The Structure Of Concern: A Challenge For Thinkers

The Structure of Concern A challenge for thinkers

Neil LaChapelle

The Structure of Concern: A Challenge for Thinkers © 2008 Neil LaChapelle, some right reserved Printed in the USA. Published by Lulu.com ISBN 978-0-557-02598-5

[cc] by – Creative Commons: Attribution 2.5 License You are free to: -

Share this work (copy, distribute and transmit).

-

Adapt this work.

Under the following conditions: -

You must attribute this work to the author using standard bibliographic reference formats.

-

Your reference must not suggest that the author endorses you or your use of the work.

-

For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. This is best done by including this notice with your reproduction.

-

Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

-

Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.

Disclaimer: Your fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above.

2

Dedication To Tanya – your love and devotion during these long years of effort meant everything to me, and you remain my everything to this day… And to Thérèse – you birthed me, you raised me you taught me how to love, and how to think. In every way imaginable, this work is as much yours as it is mine. Words will forever fail to express my gratitude for your role in my life.

3

Table of Contents Preface.................................................................9 Introduction .......................................................10 Part 1: The Structure of Concern......................13 ABOUT THE ADIZES METHODOLOGY ............................................... 13 SITUATING THE ADIZES METHODOLOGY ......................................... 14 PAEI: THE ADIZES CONCERN STRUCTURE MODEL ......................... 16 ADIZES PROTOTYPICAL MANAGEMENT STYLES .............................. 20 ADIZES MISMANAGEMENT STYLES .................................................. 24 ADIZES ORGANIZATIONAL LIFECYCLES........................................... 27 PAEI AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE ................................................... 33

Part 2: Theoretical Ecology ..............................35 WHY THEORETICAL ECOLOGY? ....................................................... 35 POPULATION ECOLOGY LOGISTICS .................................................. 37 HOLLING’S ADAPTIVE RENEWAL CYCLE ......................................... 38 HIERARCHICAL CAUSATION ............................................................. 40 HIERARCHIES OF ACTION ................................................................. 44

Part 3: Catalog of Concern Structure Models..46 CATALOG INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 46 1.

Order in Living Organisms: Rupert Riedl................................47

MANAGEMENT STUDIES ................................................................... 50

4

2.

Competing Values Frameworks of Management: Quinn et al. 52

3.

Team Management Systems: Margerison-McCann .................58

4.

Styles of Entrepreneurs: Ginzberg & Buchholtz ......................63

5.

Plus 32 Employment Testing System: B. R. Garrison Software Group .................................................................................................65

6.

Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument: Ned Herrmann ........68

7.

The Demand-Control Model of Stress: Karasek ......................72

8.

Transitions and Aftershock: Bridges, Woodward, Buchholz ...75

9.

The Four Levers of Corporate Change: Brill & Worth ............80

10.

Macroenvironmental Analysis: Fahey & Narayanan ...............83

11.

The Four Business Strategies: Michael Porter .........................85

12.

The Icarus Paradox: Danny Miller...........................................88

13.

The Balanced Scorecard: Kaplan and Norton ..........................89

14.

Noble Purposes in Mission Statements: Nikos Mourkogiannis90

15.

Strategic Thinking – A Four Piece Puzzle: Bill Birnbaum ......91

16.

Stakeholder Styles: Duke Corporate Education .......................92

17.

Four Kinds of Salespeople: Chuck Mache...............................93

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ............................................................94 18.

The SECI Model of Knowledge Management: Nonaka & Takeuchi .................................................................................................95

19.

Receipt of Information Benefits: Cross, Rice & Parker.........100

20.

The Cynefin Sensemaking Framework: D. J. Snowden.........102

21.

A Fourfold Typology of Tacit Knowledge: José Castillo ......105

22.

Exploration and Exploitation in Knowledge Management: Gray, Chan & March .................................................................................107

DECISION THEORY ..........................................................................110 23.

Decision-Making Strategies and Uncertainty: James D. Thompson ...............................................................................................111

24.

Image Theory and Decision-Making: Lee Roy Beach...........113

25.

The Interpersonal Model of Goal-Based Decision Making: Stephen Slade......................................................................................115

26.

Decision Style Theory: Rowe & Boulgarides ........................118

27.

General Decision-Making Style (GDMS): Scott & Bruce .....120

28.

Anticipatory Planning Support System: Hill, Surdu & Pooch122

29.

Organizational Uncertainty and Planning Tradeoffs: Lawless et al. ...............................................................................................125

30.

Action & Belief-Driven Sensemaking: Karl Weick...............128

31.

Information Framing and Uncertainty: Michael H. Zack.......130

SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES .......................................132 32.

Social Solidarity and Suicide: Emile Durkheim ....................133

33.

A.G.I.L. Functional Imperatives for Social Systems: Talcott Parsons ...............................................................................................137

34.

Four-Drive Theory of Human Nature: Lawrence & Nohria ..139 5

35.

Sociological Paradigms & Organizational Analysis: Burrell & Morgan...................................................................................140

36.

Resource Theory: Uriel G. Foa ..............................................142

37.

Normal Accident Theory: Charles Perrow.............................143

38.

The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations: Alan Fiske148

39.

Types of Combinatory Systems: Piero Mella.........................150

40.

Group Formation & Club Theory: Arrow, Berdahl & McGrath152

41.

Self-Employment Work-Styles: Baines & Gelder .................155

42.

Managing Organizational Identities: Pratt & Foreman ..........156

EXISTENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY ........................................................... 159 43.

Attribution and Achievement Motivation: B. Weiner............160

44.

Self-Conscious Evaluative Emotions: Michael Lewis ...........162

45.

Paths of Adult Development: Ryff, Helson & Srivastava ......164

46.

Agency and Self-Efficacy: Albert Bandura............................166

47.

A Functional Model of Self-Determination: Michael L. Wehmeyer et al........................................................................................167

48.

Theory of Mental Self-Government: Robert J. Sternberg ......168

49.

Reversal Theory: Micheal J. Apter ........................................170

50.

Sixteen Fundamental Desires: Reiss & Havercamp ...............173

51.

CISS – Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations: Endler& Parker ...............................................................................................175

52.

The Johari Window: Joseph Luft & Harry Ingham................177

53.

Affect Infusion Model: Joseph P. Forgas...............................180

PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY .......................................................... 182

6

54.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Isabel Briggs Myers...............183

55.

A Synthesis of Personality Typologies: Alan Miller..............187

56.

Personality as an Affect Processing System: Jack Block .......190

57.

Social Style Model: TRACOM Group...................................196

58.

Dunn’s Model of Sensory Processing: Winnie Dunn.............198

59.

Personality as Information Gating: William P. Nash .............201

60.

Biosocial Theory of Personality: C. Robert Cloninger ..........203

61.

Biological Response Styles: L. J. Siever................................205

62.

Factors of the Karolinska Scales of Personality: Ortet et al. ..206

63.

AAAA – The “Four A’s” Model of Personality Disorders: Austin & Deary......................................................................................207

64.

The Thematic Aptitude Test and Story Sequence Analysis ...208

65.

Interpersonal Circle Models of Personality: Timothy Leary..210

66.

The Interpersonal Force Field: D. J. Kiesler ..........................211

POPULAR PSYCHOLOGY ..................................................................213 67.

Brain Styles: Marlane Miller..................................................214

68.

The CAPS Model of Personal Styles: Merril & Reid ............216

69.

The Four Temperament Patterns: D. Keirsey, L. V. Berens ..218

70.

Sexual Styles: Sandra Scantling.............................................220

71.

Living Your Colors: Tom Maddron.......................................222

72.

Birds of Different Feathers: Hately & Schmidt .....................223

EDUCATION .....................................................................................224 73.

Experiential Learning Theory: David A. Kolb.......................225

74.

Learning Styles: Honey & Mumford .....................................228

75.

Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences: Silver, Strong & Perini 229

76.

The Mind Styles Model: Anthony Gregorc ...........................231

77.

Mathematical Discovery: George Polya ................................233

78.

Theory of Attentional and Personal Style: Robert Nideffer...235

79.

Four Models for Learning Negotiation Skills: Nadler, Thompson & Van Boven .............................................................................237

80.

Mutual Dependence of Challenge and Support: Brigid Reid.238

PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION AND HISTORICAL SOURCES .....................241 81.

Four World Hypotheses: Stephen Pepper ..............................242

82.

Reason and Ethics: Sean O’Connell ......................................243

83.

Jung's Four and Some Philosophers: Thomas M. King .........246

84.

The Four Humors...................................................................249

85.

The Four Cardinal Virtues .....................................................253

86.

The Gunas and the Yogas ......................................................255

87.

Sanskrit Literary Theory and the Four Goals of Life.............260

88.

The Four Beginnings of Confucianism ..................................261

89.

The Four Agreements: Don Miguel Ruiz...............................262

LANGUAGE, ARTS AND MEDIA .......................................................264 90.

Dramatica: Philips and Huntley .............................................265

91.

Kenneth Burke’s Rhetorical Framework ...............................269

92.

Aristotle’s Rhetorical Appeals ...............................................272 7

93.

InterGrammar: Arndt & Janney .............................................273

94.

A Cognitive Typology of Speech Acts: Driven & Verspoor..277

95.

Discourse Functions of Humour: Greatbatch & Clark ...........279

96.

Artistic Types: Loomis & Saltz..............................................280

COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING........................................ 282 97.

Model Views of the Unified Modelling Language: Si Alhir..283

98.

Parameters of Fuzzy Inference: Carlos A. Peña-Reyes..........285

99.

Types of Programming...........................................................287

100.

The Code Size Optimization Problem: Shin, Lee & Min.......288

101.

Adjustably Autonomous Agents & Decision Making: Verhagen & Kummeneje ............................................................................290

102.

Multi-Agent Coordination: Victor R. Lesser .........................291

103.

Organizational Design and Instantiation: Sims, Corkill and Lesser292

104.

Operational Design Coordination: Coates et al. .....................293

105.

Agent Mediated Dynamic Coordination Policies: Bose & Matthews ...............................................................................................295

106.

Interacting Cognitive Radios: Joseph Mitola III, Neel et al...297

NEUROSCIENCE............................................................................... 299 107.

Topology, Graph Theory & the Magic Number Four in Neuroscience: Robert Glassman ....................................................................300

108.

Executive Functioning as Problem-Solving: Zelazo et al. .....304

109.

Personality Dimensions in Adult Male Rhesus Macaques: John Capitanio ................................................................................306

110.

Vertical Systems from Spine to Cortex: Larry Swanson........307

111.

Mesencephalic Locomotor Region: H. M. Sinnamon ............314

112.

Parallel Channels through the Basal Ganglia: Martin, Blumenfeld 317

113.

Midline Thalamic Nuclei: Van der Werf et al........................319

114.

Zona Incerta: J. Mitrofanis .....................................................321

115.

The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: Gray and McNaughton ...323

116.

Dimensions of OCD Symptoms: Hasler et al.........................326

Part 4 : Afterword ...........................................328 Bibliography ....................................................329 8

Preface It is common practice in academic books for the author to thank and acknowledge a huge team of collaborators without whose help the production of the book would have been impossible, and then to claim responsibility for any errors, distortions or inconsistencies which remain in the text. In my case, I am more than usually responsible for all of the many flaws in this text, since I worked on it entirely in isolation. No community of peers to present subcomponents of the work to over the years, no platoon of editors and publishing professionals to create a polished style for the book, no generous foundation or grant program to support my efforts financially. All I had was my university library card, a leave of absence from graduate school and some time, made possible by the financial sacrifices of my own mother, who believed in me and wanted to support my work. You have heard of amateur filmmakers and amateur musicians. I was an amateur academic during this period of my life, pursuing the structure of concern as a topic simply because I thought it was important for humanity to be aware of what seemed to me to be a noteworthy feature of reality. While I am now paying the price, literally and figuratively, for my three years of pursuing this pattern I call the structure of concern, I still think it was worth it. There is a general phenomenon of some kind happening here. Some kind of regularity exists in nature that many different intellectual models are representing in isolation from each other. It may have something to do with the structure of interacting agents, or with energy and information constraints… I don’t know how to explain it. My role has only been to help identify it. Explaining it is a challenge I invite others to help accomplish. For the production of this book, I acknowledge Dr. Ichak Adizes, who provided the inspiration for it, my mother for her love and unshakable support, and my wife Tanya for her patience and devotion during what has been a very trying time. Together, we offer you, the reader, this gift, the fruits of our labour. Hopefully some of you out there will be able to one day explain to us all exactly what the structure of concern is, and why it turns up so frequently in certain domains of intellectual life. I look forward to reading your work about this in the future, if this message finds you in time.

9

Introduction This book has two goals. It introduces a pattern of interlocking constraints which I call the structure of concern, and it issues a challenge to all of the thinkers of world – to the theoreticians, mathematicians, academicians and consultants – to find the best level of description for it; the level underlying all the others; the level at which it might be explained. The structure of concern is an exceedingly simple pattern, that could be given the following minimal description: Adaptive systems can improve their performance in four ways: by becoming faster and sparer, or bigger and more stable, or by inventing new strategies or cooperating better with other systems – but each of these mitigate against the others, so decide carefully, given your circumstances. That, in a nutshell, is it. The remarkable thing about this fourfold tradeoff is not its novelty, but rather its unrecognized pervasiveness in intellectual culture. The structure of concern is expressed in many theoretical models across many intellectual disciplines. However, the authors of each model do not typically represent them as members of a larger class. Differences of terminology obscure the generality and scope of this pattern of explanation. The theories have to be brought together within a common frame of reference for the latent extended concept to appear. That is what I hope to accomplish in this book. Given its very broad scope, it seems clear to me that the structure of concern is an important theoretical pattern. Many examples of the structure of concern are rooted in organizational studies and personality psychology, so at a minimum, this pattern is important for managing our social institutions and ourselves. The structure of concern can also be seen within systems models in theoretical ecology. The fact that it appears in both psychology and ecology suggests that it might be a useful framework for understanding high-level design features of the brain – a psychological engine that solves ecological problems. Beyond this, the structure of concern is a potential point of contact between many different fields of study, so studying this pattern will help promote consilience across many intellectual domains. It is a worthwhile field of investigation, and one I invite any and all to explore. I do not know what the structure of concern ultimately is. I do not know how best to describe it. In this book, I simply amass a catalog of 10

models that all exhibit the same pattern. I invite my readers to ponder what the best level of description for the pattern will be. Perhaps the structure of concern is best described as a selective problem in evolutionary theory. Perhaps it is best described as a multi-constraint search and optimization problem. Perhaps it is best described in terms of the structure of living systems and ecosystems. Maybe it is a cybernetic concept or a general systems concept – broadly applicable in the way that the concepts of “feedback” and “causality” are. I do not know. All I know is that this pattern of explanation is very widespread. In organizational theory, one prominent expression of this fourfold structure is known as the competing values framework. Carl Jung’s four personality functions: Sensing, Intuiting, Thinking and Feeling, also express the structure of concern. Galen’s four humors and their associated temperaments: choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic and sanguine, are likewise relevant to this discussion. However, concern structure models turn up everywhere, including discussions of knowledge management methodologies, suicide, yoga, information systems, sex, multi-agent networking, ethics, nervous system organization, drama, military planning, speech pragmatics, forest conservation, education and even philosophy. Some concern structure models are quite specialized and obscure, but some others count among the most widely used conceptual frameworks we have. My main goal in this book is simply to compare all of these frameworks to point out the similarities between them. Although I do name some potential explanatory hypotheses, readers are invited to ponder how best to explain it all. In order to compare many different models to each other, we need a point of reference – a common framework within which all of the disparate models can be situated. The reference model I have chosen for this work – the concern structure model that I compare all the other models to – is called the Adizes Methodology. It is an organizational and management optimization methodology that I describe later in some detail. The concern structure model in the Adizes Methodology is unique in the way it spans several levels of explanation (individual, social, organizational, functional, structural, strategic, analytical, psychological…). It is thus very inclusive and extensible, making it uniquely suitable for use as a reference model in an interdisciplinary study such as this one. I begin the book by introducing the Adizes Methodology and the four-letter code used to label each quadrant of its concern structure model – PAEI. I then produce a catalog of 116 concern structure models, showing which elements in each model correspond to PAE or I in the Adizes framework. I also discuss the particularities of each model. That is the limit and extent of my intellectual ambitions for this installment of the structure of concern project. There remains much work to be done, analyzing the patterns within the collection, determining facets and making categorizations. This is 11

not something I attempt in the current volume. It is work I defer to a later time. The catalog itself is the argument I make in this book – the argument that some universal pattern lurks among all these models – a universal pattern that needs description. My hope is that this book will enliven the curiosity of other inquiring minds – people who can produce an explanation of the structure of concern and define its role in the unification of human knowledge. I am not someone who can accomplish this task on my own, but perhaps someone else out there can; or perhaps, working together, we might be able to resolve this question as a group, together exploring the new avenues for understanding that our insights open up. I think this will be a productive journey for those of us who choose to undertake it, and I wish you nothing but luck in your efforts to understand this pervasive phenomenon that I will be labeling the structure of concern. I hope you find the catalog I present to be a compelling argument. There is something happening here which I strongly believe we will be better off understanding.

12

Part 1: The Structure of Concern About the Adizes Methodology The Adizes Methodology, my reference model for all of the concern structure models gathered for this study, can be difficult to describe. It has called a management intervention technique, a business revitalization program and an organizational therapy. It is an eleven-phase methodology developed by Ichak Adizes, formerly a professor from the John E. Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA. The Adizes Methodology is a set of practices and procedures for optimizing organizational function on an ongoing basis. These practices are carried out by the management team of Adizes client organizations, facilitated by Adizes or one of his licensed associates. One stated goal of the Methodology is to help organizations reach and remain in a dynamic state that optimally balances flexibility and control as conditions change. This state is called Prime. The Methodology itself – the explicit 11-phase process used to diagnose and solve problems within the organization – is a proprietary resource available only to Adizes clients. However, the conceptual framework supporting that Methodology is in the public domain, having been published in many forms. The Adizes Methodology is typically understood to include this conceptual framework, such that the term ‘Methodology’ is flexibly used to apply both to the publicly available conceptual material and the 11-phase proprietary intervention plan. My use of the terms ‘Adizes’ and ‘Adizes Methodology’ refers only to the conceptual framework, not the intervention program. The conceptual framework is summarized below. The summary is mainly informed by my own familiarity with Adizes concepts, which is the product of my professional work as an instructional designer building Adizes-based management courses for online educators. Unlike those courses, my own work in this book has not been reviewed by any experts in the Adizes Methodology, so I bear sole responsibility for any errors or distortions in my account. Books on the Adizes conceptual framework include Mastering Change, Managing Corporate Lifecycles, Management/Mismanagement Styles, Leading the Leaders and The Ideal Executive, among others, described in more detail at www.adizes.com. 13

Situating the Adizes Methodology Conceptually, the Adizes Methodology is a contingency theory of human organizations, which makes use of a competing values framework to describe management dynamics and organizational lifecycle dynamics. Let me take a moment to explain what this means. Contingency or congruency theories in organizational studies emphasize that there is no single best type of organization. Instead, these theories emphasize the importance of fit (Aldrich, 1979). Fitness can be described as the ‘aligning’ or ‘matching’ of organizational resources to environmental opportunities and threats (Andrews, 1971; Chandler, 1962). ‘Organizational resources’ must be taken to include both collective and individual management styles, abilities, behaviors, values and aspirations (Szilagyi & Schweiger, 1984; Tichy, 1982). Peters and Waterman (1982) summarize these resources as seven “S’s”: strategy, structure, systems, style, staff, skills and shared values. Organizations that fit their circumstances well align all of these elements with each other and with external opportunities and threats. Achieving this fit is the essence of good management, on the contingency theory view. The concept of a competing values theory, which I use here as a general term, was initially developed by Quinn et al. to describe their own theoretical approach to management intervention and pedagogy (see, for example, Quinn et al., 2003). Their competing values framework grows out of a historical account of the emergence of four schools of management in American society:




The Rational Goal Model & Internal Process Model, 1900 – 1925; The Human Relations Model arose between 1926 – 1950; and, The Open Systems Model, arising between 1951 – 1975.

These styles of management may have arisen historically, but they are all still with us today. Working managers have to balance all of the conflicting imperatives that these managerial concerns highlight. The Rational Goal Model is preoccupied with control, and it has an external focus. Success is measured by profits, and attained by clarifying explicit goals and plans, and working to realize them. The Internal Process Model is also oriented towards control, but internal control, as the name suggests. It values stability, hierarchy, continuity and routine. This is attainted by the explicit delineation of responsibilities, and careful measurement and documentation of job performance. The Human Relations Model is associated for some people with Dale Carnegie, and it emphasizes flexibility in dealing with internal matters. This style of management emphasizes commitment, cohesion and morale-building through 14

involvement, participation, conflict resolution, teamwork and consensus. The Open Systems Model promotes a flexible approach to the external environment, valuing innovation, adaptation and growth through external bargaining, brokering and negotiation, creative problem solving, innovation and change management.

External

Internal

Control

Rational Goal Model

Internal Process Model

Flexibility

Open Systems Model

Human Relations Model

Figure 1: The Competing Values Model (Quinn et al., 2003)

Obviously, all organizations need to address all four of these areas of concern simultaneously. Flexibility and control in the external and internal environments are things all organizations need to have. No single one of these value models is adequate in itself, and clearly, the goals of the four models are somewhat incompatible. At a certain point, emphasizing any one of these competing value systems will seriously compromise the goals of the others. Managers thus have to juggle and balance conflicting imperatives. Quinn et al. use these four models to introduce a form of management pedagogy that takes lessons from all four schools to train managers to function better in all four areas of concern. The concept of a competing values framework can be generalized. Theoretically, we could put any pair of alternative values on the x and y axes of a competing values grid. There could thus be a very large set of competing values frameworks that we could articulate. The pattern that I call the structure of concern is not any arbitrary set of conflicting values however, but rather a specific (though fuzzy) set of particular values within this 2x2 grid. I label these values with the Adizes labels of PAEI. So I take the concept of a competing values framework introduced by Quinn et al. as an example of a more general class of logically possible models. Within that class, a subset of those models are concern structure models. Quinn et al.’s 15

model happens to also be a concern structure model, so it will have its own catalog entry later in this book, which will outline more of the details of its rich conceptual framework. The Adizes Methodology can be described as a contingencytheoretical approach to organizational management that analyses all the components of fitness using a competing values (or concern structure) framework. For example, the need for internal and external flexibility and control – the dimensions of the Quinn et al. model – are represented in the Adizes Methodology. However, the Adizes competing values framework is extended into the area of personality dynamics, to describe the cognitive, emotional and personality styles of managers. It is also used to describe phases of organizational growth and development, organizational design, organizational politics, mergers and acquisitions, problem-solving techniques, communication skills, roles for productive meetings and many other organizational matters. It is this breadth of application that makes it a productive reference model. This breadth can best be illustrated now by launching a discussion of the concern structure concepts inside the Adizes Methodology itself. Once this reference model has been clarified, we can then turn to out investigation of the many manifestations of the structure of concern across many different domains and disciplines.

PAEI: The Adizes Concern Structure Model There are several ways to introduce the Adizes model of the structure of concern. Most of them involve introducing some key distinctions between the competing values in question. For example, two competing values underlying the Adizes model (among others) are the values of effectiveness and efficiency. These two values are different, and not entirely compatible, in that both cannot be maximized simultaneously. In the Adizes Methodology, effectiveness is defined as “obtaining results which somebody needs”, and efficiency is defined as “conducting activities with minimal waste”. We can obtain needed results very quickly and reliably if we spare no cost in obtaining them, but then our resources will be depleted and unavailable for more work. We must also conserve our resources and work efficiently. However, over-concern with efficiency can lead to activities being under-resourced, which can compromise the attainment of results. Determining a suitable trade-off between the mobilization and conservation of energy is thus necessary for every decision, and this judgment must be made under conditions of some risk or uncertainty. However, taking both concerns explicitly into account when deciding makes 16

it much easier to adapt and adjust the trade-off quickly in the early stages of implementation. Striking a workable balance between effectiveness and efficiency in the attainment of our goals is important for reaching a quality decision. Adizes also introduces a temporal dimension that cuts across the effectiveness/efficiency dimension. Decisions can be effective and efficient in the short run, but over longer periods of time those decisions can be shown to be ineffective and inefficient. One effective way to end a conflict between two employees is to fire both of them. No more conflict! As a general strategy, however, this approach to conflict will depopulate the organization. It is not effective in the long run. Similarly, it can be more efficient in the short term to reduce job redundancy and minimize job overlap. But if no one knows much about their neighbors’ jobs, then when someone is ill or away, others cannot take up the slack. The whole overspecialized team might be immobilized if one of the specialists is unavailable. Allowing some overlap facilitates learning, so that team members can fill in for each other when needed. The imperatives of short-term efficiency and long-term efficiency are not identical to each other. Short term effectiveness and efficiency alone are inadequate. Quality decisions must be both effective and efficient in the short and long run. These four functional horizons are illustrated below:

Effective

Efficient

Short-term

Shortterm Effective

Shortterm Efficient

Long-term

Longterm Effective

Longterm Efficient

Figure 2: The Adizes Methodology Functional Horizons

Layered over these four functional horizons, Adizes describes four corresponding activities: Producing, Administrating, Entrepreneuring and Integrating. These activities address short-term and long-term effectiveness and efficiency. 17

Effective

Efficient

Short-term

Producing

Administrating

Long-term

Entrepreneuring

Integrating

Figure 3: Adizes Methodology – the Four Functions

Astute readers may already have noticed that these four managerial roles are functionally equivalent to those described by Quinn et al. (2003), pointing to some common underlying reality or insight. These are explicitly drawn out below:

Adizes Methodology

Competing Values Framework

Concerns

Producing

Rational Goal Model

Concrete results

Administrating

Internal Process Model

Efficient processes

Entrepreneuring

Open Systems Model

Adaptability

Integrating

Human Relations Model

Relationships

Table 1: Comparing Quinn et al. and Adizes

Table 1 prefigures the rest of this work, which at a certain level of abstraction can be seen merely as a huge, gigantic table detailing 116 overlapping models that all show traces of this same fourfold tradeoff between these competing values. In the Adizes framework, Producing is the activity of attaining shortterm or immediate results, and Administrating is the activity of minimizing waste in ongoing activities. Entrepreneuring is the activity of seeking out and recognizing new opportunities or new orientations to the environment, and Integrating is the activity of coordinating shared attention and identification. Integration keeps organizations socially and functionally 18

cohesive, preventing them from degenerating into mechanical, purely formally interrelated collections of functionally isolated individuals. When it operates properly, the organization becomes an organic unit that can survive even when key people leave the organization. Integration makes a whole that is more than the sum of its parts – one in which no single person on the team is indispensable. Any individual can step down from their position to be replaced by someone else, and the organization will still be what it is. One advantage of the Adizes Methodology as a frame of reference for this study is that Adizes abbreviates his four categories of Producing, Administrating, Entrepreneuring and Integrating using just the four first letters of each word – PAEI. This makes it easier to disembed the concerns he lists for each value set, taking them out of their context in organizational studies to apply them more broadly as a possible features of some larger reality. It might seem easy to make good quality decisions, since we only need to consider four simple concerns. However, people are very likely to disagree on the right balance of priorities for any given situation. Each concern requires decision-makers to adopt certain preoccupations, motivations, values, instincts and priorities. But due to personal preferences, some concerns appeal to us more than others. We each have biases towards or away from different styles of concern. Furthermore, we are very unlikely to be equally skilled at solving problems in all four styles of concern, because talent in one biases against talent in others (e.g. a talent for quick, snap decisions and a talent for long, careful meticulous decisions are hard to maximize within the same person). An implication is that something in our biological organization makes it impossible to operate with equal brilliance in all four quadrants of concern. We are not wired up to be extremely talented in all four styles of concern at once. Most people will have a dominant style, a second strong style, a third competent style and a final weak style. We can attain ‘foursquare’ excellence only by teaming up with other people whose talents and preferences are different from ours. This creates synergy. It also necessarily entails conflict among collaborators. If it is kept constructive, conflict is a positive development. Incompatibilities on teams can be leveraged to produce better group decisions by ensuring that all four functional horizons receive due consideration. Teams can thereby accomplish the well-rounded decisionmaking that individuals will always find more difficult to do, given the inevitability of personal biases and preferences. To understand conflict in decision-making, and to use it constructively rather than destructively, these preferences and biases have to be generally understood.

19

Adizes illustrates these biases through the construction of four allegorical or prototypical personality profiles: the Producer, the Administrator, the Entrepreneur and the Integrator. These characters exemplify the styles he describes. They are introduced below, and they illustrate the structure of concern in the field of personality, although the characters are clearly simplified. Each one represents a single, unadmixed dominant style, rather than the unique mixture of all four styles that characterizes most adult human beings.

Adizes Prototypical Management Styles Producers Producers are high energy people, active and extroverted. They like to be busy all the time, and their interests are overwhelmingly concrete. They love to attain tangible results, and to attain them often. They feel highly rewarded every time they can declare a task complete. Producers dislike fussy details, ambiguous situations or abstract considerations. They have little patience with future-oriented tasks and wild brainstorming. They are much more interested in getting a task done than they are in ensuring that their colleagues are happy with the way it got done. They will denigrate these kinds of interpersonal concerns, feeling that the rapid attainment of concrete results justifies the suspension of other concerns. This can make them unpleasant to be around at times, but they are responsible for driving many organizational achievements. Producers help us stop talking about solutions and start implementing on them.

Administrators Administrators are quiet, cautious people who are less concerned with what we should do than how we should do it. They need to know what process or procedure we are planning to use before they can join in on the action. They are extremely uncomfortable with ambiguity or uncertainty, and they are made uneasy by unstructured environments and by group reliance on spontaneity and improvisation. Unplanned activities feel distressingly chaotic to them. Administrators prefer to construct a system of routines and conventions for ongoing activities, so they can be conducted in the smoothest and least disruptive manner possible. In organizational contexts, they bring stability and order to collective activities. They are slow and careful in decision-making because they track each detail to make certain it is handled properly. They also weigh the impact of any proposed changes on the entire 20

stabilizing network of rules that they maintain. They may say “no” to new proposals as a reflex, in order to slow things down so they can think through the proposal and deliver a revised opinion once they have worked through their concerns. Administrators may see Producers as sloppy loose canons wreaking havoc upon organizational operations. Producers may see Administrators as fussy obstructionists.

Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurs are easily typecast as dreamers. They are not interested in the results we are attaining today, and would rather focus on bigger potential achievements in the future. Entrepreneurs feel stifled by the demands of ongoing activities. The here-and-now is a trap. Entrepreneurs are energized by novel challenges, exciting opportunities, new possibilities and future achievements. They are talkative and charismatic. Their excitement is highly infectious, and they love being at the center of attention. They are flamboyant, expressive and very easily bored. They can come up with several very different grand future schemes every few minutes, when inspired. Entrepreneurs scan the environment constantly for changes, in their drive for novelty. They love aligning themselves with new developments, and fomenting more change in those new directions. They track activities at a very high level of abstraction, looking for trends and anomalies. Producers are highly skeptical of this abstract exploration of mere possibilities, where there is a clear to-do list for the here and now. Administrators see Entrepreneurs as either irrelevant or dangerous. Entrepreneurs want to dramatically change the whole game an organization is playing, with no detailed sense of what the new rules will be. This cannot be squared easily with Administrator concerns about how to best do what we are currently doing. Entrepreneurs are the only managers who seek out and stimulate major changes. They are easily dismissed, but it is fatal for organizations to shut them out. Change is inevitable, and the structure of Entrepreneurial agency allows them to help the whole team anticipate and adapt to change in a timely, proactive manner.

Integrators Integrators are team-builders with the organization. They manage the interpersonal, interdepartmental, supplier and client relationships that allow the organization to function together as one organic whole. They attend to peoples’ needs, views, motivators, complaints and conflicts to foster a constructive working environment. Integrators help people focus on shared 21

goals. They are less concerned about formal roles and titles, and more concerned that people pull together, each and all doing whatever it takes to achieve their collective mission. The measure of an Integrator’s success is his or her ability to take a vacation. He or she can step away from the organization for periods of time because it is well Integrated and functions as an organic whole. In meetings where Producers are pushing for a quick decision about what to do, Administrators are slowing things down to make sure we carefully consider how best to proceed, and Entrepreneurs are questioning why we are even doing any of that now, when a new long-term plan is more attractive, Integrators are thinking about who we are, who is in the room and who our other stakeholders are. Integrators are trying to align concerns and interests, turning us into a combined and unified (organically integrated) force, in touch (integrated) with our social surroundings. Producers do not have adequate patience for integration work. Their impatience is important for rapid task execution, but they typically tolerate damage to team integration in order to get things done. Administrators are more abstract in their focus than Integrators. In administrative mode, persons are defined according to roles specified in policies and procedures. No procedure defines the unique elements of interpersonal or group interaction that Integrators are so attentive to and aware of. Entrepreneurs are also less concrete than Integrators. They can get lost in hypothetical futures. They prefer to be at the center of attention rather than sharing the spotlight, let alone stepping into the wings to observe and support others. None of these other three management styles focus on people in the way that Integrators do. They all focus in one way or another on tasks. Integration is the only function focused on the organization itself as a group of people pulling together to exert more power as a team than any of them could do individually. Conflict of Styles As mentioned earlier, the four characters mentioned above are allegorical. The Adizes Methodology holds that under normal circumstances, all people are able to operate in all four management modes. However, we are naturally strongest in only one of the four styles, almost from birth. A secondary style develops as we mature, and by adulthood we are usually very capable in our second mode. A third style can be learned with more effort, and in our weakest style we can function but will almost always benefit from some help. Our accomplishments in our weakest mode will never be as swift, easy and natural as achievement in our dominant modes. Teaming up with someone whose style profile complements ours is the only way to address all four horizons of concern with equal competence. In order for this teaming up 22

to work, we have to respect the different values and priorities of our complementary partners. Conflict is guaranteed, but mutual respect keeps it constructive. Our inability to be strongly talented in all four styles does not stem from any particular human frailty. The styles themselves are in conflict, such that strong performance on one of them requires characteristics that work against strong performance in others. The following table illustrates some of these conflicts.

Dimension P

A

E

I

Time Focus

Immediate

Past

Future

Present

Task Focus

Results

Process

Results

Process

Coordination of

Goals

Systems

Ideas

People

Scope

Individual

Systemic

Global

Local

Thinking

Concrete

Abstract

Possibilities

Relationships

Restraint

Unrestrained

Restrained

Unrestrained

Restrained

Regulation

Controlled

Controlled

Free

Free

Reasoning

Literal

Literal

Metaphorical

Metaphorical

Reference

Specific

Specific

Approximate

Approximate

Concerns

External

Internal

External

Internal

Positioning

Central

Peripheral

Central

Peripheral

Table 2: Conflicts and Affinities between Styles

Different styles use different tactics to realize different strategies. When people lack respect for other styles, this can lead them to devalue the imperatives and concerns proper to the other styles. If this devaluation is extreme, the person may cease to function in the devalued style. They may even cease to recognize the existence of that class of concerns. They begin to manage all of their problems with the conspicuous disregard of a whole category of concerns, and their decisions begin to show predictable patterns of failure. The unbalanced kind of management that ensues is called mismanagement in the Adizes Methodology. The complete loss of even one style results in mismanagement and predictable patterns of failure, but the clearest and most visible forms of mismanagement arise when full reliance is placed on one and only one 23

management style. All other styles and priorities are denigrated and disrespected. These mismanagement styles help to highlight the competing values within the model. They are described below, one for each PAEI element.

Adizes Mismanagement Styles The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is a perpetually busy manager who only cares about results. Lone Rangers are perfectly willing to trample over peoples’ feelings, to violate proper procedure, and to cut short discussions about possibilities just so that known tasks can be executed quickly. Quality of execution matters much less than task completion. Lone Rangers prefer to do all tasks themselves, because for any one task it is easier and quicker for them to do it themselves rather than training someone else to do it. This has the ironic outcome that Lone Rangers – who are interested in rapid execution to the exclusion of all else – end up becoming bottlenecks in the organization where work sometimes grinds to a near halt. Lone Rangers do not build effective work teams around them. Their employees tend to become simple errand-runners for the Lone Ranger as he or she manages tasks by crisis. Lone Rangers leave work late and arrive early the next day in order to get things done. Their employees leave early and arrive late, because there is essentially nothing for them to do. Lone Rangers make poor managers because they try to manage tasks directly, rather than managing the team that does the tasks. Their strong preference for concrete, tangible results and their inability to assess other kinds of outcomes leads to this untenable situation. Lone Rangers place a severe limitation on the capacity of a team to grow. The team never gains the capacity to do more work than the Lone Ranger him or herself is capable of doing. The Bureaucrat Unlike Lone Rangers, Bureaucrats do not care about concrete or tangible results in the slightest. However, they are extremely concerned with how things are done, with procedures, rules and practices. They spend their time scrutinizing behavior on their teams to make sure that prescribed methods are being followed. If an employee was to circumvent a rule or two to accomplish some important task, this would be a disaster. The Bureaucrat would devote all energies to punishing the wrongdoer for side-stepping a rule, completely ignoring the important results that this side-stepping made possible. No results in the world would justify “taking shortcuts”. Just because taking shortcuts worked this time does not mean it will work next 24

time. Rather, total chaos and an unspeakable cascade of complications might occur, violating rule after rule after rule. Better to follow the rules – that’s the point. The rules say we should follow the rules, and so those are the rules we should follow. It’s the only way. Bureaucrats hate improvisation and uncertainty in work behavior. They develop and release policies and procedures for everything, firmly believing that any policy is better than no policy around a task. Subordinates are expected to demonstrate that they followed proper procedure in everything they do, and innovation or improvisation is either discouraged or positively punished. The rules are seen as the guarantee that the team will not get into trouble. Bureaucrats end up managing the rules, with no attention paid to the experiences of stakeholders outside of the rules. The organization may become insolvent and go under, but it will do so on time and according to regulations. Everyone in bureaucratic organizations leaves work on time and arrives on time the next day. In the interim, they manage to look busy and keep things neat and well-organized, whether or not they are doing work that actually delivers any real value to internal or external stakeholders. The irony of bureaucracy is that the desire for order leads to such a massive proliferation of rules and policies that people become disoriented. The drive for order produces chaos, and the destruction that rules were put in place to prevent ends up sweeping away the whole work unit, which has stopped delivering value to stakeholders. The Arsonist In their own minds, Arsonist are visionaries, about to revolutionize the world and garner the attention of all due to their genius and originality. Their favorite event is the announcement: the announcement of a new grand plan, great vision, new direction, innovative campaign, etc. They love these announcements and the commotion that they cause. They love to see their employees cheer and scramble to reorganize themselves in order to enact a new vision. The problem is, after a short period of time, once all the excitement dies down and the hard work of implementing the plans begins in earnest, Arsonists begin to get bored. In their boredom, they begin to dream up new grand schemes and new directions. This all builds up to a new announcement and a new great vision for employees to follow. The old projects they had been giving their attention to are now seen as irrelevant. Since this happens with great regularity, employees are constantly forced to change directions. Their manager only appears among them to start new fires, watching everyone scramble to cope with them. Employees are eventually forced to ignore their manager – to applaud enthusiastically to newly announced ideas, but to ignore the substance of those new 25

announcements and to continue working on some project or another to the point of completion. The irony of the Arsonist is that someone who craves being at the center of everyone’s attention and esteem ends up being irrelevant, marginalized and ignored by all around them. The Super Follower Super Followers are consummate political animals. They often have no sense of any of the issues that are at stake, but they have an extremely strong awareness of the conditions for political survival surrounding those issues. Super Followers thus do not stand for or represent anything in particular. They simply echo or parrot back the mood and language of the powerful or the dominant clique. Super Followers are sometimes so good at following that they do so before anyone has a chance to lead. They will gauge the mood, tone and emerging consensus of a meeting, and then stand up and articulate that consensus as if it was their own contribution. They will only do this when they feel certain of the consensus, however. Super Followers are conflict averse, so if they are confronted with some residual conflict while they try to articulate the consensus, they may shift their articulated position on a dime, so as always to seem to be in agreement with whoever they are interacting with. This kind of face-to-face agreement characterizes all of their interactions with important or powerful people. The issues don’t matter. Being on the right side is the only thing they care about. Super Followers like one particular type of subordinate; one who listens in on conversations, who has friends throughout the organization, and who feeds this information to the Super Follower to help him or her in political intrigue – a gossip. Super Followers do occasionally become leaders of organizations, and when they do, they still seek out a powerful reference group to please. There will be a set of stakeholders, constituents or commentators that the Super Follower will try to impress and appease. They “govern by opinion poll”, taking no particular stand on any issues until it is clear what the reference group wants to hear. It does not matter to the Super Follower if the organization drifts away from its actual mandate as a result of all of this impression management. It only matters if powerful onlookers criticize the Super Follower for allowing this drift to happen. They way things are is of no concern to the Super Follower. All that matters is the way things look. The irony of course is that a sole focus on form over function leads to scandalous failures of function that can expose a Super Follower for what he or she is, a confused mismanager with narrow priorities interested primarily in their own position, rather than the good of the whole organization. By worrying exclusively about looking good, they end up looking pathetically bad.

26

Finding Balance The truth is that in any adaptive situation, all four concerns are going to be relevant, though not to the same degree. In the organization of firstresponse emergency services, for example, rational order and organization (A) are very important, to enable quick responses (P). However, complex and cumbersome regulations can actually impede first responders, so finding the right balance of P and A is crucial for this predominantly Productive function. Similarly, training scenarios and simulations of possible disasters (E) are important for emergency preparedness, but these scenarios should not be misrecognized as exhaustive of the true range of possible situations that first responders may be faced with (P). It must always be remembered that truth is stranger than fiction, and that P-style on-the-ground, results-driven flexibility matters more than prior rehearsal. Finally, I-style concerns regarding the cohesiveness between different response services are important, as is the degree of Integration within the community being helped. Ideally, there will have been a long-term investment in I, since wellintegrated communities pull together in a crisis. If this was not done, the lack of I in a region will bedevil efforts to aid victims no matter how severe their privation. In real situations, the right schedule of PAEI priorities can be very difficult to determine, and given the inevitable biases of individuals, assessing PAEI needs is fundamentally a team activity. It takes a minimum of two people with complementary PAEI strengths who also share mutual respect for each others’ relative strengths, to assess and make decisions that cover all PAEI priorities adequately. Their conflicting perspectives are what generate the information needed to make quality decisions. In order for that conflict to be productive, however, mutual respect must be preserved. Disrespect for any of the four concerns will lead to predictable patterns of failure or suboptimal performance, along with the ironic traps attendant to the various styles of individual or group mismanagement.

Adizes Organizational Lifecycles The brief and incomplete survey of Adizes management and mismanagement styles above shows how the Adizes concern structure is manifested at the psychological level. Prior to that, we saw how the concern structure defined four functional imperatives of achieving long and short term effectiveness and efficiency. A third zone of application of concern structure thinking in the Adizes Methodology arises in the context of its theory of organizational lifecycle dynamics1. 1

For another personality-typed organizational lifecycle model, see Bridges (2000).

27

Like other lifecycle models, the Adizes organizational lifecycle describes several phases in the life of any project, from inception and growth through to maturation and decline. However, the Adizes lifecycle describes this maturational arc in PAEI (concern structure) terms. The lifecycle is described in ten phases: Courtship, Infancy, Go-Go, Adolescence, Prime, Stable, Aristocracy, Early Bureaucracy, Late Bureaucracy and Death. Each phase has its unique PAEI needs, and specific consequences for PAEI mismatches. The phases and their concern structure requirements are described below. Courtship [paEi] The phase of Courtship involves the potential founder of a new project or organization talking to others about the opportunity, building enthusiasm and support for the new idea. This lifecycle phase is dominated by the Entrepreneuring function. Dreams and ideas for new projects or enterprises are exciting! The enthusiasm of the originator of the idea can be profoundly contagious, pulling other people into the excitement. This excitement is what fuels the creation of the founding team and the willingness of supporters to consider investment. A grand vision is being proposed. The potential new founder is often very charismatic at this stage in the organizational lifecycle, impassioned and full of big dreams, though sketchy on details. The excitement must thus be directed towards motivating people to reality-test the new Entrepreneurial concept. The concept must be tested. Some details need to be filled out. Although this is an E-dominant lifecycle stage, P and A cannot be absent. The realism of the dream must be assessed, but not too harshly. We must not dampen the growing excitement of the founding team too much. That excitement must be harnessed to build commitment among people who join the enterprise, proportionate to the risks of the venture. If commitment does not develop, then the Courtship burns out as an Arson-like Affair, a product of E-style activity only, generating a lot of flash and noise but producing no lasting value. Infancy [Paei] Most new ventures die in Courtship. However, if the results of reality-testing are positive, and if the founders and their supporters make commitments of time, energy and resources to the project, it moves into the extraordinarily busy Infancy stage. Long-term visions take a back seat to securing the resources (cash) simply to stay afloat from moment to moment. The pressure for survival forces us to “make things up as we go along”. Few systems can be established, because of the opportunistic nature of all activities. This is normal and not life-threatening. At this rate of change it would be a mistake to try to regularize behavior too much. It is also normal 28

for delegation to be poor and uneven at this stage. Founders end up doing almost everything themselves, or they delegate in a haphazard, slightly Lone Ranger manner. A, E and I are not absent in Infancy, however. Longer-term strategies are needed, along with simple systems and support for team members, who will be facing extreme demands. If support dwindles, and if resource commitments to the Infant organization are too meager, it will suffer Infant Mortality, crumbling as an impossibly challenging enterprise with too little support. Go-Go [PaEi] After a cycle of E generating exciting new ideas and P making things happen out of raw materials and grit, the two energies come together to build on their successes. Following some hard effort, the organization will gain scope and some security of income (if the founding vision was clear in the first place). The organization will be paying for itself, no longer requiring protection or support from the outside. The founders will be able to lean back and see the organization moving on its own steam, while at the same time opportunities for more work appear everywhere. The Go-Go organization is like a toddler, growing quickly, touching everything they come across, and gaining new experience and capability all the time. Founders can come to have too many priorities, making it impossible for them to continue to lead the organization as individuals. A challenging transition is required. Founders have to offload some decision-making control, delegating it to other members of the organization. Entrepreneurship has to be decentralized too, so that people can pursue initiatives of various kinds without consulting the founder for each and every project. If over-centralized control is maintained (both P and E are focal or centralizing styles) then the organization will never grow any larger than that size which the founder can personally manage as a single individual. There will be a Lone Ranger-like bottleneck at the top of the organization, called the Founder’s Trap. In order to grow past this point, the organization has to grow bigger than the founding group can directly control. They have to reorganize themselves, and they have to learn how to work with others. Adolescence [pAEi] Adolescence is a rebirth and emergence into the phase of maturity. It requires the organization to take an inward turn, to analyze, organize and rationalize their own organizational structure. The previously sales-driven Infant-Go-Go culture (PE) must now focus on streamlining procedures, trimming waste and boosting profits (A), even if that means that sales numbers go down. Furthermore, the ad hoc, relationship-based reporting lines and job descriptions need to be dissolved and replaced by a more principled organizational structure. Professional managers with business 29

school backgrounds may be hired to do this, but they will immediately be at odds with the founding group. The newcomers will treat the job as a job, and they will not understand all of the relationships and customs that were built up among the old-timers. There will be some pressure to oust these technocratic-seeming newcomers. Or alternatively, there may be pressure applied by the new professional managers to oust the founders for their ad hoc, unschooled, intuitive manner of running a large company. If these forces are not harmonized, a Divorce between the two factions may ensue. The old-timers (PE) may expel the newcomers (A), leading to an organization that almost but never quite reaches its full potential as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. This kind of Divorce is named the Unfulfilled Entrepreneur, describing the inability of the founders to realize the full potential of their organization. Alternatively, the newcomers (A) may take over and oust the founders, losing all of the energy, vision and insight (E) that the founding group has developed in creating the company from scratch. The remaining administratively-oriented technocratic managers will then rationalize the company, improve profits briefly, and then run out of ideas. The E that guides the company will be gone. This kind of Divorce is called Premature Aging. The ousting of E by A leads to an ossified organization that can no longer grow or adapt to changes in the marketplace. Prime [PAEI] Prime is the target state for any organization. Prime organizations have the flexibility to adapt to change and the control to produce predictable results. Prime results when the conflicts of adolescence are resolved, and Integration is achieved between A and E, creating a flexible structure. This flexible structure allows the organization to turn its attention outwards again, producing results for clients with all of the vision and aggressiveness of a Go-Go organization, but in a much more predictable fashion. The organization can do more, and do better as well, continuing to enjoy efficiency gains from process improvements. Tension between E and A – the forces for change and for stability – are always at odds, however, and the impulse to ignore directions or details and simply produce results is at odds with both. The Prime organization is thus always oscillating between the launch of new projects and new ventures, and the day to day management of less volatile, older projects. If the organization grows complacent, it may delay or stop launching new projects, and just ride out the momentum of previous accomplishments. This manifests itself first as a lack of E. Losing E means the loss of the organization’s capacity for innovation. The company may still grow, but at a slower and

30

slower rate. The complacent organization will eventually suffer a major reversal of fortune. Stable [PA-I] A stable organization is an organization in trouble. By all metrics the organization is still doing well, and there is a solid history of success behind it. The mood within the organization is self-congratulatory. The founders and other key managers may feel that they have finally “arrived”. They may feel that they have discovered the formulas for lasting success, and they may begin simply applying those formulas instead of attending to changing client needs. People feel secure in the dominant position of their organization. A sense of entitlement can come to characterize their attitude towards success, and they stop listening to others outside the organization, slowly losing touch with new changing developments. These organizations are often large, and they become slow in responding to change. They have crossed a crucial line between maturing and aging. They are starting to die. Aristocracy [-A-I] If Stable organizations persist in their withdrawal from contact with the outside world, they degenerate further into Aristocracies. Cash piles up in Aristocratic organizations, which unlike Prime organizations have no new ventures lined up and waiting for investment. Aristocracies may buy other organizations, often Go-Go companies, to try to inject the missing energy and vitality back into the group. However, the heavy top-down administration of Aristocratic organizations often smothers the energetic GoGos. Aristocracies are often takeover targets themselves, due again to their tendency to pile up cash. When they are taken into other organizations, their ineffectiveness and remoteness from their client base may become painfully obvious. Aristocracies also invest in sumptuous headquarters and executive perquisites. The organization begins to feel like an exclusive country club. Membership and codes of conduct for members preoccupy the leadership, and even though many people are aware that effectiveness has been lost, nobody breaks ranks to express the bad news. Those last few who might are marginalized and finally excluded. Form rules over function. Early Bureaucracy [-A--] The eighth stage of the Adizes organizational lifecycle has been repeatedly renamed over the years. It has been called “Salem City”, because when the loss of effectiveness in the organization can no longer be hidden, and the momentum of past successes runs out, the united front of Aristocratic 31

denial ruptures, and the hunt for scapegoats begins. Everybody begins to blame everyone else. Usually, the last few productive leaders are the first to be purged. Occasional purges continue, and this activity continues to divert attention from the actual marketplace and the client needs the organization serves. Customers continue to be treated like inconvenient annoyances that distract people from the “really” important work of internal politics.

Late Bureaucracy [-A--] In the aftermath of the witch hunts, form is all that remains. If a functioning organization based on client needs was not reestablished in the reorganization of the early bureaucracy, all that gets left behind is a network of rules, regulations and practices masquerading as an organization. This explicit control and order is seen as an antidote to the chaos of Early Bureaucracy. The cohesive culture of the Aristocracy is swept away, leaving a set of rules and strictures in its place. Top managers, middle managers and workers may all come and go without much effect. The organization has its own inertia and cannot be redirected or budged from where it is. Bureaucracies grow. The effort to eliminate all gray areas and uncertainty leads to an increasingly minute specification of work roles and responsibilities, further and further removed from any real service that could be delivered to an external client. The organization has long since ceased to produce any kind of value proportionate to its vast and cumbersome size, and it is almost entirely insulated from change. Only some kind of external subsidy keeps Bureaucracies afloat. If they were dependent on client billing of any kind to generate income, they would immediately have to reduce their size and reinvent themselves as a client-centered, productive and competitive organization. Otherwise, once their subsidy is removed, they decline towards Death. Death [----] Organizational Death is rarely an event. It is usually a drawn-out process of the slow withdrawal of subsidies, reductions in size of the organization and final client abandonment of the system. Finally, no one is committed to the organization any longer; not its management, not its workers, not its clients and not its political supporters. Death is characterized by expressions of learned helplessness, and it is prolonged by an unwillingness to eliminate jobs. Maintaining a dead organization on the artificial life support system of subsidies is extremely expensive and usually occurs for purely political reasons.

32

Stable Aristocracy PRIME Adolescence

Early Bureaucracy

Go-Go

Late Bureaucracy

Infancy Courtship

Death

Figure 4: The Adizes Organizational Lifecycle (simplified)

PAEI as a Frame of Reference This brief, cursory introduction to some of the conceptual foundations of the Adizes Methodology shows how the same concepts – PAEI – can be applied to different levels of analysis. We have seen them applied to both a static and a dynamic model of organizational imperatives (the competing values framework and the lifecyle model, respectively). We have also seen them applied in a model of management styles which would have implications for other sub-domains of psychological explanation such as personality theory, learning styles theory, decision theory and the like. There are strong parallels between the Adizes concern structure model and the one used by Quinn et al. (2003) in their own model of organizational and managerial performance. These observations form a nucleus of concern structure thinking. There is a phenomenon here, described so far by two different theorists in the same discipline, which applies to human social and psychological phenomena at more than one level of analysis. The purpose of this book is to illustrate that the phenomenon is in fact much broader than this, appearing in many theories across many disciplines at many levels of analysis. The book accomplishes this goal by looking into a collection of theories and asking in each case which elements correspond to PAE and I in the Adizes Methodology. PAE and I become universal labels for facets of a larger pattern than they were initially intended to illuminate. Looking at the nucleus alone – at these two models from organizational studies and their putative correspondences, the structure of 33

concern might not seem much like something to get excited about. The generality of the concept only becomes clear as more models are considered. The bulk of this book examines other models, but before turning to them, we have to consider some explanatory hypotheses for the structure of concern. This book does not offer any final explanations of this pattern, but there are some leading candidates, and these candidates provide more common vocabulary that we can use – in addition to the PAEI framework – to compare and contrast different models in the catalog.

