Adaptive Leadership and Integral
Leadership,Questions and Observations, by Ron Cacioppe
The following is an exploration of some observations and questions about Adaptive Leadership (AL) and how it relates to Integral Leadership and practice. I raise these questions and observations since I think it is important for Integral as an organisation to have an overarching perspective that integrates and aligns leadership theories and models.
Integral is a meta-theory that integrates these models and perspectives and I feel does this better than any other framework on the planet. This framework would provide a strong and powerful foundation for who we are, what we teach and how we teach it. This wouldn’t limit in any way the use of theories and ideas like Adaptive Leadership. It would give us a unifying perspective for our staff, coaches and consultants to consider when they see and use any theory or model. This article is not suggesting that Integral Theory is better than Adaptive Leadership. Instead, it is suggesting that these two framework compliment each other and Integral Theory can provide additional perspectives that can enhance the theory and practice of Adaptive Leadership.
So, the main reason I am writing this is to;
1. Show how Integral Theory is a useful lens to look at a theory like Adaptive Leadership and
2. To request that we allocate a short time after a presentation of a leadership and organisation model to discuss how the ideas, model or framework fit with Integral theory and practice.
I hope I have interested you enough to read on. Alternatively, you can go to the summary at the end to see my main points.
Adaptive Leadership is very relevant
It is easy to understand why Adaptive Leadership (AL) is popular in today’s environment. The rapidly changing, disruptive environment is challenging leaders and organisations to adapt to these changes to survive and thrive. This is what every leader and organisation want, and AL has many very good features that describe the leadership characteristics and qualities needed. Heifetz and Laurie (2000) describe six characteristics: Get on the balcony, Identify the adaptive challenge, Regulate the distress, Maintain disciplined attention, Give the work back to the people and Protect the voices of leadership from below. These are very effective ways to adapt to a changing and disruptive environment. Challenging, questioning and constructive conflict is another useful part of the AL framework. Adaptive Leadership also fits well with the popular idea of growth vs fixed mindsets. This is only a brief description of some of the elements of Adaptive Leadership. The reader should go to the books on Adaptive Leadership such as The Practise of Adaptive Leadership by Heifetz et al (2009) to get a more complete description of Adaptive Leadership.
Observations about Adaptive Leadership and Integral Leadership
1.Developmental Stages and Process Not Recognised in AL
AL does not explicitly include stages of development or describe a developmental process. Surviving and thriving are the main criteria for success. An organisation like the US National Rifle Association that sell products or technology that are socially harmful may have a very adaptive leader. A leader who works for organisations with values contrary to the good of society may find support for their organisations shrinking and may have to move to proper adaptive behaviours in line with the societies values.
An Adaptive leader encourages stakeholders and workers who are close to the problem to solve it since they have the best knowledge of the problem. There are ‘successful’ leaders who have handed over the resolution of a challenge to groups of stakeholders, shareholders and owners and yet would not be considered Integral Leaders because they weren’t working toward the good of the society. Many developed nations have thrived through responding to their stakeholders by repressing or exploiting its minority, indigenous people.
It seems that Adaptive Leaders would have a moral compass and seek to find a greater good from a problem or challenge, but this is not clearly described.
Integral theory and other recognised developmental theories describe developmental stages that individuals, leaders, teams, organisations and nations progress through. Integral theory states these entities evolve and develop rather than just ‘thrive’. The highest stage of an Integral Leader is a person who works for the good of all living beings – current and future. The Dalai Lama (in my view) has a wider perspective and compassion for all living beings than Donald Trump.
The AL requirement to identify the elements necessary to thrive may brings it closer to Integral Theory if thrive is meant to be a development or evolutionary progress.
In a leadership program run by the Australian Graduate School of Management for the Department of Defence, Kegan’s levels of development have been added to the Adaptive Leadership skills being taught. The inclusion of adaptive leadership skills and developmental stages provide a complimentary and comprehensive perspective.
Many Integral coaches, facilitators and course designers have a developmental perspective but may not describe it specifically to a client. There is a recognition that we help leaders, teams and organisations be ‘the best’ they can be – and integral theory defines clearly what that best self is – one which develops and integrates all levels of self for the benefit of all.
Integral also describes a developmental process. Adaptive leadership describes steps to help adapt (Observe-Interpret-Intervene) but does not describe a developmental or transformational process. As a result, an organisation may adapt and thrive but not develop. There is a computer company that provided computer hardware and adapted to the changing environment to provide computer cloud-based services and software. It adapted and thrived but did not move to a higher stage of development in their leadership, culture or how they treated staff. This adaption may only be successful for a short time and may eventually run into ore problems and fail if it doesn’t develop, grow and improve the culture and leadership
Mindfulness practice is also central to Integral development since it involves being fully present and aware of what is occurring in the moment in an open, non-judgmental way. While AL encourages being on the balcony and asking self-reflective questions, it does not include mindfulness practices as essential to being an adaptive leader. Ryan (2014) describes how the combination of mindfulness and adaptive leadership resulted in a community health centre achieving program innovation and financial stability in an environment of decreased public funding.
