Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The interaction of personal and shared construct systems : the implications of consensual validation… Schroeder, Laurie J. 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_schroeder_laurie_j.pdf [ 3.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054139.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054139-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054139-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054139-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054139-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054139-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054139-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054139-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054139.ris

Full Text

THE INTERACTION OF PERSONAL AND SHARED CONSTRUCT SYSTEMS: THE IMPLICATIONS OF CONSENSUAL VALIDATION UPON COMMITMENT IN THE WORKPLACE by LAURIE J . SCHROEDER B.A.,  Seattle Pacific  A THESIS SUBMITTED  University,  1983  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f C o u n s e l l i n g  We  accept t h i s  Psychology)  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA August  1992  (g) L a u r i e J . S c h r o e d e r ,  1992  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  scholarly  or for  her  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  Au(;,aK H ,  I  I further  purposes  gain  the  shall  requirements  agree  that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  Date  study.  of  be  It not  is be  that  the  for  an  advanced  Library shall  permission for  granted  by  understood allowed  the  make  extensive  head  that  without  it  of  copying my  my or  written  Abstract Personal theory  construct  i s interfaced with  and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r t h e o r y  theoretical the  theory  framework f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  systems  t o provide  a  interaction of  i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  The c o n c e p t s  describing the individual's relationship with the family  contribute  the basic understandings t othe  development o f t h i s setting.  framework a s a p p l i e d t o t h e work  The p e r s o n a l  f u n c t i o n t o organize  construct  system and i t s  a meaningful experience of r e a l i t y  f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s compared w i t h t h a t construct  system and i t s f u n c t i o n t o n e g o t i a t e  view o f r e a l i t y organization  amongst members o f t h e f a m i l y  alike.  I t i s proposed  consensual v a l i d a t i o n acts criterion and  shared  validation  of t h e shared  a s an i n t e r n a l  serves  systems.  a n d work  i n t h i s paper  that  consistency  which moderates i n t e r a c t i o n between construct  a common  personal  E s s e n t i a l l y , consensual  as a s e l f - r e f e r e n t process  linking  the  i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  are  made a s t o t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s  e x p e r i e n c e o f c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n upon commitment  i n t h e workplace.  Suggestions  organizational  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i i  L I S T OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  V v i  Chapter  I.  INTRODUCTION A. Background o f t h e Problem B. The P r o b l e m C. Propositions D. Summary  Chapter  II.  PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY 13 A. A C o n s t r u c t i v i s t Approach 13 B. The S e l f - O r g a n i z i n g S y s t e m 16 1. S t r u c t u r e and Organization 16 2. Identity 19 C. Construction of the Personal C o n s t r u c t System 21 1. F o r m a t i o n o f t h e S y s t e m .... 22 2. S t a b i l i t y a n d Change W i t h i n t h e System 30 3. Sociality 39 D. Summary 46  Chapter  III.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED CONSTRUCT SYSTEMS A. The F a m i l y C o n s t r u c t S y s t e m B. An O r g a n i z a t i o n a l M o d e l C. Summary  Chapter  IV.  C h a p t e r V.  INTERACTION BETWEEN PERSONAL AND SHARED CONSTRUCT SYSTEMS A. I n d i v i d u a l I n t e r a c t i o n With the Family B. The R o l e o f V a l i d a t i o n C. I n d i v i d u a l I n t e r a c t i o n With t h e Work O r g a n i z a t i o n D. Summary  1 3 5 10 12  48 48 55 65 66 66 74 79 89  IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 91 A. Review o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Commitment L i t e r a t u r e 91 B. A Consensual V a l i d a t i o n Model o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Commitment .... 94  C.  Concluding of Thesis  Summary a n d S t a t e m e n t  REFERENCES APPENDIX A:  98 101  PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY A Summary o f t h e F u n d a m e n t a l P o s t u l a t e and I t s C o r o l l a r i e s  113  L I S T OF FIGURES FIGURE 4.1:  The R e c i p r o c a l N a t u r e o f C o n s e n s u a l Validation  73  FIGURE 4.2:  The R o l e o f C o n s e n s u a l V a l i d a t i o n i n t h e I n t e r a c t i o n Between P e r s o n a l a n d S h a r e d C o n s t r u c t Systems 74  FIGURE 4.3:  The E f f e c t o f C o n s e n s u a l V a l i d a t i o n Upon R e l a t i o n s Between P e r s o n a l a n d S h a r e d C o n s t r u c t Systems 77  FIGURE 4.4:  L a d d e r i n g o f C o n s t r u c t i n a Work Organization  86  C o m p a r i s o n o f I n d i v i d u a l a n d Work O r g a n i z a t i o n C o n s t r u c t Systems  88  FIGURE 4.5:  Acknowledgements I  w i s h t o e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e t h a n k s t o e a c h o f  t h o s e s p e c i a l p e r s o n s i n my l i f e  whose c o n t i n u a l  encouragement and s u p p o r t e n a b l e d t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s most c h a l l e n g i n g  task.  To members o f my c o m m i t t e e , Pinder,  a n d Norm Amundsen:  your t h e o r e t i c a l t h i s paper.  development,  to strive  be, w h i c h  ideas,  together with  e n c o u r a g e m e n t and s u p p o r t d u r i n g  provided f o r a r i c h  their  learning experience.  Thanks f o r your  increasing  s u p p o r t , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  v a l u e t h a t you have i n s t i l l e d but  Craig  T h a n k - y o u v e r y much f o r  c h a l l e n g e o f my  To my f a m i l y : sensitivity,  Friesen,  guidance throughout t h e w r i t i n g o f  Your  your c o n t i n u a l  John  I t i s the  i n me - n e v e r t o g i v e up,  t o t h e e n d t o be t h e b e s t t h a t y o u c a n  h a s s e r v e d me w e l l  To my f r i e n d s ,  i n completing t h i s  K e r r y , Adele, Diane, Gradyn,  paper. and  Marianne:  I c o u l d n e v e r h a v e done i t w i t h o u t y o u !  Your  loyalty,  love,  and l a u g h t e r  Thank-you, thank-you, To B i l l :  i s what k e p t me  sane.  thankyou...!  Thank-you f o r your e x p r e s s i o n o f l o v e  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g a t t h a t p o i n t when w i t h o u t i t I w o u l d not  h a v e gone o n . . . I  paper  dedicate the completion of t h i s  t o t h e memory o f o u r p r e c i o u s l i t t l e W i t h much a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l o f y o u .  one. Laurie.  Construct Chapter I. I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the  Systems  1  Introduction processes a f f e c t i n g  individual  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the  one  m a j o r domains o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h  of the  recent  years  (Ouchi & W i l k i n s ,  management c o n s u l t a n t s  w o r k p l a c e has  1985) .  become  Academics  a l i k e have s o u g h t t o  in  and  identify  what s o r t s o f v a r i a b l e s e n h a n c e i n d i v i d u a l f u n c t i o n i n g and  e n c o u r a g e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members t o b e h a v e i n ways  necessary  f o r the  environment. attention Zajac,  One  organization  to survive  v a r i a b l e w h i c h has  received  i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment  1990).  A r i s i n g from the  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the  a l o t of  (Mathieu  &  individual's  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  m a i n t a i n membership i n i t , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l has  in its  and  desire  commitment  been found t o c o r r e l a t e w i t h a w i l l i n g n e s s t o  extra  effort  on  Chatman, 1 9 8 6 ) . observed that considerably aroused  behalf  commitment.  organization  However, i t has  across  work s e t t i n g s .  the  varies  Such v a r i a n c e  present  nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l  w h i c h assumes t h e  paper.  has  organizational  dynamics a f f e c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l involvement organization  been  i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics  development of  I t i s the  exert  (O'Reilly &  generally  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment  i n t e r e s t i n the  influencing  of the  to  focus  Observations of the  of  i n the  work  inquiry in  factors  the  encouraging  Construct  Systems  i n d i v i d u a l membership i n t h e  family contribute to  development of a t h e o r e t i c a l  framework f o r  focuses  aspects  individual functioning.  of  The  specifically  development o f t h e p r o p o s e d framework draws  (1955).  While t r a d i t i o n a l l y  focused  conceptual  included  such  political  Jones,  1 9 8 7 ) , and 1987;  and  process  (Brown & D e t o y ,  (Du P r e e z ,  1987;  It theory the  may has  1987;  1975), r e l i g i o n  O'Hare & G o r d o n ,  1976).  of personal c o n s t r u c t theory  value  have  Watson, 1 9 8 7 ) , a n a l y s i s o f  of r e l a t i o n s h i p development particular  Topics  (Todd,  e v a l u a t i o n of a e s t h e t i c experience  Miall,  application  a wide  a s management o f l e a r n i n g ( C r o s b y  Thomas, 1 9 8 7 ) , b u s i n e s s Fransella,  research  i n addressing  (Adams-Webber, 1 9 8 1 ) .  areas  (Duck, 1979)  (Button,  The  recent  to the  study  holds  i n the present d i s c u s s i o n .  w e l l be  argued t h a t p e r s o n a l  construct  much t o c o n t r i b u t e t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  interaction  theory  individual  more c o n t e m p o r a r y  i t s relevance  range o f concerns  Kelly  the r o l e of i n t e r p e r s o n a l  i n t h i s process,  demonstrated  of  personal construct  upon t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s t r u c t u r e s and  relations has  The  upon t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l  h e a v i l y upon t h e p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y  has  the  viewing  i n d i v i d u a l membership i n t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n . discussion  2  between t h e  individual  and  the  of  family.  &  Construct as w e l l  as  between the  organization. theory  The  can  be  s y s t e m s and  found t o p r o v i d e  personal the  construct  theory  (Alexander  Likewise, theory  family  analysis  and  family  offers valuable  the  & N e i m e y e r , 1989;  work theory,  i n s i g h t as  work o r g a n i z a t i o n . theory  family  and  theory  the  1981).  to  suggest  i n d i v i d u a l membership  in  the  personal  with concepts d e f i n i n g f u n c t i o n i n g  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  of  upon t h e i r  behavior  emphasizes  individuals' constructions i n a group.  e f f o r t s of the  family  of  in  the reality  Such emphasis and  implies  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  g u i d e member b e h a v i o r a r e  subject  self-organizing  I t i s t h i s p r i n c i p l e which  systems.  assumes p r i m a r y f o c u s theoretical  to t h e i r  impact  development of the  to  upon  present  framework.  Background of the The  i n the  to  behavior  serves  E s s e n t i a l l y , weaving  centrality  the  construct  concepts governing  construct  Proctor,  i n t e r f a c i n g of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  with personal  similar  that  behavior  c o n c e p t s d e f i n i n g i n d i v i d u a l membership i n  family  the  construct  a meaningful  In correspondence w i t h  3  work  organizational  of r e l a t i o n s h i p development i n the organization.  the  i n t e g r a t i o n of personal  with family  theories  i n d i v i d u a l and  Systems  Problem  propositions  herein  d e v e l o p e d draw  support  from a c o n s t r u c t i v i s t epistemology which h o l d s the  view  Construct that  the  their  way  world  i n which i n d i v i d u a l s choose t o a c t i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e i r  "reality".  Systems in  construction  of  While d i s c u s s i o n takes i n t o account  systems theory,  as w e l l as  first-order  4  a  general  cybernetics,  remains f i r m l y grounded i n the  notions  of  cybernetics.  i n the  work o f  Chilean  Maturana  (1973),  second-order  Initiated  biologists Varela cybernetics  and  addresses the  r o l e of  o b s e r v e r s and  meaning-makers.  individual  an  as  s y s t e m , and  systems t h i n k i n g . by  developing  p e r s o n s and  von  as  be  context  t o be  for  the  by  them.  defines system  As  supports environmental  cybernetics the  being  such, g e n e r a l  their  Weiner  and  of  in a well  systems  i n t e r a c t i o n as  stability  evolution  of  in a state  the  (1948),  corresponds w i t h t h i s view.  dynamics of  that  i n f l u e n c e them, as  Founded by  i n t e r m s o f complex  basis first-  It  change w i t h i n  the  i n t e r l o c k i n g feedback  mechanisms.  The  perceived  a f u n c t i o n of the  as  as  I n d i v i d u a l s are placed  self-maintenance.  order  earlier  changing p r o p e r t i e s  u n d e r s t o o d as  the  closed  (1968) , s u g g e s t s  which i s seen t o  influenced  theory  T h i s view regards  i t d e p a r t s from  Bertalanffy  c o n t i n u o u s exchange. social  i n d i v i d u a l s as  G e n e r a l systems theory,  originated  environment are  second-order  autonomous, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y  i n d o i n g so,  i t  of  living  systems i s  system's a d a p t i o n  to  the  Construct environment or the surviving  cybernetics  t o be  the  basis  perspective, pattern system. with  environment's s e l e c t i o n of  system c o n f i g u r a t i o n .  order  considers  e v o l u t i o n of  internally  living  From  systems  and  support  transactions with self-referent The  of  the  corresponds  that, the  environment  which inform  the  current  argument t h a t i n d i v i d u a l  environment are  a f u n c t i o n of  a  process.  Problem The  personal  supports the directly  their  own  the  are  personal  with  the  way  the  (1955)  future. the  cannot  be  formulating  in  that  of  a system of c o n s t r u c t s  This  personal  paper argues t h a t  social  task  i n t e r p r e t the world  unfolding  present  of K e l l y  K e l l y maintains  charged with  r e f e r r e d t o as  The  theory  c o n s t r u c t i v i s t view t h a t r e a l i t y  w h i c h t h e y may with  construct  comprehended.  individuals  is  the  the  the  I t i s these p a r t i c u l a r notions  second-order cybernetics  discussion  to  organization  i n d i v i d u a l s must c o u p l e a d e q u a t e l y w i t h  of  this  subordinate  g e n e r a t e d change, s u c h  or face d i s i n t e g r a t i o n .  second-  of s e l f - r e f e r e n c e  f o r self-maintenance.  of r e l a t i o n s d e f i n i n g the  5  the  Contrastingly,  a process  change i s v i e w e d as  The  Systems  through  o f e v e n t s and  system of  construct  cope  constructs  system  (PCS).  individual interaction  environment i s s u b j e c t  to the  operation  Construct of PCS  the  PCS.  Critical  t o s u c h an  i s K e l l y ' s view of  control  of  the  themselves. events  history.  i n d i v i d u a l s as  simply,  self  in relation  processes i n c l i n e the  interpret,  and  of  r e a c t to the  organizing  the  system  supports the guiding  the  The  to other,  individual to  social  in a  I n t h i s way,  1988) .  The  way  the  of the  i n t e r a c t i o n s i n which  engage and  identification  still  maintain a  o f c e r t a i n key  selfPCS  the  coherent  variables  i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n with the i s provided  by  r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e the  discussion constructs,  social  to  an  PCS  and  the  coordinate  the  current system  notion  interpersonal  the  constructs  The  a collective  c o i n c i d i n g with the This  social  examination of  environment.  assumes t h a t  identified.  believed  perceive,  environment  (Kenny St G a r d n e r ,  a  self-  corresponds with that  v a r i e t y of  environment  be  given  self.  affecting  defining  the  autonomous f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ,  i n d i v i d u a l may sense of  PCS  under  experiences  i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s view.  operation  the  for  to t h e i r  H a v i n g drawn f r o m e a r l i e r  referent  falling  6  individuals anticipate  future with respect  c e r t a i n view of  which  understanding of  framework t h e y h a v e c r e a t e d  Stated  i n the  Systems  of  of the  PCS,  construction  functioning  can  is  of i n d i v i d u a l  Construct  Systems  members o f a g r o u p , w h e t h e r t h i s be t h e f a m i l y work o r g a n i z a t i o n . construct  system i s t h a t  individual  constructions  work o r g a n i z a t i o n The  The v a l u e  w i t h t h o s e o f t h e f a m i l y and  system o f  group f u n c t i o n i n g p r o v i d e s  understanding of the family's the notion  a group i s d e l i n e a t e d .  identity  Proctor  system  (FCS).  basis and  meaning a t t r i b u t e d the family's  expressing  with  personal a  t h e f a m i l y about t h e order  t o events.  The FCS i s s e e n a s  uniqueness as a u n i t and  the delicate  members i n o r d e r  family theory  construct  he p r o p o s e s t h a t t h e FCS p r o v i d e s  f o r agreement w i t h i n  defining  reality  (1981) s u g g e s t s s u c h a  i n h i s development o f t h e f a m i l y  theory,  rich  f o r t h e f a m i l y as  notion  Integrating  a  f u n c t i o n i n g as a u n i t .  o f a shared family  t o shape a c o h e r e n t  construct  the shared  a s a w h o l e c a n t h e n be e x a m i n e d .  t o define  Essentially,  or the  t h e correspondence of  development o f a c o l l e c t i v e  constructs  serving  i n recognizing  7  coordination  t o promote t h e i r  required  survival  of family  as a group.  T h i s paper argues t h a t t h e i n t e r f a c i n g o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior theory theory  serves  construction the to  with personal  t o suggest a s i m i l a r operating  interpersonal  i n the workplace.  family,  t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n  a shared  system o f c o n s t r u c t s .  construct  Like  that of  too i s seen t o adhere This  setof  C o n s t r u c t Systems constructs construct  i s referred system  guide  their  The OCS i s b e l i e v e d t o p r o m o t e  amongst o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members a n d  f u n c t i o n i n g as a  Given shared  t o as t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  (OCS).  mutual understanding  8  group.  t h e i d e a o f c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e r s o n a l and  c o n s t r u c t systems,  t h i s paper  examines t h e  i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e f a m i l y a s a means o f identifying t h e two.  the variables affecting  I t i s proposed  consensual  that  interaction  i t i s a process of  v a l i d a t i o n which moderates t h e c o o r d i n a t i o n  o f p e r s o n a l and s h a r e d  constructions.  s i m i l a r i t y w i t h which events validation  i s seen  o f t h e PCS.  Emerging i n t h e  are construed,  t o support the coherent  Kelly  (1955) a r g u e s  that  consensual functioning  individuals  depend upon o t h e r s n o t o n l y t o v a l i d a t e t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n s but a l s o t o m a i n t a i n a sense f o l l o w s t h a t t h e degree others  It  with  serves to confirm the relevance of i n d i v i d u a l s '  validation,  thereby p r o v i d i n g consensual  individuals are l i k e l y  r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e group. validation  t o form a  Essentially,  consensual  serves as a s e l f - r e f e r e n t process  individual It  personal  of s e l f .  t o which i n t e r a c t i o n  c o n s t r u c t i o n s of r e a l i t y ,  the  between  linking  t o t h e group.  i s suggested  here  that the nature of  i n t e r a c t i o n with the s o c i a l  environment  isa  function  Construct of  a consensual v a l i d a t i o n a l process  individuals  receive  their  I t follows  PCS.  individuals  will  organization function.  as w i t h i n  those o f t h e group. able t o reconcile  i t serves t h i s  the family,  only  To t h e e x t e n t t h a t  for their anticipation view of s e l f .  binds  individuals  relationship  within  the  i s dependent with  individuals are  t h e i r personal constructions  their  vital  of personal constructions  t h o s e o f t h e workgroup, t h e y w i l l  that  w i t h t h e work  Meaningful s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n  upon t h e c o o r d i n a t i o n  of  from t h i s g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e  t o t h e degree t h a t  9  i n which  support f o r the f u n c t i o n i n g  form a r e l a t i o n s h i p  work o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  Systems  with  secure v a l i d a t i o n not  of events but a l s o f o r  I n t h i s way,  consensual  t o t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  w i t h t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n  validation If a  fails to  provide consensual v a l i d a t i o n ,  the experience of  i n v a l i d a t i o n can pose a t h r e a t  to the i n t e g r i t y of the  PCS a n d c a u s e d i s r u p t i o n It  i s the thesis  of the current  of t h i s paper t h a t  experience of consensual v a l i d a t i o n determinant  of t h e i r  work o r g a n i z a t i o n . that  individuals'  i s a major  f o r m a t i o n o f commitment i n t h e More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  the individual's  validation  relationship.  i t i s suggested  experience of consensual  serves t o d i s t i n g u i s h  amongst t h e t y p e o f  commitment d e v e l o p e d , w h e t h e r t h i s commitment be o f an  Construct attitudinal  or  c a l c u l a t i v e nature.  i n d i v i d u a l membership i n t h e reflective the  of  Systems  I t i s argued  work  that  organization,  a t t i t u d i n a l commitment, c o r r e s p o n d s  individual's  progressively  experience of  more c e n t r a l  10  with  consensual v a l i d a t i o n  aspects of  the  at  PCS.  