Minessence Values Framework [MVF] Knowledge-Base

What's the Minessence Group's Take on Memes?

2011-12-10T06:29:00.001+10:00

Memes are ideas, tunes, inventions, retorts, ways of doing business, ways of asking for help, and ways of saying hello. (Palumbi 2001, p. 243)

Over the past few decades there has been a shift in thought concerning the evolution of human culture. Ever since Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, coined the term “meme” as the selfish unit of societal evolution analogous to the gene’s role in the evolution of species, there’s been a groundswell of people focussing on the evolution culture via memes.

Dawkins suggested that memes, composed of memory and imagination, were the basic replicating units through which human culture evolved. Yet, memes simply do not fit the model of classic Darwinian evolution.

Ideas are not passed on from one generation to another in a linear fashion as are genes. Most often, each person adds their own slant to an idea or may simply not understand it properly and pass on some distortion of the original (Chinese whispers). Also, people’s values have a profound impact on the transference of ideas. Values filter what people give attention to—people don’t even notice, let alone pass on, ideas which would make no contribution to what they value. People may also deliberately make a conscious choice to pass on, or not to pass on, particular ideas—knowledge is power.

The main distinction is: Darwinian evolution is about the survival of the species which, by chance, have adapted to change in a way which avoids their extinction; whereas, the survival of ideas depends on complex values dynamics:

The impact of conscious selection at the stage of idea mutation and transmission blurs the distinction among the three elements of Darwin’s engine and suggests a very different way of looking at ideas than Dawkins’s notion of evolving memes. Picked over as carefully as meatballs at a cheap buffet, ideas are sorted by the finicky process of conscious selection. They are created, used, and discarded by active minds seeking their own advancement or their own comfort. What other element of our lives do we consciously improve for better function and pick carefully among to fill our cultural shopping carts? We can also consider ideas as tools.
As tools, ideas may be practical or not. They may have general or specific uses. Others may shun them or adopt them with gusto. Sometimes they seem to have a life and independence of their own, like the wooden handle of an axe that becomes polished through use to fit the hands that wield it. But in the final analysis they remain tools, ways of manipulating the world or understanding it. They do not evolve like genes because like tools, they cannot really replicate themselves—they can be made only on demand by brains, and only by this agency can they spread through to other brains. This does not say they always benefit us—akin to the way many of us have tool boxes stuffed full of things not currently doing us any good—and it does not claim that they can never do damage—like an unchaperoned gun. But the function and rapid change of ideas does not require their independent evolution...(Palumbi 2001, p. 252)

Q. If memes are not the mechanism by which culture changes, what is? A. Changes in the culture's values-system, i.e. changes t its strange attractor.

How do I Become an Evolved Person?

2011-12-08T15:26:00.001+10:00

People often write about levels of consciousness which is curious, since no one yet even knows what consciousness is, let alone able to define levels of this elusive concept!

Brian Hall (Figure 1), Clare Graves (Figure 2) and others go so far as to suggest that human development is correlated to levels of consciousness.

Figure 1. Stages & Phases of Human Development (Source: Brian hall)

Clare goes further than Hall's global consciousness level, seeming to imply there's no limit (Figure 2):

Figure 2. Levels of Human Consciousness Development

Supposedly, any person who has the global level consciousness of Hall's model, or is at level 10 or above of the Graves model, is an evolved person. There are two flaws in these and similar models of human development:

Evolution cannot be tied to growth, development, progress or any other like concept. Identifying someone is an evolved person actually says nothing about who they are as a person, in fact the statement is rather meaningless.
Levels of consciousness cannot be tied to values development.

Let's look at these flaws in more detail...

Evolution Cannot be Tied to Growth/Progress

Figure 3 is a typical technology timeline advertisement which explicitly assumes a link between evolution and progress:

Figure 3. Linking Evolution & Progress

However, Darwin himself pointed out that evolution is only about species adapting to change--those which adapt appropriately survive. It's about the continued existence of the fittest to survive. Those which survive are not better or more intelligent that those which didn't survive. They are simply those which survived because, by chance. they adapted to changed conditions in a way which prevented them from becoming extinct. The current evolution of the human species looks more like that depicted in the two cartoons of Figure 3:

Figure 3. Evolution of Man (Note: Not sexist, just couldn't find equivalent cartoons with women in too)

If progress really was tied to evolution one would perhaps have expected a result more like this:

Figure 4. An Evolutionary Fantasy (sorry still sexist)

The cartoons of Figures 2 & 3 represent canonical icons--i.e. iconic depictions of an unconscious belief-set (in this case, a false belief-set) embedded in the psyche of Western culture. Interestingly, as highlighted by the side notes in the captions, these canonical icons are also linking males to evolution and progress. Figure 5 is the only one found which did include a female. How do you react to this image? Is it a cynical dig at the male concept of evolution and progress? Or, is it just using sexual imagery to promote something?

Figure 5. What's the Canonical Message?

In summary, there's no link between evolution and progress. In fact, letting this false belief guide our collective behaviour is a form of "cop-out": we don't have to think, put the brain in neutral and let random selection create a better world for us--"Sorry. It ain't gonna happen!"

Levels of Consciousness Cannot be tied to Values Development

What is consciousness? For starters, consciousness is not like an on-off switch where we are either conscious or unconscious. It's more like a dimmer switch, where it can go through a continuum from were you are totally disconnected from the world (asleep or in a coma) to the other end where you are totally pre-occupied with some worldly issue be it operating one someone's brain, repairing a car motor, writing a song, solving the problems of the world with a colleague, landscaping the garden...(Greenfield, 2000)

Latest neuroscience (Geddes, 2011) has identified that consciousness is correlated with the synchronisation process of brain activities. The more our brain is involved in connecting all the dots, the more conscious we are. When we are most conscious, paradoxically, we disconnect from the world around us (our senses are effectively "turned off") and we lose track of time--we are in a state Czikszentmihalyi (1992) describes as flow...

Figure 6 is a simplified version of the diagram Czikszentmihalyi uses in his video.

Figure 6. Commensurate Increases in Challenge & Skills Creates Flow Experiences

Whereas no scientific research has been uncovered which links consciousness with values development, raised consciousness (flow experience) is linked to skills development. It follows that there is a link of sorts with values, i.e. we will only ever be self-motivated to take on challenge and skills associated with activities which match our values. Click here for a case study where this approach is applied to living the value health/well-being.

So the term evolved person is rather meaningless because there's no link between evolution and progress or development. So lets re-frame the question to, "How do I use my values to guide my personal development." Answer:

Know and live your own values ("If you are not living your values, whose values are you living?)
Continually seek to increase your skills in living your values using the model given in Figure 6
Because we are part of nature, we cannot live our values any way we want, so live your values in consideration of other life on this planet.

What's the Difference Between Values, Ethics & Principles?

2011-12-07T09:46:00.001+10:00

The short answer: "Valuesmotivate, ethics and morals necessarily constrain (because we live in a society, we cannot live our values any way wewant)."

Values describe what is important in a person's life, while ethics and morals prescribe what is or isnot considered appropriate behaviour in living one's life. Principles inform our choice of desirablebehavioural constraints (morals, ethics, rules, laws, etc.).

"Generally speaking, value refers to the relative worth of a quality or object. Value is what makessomething desirable or undesirable" (Shockley-Zalabak 1999, p. 425). Through applying our personalvalues (usually unconsciously) as benchmarks, we continually make subjective judgments about a wholemanner of things:

...we are more likely to make choices that support our value systems than choices that will not.Let us say that financial security is a strong value for an individual. When faced with a choice ofjobs, chances are the individual will carefully examine each organisation for potential financialand job security. The job applicant who values financial security may well take a lower salaryoffer with a well established company over a higher-paying offer from a new, high risk venture.Another job seeker with different values, possibly adventure and excitement, might choose thenewer company simply for the potential risk and uncertain future.

Values, therefore, become part of complex attitude sets that influence our behaviour and thebehaviour of all those with whom we interact. What we value guides not only our personalchoices but also our perceptions of the worth of others. We are more likely, for example, toevaluate highly someone who holds the same hard-work value we do than someone who findswork distasteful, with personal gratification a more important value. We may also call the personlazy and worthless, a negative value label.

