Subscribe to Integral Leadership Review. It's Free.

• Leadership
  • Coaching
    • What Coaches Do
    • Client Comments
    • Testimonials
  • Training
• About Us
• Books
  • A Leadership Opportunity
  • 1 Phoenix Rising
• ILR Journal
• Archives
  • Articles
  • Interviews
  • Resources
  • PowerPoint Presentations
  • Links
• Payments
  • Donations
  • Retainer Fees
  • Coaching Fees
  • View Cart
• Home Page

Integral Leadership Review
Volume V, No. 3 - July 2005

Table of Contents

• Leadership Quote
• Mission
• Article: West Point, Scenarios and Leadership Development
• A Leadership Coaching Tip
• A Fresh Perspective: 21st Century Leadership: An Interview with Joseph Rost
• Guest Article; Dennis C. Roberts, "A Tribute to Joseph C. Rost: Understanding Leadership in the 21st Century"
• Integral for the Masses: Keith Bellamy
• Announcements: ARINA, Inc. (Sara Ross); Integral Review; iWET; Spiral Dynamics
• Letters: Emil Moller, Netherlands
• Guest Article: Paul Gibbons, "Leaders: Born or Made?"
• Summary:

  (1) Carter Phipps, "Become All You Can Become," What is Enlightenment?

  (2) Ram Charan, "Ending the CEO Succession Crisis," Harvard Business Review

• Coda
• A Request

---

Leadership Quote

CEOs need to focus first on changing themselves before they try to change the rest of the company. The process resembles an archaeological dig, or at least it did for me. As I uncovered and solved one problem, I almost invariably exposed another, deeper problem. As I gained one insight and mastered one situation, another situation arose that required new insight and more learning. As I approached one goal, a new, more important, but more distant goals always began to take shape.

-- Ralph Stayer , "How I Learned to Let My Workers Lead,"
Harvard Business Review, November-December 1990.

---

Mission

We are in the fifth year of publication of the Integral Leadership Review. It is increasingly taking the form that I hoped, although I am sure there is still much that can be done to make this a useful document that attracts a wider audience in the fields of consulting, training and coaching, as well as among business and other organizational leaders who have a passion for leadership.

I am grateful to the 1082 subscribers to Integral Leadership Review. Your support means that we can move closer to a way of viewing and being in the world that is integrative, generative and supportive of our evolving integrity––learning to align our theory and our action, our values and assumptions with achieving what is important to us. Also, I am grateful to the many kindnesses, suggestions and offers of support we have received.

The mission of this e-publication is to be a practical guide to the application of an integral perspective to the challenges of leadership in business and life and to the effective relationship between executive/business coaches and their clients. My vision includes that this will be a place where others, as well as myself, can continue to develop and share ideas about integral leadership and integral coaching. That vision is being realized.

Russ Volckmann

---

West Point, Scenarios and Leadership Development  
Russ Volckmann

Since the readership of the Integral Leadership Review constitutes a diverse international group, a few words about this article may be helpful. The United States Military Academy (West Point) is where career officers are educated and trained for the United States Army. In addition to providing military leadership, the graduates of West Point, upon leaving their military service, have entered into formal leader roles in industry, not for profits, government and politics. Some have even attained the position of President of the United States, the most recent of which was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The Cadets and graduates of West Point are held to a very high standard of ethics. The motto of West Point is, Duty, Honor, Country. As military officers, for example, they may not criticize the President of the United States, who is their commanding officer. However, once separated from their military positions, many former officers have been critical of various presidents and their decisions, as well as other international and government institutions and actions.

This and potential articles in subsequent issues, which may focus on leadership development practices and theory at West Point, are not to be construed as advocacy for United States military policy or action anywhere at any time. However, learning about leadership in this context continues to be very important for all of us. Security institutions in all countries and internationally are positioned to invest more over time than most institutions in ongoing leadership development. We can learn from them.

Military policy and action is often the result of political decisions. Issues that you and I may have with these should in no way be construed as a lack of respect for the cadets and graduates of West Point who put their lives on the line for some of the best values represented by the United States. As much as those values may have been besmirched in recent years by the actions and decisions of individuals in and out of power, I am certain that West Point is a model for many important values, not the least of which is honor. I trust we share the commitment to that value, even while recognizing that its definition is not formulaic, but an ongoing challenge to each and every one of us.

NOTE: Just prior to publication of this issue Jossey-Bass’ Leader to Leader, published a 92-page supplement to its Summer 2005 issue subtitled Leadership Breakthroughs from West Point. It should be noted, while I have not yet read every article thoroughly, in what I have read and skimmed there is no reference to the work cited in this article. I hope to learn how the explorations that are being done received no attention, even in an interview with the same Lieutenant General Lennox, Superintendent of West Point, whose letter is reproduced below.

I recently received an invitation to join my Class at West Point (1959) in initiating its 50th anniversary. This summer we entered West Point as Plebes fifty years ago. About the same time I began to come across material about the work that Colonel George B. Forsythe and others have been doing to foster leadership development of Cadets that meets the requirements of a new kind of leadership, one that can effectively address the challenges of highly complex military missions that demand very different leadership capabilities than those of the traditional army. As is the case with industry and other organizations this complexity is characterized by ambiguity and unpredictability.

Drawing on the work of Robert Kegan, Harvard University developmental psychologist, Forsythe and his colleagues are seeking to develop level-4 leaders, the developmental level that Kegan calls the self-authoring mind. He and his colleagues found that the West Point experience moved individuals on the average from level 2 or 2/3 to level 3 over the four years of the Cadet experience. When they tested mid-career and senior officers they found that almost half of the Majors had shifted to 3/4 and that almost 90% of senior officers had achieved some fourth level self-development. This occurs in the face of more and more refined selection processes which lead to smaller numbers of individuals being studied at each level.

And where did I first read of this? In WIE (What is Enlightenment?), Andrew Cohen’s slick magazine for modern consciousness and spirituality [See Summary below]! Then, it showed up again in Jonathan Reams’ Integral Review article [see Coda below], "What’s Integral About Leadership?" where I also learned of an unpublished paper by Michael Putz and Michael Raynor, "Integral Leadership: Overcoming the Paradox of Growth," which draws on the West Point studies.

Well, the signs were too overwhelming to ignore and I placed a call to Colonel Forsythe. I wanted to know more about his work and its connection to integral theory, as well as the strategies and methods that were being used to further promote leadership development at West Point. I also wanted to share some of my thinking about the use of scenarios and learn if this approach was being used at West Point.

I hope to write more about the West Point approach in the future and possibly include an interview with Colonel Forsythe who is retiring from the military this summer and taking on the role of president of a small mid-Western college. His is an example of what I referred to in the preface of this article — a West Point graduate who has moved into a formal leadership role in the civilian sector.

Included in the papers that I received about the West Point studies was this letter from the Superintendent (like the president of a university) of West Point. It provides an interesting context for understanding the leadership development approaches being devised at the Academy. Note particularly the paragraph in bold (my emphasis).

