In the past week, I updated my Twitter to be more focused on this project and created a specific list for people who I found to be talking about topics that were about, or related, to the wellbeing & development space.

My initial observation - and when looking at past content from Vervaeke, Stein, Görtz, etc. - is that the entire space is a bit too intellectual. I don’t mean that to sound elitist; the conversations are very meaningful and have helped me to understand a lot more about development theory and wellbeing than I did before.

However, at the end of the day, I’m a builder. I’ll talk about how to do something but I have an urge to make an impact. For my sports fans, I found many of these conversations to be like discussing your team in pre-season. They’re helpful and there’s lot of hypotheticals, but I don’t see anything impacting the actual gameplay, or in real terms, how people are living their lives.

(There is a rabbit hole to this analogy - that the players (people) are benefitting from different training regimes and how to view the season - ontology - and how the ‘game’ should be played, etc.)

So, in light of that, I opted to have several discussions, while continuing my survey promotion and qualitative interviews, to build a more practical understanding of how elements of development theory could be applied in the real world.

For a recap of Research (and an attempt to make this somewhat more skimmable):

• Individuals need to be ‘in development’ to see how it impacts their capabilities and what they can learn

• Transformations are required for individuals to have new ways of viewing things, and therefore, new information

• Community is a key aspect of development, because individuals develop in relation to their environment (and vice-versa), and can’t be taken for granted at their current stage of development

• Systems for education are fraught with problems connected to human capital theory, where either counselling or science (medication) is seen as ways to ‘remedy’ someone who isn’t conforming to core standards.

  • The former is inefficient (not scalable) and the latter is outright problematic is what it primes individuals to do and how they see themselves

Practical models for development (Research)

The first conversation I’ll speak to is one with Andy Fleming and Tom Coker of The Development Edge (TDE). If you recall in my first post, I spoke about Kegan Levels as one measurement tool for development. In a related podcast, Dr. Kegan mentioned that TDE was a project he was working on to bring development theory to the workplace, including a tool that leaders could use to understand where their organization sat on the scale.

While I have noticed that many of the academics in the space (Bateson, Görtz) were critical of Dr. Kegan, I thought it was intriguing that he had found a way to test and apply his theory in a value-add environment. One of my core hypotheses was that wellbeing and dissatisfaction stems from work - if you don’t feel like you are accomplishing your intrinsic goals through your work, you likely won’t bring your most creative self (highest output) and there’s a good chance you will leave for 1) Better pay and/or 2) A job that better aligns with your personal goals.

I’ve matched 70+ marketers with startups via my marketplace, Divisional, and this is something that I preach to founders in the interview process. 2-3 years ago, when the venture capital (VC) environment was hot, I saw many startups paying 2x market value for good hires - an offer they couldn’t refuse.

I noticed that when things cooled down, those same startups had to cut budgets leaving those marketers feeling unfulfilled. They also couldn’t offer them the same accelerated pay scale or promotion tracks that they were able to before. Many of these marketers left and took time to reflect on their next move, or turned into B Players (did what was expected, nothing more) while they looked at other options (I won’t say Divisional, but IYKYK).

While my conversation with Andy & Tom was short, they did agree that this was a big problem in the workspace. Namely, Andy mentioned that this was very relevant for Gen Z / Gen Alpha, where employees wanted to have purpose in their job and feel alignment with their interests, VS punching a clock and ‘doing their time’ in their 20s and 30s.

TDE brought an interesting angle to development theory: Development Intelligence (DI). Compared to IQ or EQ, this reflected one’s capability to develop new capabilities. In short, one’s ability to adapt to new situations and grow with the organization. This higher level of commitment and creativity is associated with higher stages of development (i.e. Stage 4-5), according to TDE.

Although the implementation and impact can be debated, the concept of their Developmental Sprint stood out. See below:

The idea that being ‘in development’ reveals new ways of thinking and new capabilities is not an uncommon idea in the space, as I found similar commentary - albeit much more philosophical - in a podcast with Zak Stein, John Vervaeke, and Gregg Henriques. Despite a lot of their discourse being focused on the shortcomings of psychology & an overly normative / scientific approach to how humans function, I found an interesting parallel in their view surrounding new skill development.

