Subject-Object Interview (SOI)
SOI is the depth gauge
The Leadership Circle Profile describes the pattern a leader runs; the SOI illuminates the meaning-making that produces the pattern; Immunity to Change is how a specific stuck piece of it moves.
What it is
The Subject-Object Interview is the research instrument developed by Robert Kegan and colleagues at Harvard to assess a person's current way of making meaning, as described in constructive-developmental theory (The Evolving Self, 1982; In Over Our Heads, 1994). The name states the mechanism: development is the movement by which things we are subject to, assumptions that simply have us, become object, things we can examine and question. The interview locates where that boundary currently runs for a person.
How it works
The interview itself takes 60 to 90 minutes. You receive a set of prompt cards in advance (moments of anger, success, being torn, taking a stand, among others) and choose which experiences to talk about. My job in the interview is to follow your reasoning without steering it. The interview is recorded and transcribed, and the analysis takes several hours of close reading against a formal scoring protocol. The method's reliability rests on that labour; it is the reason SOI results are trusted in research settings where questionnaire-based development measures are not.
Who it is for
Individual leaders in transitions that demand a different self. Usually that means the principal investigator becoming an institutional leader, or the technical expert becoming a head of function. Sometimes it is the seasoned director whose trusted way of leading has stopped working under contraction, and who wants to understand why at the root.
What you get
A written developmental assessment with the supporting reasoning, and a debrief session. In a coaching engagement, the real product is what the assessment changes: the work gets tailored to the growing edge the interview actually found, rather than the one a generic model assumes.
When I use it, when I don't
I use the SOI inside longer coaching engagements when the presenting challenge looks developmental: a role whose demands seem to exceed the leader's current way of constructing it, which is the ordinary situation of experts promoted into stewardship. I also use it, in lighter form, as a listening discipline in every coaching conversation; the interview trained my ear.
I don't use it for assessment on behalf of an employer, for promotion decisions, or where the result would travel beyond the person interviewed. I also don't lead with it: most engagements never need a formal SOI, and proposing an eight-hour scored instrument where a good conversation would do is the kind of over-instrumentation this field suffers from.
Case: The change that survives every retreat
Two directors receive near-identical 360 feedback: colleagues want them to take clearer positions in senior meetings. The first hears an instruction and asks me, in effect, to help her comply with it. The second hears a data point, weighs it against his own reading of what those meetings need, and asks a different question: whether taking positions there would actually serve the institution. Same words, two different experiences of authority.
That difference is invisible to every competency framework, and it decides a great deal about how each of them will handle a mandate under political attack or a restructuring decided above their heads. What differs is how each one constructs the situation. Developmental psychology calls this meaning-making, and it turns out to be measurable.
Additional sources:
