"Education, Faculty of"@en . "Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Schroeder, Laurie J."@en . "2009-01-09T21:02:59Z"@en . "1992"@en . "Master of Arts - MA"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "Personal construct theory is interfaced with systems \r\ntheory and organizational behavior theory to provide a \r\ntheoretical framework for understanding interaction of \r\nthe individual and the work organization. The concepts \r\ndescribing the individual's relationship with the \r\nfamily contribute the basic understandings to the \r\ndevelopment of this framework as applied to the work \r\nsetting. The personal construct system and its \r\nfunction to organize a meaningful experience of reality \r\nfor the individual is compared with that of the shared \r\nconstruct system and its function to negotiate a common \r\nview of reality amongst members of the family and work \r\norganization alike. It is proposed in this paper that \r\nconsensual validation acts as an internal consistency \r\ncriterion which moderates interaction between personal \r\nand shared construct systems. Essentially, consensual \r\nvalidation serves as a self-referent process linking \r\nthe individual to the work organization. Suggestions \r\nare made as to the implications of the individual's \r\nexperience of consensual validation upon organizational \r\ncommitment in the workplace."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/3480?expand=metadata"@en . "4043149 bytes"@en . "application/pdf"@en . "THE INTERACTION OF PERSONAL AND SHARED CONSTRUCT SYSTEMS: THE IMPLICATIONS OF CONSENSUAL VALIDATION UPON COMMITMENT IN THE WORKPLACE by LAURIE J . SCHROEDER B.A., S e a t t l e P a c i f i c U n i v e r s i t y , 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1992 (g) L a u r i e J . Schroeder, 1992 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date Au(;,aK H , DE-6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t P e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory i s i n t e r f a c e d w i t h systems t h e o r y and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior t h e o r y t o p r o v i d e a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r understanding i n t e r a c t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l and the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The concepts d e s c r i b i n g the 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 the f a m i l y c o n t r i b u t e the b a s i c understandings t o the development of t h i s framework as a p p l i e d t o the work s e t t i n g . The p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system and i t s f u n c t i o n t o orga n i z e 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 of the shared c o n s t r u c t system and i t s f u n c t i o n t o n e g o t i a t e a common view o f r e a l i t y amongst members of the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i k e . I t i s proposed i n t h i s paper t h a t c onsensual v a l i d a t i o n a c t s as an i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y c r i t e r i o n which moderates i n t e r a c t i o n between p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems. E s s e n t i a l l y , consensual v a l i d a t i o n s e r v e s as a s e l f - r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s l i n k i n g the i n d i v i d u a l t o the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . Suggestions are made as t o the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x p e r i e n c e of consensual v a l i d a t i o n upon o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment i n the workplace. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF FIGURES V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Background of the Problem 3 B. The Problem 5 C. P r o p o s i t i o n s 10 D. Summary 12 Chapter I I . 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 System 16 1. S t r u c t u r e and O r g a n i z a t i o n 16 2. I d e n t i t y 19 C. C o n s t r u c t i o n of the P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t System 21 1. Formation of the System .... 22 2. S t a b i l i t y and Change Wit h i n the System 30 3. S o c i a l i t y 39 D. Summary 46 Chapter I I I . THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED CONSTRUCT SYSTEMS 48 A. The Family C o n s t r u c t System 48 B. An O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Model 55 C. Summary 65 Chapter IV. INTERACTION BETWEEN PERSONAL AND SHARED CONSTRUCT SYSTEMS 66 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 66 B. The Role of V a l i d a t i o n 74 C. I n d i v i d u a l I n t e r a c t i o n With the Work O r g a n i z a t i o n 79 D. Summary 89 Chapter V. IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 91 A. Review of 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 of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Commitment .... 94 C. Concluding Summary and Statement of T h e s i s 98 REFERENCES 101 APPENDIX A: PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY 113 A Summary of the Fundamental P o s t u l a t e and I t s C o r o l l a r i e s LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 4.1: The R e c i p r o c a l Nature of Consensual V a l i d a t i o n 73 FIGURE 4.2: The Role of Consensual 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 Shared C o n s t r u c t Systems 74 FIGURE 4.3: The E f f e c t of Consensual 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 and Shared C o n s t r u c t Systems 77 FIGURE 4.4: Ladde r i n g of C o n s t r u c t i n a Work O r g a n i z a t i o n 86 FIGURE 4.5: Comparison of 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 88 Acknowledgements I wish t o express my s i n c e r e thanks t o each of those s p e c i a l persons i n my l i f e whose c o n t i n u a l encouragement and support enabled the completion of t h i s most c h a l l e n g i n g t a s k . To members of my committee, John F r i e s e n , C r a i g P i n d e r , and Norm Amundsen: Thank-you v e r y much f o r your t h e o r e t i c a l guidance throughout the w r i t i n g o f t h i s paper. Your c h a l l e n g e of my i d e a s , t o g e t h e r w i t h your c o n t i n u a l encouragement and support d u r i n g t h e i r development, p r o v i d e d f o r a r i c h l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e . To my f a m i l y : Thanks f o r your i n c r e a s i n g s e n s i t i v i t y , support, and understanding. I t i s the va l u e t h a t you have i n s t i l l e d i n me - never t o g i v e up, but t o s t r i v e t o the end t o be the bes t t h a t you can be, which has served me w e l l i n completing t h i s paper. To my f r i e n d s , Kerry, Adele, Diane, Gradyn, and Marianne: I c o u l d never have done i t without you! Your l o v e , l o y a l t y , and laug h t e r i s what kept me sane. Thank-you, thank-you, thankyou...! To B i l l : Thank-you f o r your e x p r e s s i o n of l o v e and understanding a t t h a t p o i n t when without i t I would not have gone on...I d e d i c a t e the completion of t h i s paper t o the memory of our p r e c i o u s l i t t l e one. With much a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l of you. L a u r i e . C o n s t r u c t Systems 1 Chapter I. I n t r o d u c t i o n I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the processes a f f e c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the workplace has become one of the major domains of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h i n r e c e n t y e a r s (Ouchi & W i l k i n s , 1985) . Academics and management c o n s u l t a n t s a l i k e have sought t o i d e n t i f y what s o r t s of v a r i a b l e s enhance i n d i v i d u a l f u n c t i o n i n g and encourage o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members t o behave i n ways necessary f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o s u r v i v e i n i t s environment. One v a r i a b l e which has r e c e i v e d a l o t of a t t e n t i o n i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). A r i s i n g from the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the work o r g a n i z a t i o n and d e s i r e t o 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 commitment has 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 e x e r t e x t r a e f f o r t on b e h a l f of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ( O ' R e i l l y & Chatman, 1986). However, i t has g e n e r a l l y been observed t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y a c r o s s work s e t t i n g s . Such v a r i a n c e has aroused i n t e r e s t i n the i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics i n f l u e n c i n g the development of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. I t i s the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics a f f e c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l involvement i n t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n which assumes the focus of i n q u i r y i n the p r e s e n t paper. Observations of the f a c t o r s encouraging C o n s t r u c t Systems 2 i n d i v i d u a l membership i n the f a m i l y c o n t r i b u t e t o the development of a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r viewing i n d i v i d u a l membership i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The d i s c u s s i o n focuses s p e c i f i c a l l y upon th e p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l f u n c t i o n i n g . The development of the proposed framework draws h e a v i l y upon the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y of K e l l y (1955). While t r a d i t i o n a l l y p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y has f o c u s e d upon the development of i n d i v i d u a l c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e s and the r o l e of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s i n t h i s process, more contemporary r e s e a r c h has demonstrated i t s r e l e v a n c e i n a d d r e s s i n g a wide range o f concerns (Adams-Webber, 1981). T o p i c s have i n c l u d e d such areas as management of l e a r n i n g (Crosby & Thomas, 1987), business (Brown & Detoy, 1987; F r a n s e l l a , Jones, and Watson, 1987), a n a l y s i s of p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s (Du Preez, 1975), r e l i g i o n (Todd, 1987), and e v a l u a t i o n of a e s t h e t i c experience (Button, 1987; M i a l l , 1987; O'Hare & Gordon, 1976). The r e c e n t a p p l i c a t i o n of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y t o the study of r e l a t i o n s h i p development (Duck, 1979) h o l d s p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e i n the p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n . I t may w e l l be argued t h a t p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y has much t o c o n t r i b u t e t o an understanding of the i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and the f a m i l y . C o n s t r u c t Systems 3 as w e l l as between the i n d i v i d u a l and the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The i n t e g r a t i o n of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y w i t h f a m i l y systems 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 i e s can be found t o p r o v i d e a meaningful a n a l y s i s of r e l a t i o n s h i p development i n the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n . In correspondence w i t h f a m i l y t h e o r y , p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory o f f e r s v a l u a b l e i n s i g h t as t o the concepts d e f i n i n g i n d i v i d u a l membership i n the f a m i l y (Alexander & Neimeyer, 1989; P r o c t o r , 1981). L i k e w i s e , the 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 b e h a v i o r t h e o r y w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y s e r v e s t o suggest s i m i l a r concepts governing i n d i v i d u a l membership i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . E s s e n t i a l l y , weaving p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y with concepts d e f i n i n g f u n c t i o n i n g i n the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n emphasizes the c e n t r a l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n s of r e a l i t y upon t h e i r behavior i n a group. Such emphasis i m p l i e s t h a t t h e e f f o r t s of the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n t o guide member behavior are s u b j e c t t o t h e i r impact upon s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g systems. I t i s t h i s p r i n c i p l e which assumes primary focus i n the development of the p r e s e n t t h e o r e t i c a l framework. Background of the Problem The p r o p o s i t i o n s h e r e i n developed 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 C o n s t r u c t Systems 4 t h a t the way i n which i n d i v i d u a l s choose t o a c t i n t h e i r world i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n of a \" r e a l i t y \" . While d i s c u s s i o n takes i n t o account g e n e r a l systems theory, as w e l l as f i r s t - o r d e r c y b e r n e t i c s , i t remains f i r m l y grounded i n the n o t i o n s of second-order c y b e r n e t i c s . I n i t i a t e d i n the work of C h i l e a n b i o l o g i s t s V a r e l a and Maturana (1973), second-order c y b e r n e t i c s addresses the r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l s as o b s e r v e r s and meaning-makers. T h i s view regards the i n d i v i d u a l as an autonomous, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y c l o s e d system, and i n doing so, i t departs from e a r l i e r systems t h i n k i n g . General systems theory, as o r i g i n a t e d by von B e r t a l a n f f y (1968) , suggests t h a t d e v e l o p i n g persons and the changing p r o p e r t i e s of t h e i r environment are t o be understood as being i n a s t a t e of c o n t i n u o u s exchange. I n d i v i d u a l s are p l a c e d i n a s o c i a l c o n t e x t which i s seen t o i n f l u e n c e them, as w e l l as be i n f l u e n c e d by them. As such, g e n e r a l systems t h e o r y supports environmental i n t e r a c t i o n as the b a s i s f o r s e l f - m a i n t e n a n c e . Founded by Weiner (1948), f i r s t -o r d e r c y b e r n e t i c s corresponds with t h i s view. I t d e f i n e s the dynamics of s t a b i l i t y and change w i t h i n t h e system i n terms of complex i n t e r l o c k i n g feedback mechanisms. The e v o l u t i o n of l i v i n g systems i s p e r c e i v e d as a f u n c t i o n of the system's a d a p t i o n t o the C o n s t r u c t Systems 5 environment or the environment's s e l e c t i o n of the s u r v i v i n g system c o n f i g u r a t i o n . C o n t r a s t i n g l y , second-order c y b e r n e t i c s c o n s i d e r s a process of s e l f - r e f e r e n c e t o be the b a s i s f o r self-maintenance. From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , change i s viewed as s u b o r d i n a t e t o the p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s d e f i n i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the system. The e v o l u t i o n of l i v i n g systems corresponds wi t h i n t e r n a l l y generated change, such t h a t , i n d i v i d u a l s must couple adequately with the environment or f a c e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n . I t i s these p a r t i c u l a r n o t i o n s of second-order c y b e r n e t i c s which inform the c u r r e n t d i s c u s s i o n and support the argument t h a t i n d i v i d u a l t r a n s a c t i o n s w i t h the environment are a f u n c t i o n of a s e l f - r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s . The Problem The p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory of K e l l y (1955) supports the 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 cannot be d i r e c t l y comprehended. K e l l y maintains t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s are charged with the t a s k of f o r m u l a t i n g i n t h e i r own p e r s o n a l way a system of c o n s t r u c t s through which they may i n t e r p r e t the world of events and cope w i t h the u n f o l d i n g f u t u r e . T h i s system of c o n s t r u c t s i s r e f e r r e d t o as the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system (PCS). The p r e s e n t paper argues t h a t i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the s o c i a l environment i s s u b j e c t t o the o p e r a t i o n C o n s t r u c t Systems 6 of t h e PCS. C r i t i c a l t o such an understanding of the PCS i s K e l l y ' s view of i n d i v i d u a l s as f a l l i n g under the c o n t r o l o f the framework they have c r e a t e d f o r themselves. S t a t e d simply, i n d i v i d u a l s a n t i c i p a t e events i n t h e f u t u r e with r e s p e c t t o t h e i r g i v e n h i s t o r y . Having drawn from e a r l i e r e xperiences a c e r t a i n view of s e l f i n r e l a t i o n t o other, s e l f -r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s i n c l i n e the i n d i v i d u a l t o p e r c e i v e , i n t e r p r e t , and r e a c t t o the s o c i a l environment i n a way which i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s view. In t h i s way, the o p e r a t i o n of the PCS corresponds w i t h t h a t of the s e l f -o r g a n i z i n g system (Kenny St Gardner, 1988) . The PCS supports t h e autonomous f u n c t i o n i n g of the i n d i v i d u a l , g u i d i n g t h e v a r i e t y of i n t e r a c t i o n s i n which th e i n d i v i d u a l may engage and s t i l l m a i n t a in a coherent sense of s e l f . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n key v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the s o c i a l environment i s provided by an examination of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the PCS and the c o n s t r u c t s d e f i n i n g t h e s o c i a l environment. The c u r r e n t d i s c u s s i o n assumes t h a t a c o l l e c t i v e system of c o n s t r u c t s , c o i n c i d i n g with the n o t i o n of the PCS, can be i d e n t i f i e d . T h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s b e l i e v e d t o c o o r d i n a t e the f u n c t i o n i n g of i n d i v i d u a l C o n s t r u c t Systems 7 members of a group, whether t h i s be the f a m i l y or the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The va l u e i n r e c o g n i z i n g the shared c o n s t r u c t system i s t h a t the correspondence of i n d i v i d u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h those of the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole can then be examined. The development of a c o l l e c t i v e system of c o n s t r u c t s t o d e f i n e group f u n c t i o n i n g p r o v i d e s a r i c h u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the f a m i l y ' s f u n c t i o n i n g as a u n i t . E s s e n t i a l l y , the n o t i o n o f a shared f a m i l y r e a l i t y s e r v i n g t o shape a coherent i d e n t i t y f o r the f a m i l y as a group i s d e l i n e a t e d . P r o c t o r (1981) suggests such a n o t i o n i n h i s development of the f a m i l y c o n s t r u c t system (FCS). I n t e g r a t i n g f a m i l y theory w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory, he proposes t h a t the FCS p r o v i d e s a b a s i s f o r agreement w i t h i n the f a m i l y about the order and meaning a t t r i b u t e d t o events. The FCS i s seen as d e f i n i n g the f a m i l y ' s uniqueness as a u n i t and e x p r e s s i n g the d e l i c a t e c o o r d i n a t i o n r e q u i r e d o f f a m i l y members i n or d e r t o promote t h e i r s u r v i v a l as a group. T h i s paper argues t h a t the 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 t h e o r y w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y s e r v e s t o suggest a s i m i l a r i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o p e r a t i n g i n the workplace. L i k e t h a t o f the f a m i l y , the work o r g a n i z a t i o n too i s seen t o adhere t o a shared system of c o n s t r u c t s . T h i s s e t o f C o n s t r u c t Systems 8 c o n s t r u c t s i s r e f e r r e d t o as the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t system (OCS). The OCS i s b e l i e v e d t o promote mutual understanding amongst o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members and guide t h e i r f u n c t i o n i n g as a group. Given the i d e a of corresponding p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems, t h i s paper examines the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the f a m i l y as a means of i d e n t i f y i n g the v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n between the two. I t i s proposed t h a t i t i s a process o f consen s u a l v a l i d a t i o n which moderates the c o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Emerging i n the s i m i l a r i t y with which events are construed, consensual v a l i d a t i o n i s seen t o support the coherent f u n c t i o n i n g of the PCS. K e l l y (1955) argues t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s depend upon others not onl y t o v a l i d a t e t h e i r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s but a l s o t o ma i n t a i n a sense of s e l f . I t f o l l o w s t h a t the degree t o which i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h o t h e r s s e r v e s t o c o n f i r m the r e l e v a n c e of i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n s of r e a l i t y , thereby p r o v i d i n g consensual v a l i d a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s are l i k e l y t o form a r e l a t i o n s h i p with the group. E s s e n t i a l l y , c onsensual v a l i d a t i o n serves as a s e l f - r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s l i n k i n g the i n d i v i d u a l t o the group. I t i s suggested here t h a t the nature of i n t e r a c t i o n with the s o c i a l environment i s a f u n c t i o n C o n s t r u c t Systems 9 of a consensual v a l i d a t i o n a l p rocess i n which i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v e support f o r the f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e i r PCS. I t f o l l o w s from t h i s g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l form a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n t o the degree t h a t i t serves t h i s v i t a l f u n c t i o n . Meaningful s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , as w i t h i n the f a m i l y , i s dependent upon t h e c o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h those of the group. To the extent t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a re a b l e t o r e c o n c i l e t h e i r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h those of t h e workgroup, they w i l l secure v a l i d a t i o n not on l y f o r t h e i r a n t i c i p a t i o n of events but a l s o f o r t h e i r view of s e l f . In t h i s way, consensual v a l i d a t i o n b i n ds i n d i v i d u a l s t o the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . I f a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n f a i l s t o p r o v i d e 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 t o the i n t e g r i t y o f the PCS and cause d i s r u p t i o n of the c u r r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t i s the t h e s i s of t h i s paper t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s ' e x p e r i e n c e of consensual v a l i d a t i o n i s a major determinant of t h e i r formation of commitment i n t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s suggested t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s experience of consensual v a l i d a t i o n serves t o d i s t i n g u i s h amongst the type of commitment developed, whether t h i s commitment be of an C o n s t r u c t Systems 10 a t t i t u d i n a l or c a l c u l a t i v e nature. I t i s argued t h a t i n d i v i d u a l membership i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e f l e c t i v e of a t t i t u d i n a l commitment, corresponds w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l ' s experience of consensual v a l i d a t i o n a t p r o g r e s s i v e l y more c e n t r a l aspects of the PCS. P r o p o s i t i o n s As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , i t i s the i n t e n t of t h i s paper t o p r o v i d e i n s i g h t i n t o the fundamental dynamics g u i d i n g r e l a t i o n s between p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems. Concepts d e f i n i n g i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h e f a m i l y are used t o c o n s t r u c t a model f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n d i v i d u a l t r a n s a c t i o n s w i t h the s o c i a l environment. T h i s framework i s then a p p l i e d t o i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n as a means o f d e f i n i n g the f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s formation of a committed r e l a t i o n s h i p . The paper begins with a r e p o r t of the f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s : P r o p o s i t i o n 1; The PCS of the i n d i v i d