1

FeelingintotheMoment:ApplyingIntegralMapsandProcessestoCorporate

LeadershipTrainingandTrans‐disciplinaryEducation

JonathanReamsandAnneCaspari

Abstract: The application of more recent developments and experience in integral thought and

processes to various domains of human endeavor has been going on for the past decade or so. The

evolution of howwe (the authors/presenters) use integral frameworks in amorematuremanner to

support transformative processes at both individual and organizational levels and how these

applicationshave informedthedevelopmentofourtheoreticalunderstandingof integral leadership is

thefocusofthispresentation.Takingasabackgroundourunderstandingofusingconstructawareness

insuchwork,wewilldrawonrecentpracticeandtheoreticalworkfocusedontwoareas;integrityand

intuition.

Wewill focusontwospecificapplicationsofthisworkto illustrateour ideasandreflecton lessons

learned. One application is the corporate leadership training environment, where the opportunity to

experiment with designing and implementing combinations of activities to stimulate both individual

growthandorganizationalculturechangehasbroughtuseful insightsintohowtomovebeyondtelling

aboutmodelstoenactingsupportivescaffoldingstructures.Thesecondapplicationisanongoingproject

ofsupportingauniversitywiththedevelopmentofatransdisciplinarymastersprogram.Thisprojecthas

gone beyond many existing initial efforts in this direction to include a combination of theoretical

foundationswith personal developmentwork and group processes to prototype creating a collective

platformfordevelopingandconceivinghowsuchaprogrammightlook.

Keywords:Constructaware,integral,integrity,intuition,leadership.

Introduction

Feelingintothemoment–wefindourselvesdrawnintosituationswherewemustleaverationalplans

behind and improvise tomeet the calling before us. These situations can bemet inmany ways, but of

interesthereiswhatcananintegralconsciousnessprovideinsuchmoments.Inparticular,whatmightitbe

likeonthe journeyofgoing frombeing integrally informedtoan integralpractitioner inspecificdomains,

specificallyintheareasofleadershipdevelopmentandprocessfacilitation?Inthispaperwefirstexplorethe

2

theoreticalunderpinningsofourapproachtodeveloping leadership invariouscontexts.Wethendescribe

some of the specific applications we are involved in, and then briefly discuss what we perceive as the

implicationsforfuturedevelopmentofpractitionersinthisarea.

Integral leadership is being presented in various arenas of discourse as an advance on existing

frameworksforunderstandingleadership(Brown,2011;Reams,2005;Volckmann,2010;numerouspieces

inhttp://integralleadershipreview.com/).Inthisarticlewewillnotattempttoprovideacomprehensiveview

ofwhatwewouldconsidertobealloftherequisiteaspectsofintegralleadership.Whatwewillpresentisan

articulationofthecoreelementsweperceiveashavingthegreatestimpactonleaders’capacitytoopenand

holdspacesthatenableworktobeaccomplished.

First,wewillbeginbypresentingabriefsummaryofbiographicalandtheoreticalencountersinforming

us.Anne’s background is a lifelong enthusiasm for and studyof all thingsrelated toecology andnature

whichledtothestudyofNatureConservationandEnvironmentalPlanninginGermany(MSc).Shehasalso

doneresearchinintegraltheoryandpracticeinthe“mechanics”ofconsciousnesstraining,integratingallthis

into practicalwork inmanagement for sustainabilityand global changeprojects and in teachingwork at

various universities. Jonathan’s background includes farming before studying the history of western

intellectualthought,followedbymastersanddoctoratedegreesinleadershipstudies.Aswell,heundertook

parallelcourseworkinthefieldofconsciousnessstudiesbeforetakingupanacademicpositioninNorway.

Teaching leadership development from an integral perspective led to work with some Norwegianmulti‐

nationalcorporateclientswherehehastestedouttheutilityofintegrallyinformedmodels,distinctionsand

practicesinhighpressuresituations.

TheoreticalPositions

Together,wehavebeeninitiallyinformedbyKenWilber’sAQALmeta‐framework/theory(1996,2000a,

2006),whichalso includedDonBeck’s (Beck&Cowan,1996)developmentofan integralversionofSpiral

3

Dynamics.Sincethen,wehavegonedeeperintospecificsourcesofsomeoftheseframeworks,likeKegan

(1994),Torbert&Associates(2004)andCook‐Greuter(1999)onadultdevelopment,Scharmer(2007)onthe

UTheoryandprocess,Edwards(2010)on integralmeta‐theoryandMolz(2010)on integralpluralism.We

have gone through various learning curves and stages of development in relation to each of these

approaches,fromtheinitialexcitementthatcomesfromfindingamapthatbetterdescribestheterritoryof

experience, through the adoption of the map and using it to fit all experience into it, to encountering

limitations, shadowsof thecommunityofpracticeandreductionisticadoptions/interpretations, togaining

sufficientdistancetobeabletodrawonsuchmapsasappropriatetoolsingivensituations.

Theabilitytotakeaperspectiveoncomplexmapsofanintegralnaturedoesnotcomequicklyoreasily.

Thesemapshaveus fora longtime,(formany,possiblythis istheonlywaytheywillrelatetothem),and

becoming sufficiently distant to take a perspective on them requires a new kind of cognition. This is not

simplyanabilitytohandleevermoredetailedcomplexity,orakindofadditiveapproachtodevelopment.It

ismoreaboutaqualitativelynewrelationshiptocomplexity,amoredynamicview(Cook‐Greuter,1999).

Thuswe do not position ourselves as “integralists” in the sense of the totalizing impulse that can be

critiquedinrelationtosomestrandsofWilberianwork(Anderson,2006).Whilewerecognizethatweusea

range of such capacities in relation to everyday life situations, our particular interest is in later stage,

emergingstructuresofconsciousness.Whiletherearemanyframingsforthese,(e.g.Basseches,1975;Beck

andCowan,1996;Commons,2006;Kegan,1982,1994;Loevinger,1976;Torbert&Associates,2004;Wilber,

2000b),weprefer todrawon twoof them; integral consciousnessasaperspectivality (Gebser,1985)and

constructaware(Cook‐Greuter,1999).“Integralrealityistheworld’stransparency,aperceivingoftheworld

astruth:amutualperceivingandimpartingoftruthoftheworldandofmanandallthattranslucesboth”

(Gebser,1985,p.7).Gidley(2007)describeshow“Gebserusedthetermintegral‐aperspectivaltorefertothe

gradual transformation through awareness, concretion and integration of all the previous structures of

4

consciousness thatwehavebeenexploring—archaic,magic,mythic andmental—into anew structureof

consciousness” (p. 106). She alsonotes that this aperspectival structureof consciousness is also found in

morerecentliteratureonpost‐formalstagesofcognitivedevelopment.

