Integral Business Architecture by Robinson Roe

Integral Business Architecture
Robinson Roe HEI885,6,7 Page 1 of 46
Integral Business Architecture,
A theory of a perfect organisation
Robinson Roe
Abstract
Many of the books written in business literature are based on the observations of the authors who come
up with reasons for a company’s success or an individual’s great leadership. These observations are
summarised into either; a series of steps to follow, or a collection of principles to apply. There is
however another body of work questioning the validity of these business success books. They put
forward a case to argue that the great companies and leaders may not be as great as they have been
presumed. The question is who is right and what are the right steps to follow and principles to apply?
This paper starts at the other end of this debate by creating a theory of a perfect organisation based on
the academic research of people, culture and organisational development and uses this to review the
“steps to success” and “principles to apply” in the business literature to look for alignment. This theory
of a perfect organisation is called the Integral Business Architecture.
The Integral Business Architecture uses Ken Wilber’s Integral model which provides the framework
that the academic research of how people think, the cultural values we form and the resultant
organisations that this thinking and these values create can be mapped.
It is described as ‘a’ theory of a perfect organisation as it is just one theory. Therefore while the Integral
Business Architecture provides a framework for academics, consultants and practitioners to discuss the
theories, experiences and models that abound in the business world, there is a need for primary research
to further validate the amalgamation and interpretation of the secondary research which makes up the
Integral Business Architecture.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Reality of Business Success Stories
a. The Wrong Decisions at the Right Time
b. Could it just be Luck?
c. Past Performance is not an Indication of Future Results
3. Starting at the End – A “Gray’s Anatomy” for Business
4. Integral, All Quadrant, All Levels Framework
a. Four Quadrants
b. Levels of Development
c. Holarchies – Groups within Groups
d. Quadrivia Views
5. Applying Academic Research to the Integral Business Architecture
a. The Development Levels of the Individual; Upper Quadrants
b. The Development Levels of the Collective: Lower Quadrants
6. The Completed Integral Business Architecture, a Map for Future Success
a. A Quadrivia view of the Organisational Layers
b. Holarchy versus Hierarchy
c. The Integral Business Architecture Proposition
7. Business Literature viewed through The Integral Business Architecture
a. Good to Great, by Jim Collins (Collins 2001)
b. Innovator’s Dilemma, by Clayton Christensen (Christensen 1997)
i. Christensen’s Foresight into the Development of the Electric Car
c. The Toyota Way, by Jeffrey Liker (Liker 2004)
i. Toyota and the Electric Car
d. It’s your ship: Management techniques from the best damn ship in the Navy, by
Captain Michael D. Abrashoff (Abrashoff in Dourado 2007)
e. Requisite Organisation, by Elliot Jaques (Jaques 1989)
f. Brain of the Firm, Heart of the Enterprise, by Stafford Beer (Beer 1979, 1980)
g. Gemba Kaizen, by Masaaki Imai (Imai 1997)
h. Other Books Reviewed
8. An Action Logics Paradox, Pre/Trans Fallacy and Future Research
9. Conclusion
10. References

1. Introduction
“...all of those major theories of business management and leadership – from systems theory to
emotional intelligence to corporate culture management, covering the Big Three landscapes
faced by all humans – have an important place in a true Integral Model of conscious business.
Although this might at first seem too complicated, the undeniable fact is that any less than
integral approach is doomed to failure.
...self, culture, nature – are all there, all exerting an influence, all actively shaping events, and
you either consciously take them into account in any human endeavour or stand back and watch
the roadkill.” (Wilber in Kofman 2006 p. xiii)
Most CEOs want to leave a legacy of their great leadership. None of them want to be known as the
leader that led their company into stagnation, acquisition or bankruptcy. But recent history has many
examples of just such a negative outcome. There is a long list of companies that have stumbled along
the way, disappeared, or eventually recovered usually under new leadership. These include the well
known ones of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Enron, WorldCom, GM, Ford, as well as those
specifically researched by Jim Collins: Burroughs, Chrysler, Harris, Hasbro, Rubbermaid, Teledyne
(Collins 2001), A&P, Addressograph, Ames, Bank of America, Circuit City, Merck, Motorola, Scott
Paper, Zenith (Collins 2009) and by Clayton Christensen; Digital Equipment Corporation, Sears, Xerox,
Bucyrus Erie, Bethlehem Steele, IBM, HP and Wang (Christensen 1997).
This paper looks into the research that has been conducted to study why some companies are successful
while others fail. It also looks at the problems associated with this research as many of the “successful”
companies studied have later failed themselves or as the research by Raynor et al (Raynor, Ahmed &
Henderson) shows the companies studied were not statistically successful in the first place. To
determine a proposition of how to be a successful company, for now and into the future, the academic
research of individual, cultural and organisational development is mapped on to Wilber’s Integral All
Quadrant, All Levels, framework (Wilber 2000) to create a theory of a perfect organisation, called the
Integral Business Architecture. This is used to review the “success steps” and “principles” found in
business literature as to why some companies are successful while others fail. The books reviewed
include Collins’s Good to Great (Collins 2001), Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma (Christensen 1997)
and Liker’s The Toyota Way (Liker 2004). It is also reviewed against organisational models such as
Jaques Stratum Theory (Jaques 1989) and Beer’s Viable Systems Model (Beer 1979, 1980).
Finally a recommendation for primary research of the Integral Business Architecture is outlined as the
construct of this model and the review of the business literature is all based on secondary research and
therefore the author’s worldview biases may be present. This is explained in the context of the action
logics paradox (Torbert & Cook-Greuter 2004) and the pre/trans fallacy (Wilber 2007).

2. The reality of business success stories
2.a. The Wrong Decisions at the Right Time
If none of the CEOs of these companies wanted to end up in infamy, why did they? Surely they are
clever people, good at reading financial reports, knowledgeable of their industries and able to
implement strong strategic plans. Yet they didn’t foresee their future demise or at least were unable to
avoid it. In fact according to Christensen’s research he noted that at the prime of their career they may
have caused it;
“One theme common to all of these failures, however, is that the decisions that led to failure
were made when the leaders in question were widely regarded as among the best companies in
the world.” (Christensen 1997 p. xii)
Christensen goes on to point out a paradoxical finding in his research;
“It shows that in the cases of well-managed firms such as those cited above, good management
was the most powerful reason they failed to stay atop their industries.” (Christensen 1997 p.
xii).
Put another way what Christensen is saying is that good management leads to companies failing. This
doesn’t make sense, something is missing and that something is the level of thinking to have the
foresight to see that these “good management” decisions would lead them to failure. If these CEOs and
their organisations had the foresight to see where their decisions were taking them we could assume that
they would have taken a different cause of action. Instead they continued to implement their historically
successful strategies and proceed to run off the fast approaching cliff. Lehman Brothers had just
completed four years of record profits but would not complete another year of operation having been
taken over before being forced into bankruptcy (Ward 2010). Their profit generating strategy was
leading them to an unsustainable existence but without the foresight to detect this, they rushed headlong
into their collapse.
A further clue to what is missing lies in Collins’ empirical research into failed companies. He lays out
the steps that lead to this collapse. First there is the “hubris of success”, followed by the “undisciplined
pursuit of more”, then “denial of risk and peril” before falling off the cliff and “grasping for salvation”
and ultimately “capitulation to irrelevance or death”, Figure 1 (Collins 2009).
Figure 1: Five Stages of Decline (Collins 2009 p. 20)
The explanation Collins gives is that past success leads to continued following of a proven strategy.
This creates corporate blindness to the fact that the future could turn out differently to their historically
set expectations, leading them to more bad decisions and ultimately their “capitulation to irrelevance or
death”. This aligns to Christensen’s observation that, “the decisions that led to failure were made when
the leaders in question were widely regarded as among the best companies in the world” (Christensen
1997). At the time that these companies were being successful the leaders were already sowing the
seeds of their demise.

