The Structure of

Concern

A challenge for
thinkers

Neil LaChapelle
The Structure of Concern: A Challenge for Thinkers
© 2008 Neil LaChapelle, some right reserved
Printed in the USA.
Published by Lulu.com
ISBN 978-0-557-02598-5

[cc] by – Creative Commons: Attribution 2.5 License

You are free to:

- Share this work (copy, distribute and transmit).
- Adapt this work.

Under the following conditions:

- You must attribute this work to the author using standard bibliographic
reference formats.
- Your reference must not suggest that the author endorses you or your
use of the work.
- For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license
terms of this work. This is best done by including this notice with your
reproduction.
- Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from
the copyright holder.
- Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.

Disclaimer: Your fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the
above.

2
 Dedication
To Tanya – your love and devotion
during these long years of effort meant
everything to me, and you remain my
everything to this day…

And to Thérèse – you birthed me, you raised me

you taught me how to love, and how to think.
In every way imaginable, this work is as much yours
as it is mine. Words will forever fail to express
my gratitude for your role in my life.

3
 Table of Contents
Preface.................................................................9
Introduction .......................................................10
Part 1: The Structure of Concern......................13
ABOUT THE ADIZES METHODOLOGY ............................................... 13
SITUATING THE ADIZES METHODOLOGY ......................................... 14
PAEI: THE ADIZES CONCERN STRUCTURE MODEL ......................... 16
ADIZES PROTOTYPICAL MANAGEMENT STYLES .............................. 20
ADIZES MISMANAGEMENT STYLES .................................................. 24
ADIZES ORGANIZATIONAL LIFECYCLES........................................... 27
PAEI AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE ................................................... 33

Part 2: Theoretical Ecology ..............................35

WHY THEORETICAL ECOLOGY? ....................................................... 35
POPULATION ECOLOGY LOGISTICS .................................................. 37
HOLLING’S ADAPTIVE RENEWAL CYCLE ......................................... 38
HIERARCHICAL CAUSATION ............................................................. 40
HIERARCHIES OF ACTION ................................................................. 44

Part 3: Catalog of Concern Structure Models..46

CATALOG INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 46
1. Order in Living Organisms: Rupert Riedl................................47
MANAGEMENT STUDIES ................................................................... 50
2. Competing Values Frameworks of Management: Quinn et al. 52
3. Team Management Systems: Margerison-McCann .................58
4. Styles of Entrepreneurs: Ginzberg & Buchholtz ......................63
5. Plus 32 Employment Testing System: B. R. Garrison Software Group
.................................................................................................65
6. Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument: Ned Herrmann ........68
7. The Demand-Control Model of Stress: Karasek ......................72
8. Transitions and Aftershock: Bridges, Woodward, Buchholz ...75
4
 9. The Four Levers of Corporate Change: Brill & Worth ............80
10. Macroenvironmental Analysis: Fahey & Narayanan ...............83
11. The Four Business Strategies: Michael Porter .........................85
12. The Icarus Paradox: Danny Miller...........................................88
13. The Balanced Scorecard: Kaplan and Norton ..........................89
14. Noble Purposes in Mission Statements: Nikos Mourkogiannis90
15. Strategic Thinking – A Four Piece Puzzle: Bill Birnbaum ......91
16. Stakeholder Styles: Duke Corporate Education .......................92
17. Four Kinds of Salespeople: Chuck Mache...............................93
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ............................................................94
18. The SECI Model of Knowledge Management: Nonaka & Takeuchi
.................................................................................................95
19. Receipt of Information Benefits: Cross, Rice & Parker.........100
20. The Cynefin Sensemaking Framework: D. J. Snowden.........102
21. A Fourfold Typology of Tacit Knowledge: José Castillo ......105
22. Exploration and Exploitation in Knowledge Management: Gray, Chan
& March .................................................................................107
DECISION THEORY ..........................................................................110
23. Decision-Making Strategies and Uncertainty: James D. Thompson
...............................................................................................111
24. Image Theory and Decision-Making: Lee Roy Beach...........113
25. The Interpersonal Model of Goal-Based Decision Making: Stephen
Slade......................................................................................115
26. Decision Style Theory: Rowe & Boulgarides ........................118
27. General Decision-Making Style (GDMS): Scott & Bruce .....120
28. Anticipatory Planning Support System: Hill, Surdu & Pooch122
29. Organizational Uncertainty and Planning Tradeoffs: Lawless et al.
...............................................................................................125
30. Action & Belief-Driven Sensemaking: Karl Weick...............128
31. Information Framing and Uncertainty: Michael H. Zack.......130
SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES .......................................132
32. Social Solidarity and Suicide: Emile Durkheim ....................133
33. A.G.I.L. Functional Imperatives for Social Systems: Talcott Parsons
...............................................................................................137
34. Four-Drive Theory of Human Nature: Lawrence & Nohria ..139

5
 35. Sociological Paradigms & Organizational Analysis: Burrell &
Morgan...................................................................................140
36. Resource Theory: Uriel G. Foa ..............................................142
37. Normal Accident Theory: Charles Perrow.............................143
38. The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations: Alan Fiske148
39. Types of Combinatory Systems: Piero Mella.........................150
40. Group Formation & Club Theory: Arrow, Berdahl & McGrath152
41. Self-Employment Work-Styles: Baines & Gelder .................155
42. Managing Organizational Identities: Pratt & Foreman ..........156
EXISTENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY ........................................................... 159
43. Attribution and Achievement Motivation: B. Weiner............160
44. Self-Conscious Evaluative Emotions: Michael Lewis ...........162
45. Paths of Adult Development: Ryff, Helson & Srivastava ......164
46. Agency and Self-Efficacy: Albert Bandura............................166
47. A Functional Model of Self-Determination: Michael L. Wehmeyer
et al........................................................................................167
48. Theory of Mental Self-Government: Robert J. Sternberg ......168
49. Reversal Theory: Micheal J. Apter ........................................170
50. Sixteen Fundamental Desires: Reiss & Havercamp ...............173
51. CISS – Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations: Endler& Parker
...............................................................................................175
52. The Johari Window: Joseph Luft & Harry Ingham................177
53. Affect Infusion Model: Joseph P. Forgas...............................180
PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY .......................................................... 182
54. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Isabel Briggs Myers...............183
55. A Synthesis of Personality Typologies: Alan Miller..............187
56. Personality as an Affect Processing System: Jack Block .......190
57. Social Style Model: TRACOM Group...................................196
58. Dunn’s Model of Sensory Processing: Winnie Dunn.............198
59. Personality as Information Gating: William P. Nash .............201
60. Biosocial Theory of Personality: C. Robert Cloninger ..........203
61. Biological Response Styles: L. J. Siever................................205
62. Factors of the Karolinska Scales of Personality: Ortet et al. ..206
63. AAAA – The “Four A’s” Model of Personality Disorders: Austin &
Deary......................................................................................207

6
 64. The Thematic Aptitude Test and Story Sequence Analysis ...208
65. Interpersonal Circle Models of Personality: Timothy Leary..210
66. The Interpersonal Force Field: D. J. Kiesler ..........................211
POPULAR PSYCHOLOGY ..................................................................213
67. Brain Styles: Marlane Miller..................................................214
68. The CAPS Model of Personal Styles: Merril & Reid ............216
69. The Four Temperament Patterns: D. Keirsey, L. V. Berens ..218
70. Sexual Styles: Sandra Scantling.............................................220
71. Living Your Colors: Tom Maddron.......................................222
72. Birds of Different Feathers: Hately & Schmidt .....................223
EDUCATION .....................................................................................224
73. Experiential Learning Theory: David A. Kolb.......................225
74. Learning Styles: Honey & Mumford .....................................228
75. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences: Silver, Strong & Perini 229
76. The Mind Styles Model: Anthony Gregorc ...........................231
77. Mathematical Discovery: George Polya ................................233
78. Theory of Attentional and Personal Style: Robert Nideffer...235
79. Four Models for Learning Negotiation Skills: Nadler, Thompson &
Van Boven .............................................................................237
80. Mutual Dependence of Challenge and Support: Brigid Reid.238
PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION AND HISTORICAL SOURCES .....................241
81. Four World Hypotheses: Stephen Pepper ..............................242
82. Reason and Ethics: Sean O’Connell ......................................243
83. Jung's Four and Some Philosophers: Thomas M. King .........246
84. The Four Humors...................................................................249
85. The Four Cardinal Virtues .....................................................253
86. The Gunas and the Yogas ......................................................255
87. Sanskrit Literary Theory and the Four Goals of Life.............260
88. The Four Beginnings of Confucianism ..................................261
89. The Four Agreements: Don Miguel Ruiz...............................262
LANGUAGE, ARTS AND MEDIA .......................................................264
90. Dramatica: Philips and Huntley .............................................265
91. Kenneth Burke’s Rhetorical Framework ...............................269
92. Aristotle’s Rhetorical Appeals ...............................................272

7
 93. InterGrammar: Arndt & Janney .............................................273
94. A Cognitive Typology of Speech Acts: Driven & Verspoor..277
95. Discourse Functions of Humour: Greatbatch & Clark ...........279
96. Artistic Types: Loomis & Saltz..............................................280
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING........................................ 282
97. Model Views of the Unified Modelling Language: Si Alhir..283
98. Parameters of Fuzzy Inference: Carlos A. Peña-Reyes..........285
99. Types of Programming...........................................................287
100. The Code Size Optimization Problem: Shin, Lee & Min.......288
101. Adjustably Autonomous Agents & Decision Making: Verhagen &
Kummeneje ............................................................................290
102. Multi-Agent Coordination: Victor R. Lesser .........................291
103. Organizational Design and Instantiation: Sims, Corkill and Lesser292
104. Operational Design Coordination: Coates et al. .....................293
105. Agent Mediated Dynamic Coordination Policies: Bose & Matthews
...............................................................................................295
106. Interacting Cognitive Radios: Joseph Mitola III, Neel et al...297
NEUROSCIENCE............................................................................... 299
107. Topology, Graph Theory & the Magic Number Four in Neuroscience:
Robert Glassman ....................................................................300
108. Executive Functioning as Problem-Solving: Zelazo et al. .....304
109. Personality Dimensions in Adult Male Rhesus Macaques: John
Capitanio ................................................................................306
110. Vertical Systems from Spine to Cortex: Larry Swanson........307
111. Mesencephalic Locomotor Region: H. M. Sinnamon ............314
112. Parallel Channels through the Basal Ganglia: Martin, Blumenfeld 317
113. Midline Thalamic Nuclei: Van der Werf et al........................319
114. Zona Incerta: J. Mitrofanis .....................................................321
115. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: Gray and McNaughton ...323
116. Dimensions of OCD Symptoms: Hasler et al.........................326

Part 4 : Afterword ...........................................328

Bibliography ....................................................329

8
Preface
It is common practice in academic books for the author to thank and
acknowledge a huge team of collaborators without whose help the
production of the book would have been impossible, and then to claim
responsibility for any errors, distortions or inconsistencies which remain in
the text. In my case, I am more than usually responsible for all of the many
flaws in this text, since I worked on it entirely in isolation. No community of
peers to present subcomponents of the work to over the years, no platoon of
editors and publishing professionals to create a polished style for the book,
no generous foundation or grant program to support my efforts financially.
All I had was my university library card, a leave of absence from graduate
school and some time, made possible by the financial sacrifices of my own
mother, who believed in me and wanted to support my work. You have
heard of amateur filmmakers and amateur musicians. I was an amateur
academic during this period of my life, pursuing the structure of concern as
a topic simply because I thought it was important for humanity to be aware
of what seemed to me to be a noteworthy feature of reality.
While I am now paying the price, literally and figuratively, for my
three years of pursuing this pattern I call the structure of concern, I still think
it was worth it. There is a general phenomenon of some kind happening
here. Some kind of regularity exists in nature that many different intellectual
models are representing in isolation from each other. It may have something
to do with the structure of interacting agents, or with energy and information
constraints… I don’t know how to explain it. My role has only been to help
identify it. Explaining it is a challenge I invite others to help accomplish.
For the production of this book, I acknowledge Dr. Ichak Adizes,
who provided the inspiration for it, my mother for her love and unshakable
support, and my wife Tanya for her patience and devotion during what has
been a very trying time. Together, we offer you, the reader, this gift, the
fruits of our labour. Hopefully some of you out there will be able to one day
explain to us all exactly what the structure of concern is, and why it turns up
so frequently in certain domains of intellectual life. I look forward to reading
your work about this in the future, if this message finds you in time.

9
Introduction
This book has two goals. It introduces a pattern of interlocking
constraints which I call the structure of concern, and it issues a challenge to
all of the thinkers of world – to the theoreticians, mathematicians,
academicians and consultants – to find the best level of description for it; the
level underlying all the others; the level at which it might be explained.
The structure of concern is an exceedingly simple pattern, that could
be given the following minimal description: Adaptive systems can improve
their performance in four ways: by becoming faster and sparer, or bigger
and more stable, or by inventing new strategies or cooperating better with
other systems – but each of these mitigate against the others, so decide
carefully, given your circumstances.

That, in a nutshell, is it.

The remarkable thing about this fourfold tradeoff is not its novelty,
but rather its unrecognized pervasiveness in intellectual culture. The structure
of concern is expressed in many theoretical models across many intellectual
disciplines. However, the authors of each model do not typically represent
them as members of a larger class. Differences of terminology obscure the
generality and scope of this pattern of explanation. The theories have to be
brought together within a common frame of reference for the latent extended
concept to appear. That is what I hope to accomplish in this book.
Given its very broad scope, it seems clear to me that the structure of
concern is an important theoretical pattern. Many examples of the structure
of concern are rooted in organizational studies and personality psychology,
so at a minimum, this pattern is important for managing our social
institutions and ourselves. The structure of concern can also be seen within
systems models in theoretical ecology. The fact that it appears in both
psychology and ecology suggests that it might be a useful framework for
understanding high-level design features of the brain – a psychological
engine that solves ecological problems. Beyond this, the structure of concern
is a potential point of contact between many different fields of study, so
studying this pattern will help promote consilience across many intellectual
domains. It is a worthwhile field of investigation, and one I invite any and all
to explore.
I do not know what the structure of concern ultimately is. I do not
know how best to describe it. In this book, I simply amass a catalog of
10
models that all exhibit the same pattern. I invite my readers to ponder what
the best level of description for the pattern will be. Perhaps the structure of
concern is best described as a selective problem in evolutionary theory.
Perhaps it is best described as a multi-constraint search and optimization
problem. Perhaps it is best described in terms of the structure of living
systems and ecosystems. Maybe it is a cybernetic concept or a general
systems concept – broadly applicable in the way that the concepts of
“feedback” and “causality” are. I do not know.
All I know is that this pattern of explanation is very widespread. In
organizational theory, one prominent expression of this fourfold structure is
known as the competing values framework. Carl Jung’s four personality
functions: Sensing, Intuiting, Thinking and Feeling, also express the structure
of concern. Galen’s four humors and their associated temperaments: choleric,
melancholic, phlegmatic and sanguine, are likewise relevant to this
discussion. However, concern structure models turn up everywhere,
including discussions of knowledge management methodologies, suicide,
yoga, information systems, sex, multi-agent networking, ethics, nervous
system organization, drama, military planning, speech pragmatics, forest
conservation, education and even philosophy. Some concern structure
models are quite specialized and obscure, but some others count among the
most widely used conceptual frameworks we have. My main goal in this
book is simply to compare all of these frameworks to point out the
similarities between them. Although I do name some potential explanatory
hypotheses, readers are invited to ponder how best to explain it all.
In order to compare many different models to each other, we need a
point of reference – a common framework within which all of the disparate
models can be situated. The reference model I have chosen for this work –
the concern structure model that I compare all the other models to – is called
the Adizes Methodology. It is an organizational and management
optimization methodology that I describe later in some detail. The concern
structure model in the Adizes Methodology is unique in the way it spans
several levels of explanation (individual, social, organizational, functional,
structural, strategic, analytical, psychological…). It is thus very inclusive and
extensible, making it uniquely suitable for use as a reference model in an
interdisciplinary study such as this one.
I begin the book by introducing the Adizes Methodology and the
four-letter code used to label each quadrant of its concern structure model –
PAEI. I then produce a catalog of 116 concern structure models, showing
which elements in each model correspond to PAE or I in the Adizes
framework. I also discuss the particularities of each model. That is the limit
and extent of my intellectual ambitions for this installment of the structure of
concern project. There remains much work to be done, analyzing the patterns
within the collection, determining facets and making categorizations. This is
11
not something I attempt in the current volume. It is work I defer to a later
time. The catalog itself is the argument I make in this book – the argument
that some universal pattern lurks among all these models – a universal
pattern that needs description.
My hope is that this book will enliven the curiosity of other inquiring
minds – people who can produce an explanation of the structure of concern
and define its role in the unification of human knowledge. I am not someone
who can accomplish this task on my own, but perhaps someone else out there
can; or perhaps, working together, we might be able to resolve this question
as a group, together exploring the new avenues for understanding that our
insights open up. I think this will be a productive journey for those of us
who choose to undertake it, and I wish you nothing but luck in your efforts to
understand this pervasive phenomenon that I will be labeling the structure of
concern. I hope you find the catalog I present to be a compelling argument.
There is something happening here which I strongly believe we will be better
off understanding.

12
Part 1: The Structure of
Concern
About the Adizes Methodology
The Adizes Methodology, my reference model for all of the concern
structure models gathered for this study, can be difficult to describe. It has
called a management intervention technique, a business revitalization
program and an organizational therapy. It is an eleven-phase methodology
developed by Ichak Adizes, formerly a professor from the John E. Anderson
Graduate School of Management at UCLA. The Adizes Methodology is a set
of practices and procedures for optimizing organizational function on an
ongoing basis. These practices are carried out by the management team of
Adizes client organizations, facilitated by Adizes or one of his licensed
associates. One stated goal of the Methodology is to help organizations reach
and remain in a dynamic state that optimally balances flexibility and control
as conditions change. This state is called Prime.
The Methodology itself – the explicit 11-phase process used to
diagnose and solve problems within the organization – is a proprietary
resource available only to Adizes clients. However, the conceptual
framework supporting that Methodology is in the public domain, having been
published in many forms. The Adizes Methodology is typically understood to
include this conceptual framework, such that the term ‘Methodology’ is
flexibly used to apply both to the publicly available conceptual material and
the 11-phase proprietary intervention plan. My use of the terms ‘Adizes’ and
‘Adizes Methodology’ refers only to the conceptual framework, not the
intervention program.
The conceptual framework is summarized below. The summary is
mainly informed by my own familiarity with Adizes concepts, which is the
product of my professional work as an instructional designer building
Adizes-based management courses for online educators. Unlike those
courses, my own work in this book has not been reviewed by any experts in
the Adizes Methodology, so I bear sole responsibility for any errors or
distortions in my account. Books on the Adizes conceptual framework
include Mastering Change, Managing Corporate Lifecycles,
Management/Mismanagement Styles, Leading the Leaders and The Ideal
Executive, among others, described in more detail at www.adizes.com.

13
Situating the Adizes Methodology
Conceptually, the Adizes Methodology is a contingency theory of
human organizations, which makes use of a competing values framework to
describe management dynamics and organizational lifecycle dynamics. Let
me take a moment to explain what this means.
Contingency or congruency theories in organizational studies
emphasize that there is no single best type of organization. Instead, these
theories emphasize the importance of fit (Aldrich, 1979). Fitness can be
described as the ‘aligning’ or ‘matching’ of organizational resources to
environmental opportunities and threats (Andrews, 1971; Chandler, 1962).
‘Organizational resources’ must be taken to include both collective and
individual management styles, abilities, behaviors, values and aspirations
(Szilagyi & Schweiger, 1984; Tichy, 1982). Peters and Waterman (1982)
summarize these resources as seven “S’s”: strategy, structure, systems, style,
staff, skills and shared values. Organizations that fit their circumstances well
align all of these elements with each other and with external opportunities
and threats. Achieving this fit is the essence of good management, on the
contingency theory view.
The concept of a competing values theory, which I use here as a
general term, was initially developed by Quinn et al. to describe their own
theoretical approach to management intervention and pedagogy (see, for
example, Quinn et al., 2003). Their competing values framework grows out
of a historical account of the emergence of four schools of management in
American society:

The Rational Goal Model & Internal Process Model, 1900 – 1925;

The Human Relations Model arose between 1926 – 1950; and,

The Open Systems Model, arising between 1951 – 1975.

These styles of management may have arisen historically, but they

are all still with us today. Working managers have to balance all of the
conflicting imperatives that these managerial concerns highlight.
The Rational Goal Model is preoccupied with control, and it has an
external focus. Success is measured by profits, and attained by clarifying
explicit goals and plans, and working to realize them. The Internal Process
Model is also oriented towards control, but internal control, as the name
suggests. It values stability, hierarchy, continuity and routine. This is
attainted by the explicit delineation of responsibilities, and careful
measurement and documentation of job performance. The Human Relations
Model is associated for some people with Dale Carnegie, and it emphasizes
flexibility in dealing with internal matters. This style of management
emphasizes commitment, cohesion and morale-building through
14
involvement, participation, conflict resolution, teamwork and consensus. The
Open Systems Model promotes a flexible approach to the external
environment, valuing innovation, adaptation and growth through external
bargaining, brokering and negotiation, creative problem solving, innovation
and change management.

External Internal

Rational Internal
Control Goal Process
Model Model

Open Human
Flexibility Systems Relations
Model Model

Figure 1: The Competing Values Model (Quinn et al., 2003)

Obviously, all organizations need to address all four of these areas of

concern simultaneously. Flexibility and control in the external and internal
environments are things all organizations need to have. No single one of
these value models is adequate in itself, and clearly, the goals of the four
models are somewhat incompatible. At a certain point, emphasizing any one
of these competing value systems will seriously compromise the goals of the
others. Managers thus have to juggle and balance conflicting imperatives.
Quinn et al. use these four models to introduce a form of management
pedagogy that takes lessons from all four schools to train managers to
function better in all four areas of concern.
The concept of a competing values framework can be generalized.
Theoretically, we could put any pair of alternative values on the x and y axes
of a competing values grid. There could thus be a very large set of competing
values frameworks that we could articulate. The pattern that I call the
structure of concern is not any arbitrary set of conflicting values however,
but rather a specific (though fuzzy) set of particular values within this 2x2
grid. I label these values with the Adizes labels of PAEI. So I take the
concept of a competing values framework introduced by Quinn et al. as an
example of a more general class of logically possible models. Within that
class, a subset of those models are concern structure models. Quinn et al.’s
15
model happens to also be a concern structure model, so it will have its own
catalog entry later in this book, which will outline more of the details of its
rich conceptual framework.
The Adizes Methodology can be described as a contingency-
theoretical approach to organizational management that analyses all the
components of fitness using a competing values (or concern structure)
framework. For example, the need for internal and external flexibility and
control – the dimensions of the Quinn et al. model – are represented in the
Adizes Methodology. However, the Adizes competing values framework is
extended into the area of personality dynamics, to describe the cognitive,
emotional and personality styles of managers. It is also used to describe
phases of organizational growth and development, organizational design,
organizational politics, mergers and acquisitions, problem-solving
techniques, communication skills, roles for productive meetings and many
other organizational matters. It is this breadth of application that makes it a
productive reference model.
This breadth can best be illustrated now by launching a discussion
of the concern structure concepts inside the Adizes Methodology itself. Once
this reference model has been clarified, we can then turn to out investigation
of the many manifestations of the structure of concern across many different
domains and disciplines.

PAEI: The Adizes Concern Structure Model

There are several ways to introduce the Adizes model of the structure
of concern. Most of them involve introducing some key distinctions between
the competing values in question. For example, two competing values
underlying the Adizes model (among others) are the values of effectiveness
and efficiency. These two values are different, and not entirely compatible, in
that both cannot be maximized simultaneously.
In the Adizes Methodology, effectiveness is defined as “obtaining
results which somebody needs”, and efficiency is defined as “conducting
activities with minimal waste”. We can obtain needed results very quickly
and reliably if we spare no cost in obtaining them, but then our resources will
be depleted and unavailable for more work. We must also conserve our
resources and work efficiently. However, over-concern with efficiency can
lead to activities being under-resourced, which can compromise the
attainment of results.
Determining a suitable trade-off between the mobilization and
conservation of energy is thus necessary for every decision, and this
judgment must be made under conditions of some risk or uncertainty.
However, taking both concerns explicitly into account when deciding makes
16
it much easier to adapt and adjust the trade-off quickly in the early stages of
implementation. Striking a workable balance between effectiveness and
efficiency in the attainment of our goals is important for reaching a quality
decision.
Adizes also introduces a temporal dimension that cuts across the
effectiveness/efficiency dimension. Decisions can be effective and efficient
in the short run, but over longer periods of time those decisions can be shown
to be ineffective and inefficient. One effective way to end a conflict between
two employees is to fire both of them. No more conflict! As a general
strategy, however, this approach to conflict will depopulate the organization.
It is not effective in the long run.
Similarly, it can be more efficient in the short term to reduce job
redundancy and minimize job overlap. But if no one knows much about their
neighbors’ jobs, then when someone is ill or away, others cannot take up the
slack. The whole overspecialized team might be immobilized if one of the
specialists is unavailable. Allowing some overlap facilitates learning, so that
team members can fill in for each other when needed. The imperatives of
short-term efficiency and long-term efficiency are not identical to each other.
Short term effectiveness and efficiency alone are inadequate.
Quality decisions must be both effective and efficient in the short and long
run. These four functional horizons are illustrated below:

Effective Efficient

Short- Short-
Short-term term term
Effective Efficient

Long- Long-
Long-term term term
Effective Efficient

Figure 2: The Adizes Methodology Functional Horizons

Layered over these four functional horizons, Adizes describes four

corresponding activities: Producing, Administrating, Entrepreneuring and
Integrating. These activities address short-term and long-term effectiveness
and efficiency.

17
 Effective Efficient

Produc- Admini-
Short-term
ing strating

Entrepre- Integrat-
Long-term
neuring ing

Figure 3: Adizes Methodology – the Four Functions

Astute readers may already have noticed that these four managerial
roles are functionally equivalent to those described by Quinn et al. (2003),
pointing to some common underlying reality or insight. These are explicitly
drawn out below:

Adizes Competing Values

Concerns
Methodology Framework
Producing Rational Goal Model Concrete results
Administrating Internal Process Model Efficient processes
Entrepreneuring Open Systems Model Adaptability
Integrating Human Relations Model Relationships

Table 1: Comparing Quinn et al. and Adizes

Table 1 prefigures the rest of this work, which at a certain level of

abstraction can be seen merely as a huge, gigantic table detailing 116
overlapping models that all show traces of this same fourfold tradeoff
between these competing values.
In the Adizes framework, Producing is the activity of attaining short-
term or immediate results, and Administrating is the activity of minimizing
waste in ongoing activities. Entrepreneuring is the activity of seeking out
and recognizing new opportunities or new orientations to the environment,
and Integrating is the activity of coordinating shared attention and
identification. Integration keeps organizations socially and functionally

18
cohesive, preventing them from degenerating into mechanical, purely
formally interrelated collections of functionally isolated individuals. When it
operates properly, the organization becomes an organic unit that can survive
even when key people leave the organization. Integration makes a whole that
is more than the sum of its parts – one in which no single person on the team
is indispensable. Any individual can step down from their position to be
replaced by someone else, and the organization will still be what it is.
One advantage of the Adizes Methodology as a frame of reference
for this study is that Adizes abbreviates his four categories of Producing,
Administrating, Entrepreneuring and Integrating using just the four first
letters of each word – PAEI. This makes it easier to disembed the concerns
he lists for each value set, taking them out of their context in organizational
studies to apply them more broadly as a possible features of some larger
reality.
It might seem easy to make good quality decisions, since we only
need to consider four simple concerns. However, people are very likely to
disagree on the right balance of priorities for any given situation. Each
concern requires decision-makers to adopt certain preoccupations,
motivations, values, instincts and priorities. But due to personal preferences,
some concerns appeal to us more than others. We each have biases towards
or away from different styles of concern. Furthermore, we are very unlikely
to be equally skilled at solving problems in all four styles of concern,
because talent in one biases against talent in others (e.g. a talent for quick,
snap decisions and a talent for long, careful meticulous decisions are hard to
maximize within the same person).
An implication is that something in our biological organization
makes it impossible to operate with equal brilliance in all four quadrants of
concern. We are not wired up to be extremely talented in all four styles of
concern at once. Most people will have a dominant style, a second strong
style, a third competent style and a final weak style. We can attain ‘four-
square’ excellence only by teaming up with other people whose talents and
preferences are different from ours. This creates synergy. It also necessarily
entails conflict among collaborators.
If it is kept constructive, conflict is a positive development.
Incompatibilities on teams can be leveraged to produce better group
decisions by ensuring that all four functional horizons receive due
consideration. Teams can thereby accomplish the well-rounded decision-
making that individuals will always find more difficult to do, given the
inevitability of personal biases and preferences. To understand conflict in
decision-making, and to use it constructively rather than destructively, these
preferences and biases have to be generally understood.

19
 Adizes illustrates these biases through the construction of four
allegorical or prototypical personality profiles: the Producer, the
Administrator, the Entrepreneur and the Integrator. These characters
exemplify the styles he describes. They are introduced below, and they
illustrate the structure of concern in the field of personality, although the
characters are clearly simplified. Each one represents a single, unadmixed
dominant style, rather than the unique mixture of all four styles that
characterizes most adult human beings.

Adizes Prototypical Management Styles

Producers
Producers are high energy people, active and extroverted. They like
to be busy all the time, and their interests are overwhelmingly concrete. They
love to attain tangible results, and to attain them often. They feel highly
rewarded every time they can declare a task complete. Producers dislike
fussy details, ambiguous situations or abstract considerations. They have
little patience with future-oriented tasks and wild brainstorming. They are
much more interested in getting a task done than they are in ensuring that
their colleagues are happy with the way it got done. They will denigrate these
kinds of interpersonal concerns, feeling that the rapid attainment of concrete
results justifies the suspension of other concerns. This can make them
unpleasant to be around at times, but they are responsible for driving many
organizational achievements. Producers help us stop talking about solutions
and start implementing on them.

Administrators
Administrators are quiet, cautious people who are less concerned
with what we should do than how we should do it. They need to know what
process or procedure we are planning to use before they can join in on the
action. They are extremely uncomfortable with ambiguity or uncertainty, and
they are made uneasy by unstructured environments and by group reliance on
spontaneity and improvisation. Unplanned activities feel distressingly chaotic
to them.
Administrators prefer to construct a system of routines and
conventions for ongoing activities, so they can be conducted in the smoothest
and least disruptive manner possible. In organizational contexts, they bring
stability and order to collective activities. They are slow and careful in
decision-making because they track each detail to make certain it is handled
properly. They also weigh the impact of any proposed changes on the entire
20
stabilizing network of rules that they maintain. They may say “no” to new
proposals as a reflex, in order to slow things down so they can think through
the proposal and deliver a revised opinion once they have worked through
their concerns. Administrators may see Producers as sloppy loose canons
wreaking havoc upon organizational operations. Producers may see
Administrators as fussy obstructionists.

Entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs are easily typecast as dreamers. They are not
interested in the results we are attaining today, and would rather focus on
bigger potential achievements in the future. Entrepreneurs feel stifled by the
demands of ongoing activities. The here-and-now is a trap. Entrepreneurs are
energized by novel challenges, exciting opportunities, new possibilities and
future achievements. They are talkative and charismatic. Their excitement is
highly infectious, and they love being at the center of attention. They are
flamboyant, expressive and very easily bored. They can come up with several
very different grand future schemes every few minutes, when inspired.
Entrepreneurs scan the environment constantly for changes, in their
drive for novelty. They love aligning themselves with new developments,
and fomenting more change in those new directions. They track activities at
a very high level of abstraction, looking for trends and anomalies. Producers
are highly skeptical of this abstract exploration of mere possibilities, where
there is a clear to-do list for the here and now. Administrators see
Entrepreneurs as either irrelevant or dangerous. Entrepreneurs want to
dramatically change the whole game an organization is playing, with no
detailed sense of what the new rules will be. This cannot be squared easily
with Administrator concerns about how to best do what we are currently
doing.
Entrepreneurs are the only managers who seek out and stimulate
major changes. They are easily dismissed, but it is fatal for organizations to
shut them out. Change is inevitable, and the structure of Entrepreneurial
agency allows them to help the whole team anticipate and adapt to change in
a timely, proactive manner.

Integrators
Integrators are team-builders with the organization. They manage the
interpersonal, interdepartmental, supplier and client relationships that allow
the organization to function together as one organic whole. They attend to
peoples’ needs, views, motivators, complaints and conflicts to foster a
constructive working environment. Integrators help people focus on shared
21
goals. They are less concerned about formal roles and titles, and more
concerned that people pull together, each and all doing whatever it takes to
achieve their collective mission. The measure of an Integrator’s success is
his or her ability to take a vacation. He or she can step away from the
organization for periods of time because it is well Integrated and functions as
an organic whole.
In meetings where Producers are pushing for a quick decision about
what to do, Administrators are slowing things down to make sure we
carefully consider how best to proceed, and Entrepreneurs are questioning
why we are even doing any of that now, when a new long-term plan is more
attractive, Integrators are thinking about who we are, who is in the room and
who our other stakeholders are. Integrators are trying to align concerns and
interests, turning us into a combined and unified (organically integrated)
force, in touch (integrated) with our social surroundings.
Producers do not have adequate patience for integration work. Their
impatience is important for rapid task execution, but they typically tolerate
damage to team integration in order to get things done. Administrators are
more abstract in their focus than Integrators. In administrative mode, persons
are defined according to roles specified in policies and procedures. No
procedure defines the unique elements of interpersonal or group interaction
that Integrators are so attentive to and aware of.
Entrepreneurs are also less concrete than Integrators. They can get
lost in hypothetical futures. They prefer to be at the center of attention rather
than sharing the spotlight, let alone stepping into the wings to observe and
support others. None of these other three management styles focus on people
in the way that Integrators do. They all focus in one way or another on tasks.
Integration is the only function focused on the organization itself as a group
of people pulling together to exert more power as a team than any of them
could do individually.

Conflict of Styles
As mentioned earlier, the four characters mentioned above are
allegorical. The Adizes Methodology holds that under normal circumstances,
all people are able to operate in all four management modes. However, we
are naturally strongest in only one of the four styles, almost from birth. A
secondary style develops as we mature, and by adulthood we are usually very
capable in our second mode. A third style can be learned with more effort,
and in our weakest style we can function but will almost always benefit from
some help. Our accomplishments in our weakest mode will never be as swift,
easy and natural as achievement in our dominant modes. Teaming up with
someone whose style profile complements ours is the only way to address all
four horizons of concern with equal competence. In order for this teaming up

22
to work, we have to respect the different values and priorities of our
complementary partners. Conflict is guaranteed, but mutual respect keeps it
constructive.
Our inability to be strongly talented in all four styles does not stem
from any particular human frailty. The styles themselves are in conflict, such
that strong performance on one of them requires characteristics that work
against strong performance in others. The following table illustrates some of
these conflicts.

Dimension P A E I
Time Focus Immediate Past Future Present
Task Focus Results Process Results Process
Coordination of Goals Systems Ideas People
Scope Individual Systemic Global Local
Thinking Concrete Abstract Possibilities Relationships
Restraint Unrestrained Restrained Unrestrained Restrained
Regulation Controlled Controlled Free Free
Reasoning Literal Literal Metaphorical Metaphorical
Reference Specific Specific Approximate Approximate
Concerns External Internal External Internal
Positioning Central Peripheral Central Peripheral

Table 2: Conflicts and Affinities between Styles

Different styles use different tactics to realize different strategies.

When people lack respect for other styles, this can lead them to devalue the
imperatives and concerns proper to the other styles. If this devaluation is
extreme, the person may cease to function in the devalued style. They may
even cease to recognize the existence of that class of concerns. They begin to
manage all of their problems with the conspicuous disregard of a whole
category of concerns, and their decisions begin to show predictable patterns
of failure. The unbalanced kind of management that ensues is called
mismanagement in the Adizes Methodology.
The complete loss of even one style results in mismanagement and
predictable patterns of failure, but the clearest and most visible forms of
mismanagement arise when full reliance is placed on one and only one

23
management style. All other styles and priorities are denigrated and
disrespected. These mismanagement styles help to highlight the competing
values within the model. They are described below, one for each PAEI
element.

Adizes Mismanagement Styles

The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger is a perpetually busy manager who only cares
about results. Lone Rangers are perfectly willing to trample over peoples’
feelings, to violate proper procedure, and to cut short discussions about
possibilities just so that known tasks can be executed quickly. Quality of
execution matters much less than task completion. Lone Rangers prefer to do
all tasks themselves, because for any one task it is easier and quicker for
them to do it themselves rather than training someone else to do it. This has
the ironic outcome that Lone Rangers – who are interested in rapid execution
to the exclusion of all else – end up becoming bottlenecks in the organization
where work sometimes grinds to a near halt. Lone Rangers do not build
effective work teams around them. Their employees tend to become simple
errand-runners for the Lone Ranger as he or she manages tasks by crisis.
Lone Rangers leave work late and arrive early the next day in order to get
things done. Their employees leave early and arrive late, because there is
essentially nothing for them to do.
Lone Rangers make poor managers because they try to manage tasks
directly, rather than managing the team that does the tasks. Their strong
preference for concrete, tangible results and their inability to assess other
kinds of outcomes leads to this untenable situation. Lone Rangers place a
severe limitation on the capacity of a team to grow. The team never gains the
capacity to do more work than the Lone Ranger him or herself is capable of
doing.

The Bureaucrat
Unlike Lone Rangers, Bureaucrats do not care about concrete or
tangible results in the slightest. However, they are extremely concerned with
how things are done, with procedures, rules and practices. They spend their
time scrutinizing behavior on their teams to make sure that prescribed
methods are being followed. If an employee was to circumvent a rule or two
to accomplish some important task, this would be a disaster. The Bureaucrat
would devote all energies to punishing the wrongdoer for side-stepping a
rule, completely ignoring the important results that this side-stepping made
possible. No results in the world would justify “taking shortcuts”. Just
because taking shortcuts worked this time does not mean it will work next
24
time. Rather, total chaos and an unspeakable cascade of complications might
occur, violating rule after rule after rule. Better to follow the rules – that’s the
point. The rules say we should follow the rules, and so those are the rules we
should follow. It’s the only way.
Bureaucrats hate improvisation and uncertainty in work behavior.
They develop and release policies and procedures for everything, firmly
believing that any policy is better than no policy around a task. Subordinates
are expected to demonstrate that they followed proper procedure in
everything they do, and innovation or improvisation is either discouraged or
positively punished. The rules are seen as the guarantee that the team will not
get into trouble. Bureaucrats end up managing the rules, with no attention
paid to the experiences of stakeholders outside of the rules. The organization
may become insolvent and go under, but it will do so on time and according
to regulations.
Everyone in bureaucratic organizations leaves work on time and
arrives on time the next day. In the interim, they manage to look busy and
keep things neat and well-organized, whether or not they are doing work that
actually delivers any real value to internal or external stakeholders. The irony
of bureaucracy is that the desire for order leads to such a massive
proliferation of rules and policies that people become disoriented. The drive
for order produces chaos, and the destruction that rules were put in place to
prevent ends up sweeping away the whole work unit, which has stopped
delivering value to stakeholders.

The Arsonist
In their own minds, Arsonist are visionaries, about to revolutionize
the world and garner the attention of all due to their genius and originality.
Their favorite event is the announcement: the announcement of a new grand
plan, great vision, new direction, innovative campaign, etc. They love these
announcements and the commotion that they cause. They love to see their
employees cheer and scramble to reorganize themselves in order to enact a
new vision. The problem is, after a short period of time, once all the
excitement dies down and the hard work of implementing the plans begins in
earnest, Arsonists begin to get bored. In their boredom, they begin to dream
up new grand schemes and new directions. This all builds up to a new
announcement and a new great vision for employees to follow. The old
projects they had been giving their attention to are now seen as irrelevant.
Since this happens with great regularity, employees are constantly
forced to change directions. Their manager only appears among them to start
new fires, watching everyone scramble to cope with them. Employees are
eventually forced to ignore their manager – to applaud enthusiastically to
newly announced ideas, but to ignore the substance of those new

25
announcements and to continue working on some project or another to the
point of completion. The irony of the Arsonist is that someone who craves
being at the center of everyone’s attention and esteem ends up being
irrelevant, marginalized and ignored by all around them.

The Super Follower

Super Followers are consummate political animals. They often have
no sense of any of the issues that are at stake, but they have an extremely
strong awareness of the conditions for political survival surrounding those
issues. Super Followers thus do not stand for or represent anything in
particular. They simply echo or parrot back the mood and language of the
powerful or the dominant clique. Super Followers are sometimes so good at
following that they do so before anyone has a chance to lead. They will
gauge the mood, tone and emerging consensus of a meeting, and then stand
up and articulate that consensus as if it was their own contribution. They will
only do this when they feel certain of the consensus, however. Super
Followers are conflict averse, so if they are confronted with some residual
conflict while they try to articulate the consensus, they may shift their
articulated position on a dime, so as always to seem to be in agreement with
whoever they are interacting with. This kind of face-to-face agreement
characterizes all of their interactions with important or powerful people. The
issues don’t matter. Being on the right side is the only thing they care about.
Super Followers like one particular type of subordinate; one who
listens in on conversations, who has friends throughout the organization, and
who feeds this information to the Super Follower to help him or her in
political intrigue – a gossip. Super Followers do occasionally become leaders
of organizations, and when they do, they still seek out a powerful reference
group to please. There will be a set of stakeholders, constituents or
commentators that the Super Follower will try to impress and appease. They
“govern by opinion poll”, taking no particular stand on any issues until it is
clear what the reference group wants to hear.
It does not matter to the Super Follower if the organization drifts
away from its actual mandate as a result of all of this impression
management. It only matters if powerful onlookers criticize the Super
Follower for allowing this drift to happen. They way things are is of no
concern to the Super Follower. All that matters is the way things look. The
irony of course is that a sole focus on form over function leads to scandalous
failures of function that can expose a Super Follower for what he or she is, a
confused mismanager with narrow priorities interested primarily in their own
position, rather than the good of the whole organization. By worrying
exclusively about looking good, they end up looking pathetically bad.

26
Finding Balance
The truth is that in any adaptive situation, all four concerns are going
to be relevant, though not to the same degree. In the organization of first-
response emergency services, for example, rational order and organization
(A) are very important, to enable quick responses (P). However, complex and
cumbersome regulations can actually impede first responders, so finding the
right balance of P and A is crucial for this predominantly Productive
function. Similarly, training scenarios and simulations of possible disasters
(E) are important for emergency preparedness, but these scenarios should not
be misrecognized as exhaustive of the true range of possible situations that
first responders may be faced with (P). It must always be remembered that
truth is stranger than fiction, and that P-style on-the-ground, results-driven
flexibility matters more than prior rehearsal. Finally, I-style concerns
regarding the cohesiveness between different response services are
important, as is the degree of Integration within the community being helped.
Ideally, there will have been a long-term investment in I, since well-
integrated communities pull together in a crisis. If this was not done, the lack
of I in a region will bedevil efforts to aid victims no matter how severe their
privation.
In real situations, the right schedule of PAEI priorities can be very
difficult to determine, and given the inevitable biases of individuals,
assessing PAEI needs is fundamentally a team activity. It takes a minimum
of two people with complementary PAEI strengths who also share mutual
respect for each others’ relative strengths, to assess and make decisions that
cover all PAEI priorities adequately. Their conflicting perspectives are what
generate the information needed to make quality decisions. In order for that
conflict to be productive, however, mutual respect must be preserved.
Disrespect for any of the four concerns will lead to predictable patterns of
failure or suboptimal performance, along with the ironic traps attendant to
the various styles of individual or group mismanagement.

Adizes Organizational Lifecycles

The brief and incomplete survey of Adizes management and
mismanagement styles above shows how the Adizes concern structure is
manifested at the psychological level. Prior to that, we saw how the concern
structure defined four functional imperatives of achieving long and short
term effectiveness and efficiency. A third zone of application of concern
structure thinking in the Adizes Methodology arises in the context of its
theory of organizational lifecycle dynamics1.

1
For another personality-typed organizational lifecycle model, see Bridges (2000).
27
 Like other lifecycle models, the Adizes organizational lifecycle
describes several phases in the life of any project, from inception and growth
through to maturation and decline. However, the Adizes lifecycle describes
this maturational arc in PAEI (concern structure) terms. The lifecycle is
described in ten phases: Courtship, Infancy, Go-Go, Adolescence, Prime,
Stable, Aristocracy, Early Bureaucracy, Late Bureaucracy and Death. Each
phase has its unique PAEI needs, and specific consequences for PAEI
mismatches. The phases and their concern structure requirements are
described below.

Courtship [paEi]
The phase of Courtship involves the potential founder of a new project or
organization talking to others about the opportunity, building enthusiasm and
support for the new idea. This lifecycle phase is dominated by the
Entrepreneuring function. Dreams and ideas for new projects or enterprises
are exciting! The enthusiasm of the originator of the idea can be profoundly
contagious, pulling other people into the excitement. This excitement is what
fuels the creation of the founding team and the willingness of supporters to
consider investment. A grand vision is being proposed. The potential new
founder is often very charismatic at this stage in the organizational lifecycle,
impassioned and full of big dreams, though sketchy on details. The
excitement must thus be directed towards motivating people to reality-test
the new Entrepreneurial concept.
The concept must be tested. Some details need to be filled out.
Although this is an E-dominant lifecycle stage, P and A cannot be absent.
The realism of the dream must be assessed, but not too harshly. We must not
dampen the growing excitement of the founding team too much. That
excitement must be harnessed to build commitment among people who join
the enterprise, proportionate to the risks of the venture. If commitment does
not develop, then the Courtship burns out as an Arson-like Affair, a product
of E-style activity only, generating a lot of flash and noise but producing no
lasting value.

Infancy [Paei]
Most new ventures die in Courtship. However, if the results of
reality-testing are positive, and if the founders and their supporters make
commitments of time, energy and resources to the project, it moves into the
extraordinarily busy Infancy stage. Long-term visions take a back seat to
securing the resources (cash) simply to stay afloat from moment to moment.
The pressure for survival forces us to “make things up as we go along”. Few
systems can be established, because of the opportunistic nature of all
activities. This is normal and not life-threatening. At this rate of change it
would be a mistake to try to regularize behavior too much. It is also normal
28
for delegation to be poor and uneven at this stage. Founders end up doing
almost everything themselves, or they delegate in a haphazard, slightly Lone
Ranger manner. A, E and I are not absent in Infancy, however. Longer-term
strategies are needed, along with simple systems and support for team
members, who will be facing extreme demands. If support dwindles, and if
resource commitments to the Infant organization are too meager, it will
suffer Infant Mortality, crumbling as an impossibly challenging enterprise
with too little support.

Go-Go [PaEi]
After a cycle of E generating exciting new ideas and P making things
happen out of raw materials and grit, the two energies come together to build
on their successes. Following some hard effort, the organization will gain
scope and some security of income (if the founding vision was clear in the
first place). The organization will be paying for itself, no longer requiring
protection or support from the outside. The founders will be able to lean back
and see the organization moving on its own steam, while at the same time
opportunities for more work appear everywhere. The Go-Go organization is
like a toddler, growing quickly, touching everything they come across, and
gaining new experience and capability all the time. Founders can come to
have too many priorities, making it impossible for them to continue to lead
the organization as individuals.
A challenging transition is required. Founders have to offload some
decision-making control, delegating it to other members of the organization.
Entrepreneurship has to be decentralized too, so that people can pursue
initiatives of various kinds without consulting the founder for each and every
project. If over-centralized control is maintained (both P and E are focal or
centralizing styles) then the organization will never grow any larger than that
size which the founder can personally manage as a single individual. There
will be a Lone Ranger-like bottleneck at the top of the organization, called
the Founder’s Trap. In order to grow past this point, the organization has to
grow bigger than the founding group can directly control. They have to
reorganize themselves, and they have to learn how to work with others.

Adolescence [pAEi]
Adolescence is a rebirth and emergence into the phase of maturity. It
requires the organization to take an inward turn, to analyze, organize and
rationalize their own organizational structure. The previously sales-driven
Infant-Go-Go culture (PE) must now focus on streamlining procedures,
trimming waste and boosting profits (A), even if that means that sales
numbers go down. Furthermore, the ad hoc, relationship-based reporting
lines and job descriptions need to be dissolved and replaced by a more
principled organizational structure. Professional managers with business
29
school backgrounds may be hired to do this, but they will immediately be at
odds with the founding group. The newcomers will treat the job as a job, and
they will not understand all of the relationships and customs that were built
up among the old-timers. There will be some pressure to oust these
technocratic-seeming newcomers. Or alternatively, there may be pressure
applied by the new professional managers to oust the founders for their ad
hoc, unschooled, intuitive manner of running a large company.
If these forces are not harmonized, a Divorce between the two
factions may ensue. The old-timers (PE) may expel the newcomers (A),
leading to an organization that almost but never quite reaches its full
potential as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. This kind of
Divorce is named the Unfulfilled Entrepreneur, describing the inability of the
founders to realize the full potential of their organization.
Alternatively, the newcomers (A) may take over and oust the
founders, losing all of the energy, vision and insight (E) that the founding
group has developed in creating the company from scratch. The remaining
administratively-oriented technocratic managers will then rationalize the
company, improve profits briefly, and then run out of ideas. The E that
guides the company will be gone. This kind of Divorce is called Premature
Aging. The ousting of E by A leads to an ossified organization that can no
longer grow or adapt to changes in the marketplace.

Prime [PAEI]
Prime is the target state for any organization. Prime organizations
have the flexibility to adapt to change and the control to produce predictable
results. Prime results when the conflicts of adolescence are resolved, and
Integration is achieved between A and E, creating a flexible structure. This
flexible structure allows the organization to turn its attention outwards again,
producing results for clients with all of the vision and aggressiveness of a
Go-Go organization, but in a much more predictable fashion. The
organization can do more, and do better as well, continuing to enjoy
efficiency gains from process improvements.
Tension between E and A – the forces for change and for stability –
are always at odds, however, and the impulse to ignore directions or details
and simply produce results is at odds with both. The Prime organization is
thus always oscillating between the launch of new projects and new ventures,
and the day to day management of less volatile, older projects. If the
organization grows complacent, it may delay or stop launching new projects,
and just ride out the momentum of previous accomplishments. This manifests
itself first as a lack of E. Losing E means the loss of the organization’s
capacity for innovation. The company may still grow, but at a slower and

30
slower rate. The complacent organization will eventually suffer a major
reversal of fortune.

Stable [PA-I]
A stable organization is an organization in trouble. By all metrics the
organization is still doing well, and there is a solid history of success behind
it. The mood within the organization is self-congratulatory. The founders and
other key managers may feel that they have finally “arrived”. They may feel
that they have discovered the formulas for lasting success, and they may
begin simply applying those formulas instead of attending to changing client
needs. People feel secure in the dominant position of their organization. A
sense of entitlement can come to characterize their attitude towards success,
and they stop listening to others outside the organization, slowly losing touch
with new changing developments. These organizations are often large, and
they become slow in responding to change. They have crossed a crucial line
between maturing and aging. They are starting to die.

Aristocracy [-A-I]
If Stable organizations persist in their withdrawal from contact with
the outside world, they degenerate further into Aristocracies. Cash piles up in
Aristocratic organizations, which unlike Prime organizations have no new
ventures lined up and waiting for investment. Aristocracies may buy other
organizations, often Go-Go companies, to try to inject the missing energy
and vitality back into the group. However, the heavy top-down
administration of Aristocratic organizations often smothers the energetic Go-
Gos.
Aristocracies are often takeover targets themselves, due again to
their tendency to pile up cash. When they are taken into other organizations,
their ineffectiveness and remoteness from their client base may become
painfully obvious.
Aristocracies also invest in sumptuous headquarters and executive
perquisites. The organization begins to feel like an exclusive country club.
Membership and codes of conduct for members preoccupy the leadership,
and even though many people are aware that effectiveness has been lost,
nobody breaks ranks to express the bad news. Those last few who might are
marginalized and finally excluded. Form rules over function.

Early Bureaucracy [-A--]

The eighth stage of the Adizes organizational lifecycle has been
repeatedly renamed over the years. It has been called “Salem City”, because
when the loss of effectiveness in the organization can no longer be hidden,
and the momentum of past successes runs out, the united front of Aristocratic
31
denial ruptures, and the hunt for scapegoats begins. Everybody begins to
blame everyone else. Usually, the last few productive leaders are the first to
be purged. Occasional purges continue, and this activity continues to divert
attention from the actual marketplace and the client needs the organization
serves. Customers continue to be treated like inconvenient annoyances that
distract people from the “really” important work of internal politics.

Late Bureaucracy [-A--]

In the aftermath of the witch hunts, form is all that remains. If a
functioning organization based on client needs was not reestablished in the
reorganization of the early bureaucracy, all that gets left behind is a network
of rules, regulations and practices masquerading as an organization. This
explicit control and order is seen as an antidote to the chaos of Early
Bureaucracy. The cohesive culture of the Aristocracy is swept away, leaving
a set of rules and strictures in its place. Top managers, middle managers and
workers may all come and go without much effect. The organization has its
own inertia and cannot be redirected or budged from where it is.
Bureaucracies grow. The effort to eliminate all gray areas and
uncertainty leads to an increasingly minute specification of work roles and
responsibilities, further and further removed from any real service that could
be delivered to an external client. The organization has long since ceased to
produce any kind of value proportionate to its vast and cumbersome size, and
it is almost entirely insulated from change.
Only some kind of external subsidy keeps Bureaucracies afloat. If
they were dependent on client billing of any kind to generate income, they
would immediately have to reduce their size and reinvent themselves as a
client-centered, productive and competitive organization. Otherwise, once
their subsidy is removed, they decline towards Death.

Death [----]
Organizational Death is rarely an event. It is usually a drawn-out
process of the slow withdrawal of subsidies, reductions in size of the
organization and final client abandonment of the system. Finally, no one is
committed to the organization any longer; not its management, not its
workers, not its clients and not its political supporters. Death is characterized
by expressions of learned helplessness, and it is prolonged by an
unwillingness to eliminate jobs. Maintaining a dead organization on the
artificial life support system of subsidies is extremely expensive and usually
occurs for purely political reasons.

32
 Stable
Aristocracy
PRIME
Early
Bureaucracy
Adolescence
Late
Go-Go Bureaucracy
Infancy
Courtship Death

Figure 4: The Adizes Organizational Lifecycle (simplified)

PAEI as a Frame of Reference

This brief, cursory introduction to some of the conceptual
foundations of the Adizes Methodology shows how the same concepts –
PAEI – can be applied to different levels of analysis. We have seen them
applied to both a static and a dynamic model of organizational imperatives
(the competing values framework and the lifecyle model, respectively). We
have also seen them applied in a model of management styles which would
have implications for other sub-domains of psychological explanation such
as personality theory, learning styles theory, decision theory and the like.
There are strong parallels between the Adizes concern structure model and
the one used by Quinn et al. (2003) in their own model of organizational and
managerial performance.
These observations form a nucleus of concern structure thinking.
There is a phenomenon here, described so far by two different theorists in the
same discipline, which applies to human social and psychological
phenomena at more than one level of analysis. The purpose of this book is to
illustrate that the phenomenon is in fact much broader than this, appearing in
many theories across many disciplines at many levels of analysis. The book
accomplishes this goal by looking into a collection of theories and asking in
each case which elements correspond to PAE and I in the Adizes
Methodology. PAE and I become universal labels for facets of a larger
pattern than they were initially intended to illuminate.
Looking at the nucleus alone – at these two models from
organizational studies and their putative correspondences, the structure of
33
concern might not seem much like something to get excited about. The
generality of the concept only becomes clear as more models are considered.
The bulk of this book examines other models, but before turning to them, we
have to consider some explanatory hypotheses for the structure of concern.
This book does not offer any final explanations of this pattern, but there are
some leading candidates, and these candidates provide more common
vocabulary that we can use – in addition to the PAEI framework – to
compare and contrast different models in the catalog.

34
Part 2: Theoretical Ecology
Why Theoretical Ecology?
The examples I choose as potential explanatory hypotheses for the
structure of concern are all drawn from the field of theoretical ecology.
Ecology differs from the more widely used evolutionary theory in that
evolution deals with the change and selection of genetic information over
long periods of time, whereas ecology deals more with the flows of matter
and energy throughout a present system. Evolutionary theory has been
abstracted into mathematics, with the creation of genetic algorithms which
can be used for search and optimization. Perhaps the same can be done with
ecological theory. I do not know. All I know is that theoretical ecology
showcases examples of concern structure dynamics at a very high level of
generality. As such, they make it possible to observe PAEI patterns in a
greater number of examples, and so they need some explanation at the outset.
There are two very strong advantages to using theoretical ecology as
the basis for an explanation of the structure of concern. First, theoretical
ecology – with its focus on energy flows – can be seen as an exploration of
the consequences of the laws of thermodynamics for living systems. It
emerges out of fundamental physics, and thus offers us both foundations and
constraints for our investigations. Secondly, the interplay of resources,
structures and strategies described in theoretical ecology has already been
fruitfully applied to the domain of organizational theory – the source domain
for the Adizes PAEI framework. Indeed, the ecological approach to
organizational theory has been in use for some time now (e.g. Hannan &
Freeman, 1977; Hannan & Freeman 1988, Hannan & Caroll, 1992; Aldrich,
1979; Aldrich, 1999; Bidwell & Kasarda, 1985; Bidwell & Kasarda, 1987;
Carroll, 1988). Theoretical ecology touches upon physical regularities that
can be stated as laws, and it describes organizational patterns that can be
used to analyze human organizations. It is uniquely suitable for the task at
hand.
Bidwell and Kasarda (1985) offer a reasonably concise introduction
to the principles of population ecology that are transferable to organizational
theory, so I will begin this section by paraphrasing their summary. I then go
on to examine the concept of an adaptive strategy as it is expressed in
population ecology; that is, in terms of r-selection, K-selection, specialist

35
architectures and generalist architectures2. These concepts have enjoyed
considerable uptake in organizational studies, and I will illustrate them using
organizational theory.
My goal here is to describe how complex systems can move through
phases where P, A, E and I concerns variously predominate. This is similar
to organizational lifecycle dynamics, but instead I will be focusing on
ecosystem dynamics. The model I use to illustrate this is called Holling’s
adaptive renewal cycle (Holling, 2001). It shows how an ecological
community can progress through PAE and I stages as it matures. This will
help us in understanding some of the PAEI dynamics of the models in our
catalog.
Having described ecological PAEI dynamics in their dynamic aspect,
we turn to consider their static aspect. The adaptive situations we face force
us to prioritize PAE or I concerns under different circumstances, but all four
concerns must be addressed to some degree in most situations. This means
that stage-like or phase-like models of PAEI dynamics do not give us a
complete picture of the PAEI structure of a given situation. We need a model
that allows us to see how all four PAEI concerns can be layered together all
at the same time. Theoretical ecology furnishes us with a framework for this
kind of model as well.
The key concept here will be hierarchical causation – a concept of
central importance in ecology and related disciplines. Hierarchical causation
describes the influence of microlevel, mesolevel and macrolevel processes on
each other. It is the kind of causation that obtains between parts and wholes,
and wholes and their contexts. When we analyze hierarchical causation, we
pick a level of analysis to focus on (a focal level), and we choose some
scaling criteria (the measuring stick for where things will appear on the
hierarchy – namely “above” or “below” the focal level). Then we analyze
how the “upwards” constraints and capacities from the lower levels and the
“downwards” constraints and resources from higher levels combine to
produce the focal level activity that interests us (Hölker & Breckling, 2002).
I will suggest that the structure of concern emerges because all
events force us to attend to lower-level and higher-level concerns
simultaneously. We have evolved motivational systems and information

2
Briefly, for those familiar with the concepts, I argue that P-style behaviors
are r-strategies that dominate under r-selection conditions, while A-style behaviors
dominate under K-selection conditions. However, K-strategies tend to rely on
specialization, and this can limit flexibility, which becomes a problem as the
complexity of the selective regime or the rate of change across the ecosystem
increase. To cope with more complex environments, we have to shift towards more
generalist architectures, and that is where the E and I concerns assert themselves.
36
processing capacities to cope with this “nested” event structure. Our “P”
motivational systems direct our attention to lower level, concrete and
particular aspects of task completion. Our “A” motivational systems direct
our attention to the dependencies and connections between these component
tasks, so that we get the results we want in a secure and efficient manner at
the focal level. “I” motivational systems make us look up the hierarchy to see
where we fit in to a larger (social) framework with many relational
dimensions. “E” motivational systems make us scan the environment at the
highest level for signs of changes in the incentive landscape that might entice
us to reorganize our goals at all of the other three levels to match new
opportunities. As beings who live in evolving time-energy contexts, we need
to operate at all of these levels all the time, and this is why I call this
complex of imperatives the “structure” of our “concern”.