Amoredetailedexaminationofhowlifeisperceivedandexperiencedatthis laterstageisprovidedby

Cook‐Greuter(1999).Atwhatshelabelsastheconstructawarestage,peopleare“becomingawareofthe

absurdities towhichunbridledcomplexityand logicalargumentscan lead” (p.44). “Nowconceptscanbe

seen for what they are: as illusions – as effective but nevertheless arbitrary maps, codifications,

representations,orsummariesofthefluxofsensoryandmentaldata”(p.46).Shedescribeshowindividuals

usingthisconsciousnessmovebeyondthinkingaboutthinking,tounderstandingthemechanicsofhowsuch

constant reflectiveanalysis isworking. Thiscanbe seenasanearly formof the transparencyofGebser’s

aperspectival consciousness.Asoneunfolds into thenext,orunitive stage, this takes rootmore fullyand

leadsto“anentirelynewwayofperceivinghumanexistenceandconsciousness”(p.48).Suchpeople“no

longerfeelaneedtoreachafterfactandreason”(p.49)andtheirself‐sense“isfluid,‘undulating,’basedon

people’strustintheinstrinsicvalueandprocessesoflife”(p.49).Thisleadstobeingabletotakerational,

representationalthoughtgroundedinperspectives,asanobjecttoreflectortakeaperspectiveon,which

couldbetermedaperspectival(Gebser,1985).Therelationshiptoexperienceshiftsfrommentalprocessing

and representation to immersion“in the immediate,ongoing flowofexperience” (Cook‐Greuter,1999.p.

49).

Thus our approach to integral rests on two pillars; the cognitively complex and comprehensivemeta‐

theoreticalframingofintegralpluralism(oftenreferredtoasbeing“integrallyinformed”)andtheviewfrom

aperspectivalorconstructawareconsciousness.Withthisbriefcornerstoneoftheintegralpartofintegral

leadershiplaidout,wenowturntothesecondhalfoftheterm,leadershipitselfandexploreourconceptions

inuse.

5

Therearealmostasmanydefinitionsofleadershipastherearetheoristsonthesubject(Rost,1991).Thus

it becomes important to be clear about which framing or definitionwe are drawing on for this article’s

intendedpurpose.Bothfromatheoreticalperspective,aswellasfrompracticeinworkingwithclients,we

have foundHeifetz’s (1994; Heifetz, Linsky&Grashow, 2009) view of adaptive leadership to be a useful

foundation. There are two core aspects of this we find most relevant. One is the distinction between

technical problems and adaptive challenges. Technical problems may be very complex and critically

important foranorganization,but theyhaveclearlydefinedboundariesandknownsolutions that canbe

implemented with current know‐how. Their resolution comes through the application of authoritative

expertiseanddrawsonanorganization’scurrentstructures,proceduresandwaysofdoingthings.

Adaptivechallenges,ontheotherhand,aremorelikeill‐structuredorwickedproblems,(Brown,Harris

andRussell,2010) inthattheyarenotabletobedefinedandunderstoodintermsofexistingknowledge.

Theyrequirelearningthatisoftentransdisciplinaryandinareasthatareoftennotwellunderstood,andin

additiontotechnicalaspectsalsoinvolve“messy”issuesthatlie“belowtheneck”likebeliefs,assumptions,

loyalties and values. The nature of these challenges is such that we do not “solve” them like we can a

technicalproblem,butareabletomakeprogressonthemthroughlearningabouttheinterconnectedsoft

issuesandsystemsthattheaspectsofthechallengethatweencounteraretiedto.

Whatisrequiredtodothisistogobeyondtheuseofexpertiseandauthoritytoenablepeopletodothe

learning, or “work” of examining assumptions, priorities, beliefs, habits, and loyalties. This leads to the

second aspect of adaptive leadership we find relevant; that leadership functions by creating a holding

environmentwhere thiskindofworkcanbedone.Aholdingenvironment isakindofcontainer,a space

wheresufficientchallengeandsupport(Kegan,1994)ispresenttoenablegrowth.Thenatureofthelearning

thatneedstohappenisoftenofthenaturerelatedtotakingwhatwehavebeensubjecttoandmakingitan

objectofreflection.Theassumptions,priorities,beliefs,habits,andloyaltiesthatoperatebelowtheneck,are

6

oftenautomaticreflexesthatrunus.Howtheseholdingenvironmentsorprocessesaremanifestediswhat

wefindtobeofparticularinterestandwillexploreindetailinwhatfollows.

PresentationofCoreView

This leads us to the presentation of our definition of integral leadership as integritywith a quality of

presencethatopensspacesforwhatwantstoemerge.Herewewillbrieflydiscussandexplorewhatismeant

byqualityofpresenceandthenotionofpresencing(Scharmer,2007),orwhatwantstoemerge.Infleshing

theseout,wewillgointodepthaboutconceptionsofintegrityandintuition.Theabovedescriptionoflater

stages of cognitive/ego development and how it relates to these themes will also be woven into our

discussion.Itisouraimthatthispresentationofourconceptionsinvolvedinintegralleadershipcanopenup

somefurthervariationsinthediscourseonthistopic.

Thecoreorgroundingprinciplehereisthenotionofqualityofpresence.Oneoftencitedformulationof

this comes fromBillO’Brien.He isquotedas saying that the“successofan interventiondependson the

interior condition of the intervener” (Scharmer, 2007,p. 7). This notion of the central importance of the

interiorconditionoftheinterveneriswhatScharmer(2002)referstoastheblindspotofleadership,orthe

lackofrecognitionthatthesourcesfromwhichweleadhaveaveryhighleverageimpactonourleadership

interventions.Thusthisqualityofpresenceoccurs invaryingdegrees inallofusall thetime. In itspurest

forms,“self”oregoistransparent(Cook‐Greuter,1999;Gebser,1985)andwemanifestwhatisoftentermed

atranspersonalSelf(Reams,2002).Attheotherendofthespectrum,weencountertotallyself‐embedded

leaders, for whom all activity is designed to reinforce and feed the constructed ego (Carey, 1992). The

movement towards greater self‐transcendence in relation to leadership can be viewed as a fundamental

option(Carey,1992).Inotherwords,itismoreimportantwhichdirectionyouaremovingthanwhereyou

areonagivendevelopmentalscale.Atthesametime,yourinterpretationofexperiencewillbecoloredby

the lens of the developmental level.We propose that there are practices, related to both integrity and

7

intuition,thatcanenableustocultivatethekindofqualityofpresencethatenablesustobetotallypresent

withanotherpersonorgroupofpeople.

