Our developmental assessment system, called the Lectical Assessment System (LAS), can be used to score (a) the performances of persons and (b) the task demands of specific situations/contexts. For example, my colleagues and I have analyzed the task demands of levels of management in large organizations, and tested managers’ developmental level of performance in several skill areas—including reasoning about leadership, reflective judgment, and decision-making.
The figure above shows the relation between the task demands of 7 levels of management and the performance levels of managers occupying these management positions. In this oversimplified image, the task demands of most management positions increase in a linear fashion, spanning levels 10-13. The capabilities of managers do not, for the most part, match these task demands.
This pattern is pervasive—we see it everywhere we look—and it reflects a hard truth. None of us is capable of meeting the task demands of the most complex situations in today’s world. I’ve come to believe that in many situations our best hope for meeting these demands is to (1) work strategically on the development of our own skills and knowledge, (2) learn to work closely with others who represent a wide range of perspectives and areas of expertise, and (3) use the best tools available to scaffold our thinking.
#1 by Jonas Pils on October 4, 2009 - 4:59 am
Do you think that it could it be so that in real life some of the managers actually do perform at higher levels because of some kind of intuitive knowledge which the LAS doesn’t measure?
Also, in this context and/or in general, what would be the best tools to scaffold our thinking?
#2 by Theo on October 4, 2009 - 5:19 am
Absolutely—up to a point. I would say that there is almost complete agreement in the assessment community about the huge gap between human capabilities and the task demands of the most complex jobs and issues we face, but there is growing agreement that intuitive or “tacit” knowledge accounts for a degree of competence that we don’t measure. See the post, Test validity & tacit knowledge, on this subject. With respect to how to scaffold learning, see the new post, Promoting development.
#3 by Andrew Olsen on December 22, 2009 - 5:04 pm
Hi Theo, our org is exploring the use of Elliot Jaques’ ‘Requisite Organization’ which appears to have many parallels to your descriptions in this blog. Michael Commons is letting us use a HC test for assessing folks for career placement/ development. We can find concordance tables with every developmental model… except Jaques’ Stratum. I’m anxious not to confuse ‘tier level unelaborated elaborated transition’ with ‘order stratum declarative cumulative serial parallel’, etc. but there must be a careful direct correspondence because they are all based on ‘math’. His RO book is particularly practical/ useful/ specific so we do want to connect it with the other research domains. Do you know where such a correspondence chart is, esp. one matching LAS, or whether it is possible? Also, do you give/ sell LAS to employers, NFPs, govt. or consultants for employment screening or career counseling/ development? Thanks for thinking (and we’re enjoying your audios!), Andrew.
#4 by Theo on December 22, 2009 - 7:24 pm
Hi Andrew,
Yes, we can score the levels of other developmental systems with the LAS, and I made a quick stab at lining LAS levels up with Strata a few years ago. It was pretty straightforward. The levels of most good developmental systems turn out to be very similar to LAS levels, especially when longitudinal research has been used to validate their sequences. The main difference between systems is how well they capture “core” or “deep” structure. The HCSS and LAS are good for this structure. Used properly. Other systems mostly tap the next layer of structure–what we call domain structure or surface structure.
Although I was able to score the strata described by Jaques, I can’t say that the way they are actually used would line up with LAS levels. That would require research like my comparisons of Kohlberg and Armon’s systems with the LAS and Fischer’s comparison of skill levels with Kitchener & King’s RJ levels.
The table below shows the hypothesized relation between Strata and Lectical levels.