This posting is longer than our usual ones because we’re trying to bring light to a distinction that’s absolutely critical in the leadership development field. Not understanding this distinction severely limits equipping leaders to handle today’s challenges. So please bear with us. This really, really matters. Even most Training & Development professionals are unaware of this crucial distinction.
We’ll be making the distinction between leadership competencies and leadership capacity. We’re giving a short introduction here, and then we’ll clarify and expand during the rest of the article.
Leadership competencies are generally presented as leadership behaviors and skills that, when developed, can contribute to superior performance. For now we’ll use the example of “collaboration.” It’s clear that collaborative leaders generally drive higher engagement and generate greater and more sustainable results.
Leadership capacity is the option to think and then act in ways that are more effective during times of VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) and rapid change. Increasing leadership capacity is known as Vertical Development.
We’ll be describing a map of adult development applied to leadership. This map extends the original research on child development. Just as children keep changing “operating systems” throughout their young lives, as adults we have the option to keep developing later-stage “operating systems” throughout our lives.
Think of leadership competencies as software that’s run on a computer. Those competencies become increasingly more effective using more advanced operating systems. Leadership capacity is about the structure of our thinking, not what we think about but rather how we think about it.
What’s different at later stages of adult development? As we’ll explore in more detail below, leaders are more reflective. They think more about what they’re doing and how to do it better. They’re better able to take perspectives (putting themselves in others’ shoes) and to seek perspectives (understanding how others see things). They are better able to integrate multiple factors, and thus make decisions that incorporate the perspectives of different stakeholders (employees, customers, etc.), multiple timelines (short-term, long-term), etc. They are likely to have greater self-awareness, and allow themselves to be more vulnerable, acknowledging that they don’t have all the answers and that they need the perspectives of others to optimize results. This generally allows them to be better at developing others, and at creating contexts imbued with safety and trust that then generate better solutions to complex problems.
As a simple example, imagine a group of leaders attend a workshop about collaboration. One leader tends to see things only in terms of his own perspective. He assumes he knows the “right” way to do things, sees the world in terms of “one right answer,” has low self-awareness, and has difficulty admitting to himself or others when he’s not sure of something. Imagine how limited his collaboration will be. He may ask superficial questions of others, mostly to get their buy-in to what he’s already decided, perhaps trying to act interested in what they have to say, but others know better than to really question him. Another leader knows that complex situations require the integration of multiple perspectives, has no problem exhibiting vulnerability by saying, “I don’t know all the answers” and provides a context that makes it clear that all perspectives are valued and welcomed. There is no fear that ideas will be dismissed or discounted or ridiculed. Imagine how rich the collaboration will be, how engaging and exciting and generative.
More than half of all leaders think like the first leader we described above. And only about 10% think like the second leader. That is a real problem, and that’s what this article is about.
Leaders who think at earlier stages of development will out of necessity over-simplify complex problems. They’ll look for “one right answer” or “who is to blame.” Their approaches to these complex problems are inherently limited. And likely they won’t know it.
A quick summary of this introduction before we get into more detail.
1. Leadership competencies are leadership behaviors and skills.
2. Leaders function at different Levels of Development, and competencies are understood and expressed differently at later-stage levels. At later-stage capacity levels they generate more engagement, better and more sustainable results, and in general do more good for those in the world including those in their organizations.
3. Vertical Development focuses on increasing the capacity to use any competencies more effectively, and thus the capacity to lead more effectively during times of increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity (VUCA) and rapid change.
4. Some competencies aren’t even viable until a leader reaches a certain stage of development. For example, if a leader isn’t able to take or seek the perspectives of others well, how can that leader be an even minimally effective coach?
5. Therefore, depending on how a competency is defined, there may be a “capacity gap” for a particular leader to be able to embody that competency at a minimally effective level. That is, until that leader is able to think at a later-stage capacity level, s/he will be unable to demonstrate that competence, no matter how much s/he is rewarded, encouraged, or punished.
6. Whatever the competency, it will always be expressed more effectively by leaders thinking at a later-stage capacity level.
7. We need to add one more important factor. The ability for a leader to actually do something depends on more than competency and capacity. This is one definition of capability. In addition to those factors, it also depends on the context in which that leader is leading. What resources are available? What behaviors are allowed and/or rewarded in that organization? What are the competencies and capacities of his or her team? Imagine two leaders, identical in their competency and capacity. One is in a situation with very limited resources, a hiring and spending freeze, and has legacy employees who were promoted for tenure rather than ability. The other has a large budget and the ability to have the right people in the right roles. Their current capability to take effective action will be different. In this article we’re limiting ourselves to the distinction between competency and capacity (that’s enough!) but it’s important to understand the impact of context as well on capability, when capability is defined as the ability to take effective action.