u a l governs the maintenance of a coherent i d e n t i t y ( K e l l y , 1955). P r o p o s i t i o n 2; The PCS guides the v a r i e t y of i n t e r a c t i o n i n which the i n d i v i d u a l i s a b l e t o engage, t h e r e b y governing r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r m a t i o n w i t h o t h e r c o n s t r u c t systems (Kenny & Gardner, 1988). P r o p o s i t i o n 3; Change i s i n t e r n a l l y determined. C o n s t r u c t Systems 11 While the PCS i s open t o c o n s t r u c t i v e r e v i s i o n , s u f f i c i e n t s t a b i l i t y of the o v e r a l l system i s r e q u i r e d . The i n t r o d u c t i o n of new c o n s t r u c t s which are 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 the system upon which the i n d i v i d u a l has come t o r e l y f o r l i v i n g w i l l be ex p e r i e n c e d as a t h r e a t t o the coherence of the PCS (Foley, 1987). P r o p o s i t i o n 4i Consensual v a l i d a t i o n a c t s as a s e l f - r e f e r e n t p rocess moderating the degree of coherence versus c o n f l i c t experienced by the i n d i v i d u a l (Duck, 1979). Drawing upon the t h e o r e t i c a l support p r o v i d e d by these arguments, t h i s paper serves t o advance the f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s : P r o p o s i t i o n 5: Shared c o n s t r u c t systems are s u b j e c t t o the c o o r d i n a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l c o n s t r u c t systems. C o o r d i n a t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n of a p r o c e s s o f consen s u a l v a l i d a t i o n , i n which i n d i v i d u a l s e x p e r i e n c e both d e f i n i t i o n and e x t e n s i o n of t h e i r PCS when i n t e r a c t i n g with the shared c o n s t r u c t system. P r o p o s i t i o n 6: I n d i v i d u a l membership i n the f a m i l y i s developed through a process o f consensual v a l i d a t i o n . P r o p o s i t i o n 7; I n d i v i d u a l membership i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , as r e p r e s e n t e d by an a t t i t u d i n a l type o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, i s a f u n c t i o n o f the degree C o n s t r u c t Systems 12 t o which i n d i v i d u a l s experience consensual v a l i d a t i o n of t h e i r PCS i n the workplace. Summary With r e s p e c t t o the chapters which f o l l o w , each attempts t o b u i l d upon the other t o develop t h e o r e t i c a l support f o r the argument t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment i s a f u n c t i o n of a consensual v a l i d a t i o n p r o c e s s . Chapter 2 reviews the p r i n c i p l e s of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y as they apply t o i n d i v i d u a l f u n c t i o n i n g . Chapter 3 extends these p r i n c i p l e s t o the f u n c t i o n i n g of the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n and develops arguments f o r the e x i s t e n c e of shared c o n s t r u c t systems. Chapter 4 examines the process of c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n and i t s r o l e i n c o o r d i n a t i n g p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems. The nature of i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the f a m i l y i s extended t o i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n the workplace. F i n a l l y , i n Chapter 5, argument f o r the experience of consensual v a l i d a t i o n s e r v i n g t o i n f l u e n c e the i n d i v i d u a l ' s development o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment i n the workplace i s developed. C o n s t r u c t Systems 13 Chapter I I : P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t Theory T h i s chapter reviews the b a s i c t e n e t s of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y . I n i t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s g i v e n t o the c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i n c l i n a t i o n of K e l l y ' s (1955) th e o r y and c o r r e s p o n d i n g a r t i c u l a t i o n of the 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 u n i t . T h i s p r o v i d e s a t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t e x t w i t h i n which t o examine the nature of t h e PCS. I t i s the p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the PCS which s e r v e t o i d e n t i f y the s e l f - r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s i n f l u e n c i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the s o c i a l environment. A C o n s t r u c t i v i s t Approach An important f i r s t s tep i n d e v e l o p i n g an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the f a m i l y and the 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 the ^ r e a l i t y ' i n which each of these systems operate. The way i n which each system w i l l choose t o a c t w i t h i n the w o r l d w i l l be shaped by i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n , experience, and maintenance of a p a r t i c u l a r r e a l i t y (Keeney, 1983). I t i s the d i s t i n c t i o n s each system draws i n i t s o b s e r v a t i o n of the world of events t h a t l e a d t o t h e development of d i f f e r e n t r e a l i t i e s (Watzlawick, 1984). A c o n s t r u c t i v i s t epistemology has much t o c o n t r i b u t e t o an understanding of d i f f e r e n t r e a l i t i e s . S u p p o r t i n g the n o t i o n t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s c r e a t e t h e i r own C o n s t r u c t Systems 14 ways of vi e w i n g the world i n which they l i v e , c o n s t r u c t i v i s m p r o v i d e s a t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n upon which t o ground the arguments developed i n t h i s paper. R e s t i n g upon t h e n o t i o n t h a t \"knowledge i s not p a s s i v e l y r e c e i v e d e i t h e r through the senses o r by way of communication, but i s a c t i v e l y b u i l t up by the c o g n i s i n g s u b j e c t \" (von G l a s e r f e l d , 1988, p. 83), c o n s t r u c t i v i s m may be d e f i n e d as a th e o r y o f a c t i v e knowing. E s s e n t i a l l y , i t emphasizes the r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l s as observers and meaning-makers i n the world they i n h a b i t . 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f r e a l i t y i s ada p t i v e , a i d i n g them i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e i r e x p e r i e n t i a l world. Recent y e a r s have witnessed a growing i n t e r e s t i n the e l a b o r a t i o n of c o n s t r u c t i v i s t e p i s t e m o l o g i e s . C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the f i e l d are many ( K e l l y , 1955; Maturana, 1978; V a r e l a , 1979; von F o e r s t e r , 1984; von G l a s e r f e l d , 1984) and may be found t o vary i n terms of the p a r t i c u l a r view of ^ r e a l i t y ' upheld. In c o n t r a s t t o paradigms premised on the n o t i o n of d i r e c t access t o an o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y , c o n s t r u c t i v i s t s agree t h a t complete r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the r e a l world can never be ac h i e v e d (Kenny & Gardner, 1988). However, w h i l e some appeal t o the e x i s t e n c e of an ' o b j e c t i v e o n t o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y ' which serves as a p o t e n t i a l source of C o n s t r u c t Systems 15 d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of the c o n s t r u i n g system (von G l a s e r f e l d , 1984), o t h e r s deny the e x i s t e n c e of any i n d e p e n d e n t l y e x i s t i n g r e a l i t y , r e f e r r i n g t o r e a l i t y o n l y i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l sense (Maturana, 1978). The c o n s t r u c t i v i s t p o s i t i o n taken up i n t h i s paper i s t h a t upheld by K e l l y (1955). H i s theory r e s t s upon the p r i n i c i p l e of c o n s t r u c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v i s m , the assumption t h a t r e a l i t y does not d i r e c t l y r e v e a l i t s e l f but remains s u b j e c t t o as many a l t e r n a t i v e ways of c o n s t r u i n g as can be i n v e n t e d : What we t h i n k we know i s anchored o n l y i n our assumptions, not i n t h e bed rock of t r u t h i t s e l f , and t h a t world we seek t o understand remains always on the h o r i z o n of our thoughts, (p. 6) K e l l y does not deny an o n t o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y , but merely the p o s s i b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l a c q u i r i n g a t r u e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of i t . As such, knowledge i s not d e f i n e d i n t r a d i t i o n a l terms which imply an a c c u r a t e correspondence between i n d i v i d u a l c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s and r e a l i t y . Rather, knowledge i s viewed i n terms of the c o n s t r u i n g system \" f i t t i n g the c o n s t r a i n t s \" of the o n t o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y and p r e s e r v i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l coherence (Kenny & Gardner, 1988). From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , the r e a l world becomes manifest o n l y where C o n s t r u c t Systems 16 the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n s of r e a l i t y break down. K e l l y can be found t o h o l d t h a t the way i n which i n d i v i d u a l s frame t h e i r experience i s \"a f u n c t i o n o f s u b j e c t i v e l y construed g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t c r i t e r i a a p p l i e d t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e between [ t h e i r ] a n t i c i p a t i o n s and [ t h e i r ] a b s t r a c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of events\" (Agnew & Brown, 1989, p. 155). The S e l f - O r g a n i z i n g System In correspondence w i t h the c o n s t r u c t i v i s t p o s i t i o n , i t f o l l o w s t h a t K e l l y ' s (1955) the o r y o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s can be viewed as an a r t i c u l a t i o n o f the 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 i s 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 which d e f i n e the meaning of an event, K e l l y ' s n o t i o n of auto-a n t i c i p a t i o n can be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean auto-o r g a n i z a t i o n (Kenny, 1987). Such a p o s i t i o n s e t s t h e i n d i v i d u a l system apar t as s e l f - s t a b i l i z i n g , s e l f -t r a n s c e n d i n g , and s e l f - e v o l v i n g (Kenny & Gardner, 1988) . S t r u c t u r e and O r g a n i z a t i o n K e l l y (1955) proposes t h a t coming t o understand i n d i v i d u a l s and the meaning of t h e i r behavior r e q u i r e s examination of the s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l system. He suggests t h a t i t i s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f whole persons from the p e r s p e c t i v e o f C o n s t r u c t Systems 17 the persons themselves without r e f e r e n c e t o the o u t s i d e environment t h a t i s necessary (Foley, 1987). In t h i s way K e l l y argues f o r c l o s u r e of the i n d i v i d u a l system: I f we are t o have a psychology of human experience, we must anchor our b a s i c concepts i n t h a t person's experience, not i n the experie n c e he causes others t o have. Thus i f we wish t o use a concept say of h o s t i l i t y , we have t o ask what i s the e x p e r i e n t i a l nature of h o s t i l i t y from the st a n d p o i n t of the person who does i t . Only by answering t h a t q u e s t i o n i n some s e n s i b l e way w i l l we a r r i v e a t a concept which makes pure p s y c h o l o g i c a l sense, r a t h e r than s o c i o l o g i c a l or moral sense, (p. 122) K e l l y p o i n t s t o the autonomy of the c o n s t r u i n g system by i d e n t i f y i n g r e l a t i o n s w i t h the environment as i n t e r n a l l y determined. The s t r u c t u r e of the i n d i v i d u a l system determines not onl y what w i l l be accepted as an i n t e r a c t i o n but a l s o whether the i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l r e s u l t i n self-maintenance or d i s i n t e g r a t i o n . E s s e n t i a l l y , K e l l y contends t h a t the v a r i e t y o f i n t e r a c t i o n s the i n d i v i d u a l system can undertake w h i l e p r e s e r v i n g i t s i d e n t i t y are s p e c i f i e d by i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n (Kenny & Gardner, 1988). C o n s t r u c t Systems 18 Only w i t h i n h i s p e r s o n a l system i s one ever f r e e t o make a c h o i c e i n h i s own b e h a l f , and o n l y a l o n g the c o o r d i n a t e l i n e s he h i m s e l f has managed t o e r e c t i s he ever f r e e t o i n i t i a t e movement. Man's freedom, then, can be s a i d t o have o n t o l o g i c a l meaning o n l y w i t h i n the a n t i c i p a t o r y framework he has d e v i s e d ; h i s p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system d e f i n e s the o n l y l i b e r t i e s he i s ever a b l e t o c l a i m . ( K e l l y , 1980, p. 32) Due t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l o s u r e of the i n d i v i d u a l system and i t s s t r u c t u r a l - d e t e r m i n i s m , K e l l y (1955) a s s e r t s t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n with the environment i s always s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l . The system informs and u n f o l d s upon i t s e l f i n a c i r c u l a r p a t t e r n of i n t e r a c t i o n (Foley, 1987). E s s e n t i a l l y , the c o n s t r u c t i o n system construes i t s own d e f i n i t i o n and e x t e n s i o n . Any change t h a t the system may undergo i s n e c e s s a r i l y d i c t a t e d by the r e l a t i o n s between the elements t h a t d e f i n e i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n . In K e l l y ' s words, i n d i v i d u a l s are a b l e t o l e a r n o n l y what t h e i r systems are s e t up t o l e a r n : One does not l e a r n c e r t a i n t h i n g s merely from the nature of the s t i m u l i which p l a y upon him; he l e a r n s only what h i s framework i s C o n s t r u c t Systems 19 designed t o permit him t o see i n the s t i m u l i , (p. 79) I d e n t i t y In o r d e r t o process r e a l i t y e f f e c t i v e l y , i n d i v i d u a l s r e q u i r e an i d e n t i t y , t h a t i s , a sense of s e l f . K e l l y (1955) views the s e l f as a c o n s t r u c t i n and of i t s e l f : ...the s e l f i s , when c o n s i d e r e d i n the a p p r o p r i a t e context, a proper concept o r c o n s t r u c t . I t r e f e r s t o a group of events which are a l i k e i n a c e r t a i n way and, 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 from o t h e r events. The way i n which the events are a l i k e i s the s e l f . That a l s o makes the s e l f an i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , (p. 131) I t may be argued t h a t t o have a s e l f c o n s t r u c t i s t o be co n s c i o u s o f the s e l f as the s u b j e c t of ex p e r i e n c e (McWilliams, 1987). T h i s i n v o l v e s a k i n d o f s e l f -transcendence e n a b l i n g i n d i v i d u a l s t o engage i n s e l f -e v a l u a t i o n . Such awareness of s e l f i s necessary f o r the i n d i v i d u a l i n order t o d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h an ever-changing world. In the course of p a s s i n g through d i f f e r e n t phases of l i f e , the experience of s e l f as a f i x e d , permanent e n t i t y p r o v i d e s the i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a C o n s t r u c t Systems 20 c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i o n from which t o view l i f e events. Without i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a s e l f c o n s t r u c t , i n d i v i d u a l s would be unable t o transcend immediate needs i n order t o make c h o i c e s and t o a n t i c i p a t e events i n the f u t u r e . K e l l y (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 c o n s t r u e s e l f , the i n d i v i d u a l must draw a d i s t i n c t i o n between s e l f and o t h e r . Adams-Webber (1979) contends t h a t o n l y as i n d i v i d u a l s d i s c e r n a s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n of s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between themselves and o t h e r s do they a c q u i r e a d i s t i n c t n o t i o n of t h e i r own i d e n t i t i e s . The p e r c e i v e d c o n t r a s t s between s e l f and o t h e r s e r v e t o d e f i n e the contours of the s e l f . As one c o n s t r u e s other people, he f o r m u l a t e s the c o n s t r u c t i o n system which governs h i s own b e h a v i o r . ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 133) B a n n i s t e r and Agnew (1977) i n t e r p r e t t h i s as \"the ways i n which we e l a b o r a t e the c o n s t r u i n g of s e l f must be e s s e n t i a l l y those ways i n which we e l a b o r a t e our c o n s t r u i n g of o t h e r s f o r we have not a concept of s e l f but a b i p o l a r concept of s e l f - n o t s e l f or s e l f - o t h e r s \" (p. 99). In t h i s way, the s e l f may be seen as emerging through a p r o c e s s of continuous engagement w i t h the environment. S t r i n g e r and B a n n i s t e r (1979) have i n d i c a t e d t h a t \" f o r K e l l y , the person...was o n l y c o n s t i t u t e d i n r e l a t i o n s with o t h e r s ; c o n s t r u c t s were C o n s t r u c t Systems 21 c h i e f l y a v a i l a b l e through i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h o t h e r s and o b t a i n e d t h e i r meaning i n the context of t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n \" (p. x i v ) . A c c o r d i n g t o K e l l y (1955), i n d i v i d u a l s a c h i e v e t h e i r i d e n t i t i e s as they c r e a t e a system of core c o n s t r u c t s . Governing the processes of s e l f -maintenance, i t i s the i n t e g r i t y of the core c o n s t r u c t system through i t s v a r i o u s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which g i v e s the i n d i v i d u a l a sense of s u b j e c t i v e c o n t i n u i t y . Such i n t e g r i t y supports the p r e d i c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y of t h e c o n s t r u c t system. Coherence i s maintained over y e a r s of growth and development i n t h a t core c o n s t r u c t s a r e conserved (Kenny, 1988). Given the c e n t r a l i t y of t h e s e c o r e 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 i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s h o l d a g r e a t investment i n t h e i r c o n s e r v a t i o n (Button, 1985). I t can be observed t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l p l a c e enormous r e s t r i c t i o n s upon themselves f o r the sake of p r e s e r v i n g c o n s i s t e n c y . C o n s t r u c t i o n of the P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t System Having i d e n t i f i e d K e l l y ' s (1955) view of the 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, i t i s now important t o examine more c l o s e l y h i s i d e a s r e g a r d i n g the a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s system. K e l l y ' s b a s i c assumptions are presented i n the Fundamental P o s t u l a t e C o n s t r u c t Systems 22 and e l a b o r a t e d upon i n a s e r i e s of elev e n c o r o l l a r i e s (see Appendix A ) . Together these p r o v i d e a t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t e x t f o r a c h i e v i n g a c l e a r understanding of the i n t e r n a l p rocesses i n f l u e n c i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the s o c i a l environment. Formation of the System The c e n t r a l t e n e t s of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y are embedded i n K e l l y ' s statement of the Fundamental P o s t u l a t e : 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 the way i n which he a n t i c i p a t e s events, (p.46) R e f l e c t i v e of the c o n s t r u c t i v i s t n o t i o n t h a t r e a l i t y can never be d i r e c t l y known, but remains o n l y a c o n s t r u c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c i n g i t , the Fundamental 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 the 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 worlds more and more manageable. K e l l y suggests t h a t such b e h a v i o r can b e s t be understood as the consequence of i n d i v i d u a l s ' attempts t o adequately p r e d i c t the f u t u r e on the b a s i s of t h e i r p r e v i o u s experience. As such, the a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s t o maintain a coherent sense of s e l f i s seen as f l o w i n g from t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o formulate a n t i c i p a t i o n s which accommodate t o r e c u r r i n g and n o v e l events i n the environment (Mancuso & Adams-Webber, 1982). As a l r e a d y noted, K e l l y ' s (1955) theory f o c u s e s upon i n d i v i d u a l s and the p a r t i c u l a r systems of meaning such i n d i v i d u a l s c o n s t r u c t throughout t h e i r l i v e s . H i s I n d i v i d u a l i t y C o r o l l a r y s t a t e s t h a t \"persons d i f f e r from each other i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of events\" (p. 55). I t may be i n f e r r e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n s of a s i t u a t i o n d e f i n e the s i t u a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , K e l l y argues t h a t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s i t u a t i o n a r e not r e l e v a n t i n themselves but o n l y with r e s p e c t t o t h e i r meaning t o the i n d i v i d u a l : He e r e c t s a s t r u c t u r e , w i t h i n the framework of which substance takes shape or assumes meaning. The substance which he c o n s t r u e s does not produce the s t r u c t u r e ; the person does. (p. 50) I t would seem t o f o l l o w t h a t persons d i f f e r i n g i n t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n of events would n e c e s s a r i l y d i f f e r a l s o i n t h e i r a n t i c i p a t i o n of events and t h e i r b ehavior r e s u l t i n g from these a n t i c i p a t i o n s . Gara (1982) contends t h a t i t i s \"the i n d i v i d u a l ' s own o r g a n i z a t i o n of experience [t h a t ] i s the most f e r t i l e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r the p rocess of understanding h i s or her conduct\" (p. 45). The nature of the c o n s t r u a l process i t s e l f sheds C o n s t r u c t Systems 24 l i g h t upon the d i v e r s i t y of human experience. E s s e n t i a l l y , the a c t of c o n s t r u i n g i n v o l v e s p l a c i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s upon events. I t i s a process of a b s t r a c t i o n i n which 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 t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n of a s e r i e s of occurrences. In drawing d i s t i n c t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l s note f e a t u r e s of r e g u l a r i t y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g one p a t t e r n from another. The s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s construed s e r v e t o punctuate t h e i r experience of the world and t o p r o v i d e order t o an otherwise d i s o r d e r l y experience of l i f e . I t i s t h i s a b i l i t y of people t o i n f e r some s o r t of p a t t e r n and order i n t h e i r experience t h a t enables them t o succeed i n making p r e d i c t i o n s (Button, 1985). I t can be seen t h a t as events are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , they become endowed with meaning, and i t becomes f e a s i b l e f o r the i n d i v i d u a l t o p r e d i c t them i n the f u t u r e . K e l l y (1955) s t a t e s i n the C o n s t r u c t i o n C o r o l l a r y t h a t \"a person a n t i c i p a t e s events by c o n s t r u i n g t h e i r r e p l i c a t i o n s \" (p. 50). Nystedt and Magnusson (1982) i n t e r p r e t K e l l y t o mean t h a t as an i n d i v i d u a l ' s immediate experience i s construed as both s i m i l a r t o and d i f f e r e n t from p r e v i o u s c o n s t r u c t i o n s , the c o n s t r u e d r e p l i c a t i o n p r o v i d e s the b a s i s 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 of what w i l l happen i n the f u t u r e : C o n s t r u c t Systems 25 ...one necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r the \" t r u t h \" of the C o n s t r u c t i o n C o r o l l a r y i s t h a t p a s t e x p e r i e n c e l e a v e s some e f f e c t s . The person does not s t a r t c o n s t r u i n g without some e a r l i e r knowledge, but uses some p r e e x i s t i n g schema t h a t enables him t o a t t e n d t o or t o n o t i c e c e r t a i n aspects of the environment r a t h e r than o t h e r s , (p. 39) In t h i s sense, pas t c o n s t r u c t i o n s a n t i c i p a t e c u r r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n s which, i n t u r n , a n t i c i p a t e f u t u r e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . As a means of min 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 i n p r e d i c t i n g events, K e l l y (1955) t h e o r i z e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n s are organized i n t o a c o n s t r u c t i o n system. As suggested by h i s O r g a n i z a t i o n C o r o l l a r y , \"each person c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y evolves, f o r h i s convenience i n a n t i c i p a t i n g events, a c o n s t r u c t i o n system embracing o r d i n a l 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. 