17+ +Integral+Theory+Into+Integral+Action

8/3/2019 17+ +Integral+Theory+Into+Integral+Action

1/30

Integral Theory into Integra l Action, Part 1 of 2

http://integralleadersh ipreview.com /archives/2006_08/2006_08_edwards.html

The following material is the beginning of a dialogue between MarkEdwards and Russ Volckmann about integral theory, maps, models and theirapplications. The focus will be on concepts and relationships among concepts and thelike. However, this discussion takes place with the hope of making two contributions.The first is to the development and evolution of integral theory, particularly as it appliesto the subject of leadership. The second is in comprehending how to use integral theoryas an integrating device for theory, concepts and ideas coming from, well, just about any

source that has something to contribute.

Mark Edwards is working on his dissertation at Western Australia University and hasalready made major contributions to integral theory. Much of his work can be found at

www.integralworld.net (for reviewed publications see: Cacioppe & Edwards, 2005a;2005b; Edwards, 1997; Edwards, 1998; 2002; 2005a; 2005b; 2005c; 2006). I highlyrecommend these if you are interested in pursuing his ideas further. Mark alsoparticipated in a three-part conversation with Ken Wilber on Integral Naked,

www.integralnaked.org. Recently, I sent an invitation to Mark to engage in a dialogueabout integral theory and how it can be applied to understanding, developing andimplementing leadership.

Part 1 - Invitation and Opening Dialogue

Russ: What if we did a series of short sessions with a short readable interview/discussion/column format that would focus on mapping, modelling and the value ofalternative approaches for theory and application. There would be a series of topics:

The value of mapping and models; The quadrants; The relationships among quadrants; Individual and collective holons; The relationships between individual holons, between individual and collective

holons, between collective holons, Stages and the implications of a Vygotskian perspective, Alternative approaches to integral theory, including some of the ideas put

forward by Smith (2001) and others, etc.

Over time we can build this list. But in addition to laying out the approaches to theoryand mapping/modelling everything would lead to a discussion of the application toleadership, its development and practice.


2/30

I am getting interested in the implications of Ervin Laszlos (2004) Integral Theory ofEverything (TOE) and how it informs an integral/developmental approach. Hisintroduction of the Akashic field as an aspects of physics, cosmology and consciousnesssuggestions solutions to understanding nonlocality and other puzzles of physics. How dosuch suggestions relate to integral theory and inform ways we have of understandingleadership? We can bring in the work of just about anyone who has something to say that

informs the development a theory, mapping and modelling as a way of making meaningthat informs practice.

Now that sounds exciting!

Mark: It does!!

Russ: Okay. Let me try starting us off at the fifty million light years level. Ervin Laszloposits a TOE that brings together the fields of cosmology, quantum physics, biology andthe study of consciousness. He states,

At its cutting edge, the new cosmology discovers a world where the

universe does not end in ruin, and the new physics, the new biology,and the new consciousness research recognize that in this world lifeand mind are integral elements and not accidental by-products. Allthese elements come together in the informed universeacomprehensive and intensely meaningful universe, cornerstone ofthe unified conceptual scheme that can tie together all the diversephenomena of the world: the integral theory of everything.

Erwin Laszlo, Science and the Akashic Field, p. 15.

He presents the idea of the quantum vacuum, which transports light, energy, pressureand sound. This transportation occurs through torsion waves that link the universe at a

group speed of the order of one billion times the speed of light. Then he adds theadditional factor of the comparable transportation of information at these rates.Furthermore, information is held holographically whereby all such types in the universehold all information held by one of a type at the same time. Such a model accounts foranomalies like non-locality. Without turning this into a treatise on Laszlos work we cansee that his theory sets up a way of understanding everything that is very different from

Wilbers work.

Laszlo does not treat Wilbers work very charitably:

Ken Wilber, who wrote a book with the title A Theory of Everything,agrees: he speaks of the integral vision conveyed by a genuine TOE.

However, he does not offer such a theory; he mainly discusses what itwould be like, describing it in reference to the evolution of cultureand consciousnessand to his own theories.

Erwin Laszlo, Science and the Akashic Field, p.2


3/30

I dont know if Laszlo has read any of the rest of Wilbers many publications, but I hopewe can avoid such a dismissal of a very useful set of concepts and models as can be foundin Wilbers work. Do you agree?

Mark: Ive not read this book by Laszlo. Ive read his book on general evolution andsome articles on general systems. He is a great figure in systems theory and the new

sciences but I am not so interested in the field in which he seems to be writing the newphysics/consciousness area. Its wonderful material and Laszlo has produced a great

body of important work but that area of consciousness and physics is not really my topic.

In any event, the goal of proposing a Theory of Everything seems to me to be a ratherstrange line of business to get into. Might I ask, seeing that his new book has the subtitleAn Integral Theory of Everything, does it include things like, how to raise children,how to love, who should get my vote, what is the most ethical way to make a billiondollars, or how to win the war on ? Im being a little sarcastic here but from myexperience of reading these sorts of works they are interesting and include much that isof value, but they rarely deal with what is really important in lifeby this I mean how weeducate, govern, inform, entertain, feed, heal or transform ourselves.

I am interested in contributing to the development of an integral theory that can shedsome light on such things. And, actually, I dont think this has much to do with trying to

build a Theory of Everything anyway. I have difficulty knowing what the phrase means. Iget the theory bit, but I dont like the of bit, and the everything bit seems slightlyover the top from where I stand as a social scientist.

I corresponded with Andy Smith about this TOE issue just the other day saying that Iliked Clifford Geertz's distinction between a "theory for" - which explicitly refers to thesearch for an imprecise but also useful form of knowledge and a "theory of" - whichharkens back to the grandiosity of the positivist search for complete explanations andexact predictions. As far as the everything bit goes, I see integral theory as a set of

lenses that can help me get a handle on any event rather than every event. By this I meanthat I want to bring integral theory to the ordinary events of life rather than trying to fiteverything into the theory. Hence, I have referred to my work in the development of anintegral holonics as a Theory for Anything as opposed to a Theory of Everything.

Although, I still find even the TOA version rather extravagant. How about a Theory forSomething or is that stating the obvious? In any event, being aware of such distinctionsis an example of how integral theory can gain from post-modern critical analysis ofTOE's. The post-modern critiques of overarching theories are very relevant to this wholediscussion and theorists working in this area need to be aware of such valid criticism.

As to the differences in the TOEs of Laszlo and Wilber, for me Wilber very clearly makesthe point that the TOEs of the physical sciences leave out about 99% of what people

would usually include in the definition of everything. And I agree with him. Laszlo stillseems to focus on this physics and consciousness connection. That has its place but Imnot really engaged by those kinds of ideas. I would like to see how an integral approachmight contribute to better the transformation of organisations, or better regulation ofcommercial activity, or community development, or to environmental or educationalpolicy than to understanding how Gauge Field Theory might create QuantumConsciousness. Not that such issues are unimportant its just that I wouldnt exactly callsuch things a Theory of Everything.


4/30

Russ: I suppose I should take more seriously the labels put on things. They areimportant for communication and meaning making. Perhaps my difficulty in doing so isrelated to my being in awe of the challenge of embracing sufficient variables to make ameaningful and positive difference in human systems. Or maybe it is because about ten

years ago when I was working with someone else on labelling aspects of an integralmodel the decisions about labels often became long and tedious processes. Whatever we

call it, I think you have nailed the essence of why we would want to undertake anexploration like this. It is about application to human beings and human systems and, assuch, must engage questions of meaning and arenas of activity.

The value of the Theory for Anything distinction for me is that it points to one of thefundamental uses of theory, namely, as a lens in which to generate meaning. Another isas a predictor of the results of certain actions. We both have articles in the Journal ofOrganizational Change Management (Volckmann, 2005) about a year ago (actually, youhave two (Edwards, 2005c) one with Ron Cacioppe (Cacioppe & Edwards, 2005a). Thepurpose of my article was to describe an approach for using integrally informed modelsto support clients in their meaning making and identification of what they believedneeded to be changed or developed. Therefore, the model is not predictive and saying if

you change this that will happen as much as it is saying here is a lens with which you cansee your world with greater clarity and manage greater complexity in order for you tomake choices.

