Vertical Leadership Development: Reframing Organizational
Change by Reframing Meaning Making
Greg Gifford, Ph.D.
Federal Executive Institute
United States Office of Personnel Management
Overview
Vertical leadership development challenges the existing notion that leadership development is simply a
progression of knowledge and skill development coupled with the application and refinement of those
skills. It goes beyond the competency-based or “horizontal” developmental approaches to explore the
way in which leaders learn to construct meaning from experiences so that they can apply their
competencies more effectively to achieve both individual and organizational change.
Background
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management specifies 28 leadership competencies. 22 Of these support
five Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs) the other six are “fundamental competencies” that basically
support all of the ECQs. The arrangement of these competencies appears below:
Figure 1: OPM’s ECQs and Leadership Competencies
While immensely powerful in describing specific leadership skills and behaviors many theorists within
the leadership-development industry have begun questioning the effectiveness of competency-based
approaches. George Hollenbeck, writing for the Center for Effective Organizations, has argued,
1
[E]vidence abounds that executive and leadership development has failed to meet expectations.
Unless we change our assumptions and think differently about executives and the development
process, we will continue to find too few executives to carry out corporate strategies, and the
competence of those executives available will be too often open to question. The “competency
model” of the executive, proposing as it does a single set of competencies that account for success,
must be supplemented with a development model based on leadership challenges rather than
executive traits and competencies. Executive performance must focus on ‘what gets done’ rather
than on one way of doing it or on what competencies executives have. In turn, executive
development must be viewed as meeting performance challenges essential to the business strategy
rather than attending development programs, with senior executives making development
decisions much as they make business decisions today.
This “post-competency” movement is gaining ground in the leadership development and change
management field. To understand its proponents’ argument, imagine that the competencies – those
specific skills so vital to leadership success – are bricks. One can improve the quality of bricks but doing
so does not necessarily result in a superior structure. Great bricks can be used to make beautiful
cathedrals or palaces, but they can also be used to build barbeque grills and outhouses. The postcompetency proponents argue that what are most important are not the bricks themselves – although they
concede the bricks must be of high quality – but what we do with those bricks. In terms of leadership
development and change, it is not the individual skills and abilities but how they are employed to achieve
results. To make that transition from skill building to skill-employment, however, one has to think
differently. Vertical leadership is an emerging theory designed to do just that: change the way that
leaders conceptualize their world.
Vertical Leadership Explained
In their book, Transforming Your Leadership Culture, John McGruie and Gary Rhodes argued:
Organizations have grown skilled at developing individual leader competencies, but have
mostly ignored the challenge of transforming their leader’s mindset from one level to the
next. Today’s horizontal development within a mindset must give way to the vertical
development of bigger minds.
Instead of focusing on the development of knowledge, skills and abilities, organizations and agencies may
seek to provide developmental opportunities and experiences that challenge leaders with developing their
world-view and how they make sense of the world around them (Figure 3). In much the same way that
young children are exposed to a variety of situations, people and experiences, leaders also benefit from
exposure to such variety. Unlike life experiences of young children, however, vertical leadership
development experiences are coupled with reflection and purposeful learning environments to expose
these leaders to different ways of constructing meaning and making sense of the experience. By engaging
in this process, these leaders expand their minds and views of the world. This is in stark contrast to their
simply having their minds filled with new knowledge, skills or abilities. It is the difference between
filling a glass with water (horizontal development) versus grasping the myriad ways in which the glass
and captured water might be repurposed. It is the difference between providing and refining bricks and
the ability to conceptualize how those bricks might be arrayed to build required structures.
Constructive Development
2
That leaders are made and not born – that it is “nurture not nature” that creates leaders – suggests the
notion that individual development occurs over time. Early researchers argued that by the time human
beings reached early adulthood (mid-twenties) the mind was fully developed. Later research debunked
this notion and showed that the mind continues to develop throughout adulthood with periods of growth
and periods of stability. Robert Kegan, the Associate Director of Harvard's Change Leadership Group
and a founding principal of Minds at Work, conceptualized adult constructive developmental theory as the
way in which adults “make meaning” of the world around them. Depending on their stage of constructive
development, people will construct meaning of situations, persons, events and interactions differently.
Perry (1970) stated that over the course of their lifetimes, people derive situational understanding based
upon the manner in which they construct meaning and are able to organize and synthesize interpersonal
interactions. Constructive development focuses not on what people know, but how they know what they
know (Piaget, 1972).