Population Ecology Logistics

My purpose in this section is not to give an overview of population
ecology in general, but rather to highlight one key distinction that is often
borrowed from this field into other disciplines: the r/K selection distinction.
The symbols “r” and “K” are said to be taken from mathematical models in
ecology known as logistics equations. The logistics in question are the
logistics of reproduction in continuously reproducing (as opposed to
seasonally reproducing) populations, given such variables as the population
density and the availability of resources. The core idea is that when resources
are abundant, organisms that reproduce the quickest are favored. When
resources get depleted and the habitat becomes crowded, slower-growing,
slower-reproducing organisms do better. Thus, the r/K-selection distinction
identifies two broad regimes of natural selection that give rise to qualitatively
different kinds of biological order.
The letters “r” and “K” refer to variables that describe rate of
reproduction and carrying capacity of the environment supporting the
population, respectively. When resources are so abundant that they are
effectively unlimited, the only limit on reproduction is the time it takes to
reproduce, i.e. the maximum rate of reproduction (rmax ). This maximum rate
becomes the selection factor, such that the fastest, most prolific replicators
make the largest contributions to future generations. These rate-adapted
organisms are called r-selected.
Of course, this growing population will consume resources, changing
the logistics of reproduction. Eventually the diminishing availability of key
resources will come to be the factor limiting reproduction. There will come a
point when the population is as large as the environment can sustain. This
37
upper limit of population density is called carrying capacity and it is
represented by the variable K. At K, the net rate of reproduction R0 is
constant (at unity), and the intrinsic rate of increase r is zero. At that point,
replicators which contribute the highest proportion of surviving offspring
across generations exhibit the greatest fitness. These organisms must be
adapted to survive in densely populated environments with limited resources
and intense competition (Pianka, 1970; Pianka, 1988).
Organisms generally get larger under K-selection. Various kinds of
internal and external specializations become necessary, boosting complexity
and the need for organization and coordination. Since the environment is
crowded and free resources are not easily available scattering many offspring
far and wide will not accomplish much. Fewer, larger offspring need to be
created, packaged with on-board food resources (e.g. eggs that contain yolk
sacks). This kind of adaptation is kind of like a plan to have resources
available at a steady rate when needed. By developing this internal
complexity and differentiation, the organism is able to buffer itself from
some of the instabilities of the outside world.
In organizational lifecycle terms, the transition from an r-selection
regime to a K-selection regime is like the transition from the P-heavy early
stages of Infancy and Go-Go to the more A-heavy stage of Adolescence. In
organizations in the earlier stages, the rapid completion of tasks by any
means possible is both normal and needed. However, with growing success
comes the need to get organized for greater efficiency. Further growth
depends on getting some internal process stability and doing some planning
for longer business cycles, buffering the organization a bit from instability
and volatility in the external environment. The r/K selection shift is thus a
good model for the PA distinction. It does not help us illuminate transitions
to E and I-type selection pressures. Holling’s adaptive renewal cycle sheds
more light in that area.

Holling’s Adaptive Renewal Cycle

Holling’s adaptive renewal cycle (Holling, 2001; Gunderson &
Holling, 2002) continues the kind of thinking behind the logistics equation in
population ecology, except instead of applying it to populations, Holling’s
model takes the ecological community as its focus. One good example of an
ecological community is a forest. Prior to a forest existing, some kind of
natural force (flood, fire, infestation etc.) clears the ground. On that freshly
exposed resource, a r-selection regimes (P) takes root, followed by K-
selection regimes (A) as the carrying capacity of the resource is reached.
With the intensification of the K-selection regime, organisms get larger and
more internally differentiated, but that is not all that happens. Organisms
specialize and differentiate from each other as well. The forest evolves into a
38
community of organisms connected together in complex food webs. As
niches get filled, the community continues to mature, and even more
specialized organisms fill the new “niches between the niches”, making use
of any exposed material and energy resources they can evolve to exploit. The
overall connectivity of the system increases.
Eventually the forest becomes what ecologists call a “climax
community” – a fairly stable, densely interconnected system of living
organisms. In PAEI terms, we can say that as organisms developed more
internal differentiation (A), they also developed more external
interdependencies (I). This process of both internal and external
differentiation and integration eventually binds up most of the free matter
and energy in the ecological community. The community itself then becomes
the “big apple” – the big source of matter and energy that could be consumed
by other organisms if it was released. Resources bound up within the climax
community can be released, as mentioned before, with an act of “creative
destruction” – flood, fire, infestation, drought, migration, fluctuation or any
other such disruption (E). That creates new opportunities, and the cycle starts
all over again.
In Holling’s adaptive cycle, we see P, A and I patterns of activity.
Forests are fairly passive systems for the most part, so we don’t see the forest
as a whole out foraging for new opportunities. Instead, for E we see the kinds
of large-scale, disruptive, discontinuous changes that E concerns itself with.
So not all concerns are represented in the same way in the adaptive renewal
cycle, even though all four concerns are represented.
To recap: starting with an exploitation-heavy race for
resources/energy reduction opportunities, the cycle shifts into a phase of
consolidation and stability, followed by disturbances/perturbations with a
resulting reorganization. The four stages: exploitation, conservation, release
and reorganization, are illustrated below (based on Berkes et al., 2003), with
PAEI labels attached in the relevant places.

39
 α - Available carbon, energy, K-selection to climax community
HIGH

nutrients

A I
Potential

P E
LOW

r-selection Ω – change agents/catalysts

WEAK Connectedness (Coupling) STRONG

Figure 5: Holling's Adaptive Renewal Cycle

This is a two-dimensional image. The cycle may be better visualized

in three dimensions as a wavy ring. If the third dimension was represented in
the above image, it would add the dimension of resilience to potential and
connectedness, to complete Holling’s model (Allison & Hobbs, 2004).
Communities are resilient from the release phase through reorganization and
into exploitation, but the increasing connectedness and interdependency that
shifts exploitation to conservation prior to release makes the system more
brittle. A delicate balance is struck that must be maintained or else the web
may come apart and the release phase will commence.
This model gives us a good picture of how a PAEI (actually PAIE, in
this case) sequence can emerge in the lifecycle of a natural system. It also
illustrates levels of concern in the natural world corresponding to PAE and I.
However, we need to understand how each and every event has a PAEI
structure at any given moment in time, rather than seeing these dynamics
only in sequence. The concept of hierarchical causation gives us a model for
this static aspect of PAEI, and that is the subject we turn to next.

Hierarchical Causation
As mentioned earlier, for any object of analysis, hierarchical
causation describes the influence of the microlevel, mesolevel and
macrolevel on each other. The mesolevel is the level of analysis we are
40
focusing on (also called the focal level), and we choose some scaling criteria
for defining the hierarchy (Hölker & Breckling, 2002). For example, if our
focal level phenomenon is a bear, and we are interested in understanding it
anatomically, its micro-level may be its cells, and its macrolevel may be its
physical habitat. However, if we are more narrowly interested in the
aggressive behavior of bears, the microlevel phenomenon might be the
various hormonal states that accompany aggression, and the macrolevel
might be the behavioral conditions that elicit aggression in that species of
bear. The scaling criteria are physical in the first case, and behavioral in the
second case.
Ecology requires concepts of hierarchical causation. The linear
causation used in experimental science is less useful for ecology, because it
is best observed when all variables are controlled but one. This suppresses
the web of multiple interacting activities a subject might participate in, and
that web is precisely what ecologists often want to study. Hierarchical
causation is a conceptual framework that allows ecologists to illuminate how
bottom-up, top-down and same-level forces interact to produce the
phenomenon they want to understand.
One can generalize a bit about hierarchical causation and scaling
criteria. Macro scale events typically occur over larger spatio-temporal spans
than focal system events. They thus constitute the conditions which frame the
activities at the focal level. Micro scale events typically involve the flux of
material, energy and events which support the activities at the focal level.
Their spatiotemporal frequencies are much higher that at levels above them.
One can thus say that the spatiotemporal ‘grain’ is finer at lower levels, and
that matter-energy fluctuations are faster at these levels (Hölker & Breckling,
2002).
Lower-level or upwards constraints are enabling constraints, in the
sense that they make events at the focal level possible. Say that the focal
level event is an episode of behavior: a bear fighting. For that focal level
event, hormone levels would be a lower-level constraint – a necessary but not
sufficient condition (Salthe, 1985). Lower-level values generate possibilities
and probabilities at the focal level without participating in focal level events.
Hormones do not fight, for example. Lower-level constraints are necessary
conditions for focal activity, but they are agnostic about sufficient conditions.
Sufficient conditions exist only where goals and functions can be defined – at
the focal level – as constrained by macro-level conditions.
Upper level constraints participate in focal-level events more indirectly.
Upper level constraints are contextual or environmental constraints, and they
reduce (or permit) the variety of options that systems of the focal level have
for action. Cold weather for warm-blooded animals, for example, forces
metabolic changes, changes in calorie intake or reductions in expenditure,
which increases the value of enclosed shelter, etc. Upper level constraints in
41
this example alter the cost structure at the focal level, but do not otherwise
direct the activities at the focal level. Focal level systems themselves enjoy
little or no upwards impact on these constraints. For example, we do not
interact directly with the control parameters of seasonality, like the earth’s
axis of rotation and orbital position around the sun. We cannot change these
parameters as our strategy for managing seasonal temperature changes.
Buffering and emergence represent two other ways in which events
at different scales can influence each other. For an example of buffering, the
rain cycle over an ecosystem may not deliver water at sufficiently regular
intervals to meet the water needs of many of its life forms. However, the
structure of storages, reservoirs, channels and flows of water may be such
that even with irregular rain, water is distributed predictably throughout the
ecosystem at an essentially constant rate.
Emergent properties emerge in hierarchies when lower-level
processes come together to produce focal-level properties that could not have
been deduced from lower-level properties. Common examples of emergent
behaviors include market interactions, which regulate the supply and pricing
of goods around the world without any central entity to govern it, and
flocking/herding/schooling formations among animals that allow them to
benefit from the various properties of the collective as a unit. Both buffering
and emergence are special instances of the kinds of downward and upward
causality and constraint that characterize hierarchical systems.
Hierarchical causation describes many other systems at many scales,
for example:
Animal Metabolism
• P-Level (bottom): Metabolic activities and pathways;
• A-Level: Cell structure, tissue/organ specialization;
• I-Level: Endocrine signaling, system-wide signaling of biological
state changes;
• E-Level: Processing environmental signals of seasonal change,
launching preparatory/anticipatory biological changes to be ready for
seasonal change.

Strategic Purpose in Organizations

• P-Level (bottom): Transactions and discrete tasks;
• A-Level: Explicit plans for obtaining specific results with an
allocation of resources, plans for allocating limited resources over a
specified project set;
• I-Level: Stated goals of the organization for a time period,
understood by each department, manager and employee, allowing

42
 work using to exercise creativity or collaboration in reaching goals in
an organic fashion;
• E-Level: The mission, vision and strategic position of the
organization, orienting decision-makers so that they can dispense
with or change all of the lower-level, more concrete directives, in
order to realize the core values of the organization.

Dramatic Structure
• P-Level: Beats, events, scenes – the transactions and interactions of
drama;
• A-Level: Acts, chapters, sections, sequences – the ordering and
organization of event presentation;
• I-Level: Character – local representations of values, goals and
positions that may change as the circumstances of the story change;
• E-Level: Theme – The premise or argument the drama explores
through the revelation of values in the interaction between all of its
components and structural elements.

Hierarchical causation can be represented graphically as follows

(adapted from Jørgensen, 1992, p. 210):

E Level: Gaps and

perturbations beyond
Higher-Level normal flexibility range
Constraints
I Level: External forces
impact focal frame,
Downward requires flexibility
Constraint

Focal Level: The level

being observed.

Upward A Level: Nested local

dependencies
Constraint

Lower-Level
Constraints P Level: Short cycle
component processes

Figure 6: PAEI Levels of Concern in Hierarchical Causation

This pattern of hierarchical causation represents lower-level
component processes (P), within a dependency structure (A). These enable
focal level activity that emerges between them and the downward constraints
from the environment. However, patterns of downward constraint are

43
variable, not fixed, and so lower-level ensembles need the flexibility to
change to match a variety of circumstances (I). This match is never perfect,
however. This means that there always remain fitness strategies yet to be
explored, as well as longer-cycle or sporadic environmental changes that
impact the risks and opportunities of a given niche. Exploratory action
targets these unknowns at the E level.
The conceptual framework of hierarchical causation seems to be a
promising model of event structure. It would explain why there are PAE and
I parameters for all major tasks. As a result, we should be alert to hierarchical
patterns in any of the models we might wish to catalog. Hierarchical
causation may indicate that a concern structure may be discernable in such a
model.

Hierarchies of Action
Different patterns of activity make sense depending on which level
of hierarchical causation we need to operate upon. Take the following task
hierarchy:
P – discrete tasks are the smallest microlevel,
A – dependencies between tasks are the next level up,
I – the coordination of people to do the tasks is the smallest macrolevel
factor,
E – the landscape of contextual forces, opportunities and threats is the
highest level.
The challenge of managing and coordinating tasks differs greatly
depending on where they fall in the constraint hierarchy. Nickerson and
Zenger (2004) point out that if, if tasks are entirely decomposable into
discrete and separate accomplishments (emphasizing P-style, lower-level
constraints), there is no need to house them within a single firm or
organization at all. A market can be set up, and this would be the most
efficient way of coordinating how and where tasks would get done. Some
tasks are not entirely decomposable however, but they are partly
decomposable. A division of labor can be set up (emphasizing A-style
differentiation and integration), and people in each area can work on their
component of the overall solution. So long as each set of solutions can be
developed without excessive impact on other components, an authority-based
hierarchy can be established, with central decision-makers who define the
projects, divide up the labor and coordinate the assembly of the solution.
Central authorities can direct the search for the best solution.
High-interaction problems do not support this kind of decomposition,
however, and they require a different kind of search for solutions. For a
44
complex task like designing a new microprocessor, a broad group of people
needs to be assembled, because nearly every aspect of the design has an
impact on nearly every other aspect of the design (including engineering,
financing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution etc.). A heuristic, E-style
search is needed – one that supports high levels of I-style collaboration
without too much overt direction – in order to find the best solutions to these
kinds of problems. Nickerson and Zenger describe how consensus-based
hierarchies are the best way to govern these kinds of information searches
within or among the participating firms (Nickerson & Zenger, 2004).
This information-processing view of the firm echoes some
fundamental principles of organizational theory – the distinction between
specialists and generalists. In stable environments where common tasks
repeat themselves, specialists can emerge. As the complexity and rates of
change in the environment increase, however, generalists tend to
predominate. In concern structure terms, PA concerns are more in the
specialist domain, and EI concerns in the generalist domain. PA concerns
focus on stable or concrete aspects of the task environment, EI concerns
focus on adaptation to the more dynamic and unpredictable aspects of the
task environment.

45
Part 3: Catalog of Concern
Structure Models
Catalog Introduction
This catalog is an argument, supporting the hypothesis that some
general pattern I call “the structure of concern” exists, and has some
significance for how we live our lives. The entries in this catalog all at least
partially exhibit the same overarching pattern. The correspondences are not
perfect. Sometimes only three of the four concern structure facets are
represented in a model, sometimes the field of concern is split into five or
more facets, sometimes the correspondences are quite clear and sometimes
they are a little more forced. This is a fuzzy set, this catalog of models, but
despite the fuzziness, the pattern is nevertheless recognizable and
remarkable.
Many of the catalog entries feature textual description, a graphic
depicting the PAEI correspondences of the model, and a second graphic
showing the axes, dimensions or distinctions that are crossed in order to give
rise to the quadrants of the model. This is not done in absolutely every case.
Some models describe four factors without suggesting that they differ along
dimensions of any kind. Sometimes I detect and describe dimensions in them
anyhow, sometimes I do not. There is a lot of imprecision and subjectivity
that has gone into the creation of this catalog, and I bear sole responsibility
for any distortions that may introduce into the collection. I still think there is
an interesting phenomenon to be described here, but I am not sure how best
to frame the description. What is the structure of concern? I have a whole
host of examples, but no general statement that covers them all.
I open this catalog with a description of a stand-alone model: a
theory of animal morphology that does not fit any of the other categories in
this catalog. I then launch into the activity of cataloging models in business
and management studies, in various branches of psychology, and in other
disciplines that all seem to touch in some way upon this pattern I am calling
the structure of concern. This catalog is an argument that something here
exists which deserves to be looked at. I hope you find the looking at it
personally rewarding and insight-provoking.

46
1. Order in Living Organisms: Rupert Riedl
Rupert Riedl was an Austrian
zoologist who made many contributions to
the field of evolutionary biology, ecology,
and morphology (Riedl, 1978). At a time
when evolutionary theory emphasized
population genetics to the exclusion of
almost all else, Riedl began examining the
role of what might be called
PA
Standard Interaction
Part

E I
‘developmental systematics’ in evolution. Traditive
This approach “…emphasizes the role of Hierarchy Inheritance
functional and developmental integration in
limiting and enabling adaptive evolution by
natural selection. The main objective of this
theory is to account for the observed patterns of morphological evolution,
such as the conservation of body plans…” (Wagner & Laubichler, 2004).
Riedl did not try to demote natural selection as a pre-eminent cause of
evolution, but he did seek to promote the importance of developmental
factors as primary delimiters and enablers of evolutionary change,
particularly in the domain of animal morphology.
Riedl’s 1978 book entitled Order in living organisms: A systems
analysis of evolution presents an account of animal morphology as an
evolvable system, and the core concepts of this work fall into a concern
structure pattern, primarily due to their hierarchical structure. Riedl
understands a morphological system to consist of four distinct ordering
principles, given in PAEI order below:

P – Standard Part
A – Interaction
E – Hierarchy
I – Traditive Inheritance

P - Standard Part: The constraint that any larger form in the universe must
be composed of multiple “copies” or instances of specific sub-forms or
components. If we transfer this insight and apply it to the hierarchical
structure of tasks and events, these would be the concrete particular objects
that P managers prefer to concern themselves with.
A – Interaction: Constraints resulting from the assembly of these standard
parts into a system. Thus the degrees of freedom or variability of standard

47
parts are limited to the subset that is compatible with other standard parts
with which it interacts as part of a larger ensemble. These are same-level
constraints are imposed by system participation, through mutual
dependencies and determinative decision logics. In the management of tasks
or events this is a primary concern of the A style.
E – Hierarchy: This type of connectivity describes the upwards constraints
imposed by parts on the whole, and reciprocal downwards constraints
imposed by the whole on parts. All of the standard building blocks of
organisms are fitted inside each other in a system of frameworks which
mutually require and determine each other. This is the domain of E concern,
because events high in the hierarchy can cause big changes lower in the
hierarchy, making big gains possible when there are new opportunities to
exploit.
I - Traditive Inheritance: The passage of morphological information through
time. Traditive inheritance is like interactive constraint, but it is successive
rather than simultaneous. It preserves as much information about system
linkages from the past – from family or genetic history – as possible, in order
to give each part its place in a pattern that works well together, given the
interior and exterior perturbations that will threaten a system’s integration.
The emphasis on continuity with others puts this in the I domain of concern.
These four basic patterns form a unity, which is the total connectivity
of the system. That unity has a more robust ontological status than the four
types of order. These four patterns are consequences of a single principle of
constraint as it appears locally, globally, across scales and over time. Totally
connectivity is the whole, the four types of order are its parts. They can be
seen as solutions to the problems of connectivity at different powers of
resolution. Nevertheless, these are real constraints on evolvable systems, in
that a system which violated them would not exhibit the combination of
structure and flexibility that underlies evolutionary processes. These four
morphological constraints both enable and canalize evolution, resulting in
definite structural forms that characterize phylogeny.
Reidl’s work raises the possibility that any adaptive system made up
of parts and wholes will show a concern structure. The study of parts and
wholes is called mereology, so the structure of concern may be a simple
function of adaptive mereology. Thus, any system where parts and wholes
are adapted within contexts would show the structure of concern.

48
Rupert Riedl: Dimensions and Distinctions

Local
Interactions

Standard Interaction
Part
Vertical Horizontal
Perspective Perspective

Traditive
Hierarchy Inheritance

Relational Componential
Focus Global
Focus
Interactions

49
Management Studies
In the management studies section, there is a subjective/objective
distinction that can be used to help organize the models. The first five models
emphasize management styles – personality based, task-contingent or
behavioural. They thus have a subjective focus, by and large. The last six
models in the section emphasize tasks, tactics, strategies and domains of
concern. They thus have a more objective focus than the first five models
did.
The emphases of each model are summarized below, with further
explanation given in the catalog entry for each one.

2. Competing Values Framework: Quinn et al.

A theory of socially contingent management tasks, styles and outcomes, as
well as a theory about organizational cultures.
3. Team Management Systems: Margerison-McCann
A model of management tasks and corresponding personality styles.
4. Styles of Entrepreneurs: Ginzberg & Buchholtz
Styles of entrepreneurial behaviour.
5. Plus 32 Employment Testing System: B. R. Garrison
Managerial personality profiles.
6. Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument: Ned Herrmann
A model of individual differences, cognition and personality.
7. The Demand-Control Model of Stress: Karasek
Focus on qualities of tasks and job types.
8. Transitions and Aftershock: Bridges, Woodward & Buchholz
Bridges model describes a set of needs when coping with change. Woodward
and Buchholz describe the effect of those needs not being met.
9. The Four Levers of Corporate Change: Brill & Worth
Describes four strategies for effecting organizational changes.
10. Macroenvironmental Analysis: Fahey & Narayanan
Describes four domains of concern for managers.
11. The Four Business Strategies: Michael Porter
Describes four strategies for achieving competitive advantage.
12. The Icarus Paradox: Danny Miller
Four strategic patterns that can lead companies first to succeed, then to fail,
due to a failure to change their once-successful strategies.

50
13. Balanced Scorecard: Kaplan and Norton
Four perspectives on measurable organizational performance.
14. Noble Purposes in Mission Statements: Nikos Mourkogiannis
Four ways organizational leaders can frame organizational purposes to make
people feel that their efforts are worthwhile.
15. Strategic Thinking – A Four Piece Puzzle: Bill Birnbaum
Describes four key tasks that managers have to perform for strategic success.
16. Stakeholder Styles: Duke Coroporate Education
A personality-type model for organizational behaviour, especially responses
to change and risk.
17. Four Kinds of Salespeople: Chuck Mache
A personality and task-type model of salesperson styles.

These models are all described in more detail below, with PAEI
correspondences explicitly spelled out. I describe some of the models at
considerable length. These are the models I had the leisure to explore in
greater detail. The last few models on the list are described very briefly.
These models are ones I read about in passing, and I include them here
mainly to document their existence, with reference to the original sources for
people who want to explore them further.

51
2. Competing Values Frameworks of Management:
Quinn et al.
The competing values framework
of management developed by Quinn,

PA
Faerman, Thomspon and McGrath is an Rational Internal
approach to management and management Goal Process
education that is entirely based upon (Market) (Hierarchy)
concern structure concepts (Quinn et al.
2003). They begin their analysis with a
review of different approaches to

E I
management as they emerged in the history Open Human
of American industrialization, and then Systems Relations
construct a unified approach which (Adhocracy) (Clan)
combines all of the historical methods into
one contemporary method which applies
different styles to different situations according to relationships of fit. In
management education, this framework helps managers consider all of the
roles they may have to play, identifying areas of strength and weakness and
indicating where further learning and training are needed.
The various historical epochs reviewed by Quinn et al. are reviewed
below, preceded by the Adizes PAEI letters that characterize the different
stages. Historical dates refer to the time periods when these models emerged.
None of these models are considered to have disappeared entirely. The
concerns of each remain valid to a degree even as new models arise.
PA – 1900 to 1925: The Rational Goal Model & the Internal Process Model
During the first quarter of the twentieth century, the US economy
grew dramatically as the society shifted from its agrarian base towards an
industrial one. People faced new economic pressures to create wealth. Living
conditions changed, and new techniques for increasing productivity emerged,
including Henry Ford’s assembly line; in part an application of Frederick
Taylor’s principles of ‘scientific management’. Taylor’s rationalization of
work particularized the production process, involving an analysis (or
‘science’) of every job, selecting and training workers to fit these explicit
requirements, rewarding productivity and keeping the process coordinated
and running smoothly so that workers would never be hindered in their work.

These socio economic pressures and developments gave rise to what

the authors call the rational goal model of management. Profit was the
ultimate goal and final arbiter of management decisions, and making harsh
rationalistic judgments that ruthlessly placed the drive for profits above

52
humane considerations was seen as a sign of strong management. There was
little unionization and a lot of hardship for workers.
As industrial organizations grew, their process of hierarchical
layering also exhibited the same penchant for particularized roles and explicit
rules free of redundancy. This so-called internal process model of American
management began to develop during this period, but came more fully into
its own in the second quarter of the twentieth century when Max Weber’s
work on bureaucracy and Hernri Fayol’s work on administration were
translated into English.

I – 1926 to 1950: Emergence of the Human Relations Model

This period saw the stock market crash, the Depression, and World
War II with its massive concentration of the American public into large
industrial cities. Unionization and rising wages prompted a boom in the
market for consumer goods, putting technological labor-saving devices in
peoples’ homes. Workers were less docile, and more willing and able to
withhold their cooperation during disputes with management. New
management skills were needed in this environment, and Dale Carnegie’s
legendary book How to Make Friends and Influence People hit the market
and became hugely popular. The academic study of industrial relations
began, and the human relations model of management emerged.
The human relations model of management emphasizes
commitment, involvement, team cohesion and the upkeep of morale.
Equality-enhancing group processes like consensus-building and conflict
resolution. The goal is still to increase productivity, but to do this by
increasing employee commitment, by resolving tensions and enhancing
motivation.
The human relations model directly opposed many of the
assumptions of the still-ascendant rational goals and internal processes
model. This made it incomprehensible to many managers at first, setting up a
two-cultures problem in management. Uptake of its recommendations was
uneven, and it was often diluted into a sort of friendly authoritarianism.
However, its development continued (and continues still), and by the next
period of the twentieth century it began delivering more meaningful results in
major industrial organizations.

E – 1951 to 1975: Emergence of the Open Systems Model

The American economy grew up against some limits during this
period, specifically the 1971 oil embargo and the swift growth of the
53
Japanese export market. Government debt was high. Heavy industries had to
reinvent themselves, and service industries gained increasing importance in
the domestic economy. Opposition to the Vietnam war prompted a re-
evaluation and distancing from a collective national identity. Education
levels had risen, and people began reading across a broader range of topics,
including social, economic, ethical and ecological issues. The human
relations school of management had been articulating a contrarian position in
the field of management for some time, and the population was in a
searching and questioning mood. These were receptive times for new
insights.
The message from prominent management thinkers was that
organizations were much more open and dynamic than earlier theories had
indicated. Systems thinking entered the profession through the efforts of
researchers at various American institutions. Empirical studies revealed that
organizations were really not much like machines that managers could
control according to plan. Mintzberg’s work showed that managers actually
worked in dynamic and highly unpredictable contexts, with little time or use
for rational planning. Much of their time had to be spent creating quick
solutions for contingent problems. The calm, rational organizational pyramid
gave a false impression of how hectic and spontaneous management work
really was.
Emerging open systems models emphasized the need for fluidity,
attentiveness and responsiveness in an ambiguous environment. It
emphasizes how constant innovation and adaptation is needed in order to
acquire and leverage external resources. Executive risk is high in turbulent
times, and decisions have to be made quickly and on the spot at times, so a
strong shared vision, mission and value framework are needed for
coordination of actions. In this missionary culture, employee
underperformance is often attributed either to disaffection or
burnout/overload stress. Managers need to find creative ways to help keep
the balance on their teams.

PAEI – Balance/Contingency Models and the Competing Values Model

After decades of experimentation, management thinkers were
beginning to notice that all of the various styles of management seemed to
produce their share of successes and failures. It seemed that managers
sometimes needed to use one approach, and sometimes another. Getting the
right balance was key. Importantly, it was also clear that the priorities within
a certain situation shifted and changed quite often. Balance always had to be
adjusted to track the changing context.

54
 Quinn, Faerman, Thompson and McGrath position their own
competing values model as a balance model. Their model explicitly affirms
the usefulness of all four approaches to management. The four competing
values are arranged along two continua, flexibility-control and internal-
external focus. For example, the rational goal model reflects a control motive
and an external focus. Within each resulting quadrant, they define two
management roles or “orientations”. The rational goal quadrant contains two
management roles: director and producer. These have a circumplex
relationship with the axes, so if a circle was drawn around the crossed axes
and sliced into eight pie-sections, the producer role would be on the “external
focus” side of the rational goal quadrant, and the director role on the
“control” side. One could say that the rational goal value set has a control
slant and an external focus slant, and varying emphasis can be placed on each
one.
The four competing values from Quinn et al are summarized below.
P – Rational Goal Model (Control, External Focus)
Values: Success measured by profits, attained through goal/task clarification
and taking action.
Role (External slant) – Producer: Full task focus, high interest, motivation,
energy, drive. Great personal productivity and intense goal focus. Can foster
a productive work environment and manage time energy/stress levels of
team. – Negatives: Overachieving, individualistic (destroys cohesion).
Role (Control slant) – Director: Maps out the way through problem
clarification, option evaluation, planning, goal setting, role/task definition
and designing rules and instructions. Directly supervises work and keeps
team on task. – Negatives: Unreceptive, unfeeling (offends individuals).

A – Internal Process Model (Control, Internal Focus)

Values: Stability, hierarchy, continuity, routinization, attainted through
defining responsibilities, measurement and documentation.
Role (Internal slant) – Monitor: Tracking individual job performance,
tracking team or project performance, ensuring standardization of processes,
analyzing information and critical thinking. – Negatives: Unimaginative,
tedious (neglects possibilities).
Role (Control slant) – Coordinator: Managing project dependencies,
breaking down and designing work assignments, managing dependencies
across functions. – Negatives: Skeptical, cynical (stifles progress).

55
E – Open Systems Model (Flexibility, External Focus)
Values: Innovation, adaptation and growth through external bargaining,
brokering and negotiation, creative problem solving, innovation and change
management.
Role (External slant) – Broker: builds and maintains a resource network and
power base, presents concepts and new ideas, negotiates agreements and
commitment. – Negatives: Opportunistic, overly aspiring (disrupts
continuity).
Role (Flexibility slant) – Innovator: Living with, adapting to and managing
change, creative thinking. – Negatives: Unrealistic, impractical (wastes
energy).

I – Human Relations Model (Flexibility, Internal Focus)

Values: Commitment, cohesion and morale through involvement,
participation, conflict resolution, teamwork and consensus building.
Role (Internal Slant) – Facilitator: Team building, managing conflict and
participatory decision making processes. – Negatives: Overly democratic, too
participative (slows production).
Role (Flexibility slant) – Mentor: People skills, understanding of self and
others, effective communication and personnel development. – Negatives:
Soft-hearted, permissive (abdicates authority).

Besides this management education application of the competing values

framework, Cameron and Quinn (1999) articulate a version of the framework
for diagnosing and changing organizational cultures. They describe four
organizational cultures as follows.
P – Market Cultures: Focused on transactions, competitive advantage,
profitability, productivity and bottom-line results.
A – Hierarchy Cultures: Clear lines of authority, standardized rules and
procedures, coordination, organization, formal policies, stability,
predictability, efficiency.
E – Adhocracy Cultures: Organized anarchy, creativity, flexibility,
innovation, adaptability, individuality, risk-taking.
I – Clan Cultures: Teamwork, participation, cohesion, shared values and
goals, more like extended families than economic organizations.
Organizational cultures are analyzed into facets and the cultural profiles of
each facet are mapped in order to reveal various degrees of fit or lack of fit
between cultural elements and the overall organizational situation.
56
Quinn et al.: Dimensions and Distinctions

Control

Product Stability
Rational Internal
Goal Process
(Market) (Hierarchy)
External Internal Focus
Focus
Open Human
Systems Relations
(Adhocracy) (Clan)
Innovation Producers
Flexibility

57
3. Team Management Systems: Margerison-McCann
The Margerison-McCann Team
Management System is a personality-based

PA
management optimization system. It
defines a set of management styles or Organizers Controllers
preferences, emphasizing the need to
integrate or "link" all of these styles
together on an effective team. Its
management style profiling instrument is of

E I
central importance to the system. The
instrument has been subjected to intensive Explorers Advisers
statistical validation, using an international
sample of over 3000 for the first validity
test, and over 70,000 for subsequent tests,
with breakdowns and comparisons made along several dimensions
(Margerison-McCann Team Management Systems, 1998). The strength of
the system lies in its focus on team dynamics, making it a valuable tool for
interventions at the team level.
At the core of the system are two models: the Types of Work Wheel and
the Team Management Wheel. The Types of Work Wheel summarizes the
eight work functions codified by the system, as well as the linking skills that
connect them all together. The Team Management Wheel reflects employee
preferences for each of the types of work. Both wheels are reproduced below,
the first one for visual reference only.

Types of Work Wheel

Promoting

Innovating Developing

Advising Linking Organizing

Maintaining Producing

Inspecting

58
Key Teamwork Functions
The wheel display eight types of management work, plus a linking
function connecting them. These are the types of work that managers in the
Margerison-McCann research sample identified as important, in varying
degrees depending on organizational function. In other words, some
management teams emphasized some activities more than others, but these
remained the key activities that all teams agreed they needed to focus on:
1. Advising - gathering and reporting information
2. Innovating - creating and experimenting with ideas
3. Promoting - exploring and presenting opportunities
4. Developing - assessing and testing the applicability of new
approaches
5. Organizing - establishing and implementing ways of making things
work
6. Producing - concluding and delivering outputs
7. Inspecting - controlling and auditing the working of systems
8. Maintaining - upholding and safeguarding standards and processes
9. Linking - coordinating and integrating the teamwork functions both
internally and externally.

Coinciding with these management tasks, different management roles

were also defined on a wheel, as illustrated below.

Team Management Wheel

Explorer
Promoter
Creator Assessor
Innovator Developer

Reporter Thruster
Linker Organizer
Advisor

Upholder Concluder
Maintainer Producer
Controller
Inspector

59
 The structure of concern would remain easy to discern even if the
Team Management Wheel was left in this eightfold division. However, the
model has been adorned with an outer circle which make the structure fully
evident.

Explorer
Promoter
Creator Assessor
Innovator Developer

Reporter Thruster
Linker Organizer
Advisor

Upholder Concluder
Maintainer Producer
Controller
Inspector

The Margerison-McCann Team Management System (TMS)

represents a line of research and application based on the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator, with adaptations of and departures from the underlying Jungian
model made as needed to accommodate the special domain of management
roles. The Jungian functions have information processing considerations as
their conceptual core. The TMS shifted that emphasis in the direction of
praxis, promoting ‘work preferences’ to the core position.
The four dimensions used in the TMS for sorting management
preferences are listed below, with the MBTI dimensions in brackets:
• Extroversion—Introversion [Extroversion—Introversion]
• Practical—Creative [Sensing—Intuiting]
• Analytical—Beliefs [Thinking—Feeling]
• Structured—Flexible [Judging—Perceiving ]

Each job role or position on the Team Management Wheel is then

associated with a four-letter Team Management Indicator profile, as follows.
60
Explorer-Promoters: ECAF - Likes autonomy, unstructured problems,
theorizing and strategizing. Energized by solving problems, making
presentations, displaying knowledge. Dislikes routine, repetitive work, strict
procedures. ECBS – Likes deciding how the team should develop,
researching better ways to do things. Dislikes coordinating the information
flow.
Assessor-Developers: ECAS – Likes completing projects successfully to the
specifications/expectations of superiors or clients. Likes to focus on the
technical content of the job. Attention to detail, practicality, production
oriented, high energy and high output, analyses problem quickly and
forcefully presents conclusion. Dislikes attending to administrative
procedures.
Thruster-Organizers: EPAS – Likes coordinating or planning a specific task
which involves use of many resources (project management). Motivated by
power, influence, importance and recognition. Keen to involve subordinates
actively in the more interesting aspects of work. Loyal and objective with
subordinates, helps employees outside work, always willing to help outside
parties. Dislikes meetings, and dislikes being ‘sidetracked’ by being asked to
respond to issues not directly under their control or their employer's
authority.
Concluder-Producers: (IPAS) – Likes organizing work and producing
successful outcomes, developing and directing projects, and
supervision/control of the budget. Enthusiastic, hard-working and dedicated.
Ordered, methodical, reliable, energetic with a high task focus. Dislikes
disciplining, conflict resolution, ongoing meetings, detailed breakdowns of
expenditures against budget, forecasting expenditures, strict deadlines and
report writing for senior management. Does not hold up well under pressure.
Works alone to gather and assess data. Does not communicate easily with
other staff. Authoritative and not very flexible.
Controller-Inspectors: (IPBS) - Strong feelings and beliefs are important in
decisions. Very orderly and neat. Believes in solving problems right away
instead of postponing then. Likes financial advisory duties, hates accounting
reporting duties.
MISSING – UPHOLDER-MAINTAINER
Reporter-Advisors: (ICBF) – Likes consulting with clients, thrives at
meetings, always willing, ready and able to help superiors with timely
information and aid. Hates research and emphasis on technical details.
Creator-Innovators: (ECBF) - High personal standards, critical, intelligent,
gets visions or insights into problems, strategic thinker, frank, blunt. Likes
designing, testing and implementing new systems and processes for the

61
whole organization together with top management. Dislikes processing
simple routine one-off tasks which involve volumes of paperwork.

Margerison-McCann: Dimensions and Distinctions

Structured
Analytical Practical

Organizers Controllers

Extroverted Introverted

Explorers Advisers

Creative Beliefs
Flexible

62
4. Styles of Entrepreneurs: Ginzberg & Buchholtz
Ari Ginsberg and Ann Buchholtz presented
a study in the late 1980’s that reviewed 10

PA
earlier studies of the personality Owner Corporate
characteristics and traits of entrepreneurs, Managers Managers
looking for common factors (Ginsberg &
Buchholtz, 1989). In their review, they
found that entrepreneurs were typically
characterized by their behaviors more than
by their personalities. People were Independent

founders of a distinct new venture who then

took on the roles of owner and manager of
the resulting business.
E I Corporate
considered entrepreneurs when they were Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurs

Ginsberg and Buchholtz used these behavioral qualities to propose a

two-dimensional framework for defining entrepreneurial styles. The first
dimension combined risk-taking propensity with decision-making autonomy
(independence), and the second one singled out innovation propensity
(creativity). Crossing these dimensions and differentiating high and low
values for each one resulted in the following four-style categorization:
P – Owner Managers (High Independence, Low Innovation)
A – Corporate Manager (Low Independence, Low Innovation)
E – Independent Entrepreneur (High Independence, High Innovation)
I – Corporate Entrepreneur (Low Independence, High Innovation)
Ann Buchholtz has participated in some more recent research
assessing entrepreneurial success with Big Five personality inventories
(Ciavarella et al., 2004). The researchers found that openness to experience,
a Big Five quality which most people might attribute to entrepreneurs, was
actually negatively related to long-term new venture survival. Some of the
qualities that make an entrepreneur interested in new projects can divert them
from carrying plans through. Conscientious focus and the ability to ignore
opportunities are the key to long-term new venture survival, once those new
ventures have been launched. This finding corresponds to the shift from
courtship/conceptualization to infancy in the Adizes organizational lifecycle
and other lifecycle models. The power of E to introduce change and build
excitement helps drive the launch of a new venture, but P and the A make it
viable, and P takes the lead during the childhood of the organization.

63
Ginsberg and Buchholtz: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low Innovation

Owner Corporate
Managers Managers
High Low
Independence Independence
Independent Corporate
Entrepreneur Entrepreneur

High
Innovation

64
5. Plus 32 Employment Testing System: B. R. Garrison
Software Group
The Plus-32 Employment Testing System is
an employee profiling software package

PA
based loosely upon the Hippocratic/Galenic The The
temperament model. It sorts personality Leader Serious
factors into four main groups. All people One
have all four personality factors, but only to
a certain percentage value for each group.
There are 16 personality types, based on the

E I
different possible rankings of the four Have
Happy Go
groups. A 17th type "E" is added, Personality
Lucky
Will Travel
indicating someone who is equal in all four
main categories. Thus, unlike Adizes or
Jungian type theories, it is possible (though thought rare) for someone to be
equally strong in all areas (Garrison, 1998).
The Plus 32 system contains pattern-detection algorithms that try to
filter out the effects of equivocation between test items, or of employees
parroting buzzwords that are known to be important to the corporate culture,
but which do not reflect their actual personality. A Plus 32 report thus
includes a consistency rating, indicating how consistent a subject's answers
were according to the categories of the system. Less confidence is accorded
to less consistent results.
The system has been validated by exit interviews among test groups.
Profiles for different job functions in an organization are developed through
local benchmarking. Human resource officers divide the employees within a
job category into thirds, and look for profile similarities and differences
among the top-third performers, middle-third performers and lower-third
performers. The results of this benchmarking indicate that different profiles
characterize top performers doing the same job in different companies,
reflecting different corporate cultures and local market situations.
This instrument measures 18 personality traits (listed below) to
determine the role of each of the following four personality types in each
person.
Type A: The Leader
Type B: Have Personality Will Travel
Type C: The Serious One
Type D: Happy Go Lucky
The order of these four types in Adizes terminology is PEAI.

65
P - Type A; The Leader: Motivated by money and challenge. Tend to lead,
not follow. No patience for fuzzy thoughts or actions that do not lead
directly to tangible results or a monetary reward. They hate soft-skills
seminars. They only want to hear about the bottom line. They do not take
direction well, and have little compassion. To direct them, you have to ask
them what they think should be done, debate pros and cons with them, and
show them how your proposed direction benefits them more than any
alternative.

E -Type B; Have Personality Will Travel: A talker, a people-person who

demands recognition and attention, and a constantly changing work
environment. They tend to get bored easily. They require direction and
thrive on hype and excitement. They hate details, facts and figures, and have
short attention spans. They want to try everything without finishing
anything. They are flexible and will handle shifts in task assignment well.
They have huge egos, and are best rewarded by recognition. They appreciate
praise and pep-talks. Although they are very competitive for honors, money
means little to them.

A - Type C; The Serious One: Prefer things to be uniform/consistent,

professional and reliable. They enjoy technical posts involving detailed
charts and graphs. Thrives on routine, perfection, detail and analysis. There
is no room for hype in their world. They work on a task until it is completed,
by the book. Do not pull them off a half-finished task to work on another
one. They need a regular environment, same desk, same hours, clear rules
and boundaries, etc. They are loyal in stable situations. They are anchors,
rather than movers and shakers.

I - Type D; Happy Go Lucky: Do better in low-key positions. Have pleasant

personalities and get along with most people. Do well in customer service,
or areas where stability and balance are needed. They have little need for
hype or change. They are patient, they like teamwork, and they work at their
own pace, neither fast nor slow. They are not hugely ambitious, and they
prefer not to rock the boat.

66
Plus-32 Testing System: Dimensions and Distinctions

Task Focused

The The
Leader Serious
One
Change Stability

Have Happy
Personality Go
Will Travel Lucky

Experience Focused

67
6. Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument: Ned
Herrmann
Ned Herrmann was the head of
management education at General Electric

P
B A
in the 1970's and 80's. His background was
in physics, and he was also active in artistic
and cultural circles, which gave him an
appreciation of different styles of creativity.
During the late 1970's he undertook a
A
reform of GE's management training
programs to make them more reflective of
individual differences in learning and
thinking style preferences (Herrmann,
1989). E I
D C
Herrmann's initial categories emerged out of a factor analysis of 500
survey forms filled out by subjects participating in his thinking-styles
research. The survey forms were revised and administered to a second group
of 300 participants, and correlated with the original data. Based on those
results, an initial thinking style assessment instrument was created. The
research and assessment instruments underwent 19 cycles of revision and
refinement over the course of their development, but the revision was never
wholesale, and items persist in the contemporary instrument that were
composed during the initial revision (Herrmann, 1989).
Herrmann's research was energized by his understanding of the
different processing specialties of the left and right hemispheres of the
human isocortex, in the wake of Sperry's studies with split brain patients in
the 50's and 60's. He was also influenced by Paul MacLean's triune brain
theory, and by a general appreciation of the limbic system's role in emotion,
cognition and memory. (Herrmann, 1989) These high-level biological
subdivisions served as the framework for his theorizing; resulting in a model
with four quadrants, one for each major system of the brain as he then
understood it:
A: Upper-left (cerebral) hemisphere - Person favors activities involving
analysis, logic and fact-finding - left isocortical dominance.
B: Lower-left (limbic) hemisphere - Like type A but more action-oriented,
impatient and distrustful of abstract considerations, intensely focused and
persistent - left limbic dominance.

68
C: Lower-right (limbic) hemisphere - A sensitive and receptive people-reader
and mood-minder, evaluates issues in terms of their emotional significance -
right limbic dominance.
D: Upper-right (cerebral) hemisphere - Wild and original, motivated only by
novelty, possibility, variety, oddities and incongruities, can be impersonal
and fears structure - right isocortical dominance. ((Herrmann, 1989) p. 79-
85)

Rearranging these categories into PAEI order gives us:

P: [B] Lower-left (limbic) hemisphere - Like type A but more action-

oriented, impatient and distrustful of abstract considerations.
A: [A] Upper-left (cerebral) hemisphere - Favoring activities involving
analysis, logic and fact-finding.
E: [D] Upper-right (cerebral) hemisphere - Wild and original, motivated only
by novelty, possibility, variety, oddities and incongruities.
I: [C] Lower-right (limbic) hemisphere - A sensitive and receptive people-
reader and mood-minder.
In the early stages of his research, Herrmann took the hemispherical
assignations in this model very seriously, trying to tie survey results very
closely to anatomical brain regions. He later abandoned this approach, using
the anatomical designators as metaphors for the four thinking styles he was
measuring. While the instrument is still called the Herrmann Brain
Dominance Indicator, the quadrants are now referred to by the letters A, B,
C, D, rather than by anatomical regions of the brain.
Scores on the HBDI are presented on a radar diagram. A circle is
divided into quadrants A-D, and two diagonal axes are drawn like an "X"
through the circle as well. The diagonal axes are graduated to indicate scores
from the indicator, and a profile can be drawn on the diagram by connecting
the scores together with lines. This will lead to an uneven polygon that
"points" in the direction of one's dominant style or styles. If someone was
equally dominant in all four quadrants, the polygon would be a perfect
square. Interestingly, Herrmann does admit "Quadruple Dominance" as a
possible cognitive profile, but one that carries costs of greater internal
conflict and longer decision-making processes. A sample radar diagram is
reproduced below. Note that the placement of the quadrants around the circle
matches the position of the metaphorically associated brain region.

69
 A D

B C
Profiles are also rendered as ranked quadrants, so that the Adizes profile paEI
would be rendered "ABCD"
3-3-1-1
Substantial effort was made to validate the constructs underlying this
model and the instrument for assessing it, internally and externally, including
six different factor analysis studies. These studies found that four stable and
discreet clusters of preferences did exist, that scores from the instrument
were valid indicators of these clusters, and that scores permitted valid
inferences about a person's preferences and avoidances for each cluster,
among other findings.

70
Ned Herrmann: Dimensions and Distinctions

Structured
Independent Analytical

B: Lower Left A: Upper Left

Spontaneous Cautious

D: Upper Right C: Lower Right

Exploratory Interdependent
Flexible

71
7. The Demand-Control Model of Stress: Karasek
Karasek’s demand-control model
of occupational stress has had a large

PA
influence on the job design and High
occupational health literature, in part Strain Passive
because it is quite spare, practical and Jobs Jobs
testable. (Jones & Bright, 2001). In
Karasek’s model, workplace stress is a
function of how demanding a person’s job

E I
is and how much control (discretion, Low
Active
authority or decision latitude etc.) the Strain
Jobs
person has over their own responsibilities. Jobs
This creates four kinds of jobs: passive,
active, low strain and high strain.
Job demands represent the psychological stressors in the work
environment. These include factors such as: interruption rate, time pressures,
conflicting demands, reaction time required, pace of work, proportion of
work performed under pressure, amount of work, degree of concentration
required, and the slowing down of work caused by the need to wait for
others.
Decision latitude refers to employees’ control over their tasks and
how those tasks are executed. It consists of both skill discretion and decision
authority. Skill discretion describes the degree to which the job involves: a
variety of tasks, low levels of repetitiveness, occasions for creativity and
opportunities to learn new things and develop special abilities. Decision
authority describes both the employee’s ability to make decisions about their
own job, and their ability to influence their own work team and more general
company policies.
Crossing the dimensions of strain and latitude give us four stress
categories for jobs, as follows:

High Strain Low Strain

Low Latitude P – High Strain Job A – Passive Job

High Latitude E – Active Job I – Low Strain Job

72
P – High Strain Jobs (Low Latitude, High Strain): Producers are more likely
to augment their strain levels by taking more on without seeking additional
latitude, partly because of their appreciation of challenge and their desire to
enjoy individual mastery experiences, and partly because they take an
individual approach to responsibility ascription, which may cause them to
overlook opportunities to ask for more latitude. Producers enjoy levels of
strain that people with other dominant styles would find excessive. Of all the
styles, they are most likely to thrive in high strain jobs.

A – Passive Jobs (Low Latitude, Low Strain): As long as the passivity of a

job stems from successfully forestalling disruptions, then that passivity is
likely to be highly satisfying to an Administrator. Passivity that stems from
the job being either irrelevant or unimportant will not be satisfying. The
Administrative style seeks to manage disruptions by putting processes into
place that cope with all contingencies and buffer the vital variables of the
organization, preventing them from disruption. When latitude is reduced by
following a procedure, and when that procedure causes things to proceed
smoothly with low levels of strain, an Administrator will take that as
evidence of success. The goal state of Administration will be reached, and
maintaining that peace will be a pleasure.

E – Active Jobs (High Latitude, High Strain): Active jobs are not seen as
stressful in Karasek’s typology, because employees have many protective
measures available to them to reduce the strain. Of all the PAEI styles, it is
E that most naturally thrives in active situations. E is characterized by great
ambition and almost no fear surrounding disruptions of the status quo. Strain
is thus a continual consequence of E type work. E also needs great flexibility
and latitude both to stir up problems and seek out solutions. The active mode
most nearly matches the mode in which E naturally works.

I – Low Strain Jobs (High Latitude, Low Strain): The combination of high
levels of latitude with low levels of strain indicates that social processes are
very significant in the low strain job. Employees will have a lot of authority
relative to their strain levels, and thus will presumably participate more in the
definition and management of tasks than in other, more stressful working
environments.
Karasek’s model has been adapted and extended in various ways, but
these will not be reviewed here.

73
Karasek: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low Latitude

High Strain Passive

Jobs Jobs

High Strain Low Strain

Active Low Strain

Jobs Jobs

Matched Mismatched
High Latitude

74
8. Transitions and Aftershock: Bridges, Woodward,
Buchholz
William Bridges is a writer, consultant
and lecturer in the field of transition

P A
management. His work on the character of
organizations, using an instrument based on Control Under-
the MBTI to describe organizations, was standing
mentioned in a footnote to the introduction
of the Adizes organizational lifecyle in Part
1 of this book. One of his best known
books, dating from fairly early in his career
in change management, is called
Transitions: Making Sense of Life’s
Changes (Bridges, 2004).
This became the foundation for many
subsequent efforts in the field of change
E
Purpose

ISupport

P A
management, including the publication of Dis- Dis-
the book Aftershock: Helping People enchantment identification
Through Corporate Change by Harry
Woodward and Steve Buchholz
(Woodward & Buchholz, 1987). Both
frameworks involve concern structure

E I
models, and each is reviewed below. Dis- Dis-
orientation engagement

Transitions – Bridges: The CUSP Model of Managing Change

William Bridges describes a model of transitions that are “on the
CUSP of change”. This is the moment where the value of a change is just on
the point of being realized, and resistance or hesitation is about to be
released. It is the point at which a person becomes open to a change, or
willing to engage it. Perceptions switch from more pessimistic to more
optimistic ones, as the potential benefits of the change begin to become clear.
Personal statements recasting the change as positive emerge, such as –
“There is an opportunity to learn here”, “I can gain something important”,
“Whatever happens, I’ll come out of this wiser than I went in”.
The CUSP acronym represents four factors of change. A person will
be successful in managing a personal transition depending on how they feel
about these four factors. The factors are listed in CUSP order below, which is
PAIE in Adizes terminology. Reorganizing CUSP into PAEI order would
result in the less helpful acronym CUPS.

75
P – Control: Do you feel you have control of the situation?
A – Understanding: Do you truly comprehend what is happening and why?
I – Support: Do you have (or can you obtain) the practical and emotional
support for what you are going through?
E – Purpose: Do you have a sense of purpose to give meaning and direction
to your experiences and actions?

Aftershock – Woodward & Buchholz: The’4 Dis-es’

Woodward and Buchholz offer a concern structure model that
addresses an earlier phase in the change acceptance process, namely the
denial or disavowal and resistance to change that people experience when
large scale, dramatic changes radically restructure their socio-economic
environment. The cycle begins when some relationship, condition,
organization or community a person identifies with falls apart. People need
to grieve, to experience the ending, accept it, and release old expectations,
prior to embracing the new. A common mistake when announcing disruptive
change is to immediately emphasize the new beginnings without allowing
people to complete the ending/grieving/releasing process.
A period of confusion follows the ending, as the person struggles to
reposition themselves in a strange new reality. This confusion must also be
accounted for and given time to play itself out. Eventually, as the confusion
resolves itself, the person is able to settle into a new reality to enjoy the new
beginnings, releasing the past to focus on how to get their needs met in a new
reality.
The middle period of confusion is typified by four basic reactions to
change: anger, sadness/worry, confusion and withdrawal. The model-specific
terms for these four reactions are Disenchantment, Disidentification,
Disorientation and Disengagement. (The’4 Dis-es’). These are explained
below as they are defined by Woodward and Buchholz in the context of
organizational counseling.

76
P – Disenchantment (Anger): Illusions of security have been shattered, and
there is no trust in the new status quo. Disenchanted people do not cling to
the past, but they seethe with continual negativity and anger over the whole
disruption and change. They feel betrayed and taken advantage of. They view
the changes as an obstacle or threat, and they need an opportunity to vent and
rage about this, with permission and acknowledgement that occasionally it is
good and normal to let loose all of one’s negative thoughts. After they have
expressed all of their negative attitudes about the change, they then need their
core concerns validated and mirrored back to them. With this recognition,
they will typically then be ready to start working to resolve those valid core
concerns, and to make the necessary adjustments in their conduct and
surroundings. Very often Disenchantment hides one of the other three ‘Dis-
es’. The need for active expression puts this in the P domain.

A – Disidentification (Sadness/Worry): This person’s identity was

comprehensively grounded in the old roles and procedures. Now the rules
and roles have all changed, and the person doesn’t know who they are
anymore. They do not accept ownership or responsibility for anything that
may or may not happen under the new system, they use passive aggression to
remain ‘incompetent’ with new work methods, and they are very nostalgic
for the old ways of doing things. They need to be encouraged to explore
precisely what it was they liked so much about the old system, and then
asked to methodically explore how those same values might be found in the
new system. The joys of past work must be separated from the form of past
activities, and new opportunities for those joys pointed out. This will help the
person construct a new organizational identity grounded in the newly
changed ways of doing things. The procedural focus puts this in the A
domain.

E – Disorientation (Confusion): Disoriented employees have lost their sense

of the organization’s purpose and direction. They keep trying to get more
clarity on what precisely they are supposed to be doing, but they lack an
overall frame for making sense of the specifics. They no longer understand
their role nor how they fit in to the larger picture. They understand neither
their input nor their output requirements fully, because they lack any sense of
the rationale for new processes. They busy themselves with tasks with no
sense of organizational priorities, and spend a lot of time commandeering all
the information they can get, in a piecemeal and un-integrated fashion, to try
to build up their personal comfort levels at work. Explanation is necessary, to
help these people connect higher-level organizational goals with unit and
team goals as well as individual project goals. They need to have their roles
and responsibilities placed into such a framework, and then they need

77
support in devising a plan to attain those goals, using the resources of the
larger organization. Orientation is in the E domain.

I – Disengagement (Withdrawal): Disengaged people go through the

motions. Their performance may be adequate, and they may respond to
requests, but they minimize their interactions otherwise, and exhibit no
initiative, interest, creativity or enthusiasm. They are compliant, but not
committed. They have “quit and stayed”. Disengagement can be a chronic
problem that is hard to detect, but when a once enthusiastic and committed
employee becomes disengaged, the problem is easier to see. Disengaged
employees need to be gently confronted with their obvious change in
behavior, in a safe environment, and asked what the problem is. The
intervener needs to use non-threatening “I” language to discuss the
behavioral changes (“I’ve noticed you don’t speak up at meetings much these
days”) instead of “you” language (“You used to speak up at meetings, now
you don’t. What’s the matter?”). This begins to build intimacy through
mutual self-disclosure, which slowly re-engages the employee with the team
and the work. The purpose of these interviews is less to uncover information,
and more to build a connection with the employee that will result in their
bringing more of themselves into workplace activities. Connection is in the I
domain.

