Adult Development and Leadership

The Implications of Robert Kegan’s Adult Development Theory for Leaders

G 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.

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.
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

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:

Identify our own developmental position (and see why we are succeeding and/or struggling
with particular leadership demands);
Grow acquainted with what might be a next, more complex way we could be approaching
our experience and leading;
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);
Develop a better understanding of others we work with, including how and why they
approach their work as they do;

2
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

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
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

The Socialized Mind

We are shaped by the definitions and expectations of our personal environment

Our self coheres by its alignment with/loyalty to an external source of authority

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
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

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. Leaders with a Socialized mind may draw
authority from any external source, such as the prevailing cultural norms, the media, mentors or
bosses, their followers, prescribed leadership theory and practice that is published in books and
journals.

1
Barry is described in Harbison, A. (2005). Transforming failure: Mid-career reconstructions of disorienting dilemmas. Harvard University, pp.
137-8.

5
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Zoraya also operates with a Socialized mind. Here, she describes why she believes she (rather than a
more experienced colleague) received a promotion to take on greater leadership responsibility at
work and how she thinks about her leadership style:

The thing is, I was pretty surprised that I got the promotion because I am the younger one,
the one who came in later. I always thought he was a half-step ahead of where I was just
because of his title and everything. And he’s ten years older than me. But for whatever
reason I had more potential maybe to take the spot.

I think maybe the reason why is I don’t focus on office politics. I only have so many hours
in the day and do I want to get into a stressful situation, emotional situation when I have so
much else to get done? So let me focus on my tasks, key issues to get done versus some of
these office politics type of items. And I just tend to stay above the fray and get my job
done. Just do what’s on my plate and get it done right. And I know the amount of work
I’m getting done. And that is the right way to climb to the next rung here.

So and people have been giving me advice about how, now that I have more leadership
responsibilities, I can develop my leadership style, make that part of my overall process in
doing things, interrelating with my direct reports or a peer or my boss. But you know, I
don’t always follow that advice. If it doesn’t feel – if it would feel unnatural altogether, or
if it doesn’t feel like it will work with how I am then I just don’t, don’t take those things on.
If it feels super awkward then you should really just discontinue it.

Zoraya assumes that leadership potential is measured in terms of clearly visible markers such as age
and title, and by the amount of work one does. To her, these are the common signals of how an
organization demonstrates what it values, and she doesn’t call those into question. She offers no
personally generated, more abstract theory of what makes for great leadership. Furthermore, her
criteria for determining how she should lead, her leadership style, defers completely to her inner
feelings.

6
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

We may spend as much, or more, time in the transition between any two mental systems, as we do
seeing the world through the lens of a single system. The transition from the Socialized to the
Self-Authoring Mind may begin at any point in adulthood, may take several years to complete, and
gradually but dramatically reconstructs the self from written upon (by external and internal
influences) to writer of the definitions and directions of my living. The transition begins as one
senses, and gradually begins to honor, a disconnect between the “received tradition” (of family,
workplace, or culture, e.g.) and one’s own emerging and differing sense of how things should go. In
the early phase this transition can be filled with a variety of difficult feelings—guilt, disloyalty,
betrayal (in breaking away from “the family’s code”), fear (at no longer having its protection), and
uncertainty (as to what my new code should be).

It is not uncommon to feel at this point that one must leave established connections (to work,
family, friendships) because one assumes (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) that these
connections require us to maintain our original meaning-system, and cannot be reconstructed on
new terms.

The Self-Authoring Mind—Stage 4

The next we call the Self-Authoring Mind, a level of mental complexity, the research shows, a
majority of the adult population does not reach.

The Self-Authoring Mind

We are able to step back enough from the social environment to generate an internal ‘seat
of judgment’ or personal authority, which evaluates and makes choices about external
expectations

Our self coheres by its alignment with its own belief system/ideology/personal code; by
its ability to self-direct, take stands, set limits, create and regulate its boundaries on behalf of
its own voice

7
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

An adult who has reached the Self-Authoring stage of development has a larger, more integrative
self that expands on and incorporates the capacities of the Socialized stage. These adults have an
internal source for creating their beliefs systems and do not require validation from others.
Adults with a Self-Authoring mind can prioritize among their values and commitments. They are
not beholden to others for their sense of self and identity, and so adults with a Self-Authoring mind
can evaluate other ideologies and generate their own critique. They can also tolerate and even
invite disagreement because the discovery of difference is not fundamentally threatening.

As the ultimate regulators of their feelings and moods, these adults can take responsibility for
their own inner lives. This internal authority also allows leaders with a Self-Authoring mind to
function effectively when technical information is insufficient to determine a clear course of action
and when experts in the field disagree. In such cases, these individuals are still able to arrive at
defensible conclusions that are based on their own logical interpretation and assessment of the
relevant information and opinions on the matter. They can also frame and evaluate any problems
that arise according to their own metrics, which means they can take responsibility for their part
when things do not go well, as well as take responsibility for their part in coming to a solution.

