An archetypal foundation of the culture of making managerial decision

Naplyokov Yuriy Vasilievich

UDC: 35.077

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32689/2617-2224-2019-18-3-298-309

Naplyokov Yuriy Vasilievich,

Master of Strategic Sciences, Master of Military Art and Science, senior lecturer of the department of training of peacekeeping personnel, National Defense University of Ukraine named after Ivan Chernyakhovsky, Colonel, postgraduate student of the Department of Management and Administration of Kharkov National University of Municipal Economy named after O. M. Beketov, 03049, Kyiv, Po-vitroflotsky prospect, 28, tel.: 098 2421353, e-mail: designyvn@gmail.com

ORCID: 0000-0002-0343-8337 Напльоков Юрш Васильович, магктр стратегiчних наук, магктр вш-ськових наук та вшськового мистецтва, старший викладач кафедри тдготовки миротворчого персоналу, Нащональний утверситет оборони Украти ím. 1вана Черня-ховського, полковник, асшрант кафедри менеджменту i адмШстрування Харкiвського нащонального утверситету мкького господарства ím. О. М. Бекетова, 03049, м. Кигв, Повтрофлотський проспект, 28, тел.: 098 2421353, е-mail: designyvn@gmail.com

ORCID: 0000-0002-0343-8337

Наплёков Юрий Васильевич,

магистр стратегических наук, магистр военных наук и военного искусства, старший преподаватель кафедры подготовки миротворческого персонала, Национальный университет обороны Украины им. Ивана Черняховского, полковник, аспирант кафедры менеджмента и администрирования Харьковского национального университета городского хозяйства им. А. Н. Бекетова, 03049, г. Киев, Воздухофлотский проспект, 28, тел.: 0982421353, е-mail: designyvn@gmail.com

ORCID: 0000-0002-0343-8337

AN ARCHETYPAL FOUNDATiON OF THE CULTURE OF MAKiNG MANAGERiAL

DECiSiON

Abstract. Governing of different systems such as countries, regions, and organizations is a complex process that requires a comprehensive approach to decision-making (DM). A dynamic environment complicates DM because of big data, delay in DM, human features, unpredictability of second and third order effects, and other reasons. To deal with the problem of governing in this environment requires applying of a special DM approach.

This approach has to help to visualize, analyze and understand the system, the environment, and their mutual influences. Different philosophies of thinking can create so called DM cultures that are distinguishable, effective, and fundamental. A nature of a DM culture can have an archetypal foundation because it has been formed for centuries and remain relatively stable in time. A DM culture provides comprehensive approach to problem-solving based on a certain unconscious visualization of the desired future and deep understanding of the problem in the given environment.

For public governing it is possible to use DM cultures in order to understand different parts of the system and solve complex problems properly. A DM culture can take in account all elements of the system, the environment, their mutual influence and dynamic of change. Applying of a DM culture can improve sensitiveness and "Emotional Intelligence" of the system. Archetypal foundation of a DM culture provides universal, balanced approach to understand and solve problems and facilitates effective governing. Difficulties to analyze a big data in contemporary environment complicate the decision making process (DMP) and forces making mistakes. The DM culture, as an archetype, encompasses all possible effects in analysis because it is already rooted in the DM framework. This quality can provide effective governing in the changeable and dynamic environment and facilitate better understanding of the competitors. Also, it can facilitate determining a level of delegation of power between the state authority and the civil society for better DMP in given conditions.

Keywords: decision-making, culture, thinking, archetype, public governing, system, environment, equilibrium, effectiveness.

АРХЕТИПНЕ П1ДГРУНТЯ КУЛЬТУРИ ПРИЙНЯТТЯ УПРАВЛ1НСЬКОГО Р1ШЕННЯ

Анотащя. Управлшня рiзними системами, такими як краши, регюни та оргашзацп, е складним процесом, який вимагае комплексного шдходу до прийняття ршень (ПР). Динамiчне середовище ускладнюе ПР через вели-ку кшьисть даних, затримку в ПР, людськ особливосп, непередбачувашсть ефекпв другого i третього порядку та iншi причини. Для виршення про-блеми управлшня в цьому середовишд необхщно застосовувати спещальний шдхщ до ПР.

