See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241597929

Leadership and Adult Development Theories: Overviews and Overlaps

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS
7 2,057

2 authors:

Scott J. Allen Jon F. Wergin

John Carroll University Antioch University
42 PUBLICATIONS   329 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   327 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Deliberate Practice View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Scott J. Allen on 12 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Leadership and Adult Development Theories: Overviews and
Overlaps

By Scott J. Allen, John Carroll University and Jon F. Wergin, Antioch

University

Academic Citation: Scott J. Allen & Jon F. Wergin, “Leadership and Adult
Development Theories: Overviews and Overlaps,” Kravis Leadership Institute,
Leadership Review, Vol. 9, Winter 2009, pp. 3-19.

About the Authors: Scott J. Allen, Ph.D. is a visiting assistant professor of

business at John Carroll University and founder of the Center for Leader
Development (www.centerforleaderdevelopment.com) an organization created to
provide resources, tools, and services to businesses, organizations, and schools
seeking to build leadership capacity in their employees, members or students.
Scott’s most recent publication is Emotionally Intelligent Leadership: A Guide for
College Students, Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Jon F. Wergin, Ph.D., is professor of educational studies in the PhD Program in

Leadership and Change at Antioch University. His most recent publications
include Leadership in Place, Jossey-Bass, 2007, and “Inside-out Leadership,”
Liberal Education, Winter 2008.

E-mail: sallen@jcu.edu; jwergin@phd.antioch.edu

Keywords: Leadership Development, Adult Development

Abstract

Until relatively recently most developmental psychologists assumed that “development” ends with
adolescence, and that, like the physical self, one’s cognitive self then begins a long and steady
decline. Only in the past 30 years or so has the term “adult development” been taken seriously,
and the insights gained from this burgeoning research have implications for the development of
leaders. The authors focus on the work of Erik Erikson (1959), Daniel Levinson (1977), Paul
Baltes (1998), Albert Bandura (1977), and Robert Kegan (1982). Along with a description of each
theory, the authors examine potential linkage to leadership development, and conclude with
implications for leadership development programming.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 3
Adult Development Theory & Leadership Development

How people change and develop during their adult years is of fundamental
importance to leadership development. As Bass (1990) suggests, “The need to
learn more about what contributes to the self-confidence, self-determination, and
freedom from inner conflict of the charismatic leader is apparent. These quests
for greater understanding of personality and the personality dynamics that affect
leaders’ performance transcend situational considerations” (p. 898). What seems
like such an obvious truism has not always been so obvious, however. Until
relatively recently most developmental psychologists assumed that
“development” ends with adolescence, and that, like the physical self, one’s
cognitive self then begins a long and steady decline. Only in the past 30 years or
so has the term “adult development” been taken seriously, and the insights gained
from this burgeoning research have huge implications for the development of
leaders. Architects of leadership development opportunities are asking leaders to
expand their world views, become aware of their biases and prejudices, and
develop a wiser and more nuanced perspective of the problems they face. As we
will show in this article, meeting these challenges successfully is remarkably
similar to what developmental psychologists have indicated is key to leading a
fulfilling and productive life.

Exploring the links between adult development and leadership development is

important for at least three reasons. First, because participants in leadership
development programs enter the process at different points in their life
trajectories, their diverse experiences suggest diverse learning needs. Second,
most developmental theorists would agree that reflection on the people, events
and opportunities that have shaped us is a valuable and important activity as we
look forward. And third, leaders themselves need to understand that the forces
which motivate people – and by implication the leadership strategies likely to be
most effective – are a function of followers’ developmental histories.

Several authors have linked the adult development theory to leadership, including
Kuhnert & Lewis (1987), Zaleznik (1992), and Avolio (1999, 2005). In contrast
to the work of these authors, who have linked only one or two theories of adult
development to leadership and leadership development, a primary goal of this
article is to survey the relationships more broadly. Specifically, we will focus on
the work of Erik Erikson (1959), Daniel Levinson (1977), Paul Baltes (1998),
Albert Bandura (1977), and Robert Kegan (1982). We will describe each theory,
discuss its potential linkage to leadership development, and conclude with
implications for leadership development programming.

