Seeking Deeper Understanding #066

SDTEST^® has 38 different VUCA polls that calculate the 13,643 correlation values between stages of development according to the theory of Spiral Dynamics and answer options of these 38 polls.

We invite curiosity about the systemic mechanisms behind this correlation. There may be hidden variables that provide alternative explanations.

In our analysis of the poll "XING's culture assessment" (Leadership. Imagine the perfect people manager. What do you expect from them?), we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.1523 (Pearson) between the They give clear instructions and the Purple stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.151. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.1523 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This positive correlation of 0.1523 between expecting clear instructions from managers and the Purple stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Purple value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Purple mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation of their hierarchical, tradition-based leadership structures.
2. Confirmation that their spiritual and ancestral leadership models provide necessary guidance and stability.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that authority figures should provide clear direction to maintain tribal harmony.

These organizations might respond by:

• Strengthening ceremonial communications from leadership to reinforce clarity of purpose.
• Implementing more ritualized instruction-giving processes that honor traditional knowledge.
• Promoting leaders who can channel the wisdom of ancestors through clear, definitive guidance.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Purple mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing it as affirmation of their need for spiritual guidance in their collective work.
2. Interpreting it as support for maintaining traditional roles and structures within the group.
3. Seeing it as validation for seeking clarity from respected elders and authority figures.

These teams might respond by:

• Creating more ceremonial team gatherings where instructions are shared through storytelling.
• Establishing clearer tribal protocols for how directives are passed down from leadership.
• Celebrating instances when ancestral wisdom provides clear direction for current challenges.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Purple value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal validation of their respect for tribal authority and tradition.
2. Evidence supporting their belief that safety comes from following clear instructions from elders.
3. Confirmation of the value they place on maintaining harmony through adherence to established ways.

These individuals might respond by:

• Actively seeking guidance from respected elders and spiritual authorities.
• Viewing managers who provide clear instructions as protectors of tribal knowledge.
• Finding security and meaning in following well-defined paths laid out by authority figures.

This correlation, viewed through the Purple lens, suggests that those operating at the Purple level may deeply value clear instructions from managers. It implies that the Purple value system's emphasis on traditional authority, spiritual guidance, and tribal security aligns with a desire for explicit direction.

The reasons why clear instructions might be especially valued in the Purple stage could include:

1. Spiritual Security: Clear instructions provide a sense of safety in an unpredictable world filled with mysterious forces.
2. Tribal Cohesion: Explicit guidance ensures all members act in harmony with ancestral ways.
3. Ritual Importance: Instructions often carry symbolic and spiritual significance beyond their practical application.
4. Ancestor Connection: Clear directives are seen as channels for ancestral wisdom in the present day.
5. Mythological Framework: Instructions help maintain boundaries between sacred and profane, safe and dangerous.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems influence expectations of leadership. It raises questions about the spiritual and psychological benefits of clear guidance within communities that value tradition and ancestral wisdom.

Ultimately, this correlation highlights the complex interplay between cultural values, leadership expectations, and organizational effectiveness. Clear instructions might be valued not just for practical efficiency but as sacred guidance that maintains cosmic order in Purple-dominant environments. 

In our analysis of the poll "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" (by Patrick Lencioni [1]), we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.1491 (Pearson) between the Lack of Commitment (Teams that lack commitment delay making important decisions and miss opportunities) and the Red stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a non-normal distribution, by Spearman, is r = 0.0072. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.1491 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This negative correlation of -0.1491 between Lack of Commitment as a team dysfunction and the Red stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Red value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Red mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation of their decisive, power-driven approach to organizational decision-making.
2. Confirmation that their impulsive, action-oriented culture drives immediate results.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that strong, dominant leadership eliminates hesitation.

These organizations might respond by:

• Encouraging more immediate, forceful decision-making without concern for consensus.
• Implementing reward systems that favor those who take swift, bold action.
• Promoting leaders who demonstrate decisiveness and dominance in high-stakes situations.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Red mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing it as an affirmation of their aggressive, action-oriented team dynamic.
2. Interpreting it as support for their belief that hesitation shows weakness.
3. Seeing it as validation for prioritizing immediate action over deliberation.

These teams might respond by:

• Celebrating rapid decision-making regardless of the process used to reach conclusions.
• Encouraging team members to assert their dominance by driving decisions forward.
• Viewing commitment not as consensus but as submission to the strongest voice in the room.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Red value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal validation of their impulsive, self-assertive approach to teamwork.
2. Evidence supporting their belief that showing strength through decisive action is vital to success.
3. Confirmation of the value they place on immediate gratification and dominance in team settings.

