Formulating the Work on Institutions
The Levels-of-Work Framework
The literature on institutional change offers little guidance on the work-to-be-done. It overwhelmingly focuses on changes to organisations or customs, or considers social change more broadly. As to causation, change just seems to happen, perhaps in relation to macro-events, or reference is made to the "invisible hand" (Adam Smith), "spontaneous order" (F.A.Hayek) or "self-organising principles" (Francis Varela).
Our focus here is different and specific, tangible and useful. While it relates to local change initiatives and social enterprise, it necessarily extends beyond that to expectations that must be placed on all in society. Institutional problems cannot be simply dumped on impassioned community activists.
We ask: what can a person or social body do to help a societal institution improve so as to better perform the functions expected of it?
The literature rarely puts it like this, but «improving institutions» is definitely work-that-needs-to-be-done. Work is defined by duties and flows from a sense of responsibility. To affect institutions, the discharge of «social responsibility» and «civic duties» naturally requires corresponding «civil rights».
Given no external guidance, we will use the in the , drawing on discoveries about language that have served us well this far:
Then we will turn to well-established taxonomic principles for additional guidance. That means we start by assuming that:
- There will be 7 types or ways of working responsibly that form a hierarchy.
- Different ways that language is used will help specify the levels.
- All endeavours will take place within a two-dimensional psycho-social field.
- Plotting ways of working on those dimensions will illuminate the inquiry.
Types/Levels of Work
In Q-hierarchies, the levels are also types that can be plotted on the TET. Plotting produces a layout in which the Spiral stages are in the same order as the types/levels. The layout to be expected is shown at right.
See alternative TET layouts and Spiral orders here.
The TET will also act as a validation check: i.e. if a level/type of work identified does not fit quadrant descriptions and precise Type positioning, then either the work description is incorrect or the proposed psychosocial field is incorrect.
The primary guide for specifying the responsibility to be discharged is the expected use of language as diagrammed above. Of course, this will be supplemented with observations that anyone can make. But if we started with observations, we would likely have a mass of data without any way to order it, and no measure of completeness.
Psycho-Social Context
The context of provides the axes for the relevant TET (Typology Essentials Table). For details, see plotting the TET in the Hub.
Clarity about the psychosocial field which serves as a facilitating context will assist in perceiving and formulating the types of work, and in appreciating their interaction. For details, see Spirals in the Hub.
In the TET, psychosocial reality generates the axes with the X-axis being the social requirement or output and the Y-axis being the psychological requirement or input. The provisional naming is:
X-Axis: Concern for Consensus on the Institution
Y-Axis: Detailed Knowledge of the Institution
X-Axis:
are constituted to serve communal needs which are social values important to all in society, directly or indirectly. The current state of affairs can be taken to represent some sort of consent to and consensus about which needs are met and how. We can also assume that any functioning that is widely viewed as deficient or unsatisfactory will generate a consensus for change. Many issues will be controversial. In these cases, pronouncements that are closer to the consensus will carry more weight and are more likely to become embedded and influence future functioning. But, often, the situation is complex and what is needed may be too new or too sophisticated to expect consensus.
So concern for consensus is proposed as the social dimension = X-Axis.
Y-Axis:
Values are personal and needs are easily understood. But institutions to serve these are highly complicated, have a history, and relevant factors are exceedingly difficult to comprehend. Issues suggesting change to an institution vary in regard to the degree of detailed knowledge that is required. In particular, any proposal for improvement is liable to be opposed by vested interests that are negatively affected. Responding to such opposition requires arguments backed up by knowledge. Any controversial issue potentially affecting many people should be backed by detailed knowledge including relevant costs.
So detailed knowledge is proposed as the psychological dimension = Y-Axis
The diagram at right shows the TET and its quadrants in these terms.
We can now start by considering the minimum that is required to affect an institution.
- Affirm a communal need and express an interest in its handling.
Originally posted: 4-Nov-2022. Last updated: 30-Mar-2024.