Examples – Leaders with a Self-Authored Mind

Laura2 describes her leadership position often requires her to make difficult decisions at work. Her
deliberations about what to decide are toughest in situations where there is an “ill-structured
problem,” where there is conflicting and incomplete information to determine a right answer. For
example, Laura describes how she addresses questions about whether chemical additives in food are
safe enough to include in products sold to consumers.

I don’t think I could ever know for sure that my point of view on chemical additives is the
correct one. I think given that any theorem has to start with assumptions that are not
necessarily true, then even if the internal argument in your system is completely consistent, it
might be that the assumptions are wrong. So, just from this standpoint, we can’t always be
sure. I think we can usually be reasonably certain, given the information we have now and
considering our methodologies. Aside from assumptions, it might be that the research
wasn’t conducted rigorously enough. In other words, we might have flaws in our data or
sample, things like that.

A better opinion or decision is one that takes as many factors as possible into consideration.
I mean one that uses the higher percentage of the data that we have and perhaps that uses
the methodology that has been most reliable. … I think you have to take a look at the

2
Laura is adapted from King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth
and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, (pp. 4-5)

8
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

different opinions and studies that are offered by different groups. Maybe some studies
offered by the chemical industry, some studies by the government, some private studies, a
variety of studies from a variety of different areas. You wouldn’t trust, for instance, a study
funded by the tobacco industry that proved that cigarette smoking is not harmful. You
wouldn’t base your point of view entirely upon that study. Things like that have to be taken
into account also…you have to try to interpret people’s motives and that makes it a more
complex soup to try to strain out.

Here, Laura demonstrates an ability to step back from, reflect on, and evaluate the claims and
reasoning of conflicting experts on a given subject. This capacity is more complex than that of a
leader (such as Zoraya) who simply relies on what feels right to evaluate an idea. When a leader with
a Socializing mind faces ill-structured problems, conflicting beliefs of experts, important others, or
factions within one’s constituency, this individual has no larger system to organize and mediate such
conflict and will either be unable to arrive at a conclusion or will automatically align with whatever
external source he or she identifies with most.

In this next example, Dorian demonstrates Self-Authoring capacities as he reflects on recent

decisions top leaders of his organization (in the high-tech industry) made in the face of economic
uncertainty in the sector and current financial losses his company has had.

And so they are cutting funds for my department. Slashing them really—there is no money
for R&D. No money for incubating some of these great new ideas that are starting to
percolate. And it’s so stupid really. When they are making these decisions, there are so
many things they don’t seem to take into account. Like when we let people go, it’s going to
be our newest hires. The young, bright, energetic, creatives ones who are actually probably
the most likely to bring renewal and success, long term. But they have to go, along with a
good 40% of those who have been here a while. And think I can see how it looks to the
CEO and the VPs – I can how in their minds, we are this bloated department that is doing
work where it is difficult to measure value. It is difficult to rationalize keeping on a bunch of
new kids when there are those with families and who have been loyal to the organization for
years, and so firing them would be like cutting out the soul of this company.
But in my mind, they actually are throwing out the soul of the company because they are
throwing out the source of creativity. And we will never succeed if we don’t make creativity
and innovation our priority. We’ll just continue to have to make more cutbacks, more
firings. We’ll stay with what we have done well, but that won’t be good enough for long.
Actually, it isn’t good enough now.
They have an impossible decision really. No matter what they do, it will look and feel awful,
and they will look like heartless henchmen. I get that they don’t want to play that part at all.
But if they can’t be the heartless henchmen in making some difficult firing decisions, they
are actually going to turn out to be the heartless henchmen who destroy the whole thing, the
whole company.

9
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Dorian clearly knows his own stance on this matter and, like Laura, can use logic to support it. He
also shows that he can make the opposing argument. He understands why the Board has decided as
it has and can even make the case for why their decisions are reasonable. A drastically different
opinion is not psychologically threatening to him, even though he disagrees passionately. His fervor
does not prevent him from being able to understand the perspective on its own terms and represent
it without obvious caricaturizing. He can then put this perspective into relationship with his own to
show why (again using logic) he ultimately disagrees.

Socializing and Self-Authoring Side-By-Side

Socializing Mind Characteristics Self-Authoring Mind Characteristics

Internal/ Reliance on external authority for Self is defined by and relies on own
External standards, values, acceptance, and internal authority. Concerned with
Authority belonging. This can look like a consequences for personal integrity and
reliance on relationships (opinions meeting one’s own standards. The self is
and expectations of others) or on the ultimate evaluator of its own
externally generated ideas/ beliefs, performance and the holder of its own
or both. standards/values.

