Review & Applications

The Spiral-derived Tree

The THEE-Tree diagram (PH'1-CHK) shows the framework for organizational achievement. It has been developed by using the 7 Modes of achievement to identify specific choices. The nature of choices and their influence on each other has been developed step by step.

In this structure, the Pragmatic Centre-CL1 is the wild card: not only does it lack a direct link to choice of values and goals, it is indifferent or doubtful about inquiry-based levels entirely. In addition, political influences on it can bypass the Accountability Centre-CL2—and will certainly do so if roles and reporting relationships are weak. See the review of how to «get action right».

ClosedTHEE Note on Derivation of the Framework 

The Spiral for strengthening the management culture (PH'1-C) revealed the requisite sequence for cumulating values of all the modes. In the Tree for organizational achievement, the same sequence applies, but the 7 modes become 7 levels. These 7 modes derived originally from the corresponding approaches to decision-making (PH'1). While the decision methods are incompatible and are applied singly, the sets of values of the achievement modes/levels are compatible and continually interact. The compatibility, at least in terms of emergence and influence, is affected by the positioning of the mode within the Spiral or the Tree. See further explanation of numbering.

Dynamic Development of 10 Centres

Applying to each level the dynamic duality, individual v organization, which is intrinsic to organizational achievement, leads to:

1 balanced Centre in CL1, CL2, CL4 and CL7;
and
2 linked polar Centres in CL3, CL5, and CL6.

The 10 Centres are distinct spheres of choices that can and should be made over and over again by those within organizations.

The 22 Channels are pathways of influence between Centres/Choices. The dynamism means that all Centres simultaneously function, and have the potential to influence each other—but only along those Channels. These influences show up as social behaviours intrinsic to work within organizations; each Channel having its own distinct function and name.

ClosedTHEE Note 

The THEE-names suggested for Channels in «determinants of achievement by organizations» were largely taken from another Tree dealing with «organizing the management of organizations». This framework, developed many years ago, is not yet posted. The channel names were carefully checked with the result that several Channels needed re-naming. These were:

One additional name change was required. The channel from: L5-Group Conviction from Corporate Data to L3: Resolutions of Power-based Disputes. On further checking, the name in the original Tree seemed to be in error so the new name was applied there. As a result, the parallel between the two Tree frameworks in the lower section (L5 - L1) has remained. This resonance deserves further exploration.

More on the sections of the Tree.

This framework helps us identify a range of problems that bedevils achievement in organizations.

We now know that the means to achieve are choices of specific sorts (i.e. Centres) that influence each other. Naturally, any serious dysfunction or worse, absence, of Centres or required Channels of influence disrupts achievement.

As well as deficits in necessary Centres or Channels, or entire Levels, there may be attempts to use channels that do not requisitely exist.

► Read more on dysfunction.

An organization employs many people and can call in consultants, so it can access all the modes in decision terms. However, one or two top executives may actually feel personally responsible for organizational achievement.

Nevertheless, if you are an employee, you must achieve at work for the organization, and this framework can be adapted to be meaningful for you. Most managers would say of the decision approaches that they "use them all." Do they really?Closed Inquiry rapidly and easily reveals that several of the methods are not understood, much less used, and others are rejected.

Of course not. But everybody is able to recognize and respect key values from each of the modes. You can therefore apply this framework to any employee (e.g. yourself). If you are not a CEO, see for yourself whether the framework accurately reflects your work. 

► Go to personal achievement within an organization.

The entrepreneur represents a very special type of CEO/employee. Here, achievement is passionately desired, especially during the start-up phase when investors (friends or venture capitalists) are also involved and potentially intrusive. Also there are rather few other staff.

You can apply this framework to capture the substance and spirit of entrepreneurial achievement.

► Read about achievement by entrepreneurs.

The Tree shows an internal duality of Inquiry v Action:

► the upper 3 levels are about INQUIRY-RL2
► the lower 4 levels are about ACTION-RL1.

The Modal Hierarchy is currently conjectured to be as follows:

L-δ: Directing
L-γ: Harmonizing
L-β: Organizing
L-α: Pursuing

As a result:

● CL1 pursues action pragmatically & CL5 pursues inquiry empirically.

● CL2 organizes action via structures & CL6 organizes inquiry via aspirations.

● CL3 harmonizes action via dialectics & CL7 harmonizes inquiry systemically.

● CL4 directs action via rationalist values and goals.

Could there be another level directing inquiry? Closed
An organization does not exist to inquire, so no higher CL8 direction of inquiry is required. What drives inquiry in organizations is the need to act effectively on suitable goals in order to achieve them—not to know more.

This Modal Hierarchy appears to apply to allTrees derived from the transformation of Principal Typologies into Spirals (with the formula PH'•CHK) e.g. see determinants of political choices (PH'6).

Having reviewed the whole picture:

Originally posted: 29-Sep-2011