What this enterprise is about is making distinctions. A colleague of mine has commentedthat one thing that is problematic about Wilbers work is that his categories are arbitrary.Those of greatest concern include distinctions among quadrants and lines. This colleague

would prefer to see a more holistic approach, not the traditional breaking things downinto categories so typical of Western linear thinking. One of the concerns (and I amcertain we will get into this) is the lack of attention to process. I think one of the mostinteresting things about your work is how you have brought attention to process intointegral theory and mapping. I have attempted this, as well, albeit in a quite different

way and I look forward to learning about the advantages and disadvantages of alternativeapproaches to making the maps come alive.

I like the term holonics. It seems truly about using integral models for making meaningand informing choice and decision making about, well, anything!

Two things come up for me initially. The first is the question of the role of theory, modelsand maps in relation to action. Second, I wonder if you have some guiding principles that

you apply to the development of theory and models.

Mark: First, on this issue of what to include in an integral approach, if your colleague isreferring to Wilbers dimensions of interior-exterior, individual-collective,

developmental processes, transformation and translation, levels and lines, theperspectives, and so on, well, I dont think they are arbitrary. They show up over andover in philosophies and in various theories. There might be many other dimensionsthan just these (as Wilber acknowledges), but these have to be ranked right up there asprimary lenses through which we make sense of our world. And they are there in the

Western philosophic tradition for very good reasons. Im not taken by the critique ofWestern traditions as dualistic while those of the other directions are holistic. From mylimited knowledge of philosophy analytical/dualist and systems/holistic orientations tothe great questions are present in philosophies East and West, North and South. Wilber


5/30

proposes that dimensions such as individual-collective (this is called the micro-macrolink in sociology) and translation-transformation (called first- and second-order changein organisation theory) are essential for any truly integrative approach to theory building.

And I agree, but there are other basic lenses that might also be included and the standardWilberian AQAL model of crossing the same dimensions to create his Four Quadrants is,in my opinion, only one of several possibilities for combining lenses. I think we can be

more flexible and creative in the lens combinations we use to explain phenomena (e.g., Ithink the very important lens of developmental stages is used in a too isolated andsimplistic fashion at the moment), and this includes the boundaries that we draw aroundthe things we want to view through these lenses. Perhaps this has also got to do with

what your colleague refers to as lack of attention to process.

Although I have applied integral concepts in my professional work on an ad hoc basis formany years, I am particularly interested in theory development. The guiding principles Iuse in this area are all the standard evaluation criteria for good theory a theoryshould have unique qualities, it should be parsimonious, it should be generalisable, itshould be fecund, i.e., be a rich source of ideas, its should be internally consistent, itshould be empirically risky and it should have a high degree of abstraction (Wacker,

1998; 2004). Some of these criteria work in different directions, for example, parsimonyand generalisability, and so there is always a difficult judgement involved in how to

balance these evaluative guidelines. These are all rational, modernist criteria for theorydevelopment. There are also the postmodern criteria of trustworthiness, social credibility,and transferability. At the moment I am particularly interested in the basic rationalcriteria but the others also have relevance.

Obviously, theory and application/testing are complimentary aspects of doing science.Both processes support each other.Recently, I contributed a small piece to a book onappreciative inquiry and I had this diagram in it that tried to show this mutuality.

In terms of this diagram, I am particularly interested in the left hand side of this process that of theory building. This is why I am picky about things like definitions and the

conceptual relationships between the various elements that make up integral theory. Iam also aware, however, that very little empirical research done to test integral theorypropositions (I mean by empirical research the broad science activity of groundingany truth statement in data, including sensory/behavioural, cultural, social andexperiential data). I have an Endnote file with around 400 references on integral theoryand only one involves an empirical test of an aspect of integral theory (see Thomas,Brewer, Kraus & Rosen, 1993).


6/30

While the construction of integral theory is based, in part, on empirical research it hasitself not been subject to much formal empirical scrutiny to my knowledge. The theory

building that has been done by Wilber and others has not been matched by a theorytesting process of empirical research. This is hardly surprising because its still early daysfor these approaches. And I feel that many aspects of the integral framework are still notat the level of internal consistency or operational interpretability where they can be

empirically tested. As Tom Murray argues, there is still a significant degree ofepistemological indeterminancy and uncertainty around many core integral concepts(Murray, 2006). The practical application of the ideas seems to be steaming ahead butthats another issue.

Science is not only about describing a model and then taking it into the market place toexplain stuff. Empirical testing also has to be part of the deal. Jack Meredith has pointedout that theory development that misses out the testing side of things becomes aquestion of anecdotes and war stories (Meredith, 1993). While I would say that thepractical application of integral ideas in social settings has moved well beyond simpleanecdotal evidence (see, for example, Brown, 2006), the empirical stuff urgently needssome attention. Theory testing attempts not only to provide empirical

verification/falsification for a model, but it also focuses our minds on operationalisingdefinitions, being definite about properties and clarifying the relationships between

variables. And, simply because there are so many explanatory variables/lenses and somany relationships possible between them, integral ideas will always need theseoperationalising activities. I dont see any studies being published at the moment that doany of this. But time will tell.

So, this issue of the relationship between theory and its application is one of ongoingrelevance. We have the need for the application of integrating concepts to real worldproblems. But this is only part of what is needed for integral ideas to flourish in a healthy

way. We need also to contribute to the theory building side of this research cycle so thattesting and practical application can have a scientific basis and not be just another fad.

Im sure youve seen more theories of leadership and management come and go, Russ,than you can remember. Without a solid scientific basis integral theory could go thesame way. So we also have a need for empirical testing and operationalisation of theseconcepts. This is rather unglamorous stuff. Improving definitions, clarifyingrelationships between constructs, and looking at internally consistency, testinghypotheses, etc. - this is not the sort of work to do if you want to save the world. To many,this is like suggesting we learn how to play the violin while Rome is burning, but I thinkits more like how we can learn to become fire fighters while Rome is burning. The worldneeds integral approaches that are based on good science and I want to contribute to thatin some modest way. I suppose this gets back to your issue of what actually constitutesintegral theory.

You have interviewed quite a few people who might be considered as taking an integralapproach to their line of work and you have written extensively on integral topics. Whatsthe thing that unites their way of working? What do you think an integral approach is?

Whats the difference between an integral theory and an integral approach? Are there asmany integral theories as there are integral theorists as Wilber suggests?

Mark, are very important, because they are useful. They clarify the context ofexplorations, they give order to the enterprise and embrace the opportunities. I think weare very aligned around our respect and appreciation for the integration and potential


7/30

that Wilber has helped to open for us all, whether we focus on the development oftheories and models, their applications, or even both! I hope we can get more explicitabout what we see as the essentials of an integral approach. You opened this with apartial listing of key elements:

interior-exterior, individual-collective, developmental processes, transformation and translation, the perspectives, etc.

I find myself wondering how we might treat these most usefully here before proceedingwith the very interesting questions you have raised. And even before that I would like tocomment on Figure One. (And, by the way, can you share the names of the editors andthe title of the book onAppreciative Inquiry?)

Your depiction of the cycle of theory and research reminds me of Charles Hampden-Turners psycho-social developmental model from Radical Man (Hampden-Turner,

1971) that he later published in abbreviated form in Maps of the Mind (Hampden-Turner, 1981). One implication of the cycle is that it spirals upward. The positivefeedback from the empirical leads to a strengthening and enhancement of theory. Ofcourse, as in Hampden-Turners anomic model, there is a downward spiral, as well. This

would suggest that the failure to develop empirical knowledge inevitably will lead to anegative feedback loop which will diminish the quality of theory. The systems theory ideaof feedback loops is also important for integral theory. We need ways to not just organizeconcepts and phenomena into quadrants, but to comprehend the relationships amongthem.

The Integral Leadership Review is about both theory and applicationabout themental models, the frameworks we use to create meaning and take action. In your work,

I suspect this statement is equally true, as it would be for the designer of leadershipdevelopment interventions and those who take on leader roles. It is just that you mayconceive your role to be different from those. As you point out, you are particularlyinterested in building theory through conceptual research. At some point, as your modelpoints out, there is an inevitable testing of the ideas against some form of empiricalevidence.