34

Part 2: Theoretical Ecology Why Theoretical Ecology? The examples I choose as potential explanatory hypotheses for the structure of concern are all drawn from the field of theoretical ecology. Ecology differs from the more widely used evolutionary theory in that evolution deals with the change and selection of genetic information over long periods of time, whereas ecology deals more with the flows of matter and energy throughout a present system. Evolutionary theory has been abstracted into mathematics, with the creation of genetic algorithms which can be used for search and optimization. Perhaps the same can be done with ecological theory. I do not know. All I know is that theoretical ecology showcases examples of concern structure dynamics at a very high level of generality. As such, they make it possible to observe PAEI patterns in a greater number of examples, and so they need some explanation at the outset. There are two very strong advantages to using theoretical ecology as the basis for an explanation of the structure of concern. First, theoretical ecology – with its focus on energy flows – can be seen as an exploration of the consequences of the laws of thermodynamics for living systems. It emerges out of fundamental physics, and thus offers us both foundations and constraints for our investigations. Secondly, the interplay of resources, structures and strategies described in theoretical ecology has already been fruitfully applied to the domain of organizational theory – the source domain for the Adizes PAEI framework. Indeed, the ecological approach to organizational theory has been in use for some time now (e.g. Hannan & Freeman, 1977; Hannan & Freeman 1988, Hannan & Caroll, 1992; Aldrich, 1979; Aldrich, 1999; Bidwell & Kasarda, 1985; Bidwell & Kasarda, 1987; Carroll, 1988). Theoretical ecology touches upon physical regularities that can be stated as laws, and it describes organizational patterns that can be used to analyze human organizations. It is uniquely suitable for the task at hand. Bidwell and Kasarda (1985) offer a reasonably concise introduction to the principles of population ecology that are transferable to organizational theory, so I will begin this section by paraphrasing their summary. I then go on to examine the concept of an adaptive strategy as it is expressed in population ecology; that is, in terms of r-selection, K-selection, specialist

35

architectures and generalist architectures2. These concepts have enjoyed considerable uptake in organizational studies, and I will illustrate them using organizational theory. My goal here is to describe how complex systems can move through phases where P, A, E and I concerns variously predominate. This is similar to organizational lifecycle dynamics, but instead I will be focusing on ecosystem dynamics. The model I use to illustrate this is called Holling’s adaptive renewal cycle (Holling, 2001). It shows how an ecological community can progress through PAE and I stages as it matures. This will help us in understanding some of the PAEI dynamics of the models in our catalog. Having described ecological PAEI dynamics in their dynamic aspect, we turn to consider their static aspect. The adaptive situations we face force us to prioritize PAE or I concerns under different circumstances, but all four concerns must be addressed to some degree in most situations. This means that stage-like or phase-like models of PAEI dynamics do not give us a complete picture of the PAEI structure of a given situation. We need a model that allows us to see how all four PAEI concerns can be layered together all at the same time. Theoretical ecology furnishes us with a framework for this kind of model as well. The key concept here will be hierarchical causation – a concept of central importance in ecology and related disciplines. Hierarchical causation describes the influence of microlevel, mesolevel and macrolevel processes on each other. It is the kind of causation that obtains between parts and wholes, and wholes and their contexts. When we analyze hierarchical causation, we pick a level of analysis to focus on (a focal level), and we choose some scaling criteria (the measuring stick for where things will appear on the hierarchy – namely “above” or “below” the focal level). Then we analyze how the “upwards” constraints and capacities from the lower levels and the “downwards” constraints and resources from higher levels combine to produce the focal level activity that interests us (Hölker & Breckling, 2002). I will suggest that the structure of concern emerges because all events force us to attend to lower-level and higher-level concerns simultaneously. We have evolved motivational systems and information

2

Briefly, for those familiar with the concepts, I argue that P-style behaviors are r-strategies that dominate under r-selection conditions, while A-style behaviors dominate under K-selection conditions. However, K-strategies tend to rely on specialization, and this can limit flexibility, which becomes a problem as the complexity of the selective regime or the rate of change across the ecosystem increase. To cope with more complex environments, we have to shift towards more generalist architectures, and that is where the E and I concerns assert themselves. 36

processing capacities to cope with this “nested” event structure. Our “P” motivational systems direct our attention to lower level, concrete and particular aspects of task completion. Our “A” motivational systems direct our attention to the dependencies and connections between these component tasks, so that we get the results we want in a secure and efficient manner at the focal level. “I” motivational systems make us look up the hierarchy to see where we fit in to a larger (social) framework with many relational dimensions. “E” motivational systems make us scan the environment at the highest level for signs of changes in the incentive landscape that might entice us to reorganize our goals at all of the other three levels to match new opportunities. As beings who live in evolving time-energy contexts, we need to operate at all of these levels all the time, and this is why I call this complex of imperatives the “structure” of our “concern”.

Population Ecology Logistics My purpose in this section is not to give an overview of population ecology in general, but rather to highlight one key distinction that is often borrowed from this field into other disciplines: the r/K selection distinction. The symbols “r” and “K” are said to be taken from mathematical models in ecology known as logistics equations. The logistics in question are the logistics of reproduction in continuously reproducing (as opposed to seasonally reproducing) populations, given such variables as the population density and the availability of resources. The core idea is that when resources are abundant, organisms that reproduce the quickest are favored. When resources get depleted and the habitat becomes crowded, slower-growing, slower-reproducing organisms do better. Thus, the r/K-selection distinction identifies two broad regimes of natural selection that give rise to qualitatively different kinds of biological order. The letters “r” and “K” refer to variables that describe rate of reproduction and carrying capacity of the environment supporting the population, respectively. When resources are so abundant that they are effectively unlimited, the only limit on reproduction is the time it takes to reproduce, i.e. the maximum rate of reproduction (rmax ). This maximum rate becomes the selection factor, such that the fastest, most prolific replicators make the largest contributions to future generations. These rate-adapted organisms are called r-selected. Of course, this growing population will consume resources, changing the logistics of reproduction. Eventually the diminishing availability of key resources will come to be the factor limiting reproduction. There will come a point when the population is as large as the environment can sustain. This 37

upper limit of population density is called carrying capacity and it is represented by the variable K. At K, the net rate of reproduction R0 is constant (at unity), and the intrinsic rate of increase r is zero. At that point, replicators which contribute the highest proportion of surviving offspring across generations exhibit the greatest fitness. These organisms must be adapted to survive in densely populated environments with limited resources and intense competition (Pianka, 1970; Pianka, 1988). Organisms generally get larger under K-selection. Various kinds of internal and external specializations become necessary, boosting complexity and the need for organization and coordination. Since the environment is crowded and free resources are not easily available scattering many offspring far and wide will not accomplish much. Fewer, larger offspring need to be created, packaged with on-board food resources (e.g. eggs that contain yolk sacks). This kind of adaptation is kind of like a plan to have resources available at a steady rate when needed. By developing this internal complexity and differentiation, the organism is able to buffer itself from some of the instabilities of the outside world. In organizational lifecycle terms, the transition from an r-selection regime to a K-selection regime is like the transition from the P-heavy early stages of Infancy and Go-Go to the more A-heavy stage of Adolescence. In organizations in the earlier stages, the rapid completion of tasks by any means possible is both normal and needed. However, with growing success comes the need to get organized for greater efficiency. Further growth depends on getting some internal process stability and doing some planning for longer business cycles, buffering the organization a bit from instability and volatility in the external environment. The r/K selection shift is thus a good model for the PA distinction. It does not help us illuminate transitions to E and I-type selection pressures. Holling’s adaptive renewal cycle sheds more light in that area.

Holling’s Adaptive Renewal Cycle Holling’s adaptive renewal cycle (Holling, 2001; Gunderson & Holling, 2002) continues the kind of thinking behind the logistics equation in population ecology, except instead of applying it to populations, Holling’s model takes the ecological community as its focus. One good example of an ecological community is a forest. Prior to a forest existing, some kind of natural force (flood, fire, infestation etc.) clears the ground. On that freshly exposed resource, a r-selection regimes (P) takes root, followed by Kselection regimes (A) as the carrying capacity of the resource is reached. With the intensification of the K-selection regime, organisms get larger and more internally differentiated, but that is not all that happens. Organisms specialize and differentiate from each other as well. The forest evolves into a 38

community of organisms connected together in complex food webs. As niches get filled, the community continues to mature, and even more specialized organisms fill the new “niches between the niches”, making use of any exposed material and energy resources they can evolve to exploit. The overall connectivity of the system increases. Eventually the forest becomes what ecologists call a “climax community” – a fairly stable, densely interconnected system of living organisms. In PAEI terms, we can say that as organisms developed more internal differentiation (A), they also developed more external interdependencies (I). This process of both internal and external differentiation and integration eventually binds up most of the free matter and energy in the ecological community. The community itself then becomes the “big apple” – the big source of matter and energy that could be consumed by other organisms if it was released. Resources bound up within the climax community can be released, as mentioned before, with an act of “creative destruction” – flood, fire, infestation, drought, migration, fluctuation or any other such disruption (E). That creates new opportunities, and the cycle starts all over again. In Holling’s adaptive cycle, we see P, A and I patterns of activity. Forests are fairly passive systems for the most part, so we don’t see the forest as a whole out foraging for new opportunities. Instead, for E we see the kinds of large-scale, disruptive, discontinuous changes that E concerns itself with. So not all concerns are represented in the same way in the adaptive renewal cycle, even though all four concerns are represented. To recap: starting with an exploitation-heavy race for resources/energy reduction opportunities, the cycle shifts into a phase of consolidation and stability, followed by disturbances/perturbations with a resulting reorganization. The four stages: exploitation, conservation, release and reorganization, are illustrated below (based on Berkes et al., 2003), with PAEI labels attached in the relevant places.

39

HIGH

α - Available carbon, energy, K-selection to climax community nutrients

A Potential

I

LOW

P

E

r-selection

WEAK

Ω – change agents/catalysts

Connectedness (Coupling)

STRONG

Figure 5: Holling's Adaptive Renewal Cycle

This is a two-dimensional image. The cycle may be better visualized in three dimensions as a wavy ring. If the third dimension was represented in the above image, it would add the dimension of resilience to potential and connectedness, to complete Holling’s model (Allison & Hobbs, 2004). Communities are resilient from the release phase through reorganization and into exploitation, but the increasing connectedness and interdependency that shifts exploitation to conservation prior to release makes the system more brittle. A delicate balance is struck that must be maintained or else the web may come apart and the release phase will commence. This model gives us a good picture of how a PAEI (actually PAIE, in this case) sequence can emerge in the lifecycle of a natural system. It also illustrates levels of concern in the natural world corresponding to PAE and I. However, we need to understand how each and every event has a PAEI structure at any given moment in time, rather than seeing these dynamics only in sequence. The concept of hierarchical causation gives us a model for this static aspect of PAEI, and that is the subject we turn to next.

Hierarchical Causation As mentioned earlier, for any object of analysis, hierarchical causation describes the influence of the microlevel, mesolevel and macrolevel on each other. The mesolevel is the level of analysis we are 40

focusing on (also called the focal level), and we choose some scaling criteria for defining the hierarchy (Hölker & Breckling, 2002). For example, if our focal level phenomenon is a bear, and we are interested in understanding it anatomically, its micro-level may be its cells, and its macrolevel may be its physical habitat. However, if we are more narrowly interested in the aggressive behavior of bears, the microlevel phenomenon might be the various hormonal states that accompany aggression, and the macrolevel might be the behavioral conditions that elicit aggression in that species of bear. The scaling criteria are physical in the first case, and behavioral in the second case. Ecology requires concepts of hierarchical causation. The linear causation used in experimental science is less useful for ecology, because it is best observed when all variables are controlled but one. This suppresses the web of multiple interacting activities a subject might participate in, and that web is precisely what ecologists often want to study. Hierarchical causation is a conceptual framework that allows ecologists to illuminate how bottom-up, top-down and same-level forces interact to produce the phenomenon they want to understand. One can generalize a bit about hierarchical causation and scaling criteria. Macro scale events typically occur over larger spatio-temporal spans than focal system events. They thus constitute the conditions which frame the activities at the focal level. Micro scale events typically involve the flux of material, energy and events which support the activities at the focal level. Their spatiotemporal frequencies are much higher that at levels above them. One can thus say that the spatiotemporal ‘grain’ is finer at lower levels, and that matter-energy fluctuations are faster at these levels (Hölker & Breckling, 2002). Lower-level or upwards constraints are enabling constraints, in the sense that they make events at the focal level possible. Say that the focal level event is an episode of behavior: a bear fighting. For that focal level event, hormone levels would be a lower-level constraint – a necessary but not sufficient condition (Salthe, 1985). Lower-level values generate possibilities and probabilities at the focal level without participating in focal level events. Hormones do not fight, for example. Lower-level constraints are necessary conditions for focal activity, but they are agnostic about sufficient conditions. Sufficient conditions exist only where goals and functions can be defined – at the focal level – as constrained by macro-level conditions. Upper level constraints participate in focal-level events more indirectly. Upper level constraints are contextual or environmental constraints, and they reduce (or permit) the variety of options that systems of the focal level have for action. Cold weather for warm-blooded animals, for example, forces metabolic changes, changes in calorie intake or reductions in expenditure, which increases the value of enclosed shelter, etc. Upper level constraints in 41

this example alter the cost structure at the focal level, but do not otherwise direct the activities at the focal level. Focal level systems themselves enjoy little or no upwards impact on these constraints. For example, we do not interact directly with the control parameters of seasonality, like the earth’s axis of rotation and orbital position around the sun. We cannot change these parameters as our strategy for managing seasonal temperature changes. Buffering and emergence represent two other ways in which events at different scales can influence each other. For an example of buffering, the rain cycle over an ecosystem may not deliver water at sufficiently regular intervals to meet the water needs of many of its life forms. However, the structure of storages, reservoirs, channels and flows of water may be such that even with irregular rain, water is distributed predictably throughout the ecosystem at an essentially constant rate. Emergent properties emerge in hierarchies when lower-level processes come together to produce focal-level properties that could not have been deduced from lower-level properties. Common examples of emergent behaviors include market interactions, which regulate the supply and pricing of goods around the world without any central entity to govern it, and flocking/herding/schooling formations among animals that allow them to benefit from the various properties of the collective as a unit. Both buffering and emergence are special instances of the kinds of downward and upward causality and constraint that characterize hierarchical systems. Hierarchical causation describes many other systems at many scales, for example: Animal Metabolism • • • •

P-Level (bottom): Metabolic activities and pathways; A-Level: Cell structure, tissue/organ specialization; I-Level: Endocrine signaling, system-wide signaling of biological state changes; E-Level: Processing environmental signals of seasonal change, launching preparatory/anticipatory biological changes to be ready for seasonal change.

Strategic Purpose in Organizations • •

•

42

P-Level (bottom): Transactions and discrete tasks; A-Level: Explicit plans for obtaining specific results with an allocation of resources, plans for allocating limited resources over a specified project set; I-Level: Stated goals of the organization for a time period, understood by each department, manager and employee, allowing

•

work using to exercise creativity or collaboration in reaching goals in an organic fashion; E-Level: The mission, vision and strategic position of the organization, orienting decision-makers so that they can dispense with or change all of the lower-level, more concrete directives, in order to realize the core values of the organization.

Dramatic Structure • • • •

P-Level: Beats, events, scenes – the transactions and interactions of drama; A-Level: Acts, chapters, sections, sequences – the ordering and organization of event presentation; I-Level: Character – local representations of values, goals and positions that may change as the circumstances of the story change; E-Level: Theme – The premise or argument the drama explores through the revelation of values in the interaction between all of its components and structural elements.

Hierarchical causation can be represented graphically as follows (adapted from Jørgensen, 1992, p. 210):

Higher-Level Constraints Downward Constraint

E Level: Gaps and perturbations beyond normal flexibility range

I Level: External forces impact focal frame, requires flexibility

Focal Level: The level being observed.

Upward Constraint Lower-Level Constraints

A Level: Nested local dependencies

P Level: Short cycle component processes

Figure 6: PAEI Levels of Concern in Hierarchical Causation

This pattern of hierarchical causation represents lower-level component processes (P), within a dependency structure (A). These enable focal level activity that emerges between them and the downward constraints from the environment. However, patterns of downward constraint are 43

variable, not fixed, and so lower-level ensembles need the flexibility to change to match a variety of circumstances (I). This match is never perfect, however. This means that there always remain fitness strategies yet to be explored, as well as longer-cycle or sporadic environmental changes that impact the risks and opportunities of a given niche. Exploratory action targets these unknowns at the E level. The conceptual framework of hierarchical causation seems to be a promising model of event structure. It would explain why there are PAE and I parameters for all major tasks. As a result, we should be alert to hierarchical patterns in any of the models we might wish to catalog. Hierarchical causation may indicate that a concern structure may be discernable in such a model.

Hierarchies of Action Different patterns of activity make sense depending on which level of hierarchical causation we need to operate upon. Take the following task hierarchy: P – discrete tasks are the smallest microlevel, A – dependencies between tasks are the next level up, I – the coordination of people to do the tasks is the smallest macrolevel factor, E – the landscape of contextual forces, opportunities and threats is the highest level. The challenge of managing and coordinating tasks differs greatly depending on where they fall in the constraint hierarchy. Nickerson and Zenger (2004) point out that if, if tasks are entirely decomposable into discrete and separate accomplishments (emphasizing P-style, lower-level constraints), there is no need to house them within a single firm or organization at all. A market can be set up, and this would be the most efficient way of coordinating how and where tasks would get done. Some tasks are not entirely decomposable however, but they are partly decomposable. A division of labor can be set up (emphasizing A-style differentiation and integration), and people in each area can work on their component of the overall solution. So long as each set of solutions can be developed without excessive impact on other components, an authority-based hierarchy can be established, with central decision-makers who define the projects, divide up the labor and coordinate the assembly of the solution. Central authorities can direct the search for the best solution. High-interaction problems do not support this kind of decomposition, however, and they require a different kind of search for solutions. For a 44

complex task like designing a new microprocessor, a broad group of people needs to be assembled, because nearly every aspect of the design has an impact on nearly every other aspect of the design (including engineering, financing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution etc.). A heuristic, E-style search is needed – one that supports high levels of I-style collaboration without too much overt direction – in order to find the best solutions to these kinds of problems. Nickerson and Zenger describe how consensus-based hierarchies are the best way to govern these kinds of information searches within or among the participating firms (Nickerson & Zenger, 2004). This information-processing view of the firm echoes some fundamental principles of organizational theory – the distinction between specialists and generalists. In stable environments where common tasks repeat themselves, specialists can emerge. As the complexity and rates of change in the environment increase, however, generalists tend to predominate. In concern structure terms, PA concerns are more in the specialist domain, and EI concerns in the generalist domain. PA concerns focus on stable or concrete aspects of the task environment, EI concerns focus on adaptation to the more dynamic and unpredictable aspects of the task environment.

45

Part 3: Catalog of Concern Structure Models Catalog Introduction This catalog is an argument, supporting the hypothesis that some general pattern I call “the structure of concern” exists, and has some significance for how we live our lives. The entries in this catalog all at least partially exhibit the same overarching pattern. The correspondences are not perfect. Sometimes only three of the four concern structure facets are represented in a model, sometimes the field of concern is split into five or more facets, sometimes the correspondences are quite clear and sometimes they are a little more forced. This is a fuzzy set, this catalog of models, but despite the fuzziness, the pattern is nevertheless recognizable and remarkable. Many of the catalog entries feature textual description, a graphic depicting the PAEI correspondences of the model, and a second graphic showing the axes, dimensions or distinctions that are crossed in order to give rise to the quadrants of the model. This is not done in absolutely every case. Some models describe four factors without suggesting that they differ along dimensions of any kind. Sometimes I detect and describe dimensions in them anyhow, sometimes I do not. There is a lot of imprecision and subjectivity that has gone into the creation of this catalog, and I bear sole responsibility for any distortions that may introduce into the collection. I still think there is an interesting phenomenon to be described here, but I am not sure how best to frame the description. What is the structure of concern? I have a whole host of examples, but no general statement that covers them all. I open this catalog with a description of a stand-alone model: a theory of animal morphology that does not fit any of the other categories in this catalog. I then launch into the activity of cataloging models in business and management studies, in various branches of psychology, and in other disciplines that all seem to touch in some way upon this pattern I am calling the structure of concern. This catalog is an argument that something here exists which deserves to be looked at. I hope you find the looking at it personally rewarding and insight-provoking.

46

1.

Order in Living Organisms: Rupert Riedl

Rupert Riedl was an Austrian zoologist who made many contributions to the field of evolutionary biology, ecology, Standard Interaction and morphology (Riedl, 1978). At a time when evolutionary theory emphasized Part population genetics to the exclusion of almost all else, Riedl began examining the role of what might be called ‘developmental systematics’ in evolution. Traditive This approach “…emphasizes the role of Hierarchy Inheritance functional and developmental integration in limiting and enabling adaptive evolution by natural selection. The main objective of this theory is to account for the observed patterns of morphological evolution, such as the conservation of body plans…” (Wagner & Laubichler, 2004). Riedl did not try to demote natural selection as a pre-eminent cause of evolution, but he did seek to promote the importance of developmental factors as primary delimiters and enablers of evolutionary change, particularly in the domain of animal morphology.

PA E I

Riedl’s 1978 book entitled Order in living organisms: A systems analysis of evolution presents an account of animal morphology as an evolvable system, and the core concepts of this work fall into a concern structure pattern, primarily due to their hierarchical structure. Riedl understands a morphological system to consist of four distinct ordering principles, given in PAEI order below: P – Standard Part A – Interaction E – Hierarchy I – Traditive Inheritance P - Standard Part: The constraint that any larger form in the universe must be composed of multiple “copies” or instances of specific sub-forms or components. If we transfer this insight and apply it to the hierarchical structure of tasks and events, these would be the concrete particular objects that P managers prefer to concern themselves with. A – Interaction: Constraints resulting from the assembly of these standard parts into a system. Thus the degrees of freedom or variability of standard 47

parts are limited to the subset that is compatible with other standard parts with which it interacts as part of a larger ensemble. These are same-level constraints are imposed by system participation, through mutual dependencies and determinative decision logics. In the management of tasks or events this is a primary concern of the A style. E – Hierarchy: This type of connectivity describes the upwards constraints imposed by parts on the whole, and reciprocal downwards constraints imposed by the whole on parts. All of the standard building blocks of organisms are fitted inside each other in a system of frameworks which mutually require and determine each other. This is the domain of E concern, because events high in the hierarchy can cause big changes lower in the hierarchy, making big gains possible when there are new opportunities to exploit. I - Traditive Inheritance: The passage of morphological information through time. Traditive inheritance is like interactive constraint, but it is successive rather than simultaneous. It preserves as much information about system linkages from the past – from family or genetic history – as possible, in order to give each part its place in a pattern that works well together, given the interior and exterior perturbations that will threaten a system’s integration. The emphasis on continuity with others puts this in the I domain of concern. These four basic patterns form a unity, which is the total connectivity of the system. That unity has a more robust ontological status than the four types of order. These four patterns are consequences of a single principle of constraint as it appears locally, globally, across scales and over time. Totally connectivity is the whole, the four types of order are its parts. They can be seen as solutions to the problems of connectivity at different powers of resolution. Nevertheless, these are real constraints on evolvable systems, in that a system which violated them would not exhibit the combination of structure and flexibility that underlies evolutionary processes. These four morphological constraints both enable and canalize evolution, resulting in definite structural forms that characterize phylogeny. Reidl’s work raises the possibility that any adaptive system made up of parts and wholes will show a concern structure. The study of parts and wholes is called mereology, so the structure of concern may be a simple function of adaptive mereology. Thus, any system where parts and wholes are adapted within contexts would show the structure of concern.

48

Rupert Riedl: Dimensions and Distinctions

Local Interactions

Standard Part

Interaction

Vertical Perspective

Horizontal Perspective Hierarchy

Relational Focus

Traditive Inheritance

Global Interactions

Componential Focus

49

Management Studies In the management studies section, there is a subjective/objective distinction that can be used to help organize the models. The first five models emphasize management styles – personality based, task-contingent or behavioural. They thus have a subjective focus, by and large. The last six models in the section emphasize tasks, tactics, strategies and domains of concern. They thus have a more objective focus than the first five models did. The emphases of each model are summarized below, with further explanation given in the catalog entry for each one. 2. Competing Values Framework: Quinn et al. A theory of socially contingent management tasks, styles and outcomes, as well as a theory about organizational cultures. 3. Team Management Systems: Margerison-McCann A model of management tasks and corresponding personality styles. 4. Styles of Entrepreneurs: Ginzberg & Buchholtz Styles of entrepreneurial behaviour. 5. Plus 32 Employment Testing System: B. R. Garrison Managerial personality profiles. 6. Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument: Ned Herrmann A model of individual differences, cognition and personality. 7. The Demand-Control Model of Stress: Karasek Focus on qualities of tasks and job types. 8. Transitions and Aftershock: Bridges, Woodward & Buchholz Bridges model describes a set of needs when coping with change. Woodward and Buchholz describe the effect of those needs not being met. 9. The Four Levers of Corporate Change: Brill & Worth Describes four strategies for effecting organizational changes. 10. Macroenvironmental Analysis: Fahey & Narayanan Describes four domains of concern for managers. 11. The Four Business Strategies: Michael Porter Describes four strategies for achieving competitive advantage. 12. The Icarus Paradox: Danny Miller Four strategic patterns that can lead companies first to succeed, then to fail, due to a failure to change their once-successful strategies. 50

13. Balanced Scorecard: Kaplan and Norton Four perspectives on measurable organizational performance. 14. Noble Purposes in Mission Statements: Nikos Mourkogiannis Four ways organizational leaders can frame organizational purposes to make people feel that their efforts are worthwhile. 15. Strategic Thinking – A Four Piece Puzzle: Bill Birnbaum Describes four key tasks that managers have to perform for strategic success. 16. Stakeholder Styles: Duke Coroporate Education A personality-type model for organizational behaviour, especially responses to change and risk. 17. Four Kinds of Salespeople: Chuck Mache A personality and task-type model of salesperson styles. These models are all described in more detail below, with PAEI correspondences explicitly spelled out. I describe some of the models at considerable length. These are the models I had the leisure to explore in greater detail. The last few models on the list are described very briefly. These models are ones I read about in passing, and I include them here mainly to document their existence, with reference to the original sources for people who want to explore them further.

51

2.

Competing Values Frameworks of Management: Quinn et al.

The competing values framework of management developed by Quinn, Faerman, Thomspon and McGrath is an Rational Internal approach to management and management Goal Process education that is entirely based upon (Market) (Hierarchy) concern structure concepts (Quinn et al. 2003). They begin their analysis with a review of different approaches to Human Open management as they emerged in the history Relations Systems of American industrialization, and then (Clan) construct a unified approach which (Adhocracy) combines all of the historical methods into one contemporary method which applies different styles to different situations according to relationships of fit. In management education, this framework helps managers consider all of the roles they may have to play, identifying areas of strength and weakness and indicating where further learning and training are needed.

PA E I

The various historical epochs reviewed by Quinn et al. are reviewed below, preceded by the Adizes PAEI letters that characterize the different stages. Historical dates refer to the time periods when these models emerged. None of these models are considered to have disappeared entirely. The concerns of each remain valid to a degree even as new models arise. PA – 1900 to 1925: The Rational Goal Model & the Internal Process Model During the first quarter of the twentieth century, the US economy grew dramatically as the society shifted from its agrarian base towards an industrial one. People faced new economic pressures to create wealth. Living conditions changed, and new techniques for increasing productivity emerged, including Henry Ford’s assembly line; in part an application of Frederick Taylor’s principles of ‘scientific management’. Taylor’s rationalization of work particularized the production process, involving an analysis (or ‘science’) of every job, selecting and training workers to fit these explicit requirements, rewarding productivity and keeping the process coordinated and running smoothly so that workers would never be hindered in their work. These socio economic pressures and developments gave rise to what the authors call the rational goal model of management. Profit was the ultimate goal and final arbiter of management decisions, and making harsh rationalistic judgments that ruthlessly placed the drive for profits above 52

humane considerations was seen as a sign of strong management. There was little unionization and a lot of hardship for workers. As industrial organizations grew, their process of hierarchical layering also exhibited the same penchant for particularized roles and explicit rules free of redundancy. This so-called internal process model of American management began to develop during this period, but came more fully into its own in the second quarter of the twentieth century when Max Weber’s work on bureaucracy and Hernri Fayol’s work on administration were translated into English. I – 1926 to 1950: Emergence of the Human Relations Model This period saw the stock market crash, the Depression, and World War II with its massive concentration of the American public into large industrial cities. Unionization and rising wages prompted a boom in the market for consumer goods, putting technological labor-saving devices in peoples’ homes. Workers were less docile, and more willing and able to withhold their cooperation during disputes with management. New management skills were needed in this environment, and Dale Carnegie’s legendary book How to Make Friends and Influence People hit the market and became hugely popular. The academic study of industrial relations began, and the human relations model of management emerged. The human relations model of management emphasizes commitment, involvement, team cohesion and the upkeep of morale. Equality-enhancing group processes like consensus-building and conflict resolution. The goal is still to increase productivity, but to do this by increasing employee commitment, by resolving tensions and enhancing motivation. The human relations model directly opposed many of the assumptions of the still-ascendant rational goals and internal processes model. This made it incomprehensible to many managers at first, setting up a two-cultures problem in management. Uptake of its recommendations was uneven, and it was often diluted into a sort of friendly authoritarianism. However, its development continued (and continues still), and by the next period of the twentieth century it began delivering more meaningful results in major industrial organizations.

E – 1951 to 1975: Emergence of the Open Systems Model The American economy grew up against some limits during this period, specifically the 1971 oil embargo and the swift growth of the 53

Japanese export market. Government debt was high. Heavy industries had to reinvent themselves, and service industries gained increasing importance in the domestic economy. Opposition to the Vietnam war prompted a reevaluation and distancing from a collective national identity. Education levels had risen, and people began reading across a broader range of topics, including social, economic, ethical and ecological issues. The human relations school of management had been articulating a contrarian position in the field of management for some time, and the population was in a searching and questioning mood. These were receptive times for new insights. The message from prominent management thinkers was that organizations were much more open and dynamic than earlier theories had indicated. Systems thinking entered the profession through the efforts of researchers at various American institutions. Empirical studies revealed that organizations were really not much like machines that managers could control according to plan. Mintzberg’s work showed that managers actually worked in dynamic and highly unpredictable contexts, with little time or use for rational planning. Much of their time had to be spent creating quick solutions for contingent problems. The calm, rational organizational pyramid gave a false impression of how hectic and spontaneous management work really was. Emerging open systems models emphasized the need for fluidity, attentiveness and responsiveness in an ambiguous environment. It emphasizes how constant innovation and adaptation is needed in order to acquire and leverage external resources. Executive risk is high in turbulent times, and decisions have to be made quickly and on the spot at times, so a strong shared vision, mission and value framework are needed for coordination of actions. In this missionary culture, employee underperformance is often attributed either to disaffection or burnout/overload stress. Managers need to find creative ways to help keep the balance on their teams.

PAEI – Balance/Contingency Models and the Competing Values Model After decades of experimentation, management thinkers were beginning to notice that all of the various styles of management seemed to produce their share of successes and failures. It seemed that managers sometimes needed to use one approach, and sometimes another. Getting the right balance was key. Importantly, it was also clear that the priorities within a certain situation shifted and changed quite often. Balance always had to be adjusted to track the changing context. 54

Quinn, Faerman, Thompson and McGrath position their own competing values model as a balance model. Their model explicitly affirms the usefulness of all four approaches to management. The four competing values are arranged along two continua, flexibility-control and internalexternal focus. For example, the rational goal model reflects a control motive and an external focus. Within each resulting quadrant, they define two management roles or “orientations”. The rational goal quadrant contains two management roles: director and producer. These have a circumplex relationship with the axes, so if a circle was drawn around the crossed axes and sliced into eight pie-sections, the producer role would be on the “external focus” side of the rational goal quadrant, and the director role on the “control” side. One could say that the rational goal value set has a control slant and an external focus slant, and varying emphasis can be placed on each one. The four competing values from Quinn et al are summarized below. P – Rational Goal Model (Control, External Focus) Values: Success measured by profits, attained through goal/task clarification and taking action. Role (External slant) – Producer: Full task focus, high interest, motivation, energy, drive. Great personal productivity and intense goal focus. Can foster a productive work environment and manage time energy/stress levels of team. – Negatives: Overachieving, individualistic (destroys cohesion). Role (Control slant) – Director: Maps out the way through problem clarification, option evaluation, planning, goal setting, role/task definition and designing rules and instructions. Directly supervises work and keeps team on task. – Negatives: Unreceptive, unfeeling (offends individuals). A – Internal Process Model (Control, Internal Focus) Values: Stability, hierarchy, continuity, routinization, attainted through defining responsibilities, measurement and documentation. Role (Internal slant) – Monitor: Tracking individual job performance, tracking team or project performance, ensuring standardization of processes, analyzing information and critical thinking. – Negatives: Unimaginative, tedious (neglects possibilities). Role (Control slant) – Coordinator: Managing project dependencies, breaking down and designing work assignments, managing dependencies across functions. – Negatives: Skeptical, cynical (stifles progress).

55

E – Open Systems Model (Flexibility, External Focus) Values: Innovation, adaptation and growth through external bargaining, brokering and negotiation, creative problem solving, innovation and change management. Role (External slant) – Broker: builds and maintains a resource network and power base, presents concepts and new ideas, negotiates agreements and commitment. – Negatives: Opportunistic, overly aspiring (disrupts continuity). Role (Flexibility slant) – Innovator: Living with, adapting to and managing change, creative thinking. – Negatives: Unrealistic, impractical (wastes energy). I – Human Relations Model (Flexibility, Internal Focus) Values: Commitment, cohesion and morale through involvement, participation, conflict resolution, teamwork and consensus building. Role (Internal Slant) – Facilitator: Team building, managing conflict and participatory decision making processes. – Negatives: Overly democratic, too participative (slows production). Role (Flexibility slant) – Mentor: People skills, understanding of self and others, effective communication and personnel development. – Negatives: Soft-hearted, permissive (abdicates authority). Besides this management education application of the competing values framework, Cameron and Quinn (1999) articulate a version of the framework for diagnosing and changing organizational cultures. They describe four organizational cultures as follows. P – Market Cultures: Focused on transactions, competitive advantage, profitability, productivity and bottom-line results. A – Hierarchy Cultures: Clear lines of authority, standardized rules and procedures, coordination, organization, formal policies, stability, predictability, efficiency. E – Adhocracy Cultures: Organized anarchy, creativity, flexibility, innovation, adaptability, individuality, risk-taking. I – Clan Cultures: Teamwork, participation, cohesion, shared values and goals, more like extended families than economic organizations. Organizational cultures are analyzed into facets and the cultural profiles of each facet are mapped in order to reveal various degrees of fit or lack of fit between cultural elements and the overall organizational situation. 56

Quinn et al.: Dimensions and Distinctions

Control Stability

Product Rational Goal (Market)

Internal Process (Hierarchy)

External Focus

Internal Focus Open Systems (Adhocracy)

Human Relations (Clan)

Innovation

Producers Flexibility

57

3.

Team Management Systems: Margerison-McCann

The Margerison-McCann Team Management System is a personality-based management optimization system. It defines a set of management styles or Organizers Controllers preferences, emphasizing the need to integrate or "link" all of these styles together on an effective team. Its management style profiling instrument is of central importance to the system. The Explorers Advisers instrument has been subjected to intensive statistical validation, using an international sample of over 3000 for the first validity test, and over 70,000 for subsequent tests, with breakdowns and comparisons made along several dimensions (Margerison-McCann Team Management Systems, 1998). The strength of the system lies in its focus on team dynamics, making it a valuable tool for interventions at the team level.

PA E I

At the core of the system are two models: the Types of Work Wheel and the Team Management Wheel. The Types of Work Wheel summarizes the eight work functions codified by the system, as well as the linking skills that connect them all together. The Team Management Wheel reflects employee preferences for each of the types of work. Both wheels are reproduced below, the first one for visual reference only. Types of Work Wheel Promoting Innovating Advising

Developing Linking

Producing

Maintaining Inspecting

58

Organizing

Key Teamwork Functions The wheel display eight types of management work, plus a linking function connecting them. These are the types of work that managers in the Margerison-McCann research sample identified as important, in varying degrees depending on organizational function. In other words, some management teams emphasized some activities more than others, but these remained the key activities that all teams agreed they needed to focus on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Advising - gathering and reporting information Innovating - creating and experimenting with ideas Promoting - exploring and presenting opportunities Developing - assessing and testing the applicability of new approaches Organizing - establishing and implementing ways of making things work Producing - concluding and delivering outputs Inspecting - controlling and auditing the working of systems Maintaining - upholding and safeguarding standards and processes Linking - coordinating and integrating the teamwork functions both internally and externally.

Coinciding with these management tasks, different management roles were also defined on a wheel, as illustrated below. Team Management Wheel

Explorer Promoter Assessor Developer

Creator Innovator Reporter Advisor

Linker

Upholder Maintainer

Thruster Organizer Concluder Producer

Controller Inspector

59

The structure of concern would remain easy to discern even if the Team Management Wheel was left in this eightfold division. However, the model has been adorned with an outer circle which make the structure fully evident.

Explorer Promoter Assessor Developer

Creator Innovator Reporter Advisor

Linker

Upholder Maintainer

Thruster Organizer Concluder Producer

Controller Inspector

The Margerison-McCann Team Management System (TMS) represents a line of research and application based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, with adaptations of and departures from the underlying Jungian model made as needed to accommodate the special domain of management roles. The Jungian functions have information processing considerations as their conceptual core. The TMS shifted that emphasis in the direction of praxis, promoting ‘work preferences’ to the core position. The four dimensions used in the TMS for sorting management preferences are listed below, with the MBTI dimensions in brackets: • • • •

Extroversion—Introversion [Extroversion—Introversion] Practical—Creative [Sensing—Intuiting] Analytical—Beliefs [Thinking—Feeling] Structured—Flexible [Judging—Perceiving ]

Each job role or position on the Team Management Wheel is then associated with a four-letter Team Management Indicator profile, as follows. 60

Explorer-Promoters: ECAF - Likes autonomy, unstructured problems, theorizing and strategizing. Energized by solving problems, making presentations, displaying knowledge. Dislikes routine, repetitive work, strict procedures. ECBS – Likes deciding how the team should develop, researching better ways to do things. Dislikes coordinating the information flow. Assessor-Developers: ECAS – Likes completing projects successfully to the specifications/expectations of superiors or clients. Likes to focus on the technical content of the job. Attention to detail, practicality, production oriented, high energy and high output, analyses problem quickly and forcefully presents conclusion. Dislikes attending to administrative procedures. Thruster-Organizers: EPAS – Likes coordinating or planning a specific task which involves use of many resources (project management). Motivated by power, influence, importance and recognition. Keen to involve subordinates actively in the more interesting aspects of work. Loyal and objective with subordinates, helps employees outside work, always willing to help outside parties. Dislikes meetings, and dislikes being ‘sidetracked’ by being asked to respond to issues not directly under their control or their employer's authority. Concluder-Producers: (IPAS) – Likes organizing work and producing successful outcomes, developing and directing projects, and supervision/control of the budget. Enthusiastic, hard-working and dedicated. Ordered, methodical, reliable, energetic with a high task focus. Dislikes disciplining, conflict resolution, ongoing meetings, detailed breakdowns of expenditures against budget, forecasting expenditures, strict deadlines and report writing for senior management. Does not hold up well under pressure. Works alone to gather and assess data. Does not communicate easily with other staff. Authoritative and not very flexible. Controller-Inspectors: (IPBS) - Strong feelings and beliefs are important in decisions. Very orderly and neat. Believes in solving problems right away instead of postponing then. Likes financial advisory duties, hates accounting reporting duties. MISSING – UPHOLDER-MAINTAINER Reporter-Advisors: (ICBF) – Likes consulting with clients, thrives at meetings, always willing, ready and able to help superiors with timely information and aid. Hates research and emphasis on technical details. Creator-Innovators: (ECBF) - High personal standards, critical, intelligent, gets visions or insights into problems, strategic thinker, frank, blunt. Likes designing, testing and implementing new systems and processes for the 61

whole organization together with top management. Dislikes processing simple routine one-off tasks which involve volumes of paperwork.

Margerison-McCann: Dimensions and Distinctions Structured Practical

Analytical Controllers

Organizers Extroverted

Introverted Explorers

Creative

62

Advisers

Beliefs Flexible

4.

Styles of Entrepreneurs: Ginzberg & Buchholtz

Ari Ginsberg and Ann Buchholtz presented a study in the late 1980’s that reviewed 10 earlier studies of the personality Owner Corporate characteristics and traits of entrepreneurs, Managers Managers looking for common factors (Ginsberg & Buchholtz, 1989). In their review, they found that entrepreneurs were typically characterized by their behaviors more than by their personalities. People were Independent Corporate considered entrepreneurs when they were Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurs founders of a distinct new venture who then took on the roles of owner and manager of the resulting business.

PA E I

Ginsberg and Buchholtz used these behavioral qualities to propose a two-dimensional framework for defining entrepreneurial styles. The first dimension combined risk-taking propensity with decision-making autonomy (independence), and the second one singled out innovation propensity (creativity). Crossing these dimensions and differentiating high and low values for each one resulted in the following four-style categorization: P – Owner Managers (High Independence, Low Innovation) A – Corporate Manager (Low Independence, Low Innovation) E – Independent Entrepreneur (High Independence, High Innovation) I – Corporate Entrepreneur (Low Independence, High Innovation) Ann Buchholtz has participated in some more recent research assessing entrepreneurial success with Big Five personality inventories (Ciavarella et al., 2004). The researchers found that openness to experience, a Big Five quality which most people might attribute to entrepreneurs, was actually negatively related to long-term new venture survival. Some of the qualities that make an entrepreneur interested in new projects can divert them from carrying plans through. Conscientious focus and the ability to ignore opportunities are the key to long-term new venture survival, once those new ventures have been launched. This finding corresponds to the shift from courtship/conceptualization to infancy in the Adizes organizational lifecycle and other lifecycle models. The power of E to introduce change and build excitement helps drive the launch of a new venture, but P and the A make it viable, and P takes the lead during the childhood of the organization.

63

Ginsberg and Buchholtz: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low Innovation

Owner Managers

Corporate Managers

High Independence

Low Independence Independent Entrepreneur

Corporate Entrepreneur

High Innovation

64

5.

Plus 32 Employment Testing System: B. R. Garrison Software Group

The Plus-32 Employment Testing System is an employee profiling software package based loosely upon the Hippocratic/Galenic The The Serious temperament model. It sorts personality Leader One factors into four main groups. All people have all four personality factors, but only to a certain percentage value for each group. There are 16 personality types, based on the Have different possible rankings of the four Happy Go Personality groups. A 17th type "E" is added, Lucky Will Travel indicating someone who is equal in all four main categories. Thus, unlike Adizes or Jungian type theories, it is possible (though thought rare) for someone to be equally strong in all areas (Garrison, 1998).

PA E I

The Plus 32 system contains pattern-detection algorithms that try to filter out the effects of equivocation between test items, or of employees parroting buzzwords that are known to be important to the corporate culture, but which do not reflect their actual personality. A Plus 32 report thus includes a consistency rating, indicating how consistent a subject's answers were according to the categories of the system. Less confidence is accorded to less consistent results. The system has been validated by exit interviews among test groups. Profiles for different job functions in an organization are developed through local benchmarking. Human resource officers divide the employees within a job category into thirds, and look for profile similarities and differences among the top-third performers, middle-third performers and lower-third performers. The results of this benchmarking indicate that different profiles characterize top performers doing the same job in different companies, reflecting different corporate cultures and local market situations. This instrument measures 18 personality traits (listed below) to determine the role of each of the following four personality types in each person. Type A: The Leader Type B: Have Personality Will Travel Type C: The Serious One Type D: Happy Go Lucky The order of these four types in Adizes terminology is PEAI. 65

P - Type A; The Leader: Motivated by money and challenge. Tend to lead, not follow. No patience for fuzzy thoughts or actions that do not lead directly to tangible results or a monetary reward. They hate soft-skills seminars. They only want to hear about the bottom line. They do not take direction well, and have little compassion. To direct them, you have to ask them what they think should be done, debate pros and cons with them, and show them how your proposed direction benefits them more than any alternative. E -Type B; Have Personality Will Travel: A talker, a people-person who demands recognition and attention, and a constantly changing work environment. They tend to get bored easily. They require direction and thrive on hype and excitement. They hate details, facts and figures, and have short attention spans. They want to try everything without finishing anything. They are flexible and will handle shifts in task assignment well. They have huge egos, and are best rewarded by recognition. They appreciate praise and pep-talks. Although they are very competitive for honors, money means little to them. A - Type C; The Serious One: Prefer things to be uniform/consistent, professional and reliable. They enjoy technical posts involving detailed charts and graphs. Thrives on routine, perfection, detail and analysis. There is no room for hype in their world. They work on a task until it is completed, by the book. Do not pull them off a half-finished task to work on another one. They need a regular environment, same desk, same hours, clear rules and boundaries, etc. They are loyal in stable situations. They are anchors, rather than movers and shakers. I - Type D; Happy Go Lucky: Do better in low-key positions. Have pleasant personalities and get along with most people. Do well in customer service, or areas where stability and balance are needed. They have little need for hype or change. They are patient, they like teamwork, and they work at their own pace, neither fast nor slow. They are not hugely ambitious, and they prefer not to rock the boat.

66

Plus-32 Testing System: Dimensions and Distinctions

Task Focused

The Leader

The Serious One

Change

Stability Have Personality Will Travel

Happy Go Lucky

Experience Focused

67

6.

Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument: Ned Herrmann

Ned Herrmann was the head of management education at General Electric in the 1970's and 80's. His background was in physics, and he was also active in artistic and cultural circles, which gave him an appreciation of different styles of creativity. During the late 1970's he undertook a reform of GE's management training programs to make them more reflective of individual differences in learning and thinking style preferences (Herrmann, 1989).

B A A P D C E I

Herrmann's initial categories emerged out of a factor analysis of 500 survey forms filled out by subjects participating in his thinking-styles research. The survey forms were revised and administered to a second group of 300 participants, and correlated with the original data. Based on those results, an initial thinking style assessment instrument was created. The research and assessment instruments underwent 19 cycles of revision and refinement over the course of their development, but the revision was never wholesale, and items persist in the contemporary instrument that were composed during the initial revision (Herrmann, 1989). Herrmann's research was energized by his understanding of the different processing specialties of the left and right hemispheres of the human isocortex, in the wake of Sperry's studies with split brain patients in the 50's and 60's. He was also influenced by Paul MacLean's triune brain theory, and by a general appreciation of the limbic system's role in emotion, cognition and memory. (Herrmann, 1989) These high-level biological subdivisions served as the framework for his theorizing; resulting in a model with four quadrants, one for each major system of the brain as he then understood it: A: Upper-left (cerebral) hemisphere - Person favors activities involving analysis, logic and fact-finding - left isocortical dominance. B: Lower-left (limbic) hemisphere - Like type A but more action-oriented, impatient and distrustful of abstract considerations, intensely focused and persistent - left limbic dominance.

68

C: Lower-right (limbic) hemisphere - A sensitive and receptive people-reader and mood-minder, evaluates issues in terms of their emotional significance right limbic dominance. D: Upper-right (cerebral) hemisphere - Wild and original, motivated only by novelty, possibility, variety, oddities and incongruities, can be impersonal and fears structure - right isocortical dominance. ((Herrmann, 1989) p. 7985) Rearranging these categories into PAEI order gives us: P: [B] Lower-left (limbic) hemisphere - Like type A but more actionoriented, impatient and distrustful of abstract considerations. A: [A] Upper-left (cerebral) hemisphere - Favoring activities involving analysis, logic and fact-finding. E: [D] Upper-right (cerebral) hemisphere - Wild and original, motivated only by novelty, possibility, variety, oddities and incongruities. I: [C] Lower-right (limbic) hemisphere - A sensitive and receptive peoplereader and mood-minder. In the early stages of his research, Herrmann took the hemispherical assignations in this model very seriously, trying to tie survey results very closely to anatomical brain regions. He later abandoned this approach, using the anatomical designators as metaphors for the four thinking styles he was measuring. While the instrument is still called the Herrmann Brain Dominance Indicator, the quadrants are now referred to by the letters A, B, C, D, rather than by anatomical regions of the brain. Scores on the HBDI are presented on a radar diagram. A circle is divided into quadrants A-D, and two diagonal axes are drawn like an "X" through the circle as well. The diagonal axes are graduated to indicate scores from the indicator, and a profile can be drawn on the diagram by connecting the scores together with lines. This will lead to an uneven polygon that "points" in the direction of one's dominant style or styles. If someone was equally dominant in all four quadrants, the polygon would be a perfect square. Interestingly, Herrmann does admit "Quadruple Dominance" as a possible cognitive profile, but one that carries costs of greater internal conflict and longer decision-making processes. A sample radar diagram is reproduced below. Note that the placement of the quadrants around the circle matches the position of the metaphorically associated brain region.

69

A

D

B

C

Profiles are also rendered as ranked quadrants, so that the Adizes profile paEI would be rendered "ABCD" 3-3-1-1 Substantial effort was made to validate the constructs underlying this model and the instrument for assessing it, internally and externally, including six different factor analysis studies. These studies found that four stable and discreet clusters of preferences did exist, that scores from the instrument were valid indicators of these clusters, and that scores permitted valid inferences about a person's preferences and avoidances for each cluster, among other findings.

70

Ned Herrmann: Dimensions and Distinctions

Structured Analytical

Independent

A: Upper Left

B: Lower Left Spontaneous

Cautious

D: Upper Right

Exploratory

C: Lower Right

Flexible

Interdependent

71

7.

The Demand-Control Model of Stress: Karasek

Karasek’s demand-control model of occupational stress has had a large influence on the job design and occupational health literature, in part because it is quite spare, practical and testable. (Jones & Bright, 2001). In Karasek’s model, workplace stress is a function of how demanding a person’s job is and how much control (discretion, authority or decision latitude etc.) the person has over their own responsibilities. This creates four kinds of jobs: passive, active, low strain and high strain.

PA E I High Strain Jobs

Passive Jobs

Active Jobs

Low Strain Jobs

Job demands represent the psychological stressors in the work environment. These include factors such as: interruption rate, time pressures, conflicting demands, reaction time required, pace of work, proportion of work performed under pressure, amount of work, degree of concentration required, and the slowing down of work caused by the need to wait for others. Decision latitude refers to employees’ control over their tasks and how those tasks are executed. It consists of both skill discretion and decision authority. Skill discretion describes the degree to which the job involves: a variety of tasks, low levels of repetitiveness, occasions for creativity and opportunities to learn new things and develop special abilities. Decision authority describes both the employee’s ability to make decisions about their own job, and their ability to influence their own work team and more general company policies. Crossing the dimensions of strain and latitude give us four stress categories for jobs, as follows: High Strain

Low Strain

Low Latitude

P – High Strain Job

A – Passive Job

High Latitude

E – Active Job

I – Low Strain Job

72

P – High Strain Jobs (Low Latitude, High Strain): Producers are more likely to augment their strain levels by taking more on without seeking additional latitude, partly because of their appreciation of challenge and their desire to enjoy individual mastery experiences, and partly because they take an individual approach to responsibility ascription, which may cause them to overlook opportunities to ask for more latitude. Producers enjoy levels of strain that people with other dominant styles would find excessive. Of all the styles, they are most likely to thrive in high strain jobs. A – Passive Jobs (Low Latitude, Low Strain): As long as the passivity of a job stems from successfully forestalling disruptions, then that passivity is likely to be highly satisfying to an Administrator. Passivity that stems from the job being either irrelevant or unimportant will not be satisfying. The Administrative style seeks to manage disruptions by putting processes into place that cope with all contingencies and buffer the vital variables of the organization, preventing them from disruption. When latitude is reduced by following a procedure, and when that procedure causes things to proceed smoothly with low levels of strain, an Administrator will take that as evidence of success. The goal state of Administration will be reached, and maintaining that peace will be a pleasure. E – Active Jobs (High Latitude, High Strain): Active jobs are not seen as stressful in Karasek’s typology, because employees have many protective measures available to them to reduce the strain. Of all the PAEI styles, it is E that most naturally thrives in active situations. E is characterized by great ambition and almost no fear surrounding disruptions of the status quo. Strain is thus a continual consequence of E type work. E also needs great flexibility and latitude both to stir up problems and seek out solutions. The active mode most nearly matches the mode in which E naturally works. I – Low Strain Jobs (High Latitude, Low Strain): The combination of high levels of latitude with low levels of strain indicates that social processes are very significant in the low strain job. Employees will have a lot of authority relative to their strain levels, and thus will presumably participate more in the definition and management of tasks than in other, more stressful working environments. Karasek’s model has been adapted and extended in various ways, but these will not be reviewed here.

73

Karasek: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low Latitude

High Strain Jobs

Passive Jobs

High Strain

Low Strain Active Jobs

Matched

74

Low Strain Jobs

High Latitude

Mismatched

8.

Transitions and Aftershock: Bridges, Woodward, Buchholz

William Bridges is a writer, consultant and lecturer in the field of transition management. His work on the character of organizations, using an instrument based on the MBTI to describe organizations, was mentioned in a footnote to the introduction of the Adizes organizational lifecyle in Part 1 of this book. One of his best known books, dating from fairly early in his career in change management, is called Transitions: Making Sense of Life’s Changes (Bridges, 2004).

P E P E Control

Purpose

A I A I Understanding

Support

This became the foundation for many subsequent efforts in the field of change management, including the publication of DisDisthe book Aftershock: Helping People enchantment identification Through Corporate Change by Harry Woodward and Steve Buchholz (Woodward & Buchholz, 1987). Both frameworks involve concern structure DisDismodels, and each is reviewed below. orientation engagement

Transitions – Bridges: The CUSP Model of Managing Change

William Bridges describes a model of transitions that are “on the CUSP of change”. This is the moment where the value of a change is just on the point of being realized, and resistance or hesitation is about to be released. It is the point at which a person becomes open to a change, or willing to engage it. Perceptions switch from more pessimistic to more optimistic ones, as the potential benefits of the change begin to become clear. Personal statements recasting the change as positive emerge, such as – “There is an opportunity to learn here”, “I can gain something important”, “Whatever happens, I’ll come out of this wiser than I went in”. The CUSP acronym represents four factors of change. A person will be successful in managing a personal transition depending on how they feel about these four factors. The factors are listed in CUSP order below, which is PAIE in Adizes terminology. Reorganizing CUSP into PAEI order would result in the less helpful acronym CUPS. 75

P – Control: Do you feel you have control of the situation? A – Understanding: Do you truly comprehend what is happening and why? I – Support: Do you have (or can you obtain) the practical and emotional support for what you are going through? E – Purpose: Do you have a sense of purpose to give meaning and direction to your experiences and actions? Aftershock – Woodward & Buchholz: The’4 Dis-es’ Woodward and Buchholz offer a concern structure model that addresses an earlier phase in the change acceptance process, namely the denial or disavowal and resistance to change that people experience when large scale, dramatic changes radically restructure their socio-economic environment. The cycle begins when some relationship, condition, organization or community a person identifies with falls apart. People need to grieve, to experience the ending, accept it, and release old expectations, prior to embracing the new. A common mistake when announcing disruptive change is to immediately emphasize the new beginnings without allowing people to complete the ending/grieving/releasing process. A period of confusion follows the ending, as the person struggles to reposition themselves in a strange new reality. This confusion must also be accounted for and given time to play itself out. Eventually, as the confusion resolves itself, the person is able to settle into a new reality to enjoy the new beginnings, releasing the past to focus on how to get their needs met in a new reality. The middle period of confusion is typified by four basic reactions to change: anger, sadness/worry, confusion and withdrawal. The model-specific terms for these four reactions are Disenchantment, Disidentification, Disorientation and Disengagement. (The’4 Dis-es’). These are explained below as they are defined by Woodward and Buchholz in the context of organizational counseling.

