One of the results of studying different disciplines– clinical psychology, psychoanalysis, group relations, business administration, organizational development, and industrial-organizational psychology—is a parochial confusion of tongues.

What one discipline holds as the meaning of a word or concept is not its understanding within another, related discipline. For example, “personality” within the i-o world conjures the very useful “5 factor model”- but this is terra incognita within clinical psychology; and even more far afield from psychodynamic thought.

So it was that I found myself addressing the subject of personality within a business school from a clinical perspective: only to be blocked institutionally by the sway of “positive psychology” which cast harsh shadows upon clinical diagnostics— consigning clinical wisdom to the dark realms of negativity and pathology. Perhaps. But what about added value? Nope. There was no chance of this under the iron will of a sunny psychology. The boundary of one discipline had sealed itself off from the insights of another.

Shifting gears, I found myself contrasting the individual personality dimensions of 5 factor thought—- instrumental in evidence-based coaching assessment— with the qualitative constructs of cross-cultural value-based dimensions of personality (enormously helpful both in Western and non-Western organizations).

Initially, I tried to line up the variables with which each system occupied itself— attempting to link central ideas with peripheral thought— but found myself running into the difficulty of very different conceptual bases; and disciplinary cultures. Where we start out from in making sense of our worlds really does flavor our points of view!

After several years of fairly intensive study, I came to the same conclusion as Herman Kahn in his description of scenario analysis (“On Thermonuclear War”): that is, it is essential to generate a descriptive language simple enough to get at all the essential points for all the essential players; and broadly flexible enough to convey accurately both the starting point of inquiry as well as its incremental evolutions.

Quite simply, that’s the goal at Accord: of clear problem definition both from the subjective perspective of the client; and from the subjective perspectives of stakeholders necessary to address as the psychological situation develops through multiple permutations of action toward its evolving approximation to both its original and successive concepts of deliverable goal. It all begins with the negotiation of a language agreed-to by all participants.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Learning from Our Reflections on Thought
• » Sunny Skies and Hurricanes: Dress For the Weather

• BROWSE / IN Blogging Boundaries Learning Management Networks Organizational Consultation Psychology Teams process consultation
• « On Learning How
• » Curating the Accord Advisory Blog

• RELATED / YOU MIGHT FIND THESE INTERESTING
• No related posts