The power of three (or four) times three (or ‘how chief executives with too much time on their hands build sandcastles in the air’)
As the New Year approaches, thinking about the world, life and the RSA, it all falls into a pattern for a moment. The questions, with which I hope my reader friends will help me, are these; is this original (I fear not only that I have written it all before but that there are a hundred and one other ways of thinking that are, to all intents and purposes, the same), is it useful (it may be true that I am made of the same sub atomic particles as a filing cabinet, but so what?) is there anything that can be done with it (how could these ideas be tested, debated, developed?)……..
As in nature, the infinite complexity of individual and collective thought derives from the interplay of a finite number of base elements. This is the starting point for theories of plural rationality. I have written a great deal about one of these, labouring under the unhelpful name cultural theory. It argues that perspectives on change in organisations can be traced back to the interplay of four paradigms; the egalitarian, the hierarchical, the individualistic and the fatalistic. These four are always at play, continuously generating new demands, shaping conflicts and determining the success of solutions.
MRI scans, undertaken by neuro-scientists interested in the physiological basis of ways of seeing the world, have suggested that different perspectives seem to be consistently associated with activity in certain areas of the brain. It may seem far fetched (and reductionist) to suggest there is a piece of the brain reserved for, say, hierarchical thoughts, however, cultural theory’s four organisational paradigms could be seen to reflect broadly a more basic set of behavioural alternatives.
Faced with a social choice we can do what we want or feels right for us (individualistic impulse), do what the group expects/needs (egalitarian impulse), do what we have been told (hierarchical impulse) or ‘decide’ it’s not worth making a choice (fatalistic impulse). Is it credible and useful to think of the everyday experience of free will as the process of switching between these alternative responses?
Between moment to moment choices and collective strategies lies the narrative of our lives. Here too we can measure along three axes. We aspire to a good quality of life; to getting what we believe we deserve and gives us pleasure (nb this is not the same as selfishness). We want also to succeed; to make an impact (and be seen to make an impact) using the powers and skills we possess. And we want to feel we are doing good; to meet our responsibilities to the community in which we find meaning. (By the way, I have tried to map the sources of life satisfaction onto the choice options and the cultural theory paradigms but find any attempt obscures more than it illuminates)
The reason key aspects of our lives (e.g. family and friends, paid work and structured voluntary activity) satisfy us one day but, even though they have remain unchanged, not the next, may be because we view our life as a whole through distinct lenses. A job which meets our need for good pay and conditions and gives us plenty of status and control may feel empty and pointless when viewed through the lens of duty. Just as in an organisation – where the temporary dominance of one perspective generates a counter reaction along the lines of the other perspectives – so in our lives a period in which the fulfilment of duty has predominated will gradually generate dissatisfaction with a perceived lack of enjoyment or recognition.
Institutions are places where people make choices, pursue life wishes and respond together to challenges. Institutions that hope to endure and to fulfil a social mandate (like the RSA) need: to develop a set of norms (egalitarian impulse), rules (hierarchical) and incentives (individualistic) that make it more likely day to day choices will strengthen the institution, (in order to address the inevitability and danger of fatalism they must also allow sufficient space for reflection and autonomy). The institution will also seek to provide sustenance for the different sets of life wishes, so that through whatever lens a participant is looking at the institution (pleasure, duty, ambition) there are reasons for positive engagement. Finally, the institution will recognise, foster and seek to balance the different sources of organisational energy which derive from egalitarian, hierarchical, and individualistic ways of thinking about change (collective individualism is not an oxymoron as individualists can be united by their disdain for egalitarian, hierarchical and fatalistic views).
Needless to say there are many additional sources of complexity. For example, while certain people or certain positions within the institution may have a predisposition to a certain way of viewing change (managers to hierarchy for example), the perspectives are dynamically and unpredictably generated in relation to specific challenges. Also, an institution contains many different levels of organisation, each one of which contains the dynamics of plural rationality. For example, while the management team may adopt a hierarchical stance in relation to the organisation as institution, the team as an organisation itself is prone to dividing internally along the four paradigms (the hierarchically-inclined departmental supervisor may be an egalitarian subversive in the corporate management team).
The important thing for the leaders of an institution is to understand the core elements which structure choice, work satisfaction and collective approaches to change, to recognise that each element is inevitable and has something to give, and to understand how the dynamic interplay of the elements can never be resolved and indeed is the source of innovation and growth.
Related posts:
- My demon diary I used to take great pride in posting a...
- Learning to love consultants Among the Fellows who hang out at the Society’s...
Comments
6 Comments on The power of three (or four) times three (or ‘how chief executives with too much time on their hands build sandcastles in the air’)
-
daniel snell on
Fri, 1st Jan 2010 6:52 pm
-
Livy on
Sat, 2nd Jan 2010 10:40 am
-
daniel snell on
Sat, 2nd Jan 2010 12:50 pm
-
Ian Leslie on
Sat, 2nd Jan 2010 2:04 pm
-
Livy on
Sat, 2nd Jan 2010 2:07 pm
-
daniel snell on
Sat, 2nd Jan 2010 5:39 pm
Matthew,
this is very interesting. I may think on this:
I’m currently writing a programme on how our unconcious (how we percieve ourselves and the world) is limited by us alone; ‘our world’, which we’d call ‘us’ or ‘our character’, or plain old ‘who we are’, is actually a falsehood, which, is in essence a shape not unlike an oil bubble representing the boundary of our unconciousness, the otherside of that (limiting) boundary (the darkness) is our unknown or the unknown unknowns, as it were. That ‘limit’ or unconcious boundary it kept in place by our unconcious (our selves) due to our fear of the unknown. which is horrific to us.