They first referenced Helen Keller, mentioning how when a teacher was finally able to convey the concept of ‘water’ to her (despite her being both deaf & blind), she had an immediate reaction that showed she was viewing the world in a very different way. Put differently, she saw new possibilities that she couldn’t have realized before, given her newfound understanding what water was (1:06:30).

In the final quarter of the podcast, the idea of “transformation leading to new truths” was a consensus and really challenged how scientists have viewed the world, inclusive of human development. There are realities that you can’t understand purely by inferring and using logic.

My interpretation of this is the following: while human brains and capacities have remained consistent over the past 10,000 years (what we deemed as valuable, i.e. math/science faculties, changed, while spirituality & collective good diminished), the state of humans today is not ‘presumptively mature’. This means that human development did not happen in a vacuum, and we evolved in relation to our environment. See the cognitive maturity fallacy (Stein) for a better summary of this.

Why is this novel? With relation to my understanding of development theory, the individual doesn’t develop against a static scale (Levels 1-5); their development and ability to operate at that level is connected to their environment and other objects that they interact with. In other words, both cultures and people develop in relation to each other, not in isolation.

Odessa Health and the Shamiri Institute

This post is already getting quite long, but I feel that I’m doing a disservice if I don’t speak to another practical application of development theory that builds on what I mentioned above. I recently caught up with Kishore, a high school friend of mine who works at Odessa Health. We nerded out on social impact & development for over an hour, particularly because I see Odessa Health as actually putting into practice parts of development theory (my words, not theirs!).

One of their projects is to train and deploy high school students in their local communities as Community Health Workers (CHWs). The students - who are paid - are taught to take blood pressure and other monitoring skills, analyze data, and help their community to better understand the risk of hypertension and other conditions that lead to a premature death.

While the work itself is very commendable, I took particular interest in how Kishore & co. view development. From his work deploying STEM curriculums in rural India, along with his Master’s in Education focus at Harvard, Kishore found a new conviction:

This connects back to the ‘switching between levels of development’ concept from Stein. If a child is dealing with issues at home, is emotionally distressed, etc., they won’t be able to succeed with even the best curriculum and teachers.

Kishore also spoke to the importance of community in a child’s development. A big part of his work at Odessa Health is to help the students understand the role of their community in their identity, as it has constraints on what they can achieve and what they experience.

One example in the US is redlining. Due to how neighbourhoods were divided in the 1930s, where Black neighbourhoods were seen a high-risk loans, the ensuing impacts were shocking. Despite a 2-mile difference in two Boston surburbs, there is:

• A 36-year difference in life expectancy

• A much higher concentration of health risks like hypertension

• A significant gap in income (poverty)

Sure, you can discount the conditions of one’s environment and focus on the individual themselves. But that means that a lot of individuals will see their community as a hindrance, not an asset, and see disparaging comments on them as a negative reflection on their community. Kishore contrasted this to India, where kids would internalize comments about their potential “you can only be a janitor or house cleaner” due to the caste they were from.

As a final thought, I’ve noticed an agreement - from both Stein & Kishore - that the default system for education needs to be replaced with a better model. While I have yet to read it, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded speaks to how the non-profit model is NOT conductive to creating systemic change. Kids who need support have to wait 6+ months to see a therapist and/or are deemed are ‘deficient’ and medicated (i.e. ADHD) to have them meet the required standards.

For Odessa Health, CHWs are one solution to this, where community members can provided other avenues for support and build on existing bonds, opposed to an organization coming in with ‘solutions’ and a saviour complex. The Shamiri Institute has done this in Kenya for thousands of students, with the model that a peer leader (another student) could be trained to do check-ins, flag issues to their superiors, and escalate to the clinical level (i.e. psychologist) when needed. This is especially important in a place like Kenya, where there is 1 mental health professional for every 1 million Kenyans.