Those who would focus on the implementation or empirical side must go through thesame sequence. A project manager might see it this way:

Figure 2: The Project Map of Conceptual and Empirical Research


8/30

For an ongoing, never ending developmental process such as theory building is, given itsever-widening scope, I prefer the mapping approach you have demonstrated. However,for more limited applications it is often valuable to use a different mapping approach,one that lends itself to PERT/GANTT approaches to scheduling and resource mapping.

All of this would be very pedantic if it werent for the point that I am making about howthe separation of theory and practice is another one of those ways we have of dividing

one from the other and keeping ourselves potentially ignorant of parts of the process.The cyclical approach, developmental and anomic, represents an ongoing process

without apparent end. The linear approach in Figure 2 is used to represent a project witha beginning and an end, although I added a reiteration task that would cause mostproject managers to blanche.

Coming back to ILR, that is part of my vision for this evolving publication. It is integralin the sense that it marries theory and practice. Some might wonder if this is, indeed, amarriage made in heaven or simply a candidate for the elevated divorce statistics. What Iam suggesting is that whatever the future unfolds for ILR, for all of us, this is still thetask: to find the integration of theory and practice, to build integrally.

Of course, we each bring our particular talents to this process. To recognize, honor anduse our strengths in our work is a path that is developmental. I am not sure theory

building or implementation or empiricism are areas that I would count as strengths. I seemyself as an explorer, depending heavily on the ideas and thinking of others, as well asthe learning they have gained from experience. And all of this brings me back to yourquestions.

I think of the integral approach as a journey. Sure, there is much in philosophy andother areas of study that has been accomplished. It is the realization of Figure 1, to date.

We are at the early stages of the development of integral theory. After all, the juxtaposition of perspectives from people like Wilber and Laszlo provides suchwonderful questions to raise that lead to refinement of the theory, the approach, and the

determination that we have new frontiers to explore. It is a process! Most of the people Italk with are making contributions to this process whether they label it integral or not.For example, Hampden-Turner and Tropenaars (2001) place a great deal of emphasis onculture in addition to the perspectives of individual leaders when exploring leadership.In the interview I did with him Hampden-Turner did not know much about integral

but what he brings is what I would call an integral approach to his work. He is concerned with variables in all of the quadrants, as well as the development of leadership. He ismore process, rather than stage, oriented. An integral approach would include some ofthe factors we are exploring, but not necessarily be informed by integral theory.

I dont, however, think there are a great many integral theories out there in relation toleadership, at least not based on the interviews I have done. There is a growing number

of people in the areas of theory development, leader development and the practice ofleadership that are becoming integrally informed. To become integrally informed, itseems to me, is to grow ones awareness of self, other and context, as well as to see therelationship between ones own behaviors, those of others, and the many manifestationsof the physical world at all levels, whether created by us or by forces we do not yetunderstand.

But Mark, this stuff isnt all that new. Sure we are focused on integration, as well asdifferentiation, whereby in my past, at least, the latter was emphasized far more than the


9/30

former. It is as though we have finally come to understand, to grok, what Jung meantabout the importance of both of these processes. Much of what is being called integrallife practice or integral transformative practice is about the application of techniquesthat are ancient or more recent innovations, whether we are talking about attention tophysical development through variations on the martial arts, shadow work, sustainableenvironments, etc. Now we have a way of understanding how all of these relate to each

other. This is what I find in the interviews. People are beginning to understand not onlythe elements, but also the relationships in ways that hold hope for integral theory andapplication, and for the world. In the face of the challenges we have politically, culturally,personally and environmentally anything that offers such hope is something I want topay close attention to. This is one of the reasons why I am excited about your work. It isnot just about a framework of taxonomies, but also about the dynamic relationshipsamong the parts.

The interviews are with people who range across a spectrum. Some are deeply involvedin the study and application of integral theory and others know almost nothing about it.One of the reasons I like to interview some people at the non-integral theory end of thespectrum is that there are already elements of their work that contribute to the

development of an integral approach to leadership. An example in point is the interviewin this issue with Harry Lasker. Harry is a ground-breaking thinker and doer, anentrepreneur with early explorations of the relationship between motivation anddevelopment theory (Loevinger). He is someone who can bridge the distance betweenthose in the world of academia (interest in theory) and those who are in the world of

business (with an interest in what works). Yet implicit in the work of Lasker is an integralperspective, an appreciation for complexity, development, process and discovery that I

value so much in working with the integral approach.

One day, it may be time to explore all of the interviews and see what themes emerge.Until then, I think that what these interviews do is open up the scope of what we arelooking at and find the integral connections. No, I have not found a multiplicity of

integral theories. I have found some integral thinkers and others who are approachingthe same places from different theoretical and practical foundations. In the area ofleadership I find, generally, a paucity in the development of theory.

An example of this is a doctoral dissertation I recently read. It was a very ideographictreatment of something that was being called integral leadership. However, there were somany questions and issues about what constituted integral and leadership and therelationships between the two that I found little or no comprehension of integral theoryor contribution to its development. Part of the difficulty may lie in the state of integraltheory that you have characterized so well. Equally challenging is the state of leadershiptheory. This multidisciplinary field that lends itself so well to a transdisciplinaryapproach is theoretically fragmented and often presented in a vacuum of definition.

Weird phrase, perhaps, but until recently efforts at defining leader and leadership havebeen superficial, at best.

Mark: Russ, I very much like your adaptation of the theory/testing cycle to project work.It shows nicely how this sort of map can have a practical utility.

The reference for my little comment in the appreciative inquiry book is under Reed(2006) in the References. My contribution is very modest (2page comment to theeditor). I recommend appreciative inquiry as a positive methodology for developing


10/30

emergent solutions to challenging issues from the ground up. These types of pluralistmethods are very healthy contributions to addressing the need for positive social change.

I agree with you completely that everyone interested in integral ideas or who is involvedin the discovery of how these things play out in personal life can bring theircontributions and explorations and take it from there. It is a journey as you say. I would

also add that for me, while big ideas are wonderful vehicles for discovery, they are, at thesame time, dangerous things for precisely the same reason. They can pick people up andcarry them to all sorts of places for all sorts of reasons. I recall that a few months back,my wife Barbara and I were talking about the issue of science and beliefs and I made thecomment that I thought there were two great powers in the universe. One was the powerof loveI meant this in the sense of everything being drawn from and drawn into arelationship with everything else. The other was the power of the mind to delude itself.There is an urgent need to ensure that a critical and rigorous science accompany us onthe integral journey in a very direct way.

As for the essentials of an integral approach, as anyone foolish enough to read some ofmy integral musings may find, its pretty clear that I like complexity and that I also like

bringing together very different perspectives on a topic. Consequently, the essentials forme include a hell of a lot of stuff. But then, life is complex and if we are to explain life in anonreductive fashion then those explanations must also be complex in some way as well.I also like to bring those complex explanatory factors together in very flexible and fluid

ways. For example, integral theory for me includes not only domains or quadrants,developmental levels, developmental modules or lines, types and so on but alsodevelopmental dynamics, natural perspectives, mediating processes, subject-objectperspectives, micro-macro links, transitional cycles, learning processes, motivatingdrives, growth and integration dynamics, situational processes, relational exchanges andso on. I like to include these as explanatory lenses in their own right and they are justas fundamental as the interior-exterior dimension, the developmental levels and so on.There are probably many lenses from different schools and thinkers that have not yet

been included into the mix. I always go on about Vygotsky and the Cultural-HistoricalActivity Theory tradition being left out of the picture but there are others.

Wilber and many other multiparadigm and Big Picture theorists use such factors orlenses in their explanations of complex social events. I find that many of these factorscannot be explained in terms of the workings of the others and so they all need to beincluded in the set of lenses that an integral approach must carry. But I also feel that it iscrucial to see how these factors can be brought together in very flexible and creative ways.In that sense a lot of this is about method and the means by which we select andcontextualise the lenses we use to study or analyse something. For example, I feel thatcurrently too much emphasis is given to the use of developmental levels as an analyticallens to the exclusion of many other useful explanatory factors that might be well used in

combination with development. This leads to a type of developmentalism which does notrecognise the importance of social mediation in the creation of consciousness. Thisdevelopmental reductionism ends in analyses of the type that claim 20 percent of theadult population is at this level, 30 percent at another level, and 2 percent at this level,and so on. This approach of splitting populations into levels might be called "levelsabsolutism" and is anything but integral. For example, such views do not take account ofthe power of mediating factors on the values of the members of a social collective.Unfortunately, because of the way governments, large organisations, vested interests andpowerful individuals operate today these mediating factors tend to work at the level of


11/30

the lowest common denominator and employ strategies such as wedge tactics, thepolitics of fear, issue marketing and framing to manipulate consciousness towards the

bottom end of the spiral.

