My father’s first degree was in philosophy. As a kid, I used to go in his library and just read the titles of his books, wondering about all the ideas contained in them.

As I got older, I actually started reading them. I found myself more attracted to the ones that I knew were considered radical—Marx, Chomsky, Nietzsche. I didn’t find out why they were considered radical until later, that being they pointed out injustice or ignorance in society and proposed a sweeping change in the way society was ordered. But even then, I just naturally liked these the most.

I eventually studied philosophy myself in college. Naturally I started with the Greeks and moved my way through Medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, existentialism, and post-modernism—with a bit of Eastern philosophy peppered in for good measure.

Through all of this, I noticed something: philosophy in its entirety seemed to be a game of Ping-Pong. Someone would introduce an idea and the next guy in line built a new idea out of the criticism of his predecessor, and so on. A famous example of this would be the firestorm that followed Hegel’s dialectic, inspiring the likes of Karl Marx and Soren Kierkegaard.

The exception to this is Plato, I think, and I return to him from time to time to immerse myself in something timeless. He was constantly prattling on about ultimate values—and they just don’t change. I might be going off on a tangent here, though.

But this brings up an interesting point—something I didn’t realize until maybe ten minutes ago: the endless call-and-response of western philosophy was a result of the changes occurring in society at the time. Maybe the criticisms of one philosopher from another came only from the benefit of understanding the previous manifestation of society through a historical lens.

Surely, Marx would have never produced his ideas if it hadn’t been for the Industrial Revolution and Kierkegaard would have never waxed on about individuality and freedom had it not been for the reformation and the subsequent religious environment of 19th century Denmark.

 If that’s true, then what does it mean for us, now?

Society has certainly changed in the recent past, hasn’t it? I don’t even need to tell you what’s occurred because you know, but I’ll be happy to remind you of the outcomes.

• Most people (elites excluded) are thoroughly disgusted with the political structures of our respective societies. Just look at the approval rating of the U.S. Congress. It has become blatantly obvious that nobody at the top is doing any good for the legions of people below them, but we are still expected to live by their rules.  
•  
• While it’s business as usual in the halls of power, the rest of us are grappling with a total reformation of our society. The western economies seem constantly teetering on the brink of collapse and those we have (wrongly) put our faith in to do something about it can’t seem to actually do anything but argue and devise new and creative ways to convince us to keep them in power. We are starting to realize that social improvement is up to us—not them. 

• Communication technologies and practices have proliferated to the point that the entire globe is connected, linked, and talking. Cultures previously separated by thousands of miles of ocean or land are now sitting right next to each other. We have access to a wealth of ideas and approaches to life that were previously unavailable to us. A new generation of world-citizens is coming up in the ranks and they are aware of their place in the world and aware of its meaning. 

That being the case, where is our philosophy for today? Is it possible that the governments, institutions, and values that western society has built itself on, that stemmed from the 18th century enlightenment, are outdated? I say yes.

But the next sea change should not come from a rejection of those values that has marked previous philosophical revolutions, but rather an improvement and an addition that accounts for human creativity, ingenuity, responsibility, and integrity. Perhaps what we may want to call the 21st century Enlightenment?

In my view, the frameworks (both literally and figuratively) lie with THEE.

That’s why I’m so excited about this stuff. See, I’m just an Idaho boy who grew up learning philosophy under his father’s wing in a small town almost no one has ever heard of. But now I get to be a part of something that has the real potential to revolutionize how our people operate and view the world and their place in it. The difference being, it won’t be some book with a fancy title that does it. It will be the participation and engagement of people like me and, more importantly, you.

That’s it for the seven approaches to deciding and achieving. If you read all of those, I’m impressed—kudos to you.

 People are fascinating, aren’t they? We are so diverse and we find all of these different ways to make the world work for us.

 One thing that you should realize if you’re interested in how people decide and achieve is that it all happens in context. You might be a rationalist in one situation and an imaginist in another—and that’s great! Of course, someone else might approach the same situation differently, which is why it’s good to know about all of the approaches.

Then there are combinations of approaches that fit particular situations and some that simply are terrible for some situations—but there I go, probably sounding like a systemicist, eh?

