Archetypal Principles As a Basis for Non-Conflicting Decision-Making
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UDC: 164.053 Naplyokov Yuriy Vasilievich, Master of Strategic Sciences, Master of Military Art and Science, a senior lecturer of the department of training of peacekeeping personnel, National University of Defense of Ukraine named after Ivan Chernyakhovsky, Colonel, Ukraine, 03049, Kyiv, Povitroflotsky prospect, 28, tel.: (098) 242 13 53, e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-0343-8337 Напльоков Юрій Васильович, магістр стратегічних наук, магістр вій- ськових наук та військового мистецтва, старший викладач кафедри підготовки миротворчого персоналу, Національний університет оборони України ім. Іва- на Черняховського, полковник, Україна, 03049, м. Київ, Повітрофлотський пр., 28, тел.: (098) 242 13 53, е-mail: designyvn@gmail. com ORCID: 0000-0002-0343-8337 Напльоков Юрий Васильевич, магистр стратегических наук, магистр военных наук и военного искусства, стар- ший преподаватель кафедры подготовки миротворческого персонала, Национальный университет обороны Украины им. Ивана Черняховского, полковник, Украина, 03049, г. Киев, Воздухофлотский пр., 28, тел.: (098) 242 13 53, е-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-0343-8337 archetyPal PrinciPleS aS a baSiS for non-conflicting DeciSion-maKing Abstract. This article explains that applying of system archetypes with ir- rational thinking is an effective approach for non-conflicting decision-making. Keywords: system archetypes, system thinking, irrational thinking decision- making process, equilibrium, balance. АРХЕТИПНІ ЗАСАДИ ЯК ОСНОВА НЕКОНФЛІКТНОГО ПРОЦЕСУ ПРИЙНЯТТЯ РІШЕННЯ Анотація. У статті пояснюється, що застосування системних архетипів з ірраціональним мисленням є ефективним підходом до неконфліктного про- цесу прийняття рішення. 194 Ключові слова: системні архетипи, системне мислення, ірраціональне мислення, процес прийняття рішення, рівновага, баланс. АРХЕТИПИЧЕСКИЕ ПРИНЦИПЫ КАК ОСНОВА НЕКОНФЛИКТНОГО ПРОЦЕССА ПРИНЯТИЯ РЕШЕНИЯ Аннотация. В статье объясняется, что применение системных архетипов с иррациональным мышлением есть эффективным подходом к неконфликт- ному процессу принятия решения. Ключевые слова: системные архетипы, системное мышление, иррацио- нальное мышление, процесс принятия решения, равновесие, баланс. Target setting. The decision mak- building shared visions and team learn- ing process (DMP) in the complex and ing” [16, p. 6]. Daniel Kim considers dynamic environment requires under- that system archetypes are “powerful standing of behavior of an organization tools for diagnosing problems and iden- (system). Archetypal principles can tifying high leverage interventions that facilitate conducting non-conflicting will create fundamental change” [9, DMP through systems thinking, visu- p. 2]. He proposes the use of archetypes alization, understanding of the complex to leverage the loop: system structu- environment and influence of behavior re — patterns of behavior — events. Wil- of the system and the environment. liam Braun highlights “system serve as Analysis of the recent research the means for gaining insight into the and publications. From a big vari- “nature” of the underlying problem and ety of archetypes this article will fo- for offering a basic structure or founda- cus on system archetypes, which can tion upon which a model can be further be topical for the DMP. Peter Senge, developed and constructed” [5, p. 1]. Daniel Kim, and William Braun have The purpose of the article. The researched and analyzed system ar- main goal of the article is to explainim- chetypes as a practical approach to un- portance ofthe concept of system arche- derstand principles of system behavior types for a non-conflictingDMP. An- and apply system thinking to the DMP. other purpose of the article is to show It explains tendencies of long-term sys- that combination of system thinking tem development and predicts possible with irrational thinking, understand- system reactions. ing of system behavior,organizational Peter Senge introduced the concept and DM cultures, based on system of system archetypes in his book “The archetypes,improves the DMP. Fifth Discipline”. Hepaysattention to The statement of basic materials. a learning organization, as an adaptive Non-conflicting decision-making may and effective system, in the framework require understanding of system arche- of “the five disciplines: systems think- typesin order to evaluate the organiza- ing; personal mastery; mental models; tion (system), the environment, and 195 their mutual interactions. The system Peter M. Sengesaid, “I see systems archetypes describe principles of sys- thinking as a way of seeing wholes. It tem behavior and may play asignifi- is a framework for seeing interrelation- cant role in the DMP. The DMP works ships