Propositions As  discussed  paper to  provide  earlier, insight  guiding relations systems. the  i t i s the  i n t o the  are  used t o  environment.  This  defining  individual's The  the  i n the  factors  f o r m a t i o n of  with the  a committed of  the  in  social  to  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  influencing  paper begins with a report  construct  for  framework i s t h e n a p p l i e d  individual participation  dynamics  interaction  c o n s t r u c t a model  individual transactions  this  shared  individual  understanding  means o f  of  fundamental  between p e r s o n a l and  Concepts d e f i n i n g  family  intent  as  a  the  relationship. following  propositions : Proposition the  1;  maintenance of Proposition  interaction thereby  The  PCS  of  a coherent  2;  The  i n which the  PCS  systems  Proposition  guides the  individual  governs  (Kelly,  1955).  variety  i s able to  formation with  (Kenny & G a r d n e r , 3;  individual  identity  governing r e l a t i o n s h i p  construct  the  of engage,  other  1988).  Change i s i n t e r n a l l y  determined.  Construct While  t h e PCS i s open t o c o n s t r u c t i v e  sufficient The  stability  of the o v e r a l l  11  revision,  system  i s required.  i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new c o n s t r u c t s w h i c h a r e b a s i c a l l y  i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e system has  Systems  come t o r e l y  threat  for living will  t o t h e coherence  Proposition  upon w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l  4i  be e x p e r i e n c e d a s a  o f t h e PCS  Consensual  validation  s e l f - r e f e r e n t process moderating coherence (Duck,  versus c o n f l i c t  ( F o l e y , 1987). a c t s as a  t h e degree o f  e x p e r i e n c e d by t h e i n d i v i d u a l  1979).  D r a w i n g upon t h e t h e o r e t i c a l t h e s e arguments, t h i s paper following  s u p p o r t p r o v i d e d by  s e r v e s t o advance t h e  propositions:  Proposition  5:  Shared  c o n s t r u c t systems a r e  subject t o the coordination of individual construct systems.  Coordination i s a function of a process of  consensual  validation,  both d e f i n i t i o n  i n which i n d i v i d u a l s  and e x t e n s i o n o f t h e i r  i n t e r a c t i n g with t h e shared construct Proposition family  6:  i s developed  experience  PCS when system.  I n d i v i d u a l membership i n t h e through  a process of consensual  validation. Proposition organization, organizational  7;  I n d i v i d u a l membership i n t h e work  a s r e p r e s e n t e d by an a t t i t u d i n a l commitment,  i s a function  type o f  o f t h e degree  Construct  Systems  t o which i n d i v i d u a l s experience consensual of t h e i r  PCS  i n the  12  validation  workplace.  Summary With attempts support is  r e s p e c t t o the chapters which f o l l o w , t o b u i l d upon t h e o t h e r t o d e v e l o p  f o r t h e argument t h a t  Chapter  theoretical  organizational  a f u n c t i o n of a consensual v a l i d a t i o n 2 reviews the p r i n c i p l e s  commitment  process.  of personal c o n s t r u c t  t h e o r y as they a p p l y t o i n d i v i d u a l  functioning.  Chapter  to the  3 extends  each  these p r i n c i p l e s  o f t h e f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n and  functioning  develops  arguments f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e of shared c o n s t r u c t systems.  Chapter  validation  and  4 examines t h e p r o c e s s o f  i t s role  i n coordinating personal  s h a r e d c o n s t r u c t systems. i n t e r a c t i o n with the family interaction  The  nature of  i s extended  i n the workplace.  Finally,  to  individual  i n Chapter  developed.  commitment i n t h e w o r k p l a c e  5,  validation  t o i n f l u e n c e the i n d i v i d u a l ' s development  organizational  and  individual  argument f o r t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f c o n s e n s u a l serving  consensual  is  of  C o n s t r u c t Systems Chapter  I I : Personal Construct  T h i s chapter reviews construct  theory.  and  consideration i s given  i n c l i n a t i o n of K e l l y ' s  corresponding a r t i c u l a t i o n of the  self-organizing  Theory  the b a s i c tenets of p e r s o n a l  Initial  the c o n s t r u c t i v i s t  unit.  13  (1955)  theory  individual  This provides a  to  as  theoretical  c o n t e x t w i t h i n w h i c h t o examine t h e n a t u r e o f t h e It  i s the p r i n c i p l e s  social  the  individual's  important  understanding and  processes with  which each will  be  the  Approach first  step i n developing  of i n d i v i d u a l  interaction  an  with the family  t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n i s t o i d e n t i f y t h e  i n which each  of these systems operate.  system  s h a p e d by  will  way  i t s construction, experience,  the d i s t i n c t i o n s  observation  The  ^reality'  choose t o a c t w i t h i n the  maintenance of a p a r t i c u l a r is  interaction  PCS  environment.  A Constructivist An  PCS.  underlying construction of the  which serve t o i d e n t i f y the s e l f - r e f e r e n t influencing  a  each  of the world  development of d i f f e r e n t A constructivist  reality  system  (Keeney,  realities  epistemology  Supporting the notion that  world and  1983).  It  draws i n i t s  of events that  c o n t r i b u t e t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  in  lead to  (Watzlawick, has  1984).  much t o  of d i f f e r e n t  individuals  the  realities.  create t h e i r  own  Construct ways o f v i e w i n g t h e w o r l d constructivism  provides  i n which they  upon t h e n o t i o n  passively of  received  communication,  cognising  knowing.  world they  "knowledge i s n o t  but i s a c t i v e l y b u i l t  up b y t h e  (von G l a s e r f e l d , 1988, p . 8 3 ) ,  may be d e f i n e d  as a t h e o r y  of active  as o b s e r v e r s and meaning-makers i n t h e inhabit.  constructions  The f u n c t i o n o f t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r  of reality  organization  i s adaptive,  of t h e i r  a i d i n g them i n  e x p e r i e n t i a l world.  R e c e n t y e a r s have w i t n e s s e d a g r o w i n g the  elaboration  Contributions Maturana,  of c o n s t r u c t i v i s t  t o the f i e l d  1978; V a r e l a ,  Glaserfeld, the  a r e many  objective reality,  ( K e l l y , 1955;  upheld.  which serves  In contrast  of d i r e c t access t o that  o f t h e r e a l w o r l d c a n n e v e r be  (Kenny & G a r d n e r ,  appeal t o the existence  1984; v o n i n terms o f  c o n s t r u c t i v i s t s agree  complete r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  reality'  epistemologies.  1984) and may be f o u n d t o v a r y  p a r t i c u l a r view o f ^ r e a l i t y '  achieved  interest i n  1979; v o n F o e r s t e r ,  t o p a r a d i g m s p r e m i s e d on t h e n o t i o n an  paper.  E s s e n t i a l l y , i t emphasizes t h e r o l e o f  individuals  the  i n this  upon  e i t h e r t h r o u g h t h e s e n s e s o r b y way  subject"  constructivism  that  14  live,  a t h e o r e t i c a l foundation  w h i c h t o ground t h e arguments d e v e l o p e d Resting  Systems  1988).  However, w h i l e  o f an ' o b j e c t i v e  some  ontological  as a p o t e n t i a l source o f  Construct disconfirmation Glaserfeld,  of the  construing  1984), o t h e r s  deny t h e  independently e x i s t i n g r e a l i t y , only  i n a hypothetical The  is the  that  sense  u p h e l d by  priniciple  Kelly  reality  construing  as  What we  can  itself,  the  not  theory  directly  i n the  bed  the  rock of  seek t o  the  construing  ontological coherence  horizon  of  individual acquiring a  it.  As  our  system  reality  t e r m s w h i c h i m p l y an  "fitting  and  but  the  preserving 1988).  merely  true  such, knowledge i s  Rather, knowledge i s viewed  the  in  our  o f an  (Kenny & G a r d n e r ,  perspective,  of  understand  c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between i n d i v i d u a l c o g n i t i v e reality.  itself  6)  in traditional  and  the  truth  ontological reality,  of  paper  r e s t s upon  reveal  deny an  possibility  representation  in this  alternativism,  does not  t h a t w o r l d we  (p.  does not  defined  1978).  know i s a n c h o r e d o n l y  r e m a i n s a l w a y s on thoughts,  reality  invented:  t h i n k we  and  His  any  t o as many a l t e r n a t i v e ways  be  assumptions,  of  r e f e r r i n g to  (1955).  of c o n s t r u c t i v e  remains subject  Kelly  existence  (Maturana,  15  (von  c o n s t r u c t i v i s t p o s i t i o n t a k e n up  assumption t h a t but  system  Systems  not accurate structures  i n terms  c o n s t r a i n t s " of  of the  organizational From  this  r e a l w o r l d becomes m a n i f e s t o n l y  where  Construct the  individual's constructions  Kelly  c a n be f o u n d t o h o l d  individuals  frame t h e i r  subjectively  construed  abstracted  16  b r e a k down.  t h e way i n w h i c h  e x p e r i e n c e i s "a f u n c t i o n o f goodness-of-fit  t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e between [their]  that  of r e a l i t y  Systems  criteria  applied  [ t h e i r ] a n t i c i p a t i o n s and  representations  of events"  (Agnew &  Brown, 1989, p . 1 5 5 ) . The  Self-Organizing  System  In correspondence with t h ec o n s t r u c t i v i s t position, personal the is  i t follows constructs  that Kelly's  (1955) t h e o r y  of  c a n be v i e w e d a s an a r t i c u l a t i o n o f  i n d i v i d u a l as a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system.  Given i t  t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s own a n t i c i p a t i o n s w h i c h d e f i n e t h e  meaning o f an event, K e l l y ' s n o t i o n  of auto-  anticipation  c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean  organization  (Kenny, 1987).  individual  system apart  transcending,  auto-  Such a p o s i t i o n s e t s t h e  as s e l f - s t a b i l i z i n g ,  self-  and s e l f - e v o l v i n g (Kenny & G a r d n e r ,  1988) . Structure Kelly individuals  and  Organization  (1955) p r o p o s e s t h a t  coming t o u n d e r s t a n d  a n d t h e meaning o f t h e i r  behavior  e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n individual description  system.  He s u g g e s t s t h a t  requires of the  i ti sa  o f whole p e r s o n s from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e  of  Construct the  Systems  17  persons themselves without reference t o t h e o u t s i d e  environment way K e l l y If  that  i s necessary (Foley,  1987).  argues f o r c l o s u r e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l  system:  we a r e t o h a v e a p s y c h o l o g y o f human  e x p e r i e n c e , we must a n c h o r o u r b a s i c in  In t h i s  concepts  t h a t person's experience, not i n the  e x p e r i e n c e he c a u s e s o t h e r s t o h a v e .  Thus i f  we w i s h t o u s e a c o n c e p t s a y o f h o s t i l i t y , h a v e t o a s k what i s t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l of  hostility  at  it.  O n l y by a n s w e r i n g  i n some s e n s i b l e way w i l l  a c o n c e p t w h i c h makes p u r e  we  that arrive  psychological  sense, r a t h e r than s o c i o l o g i c a l sense,  nature  from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f t h e  p e r s o n who d o e s question  we  or moral  ( p . 122)  K e l l y p o i n t s t o t h e autonomy o f t h e c o n s t r u i n g system by i d e n t i f y i n g internally  r e l a t i o n s w i t h the environment as  determined.  The s t r u c t u r e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l  s y s t e m d e t e r m i n e s n o t o n l y what w i l l interaction result  be a c c e p t e d a s a n  b u t a l s o whether t h e i n t e r a c t i o n  will  i n self-maintenance or disintegration.  Essentially,  Kelly  contends t h a t t h e v a r i e t y o f  interactions the individual preserving  i t s identity  organization  (Kenny  system can undertake w h i l e  are specified  & Gardner,  1988).  by i t s  Construct Only w i t h i n h i s personal f r e e t o make a c h o i c e only has  along  the  i n h i s own  ever  devised;  free  to  Man's f r e e d o m , t h e n ,  his personal  claim. Due  (Kelly,  t o the  individual  only  l i b e r t i e s he  1980,  s y s t e m and  extension.  does not  the  nature  him;  he  i t s own  the  to  and  of the  definition  the  In K e l l y ' s  l e a r n o n l y what  their  learn:  l e a r n c e r t a i n things merely  of the  and  undergo i s  r e l a t i o n s between  able to  Kelly  environment  s y s t e m may  i t s organization.  i n d i v i d u a l s are  One  the  system informs  change t h a t t h e  s e t up  to  the  Essentially,  system c o n s t r u e s  n e c e s s a r i l y d i c t a t e d by  systems are  The  1987).  elements t h a t d e f i n e  able  32)  in a circular pattern  (Foley,  Any  i s ever  i n t e r a c t i o n with  upon i t s e l f  construction  system  i t s structural-determinism,  always s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l .  interaction  p.  has  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l o s u r e of  (1955) a s s e r t s t h a t  unfolds  construct  can  only  a n t i c i p a t o r y framework he  d e f i n e s the  and  himself  s a i d t o have o n t o l o g i c a l meaning  w i t h i n the  18  ever  behalf,  l i n e s he  managed t o e r e c t i s he  be  words,  s y s t e m i s one  coordinate  i n i t i a t e movement.  Systems  s t i m u l i which p l a y  upon  l e a r n s o n l y what h i s framework i s  from  is  Construct  Systems  19  d e s i g n e d t o p e r m i t him t o see i n t h e s t i m u l i , (p.  79)  Identity In  order t o process r e a l i t y e f f e c t i v e l y ,  individuals self. and  r e q u i r e an i d e n t i t y ,  Kelly  that  i s , a sense o f  (1955) v i e w s t h e s e l f a s a c o n s t r u c t i n  of i t s e l f : . . . t h e s e l f i s , when c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e appropriate context, a proper construct.  I t refers  which a r e a l i k e  concept o r  t o a group o f events  i n a certain  way a n d , i n t h a t  same way, n e c e s s a r i l y d i f f e r e n t events. alike an  from  other  The way i n w h i c h t h e e v e n t s a r e  i s the s e l f .  individual  individuals, I t may be a r g u e d  That  a l s o makes t h e s e l f  differentiated  from  other  ( p . 131) t h a t t o h a v e a s e l f c o n s t r u c t i s t o be  c o n s c i o u s o f t h e s e l f as t h e s u b j e c t o f e x p e r i e n c e (McWilliams,  1987).  transcendence evaluation. the  enabling individuals  different fixed,  t o engage i n s e l f -  Such awareness o f s e l f i s n e c e s s a r y f o r  individual  ever-changing  This involves a kind of s e l f -  i n o r d e r t o d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h an world.  In the course of p a s s i n g  phases of l i f e ,  through  the experience of s e l f as a  permanent e n t i t y p r o v i d e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l  with a  Construct consistent position Without  Kelly  self as  the and  of a s e l f  to transcend  t o make c h o i c e s and  self,  from which t o view l i f e  identification  w o u l d be u n a b l e  construct,  individuals  immediate needs i n o r d e r  to anticipate  events  i n the f u t u r e .  i n d i v i d u a l must draw a d i s t i n c t i o n other.  similarities o t h e r s do  Adams-Webber  identities.  between  (1979) c o n t e n d s  that only  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e m s e l v e s  acquire a d i s t i n c t  The  own  p e r c e i v e d c o n t r a s t s between s e l f  and  of the  construes other people,  he  self.  formulates  the c o n s t r u c t i o n system which governs h i s behavior. B a n n i s t e r and  and  notion of t h e i r  other serve t o define the contours one  construe  d i s c e r n a s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n of  and  they  (Kelly, Agnew  1955,  p.  own  133)  (1977) i n t e r p r e t  this  as  " t h e ways  i n w h i c h we  elaborate the c o n s t r u i n g of s e l f  must  essentially  t h o s e ways i n w h i c h we  our  construing but  o f o t h e r s f o r we  a bipolar  (p. 9 9 ) . through  concept  I n t h i s way, a process  environment. indicated  elaborate  have n o t  of s e l f - n o t  of continuous  S t r i n g e r and  a concept  self  t h e s e l f may  that "for Kelly,  constituted  20  events.  (1955) i m p l i e s t h a t t o e f f e c t i v e l y  individuals  As  Systems  be  or  of  self  self-others"  seen  as  emerging  engagement w i t h  Bannister  be  the  (1979) h a v e  the person...was  only  i n r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s ; c o n s t r u c t s were  Construct chiefly  a v a i l a b l e through  obtained  context  of  others  21 and  that  (p. x i v ) .  According their  i n t e r a c t i o n with  t h e i r meaning i n t h e  interaction"  Systems  to Kelly  identities  (1955),  as t h e y  i n d i v i d u a l s achieve  c r e a t e a system of  constructs.  Governing the  maintenance,  i t i s the  processes  integrity  of  of the  core  selfcore  system through  i t s various  which  gives  the  a sense o f s u b j e c t i v e c o n t i n u i t y .  Such  individual  transformations  construct  integrity  supports  the p r e d i c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y  construct  system.  Coherence i s maintained  o f g r o w t h and conserved core is  (Kenny, 1988).  Given the  the  over  years  constructs  centrality  of  are these  c o n s t r u c t s t o i n d i v i d u a l s ' view of themselves, i t  not  s u r p r i s i n g that individuals hold  investment can  development i n t h a t c o r e  of  be  in their  conservation  (Button,  observed that i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l  restrictions  a  upon t h e m s e l v e s f o r t h e  great 1985).  place  It  enormous  sake o f  preserving  consistency. Construction Having individual important the  of the  Personal  identified as  Construct  System  K e l l y ' s (1955) v i e w o f  a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system,  i t is  t o examine more c l o s e l y h i s i d e a s  a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s  assumptions are presented  i n the  system.  the now  regarding  Kelly's basic  Fundamental  Postulate  Construct and  e l a b o r a t e d upon i n a s e r i e s o f e l e v e n  (see Appendix A ) . context  Together  Systems corollaries  these provide a  theoretical  f o r achieving a c l e a r understanding  i n t e r n a l processes  The  of the  influencing the individual's  i n t e r a c t i o n with the s o c i a l Formation  22  environment.  o f t h e System  central tenets of personal construct theory  a r e embedded i n K e l l y ' s  statement  o f t h e Fundamental  Postulate: A person's  processes  are psychologically  c h a n n e l i z e d by t h e way i n w h i c h he a n t i c i p a t e s events, Reflective can  never  (p.46)  of the c o n s t r u c t i v i s t be d i r e c t l y  notion that  reality  known, b u t r e m a i n s o n l y a  construction of the individual  experiencing i t ,  the  F u n d a m e n t a l P o s t u l a t e d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e ways i n which i n d i v i d u a l s  f u n c t i o n t o make t h e i r w o r l d s  and  more m a n a g e a b l e .  can  b e s t be u n d e r s t o o d  individuals' on  self  t h a t such  behavior  as t h e consequence o f t o adequately  predict  of individuals to maintain  i s seen  formulate and  suggests  the basis of t h e i r previous experience.  the a b i l i t y of  attempts  Kelly  more  as f l o w i n g from  their  the future As  such,  a coherent  sense  capacity to  a n t i c i p a t i o n s w h i c h accommodate t o r e c u r r i n g  novel events  i n t h e environment  (Mancuso & Adams-  Webber,  1982).  As  already  noted, K e l l y ' s  u p o n i n d i v i d u a l s and such  may  be  i n the  define  argues t h a t the not  relevant  their  construction  inferred that  situation  throughout t h e i r  Corollary states that  from each other  the  situation.  erects  events"  (p.  55). of  a  Kelly  s i t u a t i o n are  only with respect  a structure, within  The  does not does.  the  s u b s t a n c e w h i c h he  produce the  (p.  to  of  person  in  e v e n t s would n e c e s s a r i l y d i f f e r  contends that  i t i s "the  of  [that]  the  construes  follow that persons d i f f e r i n g  their  from these a n t i c i p a t i o n s .  experience  assumes  s t r u c t u r e ; the  a n t i c i p a t i o n o f e v e n t s and  resulting  framework  50)  w o u l d seem t o  construction  (p.  differ  Accordingly,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the  i n themselves but  meaning.  for  His  individuals' constructions  o f which s u b s t a n c e t a k e s shape o r  their  lives.  "persons of  meaning  meaning t o the i n d i v i d u a l : He  It  focuses  p a r t i c u l a r systems of  individuals construct  Individuality  It  the  (1955) t h e o r y  also  Gara  (1982)  most f e r t i l e  organization starting point  process of understanding h i s or her  conduct"  45). The  nature of the  in  behavior  i n d i v i d u a l ' s own  i s the  their  construal process  itself  sheds  Construct light  upon t h e d i v e r s i t y  Essentially,  o f human  their  punctuate  their  experience  ability  p a t t e r n and o r d e r succeed It they  of  of people in their  serve to  and t o p r o v i d e  experience  to infer  t h a t as events  and i t becomes  future.  Kelly  t h a t "a p e r s o n  a n t i c i p a t e s events  replications"  (p. 5 0 ) .  (1982) i n t e r p r e t K e l l y immediate e x p e r i e n c e  t o and d i f f e r e n t  the construed  replication  from  by  Nystedt  and  t o mean t h a t a s an i s construed  as  both  previous constructions,  provides the basis f o r the  i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r e d i c t i o n s o f what w i l l future:  i n the  (1955) s t a t e s i n t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n  construing their  similar  them  are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ,  f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o p r e d i c t them  individual's  of  1985).  feasible  Magnusson  life.  experience that enables  become endowed w i t h meaning,  Corollary  of  some s o r t  i n making p r e d i c t i o n s (Button,  c a n be s e e n  another.  construed  of the world  disorderly  In  features of  one p a t t e r n f r o m  and d i f f e r e n c e s  o r d e r t o an o t h e r w i s e i s this  i n d i v i d u a l s note  distinguishing  The s i m i l a r i t i e s  to  I t i s a process  i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s draw d i s t i n c t i o n s i n  drawing d i s t i n c t i o n s ,  It  experience.  