Benefits for the Employer

Integration & Mutual Influence

The interacting-for-benefit approaches/mentalities may be incompatible, but an organization (like any social system) has a capacity and the need to integrate incompatible Types within itself. These Types must be enabled to influence each other. Such integration and influence can occur by seeing any Type as possessing both «content» = methods, and «context» = social values = the Mode.
ClosedMore ►

ClosedExample:

The Kinship-centred mentality is not the same as recognizing that the family is important. Without being kinship-centred, we can all agree that a family can and should provide its members with valuable experiences like unconditional belonging, warmth, trust, security, encouragement, and dependability.

As a result, social bodies can reasonably expect all employees, irrespective of their Type-mentality, to agree on the value of things like trust, encouragement, dependability, loyalty and security.

At the same time, no social body can be expected to tolerate characteristic and normalkinship-centred behaviours at work such as: intense emotional displays, visceral distrust of all outsiders, gratification of any and every wish of the CEO), or absolute insistence on deference to tradition.

The diagram shows some typical imperatives that flow from particular Interaction-for-Benefit Types. They are compatible work values that should be acceptable to all.

Synthesis of Modes

This section of the site will explain the specific order that the Modes naturally emerge so as to be personally and socially incorporated. The construction of the Framework has two main features:

  • identifying each Mode’s values (principles, assumptions, axioms) based on the corresponding Type;

    &

  • recognizing the effects on the person &/or the organization, and hence the crises and challenges that emerge and need to be solved in relation to the Mode.

There is only one possible trajectory for development. As will become evident,Closed once a Mode is established in a Stage, the specific crisis-challenge is only properly resolved by just one of the remaining Modes.

The principles of the Mode emerge from the Type, and in this framework are about:

  • harnessing your self:
  1. the challenge (i.e. what is essential and usually difficult)
  2. the benefit sought by addressing the challenge
  3. the means for handling the challenge
  • harnessing others:
  1. dealing with groups
  2. dealing with individuals
  • handling outcomes:
  1. the requirement for significant success
  2. the response to inevitable failures

Clarifying Mentalities-Types made individuals and their willed interactions the focus of inquiry. Type-specific mentalities or mind-sets belong uniquely to individuals, not the system. Incompatibility of Types shows in social life by dislike, disapproval or open hostility between people. But, everybody can and does at times use several of the Types.

As explained in the Example above, everyone supports certain values epitomized by the Types.

When we shift our frame of reference to a social system, like an organization, it is evident all Types are needed to ensure that the full range of actual or potential issues and situations can be handled effectively by someone. As a result, co-workers with different mentalities find a way to co-exist more or less comfortably, with each making their own contribution to organizational goals.

Originally posted: July 2009