Further on in the document we learn that "Cadets develop intellectually, militarily, physically, spiritually, ethically, and socially. Officership is a matter of both competence and character; thus, the first three domains emphasize competence, while the final three describe character." For those of you who have been reading these pages or who have been studying integral theory, you will no doubt recognize this list as an example of lines or streams of development.

And from the perspective of ethics and values there is much we can learn from the West Point culture. But how does this relate to scenarios?

One of the advantages for using a scenario approach to leadership development is that it provides an opportunity to view how these lines of development show up in the analysis of how an individual or team brings levels of development to the analytical process. To do this, however, requires that those who work with leadership development have the skills, tools and knowledge to engage individuals and groups in exploring multiple lines and stages of individual and systems development.

When I spoke with Colonel Forsythe I asked if there were a use of scenarios in leadership development at West Point. I hypothesized that there was because at least some of the developmental activities along some of the lines of development would be based on conscious practice. Included in his response was his noting the challenge of developing faculty and others who have the knowledge and skills to support the quality of reflection that would generate learning. On reflection, it seems that this is the same kind of challenge faced by those using the Kegan Subject-Object interview or Cook-Greuter’s Leadership Development Profile—and then some.

Being able to read scenario analyses for what they have to say about levels or stages of development (Kegan, Cook-Greuter, Spiral Dynamics—integral or otherwise) will require significant training. And this does not even include the question of whether those at lower levels of development can "read" those at higher stages of development—a contentious issue that has not yet been resolved, except by expert opinion. Looking at this issue in the context of scenario analysis and learning might offer some useful findings.

I would suggest that level of development does not matter. Having coaching skills and an understanding or framework of integral development does. The coaching skills are important because the goal is not to "teach" the individual about different levels of development (although some of that will be necessary). Rather, it is to facilitate the individual’s own analysis of the scenario through an integral and developmental lens. The emphasis needs to be there because the goal is to develop habits of viewing the world and one’s own thoughts in a way that opens the door to considering alternatives, including the fact that these alternatives may represent different views than one’s own.

Development occurs also as individuals learn to examine their own values and beliefs in relation to their behaviors and within the context of their understanding of the culture and systems of which they are a part. Key questions would revolve around such subjects as self-management, attunement with the culture, alignment of behaviors with the system, and the evolution of the system under different life conditions.

The use of scenarios as a tool for leadership development offers a strategy for scaffolding learning for individuals that may position them to recognize and access stage perspectives above their own under some conditions. This is different from the use of case studies, situations generally drawn from past experience. Scenarios are about future possibilities, about the unexpected, situations that may or may not ever occur. The value of having leaders use scenarios for development is that it prepares them for engaging with what is not expected. It prepares them for real change, as Joseph Rost (See Interview, below) might say.

In leadership development we are concerned with the "Be-Know-Do" of leadership in any context. We are also concerned with the fact that leadership development is not just about individual development but about organization and institution development. The use of scenarios can support both.

---

Leadership Coaching Tip 

When working developmentally with an executive and one goal is to develop capabilities for working with change, innovation, ambiguity and surprise, this will involve attention to leadership. Try scenarios. The executive can participate fully in designing the scenario. For example, scenario questions might be, how would s/he respond if a competitor became more aggressive, if there were a significant change in the market, or if the company bought another business? Capture the executive’s response with text, on tape or video. Review this from the point of view of lines of development, behavior, culture and systems. Take the review to the next level by examining worldviews, values, alternative beliefs and their implications for generating alternative responses and playing out their implications. A key question that will surface different levels of development would be, "How does leadership show up in this scenario and where does it come from?"

---

A Fresh Perspective: 21st Century Leadership: 
An Interview with Joseph Rost 
Russ Volckmann

It seems unusual, on the surface of it, to reach back more than fifteen years for a "Fresh Perspective." However, I think you will find that the work and the thinking of Joseph Rost fifteen years ago and today are, indeed, fresh! Joseph Rost is a professor emeritus of leadership studies in the School of Education at the University of San Diego. Some of his publications are referred to in the interview.

Q: I would like to begin by talking about what I have described to others as an extraordinary piece of work: your book, Leadership for the 21st Century. I find it extraordinary first because of your extensive review of the leadership literature while searching for definitions of leadership and second for the conclusions that you reached. Would you summarize the major themes from that work?

A: I’ll see if I can. I looked through a number of books and articles. I did not use textbooks in my review except for one. I used books and articles written by academics and by what I would term practitioners, people who are writing from a more practical context because they’re in the field doing what they call leadership. Many of these works did not give a definition of leadership—a disconcerting large number, from my point of view. I concluded that these works were written by people who either didn’t think that a definition was important, because they presumed that everybody knows what leadership is, or they found that defining leadership was too difficult and constraining. They didn’t want to define it because they wanted to have the freedom of writing about leadership any way they wanted. This means, of course, that they could use the word leadership in one chapter one way and use it in the second chapter another way. So, the purpose of this review was to try to see what the nature of leadership was in the 20th century up until 1989, which is when I wrote the book.

The second major theme of the book was to describe what I thought the nature of leadership would be in the 21st century. I created or developed a definition of leadership that was substantially different from that used in the 20th century.

These two themes are developed in the first and second halves of the book.

Q: You looked at the leadership literature in terms of all the different kinds of leadership theories; traits, skills, influence, role, as well as transactional and transformational notions of leadership. You offered a definition that seemed to represent what leadership has meant to people in the 20th century or in the Industrial Era, in particular. It reads as follows, "Leadership is great men and women with certain preferred traits influencing followers to do what the leaders wish in order to achieve group or organizational goals that reflect excellence defined as some kind of higher order effectiveness." And, as I understand the implications of that definition, you basically concluded that for the Industrial Era leadership is defined as good management.

A: Your question raises two points. The first is that the long definition gathers together all of the major movements–theories, if you will–of the leadership literature in the 20th century. By including them all in a single sentence—a single definition—I made a statement that these models or views of leadership are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they fit together in an integrated whole quite easily and comfortably. It didn’t take any difficult or artificial word manipulation to put the whole output of 75 years of leadership studies into a succinct statement that says it all.

Then, the second point is this: If you analyze that sentence for its essence, the definition is all about good management, good in the sense of being effective, successful or well done, not in the sense of being morally efficacious. I might add that no one, prior to the publication of my book, had articulated a common or unifying theme of the leadership literature of the 20th century. On the contrary, the common wisdom throughout the latter half of the 20th century was that it was impossible to make sense of leadership studies, as there were so many different and conflicting views or understandings of what leadership is. So, I view the first half of the book as seminal and groundbreaking, as it destroys the myth that there is no common understanding of leadership in the literature. A lot of people don’t get this because, I suppose, the myth is so well accepted that it is very difficult for people to accept a different overarching concept that contradicts the myth.

Q: Did you have any response to your summary definition that was remarkable in any way?

A: Yes, the reaction to the first part of the book was fairly negative and markedly so. Readers say that it is too academic and boring. Who cares about all these definitions? What sense does it make to have readers trudge through all that past history? Trudge—isn’t that a great word?