2.b. Could it Just be Luck?
Another concerning finding from empirical research comes from Viguerie, Smit and Baghai’s work on
analysing the factors of corporate growth. What they found is that the lag factor between CEO decisions
and resultant outcomes is longer than the average tenure of today’s CEOs. What this means is that
current success is wrongly attributed to the current management team;
“...almost two thirds – 65 percent – of a large company’s growth is inherited: it derives from the
performance of the existing portfolio. With CEO tenures being as short as they are, what this
means is that when a company reports its results, much of the growth performance has been
determined by decisions taken by the previous management” (Viguerie, Smit & Baghai 2008 p.
38).
In a worst case scenario, today’s championed CEO could be riding on the results of their predecessor’s
decisions, poised at the peak of Collins collapse curve, making all the wrong decisions for their
organisation’s future and being selected to run an even bigger company or being promoted to a higher
position within their current one.
This may seem like an unlikely series of coincidences but according to Raynor et al all the success
stories studied in the business books they could find were more likely to be a run of luck than
exemplary leadership;
“...we’ve come to the rather disturbing conclusion that every one of the studies that we’ve
investigated in detail is subject to a fundamental, irremediable flaw that leaves us with no good
scientific reason to have any confidence in their findings.
...By our measures, they are instead, by an overwhelming majority, studying a sample of firms
with performance profiles that are statistically indistinguishable from fortunate random walks.
In other words, they are not studying demonstrably great companies, and may very well be
studying merely lucky companies.” (Raynor, Ahmed & Henderson p. 1)
In their study they argue that after you normalise for industry sectors, level of competitiveness, size of
organisation, capital structures and survivor bias you still need to find companies that operate above
what could be statistically possible. To explain this concept they quote the example provided by
Rebecca Henderson a lecturer at MIT;
“I begin my course in strategic management by asking all the students in the room to stand up. I
then ask each of them to toss a coin: if the toss comes up “tails” they are to sit down, but if it
comes up “heads” they are to remain standing. Since there are around 70 students in the class,
after six or seven rounds there is only one student left standing. With the appropriate theatrics, I
approach the student and say “HOW DID YOU DO THAT??!! SEVEN HEADS IN A ROW!!
Can I interview you in Fortune? Is it the T-Shirt, Is it the flick of the wrist? Can I write a case
study about you?” [author’s emphasis] (Henderson in Raynor, Ahmed & Henderson p. 3)
As they go on to explain, out of 70 students it is statistically possibly for one student to toss seven heads
in a row. It doesn’t mean that that particular student is any better at coin tossing than any of the other
students. If however fifteen students had tossed seven heads in a row you can suspect that some of the
students are doing something to produce this better than expected outcome, the problem is you can’t tell
from the results which ones. Raynor et al however doesn’t dismiss the work carried out by the authors
of these business books rather they put the findings into a different context;
“The authors are savvy observers of the business world. Their recommendations can be useful,
but more in the manner of fables than evidence-based advice...
...In short, their value is not what you read in them but what you read into them” [author’s
emphasis] (Raynor, Ahmed & Henderson p. 18)
It is in the context of what we can “read into” these business books that will be used later in this paper.
In fact Collins’s “savvy” observations agrees with Raynor et al’s findings that luck can play a
significant effect on a company’s success, or in Collin’s observation failure, when they forget why they
were successful in the first place;
“When the rhetoric of success (“We’re successful because we do these specific things”)
replaces penetrating understanding and insight (“We’re successful because we understand why

we do these specific things and under what conditions they would no longer work”), decline
will very likely follow. Luck and chance play a role in many successful outcomes, and those
who fail to acknowledge the role luck may have played in their success – and thereby
overestimate their own merit and capabilities – have succumbed to hubris.” (Collins 2009 p. 21)
A keen observer of this phenomenon is Nicholas Taleb who summarises his similar observations in the
opening paragraph of his book, Fooled by Randomness;
“This book is about luck disguised and perceived as non-luck (that is, skills) and, more
generally, randomness disguised and perceived as non-randomness (that is, determinism). It
manifests itself in the shape of the lucky fool, defined as a person who benefited from a
disproportionate share of luck but attributes his success to some other, generally very precise,
reason,. Such confusion crops up in the most unexpected areas even science, though not in such
an accentuated and obvious manner as it does in business. It is endemic in politics, as it is
encountered in the shape of a country’s president discoursing on the jobs that “he” created,
‘his” recovery, and “his predecessor’s” inflation”(Taleb 2001 p. 1)
2.c. “Past performance is not an indication of future results.” (Schwab)
A common legal warning on financial investment brochures is “Past Performance is not an indication of
future results” or put the other way “Future Performance is not indicated by past results”. Most success
based business books use the research paradigm of induction to assess the past results of a company and
induce “reasons” that explains this success. The idea is that if you implement these “reasons” in your
organisation you also will achieve success in the future. As outlined above determining the “reasons” is
fraught with difficulties including knowing when success has been achieved because a CEO tossed
seven heads in a row. Raynor et al also points out that this induction approach can fall victim to the
“Texas Sharpshooter” problem;
“...in which the target is defined only after the shots have been fired. When you set the target
after you’ve shot, you can easily create the illusion of accuracy by placing the bull’s eye over
whatever random cluster of bullet holes you can find.” (Raynor, Ahmed & Henderson p. 11)
The problem therefore is if past performance is not an indication of future results, what is?

3. Starting at the End – A “Gray’s Anatomy” for Business
Instead of relying on observations made by authors to determine “reasons” for business success we can
start at the other end by developing a framework based on the academic research of how people,
cultures and organisations develop and use that to explain the underpinning logic of how business
success can be achieved and sustained. This framework can be reviewed against what we can “read
into” the business books findings to determine the level of alignment. The “business success”
framework proposed in this paper needs to cover Wilber’s three landscapes and is built using the
academic theory for Self (Personal Development, Capability), Culture (Values, Beliefs) and Nature
(Systems, Structures and Processes). As Wilber states above you need to take these “Three Big
Landscapes” into consideration to be successful. The academic research used includes William
Torbert’s and Susanne Cook-Grueter’s Action Logics (Torbert & Cook-Greuter 2004) which utilises the
Leadership Development Framework and Don Beck and Chris Cowan’s Spiral Dynamics model (Beck
& Cowan 1996) which covers culture and organisational structures
The need for this change in approach, from induction to deduction, is highlighted by Kofman when he
discusses Collins’s Level 5 Leaders;
“He [Collins] concludes that a crucial component is a group of leaders with a paradoxical blend
of personal humility and professional will. These leaders, whom Collins calls “Level 5,”
channel their ego ambition away from themselves into the larger goal of building a great
company....
...However Collins couldn’t answer a central question: how to develop Level 5 Leadership. “I
would love to be able to give you a list of steps for becoming Level 5, but we have no solid
research data that would support a credible list.” The inner development of a person remains a
“black box”” (Kofman 2006 p. 2)
Collins is saying that they do not have enough research data to determine the internal workings of a
Level 5 Leader and the development path to get them there. We do however have the leadership models
developed by Torbert and Cook-Grueter’s to map these levels in the self landscape. We can apply their
leadership development models against the descriptions of leaders found in the business books. For
example, when Collins describes his level 5 leaders as one who “channel(s) their ego ambition away
from themselves into a larger goal” they have developed, as Torbert and Cook-Grueter describe it, into
the “post-conventional” moral reasoning phase, their ego drive has moved away from a “you – me”
level to an “us” level. As we will see later this aligns to the Strategist or Alchemist action logic way of
thinking (Torbert & Cook-Greuter 2004).
Similarly in the Culture Landscape for our framework, Beck and Cowan, based on the work by Clare
Graves, have developed the levels of “values” development within groups of people (Beck & Cowan
1996). The question that started Graves down this path of research was to find out why groups had
different values and beliefs (Beck). What he found was that these different value systems were
development levels as groups mature and grow based on their life conditions, from tribes in the jungle
to western civilisations.
The research that Torbert and Cook-Grueter undertook in the Self Landscape and the research Graves,
Beck and Cowan undertook in the Culture Landscape were based on observations in the external world,
the Nature Landscape. Both therefore provide the corresponding behaviours, activities and structures of
the Nature Landscape that align to the development levels in the Self and Culture Landscape. This
provides a list of observations or potential “symptoms” that can be witnessed in the external Nature
Landscape to assess what is occurring in the internal Self and Culture Landscape and thus completes the
picture for our framework.
What is being built here is a version of Gray’s Anatomy for Organisations. In 1855 Henry Gray and
Henry Carter, in response to the lack of a suitable reference texts for doctors, started work on a book
that included detailed drawings by Carter and descriptions by Gray covering what was known at the
time of the anatomy of the human body (Richardson p. 2). Nearly 150 years later “Gray’s Anatomy”, as
it became to be known, is in its 39th
edition. Applying this analogy, the framework being assembled
from the various fields of academic research is like covering; psychology of people in the Self
Landscape, sociology of groups in the Culture Landscape and the anatomy of structures, systems and
processes in the Nature Landscape.

But as science has come to learn these three fields all interact. Senior executives in organisations lead in
accordance to their thinking, their mental models, the Self Landscape. This thinking by the leadership
team decides and implements the structures and the processes within the organisations, the Nature
Landscape. The implemented structures and processes shape and create the group “norms” and
“values”, often described as “how we do things around here”, the Culture Landscape. And this all feeds
back upon itself with people being attracted or repelled by a group’s culture which influences their
thinking and potentially developing them to the next level, which changes how they behave.
Therefore to gain a complete, integrated perspective of a successful business we need a framework that
maps the three landscapes of Self, Culture and Nature together. A framework that maps the different
landscapes and the development levels in an integrated way. The integration is important because it
links the “self” to the “culture” to the “nature” landscapes. Wilber provides such a framework with his
Integral, All Quadrant, All Levels model (Wilber 2000). Using Wilber’s Integral framework along the
lines of the ‘Gray’s Anatomy” book analogy we can build an Integral Business Architecture which will
allow us to diagnose the health of an organisation and provide a prognosis of its potential for success in
the future. It also provides a useful framework for academics, consultants and practitioners to discuss
theories, experiences and models and will be used in this paper as a framework to review the business
literature on business success and failure.

