Living on Different Floors: Adult Development, Love, and the Leadership of Self

Every so often, life confronts us with decisions that don’t fit the standard template.

For me, one of those questions has been:
How do I actually want to live my life in relationships?

Not in theory, but in the real, messy, emotional reality of being human.

Recently, that question has taken the shape of exploring polyamorous, consensual, non-monogamous ways of relating. Not as a lifestyle experiment, but as a serious inquiry into how freedom and connection can coexist.

At the same time, I’ve been discovering a piece of theory that suddenly gives this whole exploration a map:

Robert Kegan’s work on adult psychological development.

It has changed the way I understand myself, my relationships, and why certain conversations are so difficult.

Adult development doesn’t stop at 18

We are used to thinking of development as something that happens in childhood and adolescence. We “grow up”, and then we’re done.

Kegan’s research suggests something different:

• Our sense of self continues to evolve well into adulthood.
• We move through distinct stages, each with its own way of seeing the world.
• Only a small percentage of people ever reach the later stages.

In Kegan’s model there are five main stages. The last one, which interests me most right now, is reached by roughly 1% of the population.

At this fifth stage, there is a particular kind of capacity:

The ability to experience ourselves as both separate and one at the same time.

We still have an individual identity. And we also sense, often very vividly, that we are part of something larger: systems, fields, communities, even a kind of underlying oneness.

This is not just an intellectual idea. It is a lived perception.

The paradox of freedom and unity

If you take that capacity seriously, it creates a new kind of tension.

On one side:

• A strong desire for autonomy
• Freedom to be fully oneself
• Space to explore, grow, and move

On the other side:

• A deep longing for belonging
• Stable, committed relationships
• The experience of “we are one”

For years, I found myself saying that I wanted maximum unity with maximum freedom.

On paper, that’s a contradiction.
In lived experience, it’s simply the reality of being at that edge where:

• I know I am separate.
• I know I am not separate.
• And both feel true at the same time.

This is where my exploration of polyamorous relationship structures enters the picture.

Polyamory as a symptom of a deeper shift

It’s easy to look at polyamory from the outside and file it under:

• Lifestyle trend
• Midlife experiment
• Commitment issues

And in some cases, that might even be accurate.

What I’ve been noticing in myself, though, is a different sequence:

1. First, a shift in worldview.

   • Moving into what I call the green worldview:
     • Experiencing myself as both one and separate.
     • Sensing less separation between myself and others.
   • In Kegan’s language: moving towards that fifth stage.

2. Then, the idea of polyamory appears.

   • Not as a rebellion against commitment.
   • But as a potential way of living that new sense of self and other.

In other words:

The idea did not create the worldview.
The worldview created the conditions for the idea.

For someone else, the sequence might be reversed:

• They start experimenting with non-monogamy from a different stage.
• The complexity of that choice might then push them up a level in development.

Both paths are possible. The point is: the inner floor you’re standing on matters.

The building with five floors

Here’s a metaphor that has helped me more than anything else:

Imagine a five-storey building.

Each floor represents a different stage of adult development:

• Many people live on Floor 3.
• A smaller number live on Floor 4.
• Very few live on Floor 5.

People on each floor:

• Look out of the windows and see the world differently.
• Share a similar way of making sense of life.
• Have similar intrinsic motivations.

Now imagine two people talking about “polyamory”.

• Person A lives on Floor 5.
• Person B lives on Floor 3.

They use the same word, but:

• Person A is holding a worldview where:
  • Self = both individual and interconnected.
  • Freedom and unity both matter deeply.
• Person B is holding a worldview where:
  • Self feels more separate.
  • Safety, exclusivity, and clear boundaries are essential.

When they talk, they are not just disagreeing about an idea.
They are speaking from different floors in the building.

From Floor 3, polyamory might look like:

• A threat to safety.
• A lack of commitment.
• A self-serving choice.

From Floor 5, it might look like:

• An honest attempt to live out a both/and identity.
• A way to honour multiple genuine connections.
• A difficult, but coherent, expression of oneness and separateness.