The opinions about the book seem to change when they start reading chapter 5, which begins the discussion of leadership in the 21st century, the title of the book. That half of the book has been much more favorably reviewed.

Q: It seems to me that the point you are making in the early chapters is that how we define concepts like leader and leadership are fundamental in shaping the ways that we approach, not only doing it, but developing it.

A: Exactly. That is what I was trying to say. People don’t want to hear that message. They don’t want to read a book that goes over in minute detail the impact of defining or not defining leadership and what kind of developmental process we have had in the leadership literature over the last 50-75 years.

One of the reasons why leadership studies as a discipline hasn’t developed very well is that we have failed to learn from our mistakes. We failed to narrow things down to know what we are talking about. So, the sky remains the limit and leadership books in 2005 can range from psychological babble to the latest management fad. If we narrowed things down to a precise definition and only used the word leadership to write about what it is and how it’s practiced and so on, we would grow developmentally both as academics and as practitioners. Leadership as a discipline would develop exponentially.

Q: The Foreword to your book was written by James MacGregor Burns. He suggested that you didn’t emphasize the role of values, ethics and morality enough. In later writing that’s a subject you’ve addressed, that is, the role of conflict in "great leadership" as he used the notion. He notes that you tend to lean towards more of a consensus approach that he thinks would erode great leadership. I’m wondering if you have any comments about that.

A: Yes. Burns and I have talked about it several times. His view of conflicts in the process of leadership is very clear from his book. He believes that’s what energizes the process. To his credit I think we have to understand that Burns’ book is about political leadership. All his work in that large book is centered on politics, political organizations and governments. In that kind of organization conflict is more natural, because there are different parties and there are conflicting issues that are always on the agenda.

My view is that our political process would be better served if politicians and the many other people involved in a political issue would emphasize more consensual or collaborative processes than just the conflictual ones. Maybe one of the reasons why so many people are turned off about the political process these days is because of the intense conflict in politics, especially conflict motivated by partisan advantage or to get re-elected. I understand Burns’ point of view and he is accurate in summarizing mine. The model of leadership that I’m proposing is more consensual and collaborative than conflictual. I think that collaboration is much more energizing and enabling in solving serious problems in the 21st century.

Q: And the ethics piece?

A: The ethics issue involves a fairly clear distinction. In his definition of transformational leadership there is an ethical requirement that leaders raise other people up to higher levels of motivation and morality. My response is, who determines what the higher levels of motivation and higher levels of morality are in any particular issue?

Generally speaking, we can recognize Hitler and his collaborators as lowering motivation and morality because of all the horrible things they did. We can recognize Churchill and his collaborators as elevating morality, because they were fighting for freedom and civilization. But those historical examples are not very useful, because they don’t take into consideration any particular issue. Actually, if one delved into particular issues, Hitler and his people may have done some morally good things and Churchill and his allies may have done some morally bad things. But, in general, it is easy to evaluate Hitler as bad and Churchill as good if you collapse ten or more years of history into one sentence.

One of the innovative concepts I have brought to leadership studies is to view leadership as an episodic event (or series of events). From that point of view, the ethics of leadership has much more to do with process and product of a particular, significant change in an organization than it has to do with the personal morals of a leader. The process of making a change is an ethical issue because power and authority, especially if exercised in authoritarian and dictatorial ways, undermines the integrity of human beings, individually and as a group. The product of a significant change is also an ethical issue because doing the right thing is often difficult to determine. Thus, the ethics of an episodic event (a significant change) is much more complex than most people are led to believe.

There are hundreds of issues in today’s world about which people have serious differences regarding the ethics of various initiatives or solutions. Several examples are: keeping dying people alive artificially, retirement payments, drug research and availability, taxes to pay for social services, rich nations helping poor nations, gay marriage, sexual behaviors, privacy, minimum wages and health benefits, initiating a war to prevent terrorist attacks, stem cell research, death penalty, civil rights, copyright contracts, and so on. On these and other issues thousands and millions of people have diametrically opposed views as to what the right thing to do is.

In the end, I believe that creating an ethical imperative in an understanding of leadership is not acceptable. Does that summarize it?

Q: Yes, very well. In 1999, you gave a presentation to the Annual Conference of the International Leadership Association in Florida. In that presentation you were talking about ethics and morality while using the Clinton-Lewinski example. You made what I thought was a very interesting distinction about the role of ethics in leadership.

A: I was trying to say that people who may be leaders have a personal life and have a professional life. It is pretty cut and dried that if a leader steals money from the organization that this behavior is unethical. But it is not cut and dried when a leader of an organization during her/his personal time does things that some people do not approve of. If leaders do that, does that make them unethical leaders? In that paper, I argued that the ethics of leadership has more to do with what happens when the leaders (and collaborators) are doing leadership (that is, intending or making a significant changes in an organization) than it does with how they live their private Lives.

Q: A dilemma with the Clinton example, of course, is that Lewinsky was in effect his employee. And that introduces some ethical issues within the organization.

A: Well, that certainly complicates the managerial and professional relationships that are supposed to exist between employers and employees. I don’t approve of adultery. So, I don’t approve of Clinton’s behaviors in this instance. But, the ethical issues of Clinton and his collaborators have more to do with how they responded to the massacre in Rwanda or the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy in the armed services—to name two examples of episodic leadership events—than they have to do with Clinton’s (or his collaborators’) sexual proclivities.

Morally good people don’t equate to morally good leadership and morally bad people don’t equate to morally bad leadership. Bad people can sometimes do very good leadership (episodic) acts and good people can sometimes do bad leadership (episodic) acts. There is no consistent correlation between personal goodness and leadership goodness.

Part of the problem here is equating leadership with leaders. If one does not buy into that equation, in other words, that other people beyond leaders do leadership, then the ethics of leadership becomes immensely more complicated.

Q: This relates to a concept that you’ve already mentioned that is very important in your approach to leadership. It’s one that I really resonate with. I described in one place, a leader as being a snapshot and leadership as a movie. The snapshot is an episodic event and the movie is an ongoing process over time. Leaders can pop up from many, many places over time. I noticed in your work that you used this idea of leadership as an emergent property of a system.

A: Those aren’t the words I would use, but yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. In my recent work, I have suggested that leadership exists in that organizational space wherein relationships develop and operate to effect significant changes. To that extent, it is systemic, especially in the organic and postmodern sense of that word. So, one has to repeat over and over again, leadership does not reside in a person or even several persons. Leadership resides in a relationship among people.

This understanding of leadership requires organizational change at the structural and systemic levels. Many organizations need a big dose of democracy so as to create that space where relationships can develop and flourish.

You asked earlier about more recent thoughts on leadership after the book was written. One that I could point to is the concept of the episodic nature of leadership. There is nothing explicated stated in the book about the episodic nature of leadership. There are some implied ideas, but the reader would have to read between the lines.

Subsequent to writing the book, I became very enamored with the concept of the episodic nature of leadership. People don’t go around doing leadership twenty-four hours a day. If they did, they’d go crazy in less than a year. One of the background assumptions I hold dearly is that the notion of leadership needs to be limited and boxed in more tightly.