StatesandIntegrity

Nowwewishtobrieflyexploresomeoftheblockagestobeingabletocreatehealthy,openspacesfrom

ourqualityofpresence.Palmer(1993,2004)describesintegritythisinrelationtotruth,framingtruthasa

verbratherthananoun,whichleadstoaviewoftruthastroth,alivingpledgewhereinwelearnhowtolive

in integritywiththetruthof this innercondition.Oneaspectof this isourstateofconsciousness (Wilber,

1996,2000b)(incontrasttothestagesofcognitivedevelopmentdescribedearlier).Thecultivationofstates

relevant toaligningwithour inneressencecangainusaccess to subtleenergies. From thisawarenessof

subtle energies, it is possible to consciously work with differentdomains or modes of information. We

perceivesubtleenergiestoactuallyhavethepotentialtohaveevengreaterimpactonrealitythanpractices

and information from gross states. This gives us the potential to access more authentic power, this

authenticitybeinggroundedinintegrityandalignmentwehavebeendescribing.

Differentwisdomtraditionsdescribethesekindsofstatesindifferentways,(Walsh,1999)forexampleas

‘grace’(Christian)or‘openinguptheheart’(Sufi),andallgointhedirectionofopeningupaspacetoreceive.

Forusitisself‐evidentthatinordertoreceive,whetherwecallitenergy,information,grace,orvision,that

the space held in such a leadership situation should at least be; a) free, e.g. not occupied by old ideas,

concepts,paradigms,ormaps(downloadinginScharmer’sUTheory),b)clean,inthiscontextmeaningvoid

of judgments, criticism, cynicism, bias, projections, or blame (Scharmer describes voices of judgment,

cynicism and fear), and c) contained, or by a closed group, a geographical space, a room, a structuring

method with rules (Torbert & Associates, 2004, describe these as liberating structures). These three

principles,ifnotaddressed,createimpedimentsandcanderailourgoodintentionsandqualityofleadership.

8

Theseimpedimentsarebasicallyadeeperlevelofissuesthatdonotsurfaceuntilwebeginworkinginthe

subtledomain.

Aswell,wecan,throughalackofpracticeoruse,loseaconnectionorintegritywiththesignalsfromour

essentialSelf.WeallhavethecapacitytoperceivethesubtlesignalsfromSelf,essenceorafieldthatsignals

whatwantstoemergefromthefuture(Sengeetal,2004,Scharmer,2007,Reams,2012)orfromanyother

unconditionedspacebeyondagiventrajectoryorperspective.Thebodysystemaswellassubtlebodiesare

apowerfulinstrumentforreceptionandperception,notonlyonthelevelofthesensesthatweareusedto.

McCratyetal.’s (2009) research indicates that thebrain in theheart,or theneurocardiological system, is

capableofperceivingsubtleelectromagneticfieldsuptothreemetersfromthebody.Thisgivesusawayto

show how sensitivity to the states of others can be cultivated with the integration available through

psychophysiological coherence. This externally focused capacity to perceive subtle signals can also be

directedinward.Theintegrationofthemindwiththestatesavailablethroughtheheartiskeytothis.Aswell,

wecanseehowthisinwardfocuscanbeexperiencedthroughthebody.

Oneofthemostimportantskillstolearnistheabilityof“generativelistening”–akindoflisteningthatis

active in the subtle realm and really opens up a space for a coachee or a group. This kind of listening

combines cleanorneutral sensing (e.g.notmixedwithone’sownconcerns, judgments,opinions) with

appreciationandcompassionwhilestayingneutraltotheother’scontents.Thisverypowerfulsubtleprocess

canbecomparedtoScharmer’s“openheart”orDavidGrove’s“cleanquestions”,(Barner,2008)butthere

is somethingmore to it. Levin (1989) calls the transpersonal skill of being present and listening without

gettingentangledintheego’sstoriesandpreoccupations“hearkening”‐atermborrowedfromHeidegger.

Hearkeningrequiresthedisciplinedpracticeoflettinggo‐andletting‐beasamodeandstyleoflistening,that

requiresappreciationandarecoveryofexperiencingmodalities(beingabletostayclosetoanyphenomena

9

arising). This quality of being present and listening is highly generative and can shift people out oftheir

deepestentanglementsandstuckness.

TheArchitectureofIntegrity

Anotherkeyelementwewishtoexploreinmoredepthtounderstandintegralleadershipisthestructure,

or architecture of integrity. Integrity, in our opinion, is a key quality for integral leadership. Earlier we

outlinedsomeaspectsofhowweinterpretthisconcept,andnowwewishtotakeapartitsmechanismsand

itseffectsinandonhumanconsciousnessfromanotherangle(Palmer,1994,1997).

TheinventorandvisionaryBuckminsterFuller(1997)describedintegrityasacapacityoftheuniverseto

createacertainpatternreliably.Aknotisaknotwithwhatevermaterialitismadewith:arope,acable,a

string,whileasimpleloophasnopatternintegrity.Hewavedhishandsaying:thisisnotahand.Withthe

body’s replacing cells every x years, it still remains a hand: It is a “pattern integrity.” It is the universe’s

capacitytocreatehands.Similarviewsoforderaspatternsofself‐organizingcomefromthefieldofphysics,

whereforinstancetheholographicmetaphorforhowtheuniverseisorganizedhasalsoshownhowthiskind

ofpatternintegritycanbeunderstood(Bohm,1980,Bohm&Hiley,1993;Talbot,1996).Thekeypointwas

thisreliabilityandthecohesionofthepatternthatdefinedintegrity.“Apatternhasintegrityindependentof

the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists. Each of the chemical

elements is a pattern integrity. Each individual is a pattern integrity. The pattern integrity of the human

individualisevolutionaryandnotstatic.”(Fuller,1997,section505.201).

Inthismannerwewouldliketoembarkonadiscussionofintegrityasoneofthecrucialelementsfora

leader.Inthisperspective,wearemoreinterestedinwhateffectintegrity,aswellasnon‐integrity,hason

ourleaderorintervener.Howdoesitimpacthisorherinnerstatesandthecapacitytocreateopen,clean

spaces,toperceiveandreceiveunbiasedinformation?

