AN INTEGRAL EXPLORATION

OF LEADERSHIP
Travis Tasset

ABSTRACT This arcle explores some key concepts around Integral leadership based on a pilot proj-
ect using first-, second-, and third-person methods. This is not a comprehensive arcle on Integral
leadership nor is it an all-inclusive evaluaon of the field. My intent is to explore some key leader-
ship ideas through the first-person approach of structuralism (zone 2), the second-person approach
of hermeneucs (zone 3), and the third-person approach of empiricism (zone 6). Original data are
presented that examine what emerges in our understanding of leadership through the view of mul-
ple perspecves.

KEY WORDS: empiricism; hermeneucs; leadership; mixed methods; structuralism

T he topic of leadership is extremely important for today’s world. From a macro-scale view, famine still
exists and diseases such as AIDS are still wreaking havoc; global warming of potentially catastrophic
proportions is threatening humanity as a whole; and the global economy is in a fragile state. From a micro-
scale view, some children are lucky if they have both parents in the family picture; we have charismatic
young people with tremendous leadership ability ushering in new gang members; we see declining education
performance; and so on. All of these issues require genuine and authentic leadership.

This raises a number of questions:

• What is leadership?
• What does leadership look like?
• What makes a leader?
• What roles does a leader play?
• How does the person leading experience leadership?
• How do those who are following experience leadership?
• What are common leadership qualities, behaviors, or characteristics?

In a certain sense, leadership is just another look at human potential—a look at what everybody’s deepest po-
tentials are. Leadership is a look at some of your deepest capacities. One problem with most of the leadership
literature today is that terms like leader, leadership, and leading seem to be used interchangeably without
providing distinctions for doing so. The assumption is that the definition for one applies to all the others. To
my knowledge, Russ Volckmann is the researcher to turn to when exploring these different leadership terms.
Volckmann (n.d.) offers the following distinctions:

Correspondence: Travis Tasset, 612 Central Street, #209, Kansas City, MO 64105. E-mail: travistasset@gmail.com.

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(2), pp. 96–116

 LEADERSHIP

• Leader—a role in a system, that is, a set of expectations held by members of a

society, community or organizations about desired and appropriate behaviors
and qualities of individuals who temporarily occupy the role.
• Leading—the activities of individuals temporarily occupying the role of leader.
Here is where much of the popular leadership literature tends to focus. When
researchers and theorists talk about what a leader does, it is a description of an
individual in the role of leader and the behaviors of that individual that relate to
being a leader.
• Leadership—involves the role (leader), the behaviors and worldviews—includ-
ing beliefs, intentions and the like—(leading), and the context. Context includes
culture, systems, processes, technologies, and so on.

This article attempts to tease apart some of these distinctions through a mixed methods research approach.
Stated simply, a mixed methods approach provides a better understanding of research problems through the
use of multiple methodologies. In Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2007), John Cre-
swell and Vicki Plano Clark state various benefits of the mixed method approach. The authors explain that
mixed methods research:

…provides strengths that offset the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative
research…provides more comprehensive evidence for studying a research problem
than either quantitative or qualitative research alone…and helps answer questions
that cannot be answered by qualitative or quantitative approaches alone. (p. 9)

One such research design that could be called a mixed methods approach is Integral Research (Esbjörn-
Hargens, 2006). Integral Research is more comprehensive than a mixed methods approach, however, because
it goes beyond utilizing just qualitative and quantitative data. What makes Integral Research so much more
comprehensive is its use of first-, second-, and third-person methods. The structure of using an Integral Re-
search approach would be to explore the same phenomenon (in my case the topic of leadership) using at least
one methodology from each approach. Furthermore, what distinguishes Integral Research from other ap-
proaches is that it is a comprehensive framework (i.e., other mixed methods approaches use a broad mixture
of methodologies without a unifying concept).

In order to understand leadership, first we need to contextualize it. Ken Wilber (2007) states:

Understanding means to contextualize, and one of the best, and certainly the most
comprehensive ways to contextualize the world is AQAL—all quadrants, all levels,
all lines, all states, all types. If you want to really change the world, you must first
understand it adequately, or all you will do is reproduce in larger numbers your own
ignorance, or, at best, you produce merely translative change, not transformative
change. You will have huge success on your present altitude or level of conscious-
ness, but do nothing to help move to a higher, wider, deeper world. (p. 13)

I use Wilber’s AQAL model as a theoretical and contextual basis for exploring the topic of leadership. In light
of the AQAL model, my overarching research question is as follows, “What emerges in our understanding
of leadership through the view of multiple perspectives?” The purpose of this concurrent mixed methods
study is to better understand a research problem by converging both qualitative and quantitative data through

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 97

 T. TASSET

I N T ERIOR EXT ERIOR

structuralism empiricism

INDIVIDUAL
Zone 2 Zone 6

Zone 1 Zone 5
phenomenology autopoiesis
(e.g., cognitive
sciences)
COLLECTIVE

Zone 3 Zone 7
hermeneutics social
autopoiesis

ethnomethodology systems theory

Zone 4 Zone 8

Figure 1. The eight zones of Integral Methodological Pluralism.

the use of first-, second-, and third-person methods. In the study, I focus on two facets: 1) investigating how
leadership is understood from multiple perspectives; and 2) investigating what, if anything, emerges in my
exploration of leadership when considering these three perspectives simultaneously. Specifically, I will use
three of Wilber’s eight methodological zones (zones 2, 3, 6) (Fig. 1).

The original data presented in this study were collected in phases over the course of three years.1 I feel it is im-
portant to mention my assumptions before exploring the data: one major assumption I make is that through an
integral view (i.e., by including multiple perspectives), I will have a better understanding of how leadership is
understood. I also assume that my own AQAL constellation—including the structures of my consciousness—
will impact how I understand leadership and thus this research. I feel that is also worth noting that in my
professional life, I sometimes take on the role of “leader” when working with my clients. I do consider myself
to be a leader, but I also know that it is just one of the many roles I take on in this world.