Flexibility/ May strongly assert opinions as right Differences with others are expected and
Rigidity (extreme rigidity) or look to others can be welcomed as opportunities for
for guidance (extreme malleability) growth and creativity toward fulfilling
or both. Cannot hold different or one’s purposes. Taking a different or even
conflicting perspectives on an issue, contrasting perspective, representing it
represent each faithfully, and faithfully on its own terms, and
coordinate them. coordinating it with one’s own allows for
the expansion of knowledge and
understanding.

Emotional Feels responsible for other’s Takes responsibility for one’s own feelings
Boundaries feelings; holds others responsible for and internal states. Others are
own feelings. (E.g., Others can experienced as autonomous entities with
“make” one feel angry. One can their own psychological agendas and
“make” others angry.) standards. Others are therefore
responsible for their own feelings and
internal states.

10
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Ambiguity Intolerant of ambiguity of Differentiates between parts of one’s own

expectations, objectives, and self and mediates among them. Can
standards. Needs a clear sense, from disagree with oneself and feel two or more
others, of what is expected for contradictory or conflicting things at the
oneself. same time. In ambiguous situations, can
determine objectives and expectations and
assess according to those.

Feedback Criticism from important others is Integrates others’ perspectives, including

and Criticism experienced as destructive to the criticism, as one perspective among many.
self. Evaluates and uses criticism and other
perspectives according to own internally
generated standards and values.

The Self-Transforming Mind

The transition from the Self-Authoring Mind to the Self-Transforming mind is statistically rarer in
the research (under 10% in most studies), and does not usually begin, if it does occur, before mid-
life (around 40).

It is typically marked by a gathering recognition that, however powerful, satisfying, or effective my

self-authoring system has been and may be, it has inevitably left out sides of myself which have
gone undeveloped, and which, increasingly, I yearn to access and realize. Among leaders in
the midst of this transition, the longing is often to give greater attention to the less-developed
emotional, relational, “being,” or right-brained sides of the self which have often taken a back-seat
to the over-developed rational, self-sufficient, “doing/competing/winning,” analytic, control-
oriented, or left-brained sides of the self.

The Self-Transforming Mind—Stage 5

We can step back from and reflect on the limits of our own ideology or personal authority;
see that because any one system or self-organization is in some way partial or
incomplete, we look to be friendlier towards contradiction and oppositeness; seek to hold
onto multiple systems rather than projecting all but one onto the other

Our self coheres through its ability to distinguish internal consistency from wholeness or
completeness; its alignment with the dialectic rather than either pole

11
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Leaders who operate with the Self-Transforming perspective can see across their own and others’
belief systems or ideologies to identify larger patterns. Their thinking becomes more dialectical,
reflecting an increasing awareness of and orientation to paradox, contradiction, and oppositeness.
Two values which before seemed to be in conflict are now seen as co-creating a larger, underlying
value, and aspects of human existence that had formerly been seen as fundamentally “other” are
now located within oneself. For example, a leader who had previously needed to feel in control may
discover a new curiosity and taste for the experience of the uncontrollable. Rather than needing to
have impact on a situation to feel fulfilled at work, she may find new appreciation for the ways that
she is transformed (or impacted upon) at work.

Self-Transforming adults view themselves and their identities as always incomplete, revisable, and
in process. Rather than identifying more with one’s self as it is currently constructed, the Self-
Transforming individual looks for the ways that self-construction is flawed and limited and so is
identified most with his or her own evolving. Where the Self-Authoring adult orients to the
preservation of limits and boundaries as a way of distinguishing and defining the self, now there is
greater tentativeness and reluctance to see these types of achievements as anything but temporary,
preliminary, and partial.

Examples – Self-Transforming Leaders

While it is rare to find leaders who demonstrate the capacity for Self-Transformation, a conversation
that occurs in the movie Gandhi as an insight into how a leader at the fifth order might construct
experience. The conversation between Gandhi3 and a Hindu man occurs during a time of religious
violence and hatred between Muslims and Hindus in India. Clearly suffering with guilt and remorse,
the Hindu admits to Gandhi, “I killed a child. I smashed his head against a wall!” When Gandhi
asks the man why he has done this, the man replies, “They killed my son. My boy! The Muslims
killed my son!” We might consider that this man has good reason to hate. He has good reason to
see those who killed his own son only as enemy, as evil. Gandhi takes a difference stance. Clearly
pained by the man’s words, and he waits a few moments before answering. “I know a way out of
hell,” he says. “Find a child – a child whose mother and father have been killed – a little boy about
this high, and raise him as your own. Only be sure that he is a Muslim, and that you raise him as
one.”

Not only is Gandhi instructing the man not to hate those who killed his own son. He is actually
suggesting that the Muslim belief system, values, and perspectives contain wisdom that this man
should come to revere. Not only should he raise the boy as his own son and love him, he should

3As described in Kegan, R. (2003). Hidden curriculum of adult life: An adult developmental perspective. In Stockholm Lectures in
Educology (pp. 21–48). Stockholm: Stockholm University Department of Education.

