Search results

The purpose of this study is to develop a generic cultural socio-cognitive trait theory of a “plural affect agency” (the emotional organisation). Interaction between the cognitive and the affective personality is modelled.

James Gross’ (1988) model of Emotion Regulation is integrated with Normative Personality Theory in the context of Mindset Agency Theory: The agency has a “cognitive system” and an emotion regulating “affective system” which interact (Fink and Yolles, 2015).

Processes of emotion regulation pass through three stages: “Identification”, “Elaboration” and “Execution”. In a social environment, emotions are expressed through actions. The results of actions (feedback, goal achievement) are assessed through affective operative intelligence in the light of pursued goals.

The theory will provide guidance for analysis of cultural differentiation within social systems (e.g. societies or organisations), with reference to identification, elaboration and execution of “emotion knowledge”.

Understanding interdependencies between cognition and emotion regulation is a prerequisite of managerial intelligence and strategic cultural intelligence, in demand for interaction and integration processes across social systems.

The model provides a framework which links emotion expression and emotion regulation with cognition analysis. In part 2 of this paper, based on this theory a typology can be developed which for given contexts allows ex ante expectations of typical patterns of behaviour to be identified.

A typology of basic affective and cognitive orientations is developed within a generic cultural socio-cognitive trait theory of a “plural affect agency” (the emotional organisation).

Affective personality is defined in terms of a set of affect traits. These are defined in terms of epistemically independent bipolar affect types, which in turn coalesce into a set of mindset types that can be related to the classical four temperaments.

Different affect types are supposed to differently regulate the three stages of emotion management. Affect types and cognitive types provide mutual contexts, and foster reciprocal affect and cognitive orientations.

The theory provides guidance for analysis of cultural differentiation within social systems (societies/organisations), with reference to identification, elaboration and execution of “emotion knowledge” and “cognitive knowledge”.

Understanding interdependencies between cognition and emotion regulation is a prerequisite of managerial intelligence and strategic cultural intelligence, which is in demand for interaction and integration processes across social systems.

From the framework model linking emotion expression and emotion regulation with cognition analysis, a typology arises allowing ex-ante expectation of typical patterns of behaviour.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of “freedom of science” (“academic freedom”) for the advancement of society and mankind, which, however, is permanently endangered by powerful organisations, groups and individuals, who in pursuit of their one-sided interests are seeking to constrain information about the truth. As a broad term, freedom of science embraces freedom in research, learning, teaching and publication. All of these activities should be dedicated to identifying the truth and learning about the truth.

Three theoretical approaches are of importance for framing issues related to freedom of science, which in this paper are integrated into the framework of mindset agency theory: freedom is a value; “freedom” is claimed by agents who pursue specific interests (goals), which might constrain others; and individuals are agents who are interacting with each other within a social system – cooperation, ignorance or conflict.

Freedom as a value is at the core of intellectual autonomy. Intellectual autonomy is a necessary condition for innovation and advancement of knowledge. The observable modes of interaction/coexistence among researchers are influenced by individual research goals and by the researchers’ access to resources, which may be deliberately constrained by opponents or other researchers as competitors.

For further research, which is beyond this paper, the authors can refer to: analyses of challenges of “academic freedom” – in terms of ethics, protection of individual human rights, political pressures and conflicts of interests; the issues of truth, i.e. the impact of fake news and creation of “alternate facts”; and the relation between academic freedom and employment (academic tenure) in present-day societies. Owing to lack of space, this paper cannot deal with the danger emerging from powerful organisations or powerful individuals, who are challenging freedom of science.

If there is no freedom of science then social progress is constrained. If there is no access to right data, decisions will be wrong.

So far, a comprehensive cybernetic model was not published, which supports systems thinking about scholars and teachers (inter)acting in research organisations.

While emotions and feelings arise in the singular personality, they may also develop a normative dimensionality in a plural agency. The authors identify the cybernetic systemic principles of how emotions might be normatively regulated and affect plural agency performance. The purpose of this paper is to develop a generic cultural socio-cognitive trait theory of plural affective agency (the emotional organization), involving interactive cognitive and affective traits, and these play a role within the contexts of Mergers and Acquisitions (M & A).