Same word. Different floor. Different meaning.

Why conversations across floors are so hard

If two people on the same floor talk about polyamory (or any complex topic), something important happens:

• They share a background worldview.
• They use similar internal logic.
• Even if they disagree, they can understand each other’s reasons.

If two people on different floors talk:

• They often experience each other as incomprehensible, even wrong.
• Each thinks the other “doesn’t get it”.

From my side, this has often felt like:

“Why can’t they see what I see?”

From the other person’s side, it likely feels like:

“Why can’t he see what I see?”

Once you add Kegan’s model and the building metaphor, something shifts:

• The conflict becomes more understandable.
• It’s not that one of us is bad or broken.
• We may simply be looking out from different floors.

This doesn’t magically resolve the tension. But it removes some of the shame and confusion.

The map of Paris

Another image that has been crucial for me is the map of Paris.

At times I have felt like this:

• Standing at a random street corner in a city I don’t quite know.
• Surrounded by noise, traffic, and signs I don’t fully understand.
• With a strong inner impulse (“explore polyamory now”) and no sense of why I’m here or what to do next.

Discovering Kegan’s work, and seeing how it relates to my own inner journey, felt like someone handing me a map and saying:

“You are here.”

The map doesn’t walk the streets for me.
It doesn’t remove confusion or discomfort.

But it changes my position from:

• Victim of circumstance (“What is wrong with me?”)
• To navigator (“Given where I am, what routes are available?”)

For someone with my particular mindset, that is a profound relief.

Explorers, map-makers, and contributors

Not everyone relates to maps in the same way.

Some people prefer:

• To start walking.
• To find their own way by trial and error.
• To discover the city through lived experience and only then, maybe, look at a map.

Others (like me) prefer:

• To look at the map first.
• Understand the overall layout.
• Then go out and explore, adding details to the map as we go.

In reality, both roles are needed. The collective map of human experience is drawn by:

• People who go first into unknown territory.
• People who later articulate the patterns and structures.
• People who use those maps and refine them further.

Adult development theory, for me, is not a cage.
It’s a shared map that I can now contribute to with my own journey.

What this has changed for me

So how has all of this actually helped?

1. Context for my own impulses

   • Realising that my urge to explore polyamory might be connected to a shift in developmental stage.
   • Seeing that it’s not “random madness”, but part of a deeper pattern.

2. Compassion for others

   • Understanding that when someone reacts with fear or judgement, they may simply be looking from another floor.
   • I don’t have to blame them, or myself, for that.

3. Choice in how I relate

   • I can choose:
     • When to stay on “my floor” and talk with people who see the world similarly.
     • When to engage in cross-floor conversations, knowing they will likely be messy, and still potentially catalytic.

4. A lighter sense of identity

   • I’m less attached to being “right”.
   • More interested in where I am in the building, and where others are.
   • More aware that life is, in many ways, a process of moving floors, not defending them.

Leadership as knowing your floor (and your map)

For business leaders, this is not just a personal story about relationships. It goes to the heart of leadership:

• Your worldview shapes what you see and don’t see.
• Your stage of development influences what problems you can even recognise as problems.
• Your map determines how you navigate complexity, conflict, and unconventional choices.

You don’t have to be exploring polyamory for this to matter.
You might be:

• Rethinking your career path.
• Redesigning your organisation.
• Questioning your faith, your politics, or your sense of success.

In each case, it’s helpful to ask:

• On which floor am I currently standing?
• What map am I using?
• What floor might the other person be on?
• And do I want to:
  • Stay here,
  • Move up,
  • Or at least become more conscious of the view from this floor?

Life, in that sense, becomes less about proving you chose the “right” room, and more about learning how to move through the building with awareness.

And occasionally, it means allowing yourself to stand at a strange street corner in Paris, look at your map, and admit:

“This is a difficult place to be… but at least now I know where I am.”

(This article was inspired by a Conscious Conversation with a dear friend & professional colleague on 5th September 2024.)