Committing to new beginnings is the inverse of the endings process.

New realities are engaged, new identifications made, new purposes
undertaken and trust is newly invested in the changed organization. In their
new roles, they set meaningful goals and make plans that are consistent with
a clear sense of direction. Their confusion and nostalgia subside, and they
face the future together with the rest of their organizational team.
The Aftershock Dis-es are described specifically for corporate
transitions in Woodward and Buchholz. It might be interesting to try to
generalize these four problems to other domains, such a spatial orientation or
set switching.

78
Bridges: Dimensions and Distinctions

Structured

Control Understanding

Agentive Patientive

Purpose Support

Model Interaction
Flexible

Woodward & Buchholz: Dimensions and Distinctions

Past Attachment

Disenchantment Disidentification

Extroverted Introverted

Disorientation Disengagement

Mental Model Socio-emotional

Outdated Disconnection
Current Detachment

79
9. The Four Levers of Corporate Change: Brill &
Worth
Complex management problems
need to be tackled from more than one
angle. Managers need many different tools
or points of leverage to get things to happen
in organizations. In The Four Levers of
Corporate Change (Brill & Worth, 1997),
Brill and Worth identify four different ways
PA
Power
Design
Social
Process

E I
in which managers can actually effect real Understand
change in organizations. Persuasion Human
Nature
P – Skillful use of Power
A – Well-designed Social Processes
E – Persuasive Leadership
I – Understanding of Human Nature

P – Skillful use of Power

Managers faced with trenchant opposition to change can simply act. They
can use their position to make pre-emptive organizational changes that alter
the composition of their opposition. Managers can use their authority to
restructure a team in ways that will destabilize deadlocked groups. They can
also monopolize communication channels to promulgate a vision. They can
use diplomacy and bargaining to sway individuals towards their cause, and
they can control how change efforts are announced, launched and scheduled,
etc. The power wielder can make these moves, hoping that at some point the
opposition will fade and their changes will become self-perpetuating. The
direct-action aspect of this mode puts it in the P domain of concern.

A – Well-designed Social Processes

Rather than immediately engaging conflict head-on, change can sometimes
be aided by designing a social process to achieve the end in mind. This
requires an understanding of human nature and a strategic mind. Suppose a
group of subordinates feel that their supervisors are poor at delegating.
Rather than just telling the supervisors, you can ask them to participate in a
process of self-assessment, rating how they think their subordinates feel
about their own delegation skills. These scores can then be compared with
subordinates ratings of their managers, and the discrepancy pointed out. The

80
issue then becomes one of the inaccuracy of managers’ self-images, instead
of an accusation from the floor. The well-designed process applies all of the
pressure for change without anybody having to take an offensive or defensive
stand. The structure communicates the message, putting this in the A mode.

E – Persuasive Leadership
Leaders must inspire by example, and assemble a cadre of other inspired
leaders within the organization, all of whom can be persuaded to back the
same mission. This kind of leadership requires vision and self-knowledge.
Good leaders recognize other informal leaders in the group and put them in
strategic organizational positions. Leaders must maintain an overall sense of
mission and yet be able to pay full unbiased attention to the particulars of any
problem brought to their attention. They must resolve problems according to
their particulars, but always in a direction that supports the mission. They
must also manage alliances, including upwards, downwards and horizontal
relationships between their organization and others. Persuasive leadership
requires vertical flexibility and the capacity to deploy long-term and short-
term thinking as needed. The strategic overview required for this strategy is
situated in the E domain.

I – Understanding of Human Nature

The human factor can make or break any change effort. Leaders have to
gather info about peoples’ feelings and beliefs, not accepting all statements at
face value. Strong empathy skills are required, as well as an appreciation for
the quirks and paradoxes of the human mind and heart. Leaders have to be
wise in their use of reward and sanction, which means they have to know
what motivates different people. This lever underlies the other three, and is…
pivotal for their success. The focus on the human element puts this in the I
domain.

81
Brill and Worth: Dimensions and Distinctions

Tactical

Power Process

Leader- Employee-
centered centered

Persuade Understand

Structural Interactive
Social

82
10. Macroenvironmental Analysis: Fahey & Narayanan
In their textbook on
Macroenvironmental Analysis for Strategic
Management (Fahey & Narayanan, 1986), Economic/

PA
Fahey and Narayanan describe dimensions Productive Regulatory
of the business environment that are
relevant for the construction of business
strategy. These dimensions are also
Politcal/

E I
relevant to the structure of concern. Fahey
and Narayanan indicate that managers need Technology Social/
to undertake analyses of the environment of / Innovation Cultural
their organizations in order to understand
current and potential business changes.
They can also use these analyses to generate important intelligence for
strategic decision makers. Fahey and Narayanan review several business
environment models, and draw a distinction between models of the general
environment and those of the business-relevant environment. They divide the
business-relevant environment into four segments, along the lines of the
structure of concern:

P – Economic: Gross measures of productive activity at local, regional and

national levels, and relationships to demand.
A – Political: The regulatory environment, but control over regulatory bodies
is contested, so PI-type political processes and developments are highly
relevant.
E – Technological: Progress, advancements, innovations and discoveries are
the key concerns in the technological sector.
I – Social: Demographics, lifestyles and cultural values all matter in this
sector, and can be related to demand, productivity and political processes.

Their model of macroenvironmental analysis highlights the linkages

within and between these segments. Environmental turbulence is analyzed as
changes in interconnectedness within and among segments.

83
Fahey and Narayanan: Dimensions and Distinctions

Direct Impact

Economic/ Political/
Productive Regulatory

Material Social
Technological Social/
Innovation Cultural

Industry Society-Wide
Specific
Indirect Impact

84
11. The Four Business Strategies: Michael Porter
In his widely-read book Competitive
Advantage (Porter, 1985) Michael Porter

PA
argues that businesses must focus on areas Cost Cost
of capability where they have a distinct Focus Leadership
advantage relative to their competitors in
their target markets. They need to
concentrate on one type of competitive
advantage to achieve a distinct position in
that market. Trying to be all things to all
people will not generate successes.
There are two dimensions along
which strategies can be defined: the source
E I
Differentia- Differentia-
tion Focus tion

of the competitive advantage (low cost or product differentiation), and the

scope of the advantage (narrow or broad). Crossing the dimensions gives us
four business strategies, written below in PAEI order:
P – Cost Focus: Competitive cost leadership in a small cluster of target
segments.
A – Cost Leadership: Lower costs across a broad range of product offerings.
E – Differentiation Focus: Unique and distinct position in specific target
segments.
I – Differentiation: Distinctly recognizable positions across a whole range of
offerings.
A Cost Focus strategy tends to emerge as a competitive move,
sometimes to undercut a specific competitor. A smaller firm can also gain
entry to a market by competing on cost within a specific niche. If the
industry depends on economies of scale, Cost Focus opportunities are
unlikely to open up.
Cost Leadership is the strategy that most depends on economies of
scale. Cost Leadership requires a company to develop economies right
across the organization, to consistently reduce costs across their entire
produce line.
A Differentiation Focus becomes suitable when product is more
highly priced, but deemed to be worth it. The product differs from
competitive offerings in various ways, and this better meets the needs of
certain customers in the target segment, emphasizing qualities along
dimensions or attributes the target segment considers important. The vision
of a better alternative is marketed.

85
 A broader Differentiation strategy accomplishes these same
differentiating tasks for all of the offerings of a company, essentially building
an identity that can be trusted to deliver certain key differentiators in
everything they put on the market.

PAEI Associations unfold as follows:

P – Cost Focus: Narrow attempt to undercut specific competitors.

A – Cost Leadership: Systematic economizing across the organization.
E – Differentiation Focus: Unique and distinct position, held forth for
approval.
I – Differentiation: Reliable identity, consistently delivering on a quality
promise, encouraging and deepening a long term trust-based relationship
with customers.

Porter’s schema has some similarities with Uriel Foa’s Resource

Theory (Foa, 1993), summarized later in this catalog. Resource Theory
postulates dimensions of high or low concreteness, and high or low
particularism. In Porter’s two narrow-scope categories, the competitive
advantage of cost focus would be concrete, and differentiation focus would
be more symbolic and less concrete. In the broad-scope categories,
differentiation would be more highly particularized, involving brand identity,
the customer experience and other forms of relating to the customer. Cost
leadership would be a much more universal appeal that would not require
customers to know anything about the company behind the product.
Resource Theory could be applied to business strategy to help elaborate how
these four different strategies operate.

86
Porter: Dimensions and Distinctions

Costs
Rough Generic

Cost Focus Cost Leadership

Focused Generalized

Differentiation Differentiation
Focus Leadership

Distinctive Refined
Qualities

87
12. The Icarus Paradox: Danny Miller
Danny Miller (1992) describes the
dynamics of corporate growth and decline

PA
in his book The Icarus Paradox, which Builders/ Craftsmen/
shows how the same behavior (or Imperialists Tinkerers
“trajectory”) that makes some firms (Venturing) (Focusing)
successful also leads to their decline. He
defines a four part concern structure
typology of these behavior patterns, given

E I
Pioneers/ Salesmen/
below in PAEI order.
Escapists Drifters
(Inventing) (Decoupling)
P – The Venturing Trajectory: This
trajectory converts “growth-driven,
entrepreneurial BUILDERS--companies managed by imaginative leaders and
creative planning and financial staffs--into impulsive, greedy
IMPERIALISTS who severely overtax their resources by expanding helter-
skelter into businesses they know nothing about.”

A – The Focusing Trajectory: This trajectory “takes punctilious, quality-

driven CRAFTSMEN organizations with their masterful engineers and
airtight operations, and turns them into rigidly controlled, detail-obsessed
TINKERERS--firms whose insular, technocratic monocultures alienate
customers with perfect, but irrelevant, offerings.”

E – The Inventing Trajectory: This trajectory “takes PIONEERS with

unexcelled R&D departments, flexible think tank operations, and state-of-
the-art products, and transforms them into utopian ESCAPISTS run by a cult
of chaos-loving scientists who squander resources in the pursuit of
hopelessly grand and futuristic inventions.”

I – The Decoupling Trajectory: This trajectory “transforms SALESMEN--

organizations with unparalleled marketing skills, prominent brand names,
and broad markets--into aimless, bureaucratic DRIFTERS whose sales fetish
obscures design issues, and who produce a stale and disjointed line of "me
too" offerings.”

88
13. The Balanced Scorecard: Kaplan and Norton
The Balanced Scorecard has evolved from a tool for strategic planning into a
major business and organizational paradigm for strategic management, and I
do not plan to summarize it in its entirety here. It is based on several insights,
one being that people in organizations fulfill those goals they are being
measured against. If performance on a task type is not being measured, it
will not be a priority for people at work. Furthermore, financial accounting
is an inadequate measure of organizational behavior. It measures past
productivity, whereas Kaplan and Norton (1996) insist that four perspectives
on performance really need to be measured in organizations. In PAEI order,
these are:
P – Financial: To succeed financially how should we appear to our
shareholders?
A – Internal Business Processes: To satisfy our shareholders and customers,
what business processes must we excel at?
E – Learning and Growth: To achieve our vision, how will we sustain our
ability to change and improve?
I – Customers: To achieve our vision, how should we appear to our
customers?

89
14. Noble Purposes in Mission Statements: Nikos
Mourkogiannis
Nikos Mourkogiannis (2005; 2006; Daft, 2008) has outlined four ways that
organizational leaders can frame overall organizational purposes to help
people feel that their work is worthwhile. In PAEI order, these are:

P – Heroism (Being Effective, Achievement)

A – Excellence (Being the Best, Fulfillment)
E – Discovery (Finding the New, Entrepreneuring)
I – Altruism (Providing Service, Happiness)

90
15. Strategic Thinking – A Four Piece Puzzle: Bill
Birnbaum
Bill Birnbaum is a strategy consultant with decades of experience
helping management teams define their business strategies. In a book called
Strategic Thinking: A four-piece puzzle (Birnbaum, 2004), he offers four key
components of strategy that follow a concern structure pattern.

P - Achieving and maintaining focus

A - Managing both projects and processes
E - Leading and motivating people
I - Understanding and responding to markets and customers

91
16. Stakeholder Styles: Duke Corporate Education
In a book called Influencing and Collaborating for Results, the writers at
Duke Corporate Education (2005) introduce a four-part typology of
stakeholder personality styles, positioning it as a kind of summary of various
personality measures that managers might have encountered in their careers.
The four personality types are:

P – Skeptic: Risk-averse and not willing to rock the boat. Follows the “if it
ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach. Doesn’t consider all new ideas as
“advances”.
A – Evaluator: Cautious, but willing to take calculated risks if the facts
support it. Will want to see the supporting data and give careful analysis.
E – Enthusiast: Open to new ideas and trying new approaches. Enthusiastic,
optimistic, a “big picture” visionary or entrepreneur. Likely to look for and
take advantage of new opportunities that are tightly connected to strategy.
I – Angler: Less concerned about the project itself and more concerned about
the political implications and personal benefits of involvement. Interested in
what he or she can gain by engaging in the challenge. Looks for all the
angles.

92
17. Four Kinds of Salespeople: Chuck Mache
In his consulting practice and his book The Four Kinds of Sales People: How
and Why They Excel- And How You Can Too, Chuck Mache (2007) defines a
concern structure pattern for selling styles, as follows:
P – Performer
A – Professional
E – Searcher
I – Caretaker

93
Knowledge Management
Concern structure issues in knowledge management tend to arise in
models that focus on the interaction between social networks in workplaces
and the knowledge bases that enable those patterns of work. Four out of the
five groups of models surveyed have this combined social/informational
emphasis. Particular importance is placed on the role of implicit or tacit
knowledge in work environments, as well as if and how that knowledge is
made explicit.
The fifth model in the series is a little more abstract, describing the
difference between the exploration and exploitation of new knowledge, and
the organizational activities that support each mode of knowledge work. The
exploration/exploitation dynamic is a theoretically important point of contact
with search and optimization models in computer science and behavioral
ecology. Animals which forage for food, for example, need to know when to
stay put and consume their food source, or when to abandon it in order to
seek out a new food source. They need to allocate their time effectively and
efficiently between exploration activities and exploitation activities.
These concepts thus connect concern structure concepts with
fundamental theoretical constructs in other disciplines, furnishing grounds
for a potential ultimate explanation of the structure of concern.

94
18. The SECI Model of Knowledge Management:
Nonaka & Takeuchi
The SECI model of knowledge
management developed in the mid-1990’s

PA
by Nonaka and Takeuchi is one of the Internal- Combin-
seminal works in the field, famous for ization ation
drawing attention very sharply towards tacit
knowledge in the workplace, and how tacit
knowledge informs and becomes explicit
knowledge by various processes (Nonaka &

E I
Takeuchi, 1995; De Geytere, 2005). Their External- Social-
knowledge management framework ization ization
features three separate models whose
lineaments fall into the patterns also
defined by the structure of concern. These
models include:

Phases of SECI;

Styles of Ba (‘shared space of engagement’), and;

Categories of knowledge assets.

SECI
The acronym SECI stands for a four-phase knowledge development cycle,
which begins in the I quadrant of the structure of concern. Cultural contrast
between this model and the P-initiated Western models is extremely
illuminating. It represents the spiral of emergence of explicit knowledge from
tacit knowledge in the workplace:
I – Socialization: Tacit knowledge is shared among people through modeling
and mentoring, conversation, workplace culture, shared experiences and the
like. Key skill: empathizing.
E – Externalization: People begin developing metaphors and analogies to
explain the rationality or sense of their tacitly-informed behavior. Tacit
knowledge becomes more explicit as concepts undergo refinement. Key
skill: articulating.
A – Combination: Explicit ideas get combined with other explicit ideas,
seeking out dependencies and eliminating redundancies, culminating in
complete descriptions of processes and procedures for accomplishing tasks.
Key skill: connecting.
P – Internalization: Explicit ideas get over-learned into implicit knowledge
again as people internalize the newly-explicit procedures. Knowledge is now

95
once more in the zone of socialization, and a spiral of knowledge cultivation
may ensue (implicit to implicit). Key skill: embodying.

Ba
Ba means something like the Adizes
concept of a learning environment, or the

PA
Cynefin concept (reviewed below in this
catalog). It is a group context where Exercising Systematizing
knowledge is shared, generated and put into
practice through collaboration. Giving it a
temporal rather than a spatial construction,
it could be considered a “mode”, so that a

E I
work group might be in the “Originating
mode”. The spatial overtones are Originating Dialoguing
considered important to the concept,
however. There are four categories of Ba,
again ending, rather than beginning, with P,
unlike most Western concern structure models:
E – Originating Ba (Face-to-face individual): Face-to-face and front-line
interactions, where problems and solutions/insights both emerge
spontaneously in individual situations. The creative context of daily work
where tacit knowledge of the job develops.
I – Dialoguing (Face-to-face collective): The collective interactions, sharing
of anecdotes and stories, recounting daily experiences, and other informal
transactions that allow tacit knowledge to spread and influence
organizational work.
A – Systematizing (Virtual collective): The context of evaluation and review,
discovery that certain kinds of practices produced better outcomes, reflecting
that information back to the front line and decision makers, indicating
successful approaches to tasks.
P – Exercising (Virtual individual): Using information about the better
practices and comparing it to their own performance, people bring their
behavior in line with more successful approach.

96
Knowledge Assets
Nonaka and Tekeuchi identify four
categories of knowledge assets, in PAEI

PA
order as follows: Routine Systemic
P - Routine Knowledge Assets: Tacit Knowledge Knowledge
procedural knowledge routinized and
embedded in organizational cultures,
actions and daily practices.
A - Systemic Knowledge Assets: Explicit,
codified and systematic knowledge stores
in documents, databases,
specifications and patents.
manuals,
E I
Conceptual
Knowledge
Experiential
Knowledge

E – Conceptual Knowledge Assets: Explicit knowledge in symbolic form,

including product concepts, brand equity, design styles, symbols and
language.
I – Experiential Knowledge Assets: Tacit knowledge emergent in collective
experience, including the growing skills and judgment of individuals,
prosocial feelings like trust and care, and motivational resources fueling
participations, passions and tensions.
Compiling all three of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s models gives us four fairly
clear PAEI factors:

P - Routine Knowledge Assets, Internalization, Exercising (Virtual

individual): Procedural knowledge, routinized, embedded, over-learned,
embodied, behavioral, applied.
A - Systemic Knowledge Assets, Combination, Systematizing (Virtual
collective): Explicit, codified, systematic, descriptive, complete,
comparative, evaluative.
E – Conceptual Knowledge Assets, Externalization, Originating (Face-to-
face individual): Symbols, concepts, brands, styles, metaphors, analogies,
emergent, developmental.
I – Experiential Knowledge Assets, Socialization, Dialoguing (Face-to-face
collective): Collective, shared, enhancing social cohesion, participatory,
grassroots, sharing.

97
Nonaka and Takeuchi: Dimensions and Distinctions

SECI
Integrating

Internalization Combination

Individual Collaborative

Externalization Socialization

Explicit Tacit
Generating

Ba

Virtual

Exercising Systematizing

Individual Collective

Originating Dialoguing

Alerting Sharing
Face to Face

98
 Knowledge Assets
Molecular

Routine Systemic

Practice Memory

Conceptual Experiential

Explicit Tacit
Molar

99
19. Receipt of Information Benefits: Cross, Rice &
Parker
In a study of informal organizational
information networks, Cross et al. (2001)

PA
investigated workplace social networks to
see how they interacted with five known Solutions Validation
benefits of information-seeking behavior.
Four of these benefits fall directly into
structure of concern quadrants. The fifth
benefit of information seeking is a second-
order benefit which would be applicable to

The four concern-structured

benefits are given below in PAEI order:
E I
all four concern styles, but in different Reformulation Legitimization
ways for each style.

P – Solutions: One can gain solutions to problems, “know-what” and “know-

how”, specific information that enables action.
A – Validation of Plans or Solutions: Reassurance that things are being done
properly, that they are accurate or appropriate and ‘officially’ presentable as
solutions to others.
E – Problem Reformulation: Soliciting a different perspective on a problem
in order to have another way of thinking about it, highlighting different
problems, dimensions or possible consequences of plans.
I – Legitimization from Contact with a Respected Person: Associating one’s
ideas with important others makes them more credible. One gains the ability
to tell others that the respected person was consulted and expressed support,
which lends authority to the ideas.
The fifth benefit Cross et al discuss is meta-knowledge or “know-
where”: increased knowledge about local people, databases and other
resources useful for answering, clarifying or validating questions. This is
something that would accrue under any PAEI strategy, but in a manner
consistent for that style. P-style benefits would be meta-knowledge about
who to turn to for quick and useful results, A-style benefits would including
knowing who has knowledge and position to speak authoritatively about
valid or invalid solutions, etc.

100
 Needless to say, these styles of information benefits are not exclusive
to their respective PAEI personality styles. All personalities would enjoy all
the benefits of information seeking. However, different people are likely to
want, seek, offer, value or depend on certain benefits more than others. Over
time one would expect to see those preferences line up with other
personality-derived characteristics.

Cross, Rice & Parker: Dimensions and Distinctions

Tasks
Independent Confirm

Solutions Validation

Instrumental Status

Reformulation Legitimization

Challenge Dependent
Interpretations

101
20. The Cynefin Sensemaking Framework: D. J.
Snowden
The Cynefin (kun-ev’in) project grew
out of work at the IBM Institute for Knowable Known

PA
Knowledge Management that later (Ordered) (Ordered)
migrated to Cardiff University and the
Cynefin Centre. Cynefin is a Welsh word
meaning ‘our place of belonging’, a place
of great meaningfulness for a people. Disorder
Snowden describes Cynefin as a
sensemaking methodology, which differs
from earlier knowledge management

environment for people to come together E I

Chaos Complex
initiatives in its emphasis on setting up an (Unordered) (Unordered)

and make joint sense of their situation (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003).
Snowden recounts how early knowledge management tended to
focus on objectifying tacit knowledge, extracting it from experts and turning
it into codified corporate data. Expert knowledge proved not to be entirely
extractible in this way. Later approaches still focused on making tacit
knowledge explicit, but emphasized the limited usefulness of codification
and the important of social processes of knowledge storage, generation and
flow. The Cynefin project dispenses with the assumption that knowledge is a
thing with a definite rule-like structure, and brings people together to make
meaning, initially by building a shared context woven out of shared stories,
anecdotes, organizational legends, alternative histories and accounts of
phases and events in the organization’s life, and so on. This kind of shared
context makes knowledge work vastly more productive and efficient, as
evidenced by the speed with which one can explain a process to someone one
sees every day, versus to a stranger.
Cynefin practitioners then take teams through a well-defined group
process. Teams emerge with more than plans and prescriptions; they also
create shared memories and experience. This is an extensive methodology
which I do not intend to summarize in its entirety. The main point of contact
that I wish to emphasize is the Cynefin framework, which describes four
differently ordered/unordered domains describing problem dynamics, plus a
fifth area of disorder. These are listed below in PAEI order:

P – Knowable (Ordered – Sense, Analyze, Respond): This order requires

pragmatic solutions, analytical thought and scenario planning. There are
things we don’t know but could probably figure out. However, we often
don’t have time or money to spare for re-inventing this wheel, so we call an
102
expert. Besides expert opinion, trial and error and fact-finding can get us to
our goal: to figure out cause-effect relationships and get things done.
Sensing data, analyzing it and getting an expert to interpret it and recommend
a course of action are good techniques here. Habit can lead us astray, and
plans have to remain flexible for updating. Ultimately they will reflect what
finally seems to have worked.
A – Known (Ordered – Sense, Categorize, Respond): Problems in this
domain are legitimate targets for explicit codification. Cause and effect
relationships can be empirically determined and are generally linear.
Prediction is possible and issues are objective enough that best practice
recommendations are widely accepted. In this category, process
reengineering and the explicit codification of structured processes are
beneficial and essential. The decision model for this domain includes
detecting incoming data, categorizing it and responding according to
predetermined practice.
E – Chaos (Unordered – Act, Sense, Respond): In chaos, cause and effect
relationships are not discernable. Patterns of turbulence provide the only
visible structure to events. Interventions from known domains are not useful
and may have caused the present chaos in the first place. Managing this
requires a bold and confident leap into the chaos, relying on guts and
intuition. Quick action to reduce turbulence and find platforms of relative
stability are important, and it may be necessary to establish dominance to
accomplish this. This has to be done with ears and eyes wide open, because
the results will guide the next hop into the unknown. Done well, desirable
patterns of stability will form. This process can also be entered into willingly
as an innovation practice.
I – Complex (Unordered – Probe, Sense, Respond): Patterns in this domain
emerge from the complex interactions of many different people. Cause and
effect relationships are visible, but they are so many that their logic can only
be perceived in retrospect, not predicted from the present. A history of this
event will be writeable, but the next step is not predictable. There may be a
stable pattern for now, but the number of factors at play keep the situation
always unpredictably close to major changes. Decisions should be made by
sending out probes to assess the prevailing patterns, and seeking multiple
perspectives on the significance of unfolding events. Action is best taken by
stabilizing and supporting desirable patterns of activity and destabilizing
undesirable ones.
The Domain of Disorder: This is the zone for situating conflict among
decision-makers. It is the battlefield where proponents favoring solutions
from each of the other four zones try to “lay down the law” and control the
definition of the problem to match their own interpretation of it. The more
contentious the issue, the stronger the desire to pull it towards one’s preferred
style of response. Visibly representing this domain in the Cynefin framework
103
and focusing the team on reducing its size on the grid is an important prelude
to consensus-building in this methodology.

Cynefin: Dimensions and Distinctions

Ordered

Knowable Known

Potentials Actuals

Chaos Complex

Unordered

104
21. A Fourfold Typology of Tacit Knowledge: José
Castillo
Castillo offers a fourfold typology
of tacit knowledge to help bring clarity to
the contentious field of knowledge
management (Castillo, 2002). Debate rages
in this field over whether or not tacit
knowledge can be measured or even
observed, or shared or taught, or whether it
PANon-
epistle
Socio-
cultural

E I
is social or individual. With all of this
controversy, Castillo suggests that perhaps Semantic Sagacious
people are using this term in different ways.
The fourfold typology of tacit knowledge is
offered as a way out of this quagmire. It is
given in PAEI order below:
P – Nonepistle Tacit Knowledge: Truly inarticulate knowing, the result of
practical experience leading to implicit learning. Procedural as opposed to
declarative knowledge. Skill, instinct or gut feelings. The kind of knowledge
that expresses itself in bricolage and improvisatory problem solving. This
practical, procedural emphasis makes it a P function.
A – Sociocultural Tacit Knowledge: Socially implicit knowledge of norms,
sanctions and expectations. Subconscious inference of how things are done
or how one should behave. Unspoken assumptions that allow for smooth
interaction among members of a society. Not survey knowledge over whole
social system. One need only know one’s own role, not the whole picture.
One need not question the scheme to understand it. This is the collective,
implicit counterpart of explicit social and procedural coordination.
Unquestioned norms and procedures that define what normally happens
make this an A function.
E – Semantic Tacit Knowledge: An assumption base of previously shared
knowledge, which makes summary statements and allusiveness possible,
increasing the efficiency of communications. Specialized discourse
communities build this knowledge into their membership, speaking in ways
unintelligible to outsiders but transparent to insiders. This permits high-level
thought and conversation, suppressing detail and focusing on key elements of
meaning. However, the detail is recoverable, so high-level communication
among experts implicitly reorganizes vast amounts of related lower-level
material. Cultivated expertise and the capacity to use few words to imply
huge leaps make this an E function.
I – Sagacious Tacit Knowledge: This is wisdom as it is commonly
understood. It involves the capacity to look at a situation and immediately
105
see what it ‘truly is’, rather than what it looks like. This involves a certain
immunity to the obvious or surface meaning of an event, and a sensitivity to
links, resonance and hidden analogies. It involve a certain cognitive
independence from the crowd, but only to better accomplish what the crowd
‘really’ desires due to what is ‘really’ going on. Castillo discusses sagacity in
the context of scientific reasoning, but it is exactly the kind of reasoning
required for interpersonal counseling, conflict mediation and successful
negotiations. Alternate frames of meaning are in play that lead to better
outcomes than the more obvious frames that dominate most interpretations of
the events. Sagacious tacit knowledge is a type of good judgment in choosing
these more appropriate but less obvious interpretive frames. It is a crucial
skill for interpersonal conflict resolution or conflict mediation, and is very
important for the I function in this connection.

José Castillo: Dimensions and Distinctions

Procedural

Nonepistle Tacit Sociocultural

Knowledge Tacit Knowledge

Accumulated Emergent

Semantic Tacit Sagacious Tacit

Knowledge Knowledge

Social Personal
Interpretive

106
22. Exploration and Exploitation in Knowledge
Management: Gray, Chan & March
Knowledge management is often based
upon the strategic aims or functional goals 2 3
of an organization. Given these goals,

reach them. As an alternative to this

approach, Peter H. Gray offers an account
of knowledge management based on
PA
knowledge management is used to help Knowledge Knowledge
Creation

1
Acquisition

E I
problem solving instead. Knowledge
management practices are understood in Encouraging
Raising
terms of their contribution to the problem Serendipity
Awareness
solving process. Then, wherever problem
solving processes arise in the organization,
tools for knowledge management can be allocated to them. This basis for
categorizing knowledge management practices is more flexible and better
addresses the practical concerns of working managers.
Gray and Chan (1999) review several decision making and problem
solving frameworks to support a general distinction between two activity
clusters: problem recognition and problem solving. They cross this axis with
a second axis opposing new or unique problems with previously solved
problems – another dichotomy their review showed to be widely supported
(e.g. as non-routine vs. routine, productive vs. reproductive and custom vs.
ready-made solution processes).
This framework groups knowledge management practices as follows
(in PAEI order):

P – (2) Knowledge Creation (New or Unique Problem Solving)

Workers engage or encounter new situations, drawing upon knowledge
management practices that help them generate new solutions. They are fully
aware of these problems or opportunities, and work actively to resolve them.
The organization challenges them to seek creative and innovative solutions,
supporting their efforts with knowledge resources.

107
A – (3) Knowledge Acquisition (Previously Solved Problem Solving)
Knowledge access and sharing processes are activated in order to propagate
preexisting knowledge about how so solve problems. Workers are fully
aware of the problems or opportunities, and actively preparing to resolve
them. Information storage and retrieval technology is often a key element in
these practices.

E – (1) Encouraging Serendipity (New or Unique Problem Recognition)

Workers are discovering or resolving new patterns and potentials, and
attracting the interest of others towards the same potentials. This requires
knowledge management practices that encourage exploration by exposing
employees to new experiences, information and ideas, creating conditions
conducive to serendipitous discovery.

I – (4) Raising Awareness (Previously Solved Problem Recognition)

This is an alerting function, propagating information across the organization
that a recognizable problem or opportunity has emerged. The information
might be from the organization’s own learning history, or it may have been
garnered from consultants, competitors, allies or best practices from
businesses within or even beyond their industry.
In empirical studies to validate this model, knowledge management
practices were not evenly scattered across all four quadrants. Rather, a strong
diagonal trend appeared, stretching from serendipitous Quadrant 1 (E)
activities to structured Quadrant 3 (A) activities. Managers seemed to
assimilate new or unique problems to problem recognition, and pre-existing
problems to problem solving. These two clusters were thus named
Recognizing New Problems and Solving Recurring Problems, and related to
March’s formulation of the exploration/exploitation distinction, accompanied
by the following quotation:
Exploration includes things captured by terms such as search,
variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility,
discovery, innovation. Exploitation includes such things as
refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection,
implementation, execution. Adaptive systems that engage in
exploration to the exclusion of exploitation are likely to find
that they suffer the costs of experimentation without gaining
many of its benefits. They exhibit too many undeveloped new
ideas and too little distinctive competence. Conversely,
systems that engage in exploitation to the exclusion of
exploration are likely to find themselves trapped in suboptimal
stable equilibria. ((March, 1991))
108
 The two higher order constructs – exploration of new possibilities and
exploitation of existing resources – help illuminate the role of knowledge
management practices in organizations. Periods of change and indeterminacy
call for more exploration, supported by creative knowledge management
practices that enhance organizational differentiation. However, increased
competitive pressures also force firms to become more focused and efficient
at exploiting their existing knowledge, giving them advantages of speed and
cost.
The exploration/exploitation tradeoff is a commonplace of search
and optimization thinking, so there is a point of contact between this model
of knowledge management and a particular branch of mathematics.

Peter Gray: Dimensions and Distinctions

Problem
Solving

2 3
Knowledge Knowledge
Creation Acquisition
New Previously
Problems Solved
1 4
Encouraging Raising
Serendipity Awareness

Problem
Recognition

109
Decision Theory
The models collected here under the “Decision Theory” banner initially
appear to be a mixed bunch of models. Several of them focus on decision-
making under conditions of uncertainty. Some of them focus on describing
what might be called the “decision-making apparatus” in our heads or in
computer systems. One model focuses on how external constraints shape
decision-making behavior. However, there is more continuity among these
models than there might appear at first. Under conditions of uncertainty,
when external constraints cannot explain the emergence of concern
structures, we see that the decision-making process or apparatus itself
provides this structure. So whether decision-making is constrained or under-
constrained, the structure of concern still manifests itself.

It is interesting that the structure of concern should prove so pervasive in

decision-making processes. In the Adizes Methodology, the structure of
concern is centrally implicated in decision-making activities. This seems to
be a natural home for the emergence of this structure – a point which merits
some further reflection and investigation.

110
23. Decision-Making Strategies and Uncertainty: James
D. Thompson
James Thompson is a classic figure
in organization theory. His 1967 book
Organizations in Action was one of the first

organizational model (Thompson, 2003).

His main focus was on system
dependencies and boundary dynamics, but
PA
major syntheses of the open systems Judgmental Computa-
tional

E I
he did offer a model of decision-making
strategies that recapitulates the structure of
InspirationalCompromise
concern.
Thompson observed that preferred
decision strategies shifted based on two
kinds of uncertainty: uncertain beliefs about the cause/effect relations
involved in producing an outcome, and uncertain preferences regarding what
outcomes would be most desirable. Crossing these two dimensions of
certainty-uncertainty results in the following PAEI decision-making strategy
specification:

P – Judgmental Strategy (Certain preferences, Uncertain beliefs)

A – Computational Strategy (Certain preferences, Certain beliefs)
E – Inspirational Strategy (Uncertain preferences, Uncertain beliefs)
I – Compromise Strategy (Uncertain preferences, Certain Beliefs)

When preferences are certain and it is clear how to make them

happen, all we need to do is figure out the requirements of the task and meet
them (computational). If we know what we want but there is no totally clear
indication that the means we are considering will reach that end, we have to
exercise judgment and take some risks.
When our preferences are not clear but everybody knows how to
produce the various ends possible, we need to weigh, balance and trade off
goals and priorities to find some effective manner of focusing our efforts.
When we aren’t sure about the best outcomes and wouldn’t know how to
reach them anyway, inspiration is required to resolve some radically new
approach to the opportunity.

111
James Thompson: Dimensions and Distinctions:

Certain
Preferences

Judgmental Computational

Uncertain Certain Beliefs

Beliefs

Inspirational Compromise

Uncertain
Preferences

112
24. Image Theory and Decision-Making: Lee Roy Beach
Image theory is an alternative to
classical decision theories that are based on
subjective expected utility, propounded by
Lee Roy Beech (Beach, 1990). Expected
utility models of decision making do not
match real-world processes, according to
Beach. Studies of actual managerial
PA
Strategic
Image
Values
Image

E I
decisions show that decisions are rarely
based on explicit cost/benefit calculations. Trajectory
They are also rarely treated as gambles or Image
wagers, as probability-based models
suggest. Many decisions do not even
involve choices between two commensurate options. They revolve instead
around sticking with the status quo vs. introducing a change. Maintaining the
status quo is a low-risk default option requiring little justification.
Introducing a change is a potentially hazardous choice that one will be held
accountable for.
Furthermore, traditional decision theory tends to represent each
decision as isolated and unique. This is not how decisions are typically
experienced (except perhaps under lab conditions). Rather, they are seen as
part of a larger web of purpose, “they are seen as components of a larger
scheme that is dedicated to the achievement of some desired state of affairs,
with each component contributing a small thrust in the appropriate
direction…” (Beach, 1990). Image theory thus attempts to construct a broad
and inclusive model of decision making as it is really experienced.
Image theory is a theory of individual decision making, and so does
not feature I-type social processes. Collective decision making is simply
represented as a division of labor within the same individualistic overall
model. P, A and E processes are the only ones represented.
In image theory, an agent’s decision making knowledge is taken to
be covered by three different images or cognitive schemata: an image of how
things should go, an agenda of goals and outcomes they want within specific
time windows, and concrete ways or plans for accomplishing those goals and
attaining those outcomes. This makes a three-tier hierarchy with principles or
values at the top, goals and timelines in the middle and plans at the bottom.
In PAE order, the images are:
P – The Strategic Image (bottom): Plans and tactics for pursuing adopted
goals to successful outcomes. Involves anticipation and short-term
forecasting.

113
A – The Value Image (top): Standards, ideals, beliefs, morals, ethics and
other principles serve as imperatives or rigid guides that establish decisions
as right or wrong. Principles generate goals and also govern the adoption or
rejection of candidate goals and plans or tactics that violate the value image.
E – The Trajectory Image (middle): This is an image of direction or
directedness, created by establishing both specific goals and abstract goals,
as well as by defining markers of progress towards goals. Timely
progression towards desired outcomes is itself a goal within the trajectory
image.
Beach is notable for his elevation of the A principle to a governing
position over E. These two elements (should/want) are more often portrayed
as antagonistic. However, on Beach’s formulation, standards set all of the set
points against which we can then judge how close or how far some outcome
approaches a state of affairs that we want. Want depends on should, on
Beach’s account. This draws attention to a different relationship between
these two elements than is typically emphasized in Western writing on
problem solving, and it may be of significant value in further analysing
problem solving in A-dominant cultures.

Lee Roy Beach: Dimensions and Distinctions

Known

Strategic Value
Image Image

Dynamic Regulatory

Trajectory
Image

Emergent

114
25. The Interpersonal Model of Goal-Based Decision
Making: Stephen Slade
The Interpersonal Model of Goal-
Based Decision Making is part of a
research program in artificial intelligence
undertaken by Stephen Slade (Slade, 1992).
It has been implemented in a specific AI
program called VOTE, which models US
Congressional roll call voting. Slade rejects
PA
Plans Resources

E I
standard prescriptive decision making
models based on probabilities of outcomes Goals Relation-
and payoffs, focusing instead on pragmatic ships
decision constraints such as resource
limitations across a multitude of goals, and
a resultant need for various kinds of planning.
Many models of personal decision making only touch upon three
areas of the structure of concern: P, A and E – the three more individualistic
styles. Slade’s model is notable for its inclusion of I. He asserts that an
agent’s goals “include both personal goals and adopted goals derived from
interpersonal relationships” (Slade, 1992). Goals and relationships form the
two highest levels of his conceptual framework for this project, as its title
would suggest.
Goals do not stand alone in this model. They are embedded in a ‘goal
triad’ along with plans and resources. P, A and E can be roughly associated
with Plans, Resources and Goals, respectively, but a closer analysis provides
a more exact mapping.

P – Bottom-up Goal Development: This is an opportunistic decision making

mode. When an agent detects or suspects the presence of a resource, he or
she may then adopt a plan to acquire that resource. This resource-based
planning may not be instrumental to any currently active higher-level goal.
This style of planning is a more reliable source of repeated gratification and
success, because the resource is available from the beginning. Since planning
is the active moment of opportunistic decision making, P can be roughly
associated with the planning point of the goal triad – where goals and
resources are already largely given by context.

A – Resources: Resources give rise to goals and plans, but the converse is
also true, goals and plans require resourcing decisions to be made, to
maximize the return upon their investment. This kind of economic reasoning

115
falls into the A domain. Resources include time, money, attention, skills,
commitment, locations, space, relations, health, objects, information, natural
resources and social power. They differ by being variously perishable,
expendable, critical, fungible, costly, accessible, renewable, interleaving
(simultaneously usable in more than one plan, e.g. location), proprietary,
transferable, and inherently associated with certain plans and contexts.
Resources pose an allocation problem, forcing the prioritization and ranking
of goals and plans, and vigilance against waste.

E – Top-down Goal Development: High-level goals are established by the

agent, determining a hierarchy of sub-goals for reaching the high-level goals.
This kind of goal-based planning has no necessary relationship with success
or gratifying outcomes. An agent may very well hold highly-valued goals
with none of the resources or preconditions necessary for achieving it. The
agent must acquire these resources, and there is always a chance of failure.
This kind of goal-dependent, context-independent planning falls within the E
domain.

I – Relationships: Goal-based decision making is strongly affected by

interpersonal interaction. We recruit others towards achieving our own goals,
and they do the same in return. Some relationships cause us to develop new
personal goals. The importance of a relationship influences our prioritization
of each others’ goals and the resources we are willing to allocate to
attainment plans. There are also generalized expectations of reciprocity, and
perceptions of symmetry or asymmetry that influence goal, resource and plan
involvements with others. Slade suggests that adopted goals “are processed
in the same way as personal goals, but their priority is determined by the
importance and context of the relationship” (Slade, 1992).

116
Stephen Slade: Dimensions and Distinctions

Resource-
Grounded

Bottom-up Goal Resource

Development Considerations
(Plans)
Possible Actual

Top-down Goal Relationships

Development
(Goals)

Option-
Grounded

117
26. Decision Style Theory: Rowe & Boulgarides
Rowe and Boulgarides (1992) offer
a perception-driven theory of decision-

PA
making style. Our manner of perceiving Directive Analytical
and understanding stimuli, on their view,
structures our construal of the significance
of events. This largely determines how we
will respond in decision-making situations.

E I
Conceptual Behavioral
The dimensions of variance in this
decision style theory are cognitive
complexity (ambiguity tolerance vs. need
for structure) and value orientation
(social/human vs. instrumental/task-centered). Crossing these dimensions
yields four decision making styles: (1) directive (2) analytical, (3)
conceptual, and (4) behavioral, described below in PAEI order.

P - Directive (Low ambiguity tolerance, Task focus): Directive individuals

need and value structure. They prefer to make decisions based on clear,
undisputed facts and impersonal rules and procedures. They trust their own
senses and short, focused reports from others.

A - Analytical (High ambiguity tolerance, Task focus): Analytically minded

people can process ambiguity given enough time and information. They rely
heavily on abstractions and instrumental logic, and tend to go over all aspects
of a problem with a fine-toothed comb, carefully acquiring and organizing
large amounts of data. They consider every aspect of a given problem,
acquiring information by careful analysis. When presented, their solutions
are comprehensive, detailed and very thorough. They may also be innovative
if the analysis turned up novel information or supported novel reasoning.

E - Conceptual (High ambiguity tolerance, Social focus): Conceptual

decision makers are creative, exploratory, interested in novelty and
comfortable taking risks. They are big-picture, creative thinkers who like to
consider many different options and possibilities. They gather and evaluate
information from many different perspectives, integrating diverse cues and
passing intuitive judgements as they work to identify emerging patterns.

118
I - Behavioral (Low ambiguity tolerance, Social focus): Behavioral decision-
makers focus on the feelings and welfare of group members and other social
aspects of work. They look to others for information, both explicit
information in what others say and implicit information sensed during
interactions with them. They evaluate information emotionally and
intuitively.

Rowe & Boulgarides: Dimensions and Distinctions

Task Focus

Directive Analytical

Conceptual Behavioral

Ambiguity- Need for

Tolerant Structure
Social Focus

119
27. General Decision-Making Style (GDMS): Scott &
Bruce
The General Decision-Making Style test is
a psychological instrument developed by

PA
Scott and Bruce for two reasons:
1) Their goal was to typify individual Spontaneous Rational
differences in decision-making habits
and practices, in the domain of career
development and vocational behavior

E I
studies.
2) The model also emerged inductively Intuitive Dependent
out of research plus reviews of the
relevant literature, and was
subsequently supported by further
empirical studies and independent factor analyses. In a sense the model
“suggested itself” (Scott & Bruce, 1995).

In their conception, decision-making style is a learned habitual response,

resulting in “a habit-based propensity to react a certain way in a specific
decision context.” It has been found that people use more than one decision-
making style, but one is dominant.
The GDMS underwent a cycle or validation and revision, resulting in the
following four decision-making styles:

P – Spontaneous: Sense of immediacy and persistent desire to always finalize

decisions as quickly as possible.
A – Rational: comprehensive info search, explicit inventory of alternatives
and logical evaluation of options.
E – Intuitive: Alerted by salient details in the flow of information rather than
following systematic procedures, more reliance on implicit learning and tacit
awareness (“hunches” or “feelings”) as a basis for decisions.
I – Dependent: Resolves uncertainty through consultation, more interested in
advice and guidance from others than other styles are.

120
Scott and Bruce: Dimensions and Distinctions

Focused
Independent Convention

Spontaneous Rational

Instinct Full Search

Intuitive Dependent

Innovation Interdependent
Diffuse

121
28. Anticipatory Planning Support System: Hill, Surdu
& Pooch
There is a military saying that a
plan never survives the first shot. Military

PA
planners know and expect that Execution Operations
unanticipated events will overtake their Monitors Monitors
plans, forcing commanders into a reactive
planning mode during operations. Hill,
Surdu and Pooch propose a system
architecture called the Anticipatory

E I
Planning Support System (APSS) to Planning
Planners
support planners as they update their plans Executive
in real time by helping them anticipate
enemy and friendly courses of action as
news comes in (Hill et al., 2000; Hill & Surdu, 2001).
APSS is an agent-based decision support system that works with
another such system called OpSim (Operationally-focused Simulation, Surdu
& Pooch, 2000). It operates in a similar fashion to APSS, but it tracks
operations as they deviate from plan, to alert commanders about possible
ramifications of those deviations. The two systems exercise similar functions
in different domains: one anticipates the impact of contingencies and the
other anticipates the consequences of operational drift.
The APSS Execution Monitors digest live information to revise plans
and expectations on the fly, which is a P function of adjusting as you go
along. OpSim Operations Monitors process live information to monitor
deviation from plans, which is an A function of scanning for errors. There is
a Plan Generator that explores the revised problem spaces for new
opportunities and threats, which is an E function of projecting hypothetical
possibilities. The I function is headed by a Planning Executive agent which
coordinates the activities of the above three agent types as well as models of
the outside world (the World View) and communications with the outside
world (World Integrator). The Planning Executive is also the level at which
human users interact with the system. Thus all elements of the system are
integrated into one ensemble by the Planning Executive. The four agent types
in this system are described more fully below.

122
P – Execution Monitors: (APSS) Anticipates the immediate future by
attaching to a node in the plan and assessing the difference between actual
and planned states for that node. Derives anticipated states by forward
simulation along appropriate branches, determining the likelihood of each
anticipated state. Execution Monitors essentially explore an option space at a
faster rate than the outside world does.

A – Operations Monitors: (OpSim) A dynamic hierarchy of rational agents,

each of which monitors a specific aspect of the plan, comparing the actual
operation with the planned operation. Significant deviations trigger impact
assessment processes, and the top-level OM informs the decision maker
when the plan is in jeopardy. Operations Monitors thus generate an error
signal or learning signal for a negative feedback process, comparing the
actual state of the world to a reference state (the plan).

E – Planner: (APSS) This agent reads the state of a node and uses a Branch
Generator to consider possible future actions and produce new relevant
branches. The Branch Generator uses simulations, inference mechanisms and
genetic algorithms guided by the goal-states or end-states desired by the
various parties to the conflict to generate possibilities. A Branch Evaluator
then determines how well the terminal node of the new branch accomplishes
friendly goals, using simulations and inference. This process generates the
option space and the reward or utility (cost/benefit value) of each option.

I – Planning Executive: This agent embodies all four concern specializations,

but its role is integrative. It coordinates the flow of tasks and information,
allocating certain plan nodes to planners or monitors as required, prioritizing
tasks given system resource constraints, and basically cooperating with and
controlling all areas of the system as initialized by World View information
to make everything work together as an organic and evolving whole.

123
Hill, Surdu and Pooch: Dimensions and Distinctions

Monitoring

Execution Operations
Monitors Monitors
Projections Current States

Planner Planning
Executive

Planning

124
29. Organizational Uncertainty and Planning Tradeoffs:
Lawless et al.
According to Lawless et al.
(Lawless, 2005; Lawless & Grayson,

PA
2004a; Lawless & Grayson 2004b; Lawless
Execution Energy
et al., 2000a; Lawless et al. 2000b), there
Uncertainty Uncertainty
are two contrasting models of uncertainty
in organizational theory. One derives from
game theory and embraces methodological
individualism. On this view, organizations

E I
are equal to the sum of contributions from Knowledge Time
the individuals who comprise them. Since Uncertainty Uncertainty
the basic unit of analysis is the individual,
the way to decrease uncertainty in
organizations is to increase communication and coordination between its
members.
Lawless et al. also describe a second model of organizational
uncertainty, presenting it as a derivative of mathematical physics. On this
view, the organization itself can be uncertain, independently of the
individuals in it. That is, individuals in an organization might profess
complete certainty, but the organization as a whole might be in an extremely
uncertain position. Only perturbations of this system expose information
about its actual state and the veridicalilty/reliability of its explicit and tacit
knowledge.
Cooperation cannot be the solution to this kind of uncertainty. It is
actually the problem. When cooperation is easy and routines are undisrupted,
minor perturbations can be filtered out of the organization. Internal
relationships mutually reinforce each other. The organization can thus drift
towards a more uncertain state without realizing it. Information that they are
“off course” disappears when cooperation is smooth and easy, buffered from
major external disruptions or perturbations. Organizations become insulated
by their own prior successes. Lawless writes:
From this alternative perspective, well-defined problems
are best solved with cooperation, but the more proficient
the teamwork in executing a solution, the less information
that is generated relative to competition, producing the
curious effect that independently of intentions, cooperation
hides information from inside and outside observers... From
this perspective, only competition can both produce
information for observers among multiple, complex, hidden
sources of information and drive the search among this
information for the knowledge or beliefs that withstand all
125
 challenges... Thus, to uncover interdependent, uncertain
information about an organization means that, in general, it
must be purposively disturbed, an idea traceable to Lewin
(1951).

Lawless relates this to the military tactic of "intelligence strikes",

forays against the enemy designed specifically to disrupt them in various
ways to see how they respond, in order to gain an understanding of the
organization of their defence. He also relates it to basic contingency
forecasting, where considering problems and conflicts can expose
organizational information. His domain of application is defensive military
operations, although the same framework is applied to offensive and
commercial uncertainty in other papers (Lawless et al., 2000a; Lawless et al.,
2000b; Lawless & Grayson, 2004a; Lawless & Grayson, 2004b). In this
context, he introduces two paired sources of uncertainty that together make
up a fairly significant concern structure model.
Starting from the observations that planning occurs under time
pressure and uncertainty, Lawless introduces the Energy/Time uncertainty
pairing. Where one is uncertain, we want to be certain about the other.
Lawless also posits a Knowledge/Implementation uncertainty pair. We can
be uncertain about the adequacy of our plan and the information we are
basing it on (Knowledge uncertainty), and we can also be uncertain about our
capacity to martial and direct adequate forces in the required manner to
actualize those plans (Implementation uncertainty). Again, the less certain
we are of one of these factors, the more certain we want to be about the
other.
Each of these four types of uncertainty grows in its own distinctive
way when systems are left unperturbed. Each one also takes a different kind
of perturbation to release it.
P - Execution Uncertainty: When this type of organizational uncertainty
grows as a result of effective cooperation, organizational information about
effective capacities will only be exposed through conflicts and problems
during the execution of plans.
A - Energy Uncertainty: Organizational uncertainty about the accumulation,
storage, distribution and burn rate of key or limiting resources can increase
under conditions of routine operations. That uncertainty can only be resolved
through actual burn rates during the planned operations.
E - Knowledge Uncertainty: Organizational uncertainty can develop
regarding the completeness of strategic information and the reliability of
intelligence sources. This uncertainty can only be reduced during forays into
the field.

126
I - Time Uncertainty: There may be organizational uncertainty about time
dependencies (i.e. who will be where when, and whether that will happen in
time to let something else happen, and what everybody else has to do to
make that happen, whether all of the parts can come together within critical
timeframes or not). This uncertainty can only be reduced by putting the team
to the test of an actual performance or exercise.
For the Knowledge/Execution uncertainties, the more time and effort
you spend perfecting your knowledge, the smaller your window of
opportunity gets for accomplishing urgent goals in the field. The converse of
this is "look before you leap". Rushing to implementation too soon with
inadequate knowledge will result in extremely costly lessons, exposing the
organization's planning and intelligence deficiencies. Around Time/Energy
uncertainties, with unlimited energy, the time needed to reach a goal can be
lessened dramatically. Conversely, protecting energy stores and restrictively
limiting distribution can stretch out the duration of operations, increasing the
coordination load and the complexity of distribution activities. There is an
effectiveness/efficiency trade-off where effectiveness consumes energy
ahead of time and efficiency consumes time ahead of energy.

Lawless: Dimensions and Distinctions

Physical
Action Energy

Execution Energy
Uncertainty Uncertainty

Outcomes Resources

Knowledge Time
Uncertainty Uncertainty

Information Coordination
Organizational

127
30. Action & Belief-Driven Sensemaking: Karl Weick
Weick’s sensemaking framework
has had a broad impact on writings in

PA
organizational decision making. It is a rich
and productive conceptual construct which Commitment Expecting
I will not summarize here. My goal instead
is simply to draw attention to a part of
Weick’s framework that expresses the
structure of concern, namely his distinction

E I
between action-driven and belief-driven
processes in the development of meaning. Arguing Manipulating
((Weick, 1995)).
Weick distinguishes between
belief-driven processes, where new meaning grows out of old, and action-
driven processes, where meaning is created to support deeds. Within each
process, meanings can be used to stabilize or to adapt to changing
circumstances. This produces four different meaning-development
processes, as follows:

P – Commitment (Action-Driven, Stabilizing): Meaning is created to justify

taking action. Commitment is a very public and visible kind of meaning that
implies free choice in its creation, and irrevocability once the commitment
has been made.

A – Expecting (Belief-Driven, Stabilizing): Meaning is grown by adding or

connecting new meaning to old meaning, in an expanding system.

E – Arguing (Belief-Driven, Adapting): Meaning is grown by opposing

existing meaning and connecting contradictory elements, challenging and
changing current beliefs.

I – Manipulating (Action-Driven, Adapting): Meaning is created before,

during or after the fact to explain one’s action, i.e. ‘impression management’.

These distinctions are interesting for the grounds upon which they
group P I (action-driven) and A E (belief-driven) together. It is another
variant on the interaction (PI) vs. modelling (AE) distinction that so often
differentiates these axes.

128
Karl Weick: Dimensions and Distinctions

Stabilizing

Commitment Expecting

Arguing Manipulating

Belief Driven Action Driven

Adapting

129
31. Information Framing and Uncertainty: Michael H.
Zack
Zack’s model of information and
framing offers an interesting way to

PA
characterize the kinds of situations
appropriate for the information gathering Equivocality Overload
styles of either P, A, E or I. He describes
the difference between information needs
and framing needs. When we have
information needs, we have a framework in
place that helps us typify the missing
information. We understand the overall
cognitive model in terms of cause-effect
relationships, conditions and goals, E I
Ambiguity Uncertainty

participants and so on. However, we are missing information that will let us
connect all the dots and resolve our uncertainties. We have to go out fact-
finding. (Zack, 2001; Zack, 1999).
In other situations, we may have all of the information we need, and
more! We don’t need to go out and find facts. We need to make sense of the
facts we already have! We need a structure, an order, a model, or some other
kind of framing device that will reduce the ambiguity in our data and give the
facts roles in some coherent account.
Just as we can lack information or frames, we can have too much or
too many of both. In all of these circumstances, we have to improve our
information state. It turns out that each operative style within the structure of
concern fits best with one of the four information problems we can have. I
make those connections below.

P – Equivocality (Variety of Frames): Restrict information by reducing the

interpretations and perspectives that are in play. P’s are impatient with
multiple perspectives, and prefer to suppress discussion in favour of action.
A – Overload (Variety of Information): Restrict information by excluding
whatever exceeds the established frame. A’s exclude what doesn’t fit.
E – Ambiguity (Lack of Frames): Seek information that will supply models
and dimensions for organizing large amounts of data. E’s like examining
things from new perspectives.
I – Uncertainty (Lack of Information): Seek information that will allow you
to flesh out all of the interpretations and perspectives that are in play in order
to reach resolutions and move forward. I’s will seek the opinions of others
before deciding.
130
Zack: Dimensions and Distinctions

Variety

Equivocality Overload

Frames Information

Ambiguity Uncertainty

Lack

131
Social and Organizational Studies
If the structure of concern has any explanatory importance, it must constitute
both a necessary and a sufficient domain of explanation for various
phenomena. In the field of social and organizational studies, we see some
models which emphasize the sufficiency criterion for explanation, and others
which emphasize the necessity criterion. Theorists who build models of
society or of human social psychology often simply postulate four
explanatory categories, and proceed to argue that these categories are
sufficient to explain the variability we see in the world. This is an appeal to
parsimony as much as it is anything else. Other theorists postulate a set of
constraints on human social interaction, and show concern structures arising
out of these constraints by necessity.

This difference in explanatory emphasis is not unique to the field of social

and organizational studies, but it does serve to differentiate many of the
models we see listed below.

132
32. Social Solidarity and Suicide: Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim is one of the

classical figures of sociological theory.
Concern structure models arise at several
points in Durkheim’s work. Below I
outline the concern structure of his concept
of social solidarity as summarized by
Sztompka ((Sztompka, 1993)), and his
P
Economic
Structures
ASocial
Control

E I
categorization of suicide as summarized by
Best ((Best, 2003)). Character Position of
of activities Individual

Social Solidarity
Durkheim described two forms of social
solidarity: a mechanical form based on
uniformity, command and
control and an organic form that protected
individual
diversity,
rights and
developing
interpersonal
collective
commitment through the institution of civil
PEgoistic
Suicide
AAnomic
Suicide

E I
society. Social solidarity can be described Fatalistic Altruistic
in terms of four functions, as follows: Suicide Suicide

P – Economic Structures
A – Social Control
E – Character of activities/main social bond
I – Position of the individual

P – Economic Structures (Can be Mechanical or Organic)

Mechanical Order: Isolated, self-ruling, self-sufficient groups with tight
internal roles.
Organic Order: Complex division of labour, interdependence, common
market rules.