Experiences &
Meaning-making
Competencies: Knowledge,
Skills and Abilities
Horizontal Leadership Development
Figure 3. Vertical Leadership Development versus Horizontal Leadership Development
In his book, In Over our Heads, Kegan argued that most adults face challenges and situations that are
beyond their developmental understanding—this includes leading organizational change. Most adults
have not fully developed the cognitive, moral and social development needed to make sense of an
increasingly complex world. In fact, Kegan argued that this is the reason why so many executives fail in
their careers and also fail in leading change processes. Most training and development programs are
competency-based programs, focused on specific skills. The participant attends a training class and learns
how to apply a skill or set of skills to one or more situations. Training programs are essentially
programming new software – new applications - into existing computer systems. Change efforts are
similar and tend to be more rearrangement than rethinking or reformulation. Adult constructive
development theory posits that instead of simply loading new applications, the computing system needs to
be upgraded or reimagined. Leader developmental opportunities and organizational change initiatives
should focus on how to think and process differently (e.g.—how to construct meaning) to approach
3
situations and challenges from a more complex cognitive, moral and social paradigm rather than simply
applying a new skill or tool from the person’s existing paradigm.
Kegan conceptualized five stages of development of the mind ranging from Stage 1 which is applicable
mostly to young children to Stage 5 which transcends ego, embraces ambiguities, applies to very few
adults and it not yet fully understood. Garvey Berger (2006) suggested that Kegan’s stages fit into adult
constructive development because the theory outlines how adults both construct reality and then develop
to more complex levels over time based upon their individual constructions. It is important to understand
the level of cognitive development of leaders who are undertaking change efforts in organizations. By
creating this understanding, the impact of the organizational change effort can be more fully understood.
A leader at lower levels of cognitive development is likely to have less complex change initiatives than
those at the upper levels of development.
Each of Kegan’s stages is a progressively more complex way of making meaning than the previous stage.
As adults move through the stages of development, what was learned in previous stages is not left behind
but informs and contributes to meaning making in subsequent levels. For example, when children learn
to run, they do not forget how to walk. When they learn to ride bicycles, they do not forget how to run
and walk. Garvey Berger (2006) stated that no level of development is inherently better than a previous
level but instead each level is in essence a qualitative description of an individual’s way of making
meaning. She continued by stating that “people can be kind or unkind, just or unjust, moral or immoral at
any of the [levels] so it is impossible to measure his or her worth by looking at his or her [level] of the
mind (p. 3).”
Subject & Object. Vital to the understanding of Kegan’s Stages of Adult Development is the movement
from subject to object. For Kegan, when people are subject to something (situation, person, moral, value,
etc.), that something is a part of them without their awareness of it. People experience the subject without
questioning its status, correctness or applicability. Generally, things that people are subject to are taken
for granted and considered to be truth. Kegan (1994) described those things that we are subject to as
“those elements of our knowing or organizing that we are identified with, tied to, fused with or embedded
in (p. 32). By way of example, consider primitive man’s understanding of the world. It was a flat Earth
and man understood that the only way to avoid catastrophe was to stay very near shore, avoiding the twin
perils of falling off the edge or being consumed by the great sea serpents that thrived in the deep waters
near the edge. Mankind understood this as its reality; it was subject to these natural limitations.
Those things that are considered to be object are the opposite of subject. Similar to physical objects that
we can pick up, analyze, play with and move from space to space, those things that are objects in our
mind (e.g.—relationships, traits, beliefs, values, etc.) can be analyzed, applied in different situations,
considered for accuracy and truth, and controlled. Kegan (1994) argued that “…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, or otherwise operate on” are those things that are considered object to
us (p. 32). Returning to the flat-earth example above, as voyagers ventured further from land they had to
reinterpret the boundaries to which they were subject in the past. New understandings removed those
barriers making them object – subject to consideration and reinterpretation. Much of scientific discovery
throughout mankind’s history has been a similar reimagining from subject to object. Myths and “old
wives’ tales” have been replaced by science; former boundaries and frontiers have been reimagined as
4
merely passageways to new lands, new heights, new depths … new worlds. Much as mankind as grown
as a species, Kegan argues we grow as individuals.