Цей шдхщ повинен допомогти вiзуалiзувати, аналiзувати i розум™ систему, середовище та ix взаемш впливи. Рiзнi фшософи мислення можуть створити так зваш культури ПР, яю е помггними, ефективними i фундамен-тальними. Природа культури ПР може мати архетипову основу, осюльки во-на формуеться столтями i залишаеться ввдносно стабшьною в чась

Культура ПР забезпечуе комплексний шдхщ щодо виршення проблем на основi певноi неусвiдомленоi вiзуалiзацii бажаного майбутнього i глибокого розумшня проблеми в цьому середовищь

Для державного управлiння можна використовувати культури ПР, щоб зрозум™ рiзнi частини системи i правильно виршити складнi проблеми.

Культура ПР може враховувати вс елементи системи, середовище, !х взаем-ний вплив i динамiку змiн. Застосування культури ПР може полiпшити чут-ливiсть i "емоцшний штелект" системи. Архетипне шдГрунтя культури ПР забезпечуе ушверсальний, збалансований пiдхiд до розумшня i вирiшення проблем та сприяе ефективному управлшню.

Труднощi аналiзу великих даних в сучаснш обстановцi ускладнюють про-цес прийняття рiшення (ППР) i спонукае до помилок. Культура ПР, як архетип, охоплюе вс можливi наслiдки в аналiзi, оскiльки це вже впроваджено в структуру ПР. Така яисть може забезпечити ефективне управлшня в мш-ливому i динамiчному середовищi i сприяти кращому розумiнню конкурен-пв. Крiм того, це може сприяти визначенню рiвня делегування повноважень мiж державною владою та громадянським сусшльством для кращого ППР в даних умовах.

Ключовi слова: прийняття ршень, культура, мислення, архетип, держав-не управлшня, система, середовище, рiвновага, ефектившсть.

АРХЕТИПИЧЕСКАЯ ОСНОВА КУЛЬТУРЫ ПРИНЯТИЯ УПРАВЛЕНЧЕСКИХ РЕШЕНИЙ

Аннотация. Управление различными системами, такими как страны, регионы и организации, является сложным процессом, который требует комплексного подхода к принятию решений (ПР). Динамическая среда усложняет ПР из-за большого количества данных, задержки в ПР, человеческих особенностей, непредсказуемости эффектов второго и третьего порядка и других причин. Для решения проблемы управления в этой среде требуется применение особого подхода в ПР.

Этот подход должен помочь визуализировать, проанализировать и понять систему, среду и их взаимное влияние. Различные философии мышления могут создавать так называемые культуры ПР, которые различимы, эффективны и фундаментальны. Природа культуры ПР может иметь архе-типическую основу, потому что она формировалась веками и остается относительно стабильной во времени.

Культура ПР обеспечивает комплексный подход к решению проблем, основанных на определенной неосознанной визуализации желаемого будущего и глубоком понимании проблемы в данной среде.

Для государственного управления можно использовать культуры ПР, чтобы понять различные составные системы и правильно решать сложные проблемы. Культура ПР может учитывать все элементы системы, среду, их взаимное влияние и динамику изменений. Применение культуры ПР может улучшить чувствительность и "эмоциональный интеллект" системы. Архе-типическая основа культуры ПР обеспечивает универсальный, сбалансированный подход к пониманию и решению проблем и способствует эффективному управлению.

Трудности анализа больших данных в современной среде усложняют процесс принятия решений (ПР) и призводят к совершению ошибок. Куль-

тура ПР, как архетип, охватывает все возможные эффекты анализа, потому что это уже внедрено в структуру ПР. Это качество может обеспечить эффективное управление в изменчивой и динамичной среде и способствовать лучшему пониманию конкурентов. Кроме того, это может способствовать определению уровня делегирования полномочий между государственной властью и гражданским обществом для улучшения ППР в данных условиях.

Ключевые слова: принятие решений, культура, мышление, архетип, государственное управление, система, среда, равновесие, эффективность.

Target setting. The process of public governing goes through the DMP that includes analysis with gathering of data, developing information and knowledge, and establishing of understanding. All this activities requires proper thinking. There are different philosophies of thinking that seriously influence DM, direct us on how to see, analyze and solve the problem. These philosophies introduce the notion of a DM culture that can have an archetypal foundation. This notion can be critical for successful public governing. Proper applying of a DM culture can help to identify and solve a problem in the context of comprehensive understanding of the system and the complex and dynamic environment.

