Gestalt Science / Action Research
Temperament, Defensive Action, Adaptive Action, and Generative Action
A Gestalt Science / Action Research Working Guide
October 22, 2026 — Draft 1.0
Integrating Randy Cima’s Temperament Guide, Keirsey Temperament Theory, Jay Haley’s strategic and relational perspective, Milton Erickson’s therapeutic approach, and the Action Research Ontology.
1. Introduction: Understanding Adults Through Action
Adults reveal their character through what they do, what they avoid, what they defend, what they pursue, and what they accomplish.
Yet observing an adult’s behavior is not the same as understanding that person’s temperament, motives, or circumstances.
A person who argues with a supervisor might be defending professional competence, protecting a colleague, resisting an unreasonable demand, seeking clarification, or avoiding responsibility. The visible behavior is an argument. Its meaning depends on the relationships, circumstances, history, and purpose of the action.
Randy Cima’s Cima Temperament Guide (October 2026 draft) begins with careful observation rather than premature interpretation. It proposes eleven observation windows through which recurring patterns of behavior may be recognized.
The Adult Range of Action Guide extends that principle. It incorporates Keirsey’s four Temperaments, the interactional perspectives of Jay Haley and Milton Erickson, and the Action Research distinction between defensive, adaptive, productive, and generative action.
The guiding proposition is:
Temperament helps explain how an adult tends to act. Circumstances help explain why that action occurs now. Character is revealed by how the adult moves among possible actions over time.
The purpose is not to assign a permanent personality label. It is to understand the adult’s changing repertoire of action.
2. The Spectrum: Eight Modes of Action
The foundation is the bidirectional Range of Action developed in Gestalt Science and Action Research.
Escape ↔ Defend ↔ Cope ↔ Adapt ↔ Engage ↔ Achieve ↔ Accomplish ↔ Generate
These are not eight personality types, eight developmental ages, or eight steps that must be completed in order.
They are eight distinguishable ways an adult may respond to a situation.
| Mode | Functional meaning | Ordinary adult expression |
|---|---|---|
| Escape | Leave, withdraw, avoid, or terminate participation | Leaving an argument, resigning, retreating |
| Defend | Protect a boundary, identity, position, or relationship | Justifying a decision, rejecting an accusation |
| Cope | Maintain functioning despite an unresolved difficulty | Continuing work under pressure |
| Adapt | Change behavior or strategy in response to circumstances | Learning a different method |
| Engage | Enter or renew purposeful participation | Joining a project, addressing a difficult relationship |
| Achieve | Reach a particular objective | Completing a degree, winning a contract |
| Accomplish | Produce a substantial, integrated result | Building a lasting organization or body of work |
| Generate | Create new possibilities, relationships, or capacities | Mentoring successors, developing a new institution