Bienvenue à la 3rd week of WhileBeing! I’m going to France soon so naturally I need to brush up 🇫🇷 🥖

For all my stat nerds, I went from 4,203 words in my 1st post to 2,358 words in my 2nd post. While I was impressed at this 44% decrease, apparently it was still too long! Given that it’s consistently 11pm+ when I start writing, you have my word that this will be a more consumable.

No one likes to analyze development (Learn)

When I first came across Kegan Levels and theories of development, I was immediately impressed. Instead of looking at material wealth and other commonplace metrics, we FINALLY had a system that would allow us to better measure where people stood on the development curve.

Despite confirming in my last post that one stage isn’t ‘better’ than the other, even the concept that there are stages that can be objectively measured is a hotly contested topic.

For one example, see this debate between Daniel Görtz and Nora Bateson, the former being an advocate for development theory and the latter being against it. Although I scoffed at a lot of Nora’s initial points, as I found that she was too focused on the interpretation that lower stages means that you’re inherently worse of a person (~ 32:00), I started to understand why this isn’t as straightforward as some would like to believe.

In her research, Nora found that the way in which we learn and make connections is completely unpredictable (~ 1:00:00). Nora references a person who has overdue books and after going through an unrelated exercise, notices the books and realizes that they want to return them. The primary driver is because they don’t want to be the type of person who doesn’t return books. Nora emphasizes that it’s the interrelationships that are crucial aspects of how we learn and operate, and to reduce it to predetermined ideas (via a stage) is inefficient (43:30).

If you want to get really confused, a podcast with Zak Stein (from the same channel) tries to unpack why there are so many misconceptions about stage theory. In short, it’s because stages are highly contextual, meaning that you aren’t at Stage 4, for example, 24/7. Instead, you might be at different stages at different points of your day, based on the context that you are put in .

Stein cites two types of developmental stages: micro stages (short period of time, with context) and macro stages (which build on predecessors) (17:00). Think about the example of tying your shoe; each step (grabbing shoelaces, making a bow, etc.) can be seen as micro processes. Together, the end result of “shoes tied” is a macro stage which necessitates knowing all the prior stages (building on them).

Context, and the ability to switch between levels, is where it gets complex. I.e. a 6 year-old might know how to tie their shoes, and knows the various steps to do it, but if they are flustered due to being late for school and missing breakfast, they may not be able to do it (14:00). Likewise, an adult may operate at different stages when tying their shoe, after fighting with their spouse, etc.

There are also types of knowledge… I.e. knowing how to fix a car theoretically but lacking the kinetic knowledge (i.e. how much pressure to use on a screw) may make it difficult (27:45). Stein tends to focus more on the how people learn - which includes teacherly authority, capacity asymmetries, and learning processes. He argues that regardless of stages, this is something that you can compare across cultures and demographics and is far more useful. In looking at all of this, I found a helpful comparison to the idea of ‘orientations’ or predispositions in my last post, although even that is a different concept.

I’ll also add (before we formally enter the ‘Think’ section) that I’m not particularly interested in the rabbit hole of development theory and how to assess it. I think there are insights from this work that can be helpful when building programs, as it forces me to ask questions about the ‘edges’ (as Nora puts it) of where my guiding theory can be applied and whose reality may look different than it appears. In short, I see it this way:

• Our society, dependent on human capital theory, is maybe 4/10 on wellbeing

• If we start to look at theories of development, and factor in other components beyond material wealth + basic needs, we could get to 6/10 or 7/10

  • There are practical ways / programs to get here, and the markers (while still insufficient) are objective enough to get mass buy-in and thus the approval of public funds, (small) systemic change, etc.

• The argument for a holistic look at development and incorporates ‘soft data’, including interrelationships and specific contexts, is what will get us to 8/10 or 9/10 for wellbeing

  • I don’t think this is practical or something we can accomplish in the near future. Maybe this is reflective of my own capitalist worldview and naivety — but I don’t think I’ll even fill the ‘Build’ section if I embrace needing a full solution that works for everyone, in all cases, VS trying to make an impact now.

  • (A key part to this will be constantly asking the question “who isn’t benefitting from this”. Because, as Nora mentions, if you blindly follow a theory without asking those questions, you get to dictatorships, genocide, etc., as it means some opinions matter more than others 😬)

How important is context? (Think)

When looking at wellbeing and learning about all the ways that it is assessed from both a cognitive and emotional angle, I tend to reflect a lot on the socio-cultural parameters that I operate in, as a young working professional - born and raised in Canada.

As an example, in our current society, we optimize for material wealth as a marker for the ability to meet our basic needs and accomplish (buy) anything we need to fulfill our ancillary needs. How ‘well’ someone is doing looks at this in isolation - discounting their relationships, health, sense of purpose, etc. Perhaps the capitalist perspective is that they have the money to fix it, so why don’t they?

Let’s look at that from a macro perspective. Beyond material wealth, I could say that the goal of being a ‘good citizen’ is to be productive and contribute to society. For Western individuals like myself, if I am accomplishing this (read: meeting my basic needs & paying taxes), then how do I impose limitations on what I can do next? Put differently, if I exist in a safe / stable environment, then what is stopping me from doing whatever brings me pleasure & satisfaction?

