Good ORGANISATIONS

Spiral Dynamics continued: From Democracy towards Crowdocracy

Alan Watkins is an influential thought leader, business consultant and doctor, celebrated for his pioneering work in cultivating sustainable, ethical, and purpose-driven organizations. In our interview we embark on an enlightening journey through Alan's transformative ideas, seamlessly bridging medicine and management. We delve into the intricacies of "Spiral Dynamics," laying the groundwork for a deeper understanding of the principles guiding human development and societal transformation. We scrutinize the limitations of modern, allegedly "green" democratic systems, and explore the potential for more decentralized and integrative social governance, notably in the form of "crowdocracies." Shifting our focus to HR, we seek a parallel pathway to reshape modern workplaces, enabling human creativity and flourishing. Finally, we discuss "vertical" leadership development and examine its transformative potential. Join us for a radical and thought-provoking conversation that explores the frontiers of human potential and societal change!

Jump to




BEHIND the interview

Why is the interview important? Who are we talking to?

DISCOVERING THE DIALOGUE WITH

ALAN WATKINS

We were driven by three compelling motivations to engage in an interview with Alan.

Firstly, we were captivated by Alan's work on "Spiral Dynamics" (SD). SD is an evolutionary development model, originally proposed by Don Beck and Chris Cowan based on the theory of Clare Graves. Rooted in constructionism, it postulates a continuous socio-historical evolution of human values, worldviews, and cultures through distinct stages, each marked by heightened consciousness and increasingly intricate ways of knowing, ranging from egocentric to holistic and interdependent perspectives. Stages oscillate between individualistic and collectivistic mindsets.We had previously analysed and critiqued Frederic Laloux's "Teal" approach, which also draws inspiration from Ken Wilber's expanded interpretation of SD (SDi). In our view, both ontological and ethical challenges raise big questions about the suitability of SD as a foundational framework for effective and ethically sound organizations. Contrary to, for example, Hegel's phenomenology of spirit, which examines the unfolding of an absolute Spirit in history, Spiral Dynamics is ultimately grounded in individual psychology rather than an universal metaphysical idealism, or indeed ethics. That said, we remained intrigued by Wilber's Integral Theory. Hence, our curiosity was piqued by Alan's direct collaboration with Ken Wilber to further adapt Spiral Dynamics and develop coherent transformation pathways across various levels, spanning individual leaders, HR, organizations, and society at large. His radical ideas regarding more decentralized and integrative forms of societal governance, such as "crowdocracies," also strongly resonate with our prior discussion with Mike O'Donnell on the need for institutional democracies.

Secondly, we were enthusiastic about tapping into Alan's extensive reservoir of recommendations for organizational and HR practices. His thought-provoking views on the evolution of HR were particularly fascinating and promised valuable guidance for the reshaping of modern workplaces.

Lastly, we were eager to delve into Alan's insights into leadership development. Drawing inspiration from Wilber's AQAL model, he advocated for "4D Leadership," a framework that integrates personal and organizational capacities for "Doing" (addressing short- and long-term commercial and market performance), "Being" (enhancing personal performance), and "Relating" (effective people leadership). On this basis, he had crafted an innovative leadership competency model that also drew inspiration from his medical expertise, incorporating elements related to "physical skills," including physiological control (e.g. bodily indicators like heart rate variability). Moreover, Alan proposed an interesting "Leadership Maturity Profile" that integrated various personal ego development stage models - here, our discussion intersects the interview with Bill Torbert - and argued that transcendence was very different from detachment, as propagated by popular and populist methodologies like Eckhard Tolle's Power of Now.

KEY LEARNING GOALS (click LIGHTBULB to see the INQUIRY MAP)

  • What is Spiral Dynamics? What are the onto-epistemological and ethical premises of SD? What are the potential benefits or challenges of adopting SD stages in the analysis or transformation of individuals and organisations?
  • What is a "crowdocracy"? How does it link to social and public choice theory? How does it compare to e.g. Rousseau's Social Contract theory? How does it compare to democracy, holacracy and sociocracy in terms of decision-making practices?
  • What are the applications of SD to leadership development and evolution of HR? On that basis what are the most important transformation challenges and possible interventions?

✿ ABOUT ALAN WATKINS


Alan Watkins is a visionary thought leader and business consultant with over two decades of experience empowering multinational corporations and business leaders to achieve sustainable growth while embracing ethics, wellbeing, and purpose. Serving as the CEO and Founder of Complete, a data-driven leadership development consultancy, he seamlessly integrates medical and management expertise, holding an MBBS from Imperial College London and a PhD in Immunology from the University of Southampton. He previously held the role of Visiting Professor of Business Studies at University College London.

Alan is a prolific author renowned for works like "Our Food Our Future," which addresses critical issues like food security and climate change, "Crowdocracy," exploring alternative political systems, "Coherence," delving into the biological basis of leadership, and "4D Leadership," emphasizing the significance of personal growth and relationships in leadership development. As a sought-after speaker, he covers a wide range of topics, including mental health, neuroscience, human performance, complexity, and the impact of AI. His TEDx talks have reached over seven million viewers.

