2. On 14 May, Peter wrote, "By corporate constructs we were
trying to capture the styles of reasonings, the ways in which
rules, rituals, skills etc generated by a group of people are
used or adopted by others without modification or very little
modification."
To me this definition assumes a form of relationship between
personal construing and corporate constructs in which the
subgroup corporate constructs are dominant, i.e., individual
differences become subsumed by the group process, rather than the
group being a forum for personal construing. Assuming I have
understood corporate constructs and their power, elaboration of
the process whereby personal construing does not significantly
modify the group process would seem necessary, to verify that
corporate constructs were recently at play.
I believe my reactions to the recent acrimony were in terms of my
personal constructs, constructs which I often use in other
circumstances. I look forward to hearing further elaboration on
this subject.
Regards,
Bob Green
Secondly, on 2 May Peter and Lindsay summarised and article on
corportae constructs and noted, "It was claimed that people can
construe corporate constructs as part of their personal
constructs, but personal constructs are not corporate
constructs." This would suggest that personal and corporate
constructs can be conceived of as polar opposites.
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kelly corporation
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lois Shawver <rathbone@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Kelly corporation
Peter-
When is a construct NOT a corporate construct?
...Lois Shawver
Peter,
When I thought about the recent acrimony and controversy, I
believe I construed events in terms of my personal constructs,
i.e., the same as I would apply in other non-mail list
communication, rather than in terms of some form of PCP
'netiquette'.
On 14 May When you wrote,, the criteria of whether corporate
constructs were
being used would appear (to me) to be able to demonstrate some
form of 'unmodified' group reasoning.
In terms of the recent instance, would a construct qualify as a
corporate construct only if it's range of convenience was the
list or if it 'developed' in relation to the list.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%