observation of a s e r i e s of occurrences.  regularity  24  the act of construing involves p l a c i n g  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s upon e v e n t s . abstraction  Systems  happen  i n the  Construct ...one n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n the  Construction  does n o t s t a r t earlier  some e f f e c t s .  construing  without  past  The p e r s o n some  k n o w l e d g e , b u t u s e s some p r e e x i s t i n g  schema t h a t  e n a b l e s him t o a t t e n d  to or to  notice  c e r t a i n aspects of t h e environment  rather  than others,  In t h i s  25  f o r the "truth" of  Corollary i s that  experience leaves  Systems  sense, past  constructions  which,  ( p . 39)  constructions i n turn,  anticipate  anticipate  current  future  reconstructions. As  a means o f m i n i m i z i n g  i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s and  maximizing the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e f f e c t i v e n e s s events,  Kelly  constructions As  (1955) t h e o r i z e d are organized  in  that individuals'  into a construction  s u g g e s t e d by h i s O r g a n i z a t i o n  person c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a n t i c i p a t i n g events,  ordinal  i n predicting  Corollary,  evolves,  system.  "each  f o r h i s convenience  a construction  system  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o n s t r u c t s "  (p.  embracing 56).  Mancuso a n d Adams-Webber (1982) c o n t e n d t h a t t h e regularities of  i n d i v i d u a l s encounter i n t h e i r  the world provides  impose a f o r m a l Kelly  views t h i s  evidence that  they  s t r u c t u r e on a l l t h e i r  experience  systematically  involvements.  s t r u c t u r e as assuming a h i e r a r c h i c a l  a r r a n g e m e n t , one i n w h i c h some c o n s t r u c t s  subsume  Construct o t h e r s , which, Constructs highly  i n t u r n , subsume s t i l l  t o change.  and c o n c r e t e  26  others.  a t t h e bottom o f t h e h i e r a r c h y  specific  Systems  address  c h o i c e s , and a r e more open  Constructs at the top of the hierarchy  encompass a w i d e r r a n g e o f c h o i c e s , h o l d i n g implications  f o r t h e s y s t e m a s a w h o l e , and t h e r e f o r e ,  are r e s i s t a n t  t o change.  I t i s t h e s e more  meaningful  c o n s t r u c t s which govern t h e i d e n t i t y  of the i n d i v i d u a l .  The  and s u p e r o r d i n a t e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u b o r d i n a t e  constructs guide  superordinate  and govern s u b o r d i n a t e s ;  validate  constructs  subordinates  s u p p o r t and  superordinates.  Kelly vary  i s dialectical;  (1955) f u r t h e r h o l d s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s c a n  i n t e r m s o f how t h e i r  constructs are arranged,  some a r r a n g e m e n t s b e i n g more complex, a l l - e m b r a c i n g than  others  (Button,  flexible,  1985).  and  Whether  c o n c r e t e l y pyramided o r a b s t r a c t l y c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d , i t is  the particular  o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t system  which serves t o channel Adams-Webber  the thoughts  of i n d i v i d u a l s .  (1970) a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s  amongst  c o n s t r u c t s d e f i n e t h e o n l y a v e n u e s o f movement individuals  a r e a b l e t o make i n r e s o l v i n g t h e  c o n t r a d i c t i o n s they  inevitably  make s e n s e o f a p a r t i c u l a r  encounter.  event,  f o l l o w t h e networks o f channels  In order t o  i n d i v i d u a l s must  they have l a i d  down f o r  themselves. In t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t the  c o n s t r u c t which  According person's  (1955) D i c h o t o m y C o r o l l a r y , "a  c o n s t r u c t i o n system  number o f d i c h o t o m o u s  nature;  i s composed o f a  constructs  (p. 5 9 ) .  a s an a b s t r a c t i o n w h i c h  f o r example, up-down, h o t - c o l d ,  i n h e r e n t l y a matter  only  i n relation  happy i n r e l a t i o n understand  hypotheses.  applying  a construct  made a b o u t  that  meaning  o f c o n t r a s t ; t h a t up makes  t o sad.  of r i v a l  construct  happy-sad.  t o down, h o t i n r e l a t i o n  a construct  A  finite  i s bipolar i n  Such d e f i n i t i o n h i g h l i g h t s t h e assumption is  i t is  i s the primary u n i t of a n a l y s i s .  to Kelly's  may be d e f i n e d  system,  sense  to cold,  However, i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o  as t h e d e c i s i o n between a p a i r K e l l y makes c l e a r t h a t i n  t o an e v e n t ,  a choice  i s being  t h e m e a n i n g t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h i s  event  when compared w i t h a n o t h e r ; f o r example, t o d e s c r i b e someone a s happy i m p l i c i t l y Essentially, the  identifies  the person's choice  s i t u a t i o n determines  another as sad.  o f how t o i n t e r p r e t  the d i s t i n c t i o n s  t h i s way, a c o n s t r u c t  c a n be v i e w e d  i n d i v i d u a l ' s personal  o r i e n t a t i o n toward  encountered has  i n the world.  drawn.  In  as r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e events  K e l l y ' s idea of a  construct  b e e n compared w i t h t h a t o f a c o g n i t i v e schema, a n  organized  framework o f k n o w l e d g e a b o u t  a  specific  Construct domain t h a t recall  comparison serves  interpretation  limited  (Hayden, 1982)•  of  t o emphasize t h e n a t u r e o f t h e  (1955) c o n t e n d s t h a t  each c o n s t r u c t  states that  "a c o n s t r u c t  a n t i c i p a t i o n of a f i n i t e Mancuso a n d E i m e r  referring  H i s Range  i s convenient f o r  range o f events only"  (1982) v i e w t h i s p r i n i c i p l e  coding  an e v e n t by u s e o f a  as  construct  whose r a n g e d o e s n o t a d e q u a t e l y e x t e n d t o t h a t would n o t a l l o w  t h e u s e o f an a l r e a d y  adjustment t o that  event.  assumptions would f a i l anticipation.  inappropriate  t o produce an e f f e c t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s are able t o  and d i s c r i m i n a t i n g  when t h e y u s e c o n s t r u c t s  that  t o events under c o n s i d e r a t i o n  they regard  categorizations as  (Adams-Webber,  i t appears t h a t the e f f e c t i v e o p e r a t i o n requires  boundaries within (Agnew & Brown,  that  relevant 1979). of a  the individual e s t a b l i s h the  which t h e c o n s t r u c t  1989).  event  established  The r e s u l t i n g  Correspondingly,  make more c o n s i s t e n t  construct  (p.  t o the successful c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of events.  They argue t h a t  Thus,  has a  range o f convenience, thereby r e s t r i c t i n g t h e  Corollary  68).  and  information.  number o f e v e n t s t o w h i c h i t c a n be a p p l i e d .  the  and  This  t o guide the extraction, organization,  Kelly  28  influences the s e l e c t i o n , modification,  of a v a i l a b l e information  construct  Systems  holds  relevancy  Construct The  development o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s  system r e s t s Corollary,  upon a p r o c e s s o f c h o i c e .  Kelly  for himself that construct  alternative  64).  Extension refers  "a p e r s o n  l a y outside  definition  refers  the greater  t o m a k i n g t h e s y s t e m more  and c l e a r  upholds that  cut.  system  I n o t h e r words,  adventure.  are confronted  f o r making a c h o i c e ,  they  tend t o choose i n favor o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e provides the greater p o s s i b i l i t y  the  system.  In p l a c i n g  p o l e which system. direction  i s functionally  as  "acting  represented will  individuals  Kelly  i n defense of s e l f "  preservation  of  i n each  select  that  integral with respect  of reducing uncertainty  coherence o f t h e system.  which  f o r elaboration  individuals  I n o t h e r words,  will  r e l a t i v e v a l u e s upon one o r  other of the alternatives  dichotomous c o n s t r u c t ,  more  individuals  i t safe or r i s k i n g  whenever i n d i v i d u a l s  with the opportunity  which  i t s range o f convenience;  t o making t h e c u r r e n t  c h o o s e between p l a y i n g  their  chooses  i n a dichotomized  i n order t o address experiences  previously  Kelly  construct  f o r e x t e n s i o n and d e f i n i t i o n o f h i s s y s t e m "  comprehensive  explicit  29  In the Choice  t h r o u g h w h i c h he a n t i c i p a t e s  possibility (p.  (1955) s u g g e s t s t h a t  Systems  will  choose  i n the  and p r e s e r v i n g  refers  t o such  or "directed  o f one's i n t e g r i t y "  to the  (p. 6 7 ) .  choice  toward I n t h e same  Construct way,  Mancuso and  likelihood  Eimer  o f i n v o k i n g any  a s d e p e n d e n t on t h e  to extracting  person's  system"  Stability  (p.  and  individuals  Kelly  are directed  t o embrace a c y c l e encounter,  constructive  experiential  toward  nature  As  individuals  as  anticipations their  "validation construed) observes"  c o n f i r m a t i o n or Kelly  contends  that  a new  t o t h i s as  the  the  particular  cycles  is  event,  working  of experience;  takes place,  i f i t fails  between one's p r e d i c t i o n 158).  i f the  individuals'  are i n v a l i d a t e d .  p.  be  validation.  encounter  1955,  can  order  disconfirmation,  t o do  so,  Essentially,  represents the c o m p a t i b i l i t y  (Kelly,  more o f  anticipation,  refers  experiential  are validated;  anticipations  of events  of f i v e phases:  are put t o the t e s t  anticipated  that  m a k i n g more and  stream  by t h e p r o c e s s o f  hypotheses event  He  of i n d i v i d u a l s '  determined  a  the  T h i s process of g i v i n g  revision.  cycle.  of  System  (1955) h o l d s  an o t h e r w i s e m e a n i n g l e s s  investment, and  f o r the r e s t  Change W i t h i n t h e  system,  t o have  145).  t h e i r world predictable.  found  i s regarded  i t i s judged  validation  30  "the  t h e normal course of development of  construction  to  that  given construct  implications  relative  In  (1982) c o n t e n d  Systems  and  While  (subjectively t h e outcome the  he  principle  Construct of  e l a b o r a t i v e choice  anticipations,  Systems  31  directs the individual's  v a l i d a t i o n serves  of these a n t i c i p a t i o n s .  t o v e r i f y t h e adequacy  I n t h i s way, v a l i d a t i o n  regulates  the completion of the e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e .  According  t o K e l l y ' s E x p e r i e n c e C o r o l l a r y , "a p e r s o n ' s  construction the  s y s t e m v a r i e s a s he s u c c e s s i v e l y  r e p l i c a t i o n of events"  (1970) c o n t e n d s t h a t critical  (p. 7 2 ) .  construes  Adams-Webber  i t i s v a l i d a t i o n which p l a y s  role i n constructive  revision, the f i n a l  a phase  of the e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e : As  events subject  a person's a n t i c i p a t i o n s t o  a v a l i d a t i o n a l process, them a n d d i s c o n f i r m i n g undergo p r o g r e s s i v e the  fact  the  light  confirming others,  some o f  h i s constructs  changes as a f u n c t i o n o f  t h a t he s u c c e s s i v e l y r e v i s e s them i n of t h i s  feedback  (p. 3 1 ) .  In view o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i v e r e v i s i o n phase o f t h e experiential  cycle,  i t c a n be f o u n d t h a t  i t i sthe  novelty  o f t h o s e e v e n t s w h i c h do n o t f i t i n t o t h e  current  structure of the individual's construct  that  stimulates  Webber, 1 9 7 0 ) . construct  change i n i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n I n d i v i d u a l s need t o adapt  systems i n order  (Adamstheir  t o respond t o n a t u r a l  c h a n g e s i n t h e m s e l v e s and t h e o u t s i d e Adams-Webber  system  (1982) c o n t e n d t h a t  world.  Mancuso &  changes e v o l v e  within  Construct the  system i n order  that  l i e outside  i t s range o f convenience:  with  the i n t e r n a l i z e d structures  a g a i n s t which information  has been m o n i t o r e d .  Resolution  occupies  of discrepancy  of a person's l i f e  Kelly  These p r i n c i p l e s s t i p u l a t e t h e c o n d i t i o n s  u n d e r w h i c h c h a n g e may system  variation with  levels  occur  i s maintained.  i s accepted  while  integrity  The d e g r e e t o w h i c h  of constructs  of superordinancy.  at increasing  Kelly's Modulation C o r o l l a r y  "the v a r i a t i o n i n a person's  i s limited  of the  by t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s y s t e m h a s t o  the permeability  asserts that system  (p. 24)  o f t h e M o d u l a t i o n and F r a g m e n t a t i o n  Corollaries.  entire  activity,  t h e major  (1955) a d d r e s s e s t h e i s s u e o f c h a n g e i n h i s  formulation  do  - h i s conduct - a r e  toward those events which a r e  incongruent  part  32  t o a d e q u a t e l y accommodate t o e v e n t s  A person's processes directed  Systems  by t h e p e r m e a b i l i t y  construction  of the constructs  w i t h i n whose r a n g e o f c o n v e n i e n c e t h e v a r i a n t s l i e " ( p . 77).  Kelly  "amenability but  (1970) d e f i n e s  [of a construct]  i t scapacity  t o change w i t h i n  new s u b o r d i n a t e  range of convenience"  construct  not as t h e itself  t o be u s e d a s a r e f e r e n t f o r n o v e l  e v e n t s and t o a c c e p t its  permeability  (p. 1 9 ) .  constructs In other  within  words, a  i s permeable i f i t i s so c o n s t i t u t e d t h a t  new  Construct e x p e r i e n c e s can already a  be  The  single construct,  more i n f e r e n c e s  the  greater  t o be  Landfield  interpreting Kelly, states that  "how  personal  and  construct  facilitate  behavioral  the  sought  a n t i c i p a t i o n s of the  unknown"  to e f f e c t i v e l y  with i n those  I t i s these  persons  together contexts,  experiences, (p.  in  superordinate  encompassing of s h i f t i n g  change, c o n f l i c t i n g  In order  copes  from  in  (1982),  system.  more p e r m e a b l e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t h o l d and  one  change must o f t e n be  more o p e n themes, a b s t r a c t i o n s , aspects of the  drawn  its flexibility  subsuming a v a r i e t y of events.  and  33  d i s c r i m i n a t e l y added t o t h o s e i t  embraces.  inconsistency  Systems  and  213).  a s s i m i l a t e change,  Kelly  (1955) f u r t h e r s u g g e s t s t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  of  construct  subsystems  can  system  support the  into relatively  individual's tolerance  incompatibility. that  independent  His  "a p e r s o n may  of  Fragmentation C o r o l l a r y  successively  subsystems which are  incompatible  w i t h each other"  independent o p e r a t i o n a l discriminative specialized  (p. 8 3 ) .  system  s u b s y s t e m s , by  Adams-Webber  into  and  the  relatively  permitting  a l l o c a t i o n o f e l e m e n t s among  s e t s of constructs,  of  inferentially  (1970) i n t e r p r e t s t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o mean " t h a t of a construct  asserts  employ a v a r i e t y  construction  differentiation  the  thus,  the  relatively  parallel  Construct processing  of information  deployability  input,  o f t h e system as a whole"  In other  independently  separate  If  system  The  providing a thread of  throughout the c o n s t r u c t  system as a whole.  i n d i v i d u a l s a r e bound by t h e s t r u c t u r a l of their  greater d i f f i c u l t y possibility  construct  than others  system, t h e n i t  o f change  ( L a n d f i e l d , 1982).  or too extensive  constructs, change.  affect  experience  when c o n f r o n t e d  (1970) c o n t e n d s t h a t s t r u c t u r a l  with the  Adams-Webber  extremes, whether t o o  a p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s among  t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s encompassing o f  The more u n i d i m e n s i o n a l  the structure of a  system, t h e fewer t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s which a r e  available The  operate  the functioning of  follows that certain individuals w i l l  given  o f t h e system as  levels.  system c o o r d i n a t e s  characteristics  sparse  i s no t h r e a t  a t lower l e v e l s o f t h e c o n s t r u c t  subsystems, thereby  consistency  such  words, s u b s y s t e m s w h i c h may  must be r e i n t e g r a t e d a t h i g h e r superordinate  (p. 3 5 ) .  i s o n l y p o s s i b l e when t h e r e  o f damage t o t h e f u n c t i o n a l i n t e g r i t y a whole.  t o the individual  logical  i n i n t e r p r e t i n g events.  c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s  r e l i a n c e upon a s i n g l e s e t o f c o n s t r u c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s is  34  increases the  Adams-Webber g o e s on t o p o i n t o u t t h a t fragmentation  Systems  likely  t o a r o u s e a n x i e t y when t h e c o m p l e x i t y  of a  C o n s t r u c t Systems new  e v e n t c a n n o t be f i t t e d  into this  simplistic  framework.  Such p e r s o n s a r e r e l u c t a n t t o  adjustments  a t any  in  level  may  choose  rather  f o r fear this w i l l  limited ranges  For t h i s reason, such  When t h e d e g r e e  As  such, t h e i r  i s poor.  inferences  f r o m one  them a b o u t  another  sensitivity  event which  capacity  the  role  few  c a n be u s e d t o i n f o r m  Essentially,  an e v e n t e x c e e d s  The  i n the  i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  a s t o t h e need  constructions.  and  (1955), t h e c o n c e p t o f a n x i e t y  of the construct  individual  to extract  to  event.  world of events. t o which  i s so  individuals  They a r e a b l e t o draw  According to Kelly plays a central  similar  aspect of a s e t of events  d e v e l o p c o r r e l a t i o n s between f e a t u r e s environment  event,  o v e r l a p among t h e  of convenience of the constructs,  u n a b l e t o r e l a t e one  degree  persons  of i n t e g r a t i o n  that there i s insufficient  another.  to  the u n c e r t a i n t y of l i v i n g without i t .  t h e o p p o s i t e extreme p r e s e n t s  liabilities.  the  p l a c e them  to stay with the misery of a f a m i l i a r  than r i s k  Likewise,  are  risk  a n e v e n more ambiguous p o s i t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t  future anticipations.  35  adjustment  anxiety signals  the  to the  structuring  system,  thereby a l e r t i n g  t o make  alternative  extent of anxiety i s a f u n c t i o n  amount o f d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  the  of  Construct p r e s e n t e d and  the  schema a v a i l a b l e f r o m t h e  Systems  36  existing  system. From t h e  standpoint  personal  constructs,  classified  as  represents  the  construction a t hand.  of the  anxiety,  per  se,  e i t h e r good o r bad.  It  awareness t h a t  system does not  I t i s , therefore,  f o r making r e v i s i o n s . As  previously  generally  adjust  construing by  discrepancies  transition  which they  apply a  to  p.  content of  However,  experience.  fail  permeability f o r the  to support  can  this  of  the  construct.  individuals in thus  t o l e r a t e some amount  d e p e n d s on  superordinating constructs  new  aroused  hindering  situation in  themselves.  incompatibility....The tolerated  their  in their  to adequately p r e d i c t the  M o s t o f us  498)  anxiety  system i n a l l o w i n g  find  events  precondition  alternative construction,  ability  not  attempt t o reduce the  I m p e r m e a b i l i t y can  their  is  individuals will  i s d e p e n d e n t upon t h e  superordinate  c h o o s i n g an  f o r m and  of  one's  ( K e l l y , 1955,  discussed,  the  i n an  psychology  amount t h a t  the  of can  permeability  constructs.  If  be of  those  which would o r d i n a r i l y  superordinate  the  v a r i a n t s are  insufficiently  Construct permeable t o admit their  i n an a n x i e t y  construction confronted longer  His  him....He i s  a c h a n g i n g s c e n e , b u t no  (Kelly,  1955, p . 4 9 6 ) .  In t h e face o f t r y i n g experiencing  repeated  respond t o t h i s  a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s and  invalidation,  transition  r e a c t by " l o o s e n i n g "  i n d i v i d u a l s may  i n a number o f ways.  their  construct  t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e new e v i d e n c e  1970).  finds  has a g u i d e t o c a r r y him t h r o u g h t h e  transition  order  situation.  system f a i l s  with  While  loosening  constructs allows Adams-Webber  the  (Fransella,  o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  f o r v a r y i n g p r e d i c t i o n s t o be made,  (1981) p o i n t s o u t t h a t s u c h l o o s e n i n g c a n  Kelly experience is  The l o s s o f d e f i n i t i o n  logical  (1955) m a i n t a i n s  system.  i n d i v i d u a l s can  t h r e a t when t h e d e g r e e o f p r o s p e c t i v e Essentially,  he d e s c r i b e s  change  t h r e a t as  a w a r e n e s s o f imminent c o m p r e h e n s i v e c h a n g e i n  one's c o r e holds  that  well  c a n impose t h r e a t t o  structure of the overall  substantial.  "the  They  system i n  c a u s e t h e m e a n i n g o f c o n s t r u c t s t o become l e s s defined.  37  impending v a r i a n t s i n t o  ranges of convenience, the person  himself  can  Systems  s t r u c t u r e s " (p. 4 8 9 ) .  t h a t the experience  individuals'  formation  Fransella  (1970)  of threat interferes  o f new c o n s t r u c t s .  with  People can  Construct be  found to  "tighten" clearly  fall  b a c k on  t h e i r present  older constructions construing  i n an  d e f i n e what i t i s t h e y a r e  too  much i n v e s t m e n t  t h e y can so  that  way,  validational  (Kelly,  1955,  The  p.  "the  already  functioning  the  construction  elaboration sufficient  change  of the  are  not  serve and  of the  hope and  t h a t makes them l o o k  regularity"  (p.  a  events  this to  extort  social failure"  i n v a l i d a t i o n upon  t o emphasize t h e c h a n g e t o be  system.  I t seems c l e a r system  that  requires  o v e r a l l system so by  1989).  the  that prospect  While  Kelly  p o t e n t i a l of change,  i s a way  regular...[and]  system i t s e l f 76).  critical  maintained  importance of c o n t i n u i t y .  "construing  construction  effort  itself  unduly threatened  emphasizes the  maintains that  the  proved  ( A l e x a n d e r & Neimeyer,  (1955) u p h o l d s t h e also  In  of a type of  construction  stability  individuals  the  510).  