Also, I hope you don’t feel that to understand this stuff, you have to memorize it. Really, so much of THEE and its principles are meant to be understood intuitively and applied without thinking too much about it.

This all goes along with the idea of the 21st Century Enlightenment that we here at TOP are pushing. It’s just about being aware and alert and attentive to yourself—who and what you are—and others—who and what they are, then acting responsibly with that in mind.

 Combine the seven decision approaches with the seven mentalities in Interacting for Benefit and you can really start getting a handle on how the people in your circles are operating.

Why care? 

As I write this, I am traversing North America at 35,000 feet. Miles above the Earth, traveling at nearly 600 mph, dozens of the people around me are connected to the rest of the world through their laptops, iPads, Blackberry’s, Tablets, or whatever. Not only is this just another reminder of how far mankind has come, it’s a sign of the times. Some people see a bunch of people with their faces buried in a one kind of screen or another and think it’s the end of intelligent life on this planet. I see a revolution.

All these folks are doing things—or trying—and they’re communicating with others to do it. Those others might be on the East coast of China or in Frankfurt, Germany or Montevideo, Uruguay. Ideas are flowing, people are talking, interacting, hoping to make a positive change in their world. And with the expanded circle in which people are now operating, we need a new way of approaching social, organizational, business, and personal life. That’s where understanding things like deciding and achieving approaches and interacting for benefit mentalities comes in.

 It really is possible to envision a world where societies and organizations work well, but we must first truly understand each other, and that’s what all of this is about from my discussion on politics to how people interact to how people make decisions.

It may seem optimistic, but there’s a lot happening right now that gives us reason to be and chances are, if you’re reading this, you are probably hopeful, positive, and proactive about the future as well.

The trick is to apply it all in whatever way is best and appropriate for you, and I or THEE can’t help you there. That’s where knowing yourself and those around you comes in.

THEE is just a series of tools, much like the tools a carpenter uses. But the tools don’t tell him what to build.

As always, I welcome your comments and feedback. Thanks!

We all go about things in our own way, right? We’re all individuals expressing ourselves uniquely, and the way we act or react depends greatly on our individual personalities and internal processes and methods.

Most of the time, let’s say even the vast majority of the time, like 99% of the time, our own way works just fine for us. We get through life—how we interact with others, how we make decisions, how we respond to our social environments—just famously.

However, something important must be acknowledged: If I work in my own way, that means everybody else works in their own way as well! And I simply can’t get through life without other people. Check out a previous blog, Other People, for an in-depth discussion of this blatantly obvious fact.

I’ve discussed interacting with others for benefit in previous blogs. Now I am turning to Deciding and Achieving. What THEE illustrates is that, in general, there are seven basic methods for deciding and achieving. Let’s take a look at the dialectic, from the inside and out.

 Inside the Dialectic

All progress is conflict management. Truth, facts, and what is good and right are completely relative and subject to the interests of involved parties. 

The best decision is always a compromise. People simply never agree on a course of action in an organization, particularly if it is perceived as disadvantaging their department of profession. 

 That being the case, the only way to proceed is to determine how opposing individuals or groups feel, what they think is right, assess their recommendations, and find a middle road that gives everyone a payoff. 

For people to be productive, they need to feel that their concerns and ideas are heard, that the values of their group are being upheld. If a tyrant who always knows best and imposes their will on the underlings runs an organization, people don’t cooperate, don’t give their best, and might simply just check-out altogether. No one wants to just receive their orders and do what they’re told. 

That’s why we’ve got to listen, respond, and find a way for everyone to feel like they’re getting something out of a deal. 

Who is this? 

If this sounds like you, you might be a dialectic decider and achiever.

You are a natural mediator or negotiator or arbitrator or debater, or representative and quick to lend an ear. People in competing groups trust you with their concerns and expect you to do something about it. You might be the glue that keeps an organization or project from falling apart as a result of infighting and disagreement. You’re the built-in release valve when pressures start to mount.

You walk that precarious line between disagreeing parties and groups and sometimes you run the risk of those in competing groups seeing you as either a ringleader or a tough shell to crack.

You might make a great lawyer or human resources director, whose job it is to listen, pacify, and find an agreeable solution.

Outside of the Dialectic 

 If you’re reading this and is somehow seems disagreeable, confusing, or ridiculous, you’re probably not a dialectic decider and achiever.