A – Social Control (Can be Mechanical or Organic)

Mechanical Order: Retributive justice – harsh repressive laws to punish
nonconformity and disruptions of order (criminal law).

133
Organic Order: Restitutive justice – civic rights and contracts to repair
failures of commitment and reciprocity (civil law).

E – Character of activities/main social bond (Mechanical or Organic)

Mechanical Order: Similar narrow moral, religious and political consensus.
Organic Order: Diverse and differentiated but complementary priorities and
beliefs.

I – Position of the individual (Mechanical or Organic Societies)

Mechanical Order: Collectivistic focus on group identity and community
standing.
Organic Order: Individualistic focus on autonomy of action and evaluation.

Suicide
Durkheim described four different kinds of suicide, each one of which can be
interpreted as a failure to regulate problems arising in one of the quadrants of
concern, as follows:

P – Egoistic suicide
A – Anomic suicide
E – Fatalistic suicide
I – Altruistic suicide

P – Egoistic suicide
This is the suicide of an out-of-control person, inadequately integrated into
society and only weakly aware of social norms and expectation. The person
is not part of the shared collective sense of conscience or obligation, and is
likely to react rashly and impulsively to problems and frustrations. Someone
who credibly threatens suicide if a romantic partner abandons them might fall
into this category.

A – Anomic suicide
Anomie means “without rules” and it refers to the floating sense of
uncertainty one feels in situations where there are no customs or guidelines
available to indicate what the right ways to react or respond might be. Some
people commit suicide because some institution they believe in is under
attack and about to collapse, and they would rather die than live in the world
134
of the aftermath where their name, significance and social role would all be
completely different and unrecognizable. Suicide bombing may be partly a
symptom of the anomie people feel when their avowedly hegemonic rule
structure is patently subordinate to another more hegemonic structure in real
life.

E – Fatalistic suicide
This is the suicide of hopelessness, of finding all doors already closed by a
repressive social order and all passions choked by punishing self-regulation.
Strangely enough, Durkheim viewed this as a rare and unimportant style of
suicide, but over the course of the 20th century it has come to dominate our
notions of it (Durkheim’s dates are 1858-1917). Teen suicide is typically
fatalistic, as are some instances of prison suicide and poverty-related suicide.

I – Altruistic suicide
Altruistic suicide is the opposite of egoistic suicide. It is the product of over-
integration into the “conscience collective”. It stems from exaggerated social
reactions of guilt, shame, unworthiness, debt or duty. The person is so fully
regulated by these social imperatives that they maintain no separate identity
as a person with any distance from the group or any capacity to deflect social
stigma.

The four styles might be summarized most simply as:

P – Egoistic: Not constrained enough by social/emotional norms – wild.

A – Anomic: Weak/weakening socio-cognitive rules create too much
uncertainty – lost.
E – Fatalistic: Overly strong socio-cognitive rules negate too many options –
bleak.
I – Altruistic: Over-constrained by social/emotional norms – obliged.

135
Durkheim: Dimensions and Distinctions

Social
Structural
Constraint Stick

Economic Social
Structures Control

Activity Regulation

Character of Position of
Activities Individual

Scope of
Carrot
Identificatory Freedom

Problem of Under-
constraint

Egoistic Anomic
Suicide Suicide
Many Plans Few Plans
Affected Available
Fatalistic Altruistic
Suicide Suicide

Problem of Over-
constraint

136
33. A.G.I.L. Functional Imperatives for Social Systems:
Talcott Parsons
The structural-functional
sociological theories of Talcott Parsons

his own lifetime. Parsons viewed society

as a system of interacting social units,
institutions and organizations. He was
interested in the force of social norms, and
PA
almost entirely dominated the field during Adaptation Goal
Attainment

E I
how we come to feel that force and act
accordingly (Parsons, 1971; Parsons, 1968; Integration Latency
Parsons, 1951). One of the ways he
conceptualized these social systems was as
problem-solving devices. In his mind,
social systems arose to solve four particular problems, listed in PAEI order
below, for modern developed nation-state systems:

P – Adaptation: Social systems must cope with their external boundary

conditions, such as their resource base, physical environment, territory and so
on. Economic activity serves to solve problems of adaptation.

A – Goal Attainment: The goals of societies and social institutions have to be

defined, resolving goal conflicts, prioritizing some over others, determining
resource allocations and directing social energies. Political activity organizes
and directs the goal attainment of modern social systems.

E – Integration: All of the adaptive efforts of social institutions within a

society need to be integrated into a cohesive system. The institutions need to
be regulated so that a harmonious society can emerge from their interaction.
Legal systems solve this problem, seeking overarching principles for aligning
social activities.

I – Latency: The encultured patterns of behaviour required by the social

system must be maintained. Peoples’ motivation must be established and
renewed, and the tensions they experience as they negotiate the social order
must be managed. Furthermore, the cultural patterns that accomplish this
renewal must themselves be maintained and renewed. Fiduciary systems
such as families, schools and churches solve these problems of
pattern/tension management.

137
 These four functional imperatives (Adaptation, Goal Attainment,
Integration, Latency: A.G.I.L.) provided what Parsons felt was a more
complex and systemic account of social phenomena which previous theorists
had tried to explain in terms of unitary causes.

Talcott Parsons: Dimensions and Distinctions

Bottom-up

Adaptation Goal
Attainment

Social Praxis Regulation

Integration Latency

Top-down

138
34. Four-Drive Theory of Human Nature: Lawrence &
Nohria
Lawrence and Nohria are
professors of organizational behavior at the
Harvard Business School who felt
dissatisfied with the rather featureless
construct of homo economicus as a rational
maximizer. Humans are clearly motivated
by more than personal self-interest, even in
PA
Drive to
Acquire
Drive to
Defend

E I
their economic behavior. The authors point
to the colossal failure of neoclassical Drive to Drive to
economic reforms in Russia as one Learn Bond
devastating example of how human
behavior is clearly driven by factors that
neoclassical theory does not see. The authors turned to evolutionary biology
and neuroscience to construct a more complete model of basic human nature
(Lawrence & Nohria, 2002).
As the outcome of their research, the authors postulate a fundamental
basis for human behavior composed of four distinct drives, listed below in
PAEI order:

P – (D1) The drive to acquire

A – (D4) The drive to defend
E – (D3) The drive to learn
I – (D2) The drive to bond

These may not be the only human drives, but they are the only ones
necessary and sufficient for constructing a “unified understanding of modern
human life”. The four drives motivate and direct human action, perception,
cognition/reasoning and memory/representation. They are all independent
drives with limbic origins but they exert their effects through the tightly
integrated work of the prefrontal cortex.
The emergence of this prefrontal coordination coincides with the
cognitive Great Leap Forward in human cultural sophistication during the
Upper Paleolithic era. Lawrence and Nohria discuss the implications of their
findings for organizational management.

139
35. Sociological Paradigms & Organizational Analysis:
Burrell & Morgan
This model of organizational
analysis developed by Burrell and Morgan
classifies sociological theories along the
two orthogonal dimensions of regulation
vs. change and subjectivity vs. objectivity
(Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This divides
sociology into four fairly distinct paradigm
PA
Radical
Humanist
Functionalist

E I
clusters. There is internal consistency
under each paradigm, in terms of Radical Interpretive
assumptions about individuals, groups, Structuralist
societies, goals of study and accepted forms
of evidence. However, each cluster
neglects, excludes or opposes some the insights generated under other
paradigms.
Burrell and Morgan’s model was later taken into social work
research, where it was used to define four approaches to understanding the
problems of social work clients (Whittingham & Holland, 1985). This
application of the model is illustrated below.

P – Radical Humanist (Change-Subjective): Social opportunities and

ideologies are controlled by large social institutions, often leaving people
marginalized, voiceless and disempowered, leading to widespread alienation
and the breakdown of communities. Interventions are aimed at concrete
individuals and groups, establishing mutual-aid and consciousness-raising
networks that will lead to eventual changes in social and economic
structures.

A – Functionalist (Regulation-Objective): Societies are the coming together

of populations with shared civic values who establish social order which on
the whole benefits everybody. Individuals and some identifiable groups may
fall into misfortune or maladaptive patterns. The goal of intervention is to
help them adapt to existing structures, perhaps making minor institutional
adjustments where warranted.

E – Radical Structuralist (Change-Objective): Fundamental underlying

contradictions and regularities make our entire way of living unjust and
untenable. Distressed individuals and groups can be helped to mollify the
impact of structural problems, but lasting change can only be achieved by a
140
complete transformation of the society. Intervention must be integrated
across political, regional, community and interpersonal levels.

I – Interpretive (Regulation-Subjective): The meaning of social situations is

largely a matter of interpretation. Anyone can feel trapped by their situation,
but viewing things in a new light can open up new options and lead to better
situations. Intervention focuses on helping people reframe events and adjust
the maxims they use to regulate their own behavior.

Burrell & Morgan: Dimensions and Distinctions

Concrete

Radical Functionalist
Humanist

Change Regulation

Radical Interpretive
Structuralist

Objective Subjective
Abstract

141
36. Resource Theory: Uriel G. Foa
Resource theory represents human
relationships and interaction as methods for

PA
providing people with six social resources:
Concrete Universal
love, services, goods, money, information
and status. Each resource can be (Impersonal)
exchanged for another, or people can
reciprocally exchange the same resource.
The possibilities are often illustrated by an
encircled hexagon, with each of resources
labelling a vertex, and all of the vertices
connected to all the others by lines.
Around this circle a box is drawn, and the E I
Symbolic Interpersonal

four sides of the box are labelled, in terms that describe the structure of
concern (Foa et al., 1993; Foa, 1993).
The dimensions are described as high-low concreteness dimension
(or concrete-symbolic), and a high-low particularistic dimension
(particularistic-universal). Exchanges of goods and services are concrete,
exchanges of information and status interactions are more symbolic. We are
very particular about who we give and receive love with, but we’ll exchange
money with anyone in a marketplace without cheapening or degrading the
value of that money.
In PAEI terms, P is concrete and E is symbolic, while I is particular
and A universal. On this account therefore, P and E differ along a “what”
dimension regarding goals and rewards, while I and A differ along a “who”
dimension of people to whom the interactive pattern applies. Resource
preferences of the four different PAEI style could be described thusly:
P – High Concreteness: Focus on tangible acquisitions. Preferred resources:
goods and services.
A – Low Particularism: Focus on standard, universal, generic exchanges.
Preferred resources: money, followed by information and goods.
E – Low Concreteness: Focus on symbolism. Preferred resources:
information and status.
I – High Particularism: Focus on interpersonal interactions. Preferred
resources: love, followed by services and status.

142
37. Normal Accident Theory: Charles Perrow
Charles Perrow’s Normal Accident
Theory is difficult to situate in this catalog

PA
because it is a sociological tool, a Linear, Linear,
management tool and a systems analysis Loosely Tightly
and design tool all in equal measure. His Coupled Coupled
theory targets the intersection between
complex technological systems and human
management practices. Some specific

E I
targets of his analysis are high-risk Complex, Complex,
enterprises using high-risk technologies, Loosely Tightly
such as nuclear power plants, Coupled Coupled
petrochemical plants, supertankers, major
airport systems, hydroelectric dams and the like – systems with high
catastrophic potential. However, in discussing what differentiates these
systems from less risky systems, he creates a general typology of systems.
This typology names dimensions that I believe lie near the core of the
structure of concern (Perrow, 1999).
Perrow argues that there is a particular class of accidents that are
normal, inevitable, and are often potentially disastrous. These occur in
systems with many components, complex interconnections, strict
dependencies and stringent performance conditions. In systems like this, it is
computationally impossible to foresee all of the failures that might happen.
One also cannot tell how failures might compound each other if two or more
were to happen simultaneously. Between design limitations, equipment
failures, procedural errors, operator error, problems in supplies and
materials, and unknown variables in the environment (Perrow calls this set of
considerations DEPOSE), there will always be unforeseen complications and
unexpected contingencies. Plus when multiple factors combine to produce
accidents in such systems, it will rarely if ever be possible to figure out what
is going on in real time. Only post-mortem analysis will reveal the failure
path.
Systems that are prone to normal accidents can be identified by their
interactive complexity and the coupling relationships among their
components. Interactions in a system (across all DEPOSE elements) can be
linear or complex. For linear interactions, there is an expected sequence for
events along the main causal pathways, and even if unexpected and
unplanned events occur, they are immediately visible by the way they cause
the system to deviate from its expected functions. Complex interactions
occur in unfamiliar, unplanned, unexpected and unforeseeable sequences.
Problems, flaws or failures in complex interactions are not visible, and often
cannot be comprehended as they unfold. This is because there are multiple

143
elements from across the DEPOSE system interacting simultaneously to
produce unpredictable results during complex interactions.
One important source of complexity is called common-mode
functioning. In complex systems, some components perform multiple
functions (e.g. a wall both holds up the roof and keeps out the wind). This
improves design economy, and it reduces certain kinds of complexity, but the
failure of common-mode components will be more serious when they
happen, bringing non-linearity into the system. A small initial accident that
slightly damages a common-mode element can have huge unforeseen
consequences, depending on what else is happening in the system. Cause and
effect will not be proportionate.
Note that these observations apply to interactions within systems,
rather than to systems themselves. Perrow asserts that linear interactions
predominate in all systems, but some systems permit more complex
interaction than others. Furthermore, complex interactions themselves are not
necessarily likely to cause accidents. A second dimension must be
considered, namely the tightness or looseness of coupling between the
DEPOSE components or subsystems of the system. In tightly coupled
systems, there is little or no slack or buffering between the various
interconnected components. What happens to one component directly affects
what happens to other components around it and connected to it. Chain-
reactions or domino-effects happen easily in tightly coupled systems.
Loosely coupled systems do have buffers and slack. Components have a
certain amount of functional autonomy from each other. Systems
characterized by both complex and tightly coupled interactions are prone to
normal accidents.
Crossing the dimensions of interactive complexity and coupling give
us four categories of interaction: linear tight, linear loose, complex tight,
complex loose. This sequence of the four categories is in PAIE order, rather
than PAEI order. However, PAIE order does match the account of the
ecological underpinnings of concern structures developed earlier in this
book, and it is the order I use for this summary of normal accident theory.
Interactive complexity and coupling have ramifications for
organizational governance and structuring. Both linear interaction and tight
coupling require centralized management structures, whereas complex
interaction and loose coupling require decentralized structures. Both
interactive and management issues are described below.

144
P – Linear Interaction, Loose Coupling: Either Centralized or Decentralized
Authority
There are few complex interactions in this system. Failed components can be
isolated and worked around, without drastically disrupting system function.
Accidents can be remedied in either a top-down manner from a central
authority or a bottom-up manner from the floor. The prevalence of either
form of management in linear, loosely coupled system will be more
determined by organizational culture than by their systems and technologies.
Single-goal agencies of all descriptions fit within this category, including
government agencies. Most manufacturing operations and construction
projects also share these qualities. These organizations exist to get specific
tasks done, and the manner in which they get done does not need to be
rigorously specified.

A – Linear Interaction, Tight Coupling: Centralized Authority

Regularized internal environment, predictable and visible interactions, and
invariant sequences. Improvised workarounds are not possible, but must be
explicitly design into the system. There is little slack in the system, and
delays disrupt the entire operation. Bottom-up local or improvisational
solutions may put the entire system at risk, so managerial authority is
centralized. Projects in this category include hydroelectric dams, power
distribution grids, continuous processing plants and refineries, and rail or
marine transport. Centralization, unambiguous and explicit orders and
policies and rigorous adherence to procedures are needed.

I – Complex Interaction, Tight Coupling: Neither Centralized nor

Decentralized Authority
The tight coupling of the system makes any failure very disruptive, so local
solutions have the potential to bring the whole system to a halt if they
compromise functional integration with the larger systemic context. This is
amplified by the complexity of the system, with components in close
proximity to each other, heavily interconnected with many common-mode
elements, vertical and horizontal dependencies and unexpected feedback
loops. Many of the problems in such systems are unforeseeable because of
the combinatorial complexity of the systems. Given this complexity, a
decentralized approach to management is suggested, so that those closest to
each subsystem can undertake a slow, careful search of the failure to
determine what went wrong and what to do about it. However, this conflicts
with the need to manage the tight coupling of overall system function. The
only way this can be accommodated is for each unit to have a strong sense of
the overall purpose of the system, as well as their own place in the system,

145
and their responsibilities to other activity groups. That way they can be
creative in the ways they make their needed contribution to overall system
function.

E – Complex Interaction, Loose Coupling: Decentralized Authority

Complex interactions, with many control parameters and unplanned
behaviors, require management by a network of operators each with some
local expertise, particularly since troubleshooting will often be diagnostic
and based on inference rather than straightforward observation. Furthermore,
since the system is loosely coupled, there is some slack and some room to
manoeuvre. Local ingenuity in finding substitutions and alternative
pathways will not necessarily disrupt the whole system, and may improve it.
Research and development organizations, universities and multi-goal
agencies exhibit this kind of loose structure with distributed local authority.
This permits the kind of local autonomy that encourages the development of
innovations.
The greatest management challenge exists for tightly coupled
complex systems with complex interactions, and these have the greatest
normal accident potential as well. When a tightly coupled system has become
complex, efforts must be made to reduce both coupling and complexity if
possible. One way to accomplish this in management and technology is to
use the same strategy used by human working memory – chunking. Tightly
coupled elements can be integrated at a higher level of organization, through
technology or the redefinition of certain activities. This chunking can make it
quicker and easier for more people to exercise the coupled function. Perrow
gives the example of air traffic control, and the development from early radio
contact technologies to radar technologies and finally to transponders. This
development took a multifaceted radio communications task and reduced it
to an ‘at-a-glance’ representation of all needed information on a screen. By
increasing the tight coupling of the linear interactions producing that
information, the complexity of interaction managed by each individual
operator went down. Also, by segregating traffic into types (commercial,
military, small aircraft, etc) and assigning air corridors and altitudes by type,
linearity was increased and the complexity of interaction decreased.
By reorganizing coupling, technologies release either operator time
and attention, or restrictions on place of operation, or restrictions on the
people who can operate that process. This can allow for a reassignment of
roles. Within each new function, there may be tighter coupling and more
linear interactions, but across the whole network there may be some
loosening of coupling and encapsulation of function, pushing the system a bit
closer towards a more manageable state. Object-oriented programming
represents this kind of organizational development, relative to the procedural
146
programming it has supplanted for certain tasks. To the degree to which
programs must be complex, object-oriented programming loosens the
coupling between encoded objects through encapsulation. To the degree to
which programs must be tightly coupled, object-orientation shields the main
program (as the higher level of the chunk) from some of the complexity of
the overall code package (classes and objects on the lower level of the
chunk). By chunking between levels of complexity and then integrating the
resulting chunks, larger systems can be integrated in ways that manage the
combined challenges of tight coupling and complexity.

This is central to the structure of concern:

P – In ecosystems, under r-selection conditions, loosely coupled, linear

reactions produce the shortest energy-reduction pathways.
A – Under density conditions, larger, more centralized organizations with
tighter coupling are more efficient at maximizing the reduction of resources
that have become more scarce or patchy in time and space. However, there is
an upper limit to the amount of complexity such a centralized system can
manage. Fixes, workarounds, updates and expansions all increase the
complexity of the system, until the single-system management strategy
breaks apart.
I – A complex re-parcelling of the system is needed. Local autonomy must
be balanced with global systemic integration. Local systems, organizing
themselves to maximize their own reduction efficiency, also enhance the
reductive capacity of the overall or global system by improving the
efficiency of their input-output transactions with other nodes in the system.
E – When a community is in a climax condition, when further improvements
in both independent and interdependent reduction efficiency provide
diminishing returns, only an innovation can produce further appreciable
enhancements. For this to happen there must be some loosening of coupling
between system elements. Elements that can free themselves for some
“evolutionary playtime” can produce this novelty. Novelty is often disruptive
to the existing order, prompting the re-establishment of a new or altered
overall system.

147
38. The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations:
Alan Fiske
Alan Fiske has developed a model
of what he calls the four basic forms of

PA
sociality ((Fiske, 1991)). This typology is Market Equality
based on extensive fieldwork across many Pricing Matching
societies from some of the poorest to some
of the richest on earth. Fiske identifies four
relational types or skill sets that he believes
account for all types of human relationship.
They are presented below in PAEI order:
P – Market Pricing (MP): Haggling over a
commercial transaction between strangers
who do not plan to meet repeatedly.
E I
Authority
Ranking
Communal
Sharing

Involves bidding, bluffing and countering while keeping one’s true buying
limits a secret. Non-personal instrumental exchanges with no self-disclosure.
A – Equality Matching (EM): Equality of exchange over time, a balance of
exchanged favours, accruing social debt and obligation when receiving
favours, the discharge of debt or gain of credit when giving favours. Tit-for-
Tat. Ground rules for peer relationships.
E – Authority Ranking (AR): Negotiated inequality, deciding over time who
has more importance, status or dominance over others. Unequal exchange
where the dominant obtains resource advantages but accrues an obligation to
support or sustain subordinates in some way.
I – Communal Sharing (CS): People contribute what they can and take what
they need. Almost always constrained to the inclusive fitness group, nuclear
family and sometimes various degrees of extended family, rarely beyond.

148
Fiske: Dimensions and Distinctions

Dyadic

Market Equality
Pricing Matching

Asymmetrical Reciprocal

Authority Communal
Ranking Sharing

Principled, Interactive,
Established Group Spontaneous

149
39. Types of Combinatory Systems: Piero Mella
Mella develops a model of the
social or collective behavior of interacting
autonomous agents, in order to investigate
what he calls combinatory effects.
Combinatory effects occur when micro-
level interactions drive macro-level system
behavior, and macro behavior determines,
PA
Pursuit Order

E I
conditions or directs the micro behavior,
reciprocally and simultaneously. The Progress Accumulation
concept thus has similarities with /Diffusion
ecological concepts such as hierarchical
causation (Mella, 2003a; Mella, 2003b).
The goal of Mella’s project is to shed light on a set of problems
involving non-linear collective state changes and the individual interactions
that cause and are affected by them, including: “…the voice-noise effect in
organizations; the clustering and swarming effects in economics; the
unjustified raising of retail prices; the stock exchange dynamics deriving
from the micro-macro feedback between stockbroker decisions and the stock
index…”. All of these are phenomena involving crossed micro-macro level
feedback.
In the development of his model, Mella introduces a typology of
combinatory systems that instantiates the structure of concern. It is a five-
category typology, with two of the elements falling into the “I” bucket. This
is unsurprising, given the social focus of the model. The system types
inPAEI order are:

P – Systems of Pursuit: The system gradually seems to be orienting itself

towards a “goal” or “objective”. The contextually driven shared goals of
members of the collective emerge at the macro level as the “goal” of the
whole combinatory system. Examples include all kinds of mob behavior,
including escape from disasters, lynch mobs, non-violent non-cooperative
political resistance, holiday shopping, looting mobs and the floor of the stock
market.

A – Systems of Order: The behavior of individuals becomes ordered or has

its order amplified by the further-ordered condition of the macro level. The
circulating stadium “wave” is a clear example, as are the shifts and turns
executed by flocks of small birds or herds on the move. On crowded city
streets and dance floors, tacit or explicit “right of way” conventions can give

150
rise to ordered flows of units at the macro level, without such macro behavior
being specifically indicated. Footpath formation is another system of order.

E – Systems of Improvement and Progress: This is a subclass of Pursuit,

where individual achievements increase the status of the parameter that
measures collective performance. They “raise the bar”. This creates positive
gaps (being ahead of the crowd) and negative gaps (being behind in the race)
along with the motivation for individuals to increase positive and eliminate
negative gaps. Standards of comparison are needed that track the overall
rising standards of the group so individuals can determine their standing.
Races, world record-holding and the progress of science are just some of the
many systems of progress.

I – Systems of Accumulation and Diffusion: Systems of accumulation gather

together or focalize social responses of a certain type. After the death of
Princess Diana, several sites in the UK became foci for the accumulation of
flowers from mourners. Emerging neighborhood identities, such as heavy
industries in one part of a city, boutiques in another, and various clusterings
of ethnically-specific businesses are also systems of accumulation. There
can be foci for the accumulation of graffiti or garbage, for the breaking out of
applause or laughter and for the reintegration and mobilization of flocks,
herds and schools.
Systems of diffusion are contagion-like dynamics where some trait,
behavior, quality or state spread from a few members to many members of
the collective. Fashion trends of every kind utilize systems of diffusion, as
does the spread and preservation of national languages and customs.
Religious and political ideologies and mass hysteria also spread in this
fashion.

151
40. Group Formation & Club Theory: Arrow, Berdahl
& McGrath
In their exploration of complex
systems approaches to small group

PA
dynamics, Arrow, Berdahl and McGrath Circumstantial Concocted
(2000) present a model of the dimensions Groups Groups
of social space within which small groups
form. Group formation can be more or less
planned or emergent, and this can be due to
internal or external forces. The two crossed

E I
Self-
dimensions result in a four-part typology of Founded
Organized
group formation as follows: Groups
Groups
P – Circumstantial Groups (External,
Emergent): People walking around doing
their own thing and pursuing their own goals end up in a group due to the
structure of the goal-seeking environment, e.g. people waiting for a bus.
A – Concocted Groups (External, Planned): A manager or other group
commander announces that a group or work team is going to be formed, who
will be on it, and what each of their roles will be. The assignment of a flight
crew to a plane is an example of the concoction of a team, driven by
scheduling and technical roles.
E – Founded Groups (Internal, Planned): An individual or a few people
develop a concept requiring group support, and they invite others to join as
charter members of a newly founded entity. This is a quintessentially
entrepreneurial dynamic.
I – Self-Organized Groups (Internal, Emergent): These groups form
informally through the interactions of people who discover some point of
commonality or reason for developing bonds. Most friendship circles form
in this way.
In the context of their discussion of self-organized groups, the
authors describe the process by which these groups form in terms of club
theory. Club theory features the construct of “club goods”. Members gain
access to these club goods in exchange for their supporting contributions of
energy, time, money, space or other resources. A balance must be struck
between keeping enough active members to maintain the ability to deliver
club goods, and letting in so many members that their club goods become
diluted. Clubs form for various reasons and lengths of time. The authors
review 3: Activity clubs, Economic clubs and Social clubs.

152
P – Activity clubs: The primary draw for an Activity club is some project or
activity that the prospective members want to do that they cannot do alone,
such as play a team sport or discuss books that they are reading. The P
purpose is served by an A structure, making the people fairly interchangeable
and able to flow into or out of the group as needed.

A – Economic clubs: Economic clubs involve the pooling of resources to

realize group savings, increase economic power, enjoy economy of scale, or
to pool risk etc. Examples are housemates who split the rent but are not
otherwise close friends, time-share organizations or firms of associated
professionals such as lawyers or architects who all share the same offices and
pool of resource staff, thus enjoying efficiency gains.

I – Social clubs: In Social clubs the club goods are the members themselves
and the pleasures of interaction among them. Social club members do things
together that technically speaking they could do on their own, but prefer not
to. This includes studying, jogging, going to movies or simply eating. They
also do things that inherently require group participation, like throwing
parties.
I do not know if Arrow, Berdahl and McGrath recognize other
groups beyond these three. Due to the nature of my own project, it is hard to
resist postulating a fourth type of club, namely “Meaning” or “Significance”
clubs, where people come together in order to express or explore shared
beliefs or topics of mostly intellectual or spiritual interest. Small groups of
this nature form both inside and outside organized educational and religious
institutions. This would furnish an E type of club that seems to be as
pervasive and important as the others listed, but of course the process of
addition could continue indefinitely, with political clubs, ethnic clubs,
geographical/neighborhood clubs etc. The authors do not indicate that their
typology is intended to be either final or exhaustive. However, the three club
types they do mention cover recognizable regions of the structure of concern.

153
Arrow et al.: Dimensions and Distinctions

Due to External
Forces

Circumstantial Concocted
Groups Groups

Founded Self-Organized
Groups Groups

Planned Emergent
Due to Internal
Forces

154
41. Self-Employment Work-Styles: Baines & Gelder
A structure of concern model arises in the
data gathered by Baines and Gelder (2003)
in their study of self-employed parents.
They studied 30 home-based businesses
across 8 occupational sectors in the UK to
assess if home-based work is more family-
friendly than traditional office work. A
PA
Time-
Greedy
Rigidly
Scheduled

E I
fourfold typology of home business
behavior emerged from their research: Flexibly Work/Family
Scheduled Inclusive

P – “Time-greedy” Often male-led, these

home businesses drained the time, energy and the emotions of the owners
and their families. Evenings, weekends and holidays were often
compromised in unpredictable ways, and family members were drawn into
business activities on an ad hoc basis. It’s a short-cycle, extemporaneous
style of working.

A – “Rigidly scheduled” Often based in premises separate from the home,

these businesses offered schedules by appointment or small order (e.g.
hairstyling, catering). The timing requirements and spatial specificity of
these forms of self employment give them a similar impact on the family as
full-time employment would. Structure is imposed by the situation.

E – “Flexibly scheduled” These jobs involved individuals offering services

that could be integrated into their daily domestic schedules, such as healing
services or piecework. Appointments could be scheduled during non-
parenting hours, or childcare obtained as needed to receive clients. Thus, the
entrepreneurial activities to improve the business owners’ situations had to
be juggled with more immediately pressing short-cycle activities.

I – “Work-family inclusive” The inclusive businesses were more traditional

“family-owned” business, with all family members playing specific roles in
the enterprise. Business premises were usually inside or attached to the
home. Examples include family-run daycare centers, boarding kennels,
convenience stores and small online retailers. Family and work tradeoffs are
resolved by integrating the two structures.

155
42. Managing Organizational Identities: Pratt &
Foreman
Organizational identity theory deals
with two kinds of identifications. First

PA
there are the identities of the organizations Compartment-
Deletion
as such, as expressed in public opinion alization
about the organization and the way people
relate to it as an entity. Then there are and
the identities of people within those
organizations, who identify themselves as

In the first case, we must note that

people represent organizations as social
E I
part of the organization to some degree, and Aggregation
who on occasion speak for the organization.
Integration

actors, and relate to them as such. In the second case, stakeholders within or
around an organizations must build their own organizational identities that
structure their interactions with other organizational members. These
organizational identities combine work role, attitudes, values, degrees of
centrality and commitment etc. for each organizational member.
Organizational identities are thus self-reflective. Members form
their own interpretations of the organization’s identity in various ways.
Those interpretations partially determine how members conduct themselves
when they are acting ‘for’ the organization. That behavior partly determines
the identity of the organization as a social agent, which in turn determines
how other agents interact with ‘it’. Interpretations produce real effects
through these feedback cycles (Rometsch, 2004).
So how do organizations perceive their own unity and
distinctiveness, especially when there are likely to be a variety of different
understandings of the organization among different group members over
time?
Pratt and Foreman (2002) have developed a framework that lays out
the options for dealing with multiple organizational identities along two
intersecting dimensions: identity plurality and identity synergy. Plurality
permits the expression of a variety of identities within a social grouping.
This can be a very fruitful stance for a well-supported organization whose
diversity is legitimized by stakeholders, like a neighbourhood supermarket
where many of the customers know the employees by name. It can be
inappropriate for organizations operating under tight resource constraints,
such as a new in-town courier service trying to build a recognizable brand.

156
Synergy between or among organizational identities refers to tight
interdependencies among the different identities, which must therefore be
compatible. Low synergy responses indicate overly diverse identities that
come into conflict with each other. Crossing these two dimensions gives us
four styles of organizational identity. Ways of managing each one will
differ.

P - Compartmentalization (high plurality, low synergy)

Identities are preserved with no attempt made to increase their
interdependencies. This happens when the identities are legitimized by
important stakeholders and they do not become diffused very much within
the organization. Law firms, academic departments and other clusterings of
self-directed professionals share this loose kind of organizational
identification.

A - Deletion (low plurality, low synergy)

Managers consciously work to define normative identities and cultivate
conformity, or to exclude identities or otherwise limit the number of
organizational identities espoused. Deletion may be called for when
stakeholders have withdrawn support for existing identities, when resources
are constrained, or when existing identities are incompatible and achieving
interdependence becomes too hard. When exercised extensively, deletion
will produce one single hegemonic identity.

E - Aggregation (high plurality, high synergy)

Aggregation cultivates both variety and interdependence by forcing tighter
links between diverse elements. The various elements have to be compatible,
and stakeholders must generally approve of all of them. The pressure of
aggregation can lead to the emergence of a meta-identity which reconciles
potential contradictions among the identities in a dialectical fashion.

I - Integration (low plurality, high synergy)

Integration involves merging multiple individual organizational identities
into a larger, distinctly new whole or collective identity. This is effective
under the combined pressures of low stakeholder support for existing
identities plus limited resources. Faced with the adversity, the time comes
for the organization to "pull together".

157
Pratt and Foreman: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low Synergy

Compartment- Deletion
alization
High Plurality Low Plurality

Aggregation Integration

High Synergy

158
Existential Psychology
I am using the term “existential psychology” in a very loose manner here to
denote any psychological framework which seems directly pertinent to the
challenge of coping with life and with the human condition. It is a bit of a
catch-all category for models which fail to fit other, better defined categories
such as personality psychology or educational psychology. Even still, there
is overlap with the other categories of psychology, and the inclusion of
models here does not mean that those models are irrelevant to other
psychological concerns. I hope this does not prove to be a distraction. The
main point is to continue to probe the full extent of the concern structure
concept or pattern. Categorization of the models is a much less important
feature of this work.

159
43. Attribution and Achievement Motivation: B. Weiner

Weiner’s work in attribution theory

evolved over time. At its root lay a concern
structure model. For example, in the
domain of academic achievement, he
hypothesized that students explained their
own academic outcomes in terms of four
categories that varied along two
PAEffort
Task
Difficulty

E I
dimensions: locus of control (their outcome
was due to an internal or external cause), Ability Luck
and stability over time (temporary or
permanent (Weiner et al., 1971).

In PAEI order, the four categories are:

P – Effort (Internal, Unstable)

A – Task difficulty (External, Stable)
E – Ability (Internal, Stable)
I – Luck (External, Unstable)

P – Effort (Internal, Unstable)

The mindset of someone who thinks that goals may fall out of reach unless
aggressively and immediately pursued. “Nothing comes for free in this
world. You have to go out there and take it.” Attributing effort to effort is
self-serving.

A – Task difficulty (External, Stable)

Consistent with uncertainty about one’s own ability, a focus on the task and
the procedure required to complete it is preferred. Proven and successful
procedures then become highly prized. Attributing success to task difficulty
is self-effacing.

E – Ability (Internal, Stable)

Confidence in one’s own ability makes it possible to approach unknown and
unstructured problems without anxiety. Doubts about one’s own ability can

160
motivate a large effort to prove ability, or easy abandonment of the task as
too difficult. Attributing success to ability is highly self-serving.

I – Luck (External, Unstable)

Attributing outcomes to luck is self-effacing, and avoids any implication of
social comparison. It also represents the surrender of personal control to the
shifting context. Accountability, responsibility and both blame and praise
are thwarted. This attribution dilutes the social ramifications of success or
failure.

Wiener’s Attribution scheme is very similar to Michael Lewis’ typology of

self-conscious evaluative emotions (Lewis, 1993), reviewed next in this
catalog. Lewis’ categories are represented in brackets below, before
Wiener’s categories, for comparison.

Wiener: Dimensions and Distinctions

Impersonal

(Pride) (Guilt, Regret)

Effort Task Difficulty
Internal External
Attribution Attribution

(Hubris, Grandiosity) (Shame)

Ability Luck

Stable Unstable
Attribution Personal Attribution

161
44. Self-Conscious Evaluative Emotions: Michael Lewis
Self-conscious emotions such as
shame and pride emerge late in affective
development. They are not associated with
specific stereotypical facial expressions like
joy, sadness and anger are. They also
require an evaluative sense of self, and a
capacity for cognitive elaboration about the
PA Pride
Guilt,
Regret

E I
impact of events on that self. Lewis (1993)
proposes that these evaluative processes Hubris, Shame
involve standards, rules and goals (S-R-G) Grandiosity
that are culturally acquired. SRGs allow
people to evaluate their own actions,
thoughts and feelings, to determine if they have failed or succeeded.
The evaluation of success or failure interacts with attributions about
the extent of the self implicated in this outcome. An attribution can be
specific to decisions and actions on one particular occasion, or they can be
global attributions focused on the total self.
This interaction between evaluative and attributive processes
produces four categories of self-conscious emotion, which are PAEI relevant
in two ways. People who are sharply dominant in each PAEI style will be
most susceptible to the corresponding self-conscious emotion. Furthermore,
each PAEI style specializes in the evaluative and attributive processes
described for each quadrant. The emotions are listed below:

P – Pride (Success, Specific): Pleasure related to a particular action, hence

limited but repeatable.
A – Guilt, Regret (Failure, Specific): An evaluation of failed behavior,
combined with a narrow focus on feature or actions of the self that are the
perceived causes of the failure. Corrective action and repair may be possible,
which can provoke reparative behavior.
E – Hubris, Grandiosity (Success, Global): Evaluation of success attributed
to the global totality of the self. Rewarding but hard to sustain, so people
seek out or invent situations that will provoke or revive it. They may alter
their SRGs or re-evaluate their parameters for defining success and failure
against existing SRGs. The comparative evaluations required to maintain
hubris can damage social relationships.
I – Shame (Failure, Global): Shame is the experience of a defective self,
global failure and violation of an SRG. It is hard to shed this emotion, and
people sometimes cope with this inescapability through dissociation or flight.

162
Self-evaluative emotions are crucial for dramatic and narrative constructions,
and many stories begin and end with either the loss and regaining of the
conditions for success, or the loss of and return to favorable evaluations of
self, thoughts and actions. Stories interrogate SRGs, with the events of the
story revealing their adequacy or inadequacy, and the value of their being
changed or left in place.

Michael Lewis: Dimensions and Distinctions

Attribution:
Specific
Vigor Signal Past
Counterfactual

Pride Guilt,
Regret
Evaluation: Evaluation:
Success Failure
Hubris, Shame
Grandiosity

Future Withdrawal of
Counterfactual Attribution: Self
Global

163
45. Paths of Adult Development: Ryff, Helson &
Srivastava
In an effort to explain why adults grow in
different but positive ways in their mastery

PA
of their environments and themselves,
Helson and Srivastava (2001) following Achievers Conservers
Ryff (1989) identify three development
styles - conservers, seekers and achievers,
as follows:

E I
P – Achievers: Value social recognition and
achievement. Seekers Depleted
A – Conservers: Value the security and
harmony of living according to social
norms.
E – Seekers: Pursue knowledge and independence from social norms.
I – Depleted: Ryff’s model features the two dimensions of environmental and
self mastery (high or low). This focus on the efficacy of individuals does not
cover collaborative behavior in the I mode. In the I quadrant we find a
“Depleted” state of low environmental mastery and low personal growth (or
progress). Interestingly these are precisely the conditions under which it
would be wise to abandon individualistic efforts and seek out the help of
others.
Ryff’s model parallel’s Wiener’s attribution scheme and Michael Lewis’
typology of self-conscious evaluative emotions, reviewed just above. Their
categories are represented in brackets below, before Ryff’s categories, for
comparison.

164
Ryff: Dimensions and Distinctions

High
Environmental
Mastery
Fitness Signal Past
Counterfactual

(Pride, Effort) (Guilt/Regret, Task

Achievers Difficulty) Conservers
High Self Low Self
Mastery Mastery

(Hubris/Grandiosity, (Shame, Luck)

Ability) Seekers Depleted

Future Succor Signal

Counterfactual Low
Environmental
Mastery

165
46. Agency and Self-Efficacy: Albert Bandura
Albert Bandura (2000; 2001) is perhaps the
best known analyst of what might be called
one’s sense of competency, capability or
self-efficacy. His definition of human
agency itself is characterized by four core
features which form a concern structure
pattern:
PA
Intentionality Forethought

E ISelf- Self-
P – Intentionality: A proactive commitment Reflectiveness Reactiveness
to bring about a represented future state of
events via specific familiar actions (with
some improvisation as needed).

A – Forethought: Outcome expectations based on observed conditional

relationships that help one set long term goals and anticipate problems,
rewards and punishment/costs.

E – Self-Reflectiveness: Metacognitive processing of one’s own thoughts,

feelings, actions and motivations, underlying the capacity to change one’s
agentive stance.

I – Self-Reactiveness: Self-regulation of motivation, affect and action,

guiding performance by personal standards and taking self-directed
corrective action. Self-regulatory processes that integrate thought and action.

166
47. A Functional Model of Self-Determination: Michael
L. Wehmeyer et al.
Wehmeyer’s research focuses on
defining self-determination and how it can
be studied and promoted for people with
developmental handicaps. Building upon
Angyal (1941) and Deci et al. (1985),
Wehmeyer et al. (2001) construct a model
of the components of self-determined
PA
Behavioral
Autonomy
Self-
Regulation

E I
behaviour, so that these skills can be
trained and taught in schools. They define Self- Psychological
four essential functions that produce self- Realization Empowerment
determined behaviour.

P – Behavioral Autonomy: Individuated behaviour guided by personal

preferences, not requiring much guidance or support from others, free from
undue external influence or interference.

A – Self-Regulation: The capacity to manage events by monitoring self and

world, making plans and decisions on how to act, evaluating outcomes and
revising/improving plans, self-instruction, self-reinforcement and self-
governance.

E – Self-Realization: Most generally the “tendency to shape one’s life into a

meaningful whole” ((Angyal, 1941), p. 165) self-realization involves using a
strong and syncretic (and largely accurate) knowledge of one’s preferences,
strengths and limitations to produce better outcomes. This sense of self
forms with experience, and is influenced by learning, self-analysis and
interactions with others.

I – Psychological Empowerment: Belief in oneself and in the value of one’s

goals. “Learned hopefulness.” Derived from community psychology, it
arises from experiences of success reaching personal goals and enables
people to achieve socially positive outcomes in the community.

167
48. Theory of Mental Self-Government: Robert J.
Sternberg
Robert J. Sternberg has articulated
a model of mental self-government that
reproduces the structure of concern under
one of its facets (Sternberg, 1997).
Sternberg sees thinking style not as
something that defines a person. We all
command a variety of styles. These
PA
Monarchic Hierarchic

E I
nevertheless do leave us with a certain style
profile, and life is better if we can find Anarchic Oligarchic
social roles to match our profile.
In Sternberg’s schema, there are
five facets of thinking styles. Thinking
styles have functions, form, levels, scope and leanings. All can be discussed
in terms of the structure of concern, but the lowest-hanging fruit here is his
typology of the forms of thinking styles, which plainly exhibit the four-part
pattern.

P – Monarchic Self-Government: Single-minded, driven, determined,

focused, pushes past obstacles. Expects things to be done, no ifs, ands or
buts.
A – Hierarchic Self-Government: Carefully ranks and prioritizes goals,
considers many angles before deciding, comfortable in large organizations,
except when the organization’s priorities/principles and theirs diverge.
E – Anarchic Self-Government: A potpourri of wants, needs and goals that
nobody can figure out. Random approach to problems, rejecting systems and
constraints. Because they gather information from all over, they are more
likely to find solutions others will overlook. If they can focus their efforts,
they may succeed where all others fail.
I – Oligarchic Self-Government: Willing to focus and prioritize but torn by
several competing goals all of equal perceived importance. Feel pressured
and uncertain over what to do next and how much time to allot to each task.
Given even a minimum of guidance about the priorities of the organization or
team however, they can become as or more productive than any of the other
styles.

168
Sternberg: Dimensions and Distinctions

Convergent
Independent Structured

Monarchic Self- Hierarchic Self-

Government Government

Individual Collective

Anarchic Self- Oligarchic Self-

Government Government

Unstructured Dependent
Divergent

169
49. Reversal Theory: Micheal J. Apter
There are several ways to
characterize Reversal Theory. Apter

to the world based on a fundamental

psychological value – such as achievement,
love or freedom”. These motivational styles
PA
(2001a; 2001b) introduces it as a theory of Transactions, Rules, Telic
motivational style, a “distinctive orientation Autic Mastery Conformism

E I
(or metamotivational states) are what we
Means-Ends, Relationships,
refer to in everyday speech when we Alloic
Paratelic
describe people as cheerful, affectionate, Negativism Sympathy
serious, challenging and so on. They are
central for any account of our mental lives.
Reversal Theory gives a structural-phenomenological account of them,
describing them as structures of conscious experience.
At the conceptual centre of Reversal Theory one finds a two-level
nested hierarchy that expresses concern structure values in different ways at
each level. The base level describes a fairly straightforward particularistic
clustering of those values. The second level, describing attitudes taken
towards the first, describes a more nuanced combinatorial scattering of those
values.
At the particularistic level, Reversal Theory founds itself on the
observation that at a certain level of analysis, four domains of subjective
experience are “universal and essential to the very nature of experience itself.
These are an unavoidable part of everyone’s subjective experience at all
times” (Apter, 2001a). The domains, in PAEI order, are:

P – Transactions: We are always involved in interactions with other things,

including people, objects, machines, ideas, parts of our own bodies, mental
images… Transactions are the concrete exchanges that make interactions
tangible: exchanges of words, thoughts, gestures, money, attention, esteem
and so on. Transactions are the doing aspect of interactions, and we are
always aware of how we are doing our interactions.

A – Rules: This describes the experience of pressure to behave in certain

ways, stemming from the expectations of others, customs, habits,
conventions and explicit laws, rules and regulations. Normalizing
expectancies (actual or projected) factor into everything that we do, even
when our awareness of them is minimal.

170
E – Means-Ends: Purposive action is a key domain of subjective experience,
giving it direction and orientation at all times. We are always aware of goals
and intentions, even if the awareness is only a vague and minimal sense of
directionality (where one is going and how one is getting there).

I – Relationships: As we interact with other people or groups of people, we

are aware of more than the transactions. We are also aware of a more direct
relationship that can be structured in various ways, as open or closed,
intimate or formal, personal or functional, etc. Distance is a crucial concept
here; do we identify with our interaction partners or feel separate from them?

In Reversal Theory, each one of these four domains can be

experienced in two opposing ways. The experiences in each pairing are
mutually exclusive, so they cannot be experienced simultaneously, but
reversals from one to the other are possible, particularly as hedonic tone,
arousal and expectancies vary.
The attitudinal pairs for each domain are listed below in PAEI order:

P – Transactions (Mastery/Sympathy): A Mastery orientation to a transaction

frames it in terms of contest, power and control, carrying values of hardiness
and toughness. The Opposite: A Sympathy (I) orientation frames
transactions in terms of affection, proximity, friendliness and graciousness,
in the cooperative mode rather than the competitive one.

A – Rules (Conformist/Negativistic): Rules can be a source of self-

confidence, clarifying one’s social standing and role and making correct
behaviour clear and unambiguous. Conformism can thus be experienced as a
dutiful, virtuous, proper or normal/trustworthy state. The Opposite: Rules
can also be seen as traps, restrictions and confinements, motivating a
desperate bid for freedom and rebellion. This Negativistic (E) experience of
rules can also express itself in mischief, or disruptive and disobedient
behaviour.

E – Means-Ends (Telic/Paratelic): Means-ends thinking can be heavily goal

oriented, planning-intensive, anxiety avoidant and serious (A). This is
described as a Telic state (telos=goal) in Reversal Theory. The Opposite:
However, in some goal-directed activity such as games or hobbies, the means
themselves are the main source of gratification, and goals simply support the
coordination of those means. This is seen as a playful, spontaneous and open

171
mode in Reversal Theory, and called the Paratelic (E) state ( para=alongside,
telos=goal).

I – Interactions (Alloic/Autic): In interactions, we can be very other-focused,

yielding to the other and giving their feelings precedence. This is the Alloic
state (allos=other). The Opposite: One can also be Autic in interactions
(auto=self), asserting one’s separateness and assuring good outcomes for the
self, giving one’s own feelings precedence, valuing individuality and
personal responsibility (P).

The four domains of subjective experience are thus nested within this second
layer of pairs of metamotivational states. At this second level, we can
describe the PAEI styles as follows:

P: Autic Mastery
A: Telic Conformism
E: Paratelic Negativism
I: Alloic Sympathy

Individuals vary in terms of their key metamotivational states; the one that is
currently dominant, the ones they experience frequently and focus upon, the
salience of each state to the course of their lives, and also the ease with
which they shift between the two states in any domain (i.e. their lability).
The same situations will potentiate different metamotivational states for
different individuals.

172
50. Sixteen Fundamental Desires: Reiss & Havercamp
In a series of research articles (Reiss, 2000; Havercamp, 1998; Reiss
& Havercamp, 1998; Reiss & Havercamp, 1997; Reiss & Havercamp, 1996)
Steven Reiss and Susan Havercamp develop and explore a list of 16 basic
motivational desires. The typology grew out of a recursive series of surveys
and analyses, which supported the creation of a self-report instrument called
the Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivational Sensitivities.
Profile scores indicate a person’s individual desire hierarchy, which proved
to be predictive of career choice in Havercamp (1998).
With the exception of one arguably universal desire – eating – all of
Reiss and Havercamp’s other fundamental desires can be accommodated by
the structure of concern construct. It is important to note that this PAEI
clustering is being imposed on the 16 desires model for illustrative purposes
only. A more careful analysis of the various desires might produce a
different scattering of desires than the one presented below.

P - Independence, Power, Vengeance, Exercise

A - Honour, Tranquility, Order, Saving
E - Curiosity, Status, Idealism, Romance
I - Family, Social Contact, Acceptance

P-Desires
Independence: desire for self-reliance
Power: desire for influence including mastery, leadership and dominance
Vengeance: desire to get even with others, including joy of competition
Exercise: desire to use and move one’s body

A-Desires
Honour: desire to value one’s parents and their heritage, morality or religion
Order: desire for a predictable environment, includes desire for cleanliness
and ritual
Tranquility: desire to be free of anxiety, fear or pain (sensitivity to aversive
sensations)
Saving: desire to hoard (including desire to own)

E-Desires
Curiosity: desire to explore or learn
Status: desire for social standing and attention

173
Idealism: desire to improve society (citizenship)
Romance: desire for sex, beauty and art

I-Desires
Family: desire to raise one’s own children (does not apply to children of
others)
Social Contact: desire for interaction with other people (includes desire for
fun/pleasure)
Acceptance: desire for approval from others

In a mammalian species, the desire to eat, for infants and their mothers at
least, has everything to do with social contact, family and acceptance. If we
were to cluster eating under I for that reason, an interesting faceted structure
seems to emerge. Under each style we find a desire for goal direction, for the
goal of conflict, plus restorative/reparative motivations and a focus for
material desires, as follows:

P A E I
Direction Independence Honour Curiosity Family
Conflict Power Tranquility Status Social
Contact
Restorative Vengeance Order Idealism Acceptance
Material Exercise Saving Romance Eating

174
51. CISS – Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations:
Endler& Parker
The CISS is a four-factor model of
human coping with adversity developed by
Endler and Parker (1990; Avero et al.,
2003). Their construct differentiates three
types of coping: emotion-oriented, task-
oriented, and avoidant. The avoidant style
has two dimensions: distraction and social
PA
Task-
Oriented
Emotion-
Oriented

E I
diversion. These coping categories scatter
across the PAEI categories as follows: Avoidant- Avoidant-
Distracted Social

P – Task-oriented coping: a primary control

style that is adaptive when situations are appraised as changeable. Focus is
maintained and emotions are controlled. This can be maladaptive for
complex changing social problems.

A – Emotion-oriented coping: a secondary control style adaptive when

situations are appraised as unchangeable. The aim is to reduce stress, but
over the long term it can increase stress and produce negative outcomes like
anxiety and depression.

E – Avoidant-distracted coping: This is adaptive in the short-term for

uncontrollable problems. You just don’t let the problem bother you and focus
on something more interesting. If problems are controllable, this strategy will
be maladaptive over the long run.

I – Avoidant-social coping: Recourse to others is sought in the face of threat,

for diversion or for assistance. This strategy is also adaptive for short-term,
but over time it is more effective to develop the skills needed to address the
threat as an instrumental problem.

A study of 612 adult twin pairs, (Kozak et al., 2005) determined heritability
estimates of the CISS coping styles as follows: 35% for emotion-oriented
coping, 34% for task-oriented coping, 33% for distraction, and 39% for
social diversion, respectively. They note that these values are consistent with
other studies into the heritability of coping styles and mechanisms.

175
Endler & Parker: Dimensions and Distinctions

Focal

Task-Oriented Emotion-Oriented
Coping Coping

Instrumental Affective

Avoidant- Avoidant-Social
Distracted Coping Coping

Internal External
Diffuse

176
52. The Johari Window: Joseph Luft & Harry Ingham
The Johari Window is a very
widely used model of self awareness. It

PA
describes social interaction according to the
Blind/ Open
degree of self knowledge involved. The
Unaware
model's name is an amalgam of the given
names of its developers; Joseph Luft and
Harry Ingham (Luft, 1970; 1969). The
framework consists of a four-paned
"window," offering four different "views"
on social self-awareness. In PAEI order,
these are the Blind/Unaware, Open,
Unknown and Hidden views. These views
are described in more detail below.
E I
Unknown Hidden

The four panes in this model do not have fixed dimensions. For
example, in a job interview, the "Open" windowpane of each participant
could be depicted as occupying a fairly small area of their overall window,
simply because they start the interview as strangers. However, if the
interview is successful, their “Open” panes will increase in area, due to
mutual self-disclosure (which is precisely the process of moving self-
information to the Open pane). Of course a change in the area of any one
windowpane will affect all of the other panes in the window.

P - Quadrant 2: Unaware (Unknown to Self, but Known to Others)

This is a negative category of self awareness, describing the case where
everybody can see the motives, limitations, social goals and impulses of a
person, except the person themselves. Producers are often found in this
windowpane. They are so pragmatic that they resist other (AEI) concerns, but
they think they are only responding to the demands of the task itself. They
often cut short interactions that they feel are too abstract, picky or touchy-
feely. Producers think that tasks themselves impose this abrupt, short-term
concern horizon on all (sensible) people. Other styles see this impatience or
rigid pragmatism instead as aspects of the Producer’s personality - aspect that
have to be ‘managed’ during interactions. Where the Producer sees only
objective imperatives, others see the character of the Producer at work.

A - Quadrant 1: Open (Known to Self and Others)

This window illuminates only those things a person already knows or
acknowledges about themselves, which other people also see and know
about. Administrators by far prefer this clear, explicit/understood, non-

177
mysterious pane of the window, and they do all of their communication in
this mode whenever possible. The twist with strong administrators is that
they do not want the area of this windowpane to grow very large over their
personalities. They prefer to stick to a limited subset of reliably safe self-
disclosures. They are happy to live with large Blind or Hidden areas, and
prefer that the boundaries of their windowpanes remain as stable as possible.

E - Quadrant 4: Unknown (Unknown to both Self and Others)

This is the playground of E. It is filled of snippets from last night's dreams,
inexplicable hunches, suddenly becoming alert before something that
reminds you of something you can't quite express, and how your mind
wanders when you aren't paying attention. The great talent of E lies in their
ability decipher meaningful patterns in this soup of intuition, and then to
move this information into the Open quadrant.

I - Quadrant 3: Hidden (Known to Self, but Unknown to Others)

Strong Integrators are good at managing emotions, mediating conflicts,
managing impressions and using communication to attain their goals. While
they do tend to disclose and resolve problems in the open windowpane, they
are most skilled at keeping their feelings and reactions in check while they
communicate strategically with people. A supervisor with a big I might be
disappointed in the performance of an employee, but to give the employee
the benefit of the doubt, the supervisor might not let this disappointment
show, and instead take steps to see if some problem is bothering the
employee that the supervisor is not aware of. Integrators are often very aware
of their own feelings, and they also typically have a great deal of control over
how and when they express those feelings. Their capacity to make strategic
use of the hidden pane makes them ideal for handling sensitive interpersonal
interactions.
Open interaction is the easiest kind, and it accounts for much of our
social interaction. It takes energy to maintain information in the Unaware or
Hidden panes. We experience a sense of release or relief when that
information moves into the Open pane. The unknown area is another matter.
There is a universal curiosity about it, but this curiosity is warded off by
taboos, fears, social customs and traditional responses to encounters with
mystery. Entrepreneurs are thus incompletely socialized around the
unknown, and Administrators are perhaps oversocialized against it (although
temperament surely plays a role as well). Group values and stipulations of
group membership can be revealed in the collective resources available for
confronting the unknown.

178
In an environment of mutual trust, the Open area of peoples' windows tends
to be large. As trust and comfort levels rise, the Open area grows. Threats or
fears constrict the Open area. The smaller this area is, the less efficient
communications will be.

Johari Window: Dimensions and Distinctions

Known to
Others

2 1
Unaware Open

Unknown to Known to
Self Self
4 3
Unknown Hidden

Unknown to
Others

179
53. Affect Infusion Model: Joseph P. Forgas
The Affect Infusion Model (AIM)
describes the interaction between mood and

PA
information-processing. Not all cognitive Direct
Heuristic
processes interact with mood. In order to Access
Processing
isolate task types where mood-congruent Processing
processing becomes evident, Forgas (1995;
Forgas & Williams, 2002) defines two axes
of task or problem differentiation.

also in the relative open-endedness or

foreclosure of the potential solutions. E I
Problems differ in the amount of effort Substantive Motivated
expenditure required to engage them, and Processing Processing

Forgas calls open-ended problems constructive, and predetermined or

narrow-focused problems reconstructive. Constructive problems require
transformation of input into new and unforeseen solutions. Reconstructive
problems begin with an obvious solution that is tested and defended against
the input. Crossing degree of effort with problem determinacy gives us four
basic processing strategies, listed below in PAEI order:

P – Heuristic Processing (Low, Constructive): Open-ended task, not

deserving of careful or intensive attention. Mood-based heuristics and
momentary emotional cues may be used to produce the judgement and
response.
A – Direct Access Processing (Low, Reconstructive): The default mode of
social processing when all is going smoothly according with established
routines. Since tasks fall in line with expectations, responses are already
known, and mood fluctuations do not impact decisions or behaviours very
much.
E – Substantive Processing (High, Constructive): Some kind of complex or
obscure transformation of inputs is called for. Mood and affect are used to
sensitize the person to salient patterns and relevant information in the input.
The more substantive processing there is, the stronger the chance that mood
infusion will influence the outcome.
I – Motivated Processing (High, Reconstructive): In processing guided by a
single affective motive, there need not be much interaction with passing
moods, but if many different affective motives emerge, performance is more
likely to be mood-based. Much like with Substantive Processing, the greater
the variability and open-endedness, the stronger the potential infusion of
mood.