76

P – Disenchantment (Anger): Illusions of security have been shattered, and there is no trust in the new status quo. Disenchanted people do not cling to the past, but they seethe with continual negativity and anger over the whole disruption and change. They feel betrayed and taken advantage of. They view the changes as an obstacle or threat, and they need an opportunity to vent and rage about this, with permission and acknowledgement that occasionally it is good and normal to let loose all of one’s negative thoughts. After they have expressed all of their negative attitudes about the change, they then need their core concerns validated and mirrored back to them. With this recognition, they will typically then be ready to start working to resolve those valid core concerns, and to make the necessary adjustments in their conduct and surroundings. Very often Disenchantment hides one of the other three ‘Dises’. The need for active expression puts this in the P domain. A – Disidentification (Sadness/Worry): This person’s identity was comprehensively grounded in the old roles and procedures. Now the rules and roles have all changed, and the person doesn’t know who they are anymore. They do not accept ownership or responsibility for anything that may or may not happen under the new system, they use passive aggression to remain ‘incompetent’ with new work methods, and they are very nostalgic for the old ways of doing things. They need to be encouraged to explore precisely what it was they liked so much about the old system, and then asked to methodically explore how those same values might be found in the new system. The joys of past work must be separated from the form of past activities, and new opportunities for those joys pointed out. This will help the person construct a new organizational identity grounded in the newly changed ways of doing things. The procedural focus puts this in the A domain. E – Disorientation (Confusion): Disoriented employees have lost their sense of the organization’s purpose and direction. They keep trying to get more clarity on what precisely they are supposed to be doing, but they lack an overall frame for making sense of the specifics. They no longer understand their role nor how they fit in to the larger picture. They understand neither their input nor their output requirements fully, because they lack any sense of the rationale for new processes. They busy themselves with tasks with no sense of organizational priorities, and spend a lot of time commandeering all the information they can get, in a piecemeal and un-integrated fashion, to try to build up their personal comfort levels at work. Explanation is necessary, to help these people connect higher-level organizational goals with unit and team goals as well as individual project goals. They need to have their roles and responsibilities placed into such a framework, and then they need 77

support in devising a plan to attain those goals, using the resources of the larger organization. Orientation is in the E domain. I – Disengagement (Withdrawal): Disengaged people go through the motions. Their performance may be adequate, and they may respond to requests, but they minimize their interactions otherwise, and exhibit no initiative, interest, creativity or enthusiasm. They are compliant, but not committed. They have “quit and stayed”. Disengagement can be a chronic problem that is hard to detect, but when a once enthusiastic and committed employee becomes disengaged, the problem is easier to see. Disengaged employees need to be gently confronted with their obvious change in behavior, in a safe environment, and asked what the problem is. The intervener needs to use non-threatening “I” language to discuss the behavioral changes (“I’ve noticed you don’t speak up at meetings much these days”) instead of “you” language (“You used to speak up at meetings, now you don’t. What’s the matter?”). This begins to build intimacy through mutual self-disclosure, which slowly re-engages the employee with the team and the work. The purpose of these interviews is less to uncover information, and more to build a connection with the employee that will result in their bringing more of themselves into workplace activities. Connection is in the I domain. Committing to new beginnings is the inverse of the endings process. New realities are engaged, new identifications made, new purposes undertaken and trust is newly invested in the changed organization. In their new roles, they set meaningful goals and make plans that are consistent with a clear sense of direction. Their confusion and nostalgia subside, and they face the future together with the rest of their organizational team. The Aftershock Dis-es are described specifically for corporate transitions in Woodward and Buchholz. It might be interesting to try to generalize these four problems to other domains, such a spatial orientation or set switching.

78

Bridges: Dimensions and Distinctions

Structured

Control

Understanding

Agentive

Patientive Purpose

Model

Support

Interaction Flexible

Woodward & Buchholz: Dimensions and Distinctions

Past Attachment

Disenchantment

Disidentification

Extroverted

Introverted

Disorientation Mental Model Outdated

Disengagement

Current Detachment

Socio-emotional Disconnection

79

9.

The Four Levers of Corporate Change: Brill & Worth

Complex management problems need to be tackled from more than one angle. Managers need many different tools or points of leverage to get things to happen in organizations. In The Four Levers of Corporate Change (Brill & Worth, 1997), Brill and Worth identify four different ways in which managers can actually effect real change in organizations. P – Skillful use of Power

PA E I Power

Design Social Process

Persuasion

Understand Human Nature

A – Well-designed Social Processes E – Persuasive Leadership I – Understanding of Human Nature P – Skillful use of Power Managers faced with trenchant opposition to change can simply act. They can use their position to make pre-emptive organizational changes that alter the composition of their opposition. Managers can use their authority to restructure a team in ways that will destabilize deadlocked groups. They can also monopolize communication channels to promulgate a vision. They can use diplomacy and bargaining to sway individuals towards their cause, and they can control how change efforts are announced, launched and scheduled, etc. The power wielder can make these moves, hoping that at some point the opposition will fade and their changes will become self-perpetuating. The direct-action aspect of this mode puts it in the P domain of concern. A – Well-designed Social Processes Rather than immediately engaging conflict head-on, change can sometimes be aided by designing a social process to achieve the end in mind. This requires an understanding of human nature and a strategic mind. Suppose a group of subordinates feel that their supervisors are poor at delegating. Rather than just telling the supervisors, you can ask them to participate in a process of self-assessment, rating how they think their subordinates feel about their own delegation skills. These scores can then be compared with subordinates ratings of their managers, and the discrepancy pointed out. The 80

issue then becomes one of the inaccuracy of managers’ self-images, instead of an accusation from the floor. The well-designed process applies all of the pressure for change without anybody having to take an offensive or defensive stand. The structure communicates the message, putting this in the A mode. E – Persuasive Leadership Leaders must inspire by example, and assemble a cadre of other inspired leaders within the organization, all of whom can be persuaded to back the same mission. This kind of leadership requires vision and self-knowledge. Good leaders recognize other informal leaders in the group and put them in strategic organizational positions. Leaders must maintain an overall sense of mission and yet be able to pay full unbiased attention to the particulars of any problem brought to their attention. They must resolve problems according to their particulars, but always in a direction that supports the mission. They must also manage alliances, including upwards, downwards and horizontal relationships between their organization and others. Persuasive leadership requires vertical flexibility and the capacity to deploy long-term and shortterm thinking as needed. The strategic overview required for this strategy is situated in the E domain. I – Understanding of Human Nature The human factor can make or break any change effort. Leaders have to gather info about peoples’ feelings and beliefs, not accepting all statements at face value. Strong empathy skills are required, as well as an appreciation for the quirks and paradoxes of the human mind and heart. Leaders have to be wise in their use of reward and sanction, which means they have to know what motivates different people. This lever underlies the other three, and is… pivotal for their success. The focus on the human element puts this in the I domain.

81

Brill and Worth: Dimensions and Distinctions Tactical

Power

Process

Leadercentered

Employeecentered Persuade

Structural

82

Understand

Interactive Social

10. Macroenvironmental Analysis: Fahey & Narayanan In their textbook on Macroenvironmental Analysis for Strategic Management (Fahey & Narayanan, 1986), Economic/ Politcal/ Fahey and Narayanan describe dimensions Productive Regulatory of the business environment that are relevant for the construction of business strategy. These dimensions are also relevant to the structure of concern. Fahey Social/ and Narayanan indicate that managers need Technology to undertake analyses of the environment of / Innovation Cultural their organizations in order to understand current and potential business changes. They can also use these analyses to generate important intelligence for strategic decision makers. Fahey and Narayanan review several business environment models, and draw a distinction between models of the general environment and those of the business-relevant environment. They divide the business-relevant environment into four segments, along the lines of the structure of concern:

PA E I

P – Economic: Gross measures of productive activity at local, regional and national levels, and relationships to demand. A – Political: The regulatory environment, but control over regulatory bodies is contested, so PI-type political processes and developments are highly relevant. E – Technological: Progress, advancements, innovations and discoveries are the key concerns in the technological sector. I – Social: Demographics, lifestyles and cultural values all matter in this sector, and can be related to demand, productivity and political processes. Their model of macroenvironmental analysis highlights the linkages within and between these segments. Environmental turbulence is analyzed as changes in interconnectedness within and among segments.

83

Fahey and Narayanan: Dimensions and Distinctions

Direct Impact

Economic/ Productive

Political/ Regulatory

Material

Social Technological Innovation

Industry Specific

84

Social/ Cultural Society-Wide

Indirect Impact

11. The Four Business Strategies: Michael Porter In his widely-read book Competitive Advantage (Porter, 1985) Michael Porter argues that businesses must focus on areas of capability where they have a distinct advantage relative to their competitors in their target markets. They need to concentrate on one type of competitive advantage to achieve a distinct position in that market. Trying to be all things to all people will not generate successes.

PA E I Cost Focus

Cost Leadership

Differentia- Differentiation Focus tion

There are two dimensions along which strategies can be defined: the source of the competitive advantage (low cost or product differentiation), and the scope of the advantage (narrow or broad). Crossing the dimensions gives us four business strategies, written below in PAEI order: P – Cost Focus: Competitive cost leadership in a small cluster of target segments. A – Cost Leadership: Lower costs across a broad range of product offerings. E – Differentiation Focus: Unique and distinct position in specific target segments. I – Differentiation: Distinctly recognizable positions across a whole range of offerings. A Cost Focus strategy tends to emerge as a competitive move, sometimes to undercut a specific competitor. A smaller firm can also gain entry to a market by competing on cost within a specific niche. If the industry depends on economies of scale, Cost Focus opportunities are unlikely to open up. Cost Leadership is the strategy that most depends on economies of scale. Cost Leadership requires a company to develop economies right across the organization, to consistently reduce costs across their entire produce line. A Differentiation Focus becomes suitable when product is more highly priced, but deemed to be worth it. The product differs from competitive offerings in various ways, and this better meets the needs of certain customers in the target segment, emphasizing qualities along dimensions or attributes the target segment considers important. The vision of a better alternative is marketed.

85

A broader Differentiation strategy accomplishes these same differentiating tasks for all of the offerings of a company, essentially building an identity that can be trusted to deliver certain key differentiators in everything they put on the market. PAEI Associations unfold as follows: P – Cost Focus: Narrow attempt to undercut specific competitors. A – Cost Leadership: Systematic economizing across the organization. E – Differentiation Focus: Unique and distinct position, held forth for approval. I – Differentiation: Reliable identity, consistently delivering on a quality promise, encouraging and deepening a long term trust-based relationship with customers. Porter’s schema has some similarities with Uriel Foa’s Resource Theory (Foa, 1993), summarized later in this catalog. Resource Theory postulates dimensions of high or low concreteness, and high or low particularism. In Porter’s two narrow-scope categories, the competitive advantage of cost focus would be concrete, and differentiation focus would be more symbolic and less concrete. In the broad-scope categories, differentiation would be more highly particularized, involving brand identity, the customer experience and other forms of relating to the customer. Cost leadership would be a much more universal appeal that would not require customers to know anything about the company behind the product. Resource Theory could be applied to business strategy to help elaborate how these four different strategies operate.

86

Porter: Dimensions and Distinctions

Costs Generic

Rough Cost Focus

Cost Leadership

Focused

Generalized Differentiation Focus

Distinctive

Differentiation Leadership

Qualities

Refined

87

12. The Icarus Paradox: Danny Miller Danny Miller (1992) describes the dynamics of corporate growth and decline Builders/ Craftsmen/ in his book The Icarus Paradox, which shows how the same behavior (or Imperialists Tinkerers “trajectory”) that makes some firms (Venturing) (Focusing) successful also leads to their decline. He defines a four part concern structure typology of these behavior patterns, given Pioneers/ Salesmen/ below in PAEI order.

PA E I

Escapists Drifters (Inventing) (Decoupling)

P – The Venturing Trajectory: This trajectory converts “growth-driven, entrepreneurial BUILDERS--companies managed by imaginative leaders and creative planning and financial staffs--into impulsive, greedy IMPERIALISTS who severely overtax their resources by expanding helterskelter into businesses they know nothing about.” A – The Focusing Trajectory: This trajectory “takes punctilious, qualitydriven CRAFTSMEN organizations with their masterful engineers and airtight operations, and turns them into rigidly controlled, detail-obsessed TINKERERS--firms whose insular, technocratic monocultures alienate customers with perfect, but irrelevant, offerings.” E – The Inventing Trajectory: This trajectory “takes PIONEERS with unexcelled R&D departments, flexible think tank operations, and state-ofthe-art products, and transforms them into utopian ESCAPISTS run by a cult of chaos-loving scientists who squander resources in the pursuit of hopelessly grand and futuristic inventions.” I – The Decoupling Trajectory: This trajectory “transforms SALESMEN-organizations with unparalleled marketing skills, prominent brand names, and broad markets--into aimless, bureaucratic DRIFTERS whose sales fetish obscures design issues, and who produce a stale and disjointed line of "me too" offerings.”

88

13. The Balanced Scorecard: Kaplan and Norton The Balanced Scorecard has evolved from a tool for strategic planning into a major business and organizational paradigm for strategic management, and I do not plan to summarize it in its entirety here. It is based on several insights, one being that people in organizations fulfill those goals they are being measured against. If performance on a task type is not being measured, it will not be a priority for people at work. Furthermore, financial accounting is an inadequate measure of organizational behavior. It measures past productivity, whereas Kaplan and Norton (1996) insist that four perspectives on performance really need to be measured in organizations. In PAEI order, these are: P – Financial: To succeed financially how should we appear to our shareholders? A – Internal Business Processes: To satisfy our shareholders and customers, what business processes must we excel at? E – Learning and Growth: To achieve our vision, how will we sustain our ability to change and improve? I – Customers: To achieve our vision, how should we appear to our customers?

89

14. Noble Purposes in Mission Statements: Nikos Mourkogiannis Nikos Mourkogiannis (2005; 2006; Daft, 2008) has outlined four ways that organizational leaders can frame overall organizational purposes to help people feel that their work is worthwhile. In PAEI order, these are: P – Heroism (Being Effective, Achievement) A – Excellence (Being the Best, Fulfillment) E – Discovery (Finding the New, Entrepreneuring) I – Altruism (Providing Service, Happiness)

90

15. Strategic Thinking – A Four Piece Puzzle: Bill Birnbaum Bill Birnbaum is a strategy consultant with decades of experience helping management teams define their business strategies. In a book called Strategic Thinking: A four-piece puzzle (Birnbaum, 2004), he offers four key components of strategy that follow a concern structure pattern. P - Achieving and maintaining focus A - Managing both projects and processes E - Leading and motivating people I - Understanding and responding to markets and customers

91

16. Stakeholder Styles: Duke Corporate Education In a book called Influencing and Collaborating for Results, the writers at Duke Corporate Education (2005) introduce a four-part typology of stakeholder personality styles, positioning it as a kind of summary of various personality measures that managers might have encountered in their careers. The four personality types are: P – Skeptic: Risk-averse and not willing to rock the boat. Follows the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach. Doesn’t consider all new ideas as “advances”. A – Evaluator: Cautious, but willing to take calculated risks if the facts support it. Will want to see the supporting data and give careful analysis. E – Enthusiast: Open to new ideas and trying new approaches. Enthusiastic, optimistic, a “big picture” visionary or entrepreneur. Likely to look for and take advantage of new opportunities that are tightly connected to strategy. I – Angler: Less concerned about the project itself and more concerned about the political implications and personal benefits of involvement. Interested in what he or she can gain by engaging in the challenge. Looks for all the angles.

92

17. Four Kinds of Salespeople: Chuck Mache In his consulting practice and his book The Four Kinds of Sales People: How and Why They Excel- And How You Can Too, Chuck Mache (2007) defines a concern structure pattern for selling styles, as follows: P – Performer A – Professional E – Searcher I – Caretaker

93

Knowledge Management Concern structure issues in knowledge management tend to arise in models that focus on the interaction between social networks in workplaces and the knowledge bases that enable those patterns of work. Four out of the five groups of models surveyed have this combined social/informational emphasis. Particular importance is placed on the role of implicit or tacit knowledge in work environments, as well as if and how that knowledge is made explicit. The fifth model in the series is a little more abstract, describing the difference between the exploration and exploitation of new knowledge, and the organizational activities that support each mode of knowledge work. The exploration/exploitation dynamic is a theoretically important point of contact with search and optimization models in computer science and behavioral ecology. Animals which forage for food, for example, need to know when to stay put and consume their food source, or when to abandon it in order to seek out a new food source. They need to allocate their time effectively and efficiently between exploration activities and exploitation activities. These concepts thus connect concern structure concepts with fundamental theoretical constructs in other disciplines, furnishing grounds for a potential ultimate explanation of the structure of concern.

94

18. The SECI Model of Knowledge Management: Nonaka & Takeuchi The SECI model of knowledge management developed in the mid-1990’s by Nonaka and Takeuchi is one of the seminal works in the field, famous for drawing attention very sharply towards tacit knowledge in the workplace, and how tacit knowledge informs and becomes explicit knowledge by various processes (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; De Geytere, 2005). Their knowledge management framework features three separate models whose lineaments fall into the patterns also defined by the structure of concern. These models include:




PA E I Internalization

Combination

Externalization

Socialization

Phases of SECI; Styles of Ba (‘shared space of engagement’), and; Categories of knowledge assets.

SECI The acronym SECI stands for a four-phase knowledge development cycle, which begins in the I quadrant of the structure of concern. Cultural contrast between this model and the P-initiated Western models is extremely illuminating. It represents the spiral of emergence of explicit knowledge from tacit knowledge in the workplace: I – Socialization: Tacit knowledge is shared among people through modeling and mentoring, conversation, workplace culture, shared experiences and the like. Key skill: empathizing. E – Externalization: People begin developing metaphors and analogies to explain the rationality or sense of their tacitly-informed behavior. Tacit knowledge becomes more explicit as concepts undergo refinement. Key skill: articulating. A – Combination: Explicit ideas get combined with other explicit ideas, seeking out dependencies and eliminating redundancies, culminating in complete descriptions of processes and procedures for accomplishing tasks. Key skill: connecting. P – Internalization: Explicit ideas get over-learned into implicit knowledge again as people internalize the newly-explicit procedures. Knowledge is now 95

once more in the zone of socialization, and a spiral of knowledge cultivation may ensue (implicit to implicit). Key skill: embodying. Ba

Ba means something like the Adizes concept of a learning environment, or the Cynefin concept (reviewed below in this catalog). It is a group context where Exercising knowledge is shared, generated and put into practice through collaboration. Giving it a temporal rather than a spatial construction, it could be considered a “mode”, so that a work group might be in the “Originating Originating mode”. The spatial overtones are considered important to the concept, however. There are four categories of Ba, again ending, rather than beginning, with P, unlike most Western concern structure models:

PA E I

Systematizing

Dialoguing

E – Originating Ba (Face-to-face individual): Face-to-face and front-line interactions, where problems and solutions/insights both emerge spontaneously in individual situations. The creative context of daily work where tacit knowledge of the job develops. I – Dialoguing (Face-to-face collective): The collective interactions, sharing of anecdotes and stories, recounting daily experiences, and other informal transactions that allow tacit knowledge to spread and influence organizational work. A – Systematizing (Virtual collective): The context of evaluation and review, discovery that certain kinds of practices produced better outcomes, reflecting that information back to the front line and decision makers, indicating successful approaches to tasks. P – Exercising (Virtual individual): Using information about the better practices and comparing it to their own performance, people bring their behavior in line with more successful approach.

96

Knowledge Assets Nonaka and Tekeuchi identify four categories of knowledge assets, in PAEI order as follows: P - Routine Knowledge Assets: Tacit procedural knowledge routinized and embedded in organizational cultures, actions and daily practices. A - Systemic Knowledge Assets: Explicit, codified and systematic knowledge stores in documents, databases, manuals, specifications and patents.

PA E I

Routine Knowledge

Systemic Knowledge

Conceptual Knowledge

Experiential Knowledge

E – Conceptual Knowledge Assets: Explicit knowledge in symbolic form, including product concepts, brand equity, design styles, symbols and language. I – Experiential Knowledge Assets: Tacit knowledge emergent in collective experience, including the growing skills and judgment of individuals, prosocial feelings like trust and care, and motivational resources fueling participations, passions and tensions. Compiling all three of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s models gives us four fairly clear PAEI factors: P - Routine Knowledge Assets, Internalization, Exercising (Virtual individual): Procedural knowledge, routinized, embedded, over-learned, embodied, behavioral, applied. A - Systemic Knowledge Assets, Combination, Systematizing (Virtual collective): Explicit, codified, systematic, descriptive, complete, comparative, evaluative. E – Conceptual Knowledge Assets, Externalization, Originating (Face-toface individual): Symbols, concepts, brands, styles, metaphors, analogies, emergent, developmental. I – Experiential Knowledge Assets, Socialization, Dialoguing (Face-to-face collective): Collective, shared, enhancing social cohesion, participatory, grassroots, sharing.

97

Nonaka and Takeuchi: Dimensions and Distinctions

SECI Integrating

Combination

Internalization Individual

Collaborative Externalization

Explicit

Socialization

Generating

Tacit

Ba Virtual

Exercising

Systematizing

Individual

Collective Originating

Alerting

98

Dialoguing

Face to Face

Sharing

Knowledge Assets Molecular

Routine

Systemic

Practice

Memory Conceptual

Explicit

Experiential

Molar

Tacit

99

19. Receipt of Information Benefits: Cross, Rice & Parker In a study of informal organizational information networks, Cross et al. (2001) investigated workplace social networks to see how they interacted with five known Solutions Validation benefits of information-seeking behavior. Four of these benefits fall directly into structure of concern quadrants. The fifth benefit of information seeking is a secondorder benefit which would be applicable to all four concern styles, but in different Reformulation Legitimization ways for each style. The four concern-structured benefits are given below in PAEI order:

PA E I

P – Solutions: One can gain solutions to problems, “know-what” and “knowhow”, specific information that enables action. A – Validation of Plans or Solutions: Reassurance that things are being done properly, that they are accurate or appropriate and ‘officially’ presentable as solutions to others. E – Problem Reformulation: Soliciting a different perspective on a problem in order to have another way of thinking about it, highlighting different problems, dimensions or possible consequences of plans. I – Legitimization from Contact with a Respected Person: Associating one’s ideas with important others makes them more credible. One gains the ability to tell others that the respected person was consulted and expressed support, which lends authority to the ideas. The fifth benefit Cross et al discuss is meta-knowledge or “knowwhere”: increased knowledge about local people, databases and other resources useful for answering, clarifying or validating questions. This is something that would accrue under any PAEI strategy, but in a manner consistent for that style. P-style benefits would be meta-knowledge about who to turn to for quick and useful results, A-style benefits would including knowing who has knowledge and position to speak authoritatively about valid or invalid solutions, etc.

100

Needless to say, these styles of information benefits are not exclusive to their respective PAEI personality styles. All personalities would enjoy all the benefits of information seeking. However, different people are likely to want, seek, offer, value or depend on certain benefits more than others. Over time one would expect to see those preferences line up with other personality-derived characteristics.

Cross, Rice & Parker: Dimensions and Distinctions

Tasks Confirm

Independent Solutions

Validation

Instrumental

Status

Reformulation

Challenge

Legitimization

Interpretations

Dependent

101

20. The Cynefin Sensemaking Framework: D. J. Snowden The Cynefin (kun-ev’in) project grew Known out of work at the IBM Institute for Knowable (Ordered) (Ordered) Knowledge Management that later migrated to Cardiff University and the Cynefin Centre. Cynefin is a Welsh word meaning ‘our place of belonging’, a place Disorder of great meaningfulness for a people. Snowden describes Cynefin as a sensemaking methodology, which differs from earlier knowledge management Chaos Complex initiatives in its emphasis on setting up an (Unordered) (Unordered) environment for people to come together and make joint sense of their situation (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003).

PA E I

Snowden recounts how early knowledge management tended to focus on objectifying tacit knowledge, extracting it from experts and turning it into codified corporate data. Expert knowledge proved not to be entirely extractible in this way. Later approaches still focused on making tacit knowledge explicit, but emphasized the limited usefulness of codification and the important of social processes of knowledge storage, generation and flow. The Cynefin project dispenses with the assumption that knowledge is a thing with a definite rule-like structure, and brings people together to make meaning, initially by building a shared context woven out of shared stories, anecdotes, organizational legends, alternative histories and accounts of phases and events in the organization’s life, and so on. This kind of shared context makes knowledge work vastly more productive and efficient, as evidenced by the speed with which one can explain a process to someone one sees every day, versus to a stranger. Cynefin practitioners then take teams through a well-defined group process. Teams emerge with more than plans and prescriptions; they also create shared memories and experience. This is an extensive methodology which I do not intend to summarize in its entirety. The main point of contact that I wish to emphasize is the Cynefin framework, which describes four differently ordered/unordered domains describing problem dynamics, plus a fifth area of disorder. These are listed below in PAEI order: P – Knowable (Ordered – Sense, Analyze, Respond): This order requires pragmatic solutions, analytical thought and scenario planning. There are things we don’t know but could probably figure out. However, we often don’t have time or money to spare for re-inventing this wheel, so we call an 102

expert. Besides expert opinion, trial and error and fact-finding can get us to our goal: to figure out cause-effect relationships and get things done. Sensing data, analyzing it and getting an expert to interpret it and recommend a course of action are good techniques here. Habit can lead us astray, and plans have to remain flexible for updating. Ultimately they will reflect what finally seems to have worked. A – Known (Ordered – Sense, Categorize, Respond): Problems in this domain are legitimate targets for explicit codification. Cause and effect relationships can be empirically determined and are generally linear. Prediction is possible and issues are objective enough that best practice recommendations are widely accepted. In this category, process reengineering and the explicit codification of structured processes are beneficial and essential. The decision model for this domain includes detecting incoming data, categorizing it and responding according to predetermined practice. E – Chaos (Unordered – Act, Sense, Respond): In chaos, cause and effect relationships are not discernable. Patterns of turbulence provide the only visible structure to events. Interventions from known domains are not useful and may have caused the present chaos in the first place. Managing this requires a bold and confident leap into the chaos, relying on guts and intuition. Quick action to reduce turbulence and find platforms of relative stability are important, and it may be necessary to establish dominance to accomplish this. This has to be done with ears and eyes wide open, because the results will guide the next hop into the unknown. Done well, desirable patterns of stability will form. This process can also be entered into willingly as an innovation practice. I – Complex (Unordered – Probe, Sense, Respond): Patterns in this domain emerge from the complex interactions of many different people. Cause and effect relationships are visible, but they are so many that their logic can only be perceived in retrospect, not predicted from the present. A history of this event will be writeable, but the next step is not predictable. There may be a stable pattern for now, but the number of factors at play keep the situation always unpredictably close to major changes. Decisions should be made by sending out probes to assess the prevailing patterns, and seeking multiple perspectives on the significance of unfolding events. Action is best taken by stabilizing and supporting desirable patterns of activity and destabilizing undesirable ones. The Domain of Disorder: This is the zone for situating conflict among decision-makers. It is the battlefield where proponents favoring solutions from each of the other four zones try to “lay down the law” and control the definition of the problem to match their own interpretation of it. The more contentious the issue, the stronger the desire to pull it towards one’s preferred style of response. Visibly representing this domain in the Cynefin framework 103

and focusing the team on reducing its size on the grid is an important prelude to consensus-building in this methodology. Cynefin: Dimensions and Distinctions

Ordered

Knowable

Known

Potentials

Actuals Chaos

Complex

Unordered

104

21. A Fourfold Typology of Tacit Knowledge: José Castillo Castillo offers a fourfold typology of tacit knowledge to help bring clarity to the contentious field of knowledge management (Castillo, 2002). Debate rages in this field over whether or not tacit knowledge can be measured or even observed, or shared or taught, or whether it is social or individual. With all of this controversy, Castillo suggests that perhaps people are using this term in different ways. The fourfold typology of tacit knowledge is offered as a way out of this quagmire. It is given in PAEI order below:

PA E I Nonepistle

Sociocultural

Semantic

Sagacious

P – Nonepistle Tacit Knowledge: Truly inarticulate knowing, the result of practical experience leading to implicit learning. Procedural as opposed to declarative knowledge. Skill, instinct or gut feelings. The kind of knowledge that expresses itself in bricolage and improvisatory problem solving. This practical, procedural emphasis makes it a P function. A – Sociocultural Tacit Knowledge: Socially implicit knowledge of norms, sanctions and expectations. Subconscious inference of how things are done or how one should behave. Unspoken assumptions that allow for smooth interaction among members of a society. Not survey knowledge over whole social system. One need only know one’s own role, not the whole picture. One need not question the scheme to understand it. This is the collective, implicit counterpart of explicit social and procedural coordination. Unquestioned norms and procedures that define what normally happens make this an A function. E – Semantic Tacit Knowledge: An assumption base of previously shared knowledge, which makes summary statements and allusiveness possible, increasing the efficiency of communications. Specialized discourse communities build this knowledge into their membership, speaking in ways unintelligible to outsiders but transparent to insiders. This permits high-level thought and conversation, suppressing detail and focusing on key elements of meaning. However, the detail is recoverable, so high-level communication among experts implicitly reorganizes vast amounts of related lower-level material. Cultivated expertise and the capacity to use few words to imply huge leaps make this an E function. I – Sagacious Tacit Knowledge: This is wisdom as it is commonly understood. It involves the capacity to look at a situation and immediately 105

see what it ‘truly is’, rather than what it looks like. This involves a certain immunity to the obvious or surface meaning of an event, and a sensitivity to links, resonance and hidden analogies. It involve a certain cognitive independence from the crowd, but only to better accomplish what the crowd ‘really’ desires due to what is ‘really’ going on. Castillo discusses sagacity in the context of scientific reasoning, but it is exactly the kind of reasoning required for interpersonal counseling, conflict mediation and successful negotiations. Alternate frames of meaning are in play that lead to better outcomes than the more obvious frames that dominate most interpretations of the events. Sagacious tacit knowledge is a type of good judgment in choosing these more appropriate but less obvious interpretive frames. It is a crucial skill for interpersonal conflict resolution or conflict mediation, and is very important for the I function in this connection. José Castillo: Dimensions and Distinctions

Procedural

Nonepistle Tacit Knowledge

Sociocultural Tacit Knowledge

Accumulated

Emergent Semantic Tacit Knowledge

Social

106

Sagacious Tacit Knowledge

Interpretive

Personal

22. Exploration and Exploitation in Knowledge Management: Gray, Chan & March Knowledge management is often based upon the strategic aims or functional goals 2 3 of an organization. Given these goals, knowledge management is used to help Knowledge Knowledge Creation Acquisition reach them. As an alternative to this approach, Peter H. Gray offers an account of knowledge management based on 1 4 problem solving instead. Knowledge management practices are understood in Encouraging Raising terms of their contribution to the problem Serendipity Awareness solving process. Then, wherever problem solving processes arise in the organization, tools for knowledge management can be allocated to them. This basis for categorizing knowledge management practices is more flexible and better addresses the practical concerns of working managers.

PA E I

Gray and Chan (1999) review several decision making and problem solving frameworks to support a general distinction between two activity clusters: problem recognition and problem solving. They cross this axis with a second axis opposing new or unique problems with previously solved problems – another dichotomy their review showed to be widely supported (e.g. as non-routine vs. routine, productive vs. reproductive and custom vs. ready-made solution processes). This framework groups knowledge management practices as follows (in PAEI order): P – (2) Knowledge Creation (New or Unique Problem Solving) Workers engage or encounter new situations, drawing upon knowledge management practices that help them generate new solutions. They are fully aware of these problems or opportunities, and work actively to resolve them. The organization challenges them to seek creative and innovative solutions, supporting their efforts with knowledge resources.

107

A – (3) Knowledge Acquisition (Previously Solved Problem Solving) Knowledge access and sharing processes are activated in order to propagate preexisting knowledge about how so solve problems. Workers are fully aware of the problems or opportunities, and actively preparing to resolve them. Information storage and retrieval technology is often a key element in these practices. E – (1) Encouraging Serendipity (New or Unique Problem Recognition) Workers are discovering or resolving new patterns and potentials, and attracting the interest of others towards the same potentials. This requires knowledge management practices that encourage exploration by exposing employees to new experiences, information and ideas, creating conditions conducive to serendipitous discovery. I – (4) Raising Awareness (Previously Solved Problem Recognition) This is an alerting function, propagating information across the organization that a recognizable problem or opportunity has emerged. The information might be from the organization’s own learning history, or it may have been garnered from consultants, competitors, allies or best practices from businesses within or even beyond their industry. In empirical studies to validate this model, knowledge management practices were not evenly scattered across all four quadrants. Rather, a strong diagonal trend appeared, stretching from serendipitous Quadrant 1 (E) activities to structured Quadrant 3 (A) activities. Managers seemed to assimilate new or unique problems to problem recognition, and pre-existing problems to problem solving. These two clusters were thus named Recognizing New Problems and Solving Recurring Problems, and related to March’s formulation of the exploration/exploitation distinction, accompanied by the following quotation: Exploration includes things captured by terms such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation. Exploitation includes such things as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution. Adaptive systems that engage in exploration to the exclusion of exploitation are likely to find that they suffer the costs of experimentation without gaining many of its benefits. They exhibit too many undeveloped new ideas and too little distinctive competence. Conversely, systems that engage in exploitation to the exclusion of exploration are likely to find themselves trapped in suboptimal stable equilibria. ((March, 1991)) 108

The two higher order constructs – exploration of new possibilities and exploitation of existing resources – help illuminate the role of knowledge management practices in organizations. Periods of change and indeterminacy call for more exploration, supported by creative knowledge management practices that enhance organizational differentiation. However, increased competitive pressures also force firms to become more focused and efficient at exploiting their existing knowledge, giving them advantages of speed and cost. The exploration/exploitation tradeoff is a commonplace of search and optimization thinking, so there is a point of contact between this model of knowledge management and a particular branch of mathematics. Peter Gray: Dimensions and Distinctions Problem Solving

New Problems

2

3

Knowledge Creation

Knowledge Acquisition

4

1

Previously Solved

Raising Encouraging Awareness Serendipity Problem Recognition

109

Decision Theory The models collected here under the “Decision Theory” banner initially appear to be a mixed bunch of models. Several of them focus on decisionmaking under conditions of uncertainty. Some of them focus on describing what might be called the “decision-making apparatus” in our heads or in computer systems. One model focuses on how external constraints shape decision-making behavior. However, there is more continuity among these models than there might appear at first. Under conditions of uncertainty, when external constraints cannot explain the emergence of concern structures, we see that the decision-making process or apparatus itself provides this structure. So whether decision-making is constrained or underconstrained, the structure of concern still manifests itself. It is interesting that the structure of concern should prove so pervasive in decision-making processes. In the Adizes Methodology, the structure of concern is centrally implicated in decision-making activities. This seems to be a natural home for the emergence of this structure – a point which merits some further reflection and investigation.

110

23. Decision-Making Strategies and Uncertainty: James D. Thompson James Thompson is a classic figure in organization theory. His 1967 book Organizations in Action was one of the first major syntheses of the open systems Judgmental Computational organizational model (Thompson, 2003). His main focus was on system dependencies and boundary dynamics, but he did offer a model of decision-making strategies that recapitulates the structure of InspirationalCompromise concern.

PA E I

Thompson observed that preferred decision strategies shifted based on two kinds of uncertainty: uncertain beliefs about the cause/effect relations involved in producing an outcome, and uncertain preferences regarding what outcomes would be most desirable. Crossing these two dimensions of certainty-uncertainty results in the following PAEI decision-making strategy specification: P – Judgmental Strategy (Certain preferences, Uncertain beliefs) A – Computational Strategy (Certain preferences, Certain beliefs) E – Inspirational Strategy (Uncertain preferences, Uncertain beliefs) I – Compromise Strategy (Uncertain preferences, Certain Beliefs) When preferences are certain and it is clear how to make them happen, all we need to do is figure out the requirements of the task and meet them (computational). If we know what we want but there is no totally clear indication that the means we are considering will reach that end, we have to exercise judgment and take some risks. When our preferences are not clear but everybody knows how to produce the various ends possible, we need to weigh, balance and trade off goals and priorities to find some effective manner of focusing our efforts. When we aren’t sure about the best outcomes and wouldn’t know how to reach them anyway, inspiration is required to resolve some radically new approach to the opportunity.

111

James Thompson: Dimensions and Distinctions:

Certain Preferences

Computational

Judgmental Uncertain Beliefs

Certain Beliefs Inspirational

Compromise

Uncertain Preferences

112

24. Image Theory and Decision-Making: Lee Roy Beach Image theory is an alternative to classical decision theories that are based on subjective expected utility, propounded by Strategic Values Lee Roy Beech (Beach, 1990). Expected Image Image utility models of decision making do not match real-world processes, according to Beach. Studies of actual managerial decisions show that decisions are rarely Trajectory based on explicit cost/benefit calculations. Image They are also rarely treated as gambles or wagers, as probability-based models suggest. Many decisions do not even involve choices between two commensurate options. They revolve instead around sticking with the status quo vs. introducing a change. Maintaining the status quo is a low-risk default option requiring little justification. Introducing a change is a potentially hazardous choice that one will be held accountable for.

PA E I

Furthermore, traditional decision theory tends to represent each decision as isolated and unique. This is not how decisions are typically experienced (except perhaps under lab conditions). Rather, they are seen as part of a larger web of purpose, “they are seen as components of a larger scheme that is dedicated to the achievement of some desired state of affairs, with each component contributing a small thrust in the appropriate direction…” (Beach, 1990). Image theory thus attempts to construct a broad and inclusive model of decision making as it is really experienced. Image theory is a theory of individual decision making, and so does not feature I-type social processes. Collective decision making is simply represented as a division of labor within the same individualistic overall model. P, A and E processes are the only ones represented. In image theory, an agent’s decision making knowledge is taken to be covered by three different images or cognitive schemata: an image of how things should go, an agenda of goals and outcomes they want within specific time windows, and concrete ways or plans for accomplishing those goals and attaining those outcomes. This makes a three-tier hierarchy with principles or values at the top, goals and timelines in the middle and plans at the bottom. In PAE order, the images are: P – The Strategic Image (bottom): Plans and tactics for pursuing adopted goals to successful outcomes. Involves anticipation and short-term forecasting.

113

A – The Value Image (top): Standards, ideals, beliefs, morals, ethics and other principles serve as imperatives or rigid guides that establish decisions as right or wrong. Principles generate goals and also govern the adoption or rejection of candidate goals and plans or tactics that violate the value image. E – The Trajectory Image (middle): This is an image of direction or directedness, created by establishing both specific goals and abstract goals, as well as by defining markers of progress towards goals. Timely progression towards desired outcomes is itself a goal within the trajectory image. Beach is notable for his elevation of the A principle to a governing position over E. These two elements (should/want) are more often portrayed as antagonistic. However, on Beach’s formulation, standards set all of the set points against which we can then judge how close or how far some outcome approaches a state of affairs that we want. Want depends on should, on Beach’s account. This draws attention to a different relationship between these two elements than is typically emphasized in Western writing on problem solving, and it may be of significant value in further analysing problem solving in A-dominant cultures. Lee Roy Beach: Dimensions and Distinctions Known

Strategic Image

Value Image

Dynamic

Regulatory Trajectory Image

Emergent

114

25. The Interpersonal Model of Goal-Based Decision Making: Stephen Slade The Interpersonal Model of GoalBased Decision Making is part of a research program in artificial intelligence undertaken by Stephen Slade (Slade, 1992). It has been implemented in a specific AI program called VOTE, which models US Congressional roll call voting. Slade rejects standard prescriptive decision making models based on probabilities of outcomes and payoffs, focusing instead on pragmatic decision constraints such as resource limitations across a multitude of goals, and a resultant need for various kinds of planning.

PA E I Plans

Resources

Goals

Relationships

Many models of personal decision making only touch upon three areas of the structure of concern: P, A and E – the three more individualistic styles. Slade’s model is notable for its inclusion of I. He asserts that an agent’s goals “include both personal goals and adopted goals derived from interpersonal relationships” (Slade, 1992). Goals and relationships form the two highest levels of his conceptual framework for this project, as its title would suggest. Goals do not stand alone in this model. They are embedded in a ‘goal triad’ along with plans and resources. P, A and E can be roughly associated with Plans, Resources and Goals, respectively, but a closer analysis provides a more exact mapping. P – Bottom-up Goal Development: This is an opportunistic decision making mode. When an agent detects or suspects the presence of a resource, he or she may then adopt a plan to acquire that resource. This resource-based planning may not be instrumental to any currently active higher-level goal. This style of planning is a more reliable source of repeated gratification and success, because the resource is available from the beginning. Since planning is the active moment of opportunistic decision making, P can be roughly associated with the planning point of the goal triad – where goals and resources are already largely given by context. A – Resources: Resources give rise to goals and plans, but the converse is also true, goals and plans require resourcing decisions to be made, to maximize the return upon their investment. This kind of economic reasoning 115

falls into the A domain. Resources include time, money, attention, skills, commitment, locations, space, relations, health, objects, information, natural resources and social power. They differ by being variously perishable, expendable, critical, fungible, costly, accessible, renewable, interleaving (simultaneously usable in more than one plan, e.g. location), proprietary, transferable, and inherently associated with certain plans and contexts. Resources pose an allocation problem, forcing the prioritization and ranking of goals and plans, and vigilance against waste. E – Top-down Goal Development: High-level goals are established by the agent, determining a hierarchy of sub-goals for reaching the high-level goals. This kind of goal-based planning has no necessary relationship with success or gratifying outcomes. An agent may very well hold highly-valued goals with none of the resources or preconditions necessary for achieving it. The agent must acquire these resources, and there is always a chance of failure. This kind of goal-dependent, context-independent planning falls within the E domain. I – Relationships: Goal-based decision making is strongly affected by interpersonal interaction. We recruit others towards achieving our own goals, and they do the same in return. Some relationships cause us to develop new personal goals. The importance of a relationship influences our prioritization of each others’ goals and the resources we are willing to allocate to attainment plans. There are also generalized expectations of reciprocity, and perceptions of symmetry or asymmetry that influence goal, resource and plan involvements with others. Slade suggests that adopted goals “are processed in the same way as personal goals, but their priority is determined by the importance and context of the relationship” (Slade, 1992).

116

Stephen Slade: Dimensions and Distinctions

ResourceGrounded

Bottom-up Goal Resource Development Considerations (Plans) Possible

Actual Top-down Goal Development (Goals)

Relationships

OptionGrounded

117

26. Decision Style Theory: Rowe & Boulgarides Rowe and Boulgarides (1992) offer a perception-driven theory of decisionmaking style. Our manner of perceiving and understanding stimuli, on their view, structures our construal of the significance of events. This largely determines how we will respond in decision-making situations.

PA E I Directive

Analytical

Conceptual Behavioral The dimensions of variance in this decision style theory are cognitive complexity (ambiguity tolerance vs. need for structure) and value orientation (social/human vs. instrumental/task-centered). Crossing these dimensions yields four decision making styles: (1) directive (2) analytical, (3) conceptual, and (4) behavioral, described below in PAEI order. P - Directive (Low ambiguity tolerance, Task focus): Directive individuals need and value structure. They prefer to make decisions based on clear, undisputed facts and impersonal rules and procedures. They trust their own senses and short, focused reports from others. A - Analytical (High ambiguity tolerance, Task focus): Analytically minded people can process ambiguity given enough time and information. They rely heavily on abstractions and instrumental logic, and tend to go over all aspects of a problem with a fine-toothed comb, carefully acquiring and organizing large amounts of data. They consider every aspect of a given problem, acquiring information by careful analysis. When presented, their solutions are comprehensive, detailed and very thorough. They may also be innovative if the analysis turned up novel information or supported novel reasoning. E - Conceptual (High ambiguity tolerance, Social focus): Conceptual decision makers are creative, exploratory, interested in novelty and comfortable taking risks. They are big-picture, creative thinkers who like to consider many different options and possibilities. They gather and evaluate information from many different perspectives, integrating diverse cues and passing intuitive judgements as they work to identify emerging patterns.

118

I - Behavioral (Low ambiguity tolerance, Social focus): Behavioral decisionmakers focus on the feelings and welfare of group members and other social aspects of work. They look to others for information, both explicit information in what others say and implicit information sensed during interactions with them. They evaluate information emotionally and intuitively.

Rowe & Boulgarides: Dimensions and Distinctions

Task Focus

Directive

Analytical

Conceptual

Behavioral

AmbiguityTolerant

Social Focus

Need for Structure

119

27. General Decision-Making Style (GDMS): Scott & Bruce The General Decision-Making Style test is a psychological instrument developed by Scott and Bruce for two reasons:

PA E I

Spontaneous Rational 1) Their goal was to typify individual differences in decision-making habits and practices, in the domain of career development and vocational behavior studies. 2) The model also emerged inductively Dependent Intuitive out of research plus reviews of the relevant literature, and was subsequently supported by further empirical studies and independent factor analyses. In a sense the model “suggested itself” (Scott & Bruce, 1995). In their conception, decision-making style is a learned habitual response, resulting in “a habit-based propensity to react a certain way in a specific decision context.” It has been found that people use more than one decisionmaking style, but one is dominant. The GDMS underwent a cycle or validation and revision, resulting in the following four decision-making styles: P – Spontaneous: Sense of immediacy and persistent desire to always finalize decisions as quickly as possible. A – Rational: comprehensive info search, explicit inventory of alternatives and logical evaluation of options. E – Intuitive: Alerted by salient details in the flow of information rather than following systematic procedures, more reliance on implicit learning and tacit awareness (“hunches” or “feelings”) as a basis for decisions. I – Dependent: Resolves uncertainty through consultation, more interested in advice and guidance from others than other styles are.

120

Scott and Bruce: Dimensions and Distinctions

Focused Convention

Independent Spontaneous

Rational

Instinct

Full Search Intuitive

Dependent

Interdependent

Innovation Diffuse

121

28. Anticipatory Planning Support System: Hill, Surdu & Pooch There is a military saying that a plan never survives the first shot. Military Execution planners know and expect that Monitors unanticipated events will overtake their plans, forcing commanders into a reactive planning mode during operations. Hill, Surdu and Pooch propose a system architecture called the Anticipatory Planning Support System (APSS) to Planners support planners as they update their plans in real time by helping them anticipate enemy and friendly courses of action as news comes in (Hill et al., 2000; Hill & Surdu, 2001).

PA E I

Operations Monitors

Planning Executive

APSS is an agent-based decision support system that works with another such system called OpSim (Operationally-focused Simulation, Surdu & Pooch, 2000). It operates in a similar fashion to APSS, but it tracks operations as they deviate from plan, to alert commanders about possible ramifications of those deviations. The two systems exercise similar functions in different domains: one anticipates the impact of contingencies and the other anticipates the consequences of operational drift. The APSS Execution Monitors digest live information to revise plans and expectations on the fly, which is a P function of adjusting as you go along. OpSim Operations Monitors process live information to monitor deviation from plans, which is an A function of scanning for errors. There is a Plan Generator that explores the revised problem spaces for new opportunities and threats, which is an E function of projecting hypothetical possibilities. The I function is headed by a Planning Executive agent which coordinates the activities of the above three agent types as well as models of the outside world (the World View) and communications with the outside world (World Integrator). The Planning Executive is also the level at which human users interact with the system. Thus all elements of the system are integrated into one ensemble by the Planning Executive. The four agent types in this system are described more fully below.

122

P – Execution Monitors: (APSS) Anticipates the immediate future by attaching to a node in the plan and assessing the difference between actual and planned states for that node. Derives anticipated states by forward simulation along appropriate branches, determining the likelihood of each anticipated state. Execution Monitors essentially explore an option space at a faster rate than the outside world does. A – Operations Monitors: (OpSim) A dynamic hierarchy of rational agents, each of which monitors a specific aspect of the plan, comparing the actual operation with the planned operation. Significant deviations trigger impact assessment processes, and the top-level OM informs the decision maker when the plan is in jeopardy. Operations Monitors thus generate an error signal or learning signal for a negative feedback process, comparing the actual state of the world to a reference state (the plan). E – Planner: (APSS) This agent reads the state of a node and uses a Branch Generator to consider possible future actions and produce new relevant branches. The Branch Generator uses simulations, inference mechanisms and genetic algorithms guided by the goal-states or end-states desired by the various parties to the conflict to generate possibilities. A Branch Evaluator then determines how well the terminal node of the new branch accomplishes friendly goals, using simulations and inference. This process generates the option space and the reward or utility (cost/benefit value) of each option. I – Planning Executive: This agent embodies all four concern specializations, but its role is integrative. It coordinates the flow of tasks and information, allocating certain plan nodes to planners or monitors as required, prioritizing tasks given system resource constraints, and basically cooperating with and controlling all areas of the system as initialized by World View information to make everything work together as an organic and evolving whole.

123

Hill, Surdu and Pooch: Dimensions and Distinctions

Monitoring

Execution Monitors

Operations Monitors

Projections

Current States Planner

Planning Executive

Planning

124

29. Organizational Uncertainty and Planning Tradeoffs: Lawless et al. According to Lawless et al. (Lawless, 2005; Lawless & Grayson, 2004a; Lawless & Grayson 2004b; Lawless et al., 2000a; Lawless et al. 2000b), there are two contrasting models of uncertainty in organizational theory. One derives from game theory and embraces methodological individualism. On this view, organizations are equal to the sum of contributions from the individuals who comprise them. Since the basic unit of analysis is the individual, the way to decrease uncertainty in organizations is to increase communication members.

PA E I

Execution Energy Uncertainty Uncertainty

Knowledge Uncertainty

Time Uncertainty

and coordination between its

Lawless et al. also describe a second model of organizational uncertainty, presenting it as a derivative of mathematical physics. On this view, the organization itself can be uncertain, independently of the individuals in it. That is, individuals in an organization might profess complete certainty, but the organization as a whole might be in an extremely uncertain position. Only perturbations of this system expose information about its actual state and the veridicalilty/reliability of its explicit and tacit knowledge. Cooperation cannot be the solution to this kind of uncertainty. It is actually the problem. When cooperation is easy and routines are undisrupted, minor perturbations can be filtered out of the organization. Internal relationships mutually reinforce each other. The organization can thus drift towards a more uncertain state without realizing it. Information that they are “off course” disappears when cooperation is smooth and easy, buffered from major external disruptions or perturbations. Organizations become insulated by their own prior successes. Lawless writes: From this alternative perspective, well-defined problems are best solved with cooperation, but the more proficient the teamwork in executing a solution, the less information that is generated relative to competition, producing the curious effect that independently of intentions, cooperation hides information from inside and outside observers... From this perspective, only competition can both produce information for observers among multiple, complex, hidden sources of information and drive the search among this information for the knowledge or beliefs that withstand all 125

challenges... Thus, to uncover interdependent, uncertain information about an organization means that, in general, it must be purposively disturbed, an idea traceable to Lewin (1951). Lawless relates this to the military tactic of "intelligence strikes", forays against the enemy designed specifically to disrupt them in various ways to see how they respond, in order to gain an understanding of the organization of their defence. He also relates it to basic contingency forecasting, where considering problems and conflicts can expose organizational information. His domain of application is defensive military operations, although the same framework is applied to offensive and commercial uncertainty in other papers (Lawless et al., 2000a; Lawless et al., 2000b; Lawless & Grayson, 2004a; Lawless & Grayson, 2004b). In this context, he introduces two paired sources of uncertainty that together make up a fairly significant concern structure model. Starting from the observations that planning occurs under time pressure and uncertainty, Lawless introduces the Energy/Time uncertainty pairing. Where one is uncertain, we want to be certain about the other. Lawless also posits a Knowledge/Implementation uncertainty pair. We can be uncertain about the adequacy of our plan and the information we are basing it on (Knowledge uncertainty), and we can also be uncertain about our capacity to martial and direct adequate forces in the required manner to actualize those plans (Implementation uncertainty). Again, the less certain we are of one of these factors, the more certain we want to be about the other. Each of these four types of uncertainty grows in its own distinctive way when systems are left unperturbed. Each one also takes a different kind of perturbation to release it. P - Execution Uncertainty: When this type of organizational uncertainty grows as a result of effective cooperation, organizational information about effective capacities will only be exposed through conflicts and problems during the execution of plans. A - Energy Uncertainty: Organizational uncertainty about the accumulation, storage, distribution and burn rate of key or limiting resources can increase under conditions of routine operations. That uncertainty can only be resolved through actual burn rates during the planned operations. E - Knowledge Uncertainty: Organizational uncertainty can develop regarding the completeness of strategic information and the reliability of intelligence sources. This uncertainty can only be reduced during forays into the field. 126

I - Time Uncertainty: There may be organizational uncertainty about time dependencies (i.e. who will be where when, and whether that will happen in time to let something else happen, and what everybody else has to do to make that happen, whether all of the parts can come together within critical timeframes or not). This uncertainty can only be reduced by putting the team to the test of an actual performance or exercise. For the Knowledge/Execution uncertainties, the more time and effort you spend perfecting your knowledge, the smaller your window of opportunity gets for accomplishing urgent goals in the field. The converse of this is "look before you leap". Rushing to implementation too soon with inadequate knowledge will result in extremely costly lessons, exposing the organization's planning and intelligence deficiencies. Around Time/Energy uncertainties, with unlimited energy, the time needed to reach a goal can be lessened dramatically. Conversely, protecting energy stores and restrictively limiting distribution can stretch out the duration of operations, increasing the coordination load and the complexity of distribution activities. There is an effectiveness/efficiency trade-off where effectiveness consumes energy ahead of time and efficiency consumes time ahead of energy. Lawless: Dimensions and Distinctions

Physical Energy

Action Execution Uncertainty

Energy Uncertainty

Outcomes

Resources Knowledge Uncertainty

Information

Time Uncertainty

Organizational

Coordination

127

30. Action & Belief-Driven Sensemaking: Karl Weick Weick’s sensemaking framework has had a broad impact on writings in organizational decision making. It is a rich and productive conceptual construct which Commitment Expecting I will not summarize here. My goal instead is simply to draw attention to a part of Weick’s framework that expresses the structure of concern, namely his distinction between action-driven and belief-driven Arguing processes in the development of meaning. Manipulating ((Weick, 1995)).

PA E I

Weick distinguishes between belief-driven processes, where new meaning grows out of old, and actiondriven processes, where meaning is created to support deeds. Within each process, meanings can be used to stabilize or to adapt to changing circumstances. This produces four different meaning-development processes, as follows: P – Commitment (Action-Driven, Stabilizing): Meaning is created to justify taking action. Commitment is a very public and visible kind of meaning that implies free choice in its creation, and irrevocability once the commitment has been made. A – Expecting (Belief-Driven, Stabilizing): Meaning is grown by adding or connecting new meaning to old meaning, in an expanding system. E – Arguing (Belief-Driven, Adapting): Meaning is grown by opposing existing meaning and connecting contradictory elements, challenging and changing current beliefs. I – Manipulating (Action-Driven, Adapting): Meaning is created before, during or after the fact to explain one’s action, i.e. ‘impression management’. These distinctions are interesting for the grounds upon which they group P I (action-driven) and A E (belief-driven) together. It is another variant on the interaction (PI) vs. modelling (AE) distinction that so often differentiates these axes. 128

Karl Weick: Dimensions and Distinctions

Stabilizing

Commitment

Arguing

Belief Driven

Expecting

Manipulating

Adapting

Action Driven

129

31. Information Framing and Uncertainty: Michael H. Zack Zack’s model of information and framing offers an interesting way to characterize the kinds of situations appropriate for the information gathering Equivocality Overload styles of either P, A, E or I. He describes the difference between information needs and framing needs. When we have information needs, we have a framework in place that helps us typify the missing Ambiguity Uncertainty information. We understand the overall cognitive model in terms of cause-effect relationships, conditions and goals, participants and so on. However, we are missing information that will let us connect all the dots and resolve our uncertainties. We have to go out factfinding. (Zack, 2001; Zack, 1999).

PA E I

In other situations, we may have all of the information we need, and more! We don’t need to go out and find facts. We need to make sense of the facts we already have! We need a structure, an order, a model, or some other kind of framing device that will reduce the ambiguity in our data and give the facts roles in some coherent account. Just as we can lack information or frames, we can have too much or too many of both. In all of these circumstances, we have to improve our information state. It turns out that each operative style within the structure of concern fits best with one of the four information problems we can have. I make those connections below. P – Equivocality (Variety of Frames): Restrict information by reducing the interpretations and perspectives that are in play. P’s are impatient with multiple perspectives, and prefer to suppress discussion in favour of action. A – Overload (Variety of Information): Restrict information by excluding whatever exceeds the established frame. A’s exclude what doesn’t fit. E – Ambiguity (Lack of Frames): Seek information that will supply models and dimensions for organizing large amounts of data. E’s like examining things from new perspectives. I – Uncertainty (Lack of Information): Seek information that will allow you to flesh out all of the interpretations and perspectives that are in play in order to reach resolutions and move forward. I’s will seek the opinions of others before deciding. 130

Zack: Dimensions and Distinctions

Variety

Equivocality

Overload

Frames

Information Ambiguity

Uncertainty

Lack

131

Social and Organizational Studies If the structure of concern has any explanatory importance, it must constitute both a necessary and a sufficient domain of explanation for various phenomena. In the field of social and organizational studies, we see some models which emphasize the sufficiency criterion for explanation, and others which emphasize the necessity criterion. Theorists who build models of society or of human social psychology often simply postulate four explanatory categories, and proceed to argue that these categories are sufficient to explain the variability we see in the world. This is an appeal to parsimony as much as it is anything else. Other theorists postulate a set of constraints on human social interaction, and show concern structures arising out of these constraints by necessity. This difference in explanatory emphasis is not unique to the field of social and organizational studies, but it does serve to differentiate many of the models we see listed below.

