Whichever side you might be on, the imminent U.S. election is a choice between starkly different worldviews. What might vertical development teach us about the candidates and this moment?
Interesting analysis, Alis, that raises many questions for me. If I truly believed that politicians’ words reflected their genuine thoughts and feelings, I might be more inclined to agree with your assessment of Harris’s developmental stages. However, I have some doubts as to whether she has authentically stepped in the Redefining andTransforming stage.
When it comes to the other candidate, I find it puzzling (and telling) that nearly 50% of U.S. society supports, applauds, and cheers for him. This reflects how not just individuals but entire societies can operate on different developmental levels, which likely contributes to the polarisation we are witnessing.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence in their speeches that either of them is genuinely concerned with humanity’s greater good or the atrocities currently unfolding before their (and our) eyes, in one case, with a rather active role. If they seek to stand as the most powerful and influential country in the world, that would have been expected, I'd think.
As you mentioned, in Australia, we are somewhat distanced from the immediate impact of tomorrow’s outcome. Yet, as global citizens, we’re all affected.
Thanks for your reflections, Dina. I do think, more and more, that very few people end up operating almost exclusively from the late stages. To me, looking at this election, it's more a question of what notes these candidates are striking and from whic octaves. I see a lot of Expert/Achiever notes in Harris' discourse and behaviour, and at the same time I also have seen a lot of Redefining/Transforming responses - particularly in her refusal to be dragged in the binary, dystopian, us versus them rhetoric and her openness to embrace allies accross the aisle. I agree with you that turning our attention to the collective stages and how they play out in people's political leanings would be fascinating!
Alis, there are few people in the vertical development field who can articulate as clearly as you how our developmental capacities are connected to our leadership capacities. So many good insights in this article for those of us who are following and participating in this election. So many good insights for those of us who seek to understand and accompany others in their vertical and leadership development.
I do appreciate that you turned your delightfully nerdy brain to this analysis. As usual, you provided clarity on a complex situation, in part because of your deep understanding of vertical development and leadership. I love learning from you.
I think your analysis is right on, and also, I find it disheartening, based on the result. I wonder how the developmental level of the electorate intersects with the developmental level of the candidate they favor. My intuition says there’s a correlation there. I also wonder how fallback (Hi Valerie Livesay!) due to actual and perceived stressors impacted the developmental level from which people voted, even if their center of gravity is usually higher.
Looking forward to reading your post-election analysis next.
Thanks for this - a fresh, nuanced and interesting take on two people who have not perhaps been ‘taking the same exam’ in terms of the standards we hold them to - especially in the area of adult development.
I am more optimistic Dina, at least Harris is further on in developmental terms. While she may not have a centre of gravity at Transforming (or Strategist as its called elsewhere) she is closer to the best of what humanity is capable of than her opponent and his promoters.
Interesting analysis using vertical development to describe leadership style. I think when it comes to US politics, there are a lot of smoke and mirrors, empty talk and phoniness to get votes. There are many opportunists who perform the other roles but embody none. We do need late stage leaders but I don’t think they are interested in POTUS. Their egos are too refined and POTUS will always attract certain personalities higher on the narcissism spectrum.
Regardless, us Aussies get to observe events from the outside.
I do agree with your reflection here, Natalie- particularly around late stage people not being attracted by political positions. I've long thought that the very nature of the political world is beckoning to an earlier stage worldview, and that in and of itself is a major issue, given the huge complexity of global challenges we are facing. At the same time I do think that one can notice later stage behaviours even beyond the political rhetoric and I do believe Kamala Harris, like Barack Obama before her, has embodies way more post-conventional attitudes than the average politician.
What about Nelson Mandela? Yes, a different country but a late stage leader who transformed their country and their people expectations of what a leader should be from a political position.
Yes, America is different, filled with empty talk and phoniness as the norm in terms of politics, but it doesn’t mean it needs to continue that way. It can take a different path if people choose to take one. But if the dominant mindset of the people is based in lower stages focused on having a “strong leader” to “take control” so that “all their problems can just go away”, that’s who people will vote for regardless if that leader has an actual understanding of the problems and plan for them.