People have thought of leadership in the past as being all things to al people. Leadership is not that all encompassing.

So, we have to ask how we can distinguish between leadership and all those other things that make the world go round. That means we have to limit what we are studying and what we are researching and writing about. A definition of leadership must limit what is leadership and what leadership is not.

If you think of leadership as an episodic series of events intending significant change, there has to b e other things that people in groups and organizations do besides leadership. The episodic nature of leadership indicates to us that leadership is embedded in certain activities done by people about a certain issue.

Q: You have suggested that the industrial paradigm in which leadership definitions are couched is losing its hold. As you would say, in people’s minds and hearts there is a post-industrial culture that is rising. You described yourself as a futurist. Could you say more about that and how you see the postindustrial era unfolding?

A: The futurist part of me has been developed in the last 20 years by going to futurist conferences, reading futurist books, teaching a course called "Leadership in the Future," and other activities in which I have collaborated with other futurists. My tendency in teaching was to get students in the frame of mind that what they were learning had to be usable in the future, not just in the past. Out of that developed my interest in what leadership would look like in the 21st century. Is it going to be the same as it was in the 20th or not? This really needs to be discussed more than in a single graduate class and so we tried to make that a theme in all of our leadership classes.

Q: What is it about the shift into the 21st century? What are the variables in this postindustrial era that you think are significant in terms of redefining leadership?

A: I can point to two or three things. The first and most important one is I don’t think that serious problems are being solved in most of our organizations. In order to solve them, fundamental changes have to be made in how organizations govern themselves and the dynamics of leadership in an organization. This applies to business, nonprofit and governmental organizations. I don’t see any essential differences in these organizations, except that I believe that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that political organizations find it difficult to solve major problems.

The second thing is that the people in the Western world, in particular, are less willing to play a follower role and just do what other people say they should do. They are more interested in being part of a process that gives them some influence and impact on major decisions being made in organizations. What we used to have in the early and middle part of the 20th century, when people generally were submissive, has changed dramatically in the last 25 years. These changes will grow exponentially in the 21stth century. A model of leadership that emphasizes the top person or the one person doing leadership no longer resonates with people in general.

The third thing is that values are changing, both societal and individual values. There are signs pointing each way, but the positive view of the world is towards more emphasis on wholeness or sustainability in solving difficult issues and making progress. The negative view is that individualism is rampant and people are as corrupt and dishonest as they were a hundred years ago. The great leader approach is still popular. We need strong individuals to maintain order and control. I suppose it is two different worldviews. The worldview that emphasizes the individualistic and personal importance and rights of people is losing its hold in societies.

The fourth one would be various disciplines are having the same problems and are thinking along the same lines as futurists in leadership. Medicine would be a good example where old paradigms are not adequate to deal with health problems of the modern age. You have all these different things happening in medicine. There are new paradigms in the natural sciences, psychology and religion.

Different people can see different things when they try to describe worldviews. I look at these different disciplines and see that they’re looking towards new ways of thinking to help understand what’s going on in the world. Leadership as a discipline is following suit; it is having the same problems with the old language and the old assumptions.

Q: There is clearly evidence of growing movements in cross-disciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to go along with what you are talking about.

A: When we studied history in the 1950s when I went to college, it was a study of European history. But now, history is a history of the world, including non-developed countries, social movements and other things besides wars. If you look at how history is being taught in 2005, it’s very, very different. This new approach is not an accident or just evolutionary. It was planned, fought-over, fundamental change that involved a lot of historians.

Q: So these changing circumstances require a different way of thinking about leadership. I’m going to read your definition of leadership in the post-industrial era that you offered in the book. We can compare and contrast this with the earlier definition, if you like. "Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and collaborators who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes." How would you comment on that?

A: This definition is directly the opposite of all popular definitions of leadership from the 20th century, which emphasized power and control, individual leaders doing leadership and followers doing followership, and the view that the top-level decision-maker is the only person who does leadership. The long definition that you referred to earlier in the interview summarizes this industrial understand of leadership.

The collaborative definition requires four essential elements to be present if a series of activities are to be labeled leadership. The first is that the activities be influential, that, is, noncoercive. The second is that the activities be done by people in a relationship. The third is that the activities involve a real significant change. And the fourth element is that the activities reflect the purposes of the people in the relationship, not just a single person. All of these standards insure collaboration rather than the notion that leadership is a great leader doing great things.

Q: You indicated earlier that the response to this part of the book where you are elaborating that definition was different from the first part of the book. Would you care to comment on that?

A: Yes, I’d like to very much. As background for this answer, I’d like to say that authors don’t get a huge response about what they write. I’ve talked to other authors about this experience, and they all said the same thing. Perhaps writers of books that make the New York Times bestseller list have a different experience, but I haven’t talked to any of them. Thus, our ability to understand how people respond to what we have written in a book is very limited.

With that proviso in mind, the limited feedback I have had from readers is very positive about the chapters in the book that develop the definition of collaborative leadership. The response is actually overwhelmingly enthusiastic. I should also state that the most ardent supporters are those who are in some kind of group that traditionally lacked power and authority or that have been discriminated against. That response is quite understandable since collaborative leadership reflects, for want of a better term, a bottom-up approach.

An alternative response has been quite consistent also–the response of the realists. Agreeing with the collaborative approach to leadership is easy. It is much harder to put it to work, to practice it. So, the skeptics respond that it is a wonderful idea (or even worse, that it is nice and good as a theory) but it won’t work in the real world of organizations. Unfortunately, the experience of the last 15 years favors the skeptics. My view is that the difficulty in practicing collaborative leadership is probably as hard in 2005 as it was in 1990 when I wrote the book. This situation bothers me a great deal, and it is the source of some discouragement. I had hoped that we would be further along on the road to collaboration than we are.

However, my view is still the same. Collaborative leadership is the wave of the future. I agree that collaborative leadership is hard, but I do not agree that it is impractical or, worse, impossible. I might not see it in my lifetime, but I think that our understanding of leadership has to change. The revolution of people power is too strong.

For the full interview click here.

---

Summary of Rost’s Leadership Development Proposals (1993)

The material that follows suggests some considerations for integral leadership development. Some of the ideas are immediately actionable, others may take a while. Rost distinguishes between leader development and leadership development:

Leader development promotes the "Lone Ranger" or "John Wayne" view of leadership, variants on the great man/woman theory of leadership that has regained a lot of popularity in the 1980s. Leadership development promotes a view of leadership that proclaims: "We are all in this together as these changes are our mutual purposes," a completely new understanding of leadership that is emerging as the new definition of leadership…as we approach the new millennium. Training and development programs based on the new paradigm are much more difficult to design and execute that those popular for the last 50 years in which the objective was to train a leader to be a good manager. [Emphasis in the original.]

Here is a summary of Rost’s proposals:

(1) Stop concentrating on the leader.

• Get rid of the emphasis on leader traits and personality characteristics.

• Get rid of the lists of leader behaviors.

• Get rid of all tests or inventories for leaders.