First, I explore my topic and overarching research question through the first-person approach of structuralism
(zone 2). I then take a second-person approach to my topic with the use of hermeneutics (zone 3). Finally, I
use the third-person approach of empiricism (zone 6) as yet another way of looking at leadership. Each sec-
tion of this article will include: 1) a method section wherein I describe my research design and implementa-
tion in detail; 2) a data section disclosing my results in the form of themes that emerged from my analysis; 3)
a section in which I address issues of validity relative to my approach; and 4) a discussion section exploring
my reflections on the data.

First-person Approach
A first-person approach takes a look at the interior dimension of an individual’s awareness. First-person ap-
proaches are subjective by nature and are associated with the Upper-Left quadrant. They look at what an

98 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

individual’s interior experience is, including their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and decisions.

We can view this interior dimension from a first-person perspective (the “inside”) or from a third-person per-
spective (the “outside”). When we view it from the inside, we are using phenomenological approaches (zone
1). There are many different types of phenomenological approaches such as introspection, prayer, meditation,
contemplation, visualization, yoga, and journaling (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2006, p. 93). When we view the interior
dimension from the “outside,” we are using forms of structuralism (zone 2). There are also many different
types of structural assessment tools we could use, such as various personality tests, sentence completion tests,
and receiving reflective feedback from other people (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2006, p. 93).

For my first-person approach, I used a zone 2 approach (structural analysis). I provide a self-assessment de-
scription using Susanne Cook-Greuter’s Sentence Completion Test international (SCTi). I will also use the
Kolbe A Index developed by Kathy Kolbe to measure my instinctive type. Here my method-based research
question was, “How do the structures of my own awareness influence my leadership ability and how I under-
stand leadership?” Using this approach, I gained valuable insights into the structures of my own awareness
and how they impacted my research.

Zone 2: Structural Analysis Method

The general method I used was a self-assessment description, the SCTi (also referred to as the Leadership
Development Profile). I took the SCTi on June 26, 2007 and e-mailed it directly to Susanne Cook-Greuter,
the test’s developer. Susanne coded my SCTi on July 23, 2007. The coding process was one in which Susanne
reads each sentence and gives it a “score” that corresponds to one of the nine meaning-making stages. She
then allocates one overall stage for the survey taker.

The SCTi structural analysis method is very important because my effectiveness as a leader is intimately con-
nected with my overall level of development. In their book Leadership Agility: Five Levels of Mastery for
Anticipating and Initiating Change (2007), William Joiner and Stephen Josephs state:

Leaders become more effective as they grow into the more advanced stages, be-
cause, in doing so, they become increasingly adept at responding to the degree of
change and complexity that pervades today’s workplace. In sum, the research shows
that, as leaders move from one stage to another, their level of leadership agility
increases. (p. 119)

In addition to the SCTi assessment method, I also used the Kolbe A index. The Kolbe A is a form of structural
analysis that can give me insight into my own instinctive “type.” The Kolbe A index identifies and quantifies
co-native talents, which are part of who I am and how I take action in the world. Conation is a term that is syn-
onymous with motivation, will, and drive. It comes from the Latin verb “conari,” which means “to attempt or
to strive.” When exploring conation, I want to make it clear that I am dealing with horizontal and typological
structures here (in contrast to the vertical structures measured by the SCTi). Although I took the index roughly
six years ago (July 30, 2004), I am confident that it is still an accurate portrayal of my conative talents. The
Kolbe A index is high in test-retest reliability, which I will explore further in the “Validity Issues” section.2

Level of Ego Development and the SCTi

The SCTi does not make distinctions between multiple or various lines of development and instead takes a

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 99

 T. TASSET

At this
Stage Main focus
stage, %
Opportunist Own immediate needs,
Preconventional 4.3 Needs rule impulses opportunities, self-protection
Diplomat Socially expected behavior,
Conventional 11.3
Norms rule needs approval
Expert-Technician Expertise, procedure and
Conventional 36.5
Craft logic rules norms efficiency
Achiever Delivery of results,
Conventional 29.7 System effectiveness rules effectiveness, goals, success
craft and logic
Individualist Self in relationship; interaction
Postconventional 11.3 Relativism rules single-system logic with system
Strategist Linking theory and principles
Postconventional 4.9 Most valuable principles rule with practice, dynamic systems
relativism interactions
Magician+ Interplay of awareness,
Postconventional 2.0 Deep processes and intersystem thought, action, and effects;
evolution rule principles transforming self and others

Figure 2. Susanne Cook-Greuter’s stage concepon model (N=4,510).

look at where one’s overall sense of self is. Following Wilber (2006), I would consider this the “self-identity”
line or overall ego development. I was given a Total Protocol Rating (TPR) for my overall ego development.
The TPR is determined by a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessments. I was given a TPR score
of 4/5+ or Individualist+. The Total Weighted Score I was given was 269. I also had five answers at the Strat-
egist stage (5), one answer at the Magician stage (5/6), and one answer at the Strategist and Magician stage
(6). The Individualist stage is the first of the postconventional stages in her stage conception model. The main
focus of the Individualist is of self in relationship; interaction with the system (Fig. 2).

Additional comments by Cook-Greuter provide more insight into my own structure-stage (the numbers cor-
respond to the sentence stems):

You write mostly as an Individualist with some idealistic notions that ‘light and
love’ conquers all (4, 10, 11, 15, 20, 26). You appreciate everything about yourself
including your own limitations (6) Being in the here and now (4, 8, 13, 35) & access
to higher states of consciousness can help development, but is not sufficient for ego
integration. ‘Contracting’ (16, 35) and ‘I am that I am’ (23) count as high-end cli-
chés because they can be voiced without embodying them. Your beliefs are strong.
We all add suffering to the world by being human beings with our limitations (21).
Recognizing the inevitable paradox and your attachment to the notion how things
should be (all love) and embracing the dark in self and others will likely open up new
possibilities for wisdom and even greater understanding. (Cook-Greuter, personal
communication, July 23, 2007)

There are a few themes that emerged that I would like to link to how I understand leadership. The first theme

100 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

is my Individualist mindset, where relativism rules single system logic. Here my sense of self is always in
relationship and interacting with a system. I can see this plays out in how I understand leadership and my
leadership capacities. When I lead a training group, I am aware of how engaged the participants are in the
process. I always try to involve each of them as much as possible, as this is part of the implicit contracted
learning process. I will ask them questions to try to get them engaged in the dialogue because I want to hear
their perspective and opinion. I know that they have a valuable insight that needs to be honored and so a lot
of times I consciously try to create the space and context in which that would arise.

