Diagnostic Dynamics – Working With Political and Psychological Fields¶

The Diagnostic Workflow focuses first on the Core Model:

Conditions × Needs → Functions (Matrix)
Levels 1–5 (Pyramid)
Level Rule (stabilize lower levels first)

Often, that is enough to locate where cooperation is structurally unstable.

However, there are many situations where:

structure looks correct on paper,
practices are in place,
but cooperation still feels tense, fragile, or distorted.

This is where Diagnostic Dynamics comes in.

It adds the lens of Extended Human Dynamics to diagnosis, by making visible:

how political fields (power, legitimacy, visibility, gatekeeping) and
how psychological fields (fear, identity, fairness, safety)

are shaping conditions and needs, and therefore behavior, inside an otherwise sound structure.

Diagnostic Dynamics does not change the Core Model or the Level Rule.
It helps you understand why the system behaves the way it does, so that interventions land at the right level.

Political and Psychological Fields¶

The Core Model defines what cooperation requires.
Extended Human Dynamics describes what cooperation feels like.

Political and psychological fields explain why cooperation becomes difficult, even when the basic design is in place.

Political Field¶

Political influences emerge from:

Power and authority distribution
Control of resources and access
Legitimacy battles (“who is the real owner?”)
Visibility and reputation
Representation and agenda-setting
Hidden coalitions, veto points, and gatekeepers

They shape:

whose interests define reality when there is ambiguity,
whose work is prioritized or ignored,
who can say “no” without consequences.

In short: political fields shape permission.

Psychological Field¶

Psychological influences emerge from:

Fear, anxiety, loss of safety
Identity and status threat
Emotional triggers and personal history
Perceived fairness or unfairness
Trust posture (default trust or default suspicion)
Vulnerability and self-protection patterns

They shape:

how people interpret behavior and decisions,
whether they speak up or stay silent,
whether they invest energy or withdraw.

In short: psychological fields shape participation.

Together, these fields can distort or amplify any condition or need:

Cooperation can be structurally sound but politically impossible.
Cooperation can be well-designed but psychologically unsafe.

Diagnostic Dynamics makes these forces discussable without turning HCS into a personality or politics model.

How Fields Act on Extended Conditions and Needs¶

Extended Human Dynamics describes:

Extended Conditions – contextual, relational, structural, developmental patterns that shape the “climate” of cooperation.
Extended Needs – deeper human needs that show up around purpose, safety, growth, belonging, and autonomy.

Political and psychological fields can act on any of these.

Examples:

Contextual + Political
Strategy and priorities are defined by a small group; others feel decisions are opaque.
Formally, purpose is clear; in practice, whose purpose counts is contested.
Relational + Psychological
Past incidents (broken promises, public shaming) make people cautious.
Structurally, feedback channels exist; psychologically, feedback feels dangerous.
Structural + Political
A team owns a critical platform but has no formal say in roadmap decisions.
On paper, roles and dependencies are defined; politically, they are ignored.
Developmental + Psychological
Repeated “failed initiatives” create learned helplessness.
People no longer believe change efforts will last, even if design looks better.

These forces do not nullify the Core Model.
They change how conditions and needs are lived, which in turn affects whether functions can operate as designed.

Four Diagnostic Quadrants¶

To keep diagnosis precise, it helps to distinguish where the issue is most visible.

Think in terms of two axes:

Condition vs Need – Is this mostly about the situation we are in (conditions) or about what people require to stay engaged (needs)?
Collective vs Individual – Is the pattern mostly system-wide or is it concentrated in specific people or roles?

This gives four quadrants:

Collective Condition
Examples: overall culture of risk avoidance; cross-team blame habits; chronic overload.
Often expressed as “this is how things are around here”.
Individual Condition
Examples: one person has low perceived safety; another is isolated from key information; one role is structurally exposed.
Often expressed as “this role / person is always in a difficult spot”.
Collective Need
Examples: a department needs recognition; a partner needs legitimacy; a group needs real involvement in decisions.
Often expressed as “they never listen to us” or “we’re treated as second-class”.
Individual Need
Examples: a leader needs more clarity to lead; an engineer needs growth opportunities; someone needs assurance they will not be punished for honesty.
Often expressed in 1:1s as “for me personally, this is what hurts”.

Why this matters:
If you misidentify the quadrant, you will likely intervene at the wrong level:

giving coaching to an individual when a whole group is structurally excluded,
changing process when a specific person needs support and feedback,
running a team workshop for what is fundamentally a cross-organization political conflict.

Quadrants help you be precise about where the issue lives.

Three-Layer Diagnostic Sequence¶

When Extended Dynamics are clearly in play, use this sequence after the basic Diagnostic Workflow:

Confirm the structural baseline (Core Model)
Locate the quadrant (Extended Conditions/Needs)
Select the intervention layer

Step 1. Confirm the Structural Baseline¶

First, use the Diagnostic Workflow:

map the observation to the Matrix (Condition × Need → Function),
identify the lowest unstable level in the Pyramid,
form a hypothesis about the structural issue.

Ask:

Is there a real design problem here (unclear purpose, missing roles, broken feedback)?
Or is the structure technically present but not used as intended?

Only once this is clear should you lean into Extended Dynamics.

Step 2. Locate the Quadrant¶

Ask:

Where is this most visible right now?