OK, here we go…..
One of us sat in on a performance discussion between a leader and one of our executive coaching clients. The manager had dutifully gone through pages and pages of leadership competencies and given our client ratings on each, based on organizational leadership levels (VP competency level, Director competency level, etc.). Was our client’s performance at a level that implied she was ready for promotion? At her current level? Or below that? Our client was then asked by her manager to take those pages of information and address any gaps between her current performance and what was needed for promotion to the next level of leadership. These dialogues happen a lot.
Identifying leadership competencies has been in vogue for quite some time. Human Resources or Talent Management or Human Capital professionals spend a great deal of time, money and resources researching and then generating lists of leadership competencies for each level in their organization. Why are they doing this? Often to help address what’s been called the “complexity gap,” the difference between current leadership ability and what is needed to lead more effectively during times of increasing VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) and rapid change.
What’s the problem with these competency “report cards”?
Well, for one thing, they’re not contextual. That is, they imply that our client’s performance was totally under her control and that the competencies she was demonstrating, or not, fully reside within her. Higher capacity leaders, those at later stages of development, understand that they, and the organizational culture/context, are co-responsible for their direct report’s performance, rather than assuming their direct reports are solely responsible. Many leaders with the capacity to operate at later stages do not demonstrate this high capacity level in their organizational performance. Why? Because aspects of the organizational culture make such leadership behavior difficult, or even punish it. Please see this Medium article for a model we developed to help understanding Contextual Thinking™ we call Pond Thinking™.
The second reason is that even within an optimal organizational culture (and there are precious few of these) these leadership competencies are often not actionable because of the individual development of the leader. Let us explain. This is what we’ll focus on for the remainder of this article.
Let’s look at what we mean by whether a competency is actionable or not.
The field of Child Development, represented particularly in the work of Jean Piaget, has been accepted for a long time. Children are not just little adults. Their thinking qualitatively changes in ways that have developmental “steps.” When water from a short and squat glass is poured into a taller and more narrow one, a 4 y/o will say there is now more water in the taller glass. A 6 y/o, having moved from the Pre-Operational to the Concrete Operational stage, will say that there is the same amount of water.
At the Pre-Operational stage the child can’t use logic or transform, combine or separate ideas. At the Concrete Operational stage, there is more organized and rational thinking. We can look at this in terms of how many different dimensions or factors a child can handle at once. The 6 y/o can handle two dimensions (height and width) and so understands that the volume didn’t change. The 4 y/o doesn’t yet have that capacity because of being able to “hold onto” only one dimension at a time. So the 6 y/o has more actual cognitive capacity than the 4 y/o. S/he didn’t just learn a new competency. This distinction is vital.
The field of leadership development, in general, hasn’t made this distinction between capacity and competency. Competencies exist at different Levels of Development, as we’ll explain shortly. If a leader currently functions at a Level of Development earlier that at which a particular competency resides, then it’s currently out of reach. So identifying the competency and then trying to hold the leader accountable for demonstrating it will be futile because no matter how much support or pressure is given to that leader, the leader will not be successful. We’re supporting an approach that would, for any competency, also ask what Level of Development, or capacity, is needed to embody it.
At one point the assumption was that once that child grew up to be an adult, somewhere between 18 and 25, she now had an “adult brain” and the rest of her life was filling it full of more competencies. But then the field of Adult Development came along and said these “stages” of development continue, or can continue, throughout adulthood, and that these later adult stages are no less dramatic than the one between the Pre-Operational 4 y/o and the Concrete Operational 6 y/o. That is, in the same way that the 6 y/o was able to accomplish mental feats not yet available to the 4 y/o, a leader at the Catalyst level (these stage names will make more sense later) has a vastly greater ability to integrate multiple perspectives than does a leader at the Expert level.
Bill Tolbert and colleagues applied these levels to leadership behavior and called them “action logics” because, at each stage or level, the leaders step back and make sense of the situation in different ways, and therefore act differently as a result. Ken Wilber, Robert Kegan , Bill Joiner, Susanne Cook-Greuter and others are also major contributors to understanding adult development.
These findings were not welcomed initially, particularly in the postmodern atmosphere of many universities, because they asserted that some ways of thinking are actually better than others. From a post-modern perspective, it was more fashionable to say that some people think differently than others, and that all ways of making sense of the world have equal validity, rather than to make an evaluative judgment. But the reality is that some ways of thinking and then acting are clearly more effective for leading in times of increasing complexity (VUCA). Each subsequent level can integrate more factors and can actually see the world more accurately. Put another way, each subsequent level has more actual capacity than the one before it.
