IX Coach

Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES Model, Made Practical

Twelve stages built from three repeating questions, and how to work with the one you are in

What is Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES model of adult development?

The STAGES model, developed by Terri O’Fallon, maps adult development as 12 stages (1.0 to 6.5) generated by three repeating questions: what kind of object you can be aware of (concrete, subtle, or "MetAware"), whether you lean toward an individual or a collective view, and whether your learning is receptive, active, reciprocal, or interpenetrative. It extends Loevinger’s and Cook-Greuter’s sentence-completion research on ego development; one peer-reviewed study (2020) found its scoring closely reproduces Cook-Greuter’s up to the 4.5 Strategist stage, while research on the latest stages is, in its authors’ own words, still in its infancy.

Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES model grew out of the most researched instrument in adult developmental psychology: the sentence completion test that Jane Loevinger built to measure ego development and that Susanne Cook-Greuter and Bill Torbert later extended. Where earlier maps described stages, O’Fallon asked what generates them. Her answer is three questions that repeat at every tier: what objects can this person hold in awareness (concrete things, subtle things like thoughts and feelings, or awareness itself), does the stage lean individual or collective, and is the learning receptive, active ("either/or"), reciprocal ("both/and"), or interpenetrative. The result is 12 stages in three tiers — concrete (1.0 Impulsive to 2.5 Conformist), subtle (3.0 Expert to 4.5 Strategist), and MetAware (5.0 Construct Aware to 6.5 Illumined). In 2020 O’Fallon added a theory of how passing states of consciousness and lasting stages drive each other, including a specific "confusion" each stage has to resolve before the next one opens. The practices below work with that engine. None of them can tell you your stage; only a scored assessment can.

Übungen

Wie diese Übungen zusammenhängen

Every practice on this page works with the same engine O’Fallon proposes: a capacity first appears as a passing state, it meets a stage-specific confusion it cannot yet see, it becomes stable only when it is turned onto that confusion, and the mature view then opens the next state when it is turned back on the self. The three parameters — kind of object, individual or collective lean, and the receptive-to-interpenetrative arc — describe what changes, and the practices give a person ways to notice those parameters in their own life without pretending to measure them.

How do I figure out which STAGES stage I am at without just picking the one that sounds best?

Matching yourself to stage descriptions is unreliable because what a person is subject to is, by definition, hard to see from inside, and the descriptions of later stages tend to read as more flattering. The STAGES research tradition measures stage with a sentence completion test scored by trained raters on how meaning is made rather than what is said, and one peer-reviewed study found STAGES scoring reproduced Cook-Greuter’s established scoring closely up to the 4.5 Strategist stage. Reflective exercises such as sorting your concerns into concrete, subtle and awareness-level objects can be useful for noticing patterns, but they are not a substitute for a scored assessment.

What is the difference between a state and a stage in the STAGES model and why does it matter?

In O’Fallon’s 2020 theory a state is a capacity that comes and goes, such as noticing your own thinking, while a stage is a stable way of making meaning. She proposes that a new state is necessary but not sufficient for the next stage: the state has to be turned onto a specific confusion until it stabilizes, and the mature stage then has to be turned back on the self to trigger the next state. This matters in practice because it explains why insight in a good moment does not by itself change how a person sees on an ordinary day, and why practices that aim a new capacity at a known blind spot are the core of working with the model.

Why do I keep seeing other people’s blind spots so clearly but miss my own?

O’Fallon describes this pattern directly as the confusion of the 4.5 Strategist stage: seeing how others project onto you while not seeing how you project onto them. More generally, the model proposes that each stage first develops a view of others and only later turns that view back on itself. The practical response is to identify the confusion that feels most live, then deliberately reverse the perspective you already hold of others, ideally with someone who knows you well, rather than using a new level of insight mainly on other people.

Is it bad if I go back to an earlier way of thinking when I am stressed?

Not according to how the STAGES research describes development. In retest data from 115 clients about two years apart, half the scores rose, 38% held steady, and about 11% dropped, which the researchers attribute to a mix of scoring noise and real regression under major life stress. Fallback under strain is therefore an expected part of development rather than evidence that growth was never real. The useful response is to attend to the strain itself first, then notice the trigger, rather than trying to force a wider perspective when capacity is low.