These individuals might respond by:

• Taking unilateral action without waiting for team buy-in or consensus.
• Viewing their willingness to make snap decisions as a strength and competitive advantage.
• Using decisive moments to assert dominance within the team hierarchy.

This correlation, viewed through the Red lens, suggests that those operating at the Red level may be less likely to experience lack of commitment as a team dysfunction. It implies that the Red value system's impulsiveness, dominance, and focus on immediate gratification align with a more decisive approach to team dynamics.

The reasons why Lack of Commitment might not be seen as a dysfunction of a team in the Red stage could include:

1. Power-Driven Decisions: In the Red stage, decisions are often made by the most dominant individuals, eliminating the hesitation that comes with consensus-building.
2. Immediate Gratification: The Red stage's focus on immediate results drives quick decision-making regardless of buy-in from others.
3. Fear-Based Compliance: Team members may commit quickly out of fear of consequences rather than genuine agreement.
4. Action Over Deliberation: Red values prioritize taking action over thoughtful consideration, reducing delays in decision-making.
5. Competitive Advantage: Being first to act is seen as a competitive edge, driving swift commitment to decisions.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems influence team dynamics. It raises questions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of a Red approach to commitment within teams, particularly in contexts where quick action may be valued over thoughtful deliberation.

Ultimately, this correlation highlights the complex interplay between cultural values, team dynamics, and organizational effectiveness. Lack of commitment might be seen not as a dysfunction but as a sign of weakness in Red-dominant environments. 

In our analysis of the poll "What is essential for IT specialists in choosing a job offer?" we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.1864 (Pearson) between the Position level - Junior and younger and the Blue stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.1831. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.1864 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This positive correlation of 0.1864 between the Junior and younger Position level and the Blue stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Blue value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Blue mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation of their structured hierarchy and clearly defined career progression paths.
2. Confirmation that their ordered, rule-based organizational culture attracts those seeking clear direction.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that proper training in organizational traditions and procedures starts with junior positions.

These organizations might respond by:

• Strengthening formal onboarding and training programs that emphasize company policies and procedures.
• Implementing more rigorous mentorship structures that pass down institutional knowledge and traditions.
• Developing clearer advancement pathways that reward adherence to organizational values and protocols.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Blue mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing it as an affirmation of their responsibility to properly indoctrinate new team members into established practices.
2. Interpreting it as support for maintaining clear hierarchical roles within the team structure.
3. Seeing it as validation for emphasizing procedural correctness and disciplined approaches to work.

These teams might respond by:

• Creating more formalized training systems for junior team members.
• Establishing clearer protocols for how junior members should interact with more senior colleagues.
• Developing team handbooks and procedural documentation to ensure consistency of practice.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Blue value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal validation of their desire for structure and guidance early in their career.
2. Evidence supporting their belief that following established rules and traditions leads to professional growth.
3. Confirmation of the value they place on learning from established authority figures.

These individuals might respond by:

• Actively seeking organizations with clear hierarchies and well-defined advancement paths.
• Embracing their junior status as an opportunity to learn proper procedures and protocols.
• Finding security and meaning in following established career trajectories.

This correlation, viewed through the Blue lens, suggests that those in junior positions may be more aligned with Blue value systems. It implies that the Blue value system's emphasis on order, structure, and properly following established procedures resonates particularly with those at earlier career stages.

The reasons why Junior positions might correlate with the Blue stage could include:

1. Need for Structure: Junior professionals often seek clear guidelines and procedures to navigate their new roles.
2. Respect for Authority: Those newer to the workforce may place higher value on hierarchical structures and expert guidance.
3. Desire for Certainty: Early career professionals may find comfort in well-defined rules that reduce ambiguity.
4. Conformity Pressure: Junior positions often emphasize following established protocols before introducing innovations.
5. Traditional Growth Paths: The Blue mindset embraces clearly defined career trajectories that begin with learning established ways.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different career stages may align with certain value systems. It raises questions about the evolution of professional values as one gains experience and autonomy in their career.

Ultimately, this correlation highlights the complex interplay between organizational structure, career development, and value systems. Junior positions may naturally align with Blue values as they provide the order, structure, and clear expectations that support early professional development. 