56). Mancuso and Adams-Webber (1982) contend t h a t the r e g u l a r i t i e s i n d i v i d u a l s encounter i n t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e of the world p r o v i d e s evidence t h a t they s y s t e m a t i c a l l y impose a formal s t r u c t u r e on a l l t h e i r involvements. K e l l y views t h i s s t r u c t u r e as assuming a h i e r a r c h i c a l arrangement, one i n which some c o n s t r u c t s subsume C o n s t r u c t Systems 26 o t h e r s , which, i n t u r n , subsume s t i l l o t h e r s . C o n s t r u c t s a t the bottom of the h i e r a r c h y address h i g h l y s p e c i f i c and concre t e c h o i c e s , and are more open t o change. C o n s t r u c t s a t the top of the h i e r a r c h y encompass a wider range of c h o i c e s , h o l d i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the system as a whole, 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 these more meaningful c o n s t r u c t s which govern the i d e n t i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between subordinate and s u p e r o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t s i s d i a l e c t i c a l ; s u p e r o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t s guide and govern s u b o r d i n a t e s ; s u b o r d i n a t e s support and v a l i d a t e s u p e r o r d i n a t e s . K e l l y (1955) f u r t h e r holds t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s can var y i n terms of how t h e i r c o n s t r u c t s are arranged, some arrangements being more complex, f l e x i b l e , and a l l - e m b r a c i n g than o t h e r s (Button, 1985). Whether c o n c r e t e l y pyramided or 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 i s the p a r t i c u l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t system which s e r v e s t o channel the thoughts of i n d i v i d u a l s . Adams-Webber (1970) argues t h a t the 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 the o n l y avenues of movement i n d i v i d u a l s are able t o make i n r e s o l v i n g the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s they i n e v i t a b l y encounter. In o r d e r t o make sense of a p a r t i c u l a r event, i n d i v i d u a l s must f o l l o w the networks of channels they have l a i d down f o r themselves. In the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t system, i t i s the c o n s t r u c t which i s the primary u n i t of a n a l y s i s . A c c o r d i n g t o K e l l y ' s (1955) Dichotomy C o r o l l a r y , \"a person's c o n s t r u c t i o n system i s composed of a f i n i t e number of dichotomous c o n s t r u c t s (p. 59). A c o n s t r u c t may be d e f i n e d as an a b s t r a c t i o n which i s b i p o l a r i n na t u r e ; f o r example, up-down, h o t - c o l d , happy-sad. Such d e f i n i t i o n h i g h l i g h t s the assumption t h a t meaning i s i n h e r e n t l y a matter of c o n t r a s t ; t h a t up makes sense o n l y i n r e l a t i o n t o down, hot i n r e l a t i o n t o c o l d , happy i n r e l a t i o n t o sad. However, i t i s important t o understand a c o n s t r u c t as the d e c i s i o n between a p a i r of r i v a l hypotheses. K e l l y makes c l e a r t h a t i n a p p l y i n g a c o n s t r u c t t o an event, a c h o i c e i s be i n g made about the meaning t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h i s event when compared wi t h another; f o r example, t o d e s c r i b e someone as happy i m p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e s another as sad. E s s e n t i a l l y , the person's c h o i c e of how t o i n t e r p r e t the s i t u a t i o n determines the d i s t i n c t i o n s drawn. In t h i s way, a c o n s t r u c t can be viewed as r e p r e s e n t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n toward events encountered i n the world. K e l l y ' s idea o f a c o n s t r u c t has been compared with t h a t of a c o g n i t i v e schema, an o r g a n i z e d framework of knowledge about a s p e c i f i c C o n s t r u c t Systems 28 domain t h a t i n f l u e n c e s the s e l e c t i o n , m o d i f i c a t i o n , and r e c a l l o f a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n (Hayden, 1982)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 T h i s comparison serve s t o emphasize the nature of the c o n s t r u c t t o guide the e x t r a c t i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n , and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n . K e l l y (1955) contends t h a t each c o n s t r u c t has a l i m i t e d range of convenience, thereby r e s t r i c t i n g t h e number of events t o which i t can be a p p l i e d . H i s Range C o r o l l a r y s t a t e s t h a t \"a c o n s t r u c t i s convenient f o r the a n t i c i p a t i o n of a f i n i t e range of events o n l y \" (p. 68). Mancuso and Eimer (1982) view t h i s p r i n i c i p l e as r e f e r r i n g t o the s u c c e s s f u l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of events. They argue t h a t coding an event by use of a c o n s t r u c t whose range does not adequately extend t o t h a t event would not a l l o w the use of an a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d adjustment t o t h a t event. The r e s u l t i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e assumptions would f a i l t o produce an e f f e c t i v e a n t i c i p a t i o n . Correspondingly, i n d i v i d u a l s are a b l e t o make more c o n s i s t e n t and d i s c r i m i n a t i n g c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s when the y use c o n s t r u c t s t h a t they r e g a r d as r e l e v a n t t o events under c o n s i d e r a t i o n (Adams-Webber, 1979). Thus, 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 o f a c o n s t r u c t r e q u i r e s t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l e s t a b l i s h the boundaries w i t h i n which the c o n s t r u c t h o l d s r e l e v a n c y (Agnew & Brown, 1989). C o n s t r u c t Systems 29 The development of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t r u c t system r e s t s upon a process of c h o i c e . In the Choice C o r o l l a r y , K e l l y (1955) suggests t h a t \"a person chooses f o r h i m s e l f t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e i n a dichotomized c o n s t r u c t through which he a n t i c i p a t e s the g r e a t e r p o s s i b i l i t y f o r ext e n s i o n and d e f i n i t i o n of h i s system\" (p. 64). Extension r e f e r s t o making the system more comprehensive i n order t o address experiences which p r e v i o u s l y l a y o u t s i d e i t s range of convenience; d e f i n i t i o n r e f e r s t o making the c u r r e n t system more e x p l i c i t and c l e a r c u t . In other words, i n d i v i d u a l s choose between p l a y i n g i t s a f e or r i s k i n g adventure. K e l l y upholds t h a t whenever i n d i v i d u a l s are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r making a c h o i c e , they w i l l t end t o choose i n fav o r of the a l t e r n a t i v e which p r o v i d e s the g r e a t e r p o s s i b i l i t y f o r e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e i r system. In p l a c i n g r e l a t i v e v a l u e s upon one or the o t h e r of the a l t e r n a t i v e s r e presented i n each dichotomous c o n s t r u c t , i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l s e l e c t t h a t p o l e which i s f u n c t i o n a l l y i n t e g r a l with r e s p e c t t o the system. In other words, i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l choose i n the d i r e c t i o n of red u c i n g u n c e r t a i n t y and p r e s e r v i n g coherence of the system. K e l l y r e f e r s t o such c h o i c e as \" a c t i n g i n defense of s e l f \" or \" d i r e c t e d toward p r e s e r v a t i o n of one's i n t e g r i t y \" (p. 67). In the same C o n s t r u c t Systems 30 way, Mancuso and Eimer (1982) contend t h a t \"the l i k e l i h o o d of i n v o k i n g any g i v e n c o n s t r u c t i s regarded as dependent on the i m p l i c a t i o n s i t i s judged t o have r e l a t i v e t o e x t r a c t i n g v a l i d a t i o n f o r the r e s t of a person's system\" (p. 145). S t a b i l i t y and Change W i t h i n the System In the normal course of development of the c o n s t r u c t i o n system, K e l l y (1955) holds t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s are d i r e c t e d toward making more and more of t h e i r w o r l d p r e d i c t a b l e . T h i s process of g i v i n g o r d e r t o an otherwise meaningless stream of events can be found t o embrace a c y c l e of f i v e phases: a n t i c i p a t i o n , investment, encounter, c o n f i r m a t i o n or d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n , and c o n s t r u c t i v e r e v i s i o n . K e l l y r e f e r s t o t h i s as the e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e . He contends t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r nature of i n d i v i d u a l s ' e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e s i s determined by the process of v a l i d a t i o n . As i n d i v i d u a l s encounter a new event, working hypotheses are put t o the t e s t of experience; i f the event as a n t i c i p a t e d takes p l a c e , i n d i v i d u a l s ' a n t i c i p a t i o n s are v a l i d a t e d ; i f i t f a i l s t o do so, t h e i r a n t i c i p a t i o n s are i n v a l i d a t e d . E s s e n t i a l l y , \" v a l i d a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s the c o m p a t i b i l i t y ( s u b j e c t i v e l y construed) between one's p r e d i c t i o n and the outcome he obs e r v e s \" ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 158). While the p r i n c i p l e C o n s t r u c t Systems 31 of e l a b o r a t i v e c h o i c e d i r e c t s the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a n t i c i p a t i o n s , v a l i d a t i o n s e r v e s t o v e r i f y the adequacy of t h e s e a n t i c i p a t i o n s . In t h i s way, v a l i d a t i o n r e g u l a t e s the completion of the e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e . A c c o r d i n g t o K e l l y ' s Experience C o r o l l a r y , \"a person's c o n s t r u c t i o n system v a r i e s as he s u c c e s s i v e l y c o n s t r u e s the r e p l i c a t i o n of events\" (p. 72). Adams-Webber (1970) contends t h a t i t i s v a l i d a t i o n which p l a y s a c r i t i c a l r o l e i n c o n s t r u c t i v e r e v i s i o n , the f i n a l phase of the e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e : As events s u b j e c t 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, c o n f i r m i n g some of them and d i s c o n f i r m i n g o t h e r s , h i s c o n s t r u c t s undergo p r o g r e s s i v e changes as a f u n c t i o n o f the f a c t 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 the l i g h t of t h i s feedback (p. 31). In view of the c o n s t r u c t i v e r e v i s i o n phase of the e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e , i t can be found t h a t i t i s the n o v e l t y of those events which do not f i t i n t o the c u r r e n t s t r u c t u r e of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t r u c t system t h a t s t i m u l a t e s change i n i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n (Adams-Webber, 1970). I n d i v i d u a l s need t o adapt t h e i r c o n s t r u c t systems i n order t o respond t o n a t u r a l changes i n themselves and the o u t s i d e world. Mancuso & Adams-Webber (1982) contend t h a t changes ev o l v e w i t h i n C o n s t r u c t Systems 32 the system i n order t o adequately accommodate t o events t h a t l i e o u t s i d e i t s range of convenience: A person's processes - h i s conduct - are d i r e c t e d toward those events which are incongruent w i t h the i n t e r n a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e s a g a i n s t which i n f o r m a t i o n has been monitored. R e s o l u t i o n of d i s c r e p a n c y occupies the major p a r t of a person's l i f e a c t i v i t y , (p. 24) K e l l y (1955) addresses the i s s u e o f change i n h i s f o r m u l a t i o n of the Modulation and Fragmentation C o r o l l a r i e s . These p r i n c i p l e s s t i p u l a t e the c o n d i t i o n s under which change may occur w h i l e i n t e g r i t y o f the e n t i r e system i s maintained. The degree t o which v a r i a t i o n i s accepted by the c o n s t r u c t i o n system has t o do w i t h the p e r m e a b i l i t y of c o n s t r u c t s a t i n c r e a s i n g l e v e l s o f superordinancy. K e l l y ' s Modulation C o r o l l a r y a s s e r t s t h a t \"the v a r i a t i o n i n a person's c o n s t r u c t i o n system i s l i m i t e d by the p e r m e a b i l i t y of the c o n s t r u c t s w i t h i n whose range of convenience the v a r i a n t s l i e \" (p. 77). K e l l y (1970) d e f i n e s p e r m e a b i l i t y not as the \" a m e n a b i l i t y [of a c o n s t r u c t ] t o change w i t h i n i t s e l f but i t s c a p a c i t y t o be used as a r e f e r e n t f o r n o v e l events and t o accept new subordinate c o n s t r u c t s w i t h i n i t s range of convenience\" (p. 19). In oth e r words, a c o n s t r u c t 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 C o n s t r u c t Systems 3 3 e x p e r i e n c e s can be d i s c r i m i n a t e l y added t o those i t a l r e a d y embraces. The more i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn from a s i n g l e c o n s t r u c t , the g r e a t e r i t s f l e x i b i l i t y i n subsuming a v a r i e t y of events. L a n d f i e l d (1982), i n i n t e r p r e t i n g K e l l y , s t a t e s t h a t \"how one copes w i t h i n c o n s i s t e n c y and change must o f t e n be sought i n those more open themes, a b s t r a c t i o n s , and s u p e r o r d i n a t e a s p e c t s of the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system. I t i s t h e s e more permeable s t r u c t u r e s t h a t h o l d persons t o g e t h e r and f a c i l i t a t e the encompassing of s h i f t i n g c o n t e x t s , b e h a v i o r a l change, c o n f l i c t i n g experiences, and a n t i c i p a t i o n s of the unknown\" (p. 213). In order t o e f f e c t i v e l y a s s i m i l a t e change, K e l l y (1955) f u r t h e r suggests t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t system i n t o r e l a t i v e l y independent subsystems can support the i n d i v i d u a l ' s t o l e r a n c e of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y . H i s Fragmentation C o r o l l a r y a s s e r t s t h a t \"a person may s u c c e s s i v e l y employ a v a r i e t y of c o n s t r u c t i o n subsystems which are i n f e r e n t i a l l y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h each ot h e r \" (p. 83). Adams-Webber (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 the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of a c o n s t r u c t system i n t o r e l a t i v e l y independent o p e r a t i o n a l subsystems, by p e r m i t t i n g the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n of elements among r e l a t i v e l y s p e c i a l i z e d s e t s of c o n s t r u c t s , and thus, p a r a l l e l C o n s t r u c t Systems 34 p r o c e s s i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n input, i n c r e a s e s the d e p l o y a b i l i t y of the system as a whole\" (p. 35). Adams-Webber goes on t o p o i n t out t h a t such fr a g m e n t a t i o n i s only p o s s i b l e when t h e r e i s no t h r e a t of damage t o the f u n c t i o n a l i n t e g r i t y of the system as a whole. In other words, subsystems which may operate independently a t lower l e v e l s of the c o n s t r u c t system must be r e i n t e g r a t e d a t h i g h e r l e v e l s . The s u p e r o r d i n a t e system c o o r d i n a t e s the f u n c t i o n i n g o f se p a r a t e subsystems, thereby p r o v i d i n g a t h r e a d of c o n s i s t e n c y throughout the c o n s t r u c t system as a whole. I f i n d i v i d u a l s are bound by the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r c o n s t r u c t system, then i t f o l l o w s t h a t c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l e xperience g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y than others when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t y of change ( L a n d f i e l d , 1982). Adams-Webber (1970) contends t h a t s t r u c t u r a l extremes, whether too spa r s e or too e x t e n s i v e a p a t t e r n of r e l a t i o n s among c o n s t r u c t s , a f f e c t the i n d i v i d u a l ' s encompassing of change. The more uni d i m e n s i o n a l the s t r u c t u r e of a g i v e n system, the fewer the a l t e r n a t i v e s which are a v a i l a b l e t o the i n d i v i d u a l i n i n t e r p r e t i n g events. The l o g i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by the 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 of c o n s t r u c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s l i k e l y t o arouse a n x i e t y when the complexity of a C o n s t r u c t Systems 35 new event cannot be f i t t e d i n t o t h i s s i m p l i s t i c framework. Such persons are r e l u c t a n t t o r i s k adjustments a t any l e v e l f o r f e a r t h i s w i l l p l a c e them i n an even more ambiguous p o s i t i o n with r e s p e c t t o f u t u r e a n t i c i p a t i o n s . For t h i s reason, such persons may choose t o s t a y with the misery of a f a m i l i a r event, r a t h e r than r i s k the u n c e r t a i n t y of l i v i n g without i t . L i k e w i s e , the o p p o s i t e extreme pre s e n t s s i m i l a r l i a b i l i t i e s . When the degree of i n t e g r a t i o n i s so l i m i t e d t h a t t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t o v e r l a p among the ranges of convenience of the c o n s t r u c t s , i n d i v i d u a l s are unable t o r e l a t e one aspect of a s e t of events t o another. As such, t h e i r s e n s i t i v i t y t o e x t r a c t and develop c o r r e l a t i o n s between f e a t u r e s i n the environment i s poor. They are a b l e t o draw few i n f e r e n c e s from one event which can be used t o i n f o r m them about another event. A c c o r d i n g t o K e l l y (1955), the concept of a n x i e t y p l a y s a c e n t r a l r o l e i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s adjustment t o the world of events. E s s e n t i a l l y , a n x i e t y s i g n a l s the degree t o which an event exceeds the s t r u c t u r i n g c a p a c i t y of the c o n s t r u c t system, thereby a l e r t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l as t o the need t o make a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . The extent of a n x i e t y i s a f u n c t i o n of the amount of d i s c r e p a n c y between the i n f o r m a t i o n C o n s t r u c t Systems 3 6 p r e s e n t e d and the schema a v a i l a b l e from the e x i s t i n g system. From the s t a n d p o i n t of the psychology of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s , a n x i e t y , per se, i s not c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r good or bad. I t r e p r e s e n t s the awareness t h a t one's c o n s t r u c t i o n system does not apply t o events a t hand. I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , a p r e c o n d i t i o n f o r making r e v i s i o n s . ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 498) As p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l g e n e r a l l y a d j u s t the form and content of t h e i r c o n s t r u i n g i n an attempt t o reduce the a n x i e t y aroused by d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n t h e i r experience. However, t h i s t r a n s i t i o n i s dependent upon the p e r m e a b i l i t y of the s u p e r o r d i n a t e system i n a l l o w i n g f o r the new c o n s t r u c t . I mpermeability can f a i l t o support i n d i v i d u a l s i n c h o o s i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n , thus h i n d e r i n g t h e i r a b i l i t y t o adequately p r e d i c t the s i t u a t i o n i n which they f i n d themselves. Most of us can t o l e r a t e some amount of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y . . . . T h e amount t h a t can be t o l e r a t e d depends on the p e r m e a b i l i t y of s u p e r o r d i n a t i n g c o n s t r u c t s . I f those c o n s t r u c t s which would o r d i n a r i l y s u p e r o r d i n a t e the v a r i a n t s are i n s u f f i c i e n t l y C o n s t r u c t Systems 37 permeable t o admit impending v a r i a n t s i n t o t h e i r ranges of convenience, the person f i n d s h i m s e l f i n an a n x i e t y s i t u a t i o n . H i s c o n s t r u c t i o n system f a i l s him....He i s co n f r o n t e d w i t h a changing scene, but no lo n g e r has a guide t o c a r r y him through the t r a n s i t i o n ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 496). In t h e f a c e of t r y i n g 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 e x p e r i e n c i n g repeated i n v a l i d a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s may respond t o t h i s t r a n s i t i o n i n a number of ways. They can r e a c t by \" l o o s e n i n g \" t h e i r c o n s t r u c t system i n order t o i n c o r p o r a t e the new evidence ( F r a n s e l l a , 1970). While l o o s e n i n g of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o n s t r u c t s a l l o w s 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, Adams-Webber (1981) p o i n t s out t h a t such l o o s e n i n g can cause the meaning of c o n s t r u c t s t o become l e s s w e l l d e f i n e d . The l o s s of d e f i n i t i o n can impose t h r e a t t o the l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e of the o v e r a l l system. K e l l y (1955) maintains t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s can exp e r i e n c e t h r e a t when the degree of p r o s p e c t i v e change i s s u b s t a n t i a l . E s s e n t i a l l y , he d e s c r i b e s t h r e a t as \"the awareness of imminent comprehensive change i n one's c o r e s t r u c t u r e s \" (p. 489). F r a n s e l l a (1970) h o l d s t h a t the experience of t h r e a t i n t e r f e r e s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s ' formation of new c o n s t r u c t s . People can C o n s t r u c t Systems 3 8 be found t o f a l l back on o l d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n s or \" t i g h t e n \" t h e i r p r e s e n t c o n s t r u i n g i n an e f f o r t t o more c l e a r l y d e f i n e what i t i s they are p r e d i c t i n g . Another r e a c t i o n i s h o s t i l i t y . When i n d i v i d u a l s h o l d too much investment i n a p a r t i c u l a r a n t i c i p a t i o n , they can become h o s t i l e and attempt t o a l t e r the events so t h a t they conform t o t h e i r p r e d i c t i o n s . In t h i s way, h o s t i l i t y r e f l e c t s \"the continued e f f o r t t o e x t o r t v a l i d a t i o n a l evidence i n favour of a type of s o c i a l p r e d i c t i o n which has a l r e a d y proved i t s e l f a f a i l u r e \" ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 510). The i m p l i c a t i o n s of repeated i n v a l i d a t i o n upon i n d i v i d u a l f u n c t i o n i n g serve t o emphasize the c r i t i c a l b a l a n c e between s t a b i l i t y and change t o be maintained w i t h i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n system. I t seems c l e a r t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t i o n system r e q u i r e s s u f f i c i e n t s t a b i l i t y of the o v e r a l l system so t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s are not unduly threatened by the p r o s p e c t of change (Alexander & Neimeyer, 1989). While K e l l y (1955) upholds the hope and p o t e n t i a l of change, he a l s o emphasizes the importance of c o n t i n u i t y . He m a i n t a i n s t h a t \" c o n s t r u i n g i s a way of s e e i n g events t h a t makes them look r e g u l a r . . . [ a n d ] t o be e f f e c t i v e , the c o n s t r u c t i o n system i t s e l f must have some r e g u l a r i t y \" (p. 76). S o c i a l i t y Having contended t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s are d i s t i n c t by v i r t u e of t h e i r unique systems of c o n s t r u c t s , K e l l y (1955) goes on t o argue t h a t they are s i m i l a r t o one another t o the extent t h a t t h e r e i s commonality between t h e i r c o n s t r u c t systems. A c c o r d i n g t o h i s Commonality