In addition, Alan is deeply involved in coaching leaders, professional athletes, and developing digital technologies for mental and emotional wellbeing. He co-founded EVERYONE, a unique participation platform harnessing the wisdom of the crowd to drive informed collective decision-making and real-world action. Alan's overarching mission is to reduce human suffering and promote sustainable growth in business, ethics, wellbeing, and environmental consciousness.


Exploring the Critical concepts for this session

Integral theory is a synthetic metatheory developed by Ken Wilber. It attempts to place a wide diversity of theories and models into one single framework. The basis is a "spectrum of consciousness," from archaic consciousness to ultimate spirit, presented as a developmental model. This model is based on development stages as described in structural developmental stage theories; various psychic and supernatural experiences; and models of spiritual development. In Wilber's later framework, the AQAL (All Quadrants All Levels) model, it is extended with a grid with four quadrants (interior-exterior, individual-collective), synthesizing various theories and models of individual psychological and spiritual development, of collective mutations of consciousness, and of levels or holons of neurological functioning and societal organisation, in a metatheory in which all academic disciplines and every form of knowledge and experience are supposed to fit together. Wilber's ideas have mainly attracted attention in specific subcultures, and have been mostly ignored in academia.

Spiral Dynamics (SD) is a model of the evolutionary development of individuals, organizations, and societies. It was initially developed by Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan based on the emergent cyclical theory of Clare W. Graves, combined with memetics as proposed by Richard Dawkins and further developed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. A later collaboration between Beck and Ken Wilber produced Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDi). Several variations of Spiral Dynamics continue to exist, both independently and incorporated into or drawing on Wilber's Integral theory. In addition to influencing both integral theory and metamodernism, Spiral Dynamics has applications in management theory and business ethics, and as an example of applied memetics.

Teal organisation describes an organization that adheres to an organizational theory based on workers' self-management. The term was coined in 2014 by Frederic Laloux in his book Reinventing Organizations. Laloux uses a descriptive model in which he describes different types of organizations in terms of colour, and he cites studies by evolutionary and social psychologists including Jean Gebser, Clare W. Graves, Don Edward Beck, Chris Cowan and Ken Wilber.

Holacracy is a method of decentralized management and organizational governance, which claims to distribute authority and decision-making through a holarchy of self-organizing teams rather than being vested in a management hierarchy.

Vertical Development refers to advancement in a person’s thinking capability. The outcome of vertical stage development is the ability to think in more complex, systemic, strategic, and interdependent ways. It is about how you think, which we can measure through stage development interviews and surveys.

There is an important difference between helping a leader grow and trying to force her to. Horizontal growth within a stage is just as important as vertical growth beyond a stage. Your job is not to force development on someone. Your job is to create the right conditions in which someone can grow. Challenge and support, but don’t force

Crowdocracy: The End of Politics discusses one of the world's most debated and critical issues - who decides our future and how should we be governed? Democracy is struggling to produce solutions to the challenges of our times. Populations feel disenfranchised with the political process, with the real power today being in the hands of a small elite. Crowdocracy offers a radical new way forward, one that allows all of us - not just some of us - to participate in how we are governed. Using technology and the insights of crowd wisdom, the authors describe how all of us can replace our elected officials and ultimately shape and govern our communities. A revolutionary idea that can be implemented in an evolutionary way.

Dr Alan Watkins, author of 4D Leadership, discusses the driving forces behind 4D leaderships and the benefits of developing existing and future leaders to exhibit 4D traits. Today's leaders need to change radically to meet the challenge of complex organizations in business landscapes that are in flux. This requires a step-change in development in three fundamental dimensions: how you do things! who you are! and how you relate to other people. 4D Leadership is what happens when this step-change in doing! being and relating takes place. When you move up to the next level of ability and sophistication in these three dimensions! you will have unlocked the fourth dimension (verticality) and you will receive a significant competitive advantage.

Never miss an interview! Just go to YouTube and subscribe to our Good Organisations channel for all upcoming interviews and all our new videos!


GETTING STARTED

A Resource Kit to launch your explorations

Complete Coaching and Development. Several white papers also at: https://complete-coherence.com/white-papers/

Further resources and information about Alan on video

Alain's TEDc talk about the key phases of human development and explains why poor emotional control is holding back progress.

Alan's TEDx talk about brilliance every single day

Another one of Alan's TEDx talk about solving the toughest issues today

Dr. Alan Watkins, physician, psychologist, immunologist and co-author of 'HR (R)Evolution: Change The Workplace, Change The World', takes HR leaders to task on dealing with mental health and lights a path to a brighter future for mental health in the workplace.

This study examined the effects on healthy adults of a new emotional self-management program, consisting of two key techniques, “Cut-Thru” and the “Heart Lock-In.” These techniques are designed to eliminate negative thought loops and promote sustained positive emotional states. The hypotheses were that training and practice in these techniques would yield lowered levels of stress and negative emotion and cortisol, while resulting in increased positive emotion and DHEA levels over a one-month period. In addition, we hypothesized that increased coherence in heart rate variability patterns would be observed during the practice of the techniques.