We are not saying that some people are better than others. We are saying that some ways of thinking, of making meaning of the world, are better than others.
How does this relate to leadership competencies? We could have taken those competencies on which our client was rated and identified which ones cannot be carried out effectively until individuals are at a particular Level of Development. For example, as you’ll see below, Experts will always have difficulty with effective delegation and with coaching, no matter how many training sessions they attend and models they memorize, and no matter how much they’re rewarded or punished. Think of Levels of Development like upgrades in a computer’s operating system. Some programs that couldn’t run on Windows XP can be run on Windows 10. Same with Mac OS Snow Leopard and Catalina.
It is very important to understand that the level at which a leader functions is not “fixed.” Leaders can and do make leaps in their overall capacity. What does that take? It helps when they have leaders around them who function at a later-stage level, when they see limitations or gaps in their own leadership thinking and action, and when they’re motivated to stretch themselves and grow. But, even with all of these factors, they also need to be provided the right opportunity, exposure to capacity-building curriculum, a learning context that is based on an understanding of Levels of Development-in-Action, where they are presented tools and models that “stretch their brains.” Our brains change slowly, over time, with many many cycles of action and reflection. They don’t change through attending a single workshop, no matter how well the material is presented. Willing participants need to be coupled with skilled trainers who function at a later-stage level than those leaders, who understand how to build capacity (rather than just teach competencies). And then these leaders need to be given the time and support to grow, where they can be provided a safe environment to try new ways of thinking and acting.
Why is a conscious focus on adult development, and on raising leaders’ level of development, vital? The “center of gravity” of a culture initially provides a “pull” towards later-stage development, for people to think at more complex levels. But then it has a “dampening” effect, pulling people towards the norm and stifling development past that “center of gravity.”
What are some of the cultural/contextual factors that limit complexity of thinking? Young children ask an average of almost 300 questions a day. They are naturally curious. Then they enter the school system, where those in power (teachers) are the ones allowed to ask questions, and students are supposed to answer them. Most educational systems support seeking “one right answer,” yet dealing effectively with complexity requires the integration of multiple factors, both/and rather than either/or thinking. Most students are graded on their ability to regurgitate facts rather than on their ability to take multiple perspectives on challenging issues. This limits the formation of what neuroscientists refer to as new and more effective neural pathways. This is not to denigrate the acquisition of basic skills. They are important. But they are only part of what’s required to meet today’s challenges.
When education stifles curiosity and the excitement of new learning, rather than promoting them, society suffers. This becomes clear in seeing how most people vote based on trite slogans and simplistic ideas, rather than having the capacity to actually understand the core issues. Politicians, whatever their actual capacity, end up presenting their ideas in black & white ways to match how people think. Because of this many people vote in directions that actually hurt them and their families.
Those students then enter the workforce, where there generally continues to be over-privileging of “one right answer” and not questioning those in authority. We have found almost no organizational cultures where people find the safety and trust to share whatever they are thinking, without fear of retribution, ridicule, and judgment. This has a lot to do with organizational and leadership Levels of Development, as we’ll describe soon.
Organizational cultures are determined by what senior leaders pay attention to. When senior leaders are at conventional levels of development they tend to be “heroic leaders” who believe they’re supposed to have the answers, have difficulty showing vulnerability, and take it personally when people question them. They thus create cultures that stifle the expression of multiple differing perspectives. Yet, as we’ve said, the integration of diverse perspectives is required to deal more effectively with complex issues.
Our organizations, as well as society as a whole, need those who think at later-stage levels of development, who are able to integrate multiple factors and perspectives and stakeholders in their decision-making. This requires being given the opportunity to increase their thinking capacity (how to think, not just what to think) through exposure and practice of adult development principles which include the regular practice of perspective-taking, perspective seeking and reflection. Unfortunately in our experience the field of Training & Development is largely unaware of Levels of Development and does not know how to promote actual capacity-building.
The Levels of Development
We’ll provide a brief overview of the most common stages, which we call Levels of Development-in-Action. We’ll focus on the levels of Opportunist, Conformer, Expert, Achiever, Catalyst and Co-Creator. There are levels beyond and before these, but they account for a tiny percentage of all leaders.
First consider this wonderful quote from T.S. Elliot, “Nothing pleases people more than to go on thinking what they have always thought, and at the same time imagine that they are thinking something new and daring: it combines the advantage of security and the delight of adventure.”