4. Integral, All Quadrant, All Levels Framework
Wilber starts by providing a rationale for an Integral framework that includes self, culture, nature;
“The Greeks had a beautiful word, Kosmos, which means the patterned Whole of all existence,
including the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual realms....
...But us poor moderns have reduced the Kosmos to the cosmos, we have reduced matter and
body and mind and soul and spirit to nothing but matter alone, and in this drab and dreary
world of scientific materialism, we are lulled into the notion of a theory uniting the physical
dimension is actually a theory of everything....
“An integral vision” – or a genuine Theory of Everything – attempts to include matter, body,
mind, soul and spirit, as they appear in self, culture, and nature. A vision that attempts to be
comprehensive, balanced, inclusive. A vision that therefore embraces science, art, and morals;
that equally includes disciplines from physics to spirituality, biology to aesthetics, sociology to
contemplative prayer; that shows up in integral politics, integral medicine, integral business,
integral spirituality...” (Wilber, 2000, page xi, xii)
The “All Quadrant” part of Wilber’s framework refers to four perspectives of the world. The
perspective of the individual from the internal world (psychology), the perspective of the individual
from the external world (anatomy, behaviour), the perspective of the collective, from the internal world
(sociology, culture) and the perspective of the collective from the external world (structures, process
and organisations).
The “All Levels” part of Wilber’s framework refers to the development levels within each perspective.
In the internal individual perspective it’s how we as humans develop our thinking in terms of cognitive
capability, moral reasoning, ego development and more. In the internal collective perspective it is how
we develop our cultural values from animistic rituals to religious worship to scientific rationalism based
on our current life conditions and levels of thinking. If we are living in a rural township it is a culture of
working together to build a strong community. If we are living and working on Wall Street the culture
and thinking is centred on scientific rationalism, at least we hope it is.
The Integral All Quadrant, All levels framework is mapped using the two axis of internal to external
and individual to collective, Figure 2.
Figure 2: The Integral Framework, adapted from Wilber (Wilber 2000)

Figure 2 shows how the intersections of the axis create four quadrants, one for each of the four areas
discussed above which we need to create our business framework’s version of “Gray’s Anatomy,
Psychology and Sociology” which is called the Integral Business Architecture.
Support for the use of Wilber’s Integral, All Quadrant, All Level model comes from Fuhs in the area of
leadership and Cacioppe and Edwards in the area of organisational development. Fuhs argues for the
use of Wilber’s Integral model due to the importance of taking an all quadrant view in order to answer
the questions of what is leadership and how to bring the answer to that question to life;
“If a leadership definition answers the question, “What is leadership?” a leadership framework,
as commonly conceived, would address the question, “How do I actualize and embody that
definition?” Senge’s answer is the Fifth Discipline, a framework based primarily on systems
thinking and used by leaders to develop a learning organization. Daniel Goleman, who believes
leadership is a primal, emotion-engaging affair, guides leaders with his emotional intelligence
framework. Bill Torbert postulates action inquiry—the practice of simultaneously conducting
inquiry and productive action—as the secret to transformational leadership. Again, leaders are
left wondering which framework is best, which is right for them, and which should they
implement.
The short answer is all of them. In the spirit of American philosopher Ken Wilber, it is more
exact to say that each of them is true but also partial. Over the last thirty years, Wilber has
engaged in a process of integrating the enduring truths of seemingly disparate knowledge areas
into an integral framework that honours partial truths and jettisons absolutistic claims and
fallacies. His framework, called AQAL (pronounced “ah-qwul”), an acronym derived from “all
quadrants, all-levels,” consists of five core elements: quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types.”
(Fuhs p. 140)
Cacioppe and Edwards explain how Wilber’s Integral model is able to incorporate the development
domains and levels of other models both for the individual and organisational perspectives.
“...integral theory is the only one that is specifically designed to integrate other models and this
is reflected in the number and scope of its developmental principles. For example, it is the only
model presented here that specifically addresses the basic developmental domains (four
quadrants) and the concept of lines of development. A comparison of the models shows that all
the major elements of the SD [Spiral Dynamics], CT [Corporate Transformation] and action
inquiry [Torbert] approaches exist within the integral theory framework. While all can be
utilised to support new visions, understandings and methodologies in organisational
development only integral theory possesses the range of tools to deal with the scope of
complexity that organisational issues present. In effect integral theory enables a new
comparative meta-evaluation to be attempted....” (Cacioppe & Edwards 2005 p. 98)
And Cacioppe and Edwards go on to explain how Wilber’s Integral model is a map, a framework upon
which we can place the research models covering psychology of people in the Self Landscape,
sociology of groups in the Culture Landscape and anatomy of structures, systems and processes in the
Nature Landscape.
“Integral theory is a map, a method and a conceptual framework that provides direction and
useful tools, but not the territory. The OD [Organisational Development] landscape is
continually expanding and changing and integral theory recognises the ongoing emergence of
novel methods to exploring that territory. The purpose of this article has been to point out that
integral theory can provide a comprehensive and useful map, but only a map. The real work of
organisation development happens on a day-to-day basis in the awareness, culture, systems and
behaviours of real people. We hope that a roadmap can be built that improves the experience
and contribution of our business, government and not-for-profit organisations and feel that
integral theory provides a significant step in this direction.” (Cacioppe & Edwards 2005 p. 103)
The Integral Business Architecture is an attempt at the roadmap Cacioppe and Edwards refer to by
completing Wilber’s Integral map with the content of the territories within a business world’s context.
Wilber’s Integral framework includes the four quadrants, levels of development, the concept of
holarchies and the ability to take a quadrivia view. These are explained as follows (Wilber 2000, 2007);

4.a. Four Quadrants
The Upper Left quadrant is the Internal World of the Individual, the “self landscape”, and maps
people’s thinking, Wilber calls this “I”, the inner world of you and me. No one else can see
what we are thinking because it is the internal world. We can infer what people are thinking
through the perspectives of the external quadrants, how they behave, the decisions they make, the
groups they belong to, etc. Thinking or Psychology in this quadrant covers many areas including,
cognitive development, personal values and moral reasoning.
The Upper Right quadrant is the External World of the Individual, the individual part of the
“nature landscape”, the world that we can see and examine, Wilber calls this “It”. We can see
the brain functioning through MRI scans but we can’t see what it is thinking. We see how the
biology and anatomy of the body works, how we breathe, pump blood, process food, pick up objects,
run, walk and how we respond to stimulants like exercise, stress and drugs. External action can be taken
on the biology and anatomy of the external world through medication, training, education and even if
necessary incarceration.
The Lower Left Quadrant is the Internal World of the Collective, the “culture landscape”, the
realm of culture and sociology which Wilber calls “We”. Again being the internal world this is
not something we can see or measure directly but can be inferred through the perspectives of
the external worlds. The group’s rituals and behaviours as well as the individual’s perceived benefits in
associating with the group, shelter, safety, wealth or camaraderie. It covers the value systems of the
group and the unwritten norms. Culture is best described as simply, “they way we do things around
here”.
The Lower Right quadrant is the External World of the Collective, the collective part of the
“nature landscape”, the world of systems, processes and things that we create, including
organisational structures, which Wilber calls “Its”. This is the quadrant that gains much of the
attention by business book authors. It is the world we can see, touch and measure. This is where the
external action takes place, organisational restructures, new plant and equipment purchases, six sigma
process improvements, incentive programs, mergers and acquisitions, product innovation and
development and, a favourite one, the writing of a mission statement.
It is the All Quadrant perspective that enables us to map the linkages from the internal to the external
worlds, as they are different views of the one reality. The external world organisational structure has
been created by internal world thinking and values. For example, if an executive style of thinking is that
they know best, a style we will discuss later as being an “Expert”, they will build an organisation where
their employees will be told what to do, an Authority Structure.
4.b. Levels of Development
As discussed above within each quadrant are the development levels, the “All Levels” part of the
framework and as Wilber explains there are many lines of development;
“Through these levels or waves of development flow many different lines or streams of
development. We have credible evidence that these different streams, lines, or modules include
cognition, morals, self-identity, psychosexuality, ideas of good, role taking, socio-emotional
capacity, creativity, altruism, several lines that can be called “spiritual” (care, openness,
concern, religious faith, meditative stages), communicative competence, modes of space and
time, affect/emotion, death/seizure, needs, worldviews, mathematical competence, musical
skills, kinesthetics, gender identity, defence mechanisms, interpersonal capacity and empathy.”
(Wilber 2000 p. 44)
An example in the upper right quadrant, Thinking (Psychology), is the development line of moral
reasoning. As we mature through life we grow through the levels of, pre-conventional thinking of an
infant, the world is only about “me”, through conventional thinking of the adolescent and young adult
where the world is about “you and me” to the higher level of moral reasoning thinking of post-
conventional where the world is about “us”, Figure 3. Our moral reasoning changes through these levels
from one where the infant does not comprehend a world outside of themselves and therefore believes
that everything exists to serve their needs. To the young adult who sees the world as a zero sum game
of “you and me”. If you get something then I don’t and vice a versa, their moral reasoning is based on
winners and losers. For many of us this level of moral reasoning remains throughout our lives. To post-

conventional moral reasoning where we see the broader picture of all of “us”. At this level it isn’t about
winning or losing in the short term but how we can create a better world for all of “us”. A key point that
Wilber makes is that when moving up through these development levels we transcend and include the
lower levels. “Me” to, “You and Me” to, ‘Us”. We don’t forget “Me” thinking we include it in the next
level, we don’t forget “You and Me” thinking we include it in the next level of “Us” thinking.
(Kohlberg 1981)
Figure 3: Stages of Moral Development adapted from Kohlberg (Kohlberg 1981)
4.c. Holarchies – Groups within Groups
When Wilber talks about “transcending and including” the lower levels he says that this occurs as
holons or in a holarchy. People are part of a team, which are part of a business unit, which are part of a
division, which are part of a company. Each level is included in the level above. A key understanding of
holarchies is that without people companies can’t exist, whereas people can exist without companies. In
the Lower Left quadrant of culture and sociology Wilber refers to Beck and Cowan’s work on the
development of cultural values. Again the holarchy exists, we start with tribal values (animistic-
magical), developing into through to a mythic order (a divine being) on to scientific rationale value
system and beyond (Beck & Cowan 1996). Each subsequent set of values transcends and includes the
lower set, Figure 4. This is why for example we still “touch wood” a superstitious value from our tribal
era while we now operate within a scientific culture. We can still be selfish from time to time but are
more conscious of not hurting other people in the process. We don’t forget our roots they are still within
us as we move on.
Figure 4: Holarchies mapped to the Integral Framework