Erik Erikson and Daniel Levinson

Erikson’s theory of identity development (e.g., 1959) was the first to suggest that
adults can, in fact, “develop” – that is, change in ways that lead to greater
complexity or quality of life. Erikson asserts that for adults to achieve an

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 4
optimum quality of life they must face these three dilemmas, in order: (1)
intimacy vs. isolation, (2) generativity vs. self-absorption and stagnation, and (3)
ego integrity vs. despair. Intimacy vs. isolation is the dilemma typically
encountered in late adolescence: it focuses on the individual’s ability to establish
deep and meaningful relationships with other human beings. The second stage of
adulthood is generativity vs. self-absorption and stagnation. Generativity is the
“interest in establishing and guiding the next generation” (Erikson, 1959, p. 103).
Ego integrity vs. despair, usually encountered late in life, is the acceptance of
one’s life cycle and all that has comprised the journey.

Daniel Levinson’s theory (The Seasons of a Man’s Life, 1978, and Seasons of a
Woman’s Life, 1997) is similar to Erikson’s in that he suggests that adults move
through stages (or “seasons”). Levinson proposed ten stages.
1. Early adult transition 1-22
2. Entering the adult world 22-28
3. Age 30 transition 28-33
4. Culmination of early adulthood: settling down 33-40
5. Midlife transition 40-45
6. Entering middle adulthood 45-50
7. Age 50 transition 50-55
8. Culmination of middle adulthood 55-60
9. Late-adult transition 60-65
10. Late adulthood 65+

Like Erikson, Levinson asserted that an underlying order exists in the life course.
But whereas Erikson suggested that happiness depends on one’s ability to
negotiate these stages successfully, Levinson simply viewed the seasons as
common difficulties associated with a certain age: “the tasks of one period are not
better or more advanced than those of another, except in the general sense that
each period builds upon the work of earlier ones and represents a later phase in
the cycle” (1978, p. 320).

The work of Levinson and Erikson has two important implications for leadership
development programs. First, the way an individual responds to a particular
program strategy may depend upon the stage or “season” that person is in and
how he or she is dealing with its associated challenges. Someone who is in
Levinson’s “entering the adult world” stage, for example, is more likely to look to
program leaders as potential mentors, while those who are in “midlife transition”
are more likely to want a program that will help them reflect on where they’ve
been and where they want to go next. Second, individuals who are “stuck” at a
particular stage may need help working through that stage before they are able to
learn anything new very effectively. For instance, participants who are stuck in
self-absorption and stagnation may need to develop the power of generativity
before they are able to appreciate their potential leadership gifts.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 5
Paul Baltes’ Lifespan Approach

Some psychologists, most notably Baltes (1998), have argued that understanding
adult development requires a greater understanding of how humans adapt to life
circumstances, and that this - not how an individual progresses through
predetermined life stages - is what leads (or not) to development. Such an
approach would appear to hold promise for leadership development, as the life
experiences that shape the development of the person should also, therefore,
affect how that person leads.

Baltes and his colleagues theorize that development occurs as a function of what
they call “adaptive capacity,” or the extent to which an individual is able to make
positive changes as a response to adversity. Naturally, the crises in an
individual’s life are likely to vary according to where that person is in the life
span. Up through early adulthood one’s ability to deal with environmental
hazards are largely a function of evolutionary selection; but as one gets older,
one’s “cultural” resources become more important. These include cognitive
resources, motivational dispositions, socialization strategies, and access to
environmental resources such as economic systems and medical technology.
Since no one has equal access to all these resources, Baltes, et al. (1999) suggest
that effective adult development depends on the extent to which the individual
optimizes available resources and uses these to compensate for deficits in other
areas.

Some who write about leadership development have at least implicitly adopted
Baltes’ ideas. For example, Avolio and Gibbons (1989) assert,

the development of charismatic or transformational leaders is best

characterized as a life span process of change with early as well as later
life events affecting the development of leadership potential…It suffices
to say that companies and/or individuals who rely principally on one or
even a few developmental strategies for building transformational leaders
will probably be disappointed, since the most successful development
programs are those that reflect the individual and his or her unique needs
and strengths. The critical elements making up the chemistry of a
charismatic/transformational leader appear to vary across individual
leaders. (p. 291)

One might infer from the above quote that an infinite variability exists in how
leaders develop. However, in their research, Gibbons and Avolio (1989) identified
seven elements as antecedents to transformational leadership.