b a l a n c e between s t a b i l i t y  of  continued  i m p l i c a t i o n s of repeated  individual  t o more  When i n d i v i d u a l s  attempt t o a l t e r  evidence i n favour  p r e d i c t i o n w h i c h has  within  effort  they conform t o t h e i r p r e d i c t i o n s . reflects  or  in a particular anticipation,  become h o s t i l e and  hostility  38  predicting.  Another r e a c t i o n i s h o s t i l i t y . hold  Systems  of  seeing  he  He events  t o be e f f e c t i v e ,  must have some  Sociality Having virtue  contended  that  of t h e i r unique  systems o f c o n s t r u c t s ,  (1955) g o e s on t o a r g u e another their  i n d i v i d u a l s are d i s t i n c t Kelly  that they are s i m i l a r t o  t o the e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e i s commonality  construct  Corollary,  e m p l o y e d by  one  o f e x p e r i e n c e which i s s i m i l a r t o another, h i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l  emphasizes t h a t  construction provides  between  p e r s o n employs a  t o those of the other person"  principle  one  A c c o r d i n g t o h i s Commonality  "to the extent that  construction  similar  systems.  by  o f an e v e n t ,  that  processes (p. 9 0 ) .  i t is similarity not the event  are This  i n the  itself,  that  f o r s i m i l a r b e h a v i o r between i n d i v i d u a l s .  Kelly  states that construing  of the  construction  processes of others i s a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e to entering  into social  in his Sociality  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h them.  Corollary,  construes the construction  he may  play  (p. 9 5 ) .  I t may  be  another,  inferred that  of i n d i v i d u a l s to e f f e c t i v e l y  construct  system.  Landfield  (1979)  s u c h u n d e r s t a n d i n g encompasses more t h a n  observation  of a p a r t i c u l a r choice,  the the  communicate  o t h e r i s l i m i t e d by t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f  another's that  processes of  one  a r o l e i n a s o c i a l process involving  other person"  each  stated  "to the extent that  person  ability  As  decision,  with  one  suggests the or  Construct pattern  of behavior;  feelings,  i t a l s o includes the  a t t i t u d e s , and  these choices,  values  d e c i s i o n s , and  Systems structure  which are  in Kelly's  viewing  behaviors.  (1955) d e f i n i t i o n  a r o l e as  expectations, activity  a socially  which i s played  out  i t as i n the  c o n s t r u c t i o n o f one  o r more o t h e r  systems"  T h i s , of course,  (p.  177).  definition  of the  the  of personal  theory  t e r m , one  individual's  construing  seeing  things.  according not  merely according  experiential  the  t o what t h e (Kelly,  i n d i v i d u a l ' s investment  these constructions,  is a  From the  as  construct restricted  relevant  b a s i s of  other 1955,  p.  Given  v a l i d a t i o n of  t e n d s t o become c o o r d i n a t e d  that of the  i s g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t the C o r o l l a r i e s are  appears  the  found t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s  with  of  thinks,  178).  that their  Sociality  o r way  person  i n v o l v e t h e m s e l v e s i n s u c h a way  It  the  i n d i v i d u a l "behaves  i n securing  be  to  this  a means o f c o m p l e t i n g  c y c l e , i t can  of one's  b e l i e v e s another person  t o approve or disapprove" the  of  of another's outlook  Essentially,  t o what he  "a c o u r s e light  than  of  persons'  constructs.  a r o l e i s e n a c t e d on  Rather  set  specifically  perspective,  principle  of r o l e .  prescribed  Kelly perceives  of  linked to  A more c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h i s lies  40  behavior other.  Commonality  inextricably linked  and  and  Construct  41  together  provide  model of  i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Adams-Webber,  1979; with  Duck, 1982; each other,  extent  b a s i s upon w h i c h t o e s t a b l i s h a  L a n d f i e l d , 1979).  social  increases  i n the  increases  interaction.  degree of commonality  i n the  processes  1982).  (Duck,  basis  G i v e n t h a t e a c h and  individuals especially  and  the  their  the  The  environment  attracted constructs  (1979) h a s  to others t h a t are  construct  similarity  content.  As  who  can  be  proposes t h a t the  a  new  that a l l or p a r t In support  the  of  is reflective Adams-Webber  s o c i a l world own.  for construct  of  this be using  Such  of s i m i l a r i t y (1981),  as  stemming  found i n d i v i d u a l s t o  construe  preference  becomes  s e e n as  s i m i l a r to t h e i r  n o t e d by  the  importance of commonality  system i s u s e f u l .  Duck  and  social  i n d i v i d u a l with  i n d i v i d u a l s ' need t o c o n f i r m  hypothesis.  coincide  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  for sociality  construct  should  f o r engagement i n  social  important.  a precondition  inferred that  e v e r y change w i t h i n  cycle presents  problem of v a l i d i t y ,  be  systems  degree of understanding,  the  experience  I t can  the  two  common p a r t s o f t h e  correspondingly,  their  correspondence  these p r i n c i p l e s suggest t h a t  systems, the  facilitate  from  In  t o w h i c h c o m m o n a l i t y e x i s t s between  construct  with  the  Systems  in  Duck similarity  Construct is  b a s e d upon t h e  opportunity  i n d i v i d u a l s t o have t h e i r Duck s u g g e s t s t h a t validating"  Duck  to  i t provides  own  constructs  i t is  find  that  are  t h i s provides  a source of  evidence that  our  and  (p.  accurate,  s h a r e d by  own  "subjective" is  If  (p.  then  developing  of  [the  person's]  i s an  or  important p r e c o n d i t i o n  to  t h a t c o m m o n a l i t y may  also  o f p e r s o n s w i t h whom  social  f r i e n d s h i p formation.  n a t u r e of commonality  between f r i e n d s d e v e l o p s .  there  two  be  shaken  increasing s i g n i f i c a n c e occurs.  the  a  lack i t s e s s e n t i a l  relationship may  the  285)  a model of  argues that  self-  constructs,  i n t e g r i t y w o u l d be  i t follows  influence choice interaction  t o t e s t out  s u p p o r t and  commonality  sociality,  of  f o r the i n d i v i d u a l :  p e r s o n ' s system would  sapped,  relevant  notion  a critical  of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of  psychological  since  61)  Without o p p o r t u n i t i e s  validational  validated:  others,  construing  consensual v a l i d a t i o n serves  validity  for  personal  (1979) f u r t h e r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s  maintenance f u n c t i o n  42  "consensually our  constructions  own  Systems  shifts  d i f f e r e n t stages i n the  In  Duck as  (1979) the  Proposing  that  progression  of  Construct a relationship, of  he  contends  t h a t commonality  non-psychological constructs (i.e.,  social  role,  the e a r l i e r  b e h a v i o r ) may  facilitate  stages of f r i e n d s h i p ,  values)  continues to develop.  Duck u p h o l d s  importance  relationship  validation  a t p r o g r e s s i v e l y deeper,  o f the c o n s t r u c t system. similarity  from  so f a r as t h e y  consensual  more p s y c h o l o g i c a l  Duck s u g g e s t s  can cause  at  that any  them t o f i l t e r  construct  system;  others are  (directly)  suggest  support  or  f o r the  f a r as t h e p a r t n e r s e x p e c t  validated  attractive  produce  they develop  s u b t l e p a r t s of t h e i r  i n intimacy i n to find  more  c o n s t r u c t systems  as t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  these expectancies are e i t h e r  continues; confirmed  or  n o t ; where c o n f i r m a t i o n i s s t r o n g t h e relationship will  be  as  way,  the pool of prospective f r i e n d s :  (indirectly)  so  In t h i s  between i n d i v i d u a l s  Relations with s p e c i f i c in  important  formation to i n f e r  stage of the r e l a t i o n s h i p another  personality  of c o n s t r u c t s i m i l a r i t y  throughout  insufficient  in  but commonality i n  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  levels  i n terms  interaction  s h o u l d become i n c r e a s i n g l y  the  43  appearance,  terms o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s ( i . e . , traits,  Systems  likewise,  and where i t  i s weak o r n o t p r e s e n t a t a l l , t h e  one  Construct relationship actually  will  fail  t o grow o r  (p.  295)  decline,  N e i m e y e r and  Neimeyer  r e a s o n i n g regarding the relationship are in  to  applied It  to  the  that  basis  possess not  way  N e i m e y e r and structural  specifically  (Kelly,  are  of  to  functional  Neimeyer  complexity.  (p.  in  Neimeyer  and  similarity.  aspect  the  cognitive such  "normative e f f e c t  233) , Neimeyer and  a different explanation.  refers  comprise  (1972) i n t e r p r e t s the  influencing  interrelationships  is, similarity in  i n d i c a t i v e of  g r o u p membership"  92)  function  This variable  s i m i l a r i t y i n the  W h i l e Duck as  p.  (1983) h a v e p r e s e n t e d  a further  process.  system, t h a t  action,  s o c i a l experience,  t h i s as  which  construction  1955,  amongst c o n s t r u c t d i m e n s i o n s t h a t  for  constructs  experience  t h e i r present  s i m i l a r i t y as  relationship  similarity  way  i n which i n d i v i d u a l s  categorization  construct  individuals  only s i m i l a r i t y  f o r s i m i l a r i t y of  experience.  Neimeyer r e f e r to  the  of  s i m i l a r i t y upon  They a r g u e t h a t  s i m i l a r i t y of  s i m i l a r i t y of  A d d r e s s i n g the their  of  s i m i l a r i t y i n the  p r o v i d e s the  of  will  events.  i s not  but  influence  o t h e r s who  c o n s t r u c t s but  44  (1981) e x t e n d D u c k ' s l i n e  development.  attracted  Systems  Neimeyer  Drawing s u p p o r t  from  of argue  Construct findings that  friends display greater  system d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , that  the  by  the  degree of  between i n d i v i d u a l s . complexity  i s one  restrictive Contrary  feature  features  in  propose  structural similarity  i n the  that  upon i n t e r p e r s o n a l  of  Webber  (1970) c o n s i d e r s  individuals holding constructs  elaborate  of  systems of o t h e r s .  sets of  constructs  I n d i v i d u a l s who are  able  l o c a t i n g common  hold  t o employ a  in a social  greater greater  i n t e r a c t i o n , thereby perspectives  the  cognitive  involved.  c o m p l e x i t y has adaptation  However, w h i l e  generally  (Crockett,  He  upon  enhancing t h e i r understanding of the others  a  related  i n mind, c o m p a r i n g them, and  c o g n i t i v e complexity  the  S i m i l a r l y , Adams-  i n t e r a c t i o n i s dependent  of reference.  reverse,  accuracy of i n d i v i d u a l s '  construct  social  the  is a  c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y t o be  f a c t o r i n the  contends that  not  f u r t h e r support to  consensual v a l i d a t i o n .  about the  understanding.  affiliation  structural similarity,  notion  inferences  a  p r o c e s s e s which imposes c e r t a i n  such f i n d i n g s lend  significant  shared  cognitive  s t r u c t u r e of  t o Duck, t h e y c o n t e n d t h a t  consequence of  variety  Neimeyer  They s u g g e s t t h a t  person's psychological  points  similarity  45  development of deeper r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s  affected  and  N e i m e y e r and  Systems  of  been f o u n d t o c o r r e l a t e w i t h  1982) , t h e  r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of  construct inconsistency  i n impressions  of others appears  m e d i a t e d by a number o f f a c t o r s . and  Rosenkrantz  complexity  the expected  t o be  Crockett, effects of  with the central values of the other  when t h e r e was d i s a g r e e m e n t  person's than  Meltzer,  46  upon r e s o l u t i o n o f i n c o n s i s t e n c y o n l y when  s u b j e c t s agreed person;  (1966) f o u n d  Systems  with the other  v a l u e s , complex s u b j e c t s were no d i f f e r e n t  noncomplex s u b j e c t s a t r e c o n c i l i n g t h e  inconsistency. as t o t h e n a t u r e argued  In addressing these v a r i e d of c o g n i t i v e complexity,  i t c a n be  t h a t w h i l e t h e r e may be some i n t e r v e n i n g f a c t o r s  to consider, structural factor  observations  i n individuals'  a r e l a t i o n s h i p with Given sociality,  remains an  c o m m u n i c a t i o n and d e v e l o p m e n t o f  another.  i t seems l o g i c a l with  t o assume t h a t  f r i e n d s would e n t a i l  amongst c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a n  casual contact  a neighbour  such  t h i n k i n g h a s r e p e a t e d l y been f o u n d  Duck & S p e n c e r ,  or the corner grocer.  1972).  of s i m i l a r i t y  Such e v i d e n c e  social  greater  with  the e f f e c t  important  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o m m o n a l i t y a n d  involvement similarity  similarity  Support f o r (Duck, 1973;  underscores  o f c o n s t r u a l upon  relationship  development. Summary Having  reviewed  t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e PCS, i t c a n  Construct  Systems  be a r g u e d t h a t v a l i d a t i o n h o l d s a s i g n i f i c a n t upon i n d i v i d u a l s ' systems.  e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e i r  Essentially,  dyadic relationships  development  construct  i s seen t o support the of a coherent sense of  K e l l y ' s view o f the i n d i v i d u a l  constructions  influence  v a l i d a t i o n within the context of  i n d i v i d u a l ' s maintenance  for verification  47  as d e p e n d e n t  of the relevancy of t h e i r  i s of considerable  self.  upon o t h e r s personal  importance i n the  o f t h e p r o p o s e d framework.  I t remains  the  scope o f t h i s paper t o determine the e x t e n t t o which validation  bears s i g n i f i c a n c e  i n the  individual's  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h f a m i l y as w e l l a s w i t h t h e work organization.  Chapter I I I .  The D e v e l o p m e n t o f S h a r e d Systems  Construct  Having reviewed i n Chapter 2 t h e general principles  of personal  construct  theory  application to individual functioning, focuses the  upon t h e e x t e n s i o n  area  of Kelly's  of shared construct  systems.  a d d r e s s e s two a r e a s o f r e l e v a n c e : work o r g a n i z a t i o n . family  construct  construct  system.  and i t s C h a p t e r 3 now  (1955) t h e o r y This  to  examination  the family,  and t h e  The c h a p t e r b e g i n s w i t h a r e v i e w o f  theory  and t h e o p e r a t i o n  of the family  The p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e  f u n c t i o n i n g o f f a m i l y members a s a g r o u p a r e t h e n applied  t o the functioning of individuals within the  work s e t t i n g . construct  The n o t i o n  system  o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  i s p r o p o s e d and i t s f u n c t i o n i n g  the  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  The  Familv  Construct  within  outlined. System  In p r o p o s i n g t h e s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system as t h e unit  of examination, personal  construct  theory  provides  a t h e o r e t i c a l base f o r understanding e v o l v i n g  systems  of  but a t a  constructions  family  level  shared  construct  not only  as w e l l .  fundamental s h i f t  at a personal  level  The move f r o m i n d i v i d u a l t o  s y s t e m s , however, d o e s r e q u i r e a in theoretical  Individual perception  standpoint.  must n e c e s s a r i l y be  reformulated  Construct to  encompass t h e i n t e r c o n n e c t e d  the  family unit.  theory this  fuller and  being  construct  made.  c o g n i t i v e schémas o f  theory  which  supports  Together these c o n t r i b u t e  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i n t e r p l a y between  interpersonal  shared construct  to a  personal  f a c t o r s i n t h e development o f t h e system.  When r e g a r d e d a s s i n g l e u n i t , t h e f a m i l y to  49  I t i s t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f systems  with personal  shift  Systems  i s found  adhere t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g  system.  The o v e r a l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n s o f  f a m i l y members r e l a t i n g t o g e t h e r assuming a l i f e  and i d e n t i t y o f i t s own.  w h i c h f a m i l y members a r e l i k e l y  The way i n  t o frame  experience i s a function of t h i s reality.  c a n be s e e n a s  their  shared view o f  As such, an adequate u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f f a m i l y  functioning requires perspective  examination of the family  o f f a m i l y members t h e m s e l v e s .  from t h e  As K a n t o r  (1985) s o s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e s , t h e s h a r e d f a m i l y  reality  g u i d e s t h e v a r i e t y o f i n t e r a c t i o n s f a m i l y members c a n address while preserving The  ultimate  exception, evolving  task  face:  a model  that  ordinary  i d e n t i t y as a whole:  a l l f a m i l i e s , without  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r (Kantor & Lehr,  paradigm f o r g u i d i n g the  their  1975) o r  t h e i r members  and e x t r a o r d i n a r y  through  exigencies  of  Construct life,  a model f o r c o n s t r u i n g  realities family  within  and i t s e x t e r n a l  While K e l l y the  family  regarding  and d e a l i n g  Especially  (1955) h a s l i t t l e  (pp. 21-22)  d i r e c t t o say about  of r e a l i t y ,  o f t h e dynamics i n v o l v e d (Alexander & Neimeyer,  h i s ideas  important  i n creating a  i s h i s discussion  o f commonality  c u l t u r e s where he e m p h a s i z e s t h a t o f experience which p r o v i d e s  similarity  of action, but s i m i l a r i t y  construction  of that  experience"  may b e i n f e r r e d t h a t  " i t i s not the the basis f o r  of their  the e f f e c t i v e functioning of a  w h i c h a r i s e f r o m g r o u p members c o n s t r u i n g  the  expectation  events i n a  The e x p e r i e n c e o f c o m m o n a l i t y  increases  degree o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l understanding, which, i n  turn,  encourages s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In  it  present  ( K e l l y , 1955, p . 9 2 ) .  g r o u p i s d i r e c t e d by t h e common c h a n n e l s o f  s i m i l a r way.  t o an  1989).  similarity  It  with  g r o u p p r o c e s s e s h a v e much t o c o n t r i b u t e  shared r e a l i t y  50  and b e t w e e n t h e  environment,  and i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n  understanding  within  the family  Systems  applying  these notions  would appear t h a t  family events.  t o that  of the family,  the effective functioning  i s g o v e r n e d by t h e i r mutual a n t i c i p a t i o n o f It i s this  line  of t h i n k i n g which  (1981) assumes i n h i s d e v e l o p m e n t o f f a m i l y theory.  of the  Perceiving  the family  Proctor construct  t o be d i r e c t e d  toward  Construct making  Systems  i t s w o r l d more and more m a n a g e a b l e .  v i e w s f a m i l y members a s n e g o t i a t i n g construction  of r e a l i t y  He i n c o r p o r a t e s  i n order  the principles  Proctor  a common  t o achieve t h i s end.  of personal  construct  theory  w i t h a wider systemic view t o extend  notion  of the personal  jointly-held refers  construct  system o f f a m i l y  to this  Kelly's  system t o t h a t  constructs.  interpersonal construction  of a  Proctor as t h e f a m i l y  construct  system  construct  system i n i t s s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e  FCS  (FCS).  51  Similar to the personal  comprises t h e s e t of constructs  members i n t h e i r The  which guide  activities.  c o n c e p t o f t h e FCS c o v e r s t h e same  g r o u n d a s a number o f o t h e r  (Reiss,  f a m i l y myth  1965), t h e n o t i o n  (Ferriera,  reality  coordination their  serves  required  functioning  theoretical  concepts proposed.  t o t h e f a m i l y paradigm  family  family  1981), a s w e l l  Similar as t h e  of a shared  t o express the d e l i c a t e o f f a m i l y members t o e n h a n c e  as a group.  Reiss,  f o r example,  employs t h e c o n c e p t o f paradigm t o d e f i n e t h e underlying a  shared experiences of family  significant  itself  i n shaping a family's  and i t s t r a n s a c t i o n s  environment. of  role  Similarly,  life  which  beliefs  play  about  with the s o c i a l  F e r r i e r a proposes t h e concept  f a m i l y myth t o i d e n t i f y  the covert  rules  governing  Construct t h e b e h a v i o r o f f a m i l y members. as  "embodied  i n the b e l i e f s  These r u l e s  a r e viewed  themselves"  1965, p. 1 6 ) .  D r a w i n g upon K e l l y ' s commonality and s o c i a l i t y . additional  52  and m u t u a l e x p e c t a t i o n s  t h a t t h e f a m i l y members e n t e r t a i n a b o u t (Ferriera,  Systems  corollaries  (1955) p r i n c i p l e s o f P r o c t o r (1981) d e v e l o p s two  t o address t h e nature o f  relationships within the family. Group C o r o l l a r y ,  In h i s design of a  P r o c t o r extends  Kelly's theory t o  encompass t h e a r e a o f m u l t i p e r s o n  relationships:  To t h e e x t e n t t h a t a p e r s o n c a n c o n s t r u e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between members o f a g r o u p , may t a k e p a r t  i n a group  he  p r o c e s s w i t h them,  (p. 354) In h i s e l a b o r a t i o n of a Family C o r o l l a r y , addresses the s p e c i f i c p e o p l e may l i v e  Proctor  c o n d i t i o n upon w h i c h a g r o u p o f  t o g e t h e r o v e r an e x t e n d e d  period of  time: For a group  o f people t o remain  an e x t e n d e d  period  choice,  o f time,  together  e a c h must make a  within the limitations  o f h i s system,  t o m a i n t a i n a common c o n s t r u c t i o n relationships Together  i n t h e group,  t h e s e two c o r o l l a r i e s  construction  of r e a l i t y  over  of the  ( p . 354)  suggest  that  a common  i s a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e t o  Construct the  formation  of the family  f u n c t i o n i n g as a u n i t . that  similarity  to the family's belonging  E s s e n t i a l l y , i t c a n be a r g u e d  i n the construal  of events i s e s s e n t i a l  i d e n t i t y and e a c h member's s e n s e o f 1989).  