It is remembering this development journey that every one of us is on and how the holarchy aspect of
Wilber’s model accommodates our life’s journey that is important. Everyone starts out in life as a baby.
We grow into a child, a teenager, a young adult, through to middle age and eventually old age. These
statements seem obvious. However what we forget is that we can’t expect the same development level
of thinking, value systems and behaviour from the young adult who has recently started an
apprenticeship in the company as we would from the middle aged senior executive running a division.
Yet in many organisations that is how they are structured, in a hierarchy sense, where everything that is
good for the top is good for all. The classic mission statement, “we strive to be the best in our industry
in delivering high levels of customer services in order to provide excellent returns for our shareholders”
works for the senior executive who happens to be a shareholder. But not for the young apprentice who
is saving up for their first car. Stock options that vest over the next four years, if corporate targets are
met, won’t help them buy the car they need to go out this weekend with their friends. In a holarchy
structure we have mission statements inside mission statements, inside mission statements. For the
apprentice it is, “we perform the highest quality work to be recognised by our customers and peers as
the best craftsmen in our trade”. This makes sense to the young apprentice learning their trade. It also
contributes up to the company’s mission statement’s elements of; “best in our industry”, “customer
service” which would lead to “excellent returns”.
As we will see below, when we apply the academic research to the Integral Business Architecture, there
is a step change in the development lines when we go from hierarchical thinking to holarchical
thinking. The proposition in this thesis is that organisations that operate as a holarchy will have a much
greater chance of future success, than those that operate as a hierarchy. It is this difference that can help
explain Christensen’s incongruent comment that “good management was the most powerful reason they
failed to stay atop their industries” (Christensen 1997 p. xii) because the good management he is
referring to is management from a hierarchical thinking perspective which is actually viewed as poor
management from a holarchical thinking perspective.
4.d. Quadrivia Views
The final piece to the Wilber based Integral Business Architecture is that we can take a “quadrivia”
view of the same single piece of reality through the four different quadrant perspectives. As Sean
Esbjörn-Hargens explains:
“Quadrivia refers to four ways of seeing (quadrivium is singular). In this approach the different
perspectives associated with each quadrant are directed at a particular reality, which is placed in
the centre of the diagram.” (Esbjorn-Hargens 2009 p. 7)
For the apprentice wanting to buy their first car the quadrivia view, Figure 5, shows that their thinking
is that they need to start at the bottom and earn their place in the world as they complete their
apprenticeship. The apprentice’s behaviour linked to this thinking is to follow the rules, both at work as
well as the unspoken norms of their friendship group. Following the rules and norms are the values of
all the members of the apprentice’s group and this provides them with the structure they need to work
and play together, “surely there is no other way”, they think as they hang out at the beach on the
weekend. In the external world they can be recognised by the places where they are seen; work,
technical college, cafes, beaches or night clubs. As well as by the clothes they wear; overalls and steel
capped boots, t-shirts, denim jeans, back to front baseball caps or maybe dressed all in black.

Figure 5: Apprentice quadrivia view
The quadrivia view of the senior executive shows that they have developed their thinking to a higher
development level. They are now aware of the holarchy nature of the world recognising and
appreciating the diversity of thinking and values. This awareness allows them to provide wisdom to the
teams they lead by not telling them what to do but through creating environments so that the right level
of behaviours, norms and processes take place that align to the value development within the
holarchical structure, Figure 6. The senior executive realises that they exist inside the global community
and playing the zero sum game of win-lose is not the best way forward in building a better, sustainable
world. It is also not the best way for them to remain successful into the future. Harnessing all their
people’s skills and thinking through a holarchy approach which includes the broader communities of
customers, suppliers, partners, citizens and even competitors yields far greater success than trying to
fight for your own piece of the world.
Figure 6: Senior Executive quadrivia view

5. Applying Academic Research to the Integral Business Architecture
It is through the quadrivia view that the academic researchers are able to understand the development
levels of the internal world, the world of our thinking and the development of cultural values (left side
quadrants) by observing the external worlds of our behaviour and the structures and organisations we
create (right side quadrants). This research allows us to “start at the end” in our understanding of
business success by mapping the development levels and their linkages across both the internal and
external worlds to create the Integral Business Architecture and to use this framework to determine
what is required to be successful and viable in the future.
5.a. The Development Levels of the Individual; Upper Quadrants
“In the hands of a mature, healthy human being – one who has achieved full humanness –
power... is a great blessing. But in the hands of the immature, vicious, or emotionally sick,
power is a horrible danger.” (Maslow in Kofman 2006 p. 17)
The development lines of the individual have been extensively studied in the field of psychology.
Everything from cognitive development, moral reasoning, ego development and psychosexuality, has
been researched analysed and documented. Coming out of the psychology field of study, and in
collaboration with psychologists Susanne Cook-Greuter, is William Torbert’s seven development levels
of leadership based on how leaders use their “internal action logic”.
“Most development psychologists agree that what differentiates leaders is not so much their
philosophy of leadership, or their style of management. Rather, it’s their internal “action logic”
– how they interpret their surroundings and react when their power or safety is
challenged.”(Rooke & Torbert 2005 p. 67)
The seven action logic levels are; Opportunist, Diplomat, Expert, Achiever, Individualist, Strategist and
Alchemist. The research was conducted over 25 years working with executives from around the globe
using a tool called the ‘Leadership Development Profile”. The tool is based in the psychology research
of ego development and moral reasoning and uses a sentence completion test to understand the action
logic approach of an individual. This is a very open ended test which is designed so that people truly
articulate the way they think. It does however need highly trained evaluators to map the results. Torbert
explains the test as;
“participants are asked to complete 36 sentences that begin with phrases such as “A good
leader...” to which responses vary widely:
“...cracks the whip”
“...realizes that it’s important to achieve good performance from subordinates.”
“...juggles competing forces and takes responsibility for her decisions.”” (Rooke & Torbert
2005 p.68)
As individuals we can develop through these action logics levels, from opportunist to diplomat to expert
up to alchemist. We can develop through these levels, but that doesn’t mean we do, the majority of
people have been found to operate at the middle levels of Expert and Achiever (Torbert & Cook-
Greuter 2004 p. 79). As you read through the levels you can think of people you know that demonstrate
these traits. The admired leader, the domineering boss, the firebrand new kid on the block to the wise
mentor we seek out for advice.
Because these levels are individual’s internal logic Torbert and Cook-Greuter describes the levels
through the behaviour that each level demonstrates. This is mapping the external world of the individual
through observing their behaviour to their internal action logic thinking, that is, the reasons why they
behaved in this way. This therefore can be mapped on to the Integral Business Architecture, Figure 7, to
provide the external behaviours we see from which we can infer the current development level of an
individual’s action logic.
The Action Logics development levels are;
The Opportunist
“...focus on personal wins and see the world and other people as opportunities to be exploited.
Their approach to the outside world is largely determined by their perception of control – in

