Adult Development and Leadership the Implications of Robert Kegan’S Adult Development Theory for Leaders
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Adult Development and Leadership The Implications of Robert Kegan’s Adult Development Theory for Leaders radually evolving, significantly different stages of increasing mental complexity from birth through adolescence have been well-documented and widely accepted since the middle of the last century. G Anyone who has watched a child grow up has witnessed the difference between the four or five-year old (for example) and the child of nine or ten. The older child is not just bigger but psychologically more “organized,” more “tightly wrapped.” For example, the younger child has a hard time sitting still for any length of time; the older child seems capable of nearly adult-like forms of physical patience and perseverance. The younger child uses language as an appendage or companion to her means of social interaction; for the older child, language is central to her social interaction. The younger child’s life is filled with fantasy and fantasy about the fantastic (being Spiderman); the older child has taken an interest in things as they are, and fantasy life is about things that actually could be (being a doctor), and so on. These differences are not the result of biology or social reinforcement alone. They are the result of a gradual but significant transformation in the complexity of the underlying principles by which the child makes sense of the outside world and their own thoughts and feelings. When children gain complexity and develop, they can understand more, do more, and have more choices available to them. Until recently it was also believed that basic developmental processes come to their conclusion at this time as well, i.e., most people don’t get any taller than their height at twenty, and it was believed that the underlying mental system was also fully formed by this age. Brain scientists told us there was no significant material change (other than deterioration) after this time. The increasing intelligence, specialization-knowledge, or life-wisdom that is sometimes a feature of adulthood was attributed entirely to the combined effects of experience and our learning how to get more out of the same basic mental equipment that was laid-in after the first twenty years of life. ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP Our work (and that of our colleagues) has contributed to quite a different picture of adult possibilities. And of course in the last few years, the brain scientists have also rejected their previous view of no significant material advances after adolescence. Our research shows that many adults do indeed live out their entire lives constructing reality according to a mental system not significantly more complex than the one they evolved in adolescence. However, there are at least two significantly more complex, gradually evolving, mental systems toward which many adults journey over their lifetime. Development in adulthood is not guaranteed, but it is possible. We are now better able to recognize when it happens and how it happens. And when adults do develop, they understand more, can do more, and have more choices available to them. The possibilities for developmental growth in adulthood are particularly useful for the study of leaders and leadership. That is because the theory gives us a useful framework to help us: ñ Identify our own developmental position (and see why we are succeeding and/or struggling with particular leadership demands); ñ Grow acquainted with what might be a next, more complex way we could be approaching our experience and leading; ñ Have the right attitude toward our struggles (as mutable, temporary instead of as personality defects or signals that we are not cut out for leadership); ñ Develop a better understanding of others we work with, including how and why they approach their work as they do; 2 ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP ñ Understand how to provide support to others whom we lead, for whom we have expectations, whom we want to see develop, especially if they are struggling. Here is a brief description of three significantly different, increasingly complex meaning-making systems and the transitions between them, all of which can occur in adulthood, and which longitudinal research demonstrates evolve only in this sequence (i.e., if a person evolves to a new underlying meaning-system, it is always in this order). Three Increasingly Complex Meaning-Making Systems The Socialized Mind – Stage 3 The first we call the Socialized Mind. It typically evolves by the end of adolescence and is preceded by a series of less complex childhood minds (described elsewhere). 3 ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP The Socialized Mind ñ We are shaped by the definitions and expectations of our personal environment ñ Our self coheres by its alignment with/loyalty to an external source of authority ñ This can primarily express itself in our relationships with people or ideas and beliefs, or both Individuals with a Socialized mind can reflect on the concrete to reason abstractly and can therefore orient to particular values and ideals that are important to them. They can also think hypothetically, weighing the risks and rewards of a course of action as they consider future possibilities. These individuals can internalize the feelings of others, which means they can imagine what someone else is likely to be feeling when those feelings have not been directly stated. They can also be devoted to and identified with an ideal, a group, or a relationship that is greater than their own impulses, desires, or needs and so, for example, can understand themselves as “true Americans” or “loyal employees.” Individuals who operate with a Socialized mind are identified or fused with the beliefs of the larger group, which means they cannot reflect on them or question them, and are therefore shaped by their surroundings which guide their thinking and behavior. When conflict arises between two important values or allegiances, these individuals will feel torn because they do not have a larger self or system that can mediate or resolve the conflict. In exercising leadership, they therefore derive their sense of authority and knowledge from external sources, to which they look to measure their success. Those with a Socialized mind may be best suited to leadership roles in which their responsibilities are fundamentally about faithfully representing the prevailing views of a constituency. In such leadership contexts, they can demonstrate sensitivity and responsiveness to their colleagues, serving as a representative for a larger population. Similarly, when the leadership role involves relying on established knowledge and procedures to determine the best course of action, individuals with a Socialized mind can effectively and accurately render a decision. However, a Socialized mind prevents individuals from exercising some capacities that may be necessary for many complex leadership situations. They are unable to reflect on or critique assessments, values, or group positions with which they are identified. They are not able to mediate conflict between external authorities. As a result, adults who operate with a Socializing mind can display extreme rigidity in their beliefs (relying steadfastly on one external doctrine as the source of their beliefs) or an extreme malleability (allowing their opinions to be swayed by various external sources). When authority is located completely externally, a Socialized leader places responsibility 4 ADULT DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP externally. What this means is that when problems arise, leaders with a Socializing mind either place full blame with others or accept the negative result as an indication that they are wholly at fault. Without an independent source of authority, they are unable to make judgments about their own contributions to a problem or solution. For these reasons, they may experience difficulties in leadership positions that require them to consider and judiciously modify aspects of their thinking. They can also be expected to experience difficulty in unstructured, non-standard situations, and where different constituencies make competing claims. These leaders are “in over their heads” in such situations, lacking both the internal capacities and the external support to navigate the challenges of their situation. For many types of leadership roles and situations, individuals will need to exercise or develop more complex meaning systems if they are to fulfill their roles effectively. Examples – Leaders with a Socialized Mind Consider Barry1, a former community organizer in his fifties. For Barry, maintaining strong relationships within the community is important to him because the opinions of the community guide his own self-assessment. I think on a real fundamental level it’s almost like a security blanket, in a way. It’s approval of course. It’s also very affirming. You know, the most excellent feedback there is [is] for someone to like me. So in a way, it’s validating. And it also agrees with my moral and ethical framework, so I think it works both ways. I hope it does… [The respect of the community] is very important to me because it helps reaffirm, verify, what I’m doing. Validates what I’m doing and reaffirms my work. And I don’t have a lot of formal training so I learn by the seat of my pants and then, you know, if it works I guess it must be…if people go “uh-huh” and they nod their heads “yes,” we must be heading in the right direction. So that’s pretty important. I think that probably [is] one of the more selfish motivators behind why I do it; when I think about it. In this case, Barry is identified with the opinions of community members with whom he directly works. He pays careful attention to how others respond as a way to know what they think, and so his own opinions shift to come into line with their beliefs.