Kegan's Five Stages Of Development Theory Analysis
Midterm Paper
In chapter one of Interpersonal Conflicts, Hocker and Wilmot propose that our childhood socialization impacts how people deal with conflicts. I found it valid the “our family of origin socializes us into constructive or destructive ways of handling conflict…” (Hocker & Wilmot, 2014, p. 3). My conflict style along with my self-examination through “Kegan’s Five Stages of Development” significantly characterize my conflict pattern. These two methods of identifying the origins of my conflict pattern along with White and Winslade’s ideas of externalizing the narrative significantly impact my pattern of rational thinking accompanied my irrational action.
Hocker and Wilmot (2014) describe in great detail the effects of destructive …show more content…
In order to fully grasp how the five stages vary, one should explore the idea of subject versus object. Pruyn (2010) began his explanation of the constructive development theory (CDT) through the subject/object relationship. The subjective human relies on the emotions and reactions of others to formulate an opinion and eventually an action (Pruyn, 2010). Only the objective human is not impacted by the actions of others (Pruyn, 2010). With this in mind, Kegan’s Five Stages of Development become more distinct. For the sake of my personal conflict pattern, I will primarily focus on the third and fourth orders of …show more content…
I “…have created a self that exists even outside of its [my] relationship to others” (“A Change Theory”). In the third order, my subjectivity to other’s opinions affected my rationale in engaging in a conflict. Now, as I am more conscious of myself and my moral aspirations, my number of irrational actions have decreased. Compromising and integrating, traits of the 4th order of mind, involve creating “a power balance to achieve temporary or expedient settlement sin time-pressured situations” or “being able to formulate a collaborative solution that will either satisfy both parties” (Hocker, 2014). This coincides with the self-authoring mind being “able to take a step back from its environment and hold it as object, regarding his or her culture critically” (Pruyn,
In chapter one of Interpersonal Conflicts, Hocker and Wilmot propose that our childhood socialization impacts how people deal with conflicts. I found it valid the “our family of origin socializes us into constructive or destructive ways of handling conflict…” (Hocker & Wilmot, 2014, p. 3). My conflict style along with my self-examination through “Kegan’s Five Stages of Development” significantly characterize my conflict pattern. These two methods of identifying the origins of my conflict pattern along with White and Winslade’s ideas of externalizing the narrative significantly impact my pattern of rational thinking accompanied my irrational action.
Hocker and Wilmot (2014) describe in great detail the effects of destructive …show more content…
In order to fully grasp how the five stages vary, one should explore the idea of subject versus object. Pruyn (2010) began his explanation of the constructive development theory (CDT) through the subject/object relationship. The subjective human relies on the emotions and reactions of others to formulate an opinion and eventually an action (Pruyn, 2010). Only the objective human is not impacted by the actions of others (Pruyn, 2010). With this in mind, Kegan’s Five Stages of Development become more distinct. For the sake of my personal conflict pattern, I will primarily focus on the third and fourth orders of …show more content…
I “…have created a self that exists even outside of its [my] relationship to others” (“A Change Theory”). In the third order, my subjectivity to other’s opinions affected my rationale in engaging in a conflict. Now, as I am more conscious of myself and my moral aspirations, my number of irrational actions have decreased. Compromising and integrating, traits of the 4th order of mind, involve creating “a power balance to achieve temporary or expedient settlement sin time-pressured situations” or “being able to formulate a collaborative solution that will either satisfy both parties” (Hocker, 2014). This coincides with the self-authoring mind being “able to take a step back from its environment and hold it as object, regarding his or her culture critically” (Pruyn,