The General Decision-Making Style test is a psychological instrument developed by Scott and Bruce for two reasons:


1) Their goal was to typify individual differences in decision-making habits and practices, in the domain of career development and vocational behavior studies.


2) The model also emerged inductively out of research plus reviews of the relevant literature, and was subsequently supported by further empirical studies and independent factor analyses. In a sense the model “suggested itself” (Scott & Bruce, 1995).


In their conception, decision-making style is a learned habitual response, resulting in “a habit-based propensity to react a certain way in a specific decision context.” It has been found that people use more than one decision-making style, but one is dominant.


The GDMS underwent a cycle or validation and revision, resulting in the following four decision-making styles:


P – Spontaneous: Sense of immediacy and persistent desire to always finalize decisions as quickly as possible.

A – Rational: comprehensive info search, explicit inventory of alternatives and logical evaluation of options.

E – Intuitive: Alerted by salient details in the flow of information rather than following systematic procedures, more reliance on implicit learning and tacit awareness (“hunches” or “feelings”) as a basis for decisions.

I – Dependent: Resolves uncertainty through consultation, more interested in advice and guidance from others than other styles are.

Weick’s sensemaking framework has had a broad impact on writings in organizational decision making. It is a rich and productive conceptual construct which I will not summarize here. My goal instead is simply to draw attention to a part of Weick’s framework that expresses the structure of concern, namely his distinction between action-driven and belief-driven processes in the development of meaning. (Weick, 1995).


Weick distinguishes between belief-driven processes, where new meaning grows out of old, and action-driven processes, where meaning is created to support deeds. Within each process, meanings can be used to stabilize or to adapt to changing circumstances. This produces four different meaning-development processes, as follows:


P – Commitment (Action-Driven, Stabilizing): Meaning is created to justify taking action. Commitment is a very public and visible kind of meaning that implies free choice in its creation, and irrevocability once the commitment has been made.


A – Expecting (Belief-Driven, Stabilizing): Meaning is grown by adding or connecting new meaning to old meaning, in an expanding system.


E – Arguing (Belief-Driven, Adapting): Meaning is grown by opposing existing meaning and connecting contradictory elements, challenging and changing current beliefs.


I – Manipulating (Action-Driven, Adapting): Meaning is created before, during or after the fact to explain one’s action, i.e. ‘impression management’.


These distinctions are interesting for the grounds upon which they group P I (action-driven) and A E (belief-driven) together. It is another variant on the interaction (PI) vs. modelling (AE) distinction that so often differentiates these axes.

In their exploration of complex systems approaches to small group dynamics, Arrow, Berdahl and McGrath (2000) present a model of the dimensions of social space within which small groups form. Group formation can be more or less planned or emergent, and this can be due to internal or external forces. The two crossed dimensions result in a four-part typology of group formation as follows:

P – Circumstantial Groups (External, Emergent): People walking around doing their own thing and pursuing their own goals end up in a group due to the structure of the goal-seeking environment, e.g. people waiting for a bus.


A – Concocted Groups (External, Planned): A manager or other group commander announces that a group or work team is going to be formed, who will be on it, and what each of their roles will be. The assignment of a flight crew to a plane is an example of the concoction of a team, driven by scheduling and technical roles.


E – Founded Groups (Internal, Planned): An individual or a few people develop a concept requiring group support, and they invite others to join as charter members of a newly founded entity. This is a quintessentially entrepreneurial dynamic.


I – Self-Organized Groups (Internal, Emergent): These groups form informally through the interactions of people who discover some point of commonality or reason for developing bonds. Most friendship circles form in this way.


In the context of their discussion of self-organized groups, the authors describe the process by which these groups form in terms of club theory. Club theory features the construct of “club goods”. Members gain access to these club goods in exchange for their supporting contributions of energy, time, money, space or other resources. A balance must be struck between keeping enough active members to maintain the ability to deliver club goods, and letting in so many members that their club goods become diluted. Clubs form for various reasons and lengths of time. The authors review 3: Activity clubs, Economic clubs and Social clubs.


P – Activity clubs: The primary draw for an Activity club is some project or activity that the prospective members want to do that they cannot do alone, such as play a team sport or discuss books that they are reading. The P purpose is served by an A structure, making the people fairly interchangeable and able to flow into or out of the group as needed.


A – Economic clubs: Economic clubs involve the pooling of resources to realize group savings, increase economic power, enjoy economy of scale, or to pool risk etc. Examples are housemates who split the rent but are not otherwise close friends, time-share organizations or firms of associated professionals such as lawyers or architects who all share the same offices and pool of resource staff, thus enjoying efficiency gains.


I – Social clubs: In Social clubs the club goods are the members themselves and the pleasures of interaction among them. Social club members do things together that technically speaking they could do on their own, but prefer not to. This includes studying, jogging, going to movies or simply eating. They also do things that inherently require group participation, like throwing parties.


