Several World Problems 2024 - GY - The Graves Model

THE GRAVES MODEL

Gary Young

1998, reviewed and posted April 14, 2024

I have always been in search of what makes things work. It was natural for the budding philosopher that when I became an officer and gentleman by act of congress and expected to martial the efforts of others, that I would continue on my life long quest to figure out the most colossal of all puzzles, what makes people tick. Over the years I have taken enough psychology and micro-economic courses to qualify for degrees, taken short courses, read the great philosophers, been a seminar junkie, seriously studied leadership and otherwise learned and understood well over a hundred models of human behavior. I have even fully developed models of my own. All this exposure has led me to conclude that various models and combinations of models do a reasonable job (but not an infallible job) of predicting the behavior of groups. However, it probably takes all hundred plus models and more to thoroughly understand any given individual.

I stumbled across a model created by Dr. Clare W. Graves that is more predictive of individual behavior then perhaps the next ten best models combined. I have found the model to be so accurate so often that I have been really puzzled why it hasn’t at least been mentioned in mainstream publications. As an example, in the fall of 1998, some people burned down a number of top and mid-mountain structures at Vail Resort in Colorado. During the inevitable conversations with my skiing buddies, we simply could not understand why anyone would do such a thing. Then it hit me, these eco-terrorists are operating on the dark side of one of the few defined Graves worldview system that I don’t understand and may never understand. As a preview, the Vail assault was an artifact of value system 8 and I am primarily system 7. It is now clear to me that the problem with the Graves model and why it hasn’t caught on is the high probability that people simply do not understand the worldviews

that emerged after the one where the preponderance of their values lies. Since they don’t understand the later emerging values they come across as really threatening.

What I find intriguing about incorporating the Graves model in a book about true belief is that the model directly addresses the most deeply held beliefs that govern how people behave. Is the Graves model tough to understand? The answer is yes but then again, I’ve been married for 44 years and I can’t say I understand her yet, but I keep trying.

The double dilemma I now face is how I could take a stab at presenting the Graves model that would lead to greater understanding of both the model and the underlying beliefs. It is important to understand why people have beliefs in common with others with their same world view. This understanding then leads to the understanding that the beliefs of those with a given world view can be in decided conflict with common beliefs shared by other world views. It is the opposition of dearly held beliefs of one group in conflict with the beliefs dearly held by other groups that drive politics. It is through politics that both the greatest benefits and greatest calamities to the human race can be found.

WHAT IS A WORLD VIEW?

The short definition is that a worldview is the constellation of all our most fundamental beliefs which provide the perceptual filters by which we make sense of the world around us. This is not an easy concept to grasp so I am going to try to build a better definition by analogies.

You have taken on the mission of exploring the North African desert looking for understanding and enlightenment. You crest a hill and see what looks like a very symmetric rock in the distance. Picture the first pyramid above and imagine that it is deeply buried in the sand

such that only that portion above the sand is the exposed “artifact.”

The analogy to people is that it is only these exposed artifacts by which other people can tell what makes us function. To use the pyramid analogy further, the parts that are buried the deepest and most difficult to determine are the foundation formed from our most fundamental beliefs. The analogy is the second pyramid fully exposed. With simple tools and instruments, we can determine that there is a complete pyramid when we look at the first and with the exception of the apex, it is hidden from view. As we use more refined tools, we begin to understand the layer just under the Apex, the behaviors. This exploration process continues through the values layer until we discover that there is a foundation. As the tools get better and theories become more refined, we can begin to understand that there are foundation blocks and eventually, just what the significance of each of these blocks and how they are constructed. Further, we can do all this with little disturbance of the sand in the space next to pyramid.

Lets back away from the analogy for a bit and talk about human behavior models. It seems to me that the terms concerning behavior models started when it was noted that there must be something more behind the behavioral artifacts people demonstrated. Sure enough, the whole field of behaviorism was developed. The next step was people started wondering about what were the driving mechanisms behind behaviors. The answers to that turned out to be values and for the last twenty years or so, consultants have made a lot of money dipping managers, leaders and other people in the vats of “values awareness” and providing training in order for these people to deal with the issues. Of course, the old name for values awareness is just what beliefs to people share and why.

You don’t hear terms like “values modeling” because what really counts in relationships is the behavior artifacts that we demonstrate to each other. For the purposes of this book and when I am feeling

high minded, I will be sticking to terms like “human behavior models” for values and worldview modeling. When I cut to the chase, I will be talking about beliefs at their most fundamental. This leads to the observation that there are always forward thinking people in the world and this leads us back to Graves. There were others such as Douglas McGregor with his Theories X and Y and William Ouchi and his Theory Z that explored the deeply held beliefs underlying values. It was Graves however, who realized that there was a whole lot more deeply held beliefs then values like those described in the X, Y and Z theories. He set out to understand all the very deep beliefs that drive our internal processes in the creation of our values. His findings are the subject of this chapter. This is a good time to ask the question if there are any even deeper layers to be discovered. Unfortunately, Graves died early in his career so there is no way to tell if perhaps he was exploring any further layer of “bed rock” upon which his foundation of deeply held beliefs may be resting. My suspicion is that while it may be possible to find something deeper under the most fundamental beliefs we can now see, it is not likely.

Getting back to the analogy, we have by now attracted the attention of a number of our colleagues with our find and they also have come to the sand covered plane to see what they can discover. Soon, they and even some members of our team have discovered numerous stone like apexes and some of these have been where the winds have shifted such that more of the pyramids are exposed. In a few cases, the sands adjacent to the pyramids have been intrusively removed so that the explorers can directly view the deeply held foundation. We call the removal of the sand in this manner “psychoanalysis.” Note: psychoanalysis can be career limiting if the ‘pyramid’ is actually the excavators boss. As more and more explorers enter the area, they every once in while discover complete pyramids where the sand has completely blown away. (We call these people “open books.”) With time, the exposures of all the deeply held foundation building blocks results in foundations and blocks

becoming “well characterized.” We use the well understood information on the blocks and foundations of other pyramids to interpret the signals that we get back from our ground piercing radar and sand sonar. The deeply buried foundation blocks yield their information bit by bit and we then combine the information with the more observable artifacts which helps us identify and characterize the foundation building blocks of our pyramid.

We start comparing our information with others and collectively begin to notice that the foundations seem to fall into a small number of defined groups as if different groups of people built clusters of the pyramids. Within each cluster, there was great similarity in the construction of the foundations. The differences in the foundation construction between clusters were different, in some cases, very different. Another phenomena was noted, you couldn’t necessarily tell which next higher level in the pyramids (values) belonged with which foundation because in many cases there were similarities of this level between the clusters that had different foundations. Analyzing the third layer up (behaviors) showed even more similarities then the second. This was not good news to the explorers because to understand each pyramid as much as possible they had to keep using their models and instruments and not simple direct observation. One consequence of using just models and instruments is that the explorers could never completely understand any given pyramid. They could however, identify very distinctive characteristics shared in common for each of the clusters.

Bear with me while the analogy gets a bit stranger. One afternoon there was a very powerful earthquake in the region. The real people equivalent is called a “significant emotional event.” Afterwards, the explorers rushed out of their collapsed tents to see what damage had been done to the Pyramids. Some had been shaken to pieces, some had great cracks and some seemed undamaged. At first light the next day the explorers were out with their instruments

to see what internal damage had occurred within the foundations. Huh, the cracks had disappeared where they had previously been visible! Further probing with the instruments revealed that the foundations building blocks of some of the pyramids actually changed! In fact some of the foundations now looked like they were part of different clusters. Realization set in, these pyramids are adaptive! It was further noted that over time the value and behavior layer blocks also seemed to change. Sure enough, with time even the artifact apexes changed. Ok, ok, since we are only using the analogy to describe behaviors in real people, I will give it up before the readers start really gagging.