What then of ethics? Ethics are the standards by which behaviours are evaluated for their morality - theirrightness or wrongness. Imagine a person who has a strong value of achievement and success. Knowingonly that this value is important to them gives us a general expectation of their behaviour, i.e. we wouldexpect them to be goal oriented, gaining the skills necessary to get what they want, etc. However, wecannot know whether they will lie or cheat to get what they want or "do an honest day's work each day".The latter dimension is a matter of ethics and morality. Take another example, a person has a high priorityvalue or research/knowledge/insight. They have have a career in medical research. In fact, knowing theirvalue priority we would expect them to have a career in some form of research, however, we do not knowfrom their value priority how they are likely to undergo their research. Will the person conductexperiments on animals, or would they abhor such approaches? Again, the latter is a matter of ethicalstance and morality. Johannesen (cited Shockley-Zalabak 1999, p. 437) gives further examples which helpdistinguish between values and ethics:

Concepts such as material success, individualism, efficiency, thrift, freedom, courage, hard work,prudence, competition, patriotism, compromise, and punctuality all are value standards that havevarying degrees of potency in contemporary American culture. But we probably would not viewthem primarily as ethical standards of right and wrong. Ethical judgments focus more preciselyon degrees of rightness and wrongness in human behaviour. In condemning someone for beinginefficient, conformist, extravagant, lazy, or late, we probably would not also claim they areunethical. However, standards such as honesty, truthfulness, fairness, and humaneness usuallyare used in making ethical judgments of rightness and wrongness in human behaviour.

To summarise then, values are our measures of importance, whereas ethics represent our judgments aboutright and wrong. The close relationship between importance and right and wrong is a powerful influenceon our behaviour and how we evaluate the behaviour of others.

Q. How does one go about choosing what ethics, morals, rules, laws, etc. are 'right'?

A. By basing them on appropriate principles.

The Principle Centric Approach to Behavioural Choices

Principle is defined in Nuttall's Concise Standard Dictionary of the English Language as, "Principle. n thesource or origin of anything; a general truth or law comprehending many subordinate ones; tenet ordoctrine; a settled law or rule of action; v.t. to impress with any tenet; to establish firmly in the mind."

In this Millennium, perhaps more than ever before, We need to reformulate a set of principles to guide us.There are two main benefits of taking a principle centric approach to guide all human action: (1) knowinga set of principles concerning 'the nature of things' enables us to make informed choices and judgments aswe would know, with a high degree of certainty, the likely outcomes of our actions, (2) knowing even afew principles helps us avoid information overload. On the latter point, Birch (1999, p. 44) says:

One way in which drowning in information is overcome is by the discovery of principles andtheories that tie up a lot of information previously untied. Prior to Charles Darwin biology was amass of unrelated facts about nature. Darwin tied them together in a mere three principles ofevolution: random genetic variation, struggle for existence and natural selection. So we do notneed to teach every detail that was taught to nineteenth century students. A mere example isnecessary to illustrate the universal principles.

Before you raise your voice to protest, "What do scientific principles have to do with informing whatconstitutes ethical and moral human behaviour?" Stop for a moment and ponder the what has beeninstitutionalised into Western society, all in the name of extolling the virtue of progress throughunencumbered evolution--guided by the principles made evident by Charles Darwin: we push for freetrade with level playing fields, argue that cloning interferes with natural selection, push for de-regulationso that competition prevails and only the fit organisations should survive, etc., etc.
But what if we've got Darwin wrong? What if the principles instead were: survival of those who cooperatefor the greater good, selection guided by a moral sense, etc. We would have a completely different societyfrom that which we have today. Internalising the principles we believe explain the nature-of-things isperhaps the single most powerful factor shaping society. It is vital that we maintain a continual dialoguearound principles to ensure those we internalise and institutionalise are up-to-date and are our current bestshot at the truth. We must work hard to expose those who willingly spread misinformation for their ownpersonal gain--our future depends on it.

We are entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts.

Some examples of principles are:

People become more trusting the more they perceive they are being trusted.
The wealth of countries is directly related to the level of trust within the country.
The greater the trustlevel, the greater the wealth.
People reject inequality, even if it means walking away empty-handed.
Our brain is dichotomous which leads to the fact that many of people's "weaknesses" are a naturalconsequence of their strengths--rather than try and "fix" these weaknesses, celebrate them.

Nothing Will Ever Change Until There's a Change of Worldview

2011-11-30T07:20:00.001+10:00

...to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motor cycle because it is a system is to attack the effects rather than the causes; and as long as the attack is upon its effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systemic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There is so much talk about the system and so little understanding. [Emphasis added] (Robert Pirsig, 1974, p. 94)

For change to occur, people need to make different choices in familiar situations. Since values lie behind all our choices, this means people need to undergo a values shift. For a values shift to occur, people's world-view must change. The diagram below shows the main things which shape a person's world-view:

Two of the most powerful influencers of worldview are emotion and the media:

Emotion

The fastest way of shifting people's world-view is through deliberately provoking a "significant emotive event"--brain washing techniques are an extreme example of this. If you think people would never resort to these techniques, think again! The question we must ask is, are techniques which deliberately provoke "significant emotive events", ethical?

The debate around this issue could rage on for years, however, the debate can be completely side stepped. How? Well it turns out that, though creating significant emotive events is a very effective way of modifying a person's world-view, those provoking the event have no control whatsoever over how the person's world-view will change. If you cannot control the outcome, then what's the point of employing the technique?

How can one be so sure that you cannot control the outcome? It's a basic principle of chaos theory. When you provoke a significant emotive event in a person's life, you create a bifurcation in their meaning-system (i.e. the way they'd made sense of the world until that point in time is broken down--bifurcated!). The brain's system of making sense of the world--it's meaning system--is as about as complex as system as you can get --in fact it might very well be the most complex system in the universe. Chaos theory tells us that when a bifurcation occurs in any complex non-linear system (not just the most complex in the universe) no one can predict the outcome.

So this means, if you deliberately provoke a significant emotive event in a person's life in order to impact on their world-view, you have no control over, nor any way of predicting, what new world-view they will have after the event--how useless then is this as a technique make any change?

The Media

The video below gives an of of how our Hegemonic society utilizes the media as a tool to dictate gender expression. This sets into motion the subordination of women in our society and that value that they hold as individuals politically and socially. It is a perfect example of how media shapes our worldview and hence our values.

"We can't be what we can't see." Worldview is everything. It shapes our values. Then, our values determine our choices in life.

In influencing people's worldview, what works best?

What works as both an effective and an ethical means of world-view modification, is the use of a combination of dialogue, experiential learning, and structural change. The key to change is firstly gaining real rapport with people. For genuine rapport to exist, people must really know that you are able to see the world through their eyes and thus really understand why their values are important to them.

Change = Rapport + Information

What's the Link Between Values & Skills?

2011-11-29T09:00:00.000+10:00

I shall lead you into some territories you’ll find hard to swallow. One of these is the acceptance of one’s“weaknesses” and the idea that weakness is the inevitable counterpart of strength. This is a view thatis alien to our scientific-industrial society, which admits only to perfection. If you have weaknesses, thetraditional view is to send you to school to correct them. As a consequence, engineers are beratedbecause they write poorly, artists shamed because they are disorderly, and administrators accused oflacking imagination. All this is unfortunate and blind to human nature. The qualities criticised areinnate, a consequence of the dichotomous organisation of the mind. Walter Lowen

The level of motivation or the degree of stress you experience is directly related to your ability to"live" your priority values. When you are unable to live your priority values it is because you lackeither the skills, support systems, or both.Skills fall into four basic categories:

Instrumental - tools/hands
Interpersonal - communications
Imaginal - creative
System - making connections/seeing the bigger picture

To live a value effectively requires skills in one or more of these categories.Support systems also fall into four categories:

Peer - people outside your workplace engaged in similar work toyourself, with whom you can share regularly.
Work - people in your workplace who give you sustained positivesupport and you do likewise with them.
Intimacy - someone to mutually share with at depth on a regular basis.
Resource - access, as required, to the appropriate mix of skills,abilities and other resources.

It is not a good idea to get peer, work and intimacy support from the same person or group of people.Keep these three support systems separate from each other.

