Dear Malcolm
For an instrument to be or have a systems approach it must have the double
loops or spirals, firstly the mind body loop plus the loop with the
environment. That is it must be able to be discriminated plus part of the
continuous field, all the so called instruments do not have this
capability including MBTI, 16 PF, DISC, People smarts, Saville Holdsworth,
CPI, Carlson learning, Wilson Learning, Behavioral Awareness Index, etc
etc, even the instrument that a participant mentioned on this list some
weeks ago is not even close to a systems approach. So you have a dilemma
actually. I can do the first loop but the second loop is much more
difficult because the environmental variables are almost infinite,
although I do have a system to get around this problem, but it's not
great.
Most American instruments are of the 4 box type, they mix up behavioral
responses and internal representations which immediately throws it out of
contention in terms of a systems approach. Humans definitely do not fit
neatly into four boxes. I have calculated there are more than 100 000
million million combinations of behavioral responses plus internal
representations, put that in four squares if you can. I haven't even
included the environmental responses or cognitive ability yet. Basically
that is saying we each are as different as out fingerprints or DNA.
The secret really lies in goal directed human behavior which is really
motivation from the Latin to move. I have spent that last 6 years
combining all the motivational models plus use of ego psychology and
object relations theory to develop a simple comprehensive model of
motivation. This takes care of the internal representations, for the
behavioral part I use meta-progarms from NLP just the motivational ones,
then I use Elliot Jaques cognitive theory. Plus skilled knowledge that
then takes care of the first loop, the second loop I use EKS theory from
Germany, EKS has structured the environment in to processes and problems
with a hierarchy of problems from material to energy problems.
The formula looks like this:
>From the Human Balancing feedback Systems Model (SM) the following proposed
formula for output performance is deduced.
Performance output, result, outcome =f ({M, T(h), K}t(n) ;{B, S +
Environment}t(n+r) ;t(n+r+s);^Å^Å)
[Host's Note: The last line above ends with these characters: Sigma,
Sigma, Right Parenthesis. Gavin, I don't recognize your notation... What
does it mean to have multiple ordered sets in {brackets} in the function
argument? What does the semi-colin mean? The last two Sigma's? ...Rick]
where M is Motivation = f {tension between (F)t(p) , (D)t(i) } Motivational
Model
D is Desire/ hope/ aspiration/expectation/need/want
F is Fear/loss/pain/discomfort/lack/deprivation
t(p) is past time
t(i) is time of intention
T(h) is the temporal horizon in years or CMP as defined by Elliot Jaques,
cognitive ability.
K is the knowledge
t is time of succession (n, r, s are chronological points in time)
B is behavior or response
S is skill
As you can see it takes time into account which is the continuos field,
memory or past time plus time of intention must also be included. Things
that are not included are the visual, auditory and feeling resources of
the human being, I believe that this will need to be incorporated at some
future date. This formula is a systems approach to assessing any person,
company culture, dept. motivation etc. Also the model shows that no two
humans live in the same time-the deep basis for many commuinaction
problems.
Kindest
Gavin Ritz
Malcolm Burson wrote:
[...snip by your host...]
> ... I
> don't think Robert intended this, but it raises for me the continuing
> problem of using MBTI and other instruments to "choose" people for whom we
> believe a particular subject of learning will be better than for others.
>
> On the other hand, as we work in organizations, we're always looking for
> leverage points! Anyone want to help me out of this dilemma?
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>