1. Leaders are from families that have high expectations of their children.
Further, they may have been given a large amount of responsibility in the
family and were expected to excel in many different arenas.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 6
 2. The “family situation, conditions and circumstances may be difficult and
often demanding, but significant resources, both individual and systemic,
are available to avoid being overwhelmed” (p. 289). In other words, there
are high standards and expectations, but the resources are made available
for individuals to succeed.
3. Leaders successfully learn to deal with their emotions and feelings. They
are able to work through disappointments and conflict and, if this is not
learned early on, it must be learned later in life.
4. The leader must have had a variety of leadership positions in a number of
settings and have a strong desire to engage in developmental work, even
as an adult. These individuals are always working to improve themselves.
5. They are always learning in a deliberate and conscious way. As Avolio
and Gibbons (1989) suggest, “personal development is a primary work
goal as well as a life goal” (p. 290).
6. Transformational leaders take advantage of workshops and meetings with
influential people or mentors.
7. Leaders view all experiences as learning experiences and show a strong
desire to reflect on their experiences and incorporate them into their
development. Burns (1978), Bennis and Nanus (1985), and Bass (1985),
discuss this attribute in their writing as well and emphasize its importance
to leadership and its development.

Avolio (1994) suggests that invitro (formal workshop training) and invivo
(accumulated life events) learning must be distinguished when researching
leadership. According to Avolio, the “natural tendencies” which are at times
attributed to leaders may not be natural, and simply learned along the way. Avolio
& Gibbons (1989), suggest that development is the result of many smaller life
experiences that accumulate over time.

The thinking of Avolio and Gibbons has a number of implications for leadership
development. First, they emphasize the importance of the experiences an
individual brings to leadership development and the need to examine these
experiences. Doing so will increase the self-awareness of participants and help
them understand what events, people and experiences have brought them to their
current point.

A second point of emphasis is the notion that leadership development is a lifelong

process, not something occurring over a period of a weekend or even a few years.
By viewing leadership development through this lens, one can experience life as a
leadership development opportunity. Life is the classroom, and helping others
“see” this may foster development. A final implication for leadership
development is the love of learning. The curious mind loves to learn and will
often open itself to new experiences, new ways of thinking and new ways of
knowing. The love of learning may be the most important attribute in the
development of leaders.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 7
Social Learning Theory and Self Efficacy

Albert Bandura, the founder of social learning theory, suggests that children learn
behavior (leadership, aggression, etc.) based on what is modeled in their
environment. Bandura (1977) asserts, “Learning would be exceedingly laborious,
not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own
actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned
observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of
how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information
serves as a guide for action” (p. 22).

Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway (2000) found that leadership development can
be explained in a social learning framework. More specifically, adolescents tend
to mirror what is displayed by their fathers and tend to display these
characteristics with their peers. The authors also found that transformational
attributes are displayed by adolescents who seem to “be capable of evoking effort
from peers and of being perceived as satisfying and effective leaders” (p. 222).
Zacharatos and others (2000) found that, if attributes of transformational
leadership exist in youth, they may have a major effect on later leadership in
adulthood. The authors determined further that children who perceived their
parents to be transformational tended to display these same behaviors themselves,
and were more likely thought of as “transformational” by their peers and coaches.

Self-efficacy is belief or confidence in one’s abilities to work through various

situations. According to Avolio and Gibbons (1989), developing individuals’ self-
efficacy can have a major effect on their growth and development. This can be
accomplished by recognizing “previous accomplishment, providing emotional
challenges, conveying high expectations, and modeling appropriate strategies for
success” (p. 298). Moreover, a leader can develop self-efficacy in followers by
building experiences that result in incremental success, providing experiences that
are emotionally challenging, communicating and persuading subordinates of the
importance of the task and modeling appropriate strategies for attaining successful
results.

Social learning theory and self efficacy are important to the discussion of adult
development for reasons specific to each one. First of all, by modeling those
around them, people are products of the culture within which they exist and have
learned what is socially acceptable within their organizations and communities.
Leadership development programs must therefore help participants better
understand how they have been shaped by powerful and influential people in their
environment and how it affects them and others within in it. This isn’t as
straightforward as it seems, as the “real” culture is often different from the
“espoused” culture. As Argyris (1997) notes:

Human beings hold two different master designs. The first incorporates
the theories humans espouse about dealing effectively with others. The

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 8
 second design involves the theories of action they use (i.e., their theories-
in-use). Whenever any issue is dealt with that activates embarrassment or
threat, we have found a systemic discrepancy between the espoused
theories and the theories-in-use and a systemic unawareness of the
discrepancy while individuals are producing it. (p. 10)