Further essays and materials from other authors

For nearly two decades, the theory of Spiral Dynamics has been used to dynamically model human evolution and information systems. In that time, however, many different versions and applications of the model have emerged. This article will diachronically trace the history of Spiral Dynamics, from the foundational theory of Clare Graves to its initial introduction by Don Beck and Chris Cowan and subsequent adaptation by Ken Wilber. A brief exploration of the various camps and their competing interpretations of Spiral Dynamics will permit some critical analysis of the model itself. (Butters)

Spiral Dynamics are tools and services based upon Graves’ Levels of Existence. Management Drives is a Dutch derivative of Spiral Dynamics. Major proponents of Spiral Dynamics claim that Graves’ Levels of Existence are scientific. In reality Graves has only
published one article on his Levels of Existence in a scientific journal. (Graves 1970) This article itself is devoid of any scientific data. In fact the article falsely claims “The author’s research referred to in this article is included in a book now in preparation.” This book was never published. So while the article talks about Graves’ data, this data is in effect non-existent. In fact, not having published the promised data makes Graves’ article fraudulent. The lack of scientific data makes Spiral Dynamics a pseudoscience.

„We need to start the transformation with ourselves“ - New Work, Agile, Teal – there are many initiatives for a new future of work. Otti Vogt, until recently COO and Chief Transformation Officer C&G at ING, and Prof. Dr. Antoinette Weibel from the University of St. Gallen explain in this interview why these have not yet achieved broad transformational power and how things could be improved.

Presentation from the Teal Around The World summit 2021 going into some depth about some challenges with the "philosophy behind" Teal #TATW21

A Timely Laloux Retrospective: Why Teal is Wrong! (And Why You Should Care) - Since the publication of Frederic Laloux's Reinventing Organizations in 2014, "Teal" has become a hopeful utopia for its passionate followers in the global future-of-work community. Seven years later many find their dreams shattered, as the book’s revolutionary vision rests on patchy premises.

Selected published works

Interested in Leadership? Here is our Top 100 selection of the most important books for professional leaders of all times.


the socratic dialogue

Live video recording and podcasts

Explanations, artefacts and references from the interview

We mentioned Neighborocracy as an interesting phenomenon in India addressing the failure of democracies.

Ted Talk by Sheena Iyengar. Alan recommended it when he spoke about identity, collectivism and individualism in the East and the West

Some interesting information about the famous parable of the blind men and an elephant

Kenneth Earl Wilber II (born January 31, 1949) is an American philosopher and writer on transpersonal psychology and his own integral theory, a philosophy which suggests the synthesis of all human knowledge and experience. Wilber is credited with broadening the appeal of a "perennial philosophy" to a much wider audience. Cultural figures as varied as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Deepak Chopra, Richard Rohr, and musician Billy Corgan have mentioned his influence. However, Wilber's approach has been criticized as excessively categorizing and objectifying, masculinist, commercializing spirituality, and denigrating of emotion.

We mention Bill's leadership development methodology in the interview - you can find our interview with Bill and many related resources and references, as well as several of his books for free download on our Season 1 web page
We mention Emanuele's work on comparative organisational development - you can find extensive resources on sociocracy, holacracy, Rendanheyi etc in the references related to our interview
We also reference our conversation with Paul about Democratic Socialism. You can find more materials, including our discussion about the challenge of "scaling" decentralised governance systems there.

Link to Bryan Ungard's fantastic website, curated by Beatrice Ungard. We mention Bryan, the former Chief Purpose Officer of Decurion, in the context of "Deliberately Developmental Organisations" (Decurion is referenced in Bob Kegan's book). In Bryan's interpretation - and contrary to the concept of "learning" - the notion of "development"  is primarily about "Letting Go". You will find some of Bryan's insightful and thought-provoking presentations here.

In case interested in the notion of "transpersonal leadership", you can find many of John Knight's interesting resources here - built around his renowned book "leading beyond the ego"

Some diagrams from Alan's books that illustrate the concepts mentioned during the interview. Many thanks to Jack Watkins for having kindly provided these!

What have we learned? Our "Best Bit" takeaways from the Interview

KEY INSIGHTS FROM THE INTERVIEW FOR OUR INQUIRY

Here you can find the most memorable insights from our interview, related to our three inquiry questions. Simply select from the drop down menu on the right -->