180
Forgas: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low
Involvement

Heuristic Direct Access

Processing Processing

Constructive Reconstructive

Substantive Motivated
Processing Processing

High
Involvement

181
Personality Psychology
Personality psychology is a relatively mature subfield in terms of the concern
structure models we find here. So many contemporary concern structure
models draw there inspiration from the Jungian model of personality
functions, popularized by the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator, that it
can be viewed as the head of a lineage of concern structure models.
Furthermore, several authors have tried to write broad, synthetic works that
offer meta-models intended to capture and summarize the categories of
earlier models. Indeed it is in this field of personality psychology that we can
see efforts to understand the structure of concern as a more universal pattern
of some kind, speaking to the maturity of the question in this field.

There have already been models described in this catalog that could
potentially be included in this category instead. Again I must emphasize that
the categorization of models in this catalog is not of any central importance
to the overall thesis. The catalog really forms a single set, putting forth a
simple assertion that some general pattern must be describable to explain all
this similarity across domains. That is the point of this work – lumping
rather than splitting a bunch of information for analysis.

182
54. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Isabel Briggs Myers
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) is one of the most widely used
personality typing instruments in the world.
It is used in education, career counseling,
human resource development and other
related service contexts. Measures of a
person's modes of perception and judgment,
PA
Sensing Thinking

E I
as well as their degree of introversion/
extroversion are tabulated to create a Intuition Feeling
distinctive four-letter profile (e.g. INTP,
ESFJ, etc. Briggs-Meyers, 1980). The core
of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
recapitulates the structure of concern. In this section, I will briefly review the
origins of the MBTI, before describing how the structure of concern operates
within it.
The MBTI was developed and refined by Isabel Briggs Myers and
others in order to "...make the theory of psychological types described by C.
G. Jung... understandable and useful in peoples' lives". (Briggs-Myers &
McCaulley, 1985). Carl Jung held that behind the seeming randomness of
human behavior, order and consistency can be found by observing basic
differences in the way individuals prefer to use their faculties of perception
and judgment. Perception is not just limited to sensory processes. It includes
all of the ways by which a person becomes aware of happenings in the world,
or ideas in thought. Judgment, on the other hand, refers to the process of
coming to conclusions regarding what has been perceived. These are the core
personality functions of Jungian psychology. Human variability across these
functions underlie a host of corresponding differences in peoples values,
reactions, motivations, skills and interests.
The MTBI underwent seven rounds of development between 1942
and 1977. Form A of the test was developed by Isabel Myers and Katherine
Briggs, and used within a small criterion group of friends and relatives whose
Jungian "types" the two researchers could already estimate fairly well, based
on long acquaintance. The test items that survived this initial screening
(Form B) were administered to progressively larger samples, to weed out
invalid or unreliable items. A third round of development was used to
disambiguate the test by excluding any items that were highly valid for more
than one index. If an item correlated well on both the Extrovert-Introvert
index and the Sensing-Intuiting index, for example, it was dropped from the
test. The resulting for (Form C) of the test also incorporated more
sophisticated statistical weighting of the items, based on prediction ratios
(Briggs-Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

183
 For Form D of the Indicator, developed in 1956-1958, the phrasing
of the test was refined to use the forced-choice tactic between two key words.
New items were tested against larger groups of adults, and for the first time
younger test subjects were also sought out - adolescents and children.
Statistical analysis of the trial results began to isolate more fine-grained
demographic factors such as gender and age. The surviving items became
Forms E and F (which was Form E with some additional experimental items
added). Form F was published by the Educational Testing Service in 1962.
Finally, between 1975 and 1977, a new standardization was carried out,
based on new trials and almost 20 years of widespread use of the instrument.
The resulting Form G resulted in type-scores that were almost
interchangeable with Form F scores, indicating the maturity of the
instrument. Breaking down Indicator profiles by profession made it possible
to use Indicator to match up personality types with job categories. The
research and analysis behind the occupational typing was also quite rigorous.
The MBTI is not a tool for measuring things about people, it is a tool
for sorting people. Its purpose is categorization, not quantification. At the
core of the Myers-Briggs Jungian type theory are the four functions: sensing
(S), intuiting (N), thinking (T) and feeling (F). These are four essential
cognitive processes that everyone uses everyday. However, different people
prioritize them differently. We also differ in the attitude - extroverted (E) or
introverted (I) - in which we typically use each function.
The Myers-Briggs model is fairly complex. For my purposes, I can
restrict my discussion to the four functions, but to do justice to the model, it
full extent deserves mention. The four functions are divided into two groups.
Sensing and intuiting (SN) form one cluster and thinking/feeling (TF) form
the other. These clusters indicate styles for dealing with the outside world.
The first cluster (SN) describes Perceiving (P) styles and the second cluster
(TF) describes Judging (J) styles.
In MBTI typing, each person is found to have a dominant or
preferred function (S, N, T or F). This function is mainly used in the
preferred attitude, extroversion or introversion. Extroverts use their dominant
function in the external world, and introverts in the inner world of concepts
and ideas. Everyone also has a secondary or auxiliary function to balance
their primary one. This secondary function operates in the less-preferred
attitude (in the inner world for extroverts, in the outer world for introverts -
introverts show the outer world their second-best side!). The secondary
function will not be in the same cluster as the dominant function. This
balances a person’s style, e.g. the secondary function operates in the
perception cluster for judgment-dominant people, and vice versa.
The JP preference indicated at the end of the four-letter profile points
out the style people used in the Extroverted attitude. This is true for both
extroverts and introverts. Also, whichever attitude (E/I) the dominant
184
function (S/N, T/F) expresses itself in, the three non-dominant functions will
typically express themselves in the opposite attitude. The function
opposed/subordinated to the dominant is usually the weakest. It's called the
fourth function. The function opposite to the second/auxiliary is the third
function.

The four functions direct conscious mental activity towards different goals,
described below:
P - Sensation (S) seeks the fullest possible experience of what is immediate
and real.
E - Intuition (N) seeks the furthest reaches of the possible and imaginable.
A - Thinking (T) seeks rational order and plans according to impersonal
logic.
I - Feeling (F) seeks reasonable order according to harmony among
subjective values.

The Perception Functions: Sensing and Intuiting

Jung called the perceptive functions the irrational functions because
they are attuned to the flow of events, and operate most broadly when not
constrained by rational direction. Perceptive people of either type are attuned
to incoming information. Their attitude is open, curious and interested. From
the outside, they appear to be spontaneous, curious and adaptable, open to
new events and changes, hoping to miss nothing.

Sensing: Perceptions observable by way of senses. Sensing establishes what

exists. Because the senses bring into awareness only what is happening at the
present moment, people with a sensing orientation tend to focus on
immediate experience and develop present-centered abilities, like enjoying
the moment, keen observation, memory for details and pragmatism.

Intuition: Refers to the perception of possibilities, meanings and relationships

by way of insight. Jung referred to these as perceptions that come by way of
the unconscious, surfacing into consciousness suddenly as a hunch or
realization. This permits perceptions that extend beyond the present, into
possible futures. N people may get so caught up chasing these possibilities
that they lose sight of immediate realities. They develop imagination,
creative ability, theoretical, abstract, future-oriented...

185
The Judgment Functions: Thinking and Feeling
These are the rational functions, directed towards bringing life events
into harmony with reason. Judging people are concerned with making
decisions, seeking closure, planning operations or organizing activities. They
tend to shut off once they have absorbed enough information to make a
decision. Perceivers will suspend judgment to observe more. Judgers seem
organized, purposeful and decisive.

Thinking: Links functions together by making of logical connections.

Thinking relies on relationships of cause and effect (dependencies) and tends
to be impersonal. Analytic ability, principles of justness and fairness,
criticality and an orientation to time that is concerned with connections from
the past through the present toward the future.

Feeling: The function by which one comes to decisions by weighing relative

values and the merits of the issues. Feeling relies on an understanding of
personal values and group values; it is thus more subjective than thinking.
Because values are subjective and personal, persons making judgments with
the feeling function are more likely to be attuned to the values of others as
well as their own. Because people oriented towards feeling make decisions
by attending what matters to others, they have an understanding of people, a
concern with the human as opposed to the technical aspects of problems, a
need for affiliation, a capacity for warmth, a desire for harmony, and a time
orientation that includes preservation of the values of the past.

Procrastination comes from Perception with a deficit of Judgment. Prejudice

comes from Judgment with a deficit of Perception.

186
55. A Synthesis of Personality Typologies: Alan Miller
Alan Miller has undertaken a
systematic and comprehensive review of

PA
personality typologies and cognitive style
typologies, developing a synthetic typology Reductionist Schematist
to capture the essence of most of them
while avoiding the failings of some (Miller,
1991). He selects three dimensions for the
analysis of these frameworks: cognitive,
affective and conative (motivational).
The cognitive dimension is
structured between an analytic pole and a
holistic one. The analytic style clusters
E I
Gnostic Romantic

together perceptual analysis, field independence, verbal and analytic

representation, conceptual differentiation, convergent memory retrieval,
serial mental classification, tight associations and an actuarial judgment style.
Holistic processes are more synthetic, field-dependent, visually structured,
with divergent memory access, loose associations and an intuitive judgment
style.
Along the conative/motivational dimension, Miller reviews various
models of motivation and goal-directedness, including drive theories,
volitional theories and intrapsychic conflict theories in the tradition of
Angyal and Bakan. Favouring the latter, he reviews Maddi’s
‘autonomy/agency – surrender/communion’ conflict paradigm (Maddi, 1999)
among others, and suggests an objectivity-subjectivity distinction to
summarize them all. Objective intentions are instrumental, externally
grounded and geared towards seeking advantage or power. Subjective
purposes are more affiliative, internally grounded and empathic.
Miller’s affective dimension covers psychological research into
Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality and Affect Intensity. He
isolates the distinction between emotional stability and instability as the most
relevant for personality typing, and he places this dimension orthogonal to
the other two. This creates a structure of concern model that recognizes
varying degrees of emotional stability in each quadrant. I set aside this
dimension, since it does not change the structure that concerns me.
An interesting aspect of Miller’s work is that his original research
goal was to understand professional behaviours and interactions among
scientists and academics. Thus his typology, while serving to describe
general personality dynamics, is labelled with terms that describe academic
theoretical preferences or investigative biases. Crossing his cognitive

187
(analytic-holistic) and conative/motivational (objective-subjective)
dimensions thus gives us the following four type descriptions in PAEI order:

P – Reductionist (Objective, Analytic): Focused on agency, achievement and

control over self, others and environment. Emotionally detached and
externally focused with a mechanistic worldview. Intellectualizes and
rationalizes problems, seeking detailed factual knowledge.

A – Schematist (Objective, Holistic): Objective and impersonal, achieves an

illusion of control by developing schemes, theories and systems of thought.
When these are threatened, global defences such as denial or repression are
used to suppress awareness of the discrepancies. Emotionally detached and
externally oriented, judgmental.

E – Gnostic (Subjective, Analytic): Seeks communion with the world

through understanding and knowledge. Rejects objective, impersonal outlook
in favour of cognitive empathy and introspection. Can become lost within a
reflective, narrowly preoccupied world, but has few defences against
intrusions by objective obstacles. Absent-minded prisoner of psychological
honesty.

I – Romantic (Subjective, Holistic): Seeks communion through intimate,

nurturing relationships. Aims to empower others and improve their
surroundings. Empathic and grounded in the inner experiences of self and
others, but not probingly introspective or self-analysing. Impressionistic,
subjective, evaluative and imaginative, touched by personal anecdote and
raw accounts of experiences.

188
Miller: Dimensions and Distinctions

Objective

Reductionist Schematist

Analytic Holistic

Gnostic Romantic

Subjective

189
56. Personality as an Affect Processing System: Jack
Block
Jack Block is a veteran researcher into personality psychology, and
his characterization of personality as an affect processing system represents a
synthesis over a very long career (Block, 2002). His model of personality
contains one dimension that sheds some light onto concern structure issues.
Block argues that more common ground exists between various
models of personality than has hitherto been appreciated. The commonalities
between personality models can best be brought into focus, he feels, by
characterizing personality as an adaptive system. Personality is a system that
maintains internal and external equilibrium for us, in an environment that is
both dangerous and engaging. The system itself consists of a perceptual
apparatus (PA) and a control apparatus (CA) operating in a delicate balance.
Block’s project is to explain how each apparatus works, and how they
interact.
Anxiety is the central concept in this model. Organisms in an
unstressed state take in information from the environment. If they begin to
experience some inner tension or anxiety based on some internal
destabilization (like growing hunger), they have at their disposal a control
apparatus for manifesting this tension as a specific drive towards some goal.
Anxiety may also arise due to threatening, chaotic, confusing or rapidly
changing perceptual settings. If incoming information is too unstructured,
our perceptual apparatus is overwhelmed. So anxiety arises when tensions,
rooted in either internal or external processes, rise faster than our capacity to
process them. But our coping mechanisms are adaptive. They can adjust
themselves to accommodate different levels of stimulation or tension.
However, people do vary in their adjustability, or in the character of their
control and perceptual apparatuses, and the dimensions of that variance
define personality differences.
It should be noted that Block sees perception as an a active process,
pointing out that we have an evolutionarily ingrained tendency to seek,
articulate, analyze, organize, and simplify our internal representations of
perceptual inputs. He calls this activity perceptualizing. Individuals naturally
‘perceptualize’ because in the long term, so doing is evolutionarily adaptive
i.e. it enhances long term viability. Thus, converting ‘raw’ input into a
perception is just as constructive as the act of converting ‘raw’ tensions into
drives. Block truly believes in raw perception, we should emphasize. He
views incoming information from the world has having its own proper or
‘autochthonous’ structure, ahead of any perceptual system processing it.
Animals need to convert this autochthonous structure into their own internal
representations using their perceptual apparatuses, which render the
information into forms that are relevant to them.
190
Two Basic Causes of Anxiety
Anxiety arises when:
1. Percepts of the system are being processed in too slow or fragmented a
manner, relative to the rate of the autochthonous structure percepts bring to
the organism.
2. Motivational directives (“drives”) are being processed too slowly or
haphazardly relative to the rate of increase and inherent structure of the
drives.
In other words, if the raw or sensory component overtakes the processing or
perceptual component, anxiety increases. In order to reduce anxiety, the rate
or structure of processing must change so that the raw throughput can be
converted into usable information. There are three elements that define how
the perceptual and control subsystems can adjust themselves.

Articulation or Differentiation
The relative complexity or rudimentary nature of the behavioral alternatives
available to a person.

Control Apparatus - high differentiation=many potential actions and
recognitions to guide behavior.

Perceptual apparatus - high differentiation=capacity for multifaceted,
particularized, complex and nuanced appraisals of the environment,
versus simplistic, general, categorical appraisals.

Permeability (Average level of tension control)

The threshold for reacting to tension/anxiety which characterizes a person's
behavior, or their readiness to notice and respond to their surrounding
environment.

Control Apparatus - Undercontrollers have a permeable control
apparatus which transforms tensions into drives immediately, readily,
directly, even chaotically. Overcontrollers have an impermeable control
apparatus that converts tension to drive slowly, with delay, or not at all.
Suppressed tension may be carried over into the next important
psychological event.

Perceptual apparatus - Underperceptualizers are absorbed in their
perceptions of the moment, submerged by the impinging world,
stimulus-bound and distractible. Overperceptualizers perceive the world
in already familiar ways using schemas that are rigid, set, closed,

191
 imposing old structures on new experiences, or filtering out new
information.

Resiliency or elasticity
This quality is related to permeability, and refers to the range of permeability
variation available to the personality system.

Control Apparatus - Can you let loose or bear down as needed? Are you
able to regulate your own permeability threshold (impulsivity)?

Perceptual apparatus – Can you focus and impose structure upon chaotic
perceptions as needed, but also relax your preconceptions when needed
to see things as they uniquely are?

Articulation, permeability and elasticity together are used to modulate

the conversion of tensions into drives, and autochthonous or raw information
into percepts. Note that some tensions are inherently difficult to convert into
goal-focused drives (e.g. dread), and some information streams have
inherently low levels of autochthonous assimilability (i.e. they are complex
or turbulent). By holding some of the elements of these two systems constant
and varying other ones, we can begin to see how articulation/differentiation,
permeability and resilience/elasticity come together to adjust the activity of
the perception and control subsystems.

Example 1: Consider these interactions of the perceptual apparatus (PA) and

the control apparatus (CA) when the autochthonous assimilability (AA) of
environmental information is either low or high.

1. Under Low AA: As drive is increased, PA goes from normal permeability

to a more impermeable state. In other words, when urgency mounts, there is
less tolerance of ambiguity, and a narrowing of perceptions to drive-relevant
categories.
2. Under High AA: As drive is increased, PA permeability does not change
much. The registered percept is known to be reliable, and continues to guide
behavior.

Summary – When drive is high (CA is active), the PA activity increases as

AA decreases. If AA is already high, PA activity is not modulated by
increased levels of drive.

192
Example 2: Holding tension constant, the following relationships between
perception and control emerge.

1. Holding Tension High: As AA and PA effectiveness diminish, CA slides

from state of normal permeability to state of relative impermeability, i.e. as
the external situation becomes confusing, tension is contained by
constraining its behavioral expression.
2. Holding Tension Low: PA effectiveness may diminish and AA may be
low, but CA doesn't change much.

Summary - the CA operates to control tension when it is high, and the AA

situation is incoherent or unstructured. Otherwise the CA is not modulated
by low AA levels.

The perceptual apparatus and control apparatus interact in other ways

as well. For example, if the elasticity of one apparatus is exceeded, the other
may come into play, to allow the personality to adapt to a situation. Elasticity
is thus a resource, providing ways of adaptively responding to internally or
externally arising challenges, thus reducing anxiety.
Permeability is also a resource for adaptation, but its value is often
determined by situation. For example, during initial explorations into a new
territory, people would be best off with highly permeable personality
systems, in order to respond to cues more sensitively and to take more risks.
In a settled, orderly, stratified society, where risk-taking might more often do
damage rather than good, lower levels of permeability and reactivity can be
more adaptive.
Among the three elements of apparatus flexibility and adjustability,
the element of permeability sheds most light on the structure of concern.
Below, each style of concern is listed, in PAEI order, with the associated
values for the permeability of the perceptual and control subsystems
described.

P – Impermeable PA, Permeable CA

Producers tend to be Overperceptualizers and Undercontrollers. They
impose structure upon their perceptions of the world, and do not always pay
attention to the idiosyncrasies of every case if they seem irrelevant to their
purposes. They are also impulsive, focusing their tensions onto targets and
generating drive very easily. This is an affect-processing style optimized for

193
short-term responsiveness, crisis intervention and short-term, rapid-cycle
productivity.

A – Impermeable PA, Impermeable CA

Administrators tend to be Overperceptualizers and Overcontrollers. They
view the world in terms of ready-made and carefully constructed schemas,
and do not welcome deviations from those schemas. They are not impulsive,
but rather are risk-averse. Inner tensions are more likely to result in
exploratory behavior to further perceptualize until suitable targets for suitable
actions are found. Delays are better tolerated than impulsiveness is. This
affect-processing style is optimized for managing linear systems of
dependencies, where the cost of error is very high, and where the attainment
of reward depends upon preserving some kind of steady state, with responses
measured over time.

E – Permeable PA, Permeable CA

Entrepreneurs tend to be Underperceptualizers and Undercontrollers. They
tend to submerge themselves in experience and are easily distracted by novel
stimuli. They are also impulsive and very comfortable with risk.
Entrepreneurs seek out situations with low autochthonous assimilability/high
uncertainty (opportunity), and respond impulsively to patterns in that
uncertainty that are vaguely appropriate targets for drives (opportunities).
Working in this zone of unknowns can reduce the permeability of their
systems, giving them intense focus while the opportunity still beckons. Once
they have done the work and the situation starts to become structured,
reliable and assimilated, their interest in that environment will dwindle.
They will seek out less structured environments in order to be aroused into a
less permeable state by the low autochthonous assimilability of their
surroundings. They thrive on radical exploration.

I – Permeable PA, Impermeable CA

Integrators are very sensitive to social cues, even quite minute ones, and they
find them hard to ignore. Other tasks may be placed on hold while they
settle interpretations of what was just said or done. This kind of sensitivity
and sensory capture suggest low levels of perceptualization. However,
Integrators are also tactful and diplomatic. They can resolve conflicts well.
That means that they can expose themselves to distressing social situations,
be very attuned to them, and yet not react impulsively or immediately to
these powerful stimuli. This delay between tension and drive results from a
relatively impermeable control apparatus.

194
Jack Block: Dimensions and Distinctions

Perceptual Apparatus:
Impermeable

Control
P A Control
Apparatus: Apparatus:
Permeable Impermeable

E I
Perceptual Apparatus:
Permeable

195
57. Social Style Model: TRACOM Group
The Social Styles Model is part of a
system of psychometric evaluations and
other instruments owned by the TRACOM
group, which aims to improve the way that
people collaborate and work together
(Furlong, 2005). It is based on work by
Merrill and Reid (1981) to develop a
PA
Driving Analytical

E I
personality-style-like model that was based
on observable external human behaviours, Expressive Amiable
instead of presumed internal states of mind.
The two dimensions of external behaviour
that the model focuses on are assertiveness
and responsiveness.
The poles of the assertiveness dimension are ask and tell. An ask-
assertive person is more reserved, more apt to keep thoughts private, and
more likely to move conversation forwards by eliciting responses from their
discussant. A tell-assertive person is more forceful and directive in
conversation. Both kinds of assertiveness are ways for people to get the
kinds of social outcomes they want, so they are both kinds of assertiveness,
but there is a difference in strategies which forms a continuum along which
people can be placed.
The poles of the responsiveness dimension are emotive and
controlled. Responsiveness is the degree to which people reveal their
emotions in interactions with others. If others perceive the person to be very
emotional in their responses, they are emote-responsive. If others generally
perceive that a person does not show much emotionality in responses, they
are control-emotive.

Crossing these dimensions produces a concern structure, detailing four

different social styles, as follows:
P – Driving (Tell assertive & Control responsive): Independent, task- and
results-oriented, decisive, fast-paced, dominating.
A – Analytical (Ask assertive & Control responsive): Prudent, task-oriented,
detail-focused, slow and careful decision makers, logical, low key.
E – Expressive (Tell assertive & Emote responsive): Visionary, animated,
flamboyant, high-energy, fast-paced, impulsive, opinionated.
I – Amiable (Ask assertive & Emote responsive): Dependable, relationship-
oriented, supportive, confrontation-averse, open, pliable.

196
The TRACOM group traces the ways that each social style needs to interact
with the others, helping people adapt to each other through the various stages
of group formation and interaction. The Social Styles Model is fairly rich,
and has barely been summarized in this entry.

Social Styles Model: Dimensions and Distinctions

Control
Responsive

Driving Analytical

Tell Assertive Ask Assertive

Expressive Amiable

Emote
Responsive

197
58. Dunn’s Model of Sensory Processing: Winnie Dunn
Dunn's Model of Sensory
Processing was developed in the field of
occupational and educational counseling.
Dunn proposes that four sensory processing
patterns characterize the perceptual
process. These patterns are thought to arise
from individual differences in neurological
PA
Low
Registration
Sensory
Avoiding

E I
thresholds for stimulation (high-low) and
self-regulation strategies (active-passive). Sensory Sensory
Crossing these dimensions gives us four Seeking Sensitive
sensory processing styles (Dunn, 2001;
1997).

P - Low Registration (High, Passive)

Low-registering people might be described as insensitive or disconnected.
They do not pick up on subtle environmental cues, and require very clear and
surgent directives. Most events of daily life are not intense enough to
stimulate deep processing for these people, and their passive-reactive self-
regulatory stance makes them somewhat oblivious to ongoing activity that is
not explicitly engaging them.

A - Sensory Avoiding (Low, Active)

Sensory input bothers avoidant people, so they try to limit the input they
must deal with. Unfamiliar input is distressing and difficult to understand or
organize, so avoiders regularize their experience through rituals, rules and
habits. These provide a high rate of familiar input while limiting exposure to
new input. The threatening nature of change can make sensory avoiders rigid,
uncooperative and withdrawn.

E - Sensory Seeking (High, Active)

Sensory seekers need and enjoy high levels of sensory stimulation, and they
generate extra input for themselves. They are active, engaging and excitable.
They place a high premium on novelty, which can be disruptive in cases
where they do not persist in beneficial activities, abandoning them for
something new once the novelty of the initial activity has worn off.

198
I - Sensory Sensitivity (Low, Passive)
Sensitive people detect more input and notice more sensory events than
others, and comment on them regularly rather than trying to ward them off.
They are distractible and can be complainers. They are helped by
participating in structured experiences so they are not overwhelmed by
unstructured and disruptive input.

Dunn’s sensory profiles have been associated with

psychophysiological correlates for each sensory processing pattern, as well
as specific patterns of habituation and skin conductance response for classes
of individuals sharing strong preferences for one of the four styles. Dunn
relates these sensory processes to models of temperament, and suggests that
sensory preferences form a basis for the manifestation of temperament and
personality. The profile has also been survey-mapped to US nationwide
samples of infants, children and adults with and without disabilities,
producing recommendations for how to structure the sensory environment for
people coping with various conditions.
An interesting point surfaces in comparison other concern structure
models. The P and I styles are often represented as more ‘active’ or engaged
than A or E. P produces effects in instrumental matters and I in
interpersonal/social matters. Conjoined with Dunn’s profiles, this suggests a
kind of displacement. Since P and I are passive at sensory regulation, they
have more need to act externally to control their environmental input. A and
E actively structure their own sensory experience, and so they have less need
to interact with their environment in extrapersonal space. P and I thus
develop expertise in implementing or interacting, and A and E in planning
and visioning.

199
Winnie Dunn: Dimensions and Distinctions

Closed to
Input Active,
Passive,
Unaware Avoid

Low Sensory
Registration Avoiding
High Sensory Low Sensory
Threshold Threshold

Sensory Sensory
Seeking Sensitivity

Active, Passive, Over-

Approach Open to Input aware

200
59. Personality as Information Gating: William P. Nash
On Nash’s account, personality
“evolved specifically to make human

PA
culture possible by managing the flow of
information within the culture, especially Influence Isolation
by mediating teaching and learning,
competition and cooperation, and leading
and following.” (Nash, 1998) All of these
transactions are predicated upon a basic

bidirectional flow of information and

interaction between internal self and E I
function of information gating that directs Incorporation Intimacy
attention and determines openness for the

external social systems, as the situation demands. In this model, personality

disorders are maladaptive gating rhythms that chronically admit and release
too much or too little social information and interaction.
Crossing the dimensions of relative openness to incoming
information and relative openness for outgoing information gives us the
follow expression of the structure of concern.

P – Influence (Closed to incoming, Open for outgoing): Leading, teaching,

selling
A – Isolation (Closed to incoming, Closed for outgoing): Waiting, exercising,
meditating
E – Incorporation (Open to incoming, Closed for outgoing): Following,
learning, empathizing
I – Intimacy (Open to incoming, Open for outgoing): Love relationships,
friendships, psychotherapy

It may be worth mentioning that Nash is a US Navy psychiatrist, in a

stronger command-and-control culture than civilian or free-enterprise
contexts. His PAEI roles thus take their shape in a P-dominant environment.
In entrepreneurial business contexts, E is more typically associated with
leadership, and P with followership.
All four gating styles are functional in the right situations, and
dysfunctional outside of them. Nash speculates that the movement of self
information out into the cultural environment, along with the movement of
cultural information into the self, “has the effect of bringing the inner and
outer worlds into closer approximation.” The goal of personality may thus be

201
a sort of equilibrium, deploying information gating as a way of monitoring
the gap between inner and outer worlds. Motivation to establish a new inner-
outer equilibrium by enabling information and interaction to flow between
them would be proportional to the severity of mismatch detected.
Nash lines up information gating with DSM-IV personality disorder
clusters as follows: P – Antisocial, A – Schizoid, E – Dependent, I –
Borderline. In many civilian-based accounts the E and I roles would be
reversed. However on the timescale of military functions, E would
constantly need to be told what to do (dependent), and the I profile of
preferred interaction values would be continuously disrupted (distressed).

202
60. Biosocial Theory of Personality: C. Robert
Cloninger
Cloninger is a major personality
theorist, who during the mid-1980’s

PA
produced a model of personality Harm
dimensions with three core personality Persistence Avoidance
characteristics which he argued were
heritable and biologically based (Cloninger
1986a; 1986b). He later added a fourth
element to this set. (Cloninger, 1994;
Stallings et al., 1996). The fourth element
had been a facet of one of the previous
three factors that did not prove to be
correlated to the other facets of that factor. E I
Novelty
Seeking
Reward
Dependence

This four-factor model gave a satisfactory account of the heritable cognitive,

perceptual and affective differences underlying temperamental differences.
However, Cloninger felt that this four-factor model ignored the
developmental aspect of personality. It obscured the differences between
two people of similar temperaments, one of whom was self-actualized and
one of whom was not. This reduced its clinical value. He thus later
combined his four factors with three additional factors based partly on
concepts of self-actualization from humanistic psychology (Cloninger, 1994;
Cloninger et al., 1993). These three new factors measured “character” rather
than temperament. I leave them aside to focus on Cloninger’s four
temperamental dimensions, listed below:

P – Persistence (or Happiness Seeking): Determination and tenacity to

achieve a goal, industrious, stable and resolute in the face of frustration or
fatigue. Low persistence leads to underachievement.

A – Harm Avoidance: Intense response to signs of impending aversive

stimuli, resulting in learned tactics for minimize behaviors that may expose
them to punishment, loss or novelty. Cautious, tense, inhibited, easily
fatigued, shy and apprehensive. Low harm avoidance implies people who
are optimistic, open to experience, outgoing, trusting and energetic.
Associated with the 5-HT system.

E – Novelty Seeking: Excited and exhilarated responses to stimuli that are

novel or that signal potential reward or escape from punishment. Frequent
exploration to obtain rewards and avoid structure and monotony. Bases
203
decisions on vague impressions. Low novelty-seeking implies preference for
routine, order, details, frugality and social stability. This behavioral trait is
related to the DA system.

I - Reward Dependence (or Security-Seeking): Responds to stimuli that

suggest a reward is forthcoming, particularly verbal indications of social
succour, approval or sympathy. More able to maintain behaviors that have
been socially acknowledged and reinforced in the past. Low reward
dependence implies introversion, self-reliance and self-directedness.
Associated with the noradrenergic system.

Cloninger: Dimensions and Distinctions

Goals
Self-Sufficient Explore-Wary

Persistence Harm
Avoidance

Venturesome Risk-Averse

Novelty Reward
Seeking Dependence

Explore-Eager Self-
Experiences Insufficient

204
61. Biological Response Styles: L. J. Siever
Siever’s model of personality
dimensions identifies four neurobiological
dispositions which are proposed to explain
personality styles. Disruptions and
amplifications of those same dispositions
result in clinical psychiatric syndromes
(Magnavita, 2002; Siever & Davis, 1991;
PA
Impulsivity/
Aggression
Anxiety /
Inhibition

E I
Siever et al., 1985). In PAEI order, the Cognitive/
dispositions are: Affective
Perceptual
Instability
Organization

P – Impulsivity/Aggression: People with

neurobiological dysfunctions can demonstrate poor impulse control and
aggressive acting-out. This can be manifested as borderline and antisocial
personality disorders.

A – Anxiety/Inhibition: Individuals with faulty neurobiological processes can

experience extreme states of anxiety that may generate avoidant or
obsessive-compulsive personality formations.

E – Cognitive/Perceptual Organization: Thought and perception can lose

their coherence, resulting in schizophrenic/psychotic symptoms, cognitive
disorganization, and schizoid or schizotypal personality disorders.

I – Affective Instability: Neurobiological inadequacy can cause the

dysregulation of affect and emotion, disrupting social relationships, and
generating borderline or histrionic personalities.

205
62. Factors of the Karolinska Scales of Personality:
Ortet et al.
The Karolinska Scales of
Personality provide an inventory of stable

PA
personality traits used primarily for Aggressive
Negative
research rather than clinical purposes. It Non-
Emotionality
contains 135 items grouped into 15 scales. conformity
These scales focus specifically on
biological character dispositions that are

E I
hypothesized to underlie psychological Impulsive
disorders, rather than on personality as a Unsocialized Social
whole. It was culled together primarily Sensation Withdrawal
from existing instruments, guided by Seeking
theoretical considerations rather than
statistical analysis. However, it has since been subjected to much
psychometric testing and validation across many clinical populations, and in
that process it also became clear that somewhere between three and five
factors accounted for much of the variance (Ortet et al., 2002).
Against this background, Ortet and colleagues set out find the most
robust factor analysis of the Karolinska scales. The four factors they isolated
were the following:

P - Aggressive Nonconformity: Aggressiveness, irritability, and low desire to

respond in a socially approved, desirable way.
A – Negative Emotionality: Anxiety, worry, tension, lack of both energy and
assertiveness, characterized by remorse and mistrust.
E - Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking: Non-planning, quick
responding, thrill seeking, need for change, and social maladjustment.
I – Social Withdrawal: Related to extraversion and involvement-detachment,
together with (low) socialization, (low) social desirability, irritability, and
suspicion. This factor is related to both social and emotional distance,
withdrawal, and maladjustment.

While the first three factors are according to Adizes type, the last one is
against type. The factor still highlights sociality as the relevant domain, but
reverses sign compared to the Adizes typology. Strong Integrators would
have a striking low score on Social Withdrawal, compared to people weaker
in Integration. By contrast, the first three factors can be seen as dysfunctions
that emerge from or accompany normal functioning for these types.

206
63. AAAA – The “Four A’s” Model of Personality
Disorders: Austin & Deary
In their factor analysis of the DSM-
III-R’s Personality Disorders
classifications, Austin and Deary (2000)
describe 4 factors that explain most of the
variability across disordered personalities,
consistent with many other 4-factor
personality models. They derive their four
PA
Antisocial Anankastic

E I
factors from a joint factor analysis of the
International Personality Disorder Asocial Asthenic
Examination (IPDE) and the Neuroticism
Extroversion Openness - Five Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI). As one result of this
analysis, they suggest that Eysenck’s 5-factor model, might also be more
simply cast using only 4 categories. Their schema has been labeled the
“Four A’s”, attributing the variance in personality disorders to the following
factors:

P – Antisocial: Very low Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and high

positive loadings for Antisocial, Paranoid, Histrionic and Borderline
personality disorder. Destructively pursues self-interest, seeking or escalating
conflict.

A – Anankastic: No major loadings for any of the personality traits, but high
loadings for Compulsive, Narcissistic and Paranoid personality disorders.
Does not see past own worries, suspicious of others, uses actions or rituals to
manage anxiety.

E – Asocial: Neuroticism with low Extroversion and Conscientiousness, and

significant loadings for Paranoid, Schizotypal and Avoidant personality
disorder. Oversensitive, withdrawn from world, keeping distance and
determined not to return.

I – Asthenic: Neuroticism, with loadings for Dependent, Histrionic,

Borderline and Avoidant personality disorder. Overreactive, ambivalent and
uncertain about relationships, highly dramatic interactions.

207
64. The Thematic Aptitude Test and Story Sequence
Analysis
The Thematic Aptitude Test was
developed by Christina Morgan in the

PA
1930's and 40's, together with Harry Adversity Right/Wrong
Morgan, a physician and biochemist whose
interest in psychology bloomed after
meetings with Freud and especially Jung.
Harry Morgan co-founded and later
directed the Harvard Psychological Clinic
(Teglasi, 2001).
The TAT was a
psychological projection technique based
novel

on the fact that when individuals interpret a

E I
Achievement Relationships

social situation, they are saying more about themselves than about what they
are observing. In a TAT session, subjects are presented with a series of
pictures, each of which depicts a different social situation or event. Their
instructions are to interpret the action in each picture and give an imaginary
reconstruction of the preceding events and the final outcome. It was thought
that the performance of this task would force people to project some of their
own fantasies into the material and so reveal their more pressing
psychological needs.
The test was quite popular in the postwar period. Clinicians found it
useful in eliciting information from patients, but there remained widespread
uncertainty about the interpretation and scoring of the stories patients told.
In response to this uncertainty, Magda Arnold, then Director of Research and
Training, Psychological Services with the Canadian Department of Veterans'
Affairs, developed a technique of abstracting the universal situational-
behavioural ‘maxim’ or ‘moral’ embedded in each story a client might
create. This abstraction of story maxims or imports proceeded according to
definite rules, and the sequence of imports was thought to reveal "the
development of the storyteller's thought from story to story" in a way that
revealed important facts about motivations, values and attitudes (Arnold,
1962). Arnold later accepted a chair at Loyola University, where this TAT
story analysis technique was refined and further codified as a psychological
assessment instrument.
Interestingly, after seven years of empirical studies, with the
elicitation and coding of a vast number of stories, Arnold discovered that all
TAT story imports could be roughly divided into four categories, listed
below in PAEI order:

208
P - Reactions to adversity
A - Issues of right and wrong
E - Achievement, success, happiness, active effort (or the lack of it)
I - Human relationships

Each of these clusters was further subdivided into themes and facets of
themes, but the highest level of analysis specified these four categories.

P - Reaction to adversity - includes response to any kind of adverse situation

except personal failure, which is an E-category.

A - Right and wrong - stories of human action where success and failure is
not the theme, but rather the ethical significance of an action or its personal
consequences.

E - Achievement, success, happiness, active effort (or lack of it) - includes

success or failure in its widest sense, not only success in tasks, but happy
outcomes of any kind. Similarly, category one includes failures of every
kind; unhappiness, disappointment and every kind of unfavourable outcome.
(Mood-relevant: expectation of mood outcome - inherently future oriented.
Anticipated mood=anticipated situation for emotional release.)

I - Human relationships - influence of other characters on story hero, or

influence of hero on them, independent of concerns from the other
categories.

209
65. Interpersonal Circle Models of Personality: Timothy
Leary
Timothy Leary conducted his research into
personality as the head of the Kaiser
Foundation Research Project in the 1950’s
(Leary, 1957). His model of personality is
interpersonal in the sense that personality is
seen to manifest itself primarily in the
context of dyadic relationships, rather than
PA
Dominant- Submissive
Hate -Hate

E I
character traits or clusters of clinical
symptoms. Leary worked in the tradition Dominant- Submissive
of Murray and Morgan, creators of the Love -Love
Thematic Aptitude Test. Murray’s
categories of psychological needs (Murray,
1938) were reorganized and arranged in a circumplex fashion to make the
relationships between them more obvious (Magnavita, 2002).

Leary’s model features eight divisions each with two subdivisions, forming a
circle divided into sixteen categories characterizing patterns of interpersonal
behaviour. However, two intersecting dimensions underlay the progression
of patterns, a Dominance-Submission axis and a Love-Hate (or affiliation-
aggression) axis. Similar axes would emerge in subsequent circumplex
models of temperament and personality. These gives rise to four quadrants,
which Leary noted were similar to the temperaments described by the ancient
Galenic doctrine of the four humours. The quadrants and their associated
subcategories listed below:

P – Dominant-Hate: Competitive, Sadistic, Aggressive, Rebellious

A – Submissive-Hate: Distrustful, Self-Effacing, Masochistic, Docile
E – Dominant-Love: Narcissistic, Managerial, Autocratic
I – Submissive-Love: Responsible, Hyper-normal, Cooperative, Over-
conventional, Dependent

Given the interpersonal focus of this model, a slightly heavier loading on the
I factor is understandable (whereas personal decision making models
sometimes exclude I considerations entirely). Both Leary’s work and
Murray’s work would continue to serve as points of reference in the further
development of circumplex models.

210
66. The Interpersonal Force Field: D. J. Kiesler
Kiesler’s interpersonal circumplex
model has roots in Timothy Leary’s work,

PA
introducing developmental consideration in Hostile Hostile
the development of interpersonal style, Dominant Submissive
interactive role identities and other aspects
of self-definitions (Kiesler, 1983). Early in
life, we situate ourselves on an
interpersonal field bounded by an affliative

E I
dimension (love-hate, friendliness-hostility) Friendly Friendly
and a control dimension (dominance- Dominant Submissive
submission, high status-low status). Our
interactions with others continually
broadcast our claims of how close or intimate we wish to be with others, and
how much dominance and control we are willing to assert. By pushing this
self-presentation towards others over repeated interactions, we pull
reinforcing and validating responses from interactants. This constant push-
pull interplay is described be Kiesler as an interpersonal force field.
Like Leary’s model, sixteen ‘interpersonal claims’ are defined,
within the two dimensions of affiliation and control. Each claim has a
normal and a pathological expression. They are listed below by dimensional
quadrant in PAEI order:

P – Hostile, Dominant
Claim Normal Expression Pathological
Expression
Dominance Controlling Dictatorial
Competitive Critical-Ambitious Rivalrous-Disdainful
Mistrusting Suspicious-Resentful Paranoid-Vindictive
Cold Cold-Punitive Icy-Cruel
Hostile Antagonistic-Harmful Rancorous-Sadistic

211
A – Hostile, Submissive
Claim Normal Expression Pathological
Expression
Submissive Docile Subservient
Unassured Self Doubt – Dependant Abrasive-Helpless
Inhibited Taciturn Unresponsive
Detached Aloof Escapist
Hostile Antagonistic-Harmful Rancorous-Sadistic

E – Friendly, Dominant
Claim Normal Expression Pathological
Expression
Dominance Controlling Dictatorial
Assured Confident-Self Reliant Arrogance-Rigid
Autonomy
Exhibitionistic Spontaneous- Histrionic
Demonstrative
Sociable Outgoing Friendly-Gregarious
Friendly Cooperative-Helpful Devoted-Indulgent

I – Friendly, Submissive
Claim Normal Expression Pathological
Expression
Submissive Docile Subservient
Deferent Respectful-Content Ambitionless-Flattering
Trusting Trusting-Forgiving Gullible-Merciful
Warm Warm-Pardoning All Loving-Absolving
Friendly Cooperative-Helpful Devoted-Indulgent

212
Popular Psychology
Concern-structure-based thinking plays a strong role in popular psychology.
Many different consulting groups and authors develop concern structure
models for various purposes, giving people guidance and direction using
these ideas. There seems to be a steady demand for this kind of product, and
the parsimony and explanatory power it brings.

Many popular concern structure models descend in some way or another

from the Jungian personality functions made popular by the Myers-Briggs
personality type inventory, although some represent new independent
findings as well, based on clinical or consulting experience. Still, my interest
in these models is not so much in their status as independent confirmation
that the structure of concern exists. Rather, I remain impressed by the way
that concern structure thinking emerges as useful for people in how we live
our everyday lives.

213
67. Brain Styles: Marlane Miller
Marlane Miller is president of the
BrainStyles consulting firm, and author of

PA
Brainstyles: Be Who You Really Are (with
David Cherry, creator of the BrainStyles Deliberators Knowers
System), Brainstyles for Lovers: Create
Partnerships That Change Your Life
Without Changing Who You Are, and
Brainstyles: Change Your Life Without

System emphasizes that certain strengths

and problem-solving preferences within us E I
Changing Who You Are (Cherry & Miller, Conceptors Conciliators
1992; Miller, 2004; 1997). The BrainStyles

will always remain strong points for us. The same applies to our various non-
strengths. Becoming aware of our styles allows us to play to our strengths,
rather than losing time in unproductive efforts in areas of non-strength. This
awareness also lets us work to the strengths of people around us, building
better and more successful teams.
Our dominant styles are often invisible to us. We focus on the more
effortful aspects of our working experience, rather than things we do well
effortlessly. However, when unique events occur that require unique
responses rather than old solutions, our hard-wired problem-solving styles
are most often activated. Again, knowing the styles of different team
members can help settle who should lead solution efforts for different kinds
of these "time-zero events".

The four BrainStyles are listed below in PAEI order.

P – Deliberators: Balanced, rational and practical, willing to win points using

intimidation. Tend to be uninterested or unaware of emotional issues
surrounding decisions. Deliberators stick closely to known solutions,
favoring clear logic, conventional reasoning and established facts. They
enjoy being challenged, and prefer to discover that they are wrong rather than
being told so. They are steady producers who tolerate routine well.

A – Knowers: Logical, analytical, orderly. Can delay or drag out decision

making by over-examining each option, or come to very fast decisions based
on knowledge or mastery of systems. These fast knowledge-based decisions
can seem cold and unemotional, since they exclude the human element and

214
prioritize rules above the particulars of any one case. Knowers thrive on
research and planning, and they dislike messy executions, successful or not.

E – Conceptors: Insightful, original, using both structured thinking and

emotion. Conceptors favor unconventional thinking and try to persuade
others to do the same. They thrive on chaos, tolerate risk well, and change
their interests often. Their contributions are not always understood by other
styles, but teams often adjust their direction anyways after conceptors speak.
Conceptors often feel isolated and misunderstood, and they need recognition.
They can become very frustrated when they are unable to communicate their
ideas in a way that motivates their co-workers to follow them.

I – Conciliators: Socially skillful and empathetic networkers. Conciliators

love encountering new people, new situations, and new challenges. They
seek harmony and mutually successful outcomes. They prefer make
commitments with care, and if they are hurried then they will often go along
with it only to experience serious misgivings, anguish and regret later.
Conciliators tend to focus their interest, creativity and inventiveness on the
here-and-now. They require approval, social support and shared victories to
remain highly motivated. Attending to their interpersonal needs can be
energy-consuming.

Most people can identify their dominant style fairly easily. Mature
individuals may recognize a base of two of three styles. Typically, one style
will be weak, and that will be the style that requires the most effort to
understand, appreciate and deal with. That is the area where it most helps to
learn tolerance and respect for the different strengths of other BrainStyles.

215
68. The CAPS Model of Personal Styles: Merril & Reid
The C.A.P.S. (or CAPS) model
describes what the authors refer to as
“social style” – patterns of behavior that

model has arisen in the domain of

organizational interaction and human
resource management, and is used by
PA
other people can observe within us. The Controllers Analyzers

E I
consultants and presenters on these and
other issues related to human relationships. Promoters Supporters
This model is said to be based on original
research, balancing the specificity needed
for explanatory usefulness and the
generality need for broad applicability (Merrill & Reid, 1981). The model
present four distinct social styles. Individual people are considered to have
one or two styles that they manifest most regularly (especially under stress),
but everyone is thought to express all four styles in some proportion.
The four modes of CAPS styles are: Controllers, Analyzers,
Promoters and Supporters. These four styles are described below.

P - Controllers
Controllers are socially outspoken and they prefer to take charge of tasks,
insisting that things be done their way. They demand immediate action from
people who work with them, even though they have a hard time describing
what they want in ways that would enable others to accomplish those tasks.
They care about concrete results much more than human relationships. Their
decisions and statements can be hasty or short-sighted. They do not take
criticism well, they hate detailed planning, and they find it very difficult to
apologise for anything. They are therefore extremely productive as
individuals, but when success depends upon careful communication and
coordination, they tend to be error prone. They feel most enabled when they
have a sense of themselves as powerful.

A - Analysers
Analysers are cerebral perfectionists, approaching problems through logic
and rationality. They are extremely details-oriented, risk-averse, criticism-
averse and error-averse. They plan meticulously and consider all options
before making a decision or acting. They are tactful and reserved in
communication, and they dislike pushy, sloppy or aggressive people.
Analysers shun the spotlight, and rarely voice their opinion unless they are

216
absolutely certain about their position. They are stronger at planning than at
execution. They dislike ambiguity, and prefer information to be concrete,
complete and preferably measurable. They are uncomfortable making quick
decisions with what they consider to be insufficient information. This makes
them less effective in turbulent situations, and less ready to act on sudden
opportunities. Analyzers can be uncomfortable to communicate with because
they may seem to be scrutinizing and criticizing your position rather than
listening to the point you are trying to make.

E - Promoters
Promoters are optimistic, opportunistic, persuasive, spontaneous and
expressive. They focus on "big picture" issues and tend to be sloppy with
details and follow-up. They are oriented towards novelty and the future, and
thus often leave tasks unfinished. They tend to be very creative and are often
unreasonably ambitious in the plans they produce. Promoters typically juggle
several projects at once, succeeding with some and failing with others.
Impatient with the status quo, they often generate new all-embracing visions
in one great leap. Promoters are not shy about discussing their ideas. They
hate feeling bored and trapped.

I - Supporters
Supporters are the social conveners within their organizations. They have
excellent interpersonal skills, and are generally appreciated for this. They do
the emotional work in the organization, helping people manage their feelings
as they work together. Supporters are sensitive and excitable, and can
sometimes be easily hurt. Supporters often lend their talents to
communications roles within organizations, and often exert a leadership
influence that may not be obvious at first. Supporters dislike being alone and
they dislike holding unpopular positions during conflicts, making them
susceptible to peer pressure and groupthink. They can sometimes be
susceptible to manipulation, both using it and being the target of it. They are
also afraid of being taken advantage of, many times with good reason. Some
supporters can be very unforgiving when crossed.

Good communication in the workplace involves both knowing one’s

own preferred CAPS styles and the strengths and weaknesses implied in this,
and knowing how to collaborate and communicate with people whose
preferred styles are different.

217
69. The Four Temperament Patterns: D. Keirsey, L. V.
Berens
Linda Berens builds her model of the four

PA
temperaments on the psychological theories
of David Keirsey, focusing on the core Artisan Guardian
needs, values, talents, and behaviors of (Tactics) (Logistics)
each temperament patterns (Berens, 2000;
Keirsey, 1998; 1995; Choiniere & Keirsey,
1992). Keirsey develops a simplification of

E I
Jungian personality theory for practical
application, and Berens sees her work as a Rationalist Idealist
further refinement of this system (Strategy) (Diplomacy)
specifically for organizational and personal
consulting. Berens’ work is used and
referenced in a variety of consulting enterprises. Her Keirseian model is
described below in PAEI order.

P – The Artisan (Creative Use of Tactics)

Artisans need the freedom to act without hindrance and to see tangible results
from their actions. They pride themselves on skilful performance, and they
can be very creative in using available resources to reach their goals. They
like to keep busy, and enjoy variety and stimulation. They are talented at
using tools, whatever domain they may be working in, practical, cultural,
artistic, technological, economic, scientific, etc.

A – The Guardian (Creative Use of Logistics)

Guardians value stability and security in their environment, and reliability
and responsibility in their communities. They care about their good social
standing, and always try to ascertain that they are doing the responsible thing
themselves. They are very aware of rules, procedures, and protocol. They
trust hierarchy and authority and are taken aback when others rebel. Due to
their focus on tradition and procedure, Guardians are good at foreseeing
possible disruptions.

E – The Rationalist (Creative Use of Strategy)

Rationalists are driven to master concepts and knowledge. They want to
understand the most fundamental principles of everything, and they love
grand unifying theories. Expertise, competence and conceptual coherence
draw their admiration and respect. They are progressive thinkers who

218
analyze situations deeply and explore new unforeseen possibilities. They are
likely to participate in research and analysis, seeking out patterns and
developing new concepts.

I – The Idealist (Creative Use of Diplomacy)

Idealists are motivated by working towards a higher good. They prefer
cooperative interactions that are grounded in a shared ethical code or
collective purpose. They value social unity and personal authenticity.
Idealists can be skilled at mediation and conflict resolution within groups,
and they are good friends and counsellors when it comes to helping
individuals reach their potential. Idealists connect people by encouraging
empathy and pointing out deeper commonalities of interests and
interdependencies.

219
70. Sexual Styles: Sandra Scantling
In her clinical psychology practice
counselling couples around intimacy issues,
Sandra Scantling perceived structure of
concern dynamics operating in adult sexual
interaction (Scantling, 1998). She names
the sexual-style quadrants
representative animals, written in PAEI
after PA
Stabilizer
(Bear)
Worker
(Bee)

E I
order as follows:
Player Energizer
(Otter) (Lion)
P – Bear: The Stabilizer
A – Bee: The Worker
E – Otter: The Player
I – Lion: The Energizer

P – Bear: Bears are gruff and not terribly articulate about needs or emotions.
They would prefer if their partners just “knew” or could “guess” what their
sexual wants or boundaries were, so things could “just happen” without
much need for discussion. They need to be handled with care because they
are not adept at negotiating emotions, but they can be extremely giving.
They sometimes get more focused on pleasing their partners than themselves,
which can lead to problems of arousal and performance.

A – Bee: Bees are systematic perfectionists. Their houses are impeccable,

and they may be unable to settle down for sex if a chore remains undone.
They may take a technical approach to sex, trying to plan sex dates or to
apply all the recommendations of a sex manual to their lovemaking. They
have a hard time with spontaneity and affective decisions. To get Bees to
relax and play, you may need to plan a romantic getaway, far from the daily
grind. Loyal and devoted, they can find it hard to relinquish control in bed.

E – Otter: Otters are boundlessly enthusiastic and creative, so long as

activities are fun and the restrictions and limitations are minimal. They will
resist doing routine tasks and activities, unless they are presented as a prelude
to a fun payoff. Otters dislike strong, categorical commitments, and base
decisions on instinct. Enjoy their passion and playfulness, and help them
stay grounded enough to get through the daily tasks of life.

220
I – Lion: Lions love attention, and fear abandonment. They care about
fashion and appearances, and can be critical of themselves and others if they
don’t measure up. They want to be socially central and to lead, but they like
following too sometimes. They love sexy and romantic talk. Lions tend to
be comparative and thus sensitive about their prowess, which can hinder
performance. If they feel appreciated, their passion blooms.

Scantling points out that most people have a mixed style with primary and
secondary animals, and one can reflect one’s style to varying degrees. She
also discusses the sexual and relationship dynamics that develop between
lovers with matching or different styles.

221
71. Living Your Colors: Tom Maddron
Tom Maddron has developed a popularized
version of temperament theory with roots in

PA
the MBTI and the writings of Keirsey and
Bates (Maddron, 2002). In PAEI order, the Orange Green
styles are:

P – Orange: Freedom, action, sensation,

E I
hands-on, independent, energetic,
impulsive Blue Gold
A – Green: Rationality, objectivity, logic,
data-based, analytical, indecisive,
respectful
E – Blue: Authenticity, honesty, empathy, enthusiastic, insightful, creative,
romantic
I – Gold: Service, responsibility, order, giving, recognition, loyalty,
commitment

Maddron describes the styles in more detail including positive and negative
aspects of each and how all four interact in a person’s psychological profile.
He also discusses color dynamics on the job, within intimate relationships
and in families between parents and children.

222
72. Birds of Different Feathers: Hately & Schmidt
This occupational self-assessment
instrument popularizes temperament for
work teams, using birds to symbolize
different character types and working
environments (Hately & Schmidt, 1998).
The types are listed below: PA
Hawk Owl

P – Hawk: Commanding, direct,

productive, no small talk, fast, impatient,
thrive under challenge and high pressure.
Hawk work units are fast-paced, action- E I
Peacock Dove

oriented, no-nonsense and dynamic. High rate of change and many chances
to shine. Little supervision, direct and blunt communications.

A – Owl: Detailed and practical, focused on objective data, steady,

methodical, thorough, neat, well-organized, slow and well-considered
speech. Owl work units are stable and predictable, emphasize policy and
procedure, slow to move, quiet, neat, tidy and calm.

E – Peacock: Lively, expressive, big-picture thinker, enjoy holding peoples’

attention, telling stories, change, novelty, fun, dislikes routine, structure,
rules, details. Peacock work units are creative, energetic, innovative,
democratic, relaxed, unstructured, visionary, entrepreneuring, noisy, messy,
fun and highly interactive.

I – Dove: Team-player, mediator, well-liked, deferent, solicitous, enjoying

collaboration, cooperation, group activities, camaraderie, harmony, dislikes
conflict, confrontation. Dove work teams are collaborative, supportive,
participatory, harmonious and consensus-driven. Work is steady and
manageable, and competition within the team is discouraged.

223
Education
Personal style typologies abound in educational theory almost as much as
they do in personality psychology, because educators have no choice but to
face and struggle with individual learning style differences in the classroom.
Some of these models again draw upon the Jungian tradition as popularized
in the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator, but others represent
independent findings.

Besides theories of learning styles, we find theories of learning skills,

cognitive activities, and other educationally relevant phenomena.
Educational theory is a rich source of concern structure thinking – a fact
worth keeping in mind. It suggests that it might be worthwhile looking at the
field of machine learning through a concern-structure lens, which is
something I did not do to any significant degree while preparing this book.

224
73. Experiential Learning Theory: David A. Kolb
The learning style theory associated with
David Kolb is one of the best known
models of the experiential learning process
(Kolb, 1984; 1981; 1976; Kolb et al. 1971).
Experiential learning is represented as an
integrated process which starts with
concrete experience. This experience
PA
Convergers Assimilators

E I
supports further observation and reflection.
Reflective observation provides the basis Divergers Accomo-
for the deduction of new behavioural dators
actions to try out. This new action then
provides the basis for new concrete
experience, continuing the cycle. (It is interesting to compare this model,
based on early work by the Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin, with Nonaka
and Taeguchi’s model of knowledge management, in which the learning
process is represented quite differently.)

In this model, two bipolar dimensions of cognitive growth are proposed: the
active - reflective dimension and the abstract - concrete dimension. The
active - reflective dimension ranges between direct physical participation at
its active pole to detached observation at its reflective pole. The abstract -
concrete dimension focuses more on the object of experience than the subject
of experience, indicating whether the focus is on tangible objects at one
extreme or theoretical concepts at another.

Kolb ((Kolb, 1981)) later went on to suggest four types of learners associated
with the four stages of learning. There are listed below in PAEI order:

P – Convergers
A – Assimilators
E – Divergers
I – Accommodators

225
 2.
Reflective Concrete
Divergers
Observation Experience

3.
1.
Assimilat- Accomodat-
ors ors

Abstract Active
Concepts 4. Experiments
Convergers

P – Convergers: From Abstract Concepts to Active Experiments

Convergers, in the abstract conceptualization and active experimentation
space, solve problems and apply ideas. Their approach is pragmatic,
deductive and unemotional. They prefer to work with things instead of
people. By working too fast and leaping to conclusions, they sometimes end
up solving the wrong problems.

A – Assimilators: From Reflective Observation to Abstract Concepts

Assimilators, positioned between reflective observation and abstract
conceptualization, prefer defining problems and formulating theories. Their
approach is predominantly rational. Once they have built their inductive
model, they focus on it rather than ongoing experience. It may thus begin to
diverge from experience, losing its practical application.

E – Divergers: From Concrete Experience to Reflective Observation

Divergers are most comfortable between the concrete experience and
reflective observation stages. They excel at detecting patterns, recognizing
problems and generating ideas. They are imaginative, empathic and
understanding, but can be indecisive in the face of alternatives, wanting to
explore them all.

226
I - Accommodators: From Active Experiments to Concrete Experience
Accommodators operate in an overwhelmingly interactive mode. They are
most comfortable in the active experimentation and concrete experience
space, implementing plans and engaging in new activity. They rely more on
feeling than on reason, and they learn by personal involvement. They are
quick to engage any challenge, and prefer to learn by trial and error. They
are good risk-takers, but poor at prioritizing tasks, sometimes getting
absorbed in seemingly pointless improvements to already complete tasks,
merely to enjoy the pleasures of interaction.