Note:Many values will require one or more of the support systems to be in place in order that you can givefull expression to those values in your life.

Through categorising the skills needed to live each of the 128 values, it's possible to produce a chart from your priority values:

Figure 1. Skills Needs--Determined from Priority Values

The person, from whose values the above chart was derived, will need mainly interpersonal and system skills to effectively live their priority values.

In the Minessence Values Framework [MVF], growth is more about how you live your values, rather than about living a preferred (according to whom?) set of values. In the MVF, skills, along with challenge, play a very important role in personal growth and development for growth is defined as continually increasing one's level of sophistication (complexity of skill) in living one's values.

Skills & Complexity

A complex world is what we are familiar with. Complexity is normal. It is something we have grown torespect. We stand in awe of nature’s complexity, from the function of the human body to theincomprehensible marvels of microscopic particles. This reverence for complexity has led us todevelop our own complex machinery and intricate social support structures. We fail when we confuse“complexity” with “complication”. To messy minds, complicated things are much easier to constructthan complex orderly structures. [Nader 1999, pp. 331-332]

It seems that we have been genetically programmed over the past million or so years to seek happiness.It turns out this is no accident, it is necessary for our ongoing survival as a species. The upshot of thisgenetic programming is that, through our endeavors to do things so we feel good, we each becomemore and more sophisticated (more complex) beings.

Complexity may be the answer to the age old question, “What is the meaning of life?” the answerbeing, “To decrease entropy—i.e. increase complexity—in the universe.” The arrow of progress andgrowth points in the direction increased complexity. It is not surprising, then, that we are geneticallyprogrammed to only be happy when we engage in activities that lead to increased complexity.

Csikszentmihalyi (1998, pp. 74-75) describes activities that lead to happiness as flow activities. Hebelieves there is a strong link between flow experiences and the increased complexity ofconsciousness:

In our studies, we found that every flow activity, whether it involved competition, chance, or any otherdimension of experience, had this in common: it provided a sense of self discovery, a creative feelingof transporting the person to higher levels of performance, and led to previously undreamed-of statesof consciousness. In short, it transformed the self by making it more complex. In this growth of self liesthe key to flow activities.

A simple diagram might help explain why this should be the case. Let us assume that Figure 24represents a specific activity—for example, the game of tennis. The two theoretically most importantdimensions of the experience, challenges and skills, are the diagram's axes. The letter A representsAlex, a boy who is learning to play tennis. The diagram shows Alex at four different points in time.When he first starts playing (A), Alex has practically no skills, and the only challenge he faces is hittingthe ball over the net. This is not a very difficult feat, but Alex is likely to enjoy it because the difficulty isjust right for his rudimentary skills. So at this point he will probably be in flow. But he cannot stay therelong. After a while, if he keeps practising, his skills are bound to improve, and then he will grow boredjust batting the ball over the net (B). Or it might happen that he meets a more practised opponent, inwhich case he will realize that there are much harder challenges for him than just lobbing the ball—atthat point, he will feel some anxiety (C) concerning his poor performance.

Neither boredom nor anxiety are positive experiences, Alex will be motivated to return to the flow state.How is he to do it? Glancing again at the diagram, we see that if he is bored (B) and wishes to be inflow again, Alex has essentially only one choice: to increase the challenges he is facing. (He also has asecond choice, which is to give up tennis altogether—in which case A would simply disappear from thediagram.) By setting himself a new and more difficult goal that matches his skills—for instance, to beatan opponent just a little more advanced than he is—Alex would be back in flow (D).

If Alex is anxious (C), the way back to flow requires that he he could also reduce the challenges he isfacing, and thus return to flow where he started (in A), but in practice it is difficult to ignore challengesonce one is aware they exist.

The diagram [Figure 2] shows that both A and D represent situations in which Alex is in flow. Although each areequally enjoyable, the two states are quite different in that D is a more complex experience than A. It ismore complex because it involves greater challenges, and demands greater skills from the player.

Figure 2. Increased Complexity = Personal Growth

But D, although complex and enjoyable, does not represent a stable situation, either. As Alex keepsplaying, either he will become bored by the stale opportunities he finds at that level, or he will becomeanxious and frustrated by his relatively low ability. So the motivation to enjoy himself again will pushhim to get back in the flow channel, but now at a level of complexity even higher than D.

It is this dynamic feature that explains why flow activities lead to growth and discovery. One cannotenjoy doing the same thing at the same level for long. We grow either bored or frustrated; and then thedesire to enjoy ourselves again pushes us to stretch our skills, or to discover new opportunities forusing them.

In the video below, Csikszentmihalyi gives a more comprehensive explanation of this process.

Tying this all together. The person depicted in Figure 1, to live a happy, meaningful, fulfilling life, must take on ever more challenge in relation to interpersonal and system skills, with a commensurate increase in interpersonal and system skill levels.

Why Value Descriptors in lieu of Definitions?

2011-11-25T06:01:00.001+10:00

Example Use of Descriptor for Paint

Definition--a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol.
Descriptor--the phonological or orthographic sound or appearance of a word that can be used to describe or identify something.

The saying, "The Tao expressed is not the Tao," gives a clue to a basic problem with definitions. The very process of writing a definition of anything detracts from the true nature of the entity one is attempting to define. The reality is simply that definitions would be impractical to use if they even came close in their attempt to describe anything comprehensively.

A descriptor seeks only to provide sufficient information about an entity so it can easily be identified when compared to other entities.

An alternate definition of descriptor is: "a piece of stored information that is used to identify an item in an information storage and retrieval system."

So when a descriptor is used with human values: "A value descriptor is a piece of information used to identify a particular value."

Efficacy

When formulating each value descriptor, the Key Affiliate team used a set of criteria to evaluate the efficacy (capacity or power to produce a desired effect) of each.

To create efficaciousness value descriptors one must:

Identify values which have like roles and work with the identified set of values. (For example, control/order/discipline, law/duty, law/guide, accountability/ethics, etc. all have an ordering role within their respective world-view -- each world-view has different beliefs about how the ordering should be effected, therefore, each world-view has a different value giving expression to the beliefs.) In working with the new descriptors for a set of values, we must ensure the role for each value within its world-view is maintained, and each descriptor clearly distinguishes each value in the set from the others.
Keep the value label and its descriptor simple using more common-usage words. For example, Collaboration/ Subsidiarity could become Collaboration/ Delegation.
Use word senses which are the most common interpretation of the word.
Ensure the descriptor of a value makes it simple to distinguish it from other values, particularly from other values which have labels of like-senses such as, for example: Cooperation/Complementarity, Collaboration/Subsidiarity, and Interdependence.
Not use other value labels within the descriptor.
Not provide examples of how the value may be lived -- this narrows the descriptor and could bias its meaning.
Ensure it facilitates the process of people working through the VAK questions to identify how they are living the value in their life.

Thus the criteria for evaluating the efficacy of a value descriptor become:

Is it simple?
Is it constructed from common-usage words?
Does it use words such that their most common meaning-sense is the sense intended?
Does it faithfully describe its role in the world-view to which it belongs as a focus value - i.e. is it congruent with the beliefs of its world-view?
Is it sufficiently different from other values whose labels have like-senses?
Is it free of other value labels?
Is it free of examples of how to live the value?
Is it easily used with the VAK questions?

In IT jargon, a descriptor which meets a set of desired criteria, is be said to be well formed.

I am wondering why people would find some of their chosen values draining?

2011-11-24T09:30:00.000+10:00

The way you prioritise your values significantly influences your energy levels. Certain values can be energising, others can be energy draining, and some values will do little for your energy levels. Thus, in terms of our energy levels, values fall into three categories:

Energy Giving—Typically, these are the values which energise you. They put you in a “flow state”. Values, such as Intimacy, Sharing/Listening/Trust and Skilful Leisure, are in the energy giving category.
Energy Draining—Typically, these are the values which drain your energy. Values such as Care/Nurture, Endurance/Patience and Duty, when they are your main focus, are likely to drain your energy as they can keep you from paying sufficient attention to your energy giving values.
Energy Neutral —Typically, these are values which have little impact on your energy levels. In most situations, living these values requires little mental attention/energy to remain focused on ‘the task in hand’. Values such as Work, Organized Play, and Communication/Information fall into this category.

