The Hierarchical Complexity View of Evolution and History

Commons, Michael Lamport; Ross, Sara Nora

doi:10.1080/02604020802301303

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The model's use of quantitative principles and measures makes it universally applicable in any context. Whereas it eliminates dependence on cultural or other contextual explanations, concepts in the MHC that address such influences have been addressed in detail by Commons and Ross (2008). The single, universal dimension measured by the MHC means that HR professionals may use the same type of behavioral-developmental stage assessment across an organization, regardless of the cultural or geographical origins of the tested employee.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employee management using behavioral developmental theory.

Commons

Miller

Ramakrishnan

et al. 2018

Behavioral Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lack of employee engagement and productivity due to job misfit is a problem faced by many managers. Improving job fit plays a significant role in increasing employee engagement, productivity, and engagement. The instruments reported here are effective in providing a better method of assessing job fit. The model of hierarchical complexity (Commons & Richards, 1984;Commons, Trudeau, Stein, Richards, & Krause, 1998) offers a standard method of assessing employee behavior. The instruments developed with the model as a basis are (a) Decision-Making Instrument and (b) Perspective-Taking Instrument. In addition, a behavioral version of the Holland Occupational Interests scale is introduced. Decision-making or problem-solving scores help assess how difficult a task an employee successfully completes. Perspective-taking scores reflect how well an employee understands social situations and people's actions. Our behavioral version of the Holland scale identifies the relative reinforcement value of engaging in different categories of work activities These three scores give companies comprehensive knowledge of the hierarchical complexity stage of job performance and occupational interests. This should help companies better manage human resources, hire and develop employees, and shape the future organizational structure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employee management using behavioral developmental theory.

Commons

Miller

Ramakrishnan

et al. 2018

Behavioral Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is why 'since Marx, Spencer and Durkheim, the theory of society has been a theory of social evolution' (Brunkhorst 2014: 1), a dynamic that became even more explicit with twentieth-century social theorists such as Luhmann, Elias and Habermas. But there are also less obvious candidates, and here we draw on Foucault's post-Darwinian rejection of Lamarckian evolutionism and its replacement with a non-linear analysis of society that highlights the 'hierarchical complexity' (Commons and Ross 2008) of genealogical layers that engender society's discursive fundamentals -in other words, the evolution of 'regimes of truth' and 'épistèmes'. We suggest that there is a broad overlap and a (dialectical) complementarity not only with regard to systems theory, critical theory and poststructuralism, but also -and this is specific to social sciences such as IR -between evolutionary theory, genealogy, and social/interregional/global history, which cannot be completely separated from each other for both substantive and heuristic reasons.…”

Section: Social Evolution and Theories Of Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These systemic properties boil down to a complex yet clearly defined social ontology that allows world politics to be conceived of as part of what Luhmann (2000) refers to as the system of politics understood as a non-linear social realm (Albert 2016). Three key structural effects are often highlighted in social evolution theories indebted to the paradigmatic tradition to which we have recourse, namely the 'autonomization of levels' (Stichweh 2002), the coevolution of these levels and, finally, their internal 'hierarchical complexity' (Commons and Ross 2008;Vrba and Gould 1986). We will further illustrate how these three structural dimensions of social evolution affect world politics in what follows.…”

Section: Core Evolutionary Concepts: Autonomization Hierarchical Comp...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Evolution of World Politics

Stetter,

Brunkhorst,

Neumann

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

He has published widely in social and legal philosophy as well as on the sociology and evolution/revolution of law and constitutions. Iver B. Neumann, born in 1959, is a political scientist and social anthropologist and director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo. He specializes in the history and pre-history of world politics as well as on contemporary affairs, particularly in relation to Russia.Stephan Stetter, born in 1972, is a professor of international politics and conflict studies at the Universität der Bundeswehr München. His main research interests are the history and sociology of world politics as well as Middle Eastern politics and EU foreign affairs. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche NationalbibliothekThe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (BY) license, which means that the text may be remixed, transformed and built upon and be copied and redistributed in any medium or format even commercially, provided credit is given to the author. Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be required from the rights holder. The obligation to research and clear permission lies solely with the party re-using the material.

show abstract

“…In the special issue of World Futures (2008), there are a number of papers that address this area (e.g. Commons, 2008; Commons, & Goodheart, 2008; Commons, & Ross, 2008; Glock-Grueniech, 2008; Inglis, 2008; Koplowitz, 2008; Robinett, 2008; Ross, 2008b; Ross, & Commons, 2008) Therefore it will not be discussed here.…”

Section: Why Social and Organizational Stage Goes Upmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the relationships between four notions of stage change?

Commons¹

2014

Behavioral Development Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been a number of models for transition between stages, including Piaget's dialectical model, Dawson's use of Rasch score values, and the newest, the systematization resulting from micro-genetic research. This paper discusses four different accounts of stage transition, each delineating how to obtain data on stage transition for each method. It also discusses how the methods might be interrelated. First, the paper elaborates the original Piagetian model by systematizing the transition substeps using choice theory and signal detection. An examination of stage transition included scoring interviews or other participant responses for statements that reflect each of these steps. Secondly, the paper examines micro-developmental approaches. These approaches identify what may be potential subtask and subsubtask actions that may occur during transition to the next stage. Then, the paper describes and illustrates the use of Rasch analysis to quantify the extent to which a participant's performance on an instrument is transitional. This approach might numerically pinpoint where in the transition an individual is but it did not measure the difficulty of the specific task subtask actions (strategies). A method for combining stage scores, subtask action scores, and the sub-subtask action scores was introduced. Finally, the paper presents a methodology for creating tasks and methods of support that directly measure transition. The purpose of this approach was twofold. First was to empirically test for the transition subtask and subsubtask actions extracted originally from the interview process. Second was to figure out how high in transition an action would get with support.

show abstract

The Hierarchical Complexity View of Evolution and History

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Employee management using behavioral developmental theory.

Employee management using behavioral developmental theory.

The Social Evolution of World Politics

What are the relationships between four notions of stage change?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About