Three Assumptions Underlying Integral Leaders’ Choices of Power

Robert Wayne Johnston

It is no mystery we learn, for better or worse, more or less consciously and unconsciously, through our communications with other entities. These include communications with other humans, one’s spirit guide, other animals, our planet, and our cosmos — in every situation we find ourselves “learning in the laboratory of life.” Our inter-entity communications appear based on mainly three sets of alternative assumptions each of us may have about the power of others we meet in various situations, and possible consequences of each response we might choose for mutual health or ill.  Obviously, perhaps, one’s assumptions about the other entity will likely serve to determine one’s own response(s) to it-her-he.

I have come to see three sets of assumptions come into play as options during one’s selection and use of nine generic kinds of power, namely, coercive, legitimate, expert, charismatic, participative, representative, consultative, rewarding, and supporting power. Each assumption may be employed in all sorts of  interactions, whether it be colleague to colleague, stranger to stranger, teacher to student, physician to patient, minister to parishioner, psychotherapist to patient, professional to client, parent to child, supervisor to employee, politician to citizen, human to animal, human to ecosystem, or whatever.

While I will limit my presentation to integral leader-to-integral worker relationships my assumptions may also apply to integral colleague-to-integral colleague communications. Also, I use the term ‘health’ to include not only mental, spiritual, and biologic health, but also social, familial, vocational, economic, aesthetic, and biosystemic health.

All three sets of assumptions may be viewed as healthfully empowering options to the degree they harmonize with the learning capability, self-management skills, and mutual intentions of both parties.  Yet, each may be disempowering and/or unhealthful if misused or overused.  Below I have organized these assumptions into three “families” which I have come to see underlie our choices of inter-entity communications and their effect on learning in various life situations.  Caveats for each are summarized at the bottom of the chart.

In Some Situations	In Some Situations	In Some Situations
I Perceive The Other Person	I Perceive The Other Person	I Perceive The Other Person
As Less Powerful Than I	& Me As Having Equal Power	As More Powerful Than I
Therefore I Tend To	Therefore I Tend To	Therefore I Tend To
Choose Assumptions About	Choose Assumptions About	Choose Assumptions About
Communicating & Learning Which Are	Communicating & Learning Which Are	Communicating & Learning Which Are
Directive and Controlling	Cooperative and Participative	Non-Directive and Supporting
Such As —	Such As —	Such As —
People do not want to learn;	People accept responsibility for	An individual will accept re-
they must be forced, manipulat-	their own learning and helping	sponsibility for his/her own
ed, or persuaded to learn what	each other if the goals are	learning if the goals are relevant
they need	relevant to their individual and	to his or her own individual
	common interests	talents, interests, and needs
People learn by being told how	People learn by struggling with	People learn in their own way —
they should learn	real or simulated problems and	they don’t need to be told how
	interacting with other people	they should learn.
Significant learning is acquired	Significant learning results from	Significant learning is self-
from experts and other author-	participation in planning and	prescripted, self-discovered,
ities	problem solving by the individ-	self-appropriated, and self-
	uals involved in the situation	applied
An individual is dependent	Both individuals participate in	An individual is alone responsi-
upon someone more powerful	in reaching consensus and keep-	ble for keeping him or herself
to keep her/him on course	each other on course	on course
Communicating to the other	Communicating with the other	Communicating to the other is
is a process of directing, telling,	is a process of jointly creating	a process of active listening
manipulating, selling, and con-	a setting and conditions for the	(distinct from passive listening)
trolling; receiving communica-	communications to take place	which includes asking questions
tions is passive	and interacting participatively	for clarification about what the
	to explore options together and	other is saying, and expressing
	make joint decisions	your feelings in “I-messages”
Learning may be disturbing to	Learning may be disturbing to	Learning may be disturbing to
the other if it makes her or him	the other if she or he is resistant	the other because it requires her
work on her or his own initia-	to changing her or his attitudes	or him to work on a subject on
tive independent of  your	and behavior for your mutual	on which she or he has no way
direct guidance	benefit	to learn without accepting help
People who are highly depend-	Each, the sender and receiver,	Each individual is unique in
ent are all at the same level of	in a dialogue is unique in their	his or her level of development
development and learn at the	level of development and cap-	& personal learning goals.Com-
same rate as the others, there-	ability; communication pro-	unicating and learning experi-
fore communications can be	cesses must provide for both	iences need provide for individ-
mass programmed	individual differences and	ual differences only; ignore
	commonalities	commonalities
Structured lectures and step-by	Semi-structured experiential	Non-structured, non-directive
-step “how to do it” instructions	learning involving participative	communications provide the
are the most effective commun-	dyads, or groups, is the most	most effective learning mode
cations for learning	effective of communications
“Old dogs can learn new tricks	“Old dogs can learn new	“An old dog can learn new
only if they receive structured	tricks together, providing the	tricks as he or she wants with-
step by step instructions.”	psychological climate is ‘right’”	out help from anyone.”
Caveat	Caveat	Caveat
Directive and controlling	Cooperative and participative	Non-directive and supporting
behavior, if overused or	behavior, if overused or	behavior, if overused or
misused, may elicit in the	misused, may result in	misused, may result in the
other:  fear and distrust; little	over dependence on group	other person becoming
or no genuine communication	process by the other,	insensitive to the needs of
and learning; destructive	producing a mental set unable	others, a social isolationist,
conflict; stunting of individual	to act independently when	anarchist, or despot.
growth and development;	needed, such as in	.
subterfuge; perfidy; and	emergencies.
counterdependence.

ÓCopyright 1979; Rev. 1996; 2006; 2010 – Robert Wayne Johnston – OmniMindÓ Constituents

About the Author

Robert Wayne Johnston, PhD has been a pioneer theorist and practitioner in consciousness expansion, integral self-management, creative leadership, and organization transformation and development since 1966. Working as both an internal and external consultant, he specialized in guiding top managements of small to large non-profit and Fortune 500 companies through the process of starting-up corporate-wide organization development projects from scratch. Concurrently, he was curriculum consultant and adjunct professor teaching human behavior in organizations in two graduate schools of business. Profiled in Organization Transformation Theorists and Practitioners, he has published widely and made numerous presentations at conferences.

During the ten years before retiring, he changed somewhat the focus of his vocation to introduce his innovative in-depth transformational self-management processes in psychiatric and traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Now an active retiree, Bob has been giving back to society by doing mostly volunteer consulting work in the areas of self-management for healthful aging and creative leadership for non-profit local, state, and national councils on aging, and the White House Conference on Aging. He founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences Community Group in Amherst, Massachusetts.