Analysis of the recent research and publications. DM is introduced as a logical process of problem solving. Different researchers highlight the importance of influence national culture, individual and collective characteristics on DM and judgment. The culture defines perceptions of risk and provides a certain features "orienting disposition" [1] or a "collective programming of the mind" [2]. Cultural differences in judgments and choice depend on people's values [3]. Cross-cultural differences influence on the DM. There are diffe-

rent DM strategies [4] with a distinction between analytic strategies and intuitive or holistic strategies [5]. Thus, different authors describe influence of national culture on DM, but they do not introduce the notion of DM as a comprehensive approach for the DMP in a certain environment.

Also other authors see a DM culture as a certain type of ethical behavior that is connected with a leadership style and organizational features. However, DM culture is an archetypal comprehensive approach to analyze the problem based on understanding of the system and the environment in their connections and mutual influence now and in the future.

The purpose of the article is to introduce the notion of DM culture based on archetypal foundation as a practical approach to govern the system in the complex and dynamic environment.

The statement of basic materials. The author proposes to use the notion of "DM Culture" as a philosophy of thinking in a certain environment. It is not national or organizational cultures it is a culture to see us, the system, the environment, and the problem as a whole and make decisions based on an analysis with taking in account future possible effects from our decisions. The DM culture encompasses features

of decision-makers, the environment, a possible opposing side, and probable future second and third order effects. Selection of a suitable DM culture may facilitate making a right decision. Knowledge and application of different DM cultures can help to understand a situation better and establish a common language between competitive sides.

There are different philosophical schools of thought that have existed for millenniums without serious changes. A system structure has physical and mental parts. The DM culture presents a mental part that is based on human believes, values, perceptions, and experience. Certain geopolitical environments create diverse DM philosophies or cultures. For instance, philosophers and strategists of China, India, Western Europe, and Japan such as Sun Tzu [6], Kautilya [7], Clausewitz [8], Miyamoto Musashi [9] wrote remarkable DM strategies-philosophies. They introduced unique DM cultures as different approaches of problem-solving. For instance, Sun Tzu proposes adaptation as a natural way to problem solving and waiting without a direct contact with adversary (focus on the future and possible effects), Kautilya — deception and play with options (flexibility, and change today, right now), Clausewitz — shaping of the environment (a direct approach), and Musashi — survivability and speed of reaction (synergy effect: to be in right time in a right place).

Description above can verify that DM cultures are different. It happens because beliefs, values, principles, a way of thinking, and emotions have been formed for centuries based on features of climate, geographical conditions,

geopolitical location, cooperation with neighbor nations and religions. They are very stable in comparison with our habits. However, changes, such as new technologies, communication, and globalization may force revising them as a part of system adaptation to the environment. It is a complicated and psychologically painful process.

Explanation of the human psyche as a system of processing of external and internal information can prove archetypal foundation of the DM culture. The human psyche has individual and collective forms that are divided into conscious and unconscious. The collective unconscious is divided into instincts and archetypes [11]. It is possible to suppose that the DM culture is a collective unconscious archetype. It may be formed based on human interior and exterior involvements to analyze the system and the environment in their connection.

There are two natural types of people — extraverts and introverts [12]. It is possible to assume that the DM team may have both extraverts and introverts in order to analyze the system and the environment deeply. On one hand, it is possible to understand the system under influence of the environment from the filter of the system. On the other hand, it is critical to see the environment and the system from "the hill" ("to stay on the balcony"), evaluate and visualize the environment and the future. Therefore, application of a set of different exterior and interior tools in thinking, feeling, intuitive and sensitive human domains can form a certain DM culture that is the most suitable in the given environment. Applying of different DM cultures can be useful because

they can reflect a proper combination of extroversion and introversion.

Jung identified several types of perception of information: logical and emotional, sensory (emphasis on the organs of perception) and intuitive (emphasis on imagination) [12]. In other words, mental attitudes show how we interact with the world around us and where we direct energy. An archetype can present a certain balanced approach for human group development through a proposed set of unconscious thinking, feeling, intuitive, and sensitive understanding of the interior and exterior world in order to survive.

