. Presumably, a method based on this approach would offer a scaffolding approach to leadership development.

Consider the question or correspondence with lines in other quadrants.

Individual Holon                                                            Collective Holon

Figure 4: Individual and Collective Lines of Development

In Figure 4 let’s use (A) to represent personal, (B) to represent business and (C) to represent network. We would need to explore the level of development in each of these perspectives and their implications.

If we had chosen Issue #2, (The economy is improving and there is increasing competition for skilled and highly talented technical experts and managers) for our scenario we would need to build into the scenario factors related to all three. There would be correspondence on both the individual and collective sides for the lines that we include.

Individual UL(1)[24]: Beliefs, values, assumptions, knowledge, skills and abilities related to personnel management as a leader of other individuals.

Individual UR(2): Those self-management practices that organize this set and assist the leader in self-management.

Individual LL(3): The conception of the beliefs, assumptions, requisite knowledge skills and abilities of the company, as perceived by the individual. What is the important to the business and the individual’s network?

Individual LR(4): The actions of the individual in relation to structure, process, technology and other systems in the company and the individual’s network.

Collective UR(I): Elements of beliefs, values, assumptions, knowledge, skill and abilities present in the company. What is important to the companies culture?

Collective UL(II): Those collective actions of the company in engaging collective change, development, problem solving and decision-making activities internal to the company.

Collective LR(III): The collective perception of the context in which the company is operating. What is important about the larger culture the company is a part of?

Collective4 LL(IV): The systems and processes, etc. that the company engages in with regard to its environment.

Finally, there is the relationship between the individual and collective holons. This is the arena of the exchange of content that Mike Jay refers to. This is the place where content informs processes of differentiation and integration. Here is where developmentalism can assist us even further. As an example, consider the work of Robert Kegan and their implications for this interaction[25].

Notions About Persons

Notions About Development

From these we can find several notions that will be helpful in considering the processes and dynamics of interaction that characterize the relationship between individual and collective. We are called to pay attention to change and evolution over time. Building into our scenarios developmental and evolutionary sequences would make them dynamic and lifelike. If Kegan is right, how do the yearnings for inclusion and independence influence leader decisions? Attending to the relationship between individual and collective engages sense of self and environment-boundary issues. These are some examples of how a developmental perspective can inform our scenario building, as well as the learning to be gained from them.

Note that life conditions can be considered on multiple levels: the individual, the company and the larger community of which the company is a part – however that might be defined in any given context. Thus, all of these factors must be considered in scenario development, as well as in leadership development using scenarios.

Construction of scenarios for the collective holon that challenge the learner to engage in activities associated with higher levels of development might foster individual learning through scaffolding.

A technique often used for learner-centered education is scaffolding: support for learners that enables them to engage in activities that are normally out of their reach. Scaffolding often involves modeling a process for the learner, coaching the learner through that activity, and then providing opportunities for the student to articulate what has been learned. Rosson and Carroll provide scaffolding in their OOD learning exercises. They begin their examples with user interaction scenarios. Each scenario presents a piece of an application design problem (a description of a user pursuing a goal within the system). They claim that scenarios provide scaffolding by breaking a large abstract problem into small concrete subproblems. Furthermore, the scenarios help learners identify candidate objects: they can simply begin with the problem entities mentioned in the narrative.[26]

How do people develop? Scaffolding may be a useful technique. Ken Wilber has indicated that one must use meditation and the guidance of a teacher to develop to higher levels[27]. Mike Jay has worked extensively with individuals interested in coaching (a development activity) for several years. He has indicated that the use of assessments such as MBTI II or Emotional Competence Inventory or others can be very useful tools in development.

Assessing and Varying Forces

In order to leverage a scaffolding approach, meditation or assessments for development, there is still work to be done in the development of the scenario. Bellamy indicates that the next step is

Step 3:
Assess the impact of each identified force on the question in mind. Each force is attributed a two dimensional rating – probability if impact (H,M,L) and scale of impact (H,M,L). Most processes then reduce their discussion those forces that have High probability and High or Medium Impact. In an attempt to be pseudo-scientific, these forces are then attributed to two Axes (any more and the process gets chaotic) around which scenarios can be developed.

