THEE Path

This path is complex and leads to numerous Frameworks, identified with the prefix: Q-.

In the early days, I needed to understand the difference between the work-level hierarchy and other fundamental hierarchies with diverse formal properties that I was uncovering in inquiry, decision and purpose. Jaques and colleagues attributed a fundamental significance to their Organizational Work Levels Hierarchy. It is true that it is fundamental: but then all Frameworks within THEE are fundamental. Beck and co-workers clearly felt like Jaques when they called their Spiral DynamicsQ-hierarchy the «theory of everything». In THEE, it is the Root Hierarchy that is logically fundamental. However, before I discovered it, I had identified several of its Levels as Primary Hierarchies. So I referred to work-levels as a «Quasi-primary» Hierarchy. It became evident that «primary» did not apply at all, but I kept the label, Q- from «quasi-» for sentimental reasons.

Better viewing: narrow or close left navigation column; use browser zoom if needed.

This shows how Q-hierarchies are formed. You can see a similar path for the Interacting for Benefit framework. In that case no other Q-hierarchies were identified. In the present case, several Q-hierarchies have been determined, and strong conjectures have been developed for the others.

Origin: Root Cell: Will (not shown in diagram)
ACCEPT or EXAMINE

Emanate: Root Hierarchy (RH): Framework of Endeavour
ACCEPT or EXAMINE

Select: Level-6 (RH-L5): Communication
ACCEPT or EXAMINE

Emanate: PH5: Primary Hierarchy of Communication
ACCEPT or EXAMINE

Select: Level-6 (PH5-L6): Meaning
ACCEPT or EXAMINE

Nest within Level-6: PH’5: Principal Typology: Approaches to Using Language
ACCEPT or EXAMINE

Expand with Modal Hierarchy : see explanation in this section.

Q-Condense: Form Q-hierarchies QH•
ClosedSee an example.

Derive:

Q Subsidiary Typology

QH• has its 7 levels from two adjacent Types in the Principal Typology as shown in the diagram. Types are intrinsically identity-defining and mentality-creating, and so are the Subsidiary Types.

Q-TET & Spiral

The QH•-TET differs from the Principal Typology TET in the location of the Types. The Spiral that derives from the TET shows a developmental progression identical to the original hierarchy.

QH-Tree

QH•K defines an interactive structure that corresponds with the dynamics of management within the organizational form.

QH-Structural Hierarchy

QsH• defines a system of components that ensure effective participation within the organization.

QH-Structural Hierarchy Tree

QsH•K defines an interactive structure that corresponds with the dynamics of participation within the organizational form.

Originally posted: 11-Oct-2013