other words, how they will react to an event depends primarily on whether or not they think
they can direct the outcome. They treat people as objects or as competitors who are also out for
themselves...
Opportunists often survive longer than they should because they provide an exciting
environment in which younger executives, especially, can take risks. As one ex-Enron senior
staffer said, “Before the fall, those were such exciting years. We felt we could do anything, pull
off everything, write our own rules...” (Rooke & Torbert 2005 p. 68)
To develop to the next level the person becomes dissatisfied with the world they are operating in and
believes there is a better way. For the Opportunist being out on their own becomes tiresome, lonely and
plain hard work. They start to take a broader perspective and seek the benefits of belonging to a group
which provides the catalyst for moving up to the Diplomat level.
The Diplomat
“The Diplomat makes sense of the world around him in a more benign way than the
Opportunist does, but this action logic can also have extremely negative repercussions if the
leader is a senior manager. Loyally serving the group, the Diplomat seeks to please higher-
status colleagues while avoiding conflict. This action logic is focused on gaining control of
one’s own behaviour – more than on gaining control of external events or other people.
According to the Diplomat’s action logic, a leader gains more enduring acceptance and
influence by cooperating with group norms and by performing his daily roles well.” (Rooke &
Torbert 2005 p. 68)
As Diplomat’s develop, especially in gaining knowledge in their role in order to demonstrate capable
behaviour, they move up to the next level of being an Expert. During this transition period there doesn’t
seem to be enough time to learn everything they need to learn.
The Expert
“In contrast to Opportunists, who focus on trying to control the world around them, and
Diplomats, who concentrate on controlling their behaviour, Experts try to exercise control by
perfecting their knowledge, both in the professional and personal lives.... Secure in their
expertise, they present hard data and logic in their efforts to gain consensus and buy-in for their
proposals.
Experts are great individual contributors because of their pursuit of continuous improvement,
efficiency, and perfection. But as managers, they can be problematic because they are
completely sure they are right... Experts tend to view collaboration as a waste of time (“Not all
meetings are a waste of time – some are cancelled!”)... Emotional intelligence is neither desired
nor appreciated. As Sun Microsystems’ CEO Scott McNealy put it: “I don’t do feelings; I leave
that to Barry Manilow.”’ (Rooke & Torbert 2005 p. 70)
As the Expert develops they start to discover that they don’t know everything, and in fact they realise
that won’t ever know everything. Working with others becomes a much more viable option in getting
the job done.
The Achiever
“Achievers have a more complex and integrated understanding of the world than do managers
who display the three previous action logics we’ve described. They’re open to feedback and
realize that many of the ambiguities and conflicts of everyday life are due to differences in
interpretation and ways of relating. They know that creatively transforming or resolving clashes
requires sensitivity to relationships and the ability to influence others in positive ways.
Achievers can also reliably lead a team to implement new strategies over a one to three year
period, balancing immediate and long-term objectives...
Achievers often find themselves clashing with Experts... Consider Hewlett-Packard, where the
research engineers tend to score as Experts and the lab managers as higher-level Achievers. At
one project meeting, a lab manager – a decided Achiever – slammed her coffee cup on the table
and exclaimed, “I know we can get 18 features into this, but the customers want delivery some
time this century, and the main eight features will do.” “Philistine!” snorted one engineer, an
Expert.” (Rooke & Torbert 2005 p. 70)

Achiever’s greater understanding of people expands to the point where they can see themselves and
others with a third person’s perspective. They step outside of their direct worldview to see that they
actually have one, as does everyone else. There is recognition that each of us has a mental model and it
is through this set of filters that we view the world. This leads to the next development level of the
Individualist.
The Individualist
“The individualist action logic recognizes that neither it nor any of the other action logics are
“natural”’ all are constructions of oneself and the world... This seemingly abstract idea enables
the 10% of Individualists leaders to contribute unique practical value to their organizations;
they put personalities and ways of relating into perspective and communicate well with people
who have other action logics. What sets Individualists apart from Achievers is their awareness
of a possible conflict between their principles and their actions, or between the organization’s
values and its implementation of those values. This conflict becomes the source of tension,
creativity, and a growing desire for further development.” (Rooke & Torbert 2005 pp. 70, 71)
At this level the Individualist has moved into the first phase of taking a holistic view of the world. They
can see the wheels inside the wheels turning. But this creates a tension between what they observe in
the external world, what they are aware of inside their own internal world and what they are inferring is
going on in the internal worlds’ of others. It is this tension that pushes the Individualist to the next level
of Strategist.
The Strategist
“What sets them [Strategists] apart from Individualists is their focus on organizational
constraints and perceptions, which they treat as discussable and transformable. Whereas the
Individualist masters communication with colleagues who have different action logics, the
Strategist masters the second-order organizational impact of actions and agreements. The
Strategist is also adept at creating shared visions across different action logics – visions that
encourage both personal and organizational transformations. According to the Strategist’s
action logic, organizational and social change is an iterative development process that requires
awareness and close leadership attention...
Many Achievers will use their influence to successfully promote their own companies. The
Strategist works to create ethical principles and practices beyond the interests of herself or her
organization.” (Rooke & Torbert 2005 p. 71)
There is only a very small population beyond Strategists up to the level of Alchemist. The Strategists
has become what is often called a “life-long learner” and in order to learn seeks out Alchemists and
fellow Strategists. In this way they develop further into the level of the Alchemist.
The Alchemist
“The final leadership action logic for which we have data and experience is the Alchemist. Our
studies of the few leaders we have identified as Alchemists suggest that what sets them apart
from Strategists is their ability to renew or even invent themselves and their organizations in
historically significant ways. Whereas the Strategist will move from one engagement to
another, the Alchemist has an extraordinary capacity to deal simultaneously with many
situations at multiple levels. The Alchemist can talk with both kings and commoners. He can
deal with immediate priorities yet never lose sight of long-term goals.” (Rooke & Torbert 2005
p. 72)
Torbert’s Action Logics development levels can be mapped on to the Integral Business Architecture
along with the corresponding behaviour observed at each level, Figure 7.

Figure 7: Development Stages Upper Quadrants
As per the examples of the apprentice, and the senior executive, people develop through these levels as
they mature. It would be rare to find a ten year old with an action logic of a Strategist, looking out for
interests beyond themselves. They need to develop through the levels from Opportunist up to
Strategists. The apprentice has moved into the Diplomat level through his understanding of starting at
the bottom and following the group rules both inside work and outside in their social groups.
Conversely it doesn’t mean that every fifty year old has reached the Strategist level of action logic, like
our senior executive quadrivia example, Figure 6. In fact Torbert found that the majority of managers
researched were at the action logics levels of the Expert (45%) and Achiever (35%) with only 7% with
the action logics above Achiever (Torbert & Cook-Greuter 2004 p. 79). What is interesting to note here
is that it is only when you develop above the Achiever level do you start to recognise the holarchy
structure of the world and Torbert found only 7% of the managers researched were above that level.
Next we turn to the development levels of the collective, the lower two quadrants.
5.b. The Development Levels of the Collective; Lower Quadrants
“...he [Clare Graves] would teach on each of the theories from Freud to Watson/Skinner
behaviourism to humanistic approach of Maslow and Carl Rogers and at the end of the course
his students would say, “Fine, Dr. Graves, which theory is right?” Well, that just about drove
this man crazy because he didn't have an answer to that question.
So from that type experience he began a longitudinal research activity designed to try to figure
out why people think in different ways about virtually everything from politics to religion to
sports to architecture to economic theories to sex and marriage to a host of other kinds of
issues. And what he discovered was that these different theories, rather than being contradictory
of each other are simply different stages of psychological development.” (Beck)
The internal world of the collective or group, lower left quadrant, centres on cultural values. The
development levels Graves refers to above are the stages of values that people go through as their life
conditions evolve. Starting from the life condition of living in the wilderness where your values are
based on survival and in particular the basic needs of food, shelter and reproduction. This develops into
tribes and clans that provide greater protection and sharing of food gathering responsibilities. Going
further this triggers setting off to find new ways in the world, forming well ordered societies, striving
for personal achievement and finally developing global worldviews.
The levels reflect the values of the collective group as they develop through their life conditions from
jungle survival to societies living in western cities. This is seen in the external world through the
observations of the structures, organisations, rules and processes that we create. An individual within
each group is aligned to these values. This could be the hunter in a tribe living in the jungle, who is
satisfied with their role in providing food for the tribe, to a stock broker working for a financial services
company on Wall Street, keen to demonstrate their skills in playing the markets. Place the stock broker
into the jungle tribe and we would see a mismatch of values. The stock broker wouldn’t accept having
to abide by the ruling of the tribe elder based on an ancient ritual nor would the hunter understand how