The good life
  • A good life for me means that I start each day on this planet “pathologically cheerful”. Now it might be annoying to other people that I’m just upbeat and cheerful most of the time, but it’s a choice. You know, it’s difficult to sustain misery. (…) Humour just keeps breaking in. So that’s what a good life looks like for me. I’m breathing in and out, and every day I’m pathologically cheerful.
  • It’s not just about the experiences we have on our adventure, it’s what value we extract from those experiences. All through my life, I guess I’m quite a reflective person. (…) I like to “fossick” from my experiences. Now, fossicking is a word that Australians use when they’re in the outback kicking around in the dust of Cooper Pedy or the Red Centre, and then they find a precious stone right in the dust. It’s called fossicking. (…) When you’re going through your day, there are these wonderful nuggets of understanding and insights every day, and most people just sort of trample over them and walk past. I like to extract the value from each moment and then put that to good use. So I’m a fossicker in life.
  • A good society can manifest levels of care and compassion, and be supportive and inclusive of all of its stakeholders. So that’s where we’re moving. And by stakeholders, I don’t just mean human stakeholders, because human beings are in an ecosystem with all other living organisms. (…) We take better care of everybody, not privileging an elite or the 1%. So if we can evolve and take more compassionate care, then we’re moving in the right direction.
Morality or Values? Spiral Dynamics and the question of good
  • So what’s good? Ken [Wilber] is partly right in saying that what is good to a 6-year-old is different than what a 12-year-old would define as good, as it is different from what an 18-year-old would find good. So it is “developmentally constrained” to some extent. But your question is above and beyond that. Is there not some level of [absolute] goodness and morality? And spiral dynamics isn’t designed to capture that. Spiral dynamics is about the “values line” of development. Morality is the “moral line” of development. So it’s a different line of development, which is why there’s often some confusion.
  • Values are what is important to me. That’s a different phenomenon than morality. (…) And there are, of course, hundreds of lines of development. So what I’ve written about — and when we’re talking to CEOs — those are the lines that matter in most businesses.
  • Moral development is not the same as values evolution. So for example I’m not condoning the Holocaust at all, but it’s a problem with the moral evolution, not necessarily the evolution of values. That’s why Ken is right in a way that there’s a little legitimacy to each of the value stages. To denigrate earlier levels is to denigrate our own evolution. That is separate from the moral debate. These are different lines of development. And so one has to debate these things separately, rather than confuse. Because when we confuse these lines, it’s the same mistake as if we would confuse cognitive sophistication with emotional intelligence. And as most people now realise, they are two profoundly different phenomena. So, it is really important to keep these lines separate.
  • It is rather bizarre that we denigrate earlier levels of development, because, essentially, we’re denigrating our own evolution. You can’t get to “Blue” if you haven’t been through “Red”, and you can’t get to “Orange” if you haven’t been through “Blue”. So to denigrate an earlier level of development is to denigrate yourself.
  • Compassion is a much more sophisticated thing. It is not just the alleviation of suffering but the alleviation of the cause of that suffering. So you have to go to a much more sophisticated and deeper understanding. Why is that suffering there in the first place? Whereas care would be almost a symptom alleviation type stance. (…) As we’re able to get more and more sophisticated in our moral evolution, the subtlety and complexity and embrace of our compassion get greater and greater. So that would be more of the moral line rather than the values line.
Individualism and Collectivism in the evolutionary process
  • We must be careful not to say: this is right and this is wrong. Green moves to Yellow, Green is more collective and Yellow is more individualistic. But Yellow moves to Turquoise. Now, you can’t get to Turquoise without going through a slight swing to the individual. That’s just how evolution works. All the way up the spiral, it swings back and forth between individual and collective. So it’s not like these things are right and wrong. Evolution involves both. So is postmodernism wrong because it’s become more individualistic? No, it’s just part of the evolutionary process.
  • In the spiral dynamics view of the world, the downside of any level is its “evolutionary stimulus”. Without that “badness”, without the wheels coming off, there is no evolutionary imperative to change. So is it really bad? That’s a judgement call. In 2008, at the peak of Orange, 50 men caused a global financial crisis. And those 50 men did that out of orange self-interest and in a desire to make a lot of money themselves. (…) So that cruelly exposes the dark side of Orange, greed and manipulation. But in a way, that greed and manipulation, that dark side, wakes a lot more people up to the need to move to Green. And we’ve seen an acceleration in the Green flourishing.
  • As a general brushstroke, there’s more collectivism in the East and more individualism in the West. (…) So the way we self-identify is different around the world. You need both to be successful, brilliant individuals and a brilliant team. Different parts of the world will privilege one over the other. In my view, we need all of it. We need all the levels of the spiral, we need all aspects of who we all are. We can get a good society when we embrace more and more data. I heard the definition of “enlightenment” is the ability to embrace every single data point available, at any point in time. If you can do that, you’re truly enlightened. And that’s a good society, an enlightened society.