Integrityisatimetestedvirtuethatispromotedbyallgreatwisdomtraditions(Walsh,1999)andforgood

reason.Integrity,oritsabsence,isthekeyfactorindeterminingthecapacitytobepresenttosomebodyor

10

somethingelse;toanotherperson,toagroup,toanidea,toanemotionortoanyotherconstructthatarises

inone’sownconsciousness.Inordertobeabletokeeptheaccesstointuitiveguidancestableandreliable,in

ordertoopenthespaceforagroupprocessoraprototypingsomethingnew,weperceiveintegrityasakey

condition.Assuch,wewishtodrawonanotherdescriptionofintegrity;asacompleteabsenceoftriggersor

anyother interferencethatcouldarise inagivensituation(Palmer,1997).Basically, integrityallowsbeing

presenttotheother,individualorcollective.

Whilethisperspectiveonintegritycanbeuseful,tohelprecognizeandmakeusefuldistinctionswithit,

wefindithelpfultoexaminethenatureofsomeofthetriggersorinterferencethatcreate,orresultinnon‐

integrity. To do this,we have to consider someof themore subtlemechanismsof consciousness. In the

Wilberianintegralworld,non‐integrity iscalled“shadowmaterial”andreferstoalloftheparts, identities,

sub‐personalities (Assagioli, 1971) that have been dis‐owned in a persons’ ego development.Dissociated

parts(saying;thisisnotmine)areoftennotonlynotseenasone’sown,butprojectedoutandarefalsely

recognisedassomebodyelse’sparts(identities,characteristics,attitudesetc.;“thisisyours”).Intheintegral

context,inclassicalpsychotherapy,aswellasinthecoretenetsofmostofthegreatwisdomtraditions,there

arepractices that aim toprovide ways to re‐own these kindsofdis‐associated shadowparts.Theprime

directiveinalloftheseframeworksistousetoolsand,mostlyspiritual,practicestobecomeas“whole”as

possible, not impaired or projecting undesired feelings out. Integrity is thus restored through addressing

theseconditionsofnon‐integrity.

Comingbacktoourquestionabouthowintegrityornon‐integrityimpactsinnerstatesandthecapacityto

create open, clean spaces, to perceive and receive unbiased information, we see thatnon‐integrity as a

boundaryownershipproblemcanlimitenormouslytheabilityofapersontobepresent.Wehavenotedthat

beingpresenttoallmannerofwhatarisesisanessentialcapacityforleadershiptocreateandmaintainthese

spaces,orholdingenvironments(Heifetz,1994).Thisisespeciallytrueifthesituationrequiresgettingoutof

11

one’s comfort zone, as leaders are quite often challenged to do. Aswell, as noted above, the ability to

receive is important. So our working definition of integrity is the capacity to stay present to whatever

phenomenonisarising(usuallyresistedexperiences)inrealtimeinagivenleadershiportrainingsituation.

Naturally,thecleaneraleader’sownspaceisthemoreshecanrecognizesubtleenergiesintheroomand

drawinformationfromit(thusawiderchoicefield).Shecanalsostaywith“notknowing”anddoesnothave

topushthroughnaturallyemergingunknownsand(necessary)gapswithactionsarisingfromothermodesof

consciousness (such as thinking or reacting). While avoiding the pitfalls of filtering, or biasing the

interpretationofinformationthatcomestoaleaderiscritical,inadditiontothisexternalaspect,thereisan

internaldimensionofthis;intuition.

Intuition

Intuition is a phenomenon that is commonly defined as the ability to acquire knowledgewithout the

interference or the use of reason (Franquemont, 1999). In this sense it is a trans‐rational mode of

consciousness(Reams,2002).Sengeetal.’s(2004)conceptionofpresencingcanbeseenasanotherformof

this capacity to perceive, receive, and learn to act upon, knowledge coming from sources other than a

rationalanalyisisofexternalsensorydata.Researchintotheuseofintuitionasarigorousmethodofinquiry

hasshownthatitispossibletohonethiscapacityanddrawnonitinarigorousmanner(Braud&Anderson,

1998).Theimplicationsofawell‐developedintuitivecapacityforleadershipappearobvious,butarenotvery

welldocumentedorresearched.

Inarecentstudyonconsciousleadershipforsustainabilitythatdidexamineintuition,Brown(2011)found

thattherespondentswithlatestageactionlogics,inadditionto“traditionalsourcesofknowledge,suchas

technical or content knowledge” (p. 136), drewupon “intuition andways of knowingother than rational

analysis” (p.137).Respondents in this study,when talkingabout the sourcesof this intuitionorhow this

other way of knowing worked, used terms like; consciousness, heart, cosmic intelligence, higher self,

12

unnameable mystery, spirit (p. 139). They also described the processes of accessing knowledge in this

mannerwithtermslike;puttheintentionoutandletitcome,getridoftheegostuffandthendownloadit,

the design designsme, pluck ideas out of the ether; it just comes (p. 139). These results indicate how a

specificdemographicof leaders,thosewith latestagecognitivecapacities,describethisphenomenon.We

also recognize that intuition is experienced by people in general and leaders specifically, independent of

stagedevelopment.Howitisinterpretedandusediswhatwebelievewillvaryinrelationtoalensofstage

development.

Thustheevidencewehaveexaminedsuggestsdifferencesintheuseofintuitionthatseemtoderivefrom

amultitudeofdifferentfactors.Wewilllistwhatweperceiveasthemostimportanthere.First,whileevery

personseemstohaveabasicpotentialaccesstointuitionindependentofstageofcognitivedevelopment,

noteverybodyseemstohaveastableaccessandbeabletouseit.Second,theaccesstointuitionasasource

forknowledgeseemstobedependentondifferenttypesofpeople,asdocumentedinforexampleonthe

JungianMyers‐Briggspersonalitytypemodel(BriggsMyers&Myers,1980).Third,ifapersonisgenerally

intuitive, thestabilityofaccessseemstodependonother factors thatcan inhibit such intuitiveguidance,

suchas judgements,excessivethinking,orfear(correspondingtoScharmer’svoicesof judgment,cynicism

andfear).Forthesereasonstheaccesstointuitioncangreatlybenefitfromthementalandspiritualpractices

thatwillworkonkeepingthoughts,judgmentsandfearatbay,suchasmindfulnesstraining,willexercises,

attentionmanagement, ormediation. Any of these practices enhance the skills to stay close to resisted

phenomenaarisinginone’sownortheother’sspacewithoutthenaturalimpulsetopushthemawaybehind

theboundariesofself.Thepracticeofthecapacityforintegrityisobviouslyvital.

