Development and Action

Our culture often thinks in terms of two different images when addressing development and action. Development is seen as thoughtful and introspective, -- dealing with reconsidering, questioning others, benchmarking, breaking through. Action, on the other hand, is seen as making things happen, no time to think, responsive, full of activity. I question the degree to which these two images, and consequently the two conversations (about development and about what needs to happen, what actions to take), are held separately. Is that their true relationship? Is that the best relationship in a practical sense?

I think that these images have grown and solidified from people's predilections. There are people who have a predilection for action and whose natural activity tends toward responding to the situation and learning what they learn from it. Others have a predilection for contemplation, inquiry, investigation before acting. There are many more people with one or the other of these orientations than there are people who have integrated both orientations appropriately. Hence, the tendency in the culture has been to assume what is historically evident on face value-- that you are in one mode or the other. There is obvious experiential evidence for that.

In the work arena, a similar separation has occurred. Early industrialization concentrated on coordinating activity and outcomes. As the environment of work became more complex -- competition, more layers of management, more degrees of freedom to the design of the product and the relationship to the marketplace, training and development of workers and executives began to be introduced. It was introduced into a structure that was not designed for it, and hence was relegated to a special area (human resources usually) rather than redesign the company from the top down in light of the twin challenges of action and development. Activity became the realm of management. Development became the realm of "human resources" or "consultants". The split lives on to this day.

In daily life, we mirror the work environment. We are often used up by the necessary daily activity that it takes to "manage our lives and responsibilities". We seek out development either in a crisis where management won't work, or through an expert "hired in" to provide some for us. The common cultural conversations of everyday life are far more weighted to managing life, than developing it.

Let's take a few moments and rethink the relationship of development and action from an ideal position and see if we can have that work in everyday life.

I consider the ideal orientation to be an integration of activity and development appropriate to one's talents and circumstance. Again, the ideal is integration. In this orientation, one's intent is to balance accomplishment from action and real-world testing with developmental integrity and investing in evolving competencies and powers.

How does this orientation work? The simplest statement of the orientation is to have appropriate development that produces accomplishments that are satisfying and fulfills the circumstance in front of you, and said the other way, to test oneself through activity in such a way that one is stretched and developed in a way that is satisfying.

In fact, as one explores this integrated orientation, one sees that the integrity of work, or of one's expression, comes through the integration of development and action. Testing one's development through a project to be fulfilled, keeps one from fooling oneself with lofty thoughts that lack the bridge of competence to live them. Testing one's projects and goals of activity against a scale of development keeps one from wasting the opportunity for one's evolution and being too busy to prepare for future challenges.

Through this orientation, one develops an aesthetic for action that is developmental, and development that contributes to the central projects at hand.

To translate this conversation to terms appropriate to the development conversation we have been having together, the development component of this integrated orientation can be seen as evolutionary, an alteration of the connection one has with oneself, others, and with life itself. It concerns getting at and unfolding one's individuality in relation with a wider community. It allows for tapping new and deeper sources of power.

The action component of this integrated orientation has to do with bridging development and the world of practical, lived action. It has to do with developing new practices, new disciplines, new projects and new outcomes. It is the playing field for honing new skills, new competencies, new powers and for building an environment that suits who you are becoming.

From a downside orientation, action can be seen as a necessary bridge that connects one's development with others and the world, teaching one to be able to live consistent with one's developmental insight. From an upside orientation, one sets an aim in the world that calls for and requires the development intended and then develops what is necessary to fulfill the practical calling of the project. In this way, the pull to achieve the outcome of the project crystallizes the relevant issues of development.

Ultimately the orientation works out the same from either end -- if one is serious about development, one intends worldly expressions of the power made available by development; if one is serious about activity in the world, one intends an evolution of their developmental state so as to be a sufficient to the project being unfolded.

So what does this look like on a practical basis? In terms of one's development, this orientation calls for 5 elements:

1. crystallizing a downside issue that is recognized
2. building an alarm that tells you when you are in your issue
3. developing an insight into an upside orientation -- what power is available that expresses the underlying intent?
4. formulating a bridging practice, something that lets you reliably experiment with the upside orientation in the world
5. taking on a project that calls for the development intended and makes the activity socially connected.

As an experiment that connects what we have been discussing here with your development, I suggest that the following is worth doing: Identify the main developmental theme that is up in your life. Then invent a main outcome in time with which it is connected (what are you committed to make happen over what period of time that requires an evolution in your development in the area that is up). Then identify the main activity and intended outcome that would have you be appropriately at work on your development and main outcome now. When you see these three things, you will know what to do and whether you are serious about development and about having that which you say you intend.