In our analysis of the poll "12 ways to build trust with others" (by Justin Wright [2]), we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.1459 (Pearson) between the Tell the truth (Honesty lays the foundation for trust) / Agree strongly and the Orange stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.1246. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.1459 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This negative correlation of -0.1459 between strongly agreeing that "telling the truth builds trust" and the Orange stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Orange value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Orange mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation of their results-oriented approach where strategic communication takes precedence over absolute truth.
2. Confirmation that their competitive, achievement-focused culture values pragmatic messaging over idealistic honesty.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that sophisticated market positioning requires nuanced communication strategies.

These organizations might respond by:

• Implementing communication training that emphasizes strategic messaging and persuasive techniques.
• Developing more sophisticated PR and marketing approaches that focus on competitive advantage.
• Promoting leaders who can effectively manage information to achieve measurable organizational goals.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from an Orange mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing it as an affirmation of their strategic, goal-oriented team communication style.
2. Interpreting it as support for their belief that selective information sharing can maintain a competitive edge.
3. Seeing it as validation for prioritizing effectiveness and results over absolute transparency.

These teams might respond by:

• Creating more sophisticated information management protocols within the team.
• Encouraging strategic communication techniques that advance team objectives.
• Celebrating instances where careful message crafting led to successful outcomes.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Orange value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal validation of their pragmatic approach to professional communication.
2. Evidence supporting their belief that strategic truth management is essential to success.
3. Confirmation of the value they place on rational self-interest in competitive environments.

These individuals might respond by:

• Developing more nuanced communication skills that balance transparency with strategic advantage.
• Viewing their ability to manage information strategically as a valuable career asset.
• Finding competitive advantage in sophisticated approaches to truth rather than absolutist honesty.

This correlation, viewed through the Orange lens, suggests that those operating at the Orange level may be less inclined to view absolute truth-telling as essential for trust-building. It implies that the Orange value system's emphasis on achievement, strategy, and competitive advantage may lead to a more nuanced view of honesty.

The reasons why Orange-minded individuals might not strongly agree with "telling the truth builds trust" could include:

1. Strategic Advantage: Complete transparency may sacrifice a competitive edge in achievement-oriented environments.
2. Outcome Focus: Results and effectiveness may be valued above absolutist principles like unfiltered honesty.
3. Pragmatic Communication: Success-oriented individuals recognize that different contexts may require different communication approaches.
4. Rational Self-Interest: Strategic information management may better serve personal and organizational objectives.
5. Scientific Pragmatism: The Orange mindset recognizes that "truth" itself is often contextual, provisional, and evolving.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems approach trust-building. It raises questions about the role of strategic communication in achievement-oriented environments and whether absolute honesty is always the most effective approach.

Ultimately, this correlation highlights the complex interplay between values, communication strategies, and organizational effectiveness. In Orange-dominant environments, trust might be built more on demonstrated results, strategic alignment, and mutual benefit rather than on absolutist notions of truth-telling. 

In our analysis of the poll "Factors that impact team effectiveness" (by Google), we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.0744 (Pearson) between the Impact and the Green stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0552. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.0744 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This negative correlation of -0.0744 between Impact as a factor in team effectiveness and the Green stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Green value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Green mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that their focus on psychological safety and meaning (core dynamics in Google's research) takes precedence over direct impact measures.
2. Confirmation that their collaborative culture values the quality of team interactions over purely output-based metrics.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that team effectiveness emerges from inclusive processes rather than impact-focused evaluations.

These organizations might respond by:

• Prioritizing Google's identified dynamics of psychological safety, dependability, and structure/clarity.
• Implementing frameworks that measure team health through belongingness and emotional safety indicators.
• Promoting leaders skilled at creating safe spaces for vulnerability and authentic expression.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Green mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing it as affirmation that psychological safety (Google's top team effectiveness factor) aligns with their values more than impact metrics.
2. Interpreting it as support for prioritizing meaning and purpose over quantifiable outcomes.
3. Seeing validation for creating inclusive environments where all members feel safe to contribute.

These teams might respond by:

• Establishing strong norms around respectful interaction and valuing diverse perspectives.
• Creating regular reflection spaces to ensure all voices are heard and psychological safety is maintained.
• Developing shared meaning through collaborative processes rather than focusing primarily on impact.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Green value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal validation that their focus on team psychological safety contributes more to effectiveness than direct impact contributions.
2. Evidence supporting their belief that meaning and belonging are foundational to team success.
3. Confirmation that creating inclusive environments aligns with evidence-based team effectiveness research.

These individuals might respond by:

• Actively contributing to psychological safety by practicing vulnerability and supporting others.
• Viewing their community-building skills as directly contributing to the team's foundational needs.
• Finding purpose in facilitating inclusive conversations rather than driving measurable impact alone.