There is a huge distance between individuals and the decision making centres in manysocieties today and that void is too often filled up by commercialised electronic media,

government misinformation, political propaganda and spin, marketers manipulations ofinformation, the power of corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, etc. This is

why I am hopeful that the dramatic rise in the communicative capacities of the Internetwill be an aid in the development of a new kind of peer-based global media that is not so vulnerable to the manipulations of vested interests. Michel Bauwens(http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Main_Page) work on the development ofpeer-to-peer theory is an extremely promising area in this regard. This is a much more

bottom-up and emergent line of social inquiry and has much to offer. Having said all that,I don't want to minimise the importance of the developmental lens. This lens is crucial inproviding direction to the emergence of new forms of social being and doing. Withoutaltitude all the other lenses simply become means for assessing balance and normativehealth. They lack the emancipatory focus that the transformational lens possesses. So we

need multiple lenses: transcendent ones, inclusive ones, transformational ones,translational ones, ones that see interior depth and ones that see exterior depth. This,after all, is what integral is all about. I agree with Karl Weick that its a process ofdisciplined imagination - opening up our imaginations to create a richer view of what'spossible and doing that in a disciplined way.

The Wilberian school of integral theory is characterised by its crossing of the interior-exterior lens with the individual-collective lens and with its application of thedevelopmental stages lens. This AQAL approach is a very useful foundation for bringingtogether multiple theories and will continue to generate innovative approaches tomultidisciplinary studies. However, other multiparadigm theorists have crossed othercombinations of theoretical lenses. Bradbury and Lichtenstein (2000) for example have

crossed perspectives with the interior-exterior lens in their approach to relationality.Burrell and Morgan (1979), in their classic multiparadigm approach to organisationaltheory, crossed interior-exterior with transformation-translation. Zinchenko has crosseddevelopmental stages with mediation processes (1996). Really, integral approaches canuse any of these lenses in isolation or in combination with any of the others as long as thelimited domains of those selections are acknowledged. I like to bring togethermediational and developmental lenses when considering topics such as integral futures(Edwards, 2006).

Too often, we simply use single lenses, most typically quadrants or developmental levelsor a particular developmental line, as the sole means for analysing complex socialsituations without acknowledging the limitations of relying on that single analytical lens.

This is simply not good enough. Wilber, for example, calls the reliance on particulardevelopmental lines to explain phenomena line absolutism and gives the example ofspiral dynamics as an approach that reads everything in terms of a limited number ofexplanatory lenses. I think this is very true. But I might also point out that those who relyon only levels of development to analyse social events are guilty of what might be calleddevelopmental absolutism (this is another form of the developmentalism I referred toabove). The same criticism also applies to those who rely only on quadrants to explaineverything they see, for those that rely only on learning processes, and for those that relyon only physical interactions, or genetics or environmental conditions, and so on.


12/30

If we look at some of the developmental models of personal leadership, for example, wefind a heavy emphasis is placed on the developmental level of the leader. But I argue thatother lenses need to be brought into the picture to describe healthy, normativedevelopment in a leaders workplace capacities, worldviews and behaviours. If a leaderhas an extremely individualist approach to problem solving, for example, it doesntmatter what developmental level they operate from high or low - they will always lack

the capacity to see collective solutions to the challenges they face. And without thatcapacity they are bad news as leaders in todays world. Such leaders dont see systemicproblems. Instead they see incompetent or uncontrollable individuals or undeveloped

workers. Such leaders dont see opportunities for team or community building. They onlysee opportunities for providing individual inducements for competitive achievement.They dont see where collective processes are failing the members of that collective. Suchleaders dont address the social or cultural cause of inequity they only see lazyindividuals. They cannot see systemic corruption, they only see lone criminals or rogueexceptions.

To be frank, Id rather have a leader operating out of the rational level of personalautonomy who is balanced in terms of these other dimensions than to have a

transrational, second-tier leader who wouldnt know a social collective if he fell on one.I see this very often among corporate and political leadershighly developed in many

ways, yet lacking balance in crucial perspectival capacities that have nothing to do withdevelopmental stages. I believe that integral theories of leadership have yet to sort outtheses types of distinctions. I see in your own work on leadership an awareness of theseissues, for example, in your approach of communicating the multiple roles of leadershipdevelopment. Perhaps we can look at this a little more closely at some point. For now,heres a table that lists some of the lenses that I feel a truly integral approach will need toincorporate.

Table 1: Integral theory conceptual lenses

Integral Theory Lens (conceptual frame of reference)Lens description and dom ain of application

1. The lens of perso nal perspectives

Recognises the validity of first, second and third person accounts in both theirsingular and plural settings. Hence, the perspective lens can be used to disclosethe subjective world of the first-person, the relational world of the second person

world, and the objective world of the third-person.

2. The interior -exterior len s

Recognises the validity of subjective (tangible) and objective (intangible) realities.Hence, this lens can be used to disclose and draw relations between the world of

consciousness and the world of behaviour

3. The individual-collective lens (Multilevel or micro-macr o lens)

Recognises the validity of the micro-world of personal events, the meso-world ofgroup events, and the macro-world of socio-cultural events. This lens situateshuman activity within the spectrum of ecological environments micro, meso,macro - and discloses connections between the local and global.

4. The lens of developmental levels (waves, stages)


13/30

Recognises the spectrum of qualitatively different shifts (paradigm changes) inpersonal and collective. Hence, discloses the developmental world of verticaldevelopment.

5. The lens of developmental lines (stream s or dom ains)

Recognises the validity of various domains of development. Hence, disclose the

complex world of multidimensional development.

6. The agency-comm union lens

Recognises the validity of unifocal, self-directed realities and the multifocal,other-centred, communal realities. Hence, this lens discloses and connectsagentic identities and relational identities.

7. The lens of transform ational and translational change

Recognises the distinction between transformational change (stage-basedspectrum of development) and translational change (legitimating change). Hence,discloses the need for both hierarchical heterarchical understandings of change.

8. The pr ocess/dynamics lens

Recognises the validity of evolutionary (ascending) and integrative (descending)dynamics. Hence, discloses the world of growth and the world of integrativesustainability.

9. The learning lens

Recognises the validity of single, double and triple-loop learning. Hence, discloses theworld of learning through various stages of injunction, apprehension, interpretation andvalidation.

10. The lens of social mediation

Recognises the validity of personal and interpersonal processes of development.Hence, discloses the world of social mediation and the sociogenetic sources ofconsciousness and behaviour.

By the way I think that each of these lenses exists because they actually arise as a type of worldview perspective in individuals and in collectives. A healthy worldview is onewhere these lenses are balanced and appropriate to the demands of such things as age,social circumstance and cultural environment. We can therefore use a set of such lensesas a balanced scorecard. This integral balanced scorecard can give direction to how wecan maintain, create and support healthier natural, social and educational environmentsso that individual and group development can freely and spontaneously emerge. Some ofthese lenses are specifically identified with Wilbers approach others are incidentally

referred to and others (such as the mediation theory are not referred to).

Russ: The vision that I get from what you have shared here is a marriage of lenses andlevels. Cannot a case be made that each of these lenses can be understooddevelopmentally? As I am sure you would be quick to point out, the power of an integralapproach is the capacity to hold all of these, to include them in comprehending anoccasion, a process or an episode. (And, by the way, while I use the balanced scorecard


14/30

perspective in my work with clients, I am intrigued by the idea of an integral balancedscorecard and hope we can talk about that as we proceed.)

As for the absolutisms to which you refer, it seems to me that integral theory is about nothaving such limited explanations. Perhaps this stems from developmental addiction. As

with other key terms, we need to create a shared meaning of terms for them to be useful.

This term, development, seems to be such a core concept. I hope this discussion willelicit some clarifications about what we mean by development, for if we are going to usean integral approach not only to leadership theory, but also to leadership development

we need to be clear about what we mean. Perhaps a place to begin is with the distinctionsbetween horizontal and vertical development. We need to get a little clearer about thesedistinctions than simply labelling them translative and transformational allows.