Unless you have specifically been introduced to levels of adult development, these models will be new to you. If you try to map them onto other ideas or models you’ll lose the point. This is not about IQ. Two people with the same IQ can function at very different Levels of Development-in-Action, and therefore capacity. This also has nothing to do with personality models or styles of leadership, years of experience, nor with age-related maturity or one’s management level. It has a lot to do with what learning approaches and environments someone has been exposed to, their motivation coupled with having the right opportunities.
It would be ideal if senior leaders all operated at a later-stage level than their subordinates. It’s just not necessarily true. On average senior leaders function at later-stage capacity than those below them. And this is good, because at later-stage levels leaders are able to integrate more factors and perspectives (different stakeholders, time frames, etc.). Many leaders are deeply frustrated because they know they function at a level beyond their managers, even if they don’t have a model to help them better understand this difference.
However, even when senior leaders function at a later-stage level than their subordinates, they still generally function at conventional levels of development (Expert and Achiever, as you’ll see below). They are not in the top 10% of leaders (Catalyst and above) who are more self-aware, more willing to show appropriate vulnerability and to admit that they don’t have all the answers, more able to collaborate effectively, better able to create contexts that bring out the best in themselves and others, and thus able to drive not just better but also more sustainable results.
As mentioned before, we are not implying that the context in which leaders work is not impacting how they “show up” and perform. Some contexts have inherent limitations. Yet at the same time a leader with later-stage development/capacity can deal more effectively with those limitations (or choose to leave that context, which many higher-functioning leaders often do).
In introducing you to these Levels of Development-in-Action, it’s also important to understand the limitations of language and to learn what each of these terms means in the context of these models. For example, here “Expert” is referring to an integrated worldview that tends to oversimplify complex problems, rather than to someone having high expertise in a particular area. When engaging a surgeon, for example, you don’t necessarily want one who operates at the Expert Level of Development. You’d prefer someone with high expertise who functions developmentally at a later stage or level. This surgeon would listen to you more effectively, address your concerns with more sophistication, and overall create a better context for healing.
It’s also vital to understand that these models do not put people into boxes. Rather, they put what Tolbert calls “action logics” into boxes. Each of us has a “center of gravity” where we function more than half the time, without additional support. We can function at a later stage with support, and we often drop to an earlier level under stress, or when sick or tired. So really we’re talking about probability curves. When, in the shorthand of adult development, we describe someone as an Expert we really mean that this person predominantly thinks and acts from the Expert mindset and lenses. It’s how they operate, more than half the time, without specific support.
There are also many Lines of Development that have been studied. These include cognitive (associated with Jean Piaget), moral (associated with Lawrence Kohlberg), values (associated with Clare Graves), self-identity (associated with Jane Loevinger and Suzanne Cook-Greuter), and many others. The Levels we use are a summary across those different lines, which inevitably loses some of the subtleties and nuances, but makes the model much more practical and useful in a leadership development context. We’ve chosen to use Bill Joiner’s adaptation of the original levels presented by Bill Tolbert. We find his labels more accurate and also more appropriate for the leadership context.
The percentages below come from research by Bill Torbert and others, assessing thousands of leaders.
Opportunist (approximately 2% of leaders). At this stage or level, I’m oriented to My Needs. I operate outside of social norms, and I’m willing to break or bend rules if it serves me, including being dishonest. Self-orientation is everything. What matters is whether something is working for me. I avoid taking responsibility and I’m quick to blame others when things go wrong. I use intimidation and power as a means to get what I want, or align myself with others who do.
In our trainings we like to say that, “Very few Opportunists get to be heads of companies, but many get to be heads of countries.”
Conformer (approximately 8% of leaders). At this stage or level, I’m oriented to Fitting In. Conforming to organizational and societal norms is critical. Negative feedback is scary. I conform to the needs of those to whom I report. I don‘t like to challenge the status quo or do anything that might lead to disapproval. When asked, “Why do we do things this way?” I will likely reply, “That’s the way we’ve always done it.” My response to suggestions of change? If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” I’m nice to those I report to, not necessarily to those who report to me. This is a later-stage developmental level than Opportunist because now I see the value of operating inside the rules of society and organizations, of being part of something bigger than me.
I see the world in terms of “one right answer,” in very black & white terms. When there’s a problem I’m looking for who to blame. I greatly over-simplify complex problems, but I don’t know it.
While only 8% of leaders are naturally at the Conformer level, meaning that they really don’t have much choice but to act this way, in many organizations the majority of leaders act this way, at least “up.” They’ve learned through being in their organizational culture to not present any perspectives contrary to those of leaders senior to them, to nod their heads even when they disagree, and to not in any way directly challenge or even question what they’re being told. So often, in the midst of “organizational transformation” (a greatly over-used and over-blown term) we ask organizational leaders what the rationale is for that change initiative, or the desired outcome, and they shrug their shoulders. Not only do they not know, they also didn’t feel safe to ask. This has serious consequences on both buy-in and engagement in the desired change.
