Archetypal Principles As a Basis for Non-Conflicting Decision-Making

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 irrational 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 learning 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 “Fixes that backfire” thinking may help to recognize men- support a principle that “my fix comes tal models, avoid human traps through back to haunt me” [18, p. 3]. The sys- influence on these models, patterns of tem archetype “Shifting the burden” behavior, and events. In addition, the means, “an underlying problem gener- system archetypes can play a role of ates symptoms that demand attention… background to fulfill data gaps, make people ‘shift the burden’ of their prob- assumptions, and prove guess in the lem to other solutions … which seem ex- DMP. tremely efficient [but] only ameliorate The system archetypes canhelp to the symptoms… and the system loses analyze human mental models ofculture whatever abilities it had to solve the and behavior. Mental models,based on underlying problem” [16, p. 104]. The human norms,play asignificant rolein archetype “Drifting Goals” proves pos- the DMP. Beliefs, values,moral, trust, sible change of goals when “I become and other human norms arefoundation- satisfied with less.” To be competitive sof any social system. They have been each party should “match or beat the formed with a purpose to survive for efforts of the other” [18, p. 3] describes the society (nation). Beliefs and values the archetype “Escalation.” may define national, corporate cultures Archetypes can be used in different and build own system archetypes of hu- ways: as “lenses,” as structural pattern man thinking. For example, DM culture

197 [14, p. 5] can be a result of this thinking. and the environment look for equilib- Beliefs and values present an uncon- rium. In this condition the system and scious level, which is the most stable in the environment can be adapted to each comparison with emotions, thinking, other, but in different degree. Thus, “a habits, and human behavior. Based on philosophy of adaptation might be the differences in beliefs and values people philosophy of the DMP with an ap- in similar conditions can make differ- propriate DM Culture” [14, p. 4]. To ent decisions. Also, the decision that is adapt the system to the environment made based on beliefs differs from the properly requires interventions to the decision that based on values [2]. system based on preventive actions Environmental changes influence to system archetypes. For example, to human normsas critical fundamentals avoid effects of “limits to success” re- of the DMP. Rapid technological de- quires prescriptive actions. They are: velopment, globalization, erase of in- “focus on removing the limit (or weak- ternational borders, and mixture of dif- ening its effect) rather than continu- ferent national traditions create new ing to drive the reinforcing process of relationships and communication lines. growth; use the archetype to identify In spite of long-life of human norms, potential balancing processes before the environmental change forces to they begin to affect growth, and iden- revise rules of behavior and relations tify links between the growth processes among people. System adaptation to a and limiting factors to determine ways new environment may require revising to manage the balance between them beliefs, values, and principles. This pro- two” [11, p. 10]. cess is complicated and psychologically Structural change of the system painful [14, p. 5]. can be a step of system adaptation. To Stages and elements of the DMP influence the system structure a deci- are psychologically oriented. System sion-maker has to determine a center archetypes may decrease influence of of gravity (COG) of the system. The human traps on the DMP. Dan Gil- COG is “primary sources of moral or bert in his lecture “Why we make bad physical strength, power and resist- decisions?” explains that people make ance” [17, p. IX], a key element (no- decisions according to theformula of tion) of the system.The COG is a start D. Bernuly: Expected Value = (Odds point to create an operational approach of Gain) × (Value of Gain). People and design of the DMP to achieve the make errors in odds and values. Errors end-state. The task is to adapt own in odds:the past experience influences system to the environment in order to present situation because we compare save system effectiveness [14, p. 4], and current proposition with the past in- influence (neutralize) the opposing stead of possibility. Errors in values: system/environment in order to estab- comparing with the possible. For ex- lish desired conditions to achieve the ample, now is better than latter and goal, as a required action to maintain more is better than less [7]. equilibrium between the system and To avoid mistakes in the DMP re- the environment in order to provide quires understanding that the system system balance.

198 The system archetypescan facilitate rational decision. The logic goes from creating a learning organization, as a understanding of rationality based highly adaptable system,through inter- on culture (national, organizational, vention in a system structure and de- corporate) and experience. In change- sign of mental models of organizational able environment, this framework can culture and proper leadership. There is become obsolete. As a result of this, a paradox of saving of principles and the the accepted logical approach to the need to change them. In spite of relative DMP may become not effective also. stability of principles, rules, and norms, In other words, this approach does not they can be changed on the stage of look rational (effective) anymore. For transformation of system structure. example, a logical decision based onob- The system archetypes present princi- soleteorganizational cultureand norms ples of system behavior, which are rela- can be wrong. Thus, a past rational ap- tively stable. A spiral process of system proach (thinking) to the DMP is not development provesthatit is possible to effective and an irrational approach analyze current system behavior based becomes more appropriate. A today ir- on the experience, but with slightly dif- rational decision may become rational ferent view on the problem because of a tomorrow and obsolete in the future. new level of development. There is a repetitive imagined process To influence different elements of the of replacement a past rational approach system (structure, people, vision, flex- by irrational one. In any case, people ibility, and organizational culture) may see irrational decisions as unusual ap- help to maintain system effectiveness proaches because it challenges their through system adaptation (change). mental models. It is important to determine on which People use previous experience to element to influence and when. System evaluate situation rationally. System archetypes can facilitate implementing thinking looks rational because based change properly because “they provide on the universal system archetypes. insight into the underlying structures However, the DMP in the complex and from which behavior over time and dynamic environment requires apply- discreet events emerge. As prospective ing both rational and irrational think- tools, they alert managers to future un- ingin spite of their natural differences. intended consequences” [5, p. 1]. Combining both of them in the DMP Cognitive process of change imple- would be significant to make a right mentation lies in applying of rational decision” [14, p. 23]. The dilemma is (logical) and irrational (not logical) how and when a decision-maker has to thinking. A principle of economy of use rational “X” and/or irrational “Z” means to achieve the goal defines a (figure 1) approaches to avoid mistakes