I’m using the image of dark matter, as dark matter, holds the universe in shape and it can not be seen; the only reason we know it is there is because of this gravitational pull.
Now, it strikes me that there may be a different way to look this
1. cellular, and how as atoms, we are all one, and influenced at a subatomic level (or not) in ways we can not even begin to grasp. EG we are the universe, and there are no more atoms in the universe as there was the moment it was formed and a tear was created some 6 billion years ago(?) and how one we realise that we are all one, this might affect how we percieve ourselves. Given that i suppose all birth and death is ultimately meaningless.
2. the individual – and if we change the way we pecieve the world and ourselves in the world, the world changes. EG if you look at the world in rose tinted glasses the world occurs as rose tinted etc. This ‘awareness’ (see below) or coming into conciousness process is the enlightment, or expanding the space that we inhabit within our own conciousness/unconciousness. for instance, the more i’ve worked on me, the more i come to understand others
2.a. i’d then break the individual into unconcious and concious here. as the vast part of who we are is unconcious to very selves.
3. the collective – the community, the societies that we exist in. and how that plays are part too in who we believe we are. this is complex because historical ‘truths’ and beliefs exisit in society and tradition and most of it is v limiting and made on the whole in compremise and management of the individual/collective; however, worthy of much thought/debate.
Karl James of the Dialogue Project left this comment on my blog http://arrivalworldwide.blogspot.com which is worthy of a thought – are we really talking about the search for positivity or even happiness? Or are we simply looking for an awakening of ourselves?
“Enjoyed your thoughts and Matthew’s. I have nothing as intelligent as either of your offerings to offer. Just to say that I question the search for happiness (which seems to me to be somewhere in both your writings).
It’s not happiness perhaps but awareness (the expressed version of consciousness) that might be the key and that all of our work, individual and collective should be moving towards.”
Should we move the discussion away from positivity as like happiness, may prove to be a false God and not worthy of too much time. How about we move the conversation to all becoming more concious (individually/collectively) or as Karl would call it – aware. and let happiness look after itself.
Daniel
Daniel,
I find reading your posts a bit like wandering around the Tate Modern. That was either the most profound thing I’ve ever read or you made it all up as you went along.
I’m really sorry to appear rude, but point no.1 just baffles me. “We are the universe”, and “all birth and death are ultimately meaningless”?
I feel like I’m being recruited into a religious cult.
I’m stumped. And up until now I’ve always felt fairly proud of reaching page 23 of James Joyce’s Ulysses.
Fair play, I’ve made no constructive contribution to the original post, and it it’s easier to throw rocks at a house that it is to build one. Only I have no clue how to respond to a blog about cultural theory in the context of anti-matter radiation, or whatever it was.
Hi Livy,
Thanks for commenting. I know you want my attention or you’d stop pulling my pony tails.
Re atoms etc read a short history of nearly everything – very approachable. http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/0767908171 – this will explain much. If you got to page 23 to Ulysses, you’ve done better than me, as I’ve never picked it up. In fact, I dropped out of school and in reality, could barely read when I left, much to my shame.
This post picks up on some of Matthews’s points passingly well. But that might be just my opinion.
I guess the concept that ‘we are all one’, is nothing new – Google to find out. When we are made up of cells and atoms, and vibrations etc, what does this mean to us and our consciousness? If space is unlimited / infinite, then in reality the greatest limit in grasping what it is – is us, we humans are profoundly limited.
My point about dark matter, is that like the unconscious, and represents the vastness of what is possible.Dark matter (the current thinking is) that it holds the universe in place and represents 75% + of the shape of gallaxies etc.
I’m sorry if my ramblings occur as a mechanism of tempting you into my (oc)cult or might occur as being pretentious – that’s not my intention, I just love ideas, which are somewhat held back by my inability to write, which being dyslexic is mediocre at best.
Happy New Year Livy
I’m going to refrain from commenting on Matthew’s post until it’s translated into English 
Happy New Year all!
Hey, I wouldn’t take too much notice of what I say. I’m just a musician.
Fair enough though.
I mean, I still don’t get any of it. But fair enough.
Don’t worry about the pretension and writing ability. I’m often hesitant to comment after MT or Tessy as I know I can’t play at their level.
I’ve always felt our style is unconsciously influenced by our favourite writers. (Maybe it’s easier to demonstrate in music…)See I used to like a guy called John Henderson, who was completely full of himself and wrote with deliberate obscurity; covertly justifying an aimless and self indulgent method of accidentally stumbling upon an idea instead of beginning with one. After a while I got accused of the same thing, but to be fair I did start spelling connection with an ‘x’.
Cheers, Happy New Year to you too!
Livy
p.s. Nice speech your boy made today… Funny how whenever he scrambles around trying hijack terms like ‘progressive’ or ‘fairness’ his eyes move down. Oh, and taking a sip of water every time he thinks he’s made a good point? Guest comedians on Have I Got News For You resort to that one.
Livy,
Thanks for you lovely message. Tessy is even nicer in person than on the page. Matthew too.
look forward to reading more about you and your thoughts over 2010.
daniel
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Pamphlets
RSA Vision
RSA Animate
RSA Comment
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.