The authors integrate James Gross’ model of emotion regulation with the earlier work on normative personality in the context of Mindset Agency Theory. The agency is a socio-cognitive entity with attitude, and operates through traits that control thinking and decision making. These traits are epistemically independent and operate on a bipolar scale; with the alternate poles having an auxiliary function to each other – where the traits may take intermediary “balanced” states between the poles.

Processes of affect regulation are supposed to go through three stages: first, identification (affective situation awareness); second, elaboration of affect is constituted through schemas of emotional feeling, which include emotion ideologies generating emotional responses to distinct contextual situations; third, execution: in the operative system primary emotions are assessed through operative intelligence for any adaptive information and the capacity to organize action; and turned into action, i.e. responses, through cultural feeling rules and socio-cultural display rules, conforming to emotion ideologies.

This new theory provides guidance for framing multilevel interaction where smaller collectives (as social systems) are embedded into larger social systems with a culture, an emotional climate and institutions. Thus, it is providing a generic theoretical frame for M & A analyses, where a smaller social unit (the acquired) is to be integrated into a larger social unit (the acquirer).

Understanding interdependencies between cognition and emotion regulation is a prerequisite of managerial intelligence, which is at demand during M & A processes. While managerial intelligence may be grossly defined as the capacity of management to find an appropriate and fruitful balance between action and learning orientation of an organization, its affective equivalent is the capacity of management to find a fruitful balance between established emotion expression and learning alternate forms of emotion expression.

Understanding interdependencies between cognition and emotion is a prerequisite of social, cultural and emotional intelligence. The provided theory can be easily linked with empirical work on the emergence of a cultural climate of fear within societies. Thus, “Affective Agency Theory” also has a bearing for political systems’ analysis, what, however, is beyond the scope of this paper.

The paper builds on the recently developed Mindset Agency Theory, elaborating it through the introduction of the dimension of affect, where cognitive and affective traits interact and become responsible for patterns of behaviour. The model is providing a framework which links emotion expression and emotion regulation with cognitive analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to show that Slawek Magala’s theory of management of meaning in organisations can be considered as a step towards a generic theory of organisational change.

The authors are integrating Slawek Magala’s views on the processes, which play a role in changing organisations (i.e. framing, reflecting, negotiating, and seeking new windows of opportunities) with the related types of narratives as developed by David Boje (2001, 2008) and with further extensions by Fink and Yolles (2012), which are based on a model of paradigm change.

The authors develop a theoretical framework, which might serve as a basis for analysis of change processes emerging from different contexts within or outside a firm and offer some reflections about comparing research into issues of organisational change.

This is a theoretical viewpoint paper.

The extension of Magala’s model offers a practical guide for research into organisational change processes.

Magala’s model offers a deeper understanding of actual change processes.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time where a concept about emergent causality deriving from interaction between two conflicting agents (i.e. involved parties as, e.g. managers and subordinates) is applied to emerging stages in change processes.

Context and cultural condition given, cybernetic agency theory enables the anticipation of patterns of behaviour. However, this only occurs under “normal” conditions. Abnormal conditions occur when pathologies develop in the agency, especially within its Piagetian intelligences. An understanding of these pathologies, therefore, constitutes an appreciation of how abnormal behaviour develops. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Different classifications of pathology are considered: autopathic and sociopathic, transitive and lateral pathologies, epistemological and ontological pathologies, within a system and outside system effects of pathologies. The effects of pathologies are inefficacy, loss of cohesion within a system, emerging neurosis, and not least corruption.

Within Agency Mindset Theory, four types of pathologies are identified: being detached from the cultural system, behaviour does not conform to extant values; an inhibited figurative intelligence is disturbing self-reference and resulting in incapability to learn cognitively; the operative system does not respond to strategic intentions: operative decision making is not anchored in ethical, ideological or strategic specifications of the social system; action and behaviour of the organisation are driven by outside interests.

This part of the research could only provide a framework for theoretically identifying the systemic roots of pathologies within social systems, but not provide an in-depth analysis of the shifts in values and practices, which accompany the emergence of pathologies.

The research is indicating that emergent pathologies and moves towards corruption could be either identified through underlying shifts in values and practices, but also through reduced functions (inefficacies) of the indispensable internal processes of an organisation (a social system), be it action-oriented or learning-oriented processes.

The paper draws on earlier work undertaken in the last few years by the same authors, who in a new way are pursuing new directions and extensions of that earlier research.