rather than things, for seeing pat- in the framework of ends, ways, and terns of change rather than static snap- means with possible permissible risk. shots” [16, p. 68]. In addition, he states To make a right decision all these no- “systems thinking needs the disciplines tions have to be balanced. People make of building shared vision, mental mo- decisions tosatisfy their needs through dels, and personal mastery to realize maintaining equilibrium between the its potential” [16, p. 12]. System think- system and the environment in order ing is a powerful tool of the DMP that to provide balance (effectiveness) for “comes from the focus on the level of the system [14, p. 3]. Interdependence systemic structure, where the greatest of the environment and the system leverage lies for solving problems” [9, complicates the DMP especially in p. 2]. A structure influences behavior long-term planning. Understanding of as the first principle of systems think- behaviorof the system,based on prin- ing. “When placed in the same system, ciples of system archetypes,facilitates people, however, different, tend to pro- non-conflicting decision-making that duce similar results.” To avoid this “we is essentialin problem solving by peace- must look beyond personalities and ful means in the context of Diplomacy, events” [16, p. 18] through applying of Information, Military, and Economy. systems thinking to the DMP. The DMP in the complex environ- Archetypes are different and each ment requires understanding ofbeha- archetype has “a characteristic theme, vior of the system and the environmen- story line, patterns of behavior over tal as a mutually interrelated process. time, structure, mental models and ef- The system archetypes are patterns fective interventions” [18, p. 1]. There of system behavior “that emerge from are system archetypes that form the the underlying system structure” [5, set of tools that describe patterns of p. 25] that describe systembehavior behavior in systems. They are: 1) Lim- from the position of the need to save sys- its to Growth (or Limits to Success); tem functionality and its structure. Ap- 2) Shifting the Burden; 3) Drifting or plying of system archetypes to the DMP Eroding Goals; 4) Escalation; 5) Suc- in the complex environment is signifi- cess to the Successful; 6) Tragedy cant because they “do not describe any of the Commons; 7) Fixes that Fail; one problem specifically. They describe 8) Growth and Underinvestment; families of problems generically. Their 9) Accidental Adversaries and 10) At- value comes from the insights they offer tractiveness Principle [5, p. 2]. into the dynamic interaction of complex Four types of archetypes, called “Re- systems” [5, p. 25]. The system arche- inforcing engines”, are initially driven types generate systems thinking, which by the growth engine of reinforcing evaluatesthis process.It helps to find a loops: “Limits to Success”, “Tragedy way for problem solving through non- of the Commons”, “Growth and Un- conflicting decision-making. derinvestment”, and “Success to the 196 Successful”. The system archetypes, templates, as dynamic scripts (or theo- called “Balancing Corrections”, pre- ries), and as tools for predicting be- sent another group: “Fixes that Fail”, havior” [12, p. 1]. In addition, they can “Shifting the Burden”, “Escalation”, “make changes to a system, and present and “Drifting goals” — are all driven by information about problems and solu- balancing forces that are intended to tions” [6, p. 7]. To influence system be- “fix” something in the short term but havior, “you must identify and change often to produce undesirable results in the limiting factor” [16, p. 101]. The the long term [10, p. 5]. system archetypes can explain the need The system archetypes describe for limit to growth; support the idea system processes. For example, “Lim- about changing of goals; success to the its to Growth” is a reinforcing process successful as attractive leadership and that “creates a spiral of success but also others. creates inadvertent secondary effects Mythic imagination, as a mental (manifested in a balancing process) model, forms national, corporate, or- which eventually slow down the suc- ganizational approach to the DMP. The cess” [16, p. 95]. The philosophy of “Suc- DMP may look like a game of human cess to the Successful” is “my growth imagination that can be limited only by leads to your decline.” The archetype human perception and accepted norms “Accidental Adversaries” means, “two of behavior. Human imagination, based or more entities join forces for mutual on culture, myths and stories, builds benefit, but unilateral actions by one mental models (for example, how to entity accidentally damage the other, speak, what to wear, how to behave, and the partnership falters or fails”. An- what to buy and where). Systems other archetype