As a whole, THEE deals with endeavour. So what is the difference between endeavours that are work and other endeavours?
Endeavour covers whatever we do. It includes everything from ironing a shirt, to writing a book, to going out to the cinema, to competing in a tennis tournament, to travelling between cities. These may or may not entail work depending on what is going on psychologically and socially.
Social factors like whether you earn money, and personal factors like whether you feel forced (versus enjoying), though relevant to working, are not definitive.
identifying feature in the taxonomy is whether the outcome really matters. Do ? The accountability may be to yourself or another.
If you can do it or drop it, if you don't have to worry about quality, if success or failure is irrelevant, if time doesn't matter—then it is not work. It is an activity and it may feel like working, but it is not what the term «Frameworks.» refers to in these
The earliest Frameworks that led to clarity about psychosocial reality originated from efforts to help people in their work. Their work occurred within organizations where accountability was taken for granted (even if it was often muddled), and where both individual and group dimensions came to the fore. Work and its management was the centre of my attention.
Slowly I focused on other activities that were relevant to work, but not focused on it, e.g. communal issues like social responsibility and political action; personal matters like development of an identity, pursuing self-interest and finding life's purpose; and relational matters like intimacy and spirituality.
So when, eventually, a unified taxonomy (THEE) was conjectured, it covered all activities beyond organizations and management and this led me to adopt the more general term «endeavour».
Work can be perceived and explained in two ways because it is
The output results through making something happen, i.e. work transforms reality in some fashion. (We think of work as «high-powered» or «higher level» when the alterations are of greater scope, depth or complexity.)
There is a large variety of transformations to consider and they must all be captured taxonomically.
therefore entails accountability for altering reality.
There is a demand to perceive and think about, and then confidently make judgements and engage with that in those terms. Above all, there is a need to collaborate with or handle others whose view of will differ.
Reaching judgements on work is natural for each of us. We know when we (or close colleagues) are genuinely working on something and when we are dreaming or going through the motions or just mucking about. Performing our own work seems so natural and intuitively obvious.
But work is not obvious at all. We struggle to understand how others outside our ambit function and what work-reality they confront either mentally or socially. We may know via a superficial phrase what others do (e.g. «direct the Institute», «develop spin-offs», «re-engineer procedures», «write programs», «run a campaign»), but we have almost no sense of what judgements are involved. Even staff within an organization have little idea what those at distant levels actually have to face.
While it is easy to say that all, there is a big problem in practice. We do not know reality. No-one does. So a person at work must . This occurs by talking about it, i.e. by .
Ourenables us to make sense of reality and the way we «make sense» affects how we think, relate and act to alter situations. This means that (as ) must be fundamentally understood through the —currently being developed in the TOP Studio.
differs from just .
In summary,necessarily involves:
Originally posted: 11-Oct-2013