David Kolb: Dimensions and Distinctions

Thinking

Converging Assimilating

Diverging Accommodating

Watching Doing
Feeling

227
74. Learning Styles: Honey & Mumford
Building on the work of Kolb,
Honey and Mumford define four learning

PA
styles. The model is quite similar to
Pragmatists Theorists
Kolb’s, and it has enjoyed considerable
uptake in educational circles (Honey &
Mumford, 1982).

E I
P – Pragmatists: These individuals are keen Activists
Reflectors
to try out ideas, theories and techniques to
see if they work in practice. They are
pragmatic and grow bored with long
discussions. They seek out solutions with
determination, and value new ideas if they have practical applications. They
prefer to reach decisions and implement actions quickly.

A – Theorists: Theorists enjoy collecting and integrating data to form

complex but logically sound solutions. They like to analyze, synthesize and
think things through. They can be impersonal, detached people dedicated to
rational objectivity.

E – Reflectors: These people like to stand back and ponder experiences,

postponing conclusions and ruminating over possibilities. They gather
information and think through the experiences thoroughly. They are
thoughtful, and they often have a slightly distant, tolerant air towards others.

I – Activists: These people enjoy new experiences. They are gregarious,

open-minded and enthusiastic. They thrive on challenge and new
experiences, and strongly prefer immediacy and spontaneity to planning or
regimentation.

228
75. Learning Styles & Multiple Intelligences: Silver,
Strong & Perini
Efforts to help educators cope with
individual differences between learners

PA
have drawn upon many sources, including
Mastery Understand-
Jungian personality and learning styles, and
Howard Gardener’s theory of multiple ing
intelligences (verbal-linguistic, logical-
mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-
kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and
naturalist-environmental). Both models
insist that we all have access to all
styles/intelligences, but that we are
particularly strong in one or two of them. E I
Self-
Expression
Interpersonal

In a book called So Each May Learn, Silver et al. (Silver et al. 2000;
1997) combine these two frameworks to create tools for lesson planning.
From the Jungian perspective, they cross the perceiving (sensing-intuition)
and judging (thinking-feeling) dimensions to produce four learning styles, as
follows:

P – Mastery Style (Sensing-Thinking)

A – Understanding Style (Intuitive-Thinking)
E – Self-Expressive Style (Intuitive-Feeling)
I – Interpersonal Style (Sensing-Feeling)

The authors connected these styles to Gardener’s multiple

intelligences in a three-step process. First, they spilt each intelligence four
ways, defining a structure of concern for each intelligence by identifying the
mastery, understanding, self-expressive and interpersonal aspects of each.
They then looked at Jungian categorizations of careers, and listed job
categories that drew heavily upon different aspects of each intelligence. They
give the example of verbal-linguistic mastery (journalist, technical writer),
understanding (lawyer, academic), self-expression (copywriter, novelist) and
intrapersonal aspects (salesperson, counsellor). Finally they listed the tasks
associated with these professions to come up with four categories of
activities for each intelligence. Based on this, a lesson-planning matrix of
styles-by-intelligences allows teachers to make sure that they use a variety of
techniques to engage their learners in every lesson.

229
 The authors expand upon the different learning styles at length. An
expansion the styles given as dispositions follows below.

P – Mastery Style (Sensing-Thinking)

Sensitivity To: Acts, details, physical actions, steps.
Inclination For: Remembering, describing, manipulating, ordering.
Ability To: Organize, report, build, plan and execute projects.

A – Understanding Style (Intuitive-Thinking)

Sensitivity To: Gaps/flaws, questions, patterns, ideas.
Inclination For: Analysing, testing/proving, examining, connecting .
Ability To: Argue, research, develop theories, explain.

E – Self-Expressive Style (Intuitive-Feeling)

Sensitivity To: Hunches, images, possibilities, inspiration.
Inclination For: Predicting/speculating, imagining, generating ideas,
developing insights.
Ability To: Develop original solutions, think metaphorically, articulate
ideas, express and create.

I – Interpersonal Style (Sensing-Feeling)

Sensitivity To: Feelings, people, gut reactions, experiences.
Inclination For: Supporting, personalizing, expressing emotions, experiential
learning.
Ability To: Build trust and rapport, empathize, respond, teach.

230
76. The Mind Styles Model: Anthony Gregorc
The Mind Styles Model was developed
from Anthony Gregorc’s earlier Energic
Model of Styles. It is a model of individual
differences in thought and learning that has
had strong uptake in the educational field,
and some impact on other fields. Gregorc
focuses on how information is grasped
PA
Concrete
Sequential
Abstract
Sequential

E I
perceptually, and on how that perceived
information is then organized and arranged. Concrete Abstract
Perception and ordering mediate our Random Random
relationship to the world, and different
minds thus relate to the world in different
ways (Gregorc, 1982).

Our perceptual ability has two qualities: abstractness (pattern-level

perception) and concreteness (instance-level perception). Our ordering
ability also has two qualities: randomness and sequentialness. Each ability
forms a dimension of style, with its two qualities defining the poles.
Crossed, the two dimensions delineate four mind styles:

P – Concrete Sequential (CS)

Pragmatic, objective, instinctive, logical, methodical and deliberate. CS
learners can be perfectionists with an eye for detail and discrepancy. They
focus on tangible results, and their inventiveness is directed towards making
things work better, rather than creating entirely novel things. People who are
strongly CS prefer busy, stable and orderly environments, and practical
pursuits. Focus on product.

A – Abstract Sequential (AS)

Reflective, analytical, conventional and methodical. AS learners view life in
abstract terms, relating more to signs, symbols, knowledge, concepts and
ideas than to physical events. They dissect their thoughts into branching
patterns of sections and sub-sections, which seem two-dimensional. AS-style
creativity expresses itself in the synthesis and development of models and
theories. They prefer quiet, orderly environments and intellectual challenges.
Focus on process over product.

231
E – Concrete Random (CR)
Intuitive, adventurous, instinctive and impulsive, “in” the physical world but
looking beyond it. Able to “zoom out” from events to see the circumstances
framing them. Focuses on both process and product, concerned with
applications, methods and underlying causes. CR-style creativity produces
original and unique inventions. They prefer experientially stimulating
environments featuring change, novelty and competition.

I – Abstract Random (AR)

Sensitive, empathic, holistic, cautious, perceptive, spiritual. Abstract random
learners use their feelings and emotions to make sense of their experience.
They are focused on close relationships, establishing strong rapport with
others. Their creativity is expressive in nature and often includes musical or
artistic talent. People strong in AR thinking prefer emotionally meaningful
experiences and commitments, in vibrant, active environments.

232
77. Mathematical Discovery: George Polya
George Polya was Hungarian-born
mathematician and educator interested in

PA
problem-solving techniques. His first book Mobilization Isolation
on mathematical reasoning How to Solve It
(Polya, 1945) is credited as the document
which popularized the term ‘heuristic’
(Baron, 1994). In a later work on
mathematical reasoning (Polya, 1965)
Polya identified four tactics of problem-
solving consistent with the structure of
concern. They are listed below in PAEI
order: E I
Combination Organization

P – Mobilization: By struggling through a problem, an investigator activates

more knowledge and gathers more material towards a solution.

A – Isolation: Reducing complexity by focusing on one small detail at a time,

shifting a very narrow attentional spotlight through the problem structure and
staying with each item until it is a fully evaluated as possible.

E – Combination: The assembly of parts into wholes, into more harmonious

Gestalts.

I – Organization: Connecting together mobilized knowledge, organizing

separate parts into a purposeful whole.

Polya represents these operations as points on a diamond, connected

by edges describing further mental operations that connect the four points.
Isolation and Mobilization are connected through Recognition, such that we
focus in on something recognizable and work at it, or work at something and
recognize a pattern to examine more closely. Mobilization and Combination
are joined by Remembering – a pattern-completion function that is often
sparked by recognized elements to support further mobilization.
On the Organization side, Combination and Organization often
Supplement each other, with part-to-part relationships and part-to-whole
relationships each clarifying the other. Isolation is useful for Organization
by clarifying distinctions and allowing elements to be Regrouped.
Regrouping can also single out targets for Isolation.
233
 This is like a cue-triggered version of PAEI responses, rather than
impulse-driven or perspective-driven.

Mobilization Recognition Isolation

Remembering Regrouping

Combination Supplementing Organization

234
78. Theory of Attentional and Personal Style: Robert
Nideffer
The Theory of Attentional and
Personal Style was developed by Robert

PA
Nideffer in the field of sport psychology Focused Systematic
(Nideffer, 1976a). It is used primarily in the
analysis and training of athletic behavior,
specifically attentional focus and
concentration. In this model, two
dimensions of attention are recognized:
width (broad to narrow) and direction
(external to internal).
A broad scope of attention takes in
many items at once, and would be
E I
Strategic Aware

appropriate for a footballer charging up a busy field. The typical focus of a

narrow attentional scope would be limited to one thing or a small number of
things. A baseball player at bat ready to swing would benefit from
maintaining a narrow focus.
Internally-focused attention dwells upon the person’s own thoughts
and feelings. A high-jumper preparing to jump by mentally rehearsing would
have this internal focus. By comparison, a goalie in a hockey game watching
the opposing team draw near would certainly shift to a strong external
attentional focus.
Nideffer crosses these two dimensions, yielding four attentional
styles as follows:

P – Narrow + External: Focused

A – Narrow + Internal: Systematic
E – Broad + Internal: Strategic
I – Broad + External: Aware

The Focused style (narrow-external) is the primary control style. It is

used whenever a task is actually performed in real time, which clearly puts it
in the P domain. The Systematic style (narrow-internal) is a rehearsal or
preparatory-checklist style, and it also applies to systematic and conscious
efforts to regulate one's inner state and arousal levels. These are A-type
processes of anticipatory or retrograde control. Broad-internal or Strategic
attention involves analyzing patterns over time to develop useful strategies or
plans for the future. These cognitive processes (strategic orientation) and
235
time frames (long-term, future-oriented) fit the E profile. Broad-external
awareness requires sensitive attention to the total situation. Limbic and
cortical responsiveness must both be engaged for quick and labile responses
to dynamic circumstances. In survival situations this preserves life, in sport it
helps one's team avoid traps and seize opportunities and in social settings it
alerts one to any sign of defection or conflict in the room (Nideffer, 1976b).
Across the various stages of athletic training and performance, all of
these styles of concentration will be needed for one purpose or another.
Specific forms of concentration may be more heavily implicated than others
during actual competition, according to the sport. Furthermore, people will
tend to have a preferred style of attending, which they may use a their default
state (2). Most people can switch attentional styles smoothly, but it still helps
competitive athletes to know about their preferred style and biases, compared
to the demands of their sport. This will help them identify the kinds of
effortful concentration they most need to apply.
Sport psychology is perhaps the quintessential P-style branch of
psychology, so all four subdomains of Nideffer’s schema, are subsumed
under a general P imperative. Sports psychology in general studies P-style
mental processes, but there are PAEI aspects of these processes at finer levels
of analysis.

Nideffer: Dimensions and Distinctions

Narrow

Focused Systematic

External Internal

Strategic Aware

Broad

236
79. Four Models for Learning Negotiation Skills:
Nadler, Thompson & Van Boven
Based on a literature review,
Nadler, Thompson and Van Boven (2003)
uncovered the four most common methods
described for learning negotiation skills.
The survey covered both explicit
instruction and experiential/self-taught
learning accounts:
PA
Analogical Didactic

P – Analogical Learning: Transfer and

adapt strategies across similar situations.
A – Didactic Learning: Explicit instruction
based on principles and their application.
E I
Revelation Observation

E – Information Revelation: Strategic readjustment after gaining info about

other party, learning by discovery.
I – Observational Learning: Modeling or learning by imitation.

These researchers conducted an experiment to see how these

methods compared. In the interactive domain of negotiation, it is perhaps
unsurprising that their observational learning group of subjects showed the
largest increase in negotiation performance. The learning seems to have been
largely tacit though, as they were the least articulate in describing the
principles that had helped them improve. Analogical learning was also
effective, and related to the task schemas that subjects developed in
undertaking specific negotiations. Reported task schemas did not relate to
performance for the other styles.

237
80. Mutual Dependence of Challenge and Support:
Brigid Reid
In the domain of nursing education,
Brigid Reid has described the interaction

PA
between levels of challenge and levels of Confirmation
Stasis
support, to explain the behavioral reactions
to change initiatives among working
professionals in professional development
settings (Reid, 1993; Palmer et al., 1994;
McGill & Brockbank, 2004).(Reid, 1993)
(Palmer, Burns, & Bulman, 1994) (McGill
& Brockbank, 2004)).
Adult learners are active creators of
meaning during educational events. They
E I
Growth Retreat

can be assumed to seek meaning and to construct it, and learning experiences
can be constructed so that they enable this engagement. That means that
educators should provide them with challenges that stimulate or require
changes to their current ways of thinking. But this challenge has to be
balanced against the right amount of support. With too little support,
learners will retreat from the challenging stimulus, sensing that they do not
have the resources to engage it. Skilful teaching or skilful coaching requires
balance, which is often acknowledged in the field of sport with the
observation that good coaches can demand a lot from their athletes, in part
because they give so much to their athletes in return.

There are four zones of interaction between challenge and support, listed in
PAEI order below. It should be kept in mind that the challenge described in
this model is conceptual challenge – the challenging of old ideas, forcing us
to think in a new way. Support can likewise be thought of as conceptual in
this context, in the sense that professionally produced textbooks provide
more conceptual support to students than do journal articles in specialist
journals.

P – Knowledge Confirmation (Highly Supportive Setting, Low Challenge)

When an information processing or discovery task is well supported (by prior
learning, well-designed learning materials, a responsive teacher, multiple
available resources, knowledgeable peers, etc.), and when the level of
challenge for that task is low, then the task will mainly serve to confirm
existing knowledge, rather than generating new knowledge. Many such
confirmatory tasks can be completed in a limited time, compared to more

238
complex, less tractable tasks. Conversely, if one is concerned with
completing many tasks in a short time period, they must be relatively simple
and well-structured (low challenge).

The P style can handle very high levels of challenge in terms of throughput
(the rate at which results can be produced), but this very strength means that
there is no time to spend exploring anomalies or cases that do not fit their set
of solutions heuristics. P tactics work best over known event types, rather
than complex unknowns. When an agent is well supported, and the pressure
to reframe experience is low, existing knowledge and mastery levels are
confirmed. This experience of confirmation is one of the major pleasures of
P.

A – Knowledge Stasis (Low Levels of Support, Low Challenge)

In a situation where there is little support for exploring new ideas, but also
little in the way of challenges that force exploration, homeostatic norms
emerge, and aberrations are simply assimilated to those norms as much as
possible. In this mode, proposals to construct new concepts, procedures or
skills seem risky and unnecessary – a costly and painstaking process, with no
guarantee of success. A fair bit of support would have to be added to move
from this state of stasis into a state where reframing and reformulating ideas
seems like a useful and profitable thing to do.

E – Knowledge Growth (High Support, High Challenge)

In settings which encourage growth, some developmental “free time” is
created wherein ideas can be experimented with, taken apart and criticized,
recombined and realigned, all at a very low cost. These conditions are
conducive to conceptual growth and refinement.

I – Retreat from Learning (Low Support, High Challenge)

High challenge with low support makes for an experience of being aggressed
or overwhelmed by the complexity of input. There is no success in continued
solo efforts. The person can either default to stasis, or begin to seek out the
help of other people or other resources to provide the scaffolding needed in
order to engage the challenge from a stronger position. This support-seeking
behavior is an I tactic for overcoming excessive challenge.

239
B. Reid: Dimensions and Distinctions

Low
Challenge

Confirmation Stasis

High Support Low Support

Growth Retreat

High
Challenge

240
Philosophy, Religion and Historical Sources
Concern structure thinking is not strictly a modern phenomenon. It
shows up in many ancient sources, as well as in contemporary reflections
upon perennial questions. This section showcases models that flesh out some
of this historical background.
One pattern emerges in several ancient sources that deserves mention
here. Sometimes, a three-part model shows up which seems to divide up
naturally along concern-structure lines. This raises the question of the
missing fourth style – where is it at? In this section of the book, specifically
in the ancient Greek and ancient Hindu sources of concern structure thinking,
the missing fourth style of the structure of concern forms the context within
which the other three styles are explained.
For example, Hinduism has a very strong A-style agenda, defining
and describing the categories and levels of reality. Within the context of this
A-type activity of “organizing the cosmos”, the other three styles are
articulated as a three-part typology. Ancient Greek medicine, by contrast,
was more heavily an E activity of exploration, diagnosis and discovery.
Within the context of this E activity, PA and I styles are visible. E is often
assimilated to the context of medical discovery itself.
If we were to look at length for three-part concern structure models
missing the fourth element, it would be interesting to see how many we
would find, and if we would find that the fourth element was often
assimilated to the activity context surrounding the articulation of the three-
style model. For now I merely note the possibility, and illustrate in the cases
I have been discussing above.

241
81. Four World Hypotheses: Stephen Pepper
In 1942, the American philosopher
Stephen Pepper wrote a book called World
Hypotheses in which he described four

people use to establish truth criteria for the

kinds of explanations they will accept.
Pepper’s model is thus epistemological, but
PA
basic world views or root metaphors which Mechanist Formist

E I
was never picked up in philosophical
circles to any great degree. Instead, it found Organicist Contextualist
its way into debates around theoretical
orientations in developmental psychology,
cross-cultural psychology and behavioural
psychology. It has had a diffuse impact on other fields as well. The four
world views are given in PAEI order, below.

P – Mechanist Metaphor: People operating out of this world view explain

things by cause and effect relationships of parts within a whole.

A – Formist Metaphor: This is a taxonomic or classificationist approach to

understanding. Giving everything a label within a system of labels provides
the sense of structural fullness that counts as understanding in this world
view.

E – Organicist Metaphor: This is a systems approach to understanding,

focusing on organic wholes that are more than the sums of their interacting
parts. It is a view of forests instead of trees.

I – Contextualist Metaphor: This approach to understanding is embedded in

the particular historical and contextual circumstances that make this situation
unique. It is a relativistic way of seeing the world.

Pepper schema has much in common with the synthesis of

personality typologies by Alan Miller also covered in this catalog, and his
categories of: P-Reductionists, A-Schematists, E-Gnostics and I-Romantics.

242
82. Reason and Ethics: Sean O’Connell
In Decisions and Dilemmas: A
Primer in Ethical Theory, Sean O’Connell
introduces principles of reasoning and
categories of ethical argument. These are
offered as an introduction to philosophy,
specifically the subdomains of critical
thinking and applied ethics (O’Connell,
P
Rationality

A
Objectivity

E I
1994). Each of these two models reflects
the structure of concern. They are Coherence Clarity
described in turn below.
O’Connell’s introduction to critical
thinking presents the following four
principles that philosophers are said to use

P A
when evaluating arguments (presented in Teleological Deonto-
PAEI order): logical

P – The Principle of Rationality

A – The Principle of Objectivity

E I
E – The Principle of Coherence Virtue & Contract-
I – The Principle of Clarity Character arianism

P – The Principle of Rationality

Claims must be supported by reasons, and only the best possible reasons. If
there is no valid link to evidence that will back the claim, there is no reason
to pay attention to it. Scepticism and the immediate rejection of weak
arguments are implied.

A – The Principle of Objectivity

The reasoning should be good for everyone. No matter where you are, if you
accept the premises, you can repeat the reasoning to arrive at the conclusions
without disagreement. The reasoning is acceptable to all parties. The pre-
emptive avoidance of dispute is implied.

E – The Principle of Coherence

Claims must be either true or false, not both. If a body of ideas sometimes
affirms two incompatible truths (violating the principles of non-contradiction
and the excluded middle), then a higher-order argument needs to be

243
constructed to clarify this anomaly and rectify the entire body of thought.
Synoptic or higher-order argument structures are implied.

I – The Principle of Clarity

Conclusions and their warrants should always be presented in the clearest
possible language, so that consensus regarding their meaning and import can
be reached. The mutual orientation of many agents around a common
ground of shared representations is implied.
In addition to these principles of informal reasoning, O’Connell
further offers a typology of normative ethical theories that also falls along the
lines of the structure of concern.

P – Teleological theories
A – Deontological theories
E – Virtue and Character
I – Contractarianism

P – Teleological theories
Acts and rules are defined as right or wrong by virtue of the outcomes they
bring about. Includes utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories. It is
easy to justify violating a rule or procedure in this framework if the most
ethical outcome seems to require it.

A – Deontological theories
Acts are right or wrong to the degree to which they respect or violate moral
rules or maxims. Defining the rule properly can be a delicate procedure, but
once it has been accepted as right then it is always wrong to violate it.
Following the rules becomes everyone’s moral duty, even if the
consequences are unpleasant or sub-optimal at times. Following the rule has
a value in itself which far compensates for the aversive outcome.

E – Virtue and Character

Virtue theories define ways of being that lead to the most satisfying kinds of
human life. Rules, standards and the outcomes of actions are all of minor or
conditional interest in the cultivation of a form of being that produces
goodness. Unethical behaviours emerge out of vices or defects of the self
that cause the agent misery and the desire to remedy them. Perfection of the
self is the pathway to goodness, on this view.
244
I – Contractarianism
Immorality emerges naturally during periods of social disintegration and
chaos, in the contractarian view. This is overcome by a collective
commitment to compromise individual freedoms and live according to a set
of rules that can be enforced. By this means the interests of all are integrated
with each other in ethically appropriate ways. Contractarianism finds
expression in both economics and political science as well as philosophy, and
now supports a very elaborate literature.

At his point it may be worth pointing out that O’Connell’s four

ethical categories here map closely onto the four categories of the Ethical
Awareness Inventory, put out by the Williams Institute for Ethics and
Management (WIEM). This inventory defines four ethical styles, where
people judge moral goodness according to: P-Results, A-Obligation, E-
Character, I-Equity.

Taken together, O’Connell’s two typologies provide a point of entry

for analysing concern structure dynamics within these two sub-domains of
philosophy.

245
83. Jung's Four and Some Philosophers: Thomas M.
King
In an interpretive work, Thomas M. King undertakes an analysis of
twelve major Western philosophers in terms of Jung's four functions: S/N
T/F (King, 1999). The general significance of these categories for describing
philosophical thought are listed below:

S: Sensing philosophers are likely to view the world as nothing more than the
totality of independent units (building blocks). Each unit or entity is separate
unto itself, and has no significance beyond itself.
N: Philosophers strong in intuition view the world as a supreme synthesis.
Individual objects and entities have little or no identity in themselves, but
exist only in relation to the unified whole.
T: Philosophers who are dominant for thinking will view the world as a
precise system within which everything can be deduced. The world
functions like a great equation.
F: Feeling-led philosophers view human beings and their relationships in
concrete terms as the ultimate reality. They seek solutions within which all
people and things have their proper place.

These Jungian concepts enable us to roughly categorize

philosophical orientations, but that is not Thomas King’s ultimate goal. He
seeks to understand the development of a philosopher’s main ideas over time.
More specifically, his aim is to show how the development of each
philosopher's work can be understood using the Jungian concept of
individuation.
Jungian individuation involves a journey or progression from an
younger stage to a more mature state. In the younger stage, an attempt is
made to comprehend and manage life using the dominant function, and
eventually the auxiliary and third functions. For various reasons, the
inadequacy and emptiness of this approach becomes clear over time, and a
quest to find and integrate the missing fourth function is undertaken. The
dominance relations between Jungian personality functions are covered in the
catalog entry for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
King uses this journey of individuation as a framework for
interpreting the philosophical development of Plato, Augustine, Descartes,
Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, Rousseau, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Teilhard and
Whitehead. While his study does not elucidate any new explicit models of
the structure of concern, it remains of interest for the present work. Models

246
of the structure of concern have so far been proposed to illuminate business
and management behavior, personality dynamics and learning styles. If they
have this value in the present, they may have it for historical subjects as well.
King's work is a useful first foray in this direction.
King's analysis of each philosopher's development is engaging, but I
will not summarize it here. In the interest of economy, I will simply outline
some of the ways the structure of concern is traced by King in the works of
Plato, Descartes, Locke, Spinoza and Kant. The reader is referred to King for
the full treatment of this subject.
Looking only at Plato’s Republic, he describes the four virtues of the
state and the four virtues of the soul, as well as the four studies or disciplines
that cultivate these virtues. They are listed below, with the dominant function
marked.
Virtues Rep. I, 693ff Studies Rep. I, 799ff
S - Justice Gymnastic
N - Temperance Philosophy - N-Dominant
T - Wisdom Geometry
F - Courage Music
It is interesting that in the Republic, three of the virtues are seen as
relatively easy to grasp, but the fourth is mysterious and bewildering,
requiring the exhaustive exploration of a concrete example to render it
comprehensible.
The rationalist philosophy of Descartes required several sharp
delineations between Jungian functions, most notably between Sensing and
Thinking, one of which was highly doubtful (Sensing), one of which was less
so (Thinking). He further distinguished between thinking and imagination
(the Jungian Intuition) and memory which is both a source of and an
amplifier of Feeling. Descartes’ project consists in no small part of
establishing the dominance of Thinking and its autonomy with respect to the
other functions.
Descartes
S – Sensation
N – Imagination
T – Thinking
F - Memory
As one of the British Empiricists, Locke is easy to position as a
Sensing dominant philosopher. In his Essays on the Laws of Nature, he
contrasts sense-experience with inscription or received codified knowledge
(Thinking) and tradition (Feeling). He also adds that there is a fourth function
of supernatural knowledge and divine revelation (Intuition), which he
excludes as irrelevant to his project. So thorough is his exclusion of tacit and
247
synoptic information that he runs into major problems in his empiricism,
finding it impossible to conceive of forces that might bind particulate bodies
into unified wholes, so strong is his commitment to the sensate perspective.
Locke
S - Sense Experience – Dominant
N - Divine Revelation, Supernatural Knowledge – Fourth
T - Reason, Inscription
F - Tradition
Spinoza attempted the deduction of an entire philosophy using
methods resembling those used in geometry, arguing from first principles and
axioms. This is clearly a Thinking-dominant project. His early works include
discussions of four different models of perception: perception from random
experience, perception from inference over incomplete information,
perception of a thing through its pure essence or through knowledge of its
proximate cause, and perception based on report, communication, memory or
conventional sign.
Spinoza
S - Experience, trial/error
N - Inference, induction
T - Essence alone
F - Report, convention
Kant, as yet another European rationalist, expresses a very clear
Thinking dominance. His triumvirate of faculties in the Critique of Pure
Reason; namely Reason, Understanding and Sensation, map very naturally
onto the Jungian categories of Thinking, Intuition and Sensing, respectively.
Feelings are described as pathological in the Critique of Practical Reason,
detracting from the purity of duty and enslaving people to their appetites.

Kant
S - Sensation, Quality, Anticipations of perception
N - Understanding, Relation, Analogies of experience
T - Reason, Modality, Postulates of empirical thought in general – Dominant
F - Feelings, Quantity, Axioms of intuition - Fourth

248
84. The Four Humors
Few concepts in the history of ideas have touched as many human
lives as the doctrine of the four humors. Its cultural and historical reach has
been immense. From its development in ancient Greece, it spread throughout
classical Rome and the Islamic world (Ullmann, 1978; Browne, 1962;
Temkin, 1953; Harris, 1916). It dominated Western thinking throughout the
Medieval and Renaissance periods (Mitchell, 2004; Filipczak, 1997; Siraisi,
1990; Draper, 1970). It was displaced as the primary framework for
scientific medical practice only in the 18th century (Duffy, 1993). It still
permeates folk medicinal practices throughout the world (Foster, 1979;
Foster, 1953). Whatever the basis for its popularity, this idea has dominated
human medical thinking like few other concepts. It has been productive in
the definition and understanding of health for untold numbers of human
beings.
While most often associated with Galen, the doctrine of humors
received some development by Galen’s teacher and predecessor Hippocrates.
This theory held that four humors or bodily fluids held the secret to health.
These humors were, blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. A proper
mixing of these humors constituted good health. The undue preponderance of
any one humor would result in characteristic patterns of disease (Miller,
1962; Temkin, 1953; Harris, 1916).
This theory can be seen as part of the larger Greek cultural
movement – visible from Thales through Aristotle and beyond – away from
supernatural modes of explanation towards naturalistic explanations. Galen
accepted the output of this movement, including the Pythagorean,
Empedoclean and Platonic accounts that matter is composed of four
elements; fire, water, air and earth with their qualities of hot, moist, cold and
dry, respectively. These natural elements do not exist as such in the body,
but are characterized as blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm. From
these antecedents, Galen formalized Hippocrates’ typology of the humors
and gave it the clarity and parsimony that carried it through time (Sarton &
Erhardt-Siebold, 1943).
Spread in ancient near east was immediate, across Arabic and
Mediterranean cultures. A Galenist influence is clearly present in the Kitāb
al-Malakī, a masterwork of classical Arabic medical literature, prepared by
the important Islamic doctor al-Majūsī (Alī ibn-al-‘Abbās al-Majūsī). This
book classified the universe in terms of the elements, defined as the
properties of the hot, cold, wet and dry, exemplified by fire, air, water and
earth. All living things are held to arise from these four elements, mixed in
different amounts and proportions. The Arabic word Misáj (pl. Amzija)
denoting ‘health’ in Arabic, Persian and Turkish, has its etymological roots
in a verb meaning ‘to mix’, referring to the state of equilibrium between the
249
four elements or properties. It also has the meaning of temperament or
balancing, along with the word krāsis. A well-tempered system would be
called balanced or even (mu’tadil). A deviation from equilibrium by the
preponderance of any single element is called Inhiráfu’l – Mizáj, or khārij
‘an al-I’ tidāl (Ullmann, 1978; Browne, 1962).
In the body, the four Galenic humors are the bearers of the elemental
properties. Determining the correct balance of humors during an intervention
would not be a simple matter. The right mix for any one organ or person
depends on the body system involved, the person’s age, the season and other
such factors. Treatment of imbalances would significantly involve foods or
drugs thought to contain the right balance of the four natural properties for
that therapeutic situation. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) also reviewed doctrine and
added secondary humors.
Jumping ahead to the Elizabethan period, we find that the theory of
the humors had become what Michel Foucault has called a discipline or a
practice of the body. A vast amount of how Elizabethans regulated
themselves: their diet, their activities, their clothing, their bathing habits or
lack thereof, can only be understood in terms of their massive preoccupation
with the state and balance of their own humors. They would have inherited
the view from the Middle Ages that bathing was more harmful for men than
for women; masculinity being associated with the hot, dry humors and
femininity with the cold wet humors. Artistic representations of females in
the proximity of water with men keeping a certain distance were made with
these distinctions in mind (Filipczak, 1997).
In a similar fashion, almost every aspect of comportment was
informed by the theory of the humors. And it was not simply a preoccupation
of the elites. Falstaff knew about Galen, referring to him in Henry IV, I. ii.
133, one of five references to Galen in Shakespeare. These explicit
references prove what the whole opus demonstrates, which is the absolutely
dominant role of Galenic doctrine in the popular understanding of the body
during the Elizabethan era. Both Shakespeare and Chaucer make explicit use
of the doctrine of the four humors (and related astrological lore) for
characterization, including physical appearance, goals and motivations,
social position and profession, behavior under stress and other components of
characterization. The doctrine had become a primary metaphor for the
understanding of human life (Draper, 1970).
Constitutional imbalance – a humors-based concept – remained the
primary medical framework in the seventeenth century. Graduates of Oxford
and Cambridge in the UK, members of the Royal College of Physicians, still
practiced an essentially Galenic style of medicine, with heavy reliance on the
‘depletory regimen’, balance or cleansing the humors through bleeding,
cupping and blistering, purging, vomiting and sweating (Duffy, 1993). This
was a feature of American medicine into the early nineteenth century, and
250
remains a part of the folk medicine tradition to this day (Foster, 1979).
Furthermore, at the time of the conquest of America right down through to
the late eighteenth century, Spanish medicine too was dominated by the
humoral theory, as received from the Arabic medical tradition. Humoral
theory thus remains part of the folk medicine in the Spanish-speaking world
as well (Foster, 1953).
If nothing else, humoral theory forced physician to consider patients
as a whole during diagnosis and treatment. However, it is also clear that
humoral theory captured some aspects of the structure of concern, and so an
understanding of broader regularities may have been involved. Galen’s
theory of the humors has associated with it a theory of temperament, giving
rise to a very famous typology of personalities, namely the choleric,
melancholy, phlegmatic and sanguine. By the Elizabethan period, it was
thought that the various humors gave off vapors which ascended to the brain,
such that the state of a person’s humors would explain their temperament and
comportment. The complete humoral theory is summarized below.

Complexion
Main
Temperament Humor Element Qualities & Physical Personality
Organ
Type

Violent,
Choleric Yellow Red-haired, Vengeful,
Spleen Fire Hot, Dry
(P) bile Wiry, Thin Volatile,
Ambitious

Melancholic Introspective,
Black Gall
Earth Cold, Dry Thin, Pale Sentimental,
(A) bile bladder
Apathetic

Sluggish,
Cold,
Phlegmatic Phlegm Lungs Water Overweight Lazy,
Moist
Cowardly

Amorous,
Happy,
Sanguine Hot, Ruddy,
Blood Liver Air Generous,
(I) Moist Chubby
Carefree,
Optimistic

As this typology stands, the E style from PAEI is missing from the
schema. However, as in the case with Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle and the
three Gunas of Hindu philosophy, the missing style can be seen as
assimilated to the context of the activity the typology supports. Medical
251
diagnosis is a task that is very often Intuitive in the Jungian sense. It involves
the inference of a pattern based on scattered cues and prior learning. Some
people are better at it than others, because skill at diagnosis partly involves
good instincts, or the tendency to have good hunches. Thus, a certain type
does not appear within this framework – the type of person who goes around
making universal theories of everything that help them see patterns where
others might not. This producer of the model does not appear within the
model as its own distinct type. E is thus the context within which PA and I
(or the lack of all motivation styles) are identified.

252
85. The Four Cardinal Virtues
The doctrine of the four cardinal
virtues has a long history, roughly

PA
paralleling that of the doctrine of the four Courage Justice
humors. The four virtues get a significant
amount of attention from Plato in Book 4 of
the Republic, and also in the Symposium.
Aristotle addresses them in the
Nichomachean Ethics, in the context of a

E I
broader discussion of virtue (Gardiner, Wisdom Mercy
1918). Other classical figures show the
concept to be continually alive in
Mediterranean culture (e.g. Stoics, Cicero,
Porphyry) and Arabic culture (e.g Abu Hamid al-Ghazali). These virtues
were thought to have a certain philosophical rigor. They were independent
concepts, not derived from each other, that also did not contradict each other.
Moreover, other more particular virtues could be seen to have their roots in
these four (Casey, 1990).
The cardinal virtues were carried over into the European Middle ages
largely due to St. Thomas Acquinas, who made an enormous effort to
reconcile this pagan system with Christianity in the Summa Theologica, and
succeeded in this aim. Due to that work and the work of other Scholastics,
the four virtues remained part of European culture into the modern era
(Pieper, 1965).
Unlike the doctrine of the four humors, the candidates for the four
cardinal virtues tended to shift with time and place, resulting in several
different representations of this idea, even within the works of a single
author. This is an interesting phenomenon, suggesting a shifting set of
hidden premises, definitions or arguments might be at play. Freezing any
interpretation of the four virtues is thus problematic, but a few
representations will be made for the sake of discussion.
One of Plato’s representations of the four virtues comes in his use of
the city-state as a model for virtue. He came up with three classes or
‘departments’ of men, and a fourth category representing the harmonious
balancing or integration of the three departments. Plato calls this concordant
working of parts within a city state or an individual ‘justice’ (Cornford,
1968). Plato’s four cardinal virtues may thus be listed in PAEI order as
follows:

P – Courage
A – Temperance/moderation
253
E – Wisdom
I – Justice

Other expressions of the four cardinal virtues involve references to

justice as more of an accounting concept, or of the proper apportioning of
benefits and costs to people. In this case justice move into the A-style
position, moderated by mercy in the I-style position.

P – Courage
A – Justice
E – Insight/wisdom
I – Moderation/mercy

From the time of St. Thomas Acquinas to the Renaissance, prudence

was taken to be one of the four virtues, and sometimes argued to be the most
fundamental virtue, giving direction to the other three (Burroughs, 1955;
Barnes, 1975). On this model:

P – Courage
A – Justice
E – Prudence/foresight
I – Temperance

A comprehensive account of the four virtues would require substantial

historical research. Above, I simply introduce this area of inquiry, and point
to its concern structure – unstable and shifting but still discernable.

254
86. The Gunas and the Yogas

The Indian wisdom tradition is a

PA
unitary one, in that philosophy, psychology, Karma Jñāna Yoga
religion, politics, health and hygiene were Yoga
not separate discourses for much of the
Indian history of ideas. All of them were
topics within an overall framework for
living well in the world. Within Hinduism,

E I
two manifestations of the structure of Pathways Bhakti
concern stand out conspicuously. The to Truth Yoga
doctrine of the three gunas (temperaments,
qualities, tendencies) is the first, emerging
in the Upanişads and elaborated in the
Bhagavad Gita. Then second consists of the three so-called “psychological”
yogas: Karma, Jñāna and Bhakti yoga. ((Beena, 1990) p. 202)
Like the Galenic humours, these ideas have been important to many
millions of people, and with the spread of yoga worldwide they
continue to inform and shape many lives
today. Their story is far from over.

PA
Ordering the
Rajo Guna World
The Three Gunas
Hinduism has an administrative
aspect, in that many of its ideas apply
equally to the care of the self and the
organization of the community. Plato made
use of the same parallel in the Republic, but
it Hinduism it was a more enduring motif,
due to the quest for a unitary wisdom for
living.
E I
Sattva Guna Tamo Guna

Hinduism is also relentlessly hierarchical, both in politically neutral

and politically charged ways. Both types of hierarchy may trace their roots
back to the Aryan invasion and conquest, the establishment of a two-tier
society and the blending of those two tiers at the interface, with some of the
colonized successfully mastering the values and furthering the goals of the
political reality, and some of the colonizers abandoning the same system for
a more native way of life. Beena (1990) indicates that the Rg Veda classifies
men into the enlightened and the fallen or forlorn. Quoting Telreja (1982),
Beena illustrates the interplay between universalism and hierarchy in the
Vedas:

255
 …the Vedas give precepts to scholars to organize the
whole world. To organize in their terms was to ennoble.
The aim and object of the Vedic religion was to make all
of the persons of the globe noble or Āryan. Here Āryan
was not considered as the name of a particular country,
speaking a particular language. Ārya means refined,
cultured and civilized. “He who is pure within and
without and acts in accordance with divine doctrine
enunciated in the Vedas is called Āryan. Irrespective of
caste, colour, country or community, peace and
prosperity will once again prevail on the earth when
most of the people in the world are Āryanized.”

The doctrine of the gunas is part of this project of organizing the

world. They reflect a hierarchical value system progressing from the base to
the noble. The gunas apply to all things, but I discuss them in the context of
human beings only. In their earliest formulation in the Atharva Veda, Sattva
was the guna or temperament of a person living close to God, serene,
selfless, benevolent and benign. Rajo was the guna of an aggressive,
impulsive, destructive person, and Tamo described selfish, ostentatious
people entirely given over to sensual pleasures (Radhakrishnan & Moore,
1957).
This is a nested representation. The overall project is administrative,
an effort to categorize people and behaviours using universal standards, to
determine their status within the system and to prescribe remedies or
corrective actions when needed. The primary corrective tool is exhortation –
the articulation of the rule or the proper way to behave, with emphasis on its
importance with respect to the overall policies of the universe. Within this
administrative project, there is a healthy E represented who always remains
oriented to the higher-level, long-term truths of the system, as well as the
negative aspect of P and a degenerate I.
A summary of the three gunas as described in the Upanişads and
Bhagavad Gita follows, in PAEI order.

P – Rajo Guna: Appetitive striving, craving, impatience, strong desires,

forcefulness, aggression, instrumental focus on rewards and payoffs,
confidence, concrete, pragmatic and competitive.

A – (Not visible as a guna, but in the whole project of establishing them to

direct action according to principles. The rule system is universalized as
256
given, with the task being to align oneself within it. The intelligence creating
the rules is not visible in the system as another guna of any kind, but is
ascribed to God/the cosmos. As a result, it dominates E and the kind of
insight E can achieve and articulate.)

E – Sattva Guna: Perfection, clarity, goodness, love of wisdom, patience,

tranquility, purity, transcendence, committed to concepts above outcomes,
mental restraint, not stressed in a crisis, embodiment/performance of higher
values, long-term orientation and self-care horizon, able to sustain hardship
that is rewarded only in the long term.

I – Tamo Guna: Stupidity, laziness, carelessness, stagnation, heedlessness,

delusion, degeneration, hypocrisy, unguided action, disregard for procedure,
comfort-seeking, stubbornness, malice, despondency, untrustworthiness,
succumbing to urges of sleep, sloth, fright, grief, despair or hilarity.

The Tamo Guna focalizes I in several ways, most of them negative.

First of all, it is addressed to I, listing the socially undesirable traits that I
would want to avoid, defining a category of shame and social rejection.
Secondly, it is a list of spontaneous and contextually-dependent pleasures,
which is domain quite natural to I. In making them shameful, I like E is
lashed to the heroic project of stabilizing the A-systemic principles of social
order, rather than being left to promulgate a different, more spontaneous
form of order. I appeals are very heavily tied to the epic task of maintaining
order in these texts, and other looser and more local aspects of I are rejected.
The content of Tamo may be derelict, but the social pressures being brought
to bear are I tactics.
In Bahktinian terms, the line between Tamo and the other gunas is
the line between the heroic and the carnivalesque. Tamasic characters abound
in fiction and are objects of great affection. The Porter from Shakespeare’s
Macbeth and the Good Soldier Švejk from the novel by Czech humorist
Jaroslav Hašek, furnish strong examples. Carnivalesque characters comically
resist the epic call to heroic deeds through their constitutional blindness to
the higher sublimated values of self-sacrifice that define the epic mode. This
blindness stems from the total restriction of their attentional focus to visceral
pleasures and processes, which constantly distorts what few heroic values
they are forced to attend to. Carnival offers a comic corrective for the rites of
heroism, and in this context, although painted in shame, the somatic and
visceral intelligence of I makes its appearance in the system of the gunas.

257
 To rehabilitate the category, the Tamasic manager in a company
would be the one who would know when it is time to take all the employees
out for dinner and a party to release tensions and restore morale. The Rajasic
manager would resent the losses of time, money and productivity, feeling
that if people are demoralized, they should just be disciplined and told to stop
whining and toughen up. The Sattvic manager wouldn’t even have noticed
the morale problem too much. His morale would be great, and he would be
happy dealing with whatever discomfort might occur in the present if it is in
line with the right long term direction. His idea of morale boosting would be
to articulate this vision to the employees. God would not likely make a
personal appearance, but His rules clearly would not sanction the Tamasic
plan, which are out of line with His general policies recommending austerity
and self-sacrifice. Nevertheless, despite all this opposition, the Tamasic
manager might be right, and the party might prove to be the best way on all
counts to move the other three areas of concern further.

The Three Psychological Yogas

There are many systems or margas (paths) yoga. Each describes a
different discipline for achieving a state of non-attachment with this world.
The goal is to progressively move away from sensory experience, through
the practical and reflective minds, and up towards a pure disembodied Self
that lives in alignment with the entire universe. This ascent up a cognitive
hierarchy towards a timeless place of calm and insight is an extreme
cultivation of E-style mental processes. Whatever the style of the marga, the
overall yogic project is E-dominated.
Among the many margas, three take the psychology and ethics of
conduct as their primary focus: Karma yoga, Jñāna yoga and Bhakti yoga.
They correspond to P, A and I, respectively, although all of them are
structured by E as paths of ascension towards a featureless truth. They are all
thus E-leaning. The yogas are described below.

P – Karma yoga: The path of volition and good works, demands renunciation
of personal goals and dedication of one’s efforts to community improvement
projects and religious rites and services. There should be no expectations of
good or bad outcomes to motivate the work. The work is a pattern of activity
undertaken by the body as the mind detaches itself and lives in longer and
longer timeframes, ultimately attaining an eternal present. At the end of the
Karma marga, Karma yoga is transcended. Duty and dedication vanish, and
the body simply performs good work because that is what it is – the divine
law in performance.

258
A - Jñāna yoga: Knowledge is the key to enlightenment in Hinduism. It is
knowledge that puts an end to suffering and the cycle of rebirth. Core Jñāna
texts feature policies for accepting and rejecting knowledge claims,
counterparts to Greek logic. There is a strong eliminative emphasis in Jñāna
yoga and in Indian thought in general. The truth is thought to be present but
obscured by illusion. By rejecting everything that is inconsistent with the
highest principles of wisdom, the truth will emerge. This is the A-style
fantasy of a final simplification and total order.

I – Bhakti yoga: Bhakti is the path of devotion, directing intense love and
seeking union with the Divine. The devotee relates to the object through
feelings of awe, fear, fascination, love and dependence. Many things can be
legitimate objects for Bhakti, but each individual Bhakta (devotee) must
choose only one to be the focus of their devotion. Bhakti yoga is sometimes
seen as the easiest marga because it is feeling-based rather than effort-based.
However, the successfulness of this marga is more doubtful, because it
depends not on action or thoughts one controls, but on quality of feelings
which may falter.

259
87. Sanskrit Literary Theory and the Four Goals of Life

Traditional Sanskrit literary theory,

PA
including the classical text of the
NāŃyaśāstra and in some ways culminating Artha Dharma
in the writings of Ānandavardhana and
Abhinavagupta, provide a rich set of
literary and psychological insights still of
consequence for researchers today (Hogan,

E I
2003).
Mokşa Kama
Borrowing from the larger Hindu
tradition concerning the goals of life, the
Sanskrit theorists hold that all stories are
organized around one of four ends or goals:

P – Artha: Material/political success giving rise to high community standing

A – Dharma: Ethical duty based on your station and role in an orderly
cosmos
E – Mokşa: Enlightenment, spiritual release from the material plane
I – Kama: Romantic union, love, sexuality, pleasure

260
88. The Four Beginnings of Confucianism

Confucianism is a philosophical
tradition in which human beings are seen as

PA
naturally good or at least potentially so. Benevolence Righteous-
From the teachings of Mencius, we learn ness
that people are born with the knowledge of
the good, and so the ability to do good is
inherent in us. This ability grows upon
what Mencius described as the 'four
beginnings' of virtue described below in
PAEI order:

P – Compassion (giving rise to benevolence)

A – Shame, dislike (the basis of righteousness)
E I
Wisdom Courtesy

E – Distinguishing right from wrong (the basis for wisdom)

I – Modesty, deference (giving rise to respect/courtesy)

This is an I-heavy schema, and the value represented for P in the

above list is actually an I value that has a tempering or moderating effect on
P. P may also be assimilated to a certain degree by the context for
articulating these ideas, which is part of a larger philosophical project of
explaining how the universe works.
The four beginnings of Confucianism were centrally implicated in
the Four-Seven debate, which was the pre-eminent intellectual achievement
of Korean Neo-Confucianism.

261
89. The Four Agreements: Don Miguel Ruiz

The Four Agreements by Don

Miguel Ruiz has been a spectacularly

PA
successful popularization of living wisdom
from the Mexican Toltec tradition. It Effort Clarity
promulgates a virtue ethic of charitable
consideration, against self-limiting patterns
of enmeshment and reactivity (Ruiz, 1997).
This gentle yet challenging message traces
out the structure of concern through its
fourfold path of effort, clarity, perspective
and integrity. These are expanded on
below in PAEI order, not the order of the
Four Agreements.
E I
Perspective Integrity

P – Always Do Your Best (effort)

Making this promise to oneself in full acknowledgement of one’s fluctuating
energies and limitations produce a life free from self-recrimination and
regret. If we know that we did our best no matter what, self-blame loses its
purchase on our thoughts.

A – Don’t Make Assumptions (clarity)

Much unnecessary interpersonal drama arises from assuming knowledge of
people’s goals and motives, or expecting them to ‘just know’ what we are
thinking and feeling. This heartache can be released when one has the
courage to ask questions and express what one really wants, communicating
as clearly as possible to avoid misunderstandings.

E – Don’t Take Anything Personally (perspective)

One must not get caught up in the to-and-fro of interactions. Nothing that
others do is because of us. They act out of their own projections, their own
dream of what life is about. Maintaining this perspective on interactions
immunizes us to the opinions and actions of others, and prevents needless
suffering.

262
I – Be Impeccable With Your Word (integrity)
Refrain from using language to attack yourself and others, spreading gossip
and social dissention. Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean, and
promote only those words which are guided by truth and love.

The actual given order of the Four Agreements is integrity,

perspective, clarity and effort or IEAP. This may have some relevance for
understanding the cultural priorities within their source culture, in contrast
with the PAEI order that fits much of the industrial West.

263
Language, Arts and Media

264
90. Dramatica: Philips and Huntley
If the structure of concern is ubiquitous, one would expect far more
than 100 or so examples of it to turn up in any given study. If the structure of
concern shapes us as organisms and shapes our brains, personalities and
behavior, one would expect to see evidence of it absolutely everywhere one
looked. We do. They are called “stories”, and according to one theory of
story and dramatic structure known as Dramatica, stories can be intensively
and extensively analyzed using concern structure concepts. Stories are
pervasive examples of the structure of human concerns, exploring all four
time-energy horizons of a situation which presents a conflict or a dilemma to
be solved.
Dramatica is not currently studied widely in academic circles. It is a
theory of story used by professional screenwriters, novelists and other story
writers. The theory is an independent construct, but the Dramatica theory
book is most often purchased along with a software writing aid that helps
authors structure and elaborate their work with reference to that theory.
Dramatica is thus a professional tool, and it has not had much uptake outside
of professional circles.
The authors of Dramatica, Melanie Ann Philips and Chris Huntley,
describe Dramatica as a complete theory describing a particular class of
stories: Grand Argument Stories. These stories explore a thematic argument
in a manner that is exhaustive or complete. This describes most storytelling,
but it specifically excludes certain kinds of experimental writing, and other
writing traditions in which the conventions of the Grand Argument Story are
suspended or violated in certain ways. However, most storytelling conforms
to the Grand Argument model, or subsets of that model (Phillips & Huntley,
1996).
Philips and Huntley represent stories as models of the human mind.
More specifically, they are models of the activity of the human mind as it
struggles to resolve an inequity, anomaly or breach of some kind. They
describe a scenario where one of our prehistoric ancestors encounters a bear
on the trail. This is an unstable confrontation. Something has to give. Our
ancestor has two basic options: either she can change or the world can stay
fixed, or the world can change and she can stay fixed. The core categories are
self and world, stasis and change (as also examined by Strickland, 1989).
Another way to explore this drama of confrontation is to consider the
difference between primary and secondary control. If our ancestor exerts
primary control, the she forces the world to change, i.e. she can drive off the
bear. If she exerts secondary control, she can change the situation by
changing herself, and run away. Whichever way she sets her mind, she has to
manage her internal reactions and her external actions. She may also try to

265
influence the internal reactions and external actions of the bear (e.g. by
playing dead). If she manages all of these horizons of activity in a successful
manner, and she returns to her band’s campsite intact, her bandmates will
want to know what choices she made and why, as well as what the challenges
and outcomes were in making these choices. They will want to learn about
and enhance the controllability of events (Girotto & Rizzo, 1991). Tales
impart knowledge about the concern structure of challenging events, and thus
impart survival value, much as other forms of social learning do (Steadman
& Palmer, 1997; Sugiyama, 2001a; 2001b).
In the scenario of the confrontation with a bear, the outlines of the
four Classes of story problems in the Dramatica Story Mind can be discerned
(internal/external, static/dynamic). These are:
P – Physics (Activity): Changing-External – Problem created by an
action or activity.
A – Universe (Situation): Fixed-External – Problems with fixed/constant
constraints, a state of affairs.
E – Mind (Fixed Attitude): Fixed-Internal – Problems with fixed/rigid
thoughts, prejudices, attitudes, ways of seeing
things.
I – Psychology (Manipulation): Changing-Internal – Problems created by a
manner of thinking, manipulation of/from
others, deepening emotional problems,
etc.
The PAEI element listed before each Dramatica element indicates
which style of thinking is best suited to match the various classes of
problems. Following these elements, we have the four terms Physics,
Universe, Mind and Psychology. These terms are the original terms for the
Dramatica Classes, published with the early editions of the theory and
software. The user base of professional writers provided the feedback that
these four terms seemed abstract and far removed from the rest of the
professional discourse among writers, and so some revised terminology was
included in later versions of the software and theory. These revised terms are
included in brackets alongside the original terms. Descriptions are then
offered for each item.
The Dramatica model is nested and recursive. Within each Class of
this concern structure model, there are four Types describing the types of
problems one can have in that Class. Below the Types there is a layer of
Variations, four for each Type, sixteen for each Class. Drilling down one
more level brings us to the level of Elements, sixty-four for each Class.
Basically, at every level, each one of the four items at that level is broken
down into four more items. This is the nested aspect of the model. The model

266
is recursive because if you want to analyze a dramatic feature below the level
of sixty-four elements, you do so using the four original classes again.

4 Classes
(Domains)

16 Types
(Concerns)

64
Variations
(Issues)

256
Elements
(Problems)

This exposition gives a rough and simplified sense of how the

Dramatica theory of story structure represents story Themes. In addition to
Theme, the theory of story structure also describes models of Character, Plot
and Genre. Dramatica also encompasses other theories besides the theory of
structure, such as theories of storytelling, story-weaving (the art of
exposition) and story reception. The overall model is very rich, and in some
ways it defies summary, given how involving and how unique it is as a
framework for understanding and writing stories. It can best be approached
through primary resources, available online from various outlets endorsed by
the co-creators of the model. I have summarized Dramatica briefly here in
267
order to introduce it as a major model of narrative and story, putatively based
on some very basic categories of human problem solving, that exhibits the
structure of concern throughout its various theories, and that also serves as a
uniquely productive example of how the recursive nesting of concern
structure constructs can be used to model complex events in the world.
Although this exposition of Dramatica is incomplete, it suggests that
a richer understanding of event structure is possible – one that might help us
understand much more about the human need and capacity for stories. It
should be emphasized that this theory of dramatic structure models event
structure itself, not just literate stories. It could easily describe the action of a
silent film, for example, or a mime routine. It also describes the structure of
attention one must maintain in order to process a dramatized event. One must
be properly oriented to the high-level thematic domains, as scenes and
sequences unfold to complete the dramatic argument or assessment of the
enacted situation.

268
91. Kenneth Burke’s Rhetorical Framework
Kenneth Burke was a major mid-
20th century rhetoritician whose analytical

PA
framework continues to exert a strong
influence on contemporary language Order Hierarchy
studies. Burke studied rhetoric in its
broadest sense, as the study of how
language names the world and ascribes
attitudes and motives for us to assume in
relation to situations and things. Burke was
interested in how terms for situations carry
motives, structures, concepts of order and
hierarchy and all the other elements E I
Mystery Courtship

required for coordinating human social action. His framework thus included
but was not limited to the traditional focus of rhetoric, being political speech
and other prepared speeches and formal presentations. He sometimes referred
to his field of study as ‘logolgy’, the study of language and society through
the examination of words (Burke, 1970). He called his main analytical
technique ‘dramatism’ for the central role that dramatic concepts (similar to
linguistic case/theta structures) played in his analyses (Burke, 1969).
Tracing echoes of the structure of concern in Burke’s work in no
way does justice to the richness of his writings. It is important nevertheless.
Burke’s work grapples with questions that overlap the zones of application of
Dramatica and the Adizes Methodology – the dramatic structures of human
patterns of organization. These three sets of ideas could conceivable
converge to support a deepening and detailing of the Burkean project – to
study the dramatics of social suasion in all areas of human life.
Points of contact with other concern structure models follow.

The Pentad
Burke views language as a mode of action, and rhetoric as an explicit
incitement to action (Heath, 1986). He well recognized that conceptualizing
rhetorical events as acts implied the operation of several other terms, such as
an actor or agent, within a scene or situation, with purpose and a
method/mode of agency. These elements form the Burkean pentad – the core
concepts of his dramatic analyses:

P1 – Act: producing an effect in the world.

P2 – Agent: the agent who produces the act.

269
A – Agency: the means or method by which acts are produced.
E – Purpose: the hierarchy of purposes, immediate and transcendent.
I – Scene: situational awareness, seeking congruence with settings of action.

In the pentad, primary control by the agent and secondary control of

the agent are represented separately. The act (P1) is the work done to change
or elaborate the dramatics of an event, and so describes the overall
accomplishment of primary control. The agent comes into distinct focus –
separate from the act – through obstruction and dissonance with the other
dramatic elements, for example. This agent as object (rather than as implicit
subject of the act) can be changed using secondary control strategies if
necessary, to successfully achieve the act.
As in the Dramatica model, Burkean analysis involves an
examination of the dialectical relationships of opposition and transition from
one pentadic element to another in the exercise of rhetorical effects. Pentadic
elements are thus studied in ‘ratios’ rather than in isolation.

Identification
While rhetorical acts are being enacted, a companion process occurs
which Burke calls identification. Symbolic agents continually invite their
conversants or audiences to agree, assent, build allegiance or in general
become of one mind with the speaker (both speaker and audience can be the
same person for inner dialogue). This is not an optional diversion of language
to rhetorical ends, this is what language does.
An account of Burke’s theory of language and how it supports his
theory of social identification is beyond the scope of this paper. I will briefly
describe his account of how social order emerges out of disorder, which
follows the pattern of a single cycle of cascading adaptation.

P – Order: Order emerges from disorder through social alignment using

ordering principles such as division (of resources) and association (assigning
resources to people). This stabilizes expectations and
exchange/collaboration.

A – Hierarchy: In any ordered system there is an incentive to perfect the

ordering principles, simply by virtue of the system’s operation. This among
other pressures can give rise to the emergence of transcendent terms that
compress lower-level terms. These become new motivating and coordination
points. People are assigned to these new terms – the arrangements of titles,
270
purposes, motives and roles that settle into a hierarchy that perfects the
principles of order as much as possible.

E – Mystery: As social experiences at different places in the social hierarchy

diverge, mystery emerges between people of different social stations. This
mystery and the differences underlying it can become ritualized. Property
relations and gender differences give rise to mystery, as do other social
differences. Inherent in mystery is the desire to overcome it, through the
creation of philosophies, theologies and political visions, as well as though
the promulgation of myth. This can serve to bridge hierarchies of motives,
aligning many levels of social order that allow a society to move from one
situation to another through coordinated action.

I – Courtship: Courtship is communication across mysteries of otherness to

build proximity and social cooperation. It is fraught with all of the dangers
of biological courtship, leading either to commitment or domination and
control, for example. Diplomacy and corporate negotiations are examples of
courtship, and market interactions may also fall in this category. Courtship is
the effort to end estrangement that has been put into place through the
institution of the principles of order.

