Sorry for the delayed response. There was some background communication going on to make sure I’ve got the The theory regarding any relationship between decision system and LoW is not fully developed, although Stan Smith has some well thought out opinions on the topic. The levels of work 1-7 align with the 7 fundamantal questions which share common characteristics w/ the 7 decision systems.

Stan sees the Questions (or Q Levels) as the intersection between Levels of Work and Decision Styles. Each Question (What, How, Who/When, Which, Why, Whether, Where, in order of increasing complexity) has an inherent time span required for thorough consideration. The Q Levels also share themes and characteristics w/ the 7 Decision Styles.

Having said that, it is believed that any Decision Style may be used to address any fundamental question (or problem at a particular LoW), although some Decision Styles may be better suited for a particular Q Level (or scope of problem) than others.

In general, personal preferences, including preferences to use a particular Decision Style before others or in certain instances, do more to color an individual’s approach than does his/her LoW capacity.

In the end, Decision Styles are tools in our “dealing with life toolbox.” There is not a better or worse style, although there are better/worse styles to be used in a particular context. We tend to be more highly skilled and/or trained in using some of these tools over others, but with consistent and focused efforts, that can be changed.

I think that Warren and Jimmy’s description of Systemicist is colored by the fact that he was writing for a Systems Theory journal. It’s hard to imagine some regular Joe using that approach, but it really should be there.

We’re all colored by our experiences. I can’t fathom using Imaginist in a crisis, but that may be a result of the types of crises that I have faced at as a kid and later at work. But it’s probably just how things are for all of us. Upon reflection, it’s clear that Imaginist could work in many reactive situations, perhaps even the ones that I’ve been in.

I’ve faced too much of the degenerate side of Pragmatist management, obviously. Small companies are riddled with them. Pragmatist is the only phase in Organizational Culture that you go through more than once during the org’s maturity. Dynamism is the highest form of corp. culture, and it’s a very advanced form of Pragmatist. I’ll deal with Pragmatist at some point later.

OBTW, Imaginist is the highest level of decision system, I think because Imaginists create something unseen and undreamed before.

For familiar things, pragmatism is a clear preference for me. If I’m pressed into a reactive state, imaginist (supportive catalyst) feels more likely. Yet, in your reference to pragmatists in this post, it sounds as though my reactive self would “hate” my proactive self, but that’s not the case at all. I find using imaginist approaches very practical when pure pragmatism isn’t getting results. So maybe this is a case of primary preference and secondary preference? You tell me.

Anyway, don’t hate on us pragmatists. We aren’t all out to get you.