What’s wrong with our mental models (Think)

I already overlapped with Think in the section above, so I’ll try to keep this brief and focus on new / related thoughts that are more a result of my own critical thinking - and application to WhileBeing - than the research itself.

The Meaning Crisis

I haven’t watched all of Vervaeke’s series on YouTube (although I’ve seen a few episodes, good to check out), so I don’t intend for the naming of this section to be confused with his work, although it may be informed by it.

One thought that stands out from the Research section is the idea that individuals and communities develop in a symbiotic relationship. With that knowledge, we need to build education systems and methods of learning - both for youths and adolescents - that is reflective of their environments.

In looking at my life in 2024, it’s clear that I don’t have the same obvious struggles that my great-grandfather or other ancestors did. For example, someone work in 1900 would likely be enlisted in WWI and then WWII in their lifetime, whereas many in the late 1700s and 1800s in both USA and Europe would be involved in revolutions and the early makings of “how do we build a good society”.

These were life-or-death questions which meant that the mindset that individuals had in that time must have been very different from today. We have crises too, but they look very different; i.e. Gaza, where they don’t (for the moment) materially endangering our wellbeing. COVID is the most recent crisis that had a material impact, but I would say there was a general feeling of “this won’t be the end of the world”. Contrast this to major wars and revolutions, where the mentality was “win or die fighting”.

Given that our education system was so deeply shaped by the 1900s, I think it’s important to investigate how we dealt with that transition period VS where we are today. I.e. people in the 1950s onwards had predictable jobs and retirements by succeeding in corporate America. They could afford houses and their paths were linear; few felt the need to venture into other areas to make income and sense of the world - along with their role in it.

Combine that with the lack of information flow (no internet) and those living in a community where they were ‘happy’ meant that there was little questioning their reality and fewer moments of “what else”. This didn’t mean that the reality was better, far from it — women who were educated in the city often returned home in shock at how their community was run, giving rise to feminism and other movements that led to a more equal world.

My understanding is that the difference is that this was a revolt against an oppressive system, not an act to try and succeed within it by choosing an alternative path. Fast forward to 2024, jobs are insecure and outsourcing is a risk to many knowledge professions. People need to reskill and upskill to keep up, pursuing greater income to afford goods (i.e. house, education, etc.) that were previously taken as givens.

From my initial survey responses & interviews, the response to this crisis is to be an entrepreneur and have ‘freedom’. If you can be on the cutting edge of what’s next, then you can get in front of changes (i.e. AI) instead of being affected by it. I’ve noticed this mentality especially strong in folks who were laid off since 2020, and don’t want that feeling of helplessness again.

Very few seem to be questioning the model and goals itself. Whether they were happy in their past job, and more importantly, whether having control over their income (and/or greater income) will lead to better life outcomes.

I won’t go into depth on what this means or my predictions, but the Build section (below) gives you an idea of how I want to validate it!

Theoretical problem buildout (Build)

I mentioned in the intro that I’m starting to get closer to ‘building’ as I understand more about development theory and practical applications of it. I’m still conducting more interviews (3 this week) and my survey will likely remain open until Friday, Feb 23.

I’m also travelling from Feb 23 to Mar 11 through Europe, so I’m hoping to have more conversations with folks in a different cultural setting, along with (hopefully) some academic conversions as well.

In this section, I’m going to go through a thought exercise to give you an idea of what I’m hoping to build as an outcome from this project, if (some of) my hypotheses are validated:

Hypotheses / Setup

A) Assume that we can conclude that a meaningful portion of individuals:

• 1) Believe that greater income is tied to improved happiness - whether for them or a greater purpose (kids, family, etc.)

• 2) Believe that entrepreneurship is the clearest path to making income where they have control & freedom

B) We can also conclude that:

• 1) Discretionary income is useful in being able to pursue resources that help us accomplish our non-material goals (i.e. therapist, personal trainer, quitting job you don’t like, etc.)

