Bookmark me NavigationRecent blog posts |
Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
My position hasn’t changed, particularly when I discover on the actKM Knowledge-Base these two gems – “Star Types ” by Professor Han van Loon, and “'I' is for Insect ” by Arthur Shelley. Now it seems we can have insects, bumble bees and lions if we don’t like Greek gods. If Greek gods, animals, or Patrick Lambe’s habits like lust and avarice don’t appeal, then we can substitute blue stars, orange stars, red giants, and even brown dwarfs! But wait, there’s more. A cursory poke around the World Wide Web with the key word archetype provides 3,140,000 hits. If none of the above archetypes satisfy us we can Dumbledore, Harry Potter, and Snape; or Sleeping Beauty and the Wicked Fairy; or even Darth Vader, Chewbacca and Yoda! Now we are getting somewhere. I can just see my clients reaching into their very deep pockets to part with a few thousand dollars so the consultancy I recommend, which won't be HolisTech® Pty Ltd , can categorise everyone in the organisation, and seek to change negative behaviours (archetypes?) into positive ones! What am I missing? I don’t want to be absolutist in my position, and I’m trying to have an open mind, but I just don’t get it! 30 plus years ago in my undergraduate degree I remember studying the works of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. I remember Freud’s “Totem and Taboo” and Jung’s “The Psychology of Individuation” as being interesting, and even influential in some circles. Today of course both publications are of little more than historical interest. Why do these moderen archetypes have credibility and how do they help us? Why are they any better than Jung’s original archetypes? Where are they best used and what problems do they solve? Until these questions, and some others, are answered I remain unconvinced of their utility. For me archetypes still do not matter! Regards Graham
categories:
|
I ask you to look both ways. For the road to knowledge of the stars leads through the atom; and important knowledge of the atom has been reached through the stars. |
It’s no secret that I am not a fan of archetypes and that I am not convinced of their utility in business. In my original post on this subject – “
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
I don't see anyone pushing archetypes down your throat Graham, so I'm not really sure what all the angst is about. However, since this is your second major tilt at this I'll try to explain why I find archetypes useful. The organisational archetypes we work with are produced by employees of that organisation out of stories they have told about their experiences in the organisation, around a particular theme eg whether or not knowledge and information sharing happens. We might run sessions with 60-90 people, producing several hundred stories. The people who tell the stories also produce the archetypes, and may also work on identifying common issues and themes. We find the archetypes are a very useful sensemaking device to encapsulate key patterns of behaviours, values and attitudes in the organisation, in the population's own language, in a way that an external consultant's thematic analysis cannot match. This gives us the opportunity to look at aspects of culture that are unarguable (because there are lots of stories behind each archetype).The stories are the "real" data that substantiate the archetypes, which is why it's hard to use archetypes well without the underlying narratives. But as a product, archetypes turn out to be a very useful device when you're looking at issues of cultural barriers, opportunities and change needs.To give an example we recently conducted a second archetypes exercise with a client 3 years after the first, to see if we could track any cultural impact from the KM initiatives. What we found was that prevailing perceptions of "don't care" and bumbling management have moved to perceptions of assertive-aggressive management, escalating frustration with underlying poor information discipline, and lots of blameful finger pointing, with some groups just going off and doing their own thing. Overall however, the negative perceptions are now predominantly more actionable (because many of them can be fixed with better processes and systems) than previously, when they were largely attitude and competence based.I don't really see how the value of this can be doubted (though I'm constantly surprised in that department) - because it gives the senior management team a sensemaking filter (with access to the stories behind it) to discuss what's happening with their culture and make some reasonable, informed decisions. They won't be able to do magic using the archetypes but they might be enabled to make better decisions.Now not all the archetypes literature you will surface takes this contingent, emergent approach to archetypes. Many of them, especially those in the Jungian/Joseph Campbell tradition, make universal claims for their archetypes. Both Jung and Campbell processed a lot of narratives to get at their archetypes, so they do tend to be very resonant, if abstracted from normal life. Others are simply snake oil, but what consulting domain does not have snake oil salesmen?Archetypes are simply sensemaking filters. They compress a lot of information into ways that audiences can work with. In the same way that personas are built by marketeers or website designers, they are a useful way of packaging up lots of information into useful and actionable patterns.Not everybody tunes into this (though I've never seen a client group respond as negatively as you to their own archetypes, and that's not because they are gullible, it's because they recognise the lived experiences behind their own archetypes). In the same way there's a bit of a backlash against personas too in the information architecture space. Some people are just more analytically minded. But it's not (all) the hogwash you suggest.
