LeadU presents Identifying the Resultants of ValuDYNAMICS


Identifying the Resultants of ValuDYNAMICS

There are five resultants identified in this TPOV:

  • Capitulation
  • Competition
  • Compromise
  • Cooperation
  • Collaboration

In the context setting process @F-L-O-W, or CSP, I am providing several resultants (a term I saw Graves used in his original triangulation of his neurophysiology:conditions ratio that later became Spiral Dynamics.

I don’t remember a mention of "resultants" in SD, but to me, it’s a stronger argument for Gravesian Theory with the triangulated Resultant:Biopsychosocial:Conditions, which also brings up a reference to Bandura’s Social Learning Theory Constructs: People:Environment:Behavior, another triangulated system.

Side Bar: There is actually a way, if you visualize a tetrahedron to forge a set of cross-paradigmatic approaches to formulate a metaparadigm…which is starting to become more attractive as it adds more density and frequency with accelerating complexity. A tetrahedron is a very important architectural pattern, as it may be the strongest structural pattern known.

In geometry, a tetrahedron (plural: tetrahedra) is a polyhedron composed of four triangular faces, three of which meet at each vertex. It has six edges and four vertices. The tetrahedron is the only convex polyhedron that has four faces. [1] The tetrahedron is the three-dimensional case of the more general concept of a Euclidean simplex. The tetrahedron is one kind of pyramid, which is a polyhedron with a flat polygon base and triangular faces connecting the base to a common point. In the case of a tetrahedron the base is a triangle (any of the four faces can be considered the base), so a tetrahedron is also known as a "triangular pyramid". Like all convex polyhedra, a tetrahedron can be folded from a single sheet of paper. It has two nets.[1]

The net of a polyhedron is also known as a development, pattern, or planar net (Buekenhout and Parker 1998). The illustrations above show polyhedron nets for the tetrahedron.

I have identified 5 Resultants (I’m going to keep this term for now): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resultant


1. that results; following as a result or consequence.
2. resulting from the combination of two or more agents: a resultant force noun
3. Mathematics, Physics. vector sum.
4. Mathematics . a determinant the entries of which are the coefficients of each of two polynomials in a specified arrangement and the value of which determines whether the polynomials have a common factor.
5. something that results.
I am using these terms as a noun, and resultant which is defined as an adjective, is used as a noun.


Cooperation (sometimes written co-operation or coöperation) is the process of working or acting together. In its simplest form it involves things working in harmony, while in its more complicated forms, it can involve something as complex as the inner workings of a human being or even the social patterns of a nation. It is the opposite of working separately in competition.

Source and more discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation


Collaboration is working together to achieve a goal.[1] It is a recursive[2] process where two or more people or organizations work together to realize shared goals, (this is more than the intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective, determination to reach an identical objective [by whom?][original research?]) — for example, an intriguing[improper synthesis?] endeavor[3][4] that is creative in nature[5]—by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus. Most collaboration requires leadership, although the form of leadership can be social within a decentralized and egalitarian group.[6] In particular, teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.[7] Collaboration is also present in opposing goals exhibiting the notion of adversarial collaboration, though this is not a common case for using the word.

Source and more discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration

Competition Also note that competition was mentioned, and it is yet ANOTHER ValuDYNAMIC, which can be identified with a particular value’s set or basin.

Competition in biology, ecology, and sociology, is a contest between organisms, animals, individuals, groups, etc., for territory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, for prestige, recognition, awards, mates, or group or social status, for leadership; it is the opposite of cooperation.[1] [2] It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation.

Source and more discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition


To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desire. Extremism is often considered as antonym to compromise, which, depending on context, may be associated with concepts of balance and tolerance. In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of objectives, principles, or material, in the process of negotiating an agreement. In human relationships "compromise" is frequently said to be an agreement that no party is happy with, this is because the parties involved often feel that they either gave away too much or that they received too little.[1]

Source and more discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise

Capitulation (Lat. capitulum, a little head or division; capitulare, to treat upon terms), an agreement in time of war for the surrender to a hostile armed force of a particular body of troops, a town or a territory.
Source and some discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulation_(surrender) The reason I set this much context is to make a point about each of these resultants as stemming from a ValuDYNAMIC, which is a dynamic system emerging from valuing, and the emergence from that valuing process.

While this may be confusing, it’s an important set of distinctions when we are looking at what does Collaboration as a value’s system resultant emerge as, and what are the likely micromotives that provide the ingredients for this emergence.

In a Conflict Model developed by Thomas & Kilmann [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kilmann_Conflict_Mode_Instrument ]

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode instrument consists of thirty pairs of statements. For each pair, the respondent must choose either the A or B item (for example, one item depicts collaborating while the other item describes avoiding). Each pair of statements was specifically designed, through a multi-stage research process, to be equal in social desirability.

The TKI uses two axes (influenced by the Mouton and Blake axes) called "assertiveness" and "cooperativeness." The TKI identifies five different styles of conflict: Competing (assertive, uncooperative), Avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative), Accommodating (unassertive, cooperative), Collaborating (assertive, cooperative), and Compromising (intermediate assertiveness and cooperativeness). There are some seemingly obvious, but difficult to support, similarities between anger resolution-management style ideas with other tools and theories, such as DISC assessment, Social styles, and even the theory of Five Temperaments, which is based in the theories of ancient Greece.

You may notice, that the 5 resultants I’ve chosen, are in fact, mostly aligned with the five different styles of conflict.

Helpful Hint: Resultants are key to keep in mind because they help us understand the power, accountability, authority, and responsibility of each ValuDYNAMIC. All of us hiearchical rank through inborn filters and biases, which of these resultants emerge because of the micromotives we possess, develop and make a strength. None of us, have only one of these dynamics present, but we "order" them according to our worldview, experience, and capability.

Action Step: Identifying which is these resultants is present in your behavior in terms of density and frequency, supports development of subject:object relations.

If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, or need some additional help, please use the form below to submit them.  Someone will get back to you within 48 hours.  Or if you prefer, at the bottom of this page leave your comment and someone will get back to you.

    We hope you pick up valuable insights, ideas, and tools during this process, which you can use for your own development as well as your work and leadership with others.

    You, Me, and We @F-L-O-W

    Mike R. Jay is a developmentalist utilizing consulting, coaching, mentoring and advising as methods to offer developmental scaffolding for aspiring leaders who are interested in being, doing, having, becoming, and contributing… to helping people have lives.

    Mike R. Jay
    Leadership University

    © Generati

    Learn how you may become a member of our Inner Circle and receive the cutting edge on the most current thinking in Leader Development.  Visit Inner Circle Membership.

    Disclaimer |  Terms Of Service |  Earnings Disclaimer |  Privacy Notice |  Contact Support |  Buy the Book |  Media Disclaimer