I do not know if Arrow, Berdahl and McGrath recognize other groups beyond these three. Due to the nature of my own project, it is hard to resist postulating a fourth type of club, namely “Meaning” or “Significance” clubs, where people come together in order to express or explore shared beliefs or topics of mostly intellectual or spiritual interest. Small groups of this nature form both inside and outside organized educational and religious institutions. This would furnish an E type of club that seems to be as pervasive and important as the others listed, but of course the process of addition could continue indefinitely, with political clubs, ethnic clubs, geographical/neighborhood clubs etc. The authors do not indicate that their typology is intended to be either final or exhaustive. However, the three club types they do mention cover recognizable regions of the structure of concern.

A structure of concern model arises in the data gathered by Baines and Gelder (2003) in their study of self-employed parents. They studied 30 home-based businesses across 8 occupational sectors in the UK to assess if home-based work is more family-friendly than traditional office work. A fourfold typology of home business behavior emerged from their research:


P – “Time-greedy” Often male-led, these home businesses drained the time, energy and the emotions of the owners and their families. Evenings, weekends and holidays were often compromised in unpredictable ways, and family members were drawn into business activities on an ad hoc basis. It’s a short-cycle, extemporaneous style of working.


A – “Rigidly scheduled” Often based in premises separate from the home, these businesses offered schedules by appointment or small order (e.g. hairstyling, catering). The timing requirements and spatial specificity of these forms of self employment give them a similar impact on the family as full-time employment would. Structure is imposed by the situation.


E – “Flexibly scheduled” These jobs involved individuals offering services that could be integrated into their daily domestic schedules, such as healing services or piecework. Appointments could be scheduled during non-parenting hours, or childcare obtained as needed to receive clients. Thus, the entrepreneurial activities to improve the business owners’ situations had to be juggled with more immediately pressing short-cycle activities.


I – “Work-family inclusive” The inclusive businesses were more traditional “family-owned” business, with all family members playing specific roles in the enterprise. Business premises were usually inside or attached to the home. Examples include family-run daycare centers, boarding kennels, convenience stores and small online retailers. Family and work tradeoffs are resolved by integrating the two structures.

This model of organizational analysis developed by Burrell and Morgan classifies sociological theories along the two orthogonal dimensions of regulation vs. change and subjectivity vs. objectivity (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This divides sociology into four fairly distinct paradigm clusters. There is internal consistency under each paradigm, in terms of assumptions about individuals, groups, societies, goals of study and accepted forms of evidence. However, each cluster neglects, excludes or opposes some the insights generated under other paradigms.


Burrell and Morgan’s model was later taken into social work research, where it was used to define four approaches to understanding the problems of social work clients (Whittingham & Holland, 1985). This application of the model is illustrated below.


P – Radical Humanist (Change-Subjective): Social opportunities and ideologies are controlled by large social institutions, often leaving people marginalized, voiceless and disempowered, leading to widespread alienation and the breakdown of communities. Interventions are aimed at concrete individuals and groups, establishing mutual-aid and consciousness-raising networks that will lead to eventual changes in social and economic structures.


A – Functionalist (Regulation-Objective): Societies are the coming together of populations with shared civic values who establish social order which on the whole benefits everybody. Individuals and some identifiable groups may fall into misfortune or maladaptive patterns. The goal of intervention is to help them adapt to existing structures, perhaps making minor institutional adjustments where warranted.


E – Radical Structuralist (Change-Objective): Fundamental underlying contradictions and regularities make our entire way of living unjust and untenable. Distressed individuals and groups can be helped to mollify the impact of structural problems, but lasting change can only be achieved by a complete transformation of the society. Intervention must be integrated across political, regional, community and interpersonal levels.


I – Interpretive (Regulation-Subjective): The meaning of social situations is largely a matter of interpretation. Anyone can feel trapped by their situation, but viewing things in a new light can open up new options and lead to better situations. Intervention focuses on helping people reframe events and adjust the maxims they use to regulate their own behavior.

Emile Durkheim is one of the classical figures of sociological theory. Concern structure models arise at several points in Durkheim’s work. Below I outline the concern structure of his concept of social solidarity as summarized by Sztompka (Sztompka, 1993), and his categorization of suicide as summarized by Best (Best, 2003).


Social Solidarity



Durkheim described two forms of social solidarity: a mechanical form based on uniformity, command and control and an organic form that protected individual rights and interpersonal diversity, developing collective commitment through the institution of civil society. Social solidarity can be described in terms of four functions, as follows:


P – Economic Structures

A – Social Control

E – Character of activities/main social bond

I – Position of the individual


P – Economic Structures (Can be Mechanical or Organic)

Mechanical Order: Isolated, self-ruling, self-sufficient groups with tight internal roles.

Organic Order: Complex division of labour, interdependence, common market rules.


A – Social Control (Can be Mechanical or Organic)

Mechanical Order: Retributive justice – harsh repressive laws to punish nonconformity and disruptions of order (criminal law).