Expert (approximately 45% of leaders). At this stage or level, I’ve moved beyond just Fitting In (Conformer). I’m now oriented to Standing Out. I am most likely to believe that my right to be a leader is a combination of my title and my expertise. Because I was promoted based on my expertise, I think my job is to have my direct reports think and act just like me. Because of this I am likely to micro-manage, not because of any negative intent, but rather because of my belief that this is what good leaders do.
This is very important to understand. At each level, leaders are likely to be operating from good intentions, based on the level at which they think. They aren’t able to see the negative fall-out that’s apparent to those operating from later-stage Levels of Development. Leaders who operate at later stages can see how disempowering, disengaging, and demotivating the Expert style can be. Until Experts are starting to develop out of that action logic they have great difficulty seeing the same.
Because of my orientation as an Expert (I’m in this position because of my expertise) I don’t take kindly to direct reports who I perceive as challenging my authority, even if those direct reports were actually respectfully offering a different perspective. Further, I tend to run my meetings as a series of sequential one-on-one dialogues with me, in a group setting. Everything goes through me. And meetings are heavily oriented to being status updates (and therefore tend to be boring, because they don’t have the energy that comes when people are really wrestling together to address complex situations).
As an Expert, I have trouble prioritizing. I’m tactical rather than strategic. A good day is how many tasks did I get done, rather than whether I got the right tasks done, or whether those tasks really made sense. And because I see myself as holding the seat of expertise I have difficulty delegating. And if I delegate I expect you to do the task the way I would do it.
As with the Conformer, I tend to see the world in terms of “one right answer.” I have black & white thinking. Life is an equation in one unknown. When there’s a problem, I’m looking for who or what to blame. This is the only way I really know to try to fix things. By greatly oversimplifying complex issues, I’m painfully over my head in being to effectively address them.
I am unaware for that complex problems there is no one “right” answer, and that leaders and their teams must deal with multiple differing (not just different) perspectives in order to optimize the possibility of achieving effective outcomes. If I hear this concept I likely reject it, both because I don’t really understand it, and also because I don’t really know how to do it. So, rather than creating a context that can deal effectively with complex problems, I generally stifle it.
Hopefully, it’s clear how much trouble Experts have in leading effectively during complex and turbulent times. They over-control, under-collaborate, under-engage, and under-develop others, while having difficulty when innovation is needed. Yet they represent almost half of all leaders. Why? First, organizations continue to promote based on expertise rather than on leadership ability or cognitive capacity. Second, most organizations have nothing in their structure that lets highly competent leaders get promoted unless they take on team-leading responsibilities. That is, there is no upward career track that is based on technical competence. In order to move up, you have to take on a team. Some organizations wisely have a parallel career track that allows people with great expertise to be promoted without having to take on team-leading responsibilities for which they are not suited, either in terms of temperament or capacity, but in our experience, this is still rare. Think of Einstein, one of the most brilliant people to have lived, but someone who had little patience for people. In most organizations, he either would stay at an entry-level, or be forced into a situation (leading teams) that would not be good either for him or for those on his team.
Achiever (approximately 35% of leaders). At this level, I’m oriented to Results. I think a great leader is someone who drives results through people. And in this statement is both the gift and the blind spot. Most organizations would be ecstatic if all of their leaders operated at this level because I’ve moved past many of the limitations of the Expert. As an Achiever, I’m not just task-focused. I can run projects, even 3–5 years in duration. I prioritize much more effectively, and I’m genuinely interested in developing and demonstrating leadership skills like coaching and performance management. I delegate well, because I’m open to you doing things differently than I would as long as the results that I’m expecting are achieved. I generate much more team interaction and engagement and we problem-solve together, but only to an extent.
Why only to an extent? Expert and Achiever are the home of what Bill Joiner referred to as Heroic Leadership. We think of Heroic Leadership as what was modeled by Captain Kirk on the original Star Trek. I’m sitting firmly on my chair of command. I’m literally captain of my ship and I expect to be in charge, as I have learned an effective leader should be. I avoid showing vulnerability, as well as admitting that I don’t know what to do, because deep down I believe that effective leaders don’t make mistakes. I’m the one who makes the decisions here, at least to the extent that it meets my definition of the right results, most of which I’ve inherited from above.
How does Heroic Leadership become a limiting factor? Because I still have trouble having my authority challenged, and need to be perceived as being in charge, I over-value my own opinion and under-value showing appropriate vulnerability by acknowledging that all perspectives are limited, including my own. My team is careful about how much they challenge what I’m putting forth. They pick their moments carefully.