My thinking is that, with these societal constraints, I end up using the inputs that are most familiar to me (education I have, job I hold, other demographics) to dictate what I can or can’t do. I.e. if I make $100k as an accountant, my ability to pursue a passion for art is stifled by my job (misaligned), and I point to financial freedom (capital) to be freed from that job and/or be able to carve sufficient time for my passion.

In a related example, I think about wanting to address the poverty situation in my city. My ability to do so is dictated by my income (“how much can I give to solve this problem”), my education (“do I have the degrees / public credibility to solve this problem”), and my social status (“do I want to be known as someone who over indexes on solving poverty”). I wrote about how these constraints are a limitation in the Jim / career progression example via post #1.

Contrast this to a different society; if enough people operate with a collectivist worldview and see themselves less as parts of groups (Stage 3) and more as self-authoring individuals (Stage 4), then I believe there would be less scrutiny and constraints on what one can accomplish. I.e. people would feel connected to their purpose, have the ability to dictate that for themselves, and be guided by the overarching goal of “bettering their fellow man”.

In short; I think a lot more attention needs to be given to “what defines development” and factors in the concept of wellbeing (i.e. cross-functional needs - health, relationships, self regulation) instead of the narrow view of material wealth and the ability to move upwards in society, via some of the predetermined constraints (money, education, job status).

64 survey responses later (Build)

Despite only sharing my survey with a handful of folks and a Facebook status, I managed to get 64 survey responses in a little over a week! This was both thrilling and also very concerning, as I had a feeling a decent portion of these were bots (fake).

However, after filtering it down, I managed to land around 41 reasonable responses and pulled some solid insights. In case you’re wondering, I have yet to schedule any qualitative interviews, although I’m optimistic I can knock a couple of them down later this week / next.

Onto the survey results, and surprising (and less so) observations!

On work

• 93% of respondents go in-office at least once a week

  • 49% go 5 days a week, skewing highest for low income (<$56k/yr) at 58%

• The average respondent has been in their current career path for 3-6 years (73%)

  • Despite this, 59% had made a career switch in the past, with it being more likely for those aged 34-65+ (73%) than younger (53%)

  • There was little correlation in the reasons for the switch - although poor pay, irregular hours, and lack of advancement were some examples

• ~ 56% had multiple income sources, with a high degree of variability

  • 73-78% of respondents had the majority of their income via their day job, with other sources (part-time job, rental income, investments) being between 1-30% of their total income

  • Entrepreneurship was the anomaly; 38% of those running ventures cited it as 31%+ of their total income

    • This was more popular for younger individuals (43% for <33 years old), compared to older (25%)

• The motivators behind getting another income source varied, although a lot of people (28%) correlated more money with a “better life”

On entrepreneurship & part-time work

• To my surprise, ~ 70% of respondents had tried something entrepreneurial

  • E-Commerce businesses were the bulk of this (41%)

• To those who hadn’t, time (66%) was the biggest barrier, followed by access to capital (58%)

  • Only 16% said it was due to not having an idea to work on

• There is a high degree of interest in entrepreneurship, on a 1-7 scale

  • 68% scored between 5 and 7

  • 44% scored between 6 and 7

• Similar to entrepreneurship, 70% of respondents had tried working part-time

  • There were no major trends here; 20% did gig economy (i.e. Uber) while 27% did blue collar work (i.e. restaurant, store employee

• Those who didn’t try part-time work were largely due to lack of energy (75%)

• A smaller portion were interested in part-time work, from a 1-7 scale

  • 54% scored 5+, only 30% scored 6-7

On Kegan Levels (Stages of Development) + Maslow’s Needs

• I already knew that this wouldn’t be a good determinant of development, as both Kegan & Maslow conducted research largely via live interviews (not surveys)

  • As an example, between 34-59% of respondents scored Level 4-5, which was a lot higher than expected

• There were some interesting takeaways when looking at Maslow’s needs

  • For those aged 34-40 years old, only 29% were meeting their relationship needs (friends & supports system)

  • 83% are in good health

  • The minority (34%) were not concerned about their present/future financial wellbeing

    • This skewed highest for younger individuals (33%) that were <33 years old

On habits & products

• There is a high degree of skepticism towards products that help your physical health (personal trainer, dietician, etc.)

  • 39% of respondents knew of solutions but didn’t think they were worth pursuing

• There is a higher degree of skepticism about skill development products (i.e. to get better at your job) with the younger generation

  • <33 years old were 27% skeptics, compared to 19% overall

• While the majority of respondents felt like they knew what “thriving” looked like (61%), only 32% felt confident getting there

How this impacts building (coming week + asks)

I’m going to prioritize getting the survey to at least 10-20 more people who I know are legit, and start my qualitative interviews. From the initial results, I want to better understand:

• How people view entrepreneurship in relation to their day job / career

• Why there is a skepticism around part-time work

  • I.e. would they have energy for their own business, but not working for someone else?

• What are the major concerns driving a fear about financial security

• In what cases are relationships under-indexed on / not meeting needs

• What is driving the concern on not being able to ‘thrive’, despite knowing what it is

How you can help

• Please fill out my survey (takes 10 mins) for a chance to win a $100 Amazon gift card!

  • You can flag your interest in doing a qualitative interview as well - coffee cards will be provided!

P.S: At 2,205 words, I have broken my word that this would be shorter. Please file all complaints to Clippy!