Developmental structure

Abstract: The characteristics of self-actualization are fully reflected in excerpts from Saint-Exupery's autobiographical writings. The correspondence between the characteristics of self-actualization and Saint-Exupery's developmental profile gains special significance because there exists, independently, a theoretical structure corresponding both to self-actualization and to Saint-Exupery's material. This structure--level IV in the theory of positive disintegration--has previously been shown to represent Saint-Exupery's behavioral organization. The characteristics of self-actualization and the properties of level IV structure are isomorphic. Self-actualization is the consequence of level IV structure and of the potential necessary for its development.

Abstract: First, we clarify the central nature of our argument: our attempt is to apportion variation in brain size between developmental constraint, system-specific change, and “mosaic” change, underlining the unexpectedly large role of developmental constraint, but making no case for exclusivity. We consider the special cases of unusual hypertrophy of single structures in single species, regressive nervous systems, and the unusually variable cerebellum raised by the commentators. We defend the description of the cortex (or any developmentally-constrained structure) as a potential spandrel, and weigh the implications of the spandrel concept for the course of human evolution. The empirical and statistical objections raised in the commentary of Barton are discussed at length. Finally, we catalogue and comment on the suggestions of new ways to study brain evolution, and new aspects of brain evolution to study.

Abstract: We outline a developmental view of OD, showing on empirical grounds that Argyris’ “theory in use” notion points to different levels of mental growth as underpinnings of “the program in brain/mind” that determines personal theories of organizational action. Employing the developmental structure/process tool (DSPTTM), we explain the differences between two executives’ theory of action. We also analyze the dynamic of a six‐member team on developmental grounds. By way of close analysis, we show that theories of action are developmentally grounded, and are thus open both to maturation over the life span and to interventions like developmental coaching. We come to the conclusion that developmental assessment of executives and teams should become a vital part of in‐house development and of OD intervention.