Why Democracy fails
  • Well, first and foremost, Democracy is not working. At the high tide point within the year 2000, there were 120 democracies in the world. There are now, I think, 101. So it’s past its sell-by date, and it’s not working. If you look around, there’s been a political regression globally. The quality of political leadership has gone backwards. And I honestly think it’s because society has become more complex than democracy can handle.
  • Democracy is a way of reaching a decision. (…) But it bakes in dissent. And so one of the reasons you’ll often hear people say I hate the politics in this organisation, that’s because you’re running democratically. It bakes in political maneuvering. (…) You’ll see this very clearly, in most democratic societies. Republican, Democrat, it flip-flops. The first thing when the other side gets in is to undo everything that the previous regime did. And it flip-flops. So it doesn’t make long-term sustainable growth very easy because we keep undermining the other side. So it’s didactic flip-flopping. And the power sits with the two swing votes rather than the six.
  • Democracy in practice isn’t even democratic. If you look at the UK Parliament, of the 650 MPs, only three of them actually have a majority in their constituency. Therefore only three are democratically elected. So roughly how it works in the first past the post system is if you get 26% of the vote in your constituency, you’re in. So most of the people who voted didn’t vote for you.
Crowdocracy
  • So then what comes after democracy? There are three evolutionary levels. We’ve got Sociocracy, which has been practised, particularly in Scandinavia. (…) So a more green, social way of making the decision. But it often gets stuck in consensual hell and political correctness, reinforcing a claps back down to the democratic Orange process. We struggled to get beyond the orange version into sociocracy. You’ll see that when we go into proportional representation. Often it will weaken the decision-making because we water down and get some unhappy compromise. And it doesn’t necessarily deliver good leadership.
  • There was a leap forward into the second tier with holacracy. So if we try to get beyond “six v four”, and it’s a democratic process, sociocracy and an attempt to get everybody aligned usually fails. Holacracy was a bit of a breakthrough because that’s how you get to ten v zero. And crowdocracy is how you get to 10,000 v zero. How do you align on a mass scale with everybody behind? Democracy’s organising principle is popularity. Crowdocracy’s organising principle is wisdom. And by wisdom, I mean in service of everybody, rather than an elite. So how do you crowdocratically align at scale? That’s what crowdocracy is really about.
Wisdom of the Crowd
  • When you get people together, often the crowd becomes amob. And so the quality of the [collective] answer dumbs down. I’ve seen this many, many times. Most people who’ve worked in business spend three hours debating the struggle they’ve got in their business. And then after three hours with some very clever people in the room, they come up and their output is: “We need to learn to say no”. That is a terribly average pathetic answer. And it’s because the crowd dumbs down, and you get this groupthink thing. That will happen if you don’t know what the four conditions for wisdom are and the four conditions aren’t present.
  • The first condition for wisdom to emerge from a crowd is you need diversity of opinion. Now, diversity is important for many reasons in business, not because we want gender parity, although that’s important, but because if you get more perspectives in the room, you get better quality answers. If you’ve got 1000 people, but they’ve all got basically the same mindset, it’s like having one person, and you get a poor answer. So that’s one of the things that you need for the wisdom of the crowd to emerge, you need diverse opinions in the room.
  • Then you need independence of thought. Ironically, a digital environment helps us here. Because if you’re contributing digitally, you’re less likely to be swayed. (….) So when you’re in a room, you’ll often get the independence of thought eroded because people are influenced by somebody charismatic, or somebody famous, or somebody in a hierarchical relationship above them, or whatever. So you lose your independence of thought. And as you lose your independence of thought, you get poor-quality answers.
  • So, you need diversity of thinking and independence of thought, then you need delegation of authority or devolution. And this is the idea that the people involved in that decision should be the people who are affected by that decision. So when a decision becomes centralised, and we don’t have to suffer the consequences, we will make a poor decision. (…) So, actually, if you have to live with the consequences of your decision, you tend to make a better decision. That’s devolution.
  • The fourth quality, and this is the critical one, is the integration of the perspectives in the room. This takes a lot of skill. Because what tends to happen when you have a debate is that people come up with views, but key is being able to weave those views together, not in a dumbed-down average. So, actually, we want to honor each perspective and weave them together to get something that transcends and includes all the perspectives. That’s integration, not aggregation.
  • Those are the rules. We stop people from privileging their own answers. The need to impose my answer is described as a failure of the process. You disallow the individual answer to trump the collective one.
  • Making crowdocracy work, the critical game-changer is that integration piece. And that requires a lot of skills. In the early stages, you need active teams of facilitators to teach the process and enable the crowd to be able to facilitate itself. Over time the crowd facilitates itself and understands how to emerge the wisdom.
Scaling
  • I’m not advocating holacracy, because it’s not scalable. (…) That was one of the stepping stones towards crowdocracy. I saw the problems, I saw the issues, and we’ve evolved past that. You have to start small, because what you’ve got in the political process is non-participation. When people are asked to vote, you get 20% turnout, or 30% turnout. So most people are so disenfranchised by the ineffectiveness of that system they don’t even bother, which is a terrible thing. And it’s because they know the system doesn’t work. If you do a crowdocratic process there is no dissent, there is a genuine alignment and integration. Imagine you teach 17 people the crowdocratic process, and then you do another group of 17, and another group of 17, you create these small pods. Once you learn and you start to build confidence, you can start to do the debate at scale because people understand the rules and the process of how you get to wisdom.
Maturity and Vertical development