Organic Order: Restitutive justice – civic rights and contracts to repair failures of commitment and reciprocity (civil law).


E – Character of activities/main social bond (Mechanical or Organic)

Mechanical Order: Similar narrow moral, religious and political consensus.

Organic Order: Diverse and differentiated but complementary priorities and beliefs.


I – Position of the individual (Mechanical or Organic Societies)

Mechanical Order: Collectivistic focus on group identity and community standing.

Organic Order: Individualistic focus on autonomy of action and evaluation.

The Affect Infusion Model (AIM) describes the interaction between mood and information-processing. Not all cognitive processes interact with mood. In order to isolate task types where mood-congruent processing becomes evident, Forgas (1995; Forgas & Williams, 2002) defines two axes of task or problem differentiation. Problems differ in the amount of effort expenditure required to engage them, and also in the relative open-endedness or foreclosure of the potential solutions. Forgas calls open-ended problems constructive, and predetermined or narrow-focused problems reconstructive. Constructive problems require transformation of input into new and unforeseen solutions. Reconstructive problems begin with an obvious solution that is tested and defended against the input. Crossing degree of effort with problem determinacy gives us four basic processing strategies, listed below in PAEI order:


P – Heuristic Processing (Low, Constructive): Open-ended task, not deserving of careful or intensive attention. Mood-based heuristics and momentary emotional cues may be used to produce the judgement and response.


A – Direct Access Processing (Low, Reconstructive): The default mode of social processing when all is going smoothly according with established routines. Since tasks fall in line with expectations, responses are already known, and mood fluctuations do not impact decisions or behaviours very much.


E – Substantive Processing (High, Constructive): Some kind of complex or obscure transformation of inputs is called for. Mood and affect are used to sensitize the person to salient patterns and relevant information in the input. The more substantive processing there is, the stronger the chance that mood infusion will influence the outcome.


I – Motivated Processing (High, Reconstructive): In processing guided by a single affective motive, there need not be much interaction with passing moods, but if many different affective motives emerge, performance is more likely to be mood-based. Much like with Substantive Processing, the greater the variability and open-endedness, the stronger the potential infusion of mood.


Self-conscious emotions such as shame and pride emerge late in affective development. They are not associated with specific stereotypical facial expressions like joy, sadness and anger are. They also require an evaluative sense of self, and a capacity for cognitive elaboration about the impact of events on that self. Lewis (1993) proposes that these evaluative processes involve standards, rules and goals (S-R-G) that are culturally acquired. SRGs allow people to evaluate their own actions, thoughts and feelings, to determine if they have failed or succeeded.


The evaluation of success or failure interacts with attributions about the extent of the self implicated in this outcome. An attribution can be specific to decisions and actions on one particular occasion, or they can be global attributions focused on the total self.


This interaction between evaluative and attributive processes produces four categories of self-conscious emotion, which are PAEI relevant in two ways. People who are sharply dominant in each PAEI style will be most susceptible to the corresponding self-conscious emotion. Furthermore, each PAEI style specializes in the evaluative and attributive processes described for each quadrant. The emotions are listed below:


P – Pride (Success, Specific): Pleasure related to a particular action, hence limited but repeatable.


A – Guilt, Regret (Failure, Specific): An evaluation of failed behavior, combined with a narrow focus on feature or actions of the self that are the perceived causes of the failure. Corrective action and repair may be possible, which can provoke reparative behavior.


E – Hubris, Grandiosity (Success, Global): Evaluation of success attributed to the global totality of the self. Rewarding but hard to sustain, so people seek out or invent situations that will provoke or revive it. They may alter their SRGs or re-evaluate their parameters for defining success and failure against existing SRGs. The comparative evaluations required to maintain hubris can damage social relationships.


I – Shame (Failure, Global): Shame is the experience of a defective self, global failure and violation of an SRG. It is hard to shed this emotion, and people sometimes cope with this inescapability through dissociation or flight.


Self-evaluative emotions are crucial for dramatic and narrative constructions, and many stories begin and end with either the loss and regaining of the conditions for success, or the loss of and return to favorable evaluations of self, thoughts and actions. Stories interrogate SRGs, with the events of the story revealing their adequacy or inadequacy, and the value of their being changed or left in place.


The Johari Window is a very widely used model of self awareness. It describes social interaction according to the degree of self knowledge involved. The model's name is an amalgam of the given names of its developers; Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham (Luft, 1970; 1969). The framework consists of a four-paned "window," offering four different "views" on social self-awareness. In PAEI order, these are the Blind/Unaware, Open, Unknown and Hidden views. These views are described in more detail below.


The four panes in this model do not have fixed dimensions. For example, in a job interview, the "Open" windowpane of each participant could be depicted as occupying a fairly small area of their overall window, simply because they start the interview as strangers. However, if the interview is successful, their “Open” panes will increase in area, due to mutual self-disclosure (which is precisely the process of moving self-information to the Open pane). Of course a change in the area of any one windowpane will affect all of the other panes in the window.