Once a person's value priorities are known, a graph can be produced, see below, which identifies the relative percentage of mental energy the person is devoting to these three value categories. If the graph shows that the person scored significantly higher on energy draining values than energy giving values, this likely indicates a stressful lifestyle. In which case, the person may want to review the way they are currently approaching life so as to spend more time engaged in activities that will give their energy levels a boost.

Energy Profile

One very effective way of living a more energising lifestyle, is to spend at least two hours per week engaging in creative mode activities.

What is a World-View?

2011-11-21T08:00:00.000+10:00

A World-view is your personal model of the world. It comprises your beliefs, your knowledge, and your assumptions about the world.

As your world-view changes, you see the world differently, and therefore your responses to situations and circumstances also alter.

"I have met the jailer and he is I.
We are all trapped by our own world-view."
Paul Chippendale

More...

How Do I Run a "Future Search/Creation Conference"

2011-11-11T10:00:00.000+10:00

The world is moving from experts solving problems FOR people toward,
everybody, experts included, improving whole systems.

Marvin Weisbord

In his book, Discovering Common Ground, Marvin Weisbord described himself as an entrepreneur and author. From 1969 to 1991, he worked as a consultant to business, education, government, medical, non-profit and voluntary organisations in North America and Scandinavia. In 1991 he started Workplace Revolution, a non-profit programme to help people apply the consensus-building ideas embodied in Discovering Common Ground. Other enterprises in which he was involved included: being a partner in Block Petrella Weisbord, a firm established to help people restructure their work; and a partner of Blue Sky Productions, a video company documenting innovations in self-management around the world.

Weisbord (1991, p. xiii) describes his personal mission in life as:

...I have a personal mission. There is a growing world-wide interest in improving the quality of life, at home and at work. I believe that represents common ground for every person living. I would like [Discovering Common Ground] to serve as a catalyst for an informal global support network of people exploring and extending the use of [Future Creation Conferences]. We have a unique opportunity to learn from each other and to amplify one another's processes.
...I hope to encourage concerned leaders everywhere to experiment with [the Future Creation Conference] format. I believe that this mode constitutes a learning laboratory for 21st Century strategic management.

The Minessence Group views itself as part of the envisaged informal global support network - his personal mission is completely congruent with our own vision, i.e. "To create a world where life is meaningful."

Basic Structure of the Future Creation Conference

Future creation conferences are based on learning, not teaching. In these conferences, learning is not something participants must "learn" how to do. "They already know how. They just don't know that they know" (Weisbord 1992, p. 7). For many, future creation conferences are unlike anything they have ever experienced due to three intertwined threads:

A much broader cross-section of "stake-holders", than is usual, are invited - a widely diverse group of people who affect each other but who rarely or never meet.

The participants self-manage tasks of discovery, dialogue, learning and planning.

Participants explore together the WHOLE system - its history, ideals, constraints, opportunities, global trends, within and without, rather than just the parts that are closest to home and soaking up the most energy.

The most radical aspect of future creation conferences is how conflict is managed (Weisbord 1992, p. 7):

[During the future creation conference] we will nearly always find unresolved conflicts and disagreements. We discourage conferees from "working" their differences. Instead, we create a figure/ground reversal. We put the dysfunctional "shadow" dynamics in the background. People don't magically get better than they were. Rather, they tune in on different aspects of themselves - the more constructive and cooperative impulses.Indeed, we neither avoid nor confront the extremes. Rather, we put our energy into staking out the widest common ground all can stand on without forcing or comprising. Then, from that solid base, we spontaneously invent new forms of action, using processes devised for that purpose.In short, we seek to hear and appreciate differences, not reconcile them. We seek to validate polarities, not reduce the distance between them. We learn to innovate and act from a mutual base of discovered ideals, world-views, and future goals. Above all, we stick to business. We make the conference's central task our guiding star.

Learn Through Doing: Transform Your Organisation into a Learning Organisation

The best way to learn about future creation conferences is to run one. So here are some guidelines for putting one together. The suggested format is one developed by William Smith (1992, pp. 171-186). Smith's model is specifically designed to promote a horizontal flow of power in organisations in place of the usual vertical flow of power. Having a horizontal flow of power, rather than a vertical flow, is an essential requirement of the culture of any organisation desiring to be an effective learning organisation.

The diagram below (Smith 1992, p. 176), depicts the vertical flow of power prevalent in most organisations:

One typically finds the following divisions of power in large corporations:

At the top, the "institutional" level, the appreciated environment is dealt with. They ensure survivability of the organisation through linking to the needs values by society. Their main output is policy.
At the "managerial" level, the most influential strategy for the implementation of the policy is chosen. The main outputs are strategy and structure.
At the "technical" level - traditionally the level considered to be the most concerned with control - attempts are made to reduce uncertainty through producing concrete plans, rules and regulations.

Smith's future creation conference model is designed to overcome these power differences, and provide each level a chance to influence decision-makers. His model accomplishes this by introducing a horizontal flow of power across the organisation to counterbalance the vertical flow (see the following diagram):

This future creation conference model is designed to take place over three days:

Day 1 is devoted to understanding realities and possibilities (appreciative learning). Intended participants asked to gather and research any information they may feel relevant to the main topic prior to the first day. They would also be encouraged to pass this gathered material on to other participants in whatever way they believe will have the most success in transferring the insights they've gained to others. This transference (appreciative learning) continues until the completion of Day 1. By the end of Day 1, common ground is identified.
Day 2 is devoted to selecting and debating priorities.
Day 3, guided by the chosen priorities, sets out an action plan to ensure the priorities are addressed in an agreed time line. Action Learning Projects are set up to turn the plans into action.

The diagram that follows, depicts the creation conference design described above:

Concluding Comments

We, at the Minessence Group, are keen to link with others in transforming the world into one where the well-being of as many people as possible is enhanced. The mechanistic model of the universe, developed some centuries ago, still dominates the way we treat each other, particularly in the workplace.

People are not machines, robots, human resources or valuable assets. What distinguishes people from machines is values. People have values - machines do not. In order to tap into, and to respect people as human beings, we must be sensitive to their values and design our relationships, teams, organisations, society and civilisation to be in tune with these values.

We believe Future Creation Conferences will make valuable contributions to this much needed transformation.

Let's finish with some more wisdom from Marvin Weisbord (1992, pp. 8-9):

APPLIED COMMON SENSE: The equation goes something like THE RIGHT TASK + THE RIGHT PEOPLE + THE RIGHT SETTING = UNPRECEDENTED ACTIONS. That sounds a lot of applied common sense. Why, in most institutions, is it not commonly applied? I have to keep reminding myself that the (probably unconscious) function of old paradigm meetings is not breakthroughs, but control.
...To implement effectively we need a shared picture of the "whole system" - future vision, values, policies and procedures in a global context. This calls for broad face-to-face joint planning.
...The outcomes can be quite startling. They range from grass-roots community action to stimulate new businesses and jobs, to revitalising a major company's total quality program, to setting future policy for a national banking system, to making policy for whole nations.

References

Smith, W. 1992, "Planning for the Electricity Sector in Columbia", in Discovering Common Ground: How FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCES Bring People Together to Achieve Breakthrough Innovation. Empowerment, Shared Vision, and Collaborative Action, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, pp. 171-186.

Weisbord, M. 1992, Discovering Common Ground: How FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCES Bring People Together to Achieve Breakthrough Innovation. Empowerment, Shared Vision, and Collaborative Action, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.

If I don't have any values in one or more of the clusters does it matter? Is there something wrong?

2011-10-29T04:35:00.000+10:00

To take an actual example, the person below on receiving their Values Map asks, "I have no values in the security cluster. Does this mean I am insecure?"

VMAP Example - No Priority Placed on Security Values

The reverse is true. The Values Map is a chart of value priorities. If you don't place a priority on a particular values such as security, that simply means you don't have the need to. If on the other hand you were feeling very insecure for some reason, then security would be playing on your mind and you would choose security as a priority.

