How SHOM Interacts with Behaviorally-Oriented Management, and How it Doesn’t

This chapter addresses pertinent epistemological differences between SHOM™ and Behaviorally-oriented and applied management. It, then, also shows how one may interact with the other, and how they will not.

Here, synthesized and summarized, is this chapter’s meaning of the use of the term Behavioral management.

Behaviorally-oriented management refers (here) to those who would use the hierarchically-ordered learning standard where organization and objectification of pertinent events results in intellectualization of decision making, to include problem analysis, establishment of goals, and commitment to completing tasks, to mean achieving what one has set out to do. Epistemologically, Behavioral Management was initiated in the conformation of Hebraic writings/teachings with Hellenic philosophy, then combined with the methodological elements of Christian doctrine over two millennia, which was parsed into a merger eventually recognized intellectually as the West; and more, later it was re secularized by adding nineteenth/twentieth century concepts of science ─ habituation and desensitization methodology/ideology ─ and the molecular neurobiology of consciousness, or not, to the confluence. Speaking not just euphemistically but intendedly politely, the Behavioral Management thought model/construct has kept its users busy, if not mostly occupied, figuring itself out and then codifying its periodic conclusions for both its duration and, as always, in the current. Simplifying the matter, Behavioral Management consists of someone with an idea telling someone else what to do. When the latter follows directions, things work out; happiness, satisfaction, contentment prevail. When directions are not followed, Behavioral Management must correct (harm) someone, contend with disruption, or just collapse outright. The opposite of those euphoric experiences reflect Behavioral Management’s rule when things are not going well.

Various implementations of Behavioral Management present in almost all industries, including the advance of social welfare, and across practically every geopolitic.

The SHOM value view of Behavioral Management. It:

1.    is very good for achieving individual and organizational goals and objectives;

2.    provides a

2.1.sense of and actual conscious order to thinking and doing,

2.2.rules for getting along with others,

2.3.Intrapsychic, to mean, control of one’s self,

2.4.the capacity to extend that control to whomever by both

2.4.1.  controlling those others

2.4.2.  according others elements of control through passing it on, albeit delimited by something

3.    induces an experience of order which brings congruity to life, and

3.1.then imparts meaning to it, and

3.2.vice versa: draws congruity from the meaning

4.    is naturally/innately/epistemologically aggressive to the extent that it can and does become hegemonic. That is, for the Behavioral Management approach to exist, thrive, and grow, an entity must both similarities between its applications, and the same time distinguish its Behavioral application from others’ uses,

4.2.1.   demonstrating the differences, and

4.2.2.   claiming advances/betterment/superiority over its competition

5.    from within an entity, the predominating view is that if all competitors were incorporated into the one, then differences would cease and homogeneity would prevail.

5.1.1.  The various entities contest for the ascendant role during the hoped-for homogeneition.

6.    is inadequately defended against contrived traumatic events caused for the purpose of disrupting, overturning, destroying the targeted Behavioral Management application.

7.    functions naturally messianically (no disrespect intended here to anyone’s belief regarding a particular deity) due to hierarchical influences.

7.1.When trusting handed down information, ideas, plans, notions, and then relying upon their meaning to one’s own actions, feelings, intellect and so on, strengthening the apex of the flow is made easier through periodic apotheoization of the top, whatever it is.

7.2.That strengthening then eases the burden attending individual participant study of all the factors involving the flow.

7.3.The top has to perform pretty much in accordance with the apotheosis, to mean perfectly

7.4.when not doing so, either

7.4.1.   Denial is required, or

7.4.2.  The leadership not only has to go, but with great opprobrium applied to the entity

7.5.Messianism then can positively motivate Behaviorists to know what they are doing, or at least pretend that they do when vying for a position of influence with others, and then adhere to the responsibilities attending the role assumed.

Behavioral Management deserves respect for its contributions to the way in which civilizations conduct themselves. However, it’s not always that way — to mean that it is so deserved. Here are two essays from other work (my own) that present basic exceptions taken with the clinical elements of the Behavioral management model and their recent, over the last fifty years, seepage into educational and social management, dramatically influencing both. The essays' titles are The Genghis Khan of Psychotherapy: One Origin and Critical Perspective of Behavioral Therapy (BT) and its Reformation - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT); and PART III (Conclusion) The Good Rebel in Most of us; Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels, and How to Strengthen the Former against the Latter.


SHOM vs Behavioral Management

SHOM does almost none of that, except during rough times for individuals, communities and nations. For example, and by policy and procedural instruction, the model ensures that before or during application of clinical trauma etiology reversal (resolution) activities, recommendations are made that protect the life of an individual against, say, a batterer’s stalking with intent to harm a spouse- and a nation’s being traumatized by a perpetrator using guerrilla warfare, as exemplified by the ISIS war of 2014.

Applying Etiotropic Trauma Management to organizations and Trauma Resolution Therapy to individuals, SHOM removes trauma’s deleterious effects, otherwise referenced in this literature base, from Behavioral Management. ETM TRT SHOM achieves that task by establishing a parallel managerial Etiotropically focused response to both individual and systemic trauma etiology affecting the referenced entity. Because SHOM is NOT Nosotropically (Behavioral symptom) focused, the separateness is strengthened, which support then provides ease of facilitation of the referenced intercession upon trauma’s etiology.

Hence, SHOM doesn’t compete with the Behavioral Management application, itself. For example, it doesn’t propose different methods for making the client , whether an individual or system, perform. SHOM’s theory is that subsequent to individual and systemic etiology reversal, the client can and will return to its non trauma affected operations.


© 1979-2014
Jesse W. Collins II
All Copyrights and Trademarks are the properties of Jesse W. Collins II





Summary: Etiotropic Theory of the Neuro-Endocrine Molecular Substrate of Individual Human Ontology





SHOM and Behavioral Management