Get a scored profile instead of self-typing
If you want an estimate of your action logic, take a sentence-completion profile scored by trained raters — and write down your own guess first.
Why it works
Descriptions of later action logics read as more admirable, so self-typing drifts toward flattery, and a person cannot easily see the frame they are looking through. The Leadership Development Profile asks you to complete 36 open sentence stems ("A good boss…"), and Torbert’s later Global Leadership Profile builds on it; trained raters score the completions on how meaning is made rather than on what is said. Writing your own estimate before you see the score turns the gap between the two into something to inquire into.
How to do it
- Be clear why you want the result: understanding and development, not proving a level or sorting other people.
- Write down which action logic you think you lead from most of the time, and why.
- Take a scored sentence-completion profile in this lineage (the Global Leadership Profile is the current Torbert version) from a certified provider.
- Debrief the score with a trained person, comparing it with your estimate, and treat any gap as a question rather than a verdict.
Evidence
Torbert and Livne-Tarandach (2009) report a Cronbach’s alpha of .906 across 891 Harthill profiles scored 2005–2008, and .961 agreement between two raters across 805 profiles — though in that test the second, more experienced rater reviewed the first rater’s scores rather than scoring blind. In the ten-CEO study, seven of ten CEOs had estimated themselves at the action logic the profile found (Torbert, 2013). A 2009 review by Stein and Heikkinen found no peer-reviewed validity or reliability studies of the LDP and classed sentence-completion measures in use at the time as soft measures suited to research rather than to assessing individuals. (observational)
The reliability studies were run by the people who score and sell the profile (Torbert was Harthill’s Director of Research in 2009), and an independent 2009 review disputed how well the measure had been validated. Treat a score as one informed estimate, not a fact about you.
Sources
- Torbert, W. R., & Livne-Tarandach, R. (2009). Reliability and Validity Tests of the Harthill Leadership Development Profile in the Context of Developmental Action Inquiry Theory, Practice and Method. Integral Review, 5(2), 133–151.
- Stein, Z., & Heikkinen, K. (2009). Models, Metrics, and Measurement in Developmental Psychology. Integral Review, 5(1), 4–24.
- Torbert, W. R. (2013). Listening into the Dark: An Essay Testing the Validity and Efficacy of Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry for Describing and Encouraging Transformations of Self, Society, and Scientific Inquiry. Integral Review, 9(2), 264–299.
Common mistake
Treating the score as a rank of worth or a fixed identity. The profile estimates a center of gravity on one occasion; it says nothing about your value and can change.
Practice this with IX Coach
More practices for Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
- Spot your default action logic under pressure
Notice how you reliably respond when your authority or safety at work is challenged, and compare it with the seven descriptions.
- Review a decision through three loops of feedback
After a decision plays out, ask in turn whether the action was right, whether the strategy was right, and what your attention was doing.
- Ask colleagues for feedback on your frame, not just your results
Invite people you work with to tell you how you tend to see situations, not only how well you performed.
- Try out the next action logic in a real, lower-stakes role
Take on a real responsibility that demands the next logic’s moves, with regular reflection alongside it.
- Use all four parts of speech in hard conversations
In a difficult conversation, check that you are framing, advocating, illustrating and inquiring — not just advocating.
- Match an organizational change to the action logics leading it
Before leading a deep organizational change, look honestly at whether the people leading it can question their own frame — and bring in someone who can.
- Name each action logic’s strength before its limit
When you see a colleague’s action logic, start with what it does well, so the map informs collaboration instead of ranking people.
Related concepts
- Kegan’s Subject-Object Theory, Made Practical
Moving from being run by your assumptions to being able to examine them
- 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
- Adaptive Leadership, Made Practical
Distinguishing adaptive challenges from technical problems — and leading accordingly
- Spiral Dynamics, Made Practical
Understanding how value systems develop and how to navigate across them
Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0: cite or embed this practice · more practices graded Observational studies