on  c u l t u r a l membership make c l e a r t h a t  in  construction  that  Kelly's  s u p p o r t s membership i n a g r o u p :  m e r e l y because t h e y behave a l i k e , t h e y e x p e c t t h e same t h i n g s  because they construe  experience  i n t h e same way.  their  (1981) g o e s on t o a r g u e t h a t  constitute the i n t e r a c t i o n patterns  t h e FCS  choices  The f u n c t i o n a l r o l e o f e a c h member i n this  role are  as each c o n s t r u e s t h e e x p e c t a n c i e s o f o t h e r s .  E a c h member's a c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n  t o the others, i n  meeting w i t h t h e e x p e c t a n c i e s o f t h e group, contributes a shared  that  of the family  the rules of r e l a t i o n s h i p implied  defined  nor because  ( p . 94)  governs " t h e sequences o f contingent  and  group, n o t  of others, but  especially  (p. 355).  views  i ti s similarity  P e o p l e b e l o n g t o t h e same c u l t u r a l  members"  53  and i t s a d e q u a t e  (Alexander & Neimeyer,  Proctor  Systems  in circular  fashion  then  t o the perpetuation  construct.  Over t h e y e a r s  f a m i l y members become h i g h l y  s e n s i t i v e t o each other's behave t o g e t h e r  r e a c t i o n s and  as i n a 'dance' o f mutual  of  Construct anticipation. habitually  anticipated choices  threatening.  will  be  p r o v o k i n g and  An a t t e m p t w i l l  therefore  be  made t o c h a n g e t h e p e r s o n b a c k  into  p r e d i c t a b l e modes o f b e h a v i o r .  (Proctor,  1981, Proctor  54  Any c h a n g e i n t h e o t h e r s '  e x p e r i e n c e d as anxiety  p . 355)  seems t o s u g g e s t an i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e  personal the  Systems  construct  family  s y s t e m s o f i n d i v i d u a l members  context.  Personal  meanings a r e  within  coordinated  w i t h t h e s h a r e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f t h e group, and any c h a n g e i n t h e r e l a t i o n s between i n d i v i d u a l members i s subject  t o t h e coherent f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e group as a  whole. The again and  e f f e c t o f t h e FCS upon f a m i l y  corresponds with that  s u g g e s t e d by R e i s s  F e r r i e r a (1965) w i t h r e s p e c t  notions.  Reiss  t o govern  i n t e r a c t i o n patterns  synchronizing others  i n t e r a c t i o n once  to their particular  argues t h a t t h e f a m i l y paradigm within  serves  the family,  e a c h member's a c t i o n a n d p l a n n i n g  i n the family,  (1981)  with  and s h a p i n g t h e f a m i l y ' s  relationship with  i t s social  Ferriera  t h e f a m i l y myth a s a h o m e o s t a t i c  presents  mechanism r e g u l a t i n g argues t h a t  environment.  Similarly,  intrafamily transactions.  He  t h e f a m i l y myths, s h a r e d a n d s u p p o r t e d b y  Construct all  f a m i l y members, p r o v i d e  Systems  " r e a d y made f o r m u l a e  55  with  w h i c h t o meet a v a r i e t y o f s i t u a t i o n s . . . a n d p r e s c r i b e the  i n d i v i d u a l and c o n j o i n t b e h a v i o r o f t h e f a m i l y  members" As of  (p. 1 6 ) . a means o f i l l u s t r a t i o n ,  a n "enmeshed" f a m i l y .  boundaries grants immediate  any f a m i l y member's  i s likely  of t h e i r  extension.  t o be more c o n c e r n e d  shared construct  Elaboration  an  system than  i n the family are l i k e l y  by  that  of  emphasize consensus,  on c o n f l i c t .  "closeness"  way, a m b i g u i t y  The s h a r e d  family's  t o be g o v e r n e d l o y a l t y , and family  construct In t h i s  accompanying t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f  coherent An  It  closeness,  would d i r e c t such i n t e r a c t i o n .  i n d e p e n d e n t b e h a v i o r w o u l d be h e l d the  system  sense o f i d e n t i t y r e s t s upon  relationships  closure  with  cohesive  a g r e e m e n t amongst members t o m a i n t a i n  early  has  with  of the shared construct  As t h e f a m i l y ' s  constructs  choice  f a m i l y members, a n  would be d i r e c t e d toward v a l i d a t i o n o f behavior.  t h e example  As t h e l a c k o f w i t h i n - f a m i l y  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r other  enmeshed f a m i l y definition  that  consider  i s herein  functioning  Organizational proposed that  concepts used t o d e f i n e operate can a l s o provide  back, and t h r e a t t o avoided. Model  the t h e o r e t i c a l  t h e way i n w h i c h f a m i l i e s a framework f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  Construct the  way  i n w h i c h work o r g a n i z a t i o n s  principles  underlying  operate.  the maintenance of  f u n c t i o n i n g which enables comparison of work o r g a n i z a t i o n s organizations  are  t o be made.  common i n t e r e s t .  from the  suggests that  the  characteristics the  found t o variety  like that  to  say  that  analagous with that organization The  may  act  "as  c o m p a r i s o n between t h e must a c k n o w l e d g e t h e  that  the  group too  takes  the  As  to define  such, can  family.  a metaphor. work  Thus,  group. is  i t is  and  the  not.  any  organization  relationship differs  family,  can  W h i l e a work  i f " i t i s a family,  and  be  the  l i m i t a t i o n s of drawing such  nature of the and  on  family,  E s s e n t i a l l y , i t i s important to  individual  they  i n d i v i d u a l members  family  a  functioning  t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n  of the  who  work  r e l a t i o n s with the  metaphor remains o n l y  analogy.  and  of the  a shared r e a l i t y  interactions that  i s not  work  of a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system.  address while maintaining This  and  and  o r more p e o p l e  of  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  construct of  families  collectivity  family  perspective  work o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  the  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of  i d e n t i t y f o r the  Comparison of the  organization  It is  s h a r e some c o n c e p t o f  Both have the  shaping a coherent organize.  and  56  group  Families  b o t h g r o u p s o f two  behave i n t e r d e p e n d e n t l y  Systems  an  recognize between  i n d i v i d u a l and  the  the  Construct work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  F a m i l y membership l a s t s a  w h e r e a s membership i n work o r g a n i z a t i o n s voluntary family  and  tenuous.  generally  While the  involves  r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the  within  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  t o be  developmental.  With these  however, argument c a n of  family theory  processes  the  functioning. to the  to the  the  r e s t s upon Likewise,  goals  well-  family,  they  phases of  tend  human  l i m i t a t i o n s i n mind,  still  be  in providing  inherent  particular,  subject  i s more  generally  c l e a r , whereas i n the  more b r o a d and  lifetime  emotional t i e s ,  instrumentality. are  57  relationship with  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  value  u n d e r s t o o d and  and  strong  reciprocal the  Systems  made f o r t h e  relevance  understanding of  the  i n human r e l a t i o n s h i p s y s t e m s ,  in  i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics a f f e c t i n g group  I t i s the  a p p l i c a t i o n of these  work s e t t i n g w h i c h t h e  following  processes  discussion  addresses. Coinciding with Proctor's family  construct  personal  construct  principles may  be  of  called  the  theory  paper  organizational the  day  to d i r e c t the  construct  t o day  affairs  require  theory. of  of  interfaces  with systemic theory  a work o r g a n i z a t i o n  construing  present  and  organizational behavior to develop  argued here t h a t within  theory,  (1981) d e v e l o p m e n t  what It is  business  a common s y s t e m  cooperative  the  e f f o r t s of  of  Construct o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. is  Systems  A s s u c h , t h e work  organization  seen as a d h e r i n g t o a shared c o n s t r u c t i o n  of reality  w h i c h s u p p o r t s common c h a n n e l s o f e x p e c t a t i o n s i t s members. the  values,  points  This  interpersonal construction  norms, a n d p r a c t i c e s t h a t  of reference  58  amongst defines  a c t as primary  f o r t h e way i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s  make s e n s e o f t h e i r work e n v i r o n m e n t , a n d i n s o d o i n g , provides rallied  t h e b a s i s upon w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l toward  members a r e  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the organization.  E x p a n d i n g upon t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e FCS, t h e n o t i o n of  a similar  within  interpersonal construction  t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n  over a p e r i o d negotiation  o f time during  which  of reality  considerable  serves  t o channel,  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members.  organizational reality organizational OCS c r e a t e s  i s identified  construct  system  This  (OCS).  a shared understanding  workplace i n contrast  mold,  notion  t o that  shared  Essentially, amongst of their  of another.  o f t h e OCS d e r i v e s  support  from  contemporary views o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e as a socially  this  as t h e  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members a s t o t h e c h a r a c t e r  The  Established  sustain or otherwise influence the e f f e c t i v e  functioning  the  i s proposed.  a n d i n t e r a c t i o n among members o c c u r s ,  common c o n s t r u c t i o n enhance,  operating  constructed  view o f r e a l i t y  d e v e l o p e d by  Construct o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. contend that culture  " c r i t i c a l . . . t o the  i s the  i d e a o f an  phenomenon t h a t has it  f r o m an  the  other"  constructed upon t h e  i t s own  d e s i r e s and  notion  uses t h i s  an  the  of the  Imershein  organization  t h e y a c t , how t h e y may  be  p a r a d i g m we  make up  control  as w e l l  may  i n organizing  use  action....In  to create  organization  implicit, the  a means o f  a resource  a similar  their  those about  world,  how  and  how such  imposing  that  dissidents  awareness  ideas the  (1978)  the  refer to  and  fashion,  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigms p r o v i d e enacted  socially  In a c t u a l p r a c t i c e ,  p a r a d i g m s f u n c t i o n as as  i t s members  Brown  t h e y hang t o g e t h e r ,  known.  the  way:  of assumptions, u s u a l l y  what s o r t o f t h i n g s  from  (1977) d r a w s  concept of the  By  social  (1970), e x t e n d i n g h i s  following  a paradigm.  a  hand and  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigm.  i n the  (1985)  which d i s t i n g u i s h  Supporting t h i s  view of r e a l i t y ,  ...may l i e i n t h e  sets  one  59  organizational  as  concept of paradigm t o d e f i n e  organization  as  features  e a r l y work o f Kuhn  of  study of  p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s of  (p. 4 6 9 ) .  of paradigm to t h a t  Wilkins  organization  e n v i r o n m e n t on  individual on  O u c h i and  Systems  roles to  i n p a r t i c u l a r ways, i n p a r t i c u l a r  be  Construct settings, roles, Pfeffer  and  (p.  in particular relation  i s the  a critical  c r e a t i o n and  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigms. the  organization  and  d e f i n i t i o n s of the  and  world  the  Sanders  (p.  (1990),  perceptions  organizational  and  i d e n t i t y as  commitment o f  13).  Hofstede,  i n a extensive  "shared  perceptions  the  o f d a i l y p r a c t i c e s t o be  It is  (p.  i s proposed that  activities  the  OCS  of the  functioning  Kelly's  OCS,  like  to that  of the  shared system.  of the  OCS  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l terms t h a t  postulate  formulation. of  For  of  of  an  of the  are  FCS,  PCS. set  i s v i e w e d as p r e s c r i b i n g  of the  P r i n c i p l e s governing  derived  (1955) f u n d a m e n t a l p o s t u l a t e  original  core  that  of a h i e r a r c h i c a l l y organized  constructs,  Neuijen,  311).  the  similar in construction  Consisting  the  culture"  well  those  study  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e s , found these  organization's  within  from i t s environments  c o n t r o l and  organization"  Ohayv, and  such  shared  "provide  organization  a s s i s t i n g i n the  management  Pfeffer asserts that  these consensually  demarcating the  within  other  maintenance of  members w i t h a s e n s e o f b e l o n g i n g as  to  60  373)  (1981) a r g u e s t h a t  activity  Systems  a p p e a r as  from r e s t a t i n g  and  corollaries  a d e r i v a t i v e of  example, t h e  organizational construct  in the  fundamental  theory  is  stated  as  follows: Organizational  processes are  channelized  the  by  organization This  principle  organization, according predicted. this of  f u n c t i o n i n g of the individual,  i n which f u t u r e  events  to the  basis  are  organizational  i s being  of t h e i r  own  be  organization  a whole can  a r g u m e n t s made f o r t h e  degree, w i t h r e s p e c t  a l s o be  here  that  work  distinguished  s h a r e d meanings.  the  setting.  referred to  w h i c h may  upon  functioning  i t i s important to recognize  have s u b u n i t s  as  the  work  proceeds  c o r o l l a r i e s which f o l l o w  maintained that  lesser  events.  the  of the  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  organizations the  way  with respect  i n g l o b a l terms,  on  that  the  assumption f u r t h e r amplify  OCS  While the  that  Each of the  basic  the  like  to the  ways i n w h i c h  anticipates  implies  psychologically  It is work  made, t h o u g h t o  to subunits  within  the  organization. The  complex n a t u r e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n  workplace requires  the  corollaries.  First  d e v e l o p e d by  Proctor  a d d i t i o n o f two  of a l l , the  other  Group C o r o l l a r y  (1981) t o encompass  relationships  i n the  family  relationships  i n the  work s e t t i n g .  Organization  the  i s extended  multiperson to  Secondly,  C o r o l l a r y i s developed to address  a Work the  a  Construct  Systems  c o n d i t i o n upon w h i c h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members a r e work c o o p e r a t i v e l y  over  f o r a group of  together  o v e r t i m e and  the a  work  remain committed  to  of the  common c o n s t r u c t i o n  system, t o  of the  precondition this  maintain  relationships in  (1955) v i e w o f c o m m o n a l i t y as  to s o c i a l i t y ,  similarity  work o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s  the  present  in construal i d e n t i t y and  paper  a strong  i s f u r t h e r suggested that  relations  between members i n t h e  Essentially,  in providing  f o r those within  the  OCS  to  sense  the of  maintained. governs  the  workplace.  a shared understanding of  the  work o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  b i n d s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members t o e a c h o t h e r , the  a  argues  is critical  b e l o n g i n g n e s s amongst i t s members b e i n g  world  within  workgroup.  Drawing upon K e l l y ' s  It  to  work  e a c h must make a c h o i c e ,  l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r  the  that  individuals to  a g r e e d upon m i s s i o n  organization,  able  time.  In order  the  62  the  the OCS  fostering  development of a c e r t a i n interdependence.  Personal  m e a n i n g s become c o o r d i n a t e d  with those of the  group.  Common e x p e c t a t i o n s  from t h e s e s h a r e d  meanings  arising  e n a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members t o p r e d i c t one b e h a v i o r and way,  to adjust  their  own  accordingly.  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members f u n c t i o n  another's In  this  i n some d e g r e e  of  relationship threat  reciprocity.  to the  coherent  Any  Construct  Systems  change which  poses  functioning  of the  63  workgroup  is  resisted. This patterns  notion  of the  OCS  as  governing i n t e r a c t i o n  amongst o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members i s  with research  on  the  e f f e c t s of  Buono, B o w d i t c h ,  and  Lewis  c u l t u r e as group  compatible  organizational  (1985) v i e w  a powerful determinant of  culture.  organizational  individual  and  behavior: Organizational  culture affects  practically  all  aspects of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  way  i n which people i n t e r a c t w i t h each  p e r f o r m t h e i r work and decisions policies  made i n a f i r m , and  procedures,  considerations, Van  Maanen and  the  moral order  things  as  special  feel" impact  (p.  Kunda  (p. of  groups of  56).  and  prescribed  Pfeffer  other,  types  of  strategy  in describing culture  myth, s t o r i e s ,  e x p e c t e d by  to the  the  482)  (1989),  l a n g u a g e , and  from  i t s organizational  of a c o l l e c t i v e ,  ritual,  members a r e  dress,  life  others (1981),  argue t h a t espoused  "such  values,  norms i n d e x t h e  i n the  as  way  organization  in discussing  to  the  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r a d i g m s upon t h e  behavior  i n d i v i d u a l s , contends t h a t  beliefs  " c a u s e a c t i o n t o be  shared  i n t e r p r e t e d i n a way  compatible  of  Construct  Systems  w i t h t h e e m e r g e n t norms a n d v a l u e s "  (p. 1 ) .  g o e s on t o a r g u e f o r t h e r e s i l i e n c y  of the  organizational  t o t h e shared system of b e l i e f s  both challenges  the actions  taken within the  s t r u c t u r e and t h r e a t e n s  increased  uncertainty  situation.  to  introduce  and a m b i g u i t y  into the  G i v e n t h e c e r t a i n t y and  cohesion they f a c i l i t a t e , u n d e r s t a n d a b l e why  stability  social  i t i s quite  shared paradigms o r  s y s t e m s o f meaning and b e l i e f great  Pfeffer  paradigm:  A challenge  social  64  come t o h a v e  and r e s i s t a n c e t o change, (p.  21) Consider the following organization  illustration.  whose s t r u c t u r e  "results-orientation".  i s reflective  Directed  toward  m a r k e t i n g a d v a n t a g e o v e r an e s t a b l i s h e d thereby achieving  greater  T a k e a work of a  gaining c o m p e t i t o r and  regional control,  company  i n c e n t i v e programs promote i n d i v i d u a l i n i t i a t i v e and pioneering  behavior.  As t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s  identity  r e s t s upon t h e m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t o f i t s members t o support patterns  "a b i a s  for action,"  of r e l a t i n g  intolerant  that  of mistakes.  organization  that  t h e OCS  encourages  are d i r e c t , competitive, Compare t h i s w i t h a n  adopts a  "process-orientation".  and  Construct Relations informal  that  s t y l e of d e a l i n g w i t h each o t h e r , warm, open, and i n the  affirming.  former case are  one  that  g o v e r n e d by  organizational  E s s e n t i a l l y , the  g o v e r n i n g e a c h o f t h e s e work o r g a n i z a t i o n s considerably  is  constructs  members, r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst e m p l o y e e s i n t h e case emphasize c o o p e r a t i o n .  an  While i n t e r a c t i o n  e n d o r s e c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s amongst  identity  65  amongst members o f t h e w o r k g r o u p e n c o u r a g e  typically patterns  Systems  latter OCS  varies  i n a s s o c i a t i o n with the p a r t i c u l a r  being  upheld.  Summary I t may (1955) h a s  w e l l be  argued t h a t  much t o c o n t r i b u t e  f a m i l y d y n a m i c s as w e l l The  notion  both the  of  as  emphasizes t h a t  and  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  constructions group. within  the  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  coordination. influencing of  further  I t i s the  the  suggested  personal  the  family  i s d e p e n d e n t upon  the as  such  i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics  such c o o r d i n a t i o n inquiry.  been  with those of  I n d i v i d u a l membership w i t h i n  at  clearly  i s d i r e c t e d by  i s a f u n c t i o n of  becoming c o o r d i n a t e d  levels  I t has  of  behavior.  systems o p e r a t i n g  group f u n c t i o n i n g  such mutuality  Kelly  understanding  organizational  m u t u a l a n t i c i p a t i o n s o f members. that  work o f  t o an  shared c o n s t r u c t  family  the  w h i c h assumes t h e  focus  Chapter  IV:  Having  i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter 3 the  functioning the  The I n t e r a c t i o n Between P e r s o n a l Shared C o n s t r u c t Systems  of  scope of  the  shared construct  Chapter 4 to  dynamics i n f l u e n c i n g shared construct individual's an the  the  the  of  family  individual's  work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  personal  C o n c e p t s drawn f r o m  i n t e r a c t i o n with the  understanding of  i t remains  interactional  coordination  systems.  particular  system,  examine t h e  coordination  members'  c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h those of is  the  subsequently proposed that  consensual v a l i d a t i o n individual  i s the  l i n k a g e s with the  family  as  to  with  consensual  regulating  family  the  interaction  I t i s a process of  individual  and  contribute  v a l i d a t i o n w h i c h i s i d e n t i f i e d as of  and  the  a whole.  t h i s process  It  of  mechanism t h r o u g h  which  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  are  also  formed. Individual Kelly  Interaction  and  family the  not  only to  construction  m a i n t a i n a sense of  particular  Family  (1955) m a i n t a i n s t h a t  upon o t h e r s , particular  With the  significance  i n the  secure v a l i d a t i o n of  reality,  self.  but  context of  the  depend  for  also  the  to  the  create  holds  role  individual.  family,  their  to  This p r i n c i p l e  when a p p l i e d  s o c i a l i z a t i o n of  interactive  individuals  of  the  Within  individuals  are  Construct seen  t o c o n s t r u c t t h e i r way  c a n be  argued  source  o f c o n f i r m a t i o n and  of being  i n the world.  