Also, the archetypal foundation of human consciousness can be explained by inseparability in the consciousness of emotional and cognitive processes that only in their unity reflect the real world in the mental world of the subject: "emotional processes ... cannot be opposed to cognitive processes as external, excluding opposites of each other" [13, p. 386]. Also, a person "experiences what happens to him and accomplished by him; he relates in a certain way to what surrounds him" [13, p. 513]. Collective emotions and shared collective emotions could reflect the DM culture.

In addition, cognitive psychology has developed quite complicated models to describe human decision making based on selection of "the one alternative that has both a high subjective value and a high likelihood of success" [14, p. 3]. However, different decisions do not fit such simple models. Also, today decisions are made in conditions of complexity, possible multiple goals, dynamics, opaqueness (the DM situation is not obvious) [14, p. 4].

In these conditions applying of an appropriate DM culture to the DMP can generate right decisions. An archetypal foundation of the DM culture may explain the reason to use a certain DM culture in a certain environment. However, applying of one DM culture can be not effective in certain conditions and, also, analysis of the OPFOR requires understanding of their thinking and a DM approach. Thus, it is about a process of understanding of both sides (own and the opposing side). Literally, knowledge of the problem and understanding of two sides can solve the problem easier, because the problem will be obvious and clear. It can facilitate developing a way to solve the problem through increased communication.

Analysis is based on thinking and goes through the process of making of assumptions that have to be proved by facts, deduction and conclusions (see fig. 1). To apply an appropriate DM culture requires knowledge of potential opposing sides and their philosophy of thinking, understanding of approaches for own analysis. That is why decision-makers have to apply critical, creative and system thinking in order to establish mutual understanding and avoid anchoring from different DM cultures.

Everyone can see a problem from different angles based on perception, understanding of the desired end state and criteria for success. The archetypal foundation of the DM culture can help to visualize possible reaction of a certain side of the conflict and explain how to deal with this side from own position.

A primary task of the DM is to maintain equilibrium between the system and the environment or create a new

Fig. 1. The process of analysis

Source: created by the author

one and achieve the goal as a realization of ambitions of the system as a result of human development and growth. There are two ways to do this: to shape the environment by the system or/and adapt the system to the environment. DM cultures are based on these two approaches to solve the problem. Adaptation may be a primary approach in the DM based on an appropriate DM Culture. But also it depends on the situation and balance of ends, ways, and means in the framework of possible permissible risk.

Applying the DM culture can minimize mistakes in the DMP and satisfy two main conditions of success: 1) ends, ways and means with risk have to in balance; 2) the system has to be in equilibrium with the environment. There are some reasons of mistakes in the DMP: 1) misunderstanding of the environment, the system, their interests and possible mutual influence (second and third order effects); 2) wrong analysis, judgment because of lack of critical, creative, and systems thinking; human biases, prejudices, and traps; 3) not appropriate leadership that does

not provide a proper organizational culture; openness of the system (not a learning organization); 4) misinterpretation of the philosophy of adaptation and its intersections with the national culture, human perceptions and experience; 5) misunderstanding of the need to revise mental models, the nature of Risk (wrong risk evaluation) and fear of change; and 6) misunderstanding of the DM culture, a law ability to analyze, visualize reactions of own and opposing sides properly [10, p. 15].

Development of the system is a continuous process of problem-solving with a certain system structure. Change of the environment can force changing the system structure (physical and mental parts). It is time when the DM culture can be updated. But the DM culture supports the environment and the system in their connection. Change can happen, but inside of this notional surface that has to be balanced with other surfaces. It is a system in the system. It is a connected combination of events and elements based on a certain energetic potential that can be relatively constant. The archetype

presents this potential and describes it. Even after reshaping the system returns back on the previous position, but on a quality new level of development. It can happen until the system does not cross a bifurcation point. After system point the system changes structure and its functionality supported by another archetype.

In order to understand mental, social and physical location in a 3D vision format, a person has to build a model of his/her coexistence with others in order to survive based on his/her natural abilities. Applying of archetypal foundations of personality such as extroversion, introversion, thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensitiveness he/she can identify an approach to conduct critical and creative thinking (fig. 2) in order to make a decision.