In the broadest sense isnt development about learning and unlearning? Prasad Kaipa(2006) treats learning as a discontinuous process involving both learning and unlearning.It seems to me that this is at the heart of the development process in all streams and inthe streams collectively. And in the realm of leadership, leadership development involveslearning and unlearning. As an executive coach I find that my clients who want to

develop new behaviors also must let go of old behaviors, which are usually old habits.Making the change is as much about letting go of the old as it is taking on the new. I

would be interested in having a deeper understanding of development from an integralpoint of view.

Also, you have introduced first, second, and third person perspectives, something youdiscussed a bit with Ken Wilber on Integral Naked and something you have writtenabout in material for the Frank Visser site. This is an approach I very much favor,particularly in relation to the subject of leadership (although I do not intend that to belimiting). I have used this in an article I have submitted for review and possiblepublication. Having all three perspectives as they pertain to leadership might show up asfollows:

First person is about the leader, per se. This is the interior-exterior of the individual andcan be viewed from the perspective of the individual or by another person (researcher,follower/collaborator, competitor, etc.) Second person is about the collaborator(s). I likeJoseph Rosts (1991) distinction between follower and collaborator. This has implicationsfor how we proceed and I will get to that in a moment. The interior-exterior can beviewed from the perspective of the leader, from the perspective of the collaborator or

by another person. Third Person is about the collective, if you willthe culture, systems,processes, etc. Again, this can be described as viewed by the leader, the collaborator or

by another person. Thus, the lens of personal perspective embraces quite a bit.

If we grant that there are developmental levels (stages) at all, these perceptions will be

framed according to developmental level and/or state at the time they are made. In anydevelopmental approach the relationship between stages and lines or streams can get

very, very complex. Here is an area where it may be said that distinctions might beconsidered arbitrary since there is not empirically grounded single set to lines. We arefree to use just about any combination of categories as will serve our purposes, rangingfrom a simple intellectual(cognitive)-emotional-physical-spiritual set to far morecomplex sets drawn from Howard Gardner (1999) or subsets drawn from Goleman et al(2002).


15/30

Perhaps this is a tangent, but in an interview I did with Ian Mitroff recently we talked abit about his book, A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America (1999), which I might argue isanother example of an application of integral theory or, at least, an integral perspective.He was very clear in pointing out that the research that went into that book was notabout bringing some preconceived notion of spirituality into the study, but to elicit frommembers of businesses how they viewed spirituality. I consider this a very useful pursuit

in that it is an outside view of internal-external variables related to a set of ideas underthe rubric of spirituality. What may not be useful is even the assumption that spiritualityexists outside the internal constructs of individuals, the behaviours they lead to and theircollective manifestations in cultures and systems. A belief in a higher being leads toindividual actions related to fulfilling or failing to fulfil the behavioural expectations ofsuch a being. In turn this leads to relationships with collaborators in this belief and theformation of cultures and systems (structures, etc.) to express and support thecontinuation of this belief.

At the risk of offending all of my spiritually inclined friends to me this is all very, verystrange stuff. Oh, I can observe it and try to be objective about it. However, most of whatI see represented as some form of spirituality seems to me to be a holdover from earlier

stages of development with no connection to anything higher. Well, maybe there is anexception. That would be the growing capacity to comprehend the oneness of it all. ButI think we can arrive at that understanding without couching it in mystical terms.Certainly, much has been learned from spiritual traditions, including aspects of moralityand ethics (yeah, I know they are two different things), the uses of meditation in health,the uses of movement in health, and so on. And much of it seems like excess baggage.That is a personal perspective that probably reflects my uneven or low level ofdevelopment along one line or another (is there a spiritual line or is it just amanifestation of other lines?).

It seems to me that we are saying that integral provides a way of bringing togethermultiple perspectives and approaches, including methodologies for the study of anything.

In the case of leadership we have already begun talking about it, but have fallen into thetrap that most works on leadership have faltered on, namely, they do not define whatthey mean by leader and they do not define by leadership.

I find really exciting the prospect of building an understanding of how we can use themaps and methods of integral in this undertaking. I am very interested in looking at how

we can do this while including the multiple lenses you have laid out for us. How do wecreate a balance (I prefer an alternative concept, like mix or integrationsomehowdynamic equilibrium doesnt apply here) in theory building, modelling and mapping?How do we achieve that integration in using the theory to make meaning, to comprehendleader and leadership, to look at the snapshots and the movies?

I am currently reading the United Nations Community Capacity EnhancementHandbook, which was referenced by Barrett Brown in an Integral Sustainability Centerarticle on Frank Vissers site. Barrett holds up this project as an example of theapplication of an integral approach to dealing with a human issueHIV/AIDSandshows the integral influences. This project has been reported on before in IntegralLeadership Review in an article by Michael McElhenie (2005). An interesting exercise isto go through the workbook design and see if the integral influence is apparent. A coreelement of this program is about developing leadership. It is this kind of effort that holds


16/30

the potential for us to learn a great deal from the empirical side of the equation. I amardently looking for as many examples of application as I can find.

I agree heartily with you that world conditions have never before seemed to require norhave the potential to benefit from a phenomenon of leadership that has the capacity toaddress so many of the questions and issues you have raised. I look forward to our

conversations shedding some light on how that might happen.

Mark: You make a good point in suggesting that each of these lenses might beunderstood developmentally. When used in conjunction with the developmental lensthen we can, of course, look at levels of learning, mediation, communication, relationalexchange, micro-meso-macro, interiors and exteriors, etc. The combinations of stages oftransformation with any other lens, e.g. the individual-collective, or the task-relationship,or the transformation-translation lenses, can bring a lot of explanatory insight to anyparticular issue we want to investigate. But there are other situations where developmentis not the key issue at all. Often, it is crucial to restore real balance to a system in terms ofits learning/educational styles, (i.e. reflective, hands on, conceptual, social), or itsperspectival identity, or its communication processes before any issues of developmental

levels is raised. For example, without a fundamental balance across an organisationsinterior-exterior dimension of identity their cultural, sense-making processes andstructures and their behavioural and operational systems, I would say that it is notadvisable to use change interventions that rely on second-order, transformationaldevelopment. In these instances we can bring a different set of lenses to consider thephenomenon. This is precisely what Bradbury and Lichtenstein (2000) did in the paperon relationality in organisations. Theres no mention of development and yet their paperis one of the most important contributions to an integral view of organisational life that Ihave ever read.

Ian Mitroffs book that you mention is an excellent example of a type of grounded theoryapproach to spirituality in organisations. He and his colleague Elizabeth Denton found

this deep spiritual emptiness in the people they spoke with. People just dont feel thattheir working lives give them any meaning or spiritual nourishment or allow them toexpress their spirit in any real way in the workplace. Even though the workplacedemands so much of people in terms of commitment, enthusiasm and engagement itgives very little back of a similar nature in return. Mitroff and Denton also identify fourorientations towards spirituality the personal prayer perspective, the doing goodperspective, the cultural religious and the social justice perspective. Sound familiar? Itsinteresting to note that Mitroff and Denton say of Wilbers quadrant model (Mitroff &Denton, 1999 p. 27),

It is Wilbers particular genius to have first recognised each of these four orientations with regard to spirituality, and then analysed how a robust approach to spirituality

demands the integration of all four approaches. In other words, not only is each of thefour orientations incomplete without the others, but also, and more importantly, eachdepends on the others for its basic existence and sustenance.

I feel that organisations need to be grounded in an awareness and expression of each ofthese aspects of spirituality before any issue of transformational development is raised.Leadership is crucial to this and our views of leadership should reflect the dynamic andemergent environments that organisations both embody and operate in. As you are know,concepts such as bottom-up leadership, followership, sociocracy, industrial democracy,


17/30

community and participative leadership are as much part of this changing view ofleadership as the more standard charismatic models of transformative leadership. So, as

you have shown in your own work, an integral approach needs to have a sophisticatedunderstanding of leadership and management, an understanding that does not reducethe analysis of leadership to a discussion of altitude or developmental stages/levels. Thelenses of mediation, dynamics, perspectives, and learning among others need to be

added to the current AQAL lenses of quadrants, levels, lines, types etc. This makes thewhole scheme more complex but, as I said earlier, Im not scared of a little complexity.As the history of the psychological sciences shows us, its always better to start of withtoo many explanatory models than too few.