In the end, alignment of the espoused theory and the theory-in-use is a

challenging endeavor. A culture that values communication, honesty, ethical
behavior, and transparency may not accept individuals with differing values (and
vice versa). Individuals creating leadership development initiatives should also
remember the role that self-efficacy plays in the process. As Csikszmenthalyi’s
theory of “flow” (1990) reminds us, any learning environment should ideally
contain a balance of challenge and support. Too much of the former creates
anxiety and a desire to escape; too much of the latter leads to lethargy and
boredom. Creating an environment with small wins and a focus on past
accomplishments can provide a culture of hope and efficacy for participants. In
turn, these participants can then become models for their own environments.

Constructive Developmentalism

The idea that healthy psychological development requires a balance between

opposing forces isn’t limited to flow theory. In The Evolving Self (1982), Robert
Kegan suggested that adults are faced with a constant struggle between two
dialectic forces, connection and independence. People need to feel accepted and
nurtured by others who are important to them and by the culture in which they
live; they also need a sense of autonomy and an ability to act successfully on their
own, much like Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy. Because the needs for
connection and independence can never exist comfortably together, first one tends
to dominate, then the other, what Kegan calls “fundamental alternation.”
Development occurs as individuals shift back and forth. Those who are most
successful with this gradually appreciate the importance of having a strong
personal identity within connection - and independence surrounded by a nurturing
community.

Back in the 80s one of us participated in an extensive investigation into the nature
of faculty satisfaction in colleges and universities (Caffarella, et al., 1989), and
our findings confirmed Kegan’s ideas. We found that faculty members who were
most satisfied with their lives and work were able to describe what we later called
a “niche”: a sense of place within work-lives and/or home-lives that was theirs,
and that was honored by those around them. A sense of niche meant that the
faculty member felt confident that he or she both had something unique to
contribute (independence) and that this contribution was valued by the
surrounding culture (connection).

Implications for leadership development are obvious. Evolving leaders have to

appreciate the importance of balancing forces in their lives – challenge and

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 9
support, connection and independence. Concentrating too heavily on developing
leaders who will “transform” their organizations will result in an over-emphasis
on strength and power; focusing too heavily on developing leaders who will
understand and identify with the organizational culture will result in an over-
emphasis on feel-good, palliative approaches. The former, in turn, leads to
autocracy, the latter to aimlessness. Instead, leadership development programs
should emphasize the dialectic nature of their work – that the art of leadership lies
at least in part on one’s ability to balance and negotiate these opposing life forces.

How does this happen? Kegan & Lahey (1984) suggest that development is the
ability to make meaning of experiences – regardless of age. How individuals
interpret a situation or an event is dependent upon their developmental level.
According to Day (2004), “Individuals at higher levels of development are able to
use a greater number of knowledge principles to construct their experiences
(differentiation) and to make more interconnections among these principles
(integration). This results in a broader perspective on how things are interrelated
(inclusiveness)” (p. 43). Therefore, individuals’ ways of knowing guide their lives
and actions. According to Kegan & Lahey (1984) this does not link to age,
because three different adults could experience the same event and interpret the
happenings in three different ways. Development is “a process of outgrowing one
system of meaning by integrating it (as a subsystem) into a new system of
meaning. What was ‘the whole’ becomes ‘part’ of a new whole” (1984, p. 203).
Kegan (1994) calls this the “subject-object” relationship. According to Kegan

‘Object’ refers to those elements of our knowing or organizing that we can

reflect on, handle, look at, be responsible for, relate to each other, take
control of, internalize, assimilate and otherwise operate upon. All of these
expressions suggest that the element of knowing is not the whole of us; it
is distinct enough from us that we can do something with it.

‘Subject’ refers to those elements of our knowing that we are identified

with, tied to, fused with, or embedded in. We have object, we are subject.
We cannot be responsible, in control of, or reflect upon that which is
subject. Subject is immediate; object is mediate. (p. 32)

According to Kuhnert & Lewis (1987), “understanding the process through which
people construct meaning out of their experiences may advance our knowledge of
how leaders understand, experience, and approach the enterprise of leading” (p.
650). For example, leaders who have little awareness of their emotions and how
they affect others are subject to these behaviors; they do not have control or in
some cases, the ability to reflect upon their actions. Kuhnert & Lewis (2001)
describe it this way: “What is subject for some is object for those at higher stages
of development” (p. 651). Kegan’s theory outlines five distinct stages of
development but, within the context of this discussion, we highlight three:
imperial (stage two), interpersonal (stage three) and institutional (stage four).

