Background to this Inquiry
Initial Stimulus
This framework, even if posted rather late, emerged at an early stage of my inquiries. It was associated with my introduction to «» developed by Elliott Jaques. Each of his levels of work corresponded to a level of management in a properly designed managerial hierarchy. At that time, there was some uncertainty about how many levels there were. However, Elliott had determined that those working at Levels 1 to 4 used language in a different way to those working at Level 5 and upwards. He saw the use of information as characterizing the lower section (L1–L4) and the use of concepts characterizing higher management (L5 and above).
From my consulting, I became rapidly convinced that this was a valid and brilliantly perceptive observation. His differentiation of the levels became the first THEE 4-Level Style Hierarchy (then called a modal hierarchy).
About that time, Ian MacDonald at BIOSS (Brunel Institution of Organisation and Social Studies) was extending this discovery by working with those caring for learning-disabled individuals (then called 'mentally handicapped') within special institutions. He described differences in what could be expected: Could a resident do what was asked? Could a resident be given a goal and determine for themselves what should be done? This was evidently related to using words concretely in immediate association with actions. This sort of work sat below the lowest level of work in an organization— sweeping rooms, packing boxes, delivering parcels—where tasks are set concretely but not tied to specific immediate actions.
Further Observations
Working in a university, I noticed that academic disciplines were evidently based in concepts. I also noticed that top CEOs often entered academia, but never reached posts of any seniority. So academic life and organizational life overlapped, because both used concepts. Academics use them from the start of their career; while managers reach them at the end.
When I looked at academic careers, I saw that top academics often played a role in society as advisors to government or as experts in court or on regulatory authorities or occasionally writing for newspapers—and far more often than business people. It was evident that such work required academics to use a different sort of language that could be universally understood within a particular society.
So far so good: and .
I then reflected and identified my own work as being different. It was about fundamentals and seemed to be distinguished from the others by needing formulae to avoid confusion in English and for clarity and universality across cultures. This suggested similarities to the foundations of mathematics and science. But where did it fit into the typology?
I initially named the approach 'formulaic', but realized that this word has come to mean mediocre. So I changed the name to "". However, because was the name assigned to a , I changed it again to .
By this stage, I had developed the Principal Typologies for and , so I felt reasonably confident that these language methods were similar in principle. The highly structured nature of my suggested it was at . I had long realized that the language of the Bible was unusual: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1). What a ! This had to be . I was now only missing , but I had become acutely aware that so far I had no place for Middlemarch, Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky. So I placed such writing in this gap and called it the .
- See the taxonomic path from the Root.
Originally posted: 5-Jan-2013. Amended: 25-Aug-2016. Last updated: 10-Feb-2023.
