Arenas of Work-Responsibility

THEE Note: Remember Actualization in Endeavours

Actualization in any endeavourflows from transcendence of existing reality using mainly willingness-RL7 and purpose-RL6. You approach actualization through communication-RL5 and appraise the state of play using experience-RL4. Work is similar, but there is a far sharper focus on one aspect of communication—its use to construct reality. Doing this with confidence (and not feeling over-burdened) depends on the way you naturally use language. Different approaches will generate sharply different perspectives on reality, and these correspond to different arenas of work-responsibility that humanity needs.

Discovery of Overlapping Hierarchies

QH2 is the hierarchy originally defined by Jaques and Brown, and formulated in terms of needs met and responses made by Rowbottom, Billis and myself. See diagram below.

Being within a University, I noticed that academics worked rather differently. I saw that all academic disciplines are built on concepts, and even those working at the lowest levels have to grasp and use those concepts. A lab technician for example asserts concepts (LL9 in L'3) and is trained to use them in a specified way, much like a receptionist asserts information (LL5 in L'2). In both cases, the individual works at Level-1within their arena (i.e. WL-I—note roman numeral) i.e. there is no simpler or more basic work within that arena.
Career implications ►

This means that the receptionist in a scientific institute is not working within the same work arena as the lab technician. Socially, they may go to the same Christmas party, but their career trajectory will be different if both are highly capable: the lab technician might one day become a PhD or even a Professor, while the receptionist might one day become the facilities manager or chief of operations.

I also noticed that top academics and disciplinary leaders (i.e. WL-VI & VII) often contributed to society in a way that top executives usually did not: e.g. writing popular books or newspaper columns, advising politicians, sitting on commissions and regulatory authorities, taking honorific roles in significant institutions. They must therefore work naturally with universal language-L'4. You will note that this fits perfectly with the PH'5-Principal Typology ordering, and allows definition of QH3 as shown in this diagram.

In a similar way, some corporate leaders (i.e. working at WL-VI & VII) contribute to academia or write text-like books or participate in an ideas-driven profession-related body like the GO Society. However, they never do significant research or become academic leaders or sit on national research funding committees i.e. they are operating at a low WL in the higher arena as shown in the diagram above.

Pay and Use of Language

With this overlap of arenas, the same style of using language is required in one arena to perform a low level of work and in the arena below to perform a high level work. Salary and prestige reflect performance of the level of work, because they reflect responsibility within the arena. We pay for and respect those who carry heavier responsibilities and do more complex work with greater social impact. We do not simply reward the use of language as such.

Societal Institutions as an Arena of Work

Top academics engaged by governments as advisors do not perform specific research projects as they might when working within their discipline. Their general understanding and expertise is deemed relevant to a challenge facing society.

Work in defining and addressing these challenges occurs within institutions like parliament (e.g. an academic may give evidence to Congress or at a Select Committee), or the press (e.g. an academic may respond to journalists' queries), or the courts (e.g. an academic may offer to be an expert witness). No matter how specialized the concerns, the academic must communicate in a way that can be understood by everyone—that means using universal language-L'4.

Many people focus only on work that directly addresses a society's issues—e.g. politicians, journalists, judges, activists, advertisers. They are the permanent inhabitants of this higher arena of work.

I currently refer to the arena of responsibility specified by QH4 as societal institutions. The concerns here are matters of value. Work involves clarifying which values are most relevant and which have most priority. At the higher levels, the work must address beliefs that justify values and resultant actions (often regardless of outcomes or rationality).

Communal needs and issues identified within institutions (QH4) must be handled by formal research (in QH3) and organized activities (in QH2). But this absolutely requires the support of wider society—both intangible (goodwill) and tangible (funds, staff, customers). Interests and beliefs vary greatly and compete, so such popular support cannot be taken for granted. It requires responsible work.

I conjecture that carrying responsibility in society-QH4 revolves around ensuring personal and community needs are identified while maintaining cohesion and integration. It should be no surprise that societal institutions addressing this mission require their own distinctive form of handling.

2023:  Deeper study suggests that matters are somewhat more complicated than envisaged when this page was originally posted. Initial formulations of societal institutions have now been posted in Frameworks in Development.

The following diagram shows all the domains, naming the arenas of work responsibility that have been explained above, and leaving the remainder blank.

Other Arenas: Conjectures

The discontinuous ways of using language (PH'5) enabled the prediction and discovery of discontinuous arenas of work responsibility (PH'5-QH•).

The goal of this Satellite is to present an account of all the arenas of responsible work required by a society so as to appreciate their organisation and management.

Formulations for some arenas are more developed than others. The most developed arena deals with the work of implementation (QH2) as found in most organizations. Above, I have identified academic disciplines (QH3) and societal institutions (QH4) as two further arenas of work where there has been a degree of progress to date.

Preliminary inquiries into the other 4 domains leads to these conjectures:

• Family (QH1) where Work uses Actions controlled by Information
• Philosophy (QH5) where Work uses Beliefs controlled by Names
• Spirituality (QH6) where Work uses Names controlled by  Images
• Art (QH7) where Work uses Images controlled by Actions.

In developing each arena, there is a range of frameworks that may be discovered. I am conjecturing about all 7 arenas (including comparisons of their frameworks) to help maintain an overall systemic view during inquiries. There is an exploration of this Q complex and others in the Architecture Room.

See the schema as it currently stands (Jun-2023).

---

In taking on the burden of responsibility, there are two separate issues:

• what arena of work suits you,
• what level of work are you capable of within that arena.

Also see: the unavoidability of ordinary work.

Originally posted: 25-Oct-2013. Updated 16-Jun-2023.