Therefore, a DM culture is a certain individual (for any system - a person, a group, a region, a nation) approach to lean the environment, the system,

the opposing side in the context of a Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning (fig. 2). An individual approach means a DM culture can identify in which degree is better to apply a certain type of thinking and how is better to see the problem and the way to solve it. The DM culture proposes this proportion based on experience as the best combination for a certain situation. It is more than just pure analysis it is a philosophy of thinking that can provide understanding of future possible second and third order effects.

DM cultures can help to secure a system from possible destruction based on the idea that system archetypes form the set of tools that describe patterns of behavior in systems. They are Limits to Growth (or Limits to Success); Shifting the Burden; Drifting or Eroding Goals; Escalation; Success to the Successful; Tragedy of the Commons; Fixes that Fail; Growth and Underinvestment; Accidental Adver-

Creative Thinking

Critical Thinking

Evaluation

Synthesis

Analysis

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

Judge based on evidence (appraise, conclude, justify, value)

Rearrange ideas into a new whole (create, assemble, compose, design)

Break down objects into similar parts and analyze (compare, contrast, distinguish)

Apply to actual situations (apply, choose, demonstrate, produce, use)

Grasp the meaning (comprehend, define, discuss, explain)

Recall data or information (define, describe, identify, list, recall)

Fig. 2. A Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning

Source: Taxomony of educational objectives [15, p. 18]

saries; and Attractiveness Principle [16].

It is possible to assume that different conditions force applying different approaches in order to follow with relatively stable principles of system development. The DM culture can be different even for regions of one country. Therefore, it forms a certain set of approaches or philosophies how to act and respect principles above in order to make decisions that allow surviving of the system in the given conditions. Thus, it is important to understand the need to apply a required DM culture in certain conditions for better DM.

The DM culture can be a set of approaches and tools based on longtime experience that can be the most suitable for the DMP in the given environment. Combination of different DM cultures can be also important to be goal-oriented and adaptable simultaneously in order to achieve the end-state. In spite of different values and end-states it is possible to apply DM cultures properly and get a positive result in problem-solving by minimum means and the simplest ways. They have a purpose to provide maximum possible system effectiveness in existed conditions.

Coincidence of fluctuations of the system and the environment can be seen as the highest level of reaction between each other. This process produces so called resonance. It means mutual feeling and understanding between the system and the environment fully based on open and non-interrupted feedback and communication. It can happen with a person's perception, when he isolates from the general mass of various information that which he is tuned to, which he demands.

Applying of the DM culture can help to establish a required understanding between the system and the environment. The DM culture is appropriate when generates a resonance in the DMP, for instance, between the state authority (SA) and the civil society (CS) to produce a right decision in order to solve a problem. It can be a combination of involvement in analyzing extroversive and introversive human features. It is a kind of the use of human nature in the given conditions in the best way — to use proper combination of convergent (critical thinking) and divergent (creative thinking) processes in thinking, external visualization or sensitive interior feeling to analyze a situation. DM culture reflects relationships between the SA and the CS and proposes a proper way for problem-solving.

Resonance in thinking can be a key to apply a certain DM culture. For public governing it is critical because the DM culture may identify a level of democracy, delegation of authority between the SA and the CS and the wish of the CS to take this power. For instance, in a certain conditions (interior and exterior) public governing can have a certain model that is the most suitable to solve the problem based on archetypal principles of the DM culture that can be only improved, but not drastically changed during a period of time because of technological development, innovations, and globalization.

Resonance in public governing can be seen as the highest level of understanding, trust and confidence in each other between the SA and the CS. It can also facilitate achieving a synergy effect. To establish this condition means

to lead the system effectively and provide balance of the system through establishing equilibrium between the system and the environment. This process has to be reflected in the cycle process of system development that includes DMP, implementation of decisions, and transition of the system to a new level of development.

DM cultures can be connected with archetypes of social life such as "Democracy" that define a proportion of delegation of state power between the SA and the CS. Applying of DM culture can provide proper leadership between the SA and the CS. It can be based on analysis of human behavior, constant feedback, and prediction of their expectations. The task of the SA is to lead the CS through observation of human behavior. Public governing has to develop knowledge and understanding of this behavior and be able to change own goals in order to establish proper relationships between the SA and the CS and continue developing of the system.