One of the privileges of being a grandfather is watching my grandchildren develop without all the anxieties I suffered when my own children were growing up. This is the point in their lives when they are undergoing the intense process of building the foundations of who they will become. As a grandfather first and a student of Graves second, I am perhaps a little more objective and concerned then their parents on the process of building their worldviews. The process seems to be something like observe, mimic, receive feedback, incorporate, then use, and mostly without conscience thought and frequently with unmitigated distortions. There are learning moments when mimicked or the incorporated and used behaviors did not meet the approvals of parents or others. Sometimes this disapproval triggers conscience thought and sometimes not. In all cases there is lots of unconscious thought required in connecting the dots to make sense of the world.

Early in the process when children are quite young, there isn’t much data available within their brains to connect the dots in what adults would judge as a logical fashion. My mental image of what goes on is a strong reiterative process where new data, ideas or observations mostly unconsciously enters the brain where it is then compared and checked with some or all the belief registers of the

mind. The new stuff may be rejected, incorporated or partially incorporated. If rejected, there is apparently no conscience trace. If incorporated to any degree, then there will be some to perhaps a great deal of changing and re-registering of beliefs. There also doesn’t appear to be a correlation with consciousness of the event and the amount of change caused by the event. For example, there are probably many more unremembered high impact events that shaped me then the ones I remembered.

The role of education in building beliefs is to replace the superstitious knowledge which went into the construction of a lot of the earlier beliefs with real knowledge and the subsequence reforming of beliefs. This process is a race with time because the foundations become more resistant to change as they are buried deeper in the sands of time. The process of replacing superstitious knowledge should begin early and be pressed hard. Unfortunately, the dumbing down of America is happening in part because a lot of our schooling now includes a lot of new superstitious knowledge to replace old superstitious knowledge. It seems that between the mid teens and early twenties, the foundation beliefs are in place and become nearly unchangeable on the short term except through the intrusion of “significant emotional events.” It also appears that foundation beliefs can change with a gentle but long term stress such as more intellectually honest education, introspection or simply being out of step with the rest of the world. Understanding leads to being adaptive which in turn leads to more understanding. Conversely, never being challenged by either significant emotional events or long term stresses continues the process of hardening the foundation beliefs and we become less and less adaptive.

In the world of creating beliefs, the roll of education is very important I will address in the next part of this book what I think has been the wrong course of education in this country for the last fifty years

The process of deriving our values from our foundation beliefs is where our World Views come in. Again, a worldview is the constellation of all our most fundamental beliefs which provide the perceptual filters by which we make sense of the world around us. We see the world as we believe it to be and rarely the way it really is. Why we don’t see the world accurately is that some of our most deeply held beliefs were created using the superstitious knowledge more readily available to children and the poorly educated. It is only by chance that real knowledge may have been later utilized to change or otherwise update the beliefs. In some cases, the belief is so strong that no amount of real knowledge will make an impact. The phrase, “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” is really very true. It is also true the belief can be changed with new superstitious knowledge when it can’t be changed with real knowledge because some other deeply held belief validates the superstitious and rejects the real knowledge. The result is that these beliefs interact with reality only through the perceptual filters that our beliefs identify and validate as real.

THE GRAVES MODEL:

The basic model is simply a numbering of worldview clusters starting with Two (2) and increasing when a new worldview cluster emerges and is practiced by a significant enough number of people to be recognized. Currently, system Eight (8) is the now emerging new worldview cluster. The low number worldview clusters have been around for tens of thousands of years. The rate of emergence of fully developed and higher number worldview clusters seems to take less and less time. This means in all of human history, only eight significant worldview clusters have emerged in the Graves model. System 8 has taken only about fifty years to emerge, but it may be another fifty years to clearly understand and articulate the worldviews shared by those in the system.

A bases of comparison for the time it has taken to develop worldview systems is to compare the worldviews with Alvin Toffler model. It was Alvin Toffler who developed the three wave’s model of technology. His Wave 1 was the development of agriculture, Wave 2 was the industrial age and Wave 3 is the information age. Graves systems 2 and 3 corresponded to Toffler’s Wave 1; worldview systems 4 and 5 corresponded to Wave 2 and systems 6 and 7 corresponds to Toffler’s Wave 3.

It is my opinion that the accelerated development of new World Views is a product of enjoying both rising economic affluence and political freedom high in personal liberty. Individuals and societies that enjoy a great deal of liberty and are free from the toil of meeting basic needs have the time for, and the reward of thinking and communicating with others. The combination of liberty and relative wealth has not occurred much in the time humans have been on the earth. It has been only in the last 60 years since WWII or so that large numbers of people have enjoyed the situation, and even today, perhaps only 40% of the world’s population enjoys the wealth and liberty combination.

The perceptive reader has noted that if the model starts with 2, currently ends with 8 and has eight worldview clusters. This is not “new math,” what is missing is worldview 1. The way Graves approached WV1 was to simply define it as the worldview cluster that must first have occurred long ago when the human race was just getting started. Since there are no records from that time, his idea was to describe it as the worldview demonstrated by every new human, the self absorbed behavior of infants, specifically, sensory stimulation and the simple act of existence. Since the time of infancy is short, and parents of every world view cluster usually try to change the behavior of their infants to better comply with their societal norms, there isn’t much point in developing a great deal of

understanding of the worldview of infants. This WV is more a challenge for psychologists to understand the small percentage of people who still retain the worldview of infants.

The Graves model is not intended to be hierarchical nor is there inherent “right” or “wrong” with regards to where given individuals fall on the model. This means that a 2 is not inherently less desirable than a 4, or a 7 better than a 3, and so on. There is however, “good” and “bad” people on each worldview cluster. The model is primarily useful for understanding groups of people, and like any behavioral model, it can breakdown at the level of the individual simply because each of us are a product of literally thousands of variables. Having stated the forgoing, I like the model because I have found it to useful in explaining or predicting the behavior of identifiable groups and even some individuals. I also use the model very cautiously because I am cognizant that I have my own perceptual filters fully capable of distorting reality as I see it.

Along the same lines, the worldviews held by individuals are not a measure of their intelligence, but it is my observation that the level of education can have an affect. It is hard to go through life without encountering “significant emotional events” such as births, deaths, marriages, divorces, being fired and such. If the individual has had significant real education, they sometimes change worldviews to be more consistent with what they “now know to be the truth.”

Very few people demonstrate behaviors exclusively associated with a single worldview. What seems to happen in practice is the demonstration of several worldview clusters with a “peak” in the dominating world view. I think this phenomena is due to three issues, there are many variables that make up the individual, socialization imparts some of the worldview cluster of the individual’s environment into the individual, and the testing instruments are, and

never will be perfect. Perhaps another is that women have become good at “masking” how they really see the world.

The even-numbered worldviews have in common a focus more oriented to group issues and in particular, how the subject individual relates to the group. The observed values demonstrated by worldviews 2, 4 and 6 include being true and loyal to ideals, and willing to “sacrifice.” They show the need to be dependent on others for validation. These people have a high priority on relationships as well as a willingness to fight for values intended to protect the “group” of which they feel a part. In general, they like things that are connected, complete and whole.