• Get rid of the notion that we have to develop leaders.

(2) Conceive of leadership as an episodic affair. Here are some suggestions.

• Don’t train people to think of leadership as good management so that everything a good manager does is leadership.

• Get rid of the notion that leadership is only what works, that leadership is always a successful process, that leadership is high performance…

• Train people to think about the process that leadership is.

• Train people to think of leadership as a specific relationship of people planning a mutually agreeable, real change.

• Have people list the leadership relationships in which they have been participating during a 12 or 24-month period.

(3) Train people to use influence.

(4) Develop people to work within noncoercive relationships. "Noncoercive means that the people in the relationship are able to respond yes or no to an attempt to influence them." [Emphasis in the original.]

• Train people to base the leadership relationship on mutual influence, not authority or power.

• Help people build relationships around a sense of purpose instead of other more utilitarian objectives.

• Train people to create relationships by having them help people…

Help people understand the nature of real—that is, transformative—change.

• Real Change is almost always political.

• Real change is long term.

• Real change has tremendous symbolic implications, both positive and negative.

• Real change takes place, for the most part, among large groups of people.

(5) Reconstruct people’s basic worldview toward a collaborative orientation.

Joseph C. Rost, "Leadership Development in the New Millennium."The Journal of Leadership Studies", 1993, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 92-110.

---

Guest Article 

A Tribute to Joseph C. Rost:
Understanding Leadership in the 21st Century  

Dennis C. Roberts
Miami University of Ohio

This short article is offered as a tribute to Joseph Rost. It then seeks to link the emerging notions of integral theory with Rost’s earlier and independent work (1991, 1993), work that has been some of the most influential in shaping higher education’s focus on leadership over the last decade.

The area of integral theory is new to me. After having read a couple of articles and then participating in a recent conference call about integral theory and leadership, I realized that there are many who are aware of and have adopted integral theory approaches but are not aware of the synchronous interests of those who work in leadership studies/development in higher education in the U.S.A. (Reference to higher education in the U.S.A. is not meant to ignore other areas of the world – I simply have not had the opportunity to explore the question beyond North America.) It is gratifying to note that the link between integral theory and new paradigms of leadership is emerging in the literature.

While there are numerous important implications of Rost’s writing, one critical insight is that there is danger in not recognizing that many "leadership" programs are not about leadership development at all. Instead, many target those individuals with positions of authority and power and then seek to enhance that influence. Rost articulated his concerns by characterizing two broad categories of leading/leadership – the industrial and post-industrial perspectives. These ideas are explained more substantively through Russ Volckmann’s interview of Joseph Rost elsewhere in this journal. While Rost’s critique of "leadership development" preceded the emergence of integral theory and is not explicitly tied to it, it is easy to see that a post-industrial paradigm is important to advancing integral theory and its notions of multiple and mutually-informing perspectives. Rost was more of an advocate for a change in perspective, although he clearly recognized that there were multiple views of leadership that compete for our attention. Validation that industrial-era leadership has limited utility in the 21st century can be seen in the profound influences emanating from science, technology, and media in the modern age.

Rost’s "Leadership development in the new millennium" (Rost, 1993) is one of the most often cited articles justifying what is increasingly becoming the norm for college and university leadership programs – programs that focus on leadership as a relational capacity that can be developed in anyone and that is dependent on mutual work. It is ironic that some campus leadership programs continue to rely on selection processes and prescriptive criteria to identify those students who will benefit from these experiences, all the while referencing Rost’s or others’ ideas of inclusive leadership. This is probably evidence that multiple paradigms of leadership still envelop us. There are some comprehensive programs that have emerged that seek to be inclusive and that attempt to reach as broad a cross-section of students as possible. The approach created by faculty, staff, and students a decade ago at Miami University of Ohio (Roberts, 2001) is one of the earliest examples of Rost’s influence in comprehensive and inclusive leadership program design. The operational definition of leadership espoused in this model is derived from Rost. There are now many other programs that have adopted Rost and other theorists’ recommendations to abandon previous privileged notions of leadership. Most of these programs still welcome students who define their leadership in the context of a position they hold. Miami and other campuses increasingly encourage all students to participate in leadership conferences, workshops, courses, living groups, organizations, and other catalytic experiences designed to enhance leadership capacity in every student.

Those who work from Rost’s post-industrial proposal need allies. Inviting all students to explore their leadership potential is challenging, especially when resources are limited, when many in the academy explicitly or implicitly still hold positional and authoritative notions of leadership, and when most colleges and universities still operate from a hierarchy/authority model. As integral theory is considered and adopted in broader settings, higher education’s role in advocating for leadership that is consonant with it is critical. Joseph Rost’s influence has been significant but even he said that the enterprise of broadening leadership was "fraught with immense difficulties" (Rost, 1993, p. 109). Post-industrial, relational, mutually beneficial, and deliberative leadership is desperately needed in our daily affairs. Those working for changes in leadership perspective in higher education will welcome and need the support of partners who embrace Rost’s ideas and who view the world through the lens of integral theory.

Roberts, D. C. (2001). "Miami’s Leadership Commitment," in Outcalt, C.L., Faris, S.K., and McMahon, K.N., Developing Non-hierarchical Leadership on Campus: Case Studies and Best Practices in Higher Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Rost, J. (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger.

Rost, J. (1993). Leadership development in the new millennium. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1 (1), 91-110.

---

Integral For the Masses! 
Keith Bellamy

Taster Menu

We live in interesting times! I had thought that I was beyond being shocked and surprised at the changes I see taking place all around me. But a headline in the London Evening Standard in April of this year proved that this life still has a trick or two in store for me yet. What, you might ask, was this seminal event that acted to change my perspective on the world yet again? In due deference to any elderly readers of this column, I’d like to suggest that you are sitting comfortably and suitably braced before I proceed.

In a study undertaken by Restaurant Magazine of 600 restaurateurs, chefs, food critics and industry experts, a British restaurant had been named the best restaurant in the world. No your eyes are not deceiving you, the Fat Duck in Bray, Berkshire was considered by this panel of the hardest to please individuals around as the best eatery on the face of the planet. What’s more, seven of the top twenty restaurants on the list were British. The conjunction of Good Food and Briton has almost been the definition of the word oxymoron; what has been going on?

It would appear that the world of prepared food in my home country has been undergoing somewhat of a transformation and has evolved to the level where it now sets the standards that others aspire to. More than 25% of the restaurants on this auspicious list are in the United Kingdom. Leading this quiet revolution is a young man called Heston Blumenthal who has, since he first opened the restaurant in 1988 been quietly experimenting with techniques to combine flavours to create culinary experiences never before experienced. To call what he does Cooking is almost insulting, Mr Blumenthal occupies the world of Molecular Gastronomy. His creations arise from the application of physical techniques to the molecular structures of food to evoke a molecular response in the taste papillae of the recipient’s mouth.