The second theme that emerged was from Cook-Greuter’s feedback that “embracing the dark in self and
others will likely open up new possibilities for wisdom and even greater understanding.” This is an area that
I have been consciously working on in myself since gaining this valuable insight. More specifically, I have
been working on integrating some of the darker aspects of my being. In the past, I have shied away from
expressing myself fully with other people. For example, if I was angry with someone I might not express
that anger with them. What I think Cook-Greuter picked up on was how limiting this kind of behavior can
be. In a way, not being able to fully express myself, including the full spectrum of emotions, closed down a
lot of possibilities for me. One aspect this closed down for me was the ability to develop deep and authentic
relationships with other people. If I just showed to other people what I perceived as my “good side,” then I
would not be bringing forth my fullness as a human being. A true and authentic relationship develops when
people are vulnerable enough to show all aspects of themselves, warts and all.

Kolbe A Index
Another typing system I have used to gain insight into my nature is the Kolbe A index. The Kolbe index
measures “striving instincts” (i.e., our natural ways of doing things) (Fig. 3). Because instincts are an interior
dimension, we cannot see our instincts but we can see the actions or behaviors that are triggered by our in-
stincts. The Kolbe identifies four main action modes:

1. Fact Finder—the way a person gathers and shares information

2. Follow Thru—the way a person organizes, arranges and designs
3. Quick Start—the way a person deals with risk and uncertainty
4. Implementor—the way a person interacts with the physical world

Each of the action modes has a continuum where you will fall somewhere between a 1 and a 10. A 1 is just as
good as a 10—they are merely opposite and complimentary talents. This is true for each action mode.

My Kolbe A index score is an 8, 6, 5, 2 (see Appendix A). I am an initiating Fact Finder with heavy backup
in Follow Thru, which means that my mindset or MO (modus operandi) is called a Strategic Planner. Being
a Strategic Planner means that when doing anything, I want to have a lot of detailed information as well as a
plan of action. For example, if I am facilitating a leadership training session with my clients, then I want to
know beforehand what topics I will be presenting and exactly what I am going to say. I likely will have an
outline of the topics I want to cover as well as the exercises the group can do. This means that my best work
will be when I have my information (the details) and when I have a plan of action; just “winging it” will cause
me tremendous stress.

My lead mode is Fact Finder. Fact Finder is essentially my “home base” with regards to the four main action
modes. It is called my lead mode because I initiate solutions in this way. Generally speaking, Fact Finder is a

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 101

 T. TASSET

Cognitive Conative Affective

IQ Drive Desires
Skills Instinct Motivation
Reason Necessity Attitudes
Knowledge Mental energy Preferences
Experience Innate force Emotions
Education Talents Values

Figure 3. The Kolbe A Index’s three parts of the mind.

person’s way of gathering and sharing information. My way of gathering and sharing information is by being
precise. I want to specify by getting as many specifics as possible. An example of this in my life is that when
I am given a task or goal to complete, I first want to do a lot of research on the topic.

Validity
There are many issues of validity to consider with regards to Cook-Greuter’s SCTi. Cook-Greuter is one of
the most highly regarded developmental theorists working today. Since 1980, she has analyzed thousands of
tests in over 200 different academic and business contexts:

Susanne Cook-Greuter spent 20 years of dedicated research in expanding and refin-

ing the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT) to better assess
individuals with complex, later-stage world views. With over 7,000 profiles in the
Cook-Greuter data base alone, the SCTi is currently he most rigorously validated, re-
liable, and advanced assessment tool in developmental psychology. (Cook-Greuter,
personal communication, July 23, 2007)

There is also the validity issue regarding who is doing the coding (Cook-Greuter herself coded my SCTi).
Furthermore, she only allows those who score high in the index themselves to code others’ scores. There are
also issues of validity regarding the Kolbe index, including whether the index is a valid measurement tool.
With more than 17 years of test re-test reliability and validity scores, the Kolbe is well established (see Ap-
pendix B).

Discussion
One of the insights that I gained is the influence of my own structures on my research. One part of this is
that the structures of my awareness and development influenced my research in very noticeable ways. For
example, the Kolbe index profiled my instinctive “type,” which I feel is a very important aspect of myself
during the research project. Knowing that I heavily rely on my Fact Finding, I wanted to be more aware of
how I was slanted toward quantitative research and data. I also realized I was prone to “paralysis by analysis”
because of my heavy need to dig for information.

In a similar fashion, I learned that my own structural-stage of development impacts how I understand leader-
ship and how I embody being a leader. I will only see what I know and I will only understand leadership ac-

102 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

cording to my overall level of development. Furthermore, as pointed out by Bill Joiner and Stephen Josephs
in their book Leadership Agility: Five Levels of Mastery for Anticipating and Initiating Change (2006), my
ability and capacities to be a leader are shaped by my level of development. Some of the limitations I got a
great feel for with the feedback I received from Cook-Greuter. From the SCTi I also learned many positive
things about myself that impact my ability as a leader. For example, I was given an overall score of 4/5+ or
Individualist+ for my center of gravity. Based on SCTi results in the United States, it is estimated that only
11.3% of the population is at this stage of ego development, and only 6.9% of the population scores higher
than the Individualist stage. This means that roughly 81.8 % of the population in the United States falls below
the Individualist stage. This is good news for me as a leader because I am in the upper echelon with regards
to ego development (Cook-Greuter, personal communication, July 23, 2007).

If I were to expand on this research in the future, one next possible step to take would be to look at my full
AQAL Constellation as a more in-depth assessment. According to Integral Coaching Canada, an AQAL Con-
stellation consists of my primary and secondary quadrant orientation, stages of development with regards to
the lines of development (i.e., multiple intelligences), my ability to access wider states of consciousness, and
several types (i.e., gender type, Enneatype) (Divine, 2009). Furthermore, I could also do research into more
phenomenological approaches (zone 1 methods).

