ROBERT KEGAN THEORY

Robert Kegan theory



Abstract

In this paper we try to focus on Robert Kegan theory. In this paper we have criticized the constructive-developmental theory in psychology with a special emphasis on the work of Robert Kegan.

Robert Kegan theory

Introduction

In Kegan's (1982, 1994) constructive-developmental theory, the complexity of one's thinking has the potential to develop over the course of a life span through a series of five qualitatively distinct stages. Kegan's theory is particularly useful to apply to issues of leadership development because it considers the self not only in terms of its cognitive functions but also as an integrating, unifying system.

Thus, in addition to accounting for cognitive growth, the theory also attends to other dimensions of the self, such as the affective, interpersonal, and intrapersonal domains, all of which are relevant to the exercise of leadership. Integrating key principles of other developmental theories that highlight one particular feature or domain of development, Kegan's theory also clearly emphasizes the deep and underlying structure of an adult's meaning system rather than the contents of that system. What this means is that the stages describe the principles that organize an individual's thinking, feeling, and social relating (or how the individual thinks and feels) as separate from what the individual thinks and feels (Kegan, 1994, p. 32).

Discussion

For these reasons, I have relied on Kegan's basic depictions of and distinctions between the various stages of ego and personality development. Kegan's first two orders of consciousness apply to the major developments that occur primarily during childhood and adolescence. This chapter therefore focuses on the third, fourth, and fifth orders of consciousness, illustrating these stages with examples from the field of leadership. In doing so, I focus particularly the work of David Rooke and Bill Torbert (2005), who provide a typology of leadership styles or “action logics” that are based in constructive-developmental stage theory.

Criticism

Kegan (1982, 1994) uses the term holding environment to refer to the ways that cultures can serve to nurture developmental growth. When the surrounding culture, or holding environment, confirms an individual's way of knowing, it acknowledges and cultivates the capacities that individuals already possess and demonstrate. The culture can serve as a spur to growth when, in addition to confirming an individual's current way of knowing, it also offers experiences and information that contradict that balance.

When we experience a clear (but not overwhelming) challenge to the ways we are currently resolving the tension between ourselves and their culture, we have the opportunity to revise our understandings. Finally, our surrounding culture promotes our ongoing growth when it provides individuals with the supports necessary to maintain the new balance. In shedding old ways of relying on the culture, the individual now makes new claims on it, and the culture must provide these supports with enough continuity to allow the individual to recover, reintegrate, and re-equilibrate

There are some more specific processes designed to support transformational change. In the process of diagnosing and overturning their Immunity to Change (Kegan & Lahey, 2009; see also Kegan & Lahey, ...