making financial gains on paper helps feed the extended family. Neither the hunter nor the stock broker
are wrong they are just operating within the values they believe in given their life conditions.
It is when a person becomes dissatisfied with their life conditions and believes that there is a better way
that they look for and move up to the next level. A gang member living in a culture with power-centric
values seeks a better life for their family and willingly accepts obeying the laws of western society in
order to improve their life conditions. This gang member is moving from being an Opportunist living
by the values of the gang to a Diplomat willing to accept the rules of society. Our stock-broker on Wall
Street tires of materialistic ways and becomes concerned with the future of the planet, changing jobs to
work for a fund manager that invests in companies with strong corporate responsibility missions. The
stock broker is moving from Achiever to Individualist.
The development through the levels is sequential. Beck and Cowan, based on Grave’s work, calls the
levels “value memes” and uses colours to denote each level. A person as a child starts with survival
needs (Beige) and depends upon the tribe, their family, for safety and support (Purple). They grow
through their teenage years following ego centric (Red) values before “settling down” into starting a
career or doing an apprenticeship (Blue), and maybe having a family of their own. As their career takes
off they sense that they know how things work and seek to maximise their return (Orange). As their
worldview and time-horizons expand they start to worry about the future and the consequences of
everyone’s actions on each other and the environment (Green). They start using recycled products, non-
plastic shopping bags and donate to charities like Unicef, Worldvision and Greenpeace.
The shift to the next level of value memes is a big step, what Graves describes as the second tier of
cultural value levels. It is moving to this level that a person can see, and appreciate for the first time, all
the other levels of cultural values; beige, purple, red, blue, orange and green. Put another way they
value all the values (Yellow). They see the suicide bomber not just as an evil terrorist but someone
acting out within the values of their culture and while they may not agree with their action they can
understand how it came about. Before entering this second tier, people at each of the previous levels
believe that they live within the “right” way and that theirs are the “right” values. People who operate at
this second tier level are able to work across all the other levels, they are aware for which situations
which values are necessary; purple for the football team, blue for the shopfloor, orange for the middle
management ranks and green/yellow for the senior leadership team. It is at this second tier that people
or aware and understand the holarchy structure. The second level of the second tier is the last level that
has data available and takes second tier values thinking on to a global perspective (Turquoise).
The sequential steps of development, from purple to red to blue to orange, etc, is how a group’s values
develop. Graves found that as a person becomes dissatisfied with the values of their current cultural
group they will seek out the next level. They don’t jump two levels up, that is like taking the tribal
hunter (purple) and putting them into the school blazer and tie (blue) and expecting them to feel
comfortable. This mismatch of value systems explains why some well meaning overseas aid programs
don’t work. For example instead of sending in “the answer” according to orange and green values Save
the Children Fund, led by Monique and Jerry Sternin, working in Vietnam found a way to work within
the villagers value systems to identify local solutions through a process called Positive Deviance;
“The Sternin’s approach left a very soft footprint on village life. Working alongside
Vietnamese village women and hamlet leaders, they simply began conversations. Were some
children too thin? Would mothers be interested in having their children weighed? These time-
consuming conversations took many visits and many hours but were absolutely necessary
because the approach required local understanding, buy in, and support. In contrast to the
expert-driven intervention, Positive Deviance has the feel of a dance and courtship as opposed
to a march or invasion. Essential to the approach is first, respect for and second, alliance with
the intelligence and capacities residing with the village.” (Pascale, Millemann & Gioja 2000 p.
178)
This approach of working within the villager’s value systems through respect and understanding
resulted in great success. The Positive Deviance process looks at finding the successful exceptions
within how the group operates, in this case finding out why some children were better nourished than
others, and applying those learnings to the entire group. Within six months two thirds of the children
had gained weight to a satisfactory level and within two years this number had reached 85%. Previous
attempts of shipping in food only made a difference while the funding lasted. Also there can be other
unintended consequences from the top down, expert driven, approaches of Orange and Green value

systems like welfare dependence and social structure breakdown. The Sternins applied a holarchical
approach to achieve their objective of well nourished children by working within the cultural values,
structures and norms of the villagers.
The value meme development levels of the collective group’s values are;
Beige – Survival/Sense, The Instinctive Value Meme
“My existence centres on survival. Energy is devoted to staying alive and meeting the needs of
my physical being so I am not hungry or thirsty. I must reproduce my kind so I respond to
sexual urges as they occur. I do not know what you mean by ‘future,’ laying plans, saving for a
rainy day, or ‘self.’ My body tells me what to do and I am driven by senses talking to my brain,
not so much a conscious mind.” (Beck & Cowan 1996 p. 197)
This is the world of survival groups, working together to provide the basic needs of life, food, shelter
and reproduction.
Purple – Kin Spirits, The Clannish Value Meme
“We seek safety and security for our kind through trust in blood relationships, extended family
bonds, and magical powers which reach into the spirit world. We honour our ancestors’ ways as
sacred for they are even with us. Our path is full of seasonal rituals, rites of passage, traditional
music and dance. We seek to live in harmony with nature and her ways through our
ceremonies.” (Beck & Cowan 1996 p. 203)
This is the world of tribes were traditional practices are followed. Members of these groups follow the
wisdom of the elders repeating lessons learnt from the past. Elements of purple values appear today in
sporting clubs with team songs, colours and superstitions about whether watching the game causes your
team to win or lose.
Red – Power Gods, The Egocentric Value Meme
“Life is a jungle. It’s survival of the fittest. I’m tough and expect those around me to tough or
else. I take charge of people and can win over nature, bending her to my will. Respect and
reputation matter more than life itself, so you do what it takes to avoid being shamed or put
down. You don’t take anything off anybody, not if you’re worth anything. You always get them
back. Whatever you need to do, you do without guilt. Nothing or nobody can stand in your
way. Right now is all there is, so make me feel good. You can’t worry about what hasn’t
happened yet. I’m all I’ve got, and I’ll make it or die trying.” (Beck & Cowan 1996 p. 215)
In this world power is respected and admired. Empires, gangs and terrorist groups fall into this value
system where it is survival of the fittest. In some cases we may find a dominating leader creating a Red
team within an organisation. A trait of this happening is when the group operates by their own rules,
thumbing their nose at head office. Members of the group are expected to show their loyalty by never
questioning the boss.
Blue – Truth force, The Purposeful Value Meme
“A single guiding force controls the world and determines our destiny. Its abiding truth
provides structure and order for all aspects of living here on Earth and rules the heavens, as
well. My life has meaning because the fires of redemption burn in my heart. I follow the
appointed Pathway which ties me with something much greater than myself [a cause, belief,
tradition, organization, or movement]. I stand fast for what is right, proper, and good, always
subjecting myself to the directives of proper authority. I willingly sacrifice my desires in the
present in the sure knowledge that I look forward to something wonderful in the future.” (Beck
& Cowan 1996 p. 229)
This is a large part of the western world. It is seen in companies, churches and political parties. The
expectation of a job for life, starting on the factory floor and working your way up to management are
examples of this value system in the external world.
Orange – Strive Drive, The Strategic Value Meme

“I want to achieve, and win, and get somewhere in my life. The world is full of opportunities
for those who’ll seize the day and take some calculated risks. Nothing is certain, but if you’re
good, you play the odds and find the best choices among many. You’ve got to believe in
yourself first, then everything else falls into place. You can’t get bogged down in structure or
rules if they hold back your progress. Instead, by practical applications of tried-and-true
experience, you can make things better and better for yourself. I’m confident in my own
abilities and intend to make a difference in this world. Gather the data, build a strategic plan,
then go for excellence.” (Beck & Cowan 1996 p. 244)
This is the world of Wall Street and Silicon Valley. The rules of the world are understood and can be
used for personal gain. People want to get ahead and respect others that have been successful. The end
may not always justify the means but it comes close.
Green – Human Bond, The Relativistic Value Meme
“Life is for experiencing each moment. We can all come to understand who we are and how
wondrous it is to be human if we ill only accept that everyone is equal and important. All must
share in the joy of togetherness and fulfilment. Each spirit is connected to all others in our
community; every soul travels together. We are interdependent beings in search of love and
involvement. The community grows by synergizing life forces; artificial divisions dissolve once
we look inside each person and uncover the richness within. Peace and love for all” (Beck &
Cowan 1996 p. 260)
In this world the concept of win-win starts to form. While the corporate culture isn’t exactly seen as
“peace and love for all” the goal of corporate social responsibility is put on the agenda. People
operating within this culture value networking and are more likely to take on mentoring roles as well as
seek mentors out for themselves.
Yellow – Flex Flow, The Systemic Value Meme
“Viability must be restored to a disordered world endangered by the cumulative effects of the
first six systems on the earth’s environment and populations. The purpose of living is to be
independent within reason; knowledgeable so much as possible; and caring, so much as
realistic. Yet I am my own person, accountable to myself, an island in an archipelago of other
people. Continuing to develop along natural pathway is more highly valued than striving to
have or do. I am concerned for the world’s conditions because of the impact they have on me as
part of this living system” (Beck & Cowan 1996 p. 275)
In this world the structure of holarchies is valued. Individuals are aware that there are a range of
cultures and that these are necessary for different circumstances. Whereas Green wants everyone to be
treated the same in Yellow there is a greater understanding of the natural flow of the world. It is by
working within the natural flow that greater things can be achieved.
Turquoise – Global View, The Holistic Value Meme
“Turquoise views a world of interlinked causes and effects, interacting fields of energy, and
levels of bonding and communicating most of us have yet to uncover. The Value Meme
liberates a sense of living systems that mesh and blend, flowing in concert with each other. This
is another order-seeking system, but the first one that searches for the macro view. ‘Seeing-
everything-at-once’ before doing anything specific dominates the thinking process. Collective
imperatives and mutual interdependencies reign supreme.
While Yellow attempts to stitch together particles, people, functions, and nodes into networks
and stratified levels, Turquoise detects energy fields that engulf, billow around, and flow
throughout naturally.” (Beck & Cowan 1996 p. 289)
There are very few groups at this level and perhaps for only short moments of time. It is experienced
when the group combines to deliver on a common greater good for all, where each of the members is
prepared to sacrifice anything, even themselves to achieve success. It is not about following an
authority figure or belief but working together to achieve something magnificent. There are moments of
this like when the Chilean miners were rescued as the world watched. The authority figure, the
President, watched as those more appropriately skilled went about their work. The world provided help

from NASA to experienced rescue mining engineers. The trapped miners themselves found comfort in
their own Blue value system as they prayed to their God and believed he would keep them safe.
The development levels of the cultural values as denoted by their colours and the corresponding
external world structures can be mapped on to the Integral Business Architecture, Figure 8.
Figure 8: Development Levels Lower Quadrants
Just as Torbert found very few people with action logic above Achiever, Beck and Cowan estimate
from their research that there are very few people with cultural values at Yellow and above, only 1.1%
of the world’s population. The majority of the world’s population have the cultural values of Blue,
40%, and Orange, 30%. (Beck & Cowan 1996 pp. 300, 301)
For our stock broker who relates to the values of an Orange, Strive Drive, culture this is working inside
a Strategic Enterprise structure which could be thought of as “enlightened” hierarchical. That is there is
a hierarchical structure but with flexibility inside the structure. This is as opposed to the Authority
Structure of a Blue culture where there is one right way and people are more willing to closely follow
the processes and rules handed down from above. The gang member wants to belong to a strong Red
Empire and the jungle hunter is doing their bit for the Purple Tribe.
But as these people grow their own personal thinking levels from Opportunistic to Expert, Achiever and
so on they become dissatisfied with the values in their current group. As they do so they seek out
groups with cultural values that make more sense to their own unfolding capabilities and ways of
thinking.