P - Quadrant 2: Unaware (Unknown to Self, but Known to Others)

This is a negative category of self awareness, describing the case where everybody can see the motives, limitations, social goals and impulses of a person, except the person themselves. Producers are often found in this windowpane. They are so pragmatic that they resist other (AEI) concerns, but they think they are only responding to the demands of the task itself. They often cut short interactions that they feel are too abstract, picky or touchy-feely. Producers think that tasks themselves impose this abrupt, short-term concern horizon on all (sensible) people. Other styles see this impatience or rigid pragmatism instead as aspects of the Producer’s personality - aspect that have to be ‘managed’ during interactions. Where the Producer sees only objective imperatives, others see the character of the Producer at work.


A - Quadrant 1: Open (Known to Self and Others)

This window illuminates only those things a person already knows or acknowledges about themselves, which other people also see and know about. Administrators by far prefer this clear, explicit/understood, non-mysterious pane of the window, and they do all of their communication in this mode whenever possible. The twist with strong administrators is that they do not want the area of this windowpane to grow very large over their personalities. They prefer to stick to a limited subset of reliably safe self-disclosures. They are happy to live with large Blind or Hidden areas, and prefer that the boundaries of their windowpanes remain as stable as possible.


E - Quadrant 4: Unknown (Unknown to both Self and Others)

This is the playground of E. It is filled of snippets from last night's dreams, inexplicable hunches, suddenly becoming alert before something that reminds you of something you can't quite express, and how your mind wanders when you aren't paying attention. The great talent of E lies in their ability decipher meaningful patterns in this soup of intuition, and then to move this information into the Open quadrant.


I - Quadrant 3: Hidden (Known to Self, but Unknown to Others)

Strong Integrators are good at managing emotions, mediating conflicts, managing impressions and using communication to attain their goals. While they do tend to disclose and resolve problems in the open windowpane, they are most skilled at keeping their feelings and reactions in check while they communicate strategically with people. A supervisor with a big I might be disappointed in the performance of an employee, but to give the employee the benefit of the doubt, the supervisor might not let this disappointment show, and instead take steps to see if some problem is bothering the employee that the supervisor is not aware of. Integrators are often very aware of their own feelings, and they also typically have a great deal of control over how and when they express those feelings. Their capacity to make strategic use of the hidden pane makes them ideal for handling sensitive interpersonal interactions.


Open interaction is the easiest kind, and it accounts for much of our social interaction. It takes energy to maintain information in the Unaware or Hidden panes. We experience a sense of release or relief when that information moves into the Open pane. The unknown area is another matter. There is a universal curiosity about it, but this curiosity is warded off by taboos, fears, social customs and traditional responses to encounters with mystery. Entrepreneurs are thus incompletely socialized around the unknown, and Administrators are perhaps oversocialized against it (although temperament surely plays a role as well). Group values and stipulations of group membership can be revealed in the collective resources available for confronting the unknown.


In a series of research articles (Reiss, 2000; Havercamp, 1998; Reiss & Havercamp, 1998; Reiss & Havercamp, 1997; Reiss & Havercamp, 1996) Steven Reiss and Susan Havercamp develop and explore a list of 16 basic motivational desires. The typology grew out of a recursive series of surveys and analyses, which supported the creation of a self-report instrument called the Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivational Sensitivities.


Profile scores indicate a person’s individual desire hierarchy, which proved to be predictive of career choice in Havercamp (1998). With the exception of one arguably universal desire – eating – all of

Reiss and Havercamp’s other fundamental desires can be accommodated by the structure of concern construct. It is important to note that this PAEI clustering is being imposed on the 16 desires model for illustrative purposes only. A more careful analysis of the various desires might produce a different scattering of desires than the one presented below.


P - Independence, Power, Vengeance, Exercise

A - Honour, Tranquility, Order, Saving

E - Curiosity, Status, Idealism, Romance

I - Family, Social Contact, Acceptance



Independence: desire for self-reliance

Power: desire for influence including mastery, leadership and dominance

Vengeance: desire to get even with others, including joy of competition

Exercise: desire to use and move one’s body



Honour: desire to value one’s parents and their heritage, morality or religion

Order: desire for a predictable environment, includes desire for cleanliness and ritual

Tranquility: desire to be free of anxiety, fear or pain (sensitivity to aversive sensations)

Saving: desire to hoard (including desire to own)



Curiosity: desire to explore or learn

Status: desire for social standing and attention

Idealism: desire to improve society (citizenship)

Romance: desire for sex, beauty and art



Family: desire to raise one’s own children (does not apply to children of others)

Social Contact: desire for interaction with other people (includes desire for fun/pleasure)

Acceptance: desire for approval from others


In a mammalian species, the desire to eat, for infants and their mothers at least, has everything to do with social contact, family and acceptance. If we were to cluster eating under I for that reason, an interesting faceted structure seems to emerge. Under each style we find a desire for goal direction, for the goal of conflict, plus restorative/reparative motivations and a focus for material desires, as follows:

Friedman and Mandelbaum argue that there are four types of jobs in today’s economy: creative creators, routine creators, creative servers, and routine servers. Those who are “routine creators” or “routine servers” are in danger of having their jobs outsourced or digitized. Even some jobs formerly considered “nonroutine” – such as attorneys – can be outsourced or digitized if the focus of their work is comprised of rule-based operations – the emerging e-discovery market has taken away a number of legal jobs.