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 10
The “imperial stage” (stage two) finds individuals focused heavily on individual
needs and goals. An example offered by Kegan (1982) is that if individuals at this
stage do something wrong, they are likely filled with worries of “being caught”
rather than guilt. Kuhnert & Lewis (2001) posit that leaders at this stage only have
the capacity to work out of the transactional leadership style, focusing on task
completion and compliance, organizational rewards and punishments. The authors
further suggest that “stage two leaders may say that they aspire to higher order
transactions (e.g., team spirit, mutual respect), but from the perspective of
cognitive/developmental theory they have not developed the organizing processes
(subject) necessary for understanding or participating in mutual experiences and
shared perceptions” (p. 652). Leaders at this stage do not have the capacity to
reflect on their agendas. They are their agendas.

At the “interpersonal stage” (stage three), leaders focus on personal needs and the
needs of others. They can hold their own interests and the interests of others
simultaneously. In addition, stage three leaders are more likely to connect with
those around them and experience increased levels of trust, connectedness and
commitment to others. According to Kuhnert & Lewis (2001), “whereas the stage
two leaders negotiate with their employers to satisfy personal agendas, stage three
leaders sacrifice their personal goals in order to maintain connections with their
employers. Thus, the key transactions for the stage three leaders are mutual
support, expectations, obligation and rewards” (p. 652). Although still working
out of transactional leadership style, stage three leaders are moving away from
their own needs to an interconnection between their needs and the needs of others
or, in Kegan’s terms, between connection and independence.

Stage four is the “institutional stage.” Kegan (1982) suggests that individuals at
this stage have developed a consistency across arenas, developing their own
identity. This self-identity and reliance on personal standards and commitments is
the hallmark of stage four. Stage four leaders, in a sense, “stand on their own.” As
Kegan (1982) suggests, they move from “I am my relationships” to “I have
relationships” (p. 100). Such leaders work through what Burns (1978) might call
“end values.” At this stage of development, leaders may make their decisions out
of a strong set of values and principles rather than goals or relationships.
Moreover, the individual has the capacity to reflect and modify these values
(Kegan & Lahey, 1984). According to Kuhnert & Lewis (1987), “unless leaders
have progressed to stage four personality structures, they will be unable to
transcend the personal needs and commitments of others and they will be unable
to pursue their own end values” (p. 653). Because of this, Kuhnert & Lewis assert
that transformational leadership begins at this level. Although pieces exist in stage
three, it is here where an individual acts holistically out of a place of
transformational leadership. Kuhnert & Lewis (1987) assert that “transforming
leadership is made possible when leaders’ end values (internal standards) are
adopted by followers, thereby producing changes in the attitudes, beliefs and
goals of followers” (p. 653).

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 11
The constructive/developmental view of leadership has a number of implications
for the study of leadership and leadership development. First, Day (2004)
suggests that individuals at lower levels of development will likely construct
leadership out of a place of dominance: a transactional place. According to Day
(2004), “this is not a wrong way to construct leadership, but it is inherently
limiting because an individual leader is expected to act as a sort of hero” (p. 44).
A more sophisticated level of leadership requires interpersonal influence, which
may be more inclusive and allow the leader more flexibility. Helping leaders
understand and examine where they work from develops self-awareness and
provides additional tools for success.

Second, according Avolio and Gibbons (1989), “A leader who operates at a lower
developmental level than his or her followers cannot transform followers to a
higher level than his or her own. Conversely, a leader who views the world from a
developmental level that is not understood by his or her followers will also have
difficulty transforming followers to his or her way of thinking” (p. 294). The
leader may need to be aware of how followers make meaning and approach the
conversation or relationship from their level. This is an important because
leadership development initiatives should meet people where they are; one size
simply cannot fit all. A program developed and constructed at stage four may
sound and be completely foreign to an individual at stage two. The concepts of
stage four may be a jump. Day and Halpin (2003) agree and suggest “there is an
inherent asymmetry in the development process in which those at higher levels of
complexity can understand the thinking of those at lower levels (if motivated to
do so), but those at lower levels cannot understand the thinking of those at higher
development levels” (p. 14).