Z b a X

(New, unpredictable) Right Decision (Stable, clear) Figure 1. Points of decisions,rational and irrational ways of thinking Source: created by author

199 in the DMP.How far are they located thinking. “System 1 operates automati- from each other? cally and quickly, with little or no ef- In the point A the level of irration- fort and no sense of voluntary control. ality may be low (Lir.min) and the le- System 2 allocates attention to the ef- vel of rationality can be high (Llogmax) fortful mental activities that demand or vice versa. It depends on a situation. it, including complex computations” For instance, decision A may not be [8, p. 22]. The frameworks of systems equal to B (figure 1), but both of them archetypes may be closer to the System can be right. In a new and unpredicta- 2 when we deal with complex environ- blesituation applying of an irrational ment. approach (Z) to the DMP can work Thinking can be associated system better then rational one (X), which archetypes through mental models. Ar- may be more suitable to the stable situ- chetypes have a number of purposes, ation. Irrational and rational thinking for example: “human communication; creates a paradox because they present specialized searching; knowledge-ena- opposite sides of the decision-making bled systems; knowledge-level interop- line (figure 1). It may be connected erability; domain empowerment; and with mental models. The problem is to intelligent querying” [3, p. 9]. There combine them together and use simul- are archetype design principles [3, taneously. p. 11–12]. Human designed archetypes Making irrational decisions requires create mental models that are placed in applying critical and creative thinking national, organizational, or corporate [15, p. 2–II] that help to avoid human cultures. “A Theory of fads, fashion, traps, logical fallacies, heuristics and custom, and cultural change as infor- biases [15, p. C-14–C-22]. This think- mational cascades” suggests that a hu- ing is psychologically complicated and man makes decision mostly based on looks unusual for people. It is possi- activities of others. The actions made ble to assume that a human brain, as by the majority increase a probability a system, works rationally according to repeat them by one person [4]. It can to the system archetypes. Therefore, prove the fact that system archetype understanding of systems archetypes creates a culture, which psychological- may help to find approaches to develop ly manages behavior of the individual. critical and creative thinkingskills. A person, who does not repeat the same Thinking in the DMP may include actions, will not be welcomed in this two types: automatic and selective system. To be in the system you should when a person should make choice behave (think) as system behaves. In from different alternatives [8]. Both of addition, visual illusion, a format of them are actively involved in endless delivering of the information, interpre- DMP, which has the goal to provide tation of possible options for DMand equilibrium between the system and a set of them facilitate making wrong the environment in order to maintain decisions [1]. system balance and effectiveness [14, The system archetypes can be ef- p. 3]. Daniel Kahneman proposes two fectively applied tothe DMP because systems that are operate during our “they are commonly occurring combi-

200 nations of reinforcing and balancing a communism system of life by a capi- feedback [18, p. 1].” talism system. Thus, structural change A decision is made based on past or of the system forced to change mental current data that is received througha models. It happens when the system feedback loopwith delay. Coefficient becomes not effective anddestroys. of dynamic equilibrium between the For instance, the closed Soviet eco- system and the environment (Keq) nomic system collapsed because it did determines this delay [13, р. 9]. In the not correspond to a new environment. dynamic and changeable environment, The critical point of system destruc- DM delay may decrease the system ef- tion may correspond to Keqmin when fectiveness and, eventually, destroy it. a decision must be made (figure 2). It It is possible to assume that there is a means thatexisted rules of behavior do certain minimum coefficient of dynam- not provide enough system effective- ic equilibrium Keqmin (figure 2) after ness. that the system starts losing stability People and the environment define (balance) and effectiveness. Keqmin rules of behavior. The human nature re- corresponds to a moment to make a de- mains more stable in comparison with cision (figure 2). Hence, the moment the environment and, therefore, makes (time) to make a decision is a func- rules respectful and relatively stable. tion of Keqmin [T to make decision = Cultural mental models with ideology f (Keqmin)]. Thus, applying of the sys- and rules of behavior shouldsatisfyhu- tem archetypes to the DMP can help to man needs. Environmental change cre- maintain system functionality. ates a new set of rules that should or- People, like systems, act in order ganize human relationships to provide to satisfy their needs (to save system balance for the system (society). functionality). It is possible to ob- Thus, the system archetypes facili- serve behavior to survive and ethical tate effective DMP by decreasing delay behavior (according to accepted writ- in decision-making and applying new ten and unwritten rules). These types mental models, as a basis for decision- of behavior may depend on the level making, in order to adapt the system of stress (system chaos). If the estab- to the environment. In addition, the lished ethical rules became obsolete in system archetypes can help to evaluate a new environment and do not provide future environmental and system be- appropriate level of life, human beha- havior as a whole process by applying vior may shift to “behavior to survive”. systems thinking that creates favorable The example of this isa replacement of conditions for non-conflicting DMP.