6. The Completed Integral Business Architecture, a Map for Future Success
The content of the Integral Business Architecture is now complete, Figure 9. The Integral Business
Architecture can be used as a map to show how to create business success now and into the future. To
this end a quadrivia view for each layer of an organisation can be shown for the necessary levels of
leadership, behaviours, cultures and structures to be successful. Also the mechanics of a holarchical
organisation can be described providing understanding of how this works up and down the layers of an
organisation bringing together the quadrivia layer views into a three dimensional organisational model.
From this understanding we can create a proposition for the successful organisation; a theory of a
perfect organisation, and test this proposition against what we can “read into” the business success
books as well as the books on organisational theory.
Figure 9: The Integral Business Architecture
6.a. A Quadrivia View of the Organisational Layers
From a structural point of view the Integral Business Architecture maps the connectedness around all
the quadrants which allows us to take the quadrivia view as we did before with the apprentice and
senior executive.
An individual’s thinking, upper left quadrant, manifests itself in their behaviour, upper right
quadrant, which leads them to join groups with aligned cultural values, lower left quadrant,
which operate in particular structures, lower right quadrant.
A person with Individualist action logic, upper left quadrant, demonstrates through their
behaviour the understanding of other people’s perspectives, upper right quadrant, leading them
to seek out groups with more humanistic values, lower left quadrant, operating in a networked
structure, lower right quadrant.
This connectedness allows us to observe what is occurring in the external world and infer the internal
aspects of that world in terms of the individual’s action logics and the groups’ cultural values. For
example if we observe an Authority Structure in an organisation we can detect that there are strong
Blue – Truth force cultural values. And that the majority of the people are at the “Diplomat” action
logics level, probably being led by managers with Expert or Achiever action logics. This is confirmed
by the group’s members’ behaviours; following orders, seeking permission, not taking risks, etc.

When you bring together the all quadrant, quadrivia view, with the all level, development view, we are
able to make observations about styles of leadership and the corresponding organizations rules,
processes and structures that they create. An Expert leader will build organisations that are based on an
Authority Structure. They do this as they believe that they have the one true knowledge and will use
this to directly control the rules, processes and structures of their organisation. This is what we think of
when we say someone is a “command and control” manager. The Expert leader cannot build a
Networked or Systemic Flow organisations as they do not think with the level of “action logics”
necessary to create such an organisation. In fact if they were presented with this as an option they
would explain why it was wrong. They would also misinterpret the behaviour of people with higher
level action logics that are making these suggestions. The Expert would look at the Strategists,
generating conversations, seeking feedback from all layers within the organisation and putting the
group’s interest before themselves as weak and indecisive. Or the Individualist who is forming
networks, collaborating with people, and asking questions about why things occur the way they do, as
soft and too theoretical, they should be focusing on “where the rubber hits the road” the Expert would
think. Wilber calls this the Pre/Trans Fallacy (Wilber 2007 p. 123) and it will be discussed later.
The mismatch quadrivia view of the Expert leader highlights how their action logics anchors, and
therefore limits, the development levels of the organisation they create in the other three quadrants,
Figure 10. An Expert leader doesn’t put the interests of others before themselves and therefore doesn’t
seek out a Yellow – Flex Flow set off cultural values and doesn’t understand a Systemic Flow
organisation. Therefore the resultant Authority Structure with maybe a blend of Strategic Enterprise is
the highest level of organisation an Expert leader will create.
Figure 10: Expert mismatch quadrivia view
In the Achiever’s organisation we find business process re-engineering, information technology,
operational reporting and offsite strategy days. The doctrine of “you can’t manage what you don’t
measure” is heard throughout the many meetings that take place. This is the world of scientific
rationalism where Enterprise Resource Planning, ERP, and Customer Relationship Management, CRM,
systems are prevalent. Achievers like having Experts around, to whom they are slightly condescending
because they think of them as not as street smart as themselves, because they work hard, cover all the
details and get the job done. Although the Achievers think that Experts can be a little tedious sometimes
with their perfectionism.
Using the quadrivia view we can see the types of organisations, cultures, behaviours that are created
based on the action logic level of the leader. These don’t happen overnight but as the influence of the
leader continues people are attracted or repelled from this organisation and the pattern of these
quadrivia views falls into place. The question that arises from the various quadrivia views is which ones
are the right ones for a successful organisation? This is where the holarchical organisation comes into
play.

6.b. Holarchy versus Hierarchy
To understand how the leadership styles discussed above impact the entire organisation structure in
terms of creating a Holarchical structure we take a three dimensional quadrivia view of management
and employees up and down the organisation layers using the Integral Business Architecture.
A key point of the development levels in the Integral Business Architecture is that we all start at the
bottom and grow our way through them over time, at our own pace, and with the right education,
experiences and support, to our own highest potential level. That is growing up we have the Opportunist
action logic, developing into Diplomat, maturing to Expert and so forth. As Torbert found the majority
of us are at the Achiever and Expert levels and will stay there for life. What this means is that within the
one organisation there are people at all levels. Young people still maturing, older people who have
developed to a range of levels and everything in-between. Therefore it is not possible to have an entire
organisation made up of like minded people. Unless they all just happen to be at the same stage of
development at the same time regardless of their age and experiences and that they stay that way or all
develop at the same pace together. This situation is highly unlikely.
This is hard to understand for people with the action logics up to Achiever because the people using
these action logics do not recognise the other action logics as valid. Whether they are Diplomat, Expert
or Achiever they believe that theirs is the one right way of thinking and as leaders will try to implement
their beliefs and values on the entire organisation. When leaders with these action logics types think of
organisational structure they think of reporting lines in a hierarchical sense. And because they believe
their way of thinking, their action logics, is the right way they expect all of the people in the
organisation to think and act the same way. In fact they will rate people based on how well they
conform to this one view and implement learning and development programs to reinforce these
competencies. For an “Expert” leader this is an Authority Structure filled with Experts operating with a
Blue – Truth force culture, Figure 11. For an Achiever leader this is a Strategic Enterprise structure
filled with Achievers operating with an Orange – Strive drive culture, Figure 12.
Figure 11: Expert Worldview of an Organisation Figure 12: Achiever Expert Worldview of an Organisation
What this creates are mismatches in our three dimensional quadrivia view up and down the layers of the
organisation and around the quadrants of the Integral Business Architecture. Mismatches like Diplomat
factory workers, call centre agents or shop assistants being expected to think the same way as an
Achiever or Expert leader. Or Achiever managers, reporting to an Expert leader operating with an
Authority Structure and a Blue Truth force culture, at odds with their Orange Strive drive cultural
values, wanting to work inside a Strategic Enterprise organisational structure.
The solid square line in the Integral Business Architecture drawn between Individualist and Strategist
and Green and Yellow, Figure 9, represents the shift from a hierarchical quadrivia view to a holarchical
one. In the lower left quadrant, Graves calls this shift in cultural values the Second Tier of values which
is the first level to recognise and appreciate that all the other value levels exist and are indeed necessary
(Beck & Cowan 1996). Torbert describes how this shift manifests itself in the Strategist action logics by
being able to see the holarchy of the other different action logic levels;
“Keenly aware of multiple viewpoints, the Strategist is well equipped to maintain institutional
and personal connections with subordinates. He or she will tend to intuitively blend the kind of