C o r o l l a r y , \"to the extent t h a t one person employs a c o n s t r u c t i o n of experience which i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t employed by another, h i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s a r e s i m i l a r t o those of the other person\" (p. 90). T h i s p r i n c i p l e emphasizes t h a t i t i s s i m i l a r i t y i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of an event, not the event i t s e l f , t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r s i m i l a r behavior between i n d i v i d u a l s . K e l l y s t a t e s t h a t c o n s t r u i n g of the c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s e s of others i s a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e t o e n t e r i n g i n t o s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h them. As s t a t e d i n h i s S o c i a l i t y C o r o l l a r y , \"to the e x t e n t t h a t one person c o n s t r u e s the c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s e s of another, he may p l a y a r o l e i n a s o c i a l process i n v o l v i n g the o t h e r person\" (p. 95). I t may be i n f e r r e d t h a t the a b i l i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o e f f e c t i v e l y communicate w i t h each o t h e r i s l i m i t e d by t h e i r understanding of one another's c o n s t r u c t system. L a n d f i e l d (1979) suggests t h a t such understanding encompasses more than the o b s e r v a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r c h o i c e , d e c i s i o n , or C o n s t r u c t Systems 40 p a t t e r n of behavior; i t a l s o i n c l u d e s the s t r u c t u r e of f e e l i n g s , a t t i t u d e s , and v a l u e s which are l i n k e d t o these c h o i c e s , d e c i s i o n s , and behaviors. A more complete understanding of t h i s p r i n c i p l e l i e s i n K e l l y ' s (1955) d e f i n i t i o n of r o l e . Rather than vie w i n g a r o l e as a s o c i a l l y p r e s c r i b e d s e t of e x p e c t a t i o n s , K e l l y p e r c e i v e s i t as \"a course of a c t i v i t y which i s p l a y e d out i n the l i g h t of one's c o n s t r u c t i o n of one or more other persons' c o n s t r u c t systems\" (p. 177). T h i s , of course, i s a r e s t r i c t e d d e f i n i t i o n of the term, one s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l e v a n t t o the t h e o r y of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s . From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , a r o l e i s enacted on the b a s i s of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t r u i n g of another's o u t l o o k or way of s e e i n g t h i n g s . E s s e n t i a l l y , the i n d i v i d u a l \"behaves a c c o r d i n g t o what he b e l i e v e s another person t h i n k s , not merely a c c o r d i n g t o what the other person appears t o approve or disapprove\" ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 178). Given the i n d i v i d u a l ' s investment i n s e c u r i n g v a l i d a t i o n of t h e s e c o n s t r u c t i o n s , as a means of completing the e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e , i t can be found t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e themselves i n such a way t h a t t h e i r b ehavior tends t o become c o o r d i n a t e d with t h a t of the o t h e r . I t i s g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t the Commonality and S o c i a l i t y C o r o l l a r i e s are i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d and C o n s t r u c t Systems 41 t o g e t h e r p r o v i d e the b a s i s upon which t o e s t a b l i s h a 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; Duck, 1982; L a n d f i e l d , 1979). In correspondence w i t h each other, these p r i n c i p l e s suggest t h a t the e x t e n t t o which commonality e x i s t s between two c o n s t r u c t systems, the common p a r t s of the systems f a c i l i t a t e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . I t can be i n f e r r e d t h a t i n c r e a s e s i n the degree of commonality should c o i n c i d e w i t h i n c r e a s e s i n the degree of understanding, and c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , the b a s i s f o r engagement i n s o c i a l p r o c e s s e s (Duck, 1982). Given t h a t each and every change w i t h i n the e x p e r i e n c e c y c l e p r e s e n t s the i n d i v i d u a l with a new problem of v a l i d i t y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i v i d u a l s and t h e i r s o c i a l environment becomes e s p e c i a l l y important. The importance of commonality as a p r e c o n d i t i o n f o r s o c i a l i t y can be seen as stemming from i n d i v i d u a l s ' need t o c o n f i r m t h a t a l l or p a r t of t h e i r c o n s t r u c t system i s u s e f u l . In support of t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . Duck (1979) has found i n d i v i d u a l s t o be a t t r a c t e d t o others who construe the s o c i a l world u s i n g c o n s t r u c t s t h a t are s i m i l a r t o t h e i r own. Such c o n s t r u c t s i m i l a r i t y i s r e f l e c t i v e of s i m i l a r i t y i n c o n t e n t . As noted by Adams-Webber (1981), Duck proposes t h a t the p r e f e r e n c e f o r c o n s t r u c t s i m i l a r i t y C o n s t r u c t Systems 42 i s based upon the o p p o r t u n i t y i t p r o v i d e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s t o have t h e i r own c o n s t r u c t s v a l i d a t e d : Duck suggests t h a t i t i s \" c o n s e n s u a l l y v a l i d a t i n g \" t o f i n d t h a t our own p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s are shared by o t h e r s , s i n c e t h i s p r o v i d e s a source of \" s u b j e c t i v e \" evidence t h a t our own c o n s t r u i n g i s r e l e v a n t and a c c u r a t e , (p. 61) Duck (1979) f u r t h e r suggests t h a t t h i s n o t i o n of consensual v a l i d a t i o n serves a c r i t i c a l s e l f -maintenance f u n c t i o n f o r the i n d i v i d u a l : Without o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t e s t out the v a l i d i t y of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of c o n s t r u c t s , a person's system would l a c k i t s e s s e n t i a l v a l i d a t i o n a l support and [the person's] p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n t e g r i t y would be shaken or sapped, (p. 285) I f commonality i s an important p r e c o n d i t i o n t o s o c i a l i t y , then i t f o l l o w s t h a t commonality may a l s o i n f l u e n c e c h o i c e of persons with whom s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n of i n c r e a s i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e o c c u r s . In d e v e l o p i n g a model of f r i e n d s h i p formation. Duck (1979) argues t h a t the nature of commonality s h i f t s as the r e l a t i o n s h i p between f r i e n d s develops. P r o p o s i n g t h a t t h e r e may be two d i f f e r e n t stages i n the p r o g r e s s i o n of C o n s t r u c t Systems 43 a r e l a t i o n s h i p , he contends t h a t commonality i n terms of n o n - 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 . , appearance, s o c i a l r o l e , behavior) may f a c i l i t a t e i n t e r a c t i o n i n the e a r l i e r stages of f r i e n d s h i p , but commonality i n terms of 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 . , p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , values) should become i n c r e a s i n g l y important as the r e l a t i o n s h i p continues t o develop. In t h i s way, Duck upholds the importance of c o n s t r u c t s i m i l a r i t y throughout r e l a t i o n s h i p f ormation t o i n f e r consensual v a l i d a t i o n a t p r o g r e s s i v e l y deeper, more p s y c h o l o g i c a l l e v e l s of the c o n s t r u c t system. Duck suggests t h a t i n s u f f i c i e n t s i m i l a r i t y between i n d i v i d u a l s a t any stage of the r e l a t i o n s h i p can cause them t o f i l t e r one another from the pool of p r o s p e c t i v e f r i e n d s : R e l a t i o n s w i t h s p e c i f i c o t h e r s are a t t r a c t i v e i n so f a r as they ( d i r e c t l y ) produce or ( i n d i r e c t l y ) suggest support f o r the c o n s t r u c t system; they develop i n i n t i m a c y i n so f a r as the p a r t n e r s expect t o f i n d more s u b t l e p a r t s of t h e i r c o n s t r u c t systems v a l i d a t e d as the r e l a t i o n s h i p c o n t i n u e s ; t h e s e e x p e c t a n c i e s are e i t h e r confirmed or not; where c o n f i r m a t i o n i s s t r o n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be l i k e w i s e , and where i t i s weak or not p r e s e n t a t a l l , the C o n s t r u c t Systems 44 r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l f a i l t o grow or w i l l a c t u a l l y d e c l i n e , (p. 295) Neimeyer and Neimeyer (1981) extend Duck's l i n e of r e a s o n i n g r e g a r d i n g the i n f l u e n c e of s i m i l a r i t y upon r e l a t i o n s h i p development. They argue t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a r e a t t r a c t e d t o o t h e r s who possess not o n l y s i m i l a r i t y i n c o n s t r u c t s but s i m i l a r i t y i n the way c o n s t r u c t s are a p p l i e d t o events. I t i s not the s i m i l a r i t y of experience which p r o v i d e s the b a s i s f o r s i m i l a r i t y of a c t i o n , but s i m i l a r i t y of t h e i r present c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h a t experience. ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 92) A d d r e s s i n g the way i n which i n d i v i d u a l s f u n c t i o n i n t h e i r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of s o c i a l experience, Neimeyer and Neimeyer r e f e r t o t h i s as f u n c t i o n a l s i m i l a r i t y . Neimeyer and Neimeyer (1983) have p r e s e n t e d s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y as a f u r t h e r aspect i n f l u e n c i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p p r o c e s s . T h i s v a r i a b l e r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y t o s i m i l a r i t y i n the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst c o n s t r u c t dimensions t h a t comprise the c o n s t r u c t system, t h a t i s , s i m i l a r i t y i n c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y . While Duck (1972) i n t e r p r e t s such s i m i l a r i t y as i n d i c a t i v e of the \"normative e f f e c t of group membership\" (p. 233) , Neimeyer and Neimeyer argue f o r a d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n . Drawing support from C o n s t r u c t Systems 45 f i n d i n g s t h a t f r i e n d s d i s p l a y g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y i n system d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , Neimeyer and Neimeyer propose t h a t the development of deeper r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s a f f e c t e d by the degree of s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y shared between i n d i v i d u a l s . They suggest t h a t c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y i s one f e a t u r e i n the s t r u c t u r e of a person's p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes which imposes c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i v e f e a t u r e s upon i n t e r p e r s o n a l understanding. C o n t r a r y t o Duck, they contend t h a t a f f i l i a t i o n i s a consequence of s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y , not the r e v e r s e , and t h a t such f i n d i n g s l e n d f u r t h e r support t o t h e n o t i o n of consensual v a l i d a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , Adams-Webber (1970) c o n s i d e r s c o g n i t i v e complexity t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n the accuracy of i n d i v i d u a l s ' i n f e r e n c e s about the c o n s t r u c t systems of o t h e r s . He contends t h a t s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i s dependent upon i n d i v i d u a l s h o l d i n g e l a b o r a t e s e t s of r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t s i n mind, comparing them, and l o c a t i n g common p o i n t s of r e f e r e n c e . I n d i v i d u a l s who h o l d g r e a t e r c o g n i t i v e complexity are a b l e t o employ a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of c o n s t r u c t s i n a s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , thereby enhancing t h e i r understanding of the p e r s p e c t i v e s of t h e o t h e r s i n v o l v e d . However, w h i l e c o g n i t i v e c omplexity has g e n e r a l l y been found t o c o r r e l a t e w i t h a d a p t a t i o n (Crockett, 1982) , the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of c o n s t r u c t Systems 46 i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n impressions of others appears t o be mediated by a number of f a c t o r s . M e l t z e r , C r o c k e t t , and Rosenkrantz (1966) found the expected e f f e c t s of co m p l e x i t y upon r e s o l u t i o n of 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 w i t h the c e n t r a l v a l u e s of the oth e r person; when t h e r e was disagreement w i t h t h e other person's 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 than noncomplex s u b j e c t s a t r e c o n c i l i n g the i n c o n s i s t e n c y . In a d d r e s s i n g these v a r i e d o b s e r v a t i o n s as t o the nature of c o g n i t i v e complexity, i t can be argued 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 t o c o n s i d e r , s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y remains an important f a c t o r i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' communication and development of a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h another. Given the r e l a t i o n s h i p between commonality and s o c i a l i t y , i t seems l o g i c a l t o assume t h a t s o c i a l involvement w i t h f r i e n d s would e n t a i l g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y amongst c o n s t r u c t i o n s than c a s u a l c o n t a c t w i t h a neighbour or the corner g r o c e r . Support f o r such t h i n k i n g has r e p e a t e d l y been found (Duck, 1973; Duck & Spencer, 1972). Such evidence underscores the e f f e c t of s i m i l a r i t y of c o n s t r u a l upon r e l a t i o n s h i p development. Summary Having reviewed the o p e r a t i o n of the PCS, i t can C o n s t r u c t Systems 47 be argued t h a t v a l i d a t i o n holds a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e upon i n d i v i d u a l s ' e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e i r c o n s t r u c t systems. E s s e n t i a l l y , v a l i d a t i o n w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of d y a d i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s seen t o support the i n d i v i d u a l ' s maintenance of a coherent sense of s e l f . K e l l y ' s view of the i n d i v i d u a l as dependent upon o t h e r s f o r v e r i f i c a t i o n of the r e l e v a n c y of t h e i r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s i s of c o n s i d e r a b l e importance i n the development of the proposed framework. I t remains the scope of t h i s paper t o determine the extent t o which v a l i d a t i o n bears s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' 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 as w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . Chapter I I I . The Development of Shared C o n s t r u c t Systems Having reviewed i n Chapter 2 the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l f u n c t i o n i n g , Chapter 3 now foc u s e s upon the ex t e n s i o n of K e l l y ' s (1955) theory t o the a r e a of shared c o n s t r u c t systems. T h i s examination addresses two areas of r e l e v a n c e : the f a m i l y , and the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The chapter begins w i t h a review of f a m i l y c o n s t r u c t theory and the o p e r a t i o n of the f a m i l y c o n s t r u c t system. The p r i n c i p l e s governing the f u n c t i o n i n g of f a m i l y members as a group are then a p p l i e d t o the f u n c t i o n i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n the work s e t t i n g . The n o t i o n of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t system i s proposed and i t s f u n c t i o n i n g w i t h i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n o u t l i n e d . The Familv C o n s t r u c t System In p r o p o s i n g the s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system as the u n i t of examination, p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y p r o v i d e s 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n s not onl y a t a p e r s o n a l l e v e l but a t a f a m i l y l e v e l as w e l l . The move from i n d i v i d u a l t o shared c o n s t r u c t systems, however, does r e q u i r e a fundamental s h i f t i n t h e o r e t i c a l s t a n d p o i n t . I n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n must n e c e s s a r i l y be r e f o r m u l a t e d C o n s t r u c t Systems 49 t o encompass the i n t e r c o n n e c t e d c o g n i t i v e sch\u00C3\u00A9mas of the f a m i l y u n i t . I t i s the i n t e g r a t i o n of systems t h e o r y w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y which supports t h i s s h i f t b e i n g made. Together these c o n t r i b u t e t o a f u l l e r understanding of the i n t e r p l a y between p e r s o n a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s i n the development of the shared c o n s t r u c t system. When regarded as s i n g l e u n i t , the f a m i l y i s found t o adhere t o the p r i n c i p l e s of the 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 the 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 can be seen as assuming a l i f e and i d e n t i t y of i t s own. The way i n which f a m i l y members are l i k e l y t o frame t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e i s a f u n c t i o n of t h i s shared view of r e a l i t y . As such, an adequate understanding of f a m i l y f u n c t i o n i n g r e q u i r e s examination of the f a m i l y from the p e r s p e c t i v e of f a m i l y members themselves. As Kantor (1985) so s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e s , the shared f a m i l y r e a l i t y g u i d e s t h e v a r i e t y of i n t e r a c t i o n s f a m i l y members can address w h i l e p r e s e r v i n g t h e i r i d e n t i t y as a whole: The u l t i m a t e task t h a t a l l f a m i l i e s , without e x c e p t i o n , f a c e : the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e v o l v i n g a model (Kantor & Lehr, 1975) or paradigm f o r g u i d i n g t h e i r members through the o r d i n a r y and e x t r a o r d i n a r y e x i g e n c i e s o f C o n s t r u c t Systems 50 l i f e , a model f o r c o n s t r u i n g and d e a l i n g w i t h r e a l i t i e s w i t h i n the f a m i l y and between the f a m i l y and i t s e x t e r n a l environment, (pp. 21-22) While K e l l y (1955) has l i t t l e d i r e c t t o say about the f a m i l y and i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y , h i s id e a s r e g a r d i n g group processes have much t o c o n t r i b u t e t o an und e r s t a n d i n g of the dynamics i n v o l v e d i n c r e a t i n g a shared r e a l i t y (Alexander & Neimeyer, 1989). E s p e c i a l l y important i s h i s d i s c u s s i o n of commonality w i t h i n c u l t u r e s where he emphasizes t h a t \" i t i s not the s i m i l a r i t y of experience which p r o v i d e s the b a s i s f o r s i m i l a r i t y of a c t i o n , but s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e i r p r e s e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h a t e x perience\" ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 92). I t may be i n f e r r e d t h a t the e f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g o f a group i s d i r e c t e d by the common channels of e x p e c t a t i o n which a r i s e from group members c o n s t r u i n g events i n a s i m i l a r way. The experience of commonality i n c r e a s e s the degree of i n t e r p e r s o n a l understanding, which, i n t u r n , encourages s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In a p p l y i n g these n o t i o n s t o t h a t of t h e f a m i l y , i t would appear t h a t the e f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g of the f a m i l y i s governed by t h e i r mutual a n t i c i p a t i o n of events. I t i s t h i s l i n e of t h i n k i n g which P r o c t o r (1981) assumes i n h i s development of f a m i l y c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y . P e r c e i v i n g the f a m i l y t o be d i r e c t e d toward C o n s t r u c t Systems 51 making i t s world more and more manageable. P r o c t o r views f a m i l y members as n e g o t i a t i n g a common c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y i n order t o achieve t h i s end. He i n c o r p o r a t e s the p r i n c i p l e s o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y w i t h a wider systemic view t o extend K e l l y ' s n o t i o n o f the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system t o t h a t o f a j o i n t l y - h e l d system of f a m i l y c o n s t r u c t s . P r o c t o r r e f e r s t o t h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n as the f a m i l y c o n s t r u c t system (FCS). S i m i l a r t o the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t 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 , the FCS comprises the s e t of c o n s t r u c t s which guide f a m i l y members i n t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . The concept of the FCS covers the same t h e o r e t i c a l ground as a number of other concepts proposed. S i m i l a r t o the f a m i l y paradigm (Reiss, 1981), as w e l l as the f a m i l y myth ( F e r r i e r a , 1965), the n o t i o n of a shared f a m i l y r e a l i t y serves t o express the d e l i c a t e c o o r d i n a t i o n r e q u i r e d of f a m i l y members t o enhance t h e i r f u n c t i o n i n g as a group. R e i s s , f o r example, employs the concept of paradigm t o d e f i n e the u n d e r l y i n g shared experiences of f a m i l y l i f e which p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n shaping a f a m i l y ' s b e l i e f s about i t s e l f and i t s t r a n s a c t i o n s with the s o c i a l environment. S i m i l a r l y , F e r r i e r a proposes the concept of f a m i l y myth t o i d e n t i f y the c o v e r t r u l e s g o v e r n i n g C o n s t r u c t Systems 52 the b e h a v i o r of f a m i l y members. These r u l e s are viewed as \"embodied i n the b e l i e f s and mutual e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t the f a m i l y members e n t e r t a i n about themselves\" ( F e r r i e r a , 1965, p. 16). Drawing upon K e l l y ' s (1955) p r i n c i p l e s of commonality and s o c i a l i t y . P r o c t o r (1981) develops two a d d i t i o n a l c o r o l l a r i e s t o address the nature of r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the f a m i l y . In h i s d e s i g n o f a Group C o r o l l a r y , P r o c t o r extends K e l l y ' s t h e o r y t o encompass the area of m u l t i p e r s o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s : To the extent t h a t a person can cons t r u e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between members of a group, he may take p a r t i n a group process with 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 , P r o c t o r addresses the s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n upon which a group of people may l i v e together over an extended p e r i o d o f time: For a group of people t o remain t o g e t h e r over an extended p e r i o d of time, each must make a c h o i c e , w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s of 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 of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the group, (p. 354) Together these two c o r o l l a r i e s suggest t h a t a common c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y i s a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e t o C o n s t r u c t Systems 53 the f o r m a t i o n o f the f a m i l y and i t s adequate f u n c t i o n i n g as a u n i t . E s s e n t i a l l y , i t can be argued t h a t s i m i l a r i t y i n the c o n s t r u a l of events i s e s s e n t i a l t o the f a m i l y ' s i d e n t i t y and each member's sense of be l o n g i n g (Alexander & Neimeyer, 1989). K e l l y ' s views on c u l t u r a l membership make c l e a r t h a t i t i s s i m i l a r i t y i n c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t supports membership i n a group: People belong t o the same c u l t u r a l group, not merely because they behave a l i k e , nor because they expect the same t h i n g s of ot h e r s , but e s p e c i a l l y because they construe t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e i n the same way. (p. 94) P r o c t o r (1981) goes