Second-person Approach
A second-person approach takes a look at the interior dimension of a group’s awareness. Second-person ap-
proaches are intersubjective by nature, as they take a look at the shared experience between two or more ho-
lons. This includes, but is not limited to, the shared values, shared norms, shared beliefs, shared experiences,
and shared understandings that occur in the Lower-Left quadrant.

As with the other quadrants, we can view the interior-intersubjective space from a first-person perspective or
from a third-person perspective. When we view it from the “inside,” we are using a hermeneutical approach
(zone 3). There are endless amounts of practices that could be considered hermeneutical, including in-depth
interviews, role-playing, and performing in group rituals (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2006, p. 94). When we view the
Lower-Left quadrant from the “outside,” we are using forms of ethnomethodology (zone 4). There are many
forms of ethnomethodology, including participant-observer practices, coaching, and mentoring (Esbjörn-
Hargens, 2006, p. 94).

Zone 3: Hermeneutic Method

The general method that I used is in-depth interviewing. I chose to interview Ramon Corrales, Ph.D., one of
my mentors and a fellow leadership trainer, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, he is one of the best
leaders that I know. He has been a mentor in my life for many years and I have personally grown tremen-
dously from his leadership. He is the founder of Integral Mastery Center and has been providing Integral lead-
ership training for nearly 20 years. He has taken the AQAL model and used it as the overarching framework
for his approach to leadership training.

I interviewed Dr. Corrales on March 20, 2008. I informally asked Ramon beforehand if he wanted to see the
questions I was going to ask him. His response was,“No, we can just get started.” Going back to Kolbe A
index (structuralism), Ramon’s lead mode is Quick Start, which means that he has a knack to improvise on
the spot—much more so than I do. My conative style of initiating in Fact Finder means that I have a talent
to be specific, which of course shows up in everything that I do. For example, I did prepare a list of 10 or so

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 103

 T. TASSET

questions in advance (Appendix C). I tried to come up with questions that explored how this shared “we”
space between people is experienced while leading a training group. Our interview lasted just over one hour
and was done in one sitting.

Interview with Ramon Corrales

After transcribing the interview, the next step was to code the interview into labels, categories, and themes.
The final result was six themes that I felt were woven throughout the interview: 1) an act of discovery; 2) a
sense of unity; 3) differences lead to synergy; 4) mistakes; 5) a part of the dance; and 6) my role as a leader.

For theme 1, An Act of Discovery, Ramon talked about his curiosity and how that plays into his disposition
while he is in a leadership role. Ramon (Corrales & Tasset, 2008) stated that he is always seeking information
and is constantly looking to discover how people will respond:

• When talking about what he does when participants are checked-out or not en-
gaged, Ramon states that he might say, “I noticed you haven’t said anything.
I’m really curious about what you think about this and that. I might say, help
me understand your silence. Is it because you’re agreeing or is it because you’re
still thinking about where you stand? I don’t judge it. I just want to understand
it.” (p. 6)
• He says a little bit later, “The metaphor of discovery is, I think, a very important
one for the framework.” (p. 8)
• “The essential piece is I try to stay out of prediction…I’ll throw a pebble [do
something or say something] and then I become curious, not attached to the out-
come, but curious about the range of how the other person will ripple [respond]
and dance with me and how I then discover even within me how I might dance
with it.” (p. 14)

For theme 2, A Sense of Unity, Ramon explained how he saw himself as one with the Divine, and one with
others, even if he is part of a group:

• “At this stage in my life, I always think I am as one with divine. So I immedi-
ately assume I am a focus of divine consciousness first and that if I can align
myself to that, then I allow my own higher mind to drop down to the level of the
integral and I begin to see the dance.” (p. 1)
• “[I] begin to find resonance by listening, by seeing the world through their eyes,
by feeling the world through their skin, by listening to the world through their
ears, and just really allow myself to melt in there.” (p. 2)
• “I am aware of our shared space as one with Spirit, because I believe with Wilber
and with [Aurobindo]—the philosopher—that we have an Oversoul and we’re
one. That’s really why we can have a shared inner space.” (p. 3)

For theme 3, Differences Lead to Synergy, Ramon described how he does not shy away from differences, or
different perspectives:

• When talking about cultural differences, or just different worldviews or perspec-

104 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

tives, Ramon says, “My inner belief is that synergy comes from differences. So,
I immediately get into an inner space of calm, relaxed but exciting, kind of an
excitement, there’s an excitement with me.” (p. 4)
• He continues to say that when there are differences within a group, or maybe
subgroups, he will encourage those different perspectives. “I’ve used a phrase to
help me along the way as a leader, and that phrase is ‘the first law of integration
is differentiation.’” (p. 4)
• “And sometimes I’ll encourage polarization. That’s not bad. It’s differentiation
of thinking and feeling as long as I can maintain some relationship, some inner
connection. The content of it, we may disagree, but we’re dealing with a shared
space there.” (p. 2)

For theme 4, Mistakes, Ramon described what he has learned not to do from his past experience:

• “In the past, when I’ve defined polarity [differences] as bad, I lose sight of the
important message that could come from their resistance.” (p. 3)
• When talking about managing the structure of the group, Ramon states, “If I am
the leader I don’t managing the structure of the meeting or the structure of the
conversation…I am throwing a pebble [taking action] here to see what ripples
[responses] I get. But if I’m working too hard at the individual awareness level,
I’ll probably see at the structural level that I’m over functioning and they are
under functioning.” (p. 6)
• Ramon describes a fundamental error in how most people think about leadership
as being the linear cause and effect view of leadership: “The old concept of lead-
ership, which is linear, the leader does it to the other person or the group, that the
leader is the inspirational force. The leader drags people toward the goal. The
leader has the effect of others hanging by his or her coattails. Do you see the lin-
ear cause and effect there? When I think that way, I will over function.” (p. 7)

For theme 5, A Part of the Dance, Ramon described how his training in systems theory allowed him to notice,
and feel, that he is one part of a larger dance unfolding:

• “Given my training in systems, I find that quite comfortable to look at me, to look
at the other person, to look at the dance between us and what’s going around.
And I’m informed by the fact that this is the context in which I act…So, because
of my training in systems and the social field, I have kind of a habit to look at the
Lower Right (social systems) for a bit of confirmation.” (p. 2)
• “And then I will then look at what I did and what they did so I understand not
just the other person in terms of what they’re thinking, feeling, and deciding, but
how the two of us danced in a way that he could contribute or she could contrib-
ute. That’s the same thing for me and a group.” (pp. 7-8)
• In response to where his attention is at the majority of the time while leading
others, Ramon says, “[It’s] external. I’m not looking into my awareness. I’m not
observing my thoughts or feelings or decisions. I become part, an integral part.
It’s like an organic part. I am just part of the dance.” (p. 12)

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 105

 T. TASSET

For theme 6, My Role as a Leader, Ramon described how he views his role while leading others. This in-
cludes what leadership means to him, his purpose and expectations of himself, and what he feels is expected
of the group or system:

• When describing what leadership means to him, he says, “Special relationship

with someone where I take on the responsibility, more even than the other per-
son, to draw out the best in people, whatever the best means. And to give them
my best so that individually, he/she/they can bring forth their talent to bear on
their purpose. And I, too, can bring forth my talent for my purpose.” (p. 1)
• “I want them to sweat it at least as much as I’m sweating it. I’ll sweat the man-
agement of the structure. I want them to sweat the productivity level of what
ideas come. Then I’ll manage. Okay, agenda one: let’s communicate. Let’s bring
lots of thoughts and feelings.” (p. 9)
• “I have a tremendous amount of trust in the wisdom of a system…No one ele-
ment in the system controls the dance, but the leader’s role is to make sure that
the structure is there so that the dance can go on unimpeded.” (pp. 11-12)

Discussion
Ramon described his mindset as being very curious and behaving like an explorer on an “act of discovery”
into the intersubjective space (Corrales & Tasset, p. 8). His experience was one in which he was simply a part
of the dance and looking to discover how others would respond. Ramon also shared how paradoxically, his
subjective state while leading can also be one in which he is acting from a state of nondual unity, of oneness
and of flow. He mentioned how he would lose himself in the process and would lose track of being separate
from what he was experiencing. Over the years, he was able to stabilize this state into a permanent trait, a
stable part of the structure of his body-mind.

The sense of unity that Ramon described reminds me of an interview with spiritual teacher David Deida. In
the interview, Deida talks about how his experience during workshops he leads. The essence or overall theme
is that, “When you feel Oneness and no separation, love responds spontaneously as the teacher.” Deida states,
“I’m often not aware of what is ‘mine’ or ‘others,’ as you’ve seen in my workshops.” He continues:

I don’t add a difference between my business or your business when we are togeth-
er—I feel the inside of your body, your sexual life, your relationship to your parents,
your ambitions and kinks, and many patterns too subtle and complex to put into
words, all as if they were ‘mine’—and it’s all God’s business or the dance of con-
scious light, as far as I can tell. (Vartman & Deida, 2006)

Both Ramon Corrales and David Deida have spent decades doing spiritual practices like meditation and
yoga. This is another great example of how personal development—both in terms of state-stages as well as
structure-stages—has in our leadership abilities and capacities.

The insights mentioned above emerged through the interviewing process, the transcription process, and the
coding process. After my initial sit-down interview with Ramon, I did not feel like I gathered a lot of informa-
tion about leadership. Afterward, I realized how rich the interview truly was. This is another example of the
Kolbe in action—Ramon is a Quick Start (i.e., he looks for more background and contextual information) I

106 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

am a Fact Finder (i.e., I look for hard facts and data, which was not apparent until I looked more closely into
his responses). In a strange way, the act of transcribing allowed me to overcome my own biases explore the
topic of leadership in a very intimate way. There were a number of times during the transcription process
where I was amazed to find a particular insight about leadership that I seemed to miss or did not remember
talking about during the actual interview. This is another good example of how communication and under-
standing depend on your AQAL Constellation—different altitudes, different types, and different states will
literally hear and see different things.

The interview format I used is just one of many possible approaches an integral researcher could use. Al-
ternatively, one could look to understand leadership from the point of view of an individual who is a stake-
holder in the role, as opposed to someone who is in the role. One possible way to do this would be through a
participant-observer practice, which would give insight into the “inside” of the intersubjective space (i.e., a
zone-4 ethnomethodological approach).

Third-person Approach
A third-person approach looks at the exterior dimensions of an individual or group. Third-person approaches
are objective and associated with the Right-Hand quadrants. For my study, I explored leadership from zone 6
(empiricism) using a method-based question of, “What are the behaviors or qualities that top leaders exhib-
it?” To answer this question, I devised a survey asking what people believe to be the best qualities exhibited
by an effective leader.

Zone 6: Empirical Analysis Method

There are several questions I wanted to explore with the survey, including “What does leadership look like?”,
“What are leadership behaviors?”, and “What are leadership qualities?” I followed a very simple process in
creating the survey. In essence, I put together a list of what I felt were top leadership qualities after doing
Internet research. The final survey consisted on a master list with 29 leadership qualities or behaviors. I cre-
ated a Likert scale next to each behavior that allowed the participant to rate the degree to which they thought
a top leader would display that behavior (see Appendix D).

The survey was hand delivered to two groups of people. The first group consisted of 12 of my closest friends,
family, and colleagues, and the second group consisted of 12 participants in a leadership program I was facili-
tating at the time the surveys were created (2006).3 For each 29 numbers/behaviors in the survey, I conducted
an item analysis. I found the mean (average) for each behavior and scored each group (the participants and
the others). I used a Likert scale for scoring so each leadership behavior or quality had the possibility of fall-
ing anywhere on a spectrum from zero to five. The data were analyzed separately, but on a few occasions I
combined data from both groups in order to get a feel for the overall or combined group. The numbers were
organized into a spreadsheet and analyzed.

Data Analysis
The groups were analyzed to see if there are major differences between those who have had leadership train-
ing and those who have not. The program participants group had 12 total members, 25% of which were men
and 75% of which were women. The average age of the program participants group was 36.75 years. The
acquaintances group had 12 total members, 42% of which were men and 58% of which were women. The
average age of the acquaintances group was 41.5 years.