t h a t t h e f a m i l y , i n s e r v i n g as a  a n t i c i p a t i o n s throughout  adolescence,  holds a profound  development of the As  noted  by R e i s s  systems"  Alexander  and  the  direct  childhood  i n f l u e n c e upon  (1981),  and  the  "the f a m i l y has  group f o r s h a p i n g  personal  (p. 7 ) .  Neimeyer  (1989) a t t e s t  " p r o v i d i n g the predominant v a l i d a t i o n a l a g a i n s t which the  It  individual's personal construct  become t h e most i m p o r t a n t explanatory  67  d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n f o r the  individual's  system.  Systems  infant  tests  that  in  backdrop  emerging c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,  f a m i l y f u r n i s h e s the prepotent context f o r  development of the s e l f "  (p. 1 1 2 ) .  During  early  of development, p a r e n t s d e f i n e f o r the c h i l d  stages  the  r e l e v a n t d i s t i n c t i o n s t o be drawn amongst t h e w o r l d events child  (Salmon,  1970).  In doing so, they o f f e r  a c o n s t r u c t i o n i n terms of which t o  toward  similar  events  i n the f u t u r e .  matures, parents a s s i s t interrelations "facilitating his variations  the c h i l d  likelihood  system"  the  child  (Hayden, 1982,  p.  of the c h i l d  modulating  hierarchically  182).  the  thereby  i n c o n s t r u c t i o n so as t o d e v e l o p  i n c r e a s i n g l y more complex and  the  respond  in perceiving  among v a r i o u s e v e n t s , the  As  of  Likewise,  an  structured  parents  Construct serve as mediators the a c t u a l  fields  of the child's  insulate the child otherwise family  of t h e environment.  from  Systems  By r e g u l a t i n g  experience,  they  experiences which might  challenge the current constructions of the  (Alexander  Early  & Neimeyer,  1989).  childhood experiences with c a r e g i v e r s not  o n l y p r o v i d e t h e b a s i s upon w h i c h r e l a t i o n a l rules  o f i n t e r a c t i o n a r e developed,  experiences  also  elaboration  of a self.  supplies  necessary Kelly  Essentially,  own b e h a v i o r  the family  dimensions f o r  i n relation  t o others.  generate  f o r the creation of cognitive c o n f l i c t s  f o r t h e development o f t h e s e l f c o n s t r u c t .  (1955) a s s e r t s t h a t when i n d i v i d u a l s b e g i n t o  draw c o m p a r i s o n s between t h e m s e l v e s formulate own  but these  interactions within the family  opportunities  s t y l e s and  contribute to the individual's  c h i l d r e n with the f i r s t  appraising their Social  and o t h e r s ,  t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n system which governs  they their  behavior: It  i s o f c o u r s e t h e c o m p a r i s o n he s e e s o r  c o n s t r u e s which a f f e c t s h i s behavior. much o f h i s s o c i a l  life  i s controlled  Thus, by t h e  c o m p a r i s o n s he h a s come t o s e e between himself It  68  and o t h e r s ,  c a n be a r g u e d  ( p . 131)  that the individual  embedded w i t h i n  Construct the of  f a m i l y c o n t e x t comes t o e x p e r i e n c e self  i n relation  self/other  t o other.  playing It  c a n be i n f e r r e d  the individual's  that constructs defining  early  p a t t e r n s may i n f l u e n c e t h e way i n w h i c h are construed.  that individuals  realities  Proctor  (1981)  "carry their family-negotiated  a r o u n d w i t h them a n d u s e them t o c o n s t r u e  individuals  a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e o p l e  they  come i n t o  that  "each dimension  contact"  (p. 357).  of shared  corresponds  t o a dimension  orientation  i n e a c h member"  in  that i s , the personal  out of a r o l e .  subsequent r e l a t i o n s  reason  view  This d e f i n i t i o n of  s y s t e m , and s e r v e s t o g u i d e  relational  upholds  a certain  69  becomes i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e i n t e r n a l  structures of the individual, construct  Systems  t h a t Salmon  Reiss  family  (1970) c o n t e n d s  (1971)  perceptual  I t i s for this t h a t the dimensions  terms o f which i n d i v i d u a l s d e f i n e t h e i r  toward others a r e not s e l e c t e d they  a r e " d e r i v e d from  with  other  individuals,  a t random.  r o l e s which  argues  experience  of individual (p.22).  w i t h whom  behavior He  [they have]  suggests played  t h e frame o f r e f e r e n c e w h i c h  [ t h e y h a v e ] e l a b o r a t e d i n common w i t h them, a n d t h e agreed with 216) .  network o f i m p l i c a t i o n s which  others  i n crucial  [they have]  shared  i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (p.  Construct The the  nature of the  family provides  interaction systems.  f o r a r i c h understanding of  between i n d i v i d u a l and  Having p r e v i o u s l y  members,  i t i s now  personal  p o s i t i o n s are  as  shared  emphasized  argued t h a t the coordinated  a whole i s a c r i t i c a l  r e l a t i o n s h i p development. coordination.  I t can  be  The  of others  organization. when he  Kelly  speaks of the  way  so  as  construct  the family  i n which  factor in key  are  the  with those of  the  is  manner i n  interlocked with  and  (1970) r e f e r s t o s u c h development of  coordination  role  construes another person's  p r o c e e d s t o b u i l d an  o f h i s own involves  upon t h a t  himself,  i n t e r e s t i n g way. constructions the  version  This  him,  he  experience  only  of the  offers. one  willy can  by  nilly,  i s t o be  an  test his himself  person's outlook i t  subtly places  cannot  in  he  activating in  other  outlook,  experiential cycle  construction,  He  the  t o enhance group  relationships: When one  the  comprehending  word h e r e  u n d e r s t o o d as  which i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n s perceptions  70  individual's relationship with  i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst  family  Systems  lightly  a demand upon reject i f his  completed.  He  must  own put  Construct himself  t e n t a t i v e l y i n the  shoes.  O n l y by  sense the  enacting  point  f r i e n d must h a v e . may  their  be  constructions  others'  but  o f one  e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e i r or extension, of the  (1981) h a s  on  own  overt  systems,  i s d e p e n d e n t upon  construction processes so  others"  s u c c i n c t l y put explanatory  (p. 6 ) .  The  expectancies his role.  Kelly  the  of  systems  others.  persons with  person  in  completion of  the  i n d i v i d u a l to  his role constructions  of the  whether  i t , "each  c y c l e n e c e s s a r i l y commits t h e  p o s i t i o n of having  construes  his  only  1989).  with  critical  another not  (Alexander & Neimeyer,  Reiss  the  26)  constructions  experience  by  his  i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members b a s e  must d e v e l o p h i s p e r s o n a l  the  thinks  the  definition  concert  result  t h e i r understanding of  incorporation As  a  he  a l s o on  Individuals' by  (p.  inferred that  behavior,  t h a t r o l e can  o f v i e w he  71  person's  i m p a c t o f what h a p p e n s as  of t a k i n g the  It  other  Systems  whom  (1955) a l l u d e s t o  validated he the  v a l i d a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n of r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n  d i s c u s s i o n of group e x p e c t a n c i e s  personal  constructs:  The  expectancies  which are  as v a l i d a t o r s o f  common t o  the  g r o u p a c t u a l l y o p e r a t e as t h e v a l i d a t o r s against  which the  i n d i v i d u a l tends to  verify  the p r e d i c t i v e constructs, Extending it  efficiency  o f h i s own  ( p . 176)  t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o the context of the family,  c a n be s e e n t h a t i n d i v i d u a l  f a m i l y members'  role  c o n s t r u c t i o n s d e r i v e v a l i d a t i o n a s t h e y meet w i t h t h e expectancies  o f o t h e r members.  f a m i l y members accuracy  secure v a l i d a t i o n  of their  behavior,  However, a s i n d i v i d u a l f o r t h e r e l e v a n c e and  own r o l e - r e l a t e d  constructions, their  i n turn, serves t o v a l i d a t e the expectancies  o f t h e o t h e r f a m i l y members.  Essentially,  positions maintain  i n a reciprocal fashion.  The  each o t h e r  interdependence  institutes maintains  of t h e i r personal  a process of consensual the shared  understandings interlocked  Consider  positions  validation  c o n s t r u c t system.  which  T h e common  t h a t accompany t h e s e c y c l e s o f  roles  predictability  t h e two  serve t o p r o v i d e c e r t a i n t y and  f o rindividual  f a m i l y members.  t h e example o f a h u s b a n d a n d w i f e i n  which t h e c y c l e o f behavior  characterizing  their  r e l a t i o n s h i p conforms t o t h e p a t t e r n o f overfunctioner/underfunctioner wife  i s found  The  d o i n g more t h a n h e r s h a r e o f  responsibilities  a r o u n d t h e home i n c o n t r a s t t o h e r  husband's l a c k o f involvement It  (see F i g u r e 4.1).  i n helping out.  c a n be s e e n t h a t t h e w i f e ' s o v e r f u n c t i o n i n g b e h a v i o r  Expectation validates wife's role construction  Holds r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n as " O v e r f u n c t i o n e r "  Role  Figure  enactment v a l i d a t e s husband's expectancy invoking h i s irresponsible behavior  4.1.  actually  The r e c i p r o c a l validation  invokes  and  nature  h e r husband's  I n s u c c e s s f u l l y managing own,  E x p e c t s w i f e c a n manage r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s on h e r own  of  consensual  irresponsible  the household  t h e w i f e meets w i t h h e r h u s b a n d ' s thereby,  Reciprocally, construction their  chores  behavior.  serves to v a l i d a t e her  a s an o v e r f u n c t i o n e r .  personal role  on h e r  expectancies,  validates h i s underfunctioning h i s response  behavior.  The  role  interlocking  c o n s t r u c t i o n s through  the  process  of  Construct of  consensual  validation  Systems  serves to maintain the  74  shared  c o n s t r u c t i o n governing t h i s pattern i n t h e i r relationship. The  Role In  and  of  Validation  c o n s i d e r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p  shared  c o n s t r u c t systems,  between p e r s o n a l  i t i s proposed  the p r i n c i p l e of consensual v a l i d a t i o n referent  p r o c e s s , which i n a f f i r m i n g  Personal Construct Systems  Figure  4.2.  here  serves a  the  that  self-  individual's  Shared C o n s t r u c t System  The r o l e o f c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between p e r s o n a l and s h a r e d c o n s t r u c t systems  Construct c o n s t r u c t i o n s of r e a l i t y , group  (see F i g u r e  already  4.2).  identified  coherent  the nature  of  i s a b l e t o engage and  validation,  consistency  individual  discussion individual  interaction  sense of s e l f .  consensual  the  Previous  t o guide the v a r i e t y of individual  binds  still  The  validation  consistency  taken  as  an  internal  from Warren's  Webber, 1982)  the a  that  internal  i s t h e mechanism by w h i c h  coherence i s maintained.  the  structure  retain  T h i s paper argues  to  75  has  i n which  i n a c t i n g as an  criterion,  Systems  notion of  such  consensual  criterion  is  (as q u o t e d by Mancuso & Adams-  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of K e l l y ' s  (1955)  theory: He  [ K e l l y ] makes t h e  business  of c o n s t r u c t s a l s o a matter construing...[the] assessment of the anticipations the  present  construct  validation  of  criterion outcome o f  i s the  of  internal  for a  person's  his consistency  c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h i n the  person's  s y s t e m . . . . t r u t h becomes a m a t t e r  coherence w i t h i n a system r a t h e r than correspondence with Kelly  (1955) has  reality,  suggested that  development of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with their  need t o s e c u r e  (p.  validation  of  of  of  31) individuals'  others  f o r the  r e s t s upon efficiency  of  Construct their  personal  constructions.  Given  that  are d i r e c t e d toward e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e i r systems, both  such  defining  formation,  their  coming t o see valid  by  be  construct  extension  of the  context  construct  of toward  s y s t e m w o u l d be most c o n c e r n e d i f a particular  of t h e i r  s y s t e m w o u l d be  c o n s t r u c t s they  as  individuals  i n d i s c o v e r i n g what o t h e r p e o p l e  subsumed i n t h e  with  construct i s regarded  Correspondingly,  toward e x t e n s i o n  interested  individuals  individuals directed  other people.  directed  could  as w e l l as  This i m p l i e s t h a t i n the  relationship  76  v a l i d a t i o n must n e c e s s a r i l y encompass  definition  system.  Systems  most  knew t h a t  presently  employ. The  present  relationship  d i s c u s s i o n draws upon D u c k ' s v i e w  formation  i n dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  (1982) n o t i o n s a s t o t h e  course  of development  i n d i v i d u a l s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p s with another the  interaction  between p e r s o n a l and  systems.  I t i s Duck's b e l i e f  formation  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p e o p l e  out  where t h e i r  areas  thereby the  offering  relationship  which t h e i r another,  that  and  Duck's of  extended  encouraging  to  construct  relationship initially  then  seeking  overlap,  proceeding,  i f  h o l d s p r o m i s e , t o e x p l o r e ways i n  c o n s t r u c t s y s t e m s may  thereby  shared  c o n s t r u c t systems  definition,  are  of  stimulate  extension.  The  one same i s  h e r e i n p r o p o s e d t o be between p e r s o n a l Figure  4.3).  and  t r u e of r e l a t i o n s h i p development shared construct  Essentially,  t h i s paper argues  consensual v a l i d a t i o n , i n supporting functioning moderate the with the  the  of the  personal  personal  and  the  construct  i n d i v i d u a l ' s formation  shared construct  systems  system.  shared construct  system,  Commonality  constructions.  for  of  Consensual v a l i d a t i o n i s  through i n d i v i d u a l s sharing  common  (Duck, 1 9 7 9 ) ,  constructs  applying  Elaboration of shared construct system  Figure  4.3.  to  between  systems p r o v i d e s  individuals'  i n t e r p r e t i n g experience  serves  of a r e l a t i o n s h i p  evidence of the meaningfulness  for  that  coherent  'subjective'  achieved  (see  The e f f e c t o f c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n u p o n r e l a t i o n s between p e r s o n a l and s h a r e d c o n s t r u c t systems  Construct those constructs 1981), and  i n a s i m i l a r way  structuring  (Neimeyer & Neimeyer, structures,  to  paper f u r t h e r  (Neimeyer & Neimeyer,  198 3 ) .  In  the  reinforcing  present system  i t s functionality  suggests that  current  the  and  i s provided.  This  psychological  security  e x p e r i e n c e d through such consensual v a l i d a t i o n enables  individuals  viability  of  new,  to  c o n s i d e r more e a s i l y  alternative  confronted with unfamiliar relations support  with the  In  Neimeyer  events,  support of  believe  t h e m s e l v e s and Similarly, will,  Duck  o v e r and  their desired (1979) has  provide  construct Neimeyer  way  they  direction  noted that  of  view change.  "individuals  search f o r s i m i l a r i t y ,  f o r ways i n w h i c h t h e i r p a r t n e r c a n  develop or  e l a b o r a t e t h e i r s y s t e m f o r them"  that  breakdown i n t h e  relationship  p e r s o n a l and  shared construct  s y s t e m s may  individuals'  emerging c o n s t r u c t i o n s of  with the  develop  they  searching  follows  and  individuals  w i t h o t h e r s who  understand the  above the  system  such t h i n k i n g ,  (1985) h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t  accurately  When  individuals'  their personal  more s a t i s f y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s  then  the  constructions.  shared construct  f o r extension of  systems.  78  t h e i r systems s i m i l a r l y  d e f i n i t i o n of  a s s u r a n c e as  Systems  relational validation  vital  to  be  help  (p.  6).  It  between o c c u r when  self  do  their  not  meet  Construct development herein  (Neimeyer & N e i m e y e r ,  argued that  provided  by  extend t h e i r  i n the  coming t o  the  the or  family,  l e a r n the the  involves  practices that  work s e t t i n g .  work o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  the  carry  I t can  be  like that  of  positions hold  a  i n f l u e n c e upon i n d i v i d u a l members'  confirmation  By  and  constructions  serving  involves  the  statements,  "a c r i t i c a l  construction...of  the  Essentially,  a repeated  source  compliance,  part  management  belief  o f p a r t i c i p a n t s " (p.  of t r a d i t i o n s serves  and  positive  1). mission  p r a c t i s e of  to coordinate  a n t i c i p a t i o n s with those of the  activity  systems which  commitment, and  of r i t u a l s ,  group.  the  Pfeffer  management's d e v e l o p m e n t o f design  of  managers s h a p e  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members.  assure continued on  as  disconfirmation,  (1981) m a i n t a i n s t h a t  variety  i n the  those i n supervisory  anticipations.  affect  able  Organization  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  meaning w i t h i n  family,  course with  Work  with s o c i a l i z a t i o n  seen t h a t w i t h i n  strong  support  system.  I n t e r a c t i o n With the  socialization  the  i t is  system, c h o o s i n g whether t o d e f i n e  construct  As  specific  i n correspondence with the  a successful relational  shared construct  individual  Thus,  79  consensual v a l i d a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s are  to negotiate  Individual  1985).  Systems  a  individual  Construct H a v i n g drawn f r o m t h e family, that  f r i e n d s , and  others,  e n a b l e m e a n i n g t o be  events,  this  system can  as  relative  individuals  of c o n s t r u c t s i n the  to  amongst o t h e r  world  influence  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  Schein  to a n t i c i p a t e  events  (1965) i d e n t i f i e s to  testing  as w e l l , a means o f  describes  or confirming this  "psychological negotiation and  contract",  renegotiation  work o r g a n i z a t i o n I t can  i n d i v i d u a l s are  subsume t h e  likely  to  clarify  be  able  system w i t h t h a t to  that  i s , a process i n which the their  He  workgroup, o r of the  individual  extent  form a r e l a t i o n s h i p with the  to  of which  construct  i n other  OCS,  a  of  expectations  to reconcile t h e i r  constructions  developing,  i n terms of  argued t h a t the  of the  and  identity.  s o c i a l i z a t i o n process  and  each other.  a sense of  that,  the  a means o f e s t a b l i s h i n g  enhancing,  as  system  workgroup t o p r o v i d e and  the  with a  f a c t o r s , i n d i v i d u a l s look  reality,  of  i t . Essentially,  upon w h i c h t h e y r e l y  work s e t t i n g .  constructions  o f t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n  reactions  come t o t h e  a system of  found t o  80  interactions with  a t t r i b u t e d to the  be  individual's perceptions well  h i s t o r y of  Systems  they  words, are  work  organization. D r a w i n g upon t h e presented,  the  propositions  c e n t r a l tenet  previously  of t h i s  thesis i s that  the  Construct individual's  formation of a r e l a t i o n s h i p  organization  i s a function  for  personal  work s e t t i n g ,  its  implied reality  As i n d i v i d u a l s  validation  and  formation.  corresponds with the  o f mutual e x p e c t a t i o n s , which interpretations  that  guide  o f what a n o t h e r w i l l  when i n d i v i d u a l s  what a n o t h e r w i l l  playing  actions  t h e work s e t t i n g .  the individual's will  their  way, their  i t i s proposed  w i t h t h e work  of progressively  aspects of the individual's  individuals  own  negotiate  Thus,  relationship  It  continue t o develop as l o n g as  consensual v a l i d a t i o n  experienced.  In t h i s  are able to successfully  within  organization  roles.  Disruption  construct  i s believed  more  central  system i s t o o c c u r when  e x p e r i e n c e some m a j o r d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n  valued p a r t s o f themselves o r a r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n which they d e r i v e  do  predict  T h i s s e r v e s t o enhance  out of preferred  individuals  can a c c u r a t e l y  do, t h e y c a n a d j u s t t h e i r  behavior accordingly.  view  The  what t h i s o t h e r p e r s o n e x p e c t s them t o d o .  follows  that  that  f o r the accuracy of t h e i r  encourages r e l a t i o n s h i p  individuals'  find  t h i s e x p e r i e n c e o f commonality and  e x p e r i e n c e o f commonality f u r t h e r discovery  providing  c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e s h a r e d by o t h e r s i n  the  of  81  w i t h t h e work  o f such r e l a t i o n s  consensual v a l i d a t i o n .  their  Systems  self-esteem.  of from  Van Maanen a n d Kunda  Construct (1989) c o n t e n d t h a t all, it  comes t o d e c i d i n g and  Kunda go out  on  of the  what r u l e s a r e  out"  perhaps e a s i e r to  rites, not  and,  symbols,  natural" This  that their  they are  faced  as  structure to avoid  its  with unfamiliar o f two  e v e n t s by  things  can  choose t o extend t h e i r  s y s t e m by  developing  Such r e o r g a n i z a t i o n  anxiety,  n e e d s t o be  words o f K e l l y  subsumed by  they  may  construct  availibility  w h i c h s p a n b o t h o l d and In the  of  alternative  of t h e i r  i s d e p e n d e n t upon t h e  behavior patterns.  virtue  well-defined of  permeable c o n s t r u c t s  find  happen.  confusion  (1955),  "any  some o v e r r i d i n g  w h i c h i s p e r m e a b l e enough t o a d m i t t h e  construct  i t s context"  (p. 8 2 ) .  of  new  construction to  if  are  w o r k p l a c e and  the  transition  the  appropriate,  individuals  i n d i v i d u a l s h a v e enough  s y s t e m , however,  and  57).  experiences i n the  constructions.  in  finding  coming t o r e g a r d  c o d e s o f c o n d u c t as  i n v o l v e m e n t , one  Providing  end,  and  "self-select  i d e n t i f y more c l o s e l y w i t h  paper suggests that  e x p o s e d t o new  not  Maanen  with those remaining  i n the  and  (p.  Van  t h a t members may  organization,  organization,  (p. 5 8 ) .  