A third implication for leadership development is the concept of meaning-making

and perception. VanVelsor and Drath (2005) exemplify this notion through the
following suggestion: “what he learns will be framed and limited by the ways in
which he can make what he learned meaningful. Everything learned will cohere
within that developmental framework” (p. 396). Each person views the world
through a different lens depending on life experience and developmental level.
This concept alone can help leaders make better sense of their situation and the
environmental context. For instance, leaders who work out of stage three may
begin to understand why some have a difficult time understanding them literally
and conceptually. If surrounded by a number of competitive stage two team
members, it will be a challenging task to work together and truly develop a sense
of team; team members will be too busy thinking about their own needs.

Finally, Kegan’s thinking can increase the self-awareness of the leader. Learning
about this and other theories allows leaders an opportunity to reflect on their own
developmental stages and how this affects them and their associates.

Adult Development and Leadership Development – Suggestions for Practice

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 12
By now the reader may think that a primary reason why adult development theory
has been mostly ignored in leadership development programs is the sheer number
of different – and seemingly conflicting – theories. Our position, however, is that
these theories conflict only in perspective, and are in fact complementary. If so, a
careful synthesis of them could lead to important advances in practice. The
relationships between adult development theory and leadership development have
huge implications for practitioners. A leadership development curriculum that
had adult development theory as a solid foundation would have the following
elements:

Pre-assessment of developmental issues or stages

A natural starting place for leadership development programs is to assess the

developmental level of participants. This may be as simple as asking participants
to situate themselves in the developmental process. For instance, what are the life
experiences that have shaped their current world view? What have been the
watershed learning moments and how have these moments informed their current
world view? How does age, race, gender, ability, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status inform their current reality? How do all of these variables
both enhance and limit the individual when leading others? What are the great
gifts that each of these perspectives/orientations bring and what limitations do
they pose?

Another approach may be a more formal assessment of development level. For

instance, Kegan and his colleagues developed the “subject-object” interview to
help determine an individual’s epistemology (Lahey et al., 1988). The interview is
an hour long and according to the authors, “contents are generated from real life
experience of the interviewee; and involve emotional as well as cognitive, and
intrapersonal aspects of psychological organization” (para. XX). Day (2003) notes
that there are 10 standardized questions used to “elicit verbal data on how the
participant organizes intra- and interpersonal experiences. Interview protocols are
scored according to 21 epistemological distinctions in which five gradations
between each epistemology (or way of knowing) are possible. Interrater reliability
estimates are purported to range from .75 to .90, and test-retest reliability was
estimated to be .83” (p. 17).

Recognition of the importance of perspective-building as well as skill-building

Along with a baseline assessment of participants’ attention needs to be paid to the

content of the programming. There needs to be a balance of skill building with
perspective building. Conger & Benjamin (1998) suggest that “that the most
essential competencies should be embedded in an organization’s reward and
performance measurement systems if they are to have any long term impact. The
challenge then becomes one of recognizing their limitations and updating both the
competencies and corresponding organizational measures as leadership needs
shift” (p. 57-58). Skill-building “demands that leadership abilities be broken

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 13
down into actual mechanical processes that you and I can perform” (Conger,
1992, p. 176). Conger asserts that certain aspects of skills such as communication
and motivation can be taught. London (1999) suggests that leadership skills
should include elements such as “envisioning the future, establishing goals,
communicating, rallying support for the vision, planning for its implementation
and putting the plans in place” (p. 22). To do it right, skill building programs take
a great deal of time and should be reinforced back on the job; Conger (1992)
asserts that “a four or five-day program can introduce the basics of a skills to
participants, but cannot truly develop it for most of them” (p. 179).

Along with skill-building, personal growth or perspective building should be

given a high priority. Personal growth and self-awareness permeates the literature
on leadership development. Personal growth programs are “based, generally, on
the assumption that leaders are individuals who are deeply in touch with their
personal dreams and talents and who will act to fulfill them” (Conger, 1992, pp.
45-46). Essentially, the purpose of these programs is to increase self-awareness
and emphasize self-exploration and perspective transformation. Avolio &
Gibbons (1989) assert that, “after getting their own personal shops in order,
charismatic/transformational leaders are free to look outward and beyond the time
period in which they operate to solve significant problems” (p. 285). The theory is
that the self-aware leader will be better prepared to work with others.