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 107

 T. TASSET

The first thing that I observed was the similarities between the two groups and what they scored. The highest
scored leadership quality that emerged among the two groups was that top leaders “have a vision.” This was
the highest scored leadership quality, with a mean of 5.0 from the program participants in the training pro-
gram; it was rated second highest by the acquaintances group, with a mean of 4.92. The second highest scored
quality among both groups was that top leaders “display integrity.” For the acquaintances group, “display
integrity” was rated the highest of the behaviors/qualities and had a perfect mean score of 5.0; the program
participants group gave “display integrity” the second highest rated quality with a mean of 4.83. The third
theme that emerged between the two groups was that top leaders “show others and lead by example.” The
program participants group rated this with a mean of 4.83, which tied for second in their highest rated quali-
ties or behaviors. This is also very close to the rating the acquaintances group gave it.

The first noticeable variance between the two groups was how they rated the quality “possess self-knowl-
edge.” This quality had the highest rated variance of 0.58, with regards to the mean, of any quality between
the two groups; the acquaintances group ranked this higher than the program participants group. The second
quality that had a similar variance was that top leaders “acknowledge their mistakes.” The program partici-
pants group ranked this quality tied for 13th out of 29 while the acquaintances group ranked the quality tied
for 4th out of 29, a variance of 9 spots. This was also the second highest variance for a quality between the
two groups, with a mean variance of 0.50.

The age difference between the two groups, albeit small, may explain this variance: the average age of those
in the program participant group was 36.75 years and the average age of those in the acquaintances group
was 41.5 years. Although this is not a large variance, I do think the age difference impacted how the groups
viewed leadership and specifically, how they viewed wisdom. There were a few differences between the two
groups, one of which was how they ranked some of the behaviors and/or qualities. The first quality was that
top leaders “possess self-knowledge.” The younger group (i.e., the program participants group) ranked that
quality 18th out of 29. The older group (i.e., the acquaintances group) ranked that quality tied for 4th out of
29, a difference of 14 spots. This leads me to think that as one matures, wisdom comes from knowing and
trusting oneself, not anyone else.

A final theme, that men and women view leadership qualities and behaviors differently, emerged both be-
tween the groups and when I combined the groups for a meta-view. The quality that top leaders “keep to
themselves or are introverts” was favored by men with a variance of 0.81. With a variance of 0.58, women
favored the behavior that top leaders “are ‘people’ people or extroverts.” Additionally, women favored the
quality that leaders “always tell the truth” with a variance of 0.55; men favored the quality of leaders being
“technically proficient” with a variance of 0.48.

Other factors could be at play here. It is not clear the extent that a person’s age or sex impacts the causal
relationship between the different rankings, as there are many other variables that could impact this. For ex-
ample, does the order or placement of the leadership qualities in the survey impact this relationship? I discuss
this in further detail in the Conclusion section, where I raise questions for future research.

Discussion
The first thing that I noticed during the data analysis was that my own conative or “instinctive” type was
very well suited for this endeavor. As a Fact Finder, I have a knack for probing for information and for seek-
ing details. This ability to be very specific was perfectly suited for looking at research data, and buoyed me

108 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

throughout the process. Looking over the data again from both groups, I began to see some interesting conclu-
sions regarding leadership.

I was fascinated by the differences between the groups with regards to age. In my opinion, the acquaintances
group was more mature, as evidenced by their view of top leaders having “self-knowledge” and an ability to
“acknowledge their mistakes.” My interpretation is that this group understood that wisdom comes with age
and thus impacts one’s leadership. The differences between the sexes were also fascinating. This brings me
back to structuralism, as it supports the idea that we see phenomena based on the structure of our body-mind
(i.e., disposition, AQAL constellation, and structural growth directly affect how we view leadership). I find it
interesting and somewhat humorous that the women in the survey aligned themselves and gave higher rank-
ings to the more feminine traits that are associated with belonging, linking, and relationships. At the same
time, men aligned themselves and gave a higher ranking to the behaviors and qualities associated with mas-
culine traits such as autonomy and individuality.

The groups were similar in how they ranked the 29 top leadership qualities and behaviors. They agreed on
the top three behaviors and also agreed on the bottom five behaviors. Although everything “tetra-arises”
in the four quadrants, one can see how these different qualities and behaviors place emphasis on different
quadrants. For example, the top three leadership qualities and behaviors were 1) have a vision, 2) display in-
tegrity, and 3) show others and lead by example. The first quality, “have a vision,” could be interpreted as the
interior-subjective view of the individual, or an Upper-Left quadrant capacity. The second behavior, “display
integrity,” is an actual observable behavior. One could argue that it belongs to the exterior-objective view of
an individual, or an Upper-Right quadrant capacity. The third behavior, “show others and lead by example,”
can be interpreted as an exterior-interobjective behavior, or a Lower-Right quadrant capacity.

There are many references to “having a vision” in leadership literature, but more needs to be said on this is-
sue. How does “having a vision” show up in all four quadrants? It is not just about having a vision, but also
about one’s ability to communicate it in a way that influences and inspires others, which takes systems and
shared understanding to do so. Throughout this process, I learned how hard it is to design a comprehensive
survey that accurately measures what you are looking for. If I continued this research, I would make sure
that I designed a more comprehensive, Integrally informed survey, perhaps using social networking sites like
Facebook and Twitter.4

Looking back over my research project, I can see how taking multiple perspectives helped me gain insight
into leadership. I used the first-person methodology of structural analysis to look into how the structures of
my consciousness determined how I view leadership, while also determining my leadership capacities. I used
the second-person methodology of hermeneutics to interview a mentor about exploring the “we” space while
discussing the intersubjectivity of or our shared understanding of leadership and how it is experienced. Fi-
nally, I used the third-person methodology of empirical analysis, via a survey of leadership behaviors, that I
collected from delegates in my training program. All of these perspectives showed something different about
how leadership is understood, experienced, and observed.