0 Keqmin Keq = 1

Time Time to make decision in the given conditions

Figure 2. Time to make a decision Source: created by author

201 Conclusions. To summarize, the terns in acquisition.” Carnegie Mel- systems archetypes describe system lon University. https://www.google. behavior, create system thinking and com.ua/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=PtvlWMv_ mental models that facilitate non-con- HrDi8Ae13pG4AQ&gws_rd=ssl#q= flicting DMP. The DMP in the complex Using+system+archetypes+to+identif y+failure+patterns+in+acquisition&* and dynamic environment requires &spf=113 (accessed April 6, 2017). both rational and irrational thinking 7. Gilbert Dan. 2008. “Why we make bad to make a right decision. Applying sys- decisions.” YouTube video. https:// tem archetypes to describe features of www.youtube.com/watch?v=c- organizational and DM cultures can be 4flnuxNV4(accessed April 13, 2017). a subject for further research. 8. Kahneman Daniel. 2011. “Thinking Fast and Slow.” NY: Penguin Books. 9. Kim Daniel H. 2000. “System arche- References types I: Diagnosing systematic issues and Designing High-leverage Inter- 1. Ariely Dan. 2009. “Are we in con- ventions.” Waltham, MA, USA: Pega- trol of our decisions?” YouTube sus Communication, Inc. video. https: //www.youtube.com/ 10. Kim Daniel H. 2000. “System arche- watch?v=9X68dm92HVI (accessed types III: Understanding patterns of April 13, 2017). behavior and delay.” Waltham, MA, 2. Barret Richard. Beliefs vs Values De- USA: Pegasus Communication, Inc. cision-Making. Video. http://www. 11. Kim Daniel H. 2013. “Systems arche- coaching.net.nz/two-critical-parts-to- types as Dynamic Theories.” // The making-tough-decisions/ (accessed Systems Thinker. — Vol. 24. — № 1. — April 14, 2017). February 2013. — Р. 7–10. Pegasus 3. Beale T. and S. Heard (editors). 2007. Communication, Inc. “Archetype Definitions and Prin- 12. Kim Daniel H., Colleen P. Lannon. 1997. ciples.” © Copyright open EHR “Applying System Archetypes.” @ Foundation. https: //www.google. Pegasus Communication, Inc.https:// com.ua/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=PtvlWMv_ thesystemsthinker.com/wp-content/ HrDi8Ae13pG4AQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=a uploads/2016/03/Applying-Systems- rchetype+definitions+and+principles Archetypes-IMS002Epk.pdf (accessed &*&spf=1 (accessed April 4, 2017). April 6, 2017). 4. Bickhchandani Sushil, David Hirshle- 13. Naplyokov Yuriy V. 2014. An Algorithm ifer, Ivo Welch. 1992. “A theory of fads, for Maintaining Dynamic Equilibrium fashion, custom and cultural change as to Achieve Strategic Goals. Master‘s informational cascades” // The Journal Thesis, U.S. Army War College, Car- of Political Economy, — Vol. 100. — lisle Barracks, Pennsylvania 17013, № 5. — Р. 992–1026. USA. 5. Braun William. 2002. “The system 14. Naplyokov Yuriy, V. 2017. Operational Archetypes.”https://www.google.com. Planning Process according to NATO ua/#q=The+System+Archetypes+by standards, NDU, Kyiv. +william+braun&*&spf=1 (accessed 15. Planner’s Handbook for Operation- March 29, 2017). al Design. 2011. Stephen J. Gerras. 6. Gibson Diane, Linda Levine, Wil- “Thinking Critically about Critical liam E. Novak. 2006. “Using system Thinking: A Fundamental Guide for archetypes to identify failure pat- Strategic Leaders.” Joint Staff, J-7

202 Joint and Coalition Warfighting Suf- printing service center; Quantico, VA., folk, Virginia, USA. USA. 16. Senge Peter M. 2006. “The Fifth Disci- 18. What are System Archetypes? © 2000- pline: The Art & Practice of the Learn- 2001 Heaven & Earth Incorporated – ing Organization.” New York: Double- [email protected]. day. https://www.google.com.ua/?gfe_rd= 17. Strange Joe. 2005. “Center of Gravity cr&ei=GFjiWIuqI7Ps8weCyYZI&g and Critical Vulnerabilities.” Marine ws_rd=ssl#q=what+are+system+arche Corps University, Defense automated types&spf=1 (accessed April 13, 2017).

203