Fourth,whileweworkwiththeassumptionthatintuitionisageneralhumancapacitythatisindependent

of stage development, the different action logics (Torbert & Associates, 2004) will play a role. The

informationgainedviaintuitionwillusuallybeinterpretedthroughthevaluesystem(Beck&Cowan,1996)

13

that a person inhabits. Intuitive guidance would usually be “right” or “true” or “just” in the sense of a

“functionalandcultural fit” for thepersonreceiving intuitiveguidance. Incoachingpractices,certaintools

canbeapplied tocoachapersonthat is inastucksituationto removeallpsychologicalmaterialblocking

onesintuition(e.g.Kegan&Lahey’s(2009)ImmunitytoChangeprocess,Palmer’s(1997)transparentbeliefs,

releasingfixedattentionexercise,etc.).Thecoacheewillhave,withasuddeninsight,accesstohisorhernext

“right thing todo,” that is informedby intuition. “Right” is soonly in themeaningmaking systemof the

coachee andwill generally fit inwith themeaningmaking system of that person and his or her cultural

environment.Insightsatthislevelcan,withamultitudeofsmaller“dis‐identifications”alsopavethewayfor

stagedevelopment,orfortakingaperspectiveonthemechanismsthatcreatedthisparticularreality.

Fifth,wecanseeinterferencefromtheprocessofthinkingitself.Forexample,childrenoperatingwithina

pre‐rational developmental stage can be extremely intuitive, as rational, concrete operational thought

(Piaget,1954)hasnotyetfullytakenroot.Asitdoes,attentionisfocusedongrowingintothefulluseofthe

tremendousbenefitstherationalmindbrings.Retaininganabilitytoalsokeepopentheaccesstointuitive

knowing can be hampered by the powerful dependence on rational thought. To access knowing beyond

rationalthought,oratrans‐rationalwayofknowing,requiresbothasuspensionofthispotentialinterference

fromrationalthought,aswellasnotmistakingapre‐rationalmodeforatrans‐rationalone(Wilber,1996,

2000a).

Sixth,whilestagedevelopmentisbynomeansaprerequisiteforintuition,thereareimplicationsrelated

tohowdifferentstagesofcognitivedevelopmentuse intuitionandmakesenseof the informationgained

through that particular channel. Research suggests a strong correlation between late stage action logics

(strategist,alchemists)andtheirabilitytoleadeffectively(Brown,2011;Torbert&Associates,2004;Cook‐

Greuter,1999).Peopleattheselaterstages,inadditiontowhathasbeendescribedabove,haveadifferent

attitudetowards intuitionanddifferentskillstheyapplytokeepthataccessopen.Theyhavedevelopeda

14

trans‐rational approach towards intuitions and rely easily on intuitive guidance. Their meaning making

system is also such that the information gained by intuition can be used tomanage complex problems.

Brown(2011)identifiedthatthey;usethataccesstotapintocollectiveconsciousness,havearegularpractice

in to keep the access to intuitionopen,stable and reliable, have a perspective on intuition that allows a

discernmenton the informationgained (e.g.not“hearingvoices.”orbeing filteredbydesires, judgments,

etc.),andcanbeintouchwiththeirintegrity.WewouldaddtoBrown’slisttheimportanceofintegrityasa

wayofkeepingaccesstointuitionopenandfreeofblockagesorfiltering.

Applications

Inmanyyearsofcoachingindividualsandgroups,wehavebothindependentlyexperiencedawidening

ofperspectivesandthematurityofourownmeaningmakingsystemintoconstructaware.Wefound,that

while we might differ in the use of individual tools, we have found the same invaluable underlying

mechanismsandprinciplesforourworkandgetsimilarandreliablesuccessesintheapplicationofourtools

andmethods.Thisiswhyweareinterestedindiscussingthoseprinciplestohaveaclearerunderstanding

whatthiscouldmeanforintegralleadershipdevelopmentandtheapplicationinthefield.

One area of application for these ideas has come throughthe opportunity to develop a course for a

masters in organizational leadership program that led to applying similarwork in corporate settings.The

approachtakeninthesesettingshasbeentobeginwiththeuseof“awarenessbasedtechnologies”toenable

leadership development. O’Fallon (2010) points to three dimensions essential to manifest development;

stage,stateandbehaviororskills.Balancingthesebecameanimportantlensindevelopingtheseprograms.

Whilemanyofthewaysofaddressingthisbalancearehighlyinter‐related,forthecurrentpurposesI(JR)will

focusontheminthesethreecategories.

Beginningwithstates,thereareanumberofcomponents.Inlinewiththeabove,theinnerconditionof

theteacher/facilitatorisacorecomponentofcreatingthespaceorholdingenvironment.Thisspacewillhave

15

different levels to it. One will be on the subtle level, picked up by others energetically, impacting the

neurocardiologyofparticipants(McCratyetal.,2009).Psychophysiologicalcoherenceinthefacilitatorcanbe

pickedupandinterpretedbyparticipantsinvariousways.Itcanengendertrust,risktaking,emotionalsafety

and cognitive spaciousness to enablebetter quality of reflection. I haveobservednumerous caseswhere

studentsorprogramparticipantsbeginwithasomewhatguardeddemeanorinthebeginningofaprogram

orclass,andovertimefeeltheirwayintoamorespaciousstate.Thisisespeciallyobservableinendofclass

orprogram“checkouts”whenparticipantsreflectontheirexperienceandnotevariouswaysinwhichthey

havecometoamoreauthentic,coherentandevenexpandedtheirsenseofthemselves.

I have also observed how a progressively more subtle and profound state creates a strong holding

environmentforthiswork.Asparticipantsgothroughvariousexperiences(likereceivingintegrallyinformed

360feedback,goingthroughtheimmunitytochangeprocess),theyarechallengedtoreflectontheirown

behaviors,experiences,assumptionsetc.inseriousways.Havingastrongholdingenvironmentisessentialto

enablethisprocesstoworkasdeeplyaspossibleonparticipants.Theabilitytogainnewinsightsonwhat

havepreviouslybeeneitherunconsciousbehaviorsorabstractpatternsandsitwith thestrongemotional

reactionsthiscanbringupisaidedbythestateofconsciousnessprovidedasaholdingenvironment.Itisalso

observablethatasthegroupmovesthroughthisprocess,“earlyadopters”takeupthe invitationtoenter

intothisspaceandmodel theprocess forothers,alsomaking itsafer for themtoventure into it.Various

tippingpointscanbeobserved in this,andofcoursenotallgroupsgoas farordeep intocollectivestate

experiences,butthepatternisclearoverworkingwithnumbersofgroups.Ihaveevennotedattimesthatit

appears that a group will act as if they are in a semi‐trance state, enabling them to perceive and hold

perspectives,experiencesandsoonthatwouldnotnormallybeaccessible.

