Wikipedia

User:Mihal.emberton/sandbox/Belief-Behavior Systems archetype

< User:Mihal.emberton/sandbox

Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© is the scientific etiology of the patterns of human thinking and human behaviors that result in collaboration (effective problem-solving and innovation) versus coercion (status-quo and censorship), and manipulation (status-quo but loyalty/trust) versus exploitation (problem-solving through oppression). And the science of collaboration (effective problem-solving and innovation) is the science defining democracy and social justice.

These patterns of human thinking and behaviors are consistent across culture, discipline, and time and have been studied extensively within the fields of business (servant leadership[1], Theory X vs Theory Y[2], SCRUM[3], pockets of good practice[4], agile[5], humble leadership[6], Kaizen and lean[7], enduring power vs self-serving power[8], daring leadership vs armored leadership[9]), psychology (psychological safety[10], social styles model[11], Myers-Briggs Personality categories[12]), medicine (feedforward[13], fast vs slow thinking[14], personality disorders | emotional disorders | pathologic/asocial disorders[15]), political science (democracy vs autocracy, demagogue, socialism | communism | fascism | dictatorship), social science (emotional intelligence[16], gardener vs carpenter parenting behavior[17], slavery, genocide), education (Montessori method[18], growth mindset vs fixed mindset[19]), public health (burnout[20]), and law (restorative justice[21], injustice vs justice, truth vs unconscious bias).

While these frameworks begin to categorize the patterns of human thinking and behavior in our hierarchies, parent-child, teacher-student, doctor-patient, politician-constituent, supervisor-subordinate, police officer-citizen, and judge-litigant, the Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© goes further to uncover how and why racism, sexism, discrimination, censorship, and exploitation occur, how and why burnout is a global crisis, and how and why these belief-behavior systems endure, by uncovering the rule, the inextricable link between knowledge gaps (unconscious bias), learning, and social justice, that causes these patterns.

The Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© was conceived and copyrighted by Mihal Emberton, MD, MPH, MS after nearly 25 years of deciphering the etiologies of leading versus micromanaging, of teaching versus learning, and of unconscious bias versus truth. The Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© was then peer-reviewed and published in an open-source, three-part series by The Permanente Journal starting in 2019 with Learning in Humans versus Hierarchies, followed by Unconscious Bias is a Human Condition and Etiology of Belief-behavior Systems and Hierarchies in 2021.

- Definition of the framework and its primary discipline (e.g. physics, biology, sociology). - The core problem or phenomenon it aims to explain - Who proposed it and when (with key foundational papers).

Core Principles/Postulates

edit

The Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© explains the rule that the eradication or preservation of unconscious bias (knowledge gaps) combined with a supervisor's intention of self-preservation versus the common-good, is what results in the different patterns of supervisory thinking and behavior within a hierarchy.

- The fundamental assumptions, axioms, or rules the framework relies upon

Key Components/Mechanisms

edit

The Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© describes the fundamental rules that (1) supervisors determine the level of subordinate engagement, (2) belief-behavior cascades are not fixed, (3) unconscious beliefs determine which feelings-thoughts-behavior cascade will occur, (4) democratic belief-behavior systems uncover and address knowledge gaps to fundamentally conquer problems, and (5) there is an evolutionary advantage of establishing a hierarchy as well as a fundamental flaw.

Supervisors determine the level of subordinate engagement

While psychologist Carol Dweck, PhD, identified and described Growth Mindset (democratic culture of innovation and growth) versus Fixed Mindset (autocratic culture of conformity and status quo), her model suggests that the learner (subordinate) drives the level of engagement whereas the Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© identifies that it is the supervisor who determines the level of subordinate engagement. The fact that supervisors can prevent learning by creating cultures of conformity and status quo (autocracy) was also recognized in the early 1900s by Maria Montessori, MD, who established the Montessori Method of Education in which teachers collaborate with students, creating democratic cultures where learning and intellectual growth occurs.

Belief-behavior cascades are not fixed

While psychologists David W. Merrill and Roger H. Reid created the Social Styles Model[22] beginning in the 1950s, and mother-daughter thought-leaders Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers created the Myers-Briggs Personality Categories in the early to mid-1900s to begin to categorize the patterns of human behaviors, these models suggest that these behaviors are fixed or predetermined whereas the Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© uncovers that the different belief-behavior cascades are all possible and changeable within any individual person.

For example, Merrill and Reid classified behaviors as fixed, such as people-ask or task-tell, however, the Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© identifies these patterns as a spectrum (not-fixed), the engagement-transparency spectrum of behaviors that a democratically-minded supervisor demonstrates with their subordinate (people-ask) and the deprivation-domination spectrum of behaviors that an autocratically-minded supervisor demonstrates with their subordinate (task-tell). The Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© uncovers that all people can toggle between democratic and autocratic mindsets when their intention is to help the common good, and all people can toggle between manipulative and exploitive mindsets when their intention is individual gain at the expense of the common good.