• 2) Entrepreneurship gives you the most control over how you make your income and is the clearest embodiment of “make money while not actively working”

• 3) Entrepreneurship can take various forms (investment, property, etc.), as long as you have autonomy over when/how you make money and the ability to gain leverage on your tasks (by outsourcing, offloading, etc.)

  • The latter might be the core difference between freelancing and building an agency / consulting. Simply selling your time ≠ entrepreneurship, it’s more akin to gig work / labour.

  • Contrast an Uber driver to someone who runs a fleet on Turo. In the latter, they may not actually own the cars (possible that they are leased, or infrastructure where they enable car owners to tap into new demand without the headache, i.e. property management)

C) This yields the assumption that:

• 1) If these individuals were to do an entrepreneurial venture that made income and gave them autonomy / freedom, they would have a direct path to testing A2

• 2) If A2 is validated (they have control and freedom), then they would also need to test A1 (whether this makes them happier, and to what extent)

Note: I would need to conduct a before/after survey and focus group to get the level of feedback (on the program & outcomes) needed to demonstrate that the curriculum is indeed effective. See here for a study from the Morehouse School of Medicine on CHWs that reflects how I might act on this.

Goals

If I create a program that enables individuals to build a second income stream, likely around entrepreneurship, as the entry point to discovering more about their wellbeing and what leads to happiness, then I would need the following goals on the program to properly establish this:

Goal 1: Set a baseline for participants on how they view happiness, control, and freedom in relation to both income and entrepreneurship

Goal 2: Set objective outcomes from the program to get buy-in → “you will make income”, “you will get training on XYZ”, etc.

I found the Morehouse CHW project to be a good parallel here - course participants could do a ‘project’ as the outcome that necessitates using their skillsets to make income, thus accomplishing Goal #2 while tapping into peer support & social contract (avoid dropout / incompletion)

In this course, I could establish the core competencies as:

• Upskilling in a target area (likely services)

• Creating a profitable business model & niche

• Launching a growth strategy

• Building leverage into your work

• Introducing reporting + check-ins

Goal 3: Create some sort of mechanism to ensure that the individuals commit to completing the program.

The promise of income generation could be a part of this; unlike the CHW model, this would be an open loop system as it stands. I.e. the individual creates a business that gives $0 back to the program, so they are getting free training with no obligation.

There might be a way to innovate on this, in a sort of franchising model. I.e. individual gets free training and is accountable to their peers, similar to how a government might give free education to someone who serves in the army. For a less extreme example (and one related to my work), I would look at the accelerator model where participants get $25-100k in investment in exchange for 2-7.5% of their company.

I have also been intrigued by Income Share Agreements, where individuals only commit to paying once they have the funds to do so. I.e. program is free but costs $500 (monthly payments) when you make your first $2k. I am particularly a fan of models that keep the individual engaged, i.e. pay $X or be a mentor after the program concludes (if you made $$). More on this in my next post!

Aside from financial incentives, I’m also a fan of social contracts. I.e. if we did a launch party for participants and made it public + part of their identity, along with baking in the ‘build in public’ mantra (post updates, ask for help, etc.), then it would be harder to leave due to disinterest.

Example output: Course participant runs a proofreading business that gets 5 customers at $100/wk ($2k/mo) at ~ 15 hours / wk ($35hr). They hire a VA for 20 hours / wk at $7hr to follow a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with an AI Tool to do 70% of the work, and a reporting system so they can review & approve the work in a timely fashion. Participant spends 18 hours / mo and makes $1,440/mo.

How you can help

I am still collecting responses for my survey until Friday, and I’m looking for 2-3 more interviews (30-45 mins) to validate my hypotheses. These will be completely anonymous and I’ll send you a coffee card as a thank you! I’m particularly interested in the following groups:

• Individuals working blue collar jobs

• Female participants

• Parents

• Recent immigrants

In other news, my inability to be concise have led to this post being > 3,500 words. But, I promised nothing in the intro, so no regrets 🙃