www.gallusconsulting.com 0203 751 6345

LEADERS! IT’S HOW YOU THINK THAT MATTERS!

THINKING ABOUT THINKING

As we progress through life the way we think develops and changes. Many psychologists have researched and captured this phenomena, one of whom is Robert Kegan. His model describes five stages of complexity of thinking - ‘orders of mind’.

The ‘subject/object’ relationship is the key to understanding these; it describes the aspects of an experience that we can consciously perceive and think about (that we are able to hold as object), and the aspects of an experience that we are unaware of and are subject to.

Where we are unable to consciously hold an aspect of an experience as object we are automatically subject to it – even though we are perhaps unaware of its existence and certainly of its effect.

Kegan’s five stages do not represent intelligence, however they do give us vital clues about how an individual is likely to make decisions and can therefore provide a pathway for the development of their thinking.

The Impulsive Mind (1st order thinking) is typically demonstrated by children up to around the age of six. The Instrumental Mind (2nd order thinking) then takes over and is usually the mode of thinking through adolescence.

It is very unusual to find leaders that demonstrate either of these developmental stages, however it is possible. Of more interest are the Socialised (3rd order thinking), Self-Authored (4th order thinking) and Self-Transforming (5th order thinking) orders of mind.

The ingredients are likely to be constant but their measure, quality or application can either vastly improve or damage the outcome.

The strategic ambitions, culture, operating environment and required future business capabilities all have an effect on the most impactful leadership mix and approach. The implications of ambiguous environments, change, complexity and commercial awareness more recently have been added to the mix.

However, despite all of the effort employed, organisations still struggle to cultivate leaders who are able to successfully perform at the highest levels, under pressure and across contexts. Sound judgement, balancing risk and performance, decision making and ethical concern all seem to be in short supply.

Growth plans can be made or broken on the back of leadership capability, yet all too often its evaluation and development is overlooked or treated as a constant across vastly different geographical, regulatory and political environments.

Most leadership capability evaluation and development interventions focus on core enablers, identified over the years as the main differentiating factors in the emergence of great leaders.

IQ, EQ (emotional intelligence) and at times SQ (spiritual intelligence) and CQ (cultural intelligence) all typically feature alongside industry or organisation specific capabilities; and so they should!

Organisations more practiced at leadership capability development know that isolating the factors of Game-changing leadership is a little like baking.

TYPICALLY PEOPLE SPEND MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN TRANSITION BETWEEN THE ORDERS OF MIND.

IT’S TIME TO THINK ABOUT THINKING.

AT GALLUS WE WORK WITH LOTS OF ORGANISATIONS AND LEADERS ACROSS A VARIETY OF SECTORS, AT VARYING STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT. WITHOUT FAIL, EVERY ORGANISATION WE WORK WITH SEES LEADERSHIP CAPABILITY AS ITS NUMBER ONE POTENTIAL ENABLER AND ITS NUMBER ONE RISK.

#GallusConsult Gallus Consulting Ltd

GALLUS CONSULTING

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS,

OPINIONS OF OTHERS

SELF-AUTHORSHIP, SELF-REGULATION, AUTONOMY,

IDENTITY AND PERSONAL IDEOLOGY

4TH SELF-AUTHORED

MEANING-MAKING IS SYSTEMIC, THAT IS, THE INDIVIDUAL IS ABLE TO HOLD PARTS OF THE SYSTEM EXTERNAL TO THEM AS OBJECT. THE INDIVIDUAL CAN ‘STEP BACK’ AND CRITICALLY EVALUATE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS AND THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS. THEY ARE GUIDED BY THEIR OWN ‘INTERNAL COMPASS’ AND ARE TYPICALLY INDEPENDENT THINKERS.

SELF-AUTHORSHIP, SELF-REGULATION, AUTONOMY,

IDEOLOGY AND IDENTITY

COMPETING IDEOLOGIES AND THE LOGIC UPON

WHICH THEY ARE BASED

5TH SELF TRANSFORMING

MEANING-MAKING COMES FROM CONSIDERING A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS AND ADOPTING A MULTI- FRAME PERSPECTIVE.

Adapted from Robert Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p314-315.