12
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

raise the boy in keeping with Muslim tradition, Muslim values, Muslim faith. To do so requires that
the man himself come develop his own deep understanding and veneration for what it means to be
Muslim. This advice illustrates a way of recognizing what formerly had been enemy, outsider, other
as located within one’s own family, as something that can and should transform one’s own limited
perspective. We can see how Gandhi views the conflict between Hindu and Muslim not only as
something for one side to win and the other to lose but as something which can transform either or
both sides beyond the limits of their own perspectives.

Nelson Mandela demonstrated a similar capacity to redefine his “enemy” as a part of himself, as
something to be celebrated and supported.

In 1995, Mandela symbolized the unity of a new South Africa when he attended the Rugby
World Cup game in which the Springboks, the South African national team, were playing.
Rugby had been the bastion of white supremacy, but Mandela attended the game. He
walked on to the pitch wearing the Springboks’ jersey so hated by black South Africans, at
the same time giving the clenched fist salute of the ANC, thereby appealing, almost
impossibly, both to black and white South Africans. As Tokyo Sexwale, ANC activist and
premier of South Africa’s Gauteng province, said of him, “Only Mandela could wear an
enemy jersey. Only Mandela would go down there and be associated with the
Springboks…All the years in the underground, in the trenches, denial, self-denial, away from
home, prison, it was worth it. That’s all we wanted to see.”4

Like Gandhi, Mandela came to transform his view of those who perpetrated violence against his
own people. Mandela’s own explanation for how he came to feel a kind of alliance with his
oppressor over the course of his twenty-seven years as a political prisoner appears in his
autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom.

It was during those long and lonely years that my hunger for the freedom of my own people
became a hunger for the freedom of all people, white and black. I knew as well as I knew
anything that the oppressor must be liberated just as surely as the oppressed. A man who
takes away another man’s freedom is a prisoner of hatred, locked behind the bars of
prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else’s
freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed
and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.5

Mandela chose not to identify completely with a single pole in this conflict – locating those who had
persecuted his own people and imprisoned him for years on a separate pole and seeing them as the
enemies and oppressors. He had come to see how both poles of the conflict were created by a
larger system of imprisonment that actually injured both sides. Those who oppressed him were
oppressors and were also the opposite – they were also victims and oppressed themselves.

4
Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (2005). Seven Transformations of Leadership. Harvard Buiness Review, (pp. 6-7)
5
Mandela, as cited in Daloz, L. A. P., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S. D. (1996). Common fire: Leading lives of commitment in a
complex world. Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 78-9.

13
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Self-Authoring and Self-Transforming Side-By-Side

Self-Authoring Mind Characteristics Self-Transforming Mind Characteristics

Authority Self is defined by and relies on own Self is more identified with the
internal authority. Concerned with relationships between various internally
consequences for personal integrity and consistent perspectives than with any
meeting one’s own standards. The self is single perspective of standards/values.
the ultimate evaluator of its own The self looks to the relationships among
performance and the holder of its own these authorities and systems to
standards/values. generate new possibilities.

Flexibility/ Differences with others are expected Differences with others provide the
Rigidity and can be welcomed as opportunities potential for connecting to the less
for growth and creativity toward developed sides of one’s self and
fulfilling one’s purposes. Taking a transforming one’s own perspective and
different or even contrasting even the purposes themselves. Orients to
perspective, representing it faithfully on the transformation of self, of one’s
its own terms, and coordinating it with favored ideologies and ruling theories
one’s own allows for the expansion of that difference invites.
knowledge and understanding.

Boundaries Takes responsibility for one’s own Takes responsibility for how the self is a
feelings and internal states. Others are vehicle for, and in service of, larger
experienced as autonomous entities forces and systems. Orients to the
with their own psychological agendas interconnections and patterns that arise,
and standards. Others are therefore reproduce, and shift as they shape
responsible for their own feelings and individuals and are shaped by them.
internal states.

Ambiguity Differentiates between parts of one’s Orientation toward oppositeness,

own self and mediates among them. Can contraction, “otherness” to identify the
disagree with oneself and feel two or dialectic relationships and/or paradox
more contradictory or conflicting things that creates the poles.
at the same time. In ambiguous
situations, can determine objectives and
expectations and assess according to
those.

Feedback/ Integrates others’ perspectives, Views feedback and criticism as a

Criticism including feedback and criticism, as one potential means to breach the limits of a
perspective among many. Evaluates and system of standards and values. Values
uses criticism and other perspectives criticism less for how it fills out one’s
according to own internally generated own standards or metrics and more for
standards and values. how it creates new standards, new
metrics.