Also, because I think I’m “captain of my ship” I also think that I’m “captain of my personality.” It’s not just that I don’t like to admit my failings and possible blind-spots. I also don’t want to or may not see them. I’m only slightly interested in developing true self-awareness, finding out why I actually do what I do, exploring what hidden assumptions and beliefs may be actually driving my thinking and action. So my personality structure becomes a limiting factor. And those around me are unlikely to be comfortable telling me about it. I am still basically a black and white/conventional thinker, without being aware of it.
There’s also the blind-spot inherent in “I drive results through people.” People are still objects to get to higher productivity. They’re part of the through-put. Because of this I push everyone too hard, including me. I develop others only to the extent that it directly generates better results, so my coaching is limited.
We’ve referred to “complexity” throughout this discussion. We use the Cynefin Complexity Model in our leadership trainings. It describes four problem sets that exist in the world (Simple, Complicated, Complex and Chaotic), each requiring a different way of thinking and acting. It’s not up to us where a problem is located, although if we place it incorrectly, we won’t approach it optimally.
The Simple domain has clear answers that are easy to teach. How do you open a lock? Fill out an expense report? Shut off a light? Follow a recipe?
The Complicated domain is one in which, with sufficient analysis and expertise we can figure out how to solve a problem, and the same approach will lead to the same outcome. For both the Simple and Complicated domain, there are laws and rules we can count on (gravity, electricity, etc.).
The Complex domain is one in which there are too many variables, or the variables are ever-changing rather than static. There is no one right answer. Rules continually change as we take action. We can’t know definitively what to do, and instead can only “dynamically steer” by figuring out a reasonable next step and then see what emerges. The Complex domain requires much more integration of multiple differing perspectives in a very safe and supportive environment. For this reason, the two Heroic Leadership levels (Expert and Achiever) do much better with primarily Complicated problem sets, where “right” or “best” answers can exist. There are many reasons for this, including that Achievers will generally not step back and question the assumptions behind the goals that are handed to them. They generally work to drive results within their context, rather than questioning or challenging that context.
But the complexity of organizational problems is rapidly increasing. Volatility, uncertainty, ambiguity and rapid change are all increasing. This is why all of our leadership development efforts are aimed at the Catalyst level of development and beyond.
Catalyst (approximately 5% of leaders). At this level, I’m oriented to New Perspectives. This includes a deep curiosity about the different ways to view current challenges, along with an understanding that the integration of diverse perspectives is required to deal more effectively with complexity. I also have a sincere interest in what’s driving me, and how other people are different from me, what it’s like to be in their shoes. I question assumptions. I understand that all perspectives are limited, including my own. I have newly-emerging capacities that weren’t present previously.
I have much more of a reflective disposition, the curiosity and willingness to step back and see situations, as well as myself, from a larger and more complex perspective. I’m fascinated with understanding what makes me tick. Out of my values, for example, which are genuinely mine, and which did I just inherit from my family, my culture, my religion, my teachers, my organization, etc.? What are my and our filters and blind-spots? Because I’m more interested in what really makes me tick, why I do what I do, I naturally am more interested in how others are unique and different from me as well.
I am not likely to have this reflective disposition, or at least to continually deepen it, unless I regularly practice perspective taking, perspective seeking and reflection. I take perspectives within my own mind. This is putting myself in someone else’s shoes. This can be reflecting on the impact of my behavior on others. It also means taking a more curious attitude when others act differently than I expected. “How can that person be so stupid?!” gets replaced by, “I wonder why a reasonable person might do what that person just did?” Perspective seeking is interactive, done through dialogue, where I ask about your perspectives. This can be integrating perspectives around how to address a particular situation, or gathering feedback about my strengths and challenges as a leader. When I understand the limitations of any perspective, including my own, I naturally reach out to others.
This developing ability and interest in perspective-taking and seeking is vital because it ignites further capacity building. In fact the triad of reflection, perspective-taking, and perspective-seeking is the main driver to further progress along all stages of the developmental continuum, along with tools like Polarity Thinking that actively build both/and capacity.
Catalyst is the first developmental level that begins to have the capacity to meet the demands of our VUCA world (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous).
As a Catalyst, as I explore self-awareness, and become more curious about other people, I’m less likely to see others as just objects to get the work done. I’m genuinely interested in assisting their development as an end in itself. And because I really get that I don’t have all the answers, and I can readily acknowledge that I don’t know what I don’t know, and that all perspectives including mine are inherently limited, I’m deeply interested in creating contexts richly imbued with trust and safety, where everyone is invited to bring their best ideas with no fear of being shamed or dismissed. I’m a visionary leader who brings out the best in others while delivering superior results.