Intentional modeling behavior

As we noted earlier, Bandura’s social learning theory (1977) has important

implications for leadership development. Students not only gain knowledge and
fresh perspectives from teachers, they also, usually unconsciously, emulate their
teachers’ behavior: they begin to imagine how they would approach a problematic
situation in a way that is similar to what the teacher is demonstrating. In a
leadership development program, the teacher/leader is not only imparting
information, he or she is modeling leadership itself, and must be extra careful not
to be incongruent. Giving a lecture on principles of “distributed” or “lateral”
leadership will not be very effective by itself; students will have a much more
powerful learning experience if they see distributed leadership modeled in the
classroom.

Focus on self-efficacy, sensitivity to balance between challenge and support

As suggested building an individual’s self-efficacy can have a major effect on

their growth and development (Avolio & Gibbons, 1989). The Center for Creative
Leadership (CCL) suggests a process of assessment, challenge and support
(McCauley, Moxley & Van Velsor, 1998). CCL suggests that these elements,
when combined, provide for the most powerful experience for the learner. As we
have suggested, assessment helps participants become more aware of their
strengths, weaknesses and how others perceive them. Along with assessment,
challenging experiences help individuals develop and grow. Challenging

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 14
experiences force people out of their comfort zones and into new places. Some
would call these disorienting dilemmas; situations that force individuals to reflect,
think and act in new ways (Mezirow, 2002). Finally, a supportive learning
environment is a must. It is the only way that trust can be developed allowing
learners the opportunity to take chances and experiment with new approaches.

Continued emphasis for participants on leader and leadership development

Prior to reviewing the specific content it is important to attend to an insight by

Day (2001); the differences between leader development and leadership
development. According to Day (2001), “In the case of leader development, the
emphasis typically is on individual-based knowledge, skills and abilities
associated with formal leadership roles” (p. 584); in other words, leader
development is development at an individual level. It is concerned with
developing the capacities of individuals within an organization in an effort to help
them better take on organizational roles. Day (2001) mentions self-awareness,
self-regulation, and self motivation as focus competencies of this level.
Leadership development, on the other hand, focuses on “building and using
interpersonal competence…key components of interpersonal competences include
social awareness and social skills” (p. 585). In other words, leadership
development is the interaction between the individual and the larger (social) and
organizational environment. According to Day, leadership development is a much
more challenging goal than individual leader development. In the end, Day &
O’Conner (2003) assert that there is a need for both leadership development and
leader development in organizations.

Acknowledgment that development requires intentional change, and change

isn’t easy

Why is it that we often want to change, but find that we are unable to do so? Why
is change so difficult even when everyone and everything is aligned around the
goal? The reason is that most of us have built-in immunity to change.

Based on their research in adult development theory, Robert Kegan and Lisa
Lahey have developed an innovative teaching methodology and activity called
Immunity to Change. According to Kegan

We think we have discovered a powerful dynamic that tends to keep us

exactly where we are, despite sincere, even passionate, intentions to
change. A recent study concluded that doctors can tell heart patients that
they will literally die if they do not change their ways, and still only about
one in seven will be able to make the changes. These are not people who
want to die. They want to live out their lives, fulfill their dreams, watch
their grandchildren grow up—and, still, they cannot make the changes
they need to in order to survive.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 15
 “If wanting to change and actually being able to are so uncertainly linked
when our very lives are on the line,” Kegan asks, “why should we expect
that even the most passionate school leader’s aspiration to improve
instruction or close achievement gaps is going to lead to these changes
actually occurring?”

What this implies, says Kegan, is that more knowledge is needed about the
change process itself, and more understanding of the “immunity to change.
(http://www.gse.harvard.edu/impact/stories/faculty/kegan.php, para. 3, 4,
5)

This activity is an awareness-building exercise that makes explicit that

which is currently implicit. Immunity to Change helps participants better
understand their competing commitments and truly begin to understand
the motivation behind behavior and why change, with all of the best
intentions, can be so difficult to master.

According to Kegan and Lahey the primary objective to the Immunity to Change
exercise is to: create insight into why change is so difficult – bringing to light
hidden barriers. The Immunity to Change exercise is one way to help participants
move through the different stages of development. In essence, its goal is to move
that which is “subject” to “object.” The exercise itself uses a four column
Immunity Map which participants complete in response to a series of questions.
The exercise moves quickly and each individual “constructs” his or her personal
map. The basic flow of the exercise is that participants are asked a question,
given time to think, invited to check in with a neighbor and have a discussion as a
group. Then the next question is asked. The exercise takes (at a minimum) two
hours to complete. Ground rules are established for the partnerships and
participants are told that they can choose whether to go “deep” or “shallow.”