Stanislov Grof is a celebrated transpersonal psychologist who studied birth trauma. According to Grof there are four "hypothetical dynamic matrices in charge of the processes related to the perinatal level of the unconsciousness", called "basic perinatal matrices". These BPM's correspond to the stages of birth during the process of childbirth. Grof argued that during times of extraordinary distress, you undergo a kind of death in which these birth experiences are relived. They are
Square 1: BPM 1- the amniotic universe. This is the symbiotic unity between the Mother and the fetus.This state can be connected with experiences of a lack of boundaries and obstructions, such as the ocean and the cosmos. The extraordinary sentiment of the sacred and spiritual quality of BPM I is the experience of cosmic unity. The first square is the idealist, and the idealist is associated with spirituality and optimism.
Square 2: BPM 2-Cosmic Engulfment and No Exit. This matrix begins with the onset of labor. The experience of chemicals and the pressures of labor "interrupt the fetus’ blissful connection with the mother and alter its pristine universe." Experiencing this layer gives rise to a sense of "no escape", loneliness and helplessness is overwhelming.
Square 3: BPM 3- The Death-Rebirth Struggle.This matrix is associated with the move of the fetus through the birth channel. The third square is always the doing square. This matrix is concerned with a struggle for survival. When experiencing this layer, strong aggression and demonic forces are contacted. Memories associated with this matrix involve struggles, fights, and adventurous activities. The third square is always considered bad and violent.
Square 4: BPM 4-The Death-Rebirth Experience. The fourth square is associated with death. According to Grof, this matrix is connected to the stage of delivery, the actual birth of the child. Tension, pain and anxiety is released. The symbolic counterpart is the Death-Rebirth Experience. The transition from BPM III to BPM IV may involve a sense of total annihilation. Grof refers to this stage as an ego death. I discussed that the fourth square is the flow and knowledge. and is related to the death of the ego.

The most famous joke of all time is the anti joke, "why did the chicken cross the road". It is an anti joke because you are expecting a creative answer, but the answer given is obvious "to get to the other side". Things are funny when they surprise you and are unexpected. I think this joke is so popular because it has the word cross in it, which is the form of existence.

In Talmud studies there is literally constantly reference to "four types" of things. Rabbis will read an excerpt from the Talmud discussing the four types and then the four types would be discussed. Examples are
There are four types of people: One who says, 
Square 1: "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" is a boor. 
Square 2: One who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" -- this is a median characteristic; others say that this is the character of Sodom.
Square 3: One who says, "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" is a chassid [pious person]. And one who says 
Square 4: "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine" is wicked.

Another example from the Talmud is
There are four types of temperaments.
Square 1: One who is easily angered and easily appeased--his virtue cancels his flaw. 
Square 2: One whom it is difficult to anger and difficult to appease--his flaw cancels his virtue. 
Square 3: One whom it is difficult to anger and is easily appeased, is a chassid. 
Square 4: One who is easily angered and is difficult to appease, is wicked.

A third example from the Talmud is
There are four types of student.
Square 1: One who is quick to understand and quick to forget--his flaw cancels his virtue. One who is slow to understand and slow to forget--his virtue cancels his flaw. One who is quick to understand and slow to forget--his is a good portion. One who is slow to understand and quick to forget--his is a bad portion.

A fourth example from the Talmud is 
There are four types of contributors to charity. 
Square 1: One who wants to give but does not want others to give--is begrudging of others. 
square 2: One who wants that others should give but does not want to give--begrudges himself. 
Square 3: One who wants that he as well as others should give, is a chassid. Square 4: One who want neither himself nor others to give, is wicked.

A fifth example from the Talmud is
There are four types among those who attend the study hall. 
Square 1: One who goes but does nothing--has gained the rewards of going. Square 2: One who does [study] but does not go to the study hall--has gained the rewards of doing. 
Square 3: One who goes and does, is a chassid. 
Square 4: One who neither goes nor does, is wicked.

A sixth example from the Talmud is
There are four types among those who sit before the sages: the sponge, the funnel, the strainer and the sieve. 
Square 1: The sponge absorbs all. 
Square 2: The funnel takes in at one end and lets it out the other. 
Square 3: The strainer rejects the wine and retains the sediment.
Square 4: The sieve rejects the coarse flour and retains the fine flour.

These are some examples of the quadrant model in the Talmud, but the Talmud is literally pervaded with such examples.

