Leadership: Spiral Conflict
Using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode to Determine Meme Density?
Many of you, if you've been a reader for very long, know about my affinity for all things spiral. As I deepen my understanding of development, I realize that spiral things only describe a certain type of mechanics regarding development...which doesn't make the spiral thing unimportant, perhaps more important, as we know...quantum physics is not understood--and quite frankly doesn't explain everything--you must have an understanding of classical physics to go along with the quantum world.
Therefore, I'm constantly seeking things to help me understand development and it becomes necessary in that process to pay attention to your experience. So today, I'm reviewing a "TKI" (Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Indicator) from a client...and I was able to look through the client's data into the assessment itself...and my few brain cells were able to connect something I had never seen before...duh!
You see, the reason I use the TKI, along with a battery of assessments is that almost all models of assessment are measuring different data/systems...probably except those rooting out of a single theory, such as DiSC instruments that have a myriad of names and essentially rely on the same theory...TKI measures through a forced choice method. (which has been shown to be the most efficient way to eliminate the social desirability bias that almost ALL assessments have in common!).
Currently in all of the spiral dynamics and integral measurements I'm aware of, social desireability factors at such a high level of bias that most of the instruments are essentially non-valid...except perhaps as a starting point, but certainly not valid enough in my experience to draw any real conclusions or to predict behavior.
With the TKI, you can predict behavior in my view because if the person participates voluntarily at all in the instrumentation of the assessment, there's a really good probability, you can predict conflict styles and use in their behavior.
Ok, so that's the background on the TKI, if you want to take one, then click here, be my guest.
What I "saw" this morning was a connection between Graves work in the 50s and 60s and the TKI. Most notably around the ideas central to both models: assertiveness and cooperation.
Earlier in 2002, I had noticed the connection, but not in the same way. Here's a copy of a diagram that I presented in a 2003 presentation at a Spiral Dynamics Integral Confab:
Notice, how I used assertion and cooperation to identify Graves self and sacrific of self constellations, which I labeled as attractor basins for a reason beyond what Graves noticed--applicable to quantum organization in attractors.
What I saw today was not the literal interpretation of the connection (the content and context) as I often note...but the "conditions (goal state) and code (algorithm) of the connection...and a deeper idea around the fit of culture, which social desirability has as an influence on code. (Note my ideas from Rapaille's work.)
Ok, so what happens now?
Well, the "eureka" moment is tied to the notion that by using the TKI, we can get a better read on predictive behavior as it relates to the person's valuing system, or memetics. What is required now is the tedious work to do the translation or you might say the transcription into code. Because as it stands, the two models are coded differently even though the data created is most likely to be central to each theory/model.
I've started that process...of course you might think...and will show you some interesting ideas if you read my next newsletter. Until then...
Ok, that ought to get you thinking, we'll see how soon I'm drawn back into this discussion. Psst: remember I have a blog, go there, post, discuss, etc.
Still time to reach my inner circle….
Purchase my new book in private launch: http://www.cprforthesoul.com/private