Leadership is a very complex part of the human social world and we need to reduce thatcomplexity down to something that we can talk about, model, practice and make sense of.On the other hand, we also need to recognise that a very extensive tool kit of instrumentsis needed if we are to understand what integral leadership is really all about and how wemight do a better job of researching it and applying what we find in a useful way.

End Part 1

References

Bradbury, H. & Lichtenstein, B. M. B., 2000, 'Relationality in organizationalresearch: Exploring The Space Between', Organization Science, 11, 5, 551.

Brown, B. C., 2006, 'The Use of an Integral Approach by UNDPs HIV/AIDSGroup As Part of their Global Response to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic'. [Online],Boulder, COL, Integral Institute, Available from: [Accessed: 24may, 2006].

Burrell, G. & Morgan, G., 1979, 'Sociological paradigms and organisationalanalysis', Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.

Cacioppe, R. & Edwards, M. G., 2005a, 'Adjusting blurred visions: A typology ofintegral approaches to organisations', Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, 18, 3, 230-246.

Cacioppe, R. & Edwards, M. G., 2005b, 'Seeking the Holy Grail of OrganisationalDevelopment: A Synthesis of Integral Theory, Spiral Dynamics, CorporateTransformation and Developmental Action Inquiry', The Leadership andOrganizational Development Journal, 26, 2, 86-105.

Edwards, M. G., 1997, 'Being Present: Experiential connections between ZenBuddhist practices and the grieving process', Disability and Rehabilitation, 19, 10,442-451.

Edwards, M. G., 2006, '"Every Today was a Tomorrow": An Integral Method for

Indexing the Social Mediation of Preferred Futures', Futures, (Forthcoming).

Edwards, M. G., 2005a, 'A future in the balance: Integral theory and globaldevelopmental pathologies', in Knowledge Base of Futures Studies Volume Three:Directions and Outlooks, R. Slaughter (Ed.). Foresight International, Brisbane,pp. CD-ROM.

Edwards, M. G., 2005b, 'Good for Business: An Integral Theory perspective onspirituality in organisations'. [Online], Spirituality in Leadership and


18/30

Management Journal, Available from: [Accessed: January 10, 2005].

Edwards, M. G., 2005c, 'The Integral Holon: A Holonomic Approach toOrganisational Change and Transformation', Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, 18, 3, 269-288.

Edwards, M. G., 1998, 'Transformative meditation: Loss and the recovery ofmeaning', Positive Health, 35, December, 9-13.

Edwards, M. G., 2002, 'The Way Up is the Way Down: Integral Socioculturalstudies and cultural evolution', ReVision, 24, 3, 21-31.

Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21stCentury . Basic Books, New York.

Geertz, C., 1993, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essay', 2nd ed., Fontana,London.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R, and McKee, A. 2002. Primal Leadership : Realizing thepower of Emotional Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hampden-Turner, C., 1981, 'Maps of the Mind', Collier Books, New York.

Hampden-Turner, C., 1971, 'Radical Man: The Process of Psycho-SocialDevelopment', Anchor Books., Garden City, NY.

Kaipa, P., 2006, 'Discontinuous Learning: Igniting the Genius Within by AligningSelf, Work and Family.' Kaipagroup.

Laszlo, E., 2004, 'Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory ofEverything', Inner Traditions, Rochester, VT.

McElhenie, M., 2005, 'An Integral Response to HIV/AIDS:?The 'Leadership forResults' Story', Integral Leadership Review, 5, 4, [Online].

Meredith, J., 1993, 'Theory building through conceptual methods', InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, 13, 5, 3-12.

Mitroff, I. I. & Denton, E. A., 1999, 'A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: AHard Look at Spirituality, Religion and Values in the Workplace', Jossey-Bass,San Francisco.

Murray, T., 2006, 'Collaborative Knowledge Building and Integral Theory: OnPerspectives, Uncertainty, and Mutual Regard', Integral Review, 2, 2, 210-269.

Rost, J., 1991, 'Leadership for the 21st Century', Praeger, Westport, CN.

Smith, A. P., 2001, 'All Four One and One for All: A (Somewhat Biased)Comparison of the Four Quadrant and One-Scale Models of Holarchy'. [Online],

Available from: [Accessed: June 26, 2006].

Thomas, L. E., Brewer, S. J., Kraus, P., A. & Rosen, B. L., 1993, 'Two patterns oftranscendence: An empirical examination of Wilber's and Washburn's theories',Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 33, 3, 66-81.

Tropenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C., 2001, '21 Leaders for the 21st Century:How Innovative Leaders Manage in the Digital Age', McGraw-Hill., New York.

Volckmann, R., 2005, 'Assessing executive leadership: an integral approach.'Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 3, 289-302.


19/30

Wacker, J. G., 1998, 'A definition of theory: Research guidelines for differenttheory-building research methods in operations management', Journal ofOperations Management, 16, 4, 361.

Wacker, J. G., 2004, 'A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developingtheory-building measurement instruments', Journal of Operations Management,

22, 6, 629.Zinchenko, V. P., 1996, 'Developing Activity theory: The Zone of proximaldevelopment and beyond', in Context and Consciousness: Activity theory andhuman-computer interaction, B. Nardi (Ed.). MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp.283-324.


20/30

Integral Theory into Integral Action, Part 2

http://integralleadersh ipreview .com/archives/2006_10/2006_10_edwards.html

Mark Edwards & Russ Volckmann

Russ: There were a couple of themes in your closing statement in Part 1 that I would liketo return to before we begin exploring mapping and applications (of course there mayarise a variety of themes that we will want to explore before, during and after the morepractical" aspects of our conversation). The first of these themes was spirituality. Itseems to me that the place of spirituality in theory, methodology and practice is at theheart of integral theorynot in isolation, of course, but as an equal partner withrationality or with the observable. It is equal in the sense of that science and spiritualityrepresent two very different ways of knowing," the second theme. This perspective is atthe heart of Wilbers work and everything that follows is predicated by this position.

The Marriage of Sense and Soul is but one of Wilbers efforts at addressing the questionof integration, of what it means to be integral, by embracing both ways of knowing. Ianticipate that his Integral Spirituality, which is just being published, will include someof his most recent thinking on this subject. This relationship between ways of knowingalso is at the heart of his perspectives in the holons.

Now I dont want to go on representing (or misrepresenting) Wilbers work or conflatingthe stages of the development of integral theory in his writing. But I do want to get at theheart, the underlying assumptions (beliefs/reported experiences) and constructs thatallow us to play with integral theory as a device for enhancing out understanding ofleadership, its development and its practice (LDP). In fact, one of the members of theIntegral Institute, Kurt Koller, has recently posted an article on Frank Vissers websitethat helps us lay this foundation.

Briefly, I want to mention a couple of things that we can take leverage in exploringintegral theory and LDP and hope that I do them justice. In any case, Mark, I leave it to

you to clarify and sharpen this so that we have a shared understanding as we proceed.The first of these is the idea of perspectives. This is a construct that suggests in each of1st, 2nd and 3rd persons there are two perspectives: the perspective from inside and theperspective from outside. The implication for LDP is that all of these perspectives arerelevant in any leadership event. By pursuing an integral approach we are suggestingthat the diversity of perspectives in theory and practice can be integrated.

Aside: Koller mentions two levels of integration. One is paradigmatic (anattempt to gain acquaintance with all of the methodologies of inquiry generally


21/30

available to us" using the principle of nonexclusion) and the other ismetaparadigmatic (how the methodologies fit together, the house rules, orrather, the guidelines for relations within and between paradigms" using theprinciples of enfoldment and enactment. Koller goes on to state, Enfoldmentimplies that along any developmental line, some truth claims are greaterthanothers, that a basic patter of transcend and include prevails." He continues,

Enactment reminds us that different methodologies bring forth different datadomains," that is, according to Wilber, the phenomena brought forth by varioustypes of human inquiry will be different depending on the quadrants, levels,lines, states, and types of the subjects bringing for the phenomena."

It seems to me that even in this brief summary, the core of a Wilberian integral approachhas been suggested. And this core is built on the idea that knowledge comes from threesources (also summarized by Koller): The senses, cognition and meaning making, andspirit. Thus, if we are to take an integral approach we will seek to treat these ways ofknowing concurrently in the processes of taking either paradigmatic ormetaparadigmatic strategies for LDP.

