Root Correspondence is Obvious
Countering Bias
In taxonomy development, there is always a danger of forcing patterns or relationships or properties which do not exist in reality. They may well appear plausible: this is termed 'face validity'. The next step in this delusional mis-perception is to make further "confirmatory" discoveries by presuming the truth of what has been forced.
Originally, the taxonomic studies were conducted from first principles and drew heavily on the published work of others. Bias was less of an issue when knowledge of the architecture was limited, and unification had not occurred. There were simply too many diverse findings and different options to be biased towards one pattern rather than another.
As in all science, I tolerated ignorance and confusion while proceeding via trial and error. However, over the years, patterns have emerged and some are now strongly established. Investigative principles, some perhaps akin to taxonomic laws, have also emerged and proved their value in expediting discovery. (Much as Mendeleyev's work fostered discovery of new chemical elements.)
It is now a taxonomic principle that any pattern found in one version of a structural form exists in all other versions of the same form. So getting evidence for a genuinely powerful pattern in just one well-understood framework is immensely valuable. Depth trumps breadth. Confirmation from similar forms is still sought dispassionately and with care.
The presence of a Root Projection to is particularly significant for architectural understanding. In our inquiry, we must avoid the dangers of plausibly force-fitting a vague pattern but, fortunately, history is helpful in the present effort.
Scientific Value of Decision Methods
was the first to be identified. However, this taxonomic labeling not known at that time, because the concept of a Principal Typology had not yet emerged. The taxonomic location was unknown because there was no concept of a Primary Hierarchy. There was almost nothing to unify and no pressure to be concerned about unification. Root projection did not exist as a conception because there was neither a Root Hierarchy nor a Root Cell.
Furthermore, I formulated these methods together with a colleague, Jimmy Algie, who made no secret of his strong personal dislike for hierarchical conceptions in social life. At the time, Jimmy had far more experience of consulting to managers within organizations than I did. He knew the literature extremely well, and had previously written articles and books on decision, use of resources and managing. I brought a theoretical and systems perspective to bear on his deep and extensive knowledge. Our joint paper was prepared for the systems literature, independently assessed by our peers, and published essentially unchanged.
See Kinston, W. & Algie, J. (1989)
.
The was conceived almost two decades later and its structure finalized over the subsequent decade. So when I look now for evidence that correspond with , it is inconceivable that it was planted there in advance by a self-fulfilling bias. A strong correspondence will mean nothing to empirical critics, but it is a systemic confirmation of the validity of the Taxonomy.
However, I want more than a simple correspondence now: I want a deeper scientific understanding of the architecture.
Determining Correspondence
It is highly satisfying when a pattern creeps up on you almost unawares. It is then just an observation. The correspondence to the structural groupings found in politics was like that. That shock kicked off a wider search for correspondence.
As indicated in the Countering Bias box above, when a pattern is actively sought, there is an ever-present danger of narcissistic delusion and imposition of a pattern. Patterns are subjective and it is possible to distort reality so as to see them. This danger must therefore be directly confronted, identified and handled effectively. I take it that my observations alone are insufficient: others need to make their own judgements.
In considering the 7 , I would like you to repeat what I did in determining correspondence. I will extract material from the posted accounts of each to see what conclusion, if any, we can reasonably draw.
Before I do so, click here for a highly simplified Table extracted from the comparison of decision mentalities. Use it to assign before reading further. I will make no comment because my inquiry is pursued differently and more systematically below.
PH'1-L1: Rationalist Method
Looking at the table of this decision process showing typical terminology, we see the following terms highlighted:
rationale, value, mission, strategy, options, analyses, pros and cons, objectives, criteria, action plan, coherent, progress against plans, priorities, tactical objectives, values and higher level objectives, values, plans, mission, key objective.
I would propose an obvious correspondence with .
PH'1-L2: Empiricist Method
Looking at the table of this decision process showing typical terminology, we see the following terms highlighted:
evident problem, manageable size, the «real» problem, facts, hypothesized solutions, optimal solution, test, solution, a pilot, collection of data, expect agreement, control process, record progressive results, evidence, protocol, redefine, problem.
I would propose an obvious correspondence with .
PH'1-L3: Pragmatic/Opportunist Method
Looking at the table of this decision process showing typical terminology, we see the following terms highlighted:
screen opportunities, continuously, rapidly eliminate, expedience, self-interest, avoiding known weaknesses, SWOT analyses, attractive opportunities, obvious, unavoidable, inevitable, marginal consensual, immediately practicable, convenient tactics, back-up, manoeuvre politically, persuasive selling, build support, pressure others, improvise, doing, danger signs, emerging opportunities, be satisfied, incremental, switch tactics, fall back, turn attention, increase persuasion and pressure.