The odd-numbered worldviews have in common a focus more oriented to individual issues. The observed values demonstrated by worldviews 3, 5 and 7 are intended to benefit the individual. They show an independent minded behavior. These people have a high priority on results as well as a willingness to fight for values intended to protect themselves from others. In general, they demonstrate little utility for things that are connected, complete and whole.

Part of the problem with the acceptance of the Grave’s model was no doubt the labels he chose for each of the worldview clusters. As mentioned before, there are good people and bad people in each worldview and the labels chosen described primarily the bad people (Graves was in academia, not marketing). Adams and Lynch relabeled the worldview with the more neutral terms used in this description. I have added Graves’s labels in parentheses.

After struggling with the model for years, it makes the most sense to me to describe how the holders of each worldview “see” the same common dimensions of reality external to them, their inner reality, their view of “human nature,” and how they go about

analyzing situations. Of course, I will take the occasional opportunity to embellish the descriptions with my own observations.

WORLDVIEW 2: KINSPERSON (TRIBALISTIC)

1. Concepts of external reality and truth:

These people rely on direct sensory input and verification. They see a natural world that is dominated by seasonal events and other cycles. They believe that objects as well as people have spirits like other life forms or natural phenomena. Spirits, dreams, oracles etc. are afforded the status of physical reality and physical reality is not seen as something to be manipulated to any great degree except through traditional or ritualistic means. The Chief (gods, elders, or ancestors) is the ultimate authority. Age and seniority equates to wisdom and knowledge. Emphasis is on dealing with the present by doing what worked, or was supposed to have worked in the past. The individual’s importance is measured relative to their importance to the group, close associates, family, or tribe. Truth is determined by the Chief (gods, elders, or ancestors).

2. Concepts of inner reality:

Real fear of being separated from the group. Very willing to sacrifice for the good of the group. Emotionally interwoven with the group and its existence. Authority figures who can guide the destiny of the group and can fix things that go wrong are of great personal comfort. Very mindful of position and shows great deference to superior power or prestige. Much of life seen as magical and out of personal control. Cannot tell the difference between superstitious and real knowledge and can be moved by magic and dreams. Social life revolves around support for the group. Not much utility in personal ownership of property because property is primarily for the communal good. Personal

possessions are to be used to negotiate and cement important alliances.

3. Concepts of human nature:

Human nature is fixed and unchanging so survival is achieved by satisfying the spirits or gods and the adaptation to the physical surroundings. Change in individuals is externally driven. Emphasis is on rituals and processes that ensure the stability of the environment and survival of the group. Survival means staying the same and not losing and actually gaining is not in the realm of possibility. Relationships are hierarchical based on seniority, family, contribution to survival, and tradition. Humanity is the family, group, or tribe which means that “outsiders” may be considered to be “bad.” Human nature is “how WE are,” so outsiders may be considered to not be human. An outsider not being considered to be human is best demonstrated by how American Indian tribes referred to them selves:

 Algonquin-Anishinabeg, “true men”

 Apache- Ndee, “the people”

 Cherokee- Ani-yuun-wiya for “principal people”

 Cheyenne- Tse-tsehesestaestse, “beautiful people”

 Comanche- Numunuh, “the people.”

 Iroquois-Haudenoaunee, “people of the longhouse”

 Osage- Ni-U-Ko’n-Skal, “People of the mid waters”

 Pawnee - Chahikichahiks, “men of men” Thus, if you were not one of the “beautiful principal true men of men of the mid waters longhouse,” it was easy to consider you to be sub-human and treat you savagely accordingly.

In addition, individuals in tribal societies do not have “private” lives, everything is everyone’s business. Work is based on communal survival functions usually with different task types for men and women. There are lots of complex cross-group ties and

obligations that bind the group together and create relationships with other similar group.

4. Situations analysis:

Will the intended action give me direct access to food, shelter or protection? (The lower end of the Maslow needs.) Will I measure up to expected performance of the group and be accepted, supported and cared for? Will I be able to band together with others like me for safety in numbers?

As stated before, there are both good and bad people in this worldview system. Within any worldview system, those who reliably toil for the greater good of the group are seen as good. Within the worldview 2 system, those who slack in their duties to the group are seen as bad and those who do not share the worldview are seen as bad. Of course, if you were and outsider and therefore the group did not see you as human, you could be treated quite savagely which could be very bad, but the group would consider it right, just and normal, which would be considered good only by members within the group.

Perhaps only ten percent of the U.S. population has this worldview and I would guess that it is very rare for these people to succeed in most modern enterprises simply because they would likely not be very effective working with people with other worldviews. It has been my observation that localized regions with large concentrations of ethnic minorities also have greater numbers of kins-people because there old culture was more supportive of the system.

Worse yet is that it is clear that the followers of the more radical Islamic philosophies also follow rigid tribalistic values. More chilling however is the rise of domestic gangs that specialize in criminal activities. These gangs behave with very rigid tribalistic practices.

WORLDVIEW 3: LONER (EGOCENTRIC)

1. Concepts of external reality and truth:

Sees reality in black and white terms. The world appears very physical, impersonal, uncaring, and actually threatening. Need direct sensory input because if they didn’t “see it,” it didn’t happen but in general, they are neither fact nor truth seeking. They view the world as there for the taking and the strong deserve to take it. The search is for opportunities to dominate, demonstrate power and get “one up” on others. Sentiment is for fools and caring about others a waste. Low respect for authority figures, but sometimes willing to submit to the more powerful. Dominate or be dominated, survival of the fittest.

2. Concepts of inner reality:

Very survival oriented and they do not trust others. Tend to overestimate their own abilities and underestimate everyone else’s. Totally self absorbed and guided only by their personal experiences in their quest for gratification. Social configurations are transitory and revolve around some sort of immediate mutual benefit. Social functions are seen as forums to show-off, but loners are extremely defensive against shame or loss of face. There are no “ethics,” only power. They are truly loners who prefer to keep their own company because if others get “to close,” they may discover the loner’s weaknesses. If they submit to someone who is more powerful, it because they can gain something, but their submission is only until they feel strong enough to challenge or move on to some place where they will be the strongest.

3. Concepts of human nature:

Human nature is fixed and unchangeable so trying to change is worse than useless. The human is just another creature competing

for survival. Individuals must look out for themselves because no one else will. It is natural to dominate others because taking care of “Number 1” is the loner’s strongest drive of all. Views others with suspicion with an emphasis on “what can they do for me?”

Expects work to be a means to make money in order to exercise power, provide for self and satisfy wants. Likes work that provides the opportunity to use and demonstrate power, show daring, be tough, doesn’t require a lot of interpersonal skills or cooperation, keep busy and pays often and fairly.

4. Situations analysis:

Will look for the opportunity to satisfy immediate desires, control events and have a “say” in how things ought to be. Is this an opportunity to prove “worthiness, gain power or gain influence?”

Will this be an opportunity for some one else or some institution to dominate me?” Is this an opportunity to “strut my stuff,” show-off, or prove my worth?

