I agree with your thoughts on this and especially the idea that we assume a lot of things about where people are at on self-management, etc. I also like the three foundational areas you have staked out, but I wonder if there is one missing. I am not even sure what to call it, but in my mind it is the difference between an ideological approach to management/leadership and an evidence based approach to management/leadership.
I think that a lot of decisions that we make as leaders are based on some of the bedrock beliefs and assumptions that we have about people and about human nature. And because so many of our decisions are framed by these beliefs I think it is worth including this (whatever it should be called) with your three core areas of focus.
Take human resources for example.
We do a lot of work with HR leaders, and interact with HR leaders in various industries, and geographies with different expertise and levels of experience. And I know that for me personally, as I interact with someone and discuss a specific issue, there are times when it becomes very clear to both me and the person I am talking with, that we have very different perspectives on people in general, which gives us a very different perspective on our work and on the issue at hand.
Some human resource professionals and some business managers see people as commodities that are largely interchangeable. Some leaders see people as lazy and self-interested, so they need to be coerced and closely monitored. Some leaders see people as one of a kind masterpieces with untapped and unlimited potential.
Regardless of what we believe to be the right or wrong perspective, I think that these underlying beliefs are a big piece of the puzzle and I wonder if this might also be an opportunity for us to improve how we engage and develop ourselves, our peers and emerging leaders?