top and bottom line performance Achievers expect, with the high quality standards the Expert
respects (without the unintended effects of fear and competitiveness that an Expert boss tends
to generate), and still find time to share family stories with the Diplomat.
Another way of expressing the new steps the Strategist takes is not just to accept individuality
(as the Individualist does), but to welcome evolving individuality in the context of mutual
relationships. Implicitly if not explicitly, the Strategist becomes increasingly attuned to the
developmental process, recognising that others (as well as teams and whole organisations...)
have developed as a result of their past experiences and that they need the opportunity to
develop autonomously toward integrity, mutuality, and sustainability. Accompanying this
recognition is a willingness to let others (such as subordinates or our children) make their own
mistakes, but to do so in the context of developing greater alertness and capacity for single-,
double-, and triple-loop self-correction.” (Torbert & Cook-Greuter 2004 p. 105)
Rooke and Torbert found in their research that “Over the long term, the most effective teams are those
with a Strategists culture” (Rooke & Torbert 2005 p. 76), but that this was not often the case and the
mismatches discussed above are very common;
“Sadly, few companies use teams in this way [Strategist’s culture]. Most senior manager teams
operate at the Achiever action logic – they prefer unambiguous targets ad deadlines, and
working with clear strategies, tactics, and plans, often against tight deadlines. They thrive in a
climate of adversity (“When the going gets tough, the tough get going”) and derive great
pleasure from pulling together and delivering. Typically, the team’s leaders and several other
members will be Achievers, with several Experts and perhaps one of two Individualists or
Strategists (who typically feel ignored). Such Achiever teams are often impatient as slowing
down to reflect, are apt to dismiss questions about goals and assumptions as “endless
philosophising,” and typically respond with hostile humour to creative exercises, calling them
“off-the-wall” diversions. These behaviours will ultimately limit an Achiever team’s success.
The situation is worse at large, mature companies where senior management teams operate as
Experts. Here, vice presidents see themselves as chiefs and their “teams” as an information-
reporting formality. Team life is bereft of shared problem-solving, decision-making, or strategy
formulating efforts. Senior teams limited by the Diplomat action logic are even less functional.
They are characterised by strong status differences, undiscussable norms, and ritual “court”
ceremonies that are carefully staged managed.” (Rooke & Torbert 2005 p. 76)
The Strategist’s culture Torbert references is one created with a Strategist or Alchemist as the leader.
As Torbert explains above the Strategist is aware of the needs of the groups inside the groups. Groups
of “Diplomats, inside groups of Experts, inside groups of Achievers, inside groups of Individualists,
inside groups of Strategists who are inside groups of Alchemists. These groups inside groups, or holons
of people, form the holarchical structure of an organisation, Figure 13.
Figure 13: Strategist Worldview of an Organisation

The Diplomats’ natural alignment is to operate inside an Authority Structure. This is the world of the
factory floor, retail store, call centre, road crew or accounts payable departments. Here rules and
processes need to be followed to produce a quality outcome. Diplomats are looking for structure and
seek out a Blue Truth force culture where they feel secure in following their leaders. Mission statements
like, “we strive to be the best in our industry in delivering high levels of customer services in order to
provide excellent returns for our shareholders”, do not meaning anything to people working at this
level.
The first line managers are the Experts who through education, training and experience have the
knowledge of how the Diplomat’s operational world works. Their cultural values are Blue morphing
into Orange as the Experts straddles between pragmatism in getting the job done over the perfectionism
their expertise demands. Experts spend their time problem solving and improving the way the
operational world performs their tasks.
Middle management is the realm of the Achievers. These are the people who set the operational targets
to achieve the corporate numbers and make sure they are achieved. Achievers put in place the
information processing systems like ERP and CRM to monitor what is going on and work with the
Experts to put in place continuous improvement initiatives.
The senior leadership team is made up of Individualists and Strategists, including the Strategist leader.
The team works together using strategic foresight to develop and put in place the right strategies to
ensure the organisation’s future success. With the right action logics operating at this level in the
organisation the senior leadership teams works collaborative together to make the best decisions in the
interest of the organisation without the fighting over budgets or power politics which can often be seen
today.
An example of an organisation operating in this way is provided by Rooke and Torbert;
“A leadership team at one of the companies we worked with decided to invite managers from
across departments to participate in time-to-market new product teams. Seen as a risky
distraction, few managers volunteered, except for some Individualists and budding Strategist.
However, senior management provided sufficient support and feedback to ensure the teams’
early success. Soon, the first participants were promoted and leading their own cross-
departmental teams. The Achievers in the organisation, seeing that others were being promoted,
started volunteering for these teams. Gradually, more people within the organisation were
experiencing shared leadership, mutual testing of one another’s assumptions and practices, and
individual challenges that contributed to their development as leaders.” (Rooke & Torbert 2005
p. 76)
The critical success factor here was the support from the senior management team to ensure the early
teams were successful. They provided this support and encouraged others to join using the techniques
that appealed to the various action logics levels, like improvement challenges for the “Individualists and
“budding Strategists” and promotion for the Achievers. The environment created allowed for “mutual
testing of one another’s assumptions and practices” in a positive way as opposed to the “unintended
effects of fear and competitiveness that an Expert boss tends to generate” (Torbert & Cook-Greuter
2004 p. 105). They both are operating within the same action logics but the holarchical approach is
encouraging intrinsic participation whereas the hierarchical approach is commanding extrinsic
participation.
6.c. The Integral Business Architecture Proposition
The proposition coming out of mapping the development areas of psychology, sociology and anatomy
of organisations on to Wilber’s Integral All Quadrant, All Levels model is that to be a successful into
the future an organisation should have the following attributes;
 The people at each layer of an organisation need to align to the equivalent development levels
of thinking. Diplomats at the front line, Experts as managers, Achievers and Individualist in
middle management and Strategists and Alchemist in senior management. This is necessary to
allow for the right organisational structures to be created as well as providing a development
path for people as they mature.

 The cultural values of the collective groups at each layer of an organisation need to align to the
equivalent development level of those values. Blue at the front line, Blue/Orange in the middle
layers and yellow/green in the senior executive teams.
 If the people and cultural values align up and down the layers of an organisation, as per the first
two points, the organisation will operate as a holarchy, with people and groups at each layer
operating in the style that aligns to their thinking, with the cultural values they relate to and
being supported by the senior executive team in an inclusive way.
 If the three conditions above are met the organisation as a whole will have the greatest chance
of success in the future.
It is time to take the Integral Business Architecture for a spin.

7. Business Literature viewed through the Integral Business Architecture
A number of books on business and leadership books have been used to review the Integral Business
Architecture based on a range of topic areas covering, leadership, culture, organisational structures and
processes, the big three landscapes. This review process also helps provide a deeper understanding of
how the Integral Business Architecture enables a successful organisation through the layered quadrivia
views and the holarchical structure.
7.a. Good to Great by Jim Collins (Collins 2001)
In Good to Great Collins studied 1,435 companies from the Fortune 500 list starting in 1965 until 1995.
Going through a series of selection processes he found 11 companies that had transitioned from good to
great as compared to other companies in the same industry. The definition of great was defined as, “a
cumulative total stock return of at least 3 times the general market for the point of transition through
fifteen years” (Collins 2001 p. 219). While good was defined as, “a cumulative total stock return no
better than 1.25 times the general market for the fifteen years prior to the point of transition.” (Collins
2001 p. 219)
When analysing the 11 companies and their comparison poor performing companies Collins found the
following steps in creating a great company (Collins 2001);
1. Level 5 Leadership, “Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy - these leaders are a paradoxical
blend of personal humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than
Patton or Caesar.” (Collins 2001 pp. 12,13)
2. First Who... Then What. “they [the Level 5 leader] first got the right people on the bus, the
wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats – and then they figured out
where to drive it. The old adage “People are your most important asset” turns out to be wrong.
People are not your most important asset. The right people are.” [Author’s emphasis] (Collins
2001 p. 13)
3. Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never lose Faith), “You must maintain unwavering faith that
you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time have the
discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”
[Author’s emphasis] (Collins 2001 p. 13)
4. The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity within the Three Circles), “To go from good to great
requires transcending the curse of competence. Just because something is your core business –
just because you’ve been doing it for years or perhaps even decades – does not necessarily
mean you can be the best in the world at it.” (Collins 2001 p. 13)
5. A Culture of Discipline, “When you have disciplined people, you don’t need hierarchy. When
you have disciplined thought, you don’t need bureaucracy. When you have disciplined action,
you don’t need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of
entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great performance” (Collins 2001 p. 13)
6. Technology Accelerators, “They never use technology as the primary means of igniting a
transformation... We learned that technology by itself is never a primary, root cause of either
greatness or decline.” (Collins 2001 pp. 13,14)
As outlined above, the 1st step in Collins findings is to have the right leader. The term “Level 5” was
chosen not to denote development levels as such but because it hadn’t been used before and therefore
would not carry with it any previous connotations. As previously noted the Level 5 leader has a highly
developed ego level to move from the “me and you” moral reasoning to the “us” post conventional
moral reasoning of the Strategist and Alchemist;
“Level 5 leaders channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of
building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they
are incredibly ambitious – but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not
themselves.” [author’s italics] (Collins 2001 p. 21)
While the non-Level 5 leaders exhibited the traits of the Expert and Achiever development levels;
“The first category [non-Level 5 leaders] consists of people who could never in a million years
bring themselves to subjugate their egoistic needs to the greater ambition of building something

Integral Business Architecture by Robinson Roe

Integral Business Architecture by Robinson Roe

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Integral Business Architecture by Robinson Roe

Similar to Integral Business Architecture by Robinson Roe (20)

Integral Business Architecture by Robinson Roe