Typology of 12 complementary strategies essential to sustainable development

Tentative adaptation and development from related table on Characteristics of phases in learning / action cycles, derived from Arthur Young's Geometry of Meaning (1978). See commentary on learning cycles in Cycles of dissonance and resonance and below. See also alternative table based on clustering strategies and values. See also Typology of 12 complementary dialogue modes essential to sustainable dialogue;  confidence ploys;  Chinese strategems ; strategic dilemmas

	"Positive"	Identifying  Associating  Recognizing	Responding  Intending  Engaging	Acting  Effecting  Changing  Implementing	Ensuring  Sustaining  Maintaining
	Symbol	A	B	C	D
Knowledge  Comprehension  Framing  Scoping  ("head")	1	A1 [L]  Monitoring  Balancing  Evaluating  Placing  Studying  Modelling  Consulting  Detecting Informing	B1 [L/T]  Adapting  Accommodating  Dialoguing  Educating (theoretical)  Caring  (in principle)  Protecting  Planning	C1 [L/T2] Initiating  Engaging  Launching  Undertaking	D1 [L/T3] Controlling  Supervising  Regulating  Verifying	M0L
Concern  Involvement  Participation  ("heart")	2	A2 [ML]  Acknowledging  Recognizing  Articulating  Envisioning  Publicizing  Sensitizing	B2 [ML /T] Desiring  Warning  Promoting  Inciting  Advocating  Representing  Protesting  Appeasing  Deploring  Praying  Stressing  Calling for..	C2 [ML/T2] Directing  Ordering  Ruling  Implementing  (admin.)  Administering  Legislating  Sponsoring  Funding	D2 [ML/T3] Coordinating  Managing  Buffering  Redistributing  Reallocating	ML
Grounding  Praxis  ("walking the talk"; "guts"; "being there")	3	A3 [ML2] Reassuring  Affirming  Accepting  Holding  Empathizing  Identifying with  Celebrating  Endorsing  Praising  Invoking  Appreciating  Remembering	B3 [ML2/T] Resolving  Deciding  Determining  Threatening  Instituting  Demonstrating  Training  Exercising  Negotiating  Mediating  Vowing  Pledging	C3 [ML2/T2] Achieving  Grounding  Enforcing  Establishing  Developing  Intervening  Protecting (practically)  Prosecuting  Conserving  Revoking	D3 [ML2/T3] Enabling  Embodying  Empowering  "Educating"  Maintaining  Sustaining  Capacity bld.	ML2
		T0	T-1	T-2	T-3	Dim.
	"Negative"	Denying  Misrepresenting  Forgetting  Desensitizing	Tokenism  Lip-service  Irresolution  Demonizing	Malpractice  Exploitation  Domination	Mismanaging  Disempowering  Misallocating  Non-complying
	Psychological functions	Sensing  (Touch)	Feeling  (Sound; Rhythm)	Seeing  (Sight)	Intuiting  (Smell; Taste)

Anthony Judge, with comments of Nadia McLaren and Allan Howard,

Commentary

Rows: These distinguish between the 12 strategy types based on (1) knowledge of issues, (2) concern for issues, and (3) "being there" -- where the issues are hurting.

• Row 1 is primarily intellectual and detached from reality "on the ground" or "in the field", even if it is obliged to deal with it; a "concern" barrier must be passed to get into Row 2 strategies.
• Row 2 is concerned with, or involved with, grounded reality -- but without "being there"; a "grounding" barrier must be passed to get into Row 3 strategies.
• Row 3 is identified with grounded reality in some way; a "comprehension" barrier must be passed to get into Row 1 strategies (repeating the learning cycle within a larger framework) .

Columns: These distinguish between the 12 strategy types based on (A) acknowledging issues, (B) responding to issues, (C) acting on issues, and (D) sustaining action on issues.