Another common question is, "I've looked through all my AVI Reports and there's no self-worth. Does this mean I have no self-worth?" Once again, the reverse is actually true. If self-worth issues were playing on your mind you would choose statements related to it when completing the AVI. When matters of self-worth are not playing on your mind, you will choose statements related to other values with the result that self-worth, along with many other values, will appear with a priority of zero on all AVI Reports.

This brings out an important aspect of the AVI and its reports. The AVI is designed to elicit priority values from our unconscious. There is a difference between a value being important to us and a value currently being a priority in our life. For example, returning to security. The person who asked the question about their zero score on security probably considered security as something that is very important value in people's lives, it just isn't currently a priority in their life. So it is with all values, we can believe a value to be important in people's lives, however, if it is not currently important in your life it will not show up in your AVI Reports.

Many values will be important in your life, only some will be a priority--the AVI is designed to identify those which are currently a priority.

What is Brain-Preference? How does it impact on our Values and Communication Styles?

2011-10-28T11:50:00.000+10:00

Unconsciously, the processes people use to make decisions and to communicate with the world around them, are selected so as to reinforce their identity.A significant part of people's identity is shaped by deep preferences which arise from the way our sensory [S], feeling [F], thinking [T] and intuitive [N]modalities are "wired" in our "firmware". These deep preferences are termed Brain-Preferences.

Figure 1.
Levels of Choice

Using a computer metaphor of the brain (Figure 1) there are essentually three levels of flexibility/plasticity. At the base level is the hardware--the brain we are "stuck" with. This level people, such as William Glasser, argue is the source of our basic needs: fun, love, freedom and the need to feel in control of our life. These needs are common to all humanity--they are hardwired into us.

All computers have essentially the same hardware. The difference between how computers and people operate comes from the "wiring" at the firmware level. For example, what makes an Apple computer different from a PC, or an iPhone different to a Nokia is the basic operating system programmed into the firmware--this programming can be changed but not easily and normally is only changed in minor ways to provide necessary upgrades or to fix issues. Firmware wiring creates basic "personality" differences--an Apple is more intuitive and graphically oriented than is a PC which is more "left-brained" rational. With people the firmware determines whether a person has a preference for people or things and whether they have a preference for dealing with concrete or abstract realities.

Figure 2.
The wiring of our Sensate, Feeling, Intuitive
and Thinking circuits, results in us having a
preference for relating to People or Things
and a preference for dealing with
Concrete or Abstract realities.

At the software level reside applications (APPS). Both PC and Apple computers can run sumilar APPS but the firmware determines which computer type is best suited for which APP. In people, it's our worldview which resides at the software level. Our firmware determines how we create this worldview. A person whose firmware predisposes them to talk and listen to people in a detailed concrete way will obviously create a different view of the world as compared to a person whose firmware predisposes them to them to dialoguing with the world via "tinkering" with things and formulating abstract models of how things work.

Figure 3 has more detail about the nature of a person's preferred mode of dialogue with the world around them depending on their brain-preference.

Figure 3.
Modes of dialogue for each
Brain-Preference

There are four main types of brain-preference:

Technical Architect [Things-Abstract]. These are people who have a preference for using their hands to "tinker" with or to create thingsand who use their intellect to develop models or plans. They rely mostly on understanding theworld through thinking and intellectual analysis. Their style of Decision Making favors rationalanalysis. Since they prefer to gather information visually, they communicate best throughillustrations and graphic representations. They tend to favor careers as planners, softwaredevelopers, composers, architects, etc. Technical Architects will often create or deploy newtechnologies. Those who have this brain-preference are often perceived as Visionary Leaders ifthe technology they have created is widely adopted.
Quality Producer/Crafts Person [Things-Concrete]. These are "hands on", sensate people who like certainty and desire activities/organizations to bewell structured. They prefer things that are down-to-earth, rather than abstract and intangible.They prefer having or creating a manual for how things are done. They are uncomfortablearound people who seem erratic or chaotic in the way they do things. Their Decision MakingStyle tends to be prudent and conservative, based on carefully gathering detailed information.Their Communication Style focuses on careful documentation of details and linear, sequentialprocesses. They gravitate towards careers such as athletes, mechanics, surgeons, gardeners,accountants, farmers, etc. Quality Producers can be excellent Transactional Leaders.
People Servants [People-Concrete]. Similar to Quality Producers, People Servants like structure and a degree of certainty. However,they strongly prefer spending time with and talking to people, rather than relating to the world ofthings. They prefer to communicate via intimate, feeling based language and dialogue and areusually good listeners. People Servants strongly favor a style of Decision Making that considerspeople’s feelings and preserves relationships. They often choose careers as school teachers,coaches, therapists, healthcare and human resource professionals, actors, value consultants,etc. People Servants can be great Facilitative Leaders. In that role they can facilitate the difficultdialogues and mediate conflicts that frequently emerge between the Visionary Leaders andTransactional Leaders in organizations.
Social Architects [People-Abstract]. Social Architects, like People Servants, prefer the world of people to the world of things.However, unlike People Servants they tend to work with theories & models to explain people’smotivations and behaviors. Social Architects are comfortable functioning in a world ofuncertainty--in fact it's their preference--too much predictability and they get bored. They favorboth intuition and intellectual analysis. Because of the influence of intuition, the Social Architect'sDecision Making Style tends to be variable: at times deliberatively bold and assertive; at othertimes perceived as somewhat impulsive. They favor communicating verbally through metaphor,models, “big-picture” visionary images and “fuzzy logic.” Social Architects are often society’s"greens", deep ecologists, social-activists, social scientists, social policy planners, organizationalconsultants, writers, etc. They are potential Visionary Leaders in societal and organizationaltransformation. To be effective, Visionary Leaders, like Facilitative Leaders, understand that thekey to change is first gaining genuine rapport with people.

Figure 4.
Example of three people mapped
onto the brain-preference chart

Because 40 of the 128 values are correlated to brain-preference, we are able to map people on a brain-preference chart as shown in Figure 4. As you can see from the legend, person 3 on the chart is me which indicates that I have a strong preference for the abstract and a slight preference for people over things. Person 2 is similar to myself, however, is virtually indifferent as to whether they prefer working with people or things. Person 1 has no strong preference--we usually find people who lack preferences are in a state of transition in their life--in some senses they are in a process of breaking free from the "shackles" of their past and becoming their own person.

"Rather aim for living a balanced life, live a prioritised life." - Michael Henderson

How is a Repertory Grid used to Concretize Values?

2011-10-27T06:47:00.004+10:00

The Repertory Grid method is part of a widely used set of techniques for studying personal and interpersonal systems of meaning. Repertory grids have been used in thousands of studies of a broad variety of topics, ranging from children’s understandings of physical science principles and consumer preferences, to formal structures of self-reflection within cognitive science and the mutual validation of belief systems between friends.

The technique was initially designed by George Kelly, author of personal construct psychology (PCP), as a means of assessing the content of an individual’s repertory of role constructs—the unique system of interconnected meanings that define his or her perceived relationships to others. In its simplest form, it requires the respondent to compare and contrast successive sets of three significant people (e.g., my mother, my father, and myself), and formulate some important way in which two of the figures are alike, and different from the third. For example, if prompted with the above triad, a person might respond, “Well, my mother and I are very trusting of people, whereas my dad is always suspicious of their motives.” This basic dimension, trusting of people vs. suspicious of their motives, would then be considered one of the significant themes or constructs that the person uses to organize, interpret, and approach the social world, and to define his or her role in it [more...].

A an example blank Repertory Grid for eliciting constructs around values is shown below. Click here to download a blank grid in PDF format.

Example of Repertory Grid Form

Take a Grid Sheet for each of the values you have selected.
Write its name and descriptor into the space provided.
Then think of four people, two who live this value well (put their initials in the space provided above 'good'), two who don't live that value well (put their initials in the space provided above 'poor'). Put your initials in the space above 'me'. The remaining column marked 'ideal' is for reflecting about a person living that value to perfection.
Now take three people at a time (say one good and two poor, then me plus two good, then ideal plus one good and one poor, etc). As you take each set of three in turn, think of what two of them have in common in terms of living that value and how the other person lives that value differently from the other two. Mark 'o' under the two that have something in common and 'x' under the person who is different. In the left column under constructs, write what the two have in common. In the right column under constructs, write how the one person is different. Repeat this step until all possible combinations of three are exhausted (you will need more than one sheet per value) and you have done this for all the values you selected.
When completed, transcribe the construct pairs elicited for all sets of three people for each value onto a separate sheet.