271
92. Aristotle’s Rhetorical Appeals
Aristotle’s Rhetoric provides the
earliest theoretical foundation for Western

PA
rhetorical studies, and his insights remain Context &
valid to this day. The rhetorical triangle Call to Logos
depicts three elements of every rhetorical Action
situation: the subject of discourse, the
rhetor or speaker, and the audience.
Corresponding to these three elements,
Aristotle named three appeals that the
rhetor could make in the service of
persuasion. These are listed below, in PAEI
order. E IEthos Pathos

A – Logos appeals, based on the logic of one’s own argument, flaws in the
argument of an opponent, definitions and deductive inferences.

E - Ethos appeals, which qualified the speaker as being credible or worth

listening to, based on the personal qualities, expertise or social position of the
rhetor.

I – Pathos appeals, based on the feelings, fears, biases and desires of the
audience members.

All three of these appeals make contact with the context of the
discourse, which can be thought to include the overall goal or speech act
structure of the communication. Communication is often undertaken in order
to achieve some extra-discursive goal. P-style considerations take root in this
context, and appear most visibly within discourse as the “call to action” that
concludes each effective rhetorical act.

272
93. InterGrammar: Arndt & Janney
InterGrammar is an approach to the study of speech that attempts to
explain how people interpret the combined stream of verbal, prosodic and
kinesic signals that they receive. All three streams are analysed as parts of a
single unified act. These parts are thus studied in relation to each other, rather
than in isolation (Arndt & Janney, 1987).
The InterGrammar project focuses on emotive communication,
specifically the fleeting emotional and attitudinal indications we give in
conversation. The interplay of verbal, prosodic and kinesic elements produce
these indications, combining direct speech and indirect allusion, at different
levels of formality, with varying emphasis, intonation, facial expressions and
shifting eye contact. We send and perceive these composite signals
effortlessly, so their production and interpretation seem fundamental to the
way that human communication works. The InterGrammar project seeks to
characterize how all of these elements work together in casual conversations
in American English.
Several InterGrammar models exhibit concern structure patterns.
One is based on an earlier model by Rands and Levinger (Rands & Levinger,
1979), representing the determinants of formal or informal style in speech.
On this view, the formal-informal dimension of speech varies according to
the affective and behavioural interdependence of the speakers. With low
affective and behavioural interdependence, formality is high. This is the A-
style of official or objective interaction. Where affective and behavioural
interdependence are both high, in the I-range of interpersonal relationships,
speech is most informal. In the P-style low-affective but high-behavioural
interdependence mode, such as among coworkers in a large company, there
is moderate formality. In the E-style low-behavioural by high-affective
interdependence mode, formality is also moderate. High affective/low
behavioral interdependence might be seen at a political or religious meeting,
where we are passionate about shared values, yet lead largely separate lives.

273
Formality as a Function of Affective and Behavioral Interdependence

Low Affective
Interdependence

Workplace Most
Casual Formal

Rhetorical
Community Most
Casual Informal

Low Behavioral High Behavioral

Interdependence High Affective Interdependence
Interdependence

The structure of concern arises in another area of the InterGrammar

that models interpersonal attitudes. The interpretation of rising and falling
intonation seems to depend crucially on the relationship between the speech
partners. Interpretations of rising and falling intonation seem to be variously
attributed to the personal commitments of the speaker (i.e. the speaker’s
attitude towards the subject being spoken about) and the interpersonal
commitments of the speaker (the speaker’s attitude towards the listener).
Changes in intonation will be heard differently as the listener determines how
the speaker feels, positive or negative, about personal and interpersonal
attitudes in an interaction.
Interestingly, this rhetorical schema gives rise to concern structure
patterns, as follows:
Unexpected falling pitch in a statement (p. 277)
P – Interpersonal, Negative: Self-assertive, dominating, aggressive…
A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Insistent, impatient, dogmatic…
E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Assertive, forceful, emphatic…
I – Interpersonal, Positive: Self-confident, authoritative, unthreatened…

274
 Essentially, P is the confrontational and I the cooperative
interpersonal style. A and E are two kinds of topical imposition, A as
imperative and E as exhortative. Unexpected rising intonation in US English
declarative and interrogatives is interpreted as follows:

Unexpected rise in simple statements and wh-questions (p. 278)

P – Interpersonal, Negative: Disbelieving, disapproving, critical…
A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Perplexed, concerned, shocked…
E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Curious, interested, pleasantly surprised…
I – Interpersonal, Positive: Seeking confirmation, repetition, clarification…

Two further patterns follow, both quite similar to each other:

Unexpected rise in commands and directives (p. 280)
P – Interpersonal, Negative: Insecure, cautious, threatened…
A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Uncertain, unsure, hesitant…
E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Temporizing, expectant, waiting…
I – Interpersonal, Positive: Polite, deferential, considerate…

The fall-rise (waver in pitch p. 282)

P – Interpersonal, Negative: Insecure, cautious, threatened…
A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Hesitant, uncertain, ambivalent…
E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Tentative, temporizing, waiting…
I – Interpersonal, Positive: Nonassertive, deferential, tactful…

275
 Unexpected Unexpected
Perceived Unexpected Fall-Rise /
rise: rise:
Reasons fall: Statement Wavering
Statement/wh-? Commands

Self-assertive Disbelieving Insecure Insecure

P – Interpersonal,
Dominating Disapproving Cautious Cautious
Negative
Aggressive Critical Threatened Threatened
Insistent Perplexed Uncertain Hesitant
A – Personal /
Impatient Concerned Unsure Uncertain
Topical, Negative
Dogmatic Shocked Hesitant Ambivalent
Assertive Curious Interested Temporizing Tentative
E – Personal /
Forceful Pleasant surprise Expectant Temporizing
Topical, Positive
Emphatic Waiting Waiting
Self-confident Seek confirm. Temporizing Nonassertive
I – Interpersonal,
Authoritative Repetition Expectant Deferential
Positive
Unthreatened Clarification Waiting Tactful

On a complementary team, a strong P is most likely to express open

negativity towards others, given the impatience, impulsiveness and
instrumental/competitive focus of that style. A strong P might also be more
likely to interpret vocal prosody under the assumption that others also feel
interpersonal negativity during conflict.
A strong A is most committed to certainty and unambiguous
knowledge, hence most likely to hold on to doubt regarding his or her beliefs.
Once certainty is ascertained, it is promoted with great insistence. E is least
likely to doubt his or her own thoughts, ideas and opinions, and also tends to
enjoy talking, displaying knowledge and exploring topics of all kinds. I is
most likely to compromise, to make efforts to clarify his or her understanding
of others, and to support and encourage his or her speech partner. All of this
conforms to the concern structure pattern, and it offers a useful point for
examining communication styles and cross-style misunderstandings in more
detail.

276
94. A Cognitive Typology of Speech Acts: Driven &
Verspoor
Driven and Verspoor’s Cognitive
Explorations of Language and Linguistics Obligative

PA
Constitutive
is an introductory linguistic textbook that is
part of larger European project to produce - Directive - Expressive
parallel texts in seven European Languages, - Commissive - Declarative
and to have students participate in
international exchange programs, such that

E I
their course of instruction would be similar Informative
regardless of the host country chosen
- Assertive - Expressive
(Driven & Verspoor, 1998). In that text, the
- Interrogative - Commissive
authors get at some characterizations of
speech acts using first a five part typology
and then a three part typology. The distinctions drawn are relevant to concern
structure thinking, and are summarized below.
The first typology is John Searle’s, who classified speech acts into
the following five categories:
1. assertive: asserting or stating a fact.
2. directive: issuing an order or command.
3. commissive: promises or commitments we make to others.
4. expressive: expressions of thanks, well-wishes,
congratulations, condolences and other gestures of social
involvement.
5. declarative: the speaker creates a new social fact by
declaring it to be the case, the classic example is a person
conducting a marriage ceremony, telling the couple “I now
pronounce you married”.

The authors cluster these five categories into three super-categories,

as follows:
1. informative speech acts: assertive speech acts plus
information questions that elicit information.
2. obligative speech acts: directives and commissives, both of
which impose obligations, either on hearer or on self.
3. constitutive speech acts: expressive and declarative, both of
which require an appropriate social occasion or context to
have any force.

In PAEI terms, assertion and inquisition, the functions of informative

speech acts, fit naturally with the information search activity that constitutes
277
E-type activity; questioning things and developing new assertions about
states of affairs. Obligative speech acts have a P-type cadence, although
commissives would also be relevant to I (expressing social solidarity). Both
directives and commissives are preludes to action or tasks, rather than being
conversational in their development. The final of the three categories, the
contextually-dependent constitutive speech acts, have the conventional
support that would be both congenial for A and necessary for settling A-type
uncertainty. Expressive speech acts would be necessary for I-type work as
well.

278
95. Discourse Functions of Humour: Greatbatch &
Clark
David Greatbatch and Timothy
Clark analysed the discourse of
management gurus giving
presentations to determine the role that
humorous junctures and audience laughter
played in developing or demonstrating
public

group solidarity and rhetorical relationships

PA
Competing Distancing

E I
with the speaker. In their review of Grand-
empirical studies on the discursive Bonding
standing
production of laughter, they identify five
primary functions of humour in
communications. One function would be
general for all styles, the four others set up a concern structure (Greatbatch &
Clark, 2003). They are listed below in PAEI order

P – Competing: Attack others in socially acceptable ways and/or enhance

self-esteem at others’ expense.
A – Distancing: Manage embarrassment, fear or stress in threatening
situations.
E – Grandstanding: Claim centre of attention in ways that earn the approval
of others and enhance social status.
I – Bonding: Create and maintain social cohesion and group solidarity.

The fifth function, “Dissenting: Expressing opposition, resistance

and dissent” would be a tactic used in every style to protect style-based
priorities, reducing other style strategies to apparent absurdity when
measured against preferred strategic values.

279
96. Artistic Types: Loomis & Saltz
In their study of artistic styles, Loomis & Saltz (1984) had subjects
rate eight well-known artists on a list of descriptors. Four clusters of artistic
style emerged, organized along two dimensions: figurative vs. non-figurative
and narrative vs. descriptive. The dimensions essentially represent the degree
of distance from perceptual realism. Non-figurative art leans towards
cognitive-perceptual or expressive abstraction, narrative or imaginative art
uses recognizable elements, but arrange them in fanciful rather than
logical/rational or normal ways.

P – Rational/Descriptive, Figurative: Matisse, Warhol, Wyeth

This style remains closest to perceptual realism, representing either what is
seen, or imaginary scenarios that obey most of the rules of ordinary reality,
rather than fanciful rules. Subjects are represented in ways faithful to their
concrete appearance, rather than as cognitive, perceptual or expressive
abstractions.

A – Rational/Descriptive, Nonfigurative: Mondrian

This artistic style remains representative in the sense that features of
objective perception – the observation of line, shape, mass, rhythm, balance
and so on – provide the foundation for abstraction and elaboration,
particularly along cognitive and perceptual lines.

E – Spontaneous/Narrative, Nonfigurative: Kandinsky, Miró, Pollock

Spontaneous and narrative forms of art are grounded primarily in the
imagination or emotions of the artist, rather than observations or perceptions.
They need not follow the visual and physical rules of observed reality. The
artistic style described here is thus both spontaneous and nonfigurative or
abstract. The classic example of this artistic stryle would be abstract
expressionism.

I – Spontaneous/Narrative, Figurative: Chagall

This style of art is grounded in the imagination or emotions of the artist, but
the objects or compositional elements the artist uses represents real objects in
the world, or modifications of them. These kinds of artistic works are like
dreamscapes – unusual combinations of usual things in unusual ways. Dali
comes forcefully to mind here, although Loomis and Saltz point to Chagall as

280
their exemplar for this type. The elements of ordinary experience are
combined to achieve emotional and expressive results.

Loomis and Saltz interpret these results using Jungian functions.

Extraversion/Introversion is placed alongside their figurative/nonfigurative
distinction to describe people who are oriented towards sensation vs.
imagination. The difference between descriptive and spontaneous styles is
aligned with Jung’s distinction between the rational (Judging) and irrational
(Perceiving) functions.

Loomis & Saltz: Dimensions and Distinctions

Rational/Descriptive
(Judging)

Matisse, Mondrian
Warhol, Wyeth

Kandinsky,
Miró, Pollock Chagall

Non-figurative Figurative
(Introversion) Spontaneous/Narrative (Extroversion)
(Perceiving)

281
Computer Science and Engineering
There is a rough sense in which all systems can be understood in
concern structure terms, and hence concern structure thinking can be seen
operating within the Unified Modeling Language (UML). However, my
review of computer science and engineering literature has found structure of
concern issues arising repeatedly in one particular context. This is the
literature on multi-agent systems, particularly around the issue of managing
coordination among many semi-autonomous agents.
In such systems, there may be interdependencies among the activities
of different agents, requiring mechanisms for selecting, prioritizing, sharing
inputs and outputs and communicating among parts of the system. In other
words, multi-agent systems in engineering face challenges similar to those
faced by human beings in organizational contexts. This is a potentially
revealing discovery. Some representative samples of concern structures in
multi-agent systems and other engineered systems follow below.

282
97. Model Views of the Unified Modelling Language: Si
Alhir
The Unified Modelling Language
(UML) is a standard set of diagrams used

PA
by business analysts, systems analysts and
computer programmers to spell out ideas Implementation Behavioral
and plans for new systems. In his reference
guide to the UML, Sinan Si Alhir divides
these standard diagrams into five
categories. Each category represents a
different system view – a different way of
looking at a system. He introduces five
such categories, the first being the User
View (Use Case Diagrams in the UML). E I
Structural Environment

The remaining four views are aimed towards the system as such (Si Alhir,
1998). These are listed below in PAEI order:

P – Implementation View
A – Behavioral View
E – Structural View
I – Environment View

P – Implementation Model View: This view deals with how a system will be
realized in terms of its physical instantiation, including physical code
snippets (source, binary or executable), data, documents etc. The UML
diagram that represents this view of the system is the Component Diagram,
showing the organization and dependencies among tangible software
implementation components. This diagram describes the implementation in
concrete terms.

A – Behavioral Model View: Behavioral models specify system activity in

careful detail, to foresee problems or conflicts before they arise. Sequence
Diagrams depict classes exchanging information as interactions flow through
a system. Collaboration Diagrams show how components communicate and
interact to accomplish joint purposes. State Diagrams describe how classes
respond to input; the states they enter and their transitions, for the whole
object lifecycle. Activity Diagrams show information processing within a
class, describing action states and action/object flows. Together, these

283
diagrams offer a meticulous preview of the behavior of the system for
troubleshooting prior to implementation.

E – Structural Model View: This is a static, conceptual overview of the

system. Models depict classes, objects and relationships between classes (via
Class Diagrams and Object Diagrams) - a schematic, high-level overview of
the system for orienting design efforts.

I – Environment Model View: This view describes the configuration of the

system and the relationships between information compnents, mapping all of
the contextual conditions that may impact system function. Deployment
Diagrams are used towards this end. Since end-users are also part of the
system’s context, the User View/Use Case Diagrams can also be put in this
group.

284
98. Parameters of Fuzzy Inference: Carlos A. Peña-
Reyes
Carlos A. Peña-Reyes works in the
domain of fuzzy computer programming,

PA
which differs from ordinary programming Operational Logical
in important ways. Standard computer
programs manipulate precise and explicit
information in precise and explicit ways.
Fuzzy systems, by contrast, reason with the
computerized equivalents of ideas like

E I
“maybe”, “sort of”, “kind of” and “almost”. Structural Connective
They allow for shades of gray and degrees
of possible truth, and when they are well-
designed they produce reasoning outcomes
similar to human decision-makers, using the same uncertain and incomplete
data used by the humans. Fuzzy systems are thus promising models of certain
aspects of human cognitions. Designing these systems well is challenging,
however.
Fuzzy systems use linguistic variables like “very hot day” to
represent very hot days (rather than ‘AvTemp > 29ºC’). Numerical values
accompany the linguistic variables, but the fuzzy reasoning is done on the
linguistic variables. For greater precision, increasingly specialized
vocabularies or quasi-numerical codes can be used instead of natural
language terms, but this increased precision hampers the intelligibility of the
final decision and the reasoning that produced it.
Fuzzy modeling is also haunted by the curse of dimensionality. Each
new variable added to a model needs to be related to the others by rules,
exponentially increasing computing requirements with the number of
variables. Building a fuzzy system to solve a certain class of problems thus
requires developing a good description of relevant variables and rules, with
the right balance of precision and readability, capturing the complexity of the
problem with a minimally complex model so as to avoid a combinatorial
nightmare.
Achieving this balance is a delicate task. It is often done by working
with human domain experts and modeling their reasoning, then using the
experts’ decisions as a benchmark to evaluate the performance on the model.
If the model replicates their decisions, it accurately represents their
reasoning. Another tactics is to use artificial neural networks to reveal rules
and regularities in classes of input data, and then to model those rules in
fuzzy logic. Alternatively, a benchmark can be set, and then genetic
algorithms can be used to breed fuzzy rules and select out unfit candidates,
using evolutionary programming.
285
 One such evolutionary solution is called Fuzzy CoCo, developed by
Carlos Peña-Reyes. It uses a technique called cooperative coevolutionary
fuzzy modeling to produce better fuzzy models in shorter periods of time. It
also aims to avoid some of the pitfalls of evolutionary programming, such as
high computational costs and the tendency to get stuck in local optima (Peña-
Reyes , 2004).
My interest here is in Peña-Reyes’ four-type classification of the
parameters of fuzzy systems – the elements of fuzzy inference, if you like.
According to Peña-Reyes, to build a fuzzy system, one needs to specify
logical, structural, connective and operational parameters. This creates a
concern structure model, as follows:

P – Operational Parameters: Each linguistic variable and value needs a

membership function, defining roughly what does or does not count as a
variable of that type. This constitutes the concrete particulars of the
knowledge of the system. It links labels with associated numerical values so
that computational work can be done.

A – Logical Parameters: These are usually defined by the programmer in

advance, and formally or syntactically define the reasoning operations the
system will use to transform input into output. Logical parameters do not
define the system’s functions, but rather the ‘legal’ tactics that are available
for building those functions.

E – Structural Parameters: These define the overall scope, identity and

direction of the model, including input-output and state variables, universes
of discourse for linguistic representations and the linguistic labels that will be
used for the variables. This can be defined in advance but often it emerges in
systems that are allowed to improve themselves, dropping old variables and
breeding or learning new rules, etc.

I – Connective Parameters: Describes the network of relationships between

variables and values in the system by defining rules, weighting them, and
determining what conditions are antecedents for the application of a rule, and
what the outcomes should be. This describes the model’s actual behavior as
a problem-solving system.

286
99. Types of Programming
At a high level of abstraction, the
three main forms of soft computing;
evolutionary computing, fuzzy systems and
neural networks; along with traditional
procedural programming, form a structure
of concern quad in and of themselves, as
follows:
PA
Genetic
Algorithms
Procedural
Programming

E I
Fuzzy Neural
P – Genetic Algorithms: An r-strategist Inference Networks
programming style, throwing a swarm of
solutions into a problem space and only
letting the most productive ones survive the competition.

A – Procedural Programming: A set of predefined policies for processing

specific inputs and delivering specific outputs, in contexts which are already
understood.

E – Fuzzy Inference: Approximate procedures applied to uncertain and ill-

defined data to arrive at decisions that plot the best course of action over a
large set of semi-unknowns.

I – Neural Networks: The emergence of collective norms, priorities

(weights) and regularities among a set of interconnected nodes sharing
information over time.

287
100. The Code Size Optimization Problem: Shin, Lee &
Min
The code size optimization
problem affects the design of many small,
portable electronic devices that are now
used everyday, such as cell phones and
personal digital assistants. There is a set of
interlocking constraints on the design of the
real-time embedded logic systems in these
PA
TM-Only EZ-Only

E I
devices. Determining the right balances and
tradeoffs for these constraints is quite DYN-Mix FIX-Mix
difficult.
In these small portable systems,
processor chips need to be very energy-
efficient, since battery life is a huge performance factor for consumers. Speed
is also a factor, because these are real-time applications that interact with
people and with signals from other machines. Cost is a third critical factor,
and the cost of these components can be reduced by making the chips smaller
(requiring smaller code sets). However, one cannot optimize all three of these
factors at once.
One way to reduce energy consumption is to take advantage of
something called Dynamic Voltage Scaling (DVS) technologies that reduce
voltages by reducing clock speed on the chip. This is a tradeoff. Energy is
saved at the cost of speed. Reducing cost by reducing size can also sacrifice
speed, and energy efficiency as well. Code size can be reduced using dual
instruction sets, with 16-bit instructions that are decompressed into 32-bit
instructions prior to execution. This reduces the code size, but increases the
number of instructions to process (decompression instructions are added),
sacrificing speed and requiring more clock cycles and hence more energy to
run. Thus, a triple tradeoff constrains design decisions for embedded
systems. Shin, Lee & Min (2004) demonstrate that the problem is NP-hard
and hence computationally intractable.
The intractability of the problem suggests heuristic approaches for
exploring different solutions. Shin et al define four such heuristics, each of
which reduce code size and increase the number of execution cycles while
reducing clock speed. These algorithms are iterated so long as they do not
violate the real-time time and energy requirements of the system. The
algorithms crunch through the code set applying their adjustments to one task
after another until there is nothing left to alter within the allowable
constraints. Each algorithms targets tasks amenable to different kinds of
adjustments. They are described below in PAEI order:

288
P – TM-ONLY: This algorithm will not sacrifice speed. It will reduce code
size on tasks only when doing so does not slow them down appreciably. It
will expend energy to do so, within the system’s outer limits. Tasks that
would be slowed by code reduction are left alone. Economy yes, but never at
the cost of speed. This is very much a P heuristic.

A – EZ-ONLY: Tasks that can have their coding reduced without increasing
energy demands are favored by EZ-ONLY. Slowing down processes is not a
problem so long as energy economy is being maintained or enhanced. Speed
and simplicity are good, so long as they do not require expending additional
energy resources. This heuristic favors economy, in an A-like fashion.

E – DYN-MIX: The dynamic-mixed approach respects whichever of the two

constraints, speed or energy use, is tighter on that task. A concession is made
to that tight constraint, but there can be heavy impact on the looser constraint
in the effort to reduce code size. The looser constraint becomes the
opportunity horizon where the algorithm makes gains, as it pushes at system
limitations.

I – FIX-MIX: Both constraints are respected, so code size is reduced only to

the point where existing boundary values are preserved intact. If reducing
code size any further would disrupt either speed or energy efficiency, this
algorithm is happy to leave well enough alone. But if reducing code size can
be done with all constraints being respected, then so much the better, it is
done.

Shin et al. also had a RANDOM algorithm for comparison. It

selected tasks at random to reduce code size within system limits without
considering internal tradeoffs. Simulation runs where the other algorithms
matched RANDOM’s solutions were excluded. The speed and energy
constraints in those runs were obviously too loose, such that any greedy
optimizing algorithm would find the same solution.
DYN-MIX produced the best results against this particular set of
tradeoffs, followed by FIX-MIX and TM-ONLY. EZ-ONLY did not greatly
outperform RANDOM, compared to the other algorithms for this type of
problem.

289
101. Adjustably Autonomous Agents & Decision
Making: Verhagen & Kummeneje
Adjustable autonomy refers to the
capacity of agents in a multi-agent system

PA
to change the degree to which their
behavior is constrained by the coalition vs. Actions Plans
independently directed. If we sent a fleet of
500 mini-robots to Mars, for example,
sometimes we might want them to travel as
a ‘herd’ from one region to another, while
at other times we might want them to
‘forage’ for scientific samples
independently or in groups of two or three.
During the travel events we would want E I Goals Norms

them to take a lot of direction from the coalition, but during the foraging
events we might basically want them to each do their own thing without
straying too far from the dispersed herd. Verhagen and Kummeneje (1999)
studied this problem with particular attention to the issue of norms and norm-
sharing in multi-agent systems.
Verhagen and Kummeneje identify two perspectives on autonomy
that are relevant for agent-based systems programming: abstraction levels
and independence. Abstraction levels refer to the degree of control agents
have over their own behavior and decision making processes. Independence
refers to the agent's degree of independence within a coalition. For
autonomy in the first sense of abstraction, the authors refer to a decision-
making model drawn from various branches of cognitive science (Verhagen
& Smit, 1997; Dennet, 1979; Conte & Castelfranchi, 1995; Werner, 1996).
This decision-making model is a very straightforward example of the
structure of concern, claiming that decision-making takes place at four
separate yet connected levels, listed below in PAEI order:

P – the level of actions

A – the level of plans
E – the level of goals
I – the level of norms

These are the categories within which the degree of control an agent has over
its own decisions and actions can be defined.

290
102. Multi-Agent Coordination: Victor R. Lesser
Victor R. Lesser (1998) presents a
five-component architecture for supporting

PA
sophisticated agent coordination strategies. Local Agent Detection
The components are local agent scheduling, Scheduling &
multi-agent coordination, organizational Diagnosis
design, detection and diagnosis, and on-line
learning. Scheduling and coordination are
real-time functions (P and I, respectively),

E I
Learning & Multi-Agent
and the rest are part of a solutions-modeling
Organizational Coordination
and guidance system (A covers detection
and diagnosis, and E covers learning and Design
organizational design). Descriptions of the
concerns follow:

P – Local Agent Scheduling: Agent manages current priorities and incoming

task requests while executing and monitoring the active task to solve a
problem.

A – Detection and Diagnosis: Gathers information from the execution and

coordination subsystems, uses and updates knowledge of network resources
and current goals, alerts system to need for online learning.

E – Learning and Organizational Design: Adjusts the agent’s long term

knowledge about goals, problems, tasks, procedures and network resources.
Combines current goals with long-term knowledge to design a top-down
organizational structure that describes interdependencies with other agents in
the network for those goals.

I – Multi-Agent Coordination: Exchanges short-term meta-level information

with other agents, updates beliefs about the network, keeps track of
commitments to other agents, updates task and client need information.

291
103. Organizational Design and Instantiation: Sims,
Corkill and Lesser
Multi-agent systems sometimes
need to recruit the coordinated efforts of a

and Lesser (2004), this is called

organizational design and instantiation. It
is a team-forming process of selecting
PA
number of agents to accomplish a task. In Agent-Role- Role-Goal
the framework introduced by Sims, Corkill Goal Binding Binding

Coordination

E I
goals, requirements, agents, and resources
Organizational &
and assigning responsibilities and roles to
Goals Management
each agent selected for the team. Since
multi-agent systems need to do this no Goals
matter what application domain they
operate in, a generic organizational design model is needed that encapsulates
all of the general features of this function.
Sims et al. describe an organizational design process involving four
major components: organizational goals, role-goal bindings, agent-role-goal
bindings and coordination & management goals, described below in PAEI
order:

P – Agent-Role-Goal Bindings: Provide the capabilities that will implement

the organizational design.

A – Role-Goal Bindings: Given the parameters of the goals, task

environment and performance requirements, design the organizational
structure in terms of domain specific agent roles, productive and managerial.

E – Organizational Goals: Using information about performance

requirements and the task environment, establish goals around which
organizations can be planned.

I – Coordination & Management Goals: Monitor the Agent-Role-Goal

bindings and provide feedback to the Role-Goal binding module about the
effectiveness and efficiency of the current organizational design.

292
104. Operational Design Coordination: Coates et al.
In their approach to real-time operational
design coordination for multi-agent

PA
systems, Coates et al. (2003) endorse a six- Schedule Resource &
part model of operational design Management Task
coordination: organizational coherence, & Real-Time Management
communication, task management, resource Support
management, schedule management, and
real-time support. They then define agent
types to match these six functions. Both
functions and agent types are defined in
PAEI order as follows:
E I Coherence

P – Real-time support: managing and adapting to changeable, dynamic and

unpredictable processes.
Schedule management: managing the dynamic assignment of tasks to
resources, and the enactment of the resulting schedules.
Agent Types: Scheduler – Perform scheduling.
Activity director – Implement schedules

A – Task management: organize and control tasks and interdependencies,

such that they can be undertaken and completed in a structured manner.
Resource management: organize/control resources to continually optimize
use.
Agent Types: Resource manager – Maintain knowledge of resources
Resource monitor – Sense, forecast, and disseminate resource performance
efficiency
Information manager – Manage input-output files related to analysis tool
executions.
Task manager – Execute analysis tools given unique input data to create
unique output data.

I – Coherence: integrating, or linking together, resource efforts and tasks in a

harmonious manner to avoid chaos.
Communication: exchange structured and meaningful data, information, and
knowledge.

293
Agent Types: Coordination manager – Facilitate communication between
related agents.

Since this is a model of real-time operations, the long-term, future-

oriented, strategically focused E-style of concern does not make much of an
appearance in this model.

294
105. Agent Mediated Dynamic Coordination Policies:
Bose & Matthews
In large computer networks, it is
hard to balance processing resources for the Knowing

PA
Reasoning
many tasks that are concurrently being run. Space of for Adaptive
Constraints and priorities change Adaptation Decision
constantly. Somehow the different parts of
the system must understand the
implications of those changes for their own Detecting Integrating

E I
processes, plus change their own Change in
interactions with other processes in real the Change
Context or
time to fit system conditions. Needs
Bose and Matthews (2000) argue
that any self-adaptive software system that
responds to changing preferences and constraints must exercise four major
capabilities: detecting changes, knowing the adaptive degrees of freedom,
reasoning towards adaptive decisions and integrating changes. These are
described below in PAEI order:

P - Knowing the space of adaptations: The system must know what self-
changes it can choose from to reduce deviations. It needs to know the
dimensions of this task, the favored tactics and preferred values for key
variables. These are things the adaptive system can do.

A - Reasoning for adaptation decision: Explicit planning may be needed.

The system should be able to reason and make commitments on the self-
changes and revised goals.

E - Detecting change in context or needs: The system must monitor its

behavior and detect deviations from its commitments or the presence of new
opportunities. It should be able to accept new needs from external sources
and evaluate for deviations with respect to current commitments.

I – Integrating the change: Coordination changes may have to be packaged,

assembled and configured to insert them dependably into the current system
without excessively disrupting ongoing behaviors.

295
Bose and Mattews then describe a three-layer multi-agent architecture to
tackle this problem. Their model covers the P, E and I elements of the
Adizes model, with A-style agents playing important supporting roles within
the P and E layers.

296
106. Interacting Cognitive Radios: Joseph Mitola III,
Neel et al.
The term ‘cognitive radio’ was introduced by Joseph Mitola III
(1999) to describe a category of smart wireless technology, where networks
of handheld wireless communications devices can optimize and tailor their
use of wireless communication bands based on user needs in various use
contexts.
To optimize resource use, wireless devices must be able to model
their location, their users, networks and the larger environment. Then they
can decide which radio bands, transmission/reception interfaces, and
communications protocols would be best to use, given their goals and their
context. They might even use artificial intelligence to plan, learn or evolve
new protocols, in principle. However, better use of wireless resources is the
basic goal, reached via a six-stage cognition cycle:

Observe: Get info about the operating context through their sensors or
through signaling.
Orient: Evaluate this information to determine its significance and
relevance.
Plan: Based on this evaluation, the radio determines its options or
alternatives.
Decide: An alternative is chosen that evaluates more favorably than other
options, including the current ongoing action.
Act: The radio implements the alternative by adjusting its resources and
performing the appropriate signaling. These changes are then reflected in the
interference profile presented by the cognitive radio in the outside world.
Learn: Throughout the process, the radio uses its observations and decisions
to improve its own operation, creating new modeling states, alternatives or
valuations. (Neel et al., 2005)

This cognitive cycle lines up with the 3 individualistic concerns: P,

A and E, as follows:
P – Decide, Act
A – Plan, Learn
E – Observe, Orient, Learn

297
 Neel et al. comment that the original cognitive radio concept is
unrealistic in one respect, the missing I. In cognitive networks, most of the
interference that cognitive radios will face will be from other cognitive
radios, all adjusting their resource use dynamically and concurrently. To
model this problem, Neel at al. mapped the cognition cycle to the normal
form of a game, using game theory to analyze interactions among radios.

298
Neuroscience
My explorations of neuroscience were initially driven by the attempt to see if
the structure of concern could somehow be reduced to hemispherical
differences of the sort initially postulated by Ned Hermann (1989). This is
not what I have found. In the neuroanatomy literature, concern structure
patterns arise most naturally in papers that describe the vertical flow of
information from lower to higher brain centers and vice versa. The left-right
distinction rarely maps neatly onto the structure of concern. This deserves
emphasis, given the popular emphasis on supposed hemispherical differences
as the basis for difference in personality styles. My initial foray into this area
suggest that lateral distinctions are much less important than the vertical
organization of interoceptive and exteroceptive interweaving brain columns
as shaped by evolutionary pressures for both survival and reproduction.
Concern structure thinking holds out some promise as a framework
for making sense of some of this vertical information flow within the brain. I
would hope it would hold some interest for neuroscientists seeking
integrative frameworks for brain modeling. Given the ecological resonance
of the structure of concern, I think there may very well some promise here
for payoffs in understanding the organization of brains.

299
107. Topology, Graph Theory & the Magic Number Four
in Neuroscience: Robert Glassman
In a review of so many four-part models, one has to wonder what is
so special about the number four. Do these models represent something in
nature that is four-fold? Perhaps it is only some common analytical habit that
predisposes us to see things in this particular four-fold manner. Whether
either or both of these are true, it remains incumbent upon us to question
what might be so special about four-fold models.
In a series of articles (Glassman, 2003; Glassman, 1999a; Glassman,
1999b; Glassman, 1999c; Glassman et al., 1998; Glassman, 1997; Glassman
et al., 1994) Robert Glassman undertakes this investigation. His goal is to
explain the capacity limits of working memory; i.e. the well-studied fact that
both we and other species can keep about 7 ±2 items of active information in
mind in any span of time. Since limited working memory seems to be a very
stable and robust finding in living organisms, Glassman looks into the
organizational and operational features that might explain why selection
favored these particular limits.
A lower limit upon working memory is furnished by the mathematics
of association. To be useful, working memory should sustain at least three
chunks of active information. Two chunks may be logically inadequate for
cognitive representation, i.e. for supporting decisions or constructing larger
representations. Direct one-to-one associations leave no room for decision-
making. At least three representations are needed to represent a contingency,
with the third element providing a context or occasion for the paired
association. If we were to give this decision-making function mathematical
expression as a search or walk through an option-space, we would need at
least three non-colinear points to define that space – a triangle. Glassman
also notes that the syntax of natural language strongly features the action set
of subject, verb and object, and that the emergence of three-word utterances
in child development ushers in a period of rapid linguistic growth. Three is
thus a representationally significant number. (Glassman, 2003)
Furthermore, at least three nodes are needed to explore associativity
and represent groups, transitivity and other more complex relations. To
determine that A, B and C are associative in mathematical terms, one has to
be able to determine that A+(B+C)=(A+B)+C. "If a hypothetical mental
buffer were able only to hold pairs of elements, then, if it begins with A and
B, one of these must be dropped in order to pick up C. That leaves only the
possibility of piecemeal chaining of pairs in long-term memory (LTM)."
Glassman concedes that a two-node system could recursively chunk paired
items (AB) to associate them as a unit with a third item (C). However, these
associations finalize meaning, like a decision, commitment or rule. There is
no more room for representing conditions and contingencies. Meaning is
300
narrowed to a single pathway of definite associations, rather than an open
space for context-sensitive choices.
While working memory must involve at least three-way associations,
Glassman reviews a number of experimental findings that indicate that the
upper limit on simultaneous associations in working memory is only four
(Glassman et al., 1998; Glassman et al., 1994). We get to the magic number 7
by looping or continually refreshing working memory in time. Four items at
time t can thus be chunked into one item at time t+1, providing a context for
the three remaining working memory slots. I will not take the time to
duplicate Glassman’s empirical argument here. Instead, I want to focus on a
further observation that he offers. He argues that, aside from the empirical
reasons to believe that working memory capacity is limited to four items,
there are structural reasons why this must be so. Four represents a
mathematical upper limit for simultaneous associative interrelations in the
brain, because of the topology of the isocortex.
Many structures in the central nervous system are sheet-like or
laminar in structure. That means that local interactions must take place on
surfaces that are effectively two-dimensional. Isocortex is the most
conspicuously sheet-like structure of all. This planar organization imposes
certain mathematical constraints upon local associations. On any two-
dimensional or sheet-like surface, if four sub-regions are defined, any one of
them can grow an edge to contact any of the other three without ‘cutting
across’ another patch, isolating or ‘trapping’ part of the invaded sub-region.
With five or more sub-regions defined, some patches will be disconnected.
“So long as there are no more than four planar regions, any of them has free
access to grow an edge to any other in some way that does not split a
subpatch nor divide any of the other subpatches from each other.”
(Glassman, 2003) This mathematical limit flows from the “four-color
theorum”, the proven fact that you can color any flat map in only four colors,
and no region of it need border on another region of the same color, no
matter how serpentine the regions. Four regions can maintain undisrupted
contact with each other on a flat surface. Add a fifth and some isolation or
disconnection in inevitable.
It might even be argued that we see this growth in complexity during
conversations at cocktail parties. Robin Dunbar has observed that human
conversation groups have a “decisive upper limit” of four individuals. The
addition of a fifth listener will destabilize the group, resulting in side
conversations and a division of the group in two. (Dunbar, 1996; p. 121) This
four-unit threshold for all-way associativity may represent a universal limit
on the unity of simple systems, with bifurcation and differentiation occurring
above that threshold. Glassman argues that this may explain the upper limits
of working memory.

301
 The importance of the number four in the mathematics of planar
surfaces is further explored in graph theory. Graph theory deals with systems
of vertices and arcs, or the points in a network diagram and the lines that
connect them. On a sheet-like surface, you can connect up to four vertices
with arcs such that no arcs bisect or cross any other arcs. In other words, on a
flat surface you can connect three points in a triangle, then add a fourth point
that you can connect to the three triangle points without crossing any lines
(forming a diamond, and then connecting the two far points with an arc or
‘handle’). From the fifth point on, if you want to connect every point to
every other point, you have to cross or overlay lines. On a planar surface, a
four-point graph is the largest complete graph (where every vertex is
connected to every other) possible. (Glassman, 2003)
These combinatorial issues are important for Glassman because, on
his account, working memory must involve some kind of dynamic allocation
of cortical space over brief time intervals. He proposes that “…mental
associations among the WM items are embodied neurally as topological
associations of activated areas and subareas of cortex.” In other words, the
active working memory ensemble would be topologically adjacent to each
other, and in range of local cortical connectivity. Long cortico-cortical
connections might participate in binding the features of items represented
working memory subpatches, but for economy of time and energy, local and
neighborhood connections would have to serve active duty as well. To
support rapid and flexible working memory operations, certain cortical areas
may sustain “pointers”, “proxies” or “surrogates” for otherwise more
distributed representations, so that the speed of adjacent or overlapping
cortical associations can be used for quick thinking and rapid responding.
Glassman writes:
"Surrogacy" might be a mechanism for bringing
together attributes whose cortical substrates are remote
from each other. That is, any of the three or four
neighboring sub-millimeter scale cortical subpatches
might somehow briefly surrender its own response
characteristics, and stand in locally to represent a
different attribute. The response characteristics of such
a hypothetical, temporarily "possessed" subpatch
might be loaned via communication from an active
patch at a more remote cortical location, whose natural
feature-analyzing properties tune to the particular
attribute. Alternatively, local elbow-rubbing
operations related to diverse, distributed feature-
representations might exploit highly convergent

302
 "association cortex", for example fronto-limbic areas.
(Glassman, 2003)

Glassman sees a role for neuromodulators in this hypothetical

surrogacy function.
These organizational and topological considerations may help
explain why the structure of concern seems so widespread. Fourfold
arrangements are special in the mathematics of surface topology, and
surfaces or boundaries of all kinds have great natural and biological
significance. Guts, skins, gas exchange surfaces and other biological
interfaces all exploit sheet-like structures, as does isocortex. Furthermore,
topological arrangements of representations are largely conserved as
information is processed throughout the nervous system. From the flat
surface of the retina to the lateral geniculate nuclei to the visual cortex to the
object and position analyzers of higher association cortices, the topological
relationships between all the various bits of data in the visual image remain
remarkably intact. The same can be said for other sensory systems:
interoceptive and exteroceptive. These topological relationships are again
largely preserved in projections to the basal ganglia. If local associative
relationships are important for decision and evaluation processes, four-color
constraints may well impose their structure upon cortical computations.
Fourfold structure of concern models may in part reflect a four-field
local association zone in the cerebral cortex. It is also probable that four
color considerations play a role in the intellectual and representational
practices involved in the creation of these models. Investigators who draw
and write on paper and other two-dimensional surfaces to clarify visual-
gestalt types of ideas may well fall upon four-cell charts as a powerful way
for describing different yet associated dynamics. Structure of concern models
may represent in part the organizational necessities of their own
representation. The similarities of content across these various models would
not be explained by these representational issues, but perhaps a richer
account of the phenomena described might be given using models framed
using different modeling tactics.

303
108. Executive Functioning as Problem-Solving: Zelazo
et al.
A number of childhood psychiatric
and neurological disorders are held to
impact or involve executive functioning in
some way, but it has not been clear how.
Zelazo and colleagues (1997) suggest that it
has been difficult to characterize the impact
of executive function on behavior because
PAExecution Planning

E I
the concept of executive function itself is
inadequately characterized. They suggest Representing Evaluating
that a model of the temporal phases of
problem solving can be used to organize
and categorize executive function in a way
that will be both clinically and theoretically illuminating.
The authors thus divide problem solving into four temporal phases:
problem representation, planning, execution and evaluation. They assume an
individual problem-solving model, so the Intergrating function is weakly
represented in their schema. I present their categorization of executive
function below in PAEI order, noting that this breaks the temporal order of
the phases, which is important for the authors’ own work:

P – Execution: Requires maintaining focus on the goal for an adequate length

of time (intending), and translating the plan into action (rule use). Attention
control, volition, priority scheduling and tactical flexibility/shifting are all
required for this.

A – Planning: Means-ends analysis, working memory, goal and subgoal

setting, considering alternative courses of action, considering and evaluating
outcomes and potential consequences of actions, estimating the reliability of
resources and social support and managing resource scheduling and
dependencies are all required.

E – Representation: Construction, reconstruction, reconfiguration,

comparison and switching between different problem construals or problem-
space representations is needed, involving attentional and representational set
shifting, re-evaluation and re-prioritization, estimations of likelihood,
perspective-taking and perspective shifting.

304
I – Evaluation: Determining that the desired outcome has occurred, detecting
and correcting any errors if it has not, and revising earlier stages of problem
solving for future attempts if necessary. This is not a conspicuously social
activity (the entire planning cycle described here could be done either
individually or collectively), but it is integrative. Also, according to the
Dramatica model and many other theories of storytelling, one function of
stories is to communicate the outcomes of complex problems and solutions
along with the evaluations of the author or storyteller. Storytelling is very
conspicuously social, and an integrator of human societies.

305
109. Personality Dimensions in Adult Male Rhesus
Macaques: John Capitanio
Seeking to identify stable features

PA
of personality in Rhesus Macaque, and to
evaluate the predictive power of any such Confident Excitable
findings, John Capitanio (1999) extended a
3-factor typology developed by Stevenson-
Hinde et al. into the following 4-factor
scheme. The revised personality

E I
dimensions were able to account for 68% of
Equable Sociable
the variance in observed behavior,
according to Capitanio:

P – Confident:
confident - behaves in a positive, assured manner, not restrained or tentative
aggressive - causes harm or potential harm

A – Excitable:
active - moves about a lot
excitable - over-reacts to any change
subordinate - gives in readily to others; submits easily

E – Equable:
equable - reacts to others in an even, calm way; is not easily disturbed
understanding - discriminating and appropriate responses to behavior of
others
slow - moves and sits in a slow, deliberate, relaxed manner; not easily hurried

I – Sociable:
sociable - seeks companionship of others
playful - initiates play and joins in when play is solicited
curious - readily explores new situations

This scheme proved to be sufficiently predictive of stable behavioral traits

over time spans of months and years that the author surmised it would be a
useful tool for animal husbandry in captive macaque populations.

306
110. Vertical Systems from Spine to Cortex: Larry
Swanson

For several years now, research

efforts headed by Larry Swanson at the

PA
University of Southern California have
traced vertical anatomical connections in Agonic Defensive
the rodent brain. Systems at the cortical and
striatopallidal level have been linked to
diencephalic and brainstem/spinal cord
systems. The amygdala has played an

E I
important role in the mediation of these
Reproductive Ingestive
connections, and perhaps the most
provocative claim arising from this research
has been that the amygdala is not a
structure unto itself, but rather several structures that can variously be
assigned cortical, striatal, and pallidal functions.

Fourfold distinctions play

important roles in these vertical anatomical
Fronto-

PA
and functional systems. Four systems feed Visceral
into the hypothalamic area from the cortex, Temporal
participating in the regulation of four
hypothalamic functions. Those functions
are involved in the regulation of three broad
categories of behavior: ingestive, Accessory Main

E I
defensive/agonic and reproductive (and Olfactory Olfactory
autonomic regulatory activity, considered
independently from these three/four
functions). These three categories might be
expanded to four if defensive behavior and
agonic behavior were differentiated. Framing all of these relationships is an
overall zoning of the nervous system into four functional systems: motor,
sensory, cognitive and behavioral state control. (Swanson, 2003, p. 95)

307
The various patterns of segmentation along
the entire vertical nervous system
demonstrate an oblique but consistent
relevance for PAEI distinctions, well within
the penumbra of the fuzzy concept being
explored. Furthermore, Swanson’s model
PA
Somato-
motor
Central
Autonomic

E I
involves the divergence and convergence of
Thalamo- Neuro-
information along this column between the
cortical endocrine
various four-part layers. This networking
among various four-part layers provides a
possible mechanism for one quadrant of a
system to modulate the three others, biasing responses towards a dominant or
preferred style/subsystem.
Starting at the base of the column, Risold, Thompson and Swanson
(1997) describe a visceral counterpart to the central pattern generators for
somatomotor behavior in the hindbrain and spinal cord. Cell regions in the
ventromedial diencephalon are organized and positioned such that they could
generate similarly patterned activity over neuroendocrine and autonomic
responses rather than somatomotor ones. They call these visceromotor
responses, which are the output of a hypothalamic visceromotor pattern
generator network (HVPG). The HVPG operates alongside a behavior
control column (BCC) for controlling motivated behaviors, particularly
ingestive, agonic, defensive and reproductive. The BCC involves both
hypothalamic and midbrain/hindbrain nuclei. The hypothalamus is thus
involved in generating both internally-directed visceromotor and externally-
directed somatomotor patterns related to core survival and reproductive
activities, and the strong motives that accompany those.
The hypothalamus does receive direct sensory information that
would be relevant for releasing visceromotor responses. It gets information
about environmental light from the retina, through its connection to the
suprachiasmic nucleus (SCN) most notably, and also to the
subparaventricular nucleus that is the heaviest target of SCN afferents,
among other nuclei involved in circadian rhythms and autonomic responses.
A second pathway reaches these same two nuclei from the ventral
lateral geniculate nucleus. The hypothalamus is also a major target for both
main and accessory olfactory information. Caudolateral areas of the lateral
hypothalamus receive olfactory information from the medial forebrain
bundle (MFB), from sources such as the olfactory bulb, piriform cortex and
amygdala (Risold et al., 1997). However, this direct sensory input is likely to
be more modulatory or regulatory in nature. The staging of the visceromotor
event itself involves higher brain systems that intersect with or converge
upon the amygdala in important ways.
308
 Swanson’s group views the amygdala as a name given to a group of
nuclei pushed together in the brain by happenstance, forming neither a
functional nor a structural unit. Rather, nuclei in the amygdalar region
belong to three distinct groups:

The caudal olfactory cortex (cortical, piriform and postpiriform

amygdala, nucleus of the lateral olfactory tract);

The ventromedial claustral complex (lateral, basal and posterior nuclei),
and;

The caudoventral striatum (central, medial and anterior amygdala and
intercalated nuclei). (Petrovich et al., 2001; Dong et al., 2001; Swanson
& Petrovich, 1998).

These three amygdalar areas participate in four major telencephalic systems

– frontotemporal, visceral, accessory olfactory, main olfactory – described in
PAEI order below:

P: A frontotemporal system can be outlined that might mediate quick

survival-related action. It includes many gustatory and visceroregulatory
areas of the ventral forebrain, including the medial orbital area, insula,
ventral temporal cortex and hippocampus. This system involves the anterior
basolateral amygdala and lateral amygdala, with outputs mainly to the
somatomotor system via the ventral and dorsal striatum. There is a
projection from the lateral amygdala to the central amygdalar nucleus, which
is involved in autonomic pattern generation, and which influences the
striatum via the substantia nigra. The setup suggests a very quick shift from
bio-relevant information processing into action, accompanied by supportive
autonomic effects.

A: The visceral system is a narrower version of the frontotemporal system in

some ways, and seems more geared towards the avoidance of unpalatable
events. It includes agranular insular areas (primary gustatory/degustatory
cortex), medial prefrontal areas directly involved in visceroregulation, and
the subiculum, though by some to play a key role in anxiety and fault-
detection (McNaughton & Gray, 2000). The main amygdalar target is the
central nucleus, and below that the lateral hypothalamus, in regions that
innervate many autonomic cell groups in the brainstem and spinal cord
implicated in conditioned fear responses.

309
E: Accessory olfactory functions in the rat and other animals processes non-
volatile chemical compounds with biological significance for the animal,
most notably the pheromones released by conspecifics indicating
reproductive status, territory markings and social
status/dominance/eminence. (By contrast, the identification of specific group
members such as mother, child, littermate etc. involves the more targeted
chemical analytics of the main olfactory system.) The accessory or
vomeronasal system is for broad-brush social status judgments relevant to
one’s own motivational state. In humans the vomeronasal organ itself is
vestigial. Social computations of all kinds have largely been captured by
higher, non-olfactory, multimodal limbic and cortical systems of great
complexity (so great that on some accounts it underpins all human cognitive
expansion. Dunbar, 2003). Nevertheless, the old accessory olfactory
pathways may maintain their social significance, under “new management”.
The amygdalar components of the accessory olfactory system in rats – the
anterior cortical amygdalar nucleus and the posterior nucleus – project to all
functional zones of the hypothalamus, particularly reproductive and
defensive areas, as well as lateral/autonomic areas and gonadotropic
neuroendocrine areas targeted by the SCN (potentially involved in seasonal
mating patterns). Thus this system seems to mediate social eminence, the
staking out of territories and mating within social reference groups.
Compared to the cycle-times for feeding or defense, reproduction is a much
longer-cycle seasonal activity for most animals, only to be undertaken when
the conditions and opportunities are right.

I: Main olfactory systems are finely-tuned evaluators of the biological

relevance and significance of substances, and also of individualized social
information. (In the early ontogeny of mammals, food value and social value
information are phenomenologically identical, since our first food source is
our mother.) The main olfactory systems involves five amygdalar cortical
areas (the anterior and posterolateral cortical nuclei, nucleus of the lateral
olfactory tract, a postpiriform transition area, and piriform-amygdalar area),
along with parts of the claustral complex and the striatal anterior amygdalar
area. Projections across the hypothalamus are comparatively light, with the
notable exceptions of projections from the piriform-amygdalar, posterior
basomedial and posterolateral areas, which heavily target the reproductive
and defensive behavior control areas. This setup suggests the intensive,
multivalent processing of socially-relevant information.

These fairly direct pathways represent one route for taking

information from four forebrain systems down to four hypothalamic
behavioral systems (ingestion, defense/agonism, reproduction,
autonomic/neuroendocrine control). There are four more routes as well:
310

Via the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST);

Via hippocampal formation (HCF);

Via hippocampus and septum, and;

Via the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC).

In the hippocampal formation, the entorhinal cortex is innervated

throughout by amygdalar input, and it in turn innervates essentially the whole
cortex, basal ganglia and hippocampus proper via the perforant path. It does
not project to the hypothalamus or thalamus. The parasubiculum projects to
the lateral mammillary bodies through the fornix. Projections into Ammon’s
horn and the subiculum that traverse the septal area, however, target four
hypothalamic areas. CA3 preferentially targets the caudal septum, and thus
the lateral hypothalamus and supramammillary area. CA1 and subicular
projections to the rostral and ventral septum project to the medial behavior
control column and paraventricular/neuroendocrine zones, respectively.
Reciprocally connected amygdalar and hippocampal areas do not
project in parallel to identical targets in the hypothalamus, offering a
potential mechanism for considerations of one kind (amygdalar-focal) to
influence or dominate another kind (hippocampal-situational) in directing
motivated behaviors and self-regulatory responses. In the rat, the central
amygdalar nucleus projects to the lateral hypothalamus, but not to the
hippocampus. It is involved in conditioned fear. The hippocampal
projection to the lateral hypothalamus arises in CA3, involved in novelty
detection. The lateral hypothalamus influences autonomic reactivity. Fear
versus fascination in response to novelty is a key differentiator between A
and E. This interaction in the lateral hypothalamus could be one of the
switches for setting up A or E style behavioral syndromes. Similarly, focal
versus situation reactivity differentiates P and E. P and A share a negative
bias towards novelty.
In terms of ascending projections, the hypothalamus uses at least
four routes for sending information to the telencephalon: 1) a massive direct
projection to the entire cortical mantle (a candidate for biasing the brain
towards a dominant style?); 2) indirect relays through the thalamus
(attention, learning, searching/foraging, activity switching); 3) the basal
ganglia (action and motivation), and; 4) brainstem structures like the
periaqueductal grey, superior colliculus, cuneiform nucleus and ventral
tegmental nuclei of Gudden, through the medial ZI, ventral anteromedial
thalamic nucleus and rostrodorsal nucleus reunions. A rough PAEI labeling
of these rising projections could be made as follows:

311
P: Basal Ganglia – action and motivation
A: Brainstem – vigilance, quick corrective responses
E: Thalamus – information processing, scene-building
I: Global – all aspects of cognition involving interoception and
social/visceral concerns.

All PAEI mappings in this section are highly provisional, but the
resonances between Swanson’s framework and other concern structure
models in psychology are worth emphasizing. A more careful analysis of
these issues might contribute to a biological basis for temperamental
differences, among other things. It would also be important to connect this
biological organization to the ecological conditions of its emergence.
Swanson’s differentiation between four systems and four functions
through the vertical brain is maintained in anatomical studies of the bed
nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST). Noting that the anterloateral BNST is
composed of four cell groups with dense local interconnections, Dong and
Swanson (2004) identify four subsystems that receive projections from this
structure, given below in PAEI order:

P: Somatomotor system (nucleus accumbens, substantia innominata, ventral

tegmental area, and retrorubral area and adjacent midbrain reticular nucleus)

A: Central ANS (central amygdalar nucleus, dorsal lateral hypothalamic area,

ventrolateral PAG, parabrachial nucleus, and nucleus of the solitary tract)

E: Thalamocortical feedback loops (midline, medial, and intralaminar

nuclei).

I: Neuroendocrine system (paraventricular and supraoptic nuclei,

hypothalamic visceromotor pattern generator network)

The posterior BNST has three divisions, and seems more integrative,
handling both topographically separate and converging projections to various
cerebral structures.
PAEI themes are traceable in many studies of the vertical brain. For
example, distinct, longitudinal neuronal columns have been identified within
the midbrain periaqueductal gray (PAG). There are dorsolateral or lateral

312
columns which are associated with active coping strategies (e.g.
confrontation, fight, escape), and a ventrolateral column associated with
passive coping strategies (e.g. quiescence, immobility, decreased
responsiveness). Active strategies are usually recruited when the stressor is
perceived as controllable or escapable, and passive strategies come into play
when the stressor is perceived as inescapable. This maps very neatly onto
the P-A distinction, in terms of both the behavior, and the ecological
conditions that make the behavior adaptive. (Keay & Bandler, 2001)
The rostral lateral periaqueductal gray (PAG) has also been shown to
play a role in the inhibition of hunting or predatory behavior and the release
of maternal behavior. Lesions to this region strongly inhibit hunting and
restore maternal behavior, indicating that some kind of P-I switch may be
found in this region (Sukikara et al., 2006). A full mapping of these vertical
relationships and PAEI “switches” would be a research project unto its own.

313
111. Mesencephalic Locomotor Region: H. M. Sinnamon

Several areas of the brainstem

produce locomotive behavior when
stimulated, and they appear to do so in
different behavioral contexts (Jordan,
1998). H. M. Sinnamon has proposed that
these locomotor areas be classified into
three functional groups: exploratory,
PA
Appetitive Defensive

E I
appetitive and defensive (Sinnamon, 1993).
The idea has been contested (Allen et al, Exploratory (Social)
1996), but Jordan reviews evidence from
brain stimulation studies, lesion studies and
immunohistochemical studies supporting
the mesencephalic locomotor region (MLR) construct.
Locomotive behavioral routines are the product of central pattern
generators controlled by descending brainstem reticulospinal pathways. The
reticulospinal area receives inputs from the exploratory, appetitive and
defensive locomotor systems through the MLR. Activity in the cerebellar
fastigial nucleus may also induce locomotion through a relay in the
reticulospinal area. Appetitive and defensive input to the MLR comes from
the lateral hypothalamus and medial hypothalamus/PAG, respectively.
These two hypothalamic sources also send collateral inputs directly to the
reticulospinal locomotor area. The exploratory system is driven by inhibitory
pallidal output from the basal ganglia that is thought to disinhibit the MLR.
Pallidal output does not reach the reticulospinal area directly. (Jordan, 1998)
According to Sinnamon, the role of locomotion differs in these three
motivational systems. Primary appetitive locomotion brings the organism in
contact with incentive and consummative stimuli. Defensive locomotion
places distance between the organism and threatening or painful stimuli.
Exploratory locomotion is directed towards distal stimuli in the larger
environment. These three locomotor concerns are related to three regions of
the MLR as described below in PAEI order:

P – The Primary Appetitive System

Sinnamon maintains that the appetitive and defensive locomotor systems
cannot be distinguished in the preoptic basal forebrain. The appetitive
system differentiates in the hypothalamus as the perifornical/lateral
hypothalamic locomotor region and its downstream targets. This includes
direct input to the reticulospinal locomotor area. However, activity in an
MLR area called the anterior dorsal tegmentum (ADT) of the midbrain seems
314
necessary for the onset of locomotion evoked by lateral hypothalamic
stimulation. GABA injection into this area reversibly blocked lateral
hypothalamus-evoked locomotion. Also involved is the deep mesencephalic
nucleus and related nuclei.

A – The Primary Defensive System

The defensive behavior network involves the medial hypothalamus and
central gray. Under the MLR construct, this system must be further
expanded to include the cuneiform region of the midbrain. Electrical and
chemical stimulation in all three of these areas gives rise to escape behavior.
Labeling studies reveal connections between these and other known elements
of the defense system throughout the limbic system, diencephalon, midbrain
and hindbrain.