Change is a difficult concept for humans to approach, endure and facilitate. After
all, if only one in seven patients are willing to change their behavior and the
consequence is potential death, what is the likelihood for change in the average
three day leadership course? An understanding of how and why humans change
behavior is an important attribute of any leadership development initiative.

Adult Development - Conclusion

According to Heifetz & Linsky (2002), “Habits, values, and attitudes, even
dysfunctional ones, are part of one’s identity. To change the way people see and
do things is to challenge how they define themselves” (p. 27). Adult development
theory helps us examine what has shaped us throughout life – how our unique
combination of family and work experiences, relationships, and life events has
made us who we are.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 16
Understanding this central idea can be of great benefit to leaders. First, they will
be better able to “get their own shops in order,” and as Bass (1985) suggests, be in
a better position to work out of the end values. Second, leaders will better
understand how workplace challenges can be motivating for some and dispiriting,
or worse, for others. And third, leaders will realize that significant change is
likely over the arc of a person’s career. People do not simply gain skills and
experience over the years; they change as people with significantly different
motives and aspirations. Recognizing that organizational “deadwood” may
simply be those who want and need something different from their work would
save countless hours of unhappiness and lost productivity. If it’s true that adult
development is the single most ignored topic in leadership, then finally paying
attention to it could be one of the most important improvements leadership
development programs could make.

References

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978). Theory in practice: Increasing professional

effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. (1997). Learning and teaching: A theory of action perspective.

Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 9-26.

Avolio, B. (1994). The “natural”: Some antecedents to transformational

leadership. International Journal of Public Administration, 17(9), 1559-
1581.

Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. (2005). Leadership development in balance. Mahwah, New Jersey;

Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Avolio, B. & Gibbons, T. (1989). Developing transformational leaders: A life

span approach. In Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (Eds.), Charismatic
Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness (p. 276-
308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baltes, P.B., Staudinger, U.M., and Lindenberg, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology:

Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, 471-507.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:

The Free Press.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 17
Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and
managerial applications (3rd edition). New York: The Free Press.

Bennett, B. (2003a). Developmental coaching. Training Strategies for Tomorrow,

17(4),16-19.

Bennis W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper and Row.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Caffarella, R.S., Armour, R.A., Fuhrmann, B.S., and Wergin, J.F.: Mid-career
Faculty: Reforming the Perspective. Review of Higher Education, 12:
403-410, 1989.

Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. (2001). Transformational leadership

and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521-1534.

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New

York: Harper and Row

Day, D. (2004). Leadership development. In Goethals, G., Sorenson, G., Burns, J.

(Eds.). The Encyclopedia of Leadership, Volume 2. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Day, D., & Halpin, S. (2001). Leadership development: A review of industry best
practices (Technical Report No. 1111). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army
Research Institute.

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.

Heifetz, R. A. & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Cambridge, MA: \

Harvard Business Review.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard.

Kegan, R. and Lahey, L. (1984). Adult leadership and adult development: A

constructivist view. In Kellerman, B. (Ed.), Leadership: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives (p. 199-229). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 18
 work: Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Kuhnert, K., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership:

A constructive/Developmental Analysis. Academy of Management
Review, 12(4), 648-657.

Lahey, L., Souvaine E., Kegan, R., Goodman, R., & Felix, S. (1988) A Guide to
the Subject-Object Interview: Its Administration and Interpretation.
Cambridge: Subject-Object Research Group.

Niemes, J. (2002). Discovering the values of executive coaching as a business

transformation tool. Journal of Organizational Excellence, Autumn 2002,
61-69.

Tobias, L. L. (1996). Coaching executives. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 48(2), 87–95.

Van Velsor, E. & Drath, W. H. (2005). A lifelong developmental perspective on

leader development. In McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.), The
center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development (p.
383-414). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1996a). Executive coaching: A continuum of

roles. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 124–
133.

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. (2000). Development and effects of
transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2),
211-226.

Zaleznik, A. (1992). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business
Review, March-April, 126-135.

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 9, Winter 2009 19

View publication stats