Whilst I have not experienced these delights, I am informed that most of the Fat Duck’s clientele opt for the "taster menu" where for a mere $175 per person, excluding wines which cost another $120 per person, you can experience the delights of such dishes as: Snail Porridge; Roast Foi Gras; Sardine on Toast Sorbet; Salmon Poached with Liquorice; White Chocolate & Caviar; Carrot Toffee; and Smoked bacon & Egg Ice Cream! My son and wife are planning to visit this establishment in the next month or so; I shall give you an update at some later time.

As I contemplated the concept of Heston Blumenthal’s taster menu, I realised just how powerful a mechanism it was for introducing his clientele to his ideas and concepts around the evolving world of gastronomy. More importantly, it creates the opportunity for him to receive feedback, which he feeds into the creative mix establishing a virtuous spiral that has pushed him to the top of the heap according to his peers.

Whilst I have no illusions of being pushed to the top of my personal heap, it struck me that it would be wonderful if I could modify the taster menu to provide a wider experience for the readers of this column and as a consequence engage you to respond and feedback to some of the hair-brained ideas around integral leadership that I am toying with at any one time. We called this column "Integral for the Masses" in the hope that you will respond, contribute and participate in the process that focuses on allowing the masses to become integrally informed if not necessarily integrally conscious.

So without remorse or regret I present to you my taster menu for Integral for the Masses. Full size versions of these subjects will be available in later issues of the Integral Leadership Review. This menu is not as extensive as that at the Fat Duck, but with your help, assistance and suggestions we will be delighted to add new subjects for your delight and delectation. Until then please enjoy the following samples of Integral for the Masses future dishes.

1. Does Leadership really matter?

I thought that I would start with a little blasphemy, especially amongst the cognoscenti who participate in the multi-billion dollar worldwide leadership development industry. The immediate reaction of many will, I am sure, be "what a dumb question." Yet in my experience, it is often the dumb questions that can provide the greatest insights into what is happening in the real world.

There is a growing body of evidence that suggests for the vast majority, the answer to this question is No! Take for example the recent elections in the United Kingdom. Tony Blair led his New Labour Party to an historic third term of office at the beginning of May 2005. Although his majority in the House of Commons, which gives him the ability to pass legislation, was cut drastically, he retains the ability to serve a full term of between four and five years.

More significantly, he was returned to number 10 Downing Street with slightly more than 21% of the popular vote. This marked yet another low point in a continuing trend since the end of the second world war. Due to its anachronistic "first past the post" system, a British Prime Minister does not need a simple majority of the electorate to take office. When apathy is the dominant political force at play, this figure drops drastically, as we have seen this past May.

The point I am trying to emphasise is that a significant proportion of the British electorate seem to be indicating that they do not believe in the current leaders of the country or that leadership is particularly important in Today’s UK society. But what if we are experiencing a phenomenon that reflects the changing nature of both society and its underlying culture? As more and more individuals and communities start to act in a less hierarchical and more horizontal manner in all aspect of their lives, perhaps the role of the leader as we know and understand it is no longer as significant as it was in previous stages of development.

In agricultural society the ploughman was the lynchpin of the community. His ability to till the land and prepare it for the coming season’s crops made all the difference between surviving and thriving. As we moved into the Industrial Age, the ability to deploy machinery to undertake the role of the ploughman effectively supplanted his supremacy. On today’s farm, is the ploughman important? Sure. But nowhere near as important as he was.

In the full blown version of this taster I want to explore a number of other examples which suggest that we are on the brink of supplanting the leader as we knew him and her. I want to understand whether the focus, especially in the commercial world, on leadership development is really an attempt to hold on to a bygone age, or if we are developing something different but are attempting to wrap it in the mantle of leadership in order to sell it to HR directors as a panacea to their problems. Nietzsche said, "The limit of my world, is the limit of my language." Do we need to expand our language in order to remove some of the limitations on the world of leadership?

Please join me on this voyage of discovery.

2. Ritual vs. Spiritual Leadership

My wife and I were recently staying with friends on the Island of Nantucket. I always enjoy seeing how the "other half" live even though I have no desire to join and participate in their chosen lifestyle. Whilst there, I was struck by a particular paradox. Here was an island that was inherently beautiful down to Mother Nature’s handiwork over the centuries, yet the focus of most people’s attention was on the properties that were being built and the asking price at both the top and bottom of the market.

Now it struck me that the first colonials who moved to Nantucket did so out of necessity! Its natural harbour and the passing migrations of the Whale populations made it an ideal location to thrive and prosper for the New England Whalers. When Oil was discovered and drove down the value of Whale Blubber, these communities were replaced by individuals who were attracted by the natural beauty of the landscape. Over the generations, the natural beauty was supplanted by attempts to locate their principle homes in the midst of this natural beauty.

It struck me that coming to Nantucket for many had moved from being a spiritual experience to a ritual experience, and this started me wondering whether one of the major causes for the mismanagement and maladroit leadership of the world corporate in recent years was a reflection of this same syndrome? Put bluntly, do our current captains of industry practice the ritual of business but have they lost their sense of purpose as to why those rituals were developed in the first place?

Today’s business schools are churning out MBA graduates at an ever-increasing rate of knots. They know all the rituals of running a business, but do they know how to connect to the spirit of the business and how to connect to the greater calling that their organisation has in the wider market economies in which they operate.

In the full version of this taster, it is my intention to explore more fully through an integral lens the rituals of commerce and how integrally informed leadership can reconnect those rituals with the spirit of the enterprise. Again, I would really appreciate some company on this journey and invite those of you who are interested to join me on this venture.

3. An Integral Leader’s response to terrorist attacks

The events of July 7 th in London serve to remind us of just how precarious are the societies and cultures that we have built in the Western world. The impulsive or opportunistic acts of a small group of fanatical individuals can act to destabilise what we have come to accept as normality. Attacks like this open wounds in the fabric of our societal structures and cultures. Just as a body wound needs to be taken care of to avoid infection so it is for the collective wounds inflicted by radical fanatics.

Our appointed leaders stand resolutely together on a single platform in Scotland in response to more than 50 lives being lost and 700+ injured. Yet the actions that are implemented do not seem to change or reflect that it is precisely because of similar actions following other attacks that led to these current attacks. Within the integral communities the Internet is ablaze with wild and wonderful analyses. One person will argue that this latest attack is a clear indication that the perpetrators are purple/red! This is countered by another claiming that it is the excessive orange of the west that is suppressing the communities from which the bombers come.

This may be 100% correct; but it is also 100% useless in informing the integral leader of the appropriate response that can break the current vicious negative spiral. Here in the US the incumbent leadership revert to their literal reading of the bible’s "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and requisition even more military strength in the belief that might will prove right in the end. In Europe, the leaders quote Ghandi as he points out "an eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

Yet there might be more in the depths of this quotation than at first appears to be the case. An eye for an eye is possibly the most misunderstood phrases in the western bible. Through the ages, the sages have taught that it does not mean doing the same back to those who have caused you harm. It means that you take appropriate actions that exact a commensurate response on the perpetrators.

Killing individuals who have, for whatever the reason, no value for human life is not a commensurate reaction and just adds fuels to the flames of the burning embers left from the previous heavy-handed and ham-fisted response to a previous attack. In the fuller version of this taster I am looking to explore how integral theory coupled with the wisdom of the ages might help define an appropriate response to the terrorists for an integral leader.