As people progress through the stages of development, those things that they are subject to become object
to them. That is, things that have people – that people are subject to, such as values, traits and ideals, can
move from a blind acceptance to an understanding that people have these things and can emphasize,
orchestrate, organize or even change them to fit their individual contexts. At this level of realization,
subjects become objects; objects that can be analyzed, tweaked, applied differently and considered for
truth and accuracy. Further, as these subjects become objects, people begin to construct meaning in
different and, sometimes, profound ways. This shift from subject to object is the nucleus of the
development underpinning Kegan’s Stages of Adult Development and is a vital component in both
individual and organizational change.
Kegan’s Stages of Adult Development. In his work on the subject, Kegan delineates transformation in
meaning making into five, distinct stages. These stages represent the development and growth of the
mind from early childhood through late adulthood. Kegan suggests that most adults will not progress
through all of the fives stages but will stop at a specific level of advancement; an assertion born out in
subsequent research. Nevertheless, understanding the five stages can be valuable in establishing the kinds
of developmental opportunities executives need in ensuring their agencies have adequate numbers of new
leaders emerging within their workforces. Kegan’s five stages of development are as follows: the
Impulsive Mind, the Instrumental Mind, the Socialized Mind, the Self-Authoring Mind and the SelfTransforming Mind.
The Impulsive Mind. Children between newborns and seven years of age are typically
categorized as being in the impulsive mind level of development. The impulses are subject to these
individuals because they do not understand their impulses and therefore cannot control them. For
example, if a child is given a cookie and asked them not to eat it until later, when they are especially
hungry, most children will feel the hunger impulse immediately and devour the cookie without hesitation
– often only to be hungry later! At this level of development, where impulses control behavior, the
individual requires regular – if not constant supervision.
The Instrumental Mind. Children between the ages of 7 to 10 years old, some adolescents and
some adults are categorized as being at this level of development. Beliefs and meanings become object to
individuals in this stage as they realize that they have beliefs and feelings that remain constant over time.
Individuals at this stage are also aware that others have beliefs and feelings; however, the instrumentalminded individual is not empathetic to these differentiated beliefs or feelings. Because the person at this
stage is typically self-centered, the beliefs and feelings of others become simply aids or hindrances to the
individual’s accomplishment of self-interest actions.
The Socialized Mind. In this category we find children aged 10 and older as well as most adults.
In this stage, individual desires and impulses (which were subject in the Instrumental Stage) have now
become object. Individuals at this stage develop an ability to subjugate their own impulses and desires to
the desires of others. Subject to individuals at this stage are the feelings and emotions of others,
particularly those guided by institutions that are most important to the individual (i.e., school, religion,
political party affiliation, community groups, etc.). Individuals at this stage are able to reflect on their
own actions and the actions of others and have put aside selfish impulses for the good of valued
5
institutions. Individuals at this stage, however, cannot distinguish their own wants and desires from those
institutions that have shaped their wants and desires. Esteem at this stage is not self-esteem but is instead
reliant on the judgment of others. Because of this, individuals at this stage will struggle when there is a
conflict between two or more important others. When conflict occurs between competing interests, the
individual will feel “torn in two” and will be unable to come to a decision easily – if at all. Subject to the
person at this stage is that the definition of self is created in relation to the people and institutions that the
person values.
The Self-Authoring Mind. This stage includes some of the adult population but exact estimates
vary. At this stage, the influences of people and institutions become object to individuals. A person in
this stage has developed a value system that is truly their own. It can be defined outside of existing
relationships and institutions. A person in this stage of development can examine and analyze rules,
systems, opinions and thoughts of others, compare those things to their own self-authored value system
and then determine the worth of the input they receive from others. Individuals no longer feel torn
between conflicting inputs because they have developed their own internal governing system to
understand conflicts and reach decisions. Individuals at this stage are self-motivated and self-directed.
They “author their own life stories” as they go. They can belong to institutions or groups without being
defined by or engulfed into those groups. Despite this seemingly advanced level of development,
however, individuals at this stage may struggle contrasting situations that are right and right decisions.
Further, individuals at this stage often encounter limitations because their self-authored guidance systems
are subject to their individual and it becomes difficult to appreciate the self-authored or institutionally
guided system of others.