14
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Consider briefly how these different meaning-making systems might differently be evident in
familiar situations, such as those relevant to the world of leaders:

The Individual’s Deep Expectations of a Leader

Looks to the leader to:

Support my efforts to develop
Looks to the leader to be: my (formerly) opposite or
A respectful perceiver of “my externalized sides
Looks to the leader to be: way” (that you will recognize Join me in recognizing that
the dignity, genius, or any one analysis or
A worthy source of authority necessity of “my way”) interpretation (yours or my
and expertise (that you will A special resource own) is only one frame
provide direction and A partner to my effectiveness (however comprehensive on
definitions of reality) its own terms it may be)
A special guide A special collaborator
A partner to the creating of A partner to my development
my purpose

Remaining vigilant to the types of developmental differences among others can help a leader meet
supervisors’, colleagues’, and direct reports’ needs and expectations for the working relationship.
The leader might also strategically disappoint those expectations just enough to challenge
another to develop increasing metal complexity.

15
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

How the Leader Approaches his or her Role

Problematic Tendency:
Not staying mindful that you
Problematic Tendency: will tend to over-identify with
Figure things out yourself your interpretations
Problematic Tendency: and listen for opportunities to Look more toward
Over-adopt others’ mindsets bring others into your bullet- deconstructing ruling theories
or expectations of you proof solution and ideologies than
Feel you know what should rebuilding new, more
Reach/Challenge: be done and seek for the complex ones.
Take stands most effective way to share
Risk disrupting the your knowledge Reach/Challenge:
relationships, pushing when To be able to see across
necessary Reach/Challenge: your own preferred theories
Be as interested in the and ideologies and put them
limitations of your conclusion into relationship with other,
as the merits opposing perspectives.
See others as co-creators

Leaders who seek opportunities to grow professionally (and personally) can consider whether and
how their own leadership approaches and preferences create problematic tendencies, as well as
the ways that further growth may provide them with new choices about how to lead.

16
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

And as definitions for one’s own work evolve, it stands to reason that the means for evaluating
one’s work evolve as well. Consider this depiction of how leaders may differently construct what it
means to be successful:

View of Success

I seek connection with

I am responsible for my less developed sides of
success according to the I am responsible for working myself (typically the
organization’s or my familiar out my own definition of vulnerable, interdependent,
culture’s standards (which success relational, ‘being’ sides)
are my standards) which were formally seen as
Success is satisfying my opposite or externalized in
Success is satisfying the standards/definition of favor of the over-developed
organization’s or my familiar success (usually seen as a sides (typically the analytic,
culture’s standards truer realization of the independent, in control,
original core values of an ‘doing’ sides)
Over-determined by, and organization than what
over-attentive to, external currently passes for “the I am more open to different
evaluations and expectations organization’s standards”) metrics (than my own
preferred one) in evaluating
Looking outside myself for quality, intelligence,
ignition, passion, direction effectiveness—recognizing
that for all the strengths of
any metric, it is inevitably
partial.

17
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Developmental Stage and Leadership Effectiveness

Taken together, there is overwhelming evidence, from a number of research studies correlating
mental complexity with various performance variables, that greater complexity is associated with
greater effectiveness. This is especially true when one is correlating mental complexity with
performance variables that are less about “mental style” (e.g. extroverted vs. introverted), and more
about “mental structure” (e.g., ability to step back and reframe, ability to delegate).

The Self-Authoring Demands of Modern Leadership

Research indicates that leaders who can exercise Self-Authorship are better able to handle the
demands of leadership than leaders with a Socializing mind. They are more likely to be effective in
their roles because many expectations for what leaders should be able to do are “psychological
demands,” aligned with and attainable only in conjunction with Self-Authorship. In their review of
the existing research studies on this topic, McCauley, Drath, Palus, O’Connor and Baker6 conclude
that Self-Authoring leaders are more likely “to enact leadership in ways deemed effective in most
modern organizations” (p. 647). They are “more likely to delegate, hold people accountable,
influence through rewards and expertise (rather than coercive power), look for underlying
causes of problems, act as change agents, and be more comfortable with conflict” (p. 647). In
his study of twenty-one chief executive officers of large and successful organizations, Eigel7 found
that leaders’ developmental capacities correlated with their abilities to challenge existing
processes, inspire a shared vision, manage conflict, solve problems, delegate, empower, and
build relationships. These associations exist because, typically, effective leadership necessitates an
ability to construct one’s own internal belief system that enables one to make meaning of oneself
and one’s work.

In a study with managers about the challenges of their work, Van Velsor and Drath8 found that
Socializing leaders struggled with a greater number of challenges in their role than Self-
Authoring leaders did. Specifically, these managers were challenged “by being in a role that was ill-
defined, becoming a member of a more senior group, needing to take a minority position in a group
or with a superior, presenting oneself authentically in stressful situations, and facing competing
demands from work and home lives” (p. 400).

6
McCauley, C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M. G., & Baker, B. a. (2006). The use of constructive-developmental
theory to advance the understanding of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 634–653. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.006
7
Eigel, K. M. (1998). Leader effectiveness : A constructive developmental view and investigation. University of Georgia.
8
Van Velsor, E., & Drath, W. H. (2004). A lifelong developmental perspective on leader development. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van
Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (San Francisco, pp. 383–414). Jossey-Bass.