132

32. Social Solidarity and Suicide: Emile Durkheim Emile Durkheim is one of the classical figures of sociological theory. Concern structure models arise at several points in Durkheim’s work. Below I outline the concern structure of his concept of social solidarity as summarized by Sztompka ((Sztompka, 1993)), and his categorization of suicide as summarized by Best ((Best, 2003)). Social Solidarity Durkheim described two forms of social solidarity: a mechanical form based on uniformity, command and control and an organic form that protected individual rights and interpersonal diversity, developing collective commitment through the institution of civil society. Social solidarity can be described in terms of four functions, as follows: P – Economic Structures A – Social Control E – Character of activities/main social bond I – Position of the individual

P E P E

Economic Structures

A I A I Social Control

Character of activities

Position of Individual

Egoistic Suicide

Anomic Suicide

Fatalistic Suicide

Altruistic Suicide

P – Economic Structures (Can be Mechanical or Organic) Mechanical Order: internal roles. Organic Order: market rules.

Isolated, self-ruling, self-sufficient groups with tight

Complex division of labour, interdependence, common

A – Social Control (Can be Mechanical or Organic) Mechanical Order: Retributive justice – harsh repressive laws to punish nonconformity and disruptions of order (criminal law). 133

Organic Order: Restitutive justice – civic rights and contracts to repair failures of commitment and reciprocity (civil law). E – Character of activities/main social bond (Mechanical or Organic) Mechanical Order: Similar narrow moral, religious and political consensus. Organic Order: Diverse and differentiated but complementary priorities and beliefs. I – Position of the individual (Mechanical or Organic Societies) Mechanical Order: Collectivistic focus on group identity and community standing. Organic Order: Individualistic focus on autonomy of action and evaluation. Suicide Durkheim described four different kinds of suicide, each one of which can be interpreted as a failure to regulate problems arising in one of the quadrants of concern, as follows: P – Egoistic suicide A – Anomic suicide E – Fatalistic suicide I – Altruistic suicide P – Egoistic suicide This is the suicide of an out-of-control person, inadequately integrated into society and only weakly aware of social norms and expectation. The person is not part of the shared collective sense of conscience or obligation, and is likely to react rashly and impulsively to problems and frustrations. Someone who credibly threatens suicide if a romantic partner abandons them might fall into this category. A – Anomic suicide Anomie means “without rules” and it refers to the floating sense of uncertainty one feels in situations where there are no customs or guidelines available to indicate what the right ways to react or respond might be. Some people commit suicide because some institution they believe in is under attack and about to collapse, and they would rather die than live in the world 134

of the aftermath where their name, significance and social role would all be completely different and unrecognizable. Suicide bombing may be partly a symptom of the anomie people feel when their avowedly hegemonic rule structure is patently subordinate to another more hegemonic structure in real life. E – Fatalistic suicide This is the suicide of hopelessness, of finding all doors already closed by a repressive social order and all passions choked by punishing self-regulation. Strangely enough, Durkheim viewed this as a rare and unimportant style of suicide, but over the course of the 20th century it has come to dominate our notions of it (Durkheim’s dates are 1858-1917). Teen suicide is typically fatalistic, as are some instances of prison suicide and poverty-related suicide. I – Altruistic suicide Altruistic suicide is the opposite of egoistic suicide. It is the product of overintegration into the “conscience collective”. It stems from exaggerated social reactions of guilt, shame, unworthiness, debt or duty. The person is so fully regulated by these social imperatives that they maintain no separate identity as a person with any distance from the group or any capacity to deflect social stigma. The four styles might be summarized most simply as: P – Egoistic: Not constrained enough by social/emotional norms – wild. A – Anomic: Weak/weakening socio-cognitive rules create too much uncertainty – lost. E – Fatalistic: Overly strong socio-cognitive rules negate too many options – bleak. I – Altruistic: Over-constrained by social/emotional norms – obliged.

135

Durkheim: Dimensions and Distinctions

Social Structural Stick

Constraint Economic Structures

Social Control

Activity

Regulation Character of Activities

Carrot

Position of Individual

Identificatory

Scope of Freedom

Problem of Underconstraint

Egoistic Suicide

Anomic Suicide

Many Plans Affected

Few Plans Available Fatalistic Suicide

Altruistic Suicide

Problem of Overconstraint

136

33. A.G.I.L. Functional Imperatives for Social Systems: Talcott Parsons The structural-functional sociological theories of Talcott Parsons almost entirely dominated the field during Adaptation Goal his own lifetime. Parsons viewed society Attainment as a system of interacting social units, institutions and organizations. He was interested in the force of social norms, and how we come to feel that force and act Latency accordingly (Parsons, 1971; Parsons, 1968; Integration Parsons, 1951). One of the ways he conceptualized these social systems was as problem-solving devices. In his mind, social systems arose to solve four particular problems, listed in PAEI order below, for modern developed nation-state systems:

PA E I

P – Adaptation: Social systems must cope with their external boundary conditions, such as their resource base, physical environment, territory and so on. Economic activity serves to solve problems of adaptation. A – Goal Attainment: The goals of societies and social institutions have to be defined, resolving goal conflicts, prioritizing some over others, determining resource allocations and directing social energies. Political activity organizes and directs the goal attainment of modern social systems. E – Integration: All of the adaptive efforts of social institutions within a society need to be integrated into a cohesive system. The institutions need to be regulated so that a harmonious society can emerge from their interaction. Legal systems solve this problem, seeking overarching principles for aligning social activities. I – Latency: The encultured patterns of behaviour required by the social system must be maintained. Peoples’ motivation must be established and renewed, and the tensions they experience as they negotiate the social order must be managed. Furthermore, the cultural patterns that accomplish this renewal must themselves be maintained and renewed. Fiduciary systems such as families, schools and churches solve these problems of pattern/tension management. 137

These four functional imperatives (Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, Latency: A.G.I.L.) provided what Parsons felt was a more complex and systemic account of social phenomena which previous theorists had tried to explain in terms of unitary causes. Talcott Parsons: Dimensions and Distinctions

Bottom-up

Adaptation

Goal Attainment

Social Praxis

Regulation Integration

Latency

Top-down

138

34. Four-Drive Theory of Human Nature: Lawrence & Nohria Lawrence and Nohria are professors of organizational behavior at the Harvard Business School who felt Drive to Drive to dissatisfied with the rather featureless Acquire Defend construct of homo economicus as a rational maximizer. Humans are clearly motivated by more than personal self-interest, even in their economic behavior. The authors point Drive to Drive to to the colossal failure of neoclassical Learn Bond economic reforms in Russia as one devastating example of how human behavior is clearly driven by factors that neoclassical theory does not see. The authors turned to evolutionary biology and neuroscience to construct a more complete model of basic human nature (Lawrence & Nohria, 2002).

PA E I

As the outcome of their research, the authors postulate a fundamental basis for human behavior composed of four distinct drives, listed below in PAEI order: P – (D1) The drive to acquire A – (D4) The drive to defend E – (D3) The drive to learn I – (D2) The drive to bond These may not be the only human drives, but they are the only ones necessary and sufficient for constructing a “unified understanding of modern human life”. The four drives motivate and direct human action, perception, cognition/reasoning and memory/representation. They are all independent drives with limbic origins but they exert their effects through the tightly integrated work of the prefrontal cortex. The emergence of this prefrontal coordination coincides with the cognitive Great Leap Forward in human cultural sophistication during the Upper Paleolithic era. Lawrence and Nohria discuss the implications of their findings for organizational management.

139

35. Sociological Paradigms & Organizational Analysis: Burrell & Morgan This model of organizational analysis developed by Burrell and Morgan classifies sociological theories along the Radical Functionalist two orthogonal dimensions of regulation Humanist vs. change and subjectivity vs. objectivity (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This divides sociology into four fairly distinct paradigm clusters. There is internal consistency Radical under each paradigm, in terms of Interpretive Structuralist assumptions about individuals, groups, societies, goals of study and accepted forms of evidence. However, each cluster neglects, excludes or opposes some the insights generated under other paradigms.

PA E I

Burrell and Morgan’s model was later taken into social work research, where it was used to define four approaches to understanding the problems of social work clients (Whittingham & Holland, 1985). This application of the model is illustrated below. P – Radical Humanist (Change-Subjective): Social opportunities and ideologies are controlled by large social institutions, often leaving people marginalized, voiceless and disempowered, leading to widespread alienation and the breakdown of communities. Interventions are aimed at concrete individuals and groups, establishing mutual-aid and consciousness-raising networks that will lead to eventual changes in social and economic structures. A – Functionalist (Regulation-Objective): Societies are the coming together of populations with shared civic values who establish social order which on the whole benefits everybody. Individuals and some identifiable groups may fall into misfortune or maladaptive patterns. The goal of intervention is to help them adapt to existing structures, perhaps making minor institutional adjustments where warranted. E – Radical Structuralist (Change-Objective): Fundamental underlying contradictions and regularities make our entire way of living unjust and untenable. Distressed individuals and groups can be helped to mollify the impact of structural problems, but lasting change can only be achieved by a 140

complete transformation of the society. Intervention must be integrated across political, regional, community and interpersonal levels. I – Interpretive (Regulation-Subjective): The meaning of social situations is largely a matter of interpretation. Anyone can feel trapped by their situation, but viewing things in a new light can open up new options and lead to better situations. Intervention focuses on helping people reframe events and adjust the maxims they use to regulate their own behavior. Burrell & Morgan: Dimensions and Distinctions

Concrete

Radical Humanist

Functionalist

Change

Regulation Radical Structuralist

Objective

Interpretive

Abstract

Subjective

141

36. Resource Theory: Uriel G. Foa Resource theory represents human relationships and interaction as methods for providing people with six social resources: Concrete Universal love, services, goods, money, information (Impersonal) and status. Each resource can be exchanged for another, or people can reciprocally exchange the same resource. The possibilities are often illustrated by an encircled hexagon, with each of resources Symbolic Interpersonal labelling a vertex, and all of the vertices connected to all the others by lines. Around this circle a box is drawn, and the four sides of the box are labelled, in terms that describe the structure of concern (Foa et al., 1993; Foa, 1993).

PA E I

The dimensions are described as high-low concreteness dimension (or concrete-symbolic), and a high-low particularistic dimension (particularistic-universal). Exchanges of goods and services are concrete, exchanges of information and status interactions are more symbolic. We are very particular about who we give and receive love with, but we’ll exchange money with anyone in a marketplace without cheapening or degrading the value of that money. In PAEI terms, P is concrete and E is symbolic, while I is particular and A universal. On this account therefore, P and E differ along a “what” dimension regarding goals and rewards, while I and A differ along a “who” dimension of people to whom the interactive pattern applies. Resource preferences of the four different PAEI style could be described thusly: P – High Concreteness: Focus on tangible acquisitions. Preferred resources: goods and services. A – Low Particularism: Focus on standard, universal, generic exchanges. Preferred resources: money, followed by information and goods. E – Low Concreteness: Focus on symbolism. information and status.

Preferred resources:

I – High Particularism: Focus on interpersonal interactions. resources: love, followed by services and status.

142

Preferred

37. Normal Accident Theory: Charles Perrow Charles Perrow’s Normal Accident Theory is difficult to situate in this catalog Linear, Linear, because it is a sociological tool, a Loosely Tightly management tool and a systems analysis Coupled Coupled and design tool all in equal measure. His theory targets the intersection between complex technological systems and human management practices. Some specific Complex, Complex, targets of his analysis are high-risk Tightly Loosely enterprises using high-risk technologies, Coupled Coupled such as nuclear power plants, petrochemical plants, supertankers, major airport systems, hydroelectric dams and the like – systems with high catastrophic potential. However, in discussing what differentiates these systems from less risky systems, he creates a general typology of systems. This typology names dimensions that I believe lie near the core of the structure of concern (Perrow, 1999).

PA E I

Perrow argues that there is a particular class of accidents that are normal, inevitable, and are often potentially disastrous. These occur in systems with many components, complex interconnections, strict dependencies and stringent performance conditions. In systems like this, it is computationally impossible to foresee all of the failures that might happen. One also cannot tell how failures might compound each other if two or more were to happen simultaneously. Between design limitations, equipment failures, procedural errors, operator error, problems in supplies and materials, and unknown variables in the environment (Perrow calls this set of considerations DEPOSE), there will always be unforeseen complications and unexpected contingencies. Plus when multiple factors combine to produce accidents in such systems, it will rarely if ever be possible to figure out what is going on in real time. Only post-mortem analysis will reveal the failure path. Systems that are prone to normal accidents can be identified by their interactive complexity and the coupling relationships among their components. Interactions in a system (across all DEPOSE elements) can be linear or complex. For linear interactions, there is an expected sequence for events along the main causal pathways, and even if unexpected and unplanned events occur, they are immediately visible by the way they cause the system to deviate from its expected functions. Complex interactions occur in unfamiliar, unplanned, unexpected and unforeseeable sequences. Problems, flaws or failures in complex interactions are not visible, and often cannot be comprehended as they unfold. This is because there are multiple 143

elements from across the DEPOSE system interacting simultaneously to produce unpredictable results during complex interactions. One important source of complexity is called common-mode functioning. In complex systems, some components perform multiple functions (e.g. a wall both holds up the roof and keeps out the wind). This improves design economy, and it reduces certain kinds of complexity, but the failure of common-mode components will be more serious when they happen, bringing non-linearity into the system. A small initial accident that slightly damages a common-mode element can have huge unforeseen consequences, depending on what else is happening in the system. Cause and effect will not be proportionate. Note that these observations apply to interactions within systems, rather than to systems themselves. Perrow asserts that linear interactions predominate in all systems, but some systems permit more complex interaction than others. Furthermore, complex interactions themselves are not necessarily likely to cause accidents. A second dimension must be considered, namely the tightness or looseness of coupling between the DEPOSE components or subsystems of the system. In tightly coupled systems, there is little or no slack or buffering between the various interconnected components. What happens to one component directly affects what happens to other components around it and connected to it. Chainreactions or domino-effects happen easily in tightly coupled systems. Loosely coupled systems do have buffers and slack. Components have a certain amount of functional autonomy from each other. Systems characterized by both complex and tightly coupled interactions are prone to normal accidents. Crossing the dimensions of interactive complexity and coupling give us four categories of interaction: linear tight, linear loose, complex tight, complex loose. This sequence of the four categories is in PAIE order, rather than PAEI order. However, PAIE order does match the account of the ecological underpinnings of concern structures developed earlier in this book, and it is the order I use for this summary of normal accident theory. Interactive complexity and coupling have ramifications for organizational governance and structuring. Both linear interaction and tight coupling require centralized management structures, whereas complex interaction and loose coupling require decentralized structures. Both interactive and management issues are described below.

144

P – Linear Interaction, Loose Coupling: Either Centralized or Decentralized Authority There are few complex interactions in this system. Failed components can be isolated and worked around, without drastically disrupting system function. Accidents can be remedied in either a top-down manner from a central authority or a bottom-up manner from the floor. The prevalence of either form of management in linear, loosely coupled system will be more determined by organizational culture than by their systems and technologies. Single-goal agencies of all descriptions fit within this category, including government agencies. Most manufacturing operations and construction projects also share these qualities. These organizations exist to get specific tasks done, and the manner in which they get done does not need to be rigorously specified. A – Linear Interaction, Tight Coupling: Centralized Authority Regularized internal environment, predictable and visible interactions, and invariant sequences. Improvised workarounds are not possible, but must be explicitly design into the system. There is little slack in the system, and delays disrupt the entire operation. Bottom-up local or improvisational solutions may put the entire system at risk, so managerial authority is centralized. Projects in this category include hydroelectric dams, power distribution grids, continuous processing plants and refineries, and rail or marine transport. Centralization, unambiguous and explicit orders and policies and rigorous adherence to procedures are needed. I – Complex Interaction, Tight Coupling: Neither Centralized nor Decentralized Authority The tight coupling of the system makes any failure very disruptive, so local solutions have the potential to bring the whole system to a halt if they compromise functional integration with the larger systemic context. This is amplified by the complexity of the system, with components in close proximity to each other, heavily interconnected with many common-mode elements, vertical and horizontal dependencies and unexpected feedback loops. Many of the problems in such systems are unforeseeable because of the combinatorial complexity of the systems. Given this complexity, a decentralized approach to management is suggested, so that those closest to each subsystem can undertake a slow, careful search of the failure to determine what went wrong and what to do about it. However, this conflicts with the need to manage the tight coupling of overall system function. The only way this can be accommodated is for each unit to have a strong sense of the overall purpose of the system, as well as their own place in the system, 145

and their responsibilities to other activity groups. That way they can be creative in the ways they make their needed contribution to overall system function. E – Complex Interaction, Loose Coupling: Decentralized Authority Complex interactions, with many control parameters and unplanned behaviors, require management by a network of operators each with some local expertise, particularly since troubleshooting will often be diagnostic and based on inference rather than straightforward observation. Furthermore, since the system is loosely coupled, there is some slack and some room to manoeuvre. Local ingenuity in finding substitutions and alternative pathways will not necessarily disrupt the whole system, and may improve it. Research and development organizations, universities and multi-goal agencies exhibit this kind of loose structure with distributed local authority. This permits the kind of local autonomy that encourages the development of innovations. The greatest management challenge exists for tightly coupled complex systems with complex interactions, and these have the greatest normal accident potential as well. When a tightly coupled system has become complex, efforts must be made to reduce both coupling and complexity if possible. One way to accomplish this in management and technology is to use the same strategy used by human working memory – chunking. Tightly coupled elements can be integrated at a higher level of organization, through technology or the redefinition of certain activities. This chunking can make it quicker and easier for more people to exercise the coupled function. Perrow gives the example of air traffic control, and the development from early radio contact technologies to radar technologies and finally to transponders. This development took a multifaceted radio communications task and reduced it to an ‘at-a-glance’ representation of all needed information on a screen. By increasing the tight coupling of the linear interactions producing that information, the complexity of interaction managed by each individual operator went down. Also, by segregating traffic into types (commercial, military, small aircraft, etc) and assigning air corridors and altitudes by type, linearity was increased and the complexity of interaction decreased. By reorganizing coupling, technologies release either operator time and attention, or restrictions on place of operation, or restrictions on the people who can operate that process. This can allow for a reassignment of roles. Within each new function, there may be tighter coupling and more linear interactions, but across the whole network there may be some loosening of coupling and encapsulation of function, pushing the system a bit closer towards a more manageable state. Object-oriented programming represents this kind of organizational development, relative to the procedural 146

programming it has supplanted for certain tasks. To the degree to which programs must be complex, object-oriented programming loosens the coupling between encoded objects through encapsulation. To the degree to which programs must be tightly coupled, object-orientation shields the main program (as the higher level of the chunk) from some of the complexity of the overall code package (classes and objects on the lower level of the chunk). By chunking between levels of complexity and then integrating the resulting chunks, larger systems can be integrated in ways that manage the combined challenges of tight coupling and complexity. This is central to the structure of concern: P – In ecosystems, under r-selection conditions, loosely coupled, linear reactions produce the shortest energy-reduction pathways. A – Under density conditions, larger, more centralized organizations with tighter coupling are more efficient at maximizing the reduction of resources that have become more scarce or patchy in time and space. However, there is an upper limit to the amount of complexity such a centralized system can manage. Fixes, workarounds, updates and expansions all increase the complexity of the system, until the single-system management strategy breaks apart. I – A complex re-parcelling of the system is needed. Local autonomy must be balanced with global systemic integration. Local systems, organizing themselves to maximize their own reduction efficiency, also enhance the reductive capacity of the overall or global system by improving the efficiency of their input-output transactions with other nodes in the system. E – When a community is in a climax condition, when further improvements in both independent and interdependent reduction efficiency provide diminishing returns, only an innovation can produce further appreciable enhancements. For this to happen there must be some loosening of coupling between system elements. Elements that can free themselves for some “evolutionary playtime” can produce this novelty. Novelty is often disruptive to the existing order, prompting the re-establishment of a new or altered overall system.

147

38. The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations: Alan Fiske Alan Fiske has developed a model of what he calls the four basic forms of sociality ((Fiske, 1991)). This typology is based on extensive fieldwork across many societies from some of the poorest to some of the richest on earth. Fiske identifies four relational types or skill sets that he believes account for all types of human relationship. They are presented below in PAEI order:

PA E I Market Pricing

Equality Matching

Authority Ranking

Communal Sharing

P – Market Pricing (MP): Haggling over a commercial transaction between strangers who do not plan to meet repeatedly. Involves bidding, bluffing and countering while keeping one’s true buying limits a secret. Non-personal instrumental exchanges with no self-disclosure. A – Equality Matching (EM): Equality of exchange over time, a balance of exchanged favours, accruing social debt and obligation when receiving favours, the discharge of debt or gain of credit when giving favours. Tit-forTat. Ground rules for peer relationships. E – Authority Ranking (AR): Negotiated inequality, deciding over time who has more importance, status or dominance over others. Unequal exchange where the dominant obtains resource advantages but accrues an obligation to support or sustain subordinates in some way. I – Communal Sharing (CS): People contribute what they can and take what they need. Almost always constrained to the inclusive fitness group, nuclear family and sometimes various degrees of extended family, rarely beyond.

148

Fiske: Dimensions and Distinctions

Dyadic

Equality Matching

Market Pricing

Reciprocal

Asymmetrical Authority Ranking Principled, Established

Communal Sharing

Group

Interactive, Spontaneous

149

39. Types of Combinatory Systems: Piero Mella Mella develops a model of the social or collective behavior of interacting autonomous agents, in order to investigate what he calls combinatory effects. Combinatory effects occur when microlevel interactions drive macro-level system behavior, and macro behavior determines, conditions or directs the micro behavior, reciprocally and simultaneously. The concept thus has similarities with ecological concepts such as hierarchical causation (Mella, 2003a; Mella, 2003b).

PA E I Pursuit

Order

Progress Accumulation /Diffusion

The goal of Mella’s project is to shed light on a set of problems involving non-linear collective state changes and the individual interactions that cause and are affected by them, including: “…the voice-noise effect in organizations; the clustering and swarming effects in economics; the unjustified raising of retail prices; the stock exchange dynamics deriving from the micro-macro feedback between stockbroker decisions and the stock index…”. All of these are phenomena involving crossed micro-macro level feedback. In the development of his model, Mella introduces a typology of combinatory systems that instantiates the structure of concern. It is a fivecategory typology, with two of the elements falling into the “I” bucket. This is unsurprising, given the social focus of the model. The system types inPAEI order are: P – Systems of Pursuit: The system gradually seems to be orienting itself towards a “goal” or “objective”. The contextually driven shared goals of members of the collective emerge at the macro level as the “goal” of the whole combinatory system. Examples include all kinds of mob behavior, including escape from disasters, lynch mobs, non-violent non-cooperative political resistance, holiday shopping, looting mobs and the floor of the stock market. A – Systems of Order: The behavior of individuals becomes ordered or has its order amplified by the further-ordered condition of the macro level. The circulating stadium “wave” is a clear example, as are the shifts and turns executed by flocks of small birds or herds on the move. On crowded city streets and dance floors, tacit or explicit “right of way” conventions can give 150

rise to ordered flows of units at the macro level, without such macro behavior being specifically indicated. Footpath formation is another system of order. E – Systems of Improvement and Progress: This is a subclass of Pursuit, where individual achievements increase the status of the parameter that measures collective performance. They “raise the bar”. This creates positive gaps (being ahead of the crowd) and negative gaps (being behind in the race) along with the motivation for individuals to increase positive and eliminate negative gaps. Standards of comparison are needed that track the overall rising standards of the group so individuals can determine their standing. Races, world record-holding and the progress of science are just some of the many systems of progress. I – Systems of Accumulation and Diffusion: Systems of accumulation gather together or focalize social responses of a certain type. After the death of Princess Diana, several sites in the UK became foci for the accumulation of flowers from mourners. Emerging neighborhood identities, such as heavy industries in one part of a city, boutiques in another, and various clusterings of ethnically-specific businesses are also systems of accumulation. There can be foci for the accumulation of graffiti or garbage, for the breaking out of applause or laughter and for the reintegration and mobilization of flocks, herds and schools. Systems of diffusion are contagion-like dynamics where some trait, behavior, quality or state spread from a few members to many members of the collective. Fashion trends of every kind utilize systems of diffusion, as does the spread and preservation of national languages and customs. Religious and political ideologies and mass hysteria also spread in this fashion.

151

40. Group Formation & Club Theory: Arrow, Berdahl & McGrath In their exploration of complex systems approaches to small group dynamics, Arrow, Berdahl and McGrath Circumstantial Concocted (2000) present a model of the dimensions Groups Groups of social space within which small groups form. Group formation can be more or less planned or emergent, and this can be due to internal or external forces. The two crossed SelfFounded dimensions result in a four-part typology of Organized Groups group formation as follows: Groups

PA E I

P – Circumstantial Groups (External, Emergent): People walking around doing their own thing and pursuing their own goals end up in a group due to the structure of the goal-seeking environment, e.g. people waiting for a bus. A – Concocted Groups (External, Planned): A manager or other group commander announces that a group or work team is going to be formed, who will be on it, and what each of their roles will be. The assignment of a flight crew to a plane is an example of the concoction of a team, driven by scheduling and technical roles. E – Founded Groups (Internal, Planned): An individual or a few people develop a concept requiring group support, and they invite others to join as charter members of a newly founded entity. This is a quintessentially entrepreneurial dynamic. I – Self-Organized Groups (Internal, Emergent): These groups form informally through the interactions of people who discover some point of commonality or reason for developing bonds. Most friendship circles form in this way. In the context of their discussion of self-organized groups, the authors describe the process by which these groups form in terms of club theory. Club theory features the construct of “club goods”. Members gain access to these club goods in exchange for their supporting contributions of energy, time, money, space or other resources. A balance must be struck between keeping enough active members to maintain the ability to deliver club goods, and letting in so many members that their club goods become diluted. Clubs form for various reasons and lengths of time. The authors review 3: Activity clubs, Economic clubs and Social clubs.

152

P – Activity clubs: The primary draw for an Activity club is some project or activity that the prospective members want to do that they cannot do alone, such as play a team sport or discuss books that they are reading. The P purpose is served by an A structure, making the people fairly interchangeable and able to flow into or out of the group as needed. A – Economic clubs: Economic clubs involve the pooling of resources to realize group savings, increase economic power, enjoy economy of scale, or to pool risk etc. Examples are housemates who split the rent but are not otherwise close friends, time-share organizations or firms of associated professionals such as lawyers or architects who all share the same offices and pool of resource staff, thus enjoying efficiency gains. I – Social clubs: In Social clubs the club goods are the members themselves and the pleasures of interaction among them. Social club members do things together that technically speaking they could do on their own, but prefer not to. This includes studying, jogging, going to movies or simply eating. They also do things that inherently require group participation, like throwing parties. I do not know if Arrow, Berdahl and McGrath recognize other groups beyond these three. Due to the nature of my own project, it is hard to resist postulating a fourth type of club, namely “Meaning” or “Significance” clubs, where people come together in order to express or explore shared beliefs or topics of mostly intellectual or spiritual interest. Small groups of this nature form both inside and outside organized educational and religious institutions. This would furnish an E type of club that seems to be as pervasive and important as the others listed, but of course the process of addition could continue indefinitely, with political clubs, ethnic clubs, geographical/neighborhood clubs etc. The authors do not indicate that their typology is intended to be either final or exhaustive. However, the three club types they do mention cover recognizable regions of the structure of concern.

153

Arrow et al.: Dimensions and Distinctions

Due to External Forces

Circumstantial Groups

Founded Groups Planned

154

Concocted Groups

Self-Organized Groups

Due to Internal Forces

Emergent

41. Self-Employment Work-Styles: Baines & Gelder A structure of concern model arises in the data gathered by Baines and Gelder (2003) in their study of self-employed parents. They studied 30 home-based businesses across 8 occupational sectors in the UK to assess if home-based work is more familyfriendly than traditional office work. A fourfold typology of home business behavior emerged from their research:

PA E I TimeGreedy

Rigidly Scheduled

Flexibly Scheduled

Work/Family Inclusive

P – “Time-greedy” Often male-led, these home businesses drained the time, energy and the emotions of the owners and their families. Evenings, weekends and holidays were often compromised in unpredictable ways, and family members were drawn into business activities on an ad hoc basis. It’s a short-cycle, extemporaneous style of working. A – “Rigidly scheduled” Often based in premises separate from the home, these businesses offered schedules by appointment or small order (e.g. hairstyling, catering). The timing requirements and spatial specificity of these forms of self employment give them a similar impact on the family as full-time employment would. Structure is imposed by the situation. E – “Flexibly scheduled” These jobs involved individuals offering services that could be integrated into their daily domestic schedules, such as healing services or piecework. Appointments could be scheduled during nonparenting hours, or childcare obtained as needed to receive clients. Thus, the entrepreneurial activities to improve the business owners’ situations had to be juggled with more immediately pressing short-cycle activities. I – “Work-family inclusive” The inclusive businesses were more traditional “family-owned” business, with all family members playing specific roles in the enterprise. Business premises were usually inside or attached to the home. Examples include family-run daycare centers, boarding kennels, convenience stores and small online retailers. Family and work tradeoffs are resolved by integrating the two structures.

155

42. Managing Organizational Identities: Pratt & Foreman Organizational identity theory deals with two kinds of identifications. First there are the identities of the organizations Compartmentas such, as expressed in public opinion alization about the organization and the way people relate to it as an entity. Then there are and the identities of people within those organizations, who identify themselves as part of the organization to some degree, and Aggregation who on occasion speak for the organization.

PA E I Deletion

Integration

In the first case, we must note that people represent organizations as social actors, and relate to them as such. In the second case, stakeholders within or around an organizations must build their own organizational identities that structure their interactions with other organizational members. These organizational identities combine work role, attitudes, values, degrees of centrality and commitment etc. for each organizational member. Organizational identities are thus self-reflective. Members form their own interpretations of the organization’s identity in various ways. Those interpretations partially determine how members conduct themselves when they are acting ‘for’ the organization. That behavior partly determines the identity of the organization as a social agent, which in turn determines how other agents interact with ‘it’. Interpretations produce real effects through these feedback cycles (Rometsch, 2004). So how do organizations perceive their own unity and distinctiveness, especially when there are likely to be a variety of different understandings of the organization among different group members over time? Pratt and Foreman (2002) have developed a framework that lays out the options for dealing with multiple organizational identities along two intersecting dimensions: identity plurality and identity synergy. Plurality permits the expression of a variety of identities within a social grouping. This can be a very fruitful stance for a well-supported organization whose diversity is legitimized by stakeholders, like a neighbourhood supermarket where many of the customers know the employees by name. It can be inappropriate for organizations operating under tight resource constraints, such as a new in-town courier service trying to build a recognizable brand.

156

Synergy between or among organizational identities refers to tight interdependencies among the different identities, which must therefore be compatible. Low synergy responses indicate overly diverse identities that come into conflict with each other. Crossing these two dimensions gives us four styles of organizational identity. Ways of managing each one will differ. P - Compartmentalization (high plurality, low synergy) Identities are preserved with no attempt made to increase their interdependencies. This happens when the identities are legitimized by important stakeholders and they do not become diffused very much within the organization. Law firms, academic departments and other clusterings of self-directed professionals share this loose kind of organizational identification. A - Deletion (low plurality, low synergy) Managers consciously work to define normative identities and cultivate conformity, or to exclude identities or otherwise limit the number of organizational identities espoused. Deletion may be called for when stakeholders have withdrawn support for existing identities, when resources are constrained, or when existing identities are incompatible and achieving interdependence becomes too hard. When exercised extensively, deletion will produce one single hegemonic identity. E - Aggregation (high plurality, high synergy) Aggregation cultivates both variety and interdependence by forcing tighter links between diverse elements. The various elements have to be compatible, and stakeholders must generally approve of all of them. The pressure of aggregation can lead to the emergence of a meta-identity which reconciles potential contradictions among the identities in a dialectical fashion. I - Integration (low plurality, high synergy) Integration involves merging multiple individual organizational identities into a larger, distinctly new whole or collective identity. This is effective under the combined pressures of low stakeholder support for existing identities plus limited resources. Faced with the adversity, the time comes for the organization to "pull together".

157

Pratt and Foreman: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low Synergy

Compartmentalization

Deletion

High Plurality

Low Plurality

Aggregation

Integration

High Synergy

158

Existential Psychology I am using the term “existential psychology” in a very loose manner here to denote any psychological framework which seems directly pertinent to the challenge of coping with life and with the human condition. It is a bit of a catch-all category for models which fail to fit other, better defined categories such as personality psychology or educational psychology. Even still, there is overlap with the other categories of psychology, and the inclusion of models here does not mean that those models are irrelevant to other psychological concerns. I hope this does not prove to be a distraction. The main point is to continue to probe the full extent of the concern structure concept or pattern. Categorization of the models is a much less important feature of this work.

159

43. Attribution and Achievement Motivation: B. Weiner Weiner’s work in attribution theory evolved over time. At its root lay a concern structure model. For example, in the domain of academic achievement, he hypothesized that students explained their own academic outcomes in terms of four categories that varied along two dimensions: locus of control (their outcome was due to an internal or external cause), and stability over time (temporary or permanent (Weiner et al., 1971).

PA E I Effort

Task Difficulty

Ability

Luck

In PAEI order, the four categories are: P – Effort (Internal, Unstable) A – Task difficulty (External, Stable) E – Ability (Internal, Stable) I – Luck (External, Unstable) P – Effort (Internal, Unstable) The mindset of someone who thinks that goals may fall out of reach unless aggressively and immediately pursued. “Nothing comes for free in this world. You have to go out there and take it.” Attributing effort to effort is self-serving. A – Task difficulty (External, Stable) Consistent with uncertainty about one’s own ability, a focus on the task and the procedure required to complete it is preferred. Proven and successful procedures then become highly prized. Attributing success to task difficulty is self-effacing. E – Ability (Internal, Stable) Confidence in one’s own ability makes it possible to approach unknown and unstructured problems without anxiety. Doubts about one’s own ability can 160

motivate a large effort to prove ability, or easy abandonment of the task as too difficult. Attributing success to ability is highly self-serving. I – Luck (External, Unstable) Attributing outcomes to luck is self-effacing, and avoids any implication of social comparison. It also represents the surrender of personal control to the shifting context. Accountability, responsibility and both blame and praise are thwarted. This attribution dilutes the social ramifications of success or failure. Wiener’s Attribution scheme is very similar to Michael Lewis’ typology of self-conscious evaluative emotions (Lewis, 1993), reviewed next in this catalog. Lewis’ categories are represented in brackets below, before Wiener’s categories, for comparison.

Wiener: Dimensions and Distinctions

Impersonal

(Pride) Effort

(Guilt, Regret) Task Difficulty

Internal Attribution

External Attribution

(Hubris, Grandiosity) Ability Stable Attribution

(Shame) Luck

Personal

Unstable Attribution

161

44. Self-Conscious Evaluative Emotions: Michael Lewis Self-conscious emotions such as shame and pride emerge late in affective development. They are not associated with Guilt, Pride specific stereotypical facial expressions like Regret joy, sadness and anger are. They also require an evaluative sense of self, and a capacity for cognitive elaboration about the impact of events on that self. Lewis (1993) Hubris, proposes that these evaluative processes Shame involve standards, rules and goals (S-R-G) Grandiosity that are culturally acquired. SRGs allow people to evaluate their own actions, thoughts and feelings, to determine if they have failed or succeeded.

PA E I

The evaluation of success or failure interacts with attributions about the extent of the self implicated in this outcome. An attribution can be specific to decisions and actions on one particular occasion, or they can be global attributions focused on the total self. This interaction between evaluative and attributive processes produces four categories of self-conscious emotion, which are PAEI relevant in two ways. People who are sharply dominant in each PAEI style will be most susceptible to the corresponding self-conscious emotion. Furthermore, each PAEI style specializes in the evaluative and attributive processes described for each quadrant. The emotions are listed below: P – Pride (Success, Specific): Pleasure related to a particular action, hence limited but repeatable. A – Guilt, Regret (Failure, Specific): An evaluation of failed behavior, combined with a narrow focus on feature or actions of the self that are the perceived causes of the failure. Corrective action and repair may be possible, which can provoke reparative behavior. E – Hubris, Grandiosity (Success, Global): Evaluation of success attributed to the global totality of the self. Rewarding but hard to sustain, so people seek out or invent situations that will provoke or revive it. They may alter their SRGs or re-evaluate their parameters for defining success and failure against existing SRGs. The comparative evaluations required to maintain hubris can damage social relationships. I – Shame (Failure, Global): Shame is the experience of a defective self, global failure and violation of an SRG. It is hard to shed this emotion, and people sometimes cope with this inescapability through dissociation or flight. 162

Self-evaluative emotions are crucial for dramatic and narrative constructions, and many stories begin and end with either the loss and regaining of the conditions for success, or the loss of and return to favorable evaluations of self, thoughts and actions. Stories interrogate SRGs, with the events of the story revealing their adequacy or inadequacy, and the value of their being changed or left in place.

Michael Lewis: Dimensions and Distinctions

Attribution: Specific Past Counterfactual

Vigor Signal

Pride

Guilt, Regret

Evaluation: Success

Evaluation: Failure Hubris, Grandiosity

Future Counterfactual

Shame

Attribution: Global

Withdrawal of Self

163

45. Paths of Adult Development: Ryff, Helson & Srivastava In an effort to explain why adults grow in different but positive ways in their mastery of their environments and themselves, Helson and Srivastava (2001) following Ryff (1989) identify three development styles - conservers, seekers and achievers, as follows: P – Achievers: Value social recognition and achievement. A – Conservers: Value the security and harmony of living according to social norms.

PA E I

Achievers

Conservers

Seekers

Depleted

E – Seekers: Pursue knowledge and independence from social norms. I – Depleted: Ryff’s model features the two dimensions of environmental and self mastery (high or low). This focus on the efficacy of individuals does not cover collaborative behavior in the I mode. In the I quadrant we find a “Depleted” state of low environmental mastery and low personal growth (or progress). Interestingly these are precisely the conditions under which it would be wise to abandon individualistic efforts and seek out the help of others. Ryff’s model parallel’s Wiener’s attribution scheme and Michael Lewis’ typology of self-conscious evaluative emotions, reviewed just above. Their categories are represented in brackets below, before Ryff’s categories, for comparison.

164

Ryff: Dimensions and Distinctions

High Environmental Mastery Past Counterfactual

Fitness Signal (Pride, Effort) Achievers High Self Mastery (Hubris/Grandiosity, Ability) Seekers Future Counterfactual

(Guilt/Regret, Task Difficulty) Conservers Low Self Mastery (Shame, Luck) Depleted

Low Environmental Mastery

Succor Signal

165

46. Agency and Self-Efficacy: Albert Bandura Albert Bandura (2000; 2001) is perhaps the best known analyst of what might be called one’s sense of competency, capability or self-efficacy. His definition of human agency itself is characterized by four core features which form a concern structure pattern: P – Intentionality: A proactive commitment to bring about a represented future state of events via specific familiar actions (with some improvisation as needed).

PA E I

Intentionality

Forethought

SelfSelfReflectiveness Reactiveness

A – Forethought: Outcome expectations based on observed conditional relationships that help one set long term goals and anticipate problems, rewards and punishment/costs. E – Self-Reflectiveness: Metacognitive processing of one’s own thoughts, feelings, actions and motivations, underlying the capacity to change one’s agentive stance. I – Self-Reactiveness: Self-regulation of motivation, affect and action, guiding performance by personal standards and taking self-directed corrective action. Self-regulatory processes that integrate thought and action.

166

47. A Functional Model of Self-Determination: Michael L. Wehmeyer et al. Wehmeyer’s research focuses on defining self-determination and how it can be studied and promoted for people with developmental handicaps. Building upon Angyal (1941) and Deci et al. (1985), Wehmeyer et al. (2001) construct a model of the components of self-determined behaviour, so that these skills can be trained and taught in schools. They define four essential functions that produce selfdetermined behaviour.

PA E I

Behavioral Autonomy

SelfRegulation

Psychological SelfRealization Empowerment

P – Behavioral Autonomy: Individuated behaviour guided by personal preferences, not requiring much guidance or support from others, free from undue external influence or interference. A – Self-Regulation: The capacity to manage events by monitoring self and world, making plans and decisions on how to act, evaluating outcomes and revising/improving plans, self-instruction, self-reinforcement and selfgovernance. E – Self-Realization: Most generally the “tendency to shape one’s life into a meaningful whole” ((Angyal, 1941), p. 165) self-realization involves using a strong and syncretic (and largely accurate) knowledge of one’s preferences, strengths and limitations to produce better outcomes. This sense of self forms with experience, and is influenced by learning, self-analysis and interactions with others. I – Psychological Empowerment: Belief in oneself and in the value of one’s goals. “Learned hopefulness.” Derived from community psychology, it arises from experiences of success reaching personal goals and enables people to achieve socially positive outcomes in the community.

167

48. Theory of Mental Self-Government: Robert J. Sternberg Robert J. Sternberg has articulated a model of mental self-government that reproduces the structure of concern under one of its facets (Sternberg, 1997). Sternberg sees thinking style not as something that defines a person. We all command a variety of styles. These nevertheless do leave us with a certain style profile, and life is better if we can find social roles to match our profile.

PA E I

Monarchic

Hierarchic

Anarchic

Oligarchic

In Sternberg’s schema, there are five facets of thinking styles. Thinking styles have functions, form, levels, scope and leanings. All can be discussed in terms of the structure of concern, but the lowest-hanging fruit here is his typology of the forms of thinking styles, which plainly exhibit the four-part pattern. P – Monarchic Self-Government: Single-minded, driven, determined, focused, pushes past obstacles. Expects things to be done, no ifs, ands or buts. A – Hierarchic Self-Government: Carefully ranks and prioritizes goals, considers many angles before deciding, comfortable in large organizations, except when the organization’s priorities/principles and theirs diverge. E – Anarchic Self-Government: A potpourri of wants, needs and goals that nobody can figure out. Random approach to problems, rejecting systems and constraints. Because they gather information from all over, they are more likely to find solutions others will overlook. If they can focus their efforts, they may succeed where all others fail. I – Oligarchic Self-Government: Willing to focus and prioritize but torn by several competing goals all of equal perceived importance. Feel pressured and uncertain over what to do next and how much time to allot to each task. Given even a minimum of guidance about the priorities of the organization or team however, they can become as or more productive than any of the other styles.

168

Sternberg: Dimensions and Distinctions Convergent Independent

Structured

Monarchic SelfGovernment

Hierarchic SelfGovernment Collective

Individual Anarchic SelfGovernment

Unstructured

Oligarchic SelfGovernment

Divergent

Dependent

169

49. Reversal Theory: Micheal J. Apter There are several ways to characterize Reversal Theory. Apter (2001a; 2001b) introduces it as a theory of Transactions, Rules, Telic motivational style, a “distinctive orientation Autic Mastery Conformism to the world based on a fundamental psychological value – such as achievement, love or freedom”. These motivational styles (or metamotivational states) are what we Means-Ends, Relationships, refer to in everyday speech when we Alloic Paratelic describe people as cheerful, affectionate, Sympathy Negativism serious, challenging and so on. They are central for any account of our mental lives. Reversal Theory gives a structural-phenomenological account of them, describing them as structures of conscious experience.

PA E I

At the conceptual centre of Reversal Theory one finds a two-level nested hierarchy that expresses concern structure values in different ways at each level. The base level describes a fairly straightforward particularistic clustering of those values. The second level, describing attitudes taken towards the first, describes a more nuanced combinatorial scattering of those values. At the particularistic level, Reversal Theory founds itself on the observation that at a certain level of analysis, four domains of subjective experience are “universal and essential to the very nature of experience itself. These are an unavoidable part of everyone’s subjective experience at all times” (Apter, 2001a). The domains, in PAEI order, are: P – Transactions: We are always involved in interactions with other things, including people, objects, machines, ideas, parts of our own bodies, mental images… Transactions are the concrete exchanges that make interactions tangible: exchanges of words, thoughts, gestures, money, attention, esteem and so on. Transactions are the doing aspect of interactions, and we are always aware of how we are doing our interactions. A – Rules: This describes the experience of pressure to behave in certain ways, stemming from the expectations of others, customs, habits, conventions and explicit laws, rules and regulations. Normalizing expectancies (actual or projected) factor into everything that we do, even when our awareness of them is minimal.

170

E – Means-Ends: Purposive action is a key domain of subjective experience, giving it direction and orientation at all times. We are always aware of goals and intentions, even if the awareness is only a vague and minimal sense of directionality (where one is going and how one is getting there). I – Relationships: As we interact with other people or groups of people, we are aware of more than the transactions. We are also aware of a more direct relationship that can be structured in various ways, as open or closed, intimate or formal, personal or functional, etc. Distance is a crucial concept here; do we identify with our interaction partners or feel separate from them? In Reversal Theory, each one of these four domains can be experienced in two opposing ways. The experiences in each pairing are mutually exclusive, so they cannot be experienced simultaneously, but reversals from one to the other are possible, particularly as hedonic tone, arousal and expectancies vary. The attitudinal pairs for each domain are listed below in PAEI order: P – Transactions (Mastery/Sympathy): A Mastery orientation to a transaction frames it in terms of contest, power and control, carrying values of hardiness and toughness. The Opposite: A Sympathy (I) orientation frames transactions in terms of affection, proximity, friendliness and graciousness, in the cooperative mode rather than the competitive one. A – Rules (Conformist/Negativistic): Rules can be a source of selfconfidence, clarifying one’s social standing and role and making correct behaviour clear and unambiguous. Conformism can thus be experienced as a dutiful, virtuous, proper or normal/trustworthy state. The Opposite: Rules can also be seen as traps, restrictions and confinements, motivating a desperate bid for freedom and rebellion. This Negativistic (E) experience of rules can also express itself in mischief, or disruptive and disobedient behaviour. E – Means-Ends (Telic/Paratelic): Means-ends thinking can be heavily goal oriented, planning-intensive, anxiety avoidant and serious (A). This is described as a Telic state (telos=goal) in Reversal Theory. The Opposite: However, in some goal-directed activity such as games or hobbies, the means themselves are the main source of gratification, and goals simply support the coordination of those means. This is seen as a playful, spontaneous and open 171

mode in Reversal Theory, and called the Paratelic (E) state ( para=alongside, telos=goal). I – Interactions (Alloic/Autic): In interactions, we can be very other-focused, yielding to the other and giving their feelings precedence. This is the Alloic state (allos=other). The Opposite: One can also be Autic in interactions (auto=self), asserting one’s separateness and assuring good outcomes for the self, giving one’s own feelings precedence, valuing individuality and personal responsibility (P). The four domains of subjective experience are thus nested within this second layer of pairs of metamotivational states. At this second level, we can describe the PAEI styles as follows: P: Autic Mastery A: Telic Conformism E: Paratelic Negativism I: Alloic Sympathy Individuals vary in terms of their key metamotivational states; the one that is currently dominant, the ones they experience frequently and focus upon, the salience of each state to the course of their lives, and also the ease with which they shift between the two states in any domain (i.e. their lability). The same situations will potentiate different metamotivational states for different individuals.

172

50. Sixteen Fundamental Desires: Reiss & Havercamp In a series of research articles (Reiss, 2000; Havercamp, 1998; Reiss & Havercamp, 1998; Reiss & Havercamp, 1997; Reiss & Havercamp, 1996) Steven Reiss and Susan Havercamp develop and explore a list of 16 basic motivational desires. The typology grew out of a recursive series of surveys and analyses, which supported the creation of a self-report instrument called the Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivational Sensitivities. Profile scores indicate a person’s individual desire hierarchy, which proved to be predictive of career choice in Havercamp (1998). With the exception of one arguably universal desire – eating – all of Reiss and Havercamp’s other fundamental desires can be accommodated by the structure of concern construct. It is important to note that this PAEI clustering is being imposed on the 16 desires model for illustrative purposes only. A more careful analysis of the various desires might produce a different scattering of desires than the one presented below. P - Independence, Power, Vengeance, Exercise A - Honour, Tranquility, Order, Saving E - Curiosity, Status, Idealism, Romance I - Family, Social Contact, Acceptance P-Desires Independence: desire for self-reliance Power: desire for influence including mastery, leadership and dominance Vengeance: desire to get even with others, including joy of competition Exercise: desire to use and move one’s body A-Desires Honour: desire to value one’s parents and their heritage, morality or religion Order: desire for a predictable environment, includes desire for cleanliness and ritual Tranquility: desire to be free of anxiety, fear or pain (sensitivity to aversive sensations) Saving: desire to hoard (including desire to own) E-Desires Curiosity: desire to explore or learn Status: desire for social standing and attention

173

Idealism: desire to improve society (citizenship) Romance: desire for sex, beauty and art I-Desires Family: desire to raise one’s own children (does not apply to children of others) Social Contact: desire for interaction with other people (includes desire for fun/pleasure) Acceptance: desire for approval from others In a mammalian species, the desire to eat, for infants and their mothers at least, has everything to do with social contact, family and acceptance. If we were to cluster eating under I for that reason, an interesting faceted structure seems to emerge. Under each style we find a desire for goal direction, for the goal of conflict, plus restorative/reparative motivations and a focus for material desires, as follows: P

A

E

I

Direction

Independence

Honour

Curiosity

Family

Conflict

Power

Tranquility

Status

Social Contact

Restorative

Vengeance

Order

Idealism

Acceptance

Material

Exercise

Saving

Romance

Eating

174

51. CISS – Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations: Endler& Parker The CISS is a four-factor model of human coping with adversity developed by Endler and Parker (1990; Avero et al., 2003). Their construct differentiates three types of coping: emotion-oriented, taskoriented, and avoidant. The avoidant style has two dimensions: distraction and social diversion. These coping categories scatter across the PAEI categories as follows:

PA E I

TaskOriented

EmotionOriented

AvoidantDistracted

AvoidantSocial

P – Task-oriented coping: a primary control style that is adaptive when situations are appraised as changeable. Focus is maintained and emotions are controlled. This can be maladaptive for complex changing social problems. A – Emotion-oriented coping: a secondary control style adaptive when situations are appraised as unchangeable. The aim is to reduce stress, but over the long term it can increase stress and produce negative outcomes like anxiety and depression. E – Avoidant-distracted coping: This is adaptive in the short-term for uncontrollable problems. You just don’t let the problem bother you and focus on something more interesting. If problems are controllable, this strategy will be maladaptive over the long run. I – Avoidant-social coping: Recourse to others is sought in the face of threat, for diversion or for assistance. This strategy is also adaptive for short-term, but over time it is more effective to develop the skills needed to address the threat as an instrumental problem. A study of 612 adult twin pairs, (Kozak et al., 2005) determined heritability estimates of the CISS coping styles as follows: 35% for emotion-oriented coping, 34% for task-oriented coping, 33% for distraction, and 39% for social diversion, respectively. They note that these values are consistent with other studies into the heritability of coping styles and mechanisms.

175

Endler & Parker: Dimensions and Distinctions

Focal

Task-Oriented Emotion-Oriented Coping Coping Affective

Instrumental AvoidantAvoidant-Social Distracted Coping Coping Internal

176

Diffuse

External

52. The Johari Window: Joseph Luft & Harry Ingham The Johari Window is a very widely used model of self awareness. It describes social interaction according to the degree of self knowledge involved. The model's name is an amalgam of the given names of its developers; Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham (Luft, 1970; 1969). The framework consists of a four-paned "window," offering four different "views" on social self-awareness. In PAEI order, these are the Blind/Unaware, Open, Unknown and Hidden views. These views are described in more detail below.

PA E I

Blind/ Unaware

Open

Unknown

Hidden

The four panes in this model do not have fixed dimensions. For example, in a job interview, the "Open" windowpane of each participant could be depicted as occupying a fairly small area of their overall window, simply because they start the interview as strangers. However, if the interview is successful, their “Open” panes will increase in area, due to mutual self-disclosure (which is precisely the process of moving selfinformation to the Open pane). Of course a change in the area of any one windowpane will affect all of the other panes in the window. P - Quadrant 2: Unaware (Unknown to Self, but Known to Others) This is a negative category of self awareness, describing the case where everybody can see the motives, limitations, social goals and impulses of a person, except the person themselves. Producers are often found in this windowpane. They are so pragmatic that they resist other (AEI) concerns, but they think they are only responding to the demands of the task itself. They often cut short interactions that they feel are too abstract, picky or touchyfeely. Producers think that tasks themselves impose this abrupt, short-term concern horizon on all (sensible) people. Other styles see this impatience or rigid pragmatism instead as aspects of the Producer’s personality - aspect that have to be ‘managed’ during interactions. Where the Producer sees only objective imperatives, others see the character of the Producer at work. A - Quadrant 1: Open (Known to Self and Others) This window illuminates only those things a person already knows or acknowledges about themselves, which other people also see and know about. Administrators by far prefer this clear, explicit/understood, non177

mysterious pane of the window, and they do all of their communication in this mode whenever possible. The twist with strong administrators is that they do not want the area of this windowpane to grow very large over their personalities. They prefer to stick to a limited subset of reliably safe selfdisclosures. They are happy to live with large Blind or Hidden areas, and prefer that the boundaries of their windowpanes remain as stable as possible. E - Quadrant 4: Unknown (Unknown to both Self and Others) This is the playground of E. It is filled of snippets from last night's dreams, inexplicable hunches, suddenly becoming alert before something that reminds you of something you can't quite express, and how your mind wanders when you aren't paying attention. The great talent of E lies in their ability decipher meaningful patterns in this soup of intuition, and then to move this information into the Open quadrant. I - Quadrant 3: Hidden (Known to Self, but Unknown to Others) Strong Integrators are good at managing emotions, mediating conflicts, managing impressions and using communication to attain their goals. While they do tend to disclose and resolve problems in the open windowpane, they are most skilled at keeping their feelings and reactions in check while they communicate strategically with people. A supervisor with a big I might be disappointed in the performance of an employee, but to give the employee the benefit of the doubt, the supervisor might not let this disappointment show, and instead take steps to see if some problem is bothering the employee that the supervisor is not aware of. Integrators are often very aware of their own feelings, and they also typically have a great deal of control over how and when they express those feelings. Their capacity to make strategic use of the hidden pane makes them ideal for handling sensitive interpersonal interactions. Open interaction is the easiest kind, and it accounts for much of our social interaction. It takes energy to maintain information in the Unaware or Hidden panes. We experience a sense of release or relief when that information moves into the Open pane. The unknown area is another matter. There is a universal curiosity about it, but this curiosity is warded off by taboos, fears, social customs and traditional responses to encounters with mystery. Entrepreneurs are thus incompletely socialized around the unknown, and Administrators are perhaps oversocialized against it (although temperament surely plays a role as well). Group values and stipulations of group membership can be revealed in the collective resources available for confronting the unknown. 178

In an environment of mutual trust, the Open area of peoples' windows tends to be large. As trust and comfort levels rise, the Open area grows. Threats or fears constrict the Open area. The smaller this area is, the less efficient communications will be. Johari Window: Dimensions and Distinctions

Known to Others

Unknown to Self

2

1

Unaware

Open Known to Self

4

3

Unknown

Hidden

Unknown to Others

179

53. Affect Infusion Model: Joseph P. Forgas The Affect Infusion Model (AIM) describes the interaction between mood and Direct information-processing. Not all cognitive Heuristic Access processes interact with mood. In order to Processing Processing isolate task types where mood-congruent processing becomes evident, Forgas (1995; Forgas & Williams, 2002) defines two axes of task or problem differentiation. Problems differ in the amount of effort Substantive Motivated expenditure required to engage them, and Processing Processing also in the relative open-endedness or foreclosure of the potential solutions. Forgas calls open-ended problems constructive, and predetermined or narrow-focused problems reconstructive. Constructive problems require transformation of input into new and unforeseen solutions. Reconstructive problems begin with an obvious solution that is tested and defended against the input. Crossing degree of effort with problem determinacy gives us four basic processing strategies, listed below in PAEI order:

PA E I

P – Heuristic Processing (Low, Constructive): Open-ended task, not deserving of careful or intensive attention. Mood-based heuristics and momentary emotional cues may be used to produce the judgement and response. A – Direct Access Processing (Low, Reconstructive): The default mode of social processing when all is going smoothly according with established routines. Since tasks fall in line with expectations, responses are already known, and mood fluctuations do not impact decisions or behaviours very much. E – Substantive Processing (High, Constructive): Some kind of complex or obscure transformation of inputs is called for. Mood and affect are used to sensitize the person to salient patterns and relevant information in the input. The more substantive processing there is, the stronger the chance that mood infusion will influence the outcome. I – Motivated Processing (High, Reconstructive): In processing guided by a single affective motive, there need not be much interaction with passing moods, but if many different affective motives emerge, performance is more likely to be mood-based. Much like with Substantive Processing, the greater the variability and open-endedness, the stronger the potential infusion of mood. 180

Forgas: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low Involvement

Heuristic Processing

Direct Access Processing Reconstructive

Constructive Substantive Processing

Motivated Processing

High Involvement

181

Personality Psychology Personality psychology is a relatively mature subfield in terms of the concern structure models we find here. So many contemporary concern structure models draw there inspiration from the Jungian model of personality functions, popularized by the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator, that it can be viewed as the head of a lineage of concern structure models. Furthermore, several authors have tried to write broad, synthetic works that offer meta-models intended to capture and summarize the categories of earlier models. Indeed it is in this field of personality psychology that we can see efforts to understand the structure of concern as a more universal pattern of some kind, speaking to the maturity of the question in this field. There have already been models described in this catalog that could potentially be included in this category instead. Again I must emphasize that the categorization of models in this catalog is not of any central importance to the overall thesis. The catalog really forms a single set, putting forth a simple assertion that some general pattern must be describable to explain all this similarity across domains. That is the point of this work – lumping rather than splitting a bunch of information for analysis.

