Notices
This Topic was set up to explain significant changes or addition of new Topics that might otherwise be missed. I ceased providing this sort of detail from 2013. It is left here for historical interest.
Endeavour
«Creative Endeavour» is re-named «Personal Endeavour»
#00001: 1 March 2011
The Root of the Taxonomy, , is undoubtedly because it lies on the border of biology: i.e. it is specifically not organizational or communal. The Root Hierarchy, dealing with endeavour is so close to the Root Cell, virtually what the Root is in practice, that it too must be .
The creation of an organization or the sustenance of a community flows from the endeavours of particular people. Once an organization is created, then personal endeavours may occur within it or for it. An organization may be said to have its own «endeavour», but this is usually called its mission or its project. So it seems that organizations do not exist in the initial emanation from the Root. If so, they cannot use the Root Hierarchy. I believe this should be made explicit to guide further explorations of the Root systems which, if this view is correct, will be intensely and totally personal.
The label «creative endeavour» is also unsatisfactory, because personal endeavours may also be destructive. Both options flow from the dual nature of energies. The use of term «creative» was never fully satisfactory because (on reflection) it sought to help people see that activities have the inherent quality of creativity or should be handled creatively. This now seems one-sided. Possibly «creative» was also used in the name to signify the personal quality of endeavour: but not with full awareness of that on my part. I was dimly uncomfortable about it.
The new THEE-name for the Root Hierarchy is . This feels right and also removes doubt about its nature.
Changes in formulations in the webpage text will be introduced within the next two weeks.
Communication
Criticism sparks revision, new topics and discovery about THEE architecture.
#00002: 25 July 2011
Two factors provoked a major review of this recently posted framework. The first was difficulty encountered in developing the Tree framework where the elements of influence each other. The second, and the trigger for action, was criticism from a colleague based on a rather natural confusion that I had not clarified, and that was compounded by errors in referring to biology.
Fixing and clarifying the issues led to a number of improvements throughout as well as some new Topics. In the process, I think I have stumbled on a possible discovery about THEE’s structure
. The Review section now contains changes in existing Topics, removal/replacement of the over-complex matrices, and some new Topics.
Development
I have created a Topic about the communicative event as the basis for distinguishing the simplest elements of communication, and clarified that it is personal in nature. A communicative event for a sender need not be associated with a similar event for a recipient. And vice versa. The earlier drafting assumes and refers to this separation, but it is not as explicit as it should be.
Discovery
Over the last couple of years, I discovered that the Root Hierarchy projects into the main taxonomic structures, which is probably why they all have 7 Levels. However, it now seems that the Root Hierarchy may also project into the Primary Hierarchy. I have now shown this to occur in . So I need to investigate it further.
Changes in Detail
- Fundamental Elements, the opening Topic is abbreviated and simplified.
- The communicative event is a new Topic dealing with some likely confusions.
- Stimuli: The Foundation at L1 is revised.
- Small changes to the other Elements/Levels.
- The Review section has had major revision and been expanded. Matrix-Tables have been simplified or removed. The main changes are in the following Topics:
- Review
- Factors in Communicative Events
- Precision & Ambiguity
- Experience & Communication
- Failure of Communication
Deciding & Achieving
Linking Authority and Levels of Work.
#00003: 19 Nov 2012
There is considerable confusion around the notion of a «bad boss». Apart from the relatively rare individual with a severe personality disturbance, most examples of «bad boss» behaviour can be traced to failings in the organization's management system or management culture.
While management culture has been dealt with, the management system depends on designing the organization in accord with THEE. This framework lies within the realm of , and is currently being posted in the Work & Organisation Satellite.
However, I wanted to clarify further now how accountability and authority depend on getting work-responsibility properly defined and the organization properly structured. So I have added two new Topics to the section of . These are:
► Authority, Hierarchy and Power
► Beyond the «Bad Boss»
The Authority Relationships topic has also been significantly revised and improved.
Originally posted: July 2009; Last amended: 10-Jan-2013.