18
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

In short, some capacity for Self-Authorship is necessary to exercise a multitude of abilities and skills
and clearly bear on one’s capacity to lead. While possessing the capacities for self-authorship
provides no guarantee that a leader will actually lead effectively, it does increase the likelihood that
effective leadership is possible. In that way, it may be a necessary but not sufficient condition that
enables these leadership behaviors. Not surprisingly, research suggests that a leader’s stage of
development is related to followers’ satisfaction with that leader.9

CO GN IT IV E DE MA N DS

Leaders who are not fully Self-Authoring

may struggle/get stuck when they need to…

Assess the Status • Develop an explicit and unique picture or vision that is meaningfully
Quo different from (and even inconsistent with) how the organization has been
functioning (or how other, similar organizations function).

• Understand the way an organization functions (including its strengths,

limits and gaps) so as to anticipate the predictable problems and obstacles
that will arise as the leader attempts to transform this culture to a more
productive one.

Think • Keep track of how any one part of (or person in) the system fits within
Systemically and is reflected by the larger whole.

• Work with one part of an organization in a manner consistent with the

vision or goals for larger whole.

Consider and • Step back from the organizational culture to consider it from different
Coordinate perspectives and then coordinate these to form one’s own diagnosis.
Multiple
• Seek out and evaluate novel ideas and perspectives for solving problems,
Perspectives
promoting organizational growth, and cultivating new learning.

9
Harris, L. S. (2005). An examination of executive leadership effectiveness using constructive developmental theory. University of Georgia, Athens.
Also: McCauley, C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M. G., & Baker, B. a. (2006). The use of constructive-developmental
theory to advance the understanding of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 634–653. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.006

19
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Use Their Own • Consider others’ opinions but ultimately rely on their own judgment to
Judgment decide what is best.

• Function effectively when technical information is insufficient to

determine a clear course of action, and experts in the field disagree, by
forming their own logical interpretation and assessment of the relevant
information and opinions on the matter.

Determine, • Set and maintain priorities.

Sustain and
Assess a Course • Monitor the implementation of their goals, using data as a source of
feedback to help them make appropriate adjustments to particular aspects
of Action
of their vision as the work progresses.

• Sustain inquiry about ambiguous matters and proceed with a degree of

tentativeness.

I N T E R P E R S O N A L A N D IN TR A P E R S O N A L DE M A N DS

Leaders who are not fully Self-Authoring

may struggle/get stuck when they need to…

Communicate • See other’s views and opinions as stemming from and connected to that
person’s own larger, organized belief system.

• Listen to and learn from direct feedback without taking it personally,

becoming overly defensive, or overwhelmed.

• Welcome disagreement and difference without necessarily feeling threats

to one’s own perspective.

• Take into account, understand, and coordinate others’ perspectives.

Maintain Self- • Separate one’s self from one’s work role.

Awareness
• Understand own intentions, assumptions, values, and habits and how
these might interact with the dynamics of the system to influence
decisions, actions, and outcomes.

20
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Self-Regulate • Communicate limits and boundaries to others who make requests for
one’s time, approval, and attention. Say no on behalf of larger goals.

• Recognize and work through contradictory feelings or internal

disagreement/inconsistency.

• Tolerate ambiguity and establish a defensible means for proceeding.

• Work in a more self-directed and self-regulated manner, establishing a

clear focus and sense of accountability. Take responsibility for results,
actions, and decisions.

• Take responsibility for shaping one’s own career, rather than seeing it as
determined by outside forces

• Take responsibility for one’s own psychological part in collaborative work

but not for elements that are beyond one’s control.

The Self-Transforming Demands of Modern Leadership

There are some contexts and some followers that will be best served by leaders who can exercise
capacities that go beyond Self-Authoring. For example, followers who have already developed
Self-Authoring capacities may be nurtured most by leaders who can make meaning in a manner
more complex than they. In other cases, the nature of a problem or conflict may begin to outstrip
the Self-Authoring leader’s capacities. In situations where conflict has become so intractable and
destructive that the two parties can find no way of co-existing, an approach to conflict resolution
may require self-transforming leadership. In essence, this type of leadership is what Gandhi and
Mandela each provided, offering models and lessons to illustrate the limitations of each side of a
conflict and offering a picture of the essential connectedness and humanity when both sides are seen
to make a whole.

Because Self-Transforming leaders are committed to holding and mediating among multiple
ideologies, individual identities, and organizational possibilities, they may therefore be uniquely
suited to running dynamic, highly complex organizations. Several studies10 have included a small
number of individuals who make meaning somewhere between self-authorship and self-
transformation, illustrating that such development is possible and suggesting ways that such
individuals succeed in their roles by bringing even more comprehensive and complex perspectives to
their work.
10
See, for example, Torbert, B., & Associates. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers. And Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2007). Leadership agility: Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiating change. San
Francisco: Wiley.