Chariot races were a main attraction in the Colosseum as Rome. Chariot races were very popular in ancient Rome. There were four factions that people rooted for in ancient Rome. They were the Red, White, Green, and Blue factions. The factions were 
Square 1: The Red faction was dedicated to Mars.
Square 2: The White faction was dedicated to the Zephyrs.
Square 3: The Green faction was dedicated to Mother Earth.
Square 4: The Blue faction was dedicated to the sky and the sea.

In charriot racing there was four horses attached to one chariot. The form of the four horses fit the quadrant model pattern. These races were known as quadriga races.

Chariot races were a main attraction in the Colosseum as Rome. Chariot races were very popular in ancient Rome. There were four factions that people rooted for in ancient Rome. They were the Red, White, Green, and Blue factions. The factions were 
Square 1: The Red faction was dedicated to Mars.
Square 2: The White faction was dedicated to the Zephyrs.
Square 3: The Green faction was dedicated to Mother Earth.
Square 4: The Blue faction was dedicated to the sky and the sea.

In charriot racing there was four horses attached to one chariot. The form of the four horses fit the quadrant model pattern. These races were known as quadriga races.

The Inca called their empire Tawantinsuyu, which means "the four suyo". The empire was divided into four suyo, or regions, whose corners met at the capital, Cusco. The four suyo were
Square 1: Chinchay Suyo (North)
Square 2: Anti Suyo (East; the Amazon jungle), 
Square 3:Colla Suyo (South) 
Square 4: Conti Suyo (West). The name Tawantinsuyu was a term describing a union of provinces.

The foundation myth for the Inca say that the Inca civilization started with four men and four women, bringing to mind the quadrant model.

Pachacuti was said to be a great Incan ruler who reorganized the kingdom into four provincial governments with strong leaders: 
Square 1: Chinchasuyu (NW), 
Square 2:Antisuyu (NE) 
Square 3: Kuntisuyu (SW) 
Square 4: Qullasuyu (SE)] The capital of the Incan Empire was Cusco. Pachacuti is also thought to have built Machu Picchu, either as a family home or as a summer retreat, but it is beleived that Machu Picchu was constructed as an agricultural station.

The Popul Vuh, the religious text of the Inca, was divided into four books, also resembling the quadrant model pattern.

Screamin' 4 Vengeance is the sixth studio album by American rapper C-Murder (who was serving a life sentence at the Louisiana State Penitentiary for murder), released on July 1, 2008 on TRU Records and Asylum Records.[4]Singles from the album include "Be Fresh" and "Posted on the Block (Remix)".

Tenochtitlan was the capital of the aztec empire. It was divided into four sections, and the aztecs specifically saw this as a cross and considered the symbol sacred. Tenochtitlan was considered a very sacred city state.

Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism, carried what was called the Jupiter stone. The Jupiter stone contained sixteen squares.

There is a popular book called The Four Christian cults, which describe four most famous and ascribed to groups of Christianity that are described by some as cults, which are square 1 Christian science, square 2 Jehovahs’ witnesses, square 3 seventh day adventists and square 4 Mormons
Ancient alien hypothesizers theorize that the gods of ancient cultures were actually aliens. A famous abduction experience is the Allagash experience, where four people were abducted. Two of them were twins. The twins represent the duality. The fourth was different from the previous three, later questioning what he experiences. Other famous alien encounters fit the quadrant model pattern.


Black Hippy is an American hip hop supergroup[1][2][3] from South Los Angeles, California, formed in 2008. The group is composed of West Coast rappers Ab-SoulJay RockKendrick Lamar and ScHoolboy Q.[4] Black Hippy was constructed after all of its members had signed to Carson-based indie record label, Top Dawg Entertainment (TDE).

The Hrsmn (styled The HRSMN and pronounced The Horsemen) is an American hip hop supergroup that has released one album entitled The Horsemen Project. The group consists of the platinum and gold selling artists, CanibusRas KassKillah Priest, and Kurupt.

In the final chapter of his book, Johnson conducts an experiment to compare what he calls the four quadrants of innovation, illustrated below:


Market innovations represent technologies or ideas that were leveraged to make a profit; non-market innovations are shared for the greater good.

Individual innovations are brought forth by a single, dedicated “genius” while network innovations materialise from the efforts of several contributors.


Economic policy, the law of patents and so many other institutions have long assumed that the first quadrant (and, to a lesser extent, the second) is the primary engine of human innovation.


Johnson’s findings, then, are somewhat surprising. By far the majority of important innovations since 1800 have been on the Networked side of his framework. Still more surprising: Of those, most were developed “outside the marketplace”, which is not to say they were never adapted for commercial use, but rather that these products of collaboration were never held in ownership by any one entity.


Aspirin, Anesthesia and the personal computer did not require patent law to come into being.


This point made, Where Good Ideas Come From doesn’t suggest how the governments, universities and lawbooks of the future must be geared towards fostering innovation, but it does call attention, quite convincingly, to the fact that they probably haven’t figured it out just yet.