2. Four Quadrants of Reality and Systems vs Holons
Adaptive Leadership refers to the ‘systems’ of an organisation. Integral theory considers a system ‘flatland’ because it is only one of four areas of importance. Integral theory looks at all entities: cells, molecules, humans, leaders, teams, organisations etc. as holons. The concept of holons presents a fuller and more complete way to understand an entity and fits with current science. A holon has four quadrants of reality: I, Inner attitudes, beliefs, etc., We, the culture, values, and meaning, its, the behaviours, skills, resources, and ITs the human, economic, technical systems. From an Integral perspective, systems thinking is limited in that it describes only one quadrant. A holon is a richer, more effective way to see a thing – a leader, team, organisation, society, etc. because it is holistic.
Adaptive Leadership includes elements of the I quadrant when it asks a leader to reflect on and question their inner world and perspective. An Integral leader would examine all four quadrants, including the fundamental question of ‘Who am I?’.
Given the quadrants are mutually reinforcing, an argument could be made that Adaptive Leadership in finding the conditions to “thrive” would need to at least align with aspects of all four quadrants. This is particularly true when you consider that the characteristics of an adaptive
Issues and Questions
The following are issues and questions that came up as I looked more closely at the key concepts of Adaptive Leadership:
Technical vs Adaptive Leaders
The use of the term ‘Technical’ can be confusing. Originally, I thought technical meant a leader who uses technical data and information to solve problems. For example, if there is a delay in getting vital parts for an oil rig, a leader might work out the logistics, arrange alternative routes or suppliers and get the problem solved.
‘Technical’ in AL is used to describe an expert, directive, or task-focused solution to a problem by a leader vs a facilitative approach where the stakeholder or worker comes up with the solution. AL also suggests that a ‘technical’ solution leader is limited, restricted person who doesn’t adapt while the Adaptive Leader is the better leader. And yet different situations and environments may require different approaches.
What portion of the time does an Adaptive Leader use Adaptive Behaviours?
The theory suggests that every leader should be continually adapting and adjusting to disequilibrium. Yet a large portion of the day, we are in some form of stability in which we respond to an environment and use previous tools and methods to deal with its demands. It would be exhausting if a leader had to be adapting all the time. So, what is the amount of time a leader is adapting that make her or him an adaptive leader: 90%, 80%, 40% or less?
A percentage of time may not be the best way to determine if someone is an adaptive leader. An adaptive leader may be considered one who encourages staff and stakeholders to explore both novel adaptive actions and stable actions that are based in precedence and routine.
Productive Disequilibrium vs Flow?
The description of Adaptive Leadership suggests that the best performance occurs when there is productive disequilibrium. During this time the status quo has been challenged and the person, team or organisation is in a zone of tolerable stress that requires adaption and this leads to productive performance.
The theory and research on flow by Professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi shows that the most productive state is when an individual or team is in flow – a zone where a challenge (e.g. disruption) is met by the right level of skill. It seems that disequilibrium and stress may be a stimulus that requires the right amount of skill to achieve the state of flow. While in the flow state there is a harmony and coherence rather than a disequilibrium. During sport, a disruptive or stressful event, (e.g. being down by 2 points with 30 seconds left in the game), may lead a step up in skill, but at the moment of peak performance, the individual or team is in a flow state which is harmonious, efficient, effective and fulfilling not disruptive or stressful.
The flow state also is a state where one is fully in the moment, and the separate self is non-existent. From an Integral perspective this is the state of non-duality and a time of fulfillment. It also is an experience of the highest state of development described earlier.
There may be an argument to be made that “flow “is a common outcome for adaptive organisations who are able to remain in the productive zone of disequilibrium often.
Summary
In summary, Adaptive Leadership is a valuable and well-articulated theory that offers a great deal to leaders and organisation in today’s disruptive, chaotic, COVID environment. It provides excellent insights and tools to help face these challenges.
An Integral perspective would help inform Adaptive Leadership by adding the perspective of stages of development, the process of development, and seeing individuals, teams and the organisation as holons with four quadrants of reality.
Integral theory suggests that adaption is more than survival and thriving and should include mindfulness practices and a developmental process to higher levels of integration and balance with the environment. An Integral perspective would also recognise that the flow state occurs beyond disequilibrium and leads to peak performance in harmony with the moment.
This article points out that the use ‘technical’ to describe a leader needs clarification so that those who encounter this phrase aren’t confused. It could also be useful to recognise technical vs adaptive as situationally dependent and may be a stage of development.
Adaptive Leaders not only need to effectively response to the challenges and problems their organisation currently face to survive and thrive in size, market share or profit but they need to also help their leaders, workers, stakeholders and organisations evolve through stages of development. Because of the increasing technical, social, political, legal and environmental complexities, the way to be successful and sustainable is for a leader and their organisation to develop in all four quadrants. This process must start with leader developing through these stages and quadrants to become their best and true, authentic self.
References
Heifetz, R., Linsky, M. & Grashow, A. (2009) The Practise of Adaptive Leadership; Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business Press.
Heifetz, R. & Linsky, M. (2011) Becoming an Adaptive Leader, Lifelong Faith, Spring, pp. 26 – 35.
Heifetz, R. & Laurie, D. (2000) The Work of Leadership, Harvard Business Review, OnPoint, Product Number, 4150.
Raney, A. (2014) Agility in Adversity: Integrating Mindfulness and Principles of Adaptive Leadership in the Administration of a Community Mental Health Center, Published online: 5 March, Springer Science+Business Media