182

54. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Isabel Briggs Myers The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most widely used personality typing instruments in the world. Thinking Sensing It is used in education, career counseling, human resource development and other related service contexts. Measures of a person's modes of perception and judgment, as well as their degree of introversion/ extroversion are tabulated to create a Feeling Intuition distinctive four-letter profile (e.g. INTP, ESFJ, etc. Briggs-Meyers, 1980). The core of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator recapitulates the structure of concern. In this section, I will briefly review the origins of the MBTI, before describing how the structure of concern operates within it.

PA E I

The MBTI was developed and refined by Isabel Briggs Myers and others in order to "...make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung... understandable and useful in peoples' lives". (Briggs-Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Carl Jung held that behind the seeming randomness of human behavior, order and consistency can be found by observing basic differences in the way individuals prefer to use their faculties of perception and judgment. Perception is not just limited to sensory processes. It includes all of the ways by which a person becomes aware of happenings in the world, or ideas in thought. Judgment, on the other hand, refers to the process of coming to conclusions regarding what has been perceived. These are the core personality functions of Jungian psychology. Human variability across these functions underlie a host of corresponding differences in peoples values, reactions, motivations, skills and interests. The MTBI underwent seven rounds of development between 1942 and 1977. Form A of the test was developed by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs, and used within a small criterion group of friends and relatives whose Jungian "types" the two researchers could already estimate fairly well, based on long acquaintance. The test items that survived this initial screening (Form B) were administered to progressively larger samples, to weed out invalid or unreliable items. A third round of development was used to disambiguate the test by excluding any items that were highly valid for more than one index. If an item correlated well on both the Extrovert-Introvert index and the Sensing-Intuiting index, for example, it was dropped from the test. The resulting for (Form C) of the test also incorporated more sophisticated statistical weighting of the items, based on prediction ratios (Briggs-Myers & McCaulley, 1985). 183

For Form D of the Indicator, developed in 1956-1958, the phrasing of the test was refined to use the forced-choice tactic between two key words. New items were tested against larger groups of adults, and for the first time younger test subjects were also sought out - adolescents and children. Statistical analysis of the trial results began to isolate more fine-grained demographic factors such as gender and age. The surviving items became Forms E and F (which was Form E with some additional experimental items added). Form F was published by the Educational Testing Service in 1962. Finally, between 1975 and 1977, a new standardization was carried out, based on new trials and almost 20 years of widespread use of the instrument. The resulting Form G resulted in type-scores that were almost interchangeable with Form F scores, indicating the maturity of the instrument. Breaking down Indicator profiles by profession made it possible to use Indicator to match up personality types with job categories. The research and analysis behind the occupational typing was also quite rigorous. The MBTI is not a tool for measuring things about people, it is a tool for sorting people. Its purpose is categorization, not quantification. At the core of the Myers-Briggs Jungian type theory are the four functions: sensing (S), intuiting (N), thinking (T) and feeling (F). These are four essential cognitive processes that everyone uses everyday. However, different people prioritize them differently. We also differ in the attitude - extroverted (E) or introverted (I) - in which we typically use each function. The Myers-Briggs model is fairly complex. For my purposes, I can restrict my discussion to the four functions, but to do justice to the model, it full extent deserves mention. The four functions are divided into two groups. Sensing and intuiting (SN) form one cluster and thinking/feeling (TF) form the other. These clusters indicate styles for dealing with the outside world. The first cluster (SN) describes Perceiving (P) styles and the second cluster (TF) describes Judging (J) styles. In MBTI typing, each person is found to have a dominant or preferred function (S, N, T or F). This function is mainly used in the preferred attitude, extroversion or introversion. Extroverts use their dominant function in the external world, and introverts in the inner world of concepts and ideas. Everyone also has a secondary or auxiliary function to balance their primary one. This secondary function operates in the less-preferred attitude (in the inner world for extroverts, in the outer world for introverts introverts show the outer world their second-best side!). The secondary function will not be in the same cluster as the dominant function. This balances a person’s style, e.g. the secondary function operates in the perception cluster for judgment-dominant people, and vice versa. The JP preference indicated at the end of the four-letter profile points out the style people used in the Extroverted attitude. This is true for both extroverts and introverts. Also, whichever attitude (E/I) the dominant 184

function (S/N, T/F) expresses itself in, the three non-dominant functions will typically express themselves in the opposite attitude. The function opposed/subordinated to the dominant is usually the weakest. It's called the fourth function. The function opposite to the second/auxiliary is the third function. The four functions direct conscious mental activity towards different goals, described below: P - Sensation (S) seeks the fullest possible experience of what is immediate and real. E - Intuition (N) seeks the furthest reaches of the possible and imaginable. A - Thinking (T) seeks rational order and plans according to impersonal logic. I - Feeling (F) seeks reasonable order according to harmony among subjective values. The Perception Functions: Sensing and Intuiting Jung called the perceptive functions the irrational functions because they are attuned to the flow of events, and operate most broadly when not constrained by rational direction. Perceptive people of either type are attuned to incoming information. Their attitude is open, curious and interested. From the outside, they appear to be spontaneous, curious and adaptable, open to new events and changes, hoping to miss nothing. Sensing: Perceptions observable by way of senses. Sensing establishes what exists. Because the senses bring into awareness only what is happening at the present moment, people with a sensing orientation tend to focus on immediate experience and develop present-centered abilities, like enjoying the moment, keen observation, memory for details and pragmatism. Intuition: Refers to the perception of possibilities, meanings and relationships by way of insight. Jung referred to these as perceptions that come by way of the unconscious, surfacing into consciousness suddenly as a hunch or realization. This permits perceptions that extend beyond the present, into possible futures. N people may get so caught up chasing these possibilities that they lose sight of immediate realities. They develop imagination, creative ability, theoretical, abstract, future-oriented...

185

The Judgment Functions: Thinking and Feeling These are the rational functions, directed towards bringing life events into harmony with reason. Judging people are concerned with making decisions, seeking closure, planning operations or organizing activities. They tend to shut off once they have absorbed enough information to make a decision. Perceivers will suspend judgment to observe more. Judgers seem organized, purposeful and decisive. Thinking: Links functions together by making of logical connections. Thinking relies on relationships of cause and effect (dependencies) and tends to be impersonal. Analytic ability, principles of justness and fairness, criticality and an orientation to time that is concerned with connections from the past through the present toward the future. Feeling: The function by which one comes to decisions by weighing relative values and the merits of the issues. Feeling relies on an understanding of personal values and group values; it is thus more subjective than thinking. Because values are subjective and personal, persons making judgments with the feeling function are more likely to be attuned to the values of others as well as their own. Because people oriented towards feeling make decisions by attending what matters to others, they have an understanding of people, a concern with the human as opposed to the technical aspects of problems, a need for affiliation, a capacity for warmth, a desire for harmony, and a time orientation that includes preservation of the values of the past. Procrastination comes from Perception with a deficit of Judgment. Prejudice comes from Judgment with a deficit of Perception.

186

55. A Synthesis of Personality Typologies: Alan Miller Alan Miller has undertaken a systematic and comprehensive review of personality typologies and cognitive style typologies, developing a synthetic typology Reductionist Schematist to capture the essence of most of them while avoiding the failings of some (Miller, 1991). He selects three dimensions for the analysis of these frameworks: cognitive, affective and conative (motivational). Romantic Gnostic The cognitive dimension is structured between an analytic pole and a holistic one. The analytic style clusters together perceptual analysis, field independence, verbal and analytic representation, conceptual differentiation, convergent memory retrieval, serial mental classification, tight associations and an actuarial judgment style. Holistic processes are more synthetic, field-dependent, visually structured, with divergent memory access, loose associations and an intuitive judgment style.

PA E I

Along the conative/motivational dimension, Miller reviews various models of motivation and goal-directedness, including drive theories, volitional theories and intrapsychic conflict theories in the tradition of Angyal and Bakan. Favouring the latter, he reviews Maddi’s ‘autonomy/agency – surrender/communion’ conflict paradigm (Maddi, 1999) among others, and suggests an objectivity-subjectivity distinction to summarize them all. Objective intentions are instrumental, externally grounded and geared towards seeking advantage or power. Subjective purposes are more affiliative, internally grounded and empathic. Miller’s affective dimension covers psychological research into Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality and Affect Intensity. He isolates the distinction between emotional stability and instability as the most relevant for personality typing, and he places this dimension orthogonal to the other two. This creates a structure of concern model that recognizes varying degrees of emotional stability in each quadrant. I set aside this dimension, since it does not change the structure that concerns me. An interesting aspect of Miller’s work is that his original research goal was to understand professional behaviours and interactions among scientists and academics. Thus his typology, while serving to describe general personality dynamics, is labelled with terms that describe academic theoretical preferences or investigative biases. Crossing his cognitive

187

(analytic-holistic) and conative/motivational (objective-subjective) dimensions thus gives us the following four type descriptions in PAEI order: P – Reductionist (Objective, Analytic): Focused on agency, achievement and control over self, others and environment. Emotionally detached and externally focused with a mechanistic worldview. Intellectualizes and rationalizes problems, seeking detailed factual knowledge. A – Schematist (Objective, Holistic): Objective and impersonal, achieves an illusion of control by developing schemes, theories and systems of thought. When these are threatened, global defences such as denial or repression are used to suppress awareness of the discrepancies. Emotionally detached and externally oriented, judgmental. E – Gnostic (Subjective, Analytic): Seeks communion with the world through understanding and knowledge. Rejects objective, impersonal outlook in favour of cognitive empathy and introspection. Can become lost within a reflective, narrowly preoccupied world, but has few defences against intrusions by objective obstacles. Absent-minded prisoner of psychological honesty. I – Romantic (Subjective, Holistic): Seeks communion through intimate, nurturing relationships. Aims to empower others and improve their surroundings. Empathic and grounded in the inner experiences of self and others, but not probingly introspective or self-analysing. Impressionistic, subjective, evaluative and imaginative, touched by personal anecdote and raw accounts of experiences.

188

Miller: Dimensions and Distinctions Objective

Reductionist

Schematist Holistic

Analytic Gnostic

Romantic

Subjective

189

56. Personality as an Affect Processing System: Jack Block Jack Block is a veteran researcher into personality psychology, and his characterization of personality as an affect processing system represents a synthesis over a very long career (Block, 2002). His model of personality contains one dimension that sheds some light onto concern structure issues. Block argues that more common ground exists between various models of personality than has hitherto been appreciated. The commonalities between personality models can best be brought into focus, he feels, by characterizing personality as an adaptive system. Personality is a system that maintains internal and external equilibrium for us, in an environment that is both dangerous and engaging. The system itself consists of a perceptual apparatus (PA) and a control apparatus (CA) operating in a delicate balance. Block’s project is to explain how each apparatus works, and how they interact. Anxiety is the central concept in this model. Organisms in an unstressed state take in information from the environment. If they begin to experience some inner tension or anxiety based on some internal destabilization (like growing hunger), they have at their disposal a control apparatus for manifesting this tension as a specific drive towards some goal. Anxiety may also arise due to threatening, chaotic, confusing or rapidly changing perceptual settings. If incoming information is too unstructured, our perceptual apparatus is overwhelmed. So anxiety arises when tensions, rooted in either internal or external processes, rise faster than our capacity to process them. But our coping mechanisms are adaptive. They can adjust themselves to accommodate different levels of stimulation or tension. However, people do vary in their adjustability, or in the character of their control and perceptual apparatuses, and the dimensions of that variance define personality differences. It should be noted that Block sees perception as an a active process, pointing out that we have an evolutionarily ingrained tendency to seek, articulate, analyze, organize, and simplify our internal representations of perceptual inputs. He calls this activity perceptualizing. Individuals naturally ‘perceptualize’ because in the long term, so doing is evolutionarily adaptive i.e. it enhances long term viability. Thus, converting ‘raw’ input into a perception is just as constructive as the act of converting ‘raw’ tensions into drives. Block truly believes in raw perception, we should emphasize. He views incoming information from the world has having its own proper or ‘autochthonous’ structure, ahead of any perceptual system processing it. Animals need to convert this autochthonous structure into their own internal representations using their perceptual apparatuses, which render the information into forms that are relevant to them. 190

Two Basic Causes of Anxiety Anxiety arises when: 1. Percepts of the system are being processed in too slow or fragmented a manner, relative to the rate of the autochthonous structure percepts bring to the organism. 2. Motivational directives (“drives”) are being processed too slowly or haphazardly relative to the rate of increase and inherent structure of the drives. In other words, if the raw or sensory component overtakes the processing or perceptual component, anxiety increases. In order to reduce anxiety, the rate or structure of processing must change so that the raw throughput can be converted into usable information. There are three elements that define how the perceptual and control subsystems can adjust themselves. Articulation or Differentiation The relative complexity or rudimentary nature of the behavioral alternatives available to a person.





Control Apparatus - high differentiation=many potential actions and recognitions to guide behavior. Perceptual apparatus - high differentiation=capacity for multifaceted, particularized, complex and nuanced appraisals of the environment, versus simplistic, general, categorical appraisals.

Permeability (Average level of tension control) The threshold for reacting to tension/anxiety which characterizes a person's behavior, or their readiness to notice and respond to their surrounding environment.





Control Apparatus - Undercontrollers have a permeable control apparatus which transforms tensions into drives immediately, readily, directly, even chaotically. Overcontrollers have an impermeable control apparatus that converts tension to drive slowly, with delay, or not at all. Suppressed tension may be carried over into the next important psychological event. Perceptual apparatus - Underperceptualizers are absorbed in their perceptions of the moment, submerged by the impinging world, stimulus-bound and distractible. Overperceptualizers perceive the world in already familiar ways using schemas that are rigid, set, closed,

191

imposing old structures on new experiences, or filtering out new information. Resiliency or elasticity This quality is related to permeability, and refers to the range of permeability variation available to the personality system.





Control Apparatus - Can you let loose or bear down as needed? Are you able to regulate your own permeability threshold (impulsivity)? Perceptual apparatus – Can you focus and impose structure upon chaotic perceptions as needed, but also relax your preconceptions when needed to see things as they uniquely are?

Articulation, permeability and elasticity together are used to modulate the conversion of tensions into drives, and autochthonous or raw information into percepts. Note that some tensions are inherently difficult to convert into goal-focused drives (e.g. dread), and some information streams have inherently low levels of autochthonous assimilability (i.e. they are complex or turbulent). By holding some of the elements of these two systems constant and varying other ones, we can begin to see how articulation/differentiation, permeability and resilience/elasticity come together to adjust the activity of the perception and control subsystems. Example 1: Consider these interactions of the perceptual apparatus (PA) and the control apparatus (CA) when the autochthonous assimilability (AA) of environmental information is either low or high. 1. Under Low AA: As drive is increased, PA goes from normal permeability to a more impermeable state. In other words, when urgency mounts, there is less tolerance of ambiguity, and a narrowing of perceptions to drive-relevant categories. 2. Under High AA: As drive is increased, PA permeability does not change much. The registered percept is known to be reliable, and continues to guide behavior. Summary – When drive is high (CA is active), the PA activity increases as AA decreases. If AA is already high, PA activity is not modulated by increased levels of drive.

192

Example 2: Holding tension constant, the following relationships between perception and control emerge. 1. Holding Tension High: As AA and PA effectiveness diminish, CA slides from state of normal permeability to state of relative impermeability, i.e. as the external situation becomes confusing, tension is contained by constraining its behavioral expression. 2. Holding Tension Low: PA effectiveness may diminish and AA may be low, but CA doesn't change much. Summary - the CA operates to control tension when it is high, and the AA situation is incoherent or unstructured. Otherwise the CA is not modulated by low AA levels. The perceptual apparatus and control apparatus interact in other ways as well. For example, if the elasticity of one apparatus is exceeded, the other may come into play, to allow the personality to adapt to a situation. Elasticity is thus a resource, providing ways of adaptively responding to internally or externally arising challenges, thus reducing anxiety. Permeability is also a resource for adaptation, but its value is often determined by situation. For example, during initial explorations into a new territory, people would be best off with highly permeable personality systems, in order to respond to cues more sensitively and to take more risks. In a settled, orderly, stratified society, where risk-taking might more often do damage rather than good, lower levels of permeability and reactivity can be more adaptive. Among the three elements of apparatus flexibility and adjustability, the element of permeability sheds most light on the structure of concern. Below, each style of concern is listed, in PAEI order, with the associated values for the permeability of the perceptual and control subsystems described. P – Impermeable PA, Permeable CA Producers tend to be Overperceptualizers and Undercontrollers. They impose structure upon their perceptions of the world, and do not always pay attention to the idiosyncrasies of every case if they seem irrelevant to their purposes. They are also impulsive, focusing their tensions onto targets and generating drive very easily. This is an affect-processing style optimized for

193

short-term responsiveness, crisis intervention and short-term, rapid-cycle productivity. A – Impermeable PA, Impermeable CA Administrators tend to be Overperceptualizers and Overcontrollers. They view the world in terms of ready-made and carefully constructed schemas, and do not welcome deviations from those schemas. They are not impulsive, but rather are risk-averse. Inner tensions are more likely to result in exploratory behavior to further perceptualize until suitable targets for suitable actions are found. Delays are better tolerated than impulsiveness is. This affect-processing style is optimized for managing linear systems of dependencies, where the cost of error is very high, and where the attainment of reward depends upon preserving some kind of steady state, with responses measured over time. E – Permeable PA, Permeable CA Entrepreneurs tend to be Underperceptualizers and Undercontrollers. They tend to submerge themselves in experience and are easily distracted by novel stimuli. They are also impulsive and very comfortable with risk. Entrepreneurs seek out situations with low autochthonous assimilability/high uncertainty (opportunity), and respond impulsively to patterns in that uncertainty that are vaguely appropriate targets for drives (opportunities). Working in this zone of unknowns can reduce the permeability of their systems, giving them intense focus while the opportunity still beckons. Once they have done the work and the situation starts to become structured, reliable and assimilated, their interest in that environment will dwindle. They will seek out less structured environments in order to be aroused into a less permeable state by the low autochthonous assimilability of their surroundings. They thrive on radical exploration. I – Permeable PA, Impermeable CA Integrators are very sensitive to social cues, even quite minute ones, and they find them hard to ignore. Other tasks may be placed on hold while they settle interpretations of what was just said or done. This kind of sensitivity and sensory capture suggest low levels of perceptualization. However, Integrators are also tactful and diplomatic. They can resolve conflicts well. That means that they can expose themselves to distressing social situations, be very attuned to them, and yet not react impulsively or immediately to these powerful stimuli. This delay between tension and drive results from a relatively impermeable control apparatus. 194

Jack Block: Dimensions and Distinctions

Perceptual Apparatus: Impermeable

Control Apparatus: Permeable

P E

A

Control Apparatus: Impermeable

I

Perceptual Apparatus: Permeable

195

57. Social Style Model: TRACOM Group The Social Styles Model is part of a system of psychometric evaluations and other instruments owned by the TRACOM group, which aims to improve the way that people collaborate and work together (Furlong, 2005). It is based on work by Merrill and Reid (1981) to develop a personality-style-like model that was based on observable external human behaviours, instead of presumed internal states of mind. The two dimensions of external behaviour that the model focuses on are assertiveness and responsiveness.

PA E I Driving

Analytical

Expressive

Amiable

The poles of the assertiveness dimension are ask and tell. An askassertive person is more reserved, more apt to keep thoughts private, and more likely to move conversation forwards by eliciting responses from their discussant. A tell-assertive person is more forceful and directive in conversation. Both kinds of assertiveness are ways for people to get the kinds of social outcomes they want, so they are both kinds of assertiveness, but there is a difference in strategies which forms a continuum along which people can be placed. The poles of the responsiveness dimension are emotive and controlled. Responsiveness is the degree to which people reveal their emotions in interactions with others. If others perceive the person to be very emotional in their responses, they are emote-responsive. If others generally perceive that a person does not show much emotionality in responses, they are control-emotive. Crossing these dimensions produces a concern structure, detailing four different social styles, as follows: P – Driving (Tell assertive & Control responsive): Independent, task- and results-oriented, decisive, fast-paced, dominating. A – Analytical (Ask assertive & Control responsive): Prudent, task-oriented, detail-focused, slow and careful decision makers, logical, low key. E – Expressive (Tell assertive & Emote responsive): Visionary, animated, flamboyant, high-energy, fast-paced, impulsive, opinionated. I – Amiable (Ask assertive & Emote responsive): Dependable, relationshiporiented, supportive, confrontation-averse, open, pliable. 196

The TRACOM group traces the ways that each social style needs to interact with the others, helping people adapt to each other through the various stages of group formation and interaction. The Social Styles Model is fairly rich, and has barely been summarized in this entry.

Social Styles Model: Dimensions and Distinctions

Control Responsive

Driving

Analytical Ask Assertive

Tell Assertive Expressive

Amiable

Emote Responsive

197

58. Dunn’s Model of Sensory Processing: Winnie Dunn Dunn's Model of Sensory Processing was developed in the field of occupational and educational counseling. Dunn proposes that four sensory processing patterns characterize the perceptual process. These patterns are thought to arise from individual differences in neurological thresholds for stimulation (high-low) and self-regulation strategies (active-passive). Crossing these dimensions gives us four sensory processing styles (Dunn, 2001; 1997).

PA E I

Low Registration

Sensory Avoiding

Sensory Seeking

Sensory Sensitive

P - Low Registration (High, Passive) Low-registering people might be described as insensitive or disconnected. They do not pick up on subtle environmental cues, and require very clear and surgent directives. Most events of daily life are not intense enough to stimulate deep processing for these people, and their passive-reactive selfregulatory stance makes them somewhat oblivious to ongoing activity that is not explicitly engaging them. A - Sensory Avoiding (Low, Active) Sensory input bothers avoidant people, so they try to limit the input they must deal with. Unfamiliar input is distressing and difficult to understand or organize, so avoiders regularize their experience through rituals, rules and habits. These provide a high rate of familiar input while limiting exposure to new input. The threatening nature of change can make sensory avoiders rigid, uncooperative and withdrawn. E - Sensory Seeking (High, Active) Sensory seekers need and enjoy high levels of sensory stimulation, and they generate extra input for themselves. They are active, engaging and excitable. They place a high premium on novelty, which can be disruptive in cases where they do not persist in beneficial activities, abandoning them for something new once the novelty of the initial activity has worn off.

198

I - Sensory Sensitivity (Low, Passive) Sensitive people detect more input and notice more sensory events than others, and comment on them regularly rather than trying to ward them off. They are distractible and can be complainers. They are helped by participating in structured experiences so they are not overwhelmed by unstructured and disruptive input. Dunn’s sensory profiles have been associated with psychophysiological correlates for each sensory processing pattern, as well as specific patterns of habituation and skin conductance response for classes of individuals sharing strong preferences for one of the four styles. Dunn relates these sensory processes to models of temperament, and suggests that sensory preferences form a basis for the manifestation of temperament and personality. The profile has also been survey-mapped to US nationwide samples of infants, children and adults with and without disabilities, producing recommendations for how to structure the sensory environment for people coping with various conditions. An interesting point surfaces in comparison other concern structure models. The P and I styles are often represented as more ‘active’ or engaged than A or E. P produces effects in instrumental matters and I in interpersonal/social matters. Conjoined with Dunn’s profiles, this suggests a kind of displacement. Since P and I are passive at sensory regulation, they have more need to act externally to control their environmental input. A and E actively structure their own sensory experience, and so they have less need to interact with their environment in extrapersonal space. P and I thus develop expertise in implementing or interacting, and A and E in planning and visioning.

199

Winnie Dunn: Dimensions and Distinctions

Passive, Unaware

Closed to Input

Low Registration High Sensory Threshold Sensory Seeking

Active, Approach

200

Sensory Avoiding

Active, Avoid

Low Sensory Threshold

Sensory Sensitivity

Open to Input

Passive, Overaware

59. Personality as Information Gating: William P. Nash On Nash’s account, personality “evolved specifically to make human culture possible by managing the flow of Influence Isolation information within the culture, especially by mediating teaching and learning, competition and cooperation, and leading and following.” (Nash, 1998) All of these transactions are predicated upon a basic function of information gating that directs Incorporation Intimacy attention and determines openness for the bidirectional flow of information and interaction between internal self and external social systems, as the situation demands. In this model, personality disorders are maladaptive gating rhythms that chronically admit and release too much or too little social information and interaction.

PA E I

Crossing the dimensions of relative openness to incoming information and relative openness for outgoing information gives us the follow expression of the structure of concern. P – Influence (Closed to incoming, Open for outgoing): Leading, teaching, selling A – Isolation (Closed to incoming, Closed for outgoing): Waiting, exercising, meditating E – Incorporation (Open to incoming, Closed for outgoing): Following, learning, empathizing I – Intimacy (Open to incoming, Open for outgoing): Love relationships, friendships, psychotherapy It may be worth mentioning that Nash is a US Navy psychiatrist, in a stronger command-and-control culture than civilian or free-enterprise contexts. His PAEI roles thus take their shape in a P-dominant environment. In entrepreneurial business contexts, E is more typically associated with leadership, and P with followership. All four gating styles are functional in the right situations, and dysfunctional outside of them. Nash speculates that the movement of self information out into the cultural environment, along with the movement of cultural information into the self, “has the effect of bringing the inner and outer worlds into closer approximation.” The goal of personality may thus be 201

a sort of equilibrium, deploying information gating as a way of monitoring the gap between inner and outer worlds. Motivation to establish a new innerouter equilibrium by enabling information and interaction to flow between them would be proportional to the severity of mismatch detected. Nash lines up information gating with DSM-IV personality disorder clusters as follows: P – Antisocial, A – Schizoid, E – Dependent, I – Borderline. In many civilian-based accounts the E and I roles would be reversed. However on the timescale of military functions, E would constantly need to be told what to do (dependent), and the I profile of preferred interaction values would be continuously disrupted (distressed).

202

60. Biosocial Theory of Personality: C. Robert Cloninger Cloninger is a major personality theorist, who during the mid-1980’s produced a model of personality Harm dimensions with three core personality Persistence Avoidance characteristics which he argued were heritable and biologically based (Cloninger 1986a; 1986b). He later added a fourth element to this set. (Cloninger, 1994; Reward Novelty Stallings et al., 1996). The fourth element Dependence Seeking had been a facet of one of the previous three factors that did not prove to be correlated to the other facets of that factor. This four-factor model gave a satisfactory account of the heritable cognitive, perceptual and affective differences underlying temperamental differences.

PA E I

However, Cloninger felt that this four-factor model ignored the developmental aspect of personality. It obscured the differences between two people of similar temperaments, one of whom was self-actualized and one of whom was not. This reduced its clinical value. He thus later combined his four factors with three additional factors based partly on concepts of self-actualization from humanistic psychology (Cloninger, 1994; Cloninger et al., 1993). These three new factors measured “character” rather than temperament. I leave them aside to focus on Cloninger’s four temperamental dimensions, listed below: P – Persistence (or Happiness Seeking): Determination and tenacity to achieve a goal, industrious, stable and resolute in the face of frustration or fatigue. Low persistence leads to underachievement. A – Harm Avoidance: Intense response to signs of impending aversive stimuli, resulting in learned tactics for minimize behaviors that may expose them to punishment, loss or novelty. Cautious, tense, inhibited, easily fatigued, shy and apprehensive. Low harm avoidance implies people who are optimistic, open to experience, outgoing, trusting and energetic. Associated with the 5-HT system. E – Novelty Seeking: Excited and exhilarated responses to stimuli that are novel or that signal potential reward or escape from punishment. Frequent exploration to obtain rewards and avoid structure and monotony. Bases 203

decisions on vague impressions. Low novelty-seeking implies preference for routine, order, details, frugality and social stability. This behavioral trait is related to the DA system. I - Reward Dependence (or Security-Seeking): Responds to stimuli that suggest a reward is forthcoming, particularly verbal indications of social succour, approval or sympathy. More able to maintain behaviors that have been socially acknowledged and reinforced in the past. Low reward dependence implies introversion, self-reliance and self-directedness. Associated with the noradrenergic system. Cloninger: Dimensions and Distinctions

Goals Explore-Wary

Self-Sufficient Persistence

Harm Avoidance Risk-Averse

Venturesome Novelty Seeking

Explore-Eager

204

Reward Dependence

Experiences

SelfInsufficient

61. Biological Response Styles: L. J. Siever Siever’s model of personality dimensions identifies four neurobiological dispositions which are proposed to explain personality styles. Disruptions and amplifications of those same dispositions result in clinical psychiatric syndromes (Magnavita, 2002; Siever & Davis, 1991; Siever et al., 1985). In PAEI order, the dispositions are:

PA E I

Impulsivity/ Aggression

Anxiety / Inhibition

Cognitive/ Perceptual Organization

Affective Instability

P – Impulsivity/Aggression: People with neurobiological dysfunctions can demonstrate poor impulse control and aggressive acting-out. This can be manifested as borderline and antisocial personality disorders. A – Anxiety/Inhibition: Individuals with faulty neurobiological processes can experience extreme states of anxiety that may generate avoidant or obsessive-compulsive personality formations. E – Cognitive/Perceptual Organization: Thought and perception can lose their coherence, resulting in schizophrenic/psychotic symptoms, cognitive disorganization, and schizoid or schizotypal personality disorders. I – Affective Instability: Neurobiological inadequacy can cause the dysregulation of affect and emotion, disrupting social relationships, and generating borderline or histrionic personalities.

205

62. Factors of the Karolinska Scales of Personality: Ortet et al. The Karolinska Scales of Personality provide an inventory of stable Aggressive personality traits used primarily for Negative Nonresearch rather than clinical purposes. It Emotionality conformity contains 135 items grouped into 15 scales. These scales focus specifically on biological character dispositions that are Impulsive hypothesized to underlie psychological Social disorders, rather than on personality as a Unsocialized Sensation Withdrawal whole. It was culled together primarily Seeking from existing instruments, guided by theoretical considerations rather than statistical analysis. However, it has since been subjected to much psychometric testing and validation across many clinical populations, and in that process it also became clear that somewhere between three and five factors accounted for much of the variance (Ortet et al., 2002).

PA E I

Against this background, Ortet and colleagues set out find the most robust factor analysis of the Karolinska scales. The four factors they isolated were the following: P - Aggressive Nonconformity: Aggressiveness, irritability, and low desire to respond in a socially approved, desirable way. A – Negative Emotionality: Anxiety, worry, tension, lack of both energy and assertiveness, characterized by remorse and mistrust. E - Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking: Non-planning, quick responding, thrill seeking, need for change, and social maladjustment. I – Social Withdrawal: Related to extraversion and involvement-detachment, together with (low) socialization, (low) social desirability, irritability, and suspicion. This factor is related to both social and emotional distance, withdrawal, and maladjustment. While the first three factors are according to Adizes type, the last one is against type. The factor still highlights sociality as the relevant domain, but reverses sign compared to the Adizes typology. Strong Integrators would have a striking low score on Social Withdrawal, compared to people weaker in Integration. By contrast, the first three factors can be seen as dysfunctions that emerge from or accompany normal functioning for these types. 206

63. AAAA – The “Four A’s” Model of Personality Disorders: Austin & Deary In their factor analysis of the DSMIII-R’s Personality Disorders classifications, Austin and Deary (2000) Antisocial Anankastic describe 4 factors that explain most of the variability across disordered personalities, consistent with many other 4-factor personality models. They derive their four factors from a joint factor analysis of the International Personality Disorder Asthenic Asocial Examination (IPDE) and the Neuroticism Extroversion Openness - Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). As one result of this analysis, they suggest that Eysenck’s 5-factor model, might also be more simply cast using only 4 categories. Their schema has been labeled the “Four A’s”, attributing the variance in personality disorders to the following factors:

PA E I

P – Antisocial: Very low Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and high positive loadings for Antisocial, Paranoid, Histrionic and Borderline personality disorder. Destructively pursues self-interest, seeking or escalating conflict. A – Anankastic: No major loadings for any of the personality traits, but high loadings for Compulsive, Narcissistic and Paranoid personality disorders. Does not see past own worries, suspicious of others, uses actions or rituals to manage anxiety. E – Asocial: Neuroticism with low Extroversion and Conscientiousness, and significant loadings for Paranoid, Schizotypal and Avoidant personality disorder. Oversensitive, withdrawn from world, keeping distance and determined not to return. I – Asthenic: Neuroticism, with loadings for Dependent, Histrionic, Borderline and Avoidant personality disorder. Overreactive, ambivalent and uncertain about relationships, highly dramatic interactions.

207

64. The Thematic Aptitude Test and Story Sequence Analysis The Thematic Aptitude Test was developed by Christina Morgan in the 1930's and 40's, together with Harry Adversity Right/Wrong Morgan, a physician and biochemist whose interest in psychology bloomed after meetings with Freud and especially Jung. Harry Morgan co-founded and later directed the Harvard Psychological Clinic (Teglasi, 2001). Achievement Relationships The TAT was a novel psychological projection technique based on the fact that when individuals interpret a social situation, they are saying more about themselves than about what they are observing. In a TAT session, subjects are presented with a series of pictures, each of which depicts a different social situation or event. Their instructions are to interpret the action in each picture and give an imaginary reconstruction of the preceding events and the final outcome. It was thought that the performance of this task would force people to project some of their own fantasies into the material and so reveal their more pressing psychological needs.

PA E I

The test was quite popular in the postwar period. Clinicians found it useful in eliciting information from patients, but there remained widespread uncertainty about the interpretation and scoring of the stories patients told. In response to this uncertainty, Magda Arnold, then Director of Research and Training, Psychological Services with the Canadian Department of Veterans' Affairs, developed a technique of abstracting the universal situationalbehavioural ‘maxim’ or ‘moral’ embedded in each story a client might create. This abstraction of story maxims or imports proceeded according to definite rules, and the sequence of imports was thought to reveal "the development of the storyteller's thought from story to story" in a way that revealed important facts about motivations, values and attitudes (Arnold, 1962). Arnold later accepted a chair at Loyola University, where this TAT story analysis technique was refined and further codified as a psychological assessment instrument. Interestingly, after seven years of empirical studies, with the elicitation and coding of a vast number of stories, Arnold discovered that all TAT story imports could be roughly divided into four categories, listed below in PAEI order:

208

P - Reactions to adversity A - Issues of right and wrong E - Achievement, success, happiness, active effort (or the lack of it) I - Human relationships Each of these clusters was further subdivided into themes and facets of themes, but the highest level of analysis specified these four categories. P - Reaction to adversity - includes response to any kind of adverse situation except personal failure, which is an E-category. A - Right and wrong - stories of human action where success and failure is not the theme, but rather the ethical significance of an action or its personal consequences. E - Achievement, success, happiness, active effort (or lack of it) - includes success or failure in its widest sense, not only success in tasks, but happy outcomes of any kind. Similarly, category one includes failures of every kind; unhappiness, disappointment and every kind of unfavourable outcome. (Mood-relevant: expectation of mood outcome - inherently future oriented. Anticipated mood=anticipated situation for emotional release.) I - Human relationships - influence of other characters on story hero, or influence of hero on them, independent of concerns from the other categories.

209

65. Interpersonal Circle Models of Personality: Timothy Leary Timothy Leary conducted his research into personality as the head of the Kaiser Foundation Research Project in the 1950’s Dominant- Submissive (Leary, 1957). His model of personality is Hate -Hate interpersonal in the sense that personality is seen to manifest itself primarily in the context of dyadic relationships, rather than character traits or clusters of clinical Dominant- Submissive symptoms. Leary worked in the tradition Love -Love of Murray and Morgan, creators of the Thematic Aptitude Test. Murray’s categories of psychological needs (Murray, 1938) were reorganized and arranged in a circumplex fashion to make the relationships between them more obvious (Magnavita, 2002).

PA E I

Leary’s model features eight divisions each with two subdivisions, forming a circle divided into sixteen categories characterizing patterns of interpersonal behaviour. However, two intersecting dimensions underlay the progression of patterns, a Dominance-Submission axis and a Love-Hate (or affiliationaggression) axis. Similar axes would emerge in subsequent circumplex models of temperament and personality. These gives rise to four quadrants, which Leary noted were similar to the temperaments described by the ancient Galenic doctrine of the four humours. The quadrants and their associated subcategories listed below: P – Dominant-Hate: Competitive, Sadistic, Aggressive, Rebellious A – Submissive-Hate: Distrustful, Self-Effacing, Masochistic, Docile E – Dominant-Love: Narcissistic, Managerial, Autocratic I – Submissive-Love: Responsible, Hyper-normal, Cooperative, Overconventional, Dependent Given the interpersonal focus of this model, a slightly heavier loading on the I factor is understandable (whereas personal decision making models sometimes exclude I considerations entirely). Both Leary’s work and Murray’s work would continue to serve as points of reference in the further development of circumplex models.

210

66. The Interpersonal Force Field: D. J. Kiesler Kiesler’s interpersonal circumplex model has roots in Timothy Leary’s work, introducing developmental consideration in Hostile Hostile the development of interpersonal style, Dominant Submissive interactive role identities and other aspects of self-definitions (Kiesler, 1983). Early in life, we situate ourselves on an interpersonal field bounded by an affliative Friendly Friendly dimension (love-hate, friendliness-hostility) Dominant Submissive and a control dimension (dominancesubmission, high status-low status). Our interactions with others continually broadcast our claims of how close or intimate we wish to be with others, and how much dominance and control we are willing to assert. By pushing this self-presentation towards others over repeated interactions, we pull reinforcing and validating responses from interactants. This constant pushpull interplay is described be Kiesler as an interpersonal force field.

PA E I

Like Leary’s model, sixteen ‘interpersonal claims’ are defined, within the two dimensions of affiliation and control. Each claim has a normal and a pathological expression. They are listed below by dimensional quadrant in PAEI order: P – Hostile, Dominant Claim

Normal Expression

Pathological Expression

Dominance

Controlling

Dictatorial

Competitive

Critical-Ambitious

Rivalrous-Disdainful

Mistrusting

Suspicious-Resentful

Paranoid-Vindictive

Cold

Cold-Punitive

Icy-Cruel

Hostile

Antagonistic-Harmful

Rancorous-Sadistic

211

A – Hostile, Submissive Claim

Normal Expression

Pathological Expression

Submissive

Docile

Subservient

Unassured

Self Doubt – Dependant

Abrasive-Helpless

Inhibited

Taciturn

Unresponsive

Detached

Aloof

Escapist

Hostile

Antagonistic-Harmful

Rancorous-Sadistic

E – Friendly, Dominant Claim

Normal Expression

Pathological Expression

Dominance

Controlling

Dictatorial

Assured

Confident-Self Reliant

Arrogance-Rigid Autonomy

Exhibitionistic

SpontaneousDemonstrative

Histrionic

Sociable

Outgoing

Friendly-Gregarious

Friendly

Cooperative-Helpful

Devoted-Indulgent

I – Friendly, Submissive Claim

Normal Expression

Pathological Expression

Submissive

Docile

Subservient

Deferent

Respectful-Content

Ambitionless-Flattering

Trusting

Trusting-Forgiving

Gullible-Merciful

Warm

Warm-Pardoning

All Loving-Absolving

Friendly

Cooperative-Helpful

Devoted-Indulgent

212

Popular Psychology Concern-structure-based thinking plays a strong role in popular psychology. Many different consulting groups and authors develop concern structure models for various purposes, giving people guidance and direction using these ideas. There seems to be a steady demand for this kind of product, and the parsimony and explanatory power it brings. Many popular concern structure models descend in some way or another from the Jungian personality functions made popular by the Myers-Briggs personality type inventory, although some represent new independent findings as well, based on clinical or consulting experience. Still, my interest in these models is not so much in their status as independent confirmation that the structure of concern exists. Rather, I remain impressed by the way that concern structure thinking emerges as useful for people in how we live our everyday lives.

213

67. Brain Styles: Marlane Miller Marlane Miller is president of the BrainStyles consulting firm, and author of Brainstyles: Be Who You Really Are (with David Cherry, creator of the BrainStyles Deliberators Knowers System), Brainstyles for Lovers: Create Partnerships That Change Your Life Without Changing Who You Are, and Brainstyles: Change Your Life Without Changing Who You Are (Cherry & Miller, Conceptors Conciliators 1992; Miller, 2004; 1997). The BrainStyles System emphasizes that certain strengths and problem-solving preferences within us will always remain strong points for us. The same applies to our various nonstrengths. Becoming aware of our styles allows us to play to our strengths, rather than losing time in unproductive efforts in areas of non-strength. This awareness also lets us work to the strengths of people around us, building better and more successful teams.

PA E I

Our dominant styles are often invisible to us. We focus on the more effortful aspects of our working experience, rather than things we do well effortlessly. However, when unique events occur that require unique responses rather than old solutions, our hard-wired problem-solving styles are most often activated. Again, knowing the styles of different team members can help settle who should lead solution efforts for different kinds of these "time-zero events". The four BrainStyles are listed below in PAEI order. P – Deliberators: Balanced, rational and practical, willing to win points using intimidation. Tend to be uninterested or unaware of emotional issues surrounding decisions. Deliberators stick closely to known solutions, favoring clear logic, conventional reasoning and established facts. They enjoy being challenged, and prefer to discover that they are wrong rather than being told so. They are steady producers who tolerate routine well. A – Knowers: Logical, analytical, orderly. Can delay or drag out decision making by over-examining each option, or come to very fast decisions based on knowledge or mastery of systems. These fast knowledge-based decisions can seem cold and unemotional, since they exclude the human element and 214

prioritize rules above the particulars of any one case. Knowers thrive on research and planning, and they dislike messy executions, successful or not. E – Conceptors: Insightful, original, using both structured thinking and emotion. Conceptors favor unconventional thinking and try to persuade others to do the same. They thrive on chaos, tolerate risk well, and change their interests often. Their contributions are not always understood by other styles, but teams often adjust their direction anyways after conceptors speak. Conceptors often feel isolated and misunderstood, and they need recognition. They can become very frustrated when they are unable to communicate their ideas in a way that motivates their co-workers to follow them. I – Conciliators: Socially skillful and empathetic networkers. Conciliators love encountering new people, new situations, and new challenges. They seek harmony and mutually successful outcomes. They prefer make commitments with care, and if they are hurried then they will often go along with it only to experience serious misgivings, anguish and regret later. Conciliators tend to focus their interest, creativity and inventiveness on the here-and-now. They require approval, social support and shared victories to remain highly motivated. Attending to their interpersonal needs can be energy-consuming. Most people can identify their dominant style fairly easily. Mature individuals may recognize a base of two of three styles. Typically, one style will be weak, and that will be the style that requires the most effort to understand, appreciate and deal with. That is the area where it most helps to learn tolerance and respect for the different strengths of other BrainStyles.

215

68. The CAPS Model of Personal Styles: Merril & Reid The C.A.P.S. (or CAPS) model describes what the authors refer to as “social style” – patterns of behavior that other people can observe within us. The Controllers Analyzers model has arisen in the domain of organizational interaction and human resource management, and is used by consultants and presenters on these and other issues related to human relationships. Promoters Supporters This model is said to be based on original research, balancing the specificity needed for explanatory usefulness and the generality need for broad applicability (Merrill & Reid, 1981). The model present four distinct social styles. Individual people are considered to have one or two styles that they manifest most regularly (especially under stress), but everyone is thought to express all four styles in some proportion.

PA E I

The four modes of CAPS styles are: Controllers, Analyzers, Promoters and Supporters. These four styles are described below. P - Controllers Controllers are socially outspoken and they prefer to take charge of tasks, insisting that things be done their way. They demand immediate action from people who work with them, even though they have a hard time describing what they want in ways that would enable others to accomplish those tasks. They care about concrete results much more than human relationships. Their decisions and statements can be hasty or short-sighted. They do not take criticism well, they hate detailed planning, and they find it very difficult to apologise for anything. They are therefore extremely productive as individuals, but when success depends upon careful communication and coordination, they tend to be error prone. They feel most enabled when they have a sense of themselves as powerful. A - Analysers Analysers are cerebral perfectionists, approaching problems through logic and rationality. They are extremely details-oriented, risk-averse, criticismaverse and error-averse. They plan meticulously and consider all options before making a decision or acting. They are tactful and reserved in communication, and they dislike pushy, sloppy or aggressive people. Analysers shun the spotlight, and rarely voice their opinion unless they are 216

absolutely certain about their position. They are stronger at planning than at execution. They dislike ambiguity, and prefer information to be concrete, complete and preferably measurable. They are uncomfortable making quick decisions with what they consider to be insufficient information. This makes them less effective in turbulent situations, and less ready to act on sudden opportunities. Analyzers can be uncomfortable to communicate with because they may seem to be scrutinizing and criticizing your position rather than listening to the point you are trying to make. E - Promoters Promoters are optimistic, opportunistic, persuasive, spontaneous and expressive. They focus on "big picture" issues and tend to be sloppy with details and follow-up. They are oriented towards novelty and the future, and thus often leave tasks unfinished. They tend to be very creative and are often unreasonably ambitious in the plans they produce. Promoters typically juggle several projects at once, succeeding with some and failing with others. Impatient with the status quo, they often generate new all-embracing visions in one great leap. Promoters are not shy about discussing their ideas. They hate feeling bored and trapped. I - Supporters Supporters are the social conveners within their organizations. They have excellent interpersonal skills, and are generally appreciated for this. They do the emotional work in the organization, helping people manage their feelings as they work together. Supporters are sensitive and excitable, and can sometimes be easily hurt. Supporters often lend their talents to communications roles within organizations, and often exert a leadership influence that may not be obvious at first. Supporters dislike being alone and they dislike holding unpopular positions during conflicts, making them susceptible to peer pressure and groupthink. They can sometimes be susceptible to manipulation, both using it and being the target of it. They are also afraid of being taken advantage of, many times with good reason. Some supporters can be very unforgiving when crossed. Good communication in the workplace involves both knowing one’s own preferred CAPS styles and the strengths and weaknesses implied in this, and knowing how to collaborate and communicate with people whose preferred styles are different.

217

69. The Four Temperament Patterns: D. Keirsey, L. V. Berens Linda Berens builds her model of the four temperaments on the psychological theories Artisan Guardian of David Keirsey, focusing on the core (Logistics) (Tactics) needs, values, talents, and behaviors of each temperament patterns (Berens, 2000; Keirsey, 1998; 1995; Choiniere & Keirsey, 1992). Keirsey develops a simplification of Jungian personality theory for practical Idealist Rationalist application, and Berens sees her work as a (Diplomacy) (Strategy) further refinement of this system specifically for organizational and personal consulting. Berens’ work is used and referenced in a variety of consulting enterprises. Her Keirseian model is described below in PAEI order.

PA E I

P – The Artisan (Creative Use of Tactics) Artisans need the freedom to act without hindrance and to see tangible results from their actions. They pride themselves on skilful performance, and they can be very creative in using available resources to reach their goals. They like to keep busy, and enjoy variety and stimulation. They are talented at using tools, whatever domain they may be working in, practical, cultural, artistic, technological, economic, scientific, etc. A – The Guardian (Creative Use of Logistics) Guardians value stability and security in their environment, and reliability and responsibility in their communities. They care about their good social standing, and always try to ascertain that they are doing the responsible thing themselves. They are very aware of rules, procedures, and protocol. They trust hierarchy and authority and are taken aback when others rebel. Due to their focus on tradition and procedure, Guardians are good at foreseeing possible disruptions. E – The Rationalist (Creative Use of Strategy) Rationalists are driven to master concepts and understand the most fundamental principles of grand unifying theories. Expertise, competence draw their admiration and respect. They are 218

knowledge. They want to everything, and they love and conceptual coherence progressive thinkers who

analyze situations deeply and explore new unforeseen possibilities. They are likely to participate in research and analysis, seeking out patterns and developing new concepts. I – The Idealist (Creative Use of Diplomacy) Idealists are motivated by working towards a higher good. They prefer cooperative interactions that are grounded in a shared ethical code or collective purpose. They value social unity and personal authenticity. Idealists can be skilled at mediation and conflict resolution within groups, and they are good friends and counsellors when it comes to helping individuals reach their potential. Idealists connect people by encouraging empathy and pointing out deeper commonalities of interests and interdependencies.

219

70. Sexual Styles: Sandra Scantling In her clinical psychology practice counselling couples around intimacy issues, Sandra Scantling perceived structure of concern dynamics operating in adult sexual interaction (Scantling, 1998). She names the sexual-style quadrants after representative animals, written in PAEI order as follows: P – Bear: The Stabilizer A – Bee: The Worker E – Otter: The Player I – Lion: The Energizer

PA E I

Stabilizer (Bear)

Worker (Bee)

Player (Otter)

Energizer (Lion)

P – Bear: Bears are gruff and not terribly articulate about needs or emotions. They would prefer if their partners just “knew” or could “guess” what their sexual wants or boundaries were, so things could “just happen” without much need for discussion. They need to be handled with care because they are not adept at negotiating emotions, but they can be extremely giving. They sometimes get more focused on pleasing their partners than themselves, which can lead to problems of arousal and performance. A – Bee: Bees are systematic perfectionists. Their houses are impeccable, and they may be unable to settle down for sex if a chore remains undone. They may take a technical approach to sex, trying to plan sex dates or to apply all the recommendations of a sex manual to their lovemaking. They have a hard time with spontaneity and affective decisions. To get Bees to relax and play, you may need to plan a romantic getaway, far from the daily grind. Loyal and devoted, they can find it hard to relinquish control in bed. E – Otter: Otters are boundlessly enthusiastic and creative, so long as activities are fun and the restrictions and limitations are minimal. They will resist doing routine tasks and activities, unless they are presented as a prelude to a fun payoff. Otters dislike strong, categorical commitments, and base decisions on instinct. Enjoy their passion and playfulness, and help them stay grounded enough to get through the daily tasks of life.

220

I – Lion: Lions love attention, and fear abandonment. They care about fashion and appearances, and can be critical of themselves and others if they don’t measure up. They want to be socially central and to lead, but they like following too sometimes. They love sexy and romantic talk. Lions tend to be comparative and thus sensitive about their prowess, which can hinder performance. If they feel appreciated, their passion blooms. Scantling points out that most people have a mixed style with primary and secondary animals, and one can reflect one’s style to varying degrees. She also discusses the sexual and relationship dynamics that develop between lovers with matching or different styles.

221

71. Living Your Colors: Tom Maddron Tom Maddron has developed a popularized version of temperament theory with roots in the MBTI and the writings of Keirsey and Bates (Maddron, 2002). In PAEI order, the styles are: P – Orange: Freedom, action, sensation, hands-on, independent, energetic, impulsive A – Green: Rationality, objectivity, logic, data-based, analytical, indecisive, respectful

PA E I Orange

Green

Blue

Gold

E – Blue: Authenticity, honesty, empathy, enthusiastic, insightful, creative, romantic I – Gold: Service, responsibility, order, giving, recognition, loyalty, commitment Maddron describes the styles in more detail including positive and negative aspects of each and how all four interact in a person’s psychological profile. He also discusses color dynamics on the job, within intimate relationships and in families between parents and children.

222

72. Birds of Different Feathers: Hately & Schmidt This occupational self-assessment instrument popularizes temperament for work teams, using birds to symbolize different character types and working environments (Hately & Schmidt, 1998). The types are listed below:

PA E I Hawk

Owl

P – Hawk: Commanding, direct, Dove Peacock productive, no small talk, fast, impatient, thrive under challenge and high pressure. Hawk work units are fast-paced, actionoriented, no-nonsense and dynamic. High rate of change and many chances to shine. Little supervision, direct and blunt communications. A – Owl: Detailed and practical, focused on objective data, steady, methodical, thorough, neat, well-organized, slow and well-considered speech. Owl work units are stable and predictable, emphasize policy and procedure, slow to move, quiet, neat, tidy and calm. E – Peacock: Lively, expressive, big-picture thinker, enjoy holding peoples’ attention, telling stories, change, novelty, fun, dislikes routine, structure, rules, details. Peacock work units are creative, energetic, innovative, democratic, relaxed, unstructured, visionary, entrepreneuring, noisy, messy, fun and highly interactive. I – Dove: Team-player, mediator, well-liked, deferent, solicitous, enjoying collaboration, cooperation, group activities, camaraderie, harmony, dislikes conflict, confrontation. Dove work teams are collaborative, supportive, participatory, harmonious and consensus-driven. Work is steady and manageable, and competition within the team is discouraged.

223

Education Personal style typologies abound in educational theory almost as much as they do in personality psychology, because educators have no choice but to face and struggle with individual learning style differences in the classroom. Some of these models again draw upon the Jungian tradition as popularized in the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator, but others represent independent findings. Besides theories of learning styles, we find theories of learning skills, cognitive activities, and other educationally relevant phenomena. Educational theory is a rich source of concern structure thinking – a fact worth keeping in mind. It suggests that it might be worthwhile looking at the field of machine learning through a concern-structure lens, which is something I did not do to any significant degree while preparing this book.

224

73. Experiential Learning Theory: David A. Kolb The learning style theory associated with David Kolb is one of the best known models of the experiential learning process Convergers Assimilators (Kolb, 1984; 1981; 1976; Kolb et al. 1971). Experiential learning is represented as an integrated process which starts with concrete experience. This experience supports further observation and reflection. AccomoReflective observation provides the basis Divergers dators for the deduction of new behavioural actions to try out. This new action then provides the basis for new concrete experience, continuing the cycle. (It is interesting to compare this model, based on early work by the Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin, with Nonaka and Taeguchi’s model of knowledge management, in which the learning process is represented quite differently.)

PA E I

In this model, two bipolar dimensions of cognitive growth are proposed: the active - reflective dimension and the abstract - concrete dimension. The active - reflective dimension ranges between direct physical participation at its active pole to detached observation at its reflective pole. The abstract concrete dimension focuses more on the object of experience than the subject of experience, indicating whether the focus is on tangible objects at one extreme or theoretical concepts at another. Kolb ((Kolb, 1981)) later went on to suggest four types of learners associated with the four stages of learning. There are listed below in PAEI order: P – Convergers A – Assimilators E – Divergers I – Accommodators

225

2.

Reflective Observation

Divergers

3.

1.

Assimilators

Abstract Concepts

Concrete Experience

Accomodators

4.