The Collective elements of the scenario can be selected in this step. However this scaled approach may not be adequate. Different combinations and strengths of variables may lead to very different results. Those more expert in scenario development will need to lead our being effective in the assessment and selection of forces and combinations of forces.

One additional factor needs to be considered. Any force or combination selected for the collective holon will manifest in all four quadrants, I-IV. One such force in our example might be technology and innovation. This will manifest in all four quadrants. In Quadrant I will be applications of that technology and associated organizational activity, including decision making processes, communications, teamwork and other aspects of structure and systems. In Quadrant II would be those values and beliefs, assumptions and aspirations held by those in the organization. These are the variables that make up its culture. Here is where you find the cultural memes that make up the spiral within the collective.

In Quadrant III would be those structures, processes, systems, symbols, etc. that are in the larger culture engaged by the company. This could be an a variety of levels: local business community, industry, regional economy, national economy, global economy and all of the corresponding political and social constructs which contain the company. In Quadrant IV would be the spiral, the aspirations, the value sets, etc. of that larger system.

Assessing the impact of these variables in a scenario could be done with the methods referenced by Bellamy. But there are more specific ways that this could be done from a developmental perspective. For example, Quadrant II variables could be chosen on the basis of their relationship to Quadrant IV variables. Where are the harmonies and where is the dissonance? Culture, after all, is not just about what is shared, but what is contested and challenged. Further, because of the link imposed by corresponding lines in each quadrant, the scenario would be constructed such that systems and processes in Quadrants I and III would correspond to those memes and values in Quadrants II and IV.

Step 4 is thereby served:

Step 4:
Create scenarios that tell the story of the how the forces might possibly combine in different ways to impact on the issue in question;

For example, If the company in our example implements a new performance management system, what are the challenges in relation to company culture and what impact might there by on the business community, etc.? In the case of the business community, what would be the impact of this system on the company’s ability to attract and retain increasingly sought after talent? Or if a competitor in Quadrant III raises salaries for the talent our company is seeking to attract or retain, how will attempts to remain competitive that impact the effectiveness of cost containment strategies, etc.?

These are the kinds of considerations that those in future studies can help us work with in the development of scenarios that will advance the capabilities of individual leaders and to create the leadership capabilities of the systems they are in.

At this point we would vary from Bellamy’s Steps 5 and 6:

Step 5:
Identify responses for your organisation to respond to each scenario; and finally
Step 6:
Develop indicators that will help determine which of the scenarios is coming to reality and therefore which of the responses developed in step 5 should be activated.

Since we are shifting from prediction to preparation our task would be to do two things for the individual potential leader:

  1. Provide as much developmental feedback in advance as is feasible and useful. This could include MBTI II and Emotional Competence Inventory, Resilience, Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Management instrument or any of a number of others. There are a couple fo instruments directly drawn from developmental theory that would be interesting to work with. One is the Leadership Development Profile authored by Susann Cook-Greuter and the other is an instrument used by Don Beck with Spiral Dynamics.

The utility of this step is that it provides the potential leader with feedback about their preferences, styles, and possible patterns that will enhance self-awareness. Fred Kofman makes the point that awareness is the single most important business skil[28]l. I agree. Without it the quality of decisions and solutions to challenges and problems will be sub-optimized. Self-awareness is part of the equation. Assessments and feedback are useful tools for generating self-awareness.

  1. Potential leaders engage in designing responses to different scenarios.
  2. A post evaluation process is conducted with groups of potential leaders to examine the impact of collective dynamics on the individual and vise versa.

Keeping in mind that there are no “right “ answers, responses can be evaluated in terms of collective and individual variables. Here we might want to turn to Mike Jay’s work, for example and look at key variables (with my interpretations) he has labeled:

Much of this material is not readily available, but can be guessed at, estimated or discovered in the scenario evaluation process. We might ask a series of corresponding questions, such as:

Self, collective and scenario analysis on the basis of these kinds of questions would offer a huge benefit in enhancing awareness and attention to variables with consideration of developmental levels. This enhanced awareness would help prepare individuals for creating and engaging with leadership opportunities.