Now, how well Wilber accomplishes this (or not) in his modelling and mapping isanother subject. And I know that there are additional considerations to take aroundthese topics and I look forward to exploring those with you. For example, there are thequestions of mapping 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives and the representation of thedynamic relationships among them in any occurrence. But the question I would like tofocus on first is that of the three ways of knowing and their implications for how we buildLDP.

Mark: You raise a whole bunch of interesting issues here, Russ. I hardly know where tostart. With regard to the place of spirituality in integral theory its apparent thatspirituality has always been at the core of what Wilber has been on about for the past 30

years. All of his writings have had the very explicit purpose of describing how we mightmake sense of spirituality, and particularly contemplative traditions, in the light ofcontemporary science and philosophy. This was the thing that first attracted me to his

work in the early 1980s (after the recommendations of the Benedictine monk Dom BedeGriffith).

I think that Anselms famous dictum - faith seeks understandingis highly relevant tothis whole quest (I take faith" here not as meaning belief" but rather in the Paulinesense of the evidence of things not seen", that is, the intimation of the deep mystery in

which we all participate). We all, in some way, find profound meaning in the events andexperiences that make up our lives and it is definitively human that we try to understandthose events. In my opinion this sense-making endeavour is the driving force behind all

knowledge questsEast and West, ancient and modern and postmodern. Whether it beRichard Dawkins or Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, or Ramana Maharshi or Noam Chomskyitis the pursuit of knowledge in the face of deep mystery that drives us to explore newavenues of being and doing. This is why many people start reading Ken Wilber. Theyrespond to his obvious passion for constructing an explanatory system that includes bothspirituality and rationality. Of course for Wilber, spirituality has multiple meanings andit is not limited to any particular field of knowledge and so his sense-making effortsrange far and wide.


22/30

In terms of an integral approach to spirituality in the workplace and in leadership, Ithink that theres a huge potential there to explore new ways of seeing and enacting thespiritual. To this point integral philosophy has focused almost exclusively on individualand interior paths to spiritual experience. Theres been little recognition of sacramentaland relational forms of authentic spirituality, i.e. those forms of spirituality that have

been most associated with western religious traditions. I understand that this has

recently changed and Wilbers new work deals in some depth with relational forms ofspirituality. But, generally I think that integral approaches have placed too muchemphasis on the role of consciousness (Upper Left quadrant) in the development ofspiritualy. This is understandable given the neglect of these forms of spirituality in

western religious traditions. But its time we also recognised the role of what might becalled behavioural forms of spirituality (see Edwards, 1999).

In contemporary society in general, there is a neglect of not only of personal forms ofcontemplative meditation and but also of interpersonal, communal and sacramentalforms of spirituality. And it is precisely these forms of spirituality which have mostrelevance to our work lives. In integral terms, these are spiritualities that are to do withthe right-hand quadrants of personal and social behaviour and with social roles and

social structures. Such spiritualities have immediate relevance to our work lives and toour social lives as workers, neighbours, consumers, shoppers, employers, electors,community members, etc. It is in these exterior and collective realms of relationalspirituality, communal service, ethical practice, religious ritual, pilgrimage, andsacramental spirituality that we find the transformative power of community at work. Ina sense, these are exoteric forms of spirituality and I think they actually complement and

balance esoteric forms of spirituality. Contemplative meditation and contemplativeaction are two faces of the same spirit. Meditation without right livelihood" is a form ofself-indulgent quietism. Service" without contemplative awareness often leads to self-righteous arrogance or the type of overbearing egotism that we see among many TVevangelists.

In Catholicism (and Christianity in general for that matter) the dominant spiritual pathhas been the way of service, of giving through encounter with the other in relationship,through community and through love as a social practice. Most Western saints andrevered persons have come out of this tradition of a spirituality of service; a spiritualitythat is based on communal and relational action as a transformational journey. Themystic path of inner prayer has had a crucial but rather ancillary role to play in thedevelopment of spirituality in Western Catholicism. Even the contemplatives orders likethe Benedictines and Cistercians practice a cenobitic form of the contemplative life thathas as much to do with communal prayer as with personal meditation. There is a second-person, relational and social heart to the spirituality of the West that is not revealed tothe same degree in Eastern spiritualities. This communal path of mysticism can becontrasted in many way with the contemplative paths of the East. Wilbers writings on

spirituality come out of the mysticism of personal interior mediation and he has never, tomy knowledge, dealt with the ways that collective ritual and behavioural practices likeservice can lead to spiritual transformation. Both contemplative meditation andauthentic service are profound forms of practice that deal with the metamorphosis ofhuman identity. I am not speaking here about balancing ones inner and outer life, e.g.including physical exercise or community work or artistic expression as complements tomeditation. I mean that identity can be transformed not only though the transformationof consciousness but also through behavioural, cultural, and social forms of spiritualpractice and each of these paths offer authentic gateways into the human experience of


23/30

profound intimacy. The following table lists some of the transformative forms ofspirituality according to Wilbers quadrants model.

Table 1: A basic taxonomy of spiritual disciplines according to the four-quadrant model

I seem to be meandering into various topics here, Russ, so Ill circle back to some of thepoints you raised earlier. I think that integral philosophy to this point has emphasisedthe first-person individual forms of spirituality (UL) and neglected the second-personand communal forms (LL, LR, UR). There is a clear contrast in the emphases thatEastern and Western spiritual traditions make on different aspects of life. And, in manyimportant ways, I see them as complementing each other. Where the spiritualities of the

East focus on a first-person, experiential pathway to personal enlightenment, thespiritualities of the West are more concerned with a second-person, relational pathwayto social emancipation (in Catholic parlance a fellowship of the Holy Spirit"). One of thegreat privileges of living at this particular point in history is that these two fundamentalorientations towards spirituality, the first-person path to enlightenment of the East andthe second person path to emancipation of the West, are truly encountering each otherfor the first time as equals. I hope that what comes out of this meeting will be a more

balanced spirituality which recognises that the personal and the social, the intra-personal experiential being and the inter-personal of relational doing, are both essentialaspects of what we might regard as spiritual.

From this perspective, its clearly not adequate to regard spirituality as a personal

practice, as something to do with the interior transformation of the individual. Anintegral theory of spirituality needs to be much more than a theory about individuals. Itis also a matter of how the collective We" sees the divine in Us" and in You", and inAll of You" (including the natural world). Its a matter of how we discover andexperience the Spirit in the outsider, how the community gives of itself in order to knowitself.

The LArche communities founded by Jean Vanier are a living example of this type oftransformational community. This sort of spirituality happens wherever two or three


24/30

are gathered" and, I believe that there is an immense opportunity to bring thetransformational potential of this kind of collective spirituality into the workplace. The

workplace is really where most people expend much of their physical and mental energy.Why shouldnt it also be a place where we express spiritual energy? Organisations haveimmense power in todays world and if spirituality is going to mean anything in aglobalised world then it must stand for something in the world of our work. It needs to

be present in our encounters with others, in the quality and meaning of our work, in themoral and ethical value of our work, in our service and in what we produce. I think that

we Westerners often cherry pick the Eightfold Noble path of the Buddha. We tend tofocus on the meditative streams of right effort, mindfulness and concentration andignore the behavioural and social streams of right speech, right action and rightlivelihood. Right livelihood in particular is as much part of the way of Buddhism as anymeditational practice. If our work is involved in commercial practices or industries thatinjure any part of the spiral of life how can it be right livelihood". Our meditation needsto open up our awareness to the rightness" of our actions as workers, consumers, andcitizens in ways that confront our conventional identities. If it doesnt then it isnttransformative.

I might also say that workplace spirituality needs to be present in an organisationsactions (as much as in an individuals actions), through corporate social responsibility,ethical behaviour and sustainability. The good news is that we can all be leaders in thistransformative movement in and through our work on a daily basis in the decisions wemake, in the goals we set, in the types of relationships we form, in the consciousness we

bring to bear, and in the priorities we set for our own work, or that of our team, ourdepartment, or our organisation.

I feel that contemporary life is in desperate need for an integration of first and second-person (and, for that matter, the third person and indigenous spiritualities of Nature)that can guide the transformative development of people in community. All the greatreligious traditions have held these personal and relational potentials in different ways.

