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.

1. The Political Field (Power & Resources)¶

This field distorts Decision Making and Information Flow.
It is about "Who can make things happen (or stop them)?"

Core Forces:

Power: Who has the actual authority vs. the formal role?
Legitimacy: Is the mandate respected?
Gatekeeping: Who controls access to resources or leaders?

Diagnostic Signals (Political)¶

Signal	What it means	Impact on Core Model
"The Pocket Veto"	Everyone agrees in the meeting, but one person quietly stops the work later.	Breaks Coordination and Mutual Commitment.
"The Shadow Cabinet"	Decisions are made in a side-channel Slack group, not the public meeting.	Breaks Communication and Inclusion.
"The Resource Hoard"	Teams refuse to share data or tools "just in case."	Breaks Interdependence and Flow.

2. The Psychological Field (Safety & Identity)¶

This field distorts Feedback and Engagement.
It is about "Is it safe to be here?"

Core Forces:

Safety: Can I speak without punishment?
Identity: Does this change threaten who I am?
Fairness: Is the social contract honored?

Diagnostic Signals (Psychological)¶

Signal	What it means	Impact on Core Model
"The Wall of Silence"	You ask "Any questions?" and get 10 seconds of silence, then awkward shifting.	Breaks Feedback Loops (Level 2).
"The CYA Loop"	People CC 10 managers on every email.	Breaks Trust and Autonomy.
"The Martyr"	Someone works weekends to "save" the project but refuses help.	Breaks Role Distribution and Sustainability.

Common Dynamic Patterns (The "Shadow System")¶

When fields distort the structure, predictable patterns emerge.
Use these names to identify them.

Pattern 1: The Theater of Action

Symptom: Lots of meetings, Jira tickets, and status reports (Level 4 activity), but no real decisions are made.
Cause: High Political Risk + Low Safety. It is safer to look busy than to do actual work.

Pattern 2: The Hero Trap

Symptom: One person is the single point of failure. If they leave, the system dies.
Cause: Broken Role Distribution + Psychological Identity. The system rewards the Hero for "saving" them, so the Hero never lets go of control.

Pattern 3: The Fake Harmony

Symptom: No one ever disagrees. "We are a family." Yet turnover is high.
Cause: Toxic Positivity (Cultural Norm). Disagreement is punished as "not being a team player."

Diagnostic Heuristics¶

When you see behavior that doesn't make sense (e.g., smart people doing stupid things), use these heuristics:

“Behavior is Rational.”

Assume people are not crazy. Assume they are reacting rationally to a field you cannot see yet. (e.g., "They are hiding the bug because the last person who reported a bug got yelled at.")

“Friction is Information.”

Do not just try to "smooth over" conflict. Ask: What is this friction telling us about the system?

“The Shadow overrides the Chart.”

If the Org Chart says X, but the Political Field says Y... Y wins. Design for Y (or change it explicitly).

Safe Probing Scripts¶

How do you diagnose this without getting fired? Use these "Safe-to-Fail" questions.

To Probe Politics:

"I see the Org Chart, but who do we need to really convince to get this unstuck?"
"Who is going to be most surprised/upset by this decision?"

To Probe Safety:

"If we found a major flaw in the plan today, how would the leadership react? Curiosity or Blame?"
"What is the 'undiscussable' thing in this project right now?"

How to Use Diagnostic Dynamics with the Workflow¶

In practice, combine the pieces like this:

Run the Diagnostic Workflow (Structural)
- Observation → Matrix → Level → Function.
If the structure is fine but the problem persists...
- Activate Diagnostic Dynamics.
Check the Fields:
- Is there a Political Veto hidden somewhere?
- Is there a Psychological Threat blocking the function?
Intervention Strategy:
- If Political: You need a Diplomat intervention (Renegotiate power/roles).
- If Psychological: You need a Safety intervention (Build trust/listening).
- Do not try to fix these with Jira tickets.

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.