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
Hi Patrick.
Thank you for taking the time to provide a considered response – I appreciate it! Actually I have had archetypes shoved down my throat several times in the past few months in the social, work and research domains. I’ve also had the suggestion that unless I am autistic my research will inevitably be biased because of the methods I employ, but that’s another story. As a result of these engagements I have taken the time to look a bit deeper into archetypes, and refresh my memory of them, which as I say is 30 plus years old.
I think your language is interesting, as no doubt mine is, and this language is key to some of my angst. You say “The organisational archetypes we work with are produced by employees of that organisation out of stories they have told about their experiences in the organisation …”. I say this automatically introduces a bias. Why don’t you collect stories from the managers as well? (Perhaps you do, and didn’t mention it in this response?) Surely if you are trying to understand an organisation the totality of the organisation must be considered. I’m a manager and have been for most of my adult life. I am very sure I would introduce an archetype or two if I was asked, and these would differ from the archetypes I see in the “literature” such that it is. These may or may not be “validated” by other managers from the stories/narratives they tell.
The second point of your language relates to a specific example. I of course cannot argue against a specific case because I do not have the context or the facts. Indeed I can even see how, where, and why archetypes might be useful in a specific context. My objection is to archetypes as presented by Arthur Shelley, Professor Han van Loon, Katie Altham, and others, as being both authoritative and general. Based on your presentation to actKM on the 14th of August 2007 I would level the same criticism to your work, but this may be unfair – you at least haven’t published a book or journal article (to the best of my knowledge) that purports to be generalisable and authoritative!
The third point of your language relates to the assertion that: “Archetypes are simply sensemaking filters. They compress a lot of information into ways that audiences can work with. In the same way that personas are built by marketeers or website designers, they are a useful way of packaging up lots of information into useful and actionable patterns”. I say this entirely depends on the worldview of the person interpreting the archetype. As an extreme example I remember teddy bears being sent by the Australian public to Rwanda in 1994 following the genocide. When we gave the teddy bears to the children it elicited a very negative reaction - some children were just plain terrified! To extend the metaphor if the archetypes were say characters from the Harry Potter movies how can we be sure managers understand and recognize the intended meaning? (I for one empathise with Snape – my son and wife don’t! I also know managers who have never read a Harry Potter book or seen a Harry Potter movie!)
So in summary my major objection relates to presenting archetypes derived in a specific organisation at a precise time and place, as being generalisable and authoritative. My second objection relates to drawing conclusions from what appears to me to be a selective population. My final objection relates to the interpretation of the archetypes.
Best Regards, Graham
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
Hi Patrick - another considered response!
Comment on Answer to Objection 1:
a. We have some common ground for an informed discourse.
b. It’s a while since I looked at Campbell’s work, but I will re-look at it this weekend. My study of Jung’s work was mainly concerned with mental illness and the symbolism of language. Archetypes were peripheral to this study, but Jung is generally credited with the development of archetypes, so it was inevitable that archetypes were part of this study. I find it interesting that Jung’s work has been largely discredited in many circles, but in Knowledge Management cliques archetypes survive!
c. As you know I attended one of your Vices and Virtues presentations, and I presented some of my objections then. I agree on the whole that you did not present your work as absolutely authoritative, and I agree your presentation opened up a rich dialogue within the time constraints. I think this was your intent so your presentation succeeded. Unfortunately some people took “Guru Patrick’s” message to be authoritative – no malice implied or intended on my behalf.
Comment on Answer to Objection 2:
a. Well your answer makes my objection go away! I find it interesting you are using focus groups, which bring their own set of research problems. I note these problems are not insurmountable, although some would claim you need multiple “facilitators, recorders and coders”. I think coding can be problematic, but any method has its problems! Understanding the method problems and limitations is as important as the results.
Comment on Answer to Objection 3:
a. I like the concept of emergence and shared context, but we all have our own world views. In my experience as the size of an organisation grows shared experience increasingly becomes subject to personal interpretation. Few if any people have the complete picture. I am fond of Leo Tolstoy’s quote in this regard:
Maybe my objection is related to the size of the organisations we work in? Most of my clients are organisations that have 100s or 1,000s of employees and tens or hundreds of managers.
b. I do agree that despite size there will be some cultural similarities that allow some, but not all, context to be shared. I am reminded of an Admiral who found it difficult to understand the significance of a bridging project for Army, but had no trouble understanding the general requirement for Battlespace management, something bridging contributes to. I have encountered similar difficulties outside of Defence.
c. I also agree that without context the interpretation of the caricatures can and will vary widely. This is clearly a component of my Objection 1.