Preparing for the Future

Leadership development recognizing the growing complexity of individual systems and their corresponding larger system variables will lay an effective foundation for preparing leaders for the future. Future studies bring knowledge, methods and skills in creating, crafting and implementing scenario development, implementation and assessment that will further this development. Developmentalism offers indispensable frameworks and methods for preparing building, implementing and assessing scenarios.

One more ingredient that stirred into this fresh mix that would add just the right amount of spice, of capacity for discover, is that of action inquiry. Bill Torbert’s work has been based on his approach to the work of Chris Argyris and David Schon. It is not so much a methodology as a way of being. As such, action inquiry offers a way for the evaluation and assessment of the work of the scenario to be a learning experience.

"Action inquiry is a way of simultaneously conducting action and inquiry as a disciplined leadership practice that increases the wide effectiveness of our actions," writes Torbert and his associates[29]. They continue,

Action inquiry is a lifelong process of transformational learning that individuals, teams, and whole organizations can undertake if they wish to become:

Sara Ross offers this set of questions for action inquiry[31]:

"Template" for Timely Action Inquiry

  1. What did we set out to do? (And, in the midst: What are we trying to do?)
  2. What was important to us in doing this? (And, in the midst: What is important right now?)
  3. How did we do?(And, in the midst: How are we doing?)
  4. What have we learned from this? (And, in the midst: What are we learning?)
  5. Do we need to re-examine any of our assumptions about this?
  6. How can we, and others, use what we’ve learned?

For individual inquiry, substitute “I” for “we” and use both when with others!

These questions are jewels of reflection and analysis. Engaging in answering such questions would promote the kind of learning that leadership and leader development require.

It is beyond the scope of this presentation to go into action inquiry, but it offers an interesting challenge in the area of leadership development. The risk is that only those at a specific developmental level, e.g., orange or above in the Spiral Dynamics framework, would be willing and able to engage in such a process.

Returning to the words of Richard Slaughter, he wrote:

The suggestions advanced here can be reduced to some simple, but significant questions for practitioners.

A common rationale for ES [Environmental Scanning] is that ‘forewarned is forearmed’. That remains true. Yet most people still live in cultures and work in organizations where long-term social foresight has yet to be achieved. In the light of the ‘civilizational challenge’… this is to be regretted. Social and organizational well-being depend significantly on creating and responding to a variety of high quality forward views and then using them for a wide range of purposes. It would be more than a little ironic if defects in the methods used to sensitize organizations to changes in their environment were to cause them to overlook some of the most subtle but powerful sources of change around.[32]

Isn’t it possible that linking scenarios and developmentalism as tools for preparing us for the future would likely further our understanding of the answers to the questions he poses?

I have begged the question fo speed and extent of development that individuals are capable of achieving. It is likely that in Spiral Dynamics terms or stage models like Bill Torbert’s that an individual will achieve only small and incremental development in his or her adult life. But we are in a position to discover what tools will assist others in this development. Who knows, we may find that we can accelerate development. As in learning, there are different styles and preferences for individuals. This applies to all aspects of development. Our challenge is to find the approaches that are more successful than others under varying conditions. Scenarios offer one of those approaches.

Whatever models, mapping tools, or methods we choose, we are on a journey of learning. This is the field in which futurists can nurture not only our capacity to predict and anticipate, but at least equally important, our capacity to prepare others and ourselves for the future.

Endnotes

*The Spring 2004 I had the good fortune to join with a group of colleagues from England, Canada and the United States for a peer seminar we titled, “Integral Leadership Development.” This seminar continued to meet and discuss the application of a variety of theoretical approaches to Leadership Development and to design Leadership Development interventions in a variety of contexts – business, community and other organizations. I wish to express my deep gratitude for the support of these colleagues whose influence can be found throughout this paper. Nevertheless, responsibility for the final product must remain with me. Thanks to: Alison Atkins, Keith Bellamy, Mike Ginn, Jeanette Haas, Diana Haladay  Matthew Kalman, Helen Maskery, Jonathan Reams,  Sara Ross, David Simmons, Margaret Steele, Daniela Trocan.

