Using the Paradigms
Generalizing about Combining Methods
In developing the Taxonomy, generalization has been a vital tool. In structural terms it has expedited discovery greatly. After a structural hierarchy was first discovered in relation to purpose (), it was then applied to levels of work (). Success there encouraged further application until eventually over many years the triplet pattern was confirmed and validated.
Structure relates to pattern and generalizations have been rather easy given the taxonomy is patterned. However, functioning is a different matter and generalizing functions is invariably tricky.
In the present case, the two critical questions relating to any set of principal typology methods are:
- Is there a correct method to use in any particular case?
- Can methods be combined or used simultaneously?
The findings vary according to Domain and even within Domains. So there is no expectation or guidance from previous studies.
Compare Domains
- Certain issues call for particular methods, but method dominates.
See here. - Methods are incompatible. However, decision-makers will typically choose a pair to cover all situations. See here.
- Certain questions call for particular methods, and the question dominates.
- Each method uses to a greater or lesser degree the other methods. See here.
- The notion of correctness does not apply. People develop habitual use of two complementary methods.
- Pairing is required. See here.
- The functions of the methods mean they fit specific situations. See here. People can be comfortable with multiple methods. See here.
- Methods are distinct and incompatible but pairing is required for particular societal roles. See here.
- Most choices can have any method applied.
- Each method can combine with any of the other methods. See here.
Given that paradigms are distinct and incompatible, they cannot be combined. However, individuals can become comfortable with all paradigms and use, or accept the use, of these according to the situation and social pressures.
Combinations for Leadership
Leaders are the individuals of most interest in considering combination. The quadrants were identified as containing pairs of methods that were similar and hence relatively easy to move between.
Specializing in two methods, one from each diagonal at the same point on either the X- or Y-axis applies in some other domains, but this combination does not appear to apply to leaders, whose patterns vary considerably.
: The does not particularly seek any particular additional paradigm, but certain circumstances might call for leadership of a group.
: The appointed has the most options. Such a person may well act as a (e.g. over his own department), or serve as a (e.g. for his echelon), function as a (e.g. regarding a special project), and be a (e.g. if achievement is important). Different skills and willingness is required in each of these cases.
They are unlikely to be a because such a person is unlikely to submit himself for selection and appointment, or get appointed if they did.
: A person who is primarily a is extremely unlikely to wish to be any other sort of leader. For them, leadership and politics is about force. Anything less is weakness and viewed as ineffective. However, circumstances may enable such a person to become a , typically wanting to be the top-dog-CEO. More...
: Anyone who seeks to be a is similarly somewhat stuck in that role. There may be a desire to be a , and there could be opportunities to function as a , while the other paradigms seem irrelevant.
: A is likely to also be a and, in another setting, could also be or .
: might also be , but are typically unwilling to be or because those styles require considerable subordination of the self.
: can be or according to the situation.
Combinations of Therapies
In regard to self-perception, each of the appears to fosters a distinct form of personal change/therapy. Each form is popularly recognized as indicated in the diagrams at right and developed in a previous topic.
All forms of self-help can be combined. Therapy combinations are more problematic: the table below offers some suggestions of what is usual.
| Paradigm | Modality | Combinations |
|---|---|---|
| Therapeutic Community | Other therapies can only occur if permitted within the community context, but total dependency would likely not be permitted. | |
| Rational-emotive therapies |
Self-driven cognitive methods can be naturally combined with supportive therapy. | |
| Psychodynamic therapies | Psychoanalytic therapists commonly abjure combinations with other modalities, but other dynamic therapies do allow combinations. | |
| Supportive therapy | Supportive therapy is designed to be minimally stressful but may encourage use of another modality like group therapy or behaviour therapy. | |
| Behaviour therapy | Usually operates without combinations, but support is often provided. | |
| Group therapies |
Group therapy does not combine well with other therapies. | |
| Total Dependency therapies | Runs contrary to all other therapies but as the dependency reduces, support and other therapies could be introduced. |
Now:
- Return to the Review.
Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024. Last modified 18-Jul-2024.