Conclusion
Wilber (2007) asserts that “the meaning of a statement is the means of its enactment” (p. 258). This means
that we “enact,” or bring forth, various worldviews—subject and object arise together in a co-creation of real-
ity. Looking back on my research, I am amazed at how my focus determined what was available to me. I can

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 109

 T. TASSET

see how the principle of enactment was rearing its head as I used each methodology.

For my first-person study, I used structuralism to explore how a person’s awareness—their subjectivity—
plays into their capacity to be a leader and to provide leadership. In this case, the person whose subjectivity I
explored was myself. The data suggest that my own structural development, including my shadow elements,
plays into my leadership ability. If I had been nurtured or raised differently, I would view leadership in a
completely different way. Furthermore, the more I grow and develop, the greater my capacity as a leader will
increase. In turn, years from now I will enact leadership in an entirely different way.

For my second-person study, I used hermeneutics to enact and explore leadership. Although I did just one
interview, I actually ended up with three different conversations in the process, all of which were enacted
differently. The first conversation I enacted was during our in-person interview, which I left wondering what,
if any, valuable data had been collected. The second conversation was enacted through the transcription pro-
cess. I can remember being surprised while transcribing the words of our interview and having a sense of not
remembering certain parts of our dialogue. I remember having a feeling of “I don’t remember talking about
this” while typing and transferring the audio to text. The third conversation that was enacted was through the
coding process. The process of coding the interviews for labels, categories, and themes allowed me to take a
deeper look into the essence of the interview. What is important here is that different methods connected me
to the content of the interview, each of them disclosing or enacting a slightly different conversation.

For my third-person study, I used empiricism through a survey to explore leadership. It is interesting to note
that the quality that both groups rated highest on the Likert scale of top leadership qualities was also the very
first trait listed on the survey. What would have happened if I had changed the survey and simply asked for a
number ranking of each of the 29 qualities? It would be fascinating to find out where “have a vision” would
fall in the ranking. Would if it still ranked as the number one quality? Would it be somewhere in the middle?
This illuminates how the means by which I devised the survey in some way determined the data that was
brought forth. Looking back at the pilot data, I realize this is far from a comprehensive collection of empiri-
cal data on leadership. Furthermore, my survey could easily be expanded and designed in a more integral
and comprehensive way (e.g., by measuring not just objective aspects like behaviors but also more subjective
qualities through the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods).5

Today I find that I am most inspired by leadership that empowers people to find their own answers. The great
sage Lao Tzu said, “To lead the people, walk behind them.” One way of walking behind people is to not tell
them how to do things, or what to do for that matter, for this robs them of the opportunity to discover and do
it for themselves. I tend to agree with Ralph Nader that, “I start with the premise that the function of leader-
ship is to produce more leaders, not more followers” (Time, 1976). I feel Kahlil Gibran’s (1923) words best
articulate the idea of empowering people to be their own leader:

No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawn-
ing of your knowledge…the teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among
his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and lovingness…if he is
indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you
to the threshold of your own mind…for the vision of one man lends not its wings
to another man…and even as each one of you stands alone in God’s knowledge, so
must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of
the Earth. (p. 56)

110 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

Acknowledgments
A special thank you to my father Daniel Tasset and to my mother Shelby Tasset, who have been the best lead-
ers in my life and who have kept me grounded from day one. Also much gratitude and thanks to Sean Esbjörn-
Hargens for helping me find my inner researcher and inspiring me to discover that research is something alive
that is to be lived and explored. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Ramon Corrales and Charles Rhodes, who
pointed me toward Integral Theory and to whom I owe a great deal of my personal growth. A big thank you
to Ken Wilber, who stretched my mind in countless ways and to whom I am forever indebted. I would also
like to thank David Deida and his wonderful team of teaching assistants who showed me how to remain open
in the midst of heaven and hell. I would like to send gratitude to Bartholomeus NE Kalshoven and Steven
Saunders for being my mirror and empowering me to find my own answers. Finally, I would like to say thank
you to Maha, the love of my life.

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 111

 T. TASSET

Appendix A
Kolbe A Index Result Summary6

Kolbe Action Modes are behaviors driven by your instinct –

not your personality or IQ

Fact Finder: Follow Thru: Quick Start: Implementor:

is how you gather is how you arrange is how you deal with is how you handle
and share and design. risks and space and tangibles.
information. uncertainity.
Your way of doing Your way of doing
Your way of doing it is to Maintain. Your way of doing it is to Imagine.
it is to Specify. it is to Modify.

112 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

Appendix B
Kolbe A Index Test-Retest Reliability

This test-retest study completed by Dr. Karen Gerdes included 282 respondents. Sixty-four respondents origi-
nally took the Kolbe A Index between 1991 and 1995 (11-15 years ago); 55 of the respondents completed
their first Index between 1996 and 1998 (8-10 years ago); 51 respondents received their first result between
1999 and 2001 (5-7 years ago); 60 respondents took the Index between 2002 and 2004; and 52 respondents
took the Index in 2005 or 2006.

Respondents’ first Kolbe A result were compared with a second result (collected between January and April,
2006). Statistical evaluation strongly indicates that point changes between 0 to 2, in any given mode, are not
“practically meaningful.” In other words, a person’s Kolbe result was considered consistent as long as it was
within 0 to 2 points of their original score in any given mode. The table below indicates the percentage of each
sample that fell between a 0 to 2 point change by action mode.

Time Intervals Fact Finder, % Follow Thru, % Quick Start, % Implementor, %

Overall
96 96 92 97
N=282
11-15 years 95 95 88 94
n=64
8-10 years 96 95 91 96
n=55
5-7 years 94 96 96 96
n=51
2-4 years 100 95 92 100
n=60

0-1 years 94 100 94 96

n=52

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 113

 T. TASSET

Appendix C
Interview Questions for Dr. Ramon Corrales*

1. What does leadership mean to you?

2. What is your first-person experience of the group field? Or, what are some common experiences of the
group field?
3. How do you understand the intersubjective space—with dynamics like resonance or connection—while
teaching or leading groups?
4. How do you provide leadership in a training group where there are age differences, gender differences,
and cultural differences?
5. What do you do when you are leading a group and the majority of the participants are engaged, but a
few people are not? How do you lead in that place?
6. How do you provide leadership when you know people will interpret what you say according to their
worldview? How do you facilitate a group where there are multiple worldviews among the participants?
7. How do you lead or teach groups when it seems like they are not understanding you or the material—
when there is a disconnect? What do you do?
8. While leading a group of 5-10 people, what structure do you find most beneficial to the group? (lecture,
didactic style, case studies, discussions, exercises, etc.)
9. When you are providing leadership, how important is it for there to be ‘buy-in’ among the members of
the group? How important is it to have a shared vision?
10. How do you lead when there is not a common goal or shared vision among the group? How do you lead
from that place?
11. While leading a group, where do you find the majority of your attention? For example, is it on the
content you are talking about? Or is it on the process? Is your attention focused on yourself and your
own experience? Are you thinking about the experience of the participants while watching their body
language and non-verbal cues?