Unconscious beliefs determine which feelings-thoughts-behavior cascades will occur

Thought-leaders have described the dichotomy of hierarchical behaviors, democratic belief-behaviors versus autocratic belief-behaviors, that occur when a supervisor's intention is to protect the common good. In The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children[23], psychologist and philosopher Alison Gopnik, D.Phil describes 'gardener behaviors' as nurturing growth (democratic belief-behaviors) versus 'carpenter behaviors' as constraining-didactic (autocratic belief-behaviors). In The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence[24], psychologist Dacher Keltner, PhD, describes 'enduring power' as advancing the greater good (democratic belief-behaviors) versus 'self-serving power' as undermining the greater good (autocratic-manipulative-exploitive belief-behaviors). And in Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts[25], Brené Brown, PhD, describes "daring leadership, being a learner and getting it right" (democratic belief-behaviors) versus "armored leadership, being a knower and being right" (autocratic belief-behaviors).

While psychologist Douglas McGregor, PhD created Theory X and Theory Y to begin to classify the toggle between Theory X behaviors (autocratic belief-behavior cascade) and Theory Y behaviors (democratic belief-behavior cascade), his model suggested that the type of worker or the environment is what leads a supervisor to toggle into a certain behavior cascade whereas the Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© uncovers that it is the unconscious democratic or autocratic belief of the supervisor that causes the democratic versus autocratic feelings-thoughts-behaviors cascade.

Democratic belief-behavior systems uncover and address knowledge gaps to fundamentally conquer problems

Thought-leaders have described the reward of collaboration, innovation/growth, and loyalty/trust that results from embracing the discomfort and difficulty in recognizing and correcting one's unconscious bias (democratic belief-behaviors) as "daring leadership"[26] by Brené Brown, PhD, "Y-Theory" by Douglas McGregor, PhD, "gardeners"[27] by Alison Gopnik, D. Phil, and "enduring power"[28] by Dacher Keltner, PhD.

These same thought-leaders have also described the human instinct to ignore one's own unconscious bias because it is easier and more comfortable but which results in coercion, conformity/status-quo, and disengagement/resistance (autocratic belief-behaviors) as "armored leadership"[29] by Brené Brown, PhD, "X-Theory" by Douglas McGregor, PhD, "carpenters"[30] by Alison Gopnik, D. Phil, and "self-serving power"[31] by Dacher Keltner, PhD.

And the Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© describes the fundamental link between an unconscious democratic or autocratic belief, the democratic or autocratic feelings, thoughts, and behaviors that cascade from this unconscious belief, and the resulting problem-solving versus status-quo that result from these belief-behavior cascades.

There is an evolutionary advantage of establishing a hierarchy as well as a fundamental flaw

The Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© uncovers the connection between the improved ability to solve survival and quality-of-life problems (effective problem-solving and innovation) that result from the formation of a Democratic hierarchy© and the incubation of unconscious bias (knowledge gaps) that occurs when the allocation and control of the resources for learning are sequestered from subordinates in an Autocratic hierarchy©.

- The moving parts of the framework (variables, entities, and how they interact).

Applications and Scope

edit

The Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© was conceived and described as a response to "the reality that, today, the nation still has not reached a time when recognition of and protection for core civil rights promises is the norm for all Americans," 2019 Statutory Enforcement Report from the US Commission on Civil Rights[32]. The Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© elucidates where unconscious bias occurs in human thinking, why it is so difficult for supervisors to recognize, and how supervisors can learn to overcome unconscious bias to transform educational, business, political, and social hierarchies to become true Democratic hierarchies©, to improve their function/sustainability and to improve the health and well-being of those upon whom hierarchies are founded.

- What the framework is used to predict or analyze. - Real-world examples or case studies where it is applied.

History and Development

edit

- Origins and evolution of the concept - Notable scientists who contributed to its development

Reception, Criticism, and Impact

edit

Cameron Anderson, PhD, UC Berkeley Haas School of Business faculty and Lorraine Tyson Mitchell Chair in Leadership and Communication II, responded to the sharing of the article, Learning in Humans versus Hierarchies, with "Thanks so much for sending this! I am running around but wanted to at least respond briefly to say “hear hear”! Everything you say I agree with wholeheartedly and I think you put many of those point perfectly. When I teach my next session it would be great to point the physicians to your manuscript if you don’t mind," (Cameron Anderson, personal communication, January 12, 2020).