Don’t think that Catalysts just sit around all day entertaining multiple possibilities or fail to guide others by presenting needed parameters. This can be an assumption that others at earlier-stage Levels of Development have when they first read about Catalysts. Catalysts achieve better and more sustainable results than do Achievers.
Co-Creator (approximately 4% of all leaders). At this level, I’m oriented to Systems and Principles. At Catalyst, I begin to really get the importance of organizational culture in supporting people and driving results. At Co-Creator this profoundly deepens in importance. I get that the major task for any leader is consciously understanding and shifting culture, which is largely created by leaders and what they pay attention to. Further, while at Catalyst I was fascinated with exploring multiple perspectives, and in questioning my own beliefs and assumptions, at this level I’ve landed on some principles that are authentically mine, ones I can trust and around which I can build my life and leadership.
At Conformer and Expert I over-simplify complex problems. Life is an equation in one unknown, there’s are right answers, and when there’s a problem I look for who or what to blame. Achievers can integrate more factors but still do better with complicated rather than complex problems. At Co-Creator I can comprehend the enormous complexity of these problems and yet also find ways to identify the core leverage points and communicate simply about them. Part of what allows me to do this is my enhanced ability to take the perspective of others and craft communication in ways that people at multiple levels can understand. This is powerful.
We hope it’s becoming clearer that each of these levels represents a truly new capacity. Each shift, from Opportunist to Conformer to Expert to Achiever to Catalyst to Co-Creator and beyond, is just as significant as that shift from the pre-operational 4 y/o to the concrete operational 6 y/o described earlier. Show a ball with two colors to an average 4 y/o. Let’s say the ball is half blue and half white. Show the blue side to the child, then the white side, a few times. Then, with the blue side facing the child, ask the child, “What color am I seeing?” and the child will say “blue.” The child isn’t yet capable of this level of perspective-taking. A couple of years later, the same child will say, “I’m seeing blue, and you’re seeing white.” There’s been a profound shift in cognitive capacity. Each of these shifts in adult development are just as profound. Each level opens a new world of possibility for assisting organizations and their members to deal more effectively with this increasingly complex, volatile, ambiguous, uncertain and rapidly changing world we’re living in.
It’s About Capacity, Not Just Competencies
Let’s return to the original premise of this article. Hopefully, it’s becoming clearer that a competency like “collaboration” means something very different at the Expert than at the Catalyst level. With all sincerity, at the Expert level I’ll see collaboration as making sure everyone is doing what I’m expecting them to do, while at the Catalyst level I’ll be inviting people to challenge any assumptions I have about the right way to go.
It may be even clearer around the competency of “coaching.” To an Expert, coaching is helping to align you with what I think is the best approach. It will be much more “telling” than “asking.” I’ll comfortably be in “advice-giving” mode. From a later-stage level it looks like micromanaging. To a Catalyst, coaching is about helping you to develop while having a rich dialogue that can help us both examine our assumptions and arrive at new possibilities. There will be a fluid interplay between “telling” and “asking,” and much more focus on “who you are” rather than just “what you’re doing.” It can be generative and transformative.
“Coaching” seen from the level of Expert, from that operating system, is radically different from “coaching” seen from the later-stage operating system of Catalyst. And, as Ken Wilber once said to us, no amount of logic or data will help the Expert see things as the Catalyst does, because that capacity is not there yet, although it certainly can develop.
What will an Opportunist do with new skills acquired at a communications workshop? As in the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, get better at selling worthless swampland, or finding better ways to suck people into scams. What will a Catalyst+ do with new skills acquired at the same workshop? Find better ways to communicate a compelling vision and create even more inspiring contexts that bring out the best in people in their organizations.
For this reason, focusing solely on leadership competencies is inherently limited. It’s like adding new software programs without upgrading the overall operating system. Every new Level of Development-in-Action is like an upgrade to the overall operating system.
Ken Wilber has pointed out that developmental maps are psychoactive. That is, they allow leaders to understand where they are on the developmental journey, and what the next level looks like. Our clients have found this profoundly useful.
Here is an important truth: In order to assist leaders in moving to later-stage levels of development, whether we’re in the role of leader, consultant, trainer, coach, Human Resources, Talent Management or Human Capital professionals, we have to ourselves first be functioning at later stages or levels of development than those leaders. Are you one of those? One clear sign is whether you’re drawn to what we’ve shared, whether it matches something you’ve instinctively known but perhaps not been able to put clearly into words. If that’s true of you, please take the time to truly understand the difference between competencies and capacity. Take time to build your own capacity so you then assist others to do the same. For more information on specific resources that can assist in this journey, please reach out to us.