In all likelihood, you’re not, as the dialectic is but one of the 7 methods for deciding and achieving.

If you aren’t a dialectic type of decision-maker, well you handle decisions in some other way that you are convinced is generally best. And how you view this preoccupation with problems, facts and best solutions will be dependent on that.

For example:

• An empiricist might think of the dialectic: “Relative!? Hardly. The truth is out there regardless of anyone’s opinion or feelings.” 
• A systemicist might think something along the lines of: “You’re close, but there are many more factors involved in the proper approach than simply two parties opinions and feelings, such as social and cultural conditions, beliefs, and values, economics, the evolution of an organization, etc.” 
• A structuralist might say: “People need to fulfill their duties as assigned and follow company policies and procedures. Any win for some faction is bad for the organization.” 

It might do us all some good to use the dialectic approach from time to time. People do frequently disagree based on the values inherent in their discipline: the very values that led to their employment or participation in the first place. And disagreements can cause organizations and projects to lock up or completely disintegrate. Sometimes, a compromise really is the only way to move forward.

That why, if this isn’t you, it’s still good to understand the dialectic. Maybe one day you’ll find yourself, individually or within a group, locked in conflict with another individual or group and somebody will have to come in and sort it all out.

 That wraps up our discussion of the seven individual approaches for deciding and achieving. Come back to the blog next week for a bit of decompression and a discussion of what it all means for you and society at large.

We all go about things in our own way, right? We’re all individuals expressing ourselves uniquely, and the way we act or react depends greatly on our individual personalities and internal processes and methods.

 Most of the time, let’s say even the vast majority of the time, like 99% of the time, our own way works just fine for us. We get through life—how we interact with others, how we make decisions, how we respond to our social environments—just famously.

However, something important must be acknowledged: If I work in my own way, that means everybody else works in their own way as well! And I simply can’t get through life without other people. Check out a previous blog, Other People, for an in-depth discussion of this blatantly obvious fact.

I’ve discussed interacting with others for benefit in previous blogs. Now I am turning to Deciding and Achieving. What THEE illustrates is that, in general, there are seven basic methods for deciding and achieving. Let’s take a look at the systemicist, from the inside and out.

Inside the Systemicist 

 The world is complex. It is more than facts, it is more than people and groups, it is more than opportunity and plans and authority. It is the past and future and social and physical forces. 

But it is not completely beyond our comprehension. 

To effectively make decisions and achieve, we must take all of these factors into account. We must construct models that address all potential scenarios. A plan on a sheet of paper is simply not enough. We must discover and understand how everything that is relevant to our goals and objectives combines and interacts. 

Only a clear picture of the systems and systems-within-systems will do. Anything else is one-sided, insufficient, and probably useless in the long term. 

Who is This? 

 If this person’s assessment makes sense to you and you agree, you could be a systemicist.

 You are awash in a swirling vortex of complexity. The world is a million things at once and you feel that making sense of it will provide a clear path on which to move forward.

You tend to think more about the long-term and are driven toward balanced, intelligent development of an organization or project. You view your duty as combining countless loose ends into a comprehensive, effective whole.

You are best suited as a strategist or organizational consultant where your all-encompassing view can come in handy for organizations or projects that are stuck or flailing.

Outside the Systemicist 

 If you are reading this and thinking: “This is certainly not me,” you’re right and you would fit nicely into one of the other six decision approaches.

You handle decisions in some other way that you are convinced is generally best. And how you view this preoccupation with problems, facts and best solutions will be dependent on that.

For example:

• A pragmatist might view the systemicist approach as follows: “That’s way too much work. Opportunities for progress are just out there. Grab one.” 
• An imaginist might take a look at the systemicist and wonder: “Is there room in your big system for the abstract and mysterious aspects of people and their inner-states, feelings, and aspirations?” 
• A structuralist might think: “No one even understands you. How are people supposed to do their jobs if they can’t even grasp what their leaders are talking about?” 

It is important to understand that the systemicst approach to deciding and achieving is quite close to reality, which is indeed complex and dynamic. It may be too complex for everyday use, but understanding the systemicist might help you use this approach when it is appropriate—that being long-term planning of a large and complicated project.

Check back next week for the dialectic.