Active Experiments

Convergers P – Convergers: From Abstract Concepts to Active Experiments Convergers, in the abstract conceptualization and active experimentation space, solve problems and apply ideas. Their approach is pragmatic, deductive and unemotional. They prefer to work with things instead of people. By working too fast and leaping to conclusions, they sometimes end up solving the wrong problems. A – Assimilators: From Reflective Observation to Abstract Concepts Assimilators, positioned between reflective observation and abstract conceptualization, prefer defining problems and formulating theories. Their approach is predominantly rational. Once they have built their inductive model, they focus on it rather than ongoing experience. It may thus begin to diverge from experience, losing its practical application. E – Divergers: From Concrete Experience to Reflective Observation Divergers are most comfortable between the concrete experience and reflective observation stages. They excel at detecting patterns, recognizing problems and generating ideas. They are imaginative, empathic and understanding, but can be indecisive in the face of alternatives, wanting to explore them all.

226

I - Accommodators: From Active Experiments to Concrete Experience Accommodators operate in an overwhelmingly interactive mode. They are most comfortable in the active experimentation and concrete experience space, implementing plans and engaging in new activity. They rely more on feeling than on reason, and they learn by personal involvement. They are quick to engage any challenge, and prefer to learn by trial and error. They are good risk-takers, but poor at prioritizing tasks, sometimes getting absorbed in seemingly pointless improvements to already complete tasks, merely to enjoy the pleasures of interaction.

David Kolb: Dimensions and Distinctions

Thinking

Watching

Converging

Assimilating

Diverging

Accommodating

Feeling

Doing

227

74. Learning Styles: Honey & Mumford Building on the work of Kolb, Honey and Mumford define four learning styles. The model is quite similar to Kolb’s, and it has enjoyed considerable uptake in educational circles (Honey & Mumford, 1982).

PA E I

Pragmatists

Theorists

P – Pragmatists: These individuals are keen Activists Reflectors to try out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They are pragmatic and grow bored with long discussions. They seek out solutions with determination, and value new ideas if they have practical applications. They prefer to reach decisions and implement actions quickly. A – Theorists: Theorists enjoy collecting and integrating data to form complex but logically sound solutions. They like to analyze, synthesize and think things through. They can be impersonal, detached people dedicated to rational objectivity. E – Reflectors: These people like to stand back and ponder experiences, postponing conclusions and ruminating over possibilities. They gather information and think through the experiences thoroughly. They are thoughtful, and they often have a slightly distant, tolerant air towards others. I – Activists: These people enjoy new experiences. They are gregarious, open-minded and enthusiastic. They thrive on challenge and new experiences, and strongly prefer immediacy and spontaneity to planning or regimentation.

228

75. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences: Silver, Strong & Perini Efforts to help educators cope with individual differences between learners have drawn upon many sources, including Jungian personality and learning styles, and Howard Gardener’s theory of multiple intelligences (verbal-linguistic, logicalmathematical, spatial, musical, bodilykinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist-environmental). Both models insist that we all have access to all styles/intelligences, but that we are particularly strong in one or two of them.

PA E I Mastery

Understanding

SelfInterpersonal Expression

In a book called So Each May Learn, Silver et al. (Silver et al. 2000; 1997) combine these two frameworks to create tools for lesson planning. From the Jungian perspective, they cross the perceiving (sensing-intuition) and judging (thinking-feeling) dimensions to produce four learning styles, as follows: P – Mastery Style (Sensing-Thinking) A – Understanding Style (Intuitive-Thinking) E – Self-Expressive Style (Intuitive-Feeling) I – Interpersonal Style (Sensing-Feeling) The authors connected these styles to Gardener’s multiple intelligences in a three-step process. First, they spilt each intelligence four ways, defining a structure of concern for each intelligence by identifying the mastery, understanding, self-expressive and interpersonal aspects of each. They then looked at Jungian categorizations of careers, and listed job categories that drew heavily upon different aspects of each intelligence. They give the example of verbal-linguistic mastery (journalist, technical writer), understanding (lawyer, academic), self-expression (copywriter, novelist) and intrapersonal aspects (salesperson, counsellor). Finally they listed the tasks associated with these professions to come up with four categories of activities for each intelligence. Based on this, a lesson-planning matrix of styles-by-intelligences allows teachers to make sure that they use a variety of techniques to engage their learners in every lesson.

229

The authors expand upon the different learning styles at length. An expansion the styles given as dispositions follows below. P – Mastery Style (Sensing-Thinking) Sensitivity To: Acts, details, physical actions, steps. Inclination For: Remembering, describing, manipulating, ordering. Ability To: Organize, report, build, plan and execute projects. A – Understanding Style (Intuitive-Thinking) Sensitivity To: Gaps/flaws, questions, patterns, ideas. Inclination For: Analysing, testing/proving, examining, connecting Ability To: Argue, research, develop theories, explain.

.

E – Self-Expressive Style (Intuitive-Feeling) Sensitivity To: Hunches, images, possibilities, inspiration. Inclination For: Predicting/speculating, imagining, generating ideas, developing insights. Ability To: Develop original solutions, think metaphorically, articulate ideas, express and create. I – Interpersonal Style (Sensing-Feeling) Sensitivity To: Feelings, people, gut reactions, experiences. Inclination For: Supporting, personalizing, expressing emotions, experiential learning. Ability To: Build trust and rapport, empathize, respond, teach.

230

76. The Mind Styles Model: Anthony Gregorc The Mind Styles Model was developed from Anthony Gregorc’s earlier Energic Model of Styles. It is a model of individual differences in thought and learning that has had strong uptake in the educational field, and some impact on other fields. Gregorc focuses on how information is grasped perceptually, and on how that perceived information is then organized and arranged. Perception and ordering mediate our relationship to the world, and different minds thus relate to the world in different ways (Gregorc, 1982).

PA E I

Concrete Sequential

Abstract Sequential

Concrete Random

Abstract Random

Our perceptual ability has two qualities: abstractness (pattern-level perception) and concreteness (instance-level perception). Our ordering ability also has two qualities: randomness and sequentialness. Each ability forms a dimension of style, with its two qualities defining the poles. Crossed, the two dimensions delineate four mind styles: P – Concrete Sequential (CS) Pragmatic, objective, instinctive, logical, methodical and deliberate. CS learners can be perfectionists with an eye for detail and discrepancy. They focus on tangible results, and their inventiveness is directed towards making things work better, rather than creating entirely novel things. People who are strongly CS prefer busy, stable and orderly environments, and practical pursuits. Focus on product. A – Abstract Sequential (AS) Reflective, analytical, conventional and methodical. AS learners view life in abstract terms, relating more to signs, symbols, knowledge, concepts and ideas than to physical events. They dissect their thoughts into branching patterns of sections and sub-sections, which seem two-dimensional. AS-style creativity expresses itself in the synthesis and development of models and theories. They prefer quiet, orderly environments and intellectual challenges. Focus on process over product.

231

E – Concrete Random (CR) Intuitive, adventurous, instinctive and impulsive, “in” the physical world but looking beyond it. Able to “zoom out” from events to see the circumstances framing them. Focuses on both process and product, concerned with applications, methods and underlying causes. CR-style creativity produces original and unique inventions. They prefer experientially stimulating environments featuring change, novelty and competition. I – Abstract Random (AR) Sensitive, empathic, holistic, cautious, perceptive, spiritual. Abstract random learners use their feelings and emotions to make sense of their experience. They are focused on close relationships, establishing strong rapport with others. Their creativity is expressive in nature and often includes musical or artistic talent. People strong in AR thinking prefer emotionally meaningful experiences and commitments, in vibrant, active environments.

232

77. Mathematical Discovery: George Polya George Polya was Hungarian-born mathematician and educator interested in problem-solving techniques. His first book on mathematical reasoning How to Solve It (Polya, 1945) is credited as the document which popularized the term ‘heuristic’ (Baron, 1994). In a later work on mathematical reasoning (Polya, 1965) Polya identified four tactics of problemsolving consistent with the structure of concern. They are listed below in PAEI order:

PA E I

Mobilization

Isolation

Combination Organization

P – Mobilization: By struggling through a problem, an investigator activates more knowledge and gathers more material towards a solution. A – Isolation: Reducing complexity by focusing on one small detail at a time, shifting a very narrow attentional spotlight through the problem structure and staying with each item until it is a fully evaluated as possible. E – Combination: The assembly of parts into wholes, into more harmonious Gestalts. I – Organization: Connecting together mobilized knowledge, organizing separate parts into a purposeful whole. Polya represents these operations as points on a diamond, connected by edges describing further mental operations that connect the four points. Isolation and Mobilization are connected through Recognition, such that we focus in on something recognizable and work at it, or work at something and recognize a pattern to examine more closely. Mobilization and Combination are joined by Remembering – a pattern-completion function that is often sparked by recognized elements to support further mobilization. On the Organization side, Combination and Organization often Supplement each other, with part-to-part relationships and part-to-whole relationships each clarifying the other. Isolation is useful for Organization by clarifying distinctions and allowing elements to be Regrouped. Regrouping can also single out targets for Isolation. 233

This is like a cue-triggered version of PAEI responses, rather than impulse-driven or perspective-driven.

Mobilization

Recognition

Regrouping

Remembering

Combination

234

Isolation

Supplementing

Organization

78. Theory of Attentional and Personal Style: Robert Nideffer The Theory of Attentional and Personal Style was developed by Robert Nideffer in the field of sport psychology (Nideffer, 1976a). It is used primarily in the analysis and training of athletic behavior, specifically attentional focus and concentration. In this model, two dimensions of attention are recognized: width (broad to narrow) and direction (external to internal).

PA E I Focused

Systematic

Strategic

Aware

A broad scope of attention takes in many items at once, and would be appropriate for a footballer charging up a busy field. The typical focus of a narrow attentional scope would be limited to one thing or a small number of things. A baseball player at bat ready to swing would benefit from maintaining a narrow focus. Internally-focused attention dwells upon the person’s own thoughts and feelings. A high-jumper preparing to jump by mentally rehearsing would have this internal focus. By comparison, a goalie in a hockey game watching the opposing team draw near would certainly shift to a strong external attentional focus. Nideffer crosses these two dimensions, yielding four attentional styles as follows: P – Narrow + External: Focused A – Narrow + Internal: Systematic E – Broad + Internal: Strategic I – Broad + External: Aware The Focused style (narrow-external) is the primary control style. It is used whenever a task is actually performed in real time, which clearly puts it in the P domain. The Systematic style (narrow-internal) is a rehearsal or preparatory-checklist style, and it also applies to systematic and conscious efforts to regulate one's inner state and arousal levels. These are A-type processes of anticipatory or retrograde control. Broad-internal or Strategic attention involves analyzing patterns over time to develop useful strategies or plans for the future. These cognitive processes (strategic orientation) and 235

time frames (long-term, future-oriented) fit the E profile. Broad-external awareness requires sensitive attention to the total situation. Limbic and cortical responsiveness must both be engaged for quick and labile responses to dynamic circumstances. In survival situations this preserves life, in sport it helps one's team avoid traps and seize opportunities and in social settings it alerts one to any sign of defection or conflict in the room (Nideffer, 1976b). Across the various stages of athletic training and performance, all of these styles of concentration will be needed for one purpose or another. Specific forms of concentration may be more heavily implicated than others during actual competition, according to the sport. Furthermore, people will tend to have a preferred style of attending, which they may use a their default state (2). Most people can switch attentional styles smoothly, but it still helps competitive athletes to know about their preferred style and biases, compared to the demands of their sport. This will help them identify the kinds of effortful concentration they most need to apply. Sport psychology is perhaps the quintessential P-style branch of psychology, so all four subdomains of Nideffer’s schema, are subsumed under a general P imperative. Sports psychology in general studies P-style mental processes, but there are PAEI aspects of these processes at finer levels of analysis. Nideffer: Dimensions and Distinctions

Narrow

Focused

Systematic

External

Internal Strategic

Aware

Broad

236

79. Four Models for Learning Negotiation Skills: Nadler, Thompson & Van Boven Based on a literature review, Nadler, Thompson and Van Boven (2003) uncovered the four most common methods described for learning negotiation skills. The survey covered both explicit instruction and experiential/self-taught learning accounts: P – Analogical Learning: Transfer and adapt strategies across similar situations. A – Didactic Learning: Explicit instruction based on principles and their application.

PA E I

Analogical

Didactic

Revelation

Observation

E – Information Revelation: Strategic readjustment after gaining info about other party, learning by discovery. I – Observational Learning: Modeling or learning by imitation. These researchers conducted an experiment to see how these methods compared. In the interactive domain of negotiation, it is perhaps unsurprising that their observational learning group of subjects showed the largest increase in negotiation performance. The learning seems to have been largely tacit though, as they were the least articulate in describing the principles that had helped them improve. Analogical learning was also effective, and related to the task schemas that subjects developed in undertaking specific negotiations. Reported task schemas did not relate to performance for the other styles.

237

80. Mutual Dependence of Challenge and Support: Brigid Reid In the domain of nursing education, Brigid Reid has described the interaction between levels of challenge and levels of Confirmation support, to explain the behavioral reactions to change initiatives among working professionals in professional development settings (Reid, 1993; Palmer et al., 1994; McGill & Brockbank, 2004).(Reid, 1993) (Palmer, Burns, & Bulman, 1994) (McGill Growth & Brockbank, 2004)).

PA E I Stasis

Retreat

Adult learners are active creators of meaning during educational events. They can be assumed to seek meaning and to construct it, and learning experiences can be constructed so that they enable this engagement. That means that educators should provide them with challenges that stimulate or require changes to their current ways of thinking. But this challenge has to be balanced against the right amount of support. With too little support, learners will retreat from the challenging stimulus, sensing that they do not have the resources to engage it. Skilful teaching or skilful coaching requires balance, which is often acknowledged in the field of sport with the observation that good coaches can demand a lot from their athletes, in part because they give so much to their athletes in return. There are four zones of interaction between challenge and support, listed in PAEI order below. It should be kept in mind that the challenge described in this model is conceptual challenge – the challenging of old ideas, forcing us to think in a new way. Support can likewise be thought of as conceptual in this context, in the sense that professionally produced textbooks provide more conceptual support to students than do journal articles in specialist journals. P – Knowledge Confirmation (Highly Supportive Setting, Low Challenge) When an information processing or discovery task is well supported (by prior learning, well-designed learning materials, a responsive teacher, multiple available resources, knowledgeable peers, etc.), and when the level of challenge for that task is low, then the task will mainly serve to confirm existing knowledge, rather than generating new knowledge. Many such confirmatory tasks can be completed in a limited time, compared to more 238

complex, less tractable tasks. Conversely, if one is concerned with completing many tasks in a short time period, they must be relatively simple and well-structured (low challenge). The P style can handle very high levels of challenge in terms of throughput (the rate at which results can be produced), but this very strength means that there is no time to spend exploring anomalies or cases that do not fit their set of solutions heuristics. P tactics work best over known event types, rather than complex unknowns. When an agent is well supported, and the pressure to reframe experience is low, existing knowledge and mastery levels are confirmed. This experience of confirmation is one of the major pleasures of P. A – Knowledge Stasis (Low Levels of Support, Low Challenge) In a situation where there is little support for exploring new ideas, but also little in the way of challenges that force exploration, homeostatic norms emerge, and aberrations are simply assimilated to those norms as much as possible. In this mode, proposals to construct new concepts, procedures or skills seem risky and unnecessary – a costly and painstaking process, with no guarantee of success. A fair bit of support would have to be added to move from this state of stasis into a state where reframing and reformulating ideas seems like a useful and profitable thing to do. E – Knowledge Growth (High Support, High Challenge) In settings which encourage growth, some developmental “free time” is created wherein ideas can be experimented with, taken apart and criticized, recombined and realigned, all at a very low cost. These conditions are conducive to conceptual growth and refinement. I – Retreat from Learning (Low Support, High Challenge) High challenge with low support makes for an experience of being aggressed or overwhelmed by the complexity of input. There is no success in continued solo efforts. The person can either default to stasis, or begin to seek out the help of other people or other resources to provide the scaffolding needed in order to engage the challenge from a stronger position. This support-seeking behavior is an I tactic for overcoming excessive challenge.

239

B. Reid: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low Challenge

Confirmation

Stasis Low Support

High Support

Growth

Retreat

High Challenge

240

Philosophy, Religion and Historical Sources Concern structure thinking is not strictly a modern phenomenon. It shows up in many ancient sources, as well as in contemporary reflections upon perennial questions. This section showcases models that flesh out some of this historical background. One pattern emerges in several ancient sources that deserves mention here. Sometimes, a three-part model shows up which seems to divide up naturally along concern-structure lines. This raises the question of the missing fourth style – where is it at? In this section of the book, specifically in the ancient Greek and ancient Hindu sources of concern structure thinking, the missing fourth style of the structure of concern forms the context within which the other three styles are explained. For example, Hinduism has a very strong A-style agenda, defining and describing the categories and levels of reality. Within the context of this A-type activity of “organizing the cosmos”, the other three styles are articulated as a three-part typology. Ancient Greek medicine, by contrast, was more heavily an E activity of exploration, diagnosis and discovery. Within the context of this E activity, PA and I styles are visible. E is often assimilated to the context of medical discovery itself. If we were to look at length for three-part concern structure models missing the fourth element, it would be interesting to see how many we would find, and if we would find that the fourth element was often assimilated to the activity context surrounding the articulation of the threestyle model. For now I merely note the possibility, and illustrate in the cases I have been discussing above.

241

81. Four World Hypotheses: Stephen Pepper In 1942, the American philosopher Stephen Pepper wrote a book called World Hypotheses in which he described four Formist basic world views or root metaphors which Mechanist people use to establish truth criteria for the kinds of explanations they will accept. Pepper’s model is thus epistemological, but was never picked up in philosophical circles to any great degree. Instead, it found Organicist Contextualist its way into debates around theoretical orientations in developmental psychology, cross-cultural psychology and behavioural psychology. It has had a diffuse impact on other fields as well. The four world views are given in PAEI order, below.

PA E I

P – Mechanist Metaphor: People operating out of this world view explain things by cause and effect relationships of parts within a whole. A – Formist Metaphor: This is a taxonomic or classificationist approach to understanding. Giving everything a label within a system of labels provides the sense of structural fullness that counts as understanding in this world view. E – Organicist Metaphor: This is a systems approach to understanding, focusing on organic wholes that are more than the sums of their interacting parts. It is a view of forests instead of trees. I – Contextualist Metaphor: This approach to understanding is embedded in the particular historical and contextual circumstances that make this situation unique. It is a relativistic way of seeing the world. Pepper schema has much in common with the synthesis of personality typologies by Alan Miller also covered in this catalog, and his categories of: P-Reductionists, A-Schematists, E-Gnostics and I-Romantics.

242

82. Reason and Ethics: Sean O’Connell In Decisions and Dilemmas: A Primer in Ethical Theory, Sean O’Connell introduces principles of reasoning and categories of ethical argument. These are offered as an introduction to philosophy, specifically the subdomains of critical thinking and applied ethics (O’Connell, 1994). Each of these two models reflects the structure of concern. They are described in turn below. O’Connell’s introduction to critical thinking presents the following four principles that philosophers are said to use when evaluating arguments (presented in PAEI order): P – The Principle of Rationality A – The Principle of Objectivity E – The Principle of Coherence I – The Principle of Clarity P – The Principle of Rationality

P E P E

A I A I

Rationality

Objectivity

Coherence

Clarity

Teleological

Virtue & Character

Deontological

Contractarianism

Claims must be supported by reasons, and only the best possible reasons. If there is no valid link to evidence that will back the claim, there is no reason to pay attention to it. Scepticism and the immediate rejection of weak arguments are implied. A – The Principle of Objectivity The reasoning should be good for everyone. No matter where you are, if you accept the premises, you can repeat the reasoning to arrive at the conclusions without disagreement. The reasoning is acceptable to all parties. The preemptive avoidance of dispute is implied. E – The Principle of Coherence Claims must be either true or false, not both. If a body of ideas sometimes affirms two incompatible truths (violating the principles of non-contradiction and the excluded middle), then a higher-order argument needs to be 243

constructed to clarify this anomaly and rectify the entire body of thought. Synoptic or higher-order argument structures are implied. I – The Principle of Clarity Conclusions and their warrants should always be presented in the clearest possible language, so that consensus regarding their meaning and import can be reached. The mutual orientation of many agents around a common ground of shared representations is implied. In addition to these principles of informal reasoning, O’Connell further offers a typology of normative ethical theories that also falls along the lines of the structure of concern. P – Teleological theories A – Deontological theories E – Virtue and Character I – Contractarianism P – Teleological theories Acts and rules are defined as right or wrong by virtue of the outcomes they bring about. Includes utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories. It is easy to justify violating a rule or procedure in this framework if the most ethical outcome seems to require it. A – Deontological theories Acts are right or wrong to the degree to which they respect or violate moral rules or maxims. Defining the rule properly can be a delicate procedure, but once it has been accepted as right then it is always wrong to violate it. Following the rules becomes everyone’s moral duty, even if the consequences are unpleasant or sub-optimal at times. Following the rule has a value in itself which far compensates for the aversive outcome. E – Virtue and Character Virtue theories define ways of being that lead to the most satisfying kinds of human life. Rules, standards and the outcomes of actions are all of minor or conditional interest in the cultivation of a form of being that produces goodness. Unethical behaviours emerge out of vices or defects of the self that cause the agent misery and the desire to remedy them. Perfection of the self is the pathway to goodness, on this view. 244

I – Contractarianism Immorality emerges naturally during periods of social disintegration and chaos, in the contractarian view. This is overcome by a collective commitment to compromise individual freedoms and live according to a set of rules that can be enforced. By this means the interests of all are integrated with each other in ethically appropriate ways. Contractarianism finds expression in both economics and political science as well as philosophy, and now supports a very elaborate literature. At his point it may be worth pointing out that O’Connell’s four ethical categories here map closely onto the four categories of the Ethical Awareness Inventory, put out by the Williams Institute for Ethics and Management (WIEM). This inventory defines four ethical styles, where people judge moral goodness according to: P-Results, A-Obligation, ECharacter, I-Equity. Taken together, O’Connell’s two typologies provide a point of entry for analysing concern structure dynamics within these two sub-domains of philosophy.

245

83. Jung's Four and Some Philosophers: Thomas M. King In an interpretive work, Thomas M. King undertakes an analysis of twelve major Western philosophers in terms of Jung's four functions: S/N T/F (King, 1999). The general significance of these categories for describing philosophical thought are listed below: S: Sensing philosophers are likely to view the world as nothing more than the totality of independent units (building blocks). Each unit or entity is separate unto itself, and has no significance beyond itself. N: Philosophers strong in intuition view the world as a supreme synthesis. Individual objects and entities have little or no identity in themselves, but exist only in relation to the unified whole. T: Philosophers who are dominant for thinking will view the world as a precise system within which everything can be deduced. The world functions like a great equation. F: Feeling-led philosophers view human beings and their relationships in concrete terms as the ultimate reality. They seek solutions within which all people and things have their proper place. These Jungian concepts enable us to roughly categorize philosophical orientations, but that is not Thomas King’s ultimate goal. He seeks to understand the development of a philosopher’s main ideas over time. More specifically, his aim is to show how the development of each philosopher's work can be understood using the Jungian concept of individuation. Jungian individuation involves a journey or progression from an younger stage to a more mature state. In the younger stage, an attempt is made to comprehend and manage life using the dominant function, and eventually the auxiliary and third functions. For various reasons, the inadequacy and emptiness of this approach becomes clear over time, and a quest to find and integrate the missing fourth function is undertaken. The dominance relations between Jungian personality functions are covered in the catalog entry for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. King uses this journey of individuation as a framework for interpreting the philosophical development of Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, Rousseau, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Teilhard and Whitehead. While his study does not elucidate any new explicit models of the structure of concern, it remains of interest for the present work. Models 246

of the structure of concern have so far been proposed to illuminate business and management behavior, personality dynamics and learning styles. If they have this value in the present, they may have it for historical subjects as well. King's work is a useful first foray in this direction. King's analysis of each philosopher's development is engaging, but I will not summarize it here. In the interest of economy, I will simply outline some of the ways the structure of concern is traced by King in the works of Plato, Descartes, Locke, Spinoza and Kant. The reader is referred to King for the full treatment of this subject. Looking only at Plato’s Republic, he describes the four virtues of the state and the four virtues of the soul, as well as the four studies or disciplines that cultivate these virtues. They are listed below, with the dominant function marked. Virtues Rep. I, 693ff S - Justice N - Temperance T - Wisdom F - Courage

Studies Rep. I, 799ff Gymnastic Philosophy - N-Dominant Geometry Music

It is interesting that in the Republic, three of the virtues are seen as relatively easy to grasp, but the fourth is mysterious and bewildering, requiring the exhaustive exploration of a concrete example to render it comprehensible. The rationalist philosophy of Descartes required several sharp delineations between Jungian functions, most notably between Sensing and Thinking, one of which was highly doubtful (Sensing), one of which was less so (Thinking). He further distinguished between thinking and imagination (the Jungian Intuition) and memory which is both a source of and an amplifier of Feeling. Descartes’ project consists in no small part of establishing the dominance of Thinking and its autonomy with respect to the other functions. Descartes S – Sensation N – Imagination T – Thinking F - Memory As one of the British Empiricists, Locke is easy to position as a Sensing dominant philosopher. In his Essays on the Laws of Nature, he contrasts sense-experience with inscription or received codified knowledge (Thinking) and tradition (Feeling). He also adds that there is a fourth function of supernatural knowledge and divine revelation (Intuition), which he excludes as irrelevant to his project. So thorough is his exclusion of tacit and 247

synoptic information that he runs into major problems in his empiricism, finding it impossible to conceive of forces that might bind particulate bodies into unified wholes, so strong is his commitment to the sensate perspective. Locke S - Sense Experience – Dominant N - Divine Revelation, Supernatural Knowledge – Fourth T - Reason, Inscription F - Tradition Spinoza attempted the deduction of an entire philosophy using methods resembling those used in geometry, arguing from first principles and axioms. This is clearly a Thinking-dominant project. His early works include discussions of four different models of perception: perception from random experience, perception from inference over incomplete information, perception of a thing through its pure essence or through knowledge of its proximate cause, and perception based on report, communication, memory or conventional sign. Spinoza S - Experience, trial/error N - Inference, induction T - Essence alone F - Report, convention Kant, as yet another European rationalist, expresses a very clear Thinking dominance. His triumvirate of faculties in the Critique of Pure Reason; namely Reason, Understanding and Sensation, map very naturally onto the Jungian categories of Thinking, Intuition and Sensing, respectively. Feelings are described as pathological in the Critique of Practical Reason, detracting from the purity of duty and enslaving people to their appetites. Kant S - Sensation, Quality, Anticipations of perception N - Understanding, Relation, Analogies of experience T - Reason, Modality, Postulates of empirical thought in general – Dominant F - Feelings, Quantity, Axioms of intuition - Fourth

248

84. The Four Humors Few concepts in the history of ideas have touched as many human lives as the doctrine of the four humors. Its cultural and historical reach has been immense. From its development in ancient Greece, it spread throughout classical Rome and the Islamic world (Ullmann, 1978; Browne, 1962; Temkin, 1953; Harris, 1916). It dominated Western thinking throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods (Mitchell, 2004; Filipczak, 1997; Siraisi, 1990; Draper, 1970). It was displaced as the primary framework for scientific medical practice only in the 18th century (Duffy, 1993). It still permeates folk medicinal practices throughout the world (Foster, 1979; Foster, 1953). Whatever the basis for its popularity, this idea has dominated human medical thinking like few other concepts. It has been productive in the definition and understanding of health for untold numbers of human beings. While most often associated with Galen, the doctrine of humors received some development by Galen’s teacher and predecessor Hippocrates. This theory held that four humors or bodily fluids held the secret to health. These humors were, blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. A proper mixing of these humors constituted good health. The undue preponderance of any one humor would result in characteristic patterns of disease (Miller, 1962; Temkin, 1953; Harris, 1916). This theory can be seen as part of the larger Greek cultural movement – visible from Thales through Aristotle and beyond – away from supernatural modes of explanation towards naturalistic explanations. Galen accepted the output of this movement, including the Pythagorean, Empedoclean and Platonic accounts that matter is composed of four elements; fire, water, air and earth with their qualities of hot, moist, cold and dry, respectively. These natural elements do not exist as such in the body, but are characterized as blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm. From these antecedents, Galen formalized Hippocrates’ typology of the humors and gave it the clarity and parsimony that carried it through time (Sarton & Erhardt-Siebold, 1943). Spread in ancient near east was immediate, across Arabic and Mediterranean cultures. A Galenist influence is clearly present in the Kitāb al-Malakī, a masterwork of classical Arabic medical literature, prepared by the important Islamic doctor al-Majūsī (Alī ibn-al-‘Abbās al-Majūsī). This book classified the universe in terms of the elements, defined as the properties of the hot, cold, wet and dry, exemplified by fire, air, water and earth. All living things are held to arise from these four elements, mixed in different amounts and proportions. The Arabic word Misáj (pl. Amzija) denoting ‘health’ in Arabic, Persian and Turkish, has its etymological roots in a verb meaning ‘to mix’, referring to the state of equilibrium between the 249

four elements or properties. It also has the meaning of temperament or balancing, along with the word krāsis. A well-tempered system would be called balanced or even (mu’tadil). A deviation from equilibrium by the preponderance of any single element is called Inhiráfu’l – Mizáj, or khārij ‘an al-I’ tidāl (Ullmann, 1978; Browne, 1962). In the body, the four Galenic humors are the bearers of the elemental properties. Determining the correct balance of humors during an intervention would not be a simple matter. The right mix for any one organ or person depends on the body system involved, the person’s age, the season and other such factors. Treatment of imbalances would significantly involve foods or drugs thought to contain the right balance of the four natural properties for that therapeutic situation. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) also reviewed doctrine and added secondary humors. Jumping ahead to the Elizabethan period, we find that the theory of the humors had become what Michel Foucault has called a discipline or a practice of the body. A vast amount of how Elizabethans regulated themselves: their diet, their activities, their clothing, their bathing habits or lack thereof, can only be understood in terms of their massive preoccupation with the state and balance of their own humors. They would have inherited the view from the Middle Ages that bathing was more harmful for men than for women; masculinity being associated with the hot, dry humors and femininity with the cold wet humors. Artistic representations of females in the proximity of water with men keeping a certain distance were made with these distinctions in mind (Filipczak, 1997). In a similar fashion, almost every aspect of comportment was informed by the theory of the humors. And it was not simply a preoccupation of the elites. Falstaff knew about Galen, referring to him in Henry IV, I. ii. 133, one of five references to Galen in Shakespeare. These explicit references prove what the whole opus demonstrates, which is the absolutely dominant role of Galenic doctrine in the popular understanding of the body during the Elizabethan era. Both Shakespeare and Chaucer make explicit use of the doctrine of the four humors (and related astrological lore) for characterization, including physical appearance, goals and motivations, social position and profession, behavior under stress and other components of characterization. The doctrine had become a primary metaphor for the understanding of human life (Draper, 1970). Constitutional imbalance – a humors-based concept – remained the primary medical framework in the seventeenth century. Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, members of the Royal College of Physicians, still practiced an essentially Galenic style of medicine, with heavy reliance on the ‘depletory regimen’, balance or cleansing the humors through bleeding, cupping and blistering, purging, vomiting and sweating (Duffy, 1993). This was a feature of American medicine into the early nineteenth century, and 250

remains a part of the folk medicine tradition to this day (Foster, 1979). Furthermore, at the time of the conquest of America right down through to the late eighteenth century, Spanish medicine too was dominated by the humoral theory, as received from the Arabic medical tradition. Humoral theory thus remains part of the folk medicine in the Spanish-speaking world as well (Foster, 1953). If nothing else, humoral theory forced physician to consider patients as a whole during diagnosis and treatment. However, it is also clear that humoral theory captured some aspects of the structure of concern, and so an understanding of broader regularities may have been involved. Galen’s theory of the humors has associated with it a theory of temperament, giving rise to a very famous typology of personalities, namely the choleric, melancholy, phlegmatic and sanguine. By the Elizabethan period, it was thought that the various humors gave off vapors which ascended to the brain, such that the state of a person’s humors would explain their temperament and comportment. The complete humoral theory is summarized below.

Qualities

Complexion & Physical Type

Fire

Hot, Dry

Red-haired, Wiry, Thin

Violent, Vengeful, Volatile, Ambitious

Gall bladder

Earth

Cold, Dry

Thin, Pale

Introspective, Sentimental, Apathetic

Lungs

Water

Cold, Moist

Overweight

Main Organ

Temperament

Humor

Choleric

Yellow bile

Spleen

(A)

Black bile

Phlegmatic

Phlegm

(P)

Melancholic

Sanguine (I)

Blood

Liver

Element

Air

Hot, Moist

Ruddy, Chubby

Personality

Sluggish, Lazy, Cowardly Amorous, Happy, Generous, Carefree, Optimistic

As this typology stands, the E style from PAEI is missing from the schema. However, as in the case with Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle and the three Gunas of Hindu philosophy, the missing style can be seen as assimilated to the context of the activity the typology supports. Medical 251

diagnosis is a task that is very often Intuitive in the Jungian sense. It involves the inference of a pattern based on scattered cues and prior learning. Some people are better at it than others, because skill at diagnosis partly involves good instincts, or the tendency to have good hunches. Thus, a certain type does not appear within this framework – the type of person who goes around making universal theories of everything that help them see patterns where others might not. This producer of the model does not appear within the model as its own distinct type. E is thus the context within which PA and I (or the lack of all motivation styles) are identified.

252

85. The Four Cardinal Virtues The doctrine of the four cardinal virtues has a long history, roughly paralleling that of the doctrine of the four Courage Justice humors. The four virtues get a significant amount of attention from Plato in Book 4 of the Republic, and also in the Symposium. Aristotle addresses them in the Nichomachean Ethics, in the context of a Wisdom Mercy broader discussion of virtue (Gardiner, 1918). Other classical figures show the concept to be continually alive in Mediterranean culture (e.g. Stoics, Cicero, Porphyry) and Arabic culture (e.g Abu Hamid al-Ghazali). These virtues were thought to have a certain philosophical rigor. They were independent concepts, not derived from each other, that also did not contradict each other. Moreover, other more particular virtues could be seen to have their roots in these four (Casey, 1990).

PA E I

The cardinal virtues were carried over into the European Middle ages largely due to St. Thomas Acquinas, who made an enormous effort to reconcile this pagan system with Christianity in the Summa Theologica, and succeeded in this aim. Due to that work and the work of other Scholastics, the four virtues remained part of European culture into the modern era (Pieper, 1965). Unlike the doctrine of the four humors, the candidates for the four cardinal virtues tended to shift with time and place, resulting in several different representations of this idea, even within the works of a single author. This is an interesting phenomenon, suggesting a shifting set of hidden premises, definitions or arguments might be at play. Freezing any interpretation of the four virtues is thus problematic, but a few representations will be made for the sake of discussion. One of Plato’s representations of the four virtues comes in his use of the city-state as a model for virtue. He came up with three classes or ‘departments’ of men, and a fourth category representing the harmonious balancing or integration of the three departments. Plato calls this concordant working of parts within a city state or an individual ‘justice’ (Cornford, 1968). Plato’s four cardinal virtues may thus be listed in PAEI order as follows: P – Courage A – Temperance/moderation 253

E – Wisdom I – Justice Other expressions of the four cardinal virtues involve references to justice as more of an accounting concept, or of the proper apportioning of benefits and costs to people. In this case justice move into the A-style position, moderated by mercy in the I-style position. P – Courage A – Justice E – Insight/wisdom I – Moderation/mercy From the time of St. Thomas Acquinas to the Renaissance, prudence was taken to be one of the four virtues, and sometimes argued to be the most fundamental virtue, giving direction to the other three (Burroughs, 1955; Barnes, 1975). On this model: P – Courage A – Justice E – Prudence/foresight I – Temperance A comprehensive account of the four virtues would require substantial historical research. Above, I simply introduce this area of inquiry, and point to its concern structure – unstable and shifting but still discernable.

254

86. The Gunas and the Yogas The Indian wisdom tradition is a unitary one, in that philosophy, psychology, Karma Jñāna Yoga religion, politics, health and hygiene were Yoga not separate discourses for much of the Indian history of ideas. All of them were topics within an overall framework for living well in the world. Within Hinduism, two manifestations of the structure of Pathways Bhakti concern stand out conspicuously. The to Truth Yoga doctrine of the three gunas (temperaments, qualities, tendencies) is the first, emerging in the Upanişads and elaborated in the Bhagavad Gita. Then second consists of the three so-called “psychological” yogas: Karma, Jñāna and Bhakti yoga. ((Beena, 1990) p. 202)

PA E I

Like the Galenic humours, these ideas have been important to many millions of people, and with the spread of yoga worldwide they continue to inform and shape many lives today. Their story is far from over.

PA E I

Rajo Guna The Three Gunas Hinduism has an administrative aspect, in that many of its ideas apply equally to the care of the self and the organization of the community. Plato made use of the same parallel in the Republic, but it Hinduism it was a more enduring motif, due to the quest for a unitary wisdom for living.

Ordering the World

Sattva Guna Tamo Guna

Hinduism is also relentlessly hierarchical, both in politically neutral and politically charged ways. Both types of hierarchy may trace their roots back to the Aryan invasion and conquest, the establishment of a two-tier society and the blending of those two tiers at the interface, with some of the colonized successfully mastering the values and furthering the goals of the political reality, and some of the colonizers abandoning the same system for a more native way of life. Beena (1990) indicates that the Rg Veda classifies men into the enlightened and the fallen or forlorn. Quoting Telreja (1982), Beena illustrates the interplay between universalism and hierarchy in the Vedas: 255

…the Vedas give precepts to scholars to organize the whole world. To organize in their terms was to ennoble. The aim and object of the Vedic religion was to make all of the persons of the globe noble or Āryan. Here Āryan was not considered as the name of a particular country, speaking a particular language. Ārya means refined, cultured and civilized. “He who is pure within and without and acts in accordance with divine doctrine enunciated in the Vedas is called Āryan. Irrespective of caste, colour, country or community, peace and prosperity will once again prevail on the earth when most of the people in the world are Āryanized.” The doctrine of the gunas is part of this project of organizing the world. They reflect a hierarchical value system progressing from the base to the noble. The gunas apply to all things, but I discuss them in the context of human beings only. In their earliest formulation in the Atharva Veda, Sattva was the guna or temperament of a person living close to God, serene, selfless, benevolent and benign. Rajo was the guna of an aggressive, impulsive, destructive person, and Tamo described selfish, ostentatious people entirely given over to sensual pleasures (Radhakrishnan & Moore, 1957). This is a nested representation. The overall project is administrative, an effort to categorize people and behaviours using universal standards, to determine their status within the system and to prescribe remedies or corrective actions when needed. The primary corrective tool is exhortation – the articulation of the rule or the proper way to behave, with emphasis on its importance with respect to the overall policies of the universe. Within this administrative project, there is a healthy E represented who always remains oriented to the higher-level, long-term truths of the system, as well as the negative aspect of P and a degenerate I. A summary of the three gunas as described in the Upanişads and Bhagavad Gita follows, in PAEI order. P – Rajo Guna: Appetitive striving, craving, impatience, strong desires, forcefulness, aggression, instrumental focus on rewards and payoffs, confidence, concrete, pragmatic and competitive. A – (Not visible as a guna, but in the whole project of establishing them to direct action according to principles. The rule system is universalized as 256

given, with the task being to align oneself within it. The intelligence creating the rules is not visible in the system as another guna of any kind, but is ascribed to God/the cosmos. As a result, it dominates E and the kind of insight E can achieve and articulate.) E – Sattva Guna: Perfection, clarity, goodness, love of wisdom, patience, tranquility, purity, transcendence, committed to concepts above outcomes, mental restraint, not stressed in a crisis, embodiment/performance of higher values, long-term orientation and self-care horizon, able to sustain hardship that is rewarded only in the long term. I – Tamo Guna: Stupidity, laziness, carelessness, stagnation, heedlessness, delusion, degeneration, hypocrisy, unguided action, disregard for procedure, comfort-seeking, stubbornness, malice, despondency, untrustworthiness, succumbing to urges of sleep, sloth, fright, grief, despair or hilarity. The Tamo Guna focalizes I in several ways, most of them negative. First of all, it is addressed to I, listing the socially undesirable traits that I would want to avoid, defining a category of shame and social rejection. Secondly, it is a list of spontaneous and contextually-dependent pleasures, which is domain quite natural to I. In making them shameful, I like E is lashed to the heroic project of stabilizing the A-systemic principles of social order, rather than being left to promulgate a different, more spontaneous form of order. I appeals are very heavily tied to the epic task of maintaining order in these texts, and other looser and more local aspects of I are rejected. The content of Tamo may be derelict, but the social pressures being brought to bear are I tactics. In Bahktinian terms, the line between Tamo and the other gunas is the line between the heroic and the carnivalesque. Tamasic characters abound in fiction and are objects of great affection. The Porter from Shakespeare’s Macbeth and the Good Soldier Švejk from the novel by Czech humorist Jaroslav Hašek, furnish strong examples. Carnivalesque characters comically resist the epic call to heroic deeds through their constitutional blindness to the higher sublimated values of self-sacrifice that define the epic mode. This blindness stems from the total restriction of their attentional focus to visceral pleasures and processes, which constantly distorts what few heroic values they are forced to attend to. Carnival offers a comic corrective for the rites of heroism, and in this context, although painted in shame, the somatic and visceral intelligence of I makes its appearance in the system of the gunas.

257

To rehabilitate the category, the Tamasic manager in a company would be the one who would know when it is time to take all the employees out for dinner and a party to release tensions and restore morale. The Rajasic manager would resent the losses of time, money and productivity, feeling that if people are demoralized, they should just be disciplined and told to stop whining and toughen up. The Sattvic manager wouldn’t even have noticed the morale problem too much. His morale would be great, and he would be happy dealing with whatever discomfort might occur in the present if it is in line with the right long term direction. His idea of morale boosting would be to articulate this vision to the employees. God would not likely make a personal appearance, but His rules clearly would not sanction the Tamasic plan, which are out of line with His general policies recommending austerity and self-sacrifice. Nevertheless, despite all this opposition, the Tamasic manager might be right, and the party might prove to be the best way on all counts to move the other three areas of concern further. The Three Psychological Yogas There are many systems or margas (paths) yoga. Each describes a different discipline for achieving a state of non-attachment with this world. The goal is to progressively move away from sensory experience, through the practical and reflective minds, and up towards a pure disembodied Self that lives in alignment with the entire universe. This ascent up a cognitive hierarchy towards a timeless place of calm and insight is an extreme cultivation of E-style mental processes. Whatever the style of the marga, the overall yogic project is E-dominated. Among the many margas, three take the psychology and ethics of conduct as their primary focus: Karma yoga, Jñāna yoga and Bhakti yoga. They correspond to P, A and I, respectively, although all of them are structured by E as paths of ascension towards a featureless truth. They are all thus E-leaning. The yogas are described below. P – Karma yoga: The path of volition and good works, demands renunciation of personal goals and dedication of one’s efforts to community improvement projects and religious rites and services. There should be no expectations of good or bad outcomes to motivate the work. The work is a pattern of activity undertaken by the body as the mind detaches itself and lives in longer and longer timeframes, ultimately attaining an eternal present. At the end of the Karma marga, Karma yoga is transcended. Duty and dedication vanish, and the body simply performs good work because that is what it is – the divine law in performance.

258

A - Jñāna yoga: Knowledge is the key to enlightenment in Hinduism. It is knowledge that puts an end to suffering and the cycle of rebirth. Core Jñāna texts feature policies for accepting and rejecting knowledge claims, counterparts to Greek logic. There is a strong eliminative emphasis in Jñāna yoga and in Indian thought in general. The truth is thought to be present but obscured by illusion. By rejecting everything that is inconsistent with the highest principles of wisdom, the truth will emerge. This is the A-style fantasy of a final simplification and total order. I – Bhakti yoga: Bhakti is the path of devotion, directing intense love and seeking union with the Divine. The devotee relates to the object through feelings of awe, fear, fascination, love and dependence. Many things can be legitimate objects for Bhakti, but each individual Bhakta (devotee) must choose only one to be the focus of their devotion. Bhakti yoga is sometimes seen as the easiest marga because it is feeling-based rather than effort-based. However, the successfulness of this marga is more doubtful, because it depends not on action or thoughts one controls, but on quality of feelings which may falter.

259

87. Sanskrit Literary Theory and the Four Goals of Life Traditional Sanskrit literary theory, including the classical text of the NāŃyaśāstra and in some ways culminating in the writings of Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, provide a rich set of literary and psychological insights still of consequence for researchers today (Hogan, 2003). Borrowing from the larger Hindu tradition concerning the goals of life, the Sanskrit theorists hold that all stories are organized around one of four ends or goals:

PA E I Artha

Dharma

Mokşa

Kama

P – Artha: Material/political success giving rise to high community standing A – Dharma: Ethical duty based on your station and role in an orderly cosmos E – Mokşa: Enlightenment, spiritual release from the material plane I – Kama: Romantic union, love, sexuality, pleasure

260

88. The Four Beginnings of Confucianism

Confucianism is a philosophical tradition in which human beings are seen as naturally good or at least potentially so. Benevolence RighteousFrom the teachings of Mencius, we learn ness that people are born with the knowledge of the good, and so the ability to do good is inherent in us. This ability grows upon what Mencius described as the 'four beginnings' of virtue described below in Wisdom Courtesy PAEI order: P – Compassion (giving rise to benevolence)

PA E I

A – Shame, dislike (the basis of righteousness) E – Distinguishing right from wrong (the basis for wisdom) I – Modesty, deference (giving rise to respect/courtesy) This is an I-heavy schema, and the value represented for P in the above list is actually an I value that has a tempering or moderating effect on P. P may also be assimilated to a certain degree by the context for articulating these ideas, which is part of a larger philosophical project of explaining how the universe works. The four beginnings of Confucianism were centrally implicated in the Four-Seven debate, which was the pre-eminent intellectual achievement of Korean Neo-Confucianism.

261

89. The Four Agreements: Don Miguel Ruiz The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz has been a spectacularly successful popularization of living wisdom from the Mexican Toltec tradition. It promulgates a virtue ethic of charitable consideration, against self-limiting patterns of enmeshment and reactivity (Ruiz, 1997). This gentle yet challenging message traces out the structure of concern through its fourfold path of effort, clarity, perspective and integrity. These are expanded on below in PAEI order, not the order of the Four Agreements.

PA E I Effort

Clarity

Perspective

Integrity

P – Always Do Your Best (effort) Making this promise to oneself in full acknowledgement of one’s fluctuating energies and limitations produce a life free from self-recrimination and regret. If we know that we did our best no matter what, self-blame loses its purchase on our thoughts. A – Don’t Make Assumptions (clarity) Much unnecessary interpersonal drama arises from assuming knowledge of people’s goals and motives, or expecting them to ‘just know’ what we are thinking and feeling. This heartache can be released when one has the courage to ask questions and express what one really wants, communicating as clearly as possible to avoid misunderstandings. E – Don’t Take Anything Personally (perspective) One must not get caught up in the to-and-fro of interactions. Nothing that others do is because of us. They act out of their own projections, their own dream of what life is about. Maintaining this perspective on interactions immunizes us to the opinions and actions of others, and prevents needless suffering.

262

I – Be Impeccable With Your Word (integrity) Refrain from using language to attack yourself and others, spreading gossip and social dissention. Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean, and promote only those words which are guided by truth and love. The actual given order of the Four Agreements is integrity, perspective, clarity and effort or IEAP. This may have some relevance for understanding the cultural priorities within their source culture, in contrast with the PAEI order that fits much of the industrial West.

263

Language, Arts and Media

264

90. Dramatica: Philips and Huntley If the structure of concern is ubiquitous, one would expect far more than 100 or so examples of it to turn up in any given study. If the structure of concern shapes us as organisms and shapes our brains, personalities and behavior, one would expect to see evidence of it absolutely everywhere one looked. We do. They are called “stories”, and according to one theory of story and dramatic structure known as Dramatica, stories can be intensively and extensively analyzed using concern structure concepts. Stories are pervasive examples of the structure of human concerns, exploring all four time-energy horizons of a situation which presents a conflict or a dilemma to be solved. Dramatica is not currently studied widely in academic circles. It is a theory of story used by professional screenwriters, novelists and other story writers. The theory is an independent construct, but the Dramatica theory book is most often purchased along with a software writing aid that helps authors structure and elaborate their work with reference to that theory. Dramatica is thus a professional tool, and it has not had much uptake outside of professional circles. The authors of Dramatica, Melanie Ann Philips and Chris Huntley, describe Dramatica as a complete theory describing a particular class of stories: Grand Argument Stories. These stories explore a thematic argument in a manner that is exhaustive or complete. This describes most storytelling, but it specifically excludes certain kinds of experimental writing, and other writing traditions in which the conventions of the Grand Argument Story are suspended or violated in certain ways. However, most storytelling conforms to the Grand Argument model, or subsets of that model (Phillips & Huntley, 1996). Philips and Huntley represent stories as models of the human mind. More specifically, they are models of the activity of the human mind as it struggles to resolve an inequity, anomaly or breach of some kind. They describe a scenario where one of our prehistoric ancestors encounters a bear on the trail. This is an unstable confrontation. Something has to give. Our ancestor has two basic options: either she can change or the world can stay fixed, or the world can change and she can stay fixed. The core categories are self and world, stasis and change (as also examined by Strickland, 1989). Another way to explore this drama of confrontation is to consider the difference between primary and secondary control. If our ancestor exerts primary control, the she forces the world to change, i.e. she can drive off the bear. If she exerts secondary control, she can change the situation by changing herself, and run away. Whichever way she sets her mind, she has to manage her internal reactions and her external actions. She may also try to 265

influence the internal reactions and external actions of the bear (e.g. by playing dead). If she manages all of these horizons of activity in a successful manner, and she returns to her band’s campsite intact, her bandmates will want to know what choices she made and why, as well as what the challenges and outcomes were in making these choices. They will want to learn about and enhance the controllability of events (Girotto & Rizzo, 1991). Tales impart knowledge about the concern structure of challenging events, and thus impart survival value, much as other forms of social learning do (Steadman & Palmer, 1997; Sugiyama, 2001a; 2001b). In the scenario of the confrontation with a bear, the outlines of the four Classes of story problems in the Dramatica Story Mind can be discerned (internal/external, static/dynamic). These are: P – Physics (Activity):

Changing-External – Problem created by an action or activity.

A – Universe (Situation):

Fixed-External – Problems with fixed/constant constraints, a state of affairs.

E – Mind (Fixed Attitude): Fixed-Internal – Problems with fixed/rigid thoughts, prejudices, attitudes, ways of seeing things. I – Psychology (Manipulation): Changing-Internal – Problems created by a manner of thinking, manipulation of/from others, deepening emotional problems, etc. The PAEI element listed before each Dramatica element indicates which style of thinking is best suited to match the various classes of problems. Following these elements, we have the four terms Physics, Universe, Mind and Psychology. These terms are the original terms for the Dramatica Classes, published with the early editions of the theory and software. The user base of professional writers provided the feedback that these four terms seemed abstract and far removed from the rest of the professional discourse among writers, and so some revised terminology was included in later versions of the software and theory. These revised terms are included in brackets alongside the original terms. Descriptions are then offered for each item. The Dramatica model is nested and recursive. Within each Class of this concern structure model, there are four Types describing the types of problems one can have in that Class. Below the Types there is a layer of Variations, four for each Type, sixteen for each Class. Drilling down one more level brings us to the level of Elements, sixty-four for each Class. Basically, at every level, each one of the four items at that level is broken down into four more items. This is the nested aspect of the model. The model 266

is recursive because if you want to analyze a dramatic feature below the level of sixty-four elements, you do so using the four original classes again.

4 Classes (Domains)

16 Types (Concerns)

64 Variations (Issues)

256 Elements (Problems)

This exposition gives a rough and simplified sense of how the Dramatica theory of story structure represents story Themes. In addition to Theme, the theory of story structure also describes models of Character, Plot and Genre. Dramatica also encompasses other theories besides the theory of structure, such as theories of storytelling, story-weaving (the art of exposition) and story reception. The overall model is very rich, and in some ways it defies summary, given how involving and how unique it is as a framework for understanding and writing stories. It can best be approached through primary resources, available online from various outlets endorsed by the co-creators of the model. I have summarized Dramatica briefly here in 267

order to introduce it as a major model of narrative and story, putatively based on some very basic categories of human problem solving, that exhibits the structure of concern throughout its various theories, and that also serves as a uniquely productive example of how the recursive nesting of concern structure constructs can be used to model complex events in the world. Although this exposition of Dramatica is incomplete, it suggests that a richer understanding of event structure is possible – one that might help us understand much more about the human need and capacity for stories. It should be emphasized that this theory of dramatic structure models event structure itself, not just literate stories. It could easily describe the action of a silent film, for example, or a mime routine. It also describes the structure of attention one must maintain in order to process a dramatized event. One must be properly oriented to the high-level thematic domains, as scenes and sequences unfold to complete the dramatic argument or assessment of the enacted situation.

268

91. Kenneth Burke’s Rhetorical Framework Kenneth Burke was a major mid20th century rhetoritician whose analytical framework continues to exert a strong Order Hierarchy influence on contemporary language studies. Burke studied rhetoric in its broadest sense, as the study of how language names the world and ascribes attitudes and motives for us to assume in relation to situations and things. Burke was Mystery Courtship interested in how terms for situations carry motives, structures, concepts of order and hierarchy and all the other elements required for coordinating human social action. His framework thus included but was not limited to the traditional focus of rhetoric, being political speech and other prepared speeches and formal presentations. He sometimes referred to his field of study as ‘logolgy’, the study of language and society through the examination of words (Burke, 1970). He called his main analytical technique ‘dramatism’ for the central role that dramatic concepts (similar to linguistic case/theta structures) played in his analyses (Burke, 1969).

PA E I

Tracing echoes of the structure of concern in Burke’s work in no way does justice to the richness of his writings. It is important nevertheless. Burke’s work grapples with questions that overlap the zones of application of Dramatica and the Adizes Methodology – the dramatic structures of human patterns of organization. These three sets of ideas could conceivable converge to support a deepening and detailing of the Burkean project – to study the dramatics of social suasion in all areas of human life. Points of contact with other concern structure models follow. The Pentad Burke views language as a mode of action, and rhetoric as an explicit incitement to action (Heath, 1986). He well recognized that conceptualizing rhetorical events as acts implied the operation of several other terms, such as an actor or agent, within a scene or situation, with purpose and a method/mode of agency. These elements form the Burkean pentad – the core concepts of his dramatic analyses: P1 – Act: producing an effect in the world. P2 – Agent: the agent who produces the act. 269

A – Agency: the means or method by which acts are produced. E – Purpose: the hierarchy of purposes, immediate and transcendent. I – Scene: situational awareness, seeking congruence with settings of action. In the pentad, primary control by the agent and secondary control of the agent are represented separately. The act (P1) is the work done to change or elaborate the dramatics of an event, and so describes the overall accomplishment of primary control. The agent comes into distinct focus – separate from the act – through obstruction and dissonance with the other dramatic elements, for example. This agent as object (rather than as implicit subject of the act) can be changed using secondary control strategies if necessary, to successfully achieve the act. As in the Dramatica model, Burkean analysis involves an examination of the dialectical relationships of opposition and transition from one pentadic element to another in the exercise of rhetorical effects. Pentadic elements are thus studied in ‘ratios’ rather than in isolation. Identification While rhetorical acts are being enacted, a companion process occurs which Burke calls identification. Symbolic agents continually invite their conversants or audiences to agree, assent, build allegiance or in general become of one mind with the speaker (both speaker and audience can be the same person for inner dialogue). This is not an optional diversion of language to rhetorical ends, this is what language does. An account of Burke’s theory of language and how it supports his theory of social identification is beyond the scope of this paper. I will briefly describe his account of how social order emerges out of disorder, which follows the pattern of a single cycle of cascading adaptation. P – Order: Order emerges from disorder through social alignment using ordering principles such as division (of resources) and association (assigning resources to people). This stabilizes expectations and exchange/collaboration. A – Hierarchy: In any ordered system there is an incentive to perfect the ordering principles, simply by virtue of the system’s operation. This among other pressures can give rise to the emergence of transcendent terms that compress lower-level terms. These become new motivating and coordination points. People are assigned to these new terms – the arrangements of titles, 270

purposes, motives and roles that settle into a hierarchy that perfects the principles of order as much as possible. E – Mystery: As social experiences at different places in the social hierarchy diverge, mystery emerges between people of different social stations. This mystery and the differences underlying it can become ritualized. Property relations and gender differences give rise to mystery, as do other social differences. Inherent in mystery is the desire to overcome it, through the creation of philosophies, theologies and political visions, as well as though the promulgation of myth. This can serve to bridge hierarchies of motives, aligning many levels of social order that allow a society to move from one situation to another through coordinated action. I – Courtship: Courtship is communication across mysteries of otherness to build proximity and social cooperation. It is fraught with all of the dangers of biological courtship, leading either to commitment or domination and control, for example. Diplomacy and corporate negotiations are examples of courtship, and market interactions may also fall in this category. Courtship is the effort to end estrangement that has been put into place through the institution of the principles of order.