How can I practice thinking in both/and terms instead of always picking a side?

The STAGES model describes a learning arc that repeats at every tier: receptive, then active or either/or, then reciprocal or both/and, then interpenetrative, where each side helps define the other. Walking a real tension through all four steps in writing makes the arc concrete and shows where your thinking usually stops. Practicing the individual or collective orientation your stage does not lean toward is a related move, because it adds a perspective you would otherwise skip, which is what both/and thinking needs to work with.

Wie wählst du zwischen ihnen?

If you are curious where you stand, start with a scored assessment rather than any reflective exercise. If a familiar pattern keeps catching you out, find the confusion it matches and aim your newest capacity at it. If you see others clearly and yourself less so, reverse the view. If you keep flip-flopping between two things you value, walk the tension through the four-step arc. And in a stressful stretch, set the growth work aside and meet the fallback first.

Was diese Ansätze offenlassen

STAGES rests on the most researched instrument in adult development, but STAGES itself is young. Its one peer-reviewed validation (2020) was led by the model’s developer, with an affiliated organization; one of its four trained scorers, the one who had learned both the MAP and STAGES methods, was described as the more experienced scorer, and the paper does not say that scorer was the developer; agreement with Cook-Greuter’s scoring was strong up to 4.5 and the latest stages (5.0–6.5) have only preliminary data. In a published 2017 exchange, O’Fallon and colleagues acknowledged that validity had been described before reports were public, that STAGES research is in its infancy, and that it does not validate Wilber’s wider AQAL model; critics Cook-Greuter, Wilber and Sharma raised these points, and both sides acknowledged business interests. The state-stage theory and the stage confusions are the author’s preliminary proposals, and none of the practices here has been tested as an intervention.

Übe das mit IX Coach

Übe das mit IX Coach

Häufige Fragen

What is Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES model of adult development?

The STAGES model, developed by Terri O’Fallon, maps adult development as 12 stages (1.0 to 6.5) generated by three repeating questions: what kind of object you can be aware of (concrete, subtle, or "MetAware"), whether you lean toward an individual or a collective view, and whether your learning is receptive, active, reciprocal, or interpenetrative. It extends Loevinger’s and Cook-Greuter’s sentence-completion research on ego development; one peer-reviewed study (2020) found its scoring closely reproduces Cook-Greuter’s up to the 4.5 Strategist stage, while research on the latest stages is, in its authors’ own words, still in its infancy.

Wie funktioniert „Notice what your attention treats as real objects"?

In the STAGES model the first and most basic parameter is the kind of object a person can hold in awareness: concrete objects (things, bodies, rules), subtle objects (thoughts, feelings, goals, systems, other perspectives), or MetAware objects (awareness itself, constructs as constructs). Each tier repeats the same pattern with a new kind of object. Deliberately sorting what you attend to makes the parameter visible in your own experience instead of leaving it as a diagram.

Wie funktioniert „Find the confusion your stage is working on"?

O’Fallon (2020) proposes that each stage begins with a characteristic confusion the person cannot yet see — for example, at 3.5 confusing a visualized future with the reality the goal will bring, or at 4.5 seeing how others project onto you but not how you project onto them. The confusion resolves only as the person becomes able to see it. Naming candidate confusions gives a person something specific to look for instead of a general aim to "grow".

Wie funktioniert „Shine a new capacity on the old confusion"?

O’Fallon’s third tenet is that a confusion resolves when the "view capacity" of a newly available state is turned toward it. A capacity like metacognition (thinking about your own thinking) first shows up intermittently; aiming it at the specific confusion is what stabilizes it into a lasting way of seeing. The practice deliberately pairs the capacity with the confusion instead of using the capacity on easier material.

Wie funktioniert „Turn your view back on yourself"?

O’Fallon’s fourth tenet is that a mature stage opens the next one when its view is turned back on the self. Her clearest example is the child’s move into a second-person perspective: "I see you see me." The same reversal repeats later — seeing others’ projections and then seeing your own, or seeing others as shaped by context and then seeing yourself as shaped by it.