Most of the Graves descriptors for this worldview are relatively negative but there are “good” people within this system. Sometimes it is just simpler to look to the entertainment industry to help define certain world views and they do it so well for this worldview. For example, the John Wayne persona, the lead character in the RAMBO movies and the Jedi Knights in Star Wars all characterize the good side of WV 3’s. Along the same lines, the lead character in “Good Will Hunting” started as a neutral and nearly pure 3, but went into a “good” 3 and then a transition to a 4 because of the “significant emotional events” of education and falling in love. There also are many good examples of bad system 3 people in the movies. Every member of an “outlaw biker gang” or any self absorbed prisoner lifting weights to be able to “protect themselves” are shown demonstrating negative and nearly pure system 3 behaviors of personal individual survival at any cost.

Only a small percentage of the population has this worldview. These people can be entrepreneurs, but the drive comes from being their own boss and not having to be accountable to anyone else. It has been my observation that a significant number of politicians have this value but only a very small percentage of business managers have this system as dominate. The rising use of contract help in business increases the probability that managers will have to deal with 3’s because the independence of being a contract employee is very attractive to this worldview.

WORLD VIEW 4: LOYALIST (ABSOLUTIST)

1. Concepts of external reality and truth:

Perceives a structured reality that requires obeying absolute laws, disciplined allegiance and delayed rewards. Hierarchical institutions are seen as the way to achieve an orderly world, which in turn are governed by those who best did their duty, obeyed the rules and “measured up.” Measuring up includes submission to the judgments of those of higher station by thoughts, feelings and actions that “sacrifice” the individual for the present to receive reward later. The purpose for human life is to serve the higher power by living according to the laws and honoring the institutions of the system. The nature of intellectual inquiry is to determine what the system or the authorities think is right and that humans have not the right to experiment with other systems. Antisocial behavior is a serious concern and is dealt with by a strong system for arresting and punishing offenders.

2. Concepts of inner reality:

The basic belief is that the individual is imperfect and somehow hopelessly defective and can only “be saved” by mercy of a higher power. Self-sacrificing and submissive to the system for which the system will bestow reward or favor after worthiness is proved.

(The context of the italicized system is the social-economic and institutional way of the world.) Seeks identity and worth through self-discipline and adherence to strong moral code. Respect for proven and approved institutions. It is important to have as much data and instruction as possible so the individual can understand how to do it right. Seek opportunities to be close to revered figures. Prefer environments that confirm existing beliefs. Believes that we get what we deserve. Whatever goes wrong is somehow the fault of the individual, never the fault of the system, institution, or authorities above the individual. Guilt and shame are prime motivators.

An individual’s dutiful progress up the hierarchy can lead to more certainty of knowledge and more judgmental behavior. It has been my observation that there is a circular reasoning process that occurs. “I’ve been promoted. Clearly I was the most worthy candidate. My knowledge must have been superior and my judgements better.” After a few more promotions, their knowledge is all knowing and their judgements infallible to all but the very few authorities left above them in the hierarchy at whose feet they still so willingly grovel. The proof that they know best is their selection and their selection is their just reward for their prior sacrifices. Elsewhere in this book is the subject of the “Tyranny of the Fours” that examines this institution destroying inner reality in greater depth.

3. Concepts of human nature:

The concept of human nature is hierarchical and based on position and seniority, family ties and obligations, value to the “system,” and the smooth pragmatic functioning of the community. Human nature is imperfect and no amount of effort by the individual will make it perfect. People should obey the law and be loyal to authority. Doing your duty is primary and personal thoughts and wants are secondary. “Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do

and die.” Humans are but stewards of the material world. The lives of the individual are not totally their own, they belong to the highest authority and thus have an obligation to reveal intimate knowledge to the authorities. Thus confession is the seeking of guarantees against personal annihilation. Good honest hard work is considered to be ideal because it is one of the highest forms of fulfilling duty. Work allows the person to provide for the family and support “the system” which is considered very good behavior.

The ideal leaders tend to be benevolent monarchs. Followers look to leaders and use tradition and dogma for direction. The “true believers” are the “in” group and are privy to special rights and privileges which in turn obligates them to responsibilities. The “non-believers” are viewed as ignorant, or unfortunate and as a challenge to be “converted.” The “lost sheep” are seen as missguided by other non-system influences and a challenge to “bring them back home.” Heretics (such as those with different world views) are seen as hopeless and as having committed unpardonable sins. The only solutions for heretics are to reject, discredit, and depending on the prevailing laws, kill them.

4. Situation Analysis:

Is this an opportunity to prove to the authorities that I am worthy? Is this “right, just and normal” and in alignment with my existing beliefs? Is this my chance to serve? Is this a chance to be recognized as a good citizen? Will this experience lead me to a greater understanding of all the governing rules? Is this good honest work? Is this my chance to “protect” the family, the authorities or “the system” from outside contamination, ideas, dogmas and morals? WV 4’s are attracted to Gnosticism and secret societies in order to ascend to the “inner circle.”

5. Intrepreneurism:

(This is Gary-speak for the process of being an intrepreneur which is behaving like an entrepreneur but internal to the organization.) Not many 4’s become entrepreneurs and then usually only by accident or desperation such as being laid off and not being able to find another job which is a significant emotional event that will probably change there world view. Within an organization, 4’s are very reluctant to take more then very small incremental steps while seeking continuous validation from higher authority as they go. The large leaps ahead that are typical when doing intrepreneurism are just highly intimidating for a 4 and with 4’s in series up the management chain, it is impossible. Possible reactions as the leader: Within the specifically defined rules and charters. If it isn’t specifically spelled out that you can do it, you can’t. As a follower: “It isn’t in our charter.”

There are many examples of good people in the system including the legend of Camelot to Mother Theresa because the seeking of a virtuous calling is a strong component of this worldview. Most annoying to those with other views is the tendency of 4’s to be absolutely certain that only they are endowed with true faith and understanding. There have also been times when whole societies of worldview 4’s have been bad because they found themselves following what they thought were benevolent monarchs who were tyrants in reality. We are presently witnessing this behavior by the Islamic Fascists. Thus it became right, just and normal to burn witches, send the accused to concentration camps, commit suicide bombings and otherwise behave quite brutally by demonstrating sociopath behaviors to their fellow humans. This absolute certainty gave rise to the original Graves WV4 title description as “absolutists.” Elsewhere in this book is quite a bit of information on Tyrant Fours, the entitled, and other worldview 4 behaviors that can very negatively impact institutions.

Students of Graves generally regard worldview 4 as the single largest in terms of population. It is thought that at least 40% of the US population have this view and up to 60% in other societies. It is my thesis that the US population was higher in the past but it has been our enjoyment of a relatively high degree of liberty which has allowed significant numbers of people to develop other worldviews. The dominance of this single worldview is not surprising in view that the practitioners have created most of the twentieth century cultures with their emphasis on large hierarchical institutions such as religion, law, government, education and large businesses. While there is nothing inherently wrong and indeed, a lot to be desired with large hierarchical institutions seeking noble callings, there can be a lot wrong in seeking ignominious callings like control, power, war, ethnic cleansing and the like. It is my observation that most of the traditional large institutions both support and are a product of a strong “need to believe” in value 4’s. Further, the necessity of individuals bridging “logical absurdities” that arise within and because of large institutions, reinforces belief until these beliefs become absolutes, i.e. “don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up.” The result is also often evidenced by a great deal of hypocrisy in those who have worked their way up the organization and in general, these individuals are neither aware nor capable of being aware of their hypocrisy. They have just spent years of effort being rewarded for thinking “right thoughts” and “serving their system or institution” to see that they have been bridging what holders of other world views clearly see as absurdities. I believe that their need to think right thoughts and serve is so overwhelming that it trumps even the absurdities between world view 4 institutions. Over history this has given rise to things like religious wars and wars over the seeking of land. In most of our institutions, world, 4’s have raised servile “kissing up” to an art form which has contributed in the promotion of 4’s who think just

like their world view 4 boss which is the sure long term formula for killing the institution of which they are a part.