Some sample construct pairs are shown below:

Sample Construct Pairs for the Value: Truth/Wisdom/Integrated Insight

How can we use values to formulate long-term business strategy?

2011-10-26T11:54:00.001+10:00

The CRD Model of Values

Yet another values lens through which organisation can be viewed is the CRD Values Model where C = Control Values, R = Relational Values, D = Development Values. This model is useful in formulating long term business strategy. In a nutshell: if the control values are the highest priority for the group, strategy should focus delivering excellent business systems; if the priority is greatest for the set of relational values, business strategy should focus on customer relationships; if the developmental values set are the highest priority, strategy should focus on developing leading-edge products and/or services:

Values Set	Strategic Focus
Control Values Relational Values Developmental Values	Operational Excellence Customer Collaboration Innovation, Product &/or Service Leadership

Control Values are necessary to maintain and bring together various organisational sub-systems. Theyinclude values relating to efficiency, discipline, and performance standards. These values guide suchactivities as planning, quality assurance, accounting and re-engineering. Examples of Control valuesinclude: Efficiency/Planning, Control/Order/Discipline, Law/Rule, Management, Rationality andFinancial Security.
Relational Values guide people’s behaviour in a group setting. These values are based on beliefs abouthow people should conduct themselves in public, at work and in relationships. Examples of RelationalValues are Honesty, Congruence, Respect and Loyalty. Relational Values influence how people behaveand relate to each other when living their Control and Developmental Values.
Developmental Values are essential to create new opportunities for growth. They are values related tocreativity, growth, knowledge expansion and innovation. Examples of Developmental Values includeCreativity, Self-Actualization, and Growth/Expansion.

In relation to leadership styles, the natural style for people whose dominant values are Control Values, isTransactional. For people whose Developmental Values are dominant, their natural style is Visionary. Itfollows that people who prefer to put most of their energy into the Relational Values will have aFacilitative style.

The interaction between the Control, Relational and Developmental sets of values has a strong influenceon the nature of group and organisational culture:

Interaction Between CRD Values Shapes Culture

Values based strategic planning is grounded in the knowledge that there is a close connection between thesuccessful execution of organisational strategy and the actual values of people charged with its execution.

The Control, Relational & Developmental values sets, when employed in strategic planning, underpinthree related types of strategic focus, which, while not mutually exclusive, require very different skills.

We have developed a CRD Profile which enables groups to identify their dominant set of CRD Values. This information enables them to formulate long-term group strategy in a way that is congruent with their values and therefore have the best chance of successful execution.

Below is an example of a Group CRD Profile:

Group CRD Profile

What is Values Alignment?

2011-10-25T08:47:00.000+10:00

The leader's job today, in 21st-century terms, is not about gaining followership. Followership is an outmoded notion. Leadership starts with gaining alignment with the mission and values of the organisation: What are we about? What do we believe as a group? At Medtronic, we aligned around the idea of "alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life." It was clear that anyone who didn't buy into that could work somewhere else. [Bill George]

Values alignment is an emergent property in organisations that have a critical mass of people with a common language of values and clarity about how their personal values, personal vision/mission and goals align with the desired values, mission/vision and goals of the organisation.

The following diagram illustrates four possible alignment scenarios of its people's values with those of the organisation:

Values Alignment (Source: Paula McHenry)

Position #1: Low personal job satisfaction/low job performance. An employee at position 1 is attaining very little personal satisfaction from working in the organisation. Similarly, the organisation perceives the person as under performing.
Position #2: Low personal job satisfaction/high job performance. An employee at position 2 is perceived by the organisation to be a high achiever. However the individual is receiving little personal satisfaction from working in the organisation.
Position #3: High personal job satisfaction/low job performance. The organisation perceives the employee as under-performing. However, the employee is getting what they want from the organisation. This is an awkward and untenable situation from the organisation’s
Position #4: High personal job satisfaction/high job performance. An employee at position 4 is in an optimal position. Their personal values are highly aligned with the organisation’s values, and they are perceived as a high achiever.

Obviously position #4 is the optimal scenario from the individual employee as well as the organisation’s perspective. The key to this position is for both the individual and the organisation to have clarity about their values, a well-defined sense of vision/mission and a set of meaningful objectives. A free survey is available at http://bit.ly/db38j9 for you to explore values alignment within your own organisation.

Creating Values Alignment

The Optimal Performance Model, illustrated below, provides a useful framework for conducting an organisational wide values program for the purpose of setting the right conditions for values alignment to be an emergent property of the organisation.

Optimal Performance Model (Adapted from: Smith, P. & Saint-Onge, H. 1996

Each person and each group in the organisation must give attention to:

Concretization. Concretizing their top 10 priority values (using techniques such as: asking VAK questions about each value, concept mapping, and/or Repertory Grid).
"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate." - Carl Jung
Purpose. Having regard any published organisational values, formulate personal and group values, vision and mission statements. Make statements which are uplifting and motivating.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish." - Proverbs 29:18
Will. Each person reflects on their foundation and vision values, and brain-preference. Vision values motivate so, "Will this organisation enable you to be passionate about and motivated by your vision values?" Foundation values can demotivate if they are not satisfied so, "Do you have strategies and skills in place that turn these values into a solid foundation rather than an achilles heel?" "In this organisation/group, are you able to focus mainly on tasks which match your work-mode brain-preferences and priority values?"
"How do your top 10 values compare to your group/organisation's top 10 values?" "What common ground do you see?" "If your values are markedly different to the group/organisation's values, can yousee a way you could happily live your own values whilst at the same contributing to the group/organisation's values?"
"How does the group energy management profile compare with your personal profile?"
Capability. "Do all in our group have the skills, resources and abilities to live our values in our workplace?" SQ = Spiritual Intelligence, EQ = Emotional Intelligence and IQ = intelectual intelligence, "Do we have the knowledge to develop these intelligences within our group?"
The group skills profile indicates the skills needs of your group based on the values you all have. "What are the implications of this profile for your group?"

The above program works, and it works very well, because it creates a strong values system (strange attractor) within the organisation based on its people's actual values--self-organisation does the rest. If you are unfamiliar with how self organisation works, the two videos below (the first pertains to childhood education, however, theprinciples are universal) give a good overview:

Values Systems are the Strange Attractor in all Living Entities. What does this mean?

2011-10-24T07:57:00.000+10:00

In the field view of organisations, clarity about values or vision is important, but it’s only half the task. Creating the field through the dissemination of those ideas is essential. The field must reach all corners of the organisation, involve everyone, and be available everywhere…we need to imagine ourselves as broadcasters, tall radio beacons of information, pulsating out messages everywhere…we must fill all the spaces with the messages we care about. If we do that, fields develop – and with them, their wondrous capacity to bring energy into form. (Margaret Wheatley)

A strange attractor creates a certain form of order within any complex non-linear system be it the weather, a bushfire, society, an organisation, a team or an individual person. For living entities, their values-system is their strange attractor.

Why use the term strange-attractor instead of simply referring to values as attractors? The terminology comes from the study of complex systems which exhibit "order within chaos". Researchers discovered that certain entities behaved in strange ways yet their behaviours were obviously being influenced by a strong attraction to something. Attractors which led to entities behaving in strange and not entirely predictable ways became known as strange attractors. Attractors which lead to predicable behaviours were termed ordinary attractors. Gravity is an example of an ordinary attractor. With ordinary attractors such as gravity, one can mathematicly compute exactly what will happen in the future. For example, if a person drops a ball from 1 metre height, it can be calculated precisely when that ball will land. When an entity's behaviour (motion, actions, path, etc.) is governed instead by a strange attractor, one cannot predict what will happen in the future, however, one can predict the general form or nature of what will unfold. A person with priority values of achievement, competitition, work, financial success, etc. will be attracted by these values to behave in a completely different way to someone who has priority values of expressiveness/freedom, play, intimacy, search/meaning, service, equity/rights. Clearly in both these examples you cannot know what each person will do moment to moment, however, you will know with a fair degree of certainty the general nature of what the will and won't be doing as their life unfolds. For erach person, the values-system (in it's role as a strange attractor) gives order to their life. So it is with teams, organisations and different cultural groups.