21
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Rooke and Torbert11 assessed the mental complexity of 10 CEOs who were spearheading
longitudinal organizational development efforts. All five of the CEOs who were assessed as
demonstrating a level of mental complexity beyond than the Self-Authoring Mind (moving
toward or already making meaning with the Self-Transforming Mind) led organizational
transformations in positive directions, becoming industry leaders on a number of business indexes
(e.g., increased customer satisfaction, net worth, employee climate). By contrast, only two of the
five organizations whose CEOs were assessed as demonstrating less complex capacities transformed
positively.

We are not making any simple assumptions about the implications of all this.We do not assume,
for example, that leaders who are less complex than their peers or direct reports cannot be of
help to them. We do think that greater complexity appears to be generally associated with greater
effectiveness and that this kind of data does raise interesting questions vis-a-vis relationships
between leaders and followers, among teammates, and between senior and junior leaders in an
organization. For example:

Is the ability to exercise at least some Self-Authorship

critical for success for leadership at all levels within an
organization or district?

If so, how good an incubator is the organizational culture for

this move?

Is the move beyond Self-Authorship critical for a top-

level leadership success (as suggested by the Eigel study) or
organizational transformation (as suggested by the Rooke and
Torbert study)?

Do the different complexity levels shed any new light on the

sources of the difficulties or dysfunctions one sees in one’s
supervisors, colleagues, or direct reports?

D. Rooke and W.R. Torbert, “Organizational Transformation as a Function of CEO’s Developmental Stage.” Organizational
11

Development Journal, 16(1),1998: 11–28.

22
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

What is the Distribution of Mental Complexity?

Unlike development that happens during childhood and adolescence there are only modest
correlations between adult development and age:

Complexity by Age – A Schematic

In other words, there is a modest tendency toward greater complexity with age. But if we were to
look at a sample of, say, adults in their 30s, we might expect them to be distributed as shown by the
dark dots in the graph, i.e., they may each be at a different stage in their mental complexity. So the
stages we are about to describe are not the same as the “life stages” one finds in some other
developmental models, where a given stage can be tightly tied to a given decade or period in
the lifespan.

23
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

There have been two meta-analyses of studies of mental complexity in the general population, one
of studies using our measure of mental complexity, and the other of studies using a completely
different measure (Loevinger’s theory). Interestingly, these two surveys came up with an identical
statistic: 58% of each sample were at a level less complex than Self-Authoring (Level 4). In
other words, the majority of the general population is not Self-Authoring in its mental complexity.
(In fact, the number of the general population below Self-Authoring is probably greater than 58%,
since these studies had a higher proportion of high socio-economic groups/highly educated
participants than the general population, and all studies with lower socio-economic groups show
higher percentages at the less complex levels.)

Can We Facilitate the Development of Mental

Complexity?
Development of mental complexity can be facilitated, and we now know a lot about the
environmental conditions that tend to constrain or accelerate development. In general (i.e.,
irrespective of which particular level of complexity we are seeking to promote), the least
facilitative environments are either under-challenging (no demand for the person to exercise a
mental system any more complex than he or she has already developed) or over-challenging
(demand for a person to operate at a significantly more complex level than they currently do without
opportunity for step-by-step progress towards mastery). The optimal incubator for development
provides opportunities both to experience success by exercising fully already developed
capabilities and stretching toward the development of slightly more complex capabilities.

There is also a good deal of empirical evidence to show that the transformation from one level to
another takes longer and longer as the lifespan unfolds, which would make sense given the mental
apparatus undergoing re-elaboration is becoming more and more complex. The typical infant
undergoes the first significant transformation (from Level 0 to Level 1) in several months; it typically
takes several years for an adult to complete the evolution between any two of the adult levels.

24
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

What are the features of a good incubator for supporting or stretching the Socialized or Self-
Authoring minds?

Supporting and Stretching Mental Complexity

What supports…? What stretches…?

The Clear expectations from Invitations to question authority, register

Socialized authority with which I my dissent
Mind (3rd identify and feel loyalty Invitations for me to self-evaluate
level) Clear expectations which Opportunities for me to assume
include me and appreciate my responsibilities and make decisions in
alignment. complex situations without predefined
pathways to solutions.
Your resisting my using you as a source (of
the answers, definition of my reality,
direction)

The Self- Offering me access to Invitations to identify the limits of my own

Authoring authority as a co-creator of belief system (e.g., truths left out) or life
Minds (4th expectations rather than just a structure (e.g., aspects of myself left
level) faithful follower. undeveloped).
Opportunities to exercise my Opportunities for safe, temporary trial runs
own belief system, meet my inhabiting a different metric for intelligence,
own standard effectiveness, satisfaction, control.
Recognition of, appreciation Your insistence on seeing me as bigger than
for, the underlying principles my current way of composing myself or
of “my way.” interpreting things.