But, its also clear that contemporary Western religions have ignored and neglected theirwonderful traditions of first-person contemplative practices. Similarly, Eastern religionshave turned a blind eye to the second-person, social dimension of the human spirit, andhave focused almost solely on their meditation-based traditions to the detriment of thesocial and political emancipation of their communities. To put it in rather crude termsthe meeting of the spiritual East and the spiritual West is the meeting of esoteric formsof interior emancipation with exoteric forms of exterior emancipation respectively. Ihope that both traditions will be invigorated in that meeting and that organisations andleaders across the world can benefit from the outcomes that flow from this encounter.

I think that the organisational setting and the workplace are very interesting venues forseeing how this meeting of social and personal transformation will play out. In meeting

the challenges of economic, social, environmental and ethical responsibilities,organisational leaders (and organisational leadership as a distributed and participatoryreality) will need to combine both first and second person spiritualities in some way.Nancy Eggert has written a very interesting book on this topic (Eggert, 1998) and thereare probably more in a similar vein that you know of Russ. Whats your feeling as to howthe relationship between leadership and spirituality will develop in coming years?

Russ: This is an excellent overview of the subject, Mark. And how the relationshipbetween leadership and spirituality will develop is an important question, but one that I


25/30

dont feel qualified to answer. Rather, I am interested in how the inclusion of spiritualityin our understanding of leadership, the development of leaders and the practice ofleading influences the ability of different camps or theoretical orientations can dialogueand find common ground for building an integral approach to leadership. You see, thequestion I was really raising is more about behaviorist approaches to knowing that haveexcluded spirituality as a legitimate subject to include in understanding development

and leadership.

Recently, I have been witness to some discussions about the relationships betweenscientific method and spirituality. Nothing conclusive came from these, mind you, but

what I glean is that there are those who would resist including anything that is notobservable, right quadrants. Well, there are streams of thought in leadership that agree

with this.

Frank Visser (2006) has recently published a chapter in his new book. He seems to begetting at this same issue.

In their view of the world, human beings make a distinction between that which we can

know, and that which we cannot know, between the rational and the irrational, betweenthat which can be understood and that which remains a mystery, between the sacred andthe profane. Modern science, philosophy and religion in general agree on the location ofthe dividing line between the knowable and the unknowable, as we will see. In thetraditional worldview this dividing line is drawn elsewhere. Because of this, it enlargesour knowledge of the world enormously. The world as such is said to consist of many

worlds or spheres. When many spheres are believed in, the question arises as to thenature of the dividing lines between these spheres. Are they absolute, or only gradual?Some are seen as more important than others. In this chapter, we will focus on thesedividing lines.

It seems to me that this is in harmony with Wilbers notions of internal and external

views leading to integral methodological pluralism, although Visser may avoid some ofthe problems you have with the nature of Wilbers construct. I will let you speak to that.

My interest is in bringing all of these perspectives to the table in the development of ourunderstanding of leadership. I am looking for the path that brings the representatives ofdifferent perspectives into dialogue on the subject of leadership. By so doing we have anopportunity for mining the wealth of information and insights that each can contributeto building an integral approach, for fleshing out the quadrants of leadershipoccurrences, if you will. As Wilber says, No one is smart enough to be wrong all of thetime." Consequently, finding the value added of all theoretical and methodologicalapproaches seems to me to be important.

Yet, our rational orientations still cause us to long for Knowing." We want to find waysto make sure something is True" or Not True." Falsifiability is an example of one suchscientific principle that challenges us in the left quadrants. We can get to knowingthrough observation on the right side, but the only path to knowing on the left is throughthe collection of data that cannot be tested, other than comparisons of reports that mayor may not be comparable.

We can really jump headfirst into a maelstrom of material about science, spirituality,religion and scepticism in its Buddhist or its Western traditions. But that is not my


26/30

intention here. Correspondingly there is the mire of isms that plague these inquiries.Attention to the right quadrants but not the left may be seen as scientism or behaviorismor materialism. Attention to the left into spiritualism or simply be dismissed as New Age-ism.

Perhaps this raises the questions of the role of phenomenology in our inquiries, in our

knowing. This methodology is not about judging so much as it is about collecting data,observing and reporting on observations. Yet, what are the implications of advocatingsuch a methodology in a world of science and rationality? What issues of legitimacy areraised and how can we respond to them so that we bridge the distance rather than drive a

wedge. One way to answer such question is that we are trying to surface the assumptionsof our paradigms so that we can better discern how to bridge them, how to shift into ametapardigmatic stance and understanding.

Michael Shermer wrote as part of a description of a seminar on Science and Spiritualityhe led at Esalen Institute (just down the road from where I live!):

I defined the spirit as the pattern of information of which we are madeour genes,

proteins, memories, and personalities. In this sense, spirituality is the quest to know theplace of our spirit within the deep time of evolution and the deep space of the cosmos.

Although there are many paths to spirituality, I believe that science gives us the deepestpossible sense of grandeur and wonder about our place in time and space.

Well, there is no doubt that there has been a surge of interest in the last few decades atfinding the place where science and spirit cohabit. It seems to me that Shermerthisultimate skeptic!has defined spirit in a way that shifts us from the purely rational,scientific view of reality". Furthermore, I am struck with the apparent agreement

between Shermer and the primary element of the Perennial Philosophy that Wilber hascontinually promoted, namely the developmental, evolutionary aspect of humans and ofspirituality.

Again, raising this issue is not about questioning the internal/external,agentic/communal in integral theory or mapping. It is much more about the mappers,the theorists and how to bridge the gap, bridge the distances among them in a commoneffort to build an integrating framework and understanding of leadership. I raise thisquestion because in the material that we will be exploring I hope we are creating acontainer that can include, rather than, divide. How green" of me, I suppose. Exceptthat I think this can be done integrally.

The distinctions you point to related to the more individually and collectively orientedaspects of spirituality seem to me to be important elements for showing how an integralframework can include these different perspectives and methodologies without excludingany. Wilbers integral methodological pluralism provides an important example of how

to build an integrating framework.

These are important questions for other reasons as well. The inclusion of moral andethical considerations in leadership and the judgement of these across cultures are twoexamples. It seems to me that you are suggesting that for the first time we have anopportunity to integrate the diversity of moral and ethical positions that are based ondifferent spiritual and religious traditions. The same could be said of economic andpolitical ideologies: we are at a time in history where the potential for integrating andmore effectively managing the conflicts among diverse perspectives has never been


27/30

greater. First there is paradigmatic integration, the metapardigmatic integration. It isinto this realm that I look forward to our conversation moving in such a way that those

with diverse perspectives on the subject of leadership can participate throughengagement with this dialogue, as well as sharing their responses to it.

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not suggesting there is some idyllic place for us to get to

through this process. Rather, the integral approach provides us with a framework for building a path, a process of differentiation and integration, that offers a viablealternative to destroying human life on Earth. The study, development and practice ofleadership are essential to this process with the understanding that leadership is aboutthe collective, as well as the individual. It is about the agentic and communal. It is about

what can and cannot be measured. It is about the movie of unfolding and creating, notjust the snapshot of the hero, of the episode. It is about the dance, the dance of hope inan otherwise very, very scary world.

Mark: Wonderful and profound thoughts Russ. Your words here inspire me to ask youthis: From your own very extensive personal experience of leadership and ofinterviewing leaders, how do you see integral theory contributing to this issue of making

spirituality something that has weight in the behavioural world of organisational goals,performance management, and outcomes-based budgeting? In other words how do yousee integral approaches as making spirituality real" for the world of runningorganisations and doing business?

Russ: Seems you have turned the tables on me here. One of the reasons I raised thisissue with you is because I believe you have a commitment to a spiritual tradition. I donot. I do not have direct experience of any higher levels of spiritual development that Iam aware of. I dont know from direct experience that such a thing exists. Absent that,how can I know that claims to such states are anything less than delusional? Finedelusions to have, to be sure! Well, some of the time.

I look to role models, but I cant be sure what I am looking for. Is it the calm clarity of aDiane Hamilton (ILR April 2005, an Integral Institute trainer, student of Genpo Roshiand who has an active role in

17+ +Integral+Theory+Into+Integral+Action

Documents

Transcript of 17+ +Integral+Theory+Into+Integral+Action