To groups and organisations from a strange attractor point of view requires a different way of thinking from what we have been used to over the past few thousand years. Humans have always had a propensity to think in terms of forces and controls. If you exert a force in this way you can control something and make it go where you want. This mode of thinking reached its pinicle with the discoveries of Sir Issac Newton. Newton's world of cause and effect required great effort (forces) to make things happen. Since the emergence of the quantum world, we see that it is possible to accomplish this through manipulating non-material structures – i.e. fields – which are the basic ordering fabric of the universe.

One explanation of the way fields work is to consider fish in an ocean. As the water moves in synchronism with the swell, the fish all appear to move together from side to side or up and down as though connected by some invisible connector-- of course, we know that it is the water of the ocean. However, fields in space behave the same way, we cannot see them and they (unlike the water of the ocean) have no material substance, yet, they link all material objects in space. Physical reality was once considerd to be solely a material reality. The existance of fields has caused us to change our notion of reality since no one will dispute that fields are real, but they have no material substance.

The Newtonian Science Organisation	The Quantum Science Organisation
An organisation is a collection of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which there might be an answer, and decision makers looking for work.	Organisational order is provided by fields. These fields are conceptual controls – people's ideas and beliefs are creating the order, not some manager with authority. The strongest fields emanate from shared meaning – the source of the organisation's values-system – the strange-attractor which creates and maintains its culture.

Inspired by Tosey and Smith (1999), we have developed a Cultural Field Map to facilitate the understanding of values-systems from an energy field perspective. Each dimension of the chart is a field of motivational energy emanating from the underlying values.

Cultural Field Map

The pattern in the centre of the hexagon above maps the value priorities, for an example group, on each of eight motivational energy field dimensions.

Key questions for group members to ask are:

Which are the strongest fields in our group?
Which are weakest or non-existent?
What does this mean for us?
How do our clients experience us, given this is the motivational energy we are 'radiating' to those around us? What would they see us doing? What would they hear us saying? How would they feel in our presence?

How are values classified under the categories of Foundation, Focus and Vision?

2011-10-21T20:43:00.000+10:00

The Minessence Values Framework is comprises eight clusters of values and seven worldviews:

Where people map on the MVF depends on their worldview. For everyone there is a tug-o-war between self and other:

The balance point in the pull between self and other is mathematically determined by the centre of gravity of one's values--or non-mathematically, is determined thus (see diagram below): if you place all a person's values as blocks, each having a size proportional to their priority, on a beam, the balance point will be where the beam sits horizontally.

Below shows two different examples of applying this concept to mapping a person's values on the MVF:

The focus values are always above the balance point. The foundation values are to the left, the vision values are to the right.

Unless people are under the influence of drugs, there is always a mental dialogue going on between their current interpretation of their past, which is responsible for their foundation values, and their present interpretation of the future they desire, which is responsible for their vision values. This dialogue synthesises their focus worldview with its associated values:

1. What is the basis of arriving at Priority Values? 2. In my Organisation , we have chosen the following Values: namely, Integrity, Passion, Quality, Respect and Responsibility. I do not see a ready match of my Priority Values with these.What should I do?

2011-10-04T15:58:00.000+10:00

Values are personal. The values we have are directly related to our world-view, see: http://valuesjournal.com/?p=758.

Organisations have their own values. Ideally these are put in place by people in the organisation following the process outlined here: http://www.minessence.net/eZine/view.aspx?issue=47 and here: http://www.minessence.net/eZine/view.aspx?issue=31

Where your values differ from those of the organisation, the best strategy is to treat the organisation's values as codes of behaviour--you then need to ask yourself, am I able to live my values in this organisation in a way which is consistent with the organisation's values.

It doesn't matter what values we have as individuals. However, because we live and work with others, it does matter how we life them. It is quite appropriate for organisations to put in place codes of behaviour, codes of ethics and the like which define the way in which people in the organisation should live their own values, see: http://www.minessence.net/PDFs/AVIAccred/Newwiz3_ch1_values_ethics_principles.pdf

Can you please explain what do Foundation, Focus and Vision Values mean? How do you segregate the responses to the AVI under these three groups?

2011-10-04T15:34:00.001+10:00

Foundation values are to do with our present interpretation of the past.

Values unfold a person's life in a particular order: from self-preservation, security, belonging, organisation, self-actualisation, service, emerging order, wisdom, to global-transformation. See the video below:

For each of self-preservation, security, belonging, organisation, self-actualisation, service, emerging order (new-order), wisdom, and global-transformation (transcendence) we have identified values which people are likely to hold if their focus is on one of these. For example, if someone is focused on Self-Preservation it will come as no surprise that the values self-preservation, safety/survival, or self-interest would be important to them. Likewise it would come as no surprise to find that someone focussed on their organisation's success will have priority values of achievement, efficiency/planning, financial success.

Values associated with self-preservation, security, belonging, organisation, self-actualisation, service, emerging order, wisdom and global-transformation are called values clusters.

The article at: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=154379074586565 gives an overview of the values clusters, how they are related to world-views, and illustrates two cases of people with different foundation, focus and vision values.

Q. Do you have an up-to-date handout on the AVI world-views?

2011-04-01T16:21:00.000+10:00

A. There's one available at: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=154379074586565

Q. Are there common humanistic values? If so, have they been defined?

2010-07-06T05:24:00.000+10:00

A. To date 128 values have been identified as being a priority to people in varying degrees depending on their world-view. Click here to view the current list.

What comes first - behaviors or values?

2010-06-19T22:05:00.002+10:00

Answer:

Worldview (i.e. our self-constructed model of what we believe the world is all about) comes first.
We hold certain things as important (i.e. our values) because of our view of the world.
We do things based on choices determined by our values (i.e. we behave in certain ways).
We view the consequences of our behaviours through the filter of our values.
If our modus-operandi for living, based on our worldview isn’t working for us we may change our worldview, then we start the whole cycle again and, as we now have a different worldview, we now also have different values (or at the very least differently prioritised values), so we make different choices and engage in different behaviours, and so on the cycle goes. To change one’s worldview in the face of evidence that it is no longer working for us is normal behaviour. Conversely, the definition of insanity is, “Doing the same things in the same way, yet expecting different results” (Stephen G. Haines, The Systems Thinking Approach to Strategic Planning and Management, 2000, CRC Press LLC, Florida U.S, p. 284).

Four Categories of Skills

2010-02-22T07:13:00.005+10:00

Q. In an example AVI Report you sent me my Skills Profile is like this:

13% Instrumental, 17% Interpersonal, 39% Imaginal, 31% System.

I was taught that the fist 2 clusters required Instrumental skills, the next 2 Interpersonal etc. Is that correct? If so, the figures on My Skills Profile are not equal to the sums of the 2 clusters in each skill set as shown on my values map (0 + 2 = 2) (0 + 12 = 12) (16 + 39 = 55) ( 29 + 2 = 31) OR have I been mistaken in my application of this relationship?

A. It's more complex than that. Some values require more than one type of skill:

Values such as care/nurture, empathy, admin/management, synergy, collaborative/individualist, etc. require interpersonal skills
Values such as safety/survival, admin/management, design/pattern/order, technology/science, convivial technology, etc. require instrumental skills
Values such as design/pattern/order, synergy, collaborative/individualist, convivial technology, etc require system skills
Values such as creative ideation, convivial technology, pioneerism/progress, etc require imaginal skills

As you can see from these examples there can be no linear link between the cluster scores and the skills scores.

As for the 13 + 17 + 39 + 31 = 100% score in the example. The score just gives you a relative idea of what skills you require in the different categories if you are living your values to the full.

Progressing through the world-views

2009-05-15T02:00:00.001+10:00

Q. Is it reasonable to correlate the ‘progression’ of world views from Self-Preservation through Security, Belonging, Organisation, etc to a perceived increase in personal control and personal influence?

It would appear that this progression represents an increasingly outward focus from self to family to organisation to broader community, and ultimately to a global focus on systems generally – is this a reasonable observation?

