Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Thu, 20/03/2008 - 12:06.
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.
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