Intermsofstages,thereareanumberofconsiderationsIhaveobserved.Ofcoursethestagecapacityof

theteacher/facilitatorisimportantinhelpingtosetthestageforparticipantstobridgefromtheirownlevels

16

ofunderstandingtoamoreexpansiveperspectivetakingrelationshiptotheideasinplay.Ihavewitnessedin

myselfanongoingchallengetolearnhowtopresentideas,butalsoinstructionsforreflectionexperiencesin

amannerthatarenottoocomplexorabstracttofollow.(Ioftenmakeupsuchexercisesinthemoment,and

thenhavetotranslatemyselfrightafterwardstomakeitclearer).Thischallengehascontributedtolearning

howtocreatebetterliberatingstructures(Torbert&Associates,2004)andappropriatescaffolding(Jordan,

2011)foropeningthespaceforparticipants’journeys.

Another componentof attending to stagesrelated to this is utilizing appropriate activities (theoretical

framings,questionsfordiscussion,exercises,360feedback)toprovidethisbridgingandscaffolding.Usingan

integrally informed360 feedback instrument (The LeadershipCircle) to createa “crucible”oropening for

deeperreflectionand insight,participantsareableto“seethemselves” inamorerefinedorsophisticated

manner.Theiropinionsandself‐imagesarefilteredthroughasetoflensesthataddpoweranddepthtotheir

self‐understandings.Fromthisplatform,theyareledthroughthe immunitytochangeprocess(Keganand

Lahey,2009)wheretheyarebothabletotakeaperspectiveonsomethingthattheyhavebeensubjectto,

andareabletobeginpracticingandinternalizingaprocesstofacilitatesuchsubjecttoobjectworkinother

domainsoftheirlives.OtherscaffoldingtoolsusedincludeTorbert’sfourpartsofspeech,Argyris’ladderof

inference,andtheArbingerInstitute’s(2010)collusionmaps.

Finally,skillsorbehaviorsarealsocriticallyimportanttoenabletheleadershipdevelopmentworktotake

root.Practice,inthesenseofbothsportstrainingandspiritualpractice,isattheheartofskilldevelopment.

Whiletheawarenessbasedtechnologyworkisusedtoshiftbehaviors,newbehaviorsalsoneedpracticeto

develop increased skillful means. Skills in specific areas related to this are often in the domain of

communication.Thusinmuchofthecorporateworkthereistimespentgivingparticipantsspecific,detailed

instructionsandtimetopracticebasiccommunicationskills.Thesearefocusedonhowtotakeacoaching

17

orientationtodevelopingemployees,tacklepivotalconversations(Joiner&Josephs,2007)andaskpowerful

questions.Participantsgainatremendousvaluefromthispracticeandlearnhowtolinktheorywithskills.

ThemostpotentapproachthatI(AC)havefoundinmypraxisfortransformativeleadershipdevelopment

inworkingwithNGOs,scientistsorcorporationsisanotasingletoolormethod,butacombinationthereof

that is in constant state of flux and is recalibrated in real time– feeling into themomentwith dynamic

steering. For cool tools, (like any of those awareness based technologiesmentioned so far), to be truly

generativeinthesenseofourinquiryintointegralleadership,severalconditionsneedtobeinplace.

One;forsureduediligenceonmypart:myownspacehastobeclear,mycapacityforgenerativelistening

practiced,mytoolbox isprepared.Two; if transformativeprocessesarecalledfor, I followthearchetypal

pattern of transformation, best described in Scharmer’s U process, or in Campbell’s (1991) the Hero’s

Journey.Withthebackgroundexperienceofoveradecadeofintensivecoaching,Iknowwhereparticipants

intheirprocessstandinrespecttotheirtransformationprocess,whatresistancemechanismstheymightbe

caughtinandhowtohelpthembackontrack.Eventhoughthisseemsobvious,itisimportanttoknowat

whichstageofthetransformativeprocesstousewhattoolwithwhateffect.However,moreoftenthannot,

thearchitectureandnaturalsequenceoftheseprocesses,eventhougharchetypal,oftenseemshiddenand

misunderstood,especiallytothepeopleinsidetheprocesswishingtotransform.Forexample,inanongoing

projectwithmembersoftheIPPCinthefieldofclimatechange,Ioftenfindparticipantsfrustrated,because

theyoftentryandapplyprototypingtools(rightlegoftheU)andworkingwithsystems(LRquadrant),before

theyhavede‐constructedoldparadigmperspectivesindividually(UL)andcollectively(LL),beforetheywent

through the layers of mis‐ and dis‐identification spaces (subtle/causal states), found some personal and

collective dis‐aligning assumptions (see Kegan, Scharmer) and came into a space where completely new

perspectives actually seemed possible. Formany people in the globalchange arena this kind of work is

crucial.

18

Three;knowledgeaboutdevelopmentalstagesandactionlogicsenablemetoadaptlanguageandtools

thatarea functional fit to theparticipants. Lastyear Iwascalled in tohelp readjustachangeprocess in

SouthAfrica.ThechangeprocesswasfundedbyaGermanNGO,designedasayearlongUprocesstohelp

fosterclimatechangeleadershipin2countries,IndonesiaandSouthAfrica,withrepeatedjointsessionsina

yearprogram.Thewell‐meaningprogram,however,wasconceivedfromapluralisticworldviewanddidnot

accountfordifferencesandincommensurabilitiesindevelopmentalstages,worldviews,andculturalhabits.

For the secondyear ina row, the50participantswere in resistance to theprogramsince theirpushback

mechanismswereconstantlytriggeredthroughtoolsandmethodsthatarefitforaGreen(vMeme)mindset,

butcreatedindifference,confusion,resistanceorevenaggressioninmostoftheparticipants.Idesigneda

workshopfortheparticipantsinawaytheycouldexperienceatransformativeshiftinaccordancewiththeir

respectiveculturalworldviewswithouttriggeringtheresistancesinthegroup.Attheenditwasasmall,real

UProcesswithouttheuseofanyofthetoolsprovidedbythePresencingInstitute.