when  action,  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ones w i l l  o r win  t o say  to govern  82  after  s o u r c e s o f a t t a c h m e n t and,  feeling,  always s u f f i c e  it  " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members do,  have c o n f l i c t i n g  thought,  Systems  With r e s p e c t  to  new  Construct this  limitation,  Hayden  (1982) r e p o r t s  w i l l i n g n e s s t o make c h a n g e s i n t h e i r to  encompass a more d e s i r e d v i e w o f  of the  number o f  If  the  Systems  that  people's  construct self  i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h a t  is a  systems function  view:  i d e a l view possessed g r e a t e r  meaning  o r more i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a n d i d t h e  present  view of  willing  shift  self,  t o the  then the  subject  d e s i r e d view of  the  d e s i r e d v i e w o f s e l f was  and  thus could  often, like but by  embrace t h e  in fact,  the  to perceive the  was  self.  to  That i s ,  more p e r m e a b l e change...Very  p e r s o n knows how  his actions  r e l a t i v e paucity  83  and  he  would  thoughts,  of meaning  possessed  t h a t vantage p o i n t prevents a v a r i a t i o n i n  his  interpretation.  d e s i r e d view i s not within the  the  sufficiently  possessing  less permeability p r o c e s s and  desired,  l e s s meaningful,  but  with  must l i m i t  cannot s h i f t view of  his  to  the  self,  195)  Hayden g o e s on nature of  the  permeable  constructs  construction  (p.  words,  e x i s t i n g system...Consequently,  subject  relatively  In o t h e r  t o say  that  in this  sense,  the  i n d i v i d u a l s ' s y s t e m s makes them s o m e t h i n g  a v i c t i m of t h e i r p r e v i o u s l y  created  order  and  of  meaning.  Construct The  research  reality  on  the  adult's  him  with  a way  meaning t o r e a l i t y variation  can  be  h i s past For  such reason,  (p.  integrity  of  i n d i v i d u a l s ' slowly  reality.  This  had  the  the  can  jeopardize  of the  ability  a t one  to freely attached  by  of  e v e n e n a b l e them t o t i m e i n d i v i d u a l s may  choose, success  t o a c e r t a i n way  of  Boxer  i n d i v i d u a l s come t o d e v e l o p ways  Thus, w h i l e  the  of  process  i m p o s i n g r e s t r a i n t upon c h o i c e .  t o become v e r y  to  i s s i m i l a r to that proposed  t h a t work f o r them and  centred.  context  b u i l t - u p view  (1982) i n h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  acting  past  to s u c c e s s f u l l y  u n f a m i l i a r experience  suggests that  any  195)  an  attachment  and  construction  w i t h i n the  negotiate  Boxer  of  i s a f f e c t e d by  change r e q u i r e d  idea  order  forms t h a t gave meaning  experiences,  84  that  changed...Yet  Change i n t h e  of a f u t u r e event occurs superimposed  system  to give  in construction  interpretations.  of  construction  demonstrates that the  provided  Systems  has  feel have  l e d them  of a c t i n g ,  p o i n t where t h e y h a v e c h o s e n t o become  to  effectively  fixed. Salmon  (1970) a d d r e s s e s t h i s  identification constructions  of  notion  in his  individuals' persistence  built  from the  organizing  in  using  constructs  in  Construct early  s t a g e s of development.  individuals' their  that  r e l i a n c e upon s u c h c o n s t r u c t s may  f o r g e d out of h i s experience,  long journey through adolescence, to  this  met  inhibit  and w h i c h seems  interpersonal  s o f a r , he may  then  Kelly's  situations  settle  and  may  terms,  as a r e s u l t  cease,  t o "experiment  with h i s  backing of others, with the  terms,  may  endorse  until,  as a r e s u l t  is likely  sense,  (p.  crisis,  through  a l o t of  c a n make a n y t h i n g more o f 220) s e l f and  t o o t h e r , as d e v e l o p e d  process of maturation, particularly  o f some p e r s o n a l  constructs defining  in relation  fixed  l a c k o f growth,  t o "have t o go  c h a o s b e f o r e he himself."  this  life".  consensual  of maturity i n r e l a t i v e l y  this  for  in  definition  he  i n the  a s t h e b e s t model he c a n hope t o  achieve,  The  childhood  a c o n s t r u i n g system  c o v e r most o f t h e  he h a s  self  argues  85  n e g o t i a t i o n o f p e r s o n a l change: Having  In  He  Systems  other,  through  c a n become r e s t r i c t i v e .  and  the This i s  t r u e o f e v e n t s t h a t happen i n c h i l d h o o d  w h i c h a r e l a d e n w i t h an  intense arousal reaction.  These events, which are construed w i t h constructions,  can  subsequently  child  interfere  with  the  Construct i n d i v i d u a l ' s development of i n keeping w i t h the  adult  constructions  system  Systems that  (Morrison  86  are  more  & Cometa,  1982) . D r a w i n g upon t h e s e i d e a s , when i n d i v i d u a l s a r e but to  lack the the  threat  e x p o s e d t o an  structure  coherence of t h e i r  their  personal  constructions  their  r e l a t i o n s h i p with the example, c o n s i d e r  r e l i e s upon t h e organizational g u i d e d by  members.  system.  can  f o r the  \  and  of  relevancy  S u c h an  innovative  of  vs.  behavior  organization  may  the  Non-successful  Administrative decision-making  C o l l a b o r a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l contributions  Laddering of organization  lack  lead to disruption  i 4.4.  The  of  a company whose p r o d u c t i v i t y  Commitment t o cooperative problem-solving  Figure  event,  experience  system t h a t upholds  Successful  I  that  work e n v i r o n m e n t .  progressive  a construct  unfamiliar  become a n x i o u s and  consensual v a l i d a t i o n experienced  For  argued  t o a d e q u a t e l y a t t r i b u t e meaning  e v e n t , t h e y may to the  i t i s herein  constructs  yi  \  Conformity  i n a work  be  of  Construct superordinate construct "successful",  Systems  as emerging  87 from  t h e s u b o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t s "commitment t o c o o p e r a t i v e problem-solving" contributions"  and  "richness of  (see F i g u r e  individual  4.4).  F o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members whose p e r s o n a l construct  systems are c o n s t r u c t e d i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n ,  their participation validation world.  company w i l l  f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r way  Not  only w i l l  enable t h e i r of  in this  activity  e x p e c t a t i o n , but  constructions w i l l  provide  of being  the experience  of  similarity  t o be  by  common  directed  t h e i r corresponding secure v a l i d a t i o n  processes  l i n k the  channels  role  i n meeting  t h e demands f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s u c c e s s . self-referent  i n the  with  In t h i s  individual  to  way,  the  organization. It  c a n be  argued t h a t the experience w i l l  be  very  different  f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members whose p e r s o n a l  construct  systems d i v e r g e from t h a t u p h e l d  organization. holds the  Consider  by  the  work  t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l member  superordinate construct "successful"  who  as  corresponding with the subordinate c o n s t r u c t s "deferment t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e decision-making" "conformity"  (see F i g u r e 4.5).  superordinate construct holds for  a wide a r r a y o f the  and  To t h e e x t e n t t h a t significant  this  implications  individual's experience,  and  in  Personal Construct System Successful  Organizational System Successful  vs.  i \  i \  Deferment t o Administrative Decision-making  i  \f  Commitment t o Cooperative Problem-solving  I i \  \  Conformity  Figure  4.5.  so d o i n g ,  Richness of i n d i v i d u a l contributions  C o m p a r i s i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l and work o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n s t r u c t systems  serves  as a c o r e  construct  individual's  identity,  be  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n with  the  limited.  Construct  defining the  adjustment t o t h e workgroup the perspectives  work o r g a n i z a t i o n w o u l d i n v o l v e d e v e l o p i n g  m e a n i n g o f what i t meant t o be s u c c e s s f u l . played  more b r o a d the  present  As r o l e s  example,  experience.  constructions  t o correspond with  that  the growing a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g may a f f e c t  of decision-making  Given  f o r the i n d i v i d u a l t o adjust h i s  o f t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n , cooperative  called  t h r e a t may be p o s e d t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of l i f e  or h e r personal  of  a new  i n r e l a t i o n t o f a m i l y and f r i e n d s may be  into question,  may  i n the family.  the  Within  experience  the family  Construct context,  Systems  t h e s e new v i e w s may emerge a s a s o u r c e o f  conflict, required  given the implications on t h e p a r t  interaction  o f new b e h a v i o r  of other family  together.  Salmon  many s o c i a l g r o u p s t h e r e  expected t o play.  individuals  (1970) c o n t e n d s t h a t i n  i s an i n c l i n a t i o n t o w a r d  A t t e m p t s on t h e p a r t  t o break f r e e  from t h e i r r o l e  may be met w i t h a c c u s a t i o n s o f a c t i n g As  t h o s e who r e l a t e  new o r i e n t a t i o n s resistance the  experienced. prevent  individuals of these  prescriptions  inconsistently.  t o them must n e c e s s a r i l y  towards these i n d i v i d u a l s ,  develop strong  t o t h e c h a n g e may be a r o u s e d a s t h r e a t  stability  o f t h e i r own c o n s t r u c t This resistance,  individuals  from  now  members i n t h e i r  p i n n i n g down t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r o l e s w h i c h are  89  to  systems i s  i fmaintained, can  living  o u t t h e i r new  role  constructions. Summary It this  c a n be s e e n t h a t  t h e arguments d e v e l o p e d i n  chapter serve t o provide a t h e o r e t i c a l  f o r viewing the individual's relationship the  development o f a  w i t h t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  individual's  relationship  framework  Drawing  with the family,  upon  i tisa  p r o c e s s o f consensual v a l i d a t i o n which i s found t o p l a y a  critical  role  i n the coherent  being maintained.  functioning  o f t h e PCS  I t i s t h i s p r i n c i p l e w h i c h s h e d s new  Construct m e a n i n g upon t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s workplace. to  Essentially,  Systems  90  i n t e r a c t i o n with the  consensual  serve a s e l f - r e f e r e n t process,  validation  binding the  i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  i s seen  Construct C h a p t e r V:  Implications  For  Organizational  I n d r a w i n g upon t h e p r i n c i p l e s p u t previous viewing  chapters. the  Systems  Commitment  forward  in  of a  committed  r e l a t i o n s h i p with  t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  the  a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g s y s t e m , whose  linkages with support serves  the  f o r the to  work o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e  integral  The  f u n c t i o n i n g of t h i s  individual's  whether o r not  system,  construct  information  as  i s most l i k e l y  t o the to  s y s t e m meets w i t h  commitment  yield  important  of  (Mathieu & Zajac, influences could  chacteristics,  a f o u r t h category, has  been made t o  consequences  categories: personal  characteristics,  consensual  Commitment L i t e r a t u r e  a n t e c e d e n t s and  (1977) f o u n d t h a t  role-related  the  develop.  Numerous e f f o r t s h a v e a l r e a d y  organizational  other  t y p e o f commitment t h e i n d i v i d u a l  Review o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  determine the  In  e l a b o r a t i o n of  v a l i d a t i o n w i t h i n the workplace can  recently,  to  f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  words, d e t e r m i n i n g  into three  of  the  d e v e l o p m e n t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment.  Steers  view  subject  s u g g e s t c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n as  underlying  the  C h a p t e r 5 p r o p o s e s a framework f o r  i n d i v i d u a l ' s formation  i n d i v i d u a l as  91  and  1990).  be  grouped  characteristics, work e x p e r i e n c e .  job  More  namely, s t r u c t u r a l  been s u g g e s t e d  (Morris  &  or  Steers,  Construct 198 0 ) •  Outcomes o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  related  t o j o b performance,  tardiness,  and  turnover  Systems  92  commitment h a v e b e e n  tenure,  absenteeism,  (Mowday, P o r t e r , & S t e e r s ,  1982). In  t h e f a c e of economic r e s t r a i n t  increasingly  and  an  c o m p e t i t i v e m a r k e t , work o r g a n i z a t i o n s  h a v e become h a r d p r e s s e d t o f i n d ways o f m a i n t a i n i n g their  high standards  Chatman, 1 9 8 6 ) . their kind  While  t h e y v a l u e commitment  o f commitment t h a t  i s encouraging  become a p a r t i c u l a r  & amongst  to foster  of  extra-role  concern.  Mowday e t  the  (1982) i d e n t i f y w i t h t h i s d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e work  o r g a n i z a t i o n upon s u c h There need  behavior:  a r e many i n s t a n c e s where o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n d i v i d u a l members, e s p e c i a l l y  critical  positions,  beyond t h e c a l l  to perform  of duty  t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , (p. It  (O'Reilly  i n d i v i d u a l members, d e t e r m i n i n g how  b e h a v i o r has al.  of performance  is for this  above  and  f o r the b e n e f i t  theoretical  and  commitment h a s  empirical  attention. suggested  f o r m s o f commitment a p p e a r t o be  separable:  attitudinal  commitment  amongst  come t o r e c e i v e  a n a l y s i s o f p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s has  commitment and  of  15)  reason that d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  types of organizational both  those i n  A metathat  two  calculative  (Mathieu  & Zajac,  1990). C a l c u l a t i v e commitment instrumental  i n v o l v e m e n t on  investments over time O'Reilly  and  Chatman  i s s e e n as the  basis  (Hrebiniak  (1986) v i e w t h i s  compliance-based.  work b e h a v i o r  i s d e p e n d e n t upon t h e  extrinsic  however,  i s not  for  rewards.  By  side-bets  of  t h e y mean  attainment  Such m a t e r i a l  that  of  exchange,  adequate  I t appears t h a t  or  1972).  type  this  v i e w e d as p r o v i d i n g  extrarole behavior.  of  & Alutto,  commitment a s  specific  r e f e r r i n g to  motivation  s o m e t h i n g more  t h a n c a l c u l a t i v e commitment i s r e q u i r e d  for individuals  to perform  beyond the  innovative  behaviors that  go  role  prescription. Attitudinal to  commitment, on  involvement that  acceptance of the  a w i l l i n g n e s s to exert the  organization,  membership that  in i t .  a p p e a r s t o be  and  organization's  considerable (c) a s t r o n g  b a s e d upon t h i s  to  act  effort  p r e d i c t i v e of e x t r a - r o l e work  by  on  b e n e f i t of  a (b)  behalf maintain  commitment behavior.  organization  t y p e o f commitment a r e more f o r the  (a)  values,  desire to  I t i s t h i s dimension of  instinctively  refers  Mowday e t a l .  characterized  I n d i v i d u a l s whose a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e is  hand,  individual's  organization.  (1982) v i e w s u c h commitment as and  other  i s b a s e d upon t h e  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the  belief  the  the  likely  of  organization  (O'Reilly  & Chatman, 1 9 8 6 ) .  A Consensual V a l i d a t i o n Commitment The  present paper proposes that  identification is  Model o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  associated  w i t h a t t i t u d i n a l commitment  representative of individuals  consensual v a l i d a t i o n constructions thinking  of their  experiencing  role-related  i n t h e work s e t t i n g .  i s derived  the process of  Support f o r such  from t h e w r i t i n g s  of Kanter  (1972).  K a n t e r views i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h an o r g a n i z a t i o n  t o be  a  "sees  it  function  o f t h e degree t o which t h e i n d i v i d u a l  as expressing or f u l f i l l i n g  some f u n d a m e n t a l p a r t  h i m s e l f . . . a s supporting h i s concept o f s e l f " Individuals self.  (p.66).  t r y t o maintain t h e i r constructions of  I f one h a s b e e n e n c o u r a g e d i n e a r l y  relational  p a t t e r n s t o c o n s t r u e s e l f as " c o m p e t i t i v e " , in  of  involvement  a work e n v i r o n m e n t w h i c h e n a b l e s e n a c t m e n t o f t h i s  self-defining  role will  appear a t t r a c t i v e .  individual's  growing r e l a t i o n s h i p  organization  will  feedback achieved hand,  w i t h t h i s work  be e n h a n c e d by t h e v a l i d a t i o n a l f o r the s e l f construct.  f a i l u r e t o achieve v a l i d a t i o n  defining  The  On t h e o t h e r  for this  self-  r o l e may d i s p u t e t h e c o h e r e n c e o f t h e  individual's intrapersonal  identity  (Kelly,  conflict.  1955), t h e r e b y  creating  C o n s t r u c t Systems In a d d r e s s i n g other f a c t o r s organizational internal is  influencing  commitment, S c h e i n  integration,  particularly  95  (1985) s u g g e s t s  as generated  by v a l u e  that  similarity,  significant:  I n d i v i d u a l s who h o l d t h e same v a l u e s a r e thought  t o share  processing. to  foster  and  certain  aspects of c o g n i t i v e  These s i m i l a r i t i e s  a r e presumed  c o m p a r a b l e methods o f c l a s s i f y i n g  interpreting  environmental  events,  common s y s t e m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . qualities  and a  Such  are e s s e n t i a l t o the success of  interpersonal  activities...thereby  e n h a n c i n g . . . o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, ( p . 424) The  p r e s e n t paper suggests  that these  c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g c a n be u n d e r s t o o d  shared  aspects of  i n terms o f t h e  c o m m o n a l i t y between one p e r s o n ' s  c o n s t r u c t system and  that  v a l i d a t i o n p r o v i d e d by  o f another.  construct  The c o n s e n s u a l  similarity,  functional  s i m i l a r i t y , and  similarity  gives r i s e  t o common c h a n n e l s o f  structural  expectation,  enabling behavior  t o be e f f e c t i v e l y  coordinated. Correspondingly,  Meglino,  (1989) a t t r i b u t e r o l e c l a r i t y individuals  R a v l i n , and A d k i n s to the a b i l i t y of  to accurately predict  each o t h e r ' s  behavior  Construct on  the  b a s i s of  shared values.  (1983) h a v e f o u n d t h a t role  ambiguity  and  work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . strain  levels  have been found t o c o r r e s p o n d w i t h  Once a g a i n ,  own  experience  Similarly, greater  ability  construct  organization. system serves  of  Since  (Mathieu & Zajac,  organization  the  amounts 1990).  of the  system  i n that the  i s disrupted. f i t the  they e x i s t w i t h i n the  constructs  accommodate t o t h i s  i n order  event.  w i t h i n the  to  the  coherent When a of  construct  current  individual to adequately  construct  s y s t e m may Kelly  restrict  (1955)  i n d i v i d u a l s whose c o n s t r u c t s  are  u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n s t r u c t u r e , due  d e p e n d e n c e upon a s i n g l e p a t t e r n will  tend  becomes  However, s t r u c t u r a l  necessary r e v i s i o n of c o n s t r u c t s .  relationships,  their  construct  pattern  i t i s necessary f o r the  contends that  in  i n t r o d u c t i o n of ambiguity  event does not  r e l a t i o n s h i p s as  relatively  role  t o m i n i m i z e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s and  f u n c t i o n i n g of the  liabilities  lower  those of others  a source of c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n  d e v e l o p new  their  of  individuals to reconcile  systems w i t h  inconsistencies,  structure,  less  t h i s paper i n t e r p r e t s these v a r i a b l e s i n  of the  particular  96  Gitelson  a r e more c o m m i t t e d t o  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment  light  F i s h e r and  i n d i v i d u a l s who  conflict  Systems  of  to r e s i s t  to  construct change i n t h e  face  a  Construct of  ambiguity  anxiety.  i n order t o avoid further  Systems  97  c o n f u s i o n and  I n n o t b e i n g a b l e t o make s e n s e  o f those  e v e n t s w h i c h do n o t f i t t h e c u r r e n t p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e i r find  themselves  unable  constructs,  to adjust their  individuals thinking tothe  demands o f a c h a n g i n g work e n v i r o n m e n t . the c o n s t r u c t system  The f a i l u r e o f  a t t h i s point t o adequately  embrace e v e n t s a s t h e y t a k e p l a c e w i t h i n t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n may be e x p e r i e n c e d a s p e r s o n a l l y threatening. One  c o n t r o l s h i s system  clear  identification  by m a i n t a i n i n g a  o f t h e elements  which  the system  e x c l u d e s as w e l l  as t h o s e which i t  includes.  The moment one f i n d s h i m s e l f  becoming i n v o l v e d  i n any way w i t h t h e  e x c l u d e d elements  o f h i s system,  he becomes  aware o f t h e o n s e t o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y a n d s e e s t h e s e new c l u t c h i n g threats. It  i s argued  likely which in  (Kelly,  a s s o c i a t i o n s as  1955, p . 167)  here that  i n such a case,  to leave the organization i s more f i t t i n g ,  calculative  decision  individuals are  i n favour of another  or t o reframe  their  involvement  terms as opposed t o a t t i t u d i n a l .  on t h e p a r t  support the ongoing  of the individual meaningfulness  serves t o  o f t h e PCS.  Such a  Construct Specifically,  i t i s an  validation  to the  threat  as  as to  experience of  efficiency  i n d i v i d u a l membership i n t h e Concluding This  Summary and p a p e r has  influencing  Kelly  (1955) has  The  i n the  of  organization. Thesis a  framework  between i n d i v i d u a l s and  as  construct  the  theory  of  a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s e upon i n t e r a c t i o n between  s y s t e m s have b e e n  C o n c e p t s drawn f r o m t h e involvement  work  personal  served  shared construct  one  i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics  which p r i n c i p l e s governing and  not  encourages  Statement of  transactions  work e n v i r o n m e n t .  