Finally, if you are drawn to assist in building more capacity in your organizations or on your teams, to assist others in moving up the ladder of Levels of Development-in-Action, or even just for yourself as a leader, we need to say something about training, and the limitations of much of what generally goes on within Training & Development, or Talent Development.
We’ve written about how important it is to really get that Awareness ≠ Change, and we direct you to that article for more detail. Integration of any new skill requires practice, ongoing short cycles of action and reflection. No one thinks they will get better at a sport or musical instrument simply because they attend a workshop. They know they need focused practice to integrate those skills. But somehow the usual approach to Training & Development is different from this. People attend courses and get certificates for skills they have not yet integrated. At the end of any short course, nothing has really happened yet. There are not yet new neural pathways. The participants aren’t yet primed to actually think and then act differently. Yet their organizations do not require them to engage in ongoing cycles of action and reflection. The essential elements of those trainings are not built into performance dialogues or in other ways “baked into” the culture. Optimal development requires an organizational focus on building capacity.
And because organizational culture is determined by what leaders pay attention to, it is vital that senior leaders model their own interest in building capacity, including the vulnerability of being able to say, “I don’t have all the answers, I’m not at the top of my game, I can’t see my own blind spots, we all need to create the kind of safety and trust that allows for a free flow of feedback and different perspectives.” Senior leaders need to not just model this attitude, but hold themselves and others accountable for building capacity into the fabric of their organizations, including using a developmental lens for hiring and promotion.
But, we’ve saved the best part for last! People can develop. With the right training and support, they can increase their Level of Development-in-Action, and it doesn’t take long. We have data to prove it. In one of our leadership development programs we had participants for about 40 hours of curriculum over nine months. We also assigned individual and small-group assignments between sessions. We used a pre-post measure of the ability to think effectively about complex leadership challenges from Theo Dawson’s wonderful Lectica organization called the Lectical Decision-Making Assessment (LDMA). It’s a psychometrically sophisticated assessment that can’t be faked. (We know, because we created two sham participants in the program and tried to “game” the assessment and weren’t able to, No matter how hard you try, you can’t think at a higher level than you can think). Over those nine months, with 40 hours of curriculum, the average developmental gain in the ability to think effectively about complex leadership challenges was equivalent to more than two full years of graduate school! Please click here for more information on this exciting research.
In those 40 hours we also focused on competencies, including organizational culture, high performing teams, coaching, communications, and change management, always with an awareness of integrating capacity-building approaches to those leadership areas.
Approaches that foster gradual positive stage shifts are called Vertical Development. They include how to think, rather than just what to think about. Our curriculum incorporated many capacity-building tools including Levels of Development-in-Action, Complexity, Polarity Thinking, Leadership Versatility, Mindfulness and Reflection, Perspective Taking & Seeking, Practical Neuroscience, and Contextual Thinking™. Contextual Thinking™ is our term for developing the cognitive habit of looking for the root cause of organizational behavior outside of individuals but within the organizational context (organizational culture, role clarity, goal alignment, access to resources, etc.) before attributing the cause to any internal qualities of those people. We made it clear that ongoing individual and collective reflection on a regular basis is absolutely necessary for building leadership capacity and included various structures to encourage it.
The reason for understanding the difference between competencies and capacity is to be able to focus on building developmental capacity, because it’s very do-able. It requires understanding Levels of Development-in-Action, as well as understanding what training approaches actually foster developmental gains. We had the privilege in that leadership program, working with approximately 30 cohorts of 25–30 leaders, to refine and hone curriculum until we knew what worked.
We hope you’ve stayed with us until the end, and that the distinction between leadership competencies and capacity is now clear. And we hope we’ve made a compelling case for why, in order for our leaders to deal more effectively with complex problems, it’s imperative to consciously craft opportunities and contexts that support Vertical Development.
There are situations “out there” and then there’s our internal meaning-making system that determines the extent to which we can take effective action. VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) is increasing, and the stakes are getting higher. The world needs higher-capacity leaders to address it.
Clear Impact Consulting Group is Dr. Sandra L. Hill and Dr. Joel M. Rothaizer, MCC. Hopefully, this article has stimulated some new thinking. As mentioned previously, we welcome hearing from you. Please click here to subscribe to our newsletter LeaderShifts. You can email us at email@example.com.
This article was also published on Medium: https://medium.com/@partners_95867/leadership-development-its-about-capacity-not-just-competencies-f0886ac6022e.