Anothergoodexampleoftheapplicationoftransformativetools inaconstant,quasinotplan‐ableflux

withdynamicsteeringwasourcommonassignmentatWITSUniversityinJohannesburg,SA,workingwitha

team of representatives from 8 departments on the development of a trans‐disciplinary post‐graduate

curriculuminGlobalChange.Wehadbothourtoolboxesreadyandadoptedaformalframeworkinspired

bytheImmunitytoChangeprocess,butweaskedourclientstoleaveroomformaneuveringandspacefor

generativeprocessesaswewent.Wetooktheparticipants,individuallyandcollectivelytohaveacloserlook

at internal changeprocesses and to experiencingeffective change and transformation. Sure enough,we

encounteredtheintrinsicpushbacks,resistancesandescapemechanisms,butwereabletorespondinreal

timewithdifferenttools.However,themostdecisive,andtricky,ingredientthatrenderedtheWITSproject

anongoingsuccessfortheparticipantswaswhatcould,ifwatchedfromtheoutside,eithergounobservedor

evenbemistakenforalackofpreparation.Morethantheapplicationofagivensequenceoftoolsbythe

19

book(TheImmunitytochangeProcess,TheUprocess),itwastheenergywithwhichweheldthefieldforall

whichallowedusaconstantdynamicsteeringfromtheinformationwegotfromwhatwasemerging.This

process includedmanymomentsofnotknowingtheanswer,sometimesevennotknowingwhattodoor

proposenext.Itwasmostimportantthoughtobeabletoholdthespaceofnotknowingandnottotryand

fill it in with experienced choices coming from a non‐intuitive space (logic/thinking) of the seasoned

practitioner.Thedifficultaspect in thesespaces is, thatoneneedstoprotect thatgapof“noaction”also

againstaclientCEOwithanexplicitagendawhichisbiasedtowardstangibleoutcomesandalsoprovidea

solidbridgeforparticipantstostepon,knowingthatallisconstructedinthatverymoment.Thatholdingthe

quality of presence and letting the answers emerge from the group was what made these gaps most

generative. Theoutcomes intermsofpersonaltransformation,groupcohesion,alignmentandnewideas

wereextraordinary.

Conclusion

Having briefly presented some of our conceptions around integral leadership, the core constructswe

infuse this with and briefly discussed some of our applications, we will conclude with a few remarks

summarizing our inquiry.We presented a definition of integral leadership as integrity with a quality of

presencethatopensspacesforwhatwantstoemerge.Wesituatedthisinthecontextofadaptiveleadership

anddrewexplicitlinkstohowmanycurrentchallengescanbestbeaddressedthroughleadershipthatbrings

alaterstageofcognitivedevelopmenttobearonthem.Wealsohighlightedthatthisaloneisinsufficientand

advocatedstronglyfortheneedtobringintegrityandintuitiontobearonthesituation.Oneofourintentions

wasalso toapproachsomeof the lessdiscussedandnot so tangiblemechanismsofknowledgecreation,

meaningmakingandperception (in relation to intuitionand integrity) that are far toooftenobscuredby

moral/ethicalreflectionsorsubjecttopre‐transfallacies.

20

Inthispaperwehavetakenthecomplex,evolvinganddynamictopicofintegralleadershipandutilized

variouslensestoenableustotakeourfocusacrossspecificaspectswefeelrelevant.Inparticular,wehave

noted the dynamic tension between the contribution of later stages of development and the integrity

involvedintheconceptofqualityofpresence.Integritycanbepracticed.Cognitive/egodevelopmentcanbe

cultivatedandacceleratedthroughvariouspracticesdesignedforthosepurposes.Thecombinationofthese

practices can help address the challenges of power. What we note is that in much of the mainstream

literatureonleadership,thereisoftenanassumptionthatmanyofthequalitieswehaveexploredhereare

takenasgivens,ornotunderstoodintermsoftheirinter‐relationships.Thustheneedtobetterunderstand

themthroughanintegralmeta‐theoreticalview,backedupbyapplicationandexperience.Webelievethat

thiscanenableustobetterdevelopnewpracticesfordevelopingintegralleadership.

Itisintheunpackingofintegralleadershipthroughthesecomponentsthatwebegintoperceiveintegral

leadershipnotassomethingmore,orbeyond,orspecial,butastheessenceorwholenessofleadershipin

anyform.Leadershipisinitselfanintegralenterpriseoractivity,asitrequiresintegrityandintuition,with

these arising fromor contributing to a quality of presence that opens spaces forwhatwants to emerge.

Whilewealsoappreciateandnotethecontributionofhowlaterstagesofcognitivedevelopmentcanenable

leaderstoopenandholdevendeeperandcomplexspaces,wedonotseethisaloneasdemarkingadifferent

kindofleadership,anintegralvariety.Wealsonotethataspectsofourinquirycouldpointbeyondameta‐

theoreticalapproachtowhatCook‐Greuter(1999)describesas“wherethereiscompletelysomethingelse.”

Wehopethattheresultofourinquiriesintothissubject,asoutlinedhere,canfurthertheunderstandingand

applicationofintegralleadershipaswellasleadershipasawhole.

21

References

Anderson, D. (2006). Of syntheses and surprises: Toward a critical integral theory. Integal Review: A

TransdiciplinaryandTransculturalJournalofNewThought,ResearchandPraxis,3,62‐81.

Assagioli,R.(1971).Psychosynthesis.NewYork:Penguin.

Barner, R. (2008). The dark tower: Using visual metaphors to facilitate emotional expression during

organizationalchange.JournalofOrganizationalChangeManagement,21(1),120‐137.

Basseches,M.(1975).Dialecticalthinkingandadultdevelopment.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Beck, D., & Cowan, C. (1996). Spiral dynamics. Mastering values, leadership and change. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Bohm,D.(1980).Wholenessandtheimplicateorder.London:Routledge.

Bohm,D.,&Hiley,B.(1993).Theundivideduniverse:Anontologicalinterpretationofquantumtheory.New

York:Routledge.

Braud,W.,&Anderson,R.(1998).Transpersonalresearchmethodsforthesocialsciences:Honoringhuman

experience.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

BriggsMyers,I.,&Myers,P.(1980).Giftsdiffering:Understandingpersonalitytype.MountainView,CA:CPP,

Inc.

Brown,B. (2011).Conscious leadershipforsustainability:Howleaderswitha late‐stageaction logicdesign

andengageinsustainabilityinitiatives.SantaBarbara,CA:FieldingGraduateUniversity/UMI.

Brown,V.,Harris,J.,&Russell,J.(2010).Tacklingwickedproblems:Throughthetransdisciplinaryimagination.

London:Earthscan.