PCS,  attempted t o p r o v i d e  f o r understanding the  98  consensual  of the  i t s inadequacy, which  Systems  personal  established.  nature of i n d i v i d u a l  f a m i l y have c o n t r i b u t e d  to  the  d e v e l o p m e n t o f a framework f o r v i e w i n g i n d i v i d u a l involvement  i n the  accompanying the of  the  these family  work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  extension  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  of  work o r g a n i z a t i o n  similarities  in their  basis  literature  of  the  family p r i n c i p l e s to  can  be  f u n c t i o n i n g as reviewed,  found t o a group.  group.  On  nature of the  individual to  the of  the  f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g i n d i v i d u a l membership Given the  the  share  i t i s a process as  that  Within  i t i s suggested t h a t  c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n which i s i d e n t i f i e d critical  limitations  h a v e been a d d r e s s e d .  l i m i t a t i o n s , however, and  The  in a  function  Construct as a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g consensual coherent guide  system,  i t i s t h i s process  v a l i d a t i o n which i s seen  functioning  to support  of the i n d i v i d u a l  system  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the environment.  consensual  validation  individual's central  i s viewed  individual  structure  of  consensual  validation.  of  individuals  commitment w i t h i n validation  individual  structure  still  of  construct seen of  I t i s the t h e s i s  will  develop  that  f o r d e f i n i t i o n and  threat  of  this  to the extent  that  f o r t h e PCS.  a r e a b l e t o engage  A lack  conflict t o t h e PCS  the  As  as a  with the  extension of  function  OCS  their  of consensual v a l i d a t i o n  and  individual's subsequent  and  i n c l i n a t i o n of  i s viewed  t o which i n t e r a c t i o n  intrapersonal  process  an a t t i t u d i n a l t y p e  of coherence,  t o become c o m m i t t e d  systems.  basis  s p e c i f i e s t h e domain o f  as c o r r e s p o n d i n g w i t h t h e  minimize  more  i n the  the s e l f - r e f e r e n t  i n which i n d i v i d u a l s  the degree  provides  and  i s experienced  m a i n t a i n a sense  individuals  to  the  h e r e i n advances  the workplace  consensual  interaction  and  commitment c a n be e x p l a i n e d on t h e  of  that  the  PCS.  p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r s , t h i s paper  paper  of  at progressively  D r a w i n g upon t h e a r g u m e n t s d e v e l o p e d  organizational  99  Essentially,  as s u s t a i n i n g  d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f  aspects of the  Systems  experience  need  by d i s c o n t i n u i n g  is  to  the  Construct relationship relevant  or redefining  way.  individuals particular  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  On t h i s b a s i s ,  i t i s argued  self  construct w i l l  likely  that  the  t o be d i r e c t e d  change i n d e s i r e d  The  self-  Further,  i t is  be e n h a n c e d t o  supports  directions.  In t h i s  way,  s e l f - r e f e r e n t process of consensual v a l i d a t i o n i s  t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n .  factor  linking the individual  S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s the  experience of consensual v a l i d a t i o n which the  environment  toward  t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n  forwarded as t h e c r i t i c a l to  experience a  involvement over time w i l l  extent that  individual  that  t o w a r d a work  maintenance serves t o support t h i s .  the  less  i s m a i n t a i n e d v e r s u s where i t i s n o t .  nature of i n d i v i d u a l s  believed  in a  100  enculturated t o the workings o f a  g r e a t e r sense o f a f f i l i a t i o n where t h i s  Systems  individual's  relationship  encourages  development o f a committed  t o t h e work  organization.  REFERENCES Adams-Webber, J . R. potential  (1970).  A c t u a l s t r u c t u r e and  chaos: R e l a t i o n a l aspects  v a r i a t i o n s within a personal D. B a n n i s t e r construct  (pp. 3 1 - 4 6 ) .  Adams-Webber, J . R. social  (pp.  (1979).  contexts.  (Eds.),  195-219).  Adams-Webber, J . R.  of s o c i a l i t y  (1981).  Holland,  & S. R o s e n b e r g  Agnew, N. M., reality. Alexander,  and i n d i v i d u a l i t y  I n H. B o n a r i u s ,  (Eds.), Personal  Recent advances i n t h e o r y London:  R.  construct  and p r a c t i c e  Macmillan.  & Brown, J . L.  (1989).  Canadian Psychology. P., & N e i m e y e r , G. J .  Construct  Constructing  30(2),  152-167.  (1989),  C o n s t r u c t i v i s m and f a m i l y t h e r a p y . Journal of Personal  Bannister  E m p i r i c a l developments i n  construct theory.  49-67).  persons i n  Academic.  personal  (pp.  New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c .  Construing  New Y o r k :  In  i n personal  I n P. S t r i n g e r & D.  Constructs  psychology:  c o n s t r u c t system.  (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s  theory  of progresive  International  Psychology.  2(2) , 111-  121. Bannister,  D., & Agnew, J .  construing (Eds.), 125).  of self.  (1977).  I n J . K. C o l e  The c h i l d ' s & A. W. L a n d f i e l d  N e b r a s k a symposium on m o t i v a t i o n L i n c o l n , NE.: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  (pp. 99-  Construct B o x e r , P.  (1982).  corollary. (Eds.), York:  The f l o w  of choice:  The c o n s t r u i n g  The c h o i c e  person  (pp. 1 1 3 - 1 2 9 ) .  (1978).  B u r e a u c r a c y a s p r a x i s : Toward a  phenomenology o f f o r m a l  Administrative  Science  personal  experienced (Eds.),  constructs managers.  23., 365-382.  (1987).  A comparison o f  o f management i n new a n d I n F. F r a n s e l l a & L . Thomas  Experimenting with  psychology  organizations.  Quarterly.  Brown, C. A., & D e t o y , C. J .  (pp. 4 2 6 - 4 3 4 ) .  personal  construct  New Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e &  Paul.  Buono, A. F., B o w d i t c h , J . L . , & L e w i s , J . W. When c u l t u r e s c o l l i d e : Human R e l a t i o n s . Button,  E.  Personal research,  Button, F.  (1985).  The anatomy o f a m e r g e r .  38. 477-500.  (1985).  Societal  beyond t h e c l i n i c a l  MA.:  New  Praeger.  political  Kegan  102  I n J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber  Brown, R. H.  the  Systems  construct  and i n s t i t u t i o n a l  context. theory  and p r a c t i c e  I n E. B u t t o n  change (Ed.),  and mental h e a l t h :  (pp. 342-354).  Theory.  Cambridge,  Brookline. E.  (1987).  Music and p e r s o n a l  F r a n s e l l a & L . Thomas  personal  construct  (Eds.),  psychology  Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e & Kegan  Paul.  constructs.  Experimenting  (pp. 531-538) .  In  with New  Construct Crockett,  W.  (1982).  The o r g a n i z a t i o n  person  (pp. 6 2 - 9 5 ) .  C r o s b y , G.,  (Eds.),  New Y o r k :  & Thomas, L.  I n J . C. The  construing  Praeger.  (1987).  I n i t i a t i n g the  management o f l e a r n i n g i n a j u n i o r s c h o o l . Fransell  & L . Thomas  personal  construct  (Eds.),  Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e & Kegan Du P r e e z , P. D. personal political 95,  debates.  I n F. with  (pp. 1 2 8 - 1 3 6 ) .  New  Paul.  The a p p l i c a t i o n o f K e l l y ' s  theory  t o the analysis of  Journal  of S o c i a l Psychology.  267-270.  Duck, S.  (1972).  Reptest. Duck, S.  (1973).  York:  Duck, S.  (Eds.),  Duck, S.  similarity,  Personal  and t h e  31. 231-234.  r e l a t i o n s h i p s and  A study of f r i e n d s h i p  personal  formation.  Wiley.  (1979).  construct  (pp.  Friendship,  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports.  constructs: New  (1975).  construct  Experimenting  psychology  103  of construct  s y s t e m s : The o r g a n i z a t i o n c o r o l l a r y . Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber  Systems  The p e r s o n a l  theory.  Constructs  279-297). (1982).  and i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n  I n P. S t r i n g e r & D. of s o c i a l i t y  Bannister  and i n d i v i d u a l i t y  New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c . Two i n d i v i d u a l s i n s e a r c h  a g r e e m e n t : The c o m m o n a l i t y c o r o l l a r y . Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber  of  I n J . C.  ( E d s . ) , The  construing  person  (pp. 2 2 2 - 2 3 4 ) .  Duck, S., & S p e n c e r ,  New Y o r k :  C.  (1972).  and  impression formation.  and  Social  Ferriera,  Psychology.  A. J .  rules  (1965) .  Praeger.  Personal constructs  Journal of Personality  23. 40-45. F a m i l y myths: T h e c o v e r t  of the relationship.  Confin Psychiatry,  8,  15-20. Fisher,  C. D.,  & Gitelson,  R.  (1983).  of the c o r r e l a t e s of r o l e c o n f l i c t Journal Foley,  R.  of Applied (1987).  synthesis?  Psychology.  Kelly  A meta-analysis and a m b i g u i t y .  68, 320-333.  and B a t e s o n : A n t i t h e s i s o r  I n F. F r a n s e l l a  & L . Thomas  Experimenting with personal construct (pp. 5 7 - 6 8 ) . Fransella,  F.  New  York:  (1970).  D. B a n n i s t e r ( E d . ) , construct theory Fransella,  Routledge  psychology  & Kegan P a u l .  ...And t h e n t h e r e was o n e .  In  Perspectives i n personal  (pp. 6 3 - 8 9 ) .  F., J o n e s ,  (Eds.),  New  York:  H., Watson, J .  Academic.  (1987).  A  range  of a p p l i c a t i o n s  o f PCP w i t h i n b u s i n e s s a n d i n d u s t r y .  I n F. F r a n s e l l a  & L. Thomas  (Eds.),  with personal construct psychology New Gara,  York: M. A.  study  Routledge (1982).  Experimenting (pp. 4 0 5 - 4 1 7 ) .  & Kegan P a u l . Back t o b a s i c s  - The i n d i v i d u a l  i n personality  p e r s o n ' s own o r g a n i z a t i o n o f  e x p e r i e n c e : The i n d i v i d u a l i t y  corollary.  I n J . C.  Construct Mancuso & J . R. person  (pp. 4 5 - 6 1 ) .  Hayden, B.  (1982).  c h a n g e : The & J . R. (pp.  Adams-Webber  Adams-Webber  G.,  (1990).  cases.  New  Measuring and  The c o n s t r u i n g  Praeger.  corollary.  (Eds.), York:  N e u i j e n , B.,  qualitative  York:  105  Experience - A case f o r p o s s i b l e  modulation  170-197).  Hofstede,  New  (Eds.),  Systems  The  I n J . C.  Mancuso  construing person  Praeger.  Ohayv, D.,  organizational  quantitative  & Sanders, cultures:  study across  G.  A  twenty  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y . 35,  286-  316. Hrebiniak,  L. G.  role-related  & Alutto, factors  J . A.  i n the development  organizational  commitment.  Quarterly,  555-573.  Imershein, paradigm Kanter,  R.  17,  A. W.  (1977).  shift. M.  Kantor, and  D.  marital Kelly,  G.  (1955).  psychology Norton.  I n A.  therapy.  of  O r g a n i z a t i o n a l change as  Commitment and  Couples S. New  and  Administrative Science  Harvard U n i v e r s i t y  (1985).  change.  Personal  S o c i o l o g y Q u a r t e r l y . 18,  (1972).  C a m b r i d g e , MA.:  (1972).  therapy,  Gurman York:  (Ed.),  33-34.  community. Press. crisis  induction,  Casebook o f  Guildford.  A theory of p e r s o n a l i t y :  of personal constructs.  a  New  The  York:  Construct Kelly,  G.  (1970).  construct  A brief  introduction to Bannister  (Ed.),  Perspectives  i n personal  construct  theory  (pp.  New  1-29). G.  I n A.  York: Academic.  (1980). W.  K e e n e y , B.  A psychology of the  L a n d f i e l d & L. M.  construct  psychology  P.  106  personal  I n D.  Kelly,  theory.  Systems  (pp.  (1983).  Leitner  (Eds.),  18-35).  Aesthetics  optimal  New  man. Personal  York:  Wiley.  o f change.  New  York: G u i l d f o r d . Kenny, V.  (1987).  psychotherapy: In  F.  with  Autopoiesis  and  alternativism in  F l u c t u a t i o n s and  reconstructions.  F r a n s e l l a & L. Personal  Thomas  Construct  Psychology  Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e & Kegan Kenny, V.,  & G a r d n e r , G.  self-organizing Psychology. Kuhn, T.  (1970).  revolutions. Landfield,  A.  York:  (pp.  3 6-47).  The  Constructions  and  Irish  Journal  A.  of  1-24. s t r u c t u r e of  scientific  (1979).  Exploring  Press. socialization  Bannister  (Eds.),  individuality  (pp.  Constructs 133-151).  Academic.  Landfield,  W.  New  of  i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n group.  & D.  sociality  (1988).  Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y  W.  through the Stringer  The  Experimenting  Paul.  systems.  9(1),  (Eds.),  (1982).  A construction  of  In  of New  P.  Construct fragmentation corollary. (Eds.), York:  and u n i t y :  I n J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber  The c o n s t r u i n g p e r s o n  (pp. 1 9 8 - 2 2 1 ) .  fundamental  (1982).  a s a c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s : The postulate.  I n J . C. Mancuso & J . R.  Adams-Webber  ( E d s . ) , The c o n s t r u i n g  (pp. 8 - 3 2 ) .  New Y o r k :  Mancuso, J . C., & E i m e r , sorts:  The range  R. Adams-Webber  (pp. 1 3 0 - 1 5 1 ) . McWilliams,  S.  anarchist.  Praeger. B. N.  (1982).  corollary.  (Eds.),  New Y o r k :  (1987).  person  Fitting things  I n J . C. Mancuso &  The c o n s t r u i n g  On b e c o m i n g a p e r s o n a l  I n F. F r a n s e l l a  (pp. 1 1 7 - 2 5 ) .  person  Praeger.  & L. Thomas  Experimenting with personal construct  Mathieu,  New  Praeger.  Anticipation  J.  107  The f r a g m e n t a t i o n  Mancuso, J . C., & Adams-Webber, J . R.  into  Systems  New Y o r k :  Routledge  J . E . , & Z a j a c , D. M.  (Eds.),  psychology  & Kegan P a u l .  (1990).  A review and  m e t a - a n a l y s i s o f t h e a n t e c e d e n t s , c o r r e l a t e s , and consequences  of organizational  Psychological Maturana,  H. R.  Bulletin. (1978).  108(2),  and  (Eds.),  thought  171-194.  B i o l o g y o f language:  epistemology of r e a l i t y . Lenneberg  commitment.  I n G. A. M i l l e r  P s y c h o l o g y and b i o l o g y  (pp. 2 7 - 6 3 ) .  New  York:  The  & E. of  language  Academic.  M a t u r a n a , H. The F.  R.,  & Varela,  F. J .  o r g a n i z a t i o n of the J. Varela  B.  of the  M.,  of the value  Applied Meltzer,  B.,  (1966).  individual 74,  Crockett,  W.  H.,  Personality  and  Experimenting (pp. Morris,  539-547).  J . K.,  in developing  Journal  of  value  S.  congruity,  A repertory grid  study  F r a n s e l l a & L.  Thomas  personal  New  construct  of  M.  (1980).  (Eds.),  psychologv  Journal  50-57.  & Cometa, M. construct  Paul.  Structural  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. 17,  of  response  York: R o u t l e d g e & Kegan R.  and  incompatible  338-343.  with  field  its  & R o s e n k r a n t z , P.  C.  (1982).  s y s t e m s : The  corollary.  I n J . C.  (Eds.),  c o n s t r u i n g person  The  and  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g v . 4,  V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. Morrison,  (1989).  Journal  J . , & Steers,  i n f l u e n c e s on  L.  of others.  I n F.  The  424-432.  i n impressions  (1987).  &  Reidel.  culture: A  outcomes.  Cognitive complexity,  to poetry.  Maturana  cognition:  & A d k i n s C.  i n t e g r a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l l y  D.  R.  B o s t o n , MA.:  C.,  information  Miall,  and  congruence process  Psychologv.  Autopoiesis:  I n H.  approach t o corporate  relationship to  the  living.  R a v l i n , E.  A work v a l u e s test  living.  (Eds.), Autopoiesis  realization Meglino,  (1973).  Mancuso & J . R. (pp.  Variations  experience Adams-Webber  152-169).  New  of  York:  Praeger.  Mowday, R.,  Porter,  L.,  & Steers,  Employee-organization commitment,  R.  linkages;  a b s e n t e e i s m , and  (1982). The  psychology  turnover.  New  of  York:  Academic. N e i m e y e r , R.  A.,  similarity  & N e i m e y e r , G.  and  A.,  i n the  Social  Clinical  N e i m e y e r , R.  A.,  (Ed.),  health: 224). Nystedt,  A personal Personal  The  Mancuso & J . R. person O'Hare, D.  (pp.  measurement.  1(2),  J.  and  Structural Journal  of  146-154.  (1985).  Disturbed  practice  In  and (pp.  E.  mental 195-  Brookline. (1982).  Construction  of  In J .  Adams-Webber  construing  New  grid  ( E d s . ) , The  York:  & Gordon, I . E.  of repertory  Perceptual  and  Praeger.  (1976).  technique to  C.  An  application  aesthetic  Motor S k i l l s .  42.  1183-  1192. O'Reilly,  C.,  of  construction corollary.  33-44).  P.,  (1983).  c o n s t r u c t view.  & Magnusson, D.  experience:  J.  construct theory  C a m b r i d g e , MA.:  Journal  427-435.  Psychology.  Theory, research,  L.,  Functional  acguaintance process.  & N e i m e y e r , G.  relationships: Button  15,  & N e i m e y e r , G.  similarity and  (1981).  interpersonal attraction.  Research i n Personality^ N e i m e y e r , R.  J.  & Chatman, J .  (1986).  Organizational  Construct  Systems  commitment and  p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t a c h m e n t : The  of  compliance,  identification,  on  p r o s o c i a l behavior.  Psychology. 71(3), O u c h i , W.  G.,  Pfeffer, The  Journal  of  internalization Applied  A.  L.  (1985).  Organizational  A n n u a l Review o f S o c i o l o g y .  J.  (1981).  c r e a t i o n and  paradigms.  effects  492-499.  & Wilkins,  culture.  and  110  Management as maintenance of  11,  457-483.  symbolic  action:  organizational  Research i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  Behavior.  3,  1-52. Proctor, S.  H.  (1981).  Family  Walrond-Skinner  therapy  (pp.  construct  psychology.  (Ed.), Developments i n  350-366).  In  family  London: R o u t l e d g e & K e g a n  Paul. Reiss,  D.  (1971).  V a r i e t i e s of consensual  Dimensions of a f a m i l y ' s experience environment. Reiss,  D.  (1981).  reality.  (1970).  Bannister  construct Schein,  E.  H.  theory  E.  H.  10,  of i t s 1-27.  family's construction  (Ed.), (pp.  (1985).  Perspectives 197-221).  in  New  Organizational  NJ.:  of  Harvard U n i v e r s i t y .  A psychology of p e r s o n a l  (1965).  Englewood C l i f f s , Schein,  The  Process.  Cambridge, MA.:  Salmon, P. I n D.  Family  experience:  growth.  personal  York:  Academic.  psychologv.  Prentice-Hall.  Organizational  culture  and  leadership. Steers,  San F r a n c i s c o :  R. M.  (1977).  organizational Quarterly. Stringer,  P.,  sociality Todd, N.  A n t e c e d e n t s and o u t c o m e s o f  commitment.  & Bannister,  & L . Thomas ( E d s . ) , construct psychology  J . , & Barclay,  communities: I n B. M.  (1979). New  Religious belief  Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e & Kegan Maanen,  D.  and i n d i v i d u a l i t y .  Fransella  Van  Administrative  Science  22., 46-56.  (1987).  personal  Jossey-Bass.  Culture  York:  of  Academic.  a n d PCT.  I n F.  Experimenting  with  (pp. 4 8 3 - 4 9 2 ) .  New  Paul. S. R.  (1984).  Occupational  and c o n t r o l i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  Staw & L . L. Cummings  Organizational  Constructs  Behavior^  (Eds.),  Research i n  6, 287-365, G r e e n w i c h ,  CT:  JAI. Van  Maanen, I n B. M.  J . , & Kunda, G.  (1989).  Staw & L. L. Cummings  Organizational  Behavior^  Real  feelings.  (Eds.), Research i n  11, 43-103.  Greenwich,  CT.: J A I . Varela,  F. J .  autonomy.  (1979). New  York: North  Von B e r t a l a n f f y , L. Foundations,  Principles  (1968).  of b i o l o g i c a l  Holland. General systems  development, a p p l i c a t i o n s .  theory:  New  York:  Braziller. Von F o e r s t e r ,  H.  (1984).  On c o n s t r u c t i n g a  reality.  Construct I n P. W a t z l a w i c k York: Von  Von  ( E d . ) / The  invented  reality.  112 New  Norton.  G l a s e r f e l d , E.  (1984).  An  introduction to  constructivism.  I n P. W a t z l a w i c k  invented  (pp. 1 7 - 4 0 ) .  reality  G l a s e r f e l d , E.  (1988).  a way  of thinking.  9(1),  83-90.  Watzlawick, York:  Systems  P.  The  (1984).  The Irish  The  New  (Ed.), York:  radical  The Norton.  r e l u c t a n c e t o change Journal of  invented  Psychology.  reality.  New  Norton.  W e i n e r , N.  (1948).  communication C a m b r i d g e , MA.:  Cybernetics;  i n t h e a n i m a l and Technology  or. Control  and  t h e machine.  Press.  Appendix A The  following  postulate  i s a summary  of t h e fundamental  and i t s c o r o l l a r i e s as p e r t a i n i n g  personal construct Fundamental  theory of K e l l y  to the  (1955, pp. 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 ) .  Postulate  A person's processes are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y c h a n n e l i z e d by t h e ways i n w h i c h he a n t i c i p a t e s Construction  events.  Corollary  A person a n t i c i p a t e s  e v e n t s by c o n s t r u i n g  their  replications. Individuality  Corollary  Persons d i f f e r  from each o t h e r  construction  of events.  Organization  Corollary  in their  Each person c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y e v o l v e s , convenience i n a n t i c i p a t i n g events, a system embracing o r d i n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s  for his  construction between  constructs. Dichotomy  Corollary  A person's construction finite  number o f d i c h o t o m o u s  Choice  Corollary  s y s t e m i s composed o f a constructs.  A person chooses f o r himself dichotomized construct greater  possibility  that  alternative  in a  t h r o u g h w h i c h he a n t i c i p a t e s t h e  f o r e x t e n s i o n and d e f i n i t i o n o f h i s  system. Range C o r o l l a r y A construct a finite  range  Experience  of events  successively Modulation  limited  construction  v a r i a t i o n i n a person's by t h e p e r m e a b i l i t y of convenience  construction  Commonality  within  the variants l i e .  employ a v a r i e t y o f  other.  Corollary one p e r s o n  employs a  o f experience which i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t  e m p l o y e d by a n o t h e r ,  h i s psychological  t o those of the other  processes are  person.  Corollary  t h e e x t e n t t h a t one p e r s o n  construction in  system i s  subsystems which a r e i n f e r e n t i a l l y  the extent that  construction  construction  of the constructs  successively  i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h each  Sociality  v a r i e s a s he  Corollary  A p e r s o n may  To  system  construes the r e p l i c a t i o n s of events.  Fragmentation  similar  only.  Corollary  whose r a n g e  To  f o r the a n t i c i p a t i o n of  Corollary  A person's  The  i s convenient  a social  processes of another, process  construes the he may  involving the other  play  person.  a role  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054139/manifest

Comment

Related Items