An integral approach to futures work attempts to ‘honour all truths and acknowledge the value of many different ways of knowing across all significant fields’ (Richard Slaughter, Futures Beyond Dystopia (2004), page 152).
Joseph Voros writes: “Integral Futures … does not take a singular perspective; rather it recognizes a plurality of perspectives. It is not confined to a single tool or methodology’ rather it is aware of the existence of an entire (indeed, infinite) tool kit. It recognizes that there are many ways of knowing – many paradigms, practices and methodologies of knowledge seeking – and that no single paradigm can be assigned pre-eminence … Integral Futures Studies welcomes, embraces and values all careful and sincere approaches to knowlege-seeking in all sphere of human activity to which they are both appropriate and adequate – including analytical rationality, intuitive insight and spiritual inspiration”.
The work of Ken Wilber is one theoretical underpinning of integral futures. A basic concept in Wilber’s work is the four quadrant model of development with which to view human activity and indeed, human existence and consciousness. The four quadrant model is represented simply in this diagram.
Wilber’s integral theory is significantly more complex than just the four quadrants, and consists of a range of concepts such as holons, lines or streams, states, waves and types found in each quadrant (see Slaughter, 2004). Each quadrant also has a different type of ‘truth’ or validity claim that relates to different types of knowledge held in each quadrant. Accessing left hand quadrant knowledge always involves interpretation and is largely invisible, while right hand quadrant knowledge is empirical and can be observed. Both provide different perspectives on a given reality or context, and looking at only the external and empirical and not the internal and interpretative ignores critical elements that will determine the ultimate success or failure of a foresight project. An integral framework aims to integrate both internal and external perspectives.
The Upper Left quadrant is the subjective realm, the region of individual consciousness, thoughts, values, motivations, ideas and images. The only person who can “know” this realm is the individual. For others to begin to understand what is occurring in an individual’s consciousness, a process of ‘engaging’ with the individual needs to occur. The validity claim in this quadrant is truthfulness to the individual. This is the realm of “I” language.
The Lower Left quadrant is the cultural, inter-subjective realm, the collective form of the Upper Left, where only the group can provide interpretation about the unwritten ‘rules of the game’ that allow individual members to share a collective space. The language is “We” with justness at the validity claim in this quadrant.
The Upper Right quadrant is the objective realm of individual and organisational behaviour, with a validity claim of truth, where things can be described by using “It”. The Lower Right quadrant is the inter-objective social realm, the world external to the individual or the organisation. The validity claim here is functional fit, and can be described by using “Its”. Tensions exist between quadrants, such as tensions between individual and organisational or cultural values.
For example, because a particular strategy will work or have a ‘functional fit’ in the Lower Right quadrant, it does not automatically follow that the strategy should be implemented – that decision is influenced by the Lower Left cultural quadrant. There can be real tension here that often gets played out in heated debates among groups and individuals involved in a foresight project, since just because a strategy can be implemented does not mean it should be.
The value of integral futures for organisational futures work is that it demonstrates the need to spend as much time on what is going on ‘out there’ in the external environment and what is happening ‘in here’, in the inner worlds of staff and other stakeholders, by focusing on processes for each quadrant, for example:
- Upper Left: Staff: engaging staff to identify different and often contesting images of the future,
- Lower Left: Organisational culture: processes reflect organisational norms and ways of operating,
- Upper Right: Organisational behaviour: strategy processes are inclusive and transparent, and
- Lower Right: External Environment: scanning broad information sources to inform strategic thinking.
More information about Ken Wilber and his work can be found from his own website or from the website of his publishing company, Shambhala. Wilber is a prolific writer, and is described on the Shambhala website as “perhaps the most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times”. His work is complex and challenging, but worth delving into. Try The Theory of Everything to start with, or Boomeritis. Wilber also recently established the Integral Institute, part of which is Integral Naked, where there is a range of conversations and videos with leading thinkers, and the Integral University which has links with two universities where you can do graduate work in integral theory. My advice: approach Wilber with an open mind as there will probably be something of value for you in his work.
Implementing an Integral Approach
In my work, Wilber’s four quadrants validates the interior workings of people’s minds as valid data – even more so, as data that MUST be gathered from that source if a truly holistic view of a phenomenon is to be achieved, or if robust strategy is to be developed, and perhaps more importantly, implemented. The current focus on data driven decision making has one big flaw – the data used are almost exclusively quantitative, and almost exclusively from the Lower Right. The definition of useful data needs to expand to include data sourced from the Upper Left, so that another current buzz word – ownership – can actually mean something.
Because … it seems odd that, although it is the staff of an organisation who are ultimately responsible for the successful implementation – or undermining – of strategy, their views about the future are generally not sought nor considered in any truly authentic way in strategy development. I’m not talking here about being consulted in a workshop, or being asked for feedback on a draft plan. I am referring to a process that explicitly gathers information from staff about their views of the good and bad futures for the university or organisation at the beginning of a strategy process, so that those views form an input into the thinking of those who ultimately make the decision about strategies to pursue. All the textbooks tell us that unless individual and organisational values are aligned, organisations will struggle with strategy implementation. How can they be aligned if individual values are ignored in strategy development?
Follow Maree Conway