Leading Transformative Change: The Power of Development

While there is broad agreement that higher education needs to innovate and evolve to meet external challenges, the question “How do we help people through change?” is rarely asked. There is talk of strategic plans with bold vision statements, but we don’t hear enough discussion of how to help the people who make up these institutions navigate through the uncertainty, doubt, and fear of failure that accompanies change.

We used to believe that change was a golden opportunity for a university department or division to lead and support adult development. The fact that this doesn’t happen enough has not so much changed our minds, but rather, as we look at how much is tried and how little is often accomplished, we are encouraged to double down on the initial theory. It is our strong belief that a university is unlikely to achieve the bold vision set forth in its strategic plan, and lead change successfully, until and unless it focuses on the adult development task at hand.

From Managing Resistance to Building Capacity for Change

In its beginning phases, change is often treated as a technical task: get the right people together, let them figure out the right plan, and then implement it. It is not until we experience the messy middle of change that we start to understand its adaptive nature. Change means have to let go of the old way in order to emerge from the liminal space in between the old and the new. At a macro level, this is where so many administrative and faculty leaders find themselves today. They know higher education is experiencing multiple levels of disruption, yet the way forward is unknown and there are no “right” answers. It is a time of experimentation, risk taking, and not knowing.

And that’s a scary place for universities to be. The worst answer in the majority of educational environments is “I don’t know.” However, it’s that tolerance of risk and embracing of ambiguity that is key when implementing change. When we establish working groups or committees to get to work on the implementation of a new strategic plan, we essentially immerse people in “not knowing.” The way forward is rarely clear and it brings up a lot of questions.

Often these questions are viewed as resistance and obstruction. Sometimes they are obstructionist, but more often than not, if we dig deeper, these questions are not deliberately obstructionist, but rather reveal questions of genuine concern and a desire to know the right way forward.

When leading change, you have a choice. You can continue with the control, resist, increase control doom spiral, or you can meet people where they are and start the process of increased autonomy and risk taking. You can begin the process of helping people build their own internal capacity for change.

The Developmental Opportunity

Building internal capacity for change is not just about training or attending professional or leadership development programs; this is about developing as human beings. In his book In Over Our Heads, Robert Kegan (2003) articulates three stages of adult development (or orders of mind): Socialized Mind, Self-Authoring Mind, and Self-Transformational Mind. Kegan’s theory describes the way in which we make sense of our environment and our relationships; it describes our internal process of making sense of the world. Each stage builds on the one that went before. No one stage is any better than the other; instead, we should ask ourselves if the demands of the task at hand fit with our current “order of mind,” or if the demands are asking us to develop beyond it.

Three Stages of Mind

Socialized Mind—If I am operating from a socialized mind, I am defined by the group. As a lecturer, I would look to others to tell me that I am doing a good job. As a department administrator, if I have a contradictory opinion to that of my Chair, I will likely withhold those contradictory views and go along with the Chair’s wishes. My sense of self-worth is dependent on the feedback and the views of the group. If I am working in a culture that aligns with my values, I will likely thrive; if I am working in a culture that does not align with my values, I will likely find myself “in over my head.” In many ways, I am shaped by the expectations of my environment.

Self-Authoring Mind—If I am operating from a self-authoring mind, I am more self-directed in my thoughts and actions. The university may have a particular pedagogical approach they want me to follow as a lecturer. If it aligns with my values, I will do it; if it does not, I might simply close my classroom door and teach the way that does align with my values. As a department administrator, I will argue openly and assertively with my Chair when our opinions differ. I am able to set and maintain boundaries and I know my own mind. I am able to explore the thoughts and feelings of others and to create my own views, independent of the group.

Self-Transformational Mind—If I am operating from a self-transformational mind, I am aware of the limits of my thinking and viewpoints. While I may believe strongly in something, I know that my thinking will likely have holes in it; I know my worldview cannot encompass all things. I can hold the tension of contradictory thoughts and polarities and my sense of self is not dependent on holding strong to a particular view. If I am a lecturer or a department administrator with a self-transformational mind, it is more likely that I will embrace paradox, welcome contradictory views, and be ever mindful of the limits of my thinking and my decisions.


According to Kegan’s research, the majority of adults today find themselves in the transition from socialized mind to self-authoring mind. He also points out that one stage of mind or consciousness is not “better” or “worse” than the other; what is important is to recognize and understand the demands of our external environment and to reflect on the complexity of consciousness that is needed in order to navigate it. For many people, the developmental demands of our modern culture and work environments are inviting us to grow beyond the cognitive and emotional skill set of the socialized mind.

The Invitation to Lead Change in a VUCA World

When we work with a university that is focusing on leading and implementing transformative change, invariably the change invites the faculty, administrators, and sometimes students, to break from the norms of the industrial, socialized-mind model. The majority of transformative change initiatives require leaders to provide the enabling conditions for faculty, staff, and students to be more self-authoring. We believe it is one of the core challenges (and opportunities) of leading change in today’s universities. 

Many of us who work in education were raised in the old system. Many of us excelled in it. We followed the rules, got good grades, and went to college. We were “good at school.” However, with the tectonic volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) plates shifting, a socialized mindset is not going to help us build what is next. The socialized mind does not help us embrace a larger version of ourselves, the authentic version, the version where we exercise more autonomy and self-direction in our work. This is probably one of the biggest (and too often missed) opportunities of large-scale change: to orient ourselves to the task of leading change, not as “let’s manage change resistance and get through this by any means possible,” but rather, “let’s use this as an opportunity to build organizational change capacity by leveraging the strengths, hearts, and minds of everyone involved.” After all, the change you are currently leading will not be the last. Perhaps the only constant upon which we can all depend is more change.