• Column A is primarily identifying and relating to issues (sensing them); an "intention" barrier must be passed to get into Column B.
• Column B is developing intentions with respect to the issues; an "action" barrier must be passed to get into Column C.
• Column C is engaging in action; a "continuity" barrier must be passed to get into Column D where the action can be rendered sustainable.
• Column D is ensuring that action is controlled and maintained knowledgeably; a "contextual" barrier, recognizing new feedback loops, must be passed to get into Column A  (repeating the learning cycle within a larger framework).

Each of the 12 strategy types has a vital function. The challenge is that their complementarity is not necessarily recognized. Certain strategy types are easily neglected, notably those in Row 3 and those in Column D. Because of its lower "dimensionalty", it tends to be easier to engage in strategy A1, for example -- which is coded with the lightest colour in the table. The current challenge is to give meaning and force to strategies of type D3, that correspond to sustainable development -- which is coded the darkest in the table.

The words used to describe each of the 12 individual strategy types are commonly encountered in describing strategies -- notably in the declarations of international organizations. The colour coded diagonals suggest a pattern of progressive engagement towards sustainable action "on the ground":

• Diagonal A1: Monitoring type strategy, frequently used as a preliminary to any other strategy, whether relating to massacres or environmental disasters. Response to many issues is often limited to this, notably by the academic community.
• Diagonal A2-B1: Acknowledgment of the issue and adaptive response to it. This has little effect "on the ground" but administrative and intellectual frameworks and procedures may be adjusted to take account of the issue.
• Diagonal A3-B2-C1: The issue evokes empathy (reassuring the victims), official warnings and calls for action, and initiation of patterns of response. This is typical of responses by the international community / media / local activist complex. New issues, including potential genocides, notably evoke strategies of type B2, namely "deploring", "protesting", etc by the international community -- possibly accompanied by "undertaking", and "initiating" strategies (type C1), but without significant follow-up.
• Diagonal B3-C2-D1: Concerns expressed on the preceding diagonal may lead to strategies of type B3, namely "resolving", "deciding", etc -- on the part bodies such as the UN Security Council. Decisions are taken, coalitions are formed, orders are given and supervisory structures are set up. This may be framed as effecting change, but this form of implementation typically lends itself to positive reporting on action taken with little awareness of whether this is effective "on the ground".
• Diagonal C3-D2: Enforcement becomes evident "on the ground" and coordination is ensured with respect to the continuity of the implementation process. Unfortunately the engagement is such that the "continuity" is essentially short-term and tends to be eroded and abandoned once attention passes to other issues. This is typical of many responses to issues that are momentarily in the public eye.
• Diagonal D3: Action becomes sustainable through building in procedures that guarantee long-term continuity based on appropriate attention to feedback loops. However any such form of grounded, sustainable action is itself challenged by unforeseen issues and feedback loops that may call for new kinds of issue detection and monitoring (Diagonal A1).

Negative variants of each strategy type necessarily also exist. These are suggested by column labels at the foot of the table.

Meeting participation: It is also fruitful to see each of the 12 strategy types as reflecting the complementary views that need to be expressed at an archetypal strategic "roundtable" (Camelot style). The specific relationships between each such view have been tentatively explored in an earlier study on Toward a New Order of Meeting Participation (http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/contract.php) that charts the Shadowy Roundtable Hidden within every Meeting. This endeavours to show how the seemingly "external" issues tend to be reflected in the different behaviour styles of meeting participants -- and the need for a new kind of participant contract to move beyond such constraints.

Torus representation: As implied above, the Row 1 strategies can also usefully be considered as bordering the Row 3 strategies -- by rolling the table into a cylinder. Similarly the Column A strategies can also be considered as bordering the Column D strategies -- by connecting the ends of the cylinder to form a torus. It is on the surface of this torus that the connectivities between the strategy types might be more appropriately comprehended. A possible representation of this structure, appropriately coloured, has been developed as a hypersphere to illustrate Arthur Young's insights (http://www.hypersphere.com/hs/abouths.html)

Individual action: The relevance of the above typology can also be explored in relation to individual or community group action. The status of a "New Year's Resolution" with respect to personal sustainable development is then clarified -- a demonstrates the nature of the challenge for international organizations inspired by its many Resolutions.