Recently, I've been trying to create a tool and have been carrying a persistent sense of discomfort. It's something like "a diagnostic tool to measure reflective capacity." Technically, it's feasible. The design has come together.

But should I really build it? — This question has grown heavier as I've progressed with development.

The Fear of "Seeing" Someone's Stage

When designing a diagnostic tool, there comes a point when you realize something.

"This person is probably at around this stage."

If you've studied adult development theory, you'll understand. The way they use metacognition, how they hold boundaries between self and others, whether they can recognize "this is just my perspective" — looking at these "traces of thinking," you can roughly estimate what stage someone is at.

This is fine when it's just knowledge you possess.

But when you implement it as a tool and present it as a result, that's a different story.

What Adult Development Theory Warns Against

Adult development theory has clear ethical principles.

Developmental stages are not something to be pulled up from outside.

People naturally transition to the next stage when their current way of understanding the world can no longer support them. This only happens when the person is ready.

Therefore, telling someone through a diagnostic "you are at stage X," or worse, guiding them to "aim for the next stage," risks forcing the presentation of a stage they're not ready for.

This can be overstepping, even with good intentions.

The Existence of Formal Assessment

Adult development theory has a formal measurement method called the Subject-Object Interview (SOI).

This is a semi-structured interview conducted by specialists over 60-90 minutes. The interview is recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by trained experts over about 8 hours. It carefully examines the "form" and "structure" rather than the "content" of the narrative, and requires specialized training (about 1 year to master). It costs over $1,000.

As Kegan himself stated, "If you're going to use it for coaching, you need more than just a number. You need to know how that number lives within that person," measuring developmental stages is something that should be handled with such care.

Turning this into a casual diagnostic tool — at this point, it may already be fraught with danger.

In fact, cases have been pointed out where adult development theory is misused as a tool to rank people, saying things like "You're at stage X, so you're like this."

Comparison with Wealth Dynamics

I was reminded of Wealth Dynamics' Spectrum assessment.

In a way, I think it's a diagnostic that indirectly deals with stages of adult development. However, it doesn't use the word "development," but translates it into "roles" and "value creation styles." Moreover, it limits the context to "business."

So the recipient can understand it not as "hierarchy as human beings" but as "differences in preferred roles."

Still, with upper spectrums described as "freedom" and "creation," and lower ones leaning toward "management" and "execution," there's inevitably a sense of "being more advanced."

In other words, no matter how careful you are, the diagnostic format structurally exerts a "gravitational pull toward ranking."

The Wavering of "But Wouldn't It Be Good to Have One?"

Still, I think.

Having an opportunity to objectively observe how you use metacognition and your reflective habits isn't necessarily a bad thing.

However, if it can be presented not as "high or low ability," but as "a mirror showing how you're currently viewing things."

Not producing comparisons or rankings, not naming developmental stages, not making "the next stage" a goal.

But people naturally want to know "how do I compare to others?" Ignoring this desire leaves unresolved feelings. Yet if you provide rankings, it becomes a hierarchy.

The Paradox of "Measuring Leads to Elevating"

There's another unavoidable fact.

Suppose you create a diagnostic tool and someone who uses it continues to engage in reflection. Naturally, their metacognitive ability improves. They become able to notice their own assumptions and step back to see "this isn't fact, it's my interpretation."

In other words, their developmental stage rises as a result.

This happens even unintentionally.

That's not inherently bad. But the moment you make it a goal, you stray from the essence.

This was the most difficult part.

Not "Whether to Build" but "How to Build"

After much consideration, this is what I think now.

Build it not as a "device for development" but as a "holding environment."

This aligns with Robert Kegan's concept of the "holding environment."

Development isn't something to be pushed up from outside, but something that naturally occurs when a person is ready. All we can do is prepare an environment where that development can occur.

Meaning:

And above all, separate "knowing" from "handling."

What I can internally estimate as a designer and what I thrust upon users are completely different things.

Conclusion

After much hesitation, I've decided to proceed in this direction.

Whether this is truly correct, I still don't know.

But someone who creates while holding this question is at least unable to remain unaware, compared to someone who creates without it. And I now believe that this state of "being unable to remain unaware" is perhaps the most important thing when creating a diagnostic tool.

The time spent grappling with this dilemma may have been part of what qualifies me to create it.

References

[📦 商品リンク: moshimo-card-kihTd]

[📦 商品リンク: moshimo-card-vNSqs]