What Is Integral to the “Reinventing Organizations” Perspective?

found on the online forum of the Reinventing Organizations community, in August 2015:

 

julian

So at the base of RO’s perspective we have:

Spiral Dynamic Integral Theory
AQAL
Colour coding is borrowed from Integral Theory
combined with a Name System devised by FL

they provide common language and as such are adopted by RO practitioners to understand and relate to the stages as defined in RO“.

Are these ideologies a cornerstone of the community here? …

julian

Real science, as opposed to mysticism, is falsifiable.

That is to say, all parts are open to evaluation and experiment.

Science does not rely upon faith as an explanation.

Whilst Integral theory seems to rest on top of all other theories (which are integrated) from many different disciplines, the problem is that generalizations Wibur sights as a summary of each disciplines position on an issue do not always reflect the consensus of its day, but rather simply supports Wilbur’s ideology.
Significantly, the positions of those same disciplines have shifted significantly in the last 50 years.

Wilbur’s theories, or ideology seems interesting to me, however not one that I can adopt as “the way things are”- simply a novel way to look at things that may provide different thought provoking results.

I’d rather not integrate this stuff implicitly into ALL the dialogue of this forum.

My personal view. I speak for no-one but myself.

 

julian

As Holacracy requires faith:
…..does that make the supporters of Holacracy-

Holacolytes?

 

Monia

I like spiral dynamics. It helps me quite a lot to understand processes – right now it´s helping me on the path to creating a new facilitation format. It´s like a checklist, a security I´m not moving backwards. So for me it´s not an either or. It would simply help to have words that don´t need so much explanation outside the integral scene.

denniswittrock

julian:

> Real science, as opposed to mysticism, is falsifiable.

> That is to say, all parts are open to evaluation and experiment.

> Science does not rely upon faith as an explanation.

Hi Julian, Wilber’s post-metaphysical approach to spirituality demands that propositions about spiritual realites are grounded in experiences that are anchored in repeatable practices and methodologies of enacting them – like meditation. If you practice 20 years of meditation you will make some experiences. Then you can go to a spiritual tradition of your choice and compare notes with other serious practicioners about the experiences you’ve had. You will get intersubjective verification or falsification among the “experts” in this practice.

Wilber describes the three strands of any valid science as
1) Injunction – a practice or method that leads to experience
2) Illumination – actually making the experience
3) intersubjective verification or falisification among the community of practicioners

Wilber claims that you can extend that standard scientific methodology to embrace so-called “metaphysical” domains of experience (like altered states of awareness) too. Not just pyhsical reality or mental realms ( e.g. mathematics: “2+2=4” is a true statement without a reference in the physical world)

I happen to think that it is a good idea. So the kind of spirituality WilbEr represents does NOT rely on faith. Faith / belief is a typical marker of an early “amber” or “blue” expression of spirituality. There are higher expressions available in the unfolding of the spiritual line of development. You may not have access to these experiences (yet) but I suggest you don’t make claims wether or not those exist, until you “take a look through the telescope” yourself…

And Holacracy doesn’t require faith either. It is not a religion and it was developed in trial-and-error experimentation. If people hold to the rules in an “amber” or “blue” way – well that may be an indication about where they feel at home in the developmental ladder. Rather, faith or trust in Holacracy is not an INPUT, but an OUTPUT of the practice. The more your EXPERIENCE how the rules of the game hold you, the more you relax into them while they fade into the background.

Developmental models are helpful. There’s a reason, why referring to them is helpful in a forum that aims to support teal organizations. There are better and worse ways of handling them, as any more sophisticated ‘integralist’ knows. Common pitfalls are labeling people according to their behaviour instead of taking those as clues to build preliminary hypotheses of where people are at. Another pitfall is to (ab)use these models to fortify your ego and look down on people of lower complexity (while those people may be perfectly in sync with the complexity required of their life conditions).

Those people who do the research on these models are actually usually the most humble people and the most cautious about jumping to conclusions. Models reduce complexity. As such they are useful to navigate reality – until they oversimplify the situation at hand. So the recommendation is always to hold SD or Wilber or Maslow or Piaget or Kegan LIGHTLY. It is not an ideology – it is based on science. But like any science it can be used unskillfully and carelessly and can degenerate into a mere belief system.

End of rant.

