Mode-4: Realistic Narratives

ClosedReminder of the clarification process so far:

  • Mode-1: Produce a satisfying explanation of the situation. [Causal]
  • Mode-2: Develop a coherent framework for the situation. [Structural]
  • Mode-3: Identify polarization within the situation. [Dialectic]

The mode of realizing (μ) refers to the set of values to be incorporated from a depiction method. Once incorporated, there is a new Stage of clarification (Φ) that includes values of all previous modes.

So Stage-3 clarification (Φ3) generates a more satisfying explanation within a coherent framework by introducing effects from an underlying polarization.

Understand the Dynamic Evolution

Everything so far has been static. The plausible causal account in Stage-1 resembles an if-then hypothesis with a more or less satisfactory evidential base. The structural model in Stage-2 provides for an overview of a static order. If supported by detailed facts and figures, then it is likely to be dry and dense as well. The addition of polarized positions in Stage-3 reflects enduring psycho-social differences and sets up protagonists and antagonists. While these actors will affect evolution of the situation the "how" is unspecified.

Social situations are inherently dynamic. Components of the situation, individuals and groups, have relationships that develop and their views and actions are affected by feedback. Influences and pressures then get brought to bear on choices, and there is also a context that has a variable impact and may need handling. The operation of these various interactions developed the situation to its present state and can be expected to shape its ongoing evolution.

In order to capture the dynamics of evolution, a narrative is required. Elements of this narrative have been provided in previous Stages. Now a time dimension is added. The inclusion of relationships and forces ensures the narrative can be emotionally relevant and meaningful for each individual component. Narratives also encourage identification by listeners, which can powerfully influence acceptance of any explanation.

Example:  ClosedClarifying a management situation

Values & Assumptions

Stage-4-dyanmic to reveal the evolution of the situation.

Promoting Acceptability

ClosedEssence: Structured Narrative

The complexity of a dynamic model can be overwhelming. However, situations have an origin or beginning, a development or emergence, and a current state and potential future. This is the basis for a narrative structure. Meaningful narratives make complexity comprehensible. They also foster an emotional engagement or even identification with the explanation, which facilitates acceptance of the account.

ClosedBenefit: Sense of Realism

Relationships get identified and the functioning and interactions of the various components are explained. Such clarification presents itself as the most realistic, although there may be differences about what factors exactly are important enough to be included. While the context is not detailed, it becomes part of the narrative when its impact and reactions to it are identified.

ClosedMeans: Interactive Processes

The framework-μ2 made it clear that no component in a system is entirely isolated, however the relationship dynamics now need to be specified. Evolution is based on ever-changing interactions and influences amongst the components. Recognition of feedback loops and cooperative processes enables structuring of the narrative.

Handling the Group

ClosedParticipation: Respond to Questions

There are a lot of moving parts in any evolving situation. In order for any audience to accept the account, they need to be able to ask questions without restrictions and there needs to be a sensible response to those questions. If questions-and-answers are avoided or mishandled then there will be a distrust of the account as an explanation of the situation.

ClosedCommunication: Explain the Evolution

The situation is perceived and understood as having undergone a dynamic evolution to the present and being continuously evolving. This evolution must be explained in terms of interactions between people or groups and environmental requirements. It therefore includes clarification of goals, interests and pressures.

ClosedIndividualization: Create Scenarios

Evolutionary forces are relevant to any future state of affairs, but this future is hypothetical and must be created. Some situations are highly structured and carefully controlled so as to permit foresight or planning with confidence. Because factors and contexts can always change, there is no way of knowing precisely what course any planned evolution will take. The credibility of scenarios varies with listener preferences and depends on the persuasiveness of the narrative.

Channeling Your Functioning:

ClosedGain Support: Immersion

From previous stages, you are an impartial expert preoccupied with this sort of situation. The next step to the fullest comprehension of the situation is to become immersed. Immersion maximizes persuasiveness. Personal involvement in the situation and confidential access to many participants is required. Deep study of the background for historical precursors, accumulation of pertinent information, and diverse relevant comparisons also support an in-depth grasp of the dynamics.

In Stage-3, the modelling of purpose in relation to policy-making had generated a triangular pattern: two forms of priority that interact and govern a strategic objective. Priorities determine resource allocation and the choice of strategic objective is dependent on resource availability.

To develop this further, it is necessary to identify the interactions and influences at play in this pattern:

The nature of priorities are that they assert relative importance and affect resource allocation. The personal-emotional priority strives to impose itself on the logically comprehensive set of priorities. The need for logic and comprehensiveness can restrain emotional excesses while allowing the personally preferred priority to be a focus. The two forms of priority independently shape the strategic objective.

The comprehensive set of priorities orders outcomes, while strategic objectives aim to realize the comprehensive set of priorities. The emotional over-riding priority selects particular outcomes as preferable and pushes for the strategic objective to be designed to suit.

These descriptions can be further elaborated by including effects on and from the tactical objectives below, and effects from and on the principal object or mission above. In other words, the dynamic influence between purposes in practice must now be provided for a maximally realistic account of the use of purposes.

See more here.

Stopping at this Stage

Mode-1 again to get a sense of closure with a sufficient explanation.

The situation has now been well-clarified in all features judged crucial. The initial explanation-μ1 has been extended through fitting into a suitable framework-μ2, activated through its underlying polarization-μ3, and elaborated to include dynamics-μ4 that permit a narrative account of the situation.

At each Stage, the explanation changes to become more satisfying and (seemingly) objectively more satisfactory as well. So there is a sense of closure by Stage-4. This allows a spontaneous re-entry into the Causal mode-μ1, but lower down in the ellipse because significantly more factors have been identified and included.

The satisfying but only plausible explanation has now been developed so that it can now be described as a satisfying and probably sufficient explanation.

In many cases, stopping at this Stage will be felt to be appropriate. But the explanatory account here is not as effective and useful as it can and often needs to be. The next Cycle will have to provide for that.

  • Re-enter the Causal mode but further down the ellipse.

Originally posted:  30-Oct-2024. Last amended: 30-Aug-2025.