Here, the correspondence is not evident in the terms themselves, but in what the terms relate to. In every case, they refer to or qualify getting action or doing something. The opening phrase ("sensible immediate action") and Mr. P's «secret» confirm this.
So I would propose an obvious correspondence with .
PH'1-L4: Dialectic Method
Looking at the table of this decision process showing typical terminology, we see the following terms highlighted:
acknowledge, conflicts, groups (factions), basis for discussion, protagonists, opposing arguments, debate, clarify group values, assumptions, bids and counter-bids, payoffs, negotiate, settle, synthesize, negotiating a compromise, all-party support, agree, delimited, document agreement, delimit and phase, agreement, holding, the conflicts, re-activate debate, compromise, arbitration.
Considering these in the context of bargaining, negotiating, mediating and arbitrating, I would propose an obvious correspondence with .
PH'1-L5: Systemicist Method
Looking at the table of this decision process showing typical terminology, we see the following terms highlighted:
develop potential, scenario, situation, interacting values, organic evolution, critical, constraints and potentials, levels, kinds of structure, model inter-relations, dynamics, elicit expertise, triggers for development, simulate, activating triggers, evolve, optimal-feasible strategy, balanced development, model progressive thresholds, intervene, flexible varied responses, meaningful control, total situation, intervention model, fine-tune model of situation, unfolding reality, fit, scenario, intervention model, ideal scenario, re-model the situation.
These terms focus on states, situations, models and change. I would therefore propose an obvious correspondence with .
PH'1-L6: Structuralist Method
Looking at the table of this decision process showing typical terminology, we see the following terms highlighted:
disruption or dysfunction, structural failure, authoritatively, sanction review, organisation and procedures, terms of reference, roles, blockages, assign responsibilities, post-holder, specific tasks and sub-tasks, issue instructions, coordinating task execution, reporting mechanisms, appraise personnel performance, capability and potential, authority structures, systems, efficiently, roles, posts and personnel needs, reassign responsibilities, restructure, procedures, meetings.
The method suggests impersonality, but also assumes a readiness for people to accept what is asked of them e.g. responsibility, instructions, reporting, appraisal, coordination, systems, meetings. The correspondence is not so obvious, but on reflection it seems to be: .
PH'1-L7: Imaginist Method
Looking at the table of this decision process showing typical terminology, we see the following terms highlighted:
express, inner disquiet, commitment, attune, explore perceptions, feelings, worries, imagination, share innermost thoughts, personal aspirations, incubate and play, images, ideas that come, mental exercises, visualization, meditation, brain-storm, crystallize inspiration, vision, personal growth, mutual understanding, enthuse, charisma, mutual support, identification, shared aspirations, self, mutual counseling, fulfillment, deep satisfaction, meditate, vision, worry area.
I would propose an obvious correspondence with .
Summary & Conclusion
The picture appears remarkably clear. It we add the psychosocial pressures some seem even more evident, others less so. For example, the Pragmatic method is obviously under pressure for performance, and the Dialectic method is under a pressure for understanding. It is, perhaps. less obvious that the Rationalist method is under a pressure for autonomy and the Imaginist method is under a pressure for well-being—however, that is the implication of these findings.
The findings are now summarized in the Table below.
| Method (Type) |
Formal Name |
Corresponding Root Level |
Psychosocial Pressure |
|---|---|---|---|
| L'7 | Imaginist | Experience-RL4 | Well-being |
| L'6 | Structuralist | Willingness-RL7 | Selflessness |
| L'5 | Systemicist | Change-RL3 | Acceptability |
| L'4 | Dialectic | Communication-RL5 | Understanding |
| L'3 | Pragmatist | Action-RL1 | Performance |
| L'2 | Empiricist | Inquiry-RL2 | Certainty |
| L'1 | Rationalist | Purpose-RL6 | Autonomy |
Even if the method was slightly uncertain, all the others seemed unequivocal. Using a reasonable assumption that duplication is precluded, the had to be assigned the last unassigned
It can be confidently affirmed that this pattern of correspondence, if it holds here, will also hold in the remaining 6 . This taxonomic principle has proved itself too often to be doubted. Nevertheless, taxonomic inquiry is at an early stage. So, as a rule, I strive to find a second or third example before proposing any pattern. After all, it must be possible that a has a special quality as part of its distinctive nature.
In any case, only «correspondence» has been identified. From the above rather mechanical analysis, it is not at all evident what correspondence means. It might be guessed at, but a deeper grasp of the Typology Complex is needed because any conclusions will have to extend beyond the itself.
- Is the correspondence obvious in the other ? We must now look and judge.
Initially posted: 30-Nov-2013.