The Immunity-to-Change map is a promising foundation for incubating mental complexity. If

people choose improvement goals that reflect their developmental “growing edge” then the
equilibrium revealed in their 4-column map provides both a practical expression of their current
“complexity system” and a potentially promising point of entry for disturbing this equilibrium.

25
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Ongoing work to disturb this equilibrium (or “immune system”) incubates development of their
mental complexity.

Consider the following maps:

Immunity-To-Change Map – Stretching the Socialized Mind

Improvement Goal Doing/Not Doing Hidden/Competing Big Assumption

Commitment

To be more excited I work at things I am Worries: Looking I assume my safest

and inspired in work not that interested in. unsuccessful; others’ route to success is to
by connecting more disapproval. perform
with my own I work in ways that exceptionally well in
passions, and are more established, I am also committed ways that are
trusting my own following what is to not losing the high expected and well-
distinctness expected). regard of those who established.
evaluate me.
I assume that if I am
To not running any not highly regarded I
reputational, social, will be a failure.
economic risks.

To not looking
unsuccessful.

To not pursuing an
unknown/unproven
trail.

You may look at this map and say to yourself, “Ironically, this person’s strategy of ‘playing it safe’
may actually, in some contexts, be a much more dangerous strategy than if he were to run whatever
he thinks of as a risk, since this ‘play it safe’ strategy will almost certainly lead ultimately to failure.”
But if you are saying this to yourself, you are looking at it from outside the Socialized Mind. While it
may not be possible for him to realize his Starting Commitment without development beyond
the Socialized Mind, the map actually suggests some valuable ways to support exactly that
move. If he could adopt behaviors that begin to put his Big Assumptions to the test there is a good
chance that he will modify these assumptions. That modification will not only begin to release him
from the grip of his current “immune system”; it will actually begin to build the more complex
26
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

mental structures that come to make up the Self-Authoring Mind (i.e., it can support the move from
the 3rd to the 4th levels).

Let’s look at one more map, in contrast:

Immunity-To-Change Map -- Stretching the Self-Authoring Mind

Improvement Goal Doing/Not Doing Hidden/Competing Big Assumption

Commitment

To better developing Tendency to drive Worries: Not being I assume I will not
my ability to “lead toward solution, the hero, not being feel deeply satisfied
from behind” and jump in with “the indispensable. unless I am being
push others to grow answer,” save the the hero.
as leaders. day. I am also committed
to not lose being the I assume the metric I
Look for (maybe hero. use for “satisfaction”
even set up) is the only one that
situations where I To not lose feeling will work for me.
am needed to make indispensable.
the difference.

Don’t listen well

once I have made up
my mind.

This map can be a support to development beyond the Self-Authoring Mind (the move from the 4th
to the 5th level). Wherever the individual chooses to disturb this immune system (i.e., by trying new
behaviors that alter Column 2 or that test the Big Assumptions in Column 4) she has the chance
both to better realize the Change Goal in Column 1 and to build a more complex general
system that, in this case, can begin to include both the “doing self” and the “being self.” With this
more complex system (the Self-Transforming Mind) the individual would not only be less captive of
the doing self: she would be less inclined, in general, to identify herself so fixedly with only one side
of any dialectic or contradiction (e.g., independence vs. relying on others).

Since the world is not going to get any less complex or less demanding, organizations of all kinds
will need to provide all their employees, but particularly those they are grooming as leaders, with the
types of challenge and support necessary to master the increasing demands of leadership roles.

27
A D U L T D E V E L O P M E N T A N D L E A D E R S H I P

Leadership development programs will no longer be able to provide training designed to increase
one’s fun of knowledge or skill set but also for development, for transformation.

For Further Reading on Adult Development

R. Kegan and L. Lahey, Immunity to Change: How to Overcome it and Unlock the Potential in Yourself and
Your Organization (Cambridge: Harvard Business Press), 2009.

R. Kegan and L. Lahey, “Adult Leadership and Adult Development: A Constructivist View.” In B.
Kellerman (Ed.) Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. (NY: Prentice-Hall), 1983.

R. Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press), 1994.

R. Kegan, The Further Reaches of Adult Development. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoasM4cCHBc

J. Berger, Changing on the Job: Developing Leaders for a Complex World (Stanford: Stanford Business
Books), 2011.

D. Helsing, A. Howell, R. Kegan and L. Lahey, “Putting the ‘Development’ in Professional

Development: Understanding and Overturning Educational Leaders' Immunities to Change. Harvard
Educational Review, Vol. 78, No. 3, 2008 (pp. 437-465)

D.E. Chandler and K.E. Kram, “Applying an Adult Development Perspective to Developmental
Networks: A New Understanding of Mentoring,” Career Development International, Vol. 10, No. 6/7,
2005 (pp.548-566)

28