A. I like to call it an unfolding of world-views rather than progress. Rather than perceived influence, I would say desired influence. It's not everyone's "cup of tea" to operate from a particular set of values -- brain-preference has a lot to do with it:

The S-FT's prefer to operate in a world of certainly and thus structure and "things" so they are more likely to place a priority on the values of the first four clusters.
The F-SNs also like a world of certainty and structure but are more "people" focussed than "things". They prefer to belong to like-minded associations/organisations/institutions and to care for people, so they too prefer values associated with the first four clusters but the ones more people focussed.
The T-SNs prefer to invent a new technological world -- i.e. they are motivated by the desire to invent, so they will place a priority on many values from the last four clusters, though not so much the people values.
The N-FTs are the social architects. They want to create a better society. They too place a priority on many values found in the last four clusters, though mainly those which are people oriented.

As for the concept of progress, check this out: http://www.minessence.net/progress/ One can progress, in terms of increased complexity, with any set of values -- "it's not the values we have, rather it's how we live them that matters".

Why do the majority of values fall in three main clusters?

2008-10-16T08:04:00.004+10:00

Q. I can not help wondering why the majority of values fall in three main clusters: Organizational, Self- Actualization & Emergent Order. Is this because this is where the majority of people are living their lives?

A. There are eight value clusters associated with seven world-views. At least two clusters are associated with each worldview. Chapter 6 of New Wisdom II describes how these values unfold in a person's life. The unfolding is from "simple to the complex:

Values build on each other. We have to experience certain aspect of life before the concepts associated with come values can emerge. The early values which emerge in our life are related to much simpler concepts than those which emerge later in life.
As we move from childhood to adulthood there's an "explosion" of values which come into our consciousness as we find ourselves in relationship to ever expanding and more complex systems -- family, friends, schools, organization, society, eco-system, etc. This explosion explains why there are so many values in the organization, self-actualization, and emerging order clusters.

Q. How does the balance affect individuals who do fall outside the norm? Does the tool accurately pick up such distinction?

A. No. In order to determine the balance point between focus on self and focus on global transformation, the AVI's algorithm determines the centre of gravity of the values on the values map. This process is like children (each child representing a value) on a see saw. Those in the middle have less influence on the balance point than those at the ends (representing self-preservation or global transformation). Both size (= priority) and position matter. Large size (= high priority) has more impact on the balance point than the same size (priority) at the middle.

What are Key Values?

2008-06-04T23:36:00.002+10:00

Years of experience in running values workshops has reinforced the belief that it is better to introduce the language of values using 50 key-values rather than the 128 values The 50 key-values are not an abbreviated list of the 128 values. Rather, they are a grouping of the 128 into 50 sets of related values.

Even though this is the way the Minessence Group has to date approached the gradual introduction, in workshop situations, of the 128 values. We are currently planning to completely drop the key-values approach and replace it with a short list of representative values chosen directly from the 128 values.

Do the Colours on the AVI Values Map have any particular meaning?

2008-05-31T13:06:00.002+10:00

Yes. The colours are used to indicate the priority of your values.

From highest to lowest priority the default colours are: Navy Blue - 91 to 100%, Dodger Blue3 - 81 to 90%, Dark Green0 - 71 to 80%, Saddle Brown - 61 to 70%, Red3 - 51 to 60%, Khaki - 41 to 50%, PaleGoldenrod - 31 to 40%, Moccasin - 21 to 30%, PapayaWhip - 11 to 20%, LemonChiffon - 1 to 10%

The colours listed above are the default colours for the online AVI. It is possible for different Values Consultants to use their own colour scheme, however, the categories of priority are the same.

How do I get back in to complete my values inventory?

2008-05-31T13:04:00.000+10:00

If you were logged out, for any reason, while completing the AVI, you can resume simply by going to the same link you used to access the AVI. LogIn using the UserID and Password you supplied when you entered your contact details. None of your responses will have been lost. You will be taken to the page before the one where you left off.

I completed the AVI online selecting DEMO as the code. I now want to find out my scores on the values test. How do I do that?

2008-05-31T13:02:00.001+10:00

There are a range of AVI Reports available. Please go to this page to make your selection: http://www.minessence.net/AValuesInventory/ordermyavi.aspx

I did the values questionnaire however I ended it a bit short..what do I do now?

2008-05-31T12:55:00.003+10:00

Question: "I did the values questionnaire however I ended it a bit short and didn't complete the last prioritisation of the last two (of three) lists. I clicked 'next' by accident. I'm not sure how much this will affect the overall score. Can someone advise on what is the best course of action?"

Answer:

Not ranking the values on the last page won't make much difference to the overall pattern of your values. The last page only lists your lowest priority values. By not ranking them they are all given an equal low rank.

The two pages before the last enable you to rank your highest priority values. Ranking the values on those pages is important for your inventory of values to be useful. If you wish, you can always log back on with the UserID and Password you registered. You will find all your responses have been saved, so you can quickly go through the inventory to get to the last three pages where you will have to undertake the ranking again. No charge is made for re-taking the inventory in situations such as this.

How do the AVI Brain Preference Indicators differ from Thomas's DISC with reference to: - reliability? - skill development?

2008-05-31T12:50:00.003+10:00

The Brain-Preference indicators from the AVI are based on a Systems Science Model of the brain developed by Walter Lowen. There is a clear "audit" trail from Lowen's work to our implementation.

The correlations between Brain-preference and values are reported in New Wisdom II.

As for reliability, for starters the AVI is simply an inventory of a person's values, and as such, just reflects back to a person their current choices which are expressed as current priorities/preferences.

If a person's choices change over time the AVI report will be different.

The questions then are: Has the questionnaire reliably reported the person's choices? (the answer here is yes as the there is a one on one relationship between the statements chosen and the values chosen) and, has the person reliably identified in their mind what is now important to them? On the latter point - the AVI is not a psychological test instrument - it is a map (for self-exploration), not the territory. The instrument is designed to aid people in the process of "individuation" - i.e. discovering through experience and reflection, one's uniqueness.

What are Brain-Preferences?

2008-05-31T12:16:00.001+10:00

Brain-preference refers to how you prefer to relate to the world around you because of how your brain is "wired"

What are Values Clusters?

2008-05-31T12:12:00.001+10:00

The 128 values have been found to map into eight clusters: Self-Preservation, Security, Family/Social, Organisational, Self-Actualisation/Service, New-Order, Wisdom, and Transcendence.

Values clusters are simply collections of related values.

What are values?

2008-05-31T11:25:00.001+10:00

They are your unconscious motivators
Values act as filters. You view the world around you through your values. Things which don't match your values, you don't see - or, in other words, you only pay attention to that which is important to you.
Your values are your lifestyle priorities.

How can I change my world-view and leadership style?

2008-05-31T11:17:00.003+10:00

Make sure you have effective strategies in place to have your foundation values met. It is important that they are a foundation, not an Achilles’ heel.

Taking on ever more challenging activities, and gaining the skills to be competent with them, will impact on your world-view, and hence, leadership style. Of particular importance are those activities which require interpersonal, imaginal and system skills.

To move to a new paradigm (world-view) you have to fully embrace the language of that paradigm. So, if you see people as human-beings and not as cogs in a machine, you must refer to them as something other than your most valuable "assets" - you could not be a human "resource" manager, you would have to, say, be a human "relationship" manager. Thus, attention to linguistics is part of the answer.

How do we reconcile decisions made in the past with our world-view of the present?

2008-05-31T11:14:00.003+10:00

The best you can do here is to ensure quality decision making processes are employed in making your decisions. This does not guarantee that you've made the 'right' decision, however, it does mean you're likely to have made the best decision you could at the time based on the information and knowledge available to you at that time.

How do we make those important decisions to ensure that they remain viable into the future?

2008-05-31T11:07:00.005+10:00

All the decisions you make throughout life are based on the values you hold at the time you make the decision. Your values change when your worldview changes.

Say you experience a significant emotive event that completely changes your worldview, then if you had made a decision before that event, and are now faced with that same decision you will make it differently because you now have different priority values.

What is the AVI?

2008-05-31T10:53:00.003+10:00

The AVI is A Values Inventory. It is designed to identify, out of 128 possible values, which are a priority for you.