on t o argue t h a t the FCS governs \"the sequences of c o n t i n g e n t c h o i c e s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e the i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s of the f a m i l y members\" (p. 355). The f u n c t i o n a l r o l e of each member and the r u l e s of r e l a t i o n s h i p i m p l i e d i n t h i s r o l e a r e d e f i n e d as each c o n s t r u e s the exp e c t a n c i e s o f o t h e r s . Each member's a c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o the o t h e r s , i n meeting w i t h the exp e c t a n c i e s of the group, then c o n t r i b u t e s i n c i r c u l a r f a s h i o n t o the p e r p e t u a t i o n o f a shared c o n s t r u c t . Over the years 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 o t h e r ' s r e a c t i o n s and behave t o g e t h e r as i n a 'dance' of mutual C o n s t r u c t Systems 54 a n t i c i p a t i o n . Any change i n the o t h e r s ' h a b i t u a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d c h o i c e s w i l l be exp e r i e n c e d as a n x i e t y provoking and t h r e a t e n i n g . An attempt w i l l t h e r e f o r e be made t o change the person back i n t o p r e d i c t a b l e modes of behavior. ( P r o c t o r , 1981, p. 355) P r o c t o r seems t o suggest an interdependence of the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t systems of i n d i v i d u a l members w i t h i n the f a m i l y c o n t e x t . P e r s o n a l meanings are c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h t h e shared understandings of the group, and any change i n the r e l a t i o n s between i n d i v i d u a l members i s s u b j e c t t o the coherent f u n c t i o n i n g of the group as a whole. The e f f e c t of the FCS upon f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n once ag a i n corresponds w i t h t h a t suggested by R e i s s (1981) and F e r r i e r a (1965) with r e s p e c t t o t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r n o t i o n s . R e i s s argues t h a t the f a m i l y paradigm s e r v e s t o govern i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s w i t h i n the f a m i l y , s y n c h r o n i z i n g each member's a c t i o n and p l a n n i n g w i t h o t h e r s i n the f a m i l y , and shaping the f a m i l y ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h i t s s o c i a l environment. S i m i l a r l y , F e r r i e r a p r e s e n t s the f a m i l y myth as a homeostatic mechanism r e g u l a t i n g i n t r a f a m i l y t r a n s a c t i o n s . He argues t h a t the f a m i l y myths, shared and supported by C o n s t r u c t Systems 55 a l l f a m i l y members, p r o v i d e \"ready made formulae w i t h which t o meet a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . . . and 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 behavior of the f a m i l y members\" (p. 16). As a means of i l l u s t r a t i o n , c o n s i d e r the example of an \"enmeshed\" f a m i l y . As the l a c k of w i t h i n - f a m i l y boundaries g r a n t s t h a t any f a m i l y member's c h o i c e has immediate i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r other f a m i l y members, an enmeshed f a m i l y i s l i k e l y t o be more concerned w i t h d e f i n i t i o n of t h e i r shared c o n s t r u c t system than w i t h e x t e n s i o n . E l a b o r a t i o n of the shared c o n s t r u c t system would be d i r e c t e d toward v a l i d a t i o n of co h e s i v e b e h a v i o r . As t h e f a m i l y ' s sense of i d e n t i t y r e s t s upon an agreement amongst members t o m a i n t a i n c l o s e n e s s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the f a m i l y a re l i k e l y t o be governed by c o n s t r u c t s t h a t emphasize consensus, l o y a l t y , and e a r l y c l o s u r e on c o n f l i c t . The shared f a m i l y c o n s t r u c t of \" c l o s e n e s s \" would d i r e c t such i n t e r a c t i o n . In t h i s way, ambiguity accompanying the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f independent behavior would be h e l d back, and t h r e a t t o the f a m i l y ' s coherent f u n c t i o n i n g avoided. An O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Model I t i s h e r e i n proposed t h a t the t h e o r e t i c a l concepts used t o d e f i n e the way i n which f a m i l i e s o perate can a l s o p r o v i d e a framework f o r und e r s t a n d i n g C o n s t r u c t Systems 56 the way i n which work o r g a n i z a t i o n s o perate. I t i s the p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g the maintenance of group f u n c t i o n i n g which enables comparison of f a m i l i e s and work o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o be made. F a m i l i e s and work o r g a n i z a t i o n s are both groups of two or more people who behave i n t e r d e p e n d e n t l y and share some concept of a common i n t e r e s t . Both have the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of shaping a coherent i d e n t i t y f o r the c o l l e c t i v i t y they o r g a n i z e . Comparison of the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n from the p e r s p e c t i v e of group f u n c t i o n i n g suggests t h a t the work o r g a n i z a t i o n too takes on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system. As such, the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , l i k e t h a t of the f a m i l y , can be found t o c o n s t r u c t a shared r e a l i t y t o d e f i n e the v a r i e t y of i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l members can address w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s w i t h the group. T h i s i s not t o say t h a t the work o r g a n i z a t i o n i s analagous w i t h t h a t of the f a m i l y . While a work o r g a n i z a t i o n may a c t \"as i f \" i t i s a f a m i l y , i t i s not. The metaphor remains on l y a metaphor. Thus, any comparison between the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n must acknowledge the l i m i t a t i o n s of drawing such an analogy. E s s e n t i a l l y , i t i s important t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p d i f f e r s between the i n d i v i d u a l and the f a m i l y , and the i n d i v i d u a l and the C o n s t r u c t Systems 57 work o r g a n i z a t i o n . Family membership l a s t s a l i f e t i m e whereas membership i n work o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s more v o l u n t a r y and tenuous. While the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h f a m i l y g e n e r a l l y i n v o l v e s s t r o n g emotional t i e s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s t s upon r e c i p r o c a l v a l u e and i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y . L i k e w i s e , g o a l s w i t h i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n are g e n e r a l l y w e l l -understood and c l e a r , whereas i n the f a m i l y , they t e n d t o be more broad and s u b j e c t t o the phases of human developmental. With these l i m i t a t i o n s i n mind, however, argument can s t i l l be made f o r the r e l e v a n c e of f a m i l y t h e o r y i n p r o v i d i n g understanding of t h e p r o c e s s e s i n h e r e n t i n human r e l a t i o n s h i p systems, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics a f f e c t i n g group f u n c t i o n i n g . I t i s the a p p l i c a t i o n of these p r o c e s s e s t o the work s e t t i n g which the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n addresses. C o i n c i d i n g w i t h P r o c t o r ' s (1981) development of f a m i l y c o n s t r u c t theory, the p r e s e n t paper i n t e r f a c e s p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory with systemic t h e o r y and the p r i n c i p l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior t o develop what may be c a l l e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y . I t i s argued here t h a t the day t o day a f f a i r s of b u s i n e s s w i t h i n a work o r g a n i z a t i o n r e q u i r e a common system of c o n s t r u i n g t o d i r e c t the c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s of C o n s t r u c t Systems 58 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. As such, the work o r g a n i z a t i o n i s seen as adhering t o a shared c o n s t r u c t i o n o f r e a l i t y which supports common channels of e x p e c t a t i o n s amongst i t s members. T h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n d e f i n e s the v a l u e s , norms, and p r a c t i c e s t h a t a c t as primary p o i n t s of r e f e r e n c e f o r the way i n which i n d i v i d u a l s make sense of t h e i r work environment, and i n so doing, p r o v i d e s the b a s i s upon which i n d i v i d u a l members are r a l l i e d toward i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Expanding upon the concept of the FCS, the n o t i o n of a s i m i l a r i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n i s proposed. E s t a b l i s h e d over a p e r i o d o f time d u r i n g which c o n s i d e r a b l e n e g o t i a t i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n among members oc c u r s , t h i s common c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y serves t o channel, mold, enhance, s u s t a i n or otherwise i n f l u e n c e the e f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. T h i s shared o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e a l i t y i s i d e n t i f i e d as the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t system (OCS). E s s e n t i a l l y , the OCS c r e a t e s a shared understanding amongst o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members as t o the c h a r a c t e r of t h e i r workplace i n c o n t r a s t t o t h a t of another. The n o t i o n of the OCS d e r i v e s support from contemporary views of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e as a s o c i a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d view of r e a l i t y developed by C o n s t r u c t Systems 59 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. Ouchi and W i l k i n s (1985) contend t h a t \" c r i t i c a l . . . t o the study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e i s the i d e a of an o r g a n i z a t i o n as a s o c i a l phenomenon t h a t has i t s own f e a t u r e s which d i s t i n g u i s h i t from an environment on the one hand and from the i n d i v i d u a l d e s i r e s and p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s of i t s members on the o t h e r \" (p. 469). Supporting t h i s s o c i a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d view of r e a l i t y , Imershein (1977) draws upon the e a r l y work of Kuhn (1970), extending h i s i d e a s of paradigm t o t h a t of the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o c r e a t e the n o t i o n of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigm. Brown (1978) uses t h i s concept of paradigm t o d e f i n e the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n the f o l l o w i n g way: ...may l i e i n the concept of the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a paradigm. By paradigm we r e f e r t o those s e t s of assumptions, u s u a l l y i m p l i c i t , about what s o r t of t h i n g s make up the world, how they a c t , how they hang together, and how they may be known. In a c t u a l p r a c t i c e , such paradigms f u n c t i o n as a means of imposing c o n t r o l as w e l l as a r e s o u r c e t h a t d i s s i d e n t s may use i n o r g a n i z i n g t h e i r awareness and a c t i o n . . . . I n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigms p r o v i d e r o l e s t o be enacted 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 C o n s t r u c t Systems 60 s e t t i n g s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r r o l e s , (p. 373) P f e f f e r (1981) argues t h a t a c r i t i c a l management a c t i v i t y i s the c r e a t i o n and maintenance of such o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigms. P f e f f e r a s s e r t s t h a t w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n these c o n s e n s u a l l y shared p e r c e p t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s of the world \"provide o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members wit h a sense of belonging and i d e n t i t y as w e l l as demarcating the o r g a n i z a t i o n from i t s environments and a s s i s t i n g i n the c o n t r o l and commitment of those w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n \" (p. 13). Hofstede, N e u i j e n , Ohayv, and Sanders (1990), i n a e x t e n s i v e study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e s , found these \"shared p e r c e p t i o n s of d a i l y p r a c t i c e s t o be the core of an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s c u l t u r e \" (p. 311). I t i s proposed t h a t the OCS, l i k e t h a t of the FCS, i s s i m i l a r i n c o n s t r u c t i o n t o t h a t of the PCS. C o n s i s t i n g of a h i e r a r c h i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d s e t of c o n s t r u c t s , the OCS i s viewed as p r e s c r i b i n g the a c t i v i t i e s of the shared system. P r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g the f u n c t i o n i n g of the OCS are d e r i v e d from r e s t a t i n g K e l l y ' s (1955) fundamental p o s t u l a t e and c o r o l l a r i e s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l terms t h a t appear as a d e r i v a t i v e of the o r i g i n a l f o r m u l a t i o n . For example, the fundamental p o s t u l a t e of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y i s s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : O r g a n i z a t i o n a l p rocesses 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 the ways i n which the o r g a n i z a t i o n a n t i c i p a t e s events. T h i s p r i n c i p l e i m p l i e s t h a t the f u n c t i o n i n g of the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , l i k e t h a t of the i n d i v i d u a l , proceeds a c c o r d i n g t o the way i n which f u t u r e events are p r e d i c t e d . Each of the c o r o l l a r i e s which f o l l o w upon t h i s b a s i c assumption f u r t h e r a m p l i f y the f u n c t i o n i n g of the OCS with r e s p e c t t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g . While the work o r g a n i z a t i o n i s being r e f e r r e d t o here i n g l o b a l terms, i t i s important to r e c o g n i z e t h a t work o r g a n i z a t i o n s have su b u n i t s which may be d i s t i n g u i s h e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r own shared meanings. I t i s m aintained t h a t the arguments made f o r the work o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole can a l s o be made, though t o a l e s s e r degree, w i t h r e s p e c t t o s u b u n i t s w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . The complex nature of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the workplace r e q u i r e s the a d d i t i o n of two o t h e r c o r o l l a r i e s . F i r s t of a l l , the Group C o r o l l a r y developed by P r o c t o r (1981) t o encompass m u l t i p e r s o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the f a m i l y i s extended t o r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the work s e t t i n g . Secondly, a Work O r g a n i z a t i o n C o r o l l a r y i s developed t o address the C o n s t r u c t Systems 62 c o n d i t i o n upon which o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members are a b l e t o work c o o p e r a t i v e l y over time. In order f o r a group of i n d i v i d u a l s t o work t o g e t h e r over time and remain committed t o t h e agreed upon m i s s i o n of the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , each must make a c h o i c e , w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r 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 of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the workgroup. Drawing upon K e l l y ' s (1955) view of commonality as a p r e c o n d i t i o n t o s o c i a l i t y , the p r e s e n t paper argues t h a t t h i s s i m i l a r i t y i n c o n s t r u a l i s c r i t i c a l t o the work o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s i d e n t i t y and a s t r o n g sense of b elongingness amongst i t s members being maintained. I t i s f u r t h e r suggested t h a t the OCS governs the r e l a t i o n s between members i n the workplace. E s s e n t i a l l y , i n p r o v i d i n g a shared understanding of the world f o r those w i t h i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , the OCS b i nds o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members t o each other, f o s t e r i n g the development of a c e r t a i n interdependence. P e r s o n a l meanings 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 a r i s i n g from these shared meanings enable 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 another's b e h a v i o r and t o a d j u s t t h e i r own a c c o r d i n g l y . In t h i s way, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members f u n c t i o n i n some degree of C o n s t r u c t Systems 63 r e l a t i o n s h i p r e c i p r o c i t y . Any change which poses t h r e a t t o the coherent f u n c t i o n i n g of the workgroup i s r e s i s t e d . T h i s n o t i o n of the OCS as governing i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s amongst o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members i s compatible w i t h r e s e a r c h on the e f f e c t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e . Buono, Bowditch, and Lewis (1985) view o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e as a powerful determinant of i n d i v i d u a l and group b e h a v i o r : O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e a f f e c t s p r a c t i c a l l y a l l a s p e c t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i f e from the way i n which people i n t e r a c t w i t h each ot h e r , perform t h e i r work and d r e s s , t o the t y pes of d e c i s i o n s made i n a f i r m , i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o l i c i e s and procedures, and s t r a t e g y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , (p. 482) Van Maanen and Kunda (1989), i n d e s c r i b i n g c u l t u r e as the moral order of a c o l l e c t i v e , argue t h a t \"such t h i n g s as r i t u a l , myth, s t o r i e s , espoused v a l u e s , s p e c i a l language, and p r e s c r i b e d norms index t h e way members are expected by others i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o f e e l \" (p. 56). P f e f f e r (1981), i n d i s c u s s i n g the impact of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigms upon the b e h a v i o r of groups of i n d i v i d u a l s , contends t h a t shared b e l i e f s \"cause a c t i o n t o be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a way compatible C o n s t r u c t Systems 64 w i t h the emergent norms and v a l u e s \" (p. 1). P f e f f e r goes on t o argue f o r the r e s i l i e n c y of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigm: A c h a l l e n g e t o the shared system of b e l i e f s both c h a l l e n g e s the a c t i o n s taken w i t h i n the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and t h r e a t e n s t o i n t r o d u c e i n c r e a s e d u n c e r t a i n t y and ambiguity i n t o the s i t u a t i o n . Given the c e r t a i n t y and s o c i a l c o h e s i o n they f a c i l i t a t e , i t i s q u i t e understandable why shared paradigms or systems of meaning and b e l i e f come t o have g r e a t s t a b i l i t y and r e s i s t a n c e t o change, (p. 21) Consider the f o l l o w i n g i l l u s t r a t i o n . Take a work o r g a n i z a t i o n whose s t r u c t u r e i s r e f l e c t i v e of a \" r e s u l t s - o r i e n t a t i o n \" . D i r e c t e d toward g a i n i n g marketing advantage over an e s t a b l i s h e d c o m petitor and thereby a c h i e v i n g g r e a t e r r e g i o n a l c o n t r o l , 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 p i o n e e r i n g behavior. As the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s i d e n t i t y r e s t s upon the mutual agreement of i t s members t o support \"a b i a s f o r a c t i o n , \" the OCS encourages p a t t e r n s of r e l a t i n g t h a t are d i r e c t , c o m p e t i t i v e , and i n t o l e r a n t of mistakes. Compare t h i s w i t h an o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t adopts a \" p r o c e s s - o r i e n t a t i o n \" . C o n s t r u c t Systems 65 R e l a t i o n s amongst members of the workgroup encourage an i n f o r m a l s t y l e of d e a l i n g with each other, one t h a t i s t y p i c a l l y warm, open, and a f f i r m i n g . While i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s i n the former case are governed by c o n s t r u c t s t h a t endorse competitiveness amongst o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members, r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst employees i n the l a t t e r case emphasize c o o p e r a t i o n . E s s e n t i a l l y , the OCS g o v e r n i n g each of these work o r g a n i z a t i o n s v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y 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 i d e n t i t y b e i ng upheld. Summary I t may w e l l be argued t h a t the work of K e l l y (1955) has much t o c o n t r i b u t e t o an understanding of f a m i l y dynamics as w e l l as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r . The n o t i o n of shared c o n s t r u c t systems o p e r a t i n g a t both the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n l e v e l s c l e a r l y emphasizes t h a t group f u n c t i o n i n g i s d i r e c t e d by the mutual a n t i c i p a t i o n s of members. I t has been suggested t h a t such m u t u a l i t y i s a f u n c t i o n of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s becoming c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h those of the group. I n d i v i d u a l membership w i t h i n the f a m i l y as w i t h i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n i s dependent upon such c o o r d i n a t i o n . I t i s the i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics i n f l u e n c i n g such c o o r d i n a t i o n which assumes the f o c u s of f u r t h e r i n q u i r y . Chapter IV: The I n t e r a c t i o n Between P e r s o n a l and Shared Con s t r u c t Systems Having i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter 3 the p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n i n g of the shared c o n s t r u c t system, i t remains the scope of Chapter 4 t o examine the i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics i n f l u e n c i n g the c o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems. Concepts drawn from the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r a c t i o n with the f a m i l y c o n t r i b u t e t o an u nderstanding of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t i s a p rocess of consensual v a l i d a t i o n which i s i d e n t i f i e d as r e g u l a t i n g the c o o r d i n a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members' c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h those of the f a m i l y as a whole. I t i s subsequently proposed t h a t t h i s p r o c e s s of c o nsensual v a l i d a t i o n i s the mechanism through which i n d i v i d u a l l i n k a g e s with the work o r g a n i z a t i o n are a l s o formed. I n d i v i d u a l I n t e r a c t i o n With the Family K e l l y (1955) maintains t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s depend upon o t h e r s , not o n l y t o secure v a l i d a t i o n f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y , but a l s o t o c r e a t e and m a i n t a i n a sense of s e l f . T h i s p r i n c i p l e h o l d s p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e when a p p l i e d t o the r o l e of the f a m i l y i n the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l . W i t h i n the i n t e r a c t i v e c ontext of the f a m i l y , i n d i v i d u a l s are C o n s t r u c t Systems 67 seen t o c o n s t r u c t t h e i r way of being i n the world. I t can be argued t h a t the f a m i l y , i n s e r v i n g as a d i r e c t source of c o n f i r m a t i o n and d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n f o r the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a n t i c i p a t i o n s throughout c h i l d h o o d and adolescence, h o l d s a profound i n f l u e n c e upon the development of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system. As noted by R e i s s (1981), \"the f a m i l y has become the most important group f o r shaping p e r s o n a l e x p l a n a t o r y systems\" (p. 7). Alexander and Neimeyer (1989) a t t e s t t h a t i n \" p r o v i d i n g the predominant v a l i d a t i o n a l backdrop a g a i n s t which the i n f a n t t e s t s emerging c o n s t r u c t i o n s , the f a m i l y f u r n i s h e s the prepotent c