This correlation, viewed through the Green lens and informed by Google's research, suggests that those operating at the Green level may prioritize the psychological and social foundations of team effectiveness over impact metrics. It implies that the Green value system naturally aligns with Google's findings that psychological safety, dependability, structure, meaning, and impact form a hierarchy of team needs.

The reasons why Impact might not be valued as highly in the Green stage could include:

1. Psychological Safety First: Google's research showed psychological safety as the most critical factor, aligning with Green's emphasis on emotional well-being.
2. Foundation Before Output: Understanding that impact is dependent on more foundational dynamics like team trust and meaningful connection.
3. Holistic Measurement: Recognizing that team effectiveness cannot be reduced to impact alone but requires attention to the entire system.
4. People-Centered Approach: Prioritizing human needs and relationships as prerequisites for sustainable impact.
5. Process Orientation: Focusing on how work happens rather than just what is produced, similar to Google's emphasis on team dynamics over individual brilliance.

This correlation highlights how the Green value system may naturally emphasize the foundational elements of Google's team effectiveness research, seeing the impact as an outcome that emerges when psychological safety, structure, dependability, and meaning are established first. 

In our analysis of the poll "The main priorities of job seekers," we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.0619 (Pearson) between the Good relationship with bosses and the Yellow stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0585. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.0619 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This negative correlation of -0.0619 between prioritizing "Good relationship with bosses" and the Yellow stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Yellow value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Yellow mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation of their flexible, systems-oriented approach that transcends traditional hierarchical structures.
2. Confirmation that their adaptive, competence-focused culture attracts talent motivated by factors beyond conventional reporting relationships.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that organizational effectiveness emerges from self-organization rather than top-down management.

These organizations might respond by:

• Developing more fluid organizational structures where expertise and context determine leadership rather than fixed hierarchies.
• Implementing collaborative decision-making processes that emphasize systemic impact over authority-based approval.
• Creating environments where all members can contribute based on competence rather than position, minimizing the traditional "boss" relationship.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Yellow mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing it as an affirmation of their functional, purpose-driven approach that values competence over hierarchy.
2. Interpreting it as support for their belief that team effectiveness comes from integrated systems thinking, not personal relationships with authority figures.
3. Seeing it as validation for focusing on collaborative problem-solving rather than hierarchical approval.

These teams might respond by:

• Establishing more fluid leadership models where different members lead based on context and competence.
• Creating spaces for authentic collaboration that transcend traditional reporting structures.
• Developing integrated approaches to work that focus on purpose and functionality rather than relationship management.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Yellow value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal validation of their autonomous, systems-oriented approach to professional growth.
2. Evidence supporting their belief that meaningful work and systemic impact matter more than hierarchical relationships.
3. Confirmation of the value they place on competence and functionality over positional authority.

These individuals might respond by:

• Seeking organizations where they can contribute based on their capabilities rather than managing up.
• Viewing their ability to navigate complex systems as more valuable than cultivating relationships with superiors.
• Finding purpose in the functional integration of their work within larger systems rather than in approval from bosses.

This correlation, viewed through the Yellow lens, suggests that those operating at the Yellow level may place less emphasis on boss relationships as a job priority. It implies that the Yellow value system's focus on systemic understanding, functional competence, and integrated perspective transcends traditional hierarchical concerns.

The reasons why "Good relationship with bosses" might not be a priority for job seekers in the Yellow stage could include:

1. Systems Perspective: Yellow thinkers see organizations as complex adaptive systems where positional authority is less relevant than functional competence.
2. Self-Direction: They value autonomy and the ability to apply their capabilities based on context rather than approval.
3. Purpose Orientation: Meaningful contribution to complex challenges takes precedence over hierarchical relationships.
4. Integrated Understanding: They recognize that effective work emerges from the integration of multiple perspectives, not from pleasing authority figures.
5. Transcendent View: They have transcended the need for external validation from authority figures that characterize earlier value systems.

This correlation prompts us to consider how advanced value systems might transform traditional workplace priorities. It raises questions about the evolution of organizational structures as more individuals develop Yellow thinking capabilities.

Ultimately, this correlation highlights the complex interplay between value systems and workplace priorities. In Yellow-dominant environments, effectiveness might be measured more by systemic contribution and purpose alignment rather than by relationship quality with those in positions of formal authority.