The Self-Transforming Mind. Less than 1% of the adult population has reached this level of
development and, because there are fewer people at this level, much less is known about it. Kegan (1994)
argued that individuals at this stage develop their own process for making meaning but simultaneously
realize that their own process is flawed. They see limits in their values systems and are therefore open to
ambiguities. They view the world in “shades of gray” with far more similarities than differences and
much more connectedness than disparity. While at level four, the self-authored system is subject to the
individual, at level five, the system is object and thus can be explored, manipulated, reset and applied
differently in different situations.
As individuals progress through the stages of development, worldviews move from simple to complex
and unfold in increasingly dynamics ways. Self-centeredness takes a backseat to concern for others and
institutions which are, in turn subordinated to a greater world-centric connectedness. While individuals
move consecutively through the stages (stages are not skipped), most adults will spend some time
transitioning from one phase to the next. Thus, analysis of people’s levels of development is likely to
show elements of more than one of the levels at any given point in their lives. While none of the stages
are considered to be better than the others, the important challenge is to determine if the level of
development is appropriate to contextual requirements particularly during times when organizations may
be invoking change. Development of the mind is an interchange between both individuals and the
environment in individuals live and work.
Managing the Change Process
6
While horizontal development is often learned by imparting knowledge to an individual from an expert,
vertical development is a combination of skill use and self-learned development (Petrie, 2009). Moving
from one level to the next level often occurs when an individual finds limitations or faults with their
current way of making meaning - dissatisfaction with their current stage of development (Garvey Berger,
2006). Kegan and Lahey (2009) suggested that in order for people to move from one stage to the next,
they must be able to move assumptions from subject to object and then to test the validity of their
assumptions. Facilitators may be able to assist in this learning process but only if people are open to such
learning.
Kegan (2009) argued that there are four reasons that cause individuals to move from one stage to the next:




The person feels consistently frustrated by a situation, dilemma or challenge in life
This situation, dilemma or challenge causes a person to feel the limits of their current
way of thinking
The situation, dilemma or challenge occurs in an area of life about which the person cares
deeply
There is sufficient support available as the person progresses through anxiety or conflict.
Once individuals are ready to move to the next level, steps must be taken to surface those things that are
subject in one level and object in the next level. This is critical to consider when organizations engage in
large scale change processes. McGuire and Rhodes (2009) described this process in three steps: awaken,
unlearn and discern, and advance.



Awaken: the person becomes aware that there is a different way of making sense of the
world (or situation) and that doing things in a new way, based on the new meaning, is
possible.
Unlearn and Discern: The old assumptions are analyzed and challenged. New
assumptions are tested and experimented with as new possibilities for making meaning.
Advance: Advancing fully to the next level of development occurs with both practice
and effort. The new way of making meaning dominates previous ways of making
meaning and this new meaning makes more sense and is more applicable than previous
thinking
Executives and organizations must be purposeful with their desire to employ vertical leadership
development by providing experiences and opportunities, along with support and mentoring that allow
leaders to examine the assumptions and views they hold – to move understandings from subject to object.
Kegan and Lahey suggest that this purposeful vertical development process could be widespread in
organizations. In fact, they suggest that in organizations where vertical development is widespread and
apparent any person in the organization could tell you 1) the one thing they are working on that will
require their personal growth to accomplish it, 2) how they are working on it, 3) who else knows and
cares about it, and 4) why it matters to them. Vertical leadership development combined with horizontal
leadership development leads to powerful succession planning for agencies and organizations.
Conclusion
7
Kegan and Lahey argued that organizational change must begin with individual change. Executives and
organizations must be purposeful with their desire to employ vertical leadership development by
providing experiences and opportunities, along with support and mentoring that allow leaders to examine
the assumptions and views they hold – to move understandings from subject to object. Allowing and
sometimes forcing leaders and others in an organization to move their perspectives from subject to object
creates an opportunity to invoke both individual and ultimately organizational change. While leaders
often think strategically about change, it is important to consider that organizational changes must include
individual change. Kegan and Lahey suggest that this purposeful vertical development process could be
widespread in organizations to assist in contributing to change efforts. In fact, they suggest that in
organizations where vertical development is widespread and apparent any person in the organization
could tell you 1) the one thing they are working on that will require their personal growth (change) to
accomplish it, 2) how they are working on it, 3) who else knows and cares about it, and 4) why it matters
to them and aligns with organizational change strategy. Vertical leadership development combined with
horizontal leadership development leads to powerful change for agencies and organizations.
8