Shannon Connolly MD FAAFP, California Academy of Family Physicians 2025 Family Physician of the Year and Past-President of the California Academy of Family Physicians, responded to the sharing of the article, Learning in Humans versus Hierarchies, with "Dr Emberton, I read your article with great interest, thank you for scholarly leadership in this very important area. I've sent it to our executive leadership team for group discussion at our next meeting as it gets at the crux of many of the conversations we have been having about how to improve our workplace culture and stimulate innovation," (Shannon Connolly, personal communication, January 10, 2020). "Your article is creating quite a stir in my organization. My COO set up a "journal club" for our clinic managers to also use it as a launching point for discussion," (Shannon Connolly, personal communication, January 13, 2020).

The UCSF Department of Family & Community Medicine Student Education Team, Margo Vener, MD, MPH, Erica Brode, MD, Betsy Wan, MD, Irina Worthey MA, and Roy Johnston MA, presented the UCSF FCM Excellence in Student Teaching Award to Mihal Emberton, MD, MPH, MS, based on her implementation of a Democratic Belief-Behavior System© as described in the award nomination from one of her medical students:

"Dr. Emberton has been a huge inspiration to me this past year, not only because of her compassionate care and wonderful manner with patients and students, but mostly because of her philosophy of teaching. She has a wonderfully refreshing avant-garde approach to teaching that places the student at the center of her/his own assessment. She built our FCM curriculum around our ability to LEARN rather than our ability to work. If we felt we were better suited by seeing higher volume of patients one day, so be it. If we felt we were better suited by seeing one or two and thoroughly researching and working on our clinical thinking and note-writing, that was what the day became. It was so refreshing to feel in control of my own learning, and made me an active participant in my self-evaluation.

What signals most potently to me that she was a successful teacher is that I felt that this was my most productive clerkship of the year. By this I mean that the skills she spent endless hours supporting me to hone (such as writing notes, presenting succinctly in front of patients, performing focused PE, etc) she made applicable to all clerkships, to all sites, etc. Whereas the knowledge I gained in other clerkships was very useful, it was always and only practical to that clerkship alone, leaving me with little theory or true understanding of the purpose of (for example), the ROS vs HPI, the relevance of particular physical exam maneuvers, etc. All in all, I'll remember Dr. Emberton forever as one of the most enthusiastic, genuinely invested, reliable, and kindest doctors who contributed to my training," (Margo Vener, Vice Chair of Education of the Department of Family and Community Medicine, personal communication, May 9, 2019).

David Bazzo, MD, Past-President of the California Academy of Family Physicians, championed the Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© for the 2021 American Academy of Family Physicians Public Health Award: "The California Chapter (CAFP) offers enthusiastic support for Dr. Mihal Emberton for the 2021 AAFP Public Health Award. Dr. Emberton has been dedicated to addressing some of our most pressing public health issues related to racism, bias and burnout for more than 25 years. Her commitment goes beyond addressing the patient care implications of these issues, to unraveling the underpinnings of human learning and social justice. Dr. Emberton’s work includes developing a Belief-Behavior Systems Archetype framework. This groundbreaking work seeks to reconcile multidisciplinary theories and insights into a unifying paradigm which explains how socialization evolved into the patterns that we recognize today. This work has implications for health policy, medical education and physician burnout. Through this work, Dr. Emberton has provided leadership in addressing health equity and beginning to address the intractable public health crisis of racism and bias," (CAFP letter to AAFP, May 14, 2021).

Jeff Ritterman, MD, Board of Directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility, championed the Belief-Behavior Systems archetype© for the 2021 BioInnovation Institute and Science Prize for Innovation:

"I am a colleague and admirer of Dr. Emberton’s work which is prodigious and breaks new ground. It is rare that one is treated to a new paradigm which alters one’s thinking in such a profound way. Such has been my experience with Dr. Emberton’s Belief-Behavior Systems Archetype. Her articulation of the autocratic and democratic mindsets has deep and widespread applicability. In the medical field, it helps us understand physician burnout, medical racism, problems with patient-physician communication, and difficulties in physician education and supervision. The paradigm also has broad applicability to the world of business, politics, policing and more. Its widespread adoption could help us solve so many of today’s most pressing problems.

In medicine, employee burnout, racism, and policing have all been identified as public health crises not only in this country, but globally. Dr. Emberton’s paradigm gives us the tools to address these crises with a new understanding. If applied to business and politics, the paradigm could result in a more equal, just, and fairer society. Clearly, Dr. Emberton’s contributions have gone far beyond her patient care and teaching responsibilities.

The research and deep thinking required to develop this paradigm has required many hours of difficult effort. Like most groundbreaking research there are some who do not want to abandon the status quo for the new understanding. Dr. Emberton has had to overcome detractors and even attacks. Her deep commitment to social justice and her passion for this work has carried her through and thankfully for all of us she has prevailed.