o n t e x t f o r development of the s e l f \" (p. 112). During e a r l y stages of development, parents d e f i n e f o r the c h i l d 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 the w o r l d of events (Salmon, 1970). In doing so, they o f f e r t h e c h i l d a c o n s t r u c t i o n i n terms of which t o respond toward s i m i l a r events i n the f u t u r e . As the c h i l d matures, parents a s s i s t the c h i l d i n p e r c e i v i n g the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s among v a r i o u s events, thereby \" f a c i l i t a t i n g the l i k e l i h o o d of the c h i l d modulating h i s v a r i a t i o n s i n c o n s t r u c t i o n so as t o develop an i n c r e a s i n g l y more complex and h i e r a r c h i c a l l y s t r u c t u r e d system\" (Hayden, 1982, p. 182). L i k e w i s e , p a r e n t s C o n s t r u c t Systems 68 serve as mediators of the environment. By r e g u l a t i n g the a c t u a l f i e l d s of the c h i l d ' s e x p e r i e n c e , they i n s u l a t e the c h i l d from experiences which might otherwise c h a l l e n g e the c u r r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n s of the f a m i l y (Alexander & Neimeyer, 1989). E a r l y c h i l d h o o d experiences w i t h c a r e g i v e r s not o n l y p r o v i d e the b a s i s upon which r e l a t i o n a l s t y l e s and r u l e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n are developed, but these e x p e r i e n c e s a l s o c o n t r i b u t e t o the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e l a b o r a t i o n of a s e l f . E s s e n t i a l l y , the f a m i l y s u p p l i e s c h i l d r e n with the f i r s t dimensions f o r a p p r a i s i n g t h e i r own behavior i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r s . S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n the f a m i l y generate o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the c r e a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e c o n f l i c t s n e c e s s a r y f o r the development of the s e l f c o n s t r u c t . K e l l y (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 comparisons between themselves and o t h e r s , they f o r m u l a t e the c o n s t r u c t i o n system which governs t h e i r own b e h a v i o r : I t i s of course the comparison he sees or c o n s t r u e s which a f f e c t s h i s behavior. Thus, much of h i s s o c i a l l i f e i s c o n t r o l l e d by the comparisons he has come t o see between h i m s e l f and ot h e r s , (p. 131) I t can be argued t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l embedded w i t h i n C o n s t r u c t Systems 69 the f a m i l y c o n t e x t comes t o experience a c e r t a i n view of s e l f i n r e l a t i o n t o other. T h i s d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f / o t h e r becomes i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e s o f the i n d i v i d u a l , t h a t i s , the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system, and serves t o guide the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p l a y i n g out of a r o l e . I t can be i n f e r r e d t h a t c o n s t r u c t s d e f i n i n g e a r l y r e l a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s may i n f l u e n c e the way i n which subsequent r e l a t i o n s are construed. P r o c t o r (1981) upholds t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s \" c a r r y t h e i r f a m i l y - n e g o t i a t e d r e a l i t i e s around with them and use them t o co n s t r u e i n d i v i d u a l s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s between people w i t h whom they come i n t o c o n t a c t \" (p. 357). R e i s s (1971) argues t h a t \"each dimension of shared f a m i l y e x p e r i e n c e corresponds t o a dimension of i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t u a l o r i e n t a t i o n i n each member\" (p.22). I t i s f o r t h i s r eason t h a t Salmon (1970) contends t h a t the dimensions i n terms of which i n d i v i d u a l s d e f i n e t h e i r b e h a v i o r toward o t h e r s a re not s e l e c t e d a t random. He suggests they a r e \" d e r i v e d from r o l e s which [they have] p l a y e d w i t h o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , the frame of r e f e r e n c e which [they have] e l a b o r a t e d i n common wit h them, and the agreed network of i m p l i c a t i o n s which [they have] shared w i t h o t h e r s i n c r u c i a l 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. 216) . C o n s t r u c t Systems 7 0 The nature of the 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 the f a m i l y p r o v i d e s f o r a r i c h understanding of the i n t e r a c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems. Having p r e v i o u s l y emphasized the interdependence of r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst f a m i l y members, i t i s now argued t h a t the way i n which p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n s are c o o r d i n a t e d with those of t h e f a m i l y as a whole i s a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i n comprehending r e l a t i o n s h i p development. The key word here i s c o o r d i n a t i o n . I t can be understood as the manner i n which i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n s are i n t e r l o c k e d w i t h the p e r c e p t i o n s of o t h e r s so as t o enhance group o r g a n i z a t i o n . K e l l y (1970) r e f e r s t o such c o o r d i n a t i o n when he speaks of the development of r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s : When one c onstrues another person's outlook, and proceeds t o b u i l d an e x p e r i e n t i a l c y c l e of h i s own upon t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n , he i n v o l v e s h i m s e l f , w i l l y n i l l y , i n an i n t e r e s t i n g way. He can t e s t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n s o n l y by a c t i v a t i n g i n h i m s e l f the v e r s i o n of the other person's o u t l o o k i t o f f e r s . T h i s s u b t l y p l a c e s a demand upon him, one he cannot l i g h t l y r e j e c t i f h i s own e x p e r i e n c e i s t o be completed. He must put C o n s t r u c t Systems 71 h i m s e l f t e n t a t i v e l y i n the other person's shoes. Only by e n a c t i n g t h a t r o l e can he sense the impact of what happens as a r e s u l t of t a k i n g the p o i n t of view he t h i n k s h i s f r i e n d must have. (p. 26) I t may be i n f e r r e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members base t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n s of one another not o n l y on o v e r t b e h a v i o r , but a l s o on t h e i r understanding of the o t h e r s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n s (Alexander & Neimeyer, 1989). I n d i v i d u a l s ' e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e i r own systems, whether by d e f i n i t i o n or e x t e n s i o n , i s dependent upon the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t i o n processes of o t h e r s . As R e i s s (1981) has so s u c c i n c t l y put i t , \"each person must develop h i s p e r s o n a l explanatory systems i n c o n c e r t w i t h o t h e r s \" (p. 6). The completion of the e x p e r i e n c e c y c l e n e c e s s a r i l y commits the i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e p o s i t i o n of having h i s r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s v a l i d a t e d by the e x p e c t a n c i e s of the persons with whom he c o n s t r u e s h i s r o l e . K e l l y (1955) a l l u d e s t o the c r i t i c a l 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 h i s d i s c u s s i o n of group expectancies as v a l i d a t o r s of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s : The e x p e c t a n c i e s which are common t o the group a c t u a l l y operate as the v a l i d a t o r s a g a i n s t which the i n d i v i d u a l tends t o v e r i f y the p r e d i c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y of h i s own c o n s t r u c t s , (p. 176) Extending t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o the context of the f a m i l y , i t can be seen t h a t i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members' r o l e 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 as they meet w i t h the ex p e c t a n c i e s of other members. However, as i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members secure v a l i d a t i o n f o r the r e l e v a n c e and accuracy of t h e i r own r o l e - r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e i r b e h a v i o r , i n t u r n , serves t o v a l i d a t e the e x p e c t a n c i e s of the other f a m i l y members. E s s e n t i a l l y , the two p o s i t i o n s m a i n t a i n each other i n a r e c i p r o c a l f a s h i o n . The interdependence of t h e i r p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n s i n s t i t u t e s a process of consensual v a l i d a t i o n which ma i n t a i n s the shared c o n s t r u c t system. The common understandings t h a t accompany these c y c l e s of i n t e r l o c k e d r o l e s serve t o p r o v i d e c e r t a i n t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members. Consider the example of a husband and w i f e i n which the c y c l e of behavior c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p conforms t o the p a t t e r n of o v e r f u n c t i o n e r / u n d e r f u n c t i o n e r (see F i g u r e 4.1). The wi f e i s found doing more than her share of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s around the home i n c o n t r a s t t o her husband's l a c k of involvement i n h e l p i n g out. I t can be seen t h a t the 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 E x p e c t a t i o n v a l i d a t e s w i f e ' s r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n 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 \" Expects w i f e can manage r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s on her own Role enactment v a l i d a t e s husband's expectancy i n v o k i n g h i s i r r e s p o n s i b l e b ehavior F i g u r e 4.1. The r e c i p r o c a l nature of consensual v a l i d a t i o n a c t u a l l y invokes her husband's i r r e s p o n s i b l e b e h a v i o r . In s u c c e s s f u l l y managing the household chores on her own, the w i f e meets with her husband's e x p e c t a n c i e s , and thereby, v a l i d a t e s h i s u n d e r f u n c t i o n i n g b e h a v i o r . R e c i p r o c a l l y , h i s response serves t o v a l i d a t e her r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n as an o v e r f u n c t i o n e r . The i n t e r l o c k i n g o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s through the process C o n s t r u c t Systems 74 of consensual v a l i d a t i o n serves t o m a i n t a i n the shared c o n s t r u c t i o n governing t h i s p a t t e r n i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . The Role of V a l i d a t i o n In c o n s i d e r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems, i t i s proposed here t h a t the p r i n c i p l e of consensual v a l i d a t i o n serves a s e l f -r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s , which i n a f f i r m i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t Shared C o n s t r u c t Systems System F i g u r e 4.2. The r o l e of consensual v a l i d a t i o n i n the i n t e r a c t i o n between p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems C o n s t r u c t Systems 75 c o n s t r u c t i o n s of r e a l i t y , binds the i n d i v i d u a l t o the group (see F i g u r e 4.2). P r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n has a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d the nature of i n d i v i d u a l s t r u c t u r e t o guide the v a r i e t y of i n t e r a c t i o n i n which the i n d i v i d u a l i s a b l e t o engage and s t i l l r e t a i n a coherent sense of s e l f . T h i s paper argues t h a t consensual v a l i d a t i o n , i n a c t i n g as an i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y c r i t e r i o n , i s the mechanism by which such coherence i s maintained. The n o t i o n of consensual v a l i d a t i o n as an i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y c r i t e r i o n i s taken from Warren's (as quoted by Mancuso & Adams-Webber, 1982) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of K e l l y ' s (1955) t h e o r y : He [ K e l l y ] makes the business of v a l i d a t i o n of c o n s t r u c t s a l s o a matter of c o n s t r u i n g . . . [ t h e ] c r i t e r i o n f o r a person's assessment of the outcome of h i s a n t i c i p a t i o n s i s the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the p r e s e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h i n the person's c o n s t r u c t system.... t r u t h becomes a matter of coherence w i t h i n a system r a t h e r than of correspondence with r e a l i t y , (p. 31) K e l l y (1955) has suggested t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s ' development of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with o t h e r s r e s t s upon t h e i r need t o secure v a l i d a t i o n f o r the e f f i c i e n c y of C o n s t r u c t Systems 76 t h e i r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Given t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s 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 c o n s t r u c t systems, such v a l i d a t i o n must n e c e s s a r i l y encompass both d e f i n i t i o n as w e l l as e x t e n s i o n of the c o n s t r u c t system. T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t i n the c o n t e x t of r e l a t i o n s h i p formation, i n d i v i d u a l s d i r e c t e d toward d e f i n i n g t h e i r system would be most concerned w i t h coming t o see i f a p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i s regarded as v a l i d by other people. Correspondingly, i n d i v i d u a l s d i r e c t e d toward e x t e n s i o n of t h e i r system would be most i n t e r e s t e d i n d i s c o v e r i n g what other people knew t h a t c o u l d be subsumed i n the c o n s t r u c t s they p r e s e n t l y employ. The pr e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n draws upon Duck's view of r e l a t i o n s h i p formation i n dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Duck's (1982) n o t i o n s as t o the course of development of 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 are extended t o the i n t e r a c t i o n between p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems. I t i s Duck's b e l i e f t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r m a t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by people i n i t i a l l y s e e k i n g out areas where t h e i r c o n s t r u c t systems o v e r l a p , thereby o f f e r i n g d e f i n i t i o n , and then proceeding, i f the r e l a t i o n s h i p holds promise, t o e x p l o r e ways i n which t h e i r c o n s t r u c t systems may s t i m u l a t e one another, thereby encouraging extension. The same i s h e r e i n proposed t o be t r u e of r e l a t i o n s h i p development between p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems (see F i g u r e 4.3). E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s paper argues t h a t consensual v a l i d a t i o n , i n s u p p o r t i n g the coherent f u n c t i o n i n g of the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system, s e r v e s t o moderate the i n d i v i d u a l ' s formation of a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the shared c o n s t r u c t system. Commonality between the p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems p r o v i d e s f o r ' s u b j e c t i v e ' evidence of the meaningfulness of i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Consensual v a l i d a t i o n i s a c h i e v e d through i n d i v i d u a l s s h a r i n g common c o n s t r u c t s f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g experience (Duck, 1979), a p p l y i n g F i g u r e 4.3. The e f f e c t of consensual 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 and shared c o n s t r u c t systems E l a b o r a t i o n of shared c o n s t r u c t system C o n s t r u c t Systems 78 those c o n s t r u c t s i n a s i m i l a r way (Neimeyer & Neimeyer, 1981), and s t r u c t u r i n g t h e i r systems s i m i l a r l y (Neimeyer & Neimeyer, 198 3). In r e i n f o r c i n g c u r r e n t s t r u c t u r e s , d e f i n i t i o n of the p r e s e n t system and assurance as t o i t s f u n c t i o n a l i t y i s p r o v i d e d . T h i s paper f u r t h e r suggests t h a t the p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e c u r i t y e x perienced through such consensual v a l i d a t i o n then enables i n d i v i d u a l s t o c o n s i d e r more e a s i l y the v i a b i l i t y of new, a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . When c o n f r o n t e d w i t h u n f a m i l i a r events, i n d i v i d u a l s ' r e l a t i o n s w i t h the shared c o n s t r u c t system p r o v i d e support f o r e x t e n s i o n of t h e i r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t systems. In support of such t h i n k i n g , Neimeyer and Neimeyer (1985) have suggested t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s develop more s a t i s f y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s with o t h e r s who they b e l i e v e a c c u r a t e l y understand the way they view themselves and t h e i r d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n of change. S i m i l a r l y , Duck (1979) has noted t h a t \" i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l , over and above the search f o r s i m i l a r i t y , be s e a r c h i n g f o r ways i n which t h e i r p a r t n e r can h e l p develop or e l a b o r a t e t h e i r system f o r them\" (p. 6). I t f o l l o w s t h a t breakdown i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems may occur when i n d i v i d u a l s ' emerging c o n s t r u c t i o n s of s e l f do not meet w i t h the r e l a t i o n a l v a l i d a t i o n v i t a l t o t h e i r C o n s t r u c t Systems 79 development (Neimeyer & Neimeyer, 1985). Thus, i t i s h e r e i n argued t h a t i n correspondence w i t h the support p r o v i d e d by consensual v a l i d a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s are a b l e t o n e g o t i a t e a s u c c e s s f u l r e l a t i o n a l course w i t h the shared c o n s t r u c t system, choosing whether t o d e f i n e or extend t h e i r c o n s t r u c t system. I n d i v i d u a l I n t e r a c t i o n With the Work O r g a n i z a t i o n As w i t h s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n the f a m i l y , s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n i n v o l v e s the i n d i v i d u a l coming t o l e a r n the p r a c t i c e s t h a t c a r r y s p e c i f i c meaning w i t h i n the work s e t t i n g . I t can be seen t h a t w i t h i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , l i k e t h a t of the f a m i l y , those i n s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n s h o l d a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e upon i n d i v i d u a l members' a n t i c i p a t i o n s . By s e r v i n g as a repeated source of c o n f i r m a t i o n and d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n , managers shape the c o n s t r u c t i o n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. P f e f f e r (1981) maintains t h a t \"a c r i t i c a l management a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e s the c o n s t r u c t i o n . . . o f b e l i e f systems which assur e continued compliance, commitment, and p o s i t i v e a f f e c t on the p a r t of p a r t i c i p a n t s \" (p. 1). E s s e n t i a l l y , management's development of m i s s i o n statements, d e s i g n of r i t u a l s , and p r a c t i s e of a v a r i e t y of t r a d i t i o n s serves t o c o o r d i n a t e i n d i v i d u a l a n t i c i p a t i o n s w i t h those of the group. C o n s t r u c t Systems 80 Having drawn from the h i s t o r y of i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h f a m i l y , f r i e n d s , and o t h e r s , a system of c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t enable meaning t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o the world of events, t h i s system can be found t o i n f l u e n c e the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n s of the work o r g a n i z a t i o n as w e l l as r e l a t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o i t . E s s e n t i a l l y , i n d i v i d u a l s come t o the work o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h a system of c o n s t r u c t s upon which they r e l y t o a n t i c i p a t e events i n the work s e t t i n g . Schein (1965) i d e n t i f i e s t h a t , amongst oth e r f a c t o r s , i n d i v i d u a l s look t o the workgroup t o p r o v i d e a means of e s t a b l i s h i n g and t e s t i n g r e a l i t y , and as w e l l , a means of d e v e l o p i n g , enhancing, or c o n f i r m i n g a sense of i d e n t i t y . He d e s c r i b e s t h i s s o c i a l i z a t i o n process i n terms of a \" p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n t r a c t \" , t h a t i s , a process of n e g o t i a t i o n and r e n e g o t i a t i o n i n which the 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 l a r i f y t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s of each o t h e r . I t can be argued t h a t the e x t e n t t o which i n d i v i d u a l s are a b l e t o r e c o n c i l e t h e i r c o n s t r u c t system w i t h t h a t of the workgroup, or i n o t h e r words, t o subsume the c o n s t r u c t i o n s of the OCS, they are l i k e l y t o form a r e l a t i o n s h i p with the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . Drawing upon the p r o p o s i t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y presented, the c e n t r a l t e n e t of t h i s t h e s i s i s t h a t the C o n s t r u c t Systems 81 i n d i v i d u a l ' s f ormation of a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n of such r e l a t i o n s p r o v i d i n g f o r consensual v a l i d a t i o n . As i n d i v i d u a l s f i n d t h a t t h e i r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s are shared by o t h e r s i n the work s e t t i n g , t h i s experience of commonality and i t s i m p l i e d v a l i d a t i o n f o r the accuracy of t h e i r view of r e a l i t y encourages r e l a t i o n s h i p f ormation. The experie n c e of commonality f u r t h e r corresponds w i t h the d i s c o v e r y of mutual e x p e c t a t i o n s , which guide 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 s of what another w i l l do and what t h i s other person expects them t o do. I t f o l l o w s t h a t when i n d i v i d u a l s can a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t what another w i l l do, they can a d j u s t t h e i r own beha v i o r a c c o r d i n g l y . T h i s serves t o enhance t h e i r p l a y i n g out of p r e f e r r e d r o l e s . In t h i s way, i n d i v i d u a l s are ab l e t o s u c c e s s f u l l y n e g o t i a t e t h e i r a c t i o n s w i t h i n the work s e t t i n g . Thus, i t i s proposed t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the work o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l continue t o develop as l o n g as consensual v a l i d a t i o n of p r o g r e s s i v e l y more c e n t r a l a s p e c t s of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t r u c t system i s experienced. D i s r u p t i o n i s b e l i e v e d t o occur when i n d i v i d u a l s experience some major d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n of va l u e d p a r t s o f themselves or a r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n from which they d e r i v e s e l f - e s t e e m . Van Maanen and Kunda C o n s t r u c t Systems 82 (1989) contend t h a t \" o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members do, a f t e r a l l , have c o n f l i c t i n g sources of attachment and, when i t comes t o d e c i d i n g what r u l e s are t o govern a c t i o n , thought, and f e e l i n g , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ones w i l l not always s u f f i c e or win out\" (p. 58). Van Maanen and Kunda go on t o say t h a t members may \" s e l f - s e l e c t i n and out of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , with those remaining f i n d i n g i t perhaps e a s i e r t o i d e n t i f y more c l o s e l y w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and, i n the end, coming t o r e g a r d i t s r i t e s , symbols, and codes of conduct as a p p r o p r i a t e , i f not n a t u r a l \" (p. 57). T h i s paper suggests t h a t as i n d i v i d u a l s are exposed t o new experiences i n the workplace and f i n d t h a t they are faced w i t h u n f a m i l i a r events by v i r t u e of t h e i r involvement, one of two t h i n g s can happen. P r o v i d i n g i n d i v i d u a l s have enough w e l l - d e f i n e d s t r u c t