WORLDVIEW 5: ACHIEVER (ACHIEVER)

1. Concepts of external reality and truth:

The world is full of individual opportunity and rewards those who “play the game” best. Progress is a natural and essential reality. Purpose is to exploit the “system” (nature, the firm or other opportunities) as efficiently and quickly as possible for personal gain or “progress.” The world is seen as dominate and exploitive in an unforgiving and deterministic way, so individuals must also be dominate and exploitive to get results. Physical reality is the ultimate basis for evaluating all results. Social reality is basically viewed as a game where status is based on how well one learns to play the game as evidenced by success, i.e. he who dies with the most toys wins.

2. Concepts of inner reality:

Winning is very important and can be very envious of the success of others but at the same time, attracted and motivated to succeed like these others. Achievers are highly competitive and feel that they have a “right” to what they can earn through their performance. Personal identity is strongly tied to accomplishments, status and possessions. WV 5’s have a high need to be more knowledgeable, effective and “better” than others which makes them very open to training or learning ways to get ahead. This flow of knowledge tends to be very one way because 5’s avoid disclosing everything they know in order to create and maintain a personal advantage. There is no separation between social and business activities because they are “always working.” These people have a strong sense of territory, like span of control, and need other measures of

success. They find that it is risky to be too close to others for fear of being “found out.” They hate to be wrong or to have to ask for help because that would be evidence that they are not “the best.” These people may be quite lonely and stressed-out by the lack of closeness and constant competition.

3. Concepts of human nature:

Humans are individually in control of their own destiny. Personal success is a proud and worthy pursuit. Humans are basically self-centered and driven by personal and material selfimprovement. My “lot in life” and the lot of all human nature can be improved through the mastery of the fundamentals. Competition is healthy and the best win. The nature of work is less important than its contribution to status, power, wealth, etc. Have high confidence in business and other leaders. Business relationships are hierarchical based on level of success and not seniority. Ethics can be expedient and situational. Generosity and giving is only part of “the game” and not genuine because there is an expectation of getting something in return.

4. Situation Analysis:

They base their actions on “What can this do for me?” These people are uncomfortable in subordinate or inferior positions. They tend to see relationships as contractual. Their honoring and execution of the contract depends on their view of the integrity and strength of the relationship because everything outside the contract is subject to “fair game.” Is this an opportunity to get ahead by taking advantage of the unseen opportunity? Is this a way to enjoy or display the fruits of my success?

As leaders, these people will look to display their energy and their goal and objective orientation but will demand progress

and regular success. They have a strong drive to maintain the superior position as well as a strong interest in training subordinates as long as the subordinates don’t overshadow or overtake them. As followers, they have an eye on the bosses job and their loyalty will be highly situational and depend on perceived benefits to their career, success, etc.

5. Intrepreneurism:

Fives are very strongly in favor of being entrepreneurs because of the potential for a large pay-off and the chance to “run their own show.” Intrepreneurism within a company is also attractive provided that they see a pay-off for their involvement. Money or money equivalents such as stock options are highly prized and promotions and the chance for even more responsibility (with commensurate reward) are also very attractive. As the leader they want to be taken along with those with the good ides. If they find that the rewarding actions isn’t in the specific rules and regulations, they will make sure that it is put there. As the follower, their out look is hooray, just watch me deliver but, I want something special (money, promotion, etc.) for my contributions!

As with all worldviews there are good and bad. For most of the last millennium the process for developing monarchs was effective in providing them with the 5 worldview. They were fortunate to have so many worldview 4’s who had the need, opportunity and therefore so diligently served them. While some monarchs were relatively benevolent, many were anything but, and that made life miserable for many millions of people. In politics and the current business world, there are many “monarchs” in who make life pretty miserable for their employees. It is nearly a cliche that entrepreneurs must eventually hire “professional” managers to run their businesses. I believe that this is really a symptom that in order to be an entrepreneur, the individual probably has the drive

and need to succeed characteristic of worldview 5 and often, they rule as monarchs. The professional manager solution offered is frequently another worldview 5 who has a more complete “tool set,” and at least the enlightened self interest to lead, train, motivate and otherwise treat the employees well. These replacement professional managers are generally regarded as good.

When Agee situational ethically, but perfectly and legally “green mailed” Martin Marietta, it was a very good example of pure 5 behavior. It was very good for Agee but very bad for the thousands of employees who toiled to recover operating capital for “Mother Martin.” Since the primary beneficiary was Agee, it was also not a good deal for the shareholders who saw their net asset value shrink by the cash withdrawn.

A lot of athletes are worldview 5’s. I suspect that nearly all world class athletes are 5’s simply because to reach that level takes incredible dedication to achieve, a quality that I admire. Given the amount of space given by newspapers to sports pages and the amount of TV sports programming, it is clear that a lot of people admire the achievements of sports figures. It is entertaining watching interviews with professional football players because they have all achieved to overcome the many challenges in reaching the level of play required in the NFL. Further, the size of the diamond studs in their ears are no doubt directly proportional to their “fiveness” and it is important to them to make sure you notice.

The 5’s in business prefer a high growth, fast paced, authoritarian and hierarchical organization where one’s position and status is based on having earned it through their performance. Further, 5’s will look for opportunity for personal advancement, individual recognition, or prestige as evidenced by control,

influence, and their progress. They “keep score” usually by the money they earn which is very often used for conspicuous consumption that “proves” their worth.

It has occurred to me after watching 40 years of managers come and go that “bad” 5’s can excel until they reach the limits of their “one great mind.” Sometimes that limit can be quite high and a bad 5 can “drive” a company to do quite well until it becomes quite large. Bad 5 managers do seem to reach the point that they drive off the best people until the collective expertise of the management team erodes to the point that “the wheels start coming off” and the company fails. Good 5’s on the other hand seem to have a trait of respect for others like themselves. This respect for the human condition seems to work at keeping the best subordinates even when they could leave because they seem to sense the opportunity to continue to grow where they are. The affect of that process is an ever stronger and growing firm. General Electric under Jack Welch seemed to be such a place.

I think most politicians are 5’s. That is one reason why so many are willing to invest their fortune for relatively low paying jobs. The payoff is of course, the competition of the campaign and the perception of the power that goes with the job. Nothing quite says you have arrived like “Good morning Senator.”

As enterprise leaders, good 5’s are open to just about anything that could result in improvement, growth, profit or recognition, and are willing to delegate to their subordinates the requisite authority commensurate with the expected performance. This is because 5’s see any improvement as a positive reflection on their performance by doing, encouraging, or allowing the improvement. Good 5’s make good followers until they reach the point where they think their performance exceeds that of their boss. At that

point, 5’s will likely feel that it is time to move on. The alternative for “bad” 5’s is to try to stage a “palace revolt.”

WORLDVIEW 6: INVOLVER (PARTICIPATIVE)

1. Concepts of external reality and truth: Based on a sense of group egalitarianism and a world that is humanitarian, caring and supportive. However, unless they directly participate, they are suspicious of any kind of institutions and wary of concentrations of money or authority. Personal feelings are perceived as an important part of physical reality and many things can be more important than physical reality. Right is what everyone “feels” is right. Peer pressure is very important with an “implied” obligation to care and share in material things as well as feelings. The 6’s are very future oriented and especially for social factors which in turn can become so dominant that the personal and physical environments of the here and now may be forfeited for some future utopia. These people are very democratic and participatory but anti-competitive. For them, change comes from “natural cycles” which will in turn provide for those who are “in tune.”