271

92. Aristotle’s Rhetorical Appeals Aristotle’s Rhetoric provides the earliest theoretical foundation for Western rhetorical studies, and his insights remain valid to this day. The rhetorical triangle depicts three elements of every rhetorical situation: the subject of discourse, the rhetor or speaker, and the audience. Corresponding to these three elements, Aristotle named three appeals that the rhetor could make in the service of persuasion. These are listed below, in PAEI order.

PA E I

Context & Call to Action

Logos

Ethos

Pathos

A – Logos appeals, based on the logic of one’s own argument, flaws in the argument of an opponent, definitions and deductive inferences. E - Ethos appeals, which qualified the speaker as being credible or worth listening to, based on the personal qualities, expertise or social position of the rhetor. I – Pathos appeals, based on the feelings, fears, biases and desires of the audience members. All three of these appeals make contact with the context of the discourse, which can be thought to include the overall goal or speech act structure of the communication. Communication is often undertaken in order to achieve some extra-discursive goal. P-style considerations take root in this context, and appear most visibly within discourse as the “call to action” that concludes each effective rhetorical act.

272

93. InterGrammar: Arndt & Janney InterGrammar is an approach to the study of speech that attempts to explain how people interpret the combined stream of verbal, prosodic and kinesic signals that they receive. All three streams are analysed as parts of a single unified act. These parts are thus studied in relation to each other, rather than in isolation (Arndt & Janney, 1987). The InterGrammar project focuses on emotive communication, specifically the fleeting emotional and attitudinal indications we give in conversation. The interplay of verbal, prosodic and kinesic elements produce these indications, combining direct speech and indirect allusion, at different levels of formality, with varying emphasis, intonation, facial expressions and shifting eye contact. We send and perceive these composite signals effortlessly, so their production and interpretation seem fundamental to the way that human communication works. The InterGrammar project seeks to characterize how all of these elements work together in casual conversations in American English. Several InterGrammar models exhibit concern structure patterns. One is based on an earlier model by Rands and Levinger (Rands & Levinger, 1979), representing the determinants of formal or informal style in speech. On this view, the formal-informal dimension of speech varies according to the affective and behavioural interdependence of the speakers. With low affective and behavioural interdependence, formality is high. This is the Astyle of official or objective interaction. Where affective and behavioural interdependence are both high, in the I-range of interpersonal relationships, speech is most informal. In the P-style low-affective but high-behavioural interdependence mode, such as among coworkers in a large company, there is moderate formality. In the E-style low-behavioural by high-affective interdependence mode, formality is also moderate. High affective/low behavioral interdependence might be seen at a political or religious meeting, where we are passionate about shared values, yet lead largely separate lives.

273

Formality as a Function of Affective and Behavioral Interdependence

Low Affective Interdependence

Workplace Casual

Rhetorical Community Casual Low Behavioral Interdependence

Most Formal

Most Informal

High Affective Interdependence

High Behavioral Interdependence

The structure of concern arises in another area of the InterGrammar that models interpersonal attitudes. The interpretation of rising and falling intonation seems to depend crucially on the relationship between the speech partners. Interpretations of rising and falling intonation seem to be variously attributed to the personal commitments of the speaker (i.e. the speaker’s attitude towards the subject being spoken about) and the interpersonal commitments of the speaker (the speaker’s attitude towards the listener). Changes in intonation will be heard differently as the listener determines how the speaker feels, positive or negative, about personal and interpersonal attitudes in an interaction. Interestingly, this rhetorical schema gives rise to concern structure patterns, as follows: Unexpected falling pitch in a statement (p. 277) P – Interpersonal, Negative: Self-assertive, dominating, aggressive… A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Insistent, impatient, dogmatic… E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Assertive, forceful, emphatic… I – Interpersonal, Positive: Self-confident, authoritative, unthreatened… 274

Essentially, P is the confrontational and I the cooperative interpersonal style. A and E are two kinds of topical imposition, A as imperative and E as exhortative. Unexpected rising intonation in US English declarative and interrogatives is interpreted as follows: Unexpected rise in simple statements and wh-questions (p. 278) P – Interpersonal, Negative: Disbelieving, disapproving, critical… A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Perplexed, concerned, shocked… E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Curious, interested, pleasantly surprised… I – Interpersonal, Positive: Seeking confirmation, repetition, clarification… Two further patterns follow, both quite similar to each other: Unexpected rise in commands and directives (p. 280) P – Interpersonal, Negative: Insecure, cautious, threatened… A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Uncertain, unsure, hesitant… E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Temporizing, expectant, waiting… I – Interpersonal, Positive: Polite, deferential, considerate… The fall-rise (waver in pitch p. 282) P – Interpersonal, Negative: Insecure, cautious, threatened… A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Hesitant, uncertain, ambivalent… E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Tentative, temporizing, waiting… I – Interpersonal, Positive: Nonassertive, deferential, tactful…

275

Perceived Reasons

Unexpected fall: Statement

Unexpected rise: Statement/wh-?

Unexpected rise: Commands

Fall-Rise / Wavering

P – Interpersonal, Negative

Self-assertive Dominating Aggressive

Disbelieving Disapproving Critical

Insecure Cautious Threatened

Insecure Cautious Threatened

A – Personal / Topical, Negative

Insistent Impatient Dogmatic

Perplexed Concerned Shocked

Uncertain Unsure Hesitant

Hesitant Uncertain Ambivalent

E – Personal / Topical, Positive

Assertive Forceful Emphatic

Curious Interested Pleasant surprise

Temporizing Expectant Waiting

Tentative Temporizing Waiting

I – Interpersonal, Positive

Self-confident Authoritative Unthreatened

Seek confirm. Repetition Clarification

Temporizing Expectant Waiting

Nonassertive Deferential Tactful

On a complementary team, a strong P is most likely to express open negativity towards others, given the impatience, impulsiveness and instrumental/competitive focus of that style. A strong P might also be more likely to interpret vocal prosody under the assumption that others also feel interpersonal negativity during conflict. A strong A is most committed to certainty and unambiguous knowledge, hence most likely to hold on to doubt regarding his or her beliefs. Once certainty is ascertained, it is promoted with great insistence. E is least likely to doubt his or her own thoughts, ideas and opinions, and also tends to enjoy talking, displaying knowledge and exploring topics of all kinds. I is most likely to compromise, to make efforts to clarify his or her understanding of others, and to support and encourage his or her speech partner. All of this conforms to the concern structure pattern, and it offers a useful point for examining communication styles and cross-style misunderstandings in more detail.

276

94. A Cognitive Typology of Speech Acts: Driven & Verspoor Driven and Verspoor’s Cognitive Explorations of Language and Linguistics Obligative Constitutive is an introductory linguistic textbook that is - Expressive part of larger European project to produce - Directive Declarative Commissive parallel texts in seven European Languages, and to have students participate in international exchange programs, such that their course of instruction would be similar Informative regardless of the host country chosen - Assertive - Expressive (Driven & Verspoor, 1998). In that text, the - Interrogative - Commissive authors get at some characterizations of speech acts using first a five part typology and then a three part typology. The distinctions drawn are relevant to concern structure thinking, and are summarized below.

PA E I

The first typology is John Searle’s, who classified speech acts into the following five categories: 1. 2. 3. 4.

assertive: asserting or stating a fact. directive: issuing an order or command. commissive: promises or commitments we make to others. expressive: expressions of thanks, well-wishes, congratulations, condolences and other gestures of social involvement. 5. declarative: the speaker creates a new social fact by declaring it to be the case, the classic example is a person conducting a marriage ceremony, telling the couple “I now pronounce you married”. The authors cluster these five categories into three super-categories, as follows: 1. informative speech acts: assertive speech acts plus information questions that elicit information. 2. obligative speech acts: directives and commissives, both of which impose obligations, either on hearer or on self. 3. constitutive speech acts: expressive and declarative, both of which require an appropriate social occasion or context to have any force. In PAEI terms, assertion and inquisition, the functions of informative speech acts, fit naturally with the information search activity that constitutes 277

E-type activity; questioning things and developing new assertions about states of affairs. Obligative speech acts have a P-type cadence, although commissives would also be relevant to I (expressing social solidarity). Both directives and commissives are preludes to action or tasks, rather than being conversational in their development. The final of the three categories, the contextually-dependent constitutive speech acts, have the conventional support that would be both congenial for A and necessary for settling A-type uncertainty. Expressive speech acts would be necessary for I-type work as well.

278

95. Discourse Functions of Humour: Greatbatch & Clark David Greatbatch and Timothy Clark analysed the discourse of management gurus giving public Competing Distancing presentations to determine the role that humorous junctures and audience laughter played in developing or demonstrating group solidarity and rhetorical relationships with the speaker. In their review of GrandBonding empirical studies on the discursive standing production of laughter, they identify five primary functions of humour in communications. One function would be general for all styles, the four others set up a concern structure (Greatbatch & Clark, 2003). They are listed below in PAEI order

PA E I

P – Competing: Attack others in socially acceptable ways and/or enhance self-esteem at others’ expense. A – Distancing: Manage embarrassment, fear or stress in threatening situations. E – Grandstanding: Claim centre of attention in ways that earn the approval of others and enhance social status. I – Bonding: Create and maintain social cohesion and group solidarity. The fifth function, “Dissenting: Expressing opposition, resistance and dissent” would be a tactic used in every style to protect style-based priorities, reducing other style strategies to apparent absurdity when measured against preferred strategic values.

279

96. Artistic Types: Loomis & Saltz In their study of artistic styles, Loomis & Saltz (1984) had subjects rate eight well-known artists on a list of descriptors. Four clusters of artistic style emerged, organized along two dimensions: figurative vs. non-figurative and narrative vs. descriptive. The dimensions essentially represent the degree of distance from perceptual realism. Non-figurative art leans towards cognitive-perceptual or expressive abstraction, narrative or imaginative art uses recognizable elements, but arrange them in fanciful rather than logical/rational or normal ways. P – Rational/Descriptive, Figurative: Matisse, Warhol, Wyeth This style remains closest to perceptual realism, representing either what is seen, or imaginary scenarios that obey most of the rules of ordinary reality, rather than fanciful rules. Subjects are represented in ways faithful to their concrete appearance, rather than as cognitive, perceptual or expressive abstractions. A – Rational/Descriptive, Nonfigurative: Mondrian This artistic style remains representative in the sense that features of objective perception – the observation of line, shape, mass, rhythm, balance and so on – provide the foundation for abstraction and elaboration, particularly along cognitive and perceptual lines. E – Spontaneous/Narrative, Nonfigurative: Kandinsky, Miró, Pollock Spontaneous and narrative forms of art are grounded primarily in the imagination or emotions of the artist, rather than observations or perceptions. They need not follow the visual and physical rules of observed reality. The artistic style described here is thus both spontaneous and nonfigurative or abstract. The classic example of this artistic stryle would be abstract expressionism. I – Spontaneous/Narrative, Figurative: Chagall This style of art is grounded in the imagination or emotions of the artist, but the objects or compositional elements the artist uses represents real objects in the world, or modifications of them. These kinds of artistic works are like dreamscapes – unusual combinations of usual things in unusual ways. Dali comes forcefully to mind here, although Loomis and Saltz point to Chagall as 280

their exemplar for this type. The elements of ordinary experience are combined to achieve emotional and expressive results. Loomis and Saltz interpret these results using Jungian functions. Extraversion/Introversion is placed alongside their figurative/nonfigurative distinction to describe people who are oriented towards sensation vs. imagination. The difference between descriptive and spontaneous styles is aligned with Jung’s distinction between the rational (Judging) and irrational (Perceiving) functions.

Loomis & Saltz: Dimensions and Distinctions

Rational/Descriptive (Judging)

Non-figurative (Introversion)

Matisse, Warhol, Wyeth

Mondrian

Kandinsky, Miró, Pollock

Chagall

Spontaneous/Narrative

Figurative (Extroversion)

(Perceiving)

281

Computer Science and Engineering There is a rough sense in which all systems can be understood in concern structure terms, and hence concern structure thinking can be seen operating within the Unified Modeling Language (UML). However, my review of computer science and engineering literature has found structure of concern issues arising repeatedly in one particular context. This is the literature on multi-agent systems, particularly around the issue of managing coordination among many semi-autonomous agents. In such systems, there may be interdependencies among the activities of different agents, requiring mechanisms for selecting, prioritizing, sharing inputs and outputs and communicating among parts of the system. In other words, multi-agent systems in engineering face challenges similar to those faced by human beings in organizational contexts. This is a potentially revealing discovery. Some representative samples of concern structures in multi-agent systems and other engineered systems follow below.

282

97. Model Views of the Unified Modelling Language: Si Alhir The Unified Modelling Language (UML) is a standard set of diagrams used by business analysts, systems analysts and computer programmers to spell out ideas Implementation Behavioral and plans for new systems. In his reference guide to the UML, Sinan Si Alhir divides these standard diagrams into five categories. Each category represents a different system view – a different way of Structural Environment looking at a system. He introduces five such categories, the first being the User View (Use Case Diagrams in the UML). The remaining four views are aimed towards the system as such (Si Alhir, 1998). These are listed below in PAEI order:

PA E I

P – Implementation View A – Behavioral View E – Structural View I – Environment View P – Implementation Model View: This view deals with how a system will be realized in terms of its physical instantiation, including physical code snippets (source, binary or executable), data, documents etc. The UML diagram that represents this view of the system is the Component Diagram, showing the organization and dependencies among tangible software implementation components. This diagram describes the implementation in concrete terms. A – Behavioral Model View: Behavioral models specify system activity in careful detail, to foresee problems or conflicts before they arise. Sequence Diagrams depict classes exchanging information as interactions flow through a system. Collaboration Diagrams show how components communicate and interact to accomplish joint purposes. State Diagrams describe how classes respond to input; the states they enter and their transitions, for the whole object lifecycle. Activity Diagrams show information processing within a class, describing action states and action/object flows. Together, these 283

diagrams offer a meticulous preview of the behavior of the system for troubleshooting prior to implementation. E – Structural Model View: This is a static, conceptual overview of the system. Models depict classes, objects and relationships between classes (via Class Diagrams and Object Diagrams) - a schematic, high-level overview of the system for orienting design efforts. I – Environment Model View: This view describes the configuration of the system and the relationships between information compnents, mapping all of the contextual conditions that may impact system function. Deployment Diagrams are used towards this end. Since end-users are also part of the system’s context, the User View/Use Case Diagrams can also be put in this group.

284

98. Parameters of Fuzzy Inference: Carlos A. PeñaReyes Carlos A. Peña-Reyes works in the domain of fuzzy computer programming, which differs from ordinary programming Operational Logical in important ways. Standard computer programs manipulate precise and explicit information in precise and explicit ways. Fuzzy systems, by contrast, reason with the computerized equivalents of ideas like Structural Connective “maybe”, “sort of”, “kind of” and “almost”. They allow for shades of gray and degrees of possible truth, and when they are welldesigned they produce reasoning outcomes similar to human decision-makers, using the same uncertain and incomplete data used by the humans. Fuzzy systems are thus promising models of certain aspects of human cognitions. Designing these systems well is challenging, however.

PA E I

Fuzzy systems use linguistic variables like “very hot day” to represent very hot days (rather than ‘AvTemp > 29ºC’). Numerical values accompany the linguistic variables, but the fuzzy reasoning is done on the linguistic variables. For greater precision, increasingly specialized vocabularies or quasi-numerical codes can be used instead of natural language terms, but this increased precision hampers the intelligibility of the final decision and the reasoning that produced it. Fuzzy modeling is also haunted by the curse of dimensionality. Each new variable added to a model needs to be related to the others by rules, exponentially increasing computing requirements with the number of variables. Building a fuzzy system to solve a certain class of problems thus requires developing a good description of relevant variables and rules, with the right balance of precision and readability, capturing the complexity of the problem with a minimally complex model so as to avoid a combinatorial nightmare. Achieving this balance is a delicate task. It is often done by working with human domain experts and modeling their reasoning, then using the experts’ decisions as a benchmark to evaluate the performance on the model. If the model replicates their decisions, it accurately represents their reasoning. Another tactics is to use artificial neural networks to reveal rules and regularities in classes of input data, and then to model those rules in fuzzy logic. Alternatively, a benchmark can be set, and then genetic algorithms can be used to breed fuzzy rules and select out unfit candidates, using evolutionary programming. 285

One such evolutionary solution is called Fuzzy CoCo, developed by Carlos Peña-Reyes. It uses a technique called cooperative coevolutionary fuzzy modeling to produce better fuzzy models in shorter periods of time. It also aims to avoid some of the pitfalls of evolutionary programming, such as high computational costs and the tendency to get stuck in local optima (PeñaReyes , 2004). My interest here is in Peña-Reyes’ four-type classification of the parameters of fuzzy systems – the elements of fuzzy inference, if you like. According to Peña-Reyes, to build a fuzzy system, one needs to specify logical, structural, connective and operational parameters. This creates a concern structure model, as follows: P – Operational Parameters: Each linguistic variable and value needs a membership function, defining roughly what does or does not count as a variable of that type. This constitutes the concrete particulars of the knowledge of the system. It links labels with associated numerical values so that computational work can be done. A – Logical Parameters: These are usually defined by the programmer in advance, and formally or syntactically define the reasoning operations the system will use to transform input into output. Logical parameters do not define the system’s functions, but rather the ‘legal’ tactics that are available for building those functions. E – Structural Parameters: These define the overall scope, identity and direction of the model, including input-output and state variables, universes of discourse for linguistic representations and the linguistic labels that will be used for the variables. This can be defined in advance but often it emerges in systems that are allowed to improve themselves, dropping old variables and breeding or learning new rules, etc. I – Connective Parameters: Describes the network of relationships between variables and values in the system by defining rules, weighting them, and determining what conditions are antecedents for the application of a rule, and what the outcomes should be. This describes the model’s actual behavior as a problem-solving system.

286

99. Types of Programming At a high level of abstraction, the three main forms of soft computing; evolutionary computing, fuzzy systems and neural networks; along with traditional procedural programming, form a structure of concern quad in and of themselves, as follows:

PA E I

Genetic Algorithms

Procedural Programming

Fuzzy Inference

Neural Networks

P – Genetic Algorithms: An r-strategist programming style, throwing a swarm of solutions into a problem space and only letting the most productive ones survive the competition.

A – Procedural Programming: A set of predefined policies for processing specific inputs and delivering specific outputs, in contexts which are already understood. E – Fuzzy Inference: Approximate procedures applied to uncertain and illdefined data to arrive at decisions that plot the best course of action over a large set of semi-unknowns. I – Neural Networks: The emergence of collective norms, priorities (weights) and regularities among a set of interconnected nodes sharing information over time.

287

100. The Code Size Optimization Problem: Shin, Lee & Min The code size optimization problem affects the design of many small, portable electronic devices that are now used everyday, such as cell phones and personal digital assistants. There is a set of interlocking constraints on the design of the real-time embedded logic systems in these devices. Determining the right balances and tradeoffs for these constraints is quite difficult.

PA E I TM-Only

EZ-Only

DYN-Mix

FIX-Mix

In these small portable systems, processor chips need to be very energyefficient, since battery life is a huge performance factor for consumers. Speed is also a factor, because these are real-time applications that interact with people and with signals from other machines. Cost is a third critical factor, and the cost of these components can be reduced by making the chips smaller (requiring smaller code sets). However, one cannot optimize all three of these factors at once. One way to reduce energy consumption is to take advantage of something called Dynamic Voltage Scaling (DVS) technologies that reduce voltages by reducing clock speed on the chip. This is a tradeoff. Energy is saved at the cost of speed. Reducing cost by reducing size can also sacrifice speed, and energy efficiency as well. Code size can be reduced using dual instruction sets, with 16-bit instructions that are decompressed into 32-bit instructions prior to execution. This reduces the code size, but increases the number of instructions to process (decompression instructions are added), sacrificing speed and requiring more clock cycles and hence more energy to run. Thus, a triple tradeoff constrains design decisions for embedded systems. Shin, Lee & Min (2004) demonstrate that the problem is NP-hard and hence computationally intractable. The intractability of the problem suggests heuristic approaches for exploring different solutions. Shin et al define four such heuristics, each of which reduce code size and increase the number of execution cycles while reducing clock speed. These algorithms are iterated so long as they do not violate the real-time time and energy requirements of the system. The algorithms crunch through the code set applying their adjustments to one task after another until there is nothing left to alter within the allowable constraints. Each algorithms targets tasks amenable to different kinds of adjustments. They are described below in PAEI order: 288

P – TM-ONLY: This algorithm will not sacrifice speed. It will reduce code size on tasks only when doing so does not slow them down appreciably. It will expend energy to do so, within the system’s outer limits. Tasks that would be slowed by code reduction are left alone. Economy yes, but never at the cost of speed. This is very much a P heuristic. A – EZ-ONLY: Tasks that can have their coding reduced without increasing energy demands are favored by EZ-ONLY. Slowing down processes is not a problem so long as energy economy is being maintained or enhanced. Speed and simplicity are good, so long as they do not require expending additional energy resources. This heuristic favors economy, in an A-like fashion. E – DYN-MIX: The dynamic-mixed approach respects whichever of the two constraints, speed or energy use, is tighter on that task. A concession is made to that tight constraint, but there can be heavy impact on the looser constraint in the effort to reduce code size. The looser constraint becomes the opportunity horizon where the algorithm makes gains, as it pushes at system limitations. I – FIX-MIX: Both constraints are respected, so code size is reduced only to the point where existing boundary values are preserved intact. If reducing code size any further would disrupt either speed or energy efficiency, this algorithm is happy to leave well enough alone. But if reducing code size can be done with all constraints being respected, then so much the better, it is done. Shin et al. also had a RANDOM algorithm for comparison. It selected tasks at random to reduce code size within system limits without considering internal tradeoffs. Simulation runs where the other algorithms matched RANDOM’s solutions were excluded. The speed and energy constraints in those runs were obviously too loose, such that any greedy optimizing algorithm would find the same solution. DYN-MIX produced the best results against this particular set of tradeoffs, followed by FIX-MIX and TM-ONLY. EZ-ONLY did not greatly outperform RANDOM, compared to the other algorithms for this type of problem.

289

101. Adjustably Autonomous Agents & Decision Making: Verhagen & Kummeneje Adjustable autonomy refers to the capacity of agents in a multi-agent system to change the degree to which their Actions Plans behavior is constrained by the coalition vs. independently directed. If we sent a fleet of 500 mini-robots to Mars, for example, sometimes we might want them to travel as a ‘herd’ from one region to another, while at other times we might want them to Goals Norms ‘forage’ for scientific samples independently or in groups of two or three. During the travel events we would want them to take a lot of direction from the coalition, but during the foraging events we might basically want them to each do their own thing without straying too far from the dispersed herd. Verhagen and Kummeneje (1999) studied this problem with particular attention to the issue of norms and normsharing in multi-agent systems.

PA E I

Verhagen and Kummeneje identify two perspectives on autonomy that are relevant for agent-based systems programming: abstraction levels and independence. Abstraction levels refer to the degree of control agents have over their own behavior and decision making processes. Independence refers to the agent's degree of independence within a coalition. For autonomy in the first sense of abstraction, the authors refer to a decisionmaking model drawn from various branches of cognitive science (Verhagen & Smit, 1997; Dennet, 1979; Conte & Castelfranchi, 1995; Werner, 1996). This decision-making model is a very straightforward example of the structure of concern, claiming that decision-making takes place at four separate yet connected levels, listed below in PAEI order: P – the level of actions A – the level of plans E – the level of goals I – the level of norms These are the categories within which the degree of control an agent has over its own decisions and actions can be defined.

290

102. Multi-Agent Coordination: Victor R. Lesser Victor R. Lesser (1998) presents a five-component architecture for supporting Detection sophisticated agent coordination strategies. Local Agent & The components are local agent scheduling, Scheduling Diagnosis multi-agent coordination, organizational design, detection and diagnosis, and on-line learning. Scheduling and coordination are real-time functions (P and I, respectively), Learning & Multi-Agent and the rest are part of a solutions-modeling Organizational Coordination and guidance system (A covers detection Design and diagnosis, and E covers learning and organizational design). Descriptions of the concerns follow:

PA E I

P – Local Agent Scheduling: Agent manages current priorities and incoming task requests while executing and monitoring the active task to solve a problem. A – Detection and Diagnosis: Gathers information from the execution and coordination subsystems, uses and updates knowledge of network resources and current goals, alerts system to need for online learning. E – Learning and Organizational Design: Adjusts the agent’s long term knowledge about goals, problems, tasks, procedures and network resources. Combines current goals with long-term knowledge to design a top-down organizational structure that describes interdependencies with other agents in the network for those goals. I – Multi-Agent Coordination: Exchanges short-term meta-level information with other agents, updates beliefs about the network, keeps track of commitments to other agents, updates task and client need information.

291

103. Organizational Design and Instantiation: Sims, Corkill and Lesser Multi-agent systems sometimes need to recruit the coordinated efforts of a number of agents to accomplish a task. In Agent-Role- Role-Goal Binding the framework introduced by Sims, Corkill Goal Binding and Lesser (2004), this is called organizational design and instantiation. It is a team-forming process of selecting Coordination goals, requirements, agents, and resources Organizational & and assigning responsibilities and roles to Goals Management each agent selected for the team. Since Goals multi-agent systems need to do this no matter what application domain they operate in, a generic organizational design model is needed that encapsulates all of the general features of this function.

PA E I

Sims et al. describe an organizational design process involving four major components: organizational goals, role-goal bindings, agent-role-goal bindings and coordination & management goals, described below in PAEI order: P – Agent-Role-Goal Bindings: Provide the capabilities that will implement the organizational design. A – Role-Goal Bindings: Given the parameters of the goals, task environment and performance requirements, design the organizational structure in terms of domain specific agent roles, productive and managerial. E – Organizational Goals: Using information about performance requirements and the task environment, establish goals around which organizations can be planned. I – Coordination & Management Goals: Monitor the Agent-Role-Goal bindings and provide feedback to the Role-Goal binding module about the effectiveness and efficiency of the current organizational design.

292

104. Operational Design Coordination: Coates et al. In their approach to real-time operational design coordination for multi-agent systems, Coates et al. (2003) endorse a sixpart model of operational design coordination: organizational coherence, communication, task management, resource management, schedule management, and real-time support. They then define agent types to match these six functions. Both functions and agent types are defined in PAEI order as follows:

PA E I

Schedule Resource & Management Task & Real-Time Management Support

Coherence

P – Real-time support: managing and adapting to changeable, dynamic and unpredictable processes. Schedule management: managing the dynamic assignment of tasks to resources, and the enactment of the resulting schedules. Agent Types: Scheduler – Perform scheduling. Activity director – Implement schedules A – Task management: organize and control tasks and interdependencies, such that they can be undertaken and completed in a structured manner. Resource management: organize/control resources to continually optimize use. Agent Types: Resource manager – Maintain knowledge of resources Resource monitor – Sense, forecast, and disseminate resource performance efficiency Information manager – Manage input-output files related to analysis tool executions. Task manager – Execute analysis tools given unique input data to create unique output data. I – Coherence: integrating, or linking together, resource efforts and tasks in a harmonious manner to avoid chaos. Communication: exchange structured and meaningful data, information, and knowledge. 293

Agent Types: Coordination manager – Facilitate communication between related agents. Since this is a model of real-time operations, the long-term, futureoriented, strategically focused E-style of concern does not make much of an appearance in this model.

294

105. Agent Mediated Dynamic Coordination Policies: Bose & Matthews In large computer networks, it is hard to balance processing resources for the many tasks that are concurrently being run. Constraints and priorities change constantly. Somehow the different parts of the system must understand the implications of those changes for their own processes, plus change their own interactions with other processes in real time to fit system conditions.

Knowing Space of Adaptation

Reasoning for Adaptive Decision

Detecting Change in Context or Needs

Integrating the Change

PA E I

Bose and Matthews (2000) argue that any self-adaptive software system that responds to changing preferences and constraints must exercise four major capabilities: detecting changes, knowing the adaptive degrees of freedom, reasoning towards adaptive decisions and integrating changes. These are described below in PAEI order: P - Knowing the space of adaptations: The system must know what selfchanges it can choose from to reduce deviations. It needs to know the dimensions of this task, the favored tactics and preferred values for key variables. These are things the adaptive system can do. A - Reasoning for adaptation decision: Explicit planning may be needed. The system should be able to reason and make commitments on the selfchanges and revised goals. E - Detecting change in context or needs: The system must monitor its behavior and detect deviations from its commitments or the presence of new opportunities. It should be able to accept new needs from external sources and evaluate for deviations with respect to current commitments. I – Integrating the change: Coordination changes may have to be packaged, assembled and configured to insert them dependably into the current system without excessively disrupting ongoing behaviors.

295

Bose and Mattews then describe a three-layer multi-agent architecture to tackle this problem. Their model covers the P, E and I elements of the Adizes model, with A-style agents playing important supporting roles within the P and E layers.

296

106. Interacting Cognitive Radios: Joseph Mitola III, Neel et al. The term ‘cognitive radio’ was introduced by Joseph Mitola III (1999) to describe a category of smart wireless technology, where networks of handheld wireless communications devices can optimize and tailor their use of wireless communication bands based on user needs in various use contexts. To optimize resource use, wireless devices must be able to model their location, their users, networks and the larger environment. Then they can decide which radio bands, transmission/reception interfaces, and communications protocols would be best to use, given their goals and their context. They might even use artificial intelligence to plan, learn or evolve new protocols, in principle. However, better use of wireless resources is the basic goal, reached via a six-stage cognition cycle: Observe: Get info about the operating context through their sensors or through signaling. Orient: Evaluate this information to determine its significance and relevance. Plan: Based on this evaluation, the radio determines its options or alternatives. Decide: An alternative is chosen that evaluates more favorably than other options, including the current ongoing action. Act: The radio implements the alternative by adjusting its resources and performing the appropriate signaling. These changes are then reflected in the interference profile presented by the cognitive radio in the outside world. Learn: Throughout the process, the radio uses its observations and decisions to improve its own operation, creating new modeling states, alternatives or valuations. (Neel et al., 2005) This cognitive cycle lines up with the 3 individualistic concerns: P, A and E, as follows: P – Decide, Act A – Plan, Learn E – Observe, Orient, Learn

297

Neel et al. comment that the original cognitive radio concept is unrealistic in one respect, the missing I. In cognitive networks, most of the interference that cognitive radios will face will be from other cognitive radios, all adjusting their resource use dynamically and concurrently. To model this problem, Neel at al. mapped the cognition cycle to the normal form of a game, using game theory to analyze interactions among radios.

298

Neuroscience My explorations of neuroscience were initially driven by the attempt to see if the structure of concern could somehow be reduced to hemispherical differences of the sort initially postulated by Ned Hermann (1989). This is not what I have found. In the neuroanatomy literature, concern structure patterns arise most naturally in papers that describe the vertical flow of information from lower to higher brain centers and vice versa. The left-right distinction rarely maps neatly onto the structure of concern. This deserves emphasis, given the popular emphasis on supposed hemispherical differences as the basis for difference in personality styles. My initial foray into this area suggest that lateral distinctions are much less important than the vertical organization of interoceptive and exteroceptive interweaving brain columns as shaped by evolutionary pressures for both survival and reproduction. Concern structure thinking holds out some promise as a framework for making sense of some of this vertical information flow within the brain. I would hope it would hold some interest for neuroscientists seeking integrative frameworks for brain modeling. Given the ecological resonance of the structure of concern, I think there may very well some promise here for payoffs in understanding the organization of brains.

299

107. Topology, Graph Theory & the Magic Number Four in Neuroscience: Robert Glassman In a review of so many four-part models, one has to wonder what is so special about the number four. Do these models represent something in nature that is four-fold? Perhaps it is only some common analytical habit that predisposes us to see things in this particular four-fold manner. Whether either or both of these are true, it remains incumbent upon us to question what might be so special about four-fold models. In a series of articles (Glassman, 2003; Glassman, 1999a; Glassman, 1999b; Glassman, 1999c; Glassman et al., 1998; Glassman, 1997; Glassman et al., 1994) Robert Glassman undertakes this investigation. His goal is to explain the capacity limits of working memory; i.e. the well-studied fact that both we and other species can keep about 7 ±2 items of active information in mind in any span of time. Since limited working memory seems to be a very stable and robust finding in living organisms, Glassman looks into the organizational and operational features that might explain why selection favored these particular limits. A lower limit upon working memory is furnished by the mathematics of association. To be useful, working memory should sustain at least three chunks of active information. Two chunks may be logically inadequate for cognitive representation, i.e. for supporting decisions or constructing larger representations. Direct one-to-one associations leave no room for decisionmaking. At least three representations are needed to represent a contingency, with the third element providing a context or occasion for the paired association. If we were to give this decision-making function mathematical expression as a search or walk through an option-space, we would need at least three non-colinear points to define that space – a triangle. Glassman also notes that the syntax of natural language strongly features the action set of subject, verb and object, and that the emergence of three-word utterances in child development ushers in a period of rapid linguistic growth. Three is thus a representationally significant number. (Glassman, 2003) Furthermore, at least three nodes are needed to explore associativity and represent groups, transitivity and other more complex relations. To determine that A, B and C are associative in mathematical terms, one has to be able to determine that A+(B+C)=(A+B)+C. "If a hypothetical mental buffer were able only to hold pairs of elements, then, if it begins with A and B, one of these must be dropped in order to pick up C. That leaves only the possibility of piecemeal chaining of pairs in long-term memory (LTM)." Glassman concedes that a two-node system could recursively chunk paired items (AB) to associate them as a unit with a third item (C). However, these associations finalize meaning, like a decision, commitment or rule. There is no more room for representing conditions and contingencies. Meaning is 300

narrowed to a single pathway of definite associations, rather than an open space for context-sensitive choices. While working memory must involve at least three-way associations, Glassman reviews a number of experimental findings that indicate that the upper limit on simultaneous associations in working memory is only four (Glassman et al., 1998; Glassman et al., 1994). We get to the magic number 7 by looping or continually refreshing working memory in time. Four items at time t can thus be chunked into one item at time t+1, providing a context for the three remaining working memory slots. I will not take the time to duplicate Glassman’s empirical argument here. Instead, I want to focus on a further observation that he offers. He argues that, aside from the empirical reasons to believe that working memory capacity is limited to four items, there are structural reasons why this must be so. Four represents a mathematical upper limit for simultaneous associative interrelations in the brain, because of the topology of the isocortex. Many structures in the central nervous system are sheet-like or laminar in structure. That means that local interactions must take place on surfaces that are effectively two-dimensional. Isocortex is the most conspicuously sheet-like structure of all. This planar organization imposes certain mathematical constraints upon local associations. On any twodimensional or sheet-like surface, if four sub-regions are defined, any one of them can grow an edge to contact any of the other three without ‘cutting across’ another patch, isolating or ‘trapping’ part of the invaded sub-region. With five or more sub-regions defined, some patches will be disconnected. “So long as there are no more than four planar regions, any of them has free access to grow an edge to any other in some way that does not split a subpatch nor divide any of the other subpatches from each other.” (Glassman, 2003) This mathematical limit flows from the “four-color theorum”, the proven fact that you can color any flat map in only four colors, and no region of it need border on another region of the same color, no matter how serpentine the regions. Four regions can maintain undisrupted contact with each other on a flat surface. Add a fifth and some isolation or disconnection in inevitable. It might even be argued that we see this growth in complexity during conversations at cocktail parties. Robin Dunbar has observed that human conversation groups have a “decisive upper limit” of four individuals. The addition of a fifth listener will destabilize the group, resulting in side conversations and a division of the group in two. (Dunbar, 1996; p. 121) This four-unit threshold for all-way associativity may represent a universal limit on the unity of simple systems, with bifurcation and differentiation occurring above that threshold. Glassman argues that this may explain the upper limits of working memory. 301

The importance of the number four in the mathematics of planar surfaces is further explored in graph theory. Graph theory deals with systems of vertices and arcs, or the points in a network diagram and the lines that connect them. On a sheet-like surface, you can connect up to four vertices with arcs such that no arcs bisect or cross any other arcs. In other words, on a flat surface you can connect three points in a triangle, then add a fourth point that you can connect to the three triangle points without crossing any lines (forming a diamond, and then connecting the two far points with an arc or ‘handle’). From the fifth point on, if you want to connect every point to every other point, you have to cross or overlay lines. On a planar surface, a four-point graph is the largest complete graph (where every vertex is connected to every other) possible. (Glassman, 2003) These combinatorial issues are important for Glassman because, on his account, working memory must involve some kind of dynamic allocation of cortical space over brief time intervals. He proposes that “…mental associations among the WM items are embodied neurally as topological associations of activated areas and subareas of cortex.” In other words, the active working memory ensemble would be topologically adjacent to each other, and in range of local cortical connectivity. Long cortico-cortical connections might participate in binding the features of items represented working memory subpatches, but for economy of time and energy, local and neighborhood connections would have to serve active duty as well. To support rapid and flexible working memory operations, certain cortical areas may sustain “pointers”, “proxies” or “surrogates” for otherwise more distributed representations, so that the speed of adjacent or overlapping cortical associations can be used for quick thinking and rapid responding. Glassman writes:

"Surrogacy" might be a mechanism for bringing together attributes whose cortical substrates are remote from each other. That is, any of the three or four neighboring sub-millimeter scale cortical subpatches might somehow briefly surrender its own response characteristics, and stand in locally to represent a different attribute. The response characteristics of such a hypothetical, temporarily "possessed" subpatch might be loaned via communication from an active patch at a more remote cortical location, whose natural feature-analyzing properties tune to the particular attribute. Alternatively, local elbow-rubbing operations related to diverse, distributed featurerepresentations might exploit highly convergent 302

"association cortex", for example fronto-limbic areas. (Glassman, 2003) Glassman sees a role for neuromodulators in this hypothetical surrogacy function. These organizational and topological considerations may help explain why the structure of concern seems so widespread. Fourfold arrangements are special in the mathematics of surface topology, and surfaces or boundaries of all kinds have great natural and biological significance. Guts, skins, gas exchange surfaces and other biological interfaces all exploit sheet-like structures, as does isocortex. Furthermore, topological arrangements of representations are largely conserved as information is processed throughout the nervous system. From the flat surface of the retina to the lateral geniculate nuclei to the visual cortex to the object and position analyzers of higher association cortices, the topological relationships between all the various bits of data in the visual image remain remarkably intact. The same can be said for other sensory systems: interoceptive and exteroceptive. These topological relationships are again largely preserved in projections to the basal ganglia. If local associative relationships are important for decision and evaluation processes, four-color constraints may well impose their structure upon cortical computations. Fourfold structure of concern models may in part reflect a four-field local association zone in the cerebral cortex. It is also probable that four color considerations play a role in the intellectual and representational practices involved in the creation of these models. Investigators who draw and write on paper and other two-dimensional surfaces to clarify visualgestalt types of ideas may well fall upon four-cell charts as a powerful way for describing different yet associated dynamics. Structure of concern models may represent in part the organizational necessities of their own representation. The similarities of content across these various models would not be explained by these representational issues, but perhaps a richer account of the phenomena described might be given using models framed using different modeling tactics.

303

108. Executive Functioning as Problem-Solving: Zelazo et al. A number of childhood psychiatric and neurological disorders are held to impact or involve executive functioning in Execution some way, but it has not been clear how. Zelazo and colleagues (1997) suggest that it has been difficult to characterize the impact of executive function on behavior because the concept of executive function itself is inadequately characterized. They suggest Representing that a model of the temporal phases of problem solving can be used to organize and categorize executive function in a way that will be both clinically and theoretically illuminating.

PA E I Planning

Evaluating

The authors thus divide problem solving into four temporal phases: problem representation, planning, execution and evaluation. They assume an individual problem-solving model, so the Intergrating function is weakly represented in their schema. I present their categorization of executive function below in PAEI order, noting that this breaks the temporal order of the phases, which is important for the authors’ own work: P – Execution: Requires maintaining focus on the goal for an adequate length of time (intending), and translating the plan into action (rule use). Attention control, volition, priority scheduling and tactical flexibility/shifting are all required for this. A – Planning: Means-ends analysis, working memory, goal and subgoal setting, considering alternative courses of action, considering and evaluating outcomes and potential consequences of actions, estimating the reliability of resources and social support and managing resource scheduling and dependencies are all required. E – Representation: Construction, reconstruction, reconfiguration, comparison and switching between different problem construals or problemspace representations is needed, involving attentional and representational set shifting, re-evaluation and re-prioritization, estimations of likelihood, perspective-taking and perspective shifting.

304

I – Evaluation: Determining that the desired outcome has occurred, detecting and correcting any errors if it has not, and revising earlier stages of problem solving for future attempts if necessary. This is not a conspicuously social activity (the entire planning cycle described here could be done either individually or collectively), but it is integrative. Also, according to the Dramatica model and many other theories of storytelling, one function of stories is to communicate the outcomes of complex problems and solutions along with the evaluations of the author or storyteller. Storytelling is very conspicuously social, and an integrator of human societies.

305

109. Personality Dimensions in Adult Male Rhesus Macaques: John Capitanio Seeking to identify stable features of personality in Rhesus Macaque, and to evaluate the predictive power of any such findings, John Capitanio (1999) extended a 3-factor typology developed by StevensonHinde et al. into the following 4-factor scheme. The revised personality dimensions were able to account for 68% of the variance in observed behavior, according to Capitanio:

PA E I

Confident

Excitable

Equable

Sociable

P – Confident: confident - behaves in a positive, assured manner, not restrained or tentative aggressive - causes harm or potential harm A – Excitable: active - moves about a lot excitable - over-reacts to any change subordinate - gives in readily to others; submits easily

E – Equable: equable - reacts to others in an even, calm way; is not easily disturbed understanding - discriminating and appropriate responses to behavior of others slow - moves and sits in a slow, deliberate, relaxed manner; not easily hurried I – Sociable: sociable - seeks companionship of others playful - initiates play and joins in when play is solicited curious - readily explores new situations This scheme proved to be sufficiently predictive of stable behavioral traits over time spans of months and years that the author surmised it would be a useful tool for animal husbandry in captive macaque populations.

306

110. Vertical Systems from Spine to Cortex: Larry Swanson For several years now, research efforts headed by Larry Swanson at the University of Southern California have Agonic Defensive traced vertical anatomical connections in the rodent brain. Systems at the cortical and striatopallidal level have been linked to diencephalic and brainstem/spinal cord systems. The amygdala has played an important role in the mediation of these Reproductive Ingestive connections, and perhaps the most provocative claim arising from this research has been that the amygdala is not a structure unto itself, but rather several structures that can variously be assigned cortical, striatal, and pallidal functions.

PA E I

Fourfold distinctions play important roles in these vertical anatomical Frontoand functional systems. Four systems feed Visceral Temporal into the hypothalamic area from the cortex, participating in the regulation of four hypothalamic functions. Those functions are involved in the regulation of three broad categories of behavior: ingestive, Main Accessory defensive/agonic and reproductive (and Olfactory Olfactory autonomic regulatory activity, considered independently from these three/four functions). These three categories might be expanded to four if defensive behavior and agonic behavior were differentiated. Framing all of these relationships is an overall zoning of the nervous system into four functional systems: motor, sensory, cognitive and behavioral state control. (Swanson, 2003, p. 95)

PA E I

307

The various patterns of segmentation along the entire vertical nervous system SomatoCentral demonstrate an oblique but consistent motor Autonomic relevance for PAEI distinctions, well within the penumbra of the fuzzy concept being explored. Furthermore, Swanson’s model involves the divergence and convergence of ThalamoNeuroinformation along this column between the cortical endocrine various four-part layers. This networking among various four-part layers provides a possible mechanism for one quadrant of a system to modulate the three others, biasing responses towards a dominant or preferred style/subsystem.

PA E I

Starting at the base of the column, Risold, Thompson and Swanson (1997) describe a visceral counterpart to the central pattern generators for somatomotor behavior in the hindbrain and spinal cord. Cell regions in the ventromedial diencephalon are organized and positioned such that they could generate similarly patterned activity over neuroendocrine and autonomic responses rather than somatomotor ones. They call these visceromotor responses, which are the output of a hypothalamic visceromotor pattern generator network (HVPG). The HVPG operates alongside a behavior control column (BCC) for controlling motivated behaviors, particularly ingestive, agonic, defensive and reproductive. The BCC involves both hypothalamic and midbrain/hindbrain nuclei. The hypothalamus is thus involved in generating both internally-directed visceromotor and externallydirected somatomotor patterns related to core survival and reproductive activities, and the strong motives that accompany those. The hypothalamus does receive direct sensory information that would be relevant for releasing visceromotor responses. It gets information about environmental light from the retina, through its connection to the suprachiasmic nucleus (SCN) most notably, and also to the subparaventricular nucleus that is the heaviest target of SCN afferents, among other nuclei involved in circadian rhythms and autonomic responses. A second pathway reaches these same two nuclei from the ventral lateral geniculate nucleus. The hypothalamus is also a major target for both main and accessory olfactory information. Caudolateral areas of the lateral hypothalamus receive olfactory information from the medial forebrain bundle (MFB), from sources such as the olfactory bulb, piriform cortex and amygdala (Risold et al., 1997). However, this direct sensory input is likely to be more modulatory or regulatory in nature. The staging of the visceromotor event itself involves higher brain systems that intersect with or converge upon the amygdala in important ways. 308

Swanson’s group views the amygdala as a name given to a group of nuclei pushed together in the brain by happenstance, forming neither a functional nor a structural unit. Rather, nuclei in the amygdalar region belong to three distinct groups:










The caudal olfactory cortex (cortical, piriform and postpiriform amygdala, nucleus of the lateral olfactory tract); The ventromedial claustral complex (lateral, basal and posterior nuclei), and; The caudoventral striatum (central, medial and anterior amygdala and intercalated nuclei). (Petrovich et al., 2001; Dong et al., 2001; Swanson & Petrovich, 1998).

These three amygdalar areas participate in four major telencephalic systems – frontotemporal, visceral, accessory olfactory, main olfactory – described in PAEI order below: P: A frontotemporal system can be outlined that might mediate quick survival-related action. It includes many gustatory and visceroregulatory areas of the ventral forebrain, including the medial orbital area, insula, ventral temporal cortex and hippocampus. This system involves the anterior basolateral amygdala and lateral amygdala, with outputs mainly to the somatomotor system via the ventral and dorsal striatum. There is a projection from the lateral amygdala to the central amygdalar nucleus, which is involved in autonomic pattern generation, and which influences the striatum via the substantia nigra. The setup suggests a very quick shift from bio-relevant information processing into action, accompanied by supportive autonomic effects. A: The visceral system is a narrower version of the frontotemporal system in some ways, and seems more geared towards the avoidance of unpalatable events. It includes agranular insular areas (primary gustatory/degustatory cortex), medial prefrontal areas directly involved in visceroregulation, and the subiculum, though by some to play a key role in anxiety and faultdetection (McNaughton & Gray, 2000). The main amygdalar target is the central nucleus, and below that the lateral hypothalamus, in regions that innervate many autonomic cell groups in the brainstem and spinal cord implicated in conditioned fear responses.

309

E: Accessory olfactory functions in the rat and other animals processes nonvolatile chemical compounds with biological significance for the animal, most notably the pheromones released by conspecifics indicating reproductive status, territory markings and social status/dominance/eminence. (By contrast, the identification of specific group members such as mother, child, littermate etc. involves the more targeted chemical analytics of the main olfactory system.) The accessory or vomeronasal system is for broad-brush social status judgments relevant to one’s own motivational state. In humans the vomeronasal organ itself is vestigial. Social computations of all kinds have largely been captured by higher, non-olfactory, multimodal limbic and cortical systems of great complexity (so great that on some accounts it underpins all human cognitive expansion. Dunbar, 2003). Nevertheless, the old accessory olfactory pathways may maintain their social significance, under “new management”. The amygdalar components of the accessory olfactory system in rats – the anterior cortical amygdalar nucleus and the posterior nucleus – project to all functional zones of the hypothalamus, particularly reproductive and defensive areas, as well as lateral/autonomic areas and gonadotropic neuroendocrine areas targeted by the SCN (potentially involved in seasonal mating patterns). Thus this system seems to mediate social eminence, the staking out of territories and mating within social reference groups. Compared to the cycle-times for feeding or defense, reproduction is a much longer-cycle seasonal activity for most animals, only to be undertaken when the conditions and opportunities are right. I: Main olfactory systems are finely-tuned evaluators of the biological relevance and significance of substances, and also of individualized social information. (In the early ontogeny of mammals, food value and social value information are phenomenologically identical, since our first food source is our mother.) The main olfactory systems involves five amygdalar cortical areas (the anterior and posterolateral cortical nuclei, nucleus of the lateral olfactory tract, a postpiriform transition area, and piriform-amygdalar area), along with parts of the claustral complex and the striatal anterior amygdalar area. Projections across the hypothalamus are comparatively light, with the notable exceptions of projections from the piriform-amygdalar, posterior basomedial and posterolateral areas, which heavily target the reproductive and defensive behavior control areas. This setup suggests the intensive, multivalent processing of socially-relevant information. These fairly direct pathways represent one route for taking information from four forebrain systems down to four hypothalamic behavioral systems (ingestion, defense/agonism, reproduction, autonomic/neuroendocrine control). There are four more routes as well: 310







Via the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST); Via hippocampal formation (HCF); Via hippocampus and septum, and; Via the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC).

In the hippocampal formation, the entorhinal cortex is innervated throughout by amygdalar input, and it in turn innervates essentially the whole cortex, basal ganglia and hippocampus proper via the perforant path. It does not project to the hypothalamus or thalamus. The parasubiculum projects to the lateral mammillary bodies through the fornix. Projections into Ammon’s horn and the subiculum that traverse the septal area, however, target four hypothalamic areas. CA3 preferentially targets the caudal septum, and thus the lateral hypothalamus and supramammillary area. CA1 and subicular projections to the rostral and ventral septum project to the medial behavior control column and paraventricular/neuroendocrine zones, respectively. Reciprocally connected amygdalar and hippocampal areas do not project in parallel to identical targets in the hypothalamus, offering a potential mechanism for considerations of one kind (amygdalar-focal) to influence or dominate another kind (hippocampal-situational) in directing motivated behaviors and self-regulatory responses. In the rat, the central amygdalar nucleus projects to the lateral hypothalamus, but not to the hippocampus. It is involved in conditioned fear. The hippocampal projection to the lateral hypothalamus arises in CA3, involved in novelty detection. The lateral hypothalamus influences autonomic reactivity. Fear versus fascination in response to novelty is a key differentiator between A and E. This interaction in the lateral hypothalamus could be one of the switches for setting up A or E style behavioral syndromes. Similarly, focal versus situation reactivity differentiates P and E. P and A share a negative bias towards novelty. In terms of ascending projections, the hypothalamus uses at least four routes for sending information to the telencephalon: 1) a massive direct projection to the entire cortical mantle (a candidate for biasing the brain towards a dominant style?); 2) indirect relays through the thalamus (attention, learning, searching/foraging, activity switching); 3) the basal ganglia (action and motivation), and; 4) brainstem structures like the periaqueductal grey, superior colliculus, cuneiform nucleus and ventral tegmental nuclei of Gudden, through the medial ZI, ventral anteromedial thalamic nucleus and rostrodorsal nucleus reunions. A rough PAEI labeling of these rising projections could be made as follows:

311

P: Basal Ganglia – action and motivation A: Brainstem – vigilance, quick corrective responses E: Thalamus – information processing, scene-building I: Global – all aspects of cognition involving interoception and social/visceral concerns. All PAEI mappings in this section are highly provisional, but the resonances between Swanson’s framework and other concern structure models in psychology are worth emphasizing. A more careful analysis of these issues might contribute to a biological basis for temperamental differences, among other things. It would also be important to connect this biological organization to the ecological conditions of its emergence. Swanson’s differentiation between four systems and four functions through the vertical brain is maintained in anatomical studies of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST). Noting that the anterloateral BNST is composed of four cell groups with dense local interconnections, Dong and Swanson (2004) identify four subsystems that receive projections from this structure, given below in PAEI order: P: Somatomotor system (nucleus accumbens, substantia innominata, ventral tegmental area, and retrorubral area and adjacent midbrain reticular nucleus) A: Central ANS (central amygdalar nucleus, dorsal lateral hypothalamic area, ventrolateral PAG, parabrachial nucleus, and nucleus of the solitary tract) E: Thalamocortical feedback loops (midline, medial, and intralaminar nuclei). I: Neuroendocrine system (paraventricular and hypothalamic visceromotor pattern generator network)

supraoptic

nuclei,

The posterior BNST has three divisions, and seems more integrative, handling both topographically separate and converging projections to various cerebral structures. PAEI themes are traceable in many studies of the vertical brain. For example, distinct, longitudinal neuronal columns have been identified within the midbrain periaqueductal gray (PAG). There are dorsolateral or lateral 312

columns which are associated with active coping strategies (e.g. confrontation, fight, escape), and a ventrolateral column associated with passive coping strategies (e.g. quiescence, immobility, decreased responsiveness). Active strategies are usually recruited when the stressor is perceived as controllable or escapable, and passive strategies come into play when the stressor is perceived as inescapable. This maps very neatly onto the P-A distinction, in terms of both the behavior, and the ecological conditions that make the behavior adaptive. (Keay & Bandler, 2001) The rostral lateral periaqueductal gray (PAG) has also been shown to play a role in the inhibition of hunting or predatory behavior and the release of maternal behavior. Lesions to this region strongly inhibit hunting and restore maternal behavior, indicating that some kind of P-I switch may be found in this region (Sukikara et al., 2006). A full mapping of these vertical relationships and PAEI “switches” would be a research project unto its own.

313

111. Mesencephalic Locomotor Region: H. M. Sinnamon Several areas of the brainstem produce locomotive behavior when stimulated, and they appear to do so in Appetitive different behavioral contexts (Jordan, 1998). H. M. Sinnamon has proposed that these locomotor areas be classified into three functional groups: exploratory, appetitive and defensive (Sinnamon, 1993). Exploratory The idea has been contested (Allen et al, 1996), but Jordan reviews evidence from brain stimulation studies, lesion studies and immunohistochemical studies supporting the mesencephalic locomotor region (MLR) construct.