Comment on Point 4:
a. Just to clarify my post I did not mean social in the sense of Social Network Analysis, rather I meant it in the context of a gathering of friends and acquaintances.
b. I think your point that an archetype method is useful when combined with other methods, and they are never used in isolation, is the crux of the matter. I am more accepting of this, but unfortunately this is not how they are presented in the literature, blog-posts, and presentations I have attended!
c. I think one need to be careful how, when and where an archetype method is used. I can think of a number of organisations here in Australia where the members are unlikely to respond positively to them. Like all methods I suggest an archetype method needs to be matched to the requirement and the population.
My Point 5:
a. You’ve almost convinced me Patrick that archetypes might be useful in some business contexts, but I remain unconvinced there are universal archetypes.
Regards Graham
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
Being "almost convinced" is probably the safest place to be ;) I love the Tolstoy quote, I assume from War and Peace? Do you have the reference? If only Dave Snowden had a time machine, he could have sold Sensemaker and a bunch of narrative projects a hundred times over with Tolstoy as his advocate.I agree on the effect that the size of the population has both in the stories/archetypes production end, and on how they can be interpreted (this is part of a bigger issue of how common ground is maintained in an organisation), though we've found we seem to get relative homogeneity in organisations up to around 1200 people - unless they are physically dispersed, in which case there's more variation in the stories and archetypes. I'm used to giving health warnings with SNA, maybe I should consider the same with archetypes descriptions... what do you consider are the potential ill effects from misusing this technique? (Apart from simply ending up having no value)
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
Patrick, Mark Gould has a slightly different take which I agree with. He says:
I find his argument to be powerful. What do you think?
Regards, Graham
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
Hi Patrick. The quote comes from Tolstoy's 1868 essay with the English translation title "Some Words About War and Peace". Sometimes it is translated to "A Few Words in Connection with the Book, War and Peace". It was published before all of the books of War and Peace were completed, although as I recall at least the first three or four books had been completed and published. The quote is an insightful observation that stands the test of time, and can be applied to any organisation.
Organisation size is an interesting area. Do you see any correlation with the homogeneity of stories and archetypes and Dunbar's numbers? (As you no doubt know Dunbar has showed we have circles of 5, 15, 35, 80 and 150 people, which correspond to our family, our close friends, our colleagues and acquaintances, our club and business affiliations, and finally our village or neighbourhood). Intuitively I think you might.
I always find it interesting that "consultants" find it necessary to give warnings about Social Network Analysis, yet most often do not see the need to do so for other methods. Researchers on the other hand are bound by the requirements of ethics committees and almost invariably provide consent forms and descriptions of all the methods they use, including their pros and cons. It's a practice I think should be adopted more widely. I think Professor Steve Borgatti's paper "Towards ethical guidelines for network research in organisations " has much wider applicability and could easily be extended to narrative and archetype work. I think the problems he addresses in the paper apply equally to other social methods.
One of the problems I think archetypes have is the potential to be used as labels in the workplace - "Crosby exhibits Darth Vader behaviours. Stills is an Insect. Nash is a Brown Dwarf. Young fits the Avarice archetype". Where this occurs it is just an opinion, but it could have a negative effect in the workplace. Coming back to the Tolstoy quote few, if any, people are in possession of all the facts. Hypothetically a Squirrel archetype might be created in a organisation, with the suggestion/implication that Squirrels are information hoarders. Someone could exhibit Squirrel behaviours, but this may be perfectly legitimate for confidentiality and security reasons (I have been in this exact position). Publicly, or even semi-privately labelling them as a Squirrel may send the wrong message.
Another problem I see is the "science by popular vote" otherwise known as the "if everyone thinks it is true, then it must be true" phenomena. The trouble is usually not everyone can be included in the sample, and important counter-views may not be captured. I also worry about interpretation by people who only have partial context.