1. Don Edward Beck and Christopher C. Cowan, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 1996.

2. Information about Emergenics is available from Mike Jay at http://www.leadu.com.

3. Richard A. Slaughter, “Integral Futures – a model for  futures enquiry and practice,” based on  Futures Beyond Dystopia – Creating Social Foresight, Routledge, London, November 2003.

4. Private conversation.

5. Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us,” Wired, Vol. 8, No. 4, April 2000.

6. Interview of Richard Slaughter by Liz Else in New Scientist

7. James O’Toole, “When Leadership is an Organizational Trait,” The Future of Leadership, Warren Bennis, Gretchen M. Spreitzer and Thomas G. Cummings, eds. Pp. 158-174.

8. Dalmar Fisher, David Rooke and Bill Torbert, Personal and Organisational Transformation through action inquiry, Boston: Edge\Work Press, 2001.

9. This is where I would put almost all of leadership theory.

10. Note the work of Ichak Adizes, Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to do About It, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1988.

11. Karen Reivich and Andrew Shatte, The Resilience Factor: 7 Essential Ski8lls for Overcoming Life’s Inevitable Obstacles, New York: Broadway Books, 2002.

12. Keith Bellamy, unpublished paper.

13. Chris C. Stewart, “Integral Scenario Development,” http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/pdf/stewart2.pdf.

14. Mark Edwards, “The Integral Cycle of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on Integrating Ken Wilber’s Developmental and Epistomological Models,” http://www.integralworld.net

15. Ken Wilber describes this approach in A Theory of Everything, Boston: Shambhala Press, 2000.

16. Mark Edwards’ work can be found at http://www.integralworld.net in a section entitled “Reading Room.” Frank Visser, author of Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003), was recently “persuaded” by Ken Wilber to change the name of this website from “The World of Ken Wilber.” It’s name is now “integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything.” The site is one of the liveliest sources to explorations about the ideas of Ken Wilber and Integral Theory.

17. Joseph, Voros, “Reframing Environmental Scanning: An Integral Approach,” http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/voros.pdf An earlier version of this paper appeared in 'Foresight --- The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy', Vol. 3, No. 6, pp 533-52, December 2001. Published by MCB UP Ltd and on-line via Emerald Full text: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fs.htm

18. Keith Bellamy, “Futures Bright 2”, unpublished.

19. Dalmar Fisher et al, op.cit.

20. Ruach Borah, source unknown.

21. Chris C. Stewart, “Integral Scenario Development,” http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/pdf/stewart2.pdf.

22. Jon Jenkins and Gerrit Visser, in a paper by Mike Jay, “Working to Level 5 Leadership in Tier 1 Dynamics, Emotion Regulation & Reaching Out.”

23. Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…And Others Don’t, New York: Harper Business, 2001, p. 20.

24. I would propose a numbering system for the quadrants using Edwards’ approach. Reversing the collective holon allows us to represent the interface between individual and collective holons. This throws the UL, UR, etc. designations out of wack. So, Arabic numbers 1 to 4 represent the individual holons and Latin numbers I to IV represent the collective holons. There is a correspondence between 1 and I, 2 and II, etc.

25. Robert Kegan, The Evolving Self, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. These ideas have been abstracted from various parts of this work.

26. Hope D. Harley, Cheryl D. Seals, Mary Beth Rosson, “A Formative Evaluation of Scenario-Based Tools for Learning Object-Oriented Design,” http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds5-1/eval.html

27. Response to a question in a seminar in  April 2004, Westminister, Colorado.

28. Fred Kofman, Conscious Business CD Set, Sounds True, 2001.

29. Bill Torbert and Associates, Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2004, p. 1.

30. Op.Cit.

31. Sara Ross, “Timely Action Inquiry,” unpublished paper.

32. Richard Slaughter, “A New Framework for Environmental Scanning,” Foresight, Vol. 1, No. 5, October 1999.

Russ Volckmann, PhD, LeadCoach™
733 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
russ@leadcoach.com (831) 333-9200
Copyright © 2001 - 2007, All Rights Reserved, Russ Volckmann