More usefully, from start to finish, the book sketches the outlines of a strong personal philosophy based on enabling the creation and the capture of good ideas (A hint: take long walks!).


Johnson’s analysis isn’t the first to declare that technology proceeds along some kind of knowable pattern. But by grounding it in well researched observations about nature, he is bringing something new to the table.


Johnson writes:


“Travelling across these different environments and scales is not merely intellectual tourism. Science long ago realised that we can understand something better by studying its behaviour in different contexts.”


It may be a greater feat than mere “intellectual tourism”, but on that count alone, Where Good Ideas Come From is an essential, perspective-bending read.


I read Who Moved My Cheese for Kids to my 9-year-old son recently. It’s a fun little book, based on the eponymous bestseller, about four characters who live in a ‘maze’ and look for ‘cheese’ to nourish them and make them happy. You probably know how the story goes already (it was a bestseller) but if not, or you’ve forgotten, here’s a quick synopsis:


Two of the characters are mice named Sniff and Scurry and two are little people – beings the size of mice who look and act a lot like people. Their names are Hem and Haw. The ‘cheese’ is a metaphor for what you want to have in life – whether it’s a good job, a loving relationship, money, possessions, health, or peace of mind. The ‘maze’ is where you look for what you want – the organization you work in, or the family or community you live in.


In the story, the characters are faced with unexpected change. Eventually, one of the little people deals with it successfully, and writes what he has learned from his experience on the maze walls. When you come to see the handwriting on the wall you can discover for yourself how to deal with change, so that you enjoy less stress and more success (however you define it) in your work and life.


There’s a lot of truth in the book and I thought it would be fun to relate the four characters to the four PSIU forces of Organizational Physics. That way, the next time you’re managing a Hem, Haw, Sniff, or Scurry, you’ll have a better sense for how to handle it.


As a refresher, here’s a matrix that shows the traits of the four universal PSIU forces. If this concept is new to you, you can quickly get a sense of it using the world’s fastest personality test (it takes less than 15 seconds to get a good sense of someone’s style).


The four forces of Organizational Physics: PSIU.

The four forces of Organizational Physics: PSIU.


And here are the four Who Moved My Cheese characters mapped to each force:


The characters of Who Moved My Cheese mapped to the four PSIU forces of Organizational Physics.

The characters of Who Moved My Cheese mapped to the four PSIU forces of Organizational Physics.


In a nutshell:


Sniff is an Innovator style. He’s got the ability to sense and respond to changes happening in the environment much more quickly than the other styles. He gets excited about creating new things and likes you to get excited with him.

Scurry is a Producer style. He’s got the ability to run, run, run and do the work from early to late. He gets frustrated when there are obstacles in his path and seeks to run around them or punch through them.

Hem is a Stabilizer style. He’s got the ability to make things systematized and controllable. In the story, it is Hem who gets left behind because change can be seen as a really big threat to someone who excels at control and stability.

Haw is a Unifier style. He’s got the ability to empathize and connect well with others. In the story, it is Haw who follows Sniff and Scurry but all the while is concerned about where Hem is and how Hem is doing. Ultimately, Haw leaves the writing on the wall for others like Hem to follow.

Key Takeaways


The main thing I want you to take away is that the four PSIU forces of Organizational Physics are universal. That means they show up in good children’s books and the board room alike. When you learn to spot and understand them, you exponentially increase your own capabilities as a communicator and manager.


The second thing that I want you to take away is that, just as in the story Who Moved My Cheese, the correct approach to managing change is to be on the right side of the matrix above. The Producer and Innovator are both lean-forward styles who excel at sniffing out change and scurrying to make it work in their favor. You too should lean into change rather than lean away from it.


The third thing that I want you to take away isn’t in the story. It’s that the left side of the matrix, the Stabilizer and Unifier, also bring incredible value to the table. They help to make things systematized and efficient and care for others while helping to keep everyone working well as a team.


It takes a complementary team to manage and respond to change. One side without the other is doomed to fail. In other words, all sides — all forces — working in concert towards a common goal are what makes “finding the cheese” truly fun and sustainable over time.


The Supremes were not an overnight success story, although it might have seemed that way when they began topping the charts with sure-fire regularity. The trio that would become famous as the Supremes-- Diana RossMary Wilson, and Florence Ballard -- met in the late '50s in Detroit's Brewster housing project. Originally known as the Primettes, they were a quartet (Barbara Martin was the fourth member) when they made their first single for the Lupine label in 1960. By the time they debuted for Motown in 1961, they had been renamed the SupremesBarbara Martin reduced them to a trio when she left after their first single. 