This brings me to a point you have alluded to. Archetypes are a group diagnostic method, unless of course I have interpreted your comments incorrectly. They are not an individual performance evaluation tool, and I would worry if they are used that way, but the potential for their use this way exists. My point is who decides that someone is Darth Vader, Zeus, or a Squirrel, and why is their opinion right? I have difficulties with ascribing these sorts of labels to individuals. To use some Australian Army terms (archetypes?) I might be seen as a jet in some quarters and a slug in others. The boss might think I am a jet because his highest priority job was done on time, within budget, and the quality was above standard. A peer in a parallel sister team might think I am a slug because I did not attend to their agenda in a timely way. Who's right? Archetypal work is positioned in time, space and particular group - which makes generalisations to other situations even in the same organisation potentially worthless.
As an aside have you tried attributing your network data with your archetypes? Noting my concerns above, and the ethical issues involved, this might be an interesting exercise. It might reveal otherwise unseen patterns. For example are all the Squirrels in one organisation?
I must say despite writing about a Squirrel archetype I am still uncomfortable with archetypes generally and only see them having limited utility as a diagnostic metaphor in conjunction with other methods. But then again in the right organisation, with the right sort of people, and the right facilitator they could work. I'd love to see the response to an archetype exercise by some underground coal-miners or the workers in a ship building organisation. I might be wrong but the I suspect the marketing exercise would be significant. I can also think of knowledge intensive industries where it would be equally as hard to market - accounting and legal firms come to mind.
Regards, Graham
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
I missed a couple of your questions... I think archetypes work post-the normal Dunbar numbers (familiarity groups). There may be another number horizon at which archetypes start to become diverse but I suspect it's not just numbers that matter as I hinted earlier... Dunbar numbers work because of the link to brain size and our ability to process memories and knowledge about social relationships. Archetypes don't really work in that way, they are much more about sensemaking to help us process very large scale patterns, and a major determinant will be the diversity of contexts and populations that produce them - including how much common ground they have.It would be fascinating to combine a social networks view with the archetypes. We do track (and so does Dave) where particular archetypes come from, usually just to check for bias, but I agree it would be very informative to do this to get a differential picture of the culture.
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
Some good health warnings there, and if I read Mark's response correctly, it seems to link to your labelling danger - ie using the archetypes as stereotypes and as a substitute for getting to know people in all their ambiguities and grey areas. As you point out, the way we use them is a large-group diagnostic technique, ie to deal with the large-scale sensemaking problem alluded to in the Tolstoy quote. I agree with Mark on the need to understand people properly.However I can also see where the labelling risk is particularly tricky... because I think the archetypes do allow you to talk about desirable and undesirable behaviours, and explore why they exist and whether they are legitimate. For example in your account of the squirrel, if the archetype doesn't exist (and distributed perceptions and possible resentment of your hoarding nature exist) then it would be hard for you to have a conversation about when squirrel behaviours are or are not appropriate... and those are conversations that help build common ground. But I agree it's a risk, labelling is easy to fall into. For this kind of use, you have to have people who are prepared to accept the need to accept colleagues as real, complex people, and are able to use the archetypes just as levers to get at important conversations about perceptions, values and behaviours.And I don't believe in marketing. In this sort of territory (culture and behaviour) if something doesn't make sense up front to a group, you're never going to get much of value out of it.
Re: Archetypes Still Don’t Matter!
Patrick I reckon this has been a most useful discussion. I said in my original post that I did not want to be absolutist, and you have given me some reasons why I should not reject archetypes outright – thankyou! That said I do not accept the generalised archetypes, which most of the 3,140,000 hits on Google are. I reject outright the Han van Loon, Shelley and Altham generalised archetypes. I do accept there is a place for archetypes in specific circumstances, using the Lambe approach, and they may provide a useful diagnostic metaphor to address organisational dysfunction.
I would love to collaborate with you if the opportunity arises to bring together archetypes and network analysis. I think it would be a very interesting exercise in revealing organisational dynamics, noting the coding and ethical dilemmas – none of which are insurmountable. Maybe this approach will provide you with multiple lines of evidence for your conclusions – maybe it won’t! I do caution that network analysis approaches are also diagnostic techniques, and serve to reveal questions that may not otherwise be asked. I think this is a good thing.
I note your answer on Dunbar’s numbers. My bias is inclined towards quantitative analysis and “scientific methods”, which is probably why I like Dunbar’s numbers and dislike archetypes! (At least I am aware of my bias, which does not suggest you aren’t.)
I am pleased you find the “health warnings” useful. Can I assume you will include a few next time you use an archetype approach just as you do with social network analysis? I hope so – it will increase the credibility of our discipline, which I think suffers from a huge crisis of identity and authority.
I look forward to the next time we meet in person – we have an outstanding dinner conversation pending.
Regards, Graham