3RD SOCIALISED

MEANING-MAKING COMES FROM THE CONSIDERATION OF CATEGORIES – THE INDIVIDUAL’S AND THOSE OF OTHERS. CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS CARRY GREAT SIGNIFICANCE AND THE INDIVIDUAL TENDS TO RELY UPON AUTHORITY FIGURES, RULES AND REGULATIONS TO INFORM DECISIONS AND ACTIONS. WHAT OTHERS THINK WILL FEATURE HEAVILY IN THINKING PATTERNS.

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS,

OPINIONS OF OTHERS.

DATA, NEEDS, INTERESTS, SELF-CONCEPT

AND OTHERS’ POINTSOF VIEW

MOVEMENT & SENSATION

IMPULSES &PERCEPTIONS

1ST IMPULSIVE

MEANING-MAKING COMES FROM A SINGLE POINT AND IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO CONTROL IMPULSES AND RESULTING ACTIONS.

ORDER OF MIND HELD AS OBJECT SUBJECT TO

IMPULSES & PERCEPTIONS

DATA, NEEDS, INTERESTS, SELF-CONCEPT

AND OTHERS’ POINTSOF VIEW

2ND INSTRUMENTAL

MEANING MAKING COMES FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CATEGORIES AND STEREOTYPES. THE NEEDS OF OTHERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED.

TYPICALLY PEOPLE SPEND MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN TRANSITION BETWEEN THE ORDERS OF MIND. MANY OF OUR LEADERS ARE CONSUMED BY THE NEED TO PLEASE

OTHERS, TO BE REGARDED FAVOURABLY AND TO ‘FIT IN’

A substantial proportion of the adult population (approaching 60%) never reach the 4th order ‘Self-Authoring’ mind and somewhere in the region of 35% plateau here.

Remarkably few people start to navigate the 5th order; to question their ideology and to seek out ‘what’s missing’. This means that many of our leaders are consumed by the need to please others, to be regarded favourably and to ‘fit in’, fewer still become able to think truly independently and to question their thinking.

This may not present an issue for the most part, however in times of ambiguity, complexity, change and challenge, the ability to hold interpersonal relationships, cultural expectations and the opinions of others as object is a potential differentiator. The good news is that it can be developed!

Add to this heuristics (simple and replicable processes that produces adequate, although often imperfect, solutions to complex problems) and you get a heady mix……

www.gallusconsulting.com 0203 751 6345

LEADERS

LEADING THINKINGWe know from our research that for a leader to truly succeed they need to be Believe-able. Followership is a choice where emotions can outplay logic. Obvious once said but not easy to capture.

A combination of ingredients are at play; capabilities, experience, what to think and, perhaps most critically, how to think all play a part in the creation of the most believe-able leaders - game-changing leaders who are worth following!

So how do your leadership capability evaluation and development interventions stack up - do they seek to unearth the thinking processes at play - making them object, observable and develop-able?

Do your leadership evaluation and development interventions look closely enough at how people think?

Gallus build sustainable, high performance environments that everybody can believe in. With particular expertise in leadership capability and alignment, organisation design, business transformation and enterprise risk management, Gallus challenge assumptions, cultivate belief and drive positive change by making performance excellence systemic.

An established business with Headquarters in Northampton, UK and offices in London, Manchester and Aberdeen, Gallus work with ambitious organisations across the world from a wide range of sectors. Find us at www.gallusconsulting.com or call +44(0)20 3751 6345.

…and there are many more!

Critical thinking and managerial judgement are potentially amplified or limited by the ability to extend the range of thinking - orders of mind and heuristics dictate how leaders ascertain what to think, what to decide and what to do.

ANCHORING & ADJUSTMENT

AVAILABILITY

REPRESENTATIVE

FAMILIARITY

AFFECT

ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT

Relying heavily on the first piece of information to come to light (the ‘anchor’).

Making a judgement about the probability of an event by the ease of which an example comes to mind.

Justifying a decision based upon cumulative prior investment, contrary to evidence that future cost is greater than likely benefit.

Using stereotypes to judge the likelihood of an event or group of events.

Assuming that past behaviour can predict an outcome in the present moment.

Allowing emotions to play an overly dominant role in decision making.

EXAMPLES OF COMMON HEURISTICS