It is possible to distinguish between values, principles, and rules and
observe that one can contradict another. But that distinction is not
relevant if we are looking at the source of individual behavior.
When I talk about beliefs I mean the statements about reality that any
individual holds as "the truth." Not an abstract pricniple that you might
accept in theory, such as "all men are created equal," but a belief that
determines your behavior, such as people can't be trusted, relationships
are stiffling, life isn't fair, or people of different skin color (or
religions or sex) are not as good as me. Beliefs such as these totally
determine our behavior, perceptions, thoughts, and much of our feelings.
In this sense, what I mean by beliefs appears to be different from what
Barker means by rules and what Juke means by assumptions.
Whne changing the culture of an organization, there might be a difference
between the stated abstract values and the day to day policies, practices,
etc. Each of those e.g. -- quality requires x number of inspections and
disbursements require x numnber of signatures in order to not get cheated
-- is a belief that needs to be eliminated to produce fundamental change
Moreover, using the Decision Maker(R) Process it is possible to quickly
and permanently eliminate beliefs, thereby changing the behavior of
individuals, organizations, and societal institutions.
Morty Lefkoe
For information about the Decision Maker(R) Institute and
my book, Re-Create Your Life: Transforming Yourself and
Your World, visit http://decisionmaker.com
> From: J C Howell <orgpsych@Augusta.Net>
>
> This sounds a lot like the Paradigm Prism that is marketed by Joel
> Barker's organization. It uses the premise that all behavior is the
> result of rules that we learn from a variety of sources (a paradigm is a
> collection of rules that tells us what is expected and how to be
> successful [solve problems] within that particular context).
>
> A friend in Atlanta, GA named Willard Jule also has a similar technique
> that uses the term "assumptions" to indicate the antecedents of behavior.
> Otherwise the technique is very similar.
>
> After using Barker's technique and reading about this area for a while, I
> combined the notion of rules and Chris Argyris' ideas about theories of
> action into an approach that starts with values that yield principles.
> These principles then yield specific rules which govern behavior. If
> behavior is not what is wanted, a common approach is to look at the
> underlying values. This is similar to what Wr. Lefkoe is proposing. I
> have found, though, that a common set of values can yield somewhat
> different sets of principles and VERY different sets of rules.
>
> For example: consider the value that all people are created equal. This
> commonly yields a principle of treating everyone the same. The specific
> rules involved in how to do this can be extremely different. A common
> rule is that we should treat everyone EXACTLY the same. When we treat
> everyone exactly the same we ignore the individual uniqueness and
> resulting needs that make any group an exciting and dynamic entity. As
> individual needs are subordinated to the "desires of the group(?)"
> individual initiative and creativity are often eliminated as well.
>
> when trying to effect a massive organizational change, the values may
> still be essentially sound, but the operational rules create an
> undesirable set of behaviors and consequences.
--"decisionmaker.com" <Morty@decisionmaker.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>