Wie funktioniert „Practice the orientation your stage is not leaning toward"?

One of the three STAGES questions is whether a stage leans toward an individual or a collective view; the model alternates between them (for example 3.5 Achiever leans individual, 4.0 Pluralist collective, 4.5 Strategist individual-and-collective). The lean shapes which perspectives come easily and which are effortful. Practicing the less-favored orientation widens what a person can take in without claiming to change their stage.

Wie funktioniert „Walk an idea through four ways of holding it"?

O’Fallon describes the third STAGES parameter as a learning arc that repeats at every tier: receptive (taking in one concept at a time), active ("either/or," one idea dominates), reciprocal ("both/and," both matter and relate), and interpenetrative (each side helps define the other). Walking a single idea through all four makes the arc concrete and shows where your thinking usually stops.

Wie funktioniert „Use a scored assessment instead of self-typing"?

Stage descriptions invite people to pick the one that flatters them, and a person cannot see from inside what they are subject to. The sentence completion test asks you to finish open-ended stems ("When people are helpless…") and is scored by trained raters on how meaning is made, not what is said, so it reads structure you cannot easily perform. The STAGES assessment is one version; the MAP and Loevinger’s WUSCT are others in the same lineage.

Wie funktioniert „Expect fallback and meet it without judgment"?

Development in this research is not a one-way escalator. In STAGES retest data reported by Murray and O’Fallon (2020), most scores rose or held steady, but about one in nine dropped — which the authors attribute to a mix of scoring noise and real regressions under major life stress. Expecting this keeps a stressful week from becoming evidence that growth was never real.

How do I figure out which STAGES stage I am at without just picking the one that sounds best?

Matching yourself to stage descriptions is unreliable because what a person is subject to is, by definition, hard to see from inside, and the descriptions of later stages tend to read as more flattering. The STAGES research tradition measures stage with a sentence completion test scored by trained raters on how meaning is made rather than what is said, and one peer-reviewed study found STAGES scoring reproduced Cook-Greuter’s established scoring closely up to the 4.5 Strategist stage. Reflective exercises such as sorting your concerns into concrete, subtle and awareness-level objects can be useful for noticing patterns, but they are not a substitute for a scored assessment.

What is the difference between a state and a stage in the STAGES model and why does it matter?

In O’Fallon’s 2020 theory a state is a capacity that comes and goes, such as noticing your own thinking, while a stage is a stable way of making meaning. She proposes that a new state is necessary but not sufficient for the next stage: the state has to be turned onto a specific confusion until it stabilizes, and the mature stage then has to be turned back on the self to trigger the next state. This matters in practice because it explains why insight in a good moment does not by itself change how a person sees on an ordinary day, and why practices that aim a new capacity at a known blind spot are the core of working with the model.

Why do I keep seeing other people’s blind spots so clearly but miss my own?

O’Fallon describes this pattern directly as the confusion of the 4.5 Strategist stage: seeing how others project onto you while not seeing how you project onto them. More generally, the model proposes that each stage first develops a view of others and only later turns that view back on itself. The practical response is to identify the confusion that feels most live, then deliberately reverse the perspective you already hold of others, ideally with someone who knows you well, rather than using a new level of insight mainly on other people.

Is it bad if I go back to an earlier way of thinking when I am stressed?

Not according to how the STAGES research describes development. In retest data from 115 clients about two years apart, half the scores rose, 38% held steady, and about 11% dropped, which the researchers attribute to a mix of scoring noise and real regression under major life stress. Fallback under strain is therefore an expected part of development rather than evidence that growth was never real. The useful response is to attend to the strain itself first, then notice the trigger, rather than trying to force a wider perspective when capacity is low.

How can I practice thinking in both/and terms instead of always picking a side?

The STAGES model describes a learning arc that repeats at every tier: receptive, then active or either/or, then reciprocal or both/and, then interpenetrative, where each side helps define the other. Walking a real tension through all four steps in writing makes the arc concrete and shows where your thinking usually stops. Practicing the individual or collective orientation your stage does not lean toward is a related move, because it adds a perspective you would otherwise skip, which is what both/and thinking needs to work with.

Forschung

Verwandte Konzepte