2. Concepts of internal reality: The focus is on self-discovery. Identity and value is based on the “unique” contribution they can bring to the whole. They expect to meaningfully participate in any and all events that could affect them in any way. They have strong dislike for anyone or anything that appears exploitative. They are distrustful of any organization or institution they do not understand unless they have had a direct part in the creation or running of the venture. These people are very distrustful of individuals with authority or power unless they helped in some

material way to place them there. They find work is an opportunity to relate in a creative and meaningful way with others. While they are sensitive to thoughts and needs of others, they will be careful to preserve “space” for their own uniqueness. They have high utility in seeking to explore and expand states of consciousness. These people are strong “cause seekers” with tendencies to take things personally and internalize conflicts. They like to be liked, fit in, and they have a strong need for intimacy and closeness but paradoxically, they have difficulty committing, seemingly for fear of missing “the next great wave” of expanding consciousness.

3. Concepts of human nature:

Humans are basically caring, good, and respected for the uniqueness and feelings of each individual. All people are part of the “human family” and are fundamentally “equal.” The primary human motivation is love. The higher part of human nature is the harmonious and protective stewardship of nature. Bad behaviors are due to some form of past trauma or abuse that subverted the individuals natural tendency to goodness. Humans are changeable and capable of bringing out their natural goodness by the expansion and evolution of their consciousness. This can be achieved by deliberately being “in alignment with,” or “tuned in” to growth messages and experiences coming to them from the universe through insights, events and other people. There is an expected “cause” sharing of people first, concern for environment and suspicions of the concentrations of power, authority or wealth.

4. Situation analysis:

Is this something that I support and in which I believe? Will “rightful processes,” including the consensus of the team members be followed in bringing the task to conclusion? Is this a chance to participate and be accepted as part of the team?

Will this help advance my inner growth and development? Will this be fun? Is this socially responsible? Will the outcome likely be fair and equitable for all involved?

5. Intrepreneurism:

Sixes generally like the opportunities for intrepreneurism particularly if they are cause related or a group opportunity to be socially correct and at the same time, conspicuously different. Sixes are attracted to nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations. Sixes are not attracted because of the potential for direct money rewards or promotion but primarily for recognition and acceptance by their peers and to “make the world a better place.” As the leader: “Lets do it but we have to be fair and equitable to everyone and have them participate. As a follower: “Great, I have some ideas but my peers probably have better ones.”

Yes indeed, there are good and bad 6’s. Bad 6’s come in two major types, those who are individually good, but because they are such strong believers, bring about bad thing and those who are simply bad. An example of the former is Karl Marx. As a product of privilege and relative freedom in his native Germany, Karl certainly didn’t intend to be bad, but under the guise of his “future utopia” of communism, more misery was created in the twentieth century then the world had endured since the great plague. “Bad” 6’s also see anyone who places personal gain or collective profit above people considerations, anyone who “exploits” the earth, or anyone who causes harm to any part of the living system, as heretics. Some 6’s get so far into true belief that they feel that the ends justifies the means. These 6’s are capable of becoming very conspiratorial and violent if other methods to stop heretics don’t work. The preferred method for 6’s to get their way is to have the same institutions (governments, etc.), that paradoxically 6’s don’t quite trust, come down hard on the heretics. Of course, any institution that is awarded power sufficient

to punish the heretics also then has the power to take away the freedoms 6’s so cherish. When that inevitably happens, the bad but non-violent 6’s wail betrayal but are forever forensically clueless as to their role in what really happened.

Good 6’s retain their sensitivity to the human condition, but are not prone to group think and also have ability for systems thinking. My short definition of systems thinking is the ability to filter out the B.S. It has been my observations that good 6’s also become sensitive to time constraints and, while they will strive for input and consensus from everybody, they will force closure to make the required decisions on time. In general, 6’s make good social and team leaders precisely because they seek to make decisions by consensus, but they also have a strong need for follower support. They are open with key information and concerned for the feelings of group members, but in a crunch, may put relationship above task. Followers expect to be included in everything and have their feelings and opinions make a difference. In addition, followers like group meetings and respect the feelings and opinions of others, but tend to be very concerned about how others in the group feel about them (which is the engine behind group think.) NASM’s, New Age Sensitive Managers, are good 6’s who take data from all their people of every worldview and seek to find a common set of working principals under which to operate. Because they involve everyone, implementation happens quickly and nearly seamlessly. The result of a long consensus and short implementation schedule is that it nearly always beats short edicts and long implementation.

WORLDVIEW 7 CHOICE-SEEKER (EXISTENTIAL)

1. Concepts of external reality and truth: A future orientation where truth is what is functionally appropriate given the current stage of development. Reality is

perceived as a complex system of interacting forces and component parts that are in a constant state of evolution. As humans come to understand more and more of the mysteries of the universe, what is presently regarded as truth and reality will change. There is however, an awareness that “the universe” has limits beyond which humans should not venture because survival is not possible. Recognizes the existence and need for social, political and geographical boundaries but also recognizes their artificial nature relative to other global systems. Doesn’t see the past as a prescription for the future but is well aware of the past mistakes in order to not repeat them. Respect for the earth due to the richness and delicacy of its life systems and places a high value for appropriate use of resources.

2. Concepts of internal reality:

These people have an individualistic orientation but are also high in altruism. They demonstrate a strong allegiance to personal principles. They are independent minded and highly self-directed. They have a high regard for reason over tradition. They deal with problems from a pragmatic systems perspective Resourceful, self-sufficient and self-confident about ability to function effectively in a variety of environments with little concern for what others think except in the extent that the opinions of others affect the outcome of an undertaking. They have a very high need for personal mental and physical freedom and will withdraw or move on from situations that are not interesting, challenging or flexible. Understands psychological fundamentals, is usually aware of own internal “human condition” and the basic motives of others which helps provide a highly developed intuition for assessing a situation. Has definite private personal space that is not open to unexpected or arbitrary intrusion. While they are not loners, they don’t have a high need for social interaction. Has the ability to identify and let go of major life discontinuities. For them, it is the nature of

work itself that is paramount. This means that they don’t view work as the means for filling needs because the need is interesting work.

3. Concepts of human nature:

Humans are respected as the “highest” functioning organism on earth. Sevens have a keen sense for the unique natures of individuals and cultures as well as the broad underlying factors shared by all humanity. Views human nature as having the capacity to learn, adapt, and as having creativity as primary survival mechanisms. These people see that the “everyone is equal” and that mentality is an inherent fallacy. They also see that humans are neither inherently good nor bad and develop according to their inner inherent nature and the environment in which they exist. There is concern for the disadvantaged, etc, but sees solution as only being possible through “system” changes and improvement of individual competence.

4. Situation analysis:

Highly developed intuition for assessing a situation and what will work. Is the situation something that provides a high level of personal freedom and choice? Will the environment provide an opportunity to associate with very competent people? Will there be access to all the data dealing with my expected contribution? Is the environment functionally “clean” such as the well designed use of technology to increase effectiveness and competence? Will there be privacy and the opportunity to “think?” WV 5’s spend significant energy analyzing if what is going on makes sense.