*Questions that were asked spontaneously during the interview are not listed.

114 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

 LEADERSHIP

Appendix D
Top Leadership Behaviors and Qualities Survey

Demographical information:

Gender:_________________ Age:__________ Profession:_______________________

Annual Income __________________ Are you married or single?___________________

Using the following Likert scale, please rate each of the following qualities and or behaviors of an effective leader.
Rate each of the following according to degree to which an effective leader would personify these qualities.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Top leaders…

1. Have a vision. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Make sound and timely decisions. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Take risks. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Are good motivators and have the ability to rally the troops. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Bring out the best in people. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Build diverse teams. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Are conservative. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Possess self-knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Display integrity. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Always tell the truth. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Pursue lifelong learning. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Communicate effectively and skillfully. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Never show their weaknesses or failures. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Help others succeed. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Are technically proficient. 1 2 3 4 5
16. Acknowledge their mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5
17. Show others and lead by example. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Are ‘people’ people or extroverts. 1 2 3 4 5
19. Build rapport quickly. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Have charisma. 1 2 3 4 5
21. Are very determined. 1 2 3 4 5
22. Are passionate. 1 2 3 4 5
23. Keep to themselves or are introverts. 1 2 3 4 5
24. Manage expectations effectively. 1 2 3 4 5
25. Never get angry or upset. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Are flexible and can adapt quickly. 1 2 3 4 5
27. Go above and beyond what is required of them. 1 2 3 4 5
28. Have the capacity to take multiple perspectives. 1 2 3 4 5
29. Are experts in their industry. 1 2 3 4 5

Additional comments:

30. What is the number one trait that personifies a great leader? Please explain.
______________________________________________________________________________

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2 115

 T. TASSET

NOTES
1
The first component of this article, a small pilot research project, was conducted in 2006 when I explored ways to
promote growth in people’s overall development (i.e., vertical transformation and horizontal translation) during my
master’s degree coursework. In 2008, I started refining the pilot data I collected in 2006 and integrated the data into a
larger research proposal exploring key ideas around integral leadership. In January 2010, I further revised this article
into an exploration of Integral Research and leadership.
2
I interpret my Kolbe results according to the training that I was provided by the Kolbe consulting team in the fall
of 2006. Every 18 months, Kolbe requires all certified consultants to attend a three-day event to get retrained on any
modifications made to the Kolbe system. I completed additional training to fulfill my Kolbe Certified Consultant status
in 2008. Since being introduced to the Kolbe in 2006, I have become a Certified Kolbe Consultant. I estimate that I have
interpreted approximately 200 Kolbe profiles for people since that time.
3
The reason for this initial split into two groups was because it was part of a pilot research project to see if the training
program I was leading was helping promote growth (either vertical or horizontal) in the participants. So, I wanted
the second group to consist of people who were participants in the training program to determine if there were any
differences between the two groups (those who received training and those who did not receive training).
4
Those interested in exploring Integral leadership further should consult the work of James Kouzes and Barry Posner
(www.leadershipchallenge.typepad.com). Also see any of the work published by the Integral Leadership Review (http://
www.integralleadershipreview.com/).
5
There also is the question of what constitutes empiricism. Does gathering subjective and intersubjective data through
repeatable experiments count as empiricism?
6
The Kolbe A Index and associated material is ©1997–2010, Kathy Kolbe.

REFERENCES Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiat-

Corrales, R., & Tasset, T. (2008). Interview with Ramon
Corrales [audio recording]. Unpublished inter-
view, March 20, 2008.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing
and conducting mixed methods research. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Divine, L. (2009). A unique view into you: Working with
a client’s AQAL constellation.™ Journal of Inte-
gral and Practice, 4(1), 41-68.
Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2006). Integral research: A multi-
method approach to investigating phenomena.
Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 11(1), 79-
107.
Gibran, K. (1923). The prophet. New York, NY: Knopf.
Joiner, W., & Josephs, S. (2006). Leadership agility:
ing change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Time. (1976). Special report: Leadership: The biggest
issue. Retrieved May 28, 2010 from www.time.
com/time/magazine/article/0,,918484-1,00.html.
Vartman, & Deida, D. (2006). Can you satsang your way
to love? Retrieved October 14, 2009 from http://
www.bluetruth.org/index.php/Can_You_Sat-
sang_Your_Way_To_Love.
Volckmann, R. (n.d.). A leadership opportunity [e-book].
Retrieved May 10, 2010 from http://www.lead-
coach.com/book_leadership_opportunity.html.
Wilber, K. (2007). You’re going to be a star: Post your
AQAL essays on this site. Retrieved May 5, 2007
from kenwilber.com/blog/post/252?page=9.
Wilber, K. (2007). Integral spirituality: A startling new
role for religion in the modern and postmodern
world. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

TRAVIS TASSET, M.A., is a leadership trainer, organizational consultant, and coach with a master’s degree in Orga-
nizational Management and Development from Fielding Graduate University. He has the distinction of being the first
graduate of this program, which was designed with the guidance of Ken Wilber. His undergraduate degree was in Com-
munication Studies with an emphasis in business from the University of Kansas. Travis is a Certified Kolbe Consultant
and an apprentice Integral Coach® with Integral Coaching Canada.

116 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 5, No. 2

Copyright of Journal of Integral Theory & Practice is the property of Integral Institute and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.