It is a game between the SA and the CS. The winner is who can control this move. The winner forever who goes together with others in order to satisfy their current and near future wish in order to get and maintain own interests. It means to have a higher level of "emotional intelligence" than others. This approach can be a philosophy of public governing because it can allow achieving a goal by using a motivated human movement based on synergy effect. In leadership, it can provide unity and inspiration to go the SA and the CS together. The authority can use only at-tractors to correct the flow of human move. It is a smart leadership when the SA just controls the flow of human

mind and keeps going according to the environmental change and feedback from the CS. This participative leadership style of the SA can be suitable to build a learning organization based on an appropriate DM culture.

Applying of different DM cultures can improve public governing because they create a comprehensive approach to solve a problem in the given conditions. Practically DM cultures can help problem-solving in the best way in proper conditions. The leadership task is to identify when, where, and how to apply a certain DM culture.

Also, an appropriate DM culture can establish mutual understanding between sides of the conflict. Even one system can have different parts because of geopolitical locations and cultural features. It gives an opportunity to solve a problem by using of "soft power". In the complex and dynamic conditions applying of different DM approaches can solve a problem for both sides of the system and secure national interests simultaneously.

Conclusions. To summarize, the DM culture, as a philosophy of thinking, has an archetypal foundation. It can be applied for suitable conditions based on balance among ends, ways, and means in the framework of possible permissible risk. Applying of a certain DM culture can improve the DMP because it provides a comprehensive approach to a problem-solving. Knowledge of DM cultures can help to understand the opposing side better and propose a way of mutual adaptation. Thus, DM cultures have a practical value in the DMP. Also, archetypal nature of DM cultures allows predicting possible reaction and a way of thinking of an opposing side

in order to conduct DM and planning properly to achieve a desired goal.

REFERENCES -

1. Dake K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of Contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, p. 61-82.

2. Hofstede G. (1984). Culture's Consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

3. Triandis C. Harry. (2006). Cultural Intelligence in Organizations. "Group and Organizational Management," Vol. 31, p. 20-26. https://www.research-gate.net/publication/247738378_ Cultural_Intelligence_in_Organiza-tions

4. Yates J. F. & Lee J. W. (1996). Chinese decision making. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

5. Kahneman Daniel (2003). A Perspective on Judgment and Choice. Mapping Bounded Rationality. American Psychologist. Vol. 58. № 9, p. 697-720.

6. Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Translated by Lionel Giles in 1910. Published in 2000. Allandale Online Publishing: Leicester LE2 1WS, England.

7. Kautilya. Arthashastra. Translated by R. Shamasastry in 1915. Bangalore: Government Press. https://www. google.com.ua/search?ei=yOugXMq RDqnorgTIspL4DQ&q=the+arthasha stra+of+kautilya&oq=the+Arthas%D0 %B1stra+of+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i19l2.1 31455.131455..134851...0.0..0.111.111.0 j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.evaHPA8JbRk

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

8. Clausewitz Carl Von. On war, ed. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989).

9. Musashi Miyamoto. A book of five rings. Trans. Victor Harris (New York: The Overlook Press, 1974).

10. Naplyokov Yuriy (2017). NATO Operational Planning process. Kyiv: NDU.

11. Jung Carl G. (1969) Aion: Researches into the phenomenology of the Self. Vol. 9.2 of the Collected works of C. Jung. Trans. R.F.C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

12. Jung Carl G. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

13. Рубинштейн С. Л. (2002). Основы общей психологии (1940). Изд-во: Питер.

14. Strohschneider S. (2002). Cultural Factors in Complex Decision Making. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4 (1). hps://doi. org/10.9707/2307-0919.1030

15. Bloom Benjamin S. (1956). Taxomony of educational objectives. Longmans: Edwards Bros. Michigan.

16. Braun William (2002). "The system Archetypes." Retrieved from: https:// www.google.com.ua /#q=The+Syste m+Archetypes+by+william+braun&* &spf=1

CnUCOK BMKOPMCTAHMX flXEPE^ -

1. Dake K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of Contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, p. 61-82.

2. Hofstede G. (1984). Culture's Consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

3. Triandis C. Harry. (2006). Cultural Intelligence in Organizations. "Group and Organizational Management," Vol. 31, p. 20-26. https://www.research-gate.net/publication/247738378_ Cultural_Intelligence_in_Organiza-tions

4. Yates J. F. & Lee J. W. (1996). Chinese decision making. In M. H. Bond (Ed.),

Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.