In 1958, Florence Ballard—a junior high school student living in the Brewster-Douglass Housing Projects in Detroit—met Paul Williams and Eddie Kendricks, two members of a Detroit male singing group known as the Primes.[4] Since Ballard sang, as did Paul Williams' girlfriend Betty McGlown, the Primes's manager Milton Jenkins decided to create a sister group to the Primes called the Primettes.[4] Ballard recruited her best friend Mary Wilson, who in turn recruited classmate Diane Ross.[4] Mentored and funded by Jenkins, the Primettes began by performing hit songs by artists such as Ray Charles and the Drifters at sock hops, social clubs and talent shows around the Detroit area.[4] Receiving additional guidance from group friend and established songwriter Jesse Greer, the quartet quickly earned a local fan following.[5] The girls crafted an age-appropriate style that was inspired by the collegiate dress of popular doo-wop group Frankie Lymon & the Teenagers;[6]and, for the most part, Ballard, Ross and Wilson performed equal leads on songs. Within a few months, guitarist Marvin Tarplin was added to the Primettes' lineup—a move that helped distinguish the group from Detroit's many other aspiring acts by allowing the girls to sing live instead of lip-synching.[7]

After winning a prestigious local talent contest,[8] the Primettes' sights were set on making a record. In hopes of getting the group signed to the local upstart Motown label, in 1960 Ross asked an old neighbor, Miracles lead singer Smokey Robinson, to help the group land an audition for Motown executive Berry Gordy,[9] who had already proven himself a capable songwriter.[10] Robinson liked "the girls" (as they were then known around Motown)[11] and agreed to help, but he liked their guitarist even more; with the Primettes' permission he hired Tarplin, who became the guitarist for the Miracles.[9]Robinson arranged for the Primettes to audition a cappella for Gordy—but Gordy, feeling the girls too young and inexperienced to be recording artists, encouraged them to return when they had graduated from high school.[9][11] Undaunted, later that year the Primettes recorded a single for Lu Pine Records, a label created just for them, titled "Tears of Sorrow", which was backed with "Pretty Baby".[12] The single failed to find an audience, however.[13] Shortly thereafter, McGlown became engaged and left the group.[14] Local girl Barbara Martin was McGlown's prompt replacement.[13]

Determined to leave an impression on Gordy and join the stable of rising Motown stars, the Primettes frequented his Hitsville, U.S.A. recording studio every day after school.[15] Eventually, they convinced Gordy to allow them to contribute hand claps and background vocals for the songs of other Motown artists including Marvin Gaye and Mary Wells.[16] In January 1961, Gordy finally relented and agreed to sign the girls to his label – but under the condition that they change the name of their group.[17] The Primes had by this time combined with Otis Williams & the Distants and would soon sign to Motown as the Temptations.[18] Gordy gave Ballard a list of names to choose from that included suggestions such as "the Darleens", "the Sweet Ps", "the Melodees", "the Royaltones" and "the Jewelettes".[19]Ballard chose "the Supremes", a name that Ross initially disliked as she felt it too masculine. Nevertheless, on January 15 the group signed with Motown as the Supremes.[20] In the spring of 1962, Martin left the group to start a family. Thus, the newly named Supremes continued as a trio.[21]

Between 1961 and 1963, the Supremes released six singles, none of which charted in the Top 40 positions of the Billboard Hot 100.[3] Jokingly referred to as the "no-hit Supremes" around Motown's Hitsville U.S.A. offices,[22] the group attempted to compensate for their lack of hits by taking on any work available at the studio, including providing hand claps and singing backup for Motown artists such as Marvin Gaye and the Temptations. During these years, all three members took turns singing lead: Wilson favored soft ballads; Ballard favored soulful, hard-driving songs; and Ross favored mainstream pop songs. Most of their early material was written and produced by Berry Gordy or Smokey Robinson.[23] In December 1963, the single "When the Lovelight Starts Shining Through His Eyes" peaked at number 23 on the Billboard Hot 100.[24]

"Lovelight" was the first of many Supremes songs written by the Motown songwriting and production team known as Holland–Dozier–Holland.[25] In late 1963, Berry Gordy chose Diane Ross—who began going by "Diana" in 1965[26]—as the official lead singer of the group.[27] Ballard and Wilson were periodically given solos on Supremes albums, and Ballard continued to sing her solo number, "People", in concert for the next two years.[28]

In the spring of 1964, the Supremes recorded the single "Where Did Our Love Go".[27] The song was originally intended by Holland-Dozier-Holland for the Marvelettes, who rejected it.[27] Although the Supremes disliked the song, the producers coerced them into recording it.[27] In August 1964, while the Supremes toured as part of Dick Clark's Caravan of Stars, "Where Did Our Love Go" reached number one on the US pop charts, much to the surprise and delight of the group.[29] It was also their first song to appear on the UK pop charts, where it reached number three.

"Where Did Our Love Go" was followed by four consecutive US number-one hits:[11] "Baby Love" (which was also a number-one hit in the UK), "Come See About Me", "Stop! In the Name of Love" and "Back in My Arms Again".[30] "Baby Love" was nominated for the 1965 Grammy Award for Best R&B Song.[31]


Weber claimed there are four main classes: the upper class, the white-collar workers, the petite bourgeoisie, and the manual working class