Dr. Emberton’s Belief-Behavior Systems Archetype is already available to the public through the open-source, peer reviewed Permanente Journal and Mihal is actively engaging her community by volunteering to share her discovery freely with businesses, educational institutions, law enforcement agencies and legislative representatives. Additionally, she created a wonderful website, mihalemberton.org, to engage more of the public in a dialogue around understanding and implementing this new framework with the laudable goal of eradicating burnout, racism and discrimination and promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion. Mihal’s character and leadership continue to be exemplary, and her monumental discovery will fundamentally change our hierarchies and social policies to create a more democratic and humane global society.

I am truly honored to know Mihal and to work alongside her toward our shared goals of justice. By considering Mihal as a recipient for this award, you are also gallantly contributing to the intellectual collaboration and promulgation of her groundbreaking discovery," (Jeff Ritterman letter to the Editors of Science, September 8, 2021).


- How the scientific community views the framework - Any controversies, limitations, or competing frameworks

References

edit

- High-quality, peer-reviewed sources, academic textbooks, and primary literature

  1. ↑ Greenleaf, Robert (1973). "The servant as leader". Internet Archive. Retrieved 31 May 2026.
  2. ↑ McGregor, Douglas (April 9, 1957). "The human side of enterprise" (PDF). Adventure in Thought and Action, Proceedings of the Fifth Anni- versary Convocation of the School of In- dustrial Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Retrieved 31 May 2026.
  3. ↑ Schwaber, Ken (1997). "SCRUM Development Process" (PDF). doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0947-1_11. Retrieved 31 May 2026.
  4. ↑ Butcher and Atkinson, David and Sally (2000). "The bottom-up principle". Management Review. 89 (1): 48-53. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  5. ↑ Rigby, Sutherland, and Takeuchi, Darrell, Jeff, and Hirotaka (April 20, 2016). "The Secret History of Agile Innovation". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 16 October 2019.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ Cable, Dan (April 23, 2018). "How Humble Leadership Really Works". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  7. ↑ Liker and Convis (2012). The Toyota Way to lean leadership, achieving and sustaining excellence through leadership development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
  8. ↑ Keltner, Dacher (2016). The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence. New York: Penguin Press.
  9. ↑ Brown, Brené (2018). Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts. New York: Random House.
  10. ↑ Edmondson, Amy (June 1999). "Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams" (PDF). Administrative Science Quarterly. 44 (2). Retrieved 31 May 2026.
  11. ↑ Merrill and Reid (1981). Personal Styles & Effective Performance. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  12. ↑ Myers (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.
  13. ↑ Kluger and Van Dijk (December 2010). "Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative". Med Educ. 44 (12): 1166–74.
  14. ↑ Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  15. ↑ American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
  16. ↑ Salovey and Mayer, Peter and John (March 1, 1990). "Emotional intelligence". Imagination, Cognition, and Personality. 9 (3). doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)
  17. ↑ Gopnik, Alison (2016). The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  18. ↑ Montessori, Maria (1909 (translated 1964)). The Montessori Method: Scientific Pedagogy as Applied to Child Education in "The Children's Houses". New York: Translated by Anne E. George, Schocken Books. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ↑ Dweck, Carol (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
  20. ↑ World Health Organization (May 28, 2019). "Burn-out an "occupational phenomenon": International Classification of Diseases". World Health Organization. Retrieved 31 May 2026.
  21. ↑ Barnett, Randy (July 1977). "Restitution: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice". Ethics. 87 (4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/292043. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)
  22. ↑ Merrill and Reid, David W. and Roger H. (1999). Personal Styles and Effective Performance: Make Your Style Work for You (17 ed.). London: CRC Press.
  23. ↑ Gopnik, Alison (2016). The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  24. ↑ Keltner, Dacher (2016). The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence. New York: Penguin Press.
  25. ↑ Brown, Brené (2018). Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts. New York: Random House.
  26. ↑ Brown, Brené (2018). Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts. New York: Random House.
  27. ↑ Gopnik, Alison (2016). The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  28. ↑ Keltner, Dacher (2016). The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence. New York: Penguin Press.
  29. ↑ Brown, Brené (2018). Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts. New York: Random House.
  30. ↑ Gopnik, Alison (2016). The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  31. ↑ Keltner, Dacher (2016). The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence. New York: Penguin Press.
  32. ↑ "2019 Statutory Enforcement Report: Are Rights a Reality? Evaluating Federal Civil Rights Enforcement" (PDF). www.usccr.gov. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved 14 June 2026.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mihal.emberton/sandbox/Belief-Behavior_Systems_archetype&oldid=1359388270"