u r e t o a v o i d the c o n f u s i o n of a n x i e t y , they may choose t o extend t h e i r system by d e v e l o p i n g a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Such r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e i r c o n s t r u c t system, however, i s dependent upon the a v a i l i b i l i t y of permeable c o n s t r u c t s which span both o l d and new b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s . In the words of K e l l y (1955), \"any t r a n s i t i o n needs t o be subsumed by some o v e r r i d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n which i s permeable enough t o admit the new c o n s t r u c t t o i t s c o n t e x t \" (p. 82). With r e s p e c t t o C o n s t r u c t Systems 83 t h i s l i m i t a t i o n , Hayden (1982) r e p o r t s t h a t p eople's w i l l i n g n e s s t o make changes i n t h e i r c o n s t r u c t systems t o encompass a more d e s i r e d view of s e l f i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e number of i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h a t view: I f the i d e a l view possessed g r e a t e r meaning or more i m p l i c a t i o n s than d i d the p r e s e n t view of s e l f , then the s u b j e c t was w i l l i n g t o s h i f t t o the d e s i r e d view of s e l f . That i s , the d e s i r e d view of s e l f was more permeable and thus c o u l d embrace the change...Very o f t e n , i n f a c t , the person knows how he would l i k e t o p e r c e i v e h i s a c t i o n s and thoughts, but the r e l a t i v e p a u c i t y of meaning possessed by t h a t vantage p o i n t prevents a v a r i a t i o n i n h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In other words, the d e s i r e d view i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y permeable w i t h i n the e x i s t i n g system...Consequently, the s u b j e c t p o s s e s s i n g c o n s t r u c t s w i t h r e l a t i v e l y l e s s p e r m e a b i l i t y must l i m i t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n process and cannot s h i f t t o the d e s i r e d , but l e s s meaningful, view of s e l f , (p. 195) Hayden goes on t o say t h a t i n t h i s sense, the n a ture of i n d i v i d u a l s ' systems makes them something of a v i c t i m of t h e i r p r e v i o u s l y c r e a t e d order and meaning. C o n s t r u c t Systems 84 The r e s e a r c h on the a d u l t ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y demonstrates t h a t the system t h a t p r o v i d e d him with a way t o g i v e order and meaning t o r e a l i t y can be changed...Yet any v a r i a t i o n i n c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a f f e c t e d by p a s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Change i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a f u t u r e event occurs w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of superimposed forms t h a t gave meaning t o h i s p a s t experiences, (p. 195) For such reason, change r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s f u l l y n e g o t i a t e an u n f a m i l i a r experience can j e o p a r d i z e the i n t e g r i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s ' s l o w l y b u i l t - u p view of r e a l i t y . T h i s idea i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t proposed by Boxer (1982) i n h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the p r o c e s s of attachment imposing r e s t r a i n t upon c h o i c e . Boxer suggests t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s come t o develop ways of a c t i n g t h a t work f o r them and even enable them t o f e e l c e n t r e d . Thus, w h i l e a t one time i n d i v i d u a l s may have had the a b i l i t y t o f r e e l y choose, success has l e d them t o become very a t t a c h e d t o a c e r t a i n way of a c t i n g , t o the p o i n t where they have chosen t o become e f f e c t i v e l y f i x e d . Salmon (1970) addresses t h i s n o t i o n i n h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s ' p e r s i s t e n c e i n u s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s b u i l t from the o r g a n i z i n g c o n s t r u c t s i n C o n s t r u c t Systems 85 e a r l y stages of development. He argues t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s ' r e l i a n c e upon such c o n s t r u c t s may i n h i b i t t h e i r n e g o t i a t i o n of p e r s o n a l change: Having f o r g e d out of h i s experience, i n the long journey through c h i l d h o o d and adolescence, a c o n s t r u i n g system which seems t o cover most of the i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s he has met so f a r , he may then s e t t l e f o r t h i s as the best model he can hope t o ach i e v e , and may as a r e s u l t cease, i n K e l l y ' s terms, t o \"experiment w i t h h i s l i f e \" . The b a c k i n g of o t h e r s , with the consensual d e f i n i t i o n of m a t u r i t y i n r e l a t i v e l y f i x e d terms, may endorse t h i s l a c k of growth, u n t i l , as a r e s u l t of some p e r s o n a l c r i s i s , he i s l i k e l y t o \"have t o go through a l o t of chaos b e f o r e he can make anything more of h i m s e l f . \" (p. 220) In t h i s sense, c o n s t r u c t s d e f i n i n g s e l f and o t h e r , and s e l f i n r e l a t i o n t o other, as developed through the p r o c e s s of maturation, can become r e s t r i c t i v e . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e of events t h a t happen i n c h i l d h o o d which are laden with an i n t e n s e a r o u s a l r e a c t i o n . These events, which are construed w i t h c h i l d c o n s t r u c t i o n s , can subsequently i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e C o n s t r u c t Systems 86 i n d i v i d u a l ' s development of c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t are more i n keeping w i t h the a d u l t system (Morrison & Cometa, 1982) . Drawing upon these id e a s , i t i s h e r e i n argued t h a t when i n d i v i d u a l s are exposed t o an u n f a m i l i a r event, but l a c k the s t r u c t u r e t o adequately a t t r i b u t e meaning t o the event, they may become anxious and e x p e r i e n c e t h r e a t t o the coherence of t h e i r system. The l a c k of consensual v a l i d a t i o n experienced f o r the r e l e v a n c y of t h e i r p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s can l e a d t o d i s r u p t i o n of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the work environment. For example, c o n s i d e r a company whose p r o d u c t i v i t y r e l i e s upon the p r o g r e s s i v e and i n n o v a t i v e b e h a v i o r of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. Such an o r g a n i z a t i o n may be guided by a c o n s t r u c t system t h a t upholds the S u c c e s s f u l vs. I \ Commitment t o c o o p e r a t i v e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g N o n - s u c c e s s f u l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i on-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 c o n t r i b u t i o n s i yi \ Conformity F i g u r e 4.4. Laddering of c o n s t r u c t s i n a work o r g a n i z a t i o n C o n s t r u c t Systems 87 s u p e r o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t \" s u c c e s s f u l \" , as emerging from the 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 p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g \" and \" r i c h n e s s of i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s \" (see F i g u r e 4.4). For o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members whose p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t 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 , t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s company w i l l p r o v i d e v a l i d a t i o n f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r way of being i n the world. Not o n l y w i l l the experience of s i m i l a r i t y enable t h e i r a c t i v i t y t o be d i r e c t e d by common channels of e x p e c t a t i o n , but t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l secure v a l i d a t i o n i n meeting w i t h the demands f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l success. In t h i s way, s e l f - r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s l i n k the i n d i v i d u a l t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t can be argued t h a t the experience w i l l be v e r y d i f f e r e n t 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 c o n s t r u c t systems d i v e r g e from t h a t upheld by the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . Consider the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l member who h o l d s the s u p e r o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t \" s u c c e s s f u l \" as c o r r e s p o n d i n g w i t h 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\" and \" c o n f o r m i t y \" (see F i g u r e 4.5). To the e x t e n t t h a t t h i s s u p e r o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t holds s i g n i f i c a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a wide a r r a y of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x p e r i e n c e , and i n P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n s t r u c t System System S u c c e s s f u l i \ Deferment t o A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Decision-making i \f \ Conformity vs. S u c c e s s f u l i \ Commitment t o Cooperative P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g I i \ Richness of i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s F i g u r e 4.5. Comparision of 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 so doing, serves as a core c o n s t r u c t d e f i n i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i t y , adjustment t o the workgroup may be l i m i t e d . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the p e r s p e c t i v e s o f the work o r g a n i z a t i o n would i n v o l v e d e v e l o p i n g a new meaning of what i t meant t o be s u c c e s s f u l . As r o l e s p l a y e d 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 c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n , t h r e a t may be posed t o the i n d i v i d u a l ' s more broad i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of l i f e e xperience. G i v e n th e p r e s e n t example, f o r the i n d i v i d u a l t o a d j u s t h i s or her p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s t o correspond w i t h t h a t of t h e work o r g a n i z a t i o n , the growing a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r c o o p e r a t i v e decision-making may a f f e c t the e x p e r i e n c e of decision-making i n the f a m i l y . W i t h i n the f a m i l y C o n s t r u c t Systems 89 conte x t , these new views may emerge as a source of c o n f l i c t , g i v e n the i m p l i c a t i o n s of new beh a v i o r now r e q u i r e d on the p a r t of other f a m i l y members i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n t o g e t h e r . Salmon (1970) contends t h a t i n many s o c i a l groups t h e r e i s an i n c l i n a t i o n toward p i n n i n g down the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r o l e s which i n d i v i d u a l s are expected t o p l a y . Attempts on the p a r t o f thes e i n d i v i d u a l s t o break f r e e from t h e i r r o l e p r e s c r i p t i o n s may be met wit h a c c u s a t i o n s of a c t i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t l y . As those who r e l a t e t o them must n e c e s s a r i l y develop new o r i e n t a t i o n s towards these i n d i v i d u a l s , s t r o n g r e s i s t a n c e t o the change may be aroused as t h r e a t t o the s t a b i l i t y of t h e i r own c o n s t r u c t systems i s expe r i e n c e d . T h i s r e s i s t a n c e , i f maintained, can prev e n t i n d i v i d u a l s from l i v i n g out t h e i r new r o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Summary I t can be seen t h a t the arguments developed i n t h i s chapter serve t o p r o v i d e a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r v i e w i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s development of a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . Drawing upon the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the f a m i l y , i t i s a pr o c e s s of consensual v a l i d a t i o n which i s found t o p l a y a c r i t i c a l r o l e i n the coherent f u n c t i o n i n g o f the PCS be i n g maintained. I t i s t h i s p r i n c i p l e which sheds new C o n s t r u c t Systems 90 meaning upon the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the workplace. E s s e n t i a l l y , consensual v a l i d a t i o n i s seen t o serve a s e l f - r e f e r e n t process, b i n d i n g the i n d i v i d u a l t o the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . C o n s t r u c t Systems 91 Chapter V: I m p l i c a t i o n s For O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Commitment In drawing upon the p r i n c i p l e s put forward i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r s . Chapter 5 proposes a framework f o r viewing the i n d i v i d u a l ' s formation of a committed r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The view of the 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, whose l i n k a g e s w i t h the work o r g a n i z a t i o n are s u b j e c t t o support f o r the i n t e g r a l f u n c t i o n i n g of t h i s system, serves t o suggest consensual v a l i d a t i o n as the u n d e r l y i n g 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 development of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. In o t h e r words, d e t e r m i n i n g whether or not e l a b o r a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t r u c t system meets wit h consensual v a l i d a t i o n w i t h i n the workplace can y i e l d important i n f o r m a t i o n as t o the type of commitment the i n d i v i d u a l i s most l i k e l y t o develop. Review of 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 Numerous e f f o r t s have a l r e a d y been made t o determine the antecedents and consequences of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). S t e e r s (1977) found t h a t i n f l u e n c e s c o u l d be grouped i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , j o b or r o l e - r e l a t e d c h a c t e r i s t i c s , and work e x p e r i e n c e . More r e c e n t l y , a f o u r t h category, namely, s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , has been suggested (M o r r i s & S t e e r s , C o n s t r u c t Systems 92 198 0)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Outcomes of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment have been r e l a t e d t o j o b performance, tenure, absenteeism, t a r d i n e s s , and turnover (Mowday, P o r t e r , & S t e e r s , 1982). In the f a c e of economic r e s t r a i n t and an i n c r e a s i n g l y c o m p e t i t i v e market, work o r g a n i z a t i o n s have become hard pressed t o f i n d ways of m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r h i g h standards of performance ( O ' R e i l l y & Chatman, 1986). While they v a l u e commitment amongst t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l members, deter m i n i n g how t o f o s t e r t h e k i n d of commitment t h a t i s encouraging of e x t r a - r o l e b e h a v i o r has become a p a r t i c u l a r concern. Mowday e t a l . (1982) i d e n t i f y w i t h t h i s dependency of the work o r g a n i z a t i o n upon such behavior: There are many i n s t a n c e s where o r g a n i z a t i o n s need i n d i v i d u a l members, e s p e c i a l l y those i n c r i t i c a l p o s i t i o n s , t o perform above and beyond the c a l l of duty f o r the b e n e f i t of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , (p. 15) I t i s f o r t h i s reason t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n amongst ty p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment has come t o r e c e i v e both t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l a t t e n t i o n . A meta-a n a l y s i s of p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s has suggested t h a t two forms of commitment appear t o be s e p a r a b l e : c a l c u l a t i v e commitment and a t t i t u d i n a l commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). C a l c u l a t i v e commitment i s seen as r e f e r r i n g t o i n s t r u m e n t a l involvement on the b a s i s of s i d e - b e t s or investments over time (Hrebiniak & A l u t t o , 1972). O ' R e i l l y and Chatman (1986) view t h i s t y p e of commitment as compliance-based. By t h i s they mean t h a t work beh a v i o r i s dependent upon the attainment of s p e c i f i c e x t r i n s i c rewards. Such m a t e r i a l exchange, however, i s not viewed as p r o v i d i n g adequate m o t i v a t i o n f o r e x t r a r o l e b ehavior. I t appears t h a t something more than c a l c u l a t i v e commitment i s r e q u i r e d f o r i n d i v i d u a l s t o perform i n n o v a t i v e behaviors t h a t go beyond the r o l e p r e s c r i p t i o n . A t t i t u d i n a l commitment, on the o t h e r hand, r e f e r s t o involvement t h a t i s based upon the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Mowday e t a l . (1982) view such commitment as c h a r a c t e r i z e d by (a) a b e l i e f and acceptance of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s v a l u e s , (b) a w i l l i n g n e s s t o e x e r t c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t on b e h a l f of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and (c) a s t r o n g d e s i r e t o m a i n t a i n membership i n i t . I t i s t h i s dimension of commitment t h a t appears t o be p r e d i c t i v e of e x t r a - r o l e b e h a v i o r . I n d i v i d u a l s whose attachment t o the work o r g a n i z a t i o n i s based upon t h i s type of commitment are more l i k e l y t o a c t i n s t i n c t i v e l y f o r the b e n e f i t of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ( O ' R e i l l y & Chatman, 1986). A Consensual V a l i d a t i o n Model of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Commitment The p r e s e n t paper proposes t h a t the pr o c e s s of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with a t t i t u d i n a l commitment i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of i n d i v i d u a l s e x p e r i e n c i n g consensual v a l i d a t i o n of t h e i r r o l e - r e l a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n the work s e t t i n g . Support f o r such t h i n k i n g i s d e r i v e d from the w r i t i n g s o f Kanter (1972). Kanter views i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with an o r g a n i z a t i o n t o be a f u n c t i o n of the degree t o which the i n d i v i d u a l \"sees i t as e x p r e s s i n g or f u l f i l l i n g some fundamental p a r t of h i m s e l f . . . a s s u p p o r t i n g h i s concept of s e l f \" (p.66). I n d i v i d u a l s t r y t o maintain t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n s of s e l f . I f one has been encouraged i n e a r l y r e l a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s t o construe s e l f as \"c o m p e t i t i v e \" , involvement i n a work environment which enables enactment of t h i s s e l f - d e f i n i n g r o l e w i l l appear a t t r a c t i v e . The i n d i v i d u a l ' s growing r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h i s work o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l be enhanced by the v a l i d a t i o n a l feedback achieved f o r the s e l f c o n s t r u c t . On the oth e r hand, f a i l u r e t o achieve v a l i d a t i o n f o r t h i s s e l f -d e f i n i n g r o l e may d i s p u t e the coherence of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i t y ( K e l l y , 1955), thereby c r e a t i n g i n t r a p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t . C o n s t r u c t Systems 95 In a d d r e s s i n g other f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, Schein (1985) suggests t h a t i n t e r n a l i n t e g r a t i o n , as generated by v a l u e s i m i l a r i t y , i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t : I n d i v i d u a l s who h o l d the same va l u e s are thought t o share c e r t a i n aspects of c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g . These s i m i l a r i t i e s are presumed t o f o s t e r comparable methods of c l a s s i f y i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g environmental events, and a common system of communication. Such q u a l i t i e s are e s s e n t i a l t o the success of i n t e r p e r s o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . . . t h e r e b y 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 t h a t these shared a s p e c t s of c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g can be understood i n terms of the commonality between one person's c o n s t r u c t system and t h a t of another. The consensual v a l i d a t i o n p r o v i d e d by c o n s t r u c t s i m i l a r i t y , f u n c t i o n a l s i m i l a r i t y , and s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y g i v e s r i s e t o common channels of e x p e c t a t i o n , e n a b l i n g behavior t o be e f f e c t i v e l y c o o r d i n a t e d . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , Meglino, R a v l i n , and Adkins (1989) a t t r i b u t e r o l e c l a r i t y t o the a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s t o a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t each o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r C o n s t r u c t Systems 96 on the b a s i s of shared v a l u e s . F i s h e r and G i t e l s o n (1983) have found t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who e x p e r i e n c e l e s s r o l e ambiguity and c o n f l i c t are more committed t o t h e i r work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y , g r e a t e r l e v e l s of r o l e s t r a i n have been found t o correspond w i t h lower amounts of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Once again , 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 l i g h t of the a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s t o r e c o n c i l e t h e i r own c o n s t r u c t systems wi t h those of o t h e r s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . S i n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t system serves t o minimize i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , the i n t r o d u c t i o n of ambiguity becomes a source of c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n i n t h a t the coherent f u n c t i o n i n g of the system i s d i s r u p t e d . When a p a r t i c u l a r event does not f i t the p a t t e r n of c o n s t r u c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s as they e x i s t w i t h i n the c u r r e n t s t r u c t u r e , i t i s necessary f o r the i n d i v i d u a l t o develop new c o n s t r u c t s i n order t o adequately accommodate t o t h i s event. However, s t r u c t u r a l l i a b i l i t i e s w i t h i n the c o n s t r u c t system may r e s t r i c t a n ecessary r e v i s i o n of c o n s t r u c t s . K e l l y (1955) contends t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s whose c o n s t r u c t s are r e l a t i v e l y 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 t o dependence upon a s i n g l e p a t t e r n of c o n s t r u c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w i l l tend t o r e s i s t change i n the f a c e C o n s t r u c t Systems 97 of ambiguity i n order t o a v o i d f u r t h e r c o n f u s i o n and a n x i e t y . In not being a b l e t o make sense of those events which do not f i t the c u r r e n t p a t t e r n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e i r c o n s t r u c t s , i n d i v i d u a l s f i n d themselves unable t o a d j u s t t h e i r t h i n k i n g t o the demands of a changing work environment. The f a i l u r e o f the c o n s t r u c t system a t t h i s p o i n t t o adequately embrace events as they take p l a c e w i t h i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n may be experienced as p e r s o n a l l y t h r e a t e n i n g . One c o n t r o l s h i s system by m a i n t a i n i n g a c l e a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the elements which the system excludes as w e l l as those which i t i n c l u d e s . 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 with the excluded elements of h i s system, he becomes aware of the onset of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and sees t h e s e new c l u t c h i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s as t h r e a t s . ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 167) I t i s argued here t h a t i n such a case, i n d i v i d u a l s a re l i k e l y t o l e a v e the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n favour of another which i s more f i t t i n g , or t o reframe t h e i r involvement i n c a l c u l a t i v e terms as opposed t o a t t i t u d i n a l . Such a d e c i s i o n on the p a r t of the i n d i v i d u a l s e r v e s t o support the ongoing meaningfulness of the PCS. C o n s t r u c t Systems 98 S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s an experience of c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n as t o the e f f i c i e n c y of the PCS, not one of t h r e a t as t o i t s inadequacy, which encourages i n d i v i d u a l membership i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . C o n c l u d i n g Summary and Statement of T h e s i s T h i s paper has attempted t o p r o v i d e a framework f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics i n f l u e n c i n g t r a n s a c t i o n s between i n d i v i d u a l s and the work environment. The p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y of K e l l y (1955) has served as a t h e o r e t i c a l base upon which p r i n c i p l e s governing i n t e r a c t i o n between p e r s o n a l and shared c o n s t r u c t systems have been e s t a b l i s h e d . Concepts drawn from the nature of i n d i v i d u a l involvement i n the f a m i l y have c o n t r i b u t e d t o the development of a framework f o r viewing i n d i v i d u a l involvement i n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The l i m i t a t i o n s accompanying the e x t e n s i o n of f a m i l y p r i n c i p l e s t o t h a t of the work o r g a n i z a t i o n have been addressed. W i t h i n these l i m i t a t i o n s , however, i t i s suggested t h a t the f a m i l y and work o r g a n i z a t i o n can be found t o share s i m i l a r i t i e s i n t h e i r f u n c t i o n i n g as a group. On the b a s i s of the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed, i t i s a p r o c e s s of c onsensual v a l i d a t i o n which i s i d e n t i f i e d as t h e c r i t i c a l 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 i n a group. Given the nature of the i n d i v i d u a l t o f u n c t i o n C o n s t r u c t Systems 99 as a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system, i t i s t h i s p r o c e s s of c o n s e n s u a l v a l i d a t i o n which i s seen t o support the coherent f u n c t i o n i n g of the i n d i v i d u a l system and t o guide i n t e r a c t i o n with the environment. E s s e n t i a l l y , c o nsensual v a l i d a t i o n i s viewed as s u s t a i n i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f a t p r o g r e s s i v e l y more c e n t r a l a s p e c t s of the PCS. Drawing upon the arguments developed i n the p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r s , t h i s paper h e r e i n advances t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment can be e x p l a i n e d on the b a s i s of i n d i v i d u a l s t r u c t u r e and the s e l f - r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s of consensual v a l i d a t i o n . I t i s the t h e s i s of t h i s paper t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l develop an a t t i t u d i n a l type of commitment w i t h i n the workplace t o the e x t e n t t h a t c o nsensual v a l i d a t i o n i s experienced f o r the PCS. As i n d i v i d u a l s t r u c t u r e s p e c i f i e s the domain of i n t e r a c t i o n i n which i n d i v i d u a l s are a b l e t o engage and s t i l l m a i n t a i n a sense of coherence, the i n c l i n a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s t o become committed i s viewed as a f u n c t i o n of the degree t o which i n t e r a c t i o n with the OCS p r o v i d e s f o r d e f i n i t i o n and e x t e n s i o n of t h e i r c o n s t r u c t systems. A l a c k of consensual v a l i d a t i o n i s seen as c o r r e s p o n d i n g w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x p e r i e n c e of i n t r a p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t and subsequent need t o minimize t h r e a t t o the PCS by d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h e C o n s t r u c t Systems 100 r e l a t i o n s h i p or r e d e f i n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n a l e s s r e l e v a n t way. On t h i s b a s i s , i t i s argued t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s e n c u l t u r a t e d t o the workings of a p a r t i c u l a r s e l f c o n s t r u c t w i l l l i k e l y e x p e r i e n c e a g r e a t e r sense of a f f i l i a t i o n toward a work environment where t h i s i s maintained versus where i t i s not. The nature of i n d i v i d u a l s t o be d i r e c t e d toward s e l f -maintenance s e r v e s t o support t h i s . F u r t h e r , i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t involvement over time w i l l be enhanced t o the e x t e n t t h a t the work o r g a n i z a t i o n supports i n d i v i d u a l change i n d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n s . In t h i s way, the 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 forwarded as the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r l i n k i n g the i n d i v i d u a l t o the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s the exp e r i e n c e of consensual v a l i d a t i o n which encourages the i n d i v i d u a l ' s development of a committed r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . REFERENCES Adams-Webber, J . R. (1970). A c t u a l s t r u c t u r e and p o t e n t i a l chaos: R e l a t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f p r o g r e s i v e v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n a p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t system. In D. B a n n i s t e r (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s i n p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y (pp. 31-46). New York: Academic. Adams-Webber, J . R. (1979). C o n s t r u i n g persons i n s o c i a l c o n t e x t s . In P. S t r i n g e r & D. B a n n i s t e r (Eds.), C o n s t r u c t s of s o c i a l i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i t y (pp. 195-219). New York: Academic. Adams-Webber, J . R. (1981). E m p i r i c a l developments i n p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory. In H. Bonarius, R. H o l l a n d , & S. Rosenberg (Eds.), P e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology: Recent advances i n t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e (pp. 49-67). London: Macmillan. Agnew, N. M., & Brown, J . L. (1989). C o n s t r u c t i n g r e a l i t y . Canadian Psychology. 30(2), 152-167. Alexander, P., & Neimeyer, G. J . (1989), C o n s t r u c t i v i s m and f a m i l y therapy. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t Psychology. 2(2) , 111-121. B a n n i s t e r , D., & Agnew, J . (1977). The c h i l d ' s c o n s t r u i n g of s e l f . In J . K. Cole & A. W. L a n d f i e l d (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on m o t i v a t i o n (pp. 99-125). L i n c o l n , NE.: U n i v e r s i t y Press. C o n s t r u c t Systems 102 Boxer, P. (1982). The flow of c h o i c e : The c h o i c e c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 113-129). New York: Praeger. Brown, R. H. (1978). Bureaucracy as p r a x i s : Toward a p o l i t i c a l phenomenology of formal o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y . 23., 365-382. Brown, C. A., & Detoy, C. J . (1987). A comparison o f the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s o f management i n new and expe r i e n c e d managers. In F. F r a n s e l l a & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology (pp. 426-434). New York: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . Buono, A. F., Bowditch, J . L., & Lewis, J . W. (1985). When c u l t u r e s c o l l i d e : The anatomy of a merger. Human R e l a t i o n s . 38. 477-500. Button, E. (1985). S o c i e t a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l change beyond the c l i n i c a l c o n t e x t . In E. Button (Ed.), P e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y and mental h e a l t h : Theory. r e s e a r c h , and p r a c t i c e (pp. 342-354). Cambridge, MA.: B r o o k l i n e . Button, E. (1987). Music and p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s . In F. F r a n s e l l a & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology (pp. 531-538) . New York: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . C o n s t r u c t Systems 103 C r o c k e t t , W. (1982). The o r g a n i z a t i o n of c o n s t r u c t systems: The o r g a n i z a t i o n c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 62-95). New York: Praeger. Crosby, G., & Thomas, L. (1987). I n i t i a t i n g the management of l e a r n i n g i n a j u n i o r s c h o o l . In F. F r a n s e l l & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting with p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology (pp. 128-136). New York: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . Du Preez, P. D. (1975). The a p p l i c a t i o n of K e l l y ' s p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory t o the a n a l y s i s of p o l i t i c a l debates. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Psychology. 95, 267-270. Duck, S. (1972). F r i e n d s h i p , s i m i l a r i t y , and the Reptes t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 31. 231-234. Duck, S. (1973). P e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s : A study of f r i e n d s h i p f o r m a t i o n . New York: Wiley. Duck, S. (1979). The p e r s o n a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n c o n s t r u c t theory. In P. S t r i n g e r & D. B a n n i s t e r (Eds.), C o n s t r u c t s of s o c i a l i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i t y (pp. 279-297). New York: Academic. Duck, S. (1982). Two i n d i v i d u a l s i n search of agreement: The commonality c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 222-234). New York: Praeger. Duck, S., & Spencer, C. (1972). P e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s and i m p r e s s i o n formation. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 23. 40-45. F e r r i e r a , A. J . (1965) . Family myths: The c o v e r t r u l e s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . C o n f i n P s y c h i a t r y , 8, 15-20. F i s h e r , C. D., & G i t e l s o n , R. (1983). A m e t a - a n a l y s i s 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 and ambiguity. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 68, 320-333. F o l e y , R. (1987). K e l l y and Bateson: A n t i t h e s i s or s y n t h e s i s ? In F. F r a n s e l l a & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology (pp. 57-68). New York: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . F r a n s e l l a , F. (1970). ...And then t h e r e was one. In D. B a n n i s t e r (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s i n p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y (pp. 63-89). New York: Academic. F r a n s e l l a , F., Jones, H., Watson, J . (1987). A range of a p p l i c a t i o n s of PCP w i t h i n b u s i n e s s and i n d u s t r y . In F. F r a n s e l l a & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology (pp. 405-417). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Gara, M. A. (1982). Back t o b a s i c s i n p e r s o n a l i t y study - The i n d i v i d u a l person's own o r g a n i z a t i o n o f exp e r i e n c e : The i n d i v i d u a l i t y c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. C o n s t r u c t Systems 105 Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 45-61). New York: Praeger. Hayden, B. (1982). Experience - A case f o r p o s s i b l e change: The modulation c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 170-197). New York: Praeger. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e s : A q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e study a c r o s s twenty cases. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y . 35, 286-316. H r e b i n i a k , L. G. & A l u t t o , J . A. (1972). P e r s o n a l and r o l e - r e l a t e d f a c t o r s i n the development of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. 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 , 17, 555-573. Imershein, A. W. (1977). O r g a n i z a t i o n a l change as a paradigm s h i f t . S o c i o l o g y Q u a r t e r l y . 18, 33-34. Kanter, R. M. (1972). Commitment and community. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Kantor, D. (1985). Couples therapy, c r i s i s i n d u c t i o n , and change. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Casebook of m a r i t a l therapy. New York: G u i l d f o r d . K e l l y , G. (1955). A theory of p e r s o n a l i t y : The psychology of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s . New York: Norton. C o n s t r u c t Systems 106 K e l l y , G. (1970). A b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y . In D. B a n n i s t e r (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s i n p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y (pp. 1-29). New York: Academic. K e l l y , G. (1980). A psychology of the o p t i m a l man. In A. W. L a n d f i e l d & L. M. L e i t n e r (Eds.), P e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology (pp. 18-35). New York: Wiley. Keeney, B. P. (1983). A e s t h e t i c s of change. New York: G u i l d f o r d . Kenny, V. (1987). A u t o p o i e s i s and a l t e r n a t i v i s m i n psychotherapy: F l u c t u a t i o n s and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . In F. F r a n s e l l a & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting w i t h P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t Psychology (pp. 3 6-47). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kenny, V., & Gardner, G. (1988). C o n s t r u c t i o n s of s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g systems. The I r i s h J o u r n a l of Psychology. 9(1), 1-24. Kuhn, T. (1970). The s t r u c t u r e of s c i e n t i f i c r e v o l u t i o n s . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . L a n d f i e l d , A. W. (1979). E x p l o r i n g s o c i a l i z a t i o n through the 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. In P. S t r i n g e r & D. B a n n i s t e r (Eds.), C o n s t r u c t s of s o c i a l i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i t y (pp. 133-151). New York: Academic. L a n d f i e l d , A. W. (1982). A c o n s t r u c t i o n of C o n s t r u c t Systems 107 fragmentation and u n i t y : The fragmentation c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 198-221). New York: Praeger. Mancuso, J . C., & Adams-Webber, J . R. (1982). A n t i c i p a t i o n as a c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s : The fundamental p o s t u l a t e . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 8-32). New York: Praeger. Mancuso, J . C., & Eimer, B. N. (1982). F i t t i n g t h i n g s i n t o s o r t s : The range c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 130-151). New York: Praeger. McWilliams, S. (1987). On becoming a p e r s o n a l a n a r c h i s t . In F. F r a n s e l l a & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting with p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology (pp. 117-25). New York: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . Mathieu, J . E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and me t a - a n a l y s i s of the antecedents, c o r r e l a t e s , and consequences of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 108(2), 171-194. Maturana, H. R. (1978). B i o l o g y of language: The epistemology of r e a l i t y . In G. A. M i l l e r & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and b i o l o g y of language and thought (pp. 27-63). New York: Academic. Maturana, H. R., & V a r e l a , F. J . (1973). A u t o p o i e s i s : The o r g a n i z a t i o n of the l i v i n g . In H. R. Maturana & F. J . V a r e l a (Eds.), A u t o p o i e s i s and c o g n i t i o n : The r e a l i z a t i o n of the l i v i n g . Boston, MA.: R e i d e l . Meglino, B. M., R a v l i n , E. C., & Adkins C. L. (1989). A work v a l u e s approach t o c o r p o r a t e c u l t u r e : A f i e l d t e s t of the v a l u e congruence process and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o i n d i v i d u a l outcomes. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychologv. 74, 424-432. M e l t z e r , B., C r o c k e t t , W. H., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1966). C o g n i t i v e complexity, v a l u e c o n g r u i t y , and the i n t e g r a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l l y i n c o m p a t i b l e i n f o r m a t i o n i n impressions of o t h e r s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychologv. 4, 338-343. M i a l l , D. (1987). A r e p e r t o r y g r i d study of response t o p o e t r y . In F. F r a n s e l l a & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychologv (pp. 539-547). New York: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . M o r r i s , J . , & S t e e r s , R. M. (1980). S t r u c t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior. 17, 50-57. Mo r r i s o n , J . K., & Cometa, M. C. (1982). V a r i a t i o n s i n d e v e l o p i n g c o n s t r u c t systems: The e x p e r i e n c e c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 152-169). New York: Praeger. Mowday, R., P o r t e r , L., & S t e e r s , R. (1982). Employee-organization l i n k a g e s ; The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and t u r n o v e r . New York: Academic. Neimeyer, R. A., & Neimeyer, G. J . (1981). F u n c t i o n a l s i m i l a r i t y and i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y ^ 15, 427-435. Neimeyer, R. A., & Neimeyer, G. J . (1983). S t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y i n the acguaintance p r o c e s s . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1(2), 146-154. Neimeyer, R. A., & Neimeyer, G. J . (1985). D i s t u r b e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s : A p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t view. In E. Button (Ed.), P e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y and mental h e a l t h : Theory, r e s e a r c h , and p r a c t i c e (pp. 195-224). Cambridge, MA.: B r o o k l i n e . Nystedt, L., & Magnusson, D. (1982). C o n s t r u c t i o n of e x p e r i e n c e : The c o n s t r u c t i o n c o r o l l a r y . In J . C. Mancuso & J . R. Adams-Webber (Eds.), The c o n s t r u i n g person (pp. 33-44). New York: Praeger. O'Hare, D. P., & Gordon, I. E. (1976). An a p p l i c a t i o n of r e p e r t o r y g r i d technique t o a e s t h e t i c measurement. P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s . 42. 1183-1192. O ' R e i l l y , C., & Chatman, J . (1986). O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n s t r u c t Systems 110 commitment and p s y c h o l o g i c a l attachment: The e f f e c t s of compliance, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n on p r o s o c i a l behavior. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 71(3), 492-499. Ouchi, W. G., & W i l k i n s , A. L. (1985). O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e . Annual Review of S o c i o l o g y . 11, 457-483. P f e f f e r , J . (1981). Management as symbolic a c t i o n : The c r e a t i o n and maintenance of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l paradigms. Research i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior. 3, 1-52. P r o c t o r , H. (1981). Family c o n s t r u c t psychology. In S. Walrond-Skinner (Ed.), Developments i n f a m i l y t herapy (pp. 350-366). London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . R e i s s , D. (1971). V a r i e t i e s of consensual e x p e r i e n c e : Dimensions of a f a m i l y ' s experience of i t s environment. Family Process. 10, 1-27. R e i s s , D. (1981). The f a m i l y ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y . Cambridge, MA.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y . Salmon, P. (1970). A psychology of p e r s o n a l growth. In D. B a n n i s t e r (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s i n p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory (pp. 197-221). New York: Academic. Schein, E. H. (1965). O r g a n i z a t i o n a l psychologv. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Schein, E. H. (1985). O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e and l e a d e r s h i p . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. S t e e r s , R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y . 22., 46-56. S t r i n g e r , P., & B a n n i s t e r , D. (1979). C o n s t r u c t s of s o c i a l i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i t y . New York: Academic. Todd, N. (1987). R e l i g i o u s b e l i e f and PCT. In F. F r a n s e l l a & L. Thomas (Eds.), Experimenting w i t h p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t psychology (pp. 483-492). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Van Maanen, J . , & B a r c l a y , S. R. (1984). O c c u p a t i o n a l communities: C u l t u r e and c o n t r o l i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior^ 6, 287-365, Greenwich, CT: JAI. Van Maanen, J . , & Kunda, G. (1989). R e a l f e e l i n g s . In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior^ 11, 43-103. Greenwich, CT.: JAI. V a r e l a , F. J . (1979). P r i n c i p l e s of b i o l o g i c a l autonomy. New York: North H o l l a n d . Von B e r t a l a n f f y , L. (1968). General systems t h e o r y : Foundations, development, a p p l i c a t i o n s . New York: B r a z i l l e r . 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 r e a l i t y . C o n s t r u c t Systems 112 In P. Watzlawick (Ed.)/ The i n v e n t e d r e a l i t y . New York: Norton. Von G l a s e r f e l d , E. (1984). An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o r a d i c a l c o n s t r u c t i v i s m . In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The i n v e n t e d r e a l i t y (pp. 17-40). New York: Norton. Von G l a s e r f e l d , E. (1988). The r e l u c t a n c e t o change a way of t h i n k i n g . The I r i s h J o u r n a l of Psychology. 9(1), 83-90. Watzlawick, P. (1984). The invented r e a l i t y . New York: Norton. Weiner, N. (1948). C y b e r n e t i c s ; or. C o n t r o l and communication i n the animal and the machine. Cambridge, MA.: Technology P r e s s . Appendix A The f o l l o w i n g i s a summary of the fundamental p o s t u l a t e 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 t o the p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory of K e l l y (1955, pp. 103-104). Fundamental P o s t u l a t e 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 the ways i n which he a n t i c i p a t e s events. C o n s t r u c t i o n C o r o l l a r y A person a n t i c i p a t e s events by c o n s t r u i n g t h e i r r e p l i c a t i o n s . I n d i v i d u a l i t y C o r o l l a r y Persons d i f f e r from each other i n t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n of events. O r g a n i z a t i o n C o r o l l a r y 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 , f o r h i s convenience i n a n t i c i p a t i n g events, a c o n s t r u c t i o n system embracing o r d i n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o n s t r u c t s . Dichotomy C o r o l l a r y A person's c o n s t r u c t i o n system i s composed of a f i n i t e number of dichotomous c o n s t r u c t s . Choice C o r o l l a r y A person chooses f o r h i m s e l f t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e i n a dichotomized c o n s t r u c t through which he a n t i c i p a t e s the g r e a t e r p o s s i b i l i t y f o r ext 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 c o n s t r u c t i s convenient f o r the a n t i c i p a t i o n of a f i n i t e range of events only. E x p e rience C o r o l l a r y A person's c o n s t r u c t i o n system v a r i e s as he s u c c e s s i v e l y c o nstrues the r e p l i c a t i o n s of events. 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n system i s l i m i t e d by the p e r m e a b i l i t y of the c o n s t r u c t s w i t h i n whose range of convenience the v a r i a n t s l i e . Fragmentation C o r o l l a r y A person may s u c c e s s i v e l y employ a v a r i e t y of c o n s t r u c t i o n subsystems which are i n f e r e n t i a l l y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h each other. Commonality C o r o l l a r y To t h e extent t h a t one person employs a c o n s t r u c t i o n of experience which i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t employed by another, h i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s are s i m i l a r t o those of the other person. S o c i a l i t y C o r o l l a r y To the extent t h a t one person c o n s t r u e s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n processes of another, he may p l a y a r o l e i n a s o c i a l p rocess i n v o l v i n g the other person. "@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "1992-11"@en . "10.14288/1.0054139"@en . "eng"@en . "Counselling Psychology"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "The interaction of personal and shared construct systems : the implications of consensual validation upon commitment in the workplace"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/3480"@en .