  • When teenagers start to let go of their egocentricity, a teenage battle starts to ensue. Who’s making the rules for this evolving person? (…) Parents try to suppress that stage in the battle that ensues. And regardless of who wins that battle, when they leave home, a much bigger parent called society pushes them back down and represses their exploration: You got to get a job to become a citizen, you got to get a career, you got to get a partner, you’ve got to follow all the rules of society. So most people go back, either are pushed back into the maturity of an eight-year-old, or they sort of bumble around in that sort of teenage phase, but they never make it beyond the transpersonal stage of development. And so that’s what we’ve got in organisations. Society tries to make us be a certain way.
  • In the risk of cronyism, the simple answer is development. Because cronyism is born of self-interest. You know, what’s of interest for me, my mates and my cronies. And that’s because the benefit is my nearest and dearest and I don’t identify with others. (…) One of the things that happen when you mature, the circle of your identity expands. It goes from me and my family or my tribe, sort of ethnocentric, to a world-centric and then a cosmos-centric view. How you overcome cronyism is human beings grow up. As we grow up and become more mature, we become less likely to cronyism and insular self-interest.
  • You might argue that the global financial crisis was a sort of cronyism of the 1% lining their own pockets. You know, for me and my mates in the financial sector. Let’s create a system which privileges us at the expense of 30 million people who became unemployed. It’s a Darwinian world, it’s every man, woman and dog themself. That thinking is just a lack of maturity because they don’t quite understand the dynamics between them and the ecosystem in which they live. (…) People don’t see the consequences. They don’t make the connection between them and the people who are the other group. But we’re all in this big ecosystem. That’s a lack of maturity in my view.
  • That’s why Complete exists. To help leaders to wake up and grow up. Because in the absence of that maturity, leaders make a lot of greedy and self-interested decisions. I’m not blaming them for that anymore. (…) The job is to help leaders who’ve got positions of power to wake up to the fact that their responsibility is much greater than they previously realised. And in that responsibility, they have to grow up. And in that growing up, they can understand the consequences of their actions on a wider and wider set of stakeholders.
  • I often joke when I’m talking to leaders around the world. I ask them: “What’s the best economy in the world?” Usually, the answer is one of the G8. (…) I say it’s none of those things. The best economy in the world is the human body. And the reason I say that is the liver doesn’t try and dominate the spleen. The guts don’t try and kill the lungs. Within the economies we got to kill the competition, we got to dominate. It’s just immature thinking. (…) So I often use that, looping right back to my days as a doctor. The best economy in the world is the human economy, the human body.
  • Guardians are highly evolved, mature human beings who have some sense of guardianship and have let go of their own identity, their need for prowess, and all those sorts of relatively immature concepts. (…) It doesn’t matter which population, whether it’s CEOs or the judiciary, the idea is, with increased maturity, that we find the most mature people on the planet to be the guardians. In politics, certainly in many Western countries, this is not the system. We don’t look for the most mature people in society and then put them in charge of the biggest, most complicated problems. That’s not how our political system works. Maybe it should. But we don’t have the best quality thinkers in charge of the biggest, most complicated systems.
Moral evolution, wisdom and AI
  • Wisdom depends on the evolution of morality. (…) I think one of the reasons it’s not as widely debated in corporations or in society is, that it’s a way more sophisticated and complex debate than where a lot of the crowd really is. A lot of the crowd is still struggling on a day-to-day basis. We are just surviving emotionally. So until we lift that, and then we lift the identity, eventually we get to the morality debate.
  • I think one of the really interesting things (…) is the evolution of artificial intelligence and what role artificial intelligence has in morality. Humanity has got a lot of history of doing morally reprehensible things. (…) So when we write code which drives the AI, who’s writing the code? Is it a white supremacist or is it the Dalai Lama? That matters! If you’ve got white supremacist writing code, you get white supremacist code. If you’ve got the Dalai Lama at a much higher level of moral evolution writing code, you get a different sort of code. Imagine a world where you teach AI levels of moral sophistication, and you teach the AI until eventually, the AI can code itself. So once it understands the rules of its own evolution, it might be able to evolve to a level beyond even humanity can get to. And then we’re in a world where AI can come up with a better moral standard than humanity itself.
  • Now we got a massive task. But the point about AI is, at the moment, it doesn’t do integration, it does aggregation. So it’s not very wise. (…) If you can teach a machine the way that the human mind works, and we’re still in very linear programming right now, but where it goes is you teach the machines about moral development. And say humanity has seven levels of moral development. But you teach what takes them to level two, level three, and level four of moral development. Once they understand the principles, even though anybody on the planet got beyond level seven, a machine could learn what level eight, level nine, level 10, or level 12 would look like. You can imagine a world where a machine could get there, even though humanity couldn’t understand it.
Bad HR practices
  • I think in many organisations most HR communities probably got to the “profit wave”. You can see it in the terminology. It’s an HR director, human resources. So human beings are treated as assets, as a resource, like a piece on a chessboard. So toxic practice one is that we even conceive of a human being is reduced to an asset, a pawn on the chessboard. In the beauty of the human being in front of you it’s just a pawn to be moved around as an asset to be deployed.
  • As the HR community starts to evolve, you see that obsession with metrics, business partnering and all of that. That’s part of the profit wave. But then, it doesn’t get us to the place we’re trying to get to necessarily. So we start to think about CHROs and then CPOs. It’s a chief people officer. So we’ve gone from the profit wave to the people wave. We’re trying to reintroduce humanity back into the people’s practice. Not understanding the need for that evolution might be toxic practice number two.