 

julian

So:
Is Spiral Dynamics an integral part of RO?
Is Spiral dynamics science? Can you direct me to any peer reviewed papers?
Is Spiral Dynamics falsifiable by an ordinary person?
denniswittrock

julian:
> Is Spiral Dynamics an integral part of RO?
> Is Spiral dynamics science? Can you direct me to any peer reviewed papers?
> Is Spiral Dynamics falsifiable by an ordinary person?

to your first question:
I would rephrase the proposition and say that

developmental models (among them SD) are an integral part of understanding or making sense of RO

-not necessarily something that everybody in the company has to grok or “believe” in order to work in new ways that stem from a late stage of development.

to your second question:
“Spiral Dynamics” (C.Cowan) or “Spiral Dynamics integral” (D.Beck) are practical applications of the theory and research of Prof. Clare W. Graves model of bio-psycho-social levels of existence. Graves based his model-building on data retrieved from hundreds or thousands of answers to a standardized test he had developed. For references, start here:

en.wikipedia.org 1

Clare W. Graves | Bibliography

1.Graves, Clare W., “Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values”. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, November 1970 | 2.Graves, Clare W., “Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap”, The Futurist, April 1974

so while Spiral Dynamics would maybe not qualify in your eyes to standards of scientific rigour, Graves and other developmental psychologists like Maslow, Kegan, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, etc. likely would. I reference those other sources because it seems to me that you reject the idea of levels of development in general. But those are well-researched and pretty robust models.

To your third question:
Depends on what that ordinary person is willing to do in order to gain expertise in developmental psychology, experiment, build models and potentially arrive at different conclusions, based on adequate understanding of the matter at hand. Since “ordinary” people ususally don’t do that the answer to your question must be “no” – especially, if you are just referring to the model and practice of SD and not to the underlying research by Clare Graves.

But to be fair one must not omit that SD as a practical application of Graves’ findings has been “tested” a lot in the field – a kind of action research, if you will. Tested in ending Apartheid in South Africa by Don Beck. Tested in bringing together Palestinians and Israelis to create peace and a positive vision for society in the middle east (see the book “Emerge!” by Elza Maalouf). If the model was so flawed as you seem to suggest the mentioned initiatives would not have had their successes, they would have been out of touch with reality (SD claims to be a model of interior realities of people).

I hope this was helpful and that you open your mind to include these useful tools and models and give them a dignified seat at the table of knowledge. I certainly do.

 

tomc1243

Dennis, Very artful presentation. I would add that perspectives are quite a different thing experienced from 2nd Tier (Teal or Yellow) vs as experienced at earlier levels of complexity. At Teal there is no need to debate the accuracy of a perspective…it either helps move the process forward, is neutral, or doesn’t help. Perspectives are arbitrary and constructed and thus not purely representational…for the 2nd Tier thinker. Mind is a tool for the 2nd Tier thinker, and is configured to meet the needs of the moment. The point of BEING for 2nd Tier folks is to bring the flows of existence into alignment with what is needed…..either that or we kill off humans and more. This is what Sharmer et al would call the Eco-Centric view of Being, vs the earlier Ego-Centric views. Above all it should be kept in mind that moving from lst Tier to 2nd Tier is not trivial. A huge amount of cognition shifts when this developmental emergence occurs. It is not just a little diff from Green. If one is not disoriented upon finding themselves in a Teal context then one has not been awakened to their Teal cognition. This is very new territory for us humans. Here is a listing of some of the new cognitive capacities that emerge with Teal cognition: https://www.academia.edu/7530883/Leading_Edge_Cognitive_Capacities3 Best Wishes all – Tom C.

 

Mieke_Byerley

http://joinintegrallife.com/what-is-integral/

This is a pretty good explanation and outline especially where the spectrum and models meet and intersect. Reinventing Organizations’ thesis was developed on the Integral Model, if you remove (reject) the model than what are you basing the Thesis on? It becomes baseless, just hot air in the wind, no foundation, no direction. To understand the book you do not need to understand the integral model but to practice it you do because you need to understand developmental psychology (individual and collective) to an extend (which ironically needs the cognitive capacities that @tomc1243 article mentions) . I certainly did not know about Integral theory and model prior to reading the RO book, but upon research found that I had somehow ended up aligned with it, without intent. It has certainly helped further personal development and my understanding of others, social dynamics etc. Was I a follower of Integral Theory “no” did I practice it “yes” would it be easier to be a follower at this stage “yes”, in the future “maybe”.