E – The Primary Exploratory System

In the mesencephalon, exploratory locomotion is mediated by the
pedunculopontine nucleus. However, it receives input from subpallidal
circuits involving hippocampal projections to the accumbens, accumbens
projections to the subpallidum, and further projections to and through the
zona incerta.

All of these behavior systems are instrumental rather than social, but
a ready model for what “social locomotion” might look like is provided by
Porges’ Polyvagal theory (Porges, 2003). That theory identifies three
components of the autonomic nervous system each associated with a
different behavioral strategy. The first and phylogenetically oldest
component is the unmyelinated, visceral vagus that slows metabolism and
produces immobilization. This can be for digestive purposes or for freezing
and playing dead (passive avoidance of threat). The second component is the
sympathetic/adrenal system that raises metabolism and inhibits the visceral
vagus. It mobilizes ‘fight or flight’ responses to threat. The third and most
recently evolved component, unique to mammals, is the myelinated vagus.
The regulatory system served by the myelinated vagus can rapidly alternate
regulatory effects, shifting between mobilizing and immobilizing the animal,
fostering both engagement and disengagement with the environment.
Porges (2001) calls this the “social engagement system”. This kind
of cautious, autonomically sensitive stop-and-go locomotion is necessary for
social approach in mammalian societies. Porges notes further that the
mammalian vagus is structurally and functionally connected to cranial nerves
that regulate facial expression and vocalization. These are obviously crucial
for social engagement.
315
The Polyvagal theory stresses the regulatory, sensory and expressive
functions of the cranial nerves. Locomotion is not a focal issue for the
theory. However, if a social locomotive function were to be defined, some
analogue or effect of this social engagement system’s “vagal brake” might
prove important.

316
112. Parallel Channels through the Basal Ganglia:
Martin, Blumenfeld

Four parallel channels through the

basal ganglia can be traced (Blumenfeld,
2002; Martin, 1996) each one targeting a
different region of the frontal lobes. In
PAEI order, these are the motor, prefrontal,
oculomotor and limbic channels. Each one
is discussed in more detail below.
PAMotor Prefrontal

P: Motor Channel
Cortical projections in this channel enter
the basal ganglia primarily through the
E I
Oculomotor Limbic

putamen, and leave via the internal segment of the globus pallidus (GPi) and
the substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr). Outputs project to the ventrolateral
(VL) and ventral anterior (VA) nuclei of the thalamus. From there the
channel ascends towards the premotor area (PMA), supplementary motor
area (SMA) and primary motor cortex.

This channel is dedicated to the preparation for and control of action.

Representation in the preSMA has been associated with the intention to act
(Lau et al., 2004), the organization of action sequences (Kennerley et al.,
2004), the preparation and execution of action (Cunnington et al., 2002), the
endogenous generation of responses when environmental stimuli fail to
provoke responses (Lau et al., 2004). The preSMA is thought to support
cognitive motor control based on choices and discriminations made after
stimuli have been received, whereas SMA-proper plays a main role in
generating the readiness potential that precedes volitional, self-paced,
voluntary movements. (Ikeda et al., 1999) The SMA seems to play a role in
the suppression of sensation associated with voluntary action (Haggard &
Whitford, 2004).

A: Prefrontal Channel
Cortical input to the head of the caudate leaves the basal ganglia via the GPi
and SNr, projecting to the ventral anterior and mediodorsal (MD) thalamic
nuclei, projecting to the prefrontal cortex (PFC) – locus of working memory,
the conscious construction of representations, planning, prediction,
extrapolation and evaluation. Specific NMDA receptors in the PFC has been

317
shown to participate in the formation of contextual fear memories (Zhao et
al., 2005).

The head of the caudate nucleus processes information about the fairness of a
social partner’s decision, and the intention to trust that person once they have
been deemed fair (King-Casas et al., 2005). The caudate is also central to
‘altruistic punishment’ – the desire to punish violations of social norms even
when we have not been personally wronged (De Quervain et al., 2004). The
head of the caudate is also implicated in obsessive-compulsive disorder and
the regulation of ‘worry’ signals, in tandem with the orbitofrontal cortex
(Whiteside et al., 2004; Remijnse et al., 2005).

E: Oculomotor Channel
Cortical input for this channel projects to the body of the caudate nucleus,
and then to the VA and MD thalamic nuclei via the GPi and SNr. Output is
directed towards frontal and prefrontal areas in the vicinity of the frontal eye
fields. This channel is important for the higher-order control of eye
movements and for spatial. The caudate is particularly implicated in the
orientation of eyes towards rewards in the environment (Hikosaka et al.,
2006) and for channeling spatial information. The body of the caudate is
also implicated in the reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated
with early-stage intense romantic love (Aron et al., 2005). It also plays a key
role in classification learning; learning the relationships between stimuli and
responses or cognitive categories (Seger & Cinotta, 2005). For these and
other reasons, this channel thus seems to participate in (or partially overlap
with) a reward-seeking or exploratory system.

I: Limbic Channel
Cortical input to this ventral channel arises from the temporal cortex,
hippocampus and amygdala. Input enters the basal ganglia through the
nucleus accumbens, ventral putamen and ventral caudate. Output to the
thalamus emerges from the ventral pallidum, GPi and SNr, heading towards
the MD and VA thalamic nuclei. These project to the anterior cingulate
cortex and the orbitofrontal cortex – areas involved in the evaluation of
personal actions and environmental resources, as well as social, behavioral
and affective self-regulation.
This is a highly simplified and incomplete account of the brain
regions described, but it serves as a starting point for understanding how the
structure of concern may be embodied in the brain and in behavior.

318
113. Midline Thalamic Nuclei: Van der Werf et al.

Functional localization in the

thalamus, specifically in the midline and Limbic

PA
intralaminar nuclei, have a fairly direct Motor Cognitive
bearing on concern structure patterns. (Posterior) (Lateral)
Once thought to have a diffuse, global Group Group
arousing effect upon the brain, these nuclei
are now know to have specific cognitive, Multimodal Viscero-

E I
sensory and motor functions, involving not Sensory
arousal so much as aware processing. To Limbic
Procesing (Dorsal)
better understand the connectivity of these (Ventral)
nuclei, Van der Werf et al. (2002) traced Group
Group
their afferent and efferent projections.
They found that the midline and intralaminar thalamic nuclei are clustered
into four groups, each with its own cortical and subcortical input and target
structures.

The groups are described below in a very tentative PAEI order:

P – Limbic Motor Group (Posterior nuclei)

This group generates motor responses upon awareness of salient stimuli. It
consists of the centre median and parafascicular nuclei, and heavily targets
the basal ganglia, including the caudate, putamen and notably some pallidal
targets as well: globus pallidus, subthalmic nucleus and substantia nigra. In
fact, this group's projections cover the striatal projections of all the other
midline and intralaminar nuclei, resulting in a double projection from these
nuclei across the entire striatum. Strong return projections to the centre
median from the putamen and dorsolateral caudate result in a closed
sensorimotor loop. Parafascicular nuclei innervate the ventral and medial
striatum, participating in limbic-associative motor processes. The strong
involvement in motor control places this group with the P concern area of
short-term/immediate goal achievement.

A – Cognitive Group (Lateral nuclei)

The lateral cognitive group includes the central lateral and paracentral nuclei,
and the anterior part of the central medial nucleus. These nuclei project
heavily to prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices. Damage to this area can
produce neglect, inattention and hypersomnolescence. It is also associated

319
with the disruption of executive functions, leading to cognitive inflexibility
and working memory disruptions. A-type coping and management skills rely
very heavily on these kinds of executive functions, and they are vulnerable to
the abovementioned disruptions.

E – Multimodal Sensory Processing Group (Ventral nuclei)

Made up of the reuniens and rhomboid nucleus and the posterior part of the
central medial nucleus, this group does not project significantly to the
striatum, unlike other groups. Instead, it targets primary and associative
sensory and motor cortices, as well as parahippocampal cortices and the
hippocampus proper. On the basis of this connectivity, Van der Werf et al.
suggest that this group influences higher order affective, polysensory and
cognitive processes. Reliable functional studies of this region are scarce.
Expanding cross-modal awareness and sensory orientation help define the
expanded zone of awareness for E’s pattern-seeking behavior.

I - Viscero-Limbic Group (Dorsal nuclei)

This clustering of the paraventricular, parataenial and intermediodorsal
nuclei is characterized by output to the amygdala and the medial nucleus
accumbens. This group also has the greatest connectivity with the medial
prefrontal cortex. It participates with the other groups in outputs to the
entorhinal and agranular insular areas, and also receives more
monoaminergic input than the other groups, as well as input mediated by
nitrous oxide. The paraventricular nucleus has been associated with stress
and fear, and corticotrophin releasing hormone is present within it. Other
viscerosensory functions include state-setting, visceral feedback and
motivated arousal. This region is sensitive to cocaine conditioning. It is
placed within the I domain largely because of its input-output relationships
with important parts of the social brain.

In contrast with the strictly organizational observations regarding the

synaptic organization of thalamic glomeruli, these four groups of thalamic
nuclei subserving four different modes of awareness bear directly upon
observed behaviors categorized within the structure of concern. The
thalamus is also closely involved with the adjacent zona incerta, which is
also organized in a fourfold manner relevant to the structure of concern.

320
114. Zona Incerta: J. Mitrofanis

The zona incerta stands out sharply

as a brain structure that may be subject to Postural-

PA
Attention
the four-color topological constraints Locomotor
(Dorsal)
described by Robert Glassman (2003). It (Ventral)
ZI
seems to be made up of four loosely ZI
defined and heavily interconnected cyto-
architectonic sectors (rostral, caudal, dorsal
Arousal

E I
and ventral). Furthermore, four diverse Visceral
functions have been associated with the (Caudal) (Rostral)
zona incerta, and some evidence suggests ZI ZI
that each of these functions can be mapped
to its own sector (perhaps with some
overlap into other sectors. Mitrofanis, 2005).
The global function of the zona incerta can be seen as linking diverse
sensory channels to appropriate response systems, namely visceral, arousal,
attention and postural-locomotive systems. These four systems can be
assigned to fuzzy PAEI sets as follows:

P – Ventral ZI: Posture/Locomotion, including defensive orientation, the

stereotypic movements of copulation and other postures and locomotive
movements via brainstem and spinal cord connections.
A – Dorsal ZI: Attention, linking somatosensory information to superior
collicular firing.
E – Caudal ZI: Arousal, possibly shifting from less to more alertness during
wakefulness, through heavy interconnections with brainstem and thalamic
arousal centers.
I – Rostral ZI: Visceral functions, especially ingestion and sexual cycles,
through connections with the hypothalamus.

The superior colliculus has been described as having two modes: an

event mode eliciting visual tracking, and an emergency mode triggering
defensive avoidance or flight. (Dean et al., 1989). The zona incerta may
participate in permitting and/or inhibiting visual tracking guided by
sensations on the body, depending on the degree of defensive activation.
While zona incerta functions are a far cry from the higher workings
of human personality and temperament, they cluster along PAEI lines of
activity, monitoring/defensive avoidance, degrees of alertness and
321
awakening, and social/visceral functioning (which are basically identical for
infant mammals). Furthermore, the connections of the zona incerta are very
extensive, synapsing along the vertical extent of the brain from cerebral
cortex to spinal cord. If its inputs and outputs are topographically mapped to
any extent, this would argue for the relevance of a fourfold organizational
scheme for the neuraxis.

322
115. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: Gray and
McNaughton
In their book The Neuropsychology
of Anxiety, Jeffrey Gray and Neil

PA
McNaughton reframe several important Threat of Threat of
concepts to support their contention that the Non-Reward
Punishment
role of the hippocampus is not just to
process spatial information, nor only to
contribute to long-term memory
consolidation, but rather to perform a more
encompassing function of detecting goal
conflict. The precise anatomical target of
their analysis is actually something they
call the septo-hippocampal system, which E I
Novelty Relational
Processing

include all the neuroanatomical structures that receive theta-regulating

GABAergic inhibitory signals from the medial septal area. This includes the
hippocampus proper, the dentate gyrus, entorhinal cortex, subiculum and the
posterior cingulate cortex (Gray & McNaughton, 2002).
Anti-anxiety drugs, both classic and novel, all disrupt theta activity
in this system. Furthermore, they are the only class of drug that does so.
Lesions to this system produce anti-anxiety effects as well. Gray and
McNaughton’s project is thus to build an account of the septo-hippocampal
system that accounts for its navigational and mnemonic activities as well as
its determining role in the production of anxiety.
Central to their account is the concept of defensive approach. The
contrast defensive approach with the defensive avoidance (fight-flight-
freeze) system, involving the periaqueductal gray, medial hypothalamus,
amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex. This system manages the
information, motivation, affect and action plans involved in leaving, escaping
or avoiding aversive situations. Defensive approach, on the other hand,
involves approaching potentially threatening situations to investigate them.
Motivations and affect are mixed, and the animal has to inhibit both the
hypothalmically regulated appetitive system and the fight-flight-freeze
system in order to enter a risk-assessment mode. Attention must be
sharpened, and a level of arousal must be maintained in case an immediate
shift into fight-flight-freeze is required.
The septo-hippocampal system can be characterised as a system
which accomplishes this behavioural inhibition. It detects and eliminates
conflict between "nearly equally primed incompatible goals". Goals
encompass both stimuli and response information, can be differentiated by
differing response tendencies or differing stimuli to which a response could
be made. The system helps eliminate conflicts by increasing the negative
323
valence or weight of affectively negative information. The hippocampus
rules things out. This computational strategy is used to explain all of the
functions of the hippocampus.
The hippocampus is thus described as a series of comparators, in the
tradition of Vinogradova (1975).((Vinogradova, 1975)). Gray and
McNaughton describe three comparators, a CA3 novelty/familiarity
comparator, a CA1 conflict comparator, and a ‘troubleshooting’ comparator
in the subiculum, which detects conflict specifically in an animals response
tendencies.
A structure of concern pattern emerges from Gray and
McNaughton’s account at this point, in their list of circumstances where the
troubleshooting function is required; i.e. things that generate conflicting
response tendencies. In PAEI order, there are:

P – The Threat of Non-Reward

A – The Threat of Punishment
E – Novelty
I – Relational Processing

P – The Threat of Non-Reward: Potential goal loss or non-reward is still

frustrative - a secondary frustrative stimulus (primary would be the actual
loss of a reward). The threat of non-reward generates approach-avoidance
conflict, and sometimes also fight-flight conflict (or perhaps dominance-
submission conflict). These conflicting tendencies have to be inhibited as
arousal and attention are increased, to better assess the situation.

A – The Threat of Punishment: This is like the threat of non-reward, but the
key emotion is a sense of endangerment which activates the fight-flight-
freeze system. Sometimes, however, these urges must be stifled. Animals
must venture out under potentially dangerous conditions. Thus they must
approach and explore potential dangers (cautiously) to assess the degree of
danger involved. The hippocampus inhibits prepotent approach and avoid
tendencies while this assessment is being made.

E – Novelty: The hippocampus enables exploration. It receives subcortical

input regarding biologically relevant stimuli (potential goals), and compares
this with cortical or subcortical mnemonic/motor input. If the comparator
receives only subcortical input and no matching cortical information, the
potential goal is novel. The hippocampus then determines the strength or
324
weight of the new goal relative to other active or prepotent ones. It inhibits
prepotent goals (functioning like an ‘interrupt’ signal), allowing an
orientation response, followed by the activation of exploratory behavioral
programs.

I – Relational Processing: The isocortex is an associative machine. If it is too

promiscuous, many things might be bound together by accident. During
information retrieval, too many associations (i.e. information that is not
contextually relevant), would be retrieved. The only way the cortex itself
could drop inaccurate associations would be to allow those links to weaken
over many trials. The hippocampus plays a role in preventing excessive
relational binding, and in inhibiting primed associations that are in conflict
with the context. This ‘gating’ function has been observed in
electrophysiological studies (Grace & Moore, 1988) and modelled
computationally (Wagar & Thagard, 2004).

Integrators, in the Adizes formulation, are exquisitely sensitive to

social context, and regularly comb through their store of social information,
looking for signs of goal conflict, or inconsistencies relevant to the
attainment of social goals. Relational processing is a fundamental part
(though only a part) of this activity.

325
116. Dimensions of OCD Symptoms: Hasler et al.
Hasler et al. (2005) report on the
results of factor- and cluster-analytic Symmetry

PA
analyses of symptom categories in Hoarding Repeating
obsessive–compulsive disorder, associating Counting
the emergent OCD symptom dimensions Arranging
with comorbid neuropsychiatric conditions.
The hypothesis was that people with certain
sets of OCD symptoms might be more like Aggressive

E I
Contamination
to have certain comorbidities than others. Sexual
Washing
They interviewd people with OCD using Religious
Somatic Cleaning
the DSM-IV Structured Clinical Interview,
assessing OCD symptoms using the Yale–
Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale Symptom Checklist (N =169) and the
Thoughts and Behaviors Inventory (N =275). These assessments were
subjected to factor and cluster analyses.
Hasler et al. (2005) report that "An identical four-factor solution
emerged in two different data sets from overlapping samples, in agreement
with most smaller factor-analytic studies employing the YBOCS checklist
alone. The cluster analysis confirmed the four-factor solution and provided
additional information on the similarity among OCD symptom categories at
five different levels."
The four OCD symptom factors are listed below in PAEI order:

P - Factor IV (Hoarding obsessions and compulsions) Did not dominate any

category for comorbid symptoms. Hoarding can be seen as a
competitive/exclusive activity, which is resource-oriented rather than social
or self-presentational. Action to secure material resources is a strong P trait.

A - Factor II (Obsessions: symmetry. Compulsions: repeating, counting and

ordering/arranging) associated with panic disorder, agoraphobia, tics
(Nestadt et al. 2003), and bipolar disorders (Hasler et al., 2005). Using order
to manage, divert or contain panic is a core feature of A concern structures.

E - Factor I: (Obsessions: aggressive, sexual, religious and somatic.

Compulsions: checking) was broadly associated with comorbid anxiety
disorders and depression for Hasler et. al, with a male skew to distrubtion of
people experiencing these symptoms. Other studies (Perugi et al., 2002;
Hantouche et al., 2003) have related bipolar disorder to this factor/cluster as
well. The obssessive symptoms are self-aggrandizing or self-presentational.
326
The compulsion relates to an unquenchable need to ascertain that the state of
the world does or does not match what one wants/doesn't want it to be.
Factor I combines a narcissistic self-structure with an uncertain sense of the
actuality of accomplished events.

I - Factor III (Obsessions: contamination. Compulsions: washing, cleaning)

associated with eating disorders, and with more females than males
describing this experience. The concern is hygenic, involving caretaking
functions and the social, physical and personal care of the body - coping with
a poisoned nest by sealing boundaries.

Factors I and II had the strongest familial component, and were

associated with early-onset OCD.
Mataix-Cols et al. (2005) review twelve factor analytic studies with
information from over 2000 participants with OCD, that consistently
extracted factors or clusters of the type reported by Hasler et al. Mataix-Cols
et al. also review neuroimaging research, showing the following patterns of
brain involvement in OCD symptom-provocation studies:

P - Factor IV (Hoarding obsessions and compulsions): Increased activity in

the left precentral gyrus and right orbitofrontal cortex, reduced glucose
metabolism in the posterior cingulate gyrus and the dorsolateral prefrontal
(DLPFC reduction proportional to symptom severity; Mataix-Cols et al.,
2003; 2004; Saxena et al., 2001).

A - Factor II (Obsessions: symmetry. Compulsions: repeating, counting and

ordering/arranging): Correlated with reduced regional cerebral blood flow in
the striatum (Rauch et al., 1998).

E - Factor I: (Obsessions: aggressive, sexual, religious and somatic.

Compulsions: checking): Increased activation and blood flow in frontostriatal
regions and the thalamus, including the putamen/globus pallidus and dorsal
cortical areas in general (Rauch et al., 1998; Mataix-Cols et al., 2003; 2004).

I - Factor III (Obsessions: contamination. Compulsions: washing, cleaning):

Increased ventral and medial cortical activation including bilateral anterior
cingulate, ventromedial, ventrolateral, left orbitofrontal, right insular and
parahippocampal cortices. (Shapira et al., 2003; Mataix-Cols et al., 2003;
2004)
327
Part 4 : Afterword
The purpose of this book, as I have mentioned before, has been to
present a gigantic table to its readers. The table has four rows: PAE and I,
and 116 columns – one for each model, listing concepts corresponding to
PAE and I in each one. I have suggested that the pervasiveness of this
structure might be explained by the hierarchical nature of events – the fact
that every event is composed of components that interact to produce
situations within contexts (contexts that change). This event-structure
hypothesis would make the structure of concern a universal and fundamental
feature of reality, and we would expect to find concern structure dynamics
everywhere. It’s a hypothesis that I can only introduce in the present work,
rather than asserting or defending it.
There remains a lot of work to be done, even on the set of models I
have included in the present work. It would be good to compile lists of
common factors across these models, to analyze the various facets of those
factors and to systematize the correspondences across the entire set. But there
is a limit to what one person can accomplish alone. This project would
benefit greatly from a plurality of perspectives, differences of opinion and
constructive conflict between various points of view. My own perspective
on this phenomenon necessarily dominates the current compilation of
models. I think it is time to turn the project loose on the winds, and see which
ways it gets blown around the world.
This work is not conclusive. It is the opening of a question, rather
than the confirmation of a point. Its value inheres mainly in the degree to
which it serves as a resource for the investigations of others. I therefore offer
this catalog to you, with all of its flaws, hoping that despite these, you find
this collection provocative enough to start your own investigations into the
structure of concern – its extent and its nature, both of which remain
mysterious to me at this time of writing. That said, this project comes to an
end. Thanks for you attention to this text.

328
Bibliography
Adizes, I. (1979). How to Solve the Mismanagement Crisis. Homewood, Illinois:
Dow Jones-Irwin.
Adizes, I. (1991). Mastering Change: The Power of Mutual Trust and Respect in
Personal Life, Family Life, Business and Society. Santa Monica, California: Adizes
Institute Publications.
Adizes, I. (1999). Managing Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporations
Grow and Die and What to Do About It (Revised Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Adizes, I. (2004a). The Ideal Executive: Why You Cannot Be One and What to Do
about It. Santa Barbara, California: Adizes Institute Publishing.
Adizes, I. (2004b). Leading the Leaders: How to Enrich Your Style of Management
and Handle People Whose Style is Different from Yours. Santa Barbara, California:
Adizes Institute Publishing.
Adizes, I. (2004c). Management/Mismanagement Styles: How to Identify a Style and
What To Do About It. Santa Barbara, California: Adizes Institute Publishing.
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
Allen, L. F., Inglis, W. L., & Winn, R. (1996). “Is The Cuneiform Nucleus A Critical
Component Of The Mesencephalic Locomotor Region? An Examination Of The
Effects Of Excitotoxic Lesions Of The Cuneiform Nucleus On Spontaneous and
nucleus accumbens induced locomotion.” Brain Research Bulletin 41, (4), 201-210.
Allison, H. E., & Hobbs, R. J. (2004). “Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the ‘Lock-
in Trap’ of the Western Australian agricultural region”. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 3
[online].
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, Illinois:
Dow Jones-Irwin.
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York:
Commonwealth Fund.
Apter, M. J. (2001a). “An Introduction to Reversal Theory.” In M. J. Apter (Editor),
Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory (pp. 3-36).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Apter, M. J. (2001b). “Reversal Theory as a Set of Propositions.” In M. J. Apter
(Editor), Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory (pp. 37-
54). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Aristotle. (1984). The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle (Modern Library College
Edition ed.). Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd.

329
Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1987). InterGrammar: Toward an Integrative Model of
Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech (Studies in Anthropological
Linguistics 2. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Arnold, M. B. (1962). Story Sequence Analysis: A new method of measuring
motivation and predicting achievement. New York: Columbia University Press.
Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li , H. F., & Brown, L. L. (2005).
“Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense
romantic love.” Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327-337.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small Groups as Complex
Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development and Adaptation. London: Sage
Publications.
Austin, E. J., & Deary, I. J. (2000). “The 'four As': a common framework for normal
and abnormal personality?” Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 977-995.
Avero, P., Corace, K. M., Endler, N. S., & Calvo, M. G. (2003). “Coping Styles and
Threat Processing.” Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 843-861.
Baines, S., & Gelder, U. (2003). “What is family friendly about the workplace in the
home? The case of self-employed parents and their children.” New Technology,
Work and Employment, 18(3), 223-234.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human experience: Isolation and communion in
Western man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bandura, A. (2000). “Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy.”
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.
Bandura, A. (2001). “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective.” Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 126.
Barnes, B. (1975). Four bookes of offices (The English Experience: Its record in
early printed books published by facsimile No. 712). Norwood, New Jersey:
Thetrum Orbis Terrerum, Ltd. With Walter J. Johnson, Inc.
Baron, J. (1994). Thinking and Deciding (2 ed.). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Beach, L. R. (1990). Image Theory: Decision Making in Personal and
Organizational Contexts. (Wiley Series in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Beena, C. C. (1990). Personality typologies: a comparison of Western and ancient
Indian approaches. New Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers.
Berens, L. V., (2000). Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to
Temperament 2.0. Huntington Beach, California: Telos Publications.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). “Introduction.” in F. Berkes, J. Colding,
& C. Folke (Editors), Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building resilience for
complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Best, S. (2003). A Beginner’s Guide to Social Theory. London: Sage Publications.

330
Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1985). The Organization and its Ecosystem: A
theory of structuring in organizations. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1987). Structuring in Organizations: Ecosystem
theory evaluated. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
Birnbaum, B. (2004). Strategic Thinking: A four-piece puzzle. Costa Mesa,
California: Douglas Mountain Publishing.
Block, J. (2002). Personality as an Affect-Processing System: Towards an
integrative theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blumenfeld, H. (2002). Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases. Sunderland,
Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates Inc.
Bose, P., & Matthews, M. G. (2000). “An Agent Mediated Approach To Dynamic
Change in Coordination Policies.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science:
COORDINATION 2000: Coordination Languages and Models, 4th International
Conference. Springer.
Bridges, W. (2000). The Character of Organizations: Using personality type in
organizational development. Palo Alto: Davies-Black.
Bridges, W. (2004). Transitions: Making Sense of Life's Changes (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press.
Briggs Myers, I. (1980). Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, California: Consulting
Psychologists Pres.
Briggs-Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development
and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, California: Consulting
Psychology Press.
Brill, P. L., & Worth, R. (1997). The Four Levers of Corporate Change. New York:
American Management Association.
Browne, E. G. (1962). Arabian Medicine. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Burke, K. (1969). A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, California: Universtity of
California Press.
Burke, K. (1970). The Rhetoric of Religion. Berkeley, California: University of
California Press.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational
Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann.
Burroughs, J. A. (1955). Prudence integrating the moral virtues according to Saint
Thomas Aquinas. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
Capitanio, J. P. (1999). “Personality Dimensions in Adult Male Rhesus Macaques:
Prediction of Behaviors Across Time and Situation.” American Journal of
Primatology, 47, 299320.
Carroll, G. R. (1988). “Organizational Ecology in Theoretical Perspective.” G. R.
Carroll (Editor), Ecological Models of Organizations. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Ballinger Publishing Company.

331
Casey, J. (1990). Pagan Virtue: An Essay in Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Castillo, J. (2002). “A Note on the Concept of Tacit Knowledge.” Journal of
Management Inquiry, 11(1), 46-57.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American
industrial enterprise. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Cherry, D., & Miller, M. (1992). Brainstyles: Be Who You Really Are. Dallas, Texas
USA: Brainstyles, Incorporated.
Choiniere, R., & Keirsey, D. (1992). Presidential Temperament: The Unfolding of
Character in the Forty Presidents of the United States. Del Mar, California:
Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Ciavarella, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Stokes, G.
S. (2004). “The Big Five and venture survival: Is there a linkage?” Journal of
Business Venturing, 19(4), 465-483.
Cloninger, C. R. (1986a). “A systematic method for clinical description and
classification of personality variants: A proposal.” Archives of General Psychiatry,
44, 573-588.
Cloninger, C. R. (1986b). “A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in
the development of anxiety states.” Psychiatric Developments, 3, 167-226.
Cloninger, C. R. (1994). The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): a guide
to its development and use. Washington University, St Louis,Missouri: Centre for
Psychobiology of Personality.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). “A psychobiological
model of temperament and character.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990.
Coates, G., Duffy, A. H. B., Whitfield, I., & Hills, W. (2003). “An integrated agent-
oriented approach to real-time operational design coordination.” Artificial
Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 17, 287-311.
Conte, R., & Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Cognitive and social action. London: UCL
Press.
Cornford, F. M. (1968). The Republic of Plato. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cross, R., Rice, R. E., & Parker, A. (2001). “Information Seeking in Social Context:
Structural Influences and Receipt of Information Benefits.” IEEE Transactions On
Systems, Man, And CyberneticsPart C: Applications And Reviews, 31(4), 438-448.
Cunnington, R., Windischberger, C., Deecke, L., & Moser, E. (2002). “The
Preparation and Execution of Self-Initiated and Externally-Triggered Movement: A
Study of Event-Related fMRI.” NeuroImage, 15, 373-385.
Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience 4th Ed. Mason, Ohio: Thompson
Southwestern.
Dean, P., Redgrave, P., & Westby, G. W. M. (1989). “Event or emergency? Two
response systems in the mammalian superior colliculus.” TINS: Trends in
Neurosciences, 12(4).

332
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum.
De Geytere, T. (2005) “SECI model (Nonaka Takeuchi)” [Web Page]. URL
http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html [2005, October 29].
De Quervain, D. J. F., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U.,
Buck, A., & Fehr, E. (2004). “The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment.” Science,
305, 1254-1258.
Dennett, D. C. (1979). Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology
(Harvester Studies in Philosophy). Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press.
Dong, H.-W., Petrovich, G. D., & Swanson, L. W. (2001). “Topography of
projections from amygdala to bed nuclei of the stria terminalis.” Brain Research
Reviews, 38, 192-246.
Dong, H.-W., & Swanson, L. W. (2004). “Organization Of Axonal Projections From
The Anterolateral Area Of The Bed Nuclei Of The Stria Terminalis.” The Journal of
Comparative Neurology, 468, 277-298.
Draper, J. W. (1970). The Humors and Shakespeare’s Characters. New York: AMS
Press.
Driven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1998). Cognitive Exploration of Language and
Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philedelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Duffy, J. (1993). From Humors to Medical Science: A History of American
Medicine. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Duke Corporate Education. (2005). Influencing and Collaborating for Results.
Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Dunbar, R. (2003). “The Social Brain: Mind, Language, and Society in Evolutionary
Perspective.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 163-181.
Dunn, W. (1997). “The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of
young children and their families: a conceptual model.” Infants and Young Children,
9(4), 23-35.
Dunn, W. (2001). “The sensations of everyday life: empirical, theoretical, and
pragmatic considerations.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(6),
608-620.
Durkheim, É. (1952). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, É. (1966). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, É. (1973). Moral Education: A study in the theory and application of the
sociology of education. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). “Multidimensional Assessment of Coping:
A Critical Evaluation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 844-
854.

333
Fahey, L., & Narayanan, V. K. (1986). Macroenvironmental Analysis for Strategic
Management (The West Series in Strategic Management . St. Paul, Minnesota: West
Publishing Company.
Filipczak, Z. Z. (1997). Hot Dry Men, Cold Wet Women: The Theory of Humors in
Western European Art, 1575-1700. New York: The American Federation of the Arts.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human
Relations. New York: Free Press.
Foa, U. G. (1993). “Interpersonal and Economic Resources.” In U. G. Foa, J. Jr.
Converse, K. Y. Törnblom, & E. B. Foa Resource Theory: Explorations and
Applications (pp. 13-30). San Diego: Academic Press.
Foa, U. G., Törnblom, K. Y., Foa, E. B., & Converse, J. Jr. (1993). “Introduction:
Resource Theory in Social Psychology.” In U. G. Foa, J. Jr. Converse, K. Y.
Törnblom, & E. B. Foa Resource Theory: Explorations and Applications (pp. 1-10).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). “Mood and Judgement: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM).”
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.
Forgas, J. P., & Williams, K. D. (2002). The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal,
and Intergroup Perspectives (The Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology). New
York: Psychology Press.
Foster, G. M. (1953). “Relationships between Spanish and Spanish-American Folk
Medicine.” The Journal of American Folklore, 66(261), 201-217.
Foster, G. M. (1979). “Humoral Traces in United States Folk Medicine.” Medical
Anthropology Newsletter, 10(2), 17-20.
Furlong, G. T. (2005). The Conflict Resolution Toolbox: Models and maps for
Analyzing, Diagnosing and Resolving Conflict. Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley
and Sons, Canada.
Gardiner, H. N. (1918). “The Psychology of the Affections in Plato and Aristotle.”
The Philosophical Review, 27(5), 469-488.
Garrison, B. R. (1998). Plus-32 Employment Testing System: System management
book. Punta Gorda, Florida: B. R. Garrison Software Group.
Ginsberg, A., & Buchholtz, A. (1989). “Are Entrepreneurs a breed apart? A look at
the evidence.” Journal of General Management, 15, 32-40.
Girotto, V., & Rizzo, A. (1991). “Event controllability in counterfactual thinking.”
Acta Psychologica, 78, 111-133.
Glassman, R. B. (1997). “Might harmonies in the gamma brain wave octave
coordinate binding of multiple items in working memory?” Society for Neuroscience.
Abstracts, 23. Part 2(#820.16), 21-11.
Glassman, R. B. (1998). “A ‘theory of relativity’ for paradoxical time span flexibility
of limited item-capacity working memory. Involvement of harmonics among
ultradian clocks?” Society for Neuroscience. Abstracts, 24((Part 1, #67.10)), 166.

334
Glassman, R. B. (1999a). “Hypothesized neural dynamics of working memory:
several chunks might be marked simultaneously by harmonic frequencies within an
octave band of brain waves.” Brain Research Bulletin, 50, 73-77.
Glassman, R. B. (1999b). “Working memory: planar graph theory suggests that a
segmented, activated cortical domain can serve associativities of up to four chunk-
features.” Society for Neuroscience. Abstracts, 25(#355.19).
Glassman, R. B. (1999c). “A working memory ‘theory of relativity’: elasticity over
temporal, spatial, and modality ranges conserves 7 ±2 item capacity in radial maze,
verbal tasks and other cognition.” Brain Research Bulletin, 48, 475-489.
Glassman, R. B. (2003). “Topology and graph theory applied to cortical anatomy
may help explain working memory capacity for three or four simultaneous items.”
Brain Research Bulletin, 60, 25-42.
Glassman, R. B., Garvey, K. J., Elkins, K. M., Kasal, K. L., & Couillard, N. (1994).
“Spatial working memory score of humans in a large radial maze, similar to
published score of rats, implies capacity close to the magical number 7 ±2.” Brain
Research Bulletin, 34(151-159).
Glassman, R. B., Leniek, K. M., & Haegerich, T. M. (1998). “Human working
memory capacity is 7±2 in a radial maze with distracting interruption: Possible
implication for neural mechanisms of declarative and implicit long-term memory.”
Brain Research Bulletin, 47, 249-256.
Grace, A. A., & Moore, H. (1988). “Regulation of Information Flow in the Nucleus
Accumbens: A Model for the Pathophysiology of Schizophrenia.” In M. F.
Lenzenweger, & R. H. Dworkin Eds. Origins and Development of Schizophrenia:
Advances in Experimental Psychopathology (pp. 123-157). Washington DC:
American Psychological Association.
Gray, J. A., McNaughton, N. (2000) The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry
into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System (2 ed.). (Oxford Psychology
Series No. 33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gray, P. H., & Chan, Y. E. (1999). “A Typology of Knowledge Management
Practices.” Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 20(4).
Greatbatch, D., & Clark, T. (2003). “Displaying group cohesiveness: Humour and
laughter in the public lectures of management gurus.” Human Relations, 56(12),
1515-1544.
Gregorc, A. F. (1982). An Adult’s Guide to Style. Maynard, Massachusetts: Gabriel
Systems, Inc.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Washington DC: Island Press.
Haggard, P., & Whitford, B. (2004). “Supplementary motor area provides an efferent
signal for sensory suppression.” Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1),
52-58.
Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of Organizational Populations:
Density, Legitimation and Competition. New York: Oxford University Press.

335
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). “The population ecology of organizations.”
American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1988). “Density Dependence in the Growth of
Organizational Populations.” G. R. Carroll (Editor), Ecological Models of
Organizations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Hantouche, E. G., Angst, J., Demonfaucon, C., Perugi, G., Lancrenon, S., & Akiskal,
H. S. (2003). “Cyclothymic OCD: a distinct form?” Journal of Affective Disorders,
75(1), 10.
Harris, D. F. (1916). “The Influence of Greece on Science and Medicine.” The
Scientific Monthly, 3(1).
Hasler, G., LaSalle-Ricci, V. H., Ronquillo, J. G., Crawley, S. A., Cochran, L. W.,
Kazuba, D., Greenberg, B. D., & Murphy, D. L. (2005). “Obsessive-compulsive
disorder symptom dimensions show specific relationships to psychiatric
comorbidity.” Psychiatry Research, 135, 121-132.
Heath, R. L. (1986). Realism and Relativism: A Perspective on Kenneth Burke.
Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press.
Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2001). “Three Paths of Adult Development:
Conservers, Seekers and Achievers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(6), 995-1010.
Herrmann, N. (1989). The Creative Brain. Lake Lure, North Carolina: Ned
Herrmann/Brain Books.
Hikosaka, O., Nakamura, K., & Nakahara, H. (2006). “Basal ganglia orient eyes to
reward.” Journal of Neurophysiology, 95(2), 567-584.
Hill, J. M. D., & Surdu, J. R. (2001). “Simulation And Agent Cooperation In
Dynamic Plan Building.” Pennsylvania State University & NEC Labs.
Hill, J. M. D., Surdu, J. R., & Pooch, U. W. (2000). “Anticipatory Planning Using
Execution Monitoring And A Constrained Planning Frontier.” Pennsylvania State
University & NEC Labs.
Hölker, F., & Breckling, B. (2002). “Concepts of scales, hierarchies and emergent
properties in ecological models.” In F. Hölker (Editor), Scales, Hierarchies and
Emergent Properties in Ecological Models. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Holling, C. S. (2001). “Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and
social systems.” Ecosystems, 4(5), 390-405.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). Manual of Learning Styles. London: P. Honey.
Ikeda, A., Yazawa, S., Kunieda, T., Ohara, S., Terada, K., Mikuni, N., Nagamine, T.,
Taki, W., Kimura, J., & Shibasaki, H. (1999). “Cognitive motor control in human
pre-supplementary motor area studied by subdural recording of
discrimination/selection-related potentials.” Brain, 122(5), 915-931.
Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: Myth, theory and research. London: Prentice
Hall.
Jordan, L. M. (1998). “Initiation Of Locomotion In Mammals.” Annals Of The New
York Academy of Sciences, 860, 83-93.
336
Jørgensen, S. E. (1992). Integration of Ecosystem Theories: A Pattern. (Ecology and
Environment No. 1). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kaplan R. S., Norton D. P. (1996) Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into
Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Keay, K. A., & Bandler, R. (2001). “Parallel circuits mediating distinct emotional
coping reactions to different types of stress.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 25(7-8), 669-678.
Keirsey, D. (1995). Portraits of Temperament (3 ed.). Del Mar, California:
Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Keirsey, D. (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character,
Intelligence. Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please Understand Me: Character and
Temperament Types (3 ed.). Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis Book
Company.
Kennerley, S. W., Sakai, K., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2004). “Organization of Action
Sequences and the Role of the Pre-SMA.” Journal of Neurophysiology, 91, 978-993.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). “The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for
complementarity in human transactions.” Psychological Review, 90, 185-214.
King, T. M. (1999). Jung's Four and Some Philosophers: A Paradigm for
Philosophy. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Camerer, C. F., Quartz, S. R., & Montague, P.
R. (2005). “Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Economic
Exchange.” Science, 308, 78-83.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). “Management and learning processes.” California Management
Review, 18(3), 21-31.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). “Learning styles and disciplinary differences.” In A. Chickering
(Editor), The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experimental Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1971). Organizational Psychology: An
Experimental Approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kozak, B., Strelau, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2005). “Genetic determinants of individual
differences in coping styles.” Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 18(1), 1-15.
Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). “The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-
making in a complex and complicated world.” IBM Systems Journal, 42(3).
Lau, H. C., Rogers, R. D., Ramnani, N., & Passinghama, R. E. (2004). “Willed
action and attention to the selection of action.” NeuroImage, 21, 1407-1415.
Lawless, W. F. (2005). “Organizations, perturbations, and generating information.”
10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium -
The Future of C2 McLean, VA, Department of Defense Command and Control
Research Program.

337
Lawless, W. F., Castelao, T., & Abubucker, C. P. (2000a). “Conflict as a heuristic in
the development of an interaction mechanics.” In C. Tessier, L. Chaudron, & H. J.
Muller (Editors), Conflicting agents: Conflict management in multi-agent systems
(pp. 279-302). Boston: Kluwer.
Lawless, W. F., Castelao, T., & Ballas, J. A. (2000b). “Virtual knowledge: Bistable
reality and the solution of ill-defined problems.” IEEE Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, 30(1), 119-126.
Lawless, W. F., & Grayson, J. M. (2004a). “A conjugate model of organizations,
autonomy, and control.” AAAI Technical Report SS-04-03). Stanford University.
Lawless, W. F., & Grayson, J. M. (2004b). “A quantum perturbation model (QPM)
of knowledge and organizational mergers.” In L. Van Elst, & V. Dignum (Editors),
Agent Mediated Knowledge Management (pp. 143-161). Berlin: Springer.
Lawrence, P. R., & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our
Choices. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and
methodology for personality evaluation. New York: Ronald Press.
Lewis, M. (1993). “Self-Conscious Emotions: Embarrassment, Pride, Shame and
Guilt.” In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland (Editors) Handbook of Emotions (pp. 563-
594). New York: Guilford.
Loomis, M., & Saltz, E. (1984). “Cognitive styles as predictors of artistic styles.”
Journal of Personality, 52, 22-35.
Luft, J. (1969). Of Human Interaction. Palo Alto, California: National Press.
Luft, J. (1970). Group processes; an introduction to group dynamics (2 ed.). Palo
Alto, California: National Press Books.
Mache, C. (2007). The Four Kinds of Sales People: How and Why They Excel- And
How You Can Too. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Maddi, S. R. (1999). Personality theories: A comparative analysis (6 ed.).
Homewood, Ilinois: Dorsey.
Maddron, T. (2002). Living your colors: Practical wisdom for life, love, work and
play. New York: Warner Books Inc.
Magnavita, J. J. (2002). Theories of Personality: Contemporary Approaches to the
Science of Personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
March, J. G. (1991). “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.”
Organization Science, 2.
Margerison-McCann Team Management Systems (1998). Herndon, Virginia.
Martin, J. H. (1996). Neuroanatomy: Text and Atlas. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mataix-Cols, D., Cullen, S., Lange, K., Zelaya, F., Andrew, C., Amaro, E.,
Brammer, M. J., Williams, S. C. R., Speckens, A., & Phillips, M. L. (2003). “Neural
correlates of anxiety associated with obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions in
normal volunteers.” Biological Psychiatry, 53, 482-493.

338
Mataix-Cols D., Wooderson, S., Lawrence, N., Brammer, M. J., Speckens, A., &
Phillips, M. L. (2004). “Distinct neural correlates of washing, checking, and
hoarding symptom dimensions in obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Archives of
General Psychiatry, 61, 564-576.
Mataix-Cols, D., Conceição do Rosario-Campos, M., & Leckman, J. F. (2005). “A
Multidimensional Model of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.” American Journal of
Psychiatry, 162, 228-238.
McGill, I., & Brockbank, A. (2004). The Action Learning Handbook. New York:
Routledge Palmer.
McNaughton, N., & Gray, J. A. (2000). “Anxiolytic action on the behavioural
inhibition system implies multiple types of arousal contribute to anxiety.” Journal of
Affective Disorders, 61, 161–176.
Mella, P. (2003a). “Order and Chaos in Combinatory Systems: A Different
Approach to Collective Behaviour.” INSC 2003: International Nonlinear Sciences
Conference - Research and Applications in the Life Sciences.
Mella, P. (2003b) “Synchronization and Self-Organization in Organizations: The
Combinatory Systems View” [Web Page]. URL www.ea2000.it [2005, May 9].
Merrill, D. W., & Reid, R. H. (1981). Personal Styles and Effective Performance.
Bradner, PA: Chilton Book Company.
Miller, A. (1991). Personality Types: A modern synthesis. Calgary: University of
Calgary Press.
Miller, D. (1992). “The Icarus paradox: how exceptional companies bring about their
own downfall.” Business Horizons, Jan-Feb, 1992.
Miller, H. W. (1962). “The Aetiology of Disease in Plato's Timaeus.” Transactions
and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 93, 175-187.
Miller, M. (1997). Brainstyles: Change Your Life Without Changing Who You Are.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Miller, M. (2004). Brainstyles for Lovers: Create Partnerships That Change Your
Life Without Changing Who You Are. Dallas, Texas USA: Brown Books.
Mitchell, P. D. (2004). Medicine in the Crusades: Warfare, Wounds and the
Medieval Surgeon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mitola III, J. (1999). “Cognitive Radio for Flexible Multimedia Communications.”
IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Multimedia Communications, 1999.
(MoMuC '99) (pp. 3-10).
Mitrofanis, J. (2005). “Some Certainty For The ‘Zone Of Uncertainty’? Exploring
The Function Of The Zona Incerta.” Neuroscience, 130, 115.
Mourkogiannis, N. (2005). “The Realist’s Guide to Moral Purpose”. Strategy +
Business 41(Winter): 42-53.
Mourkogiannis, N. (2006). Purpose: The starting point of great companies. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.

339
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). “Learning Negotiation Skills:
Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer.” Management Science, 49(4),
529 540.
Nash, W. P. (1998). “Information Gating: An Evolutionary Model of Personality
Function and Dysfunction.” Psychiatry, 61, 46-60.
Neel, J., Menon, R., Reed, J. H., & MacKenzie, A. B. (2005). “Using Game Theory
to Analyze Physical Layer Cognitive Radio Algorithms.” The Economics,
Technology And Policy Of Unlicensed Spectrum. Quello Center for
Telecommunication Management and Law.
Nestadt, G., Addington, A., Samuels, J., Liang, K. Y., Bienvenu, O. J., Riddle, M.,
Grados, M., Hoehn-Saric, R., & Cullen, B. (2003). “The identification of OCD-
related subgroups based on comorbidity.” Biological Psychiatry, 53, 914-920.
Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2004). “A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm:
The Problem-Solving Perspective.” Organization Science, 15, 617-632.
Nideffer, R. M. (1976a). The Inner Athlete. New York: Thomas Crowell.
Nideffer, R. M. (1976b). “Test of attentional and interpersonal style.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 394-404.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ortet, G., Ibáñez, M. I., Llerena, A., & Torrubia, R. (2002). “The Underlying Traits
of the Karolinska Scales of Personality (KSP).” European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 18(2), 139-148.
Palmer, A., Burns, S., & Bulman, C. (1994). Reflective Practice in Nursing: The
Growth of the Professional Practitioner. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Parsons, T. (1968). The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with
Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. New York.: The Free
Press.
Parsons, T. (1971). Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Peña-Reyes, C. A. (2004). Coevolutionary Fuzzy Modeling Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.
Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Perugi, G., Toni, C., Frare, F., Travierso, M. C., Hantouche, E., & Akiskal, H. S.
(2002). “Obsessive-compulsive-bipolar comorbidity: a systematic exploration of

340
clinical features and treatment outcome.” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 63, 1129-
1134.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from
America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Petrovich, G. D., Canteras, N. S., & Swanson, L. W. (2001). “Combinatorial
amygdalar inputs to hippocampal domains and hypothalamic behavior systems.”
Brain Research Reviews, 38, 247-289.
Phillips, M. A., & Huntley, C. (1996). Dramatica: A new theory of story (3 ed.).
Burbank, California: Screenplay Systems Incorporated.
Pianka, E. R. (1970). “On r- and K-selection.” American Naturalist, 104, 592-597.
Pianka, E. R. (1988). Evolutionary Ecology (4 ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Pieper, J. (1965). The Four Cardinal Virtues. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Polya, G. (1945). How to Solve It: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Polya, G. (1965). Mathematical Discovery Volume II: On understanding, learning,
and teaching problem solving. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Porges, S. W. (2001). “The polyvagal theory: phylogenetic substrates of a social
nervous system.” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42, 123-146.
Porges, S. W. (2003). “The Polyvagal Theory: phylogenetic contributions to social
behavior.” Physiology & Behavior, 79, 503-513.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and sustaining superior
performance. New York: Free Press.
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). “Classifying managerial responses to
multiple organizational identities.” Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18-42.
Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., & McGrath, M. R. (2003).
Becoming a Master Manager: A Competency Framework (3 Ed.). New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Radhakrishnan, S., & Moore, C. A. (1957). A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Rands, M., & Levinger, G. (1979). “Implicit theories of relationship: An
intergenerational study.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 645-661.
Rauch, S. L., Dougherty, D. D., Shin, L. M., Alpert, N. M., Manzo, P., Leahy, L.,
Fischman, A. J., Jenike, M. A., & Baer, L. (1998). “Neural correlates of factor-
analyzed OCD symptom dimensions: a PET study.” CNS Spectrums: The
International Journal of Neuropsychiatric Medicine, 3, 37-43.
Reid, B. (1993). “‘But We’re Doing It Already!’ Exploring a response to the concept
of reflective practice in order to improve its facilitation.” Nurse Education Today,
13, 305-309.
Remijnse P. L., van den Heuvel, O. A., & Veltman D. J. (2005). “Neuroimaging in
obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Current Medical Imaging Reviews, 1(3), 331-351.

341
Riedl, R. (1978). Order in living organisms: A systems analysis of evolution. New
York: Wiley.
Risold, P. Y., Thompson, R. H., & Swanson, L. W. (1997). “The structural
organization of connections between hypothalamus and cerebral cortex.” Brain
Research Reviews, 24, 197-254.
Rometsch, M. (2004). “Organizational Identities in Networks: A New Systems
Theory Approach.” The 20th EGOS-Colloquium on “The Organization as a Set of
Dynamic Relationships” Sub-Theme 07 “Only Connect: Neat words, networks,
organizational identities, relations and language”.
Ruiz, d. M. (1997). The Four Agreements: A practical guide to personal freedom (A
Toltec Wisdom Book). San Rafael, California: Amber-Allen Publishing.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning
of psychological well-being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
1069-1081.
Sarton, G., & Erhardt-Siebold, E. v. (1943). “Remarks on the Theory of
Temperaments.” Isis, 34(3), 205-208.
Salthe, S. N. (1985). Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and
Representation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Saxena, S., Bota, R. G., & Brody, A. L. (2001). “Brain-behaviour relationships in
obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 6, 82-101.
Scantling, S. R. (1998). Extraordinary Sex Now: A Couple’s Guide to Intimacy. New
York: Doubleday.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). “Decision-making style: the development and
assessment of a new measure.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5),
818-831.
Seger, C. A., & Cincotta, C. M. (2005). “The roles of the caudate nucleus in human
classification learning.” Journal of Neuroscience, 25(11), 2941-2951.
Shapira, N. A., Liu, Y., He, A. G., Bradley, M. M., Lessig, M. C., James, G. A.,
Stein, D. J., Lang, P. J., & Goodman, W. K. (2003). “Brain activation by disgust-
inducing pictures in obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Biological Psychiatry, 54(7),
751-756.
Shin, I., Lee, I., & Min, S. L. (2004). “A Design Approach for Real-Time Embedded
Systems with Energy and Code Size Constraints.” Proceedings of the International
Conference on Real-Time and Embedded Computing Systems and Applications
(RTCSA).
Si Alhir, S. (1998). UML in a Nutshell: A desktop quick reference. Sebastopol,
California: O’Reilly.
Siever, L. J., & Davis, K. L. (1991). “A psychological perspective on the personality
disorders.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 1647-1658.

Siever, L. J., Klar, H., & Coccaro, E. (1985). “Biological response styles: Clinical
implications.” In L. J. Siever, & H. Klar (Editors), Psychobiological Substrates of

342
Personality (pp. 38-66). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (1997). “Integrating learning styles and
multiple intelligences.” Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27.

Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (2000). So Each May Learn: Integrating
learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, West Virginia USA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sims, M., Corkill, D., & Lesser, V. (2004). “Separating Domain and Coordination in
Multi-Agent Organizational Design and Instantiation.” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2004) (pp. 155-161).

Sinnamon, H. M. (1993). “Preoptic And Hypothalamic Neurons And The Initiation

Of Locomotion In The Anesthetized Rat.” Progress in Neurobiology, 41(323-344).

Siraisi, N. G. (1990). Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to

Knowledge and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Slade, Stephen. (1992). Goal-based Decision Making: An Interpersonal Model.

(Report No. 892). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Department of
Computer Science.
Stallings, M. C., Hewitt, J. K., Cloninger, C. R., Heath, A. C., & Eaves, L. J. (1996).
“Genetic and Environmental Structure of the Tridimensional Personality
Questionnaire: Three or Four Temperament Dimensions?” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70(1), 127-140.
Steadman, L. B., & Palmer, C. T. (1997). “Myths as Instructions From Ancestors:
the Example of Oedipus.” Zygon, 32(3), 341-350.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking Styles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Strickland, B. R. (1989). “Internal-External-Control Expectancies: From
Contingency to Creativity.” American Psychologist, 44(1), 1-12.
Sugiyama, M. S. (2001a). “Food, Foragers, and Folklore: the Role of Narrative in
Human Subsistence.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(4), 221-240.
Sugiyama, M. S. (2001b). “Narrative Theory and Function: Why Evolution Matters.”
Philosophy and Literature, 25(2), 233-250.
Sukikara, M. H., Mota-Ortiz, S. R., Baldo, M. V., Felicio L. F., & Canteras, N. S.
(2006). “A role for the periaqueductal gray in switching adaptive behavioral
responses.” Journal of Neuroscience, 26(9), 2583-2589.
Surdu, J. R., & Pooch, U. W. (2000). “Simulation Technologies in the Mission
Operational Environment.” Simulation, 74(3), 138-160.
Swanson, L. W. (2003). Brain Architecture: Understanding the basic plan. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

343
Swanson, L. W., & Petrovich, G. D. (1998). “What is the amygdala?” TINS: Trends
in Neuroscience, 21, 323–331.
Szilagyi, A. D., & David M. Schweiger. (1984). “Matching Managers to Strategies:
A Review and Suggested Framework”. The Academy of Management Review, 9(4),
626-637.
Sztompka, P. (1993). “Civilizational Incompetence: The Trap of Post-Communist
Societies.” Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie, Heft 2, 85-89.
Teglasi, H. (2001). Essentials of TAT and Other Storytelling Techniques Assessment
(Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Telreja, P. K. M. (1982). Philosophy of the Vedas. Bombay: Telreja Publications.
Temkin, O. (1953). “Greek Medicine as Science and Craft.” Isis, 44(3), 213-225.
Tichy, N. M. (1982). “Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and
cultural keys”. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, 59-80.
Thompson, James D. [1967] (2003). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases
of Administrative Theory, with a new preface by Mayer N. Zald and a new
introduction by W. Richard Scott. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction
Publishers.
Ullmann, M. (1978). Islamic Medicine. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Van der Werf, Y. D., Witter, M. P., & Groenewegen, H. J. (2002). “The intralaminar
and midline nuclei of the thalamus. Anatomical and functional evidence for
participation in processes of arousal and awareness.” Brain Research Reviews, 39,
107-140.
Verhagen, H., & Kummeneje, J. (1999). “Adjustable Autonomy, Delegation and
Distribution of Decision Making.” Proceedings of the 1st Internatational Workshop
of Central and Eastern Europe on Multi-Agent Systems (CEEMAS 99) (pp. 301-306).
Verhagen, H. J. E., & Smit, R. A. (1997). “Multiagent systems as simulation tools
for social theory testing.” ICCS and SS Siena, 1997.
Vinogradova, O. S. (1975). “Functional organization of the limbic system in the
process of registration of information: facts and hypotheses.” In R. I. Isaacson, & K.
H. Pribram Eds., The Hippocampus (Vol. 2pp. 3-69). New York: Plenum Press.
Wagar, B. M., & Thagard, P. (2004). “Spiking Phineas Gage: A Neurocomputational
Theory of Cognitive-Affective Integration in Decision-Making.” Psychological
Review, 111(1), 67-79.
Wagner, G. P., & Laubichler, M. D. (2004). “Rupert Riedl and the re-synthesis of
evolutionary and developmental biology: body plans and evolvability.” Journal of
Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 302(1), 92-
102
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2001). “Self-Determination and Mental Retardation: Assembling
the puzzle pieces.” In H. N. Switzky (Editor), Personality and Motivational
Differences in Persons with Mental Retardation (pp. 147-198). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

344
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kulka, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971).
“Perceiving the causes of success and failure.” In Edward E. Jones, David E.
Kanouse, Harold H. Kelley, Richard E. Nisbett, Stuart Valins, Bernard Weiner
(Editors), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. (pp. 95-120). Morristown,
New Jersey: General Learning Press.
Werner, E. (1996). “Logical foundations of distributed artificial intelligence.” G. M.
P. O'Hare, & N. R. Jennings (Eds.) Foundations of distributed artificial intelligence.
New York: Wiley.
Whiteside S. P., Port J. D., & Abramowitz J. S. (2004). “A meta-analysis of
functional neuroimaging in obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Psychiatry Research-
Neuroimaging, 132 (1), 69-79.
Whittingham, C., & Holland, R. (1985). “A framework for theory in social work.”
Issues in Social Work Education, 5, 25-50.
Williams, L. (2002). Ethics Awareness Inventory. The Williams Institute for Ethics
in Management. [Computer Software]
Woodward, H., & Buchholz, S. (1987). Aftershock: Helping people through
corporate change. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Zack, M. H. (1999). “Developing a Knowledge Strategy.” California Management
Review, 41(3), 125-145.
Zack, M. H. (2001). “If Managing Knowledge is the Solution, then What's the
Problem?” In Y. Malhotra (Editor), Knowledge Management and Business
Innovation (Vol. 41, Chap. 3, pp. 125-145). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Resnick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). “Early Development of
Executive Function: A Problem-Solving Framework.” Review of General
Psychology, 1(2), 198-226.
Zhao, M.-G., Toyoda, H., Lee, Y.-S., Wu, L.-J., Ko, S. W., Zhang, X.-H., Jia, Y.,
Shum, F., Xu, H., Li, B.-M., Kaang, B.-K., & Zhuo, M. (2005). “Roles of NMDA
NR2B Subtype Receptor in Prefrontal Long-Term Potentiation and Contextual Fear
Memory.” Neuron, 47(6), 859-872.

345