In our analysis of the poll "Algebra of Conscience" (by Vladimir Lefebvre), we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.2258 (Pearson) between the One must not send a cheat sheet during a competitive examination to a close friend / Strongly agree and the Turquoise stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.1917. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.2258 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This positive correlation of 0.2258 between "One must not send a cheat sheet during a competitive examination to a close friend" and the Turquoise stage offers fascinating insights when viewed through the lens of the Turquoise value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Turquoise mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation of their holistic approach to ethics that recognizes how individual actions ripple through interconnected systems.
2. Confirmation that integrity in competitive environments strengthens the entire ecosystem rather than just individual outcomes.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that sustainable success requires authentic achievement rather than shortcuts.

These organizations might respond by:

• Implementing evaluation systems that measure authentic learning and growth rather than just competitive performance.
• Creating collaborative environments where knowledge is shared openly rather than weaponized for competitive advantage.
• Promoting leaders who model systemic integrity and understand how ethical breaches affect the whole community ecosystem.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Turquoise mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing it as affirmation of their commitment to authentic collaboration over competitive individualism.
2. Interpreting it as support for their belief that true growth comes from facing challenges with integrity.
3. Seeing it as validation for prioritizing collective wisdom development over individual advancement.

These teams might respond by:

• Designing assessment processes that celebrate authentic mastery rather than relative performance.
• Encouraging team members to support each other's genuine development rather than temporary advantages.
• Celebrating instances of ethical decision-making as demonstrations of commitment to the team's evolutionary purpose.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Turquoise value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal validation of their integrated worldview that recognizes how academic integrity serves collective evolution.
2. Evidence supporting their belief that authentic growth requires facing challenges with full presence.
3. Confirmation of the value they place on integrity as a foundation for meaningful connection.

These individuals might respond by:

• Actively seeking opportunities to demonstrate that achievement without integrity lacks meaning.
• Viewing their commitment to authenticity as a contribution to collective consciousness evolution.
• Using ethical dilemmas as chances to align their actions with their understanding of interconnectedness.

This correlation, viewed through the Turquoise lens, suggests that those operating at the Turquoise level may be more likely to prioritize ethical integrity over personal gain or even friendship-based favoritism. It implies that the Turquoise value system's holistic awareness, systems thinking, and focus on collective evolution align with a more principled approach to ethical dilemmas, recognizing that individual actions create ripple effects throughout the interconnected web of relationships and systems.

The reasons why sending a cheat sheet to a friend might be viewed as particularly problematic in the Turquoise stage include:

1. Systems Awareness: Understanding that cheating creates ripple effects throughout the educational ecosystem, undermining collective trust and authentic assessment.
2. Evolutionary Purpose: Recognizing that true development requires authentic engagement with challenges rather than shortcuts.
3. Holistic Integration: Seeing how academic dishonesty fragments one's integrated sense of self and authentic relationships.
4. Collective Consciousness: Understanding that each ethical choice contributes to or diminishes the field of collective integrity.
5. Authentic Connection: Valuing relationships too deeply to undermine a friend's genuine development through enabling dishonesty.

This correlation prompts us to consider how integrated worldviews influence perceptions of ethical behavior. It raises questions about the potential for Turquoise consciousness to reconcile personal loyalty with systemic integrity.

Ultimately, this correlation highlights the complex interplay between evolving consciousness, ethical decision-making, and systemic thinking. The Turquoise perspective suggests that true friendship means supporting others' authentic development rather than providing shortcuts that ultimately diminish both individual growth and collective wisdom.

We welcome respectful and wise perspectives! Stay tuned every week as we share more results and insights. 

After login or registration, free access to the poll results in the FAQ section.

[1] www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-lencioni-orghealth/
[2] www.linkedin.com/in/jwmba/

Valerii Kosenko

Úinéir Táirge SaaS SDTEST®

Cáilíodh Valerii mar oideolaí-síceolaí sóisialta i 1993 agus tá a chuid eolais i mbainistíocht tionscadal curtha i bhfeidhm aige ó shin.
Ghnóthaigh Valerii céim Mháistreachta agus cáilíocht an bhainisteora tionscadail agus clár in 2013. Le linn a chláir Mháistreachta, chuir sé aithne ar Project Roadmap (GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement e. V.) agus Spiral Dynamics.
Is é Valerii an t-údar a rinne iniúchadh ar éiginnteacht an V.U.C.A. coincheap ag baint úsáide as Dinimic Bíseach agus staitisticí matamaitice sa tsíceolaíocht, agus 38 vótaíocht idirnáisiúnta.