5. Intrepreneurism:

Sevens are generally very highly inclined to intrepreneurism primarily because of the intellectual challenge. Sevens are

future oriented and see themselves as catalysts and initiators and would like to be remembered for their competency in the creation of something. Sevens also have strong utility for monetary rewards in order to help live the “good life,” but they will willingly “share” the rewards with other contributors. Leaders are good at long-range “visioning” and planning. Both leaders and followers will likely find the “new idea” to be stimulating and a possible opportunity to display their competencies which includes holistic and global systems thinking. Followers have been observed working obscene hours for the shear joy of contributing to something never done before.

As with all world views, there are good and bad 7’s. A truly bad 7 can be quite chilling because they choose to do bad things having systematically thought them through and, because they are fully cognizant of the potential damages to others and any possible consequences to themselves.

From my own long ago observations, and as confirmed by Dudly Lynch, the nation’s intelligence and intelligence processing organizations are very attractive environments for 7’s. Within these organizations, the vast majority of the good 7’s most certainly wish to leave a very positive legacy of competence in their protecting the nation against enemies foreign or domestic. I brought up the intelligence services to demonstrate that good 7’s may have to, and are capable of making the really tough decisions. For instance, I sure wouldn’t want to nudge these people into declaring me an “enemy of the state.”

I believe that one of the best and early examples of a worldview 7 document is the United States Constitution together with the Bill of Rights. By no means am I certain, but it appears to me that Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others

demonstrated the behaviors and were probably nearly pure 7’s. There was clearly a “critical mass” of worldview 7 thinking by many in the Constitutional Congress or the evidence of the worldview wouldn’t have been so dominant in the document. Since the Constitution “gives freedom” to all worldviews, the representatives must have consistently well represented them all. What is so remarkable is that the Congress managed to craft a document that fit all when many members probably did not understand other worldviews at all! I’ve occasionally wondered if we would have had our own “King George” had George Washington been a 4 or 5 and a critical mass of representatives had been 4’s.

In the world of work, 7’s have a high regard for, and are good at experimentation and research, but will act on intuition in the absence of data. They are very good at discovering “breakthroughs” and discovering new bright futures. Sevens will not see the traditional organizational values or strategy as binding if such values and strategies are not seen as working. Sevens will however, strive for the best interest of the organization as they see it. Sevens may have a personal view of the organization that is highly visionary and probably not shared by the formal organizational leaders. Sevens can excel in the formal leader/manager responsibility role, but generally do not have ego attachments and don’t mind being behind the scenes. In fact, many 7’s prefer the position of a highly competent behindthe-scenes advisor of influence simply because management visibility may infringe on their privacy. Sevens generally don’t like the management job of evaluating, judging and rating others, but they will accept the responsibility to help achieve reality for their visions such as a more efficient and enriching workplace or a worthwhile project. Sevens expect to be first recognized then rewarded for successful conclusions of worthwhile programs and projects and they will share the rewards with those who competently contributed. Sevens do not willingly “kiss up” and they will have a low regard for those who kiss up to them.

WORLDVIEW 8: RENEWALIST (Labeled after Graves died.)

This world view has been identified by a number of the students of Graves. There has not been a great deal of in depth analysis of what worldview 8 is all about simply because it has only began to coalesce around identifiable behaviors starting perhaps 35 to 50 years ago. Most of what I understand comes from the work of Paul Kordis who, together with Dudley Lynch wrote the Strategy of the Dolphin and others. I had the privilege of having Paul work as the integrated circuits test supervisor in the HP Loveland Technology Center I managed many years ago while he was attending school. Those were stimulating times.

1. Concepts of external reality and truth: While 8’s are a group worldview, it is definitely a planet first and humans last orientation. Humans should live “cognitively and psychically” in a manner that makes one aware instantaneously of any harm that may come to the planet from human actions. Second, humans should equip themselves to respond quickly and powerfully to neutralize that harm by any means necessary and also to renew the planet through forceful proactive stewardship.

2. Concepts of internal reality: Eight’s require a deep anonymity that shields them from the glare of individual exposure. Further, they see themselves as part of the community of “like minds” that have the ability to come together and act powerfully as a group on specific issues of overriding interest, then dissolve quickly and effortlessly.

3. Concepts of human nature:

The human population is the ultimate scourge of the earth and only a small portion of this population has the understanding and ability to prevent the scourge.

4. Situation analysis:

Is it my responsibility to play a role in neutralizing an element or activity before it can seriously damage the planet? Do I have the “blessing” of my colleagues and “Mother Earth” herself? Is the intended action safe for the planet and does it support the ultimate purpose of the cosmos? Have the strategy and tactics been thoroughly thought through so that the desired outcome of our actions will have the highest probability of success?

The descriptors are a little light on substance and I will leave it to others and time to better delineate them. There is enough however, to really get your attention that worldview 8 has an ominous ring of totalitarianism which was a concern held by Dr. Graves when he anticipated the emergence of the value system and is still a concern of his students. Eight’s seem to have the intelligence and ability to utilize the full array of up-to-the-minute monitoring and information processes and analysis methods for tracking what is going on concerning Mother Earth. The less radical members work at withholding power and influence from individuals and groups that they judge to pose a threat. The more radical members strive for “elegant” retaliation when in their view it is necessary like spiking trees or burning down the structures on Vail Mountain. Of course, if you are the logger whose chain saw kicked back so hard that it took half your scalp, you would not think it was so “elegant.”

The issue of good and bad people is a little strange in that there is good in the drive for stewardship of Mother Earth, but the ease with which deplorable tactics seem to be employed by the bad eight’s are really bad. A most chilling description of worldview 8 behavior can be found in Tom Clancy’s book Rainbow Six. While I doubt that

Tom Clancy has ever come across the Graves model, his ability for superb character development has really captured the essence of worldview 8 thought processes and their potential for action. I recommend the book for not only those who really like the way Clancy spins a yarn, but to study these really bad worldview 8 characters.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS:

The creation of new worldviews is a continuous process. The actual rate of creation seems to have a very strong correlation with the degree of liberty enjoyed by the fomenting individuals. Further, it is interesting to note that the rate of gain in liberty seems to give rise to more energy being expended in creating new world views then correlates with the absolute amount of liberty. Since most of the world societies are more or less stratified with upper classes generally enjoying more liberty then the lower classes, emergence of new world views tend to come first from within the upper classes. Over time this artifact has been seen in “enlightened” monarchs and includes people like Karl Marx who’s very “idealistic” six level ideas were created when the cultural norm was very four. (Of course, they were hijacked by bad threes to control the bulk of the people in some countries who were primarily twos and fours.)

There have been individual practitioners of all world views that led, sometimes by centuries, the adoption of a given worldview by significant numbers of people. This means that right now there are a few 9’s and possibly, though certainly many fewer 10’s out there. About the only thing I can imagine their worldviews being is that 9’s have and individualistic outlook and 10’s will again be a group view. There is also the noted phenomenon that emerging world views tend to have a high content of the world views four

numbers lower. For instance, 6’s have a lot of “mirrored” values to 2’s and 7’s have similar mirrored values to 3’s.

The term “mirrored” is best described by examples. If you are not part of the tribe, in the tribal value system, you are really considered to not be human. It is therefore acceptable to deal with you harshly because, after all, you are not human. This phenomenon has become glaringly evident with the rise of the Islamic Fascists. This is why every one who is not part of their “tribe” is regarded as an infidel, and we already know how these tribes intend to treat us infidels. In listening to the rhetoric of the sixes, there is a similar message. While 6’s are color and ethnicity blind and thus can include the entire global community, they are still suspicious of people in positions of power, or who think differently then the prevailing six “group think.” The 6 behavior against people that are not part of their world view is dealing with them harshly.