4. Integral for the Masses manifesto

The Integral Movement is gathering pace and, according to all the rumours emanating from darkest Colorado, there will be a number of announcements in the fall of new initiatives. This can only be perceived as good news, however I retain a lingering suspicion of a subtle form of elitism permeating the whole movement. Don’t get me wrong; I do not have a problem with there being an elite tier that takes responsibility for breaking the ground intellectually and pragmatically.

But if Integral is ever to become a force for good in this crazy mixed-up world in which we live, then it needs to be adopted by the masses and not just part of some exclusive club that requires an extensive working knowledge of Sanskrit in order to participate. Whilst the aims of achieving Integral Consciousness are all well and good for the majority of souls alive today that is not possible. What is possible for a significant proportion of this collection is the ability to allow Integral Theory to inform their lives.

This is not new, within all the major traditions, the leadership have established customs and practices that are predicated upon higher-level values and beliefs. The important thing is that the individual benefit from following the custom or practice without having to necessarily know all the intricacies as to why it works as it does. Integral for the Masses is dedicated to helping to establish such customs and practices leading to a world where more and more individuals are integrally informed in all aspects of their lives.

Over the coming months, I am hoping to develop a manifesto for this embryonic movement. This manifesto will be shared here with the readers of the ILR before being taken into the wider world. I do not believe that I have a monopoly of ideas and thoughts around this subject, and would welcome all contributions to the development of this hopefully seminal document by the end of the year.

So there’s the current taster menu. Enjoy and please let me know what you think. Whilst I hope that the ideas and concepts provide you with food for thought I have to issue one small caveat, there is every possibility that new and unexpected dishes will appear in this august organ that have not been alluded to above. I am afraid that is the chef’s prerogative.

One final thought, maybe we’ll take the emergence of molecular gastronomy as a subject to put under the integral microscope to understand whether this is just a state or an established stage. Of course, it might require some fieldwork along the way. Anybody interested in participating?

---

Announcements  

ARINA: Filling A Void in Individual & Social Efforts
Sara Ross

In writing this introduction, I picture us walking along a cyber path toward ARINA’s entrance. I use our brief walk to share why you will find an unusually diverse yet quite coherent set of opportunities when you enter.

I remember, as I grew up, having the belief there was some point on life’s horizon when each person’s growing up and learning would be done. I figured it was probably about age 25 when people reached that "adult plateau." Once we got up there, we’d know everything we needed to have families, do jobs, lead companies, and run governments. Looking back, I wonder how I ever entertained that idea!

One factor may have been that we used such simple words—family, job, company, government—to describe things. Simple, unchanging words to describe simple unchanging things, yes?

Things have changed since then. Words like change and development are commonplace, and the idea of an "adult plateau" is nowhere to be found. But something important has not changed. We still use simple words, such as change and development, to describe complicated things. I’ve often wondered if such simple labels can seduce us into believing simple things about change and development.

Yet many people want to get beyond simple labels, and they are learning, researching, teaching, and writing about individual, organizational, and broader social development. Just as action researchers do, teachers, trainers, coaches, consultants, and other professionals simultaneously learn, research and inquire, teach, and integrate their active experiences to benefit their present and future work. Operating underneath all this variety, patterns show up, not only in the stages of development, for example, but also in the processes of development; the patterns point to the processes.

In a nutshell, this is ARINA’s niche: filling the void about how to use the processes of development to foster development in individual, organizational, and other social endeavors. Its mission is to do the range of things necessary for others to bring this capacity into their existing efforts. This means people can use natural human processes to address complex issues when and where they are found. This can make complexity more straightforward—simpler—to grapple with. They can do this without prerequisites (for example, learning particular theories). ARINA’s aim is to equip social change agents around the world to head right into using natural, human transformative processes to foster healthy development in themselves and those they serve while they address today’s complicated questions.

In the remaining distance of this cyber path we’re walking here, there is just enough time to share a little about how we expect associating with ARINA will connect with interests of fellow travelers in endeavors like those above.

Across all those interests and professions, some people have arrived on a plateau that is unique for them or their organization right now and they know a lot about what works to accomplish certain things related to individual and other kinds of development. This expertise can be extended to reach more people when partnered with ARINA’s teaching, mentoring, and publishing mission, benefiting everyone involved.

Some people know they have effective approaches in a specific area, and may suspect the good effects of their work would be more integral and enduring if related areas could be addressed at the same time to support systemic change better. They may want to find out how to identify those leverage points, and/or may want to find out who is already working on them, and partner. ARINA’s learning, researching, and networking missions can benefit everyone involved.

When many fields of endeavor are characterized by competition, it’s hard for some people to find colleagues with whom to kick around ideas, questions, successes, and challenges. With ARINA’s international networking mission, territorial competition diminishes. With its focus on natural human processes, network collegiality spans the typical boundaries of specific fields and benefits all of them.

Some people like to stay at the growing edges of their learning and practice, and feel thwarted by competition and spending so much of their time being experts. ARINA’s mission of acting, learning, and integrating can feel refreshing while supporting and pushing the growing edges associates wish to sharpen.

Burning questions are carried around inside by many, with few if any safe, productive outlets to express and pursue questions crucial to mission or personal development. Many of us never find out who else is asking the same questions, and it can take months or years to find answers to such questions as, for example, "What does this issue really need to…?" "How can I…?" "Why do they…?" "Why don’t they…?" "How can we get them to…?"

By its nature, ARINA’s niche responds to a number of burning individual and social questions, and its mission to research and inquire is hungry to know more about the specific questions and challenges people face. This way, its action research can co-create new methods to address them.

ARINA is about meeting these and other interests, yet it is not all things to all people. ARINA’s interests, especially during this inaugural year, are to find out how this comprehensive mission meets people where they are and addresses specific interests, along with discovering the most effective ways to communicate about it. A major interest is finding out how much energy is pent up among individual and social change agents to hit the ground running in the 21st Century with a new paradigm of naturally integral, human transformative processes for today’s complex issues.

And now we’ve arrived at the cyber entrance to Acting / Researching / Integrating Network Associates at www.global-arina.org. We invite you in to Associate with us, and join us in testing out the launching plateau we’re developing for this new paradigm as we get it ready to fly!

Sara Ross is the founder and president of ARINA, Inc. Russ Volckmann is on ARINA’s Board of Directors.