Examples:

“People across multiple teams are afraid to speak up in large forums.”
→ likely Collective Condition (fearful climate) + Collective Need (Trust & Safety).
“One team feels consistently sidelined from key decisions.”
→ likely Collective Need for Recognition & Belonging, with a Structural condition pattern.
“A single senior engineer resists all changes and dominates discussions.”
→ could be Individual Condition (identity threat) and Individual Need (Autonomy & Coherence),
but check whether they are carrying systemic risk that nobody else is owning.

Naming the quadrant prevents you from treating systemic issues as personal or vice versa.

Step 3. Select the Intervention Layer¶

Once the quadrant is clear, choose the appropriate intervention layer:

Structural
Adjust boundaries, roles, decision paths.
Add or repair feedback loops, transparency, access.
Example: change who approves work, who is at which meeting, or how information flows.
Collective
Align purpose and narratives.
Establish or renegotiate shared agreements.
Run inclusion or representation checks (“who is affected vs who is in the room?”).
Example: joint sessions between client and vendor leadership to reset expectations.
Relational
Facilitate repair between specific roles or groups.
Make reciprocity and respect explicit topics.
Example: structured dialogue between two teams with history of mutual blame.
Individual
Coaching, mentoring, tailored support.
Help individuals process change, conflict, or identity shifts.
Example: supporting a key person who is over-exposed to risk or conflict.

Often you will need a combination (e.g., structural + collective + relational).
The point is to be intentional about where you start.

Mode-Specific Signals¶

Diagnostic Dynamics plays differently depending on System Mode.

In Setup Mode¶

Signals:

Stakeholders hesitate to commit, even when design seems clear.
Some groups are “quiet” in early conversations; their risks or needs are not voiced.

Focus:

Extended Conditions: who holds power, who feels vulnerable, who is missing.
Extended Needs: Purpose & Direction, Trust & Safety, Recognition & Belonging.

Intention:

Use Extended Dynamics to design a realistic starting shape,
not an idealized cooperation contract that ignores politics and psychology.

In Stabilization Mode¶

Signals:

Same structural fixes are proposed repeatedly but never land.
People comply in meetings but revert to old patterns in practice.
Escalations are emotional, not only technical.

Focus:

Extended Conditions: relational history, hidden gatekeepers, over-exposed roles.
Extended Needs: Trust & Safety, Autonomy & Coherence.

Intention:

Distinguish between “we don’t know what to do” and “we don’t believe it’s safe or fair to do it”.
Adjust interventions accordingly: structural where needed, but also relational and individual.

In Growth Mode¶

Signals:

Some teams welcome increased autonomy; others show quiet resistance.
Perceived winners and losers emerge as scope expands.
Improvement initiatives are seen as “their agenda”, not “our evolution”.

Focus:

Extended Needs: Growth & Evolution, Recognition & Belonging, Autonomy & Coherence.
Extended Conditions: structural and contextual fairness of growth.

Intention:

Ensure growth does not erode safety or legitimacy.
Adjust growth pace and scope to what the system can integrate.

In Conflict Mode¶

Signals:

Strong narratives about “them” vs “us”.
Emotional reactions disproportionate to the immediate trigger.
People reinterpret events through a lens of past harm.

Focus:

Both fields at full strength: political (who benefits, who suffers) and psychological (hurt, fear, shame).
Extended Needs: Trust & Safety, Recognition & Belonging, Purpose & Direction.

Intention:

Make conflict sayable without punishment.
Separate structural, relational, and individual elements.
Decide honestly whether repair, containment, or Reset is appropriate.

In Reset Mode¶

Signals:

Cynicism and resignation, even when new proposals are sound.
People privately say “this should have ended a while ago”.
Old harms are carried into new conversations.

Focus:

Extended Conditions: developmental history, accumulated fatigue.
Extended Needs: Purpose & Direction, Recognition & Belonging, Autonomy & Coherence.

Intention:

Close or transform the system with integrity.
Ensure any new Setup does not inherit unspoken trauma or political debt.

Practical Heuristics¶

A few quick rules of thumb:

“If structure is clear but behavior is erratic, check psychological fields.”
Fear, identity threat, or learned helplessness often override clarity.
“If individuals keep failing in the same way, check collective conditions.”
People adapt to the system they are in; repeated patterns are rarely purely personal.
“If the story makes sense to leadership but not to the team, check political fields.”
Narratives often serve those who shape them.
“If conflict repeats, examine unmet needs, not personalities.”
Unmet needs create stable patterns of resistance or withdrawal.
“If people stop speaking up, treat this as a system alarm, not a personal flaw.”
Silence is both a political and a psychological signal.

These heuristics keep you from defaulting to the most comfortable explanation.

How to Use Diagnostic Dynamics with the Workflow¶

In practice, combine the pieces like this:

Run the Diagnostic Workflow
Observation → Matrix → Level → Function → Practice.
If friction persists or feels “hot”, layer in Diagnostic Dynamics:
Identify quadrant (collective / individual × condition / need).
Notice political and psychological fields at play.
Pick a System Mode that matches the overall situation:
Setup, Stabilization, Growth, Conflict, or Reset.
Choose intervention layers (structural, collective, relational, individual) that match:
the quadrant,
the fields,
and the mode.
Run a small, explicit experiment, then review:
Did structural changes help?
Did relational work shift anything?
Are different needs now visible?

Diagnostic Dynamics does not turn you into a therapist or a political strategist.
It gives you enough language to:

see how political and psychological fields shape cooperation,
name their effects without blaming individuals,
and act at the right level, with the right expectations.

That is often enough to turn “this is just how it is here” into something once again changeable.