Doing it to Each Other or Doing it to Ourselves

We are constantly navigating our way in life between relationships. Some work well, some don’t.  I found the following an interesting perspective that helps me understand some of the relationships I am in currently.

“Kenneth Boulding, in The World as a Total System (1985), described five modes of interaction which I have personally found very helpful in understanding what’s going on in situations. There are actually eight modes described below because Michael McMaster (1995) added a sixth on during a conversation on the Learning Org List and in Dec 1999 Dan Freeman offered two additional interaction modes.

  • Parasitic – the parasite feeds on its host for its survival, to the detriment of the host, and eventually to the detriment of itself, for once it kills the host it must find another host to survive.
  • Prey/Predator – the predator feeds on the prey to the detriment of the individual prey and to the detriment of its own species, yet this is beneficial to the prey species overall as it limits the prey population.
  • Mutualistic – two (or more) members benefit from the association (I get what I want and you get what you want – they may or may not be the same). [Freeman ’99]
  • Commensal – two or more organisms may have a prolonged association between themselves, but they may or may not benefit each member. More specifically, a relationship may be commensal when an organism derives some benefit while the other is unaffected. [Freeman ’99]
  • Threat – if you do (or don’t do) something I want (or don’t want) you to do then I won’t do something you don’t want me to do.
  • Exchange – if you do something I want you to do then I will do something you want me to do.
  • Integrative – where you and I come together to accomplish something we both want.
  • Generative – where you and I come together and accomplish something neither of us had any idea of before we came together. [McMaster ’95]
  • Play – There is a sixth interaction model which is of the nature of “PLAY”. Mutualistic, Integrative and Generative all signify an accomplishment, a goal. The sixth interaction “PLAY” in its essences is the affirmation of the existence of all the other Interaction Model. [Krishnaswamy, ’04]

This list is written in an order which is considered to represent more and more evolved levels of interaction as one works their way down the list.

What amazed me about the different categories is how certain situations seem to be initiated in one mode and then transform into another mode. Consider what happens in a couple situations:

  • When you buy a car you exchange, with the car dealer, a promise to pay for the car. The car dealer then exchanges, with a financial institution, the promise to pay for real money. The financial institution then converts this into a threat interaction by essentially saying that as long as you make your payments you can keep the car.
  • When an employer hires an employee it begins as an exchange interaction where the employer agrees to pay the individual for accomplishing work that needs to be done. This then transforms into a threat interaction wherein the employer says that as long as you do what I tell you do do I will let you keep your job and not fire you.

What seems to be most beneficial to all parties involved, and in terms of the results produced, is operating at the Integrative or Generative modes. I think groups that really become teams operate in an Integrative or Generative fashion.”

Copied from Gene Bellinger’s website Mental Musings (http://www.systems-thinking.org/moi/moi.htm)

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s