Campbell,J.,&Cousineau,P.(1991).Thehero'sjourney.SanFrancisco:HarperSanFrancisco.

22

Carey, M. (1992). Transformational leadership and the fundamental option for self‐transcendence.

LeadershipQuarterly,3(3),217‐236.

Commons,M.L.(2006).Measuringanapproximateginanimalsandpeople.IntegralReview(3),82‐99.

Cook‐Greuter,S.(1999).Postautonomousegodevelopment:Astudyofitsnatureandmeasurement.Boston,

MA:Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.

Edwards, M. (2010).Organizational transformation for sustainability. An integral metatheory. New York:

Routledge.

Franquemont,S.(1999).Youalreadyknowwhattodo.10invitationstotheintuitivelife.NewYork:JeremyP.

Tarcher/Putnam.

Fuller, B. (1997). Synergetics. Exploratoins in the geometry of thinking. RetrievedMarch 12, 2012, from

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html

Gebser,J.(1985).Theever‐presentorigin.(N.Barstad,Trans.)Athens,OH:OhioUniversityPress.

Gidley,J.(2007).TheEvolutionofConsciousnessasaPlanetaryImperative:AnIntegrationofIntegralViews.

IntegralReview,4‐226.

Heifetz,R.(1994).Leadershipwithouteasyanswers.Boston:HarvardUniversityPress.

Heifetz, R., Linsky, M., & Grashow, A. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership. Tools and tactics for

changingyourorganizationandtheworld.Cambridge,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Joiner,B.,& Josephs, S. (2007).Leadershipagility.Mastering core competencies forhandling change. San

Francisco:Jossey‐Bass.

Jordan,T. (2011). Skillfulengagementwithwicked issues.A framework foranalysing themeaning‐making

structuresofsocietalchangeagents.IntegralReview,7(2),47‐91.

Kegan,R. (1982).Theevolvingself.Problemandprocess inhumandevelopment.Cambridge,MA:Harvard

UniversityPress.

23

Kegan,R.(1994).Inoverourheads.Thementaldemandsofmodernlife.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity

Press.

Kegan,R.,&LaskowLahey,L.(2009).Immunitytochange.Howtoovercomeitandunlockthepotential in

yourselfandyourorganization.Boston:HarvardBusinessPress.

Levin,D.M.(1989).Thelisteningself:personalgrowth,socailchangeandtheclsoureofmetaphysics.London:

Routledge.

Loevinger,J.(1976).Egodevelopment:Conceptsandtheories.SanFrancisco:Jossey‐Bass.

McCraty,R.,Atkinson,M.,Tomasino,B.,&Bradley,R.(2009).Thecoherentheart:Heart‐braininteractions,

psychophysiologicalcoherence,andtheemergenceofsystemwideorder.IntegralReview,5(2),4‐

107.

Molz, M. (2010). Toward an integral pluralism in sociocultural research. Luxembourg: University of

Luxembourg.

O'Fallon,T.(2010).Groundingintegraltheoryinthefieldofexperience.InS.Esbjörn‐Hargens,J.Reams,&O.

Gunnlaugson,Integraleducation;Newdirectionsforhigherlearning(pp.185‐192).Albany,NY:SUNY

Press.

Palmer,H.(1994).Livingdeliberately:ThediscoveryanddevelopmentofAvatar.AltamonteSprings,FL:Star's

EdgeInternational.

Palmer, H. (1997).Resurfacing: Techniques for exploring consciousness. Altamonte Springs, FL: Star's End

Creations.

Palmer, P. (1993). To know as we are known. Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco :

HarperSanFrancisco.

Palmer,P.(2004).Ahiddenwholeness:Thejourneytowardanundividedlife.SanFrancisco:Jossey‐Bass.

Piaget,J.(1954).Theconstructionofrealityinthechild.NewYork:BasicBooks.

24

Reams,J.(2002).Theconsciousnessoftranspersonalleadership.Spokane,WA:GonzagaUniversity/UMI.

Reams,J.(2005).What's integralaboutleadership?Areflectiononleadershipandintegraltheory.Integral

Review,1,118‐132.

Reams, J. (2012). Integral leadership. Opening space by leading through the heart. In C. Pearson, The

transformingleader(pp.102‐109).SanFrancisco:BerrettKoehler.

Rost,J.(1991).Leadershipforthetwenty‐firstcentury.Westport,CT:PraegerPublishers.

Scharmer,C.O.(2002).Illuminatingtheblindspot.LeaderToLeaderJournal,11‐14.

Scharmer,C.O.(2007).TheoryU.Leadingfromthefutureasitemerges.Thesocialtechnologyofpresencing.

Cambridge,MA:TheSocietyforOrganizationalLearning,Inc.

Senge,P.,Jaworski,J.,Scharmer,C.O.,&Flowers,B.S.(2004).Presence:Exporingprofoundchangeinpeople,

organizationsandsociety.Boston:SocietyforOrganizationalLearningInc.

Talbot,M.(1996).Theholographicuniverse.NewYork:HarperCollinsPublishersLtd.

TheArbingerInstitute.(2010).Leadershipandself‐deception(2nded.).SanFrancisco:BerrettKoehler.

Torbert,W.,&Associates.(2004).Actioninquiry.Thesecretoftimelyandtransformingaction.SanFrancisco:

Berrett‐Koehler.

Volckmann, R. (2010). Integral Leadership Theory. In R. A. Couto (Ed.),Political and civic leadership. A

referencehandbook(pp.121‐127).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublicationsInc.

Walsh,R.(1999).Essentialspirituality.The7centralpracticestoawakenheartandmind.NewYork:Wiley&

Sons,Inc.

Wilber,K.(1996).Abriefhistoryofeverything.Boston:Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000a).A theoryof everything.An integral vision forbusiness, politics, scienceand spirituality.

Boston:ShanbhalaPublicationsinc.

Wilber,K.(2000b).Integralpsychology.Consciousness,spirit,psychology,therapy.Boston,MA:Shambhala.

25

Wilber,K.(2006).Integralspirituality:Astartlingnewroleforreligioninthemodernandpostmodernworld.

Boston:Shambhala.

Bios

JonathanReamsisanassociateprofessorattheNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,Editor‐in‐

Chiefof IntegralReview (www.integral‐review.org),aswellasanorganizational consultantand leadership

trainer.

AnneCaspariisacoachandconsultantfortransformationalprocessesinadultdevelopmentaswellasinthe

global sustainability arena. She is also a private lecturer at universities in different countries on integral

sustainability,leadershipandchangemanagement.