In the first two installments of this series, we looked at the difference between technical and adaptive challenges—problems that can be solved with known expertise, versus those that need new ways of thinking to move forward. We also explored conceptual belief change, especially categorical shifts, and how the way someone classifies a problem can either block or unlock the path to meaningful change.
But that raises a critical question:
How do we help someone, or even ourselves, see that a shift in thinking is needed in the first place?
That’s where the work of Harvard psychologist Robert Kegan comes in.
Kegan developed what he called Constructive-Developmental Theory. You don’t need to remember the name, but the core idea behind it is one I think about constantly now: the Subject-Object Relationship.
I’ll explain it simply:
There are some ideas, beliefs, and assumptions we’re aware of. We can name them, describe them, and evaluate them. These are what Kegan would call object—they’re external enough to be observed and examined.
But then there are the ones we aren’t aware of. The assumptions that just feel true. The things that feel like “the way the world works” or “just how I am.” These are subject—they are not just things we believe, they are things we are. And that distinction is what makes them powerful, and problematic.
Because when we’re subject to something, we can’t see it. Which means we can’t question it. And if we can’t question it, we can’t change it—even if it’s the very thing holding us back.
What Does This Have to Do With Change?
Well, everything.
Most adaptive challenges involve ideas we’re subject to. These are the underlying, often invisible assumptions that influence how we interpret problems and which solutions we even consider.
Cultural norms. Self-identity. Definitions of success. Expectations of leadership. These are not just external pressures. They become internalized frameworks that shape how we think, and often without us realizing it.
Kegan argued that growth (be it personal, intellectual, or strategic) happens when we can move something from subject to object. When we can make the implicit explicit. That’s when we can finally see the assumptions we’ve been operating under. And more importantly, start to question whether they still serve us.
That, he said, is what allows us to think more expansively. To handle greater complexity. To adapt and grow.
Why This Matters for Strategy, Messaging, and Change Work
As I studied Kegan’s theory, I noticed how much it mirrors other forms of transformational work. For example, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy focuses on bringing hidden thoughts and beliefs to the surface so they can be challenged and restructured. Kegan’s “big assumptions” work in much the same way. And in both cases, the goal is clarity and agency—creating space between belief and behavior.
That connection clicked something into place for me. Because that is exactly what the Red Thread and Core Case are designed to do. They externalize the implicit logic behind an idea—reasoning logic for the Core Case and narrative logic for the Red Thread. They bring to the surface the assumptions about the audience, the world, the problem, and the goal that are driving a recommendation or strategy.
They make the internal argument visible. And once it’s visible, it can be refined, shared, and (if needed) transformed.
How Do You Make the Implicit Explicit?
There’s no one way. Kegan’s own Immunity to Change framework is one method. So is the Buy-In Blueprint. So is a powerful, well-told story. Anything that helps someone articulate not just what they think, but why they think it, can serve as a path forward.
The key is recognizing when someone is subject to a belief rather than holding it at a distance. That’s your cue to slow down and make space for the thinking underneath the thinking.
Because you can only shift what you see.