---

Integral Review

On June 1, ARINA published the inaugural issue of its peer-reviewed, open-access e-journal, Integral Review: A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, and Praxis. Visit its website to read this issue and to find out the kind of contribution Integral Review aims to make. http://integral-review.global-arina.org

Integral Review’s Issue #1 Table of Contents

Editorial: Integral Foundations, by Reinhard Fuhr and Jonathan Reams

Integral Review and its Editors, by Sara Ross, Reinhard Fuhr, Michel Bauwens, Thomas Jordan, Jonathan Reams, and Russ Volckmann

Jean Gebser: Das Integrale Bewusstsein, by Kai Hellbusch
English Summary: Jean Gebser: The Integral Consciousness

Complexity Intelligence and Cultural Coaching: Navigating the Gap Between Our Societal Challenges and Our Capacities, by Jan Inglis and Margaret Steele

The Development of Dialectical Thinking As An Approach to Integration, by Michael Basseches

Toward An Integral Process Theory Of Human Dynamics: Dancing The Universal Tango, by Sara Ross

Timely and Transforming Leadership Inquiry and Action: Toward Triple-loop Awareness, by Anne Starr and Bill Torbert

Good, Clever and Wise: A study of political meaning-making among integral change agents, by Thomas Jordan in an Interview with Russ Volckmann

What’s Integral about Leadership? A Reflection on Leadership and Integral Theory, by Jonathan Reams

Ein Integraler Gestalt-Ansatz Fuer Therapie und Beratung, by Reinhard Fuhr & Martina Gremmler-Fuhr
English Summary: An Integral Gestalt Approach for Psychotherapy and Counseling

Book Reviews

Laszlo, E. (2004). Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions International.

Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning Transpersonal Theory. A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Frick, D. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf. A Life of Servant Leadership. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.

Afterword:
Clicking on Afterword leads to an interactive public forum on this issue, including author roundtables for discussions of specific articles.

— ——————————— —

IWET

Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute has created a weekend introductory seminar "Integral Weekend Experiential Training" (I-WET).

Ride the rising wave of integral living! Integral WET is a weekend immersion into Integral Institute's highly acclaimed Integral Life Practice (ILP), the ultimate in body/mind/spirit cross training. This radically unified approach to personal growth multiplies the effect of any practices you choose to employ. Join the folks at Integral Institute for two stimulating days of profound personal engagement. Have a direct experience of the power of ILP and connect with others in your area who are interested in this emergent approach to human transformation. Sign up now and get wet! Featuring live music by "punk monk" Stuart Davis!

The practices that transform us, all in one place:

Spiritual Splash

Enter Big Mind™, genuine satori in three hours of facilitated interplay

(98% of participants rate this process a "perfect 10"). Developed by Zen

Master Genpo Roshi.

Three Body Surfing

Featuring the ILP 3-Body Kata™, a daily practice profoundly integrating

strength training (physical body), energy practice (subtle body), and open

awareness (causal body).

Dive Into Your Shadow

Learn the 3-2-1 Shadow-Work Process™, an elegant way of revealing hidden

aspects of yourself. Use it to transmute many difficult states on the spot,

and others over time.

AQAL Base Camp

Your foundation for further adventures! Ken Wilber's AQAL Maps™, the most

comprehensive framework of reality available, will guide your ongoing

exploration into the territory of you.

San Francisco SOLD OUT

July 30 and 31: 9am - 5pm

Dogpatch Studios

991 Tennessee St

415-641-3017

New York City

August 6th and 7th: 9am - 5pm

Metropolitan Pavilion

125 West 18th St

212-463-020

Writes Cindy Lou Golin: "It will be an amazing weekend! Stuart Davis will be there (in San Francisco) and other groovy integral folks. I am very excited about it. Hope to see you there!"

For more info and to register go to (and click on the i-wet option on the left side menu):

http://www.integralinstitute.org/seminars/index.html?iwet

— ———-——— —

Spiral Dynamics

Chris Cowan will be presenting the following workshops in the coming months:

Graves/SD Overview in Brazil, August 26-28,São Paulo,

Brazil Graves/SD Certifications NL, Nov 23-30,Den Haag, Netherlands

For more information go to http://www.spiraldynamics.org

— ———-——— —

Spiral Dynamics

What Is Enlightenment? Is offering new feature site presenting the latest thinking and practice of Spiral Dynamics—designed and created in collaboration with Dr. Don Beck.

There will be feature articles, audio and video interviews and dialogues on Spiral Dynamics, and how it is being applied in politics, education, human rights work, and more across the globe right now: http://www.wie.org/spiral/?ecp=349-beck

They offer a FREE 7-day Pass to access all content.

Also from a message sent by Don Beck:

A five day intensive seminar/workshop at the Unity Church in Tustin, California, close to LA. The title is "Spirituality, Religion and Salvation" and it promises to be an insightful and practical session. I (Don) just rediscovered a "Values in Religion" test that I developed with a master's degree student at UNT years ago. We will range far and wide within the fields and resources in functional spirituality etc. with a focus on how all of this can come alive at a local congregation level. I hope to demonstrate a unique role of a Unity Church group in offering information to newcomers in the community as to how to find a religious or spirituality "home" that fits them, or their family, rather than recruit them to attend Unity. We are inviting my friends from the LA International Church… (http://www.dreamcenter.org/) which, as many of you know, is one of my favorite places.

Finally, I just accepted invitations to offer SDi Level One in Moscow, St. Petersburg and in Jerusalem (with participants from Israeli and Palestinian populations).

---

Letters 

In response to the Integral for the Masses column in the April 2005 issue of Integral Leadership Review:

Being in the process to write an Integrally-informed thesis.it was a familiar experience, as well as an unpleasant one (to say the least) to read about the quibbles in circles supposedly integrally informed.

Quibbling guys & dolls: please see the stakes and reconsider your SO important perspective-wars. To the extent you care for the ones less well off, you should plaster our screens with a fat mea culpa. If not, at least stop contaminating what probably amounts to the only credible way out of ignorance, greed and anger.

But then, we're all on the spiral and the prime directive allows you too to follow your path, however detrimental. In that sense: good hunting!

Emil Moller, Netherlands

---

A Request

If you are finding the Integral Leadership Review to be bringing useful, fresh perspectives to the subject of leadership, please think of the leaders in business and life that might be able to benefit from subscribing to this epublication. Please send them a copy or a link to the web site, www.leadcoach.com so that they may explore it. In this time of intense internet communication, we all need to manage our time and read those things which are most relevant for our work, our thinking and our values. It is my hope that many people will find the evolving Integral Leadership Review does just that. Your help is deeply appreciated.

---

Feedback 

Got any?
russ@leadcoach.com

---

Thanks  

Thanks for taking the time to consider this epublication in a world of data overload. For leaders, collaborators, consultants, academics and coaches alike, I welcome you to some ideas and a dialogue that may benefit us all. I hope you will contact me soon with your idea, reference or article. Suggestions on improvement are welcome.

Russ Volckmann, PhD
Coaching Leaders in Business and Life
Email: russ@leadcoach.com
Web: www.leadcoach.com, Tel: 831.333-9200, FAX: 831.656-0110
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please go to www.leadcoach.com.
Technical support and design: Virtual Silk®

---

Disclaimer:

This material is intended for informational and educational purposes only. Financial, Legal and Professional information is not Financial, Legal and Professional advice. You should see a Financial, Legal or Professional in the area in which you live if you need advice.

You are welcome to share the contents of this epublication. Please provide source information, including www.leadcoach.com.

Thank you.

© 2001-2006 Russ Volckmann. All Rights Reserved

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