PA E I Defensive

(Social)

Locomotive behavioral routines are the product of central pattern generators controlled by descending brainstem reticulospinal pathways. The reticulospinal area receives inputs from the exploratory, appetitive and defensive locomotor systems through the MLR. Activity in the cerebellar fastigial nucleus may also induce locomotion through a relay in the reticulospinal area. Appetitive and defensive input to the MLR comes from the lateral hypothalamus and medial hypothalamus/PAG, respectively. These two hypothalamic sources also send collateral inputs directly to the reticulospinal locomotor area. The exploratory system is driven by inhibitory pallidal output from the basal ganglia that is thought to disinhibit the MLR. Pallidal output does not reach the reticulospinal area directly. (Jordan, 1998) According to Sinnamon, the role of locomotion differs in these three motivational systems. Primary appetitive locomotion brings the organism in contact with incentive and consummative stimuli. Defensive locomotion places distance between the organism and threatening or painful stimuli. Exploratory locomotion is directed towards distal stimuli in the larger environment. These three locomotor concerns are related to three regions of the MLR as described below in PAEI order: P – The Primary Appetitive System Sinnamon maintains that the appetitive and defensive locomotor systems cannot be distinguished in the preoptic basal forebrain. The appetitive system differentiates in the hypothalamus as the perifornical/lateral hypothalamic locomotor region and its downstream targets. This includes direct input to the reticulospinal locomotor area. However, activity in an MLR area called the anterior dorsal tegmentum (ADT) of the midbrain seems 314

necessary for the onset of locomotion evoked by lateral hypothalamic stimulation. GABA injection into this area reversibly blocked lateral hypothalamus-evoked locomotion. Also involved is the deep mesencephalic nucleus and related nuclei. A – The Primary Defensive System The defensive behavior network involves the medial hypothalamus and central gray. Under the MLR construct, this system must be further expanded to include the cuneiform region of the midbrain. Electrical and chemical stimulation in all three of these areas gives rise to escape behavior. Labeling studies reveal connections between these and other known elements of the defense system throughout the limbic system, diencephalon, midbrain and hindbrain. E – The Primary Exploratory System In the mesencephalon, exploratory locomotion is mediated by the pedunculopontine nucleus. However, it receives input from subpallidal circuits involving hippocampal projections to the accumbens, accumbens projections to the subpallidum, and further projections to and through the zona incerta. All of these behavior systems are instrumental rather than social, but a ready model for what “social locomotion” might look like is provided by Porges’ Polyvagal theory (Porges, 2003). That theory identifies three components of the autonomic nervous system each associated with a different behavioral strategy. The first and phylogenetically oldest component is the unmyelinated, visceral vagus that slows metabolism and produces immobilization. This can be for digestive purposes or for freezing and playing dead (passive avoidance of threat). The second component is the sympathetic/adrenal system that raises metabolism and inhibits the visceral vagus. It mobilizes ‘fight or flight’ responses to threat. The third and most recently evolved component, unique to mammals, is the myelinated vagus. The regulatory system served by the myelinated vagus can rapidly alternate regulatory effects, shifting between mobilizing and immobilizing the animal, fostering both engagement and disengagement with the environment. Porges (2001) calls this the “social engagement system”. This kind of cautious, autonomically sensitive stop-and-go locomotion is necessary for social approach in mammalian societies. Porges notes further that the mammalian vagus is structurally and functionally connected to cranial nerves that regulate facial expression and vocalization. These are obviously crucial for social engagement. 315

The Polyvagal theory stresses the regulatory, sensory and expressive functions of the cranial nerves. Locomotion is not a focal issue for the theory. However, if a social locomotive function were to be defined, some analogue or effect of this social engagement system’s “vagal brake” might prove important.

316

112. Parallel Channels through the Basal Ganglia: Martin, Blumenfeld Four parallel channels through the basal ganglia can be traced (Blumenfeld, 2002; Martin, 1996) each one targeting a different region of the frontal lobes. In PAEI order, these are the motor, prefrontal, oculomotor and limbic channels. Each one is discussed in more detail below. P: Motor Channel

PA E I Motor

Prefrontal

Oculomotor

Limbic

Cortical projections in this channel enter the basal ganglia primarily through the putamen, and leave via the internal segment of the globus pallidus (GPi) and the substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr). Outputs project to the ventrolateral (VL) and ventral anterior (VA) nuclei of the thalamus. From there the channel ascends towards the premotor area (PMA), supplementary motor area (SMA) and primary motor cortex. This channel is dedicated to the preparation for and control of action. Representation in the preSMA has been associated with the intention to act (Lau et al., 2004), the organization of action sequences (Kennerley et al., 2004), the preparation and execution of action (Cunnington et al., 2002), the endogenous generation of responses when environmental stimuli fail to provoke responses (Lau et al., 2004). The preSMA is thought to support cognitive motor control based on choices and discriminations made after stimuli have been received, whereas SMA-proper plays a main role in generating the readiness potential that precedes volitional, self-paced, voluntary movements. (Ikeda et al., 1999) The SMA seems to play a role in the suppression of sensation associated with voluntary action (Haggard & Whitford, 2004). A: Prefrontal Channel Cortical input to the head of the caudate leaves the basal ganglia via the GPi and SNr, projecting to the ventral anterior and mediodorsal (MD) thalamic nuclei, projecting to the prefrontal cortex (PFC) – locus of working memory, the conscious construction of representations, planning, prediction, extrapolation and evaluation. Specific NMDA receptors in the PFC has been 317

shown to participate in the formation of contextual fear memories (Zhao et al., 2005). The head of the caudate nucleus processes information about the fairness of a social partner’s decision, and the intention to trust that person once they have been deemed fair (King-Casas et al., 2005). The caudate is also central to ‘altruistic punishment’ – the desire to punish violations of social norms even when we have not been personally wronged (De Quervain et al., 2004). The head of the caudate is also implicated in obsessive-compulsive disorder and the regulation of ‘worry’ signals, in tandem with the orbitofrontal cortex (Whiteside et al., 2004; Remijnse et al., 2005). E: Oculomotor Channel Cortical input for this channel projects to the body of the caudate nucleus, and then to the VA and MD thalamic nuclei via the GPi and SNr. Output is directed towards frontal and prefrontal areas in the vicinity of the frontal eye fields. This channel is important for the higher-order control of eye movements and for spatial. The caudate is particularly implicated in the orientation of eyes towards rewards in the environment (Hikosaka et al., 2006) and for channeling spatial information. The body of the caudate is also implicated in the reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love (Aron et al., 2005). It also plays a key role in classification learning; learning the relationships between stimuli and responses or cognitive categories (Seger & Cinotta, 2005). For these and other reasons, this channel thus seems to participate in (or partially overlap with) a reward-seeking or exploratory system. I: Limbic Channel Cortical input to this ventral channel arises from the temporal cortex, hippocampus and amygdala. Input enters the basal ganglia through the nucleus accumbens, ventral putamen and ventral caudate. Output to the thalamus emerges from the ventral pallidum, GPi and SNr, heading towards the MD and VA thalamic nuclei. These project to the anterior cingulate cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex – areas involved in the evaluation of personal actions and environmental resources, as well as social, behavioral and affective self-regulation. This is a highly simplified and incomplete account of the brain regions described, but it serves as a starting point for understanding how the structure of concern may be embodied in the brain and in behavior.

318

113. Midline Thalamic Nuclei: Van der Werf et al. Functional localization in the thalamus, specifically in the midline and Limbic Cognitive intralaminar nuclei, have a fairly direct Motor (Lateral) bearing on concern structure patterns. (Posterior) Group Once thought to have a diffuse, global Group arousing effect upon the brain, these nuclei are now know to have specific cognitive, Multimodal Viscerosensory and motor functions, involving not Sensory Limbic arousal so much as aware processing. To Procesing (Dorsal) better understand the connectivity of these (Ventral) Group nuclei, Van der Werf et al. (2002) traced Group their afferent and efferent projections. They found that the midline and intralaminar thalamic nuclei are clustered into four groups, each with its own cortical and subcortical input and target structures.

PA E I

The groups are described below in a very tentative PAEI order: P – Limbic Motor Group (Posterior nuclei) This group generates motor responses upon awareness of salient stimuli. It consists of the centre median and parafascicular nuclei, and heavily targets the basal ganglia, including the caudate, putamen and notably some pallidal targets as well: globus pallidus, subthalmic nucleus and substantia nigra. In fact, this group's projections cover the striatal projections of all the other midline and intralaminar nuclei, resulting in a double projection from these nuclei across the entire striatum. Strong return projections to the centre median from the putamen and dorsolateral caudate result in a closed sensorimotor loop. Parafascicular nuclei innervate the ventral and medial striatum, participating in limbic-associative motor processes. The strong involvement in motor control places this group with the P concern area of short-term/immediate goal achievement. A – Cognitive Group (Lateral nuclei) The lateral cognitive group includes the central lateral and paracentral nuclei, and the anterior part of the central medial nucleus. These nuclei project heavily to prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices. Damage to this area can produce neglect, inattention and hypersomnolescence. It is also associated 319

with the disruption of executive functions, leading to cognitive inflexibility and working memory disruptions. A-type coping and management skills rely very heavily on these kinds of executive functions, and they are vulnerable to the abovementioned disruptions. E – Multimodal Sensory Processing Group (Ventral nuclei) Made up of the reuniens and rhomboid nucleus and the posterior part of the central medial nucleus, this group does not project significantly to the striatum, unlike other groups. Instead, it targets primary and associative sensory and motor cortices, as well as parahippocampal cortices and the hippocampus proper. On the basis of this connectivity, Van der Werf et al. suggest that this group influences higher order affective, polysensory and cognitive processes. Reliable functional studies of this region are scarce. Expanding cross-modal awareness and sensory orientation help define the expanded zone of awareness for E’s pattern-seeking behavior. I - Viscero-Limbic Group (Dorsal nuclei) This clustering of the paraventricular, parataenial and intermediodorsal nuclei is characterized by output to the amygdala and the medial nucleus accumbens. This group also has the greatest connectivity with the medial prefrontal cortex. It participates with the other groups in outputs to the entorhinal and agranular insular areas, and also receives more monoaminergic input than the other groups, as well as input mediated by nitrous oxide. The paraventricular nucleus has been associated with stress and fear, and corticotrophin releasing hormone is present within it. Other viscerosensory functions include state-setting, visceral feedback and motivated arousal. This region is sensitive to cocaine conditioning. It is placed within the I domain largely because of its input-output relationships with important parts of the social brain. In contrast with the strictly organizational observations regarding the synaptic organization of thalamic glomeruli, these four groups of thalamic nuclei subserving four different modes of awareness bear directly upon observed behaviors categorized within the structure of concern. The thalamus is also closely involved with the adjacent zona incerta, which is also organized in a fourfold manner relevant to the structure of concern.

320

114. Zona Incerta: J. Mitrofanis The zona incerta stands out sharply as a brain structure that may be subject to the four-color topological constraints described by Robert Glassman (2003). It seems to be made up of four loosely defined and heavily interconnected cytoarchitectonic sectors (rostral, caudal, dorsal and ventral). Furthermore, four diverse functions have been associated with the zona incerta, and some evidence suggests that each of these functions can be mapped to its own sector (perhaps with some overlap into other sectors. Mitrofanis, 2005).

PosturalLocomotor (Ventral) ZI

Attention (Dorsal) ZI

Arousal (Caudal) ZI

Visceral (Rostral) ZI

PA E I

The global function of the zona incerta can be seen as linking diverse sensory channels to appropriate response systems, namely visceral, arousal, attention and postural-locomotive systems. These four systems can be assigned to fuzzy PAEI sets as follows: P – Ventral ZI: Posture/Locomotion, including defensive orientation, the stereotypic movements of copulation and other postures and locomotive movements via brainstem and spinal cord connections. A – Dorsal ZI: Attention, linking somatosensory information to superior collicular firing. E – Caudal ZI: Arousal, possibly shifting from less to more alertness during wakefulness, through heavy interconnections with brainstem and thalamic arousal centers. I – Rostral ZI: Visceral functions, especially ingestion and sexual cycles, through connections with the hypothalamus. The superior colliculus has been described as having two modes: an event mode eliciting visual tracking, and an emergency mode triggering defensive avoidance or flight. (Dean et al., 1989). The zona incerta may participate in permitting and/or inhibiting visual tracking guided by sensations on the body, depending on the degree of defensive activation. While zona incerta functions are a far cry from the higher workings of human personality and temperament, they cluster along PAEI lines of activity, monitoring/defensive avoidance, degrees of alertness and 321

awakening, and social/visceral functioning (which are basically identical for infant mammals). Furthermore, the connections of the zona incerta are very extensive, synapsing along the vertical extent of the brain from cerebral cortex to spinal cord. If its inputs and outputs are topographically mapped to any extent, this would argue for the relevance of a fourfold organizational scheme for the neuraxis.

322

115. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: Gray and McNaughton In their book The Neuropsychology of Anxiety, Jeffrey Gray and Neil McNaughton reframe several important Threat of Threat of concepts to support their contention that the Non-Reward Punishment role of the hippocampus is not just to process spatial information, nor only to contribute to long-term memory consolidation, but rather to perform a more encompassing function of detecting goal Relational Novelty conflict. The precise anatomical target of Processing their analysis is actually something they call the septo-hippocampal system, which include all the neuroanatomical structures that receive theta-regulating GABAergic inhibitory signals from the medial septal area. This includes the hippocampus proper, the dentate gyrus, entorhinal cortex, subiculum and the posterior cingulate cortex (Gray & McNaughton, 2002).

PA E I

Anti-anxiety drugs, both classic and novel, all disrupt theta activity in this system. Furthermore, they are the only class of drug that does so. Lesions to this system produce anti-anxiety effects as well. Gray and McNaughton’s project is thus to build an account of the septo-hippocampal system that accounts for its navigational and mnemonic activities as well as its determining role in the production of anxiety. Central to their account is the concept of defensive approach. The contrast defensive approach with the defensive avoidance (fight-flightfreeze) system, involving the periaqueductal gray, medial hypothalamus, amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex. This system manages the information, motivation, affect and action plans involved in leaving, escaping or avoiding aversive situations. Defensive approach, on the other hand, involves approaching potentially threatening situations to investigate them. Motivations and affect are mixed, and the animal has to inhibit both the hypothalmically regulated appetitive system and the fight-flight-freeze system in order to enter a risk-assessment mode. Attention must be sharpened, and a level of arousal must be maintained in case an immediate shift into fight-flight-freeze is required. The septo-hippocampal system can be characterised as a system which accomplishes this behavioural inhibition. It detects and eliminates conflict between "nearly equally primed incompatible goals". Goals encompass both stimuli and response information, can be differentiated by differing response tendencies or differing stimuli to which a response could be made. The system helps eliminate conflicts by increasing the negative 323

valence or weight of affectively negative information. The hippocampus rules things out. This computational strategy is used to explain all of the functions of the hippocampus. The hippocampus is thus described as a series of comparators, in the tradition of Vinogradova (1975).((Vinogradova, 1975)). Gray and McNaughton describe three comparators, a CA3 novelty/familiarity comparator, a CA1 conflict comparator, and a ‘troubleshooting’ comparator in the subiculum, which detects conflict specifically in an animals response tendencies. A structure of concern pattern emerges from Gray and McNaughton’s account at this point, in their list of circumstances where the troubleshooting function is required; i.e. things that generate conflicting response tendencies. In PAEI order, there are: P – The Threat of Non-Reward A – The Threat of Punishment E – Novelty I – Relational Processing P – The Threat of Non-Reward: Potential goal loss or non-reward is still frustrative - a secondary frustrative stimulus (primary would be the actual loss of a reward). The threat of non-reward generates approach-avoidance conflict, and sometimes also fight-flight conflict (or perhaps dominancesubmission conflict). These conflicting tendencies have to be inhibited as arousal and attention are increased, to better assess the situation. A – The Threat of Punishment: This is like the threat of non-reward, but the key emotion is a sense of endangerment which activates the fight-flightfreeze system. Sometimes, however, these urges must be stifled. Animals must venture out under potentially dangerous conditions. Thus they must approach and explore potential dangers (cautiously) to assess the degree of danger involved. The hippocampus inhibits prepotent approach and avoid tendencies while this assessment is being made. E – Novelty: The hippocampus enables exploration. It receives subcortical input regarding biologically relevant stimuli (potential goals), and compares this with cortical or subcortical mnemonic/motor input. If the comparator receives only subcortical input and no matching cortical information, the potential goal is novel. The hippocampus then determines the strength or 324

weight of the new goal relative to other active or prepotent ones. It inhibits prepotent goals (functioning like an ‘interrupt’ signal), allowing an orientation response, followed by the activation of exploratory behavioral programs. I – Relational Processing: The isocortex is an associative machine. If it is too promiscuous, many things might be bound together by accident. During information retrieval, too many associations (i.e. information that is not contextually relevant), would be retrieved. The only way the cortex itself could drop inaccurate associations would be to allow those links to weaken over many trials. The hippocampus plays a role in preventing excessive relational binding, and in inhibiting primed associations that are in conflict with the context. This ‘gating’ function has been observed in electrophysiological studies (Grace & Moore, 1988) and modelled computationally (Wagar & Thagard, 2004). Integrators, in the Adizes formulation, are exquisitely sensitive to social context, and regularly comb through their store of social information, looking for signs of goal conflict, or inconsistencies relevant to the attainment of social goals. Relational processing is a fundamental part (though only a part) of this activity.

325

116. Dimensions of OCD Symptoms: Hasler et al. Hasler et al. (2005) report on the results of factor- and cluster-analytic Symmetry Hoarding analyses of symptom categories in Repeating obsessive–compulsive disorder, associating Counting the emergent OCD symptom dimensions Arranging with comorbid neuropsychiatric conditions. The hypothesis was that people with certain Aggressive sets of OCD symptoms might be more like Contamination Sexual to have certain comorbidities than others. Washing Religious They interviewd people with OCD using Cleaning Somatic the DSM-IV Structured Clinical Interview, assessing OCD symptoms using the Yale– Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale Symptom Checklist (N =169) and the Thoughts and Behaviors Inventory (N =275). These assessments were subjected to factor and cluster analyses.

PA E I

Hasler et al. (2005) report that "An identical four-factor solution emerged in two different data sets from overlapping samples, in agreement with most smaller factor-analytic studies employing the YBOCS checklist alone. The cluster analysis confirmed the four-factor solution and provided additional information on the similarity among OCD symptom categories at five different levels." The four OCD symptom factors are listed below in PAEI order: P - Factor IV (Hoarding obsessions and compulsions) Did not dominate any category for comorbid symptoms. Hoarding can be seen as a competitive/exclusive activity, which is resource-oriented rather than social or self-presentational. Action to secure material resources is a strong P trait. A - Factor II (Obsessions: symmetry. Compulsions: repeating, counting and ordering/arranging) associated with panic disorder, agoraphobia, tics (Nestadt et al. 2003), and bipolar disorders (Hasler et al., 2005). Using order to manage, divert or contain panic is a core feature of A concern structures. E - Factor I: (Obsessions: aggressive, sexual, religious and somatic. Compulsions: checking) was broadly associated with comorbid anxiety disorders and depression for Hasler et. al, with a male skew to distrubtion of people experiencing these symptoms. Other studies (Perugi et al., 2002; Hantouche et al., 2003) have related bipolar disorder to this factor/cluster as well. The obssessive symptoms are self-aggrandizing or self-presentational. 326

The compulsion relates to an unquenchable need to ascertain that the state of the world does or does not match what one wants/doesn't want it to be. Factor I combines a narcissistic self-structure with an uncertain sense of the actuality of accomplished events. I - Factor III (Obsessions: contamination. Compulsions: washing, cleaning) associated with eating disorders, and with more females than males describing this experience. The concern is hygenic, involving caretaking functions and the social, physical and personal care of the body - coping with a poisoned nest by sealing boundaries. Factors I and II had the strongest familial component, and were associated with early-onset OCD. Mataix-Cols et al. (2005) review twelve factor analytic studies with information from over 2000 participants with OCD, that consistently extracted factors or clusters of the type reported by Hasler et al. Mataix-Cols et al. also review neuroimaging research, showing the following patterns of brain involvement in OCD symptom-provocation studies: P - Factor IV (Hoarding obsessions and compulsions): Increased activity in the left precentral gyrus and right orbitofrontal cortex, reduced glucose metabolism in the posterior cingulate gyrus and the dorsolateral prefrontal (DLPFC reduction proportional to symptom severity; Mataix-Cols et al., 2003; 2004; Saxena et al., 2001). A - Factor II (Obsessions: symmetry. Compulsions: repeating, counting and ordering/arranging): Correlated with reduced regional cerebral blood flow in the striatum (Rauch et al., 1998). E - Factor I: (Obsessions: aggressive, sexual, religious and somatic. Compulsions: checking): Increased activation and blood flow in frontostriatal regions and the thalamus, including the putamen/globus pallidus and dorsal cortical areas in general (Rauch et al., 1998; Mataix-Cols et al., 2003; 2004). I - Factor III (Obsessions: contamination. Compulsions: washing, cleaning): Increased ventral and medial cortical activation including bilateral anterior cingulate, ventromedial, ventrolateral, left orbitofrontal, right insular and parahippocampal cortices. (Shapira et al., 2003; Mataix-Cols et al., 2003; 2004) 327

Part 4 : Afterword The purpose of this book, as I have mentioned before, has been to present a gigantic table to its readers. The table has four rows: PAE and I, and 116 columns – one for each model, listing concepts corresponding to PAE and I in each one. I have suggested that the pervasiveness of this structure might be explained by the hierarchical nature of events – the fact that every event is composed of components that interact to produce situations within contexts (contexts that change). This event-structure hypothesis would make the structure of concern a universal and fundamental feature of reality, and we would expect to find concern structure dynamics everywhere. It’s a hypothesis that I can only introduce in the present work, rather than asserting or defending it. There remains a lot of work to be done, even on the set of models I have included in the present work. It would be good to compile lists of common factors across these models, to analyze the various facets of those factors and to systematize the correspondences across the entire set. But there is a limit to what one person can accomplish alone. This project would benefit greatly from a plurality of perspectives, differences of opinion and constructive conflict between various points of view. My own perspective on this phenomenon necessarily dominates the current compilation of models. I think it is time to turn the project loose on the winds, and see which ways it gets blown around the world. This work is not conclusive. It is the opening of a question, rather than the confirmation of a point. Its value inheres mainly in the degree to which it serves as a resource for the investigations of others. I therefore offer this catalog to you, with all of its flaws, hoping that despite these, you find this collection provocative enough to start your own investigations into the structure of concern – its extent and its nature, both of which remain mysterious to me at this time of writing. That said, this project comes to an end. Thanks for you attention to this text.

328

Bibliography Adizes, I. (1979). How to Solve the Mismanagement Crisis. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin. Adizes, I. (1991). Mastering Change: The Power of Mutual Trust and Respect in Personal Life, Family Life, Business and Society. Santa Monica, California: Adizes Institute Publications. Adizes, I. (1999). Managing Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to Do About It (Revised Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Adizes, I. (2004a). The Ideal Executive: Why You Cannot Be One and What to Do about It. Santa Barbara, California: Adizes Institute Publishing. Adizes, I. (2004b). Leading the Leaders: How to Enrich Your Style of Management and Handle People Whose Style is Different from Yours. Santa Barbara, California: Adizes Institute Publishing. Adizes, I. (2004c). Management/Mismanagement Styles: How to Identify a Style and What To Do About It. Santa Barbara, California: Adizes Institute Publishing. Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Allen, L. F., Inglis, W. L., & Winn, R. (1996). “Is The Cuneiform Nucleus A Critical Component Of The Mesencephalic Locomotor Region? An Examination Of The Effects Of Excitotoxic Lesions Of The Cuneiform Nucleus On Spontaneous and nucleus accumbens induced locomotion.” Brain Research Bulletin 41, (4), 201-210. Allison, H. E., & Hobbs, R. J. (2004). “Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the ‘Lockin Trap’ of the Western Australian agricultural region”. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 3 [online]. Andrews, K. R. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin. Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York: Commonwealth Fund. Apter, M. J. (2001a). “An Introduction to Reversal Theory.” In M. J. Apter (Editor), Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory (pp. 3-36). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Apter, M. J. (2001b). “Reversal Theory as a Set of Propositions.” In M. J. Apter (Editor), Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory (pp. 3754). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Aristotle. (1984). The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle (Modern Library College Edition ed.). Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd. 329

Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1987). InterGrammar: Toward an Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 2. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Arnold, M. B. (1962). Story Sequence Analysis: A new method of measuring motivation and predicting achievement. New York: Columbia University Press. Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li , H. F., & Brown, L. L. (2005). “Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love.” Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327-337. Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development and Adaptation. London: Sage Publications. Austin, E. J., & Deary, I. J. (2000). “The 'four As': a common framework for normal and abnormal personality?” Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 977-995. Avero, P., Corace, K. M., Endler, N. S., & Calvo, M. G. (2003). “Coping Styles and Threat Processing.” Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 843-861. Baines, S., & Gelder, U. (2003). “What is family friendly about the workplace in the home? The case of self-employed parents and their children.” New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 223-234. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human experience: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon Press. Bandura, A. (2000). “Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78. Bandura, A. (2001). “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective.” Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 126. Barnes, B. (1975). Four bookes of offices (The English Experience: Its record in early printed books published by facsimile No. 712). Norwood, New Jersey: Thetrum Orbis Terrerum, Ltd. With Walter J. Johnson, Inc. Baron, J. (1994). Thinking and Deciding (2 ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Beach, L. R. (1990). Image Theory: Decision Making in Personal and Organizational Contexts. (Wiley Series in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Beena, C. C. (1990). Personality typologies: a comparison of Western and ancient Indian approaches. New Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers. Berens, L. V., (2000). Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Temperament 2.0. Huntington Beach, California: Telos Publications. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). “Introduction.” in F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Editors), Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Best, S. (2003). A Beginner’s Guide to Social Theory. London: Sage Publications.

330

Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1985). The Organization and its Ecosystem: A theory of structuring in organizations. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc. Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1987). Structuring in Organizations: Ecosystem theory evaluated. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc. Birnbaum, B. (2004). Strategic Thinking: A four-piece puzzle. Costa Mesa, California: Douglas Mountain Publishing. Block, J. (2002). Personality as an Affect-Processing System: Towards an integrative theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blumenfeld, H. (2002). Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates Inc. Bose, P., & Matthews, M. G. (2000). “An Agent Mediated Approach To Dynamic Change in Coordination Policies.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science: COORDINATION 2000: Coordination Languages and Models, 4th International Conference. Springer. Bridges, W. (2000). The Character of Organizations: Using personality type in organizational development. Palo Alto: Davies-Black. Bridges, W. (2004). Transitions: Making Sense of Life's Changes (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press. Briggs Myers, I. (1980). Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Pres. Briggs-Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychology Press. Brill, P. L., & Worth, R. (1997). The Four Levers of Corporate Change. New York: American Management Association. Browne, E. G. (1962). Arabian Medicine. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Burke, K. (1969). A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, California: Universtity of California Press. Burke, K. (1970). The Rhetoric of Religion. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann. Burroughs, J. A. (1955). Prudence integrating the moral virtues according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press. Capitanio, J. P. (1999). “Personality Dimensions in Adult Male Rhesus Macaques: Prediction of Behaviors Across Time and Situation.” American Journal of Primatology, 47, 299320. Carroll, G. R. (1988). “Organizational Ecology in Theoretical Perspective.” G. R. Carroll (Editor), Ecological Models of Organizations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company. 331

Casey, J. (1990). Pagan Virtue: An Essay in Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Castillo, J. (2002). “A Note on the Concept of Tacit Knowledge.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(1), 46-57. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Cherry, D., & Miller, M. (1992). Brainstyles: Be Who You Really Are. Dallas, Texas USA: Brainstyles, Incorporated. Choiniere, R., & Keirsey, D. (1992). Presidential Temperament: The Unfolding of Character in the Forty Presidents of the United States. Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Ciavarella, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Stokes, G. S. (2004). “The Big Five and venture survival: Is there a linkage?” Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 465-483. Cloninger, C. R. (1986a). “A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants: A proposal.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588. Cloninger, C. R. (1986b). “A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in the development of anxiety states.” Psychiatric Developments, 3, 167-226. Cloninger, C. R. (1994). The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): a guide to its development and use. Washington University, St Louis,Missouri: Centre for Psychobiology of Personality. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). “A psychobiological model of temperament and character.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990. Coates, G., Duffy, A. H. B., Whitfield, I., & Hills, W. (2003). “An integrated agentoriented approach to real-time operational design coordination.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 17, 287-311. Conte, R., & Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Cognitive and social action. London: UCL Press. Cornford, F. M. (1968). The Republic of Plato. New York: Oxford University Press. Cross, R., Rice, R. E., & Parker, A. (2001). “Information Seeking in Social Context: Structural Influences and Receipt of Information Benefits.” IEEE Transactions On Systems, Man, And CyberneticsPart C: Applications And Reviews, 31(4), 438-448. Cunnington, R., Windischberger, C., Deecke, L., & Moser, E. (2002). “The Preparation and Execution of Self-Initiated and Externally-Triggered Movement: A Study of Event-Related fMRI.” NeuroImage, 15, 373-385. Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience 4th Ed. Mason, Ohio: Thompson Southwestern. Dean, P., Redgrave, P., & Westby, G. W. M. (1989). “Event or emergency? Two response systems in the mammalian superior colliculus.” TINS: Trends in Neurosciences, 12(4).

332

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. De Geytere, T. (2005) “SECI model (Nonaka Takeuchi)” [Web Page]. URL http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html [2005, October 29]. De Quervain, D. J. F., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A., & Fehr, E. (2004). “The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment.” Science, 305, 1254-1258. Dennett, D. C. (1979). Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology (Harvester Studies in Philosophy). Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press. Dong, H.-W., Petrovich, G. D., & Swanson, L. W. (2001). “Topography of projections from amygdala to bed nuclei of the stria terminalis.” Brain Research Reviews, 38, 192-246. Dong, H.-W., & Swanson, L. W. (2004). “Organization Of Axonal Projections From The Anterolateral Area Of The Bed Nuclei Of The Stria Terminalis.” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 468, 277-298. Draper, J. W. (1970). The Humors and Shakespeare’s Characters. New York: AMS Press. Driven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1998). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philedelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Duffy, J. (1993). From Humors to Medical Science: A History of American Medicine. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Duke Corporate Education. (2005). Influencing and Collaborating for Results. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing. Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Dunbar, R. (2003). “The Social Brain: Mind, Language, and Society in Evolutionary Perspective.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 163-181. Dunn, W. (1997). “The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their families: a conceptual model.” Infants and Young Children, 9(4), 23-35. Dunn, W. (2001). “The sensations of everyday life: empirical, theoretical, and pragmatic considerations.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(6), 608-620. Durkheim, É. (1952). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: The Free Press. Durkheim, É. (1966). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press. Durkheim, É. (1973). Moral Education: A study in the theory and application of the sociology of education. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). “Multidimensional Assessment of Coping: A Critical Evaluation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 844854. 333

Fahey, L., & Narayanan, V. K. (1986). Macroenvironmental Analysis for Strategic Management (The West Series in Strategic Management . St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company. Filipczak, Z. Z. (1997). Hot Dry Men, Cold Wet Women: The Theory of Humors in Western European Art, 1575-1700. New York: The American Federation of the Arts. Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations. New York: Free Press. Foa, U. G. (1993). “Interpersonal and Economic Resources.” In U. G. Foa, J. Jr. Converse, K. Y. Törnblom, & E. B. Foa Resource Theory: Explorations and Applications (pp. 13-30). San Diego: Academic Press. Foa, U. G., Törnblom, K. Y., Foa, E. B., & Converse, J. Jr. (1993). “Introduction: Resource Theory in Social Psychology.” In U. G. Foa, J. Jr. Converse, K. Y. Törnblom, & E. B. Foa Resource Theory: Explorations and Applications (pp. 1-10). San Diego: Academic Press. Forgas, J. P. (1995). “Mood and Judgement: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM).” Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66. Forgas, J. P., & Williams, K. D. (2002). The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Intergroup Perspectives (The Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology). New York: Psychology Press. Foster, G. M. (1953). “Relationships between Spanish and Spanish-American Folk Medicine.” The Journal of American Folklore, 66(261), 201-217. Foster, G. M. (1979). “Humoral Traces in United States Folk Medicine.” Medical Anthropology Newsletter, 10(2), 17-20. Furlong, G. T. (2005). The Conflict Resolution Toolbox: Models and maps for Analyzing, Diagnosing and Resolving Conflict. Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley and Sons, Canada. Gardiner, H. N. (1918). “The Psychology of the Affections in Plato and Aristotle.” The Philosophical Review, 27(5), 469-488. Garrison, B. R. (1998). Plus-32 Employment Testing System: System management book. Punta Gorda, Florida: B. R. Garrison Software Group. Ginsberg, A., & Buchholtz, A. (1989). “Are Entrepreneurs a breed apart? A look at the evidence.” Journal of General Management, 15, 32-40. Girotto, V., & Rizzo, A. (1991). “Event controllability in counterfactual thinking.” Acta Psychologica, 78, 111-133. Glassman, R. B. (1997). “Might harmonies in the gamma brain wave octave coordinate binding of multiple items in working memory?” Society for Neuroscience. Abstracts, 23. Part 2(#820.16), 21-11. Glassman, R. B. (1998). “A ‘theory of relativity’ for paradoxical time span flexibility of limited item-capacity working memory. Involvement of harmonics among ultradian clocks?” Society for Neuroscience. Abstracts, 24((Part 1, #67.10)), 166.

334

Glassman, R. B. (1999a). “Hypothesized neural dynamics of working memory: several chunks might be marked simultaneously by harmonic frequencies within an octave band of brain waves.” Brain Research Bulletin, 50, 73-77. Glassman, R. B. (1999b). “Working memory: planar graph theory suggests that a segmented, activated cortical domain can serve associativities of up to four chunkfeatures.” Society for Neuroscience. Abstracts, 25(#355.19). Glassman, R. B. (1999c). “A working memory ‘theory of relativity’: elasticity over temporal, spatial, and modality ranges conserves 7 ±2 item capacity in radial maze, verbal tasks and other cognition.” Brain Research Bulletin, 48, 475-489. Glassman, R. B. (2003). “Topology and graph theory applied to cortical anatomy may help explain working memory capacity for three or four simultaneous items.” Brain Research Bulletin, 60, 25-42. Glassman, R. B., Garvey, K. J., Elkins, K. M., Kasal, K. L., & Couillard, N. (1994). “Spatial working memory score of humans in a large radial maze, similar to published score of rats, implies capacity close to the magical number 7 ±2.” Brain Research Bulletin, 34(151-159). Glassman, R. B., Leniek, K. M., & Haegerich, T. M. (1998). “Human working memory capacity is 7±2 in a radial maze with distracting interruption: Possible implication for neural mechanisms of declarative and implicit long-term memory.” Brain Research Bulletin, 47, 249-256. Grace, A. A., & Moore, H. (1988). “Regulation of Information Flow in the Nucleus Accumbens: A Model for the Pathophysiology of Schizophrenia.” In M. F. Lenzenweger, & R. H. Dworkin Eds. Origins and Development of Schizophrenia: Advances in Experimental Psychopathology (pp. 123-157). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Gray, J. A., McNaughton, N. (2000) The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System (2 ed.). (Oxford Psychology Series No. 33). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gray, P. H., & Chan, Y. E. (1999). “A Typology of Knowledge Management Practices.” Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 20(4). Greatbatch, D., & Clark, T. (2003). “Displaying group cohesiveness: Humour and laughter in the public lectures of management gurus.” Human Relations, 56(12), 1515-1544. Gregorc, A. F. (1982). An Adult’s Guide to Style. Maynard, Massachusetts: Gabriel Systems, Inc. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Washington DC: Island Press. Haggard, P., & Whitford, B. (2004). “Supplementary motor area provides an efferent signal for sensory suppression.” Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1), 52-58. Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation and Competition. New York: Oxford University Press. 335

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). “The population ecology of organizations.” American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1988). “Density Dependence in the Growth of Organizational Populations.” G. R. Carroll (Editor), Ecological Models of Organizations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company. Hantouche, E. G., Angst, J., Demonfaucon, C., Perugi, G., Lancrenon, S., & Akiskal, H. S. (2003). “Cyclothymic OCD: a distinct form?” Journal of Affective Disorders, 75(1), 10. Harris, D. F. (1916). “The Influence of Greece on Science and Medicine.” The Scientific Monthly, 3(1). Hasler, G., LaSalle-Ricci, V. H., Ronquillo, J. G., Crawley, S. A., Cochran, L. W., Kazuba, D., Greenberg, B. D., & Murphy, D. L. (2005). “Obsessive-compulsive disorder symptom dimensions show specific relationships to psychiatric comorbidity.” Psychiatry Research, 135, 121-132. Heath, R. L. (1986). Realism and Relativism: A Perspective on Kenneth Burke. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2001). “Three Paths of Adult Development: Conservers, Seekers and Achievers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 995-1010. Herrmann, N. (1989). The Creative Brain. Lake Lure, North Carolina: Ned Herrmann/Brain Books. Hikosaka, O., Nakamura, K., & Nakahara, H. (2006). “Basal ganglia orient eyes to reward.” Journal of Neurophysiology, 95(2), 567-584. Hill, J. M. D., & Surdu, J. R. (2001). “Simulation And Agent Cooperation In Dynamic Plan Building.” Pennsylvania State University & NEC Labs. Hill, J. M. D., Surdu, J. R., & Pooch, U. W. (2000). “Anticipatory Planning Using Execution Monitoring And A Constrained Planning Frontier.” Pennsylvania State University & NEC Labs. Hölker, F., & Breckling, B. (2002). “Concepts of scales, hierarchies and emergent properties in ecological models.” In F. Hölker (Editor), Scales, Hierarchies and Emergent Properties in Ecological Models. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Holling, C. S. (2001). “Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems.” Ecosystems, 4(5), 390-405. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). Manual of Learning Styles. London: P. Honey. Ikeda, A., Yazawa, S., Kunieda, T., Ohara, S., Terada, K., Mikuni, N., Nagamine, T., Taki, W., Kimura, J., & Shibasaki, H. (1999). “Cognitive motor control in human pre-supplementary motor area studied by subdural recording of discrimination/selection-related potentials.” Brain, 122(5), 915-931. Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: Myth, theory and research. London: Prentice Hall. Jordan, L. M. (1998). “Initiation Of Locomotion In Mammals.” Annals Of The New York Academy of Sciences, 860, 83-93. 336

Jørgensen, S. E. (1992). Integration of Ecosystem Theories: A Pattern. (Ecology and Environment No. 1). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kaplan R. S., Norton D. P. (1996) Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Keay, K. A., & Bandler, R. (2001). “Parallel circuits mediating distinct emotional coping reactions to different types of stress.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25(7-8), 669-678. Keirsey, D. (1995). Portraits of Temperament (3 ed.). Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Keirsey, D. (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types (3 ed.). Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Kennerley, S. W., Sakai, K., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2004). “Organization of Action Sequences and the Role of the Pre-SMA.” Journal of Neurophysiology, 91, 978-993. Kiesler, D. J. (1983). “The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions.” Psychological Review, 90, 185-214. King, T. M. (1999). Jung's Four and Some Philosophers: A Paradigm for Philosophy. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Camerer, C. F., Quartz, S. R., & Montague, P. R. (2005). “Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Economic Exchange.” Science, 308, 78-83. Kolb, D. A. (1976). “Management and learning processes.” California Management Review, 18(3), 21-31. Kolb, D. A. (1981). “Learning styles and disciplinary differences.” In A. Chickering (Editor), The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experimental Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1971). Organizational Psychology: An Experimental Approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Kozak, B., Strelau, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2005). “Genetic determinants of individual differences in coping styles.” Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 18(1), 1-15. Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). “The new dynamics of strategy: Sensemaking in a complex and complicated world.” IBM Systems Journal, 42(3). Lau, H. C., Rogers, R. D., Ramnani, N., & Passinghama, R. E. (2004). “Willed action and attention to the selection of action.” NeuroImage, 21, 1407-1415. Lawless, W. F. (2005). “Organizations, perturbations, and generating information.” 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium The Future of C2 McLean, VA, Department of Defense Command and Control Research Program. 337

Lawless, W. F., Castelao, T., & Abubucker, C. P. (2000a). “Conflict as a heuristic in the development of an interaction mechanics.” In C. Tessier, L. Chaudron, & H. J. Muller (Editors), Conflicting agents: Conflict management in multi-agent systems (pp. 279-302). Boston: Kluwer. Lawless, W. F., Castelao, T., & Ballas, J. A. (2000b). “Virtual knowledge: Bistable reality and the solution of ill-defined problems.” IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 30(1), 119-126. Lawless, W. F., & Grayson, J. M. (2004a). “A conjugate model of organizations, autonomy, and control.” AAAI Technical Report SS-04-03). Stanford University. Lawless, W. F., & Grayson, J. M. (2004b). “A quantum perturbation model (QPM) of knowledge and organizational mergers.” In L. Van Elst, & V. Dignum (Editors), Agent Mediated Knowledge Management (pp. 143-161). Berlin: Springer. Lawrence, P. R., & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. New York: Ronald Press. Lewis, M. (1993). “Self-Conscious Emotions: Embarrassment, Pride, Shame and Guilt.” In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland (Editors) Handbook of Emotions (pp. 563594). New York: Guilford. Loomis, M., & Saltz, E. (1984). “Cognitive styles as predictors of artistic styles.” Journal of Personality, 52, 22-35. Luft, J. (1969). Of Human Interaction. Palo Alto, California: National Press. Luft, J. (1970). Group processes; an introduction to group dynamics (2 ed.). Palo Alto, California: National Press Books. Mache, C. (2007). The Four Kinds of Sales People: How and Why They Excel- And How You Can Too. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Maddi, S. R. (1999). Personality theories: A comparative analysis (6 ed.). Homewood, Ilinois: Dorsey. Maddron, T. (2002). Living your colors: Practical wisdom for life, love, work and play. New York: Warner Books Inc. Magnavita, J. J. (2002). Theories of Personality: Contemporary Approaches to the Science of Personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons. March, J. G. (1991). “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science, 2. Margerison-McCann Team Management Systems (1998). Herndon, Virginia. Martin, J. H. (1996). Neuroanatomy: Text and Atlas. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mataix-Cols, D., Cullen, S., Lange, K., Zelaya, F., Andrew, C., Amaro, E., Brammer, M. J., Williams, S. C. R., Speckens, A., & Phillips, M. L. (2003). “Neural correlates of anxiety associated with obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions in normal volunteers.” Biological Psychiatry, 53, 482-493. 338

Mataix-Cols D., Wooderson, S., Lawrence, N., Brammer, M. J., Speckens, A., & Phillips, M. L. (2004). “Distinct neural correlates of washing, checking, and hoarding symptom dimensions in obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 564-576. Mataix-Cols, D., Conceição do Rosario-Campos, M., & Leckman, J. F. (2005). “A Multidimensional Model of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 228-238. McGill, I., & Brockbank, A. (2004). The Action Learning Handbook. New York: Routledge Palmer. McNaughton, N., & Gray, J. A. (2000). “Anxiolytic action on the behavioural inhibition system implies multiple types of arousal contribute to anxiety.” Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 161–176. Mella, P. (2003a). “Order and Chaos in Combinatory Systems: A Different Approach to Collective Behaviour.” INSC 2003: International Nonlinear Sciences Conference - Research and Applications in the Life Sciences. Mella, P. (2003b) “Synchronization and Self-Organization in Organizations: The Combinatory Systems View” [Web Page]. URL www.ea2000.it [2005, May 9]. Merrill, D. W., & Reid, R. H. (1981). Personal Styles and Effective Performance. Bradner, PA: Chilton Book Company. Miller, A. (1991). Personality Types: A modern synthesis. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Miller, D. (1992). “The Icarus paradox: how exceptional companies bring about their own downfall.” Business Horizons, Jan-Feb, 1992. Miller, H. W. (1962). “The Aetiology of Disease in Plato's Timaeus.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 93, 175-187. Miller, M. (1997). Brainstyles: Change Your Life Without Changing Who You Are. New York: Simon & Schuster. Miller, M. (2004). Brainstyles for Lovers: Create Partnerships That Change Your Life Without Changing Who You Are. Dallas, Texas USA: Brown Books. Mitchell, P. D. (2004). Medicine in the Crusades: Warfare, Wounds and the Medieval Surgeon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mitola III, J. (1999). “Cognitive Radio for Flexible Multimedia Communications.” IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Multimedia Communications, 1999. (MoMuC '99) (pp. 3-10). Mitrofanis, J. (2005). “Some Certainty For The ‘Zone Of Uncertainty’? Exploring The Function Of The Zona Incerta.” Neuroscience, 130, 115. Mourkogiannis, N. (2005). “The Realist’s Guide to Moral Purpose”. Strategy + Business 41(Winter): 42-53. Mourkogiannis, N. (2006). Purpose: The starting point of great companies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

339

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). “Learning Negotiation Skills: Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer.” Management Science, 49(4), 529 540. Nash, W. P. (1998). “Information Gating: An Evolutionary Model of Personality Function and Dysfunction.” Psychiatry, 61, 46-60. Neel, J., Menon, R., Reed, J. H., & MacKenzie, A. B. (2005). “Using Game Theory to Analyze Physical Layer Cognitive Radio Algorithms.” The Economics, Technology And Policy Of Unlicensed Spectrum. Quello Center for Telecommunication Management and Law. Nestadt, G., Addington, A., Samuels, J., Liang, K. Y., Bienvenu, O. J., Riddle, M., Grados, M., Hoehn-Saric, R., & Cullen, B. (2003). “The identification of OCDrelated subgroups based on comorbidity.” Biological Psychiatry, 53, 914-920. Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2004). “A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm: The Problem-Solving Perspective.” Organization Science, 15, 617-632. Nideffer, R. M. (1976a). The Inner Athlete. New York: Thomas Crowell. Nideffer, R. M. (1976b). “Test of attentional and interpersonal style.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 394-404. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Ortet, G., Ibáñez, M. I., Llerena, A., & Torrubia, R. (2002). “The Underlying Traits of the Karolinska Scales of Personality (KSP).” European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 139-148. Palmer, A., Burns, S., & Bulman, C. (1994). Reflective Practice in Nursing: The Growth of the Professional Practitioner. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Parsons, T. (1968). The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. New York.: The Free Press. Parsons, T. (1971). Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Peña-Reyes, C. A. (2004). Coevolutionary Fuzzy Modeling Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Perugi, G., Toni, C., Frare, F., Travierso, M. C., Hantouche, E., & Akiskal, H. S. (2002). “Obsessive-compulsive-bipolar comorbidity: a systematic exploration of 340

clinical features and treatment outcome.” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 63, 11291134. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row. Petrovich, G. D., Canteras, N. S., & Swanson, L. W. (2001). “Combinatorial amygdalar inputs to hippocampal domains and hypothalamic behavior systems.” Brain Research Reviews, 38, 247-289. Phillips, M. A., & Huntley, C. (1996). Dramatica: A new theory of story (3 ed.). Burbank, California: Screenplay Systems Incorporated. Pianka, E. R. (1970). “On r- and K-selection.” American Naturalist, 104, 592-597. Pianka, E. R. (1988). Evolutionary Ecology (4 ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Pieper, J. (1965). The Four Cardinal Virtues. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Polya, G. (1945). How to Solve It: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Polya, G. (1965). Mathematical Discovery Volume II: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Porges, S. W. (2001). “The polyvagal theory: phylogenetic substrates of a social nervous system.” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42, 123-146. Porges, S. W. (2003). “The Polyvagal Theory: phylogenetic contributions to social behavior.” Physiology & Behavior, 79, 503-513. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press. Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). “Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities.” Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18-42. Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., & McGrath, M. R. (2003). Becoming a Master Manager: A Competency Framework (3 Ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Radhakrishnan, S., & Moore, C. A. (1957). A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rands, M., & Levinger, G. (1979). “Implicit theories of relationship: An intergenerational study.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 645-661. Rauch, S. L., Dougherty, D. D., Shin, L. M., Alpert, N. M., Manzo, P., Leahy, L., Fischman, A. J., Jenike, M. A., & Baer, L. (1998). “Neural correlates of factoranalyzed OCD symptom dimensions: a PET study.” CNS Spectrums: The International Journal of Neuropsychiatric Medicine, 3, 37-43. Reid, B. (1993). “‘But We’re Doing It Already!’ Exploring a response to the concept of reflective practice in order to improve its facilitation.” Nurse Education Today, 13, 305-309. Remijnse P. L., van den Heuvel, O. A., & Veltman D. J. (2005). “Neuroimaging in obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Current Medical Imaging Reviews, 1(3), 331-351. 341

Riedl, R. (1978). Order in living organisms: A systems analysis of evolution. New York: Wiley. Risold, P. Y., Thompson, R. H., & Swanson, L. W. (1997). “The structural organization of connections between hypothalamus and cerebral cortex.” Brain Research Reviews, 24, 197-254. Rometsch, M. (2004). “Organizational Identities in Networks: A New Systems Theory Approach.” The 20th EGOS-Colloquium on “The Organization as a Set of Dynamic Relationships” Sub-Theme 07 “Only Connect: Neat words, networks, organizational identities, relations and language”. Ruiz, d. M. (1997). The Four Agreements: A practical guide to personal freedom (A Toltec Wisdom Book). San Rafael, California: Amber-Allen Publishing. Ryff, C. D. (1989). “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. Sarton, G., & Erhardt-Siebold, E. v. (1943). “Remarks on the Theory of Temperaments.” Isis, 34(3), 205-208. Salthe, S. N. (1985). Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and Representation. New York: Columbia University Press. Saxena, S., Bota, R. G., & Brody, A. L. (2001). “Brain-behaviour relationships in obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 6, 82-101. Scantling, S. R. (1998). Extraordinary Sex Now: A Couple’s Guide to Intimacy. New York: Doubleday. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). “Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. Seger, C. A., & Cincotta, C. M. (2005). “The roles of the caudate nucleus in human classification learning.” Journal of Neuroscience, 25(11), 2941-2951. Shapira, N. A., Liu, Y., He, A. G., Bradley, M. M., Lessig, M. C., James, G. A., Stein, D. J., Lang, P. J., & Goodman, W. K. (2003). “Brain activation by disgustinducing pictures in obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Biological Psychiatry, 54(7), 751-756. Shin, I., Lee, I., & Min, S. L. (2004). “A Design Approach for Real-Time Embedded Systems with Energy and Code Size Constraints.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Real-Time and Embedded Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA). Si Alhir, S. (1998). UML in a Nutshell: A desktop quick reference. Sebastopol, California: O’Reilly. Siever, L. J., & Davis, K. L. (1991). “A psychological perspective on the personality disorders.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 1647-1658. Siever, L. J., Klar, H., & Coccaro, E. (1985). “Biological response styles: Clinical implications.” In L. J. Siever, & H. Klar (Editors), Psychobiological Substrates of 342

Personality (pp. 38-66). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press. Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (1997). “Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences.” Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27. Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (2000). So Each May Learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, West Virginia USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sims, M., Corkill, D., & Lesser, V. (2004). “Separating Domain and Coordination in Multi-Agent Organizational Design and Instantiation.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2004) (pp. 155-161). Sinnamon, H. M. (1993). “Preoptic And Hypothalamic Neurons And The Initiation Of Locomotion In The Anesthetized Rat.” Progress in Neurobiology, 41(323-344). Siraisi, N. G. (1990). Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Slade, Stephen. (1992). Goal-based Decision Making: An Interpersonal Model. (Report No. 892). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Department of Computer Science. Stallings, M. C., Hewitt, J. K., Cloninger, C. R., Heath, A. C., & Eaves, L. J. (1996). “Genetic and Environmental Structure of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: Three or Four Temperament Dimensions?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 127-140. Steadman, L. B., & Palmer, C. T. (1997). “Myths as Instructions From Ancestors: the Example of Oedipus.” Zygon, 32(3), 341-350. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking Styles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Strickland, B. R. (1989). “Internal-External-Control Expectancies: Contingency to Creativity.” American Psychologist, 44(1), 1-12.

From

Sugiyama, M. S. (2001a). “Food, Foragers, and Folklore: the Role of Narrative in Human Subsistence.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(4), 221-240. Sugiyama, M. S. (2001b). “Narrative Theory and Function: Why Evolution Matters.” Philosophy and Literature, 25(2), 233-250. Sukikara, M. H., Mota-Ortiz, S. R., Baldo, M. V., Felicio L. F., & Canteras, N. S. (2006). “A role for the periaqueductal gray in switching adaptive behavioral responses.” Journal of Neuroscience, 26(9), 2583-2589. Surdu, J. R., & Pooch, U. W. (2000). “Simulation Technologies in the Mission Operational Environment.” Simulation, 74(3), 138-160. Swanson, L. W. (2003). Brain Architecture: Understanding the basic plan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

343

Swanson, L. W., & Petrovich, G. D. (1998). “What is the amygdala?” TINS: Trends in Neuroscience, 21, 323–331. Szilagyi, A. D., & David M. Schweiger. (1984). “Matching Managers to Strategies: A Review and Suggested Framework”. The Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 626-637. Sztompka, P. (1993). “Civilizational Incompetence: The Trap of Post-Communist Societies.” Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie, Heft 2, 85-89. Teglasi, H. (2001). Essentials of TAT and Other Storytelling Techniques Assessment (Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Telreja, P. K. M. (1982). Philosophy of the Vedas. Bombay: Telreja Publications. Temkin, O. (1953). “Greek Medicine as Science and Craft.” Isis, 44(3), 213-225. Tichy, N. M. (1982). “Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and cultural keys”. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, 59-80. Thompson, James D. [1967] (2003). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, with a new preface by Mayer N. Zald and a new introduction by W. Richard Scott. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Ullmann, M. (1978). Islamic Medicine. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Van der Werf, Y. D., Witter, M. P., & Groenewegen, H. J. (2002). “The intralaminar and midline nuclei of the thalamus. Anatomical and functional evidence for participation in processes of arousal and awareness.” Brain Research Reviews, 39, 107-140. Verhagen, H., & Kummeneje, J. (1999). “Adjustable Autonomy, Delegation and Distribution of Decision Making.” Proceedings of the 1st Internatational Workshop of Central and Eastern Europe on Multi-Agent Systems (CEEMAS 99) (pp. 301-306). Verhagen, H. J. E., & Smit, R. A. (1997). “Multiagent systems as simulation tools for social theory testing.” ICCS and SS Siena, 1997. Vinogradova, O. S. (1975). “Functional organization of the limbic system in the process of registration of information: facts and hypotheses.” In R. I. Isaacson, & K. H. Pribram Eds., The Hippocampus (Vol. 2pp. 3-69). New York: Plenum Press. Wagar, B. M., & Thagard, P. (2004). “Spiking Phineas Gage: A Neurocomputational Theory of Cognitive-Affective Integration in Decision-Making.” Psychological Review, 111(1), 67-79. Wagner, G. P., & Laubichler, M. D. (2004). “Rupert Riedl and the re-synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology: body plans and evolvability.” Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 302(1), 92102 Wehmeyer, M. L. (2001). “Self-Determination and Mental Retardation: Assembling the puzzle pieces.” In H. N. Switzky (Editor), Personality and Motivational Differences in Persons with Mental Retardation (pp. 147-198). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 344

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kulka, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). “Perceiving the causes of success and failure.” In Edward E. Jones, David E. Kanouse, Harold H. Kelley, Richard E. Nisbett, Stuart Valins, Bernard Weiner (Editors), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. (pp. 95-120). Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press. Werner, E. (1996). “Logical foundations of distributed artificial intelligence.” G. M. P. O'Hare, & N. R. Jennings (Eds.) Foundations of distributed artificial intelligence. New York: Wiley. Whiteside S. P., Port J. D., & Abramowitz J. S. (2004). “A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging in obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Psychiatry ResearchNeuroimaging, 132 (1), 69-79. Whittingham, C., & Holland, R. (1985). “A framework for theory in social work.” Issues in Social Work Education, 5, 25-50. Williams, L. (2002). Ethics Awareness Inventory. The Williams Institute for Ethics in Management. [Computer Software] Woodward, H., & Buchholz, S. (1987). Aftershock: Helping people through corporate change. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Zack, M. H. (1999). “Developing a Knowledge Strategy.” California Management Review, 41(3), 125-145. Zack, M. H. (2001). “If Managing Knowledge is the Solution, then What's the Problem?” In Y. Malhotra (Editor), Knowledge Management and Business Innovation (Vol. 41, Chap. 3, pp. 125-145). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Resnick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). “Early Development of Executive Function: A Problem-Solving Framework.” Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 198-226. Zhao, M.-G., Toyoda, H., Lee, Y.-S., Wu, L.-J., Ko, S. W., Zhang, X.-H., Jia, Y., Shum, F., Xu, H., Li, B.-M., Kaang, B.-K., & Zhuo, M. (2005). “Roles of NMDA NR2B Subtype Receptor in Prefrontal Long-Term Potentiation and Contextual Fear Memory.” Neuron, 47(6), 859-872.

345