  • And then CPOs, which are the cutting edge of HR practice now, evolve into something that’s been described in the USA as a DDO. You become a deliberately developmental organisation, DDO. That’s more of a Yellow in the paradox wave, where if you truly see the value of people as your most important asset. Not as an asset to be moved around, but just the beauty, the sophistication, the complexity, and the wisdom they can bring. Then you start to realise that it’s the evolution, the development of those people, where the commercial value ultimately lies. (…) So you start to realise that the development of the people becomes itself a strategic advantage. That’s what a DDO is.
  • What you see in most HR practices, you’ve got the learning and development department, but it’s all L and no D. We’re gonna go on learning experiences, we’re a learning organisation. But what we’re really doing there is, privileging the acquisition of skills, knowledge and experience. Now they’re all important, but that’s 20% of the value in L&D. 80% of the value, in my view, exists in the D. So, toxic practice three is the failure to distinguish learning from development. That is unbelievably critical. Think of learning as a horizontal process. You’re building a bigger base of knowledge. And development is a vertical process, you’re going up the evolutionary scale, and with each new level, stuff comes on line that didn’t even exist at the previous level. That’s the nature of vertical development.If you want to measure the total value created, you can measure the total value created for each stakeholder. But there’s going to be some interaction effects that might be missing.
Why Business Leaders are the solution
  • I think that’s an opportunity for business. Any observer of the political drain has seen this rather nasty ethnocentric regression. Political leadership has gone backwards in the last ten years. We can also argue about religious leadership, but it’s not moving the dial. So it’s down to business leaders. I honestly think the only people who can really save humanity now are corporate leaders. Not least because they have a less parochial view because these big multinationals are by definition transnational. Whereas national leaders have a parochial interest in their country. So they will always privilege that over others, not their country.
  • But if you’ve got some of these CEOs, who’ve grown up in a system that privileges financial growth over all versions of growth, we shouldn’t be surprised when we’re fostering greed and that they maybe take that perspective and want to create a monopoly. But there is no healthy system in the world that sustains that way. In the human economy, if you have the liver growing and growing and growing, it’s cancer.
4D Leadership Model and coherence and vertical development?
  • The first interesting insight is people aren’t structuring their own thinking. We offer them a framework, and it’s like a modification of Ken Wilber’s AQAL model. There are three dimensions to all of our existence: Being, relating and doing. Or I, WE and IT. When you ask an executive team to think about their business, 85 to 90% of their post-its are in the IT. So they have what we call IT addiction. Our first task is to break the addiction. And it’s quite difficult for many leaders. As soon as you have a coffee break, they go back on their phones and snort a “line of IT”. (…)And so the first breakthrough is, look, your life exists in these three dimensions, I, WE and IT. You’re not a human doing, you’re a human being. You’re a human being that relates to other people. And you’ve got your life collapsed into a human doing with a load of tasks and targets. And the acceleration, the growth you seek, doesn’t come from a slightly better-tweaked process, or better business reengineering, or a bit of restructuring. The huge acceleration actually comes predominantly from I and We and not IT.
  • The first task is to recognize that you are three-dimensional, and in fact, you are four-dimensional because it’s the level of sophistication in the I, the level of sophistication in the WE and the level of sophistication in the IT. That’s the fourth dimension and why we talk about 4D leadership. And the leadership journey really starts with the I, but that is not on their radar.
Coherence
  • If you look at somebody’s heart rate over time, during a normal working day, it’s fluctuating like a needle on a seismograph, what you might call chaos. Now we can train people to get the same amount of variation, but rather than erratic variation, we get stable variation. That’s what coherence is. It’s stable dynamism. Now what happens is it facilitates brain function. So the coherence unlocks much better quality thinking.
  • When you put somebody under pressure, what you do is you’ll amplify the chaos and the amplification of that chaos causes a DIY lobotomy. So your brain will shut down under pressure. And that’s a testable phenomenon. We have game shows that do this. (…) So all human beings are at risk of this self-inflicted lobotomy when they’re under pressure. (…) The good news is you can control your biology. And you can turn your frontal lobes, the clever part of your brain, back on. So coherence is often the first part of the journey for a leader to become more coherent by controlling their biology and keeping the lights on in their frontal lobe, so they can make better quality decisions. That’s a simple explanation for what coherence is about. It’s stable dynamic biology that facilitates health, well-being, higher energy levels and brain function.
Positive and negative relaxation
  • Humanity got obsessed with the nature of relaxation. But there are two types of relaxation. So if you imagine the vertical axis with arousal or increased heartbeat, vertically up and relaxation are going down on the vertical. Then to the left, you’ve got positive emotion and to the right, you’ve got negative emotion. So as you become more relaxed, there are two versions. You can be bottom right, which is relaxed negative, or bottom left, which is relaxed positive. Now what matters is which version are you?
  • If you’re relaxed negative, that’s things like boredom, apathy, detachment, indifference, or what my kids might say, whatever dad, the whatever state. That’s bottom right, negative relaxation. Now that is very bad for your health. It’s pernicious. And one of the reasons it’s pernicious is people mistakenly think they’re okay because they’re relaxed. You’re still running very high tides of cortisol damaging your system. And you’re unaware because you think you’re okay. After all, you’re relaxed. That is toxic, and it will kill you.
  • If you’re in relaxed positive, you know, peaceful, tranquil, equanimity, serenity, contentment, those types of state are very helpful. So it matters whether you’re bottom left or bottom right.So there’s an idea of leadership about getting stuff done, which I think dominates. And there’s an idea about personality, which is the charismatic stuff, which dominates. We need a certain kind of leadership. It’s not this charismatic stuff. It’s people who have a high degree of humility and are fiercely determined around purpose and things.

Share the most popular quotes with your social media connections: just click + save picture + post!

Do you want to see ALL the best quotes from Leaders for Humanity? Here is our personal selection from all interviews so far (in PDF).


diving deeper

Unleash your curiosity and discover new insights

✿ Good Leadership

Further explorations into Spiral Dynamics, Integrative Theory, the evolution of consciousness, and individual development

Spiral Dynamics (SD) is a model of the evolutionary development of individuals, organizations, and societies. It was initially developed by Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan based on the emergent cyclical theory of Clare W. Graves,

Don Edward Beck

Spiral Dynamics in Action explores the evolution of modern business, and provides a model for moving forward amidst ever-increasing complexity and change.

by Don Edward Beck, Teddy Hebo Larsen, Sergey Solonin, Dr. Rica Viljoen, Thomas Q. Johns

A provocative examination of how the great religious traditions can remain relevant in modern times by incorporating scientific truths learned about human nature over the last century.

by Ken Wilber

An edifying view of Buddhism from one of today's leading philosophers: a look at its history and foundational teachings, how it fits into modern society, and how it (and other world religions) will evolve.

by Ken Wilber

A provocative and balanced examination of our current social and political situation -- by a cutting-edge philosopher of our times.

by Ken Wilber

Wilber traces human development from infancy into adulthood and beyond, into those states described by mystics and spiritual adepts.

by Ken Wilber

A leader in transpersonal psychology presents the first truly integrative model of spiritual consciousness and Western developmental psychology

by Ken Wilber

A concise, comprehensive overview of the "M Theory" and its application in today's world, by a renowned American philosopher

by Ken Wilber

Ken Wilber explores the ways science, which seeks truth, and religion, which seeks meaning, might be reconciled to further human happiness.

by Ken Wilber

This masterfully crafted book interweaves conversations between Campbell and some of the people he inspired

by Joseph Campbell

Arguing that mature masculinity is not abusive or domineering, Moore and Gillette provide a Jungian introduction to the psychological foundations of a mature, authentic, and revitalized masculinity.

by Moore, Robert, Gillette, Douglas

Using Ancient Self-Care Techniques Rediscovered By Herbert Benson, M.D., A Pioneer In Mind/Body Medicine For Health And Wellness, You Can Relieve Your Stress, Anxiety, And Depression

by Herbert Benson, Miriam Klipper

✿ Good Transformation

Further explorations into Deliberately Developmental Organisations (DDO) and participative organisational development

This book asks why it is that the things we value most – from the environment to frontline workers to keeping children well fed and educated – are so often neglected by the market.

by Mark Carney

Upswing is Robert Putnam's brilliant analysis of economic, social, cultural and political trends, showing how America went from an individualistic ‘I’ society to a more communitarian ‘We’ society and back again

by Robert D Putnam, Shaylyn Romney Garrett

In most organizations nearly everyone is doing a second job no one is paying them for--namely, covering their weaknesses, trying to look their best, and managing other people's impressions of them.

by Robert Kegan, Lisa Laskow Lahey, Matthew L Miller, Andy Fleming, Deborah Helsing

This practical guide offers an approach to organizational change based on the possibility of a more desirable future, experience with the whole system, and activities that signal ""something different is happening this time."

by David L. Cooperrider, Diana Whitney

If machine brains one day come to surpass human brains in general intelligence, then this new superintelligence could become very powerful.

by Nick Bostrom

Decisions taken by a large group, even if the individuals within the group aren't smart, are always better than decisions made by small numbers of 'experts'.

by James Surowiecki

Margaret Heffernan shows in this eye-opening look at competition, that it regularly produces just what we don't want: rising levels of fraud, cheating, stress, inequality and political stalemate.

by Margaret Heffernan

Cascades (PB): How to Create a Movement that Drives Transformational Change

by Greg Satell

Social Movements: The Structure of Collective Mobilization

by Paul Almeida

From Mobilization to Revolution

by Charles Tilly

Development as Freedom

by Amartya Sen

Change: How to Make Big Things Happen

by Damon Centola

On Revolution: Faber Modern Classics

by Dr. Hannah Arendt

Related blog posts

A Timely Laloux Retrospective: Why Teal is Wrong! (and Why You Should Care)

Since the publication of Frederic Laloux's Reinventing Organizations in 2014, "Teal" has become a hopeful utopia for its passionate followers in the global future-of-work community. Seven years later many find their dreams shattered, as the book’s revolutionary vision rests on patchy premises.

(5 min read)

Remembering Polanyi: Where Are We On Our "Great Transformation"?

Remembering Polanyi: Where Are We On Our "Great Transformation"?

In his famous "Great Transformation”, Karl Polanyi calls labour, land and money “fictitious commodities”. These three are not truly commodities, he suggests, as they can never be managed effectively by the market, and necessarily require administration by the State. In this, Polanyi argues, lies also a more fundamental issue with the libertarian ideology of self-regulating markets - the economy, by definition, can never truly work without the regulatory power of and outside the “embeddedness” within the State.

(2 min read)

Curious to see more from our inquiry? A good place to start is our blog with all recent leadership articles and posts.


CONTINUing YOUR JOURNEY

Explore all the popular interviews in this section