Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Wed, 19/03/2008 - 20:57.
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:
“Make a round of the troops immediately after a battle, or even the day after, but before the reports have been drawn up, and ask any of the soldiers and senior officers how the affair went. You will be told what all these men experienced and saw, and you will form a majestic, complex, infinitely varied, depressing and indistinct impression; and from no one – least of all the Commander in Chief – will you learn what the whole affair was like”.
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.
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