In the discussion of 7’s, I mentioned that bad 7’s can do bad things knowing full well the consequences of their actions, but they choose to not care and do them anyway. Bad 3’s can do the same bad things but they do them without considering the consequences. The common denominator is that they also don’t care.

The issue for institutions is what world views have the highest probability for making great leaders and managers. Of course, what constitutes the best qualifications for great leaders and managers depends on a lot of things such as the nature of the institution, where it is compared to where it wants to be, and what is the critical mass of the collective worldviews of the members. The point is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer but it seems like a good idea that starting with the “board of directors,” the people that are in the position to define the purpose of the

organization. Working on down the organization, hiring authorities should consider as one of their criteria for defining their desired “corporate culture” the collective worldviews they would like to have predominate in their organization, and then select candidates that demonstrate behaviors supporting the good side of those worldviews.

About halfway during my career in Hewlett Packard, I began to perceive that the company was growing less and less “magical” with each passing year. Of course, what made it so magical to begin with Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. I was privileged to have had quite a bit of direct formal and informal contact with them in the 1970’s which included everything from changing how customers select instrument options, being on the pocket calculator development team. I encountered them at weddings and in informal gatherings, discovered how much better they were then I at playing penny ante poker. I believe in the context of the Graves model that they were both strongly and very predominately worldview 7’s. Bill and Dave appeared to the world as very different people but I believe the strength of their partnership and friendship was based on their shared worldviews.

Bill and Dave each were certainly very capable of taking swift unpleasant actions like firing people, however, it seems they preferred having “alter-egos” independently investigate and handle the bulk of these issues. Ralph Lee was one of these and later John Young. Ralph had the unique ability of being at the right place just as major things started to go terribly wrong and he was good at fixing them. John of course ran the company through a major growth era and though he probably didn’t think of it as such, he had a high regard for my passion, disruptive technology. I had enough contact with these two to believe they were both predominately 5’s. Of course there have been lots of other “magical” managers in the company, but with time, an increasing

percentage of 4’s gained power throughout the various parts of the company including Lew Platt and Ned Barnholt. I feel that it is the influence of these 4’s that accounts for HP and Agilent becoming anything but agile and otherwise slow to recognize emerging technologies in commerce and communications. Further, neither Carley Fiorina’s “Rules of the Garage” for HP or Ned Barnholt picking the Agilent name and processes is going to solve the target problem because they have isolated themselves from the deepest worldviews of the many 4 and 6 managers in their companies.

I don’t know about the bulk of the readers of this analysis, but I am tired of business being held up as the evil tormentor of mankind and the world in general. There are certainly businesses and business people that deserve the rap, but I think that the vast majority of people in business believe they are behaving quite honorably and ethically. For instance, businesses have perfected the art of compromise compared to our confrontational driven legal system that is optimized for worldview’s 3 and 4 which were dominate starting with the Magna Charta . Business leaders have for the most part been in the position of occupying the high moral ground without really realizing the opportunity. I believe that business leaders in the 21st century will achieve the respect and recognition by providing workplaces high in employee liberty. To achieve that, business leaders and managers need to be chosen from the good 5’s, 6’s and 7’s

One of the more intriguing questions I’ve tried to figure out is identifying predominate worldviews of an individual by their political persuasions. At issue is what people think as “right, just and normal” concerning politics is a higher level abstraction of values, and values are in turn, a one to several higher level of abstraction that come from the individual’s worldviews. For clarity, visualize the buried pyramids at the start of this chapter where demonstrated behaviors, such as politics, is near the apex,

but the base is much deeper. However, in a generalized way, there are correlations between worldviews and the holder’s politics. Again, the reader is reminded people are far more complex then a single model can adequately describe. Individuals are rarely “pure” in being of only one worldview. Instead, people generally have a combination of two to four worldviews and generally, but not always, with a “peak” in dominate worldview. Because 5’s are all about individualism, those with a “peak” in 5 may tend to be Republicans and individuals with a “compassionate” 6 “peak” may have a tendency to be liberal Democrats. You only have to look at the controversy over Roe v. Wade to see that 4’s can come down on either side depending on just what particular set of values in which they believe. It does appear ironic that ex President Clinton, who demonstrated sufficient bad 3 behavior to be impeached, had also been able to “play” the bad 6’s like a fine violin, convince the 2’s that he deeply cared for them and 4’s that he “really cared.”

From the recent presidential elections, it seems clear that the agenda of the left has been written by people with world view six. Part of my observations on bad sixes is that for the most part, they lack the ability to filter out the B.S. from their internal data bases. This in turn comes from the fact that their education lacked the development of the disciplines required to become critical thinkers. Indeed, their education has largely focused on being able to mirror the OPINIONS of their teachers. As a consequence, what at first seems to be a coherent set of policy statements fall apart when deconstructed and the fundamental elements are logically analyzed.

Terrorism on the other hand is where the Worldviews of those participating has a direct political affect. “Religious fundamentalists” who become terrorists willing to sacrifice their lives do so because they view themselves as righteous and at the same time, having two or four level Worldviews. Those who lead

and inspire them are generally threes and fives. Funny thing about these latter people, rarely do they sacrifice themselves because they have created and believe the convenient argument that they are needed to see the “holy war” through to successful conclusion.

I have the term religious fundamentalists in quotes above because in every case that I have examined, religious fundamentalists have come to believe in greatly distorted tenants of the underlying religion. In fact, the greater the distortion, the stronger the belief such that their faith bridges vast chasms of illogic. For example, for a WV Two to gleefully kill those who are not part of their “tribe” or “clan” is easy because outsiders are not really “people.” The world view two concept of what constitute people are their tribal members, all others are not. The present unpleasantness with Islamic fundamentalists is little different in underlying worldviews and illogically distorted values than were the Crusades or the Inquisition. For that matter, there are modern Christen evangelists who rule out everyone who don’t conform to their idea of Christianity which frequently have little to do with the fundamental teachings of Christ. The Koran says to honor Jews and Christians because they believe in the same God as Moslems. However, when Christians talk about the Trinity, it really confuses Muslims who think that Jesus was an otherwise good prophet but not really the son of God (Is the Son a god himself?) and, just what is a Holy Ghost? The manipulators in the fundamentalist community then point out that the Trinity is really worship of three Gods and therefore the Christians are really infidels and must be killed. On the other hand, it should be noted that they also conveniently overlook the Koran’s teaching about sparing women, children, old people and those warriors that lay down their arms. Mohamad did however give the warriors who laid down their arms an offer they could not refuse; death, enslavement, or join us. The women had a similar offer they could not refuse.

The fall semester of my sophomore year I pulled a 0.6 GPA because I became consumed studying organized religions. In the end I rejected all but for the teachings of Jesus. I made my own bible by cutting and pasting the teachings from parts of several bibles thus making my own. Turns out Thomas Jefferson did the same thing. The irony is that Jesus never read the New Testament. He and all his disciples (except the Gnostic) were Jews and well versed in the Old Testament. The sum value of Torah, Talmud and the teachings of Jesus is a code of morality called the “JudeoChristian” Ethic or Values. They are the moral underpinning of Western Civilization and are under attack.