This to me is the more troubling issue. That being the relationship between the leaders stage of development and their ability to grasp simple, complicated, complex, and even wicked problems. Lower stages will often think they know everything and have simple answers for complex problems. Yet in trying to tackle complex problems with simple solutions, they may make them infinitely worse.
This ties into what Robert Fritz said in his book The Path of Least Resistance. It’s not enough having a clear vision of where you want to go into the future. You also have to be seeing and understanding the present reality clearly as well. Yet most political leaders today still don’t seem to understand the full breadth and scope of the systemic wicked problems we are encountering today. Having said that though, at least Harris seems like she’d be open and curious to listening to ideas, whereas Trump would just assume he’s the smart person in the room and doesn’t need to listen to anyone.
I believe in developmental terms Mandela would be considered as mostly operating from Transforming/Alchemical - the very late stages - at least from a political perspective. As for your last sentence, seeing the results tonight, I'd say- we will just have to see what the consequences of giving unfettered power to the Opportunist will be. It's a hard day and perhaps we'll learn a lot more about our collective shadow over the next four years...
Thank you, Alis for this analysis. A colleague and I were having a very similar conversation and landed in a similar place. Very much appreciate your clarity of thought on this topic. Well done.
Beautifully explained. Thank you Alison! Today we see that 80M people (majority) of the Americans chose to Escape from Freedom and act from the earlier stages.
Erich Fromm saw that many many years ago. Now, a new question raises for me; what’s a healthy level of autonomy for each individual. Many people don’t need much autonomy to get by perhaps. A subject to discuss or even a research study to focus on.
Interesting analysis, Alis, that raises many questions for me. If I truly believed that politicians’ words reflected their genuine thoughts and feelings, I might be more inclined to agree with your assessment of Harris’s developmental stages. However, I have some doubts as to whether she has authentically stepped in the Redefining andTransforming stage.
When it comes to the other candidate, I find it puzzling (and telling) that nearly 50% of U.S. society supports, applauds, and cheers for him. This reflects how not just individuals but entire societies can operate on different developmental levels, which likely contributes to the polarisation we are witnessing.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence in their speeches that either of them is genuinely concerned with humanity’s greater good or the atrocities currently unfolding before their (and our) eyes, in one case, with a rather active role. If they seek to stand as the most powerful and influential country in the world, that would have been expected, I'd think.
As you mentioned, in Australia, we are somewhat distanced from the immediate impact of tomorrow’s outcome. Yet, as global citizens, we’re all affected.
Thanks for your reflections, Dina. I do think, more and more, that very few people end up operating almost exclusively from the late stages. To me, looking at this election, it's more a question of what notes these candidates are striking and from whic octaves. I see a lot of Expert/Achiever notes in Harris' discourse and behaviour, and at the same time I also have seen a lot of Redefining/Transforming responses - particularly in her refusal to be dragged in the binary, dystopian, us versus them rhetoric and her openness to embrace allies accross the aisle. I agree with you that turning our attention to the collective stages and how they play out in people's political leanings would be fascinating!
Alis, there are few people in the vertical development field who can articulate as clearly as you how our developmental capacities are connected to our leadership capacities. So many good insights in this article for those of us who are following and participating in this election. So many good insights for those of us who seek to understand and accompany others in their vertical and leadership development.
Wow maybe same thinking I got from talking to my 9 yr old: that I don’t want a brand. I just want a mature, developed person to lead: https://open.substack.com/pub/drpauldobransky/p/my-9-year-old-schooled-me-on-how?r=1fkptn&utm_medium=ios
I do appreciate that you turned your delightfully nerdy brain to this analysis. As usual, you provided clarity on a complex situation, in part because of your deep understanding of vertical development and leadership. I love learning from you.
I think your analysis is right on, and also, I find it disheartening, based on the result. I wonder how the developmental level of the electorate intersects with the developmental level of the candidate they favor. My intuition says there’s a correlation there. I also wonder how fallback (Hi Valerie Livesay!) due to actual and perceived stressors impacted the developmental level from which people voted, even if their center of gravity is usually higher.
Looking forward to reading your post-election analysis next.
I'm asking myself all these questions too, @Tracy. I did write some of them down post election - not sure it's as analytical or perhaps more diving into my own history for some sense-making: https://www.verticaldevelopment.education/p/staring-over-the-edge-into-the-darkness
Thanks for this - a fresh, nuanced and interesting take on two people who have not perhaps been ‘taking the same exam’ in terms of the standards we hold them to - especially in the area of adult development.
I am more optimistic Dina, at least Harris is further on in developmental terms. While she may not have a centre of gravity at Transforming (or Strategist as its called elsewhere) she is closer to the best of what humanity is capable of than her opponent and his promoters.
Interesting analysis using vertical development to describe leadership style. I think when it comes to US politics, there are a lot of smoke and mirrors, empty talk and phoniness to get votes. There are many opportunists who perform the other roles but embody none. We do need late stage leaders but I don’t think they are interested in POTUS. Their egos are too refined and POTUS will always attract certain personalities higher on the narcissism spectrum.
Regardless, us Aussies get to observe events from the outside.
I do agree with your reflection here, Natalie- particularly around late stage people not being attracted by political positions. I've long thought that the very nature of the political world is beckoning to an earlier stage worldview, and that in and of itself is a major issue, given the huge complexity of global challenges we are facing. At the same time I do think that one can notice later stage behaviours even beyond the political rhetoric and I do believe Kamala Harris, like Barack Obama before her, has embodies way more post-conventional attitudes than the average politician.
What about Nelson Mandela? Yes, a different country but a late stage leader who transformed their country and their people expectations of what a leader should be from a political position.
Yes, America is different, filled with empty talk and phoniness as the norm in terms of politics, but it doesn’t mean it needs to continue that way. It can take a different path if people choose to take one. But if the dominant mindset of the people is based in lower stages focused on having a “strong leader” to “take control” so that “all their problems can just go away”, that’s who people will vote for regardless if that leader has an actual understanding of the problems and plan for them.
This to me is the more troubling issue. That being the relationship between the leaders stage of development and their ability to grasp simple, complicated, complex, and even wicked problems. Lower stages will often think they know everything and have simple answers for complex problems. Yet in trying to tackle complex problems with simple solutions, they may make them infinitely worse.
This ties into what Robert Fritz said in his book The Path of Least Resistance. It’s not enough having a clear vision of where you want to go into the future. You also have to be seeing and understanding the present reality clearly as well. Yet most political leaders today still don’t seem to understand the full breadth and scope of the systemic wicked problems we are encountering today. Having said that though, at least Harris seems like she’d be open and curious to listening to ideas, whereas Trump would just assume he’s the smart person in the room and doesn’t need to listen to anyone.
I believe in developmental terms Mandela would be considered as mostly operating from Transforming/Alchemical - the very late stages - at least from a political perspective. As for your last sentence, seeing the results tonight, I'd say- we will just have to see what the consequences of giving unfettered power to the Opportunist will be. It's a hard day and perhaps we'll learn a lot more about our collective shadow over the next four years...
Thanks for writing this article, full of insights and food for thought ;-)
Some time has passed by now, and we all know the election results.
This connects me to the mechanisms of democracy. How in a democracy a result different from Opportunist-Expert stages might be possible ?
Thank you, Alis for this analysis. A colleague and I were having a very similar conversation and landed in a similar place. Very much appreciate your clarity of thought on this topic. Well done.
Beautifully explained. Thank you Alison! Today we see that 80M people (majority) of the Americans chose to Escape from Freedom and act from the earlier stages.
Erich Fromm saw that many many years ago. Now, a new question raises for me; what’s a healthy level of autonomy for each individual. Many people don’t need much autonomy to get by perhaps. A subject to discuss or even a research study to focus on.
such a hard time full of painful lessons, Shabnam!