|
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
4.1.show similarities
between its applications, and
4.2.at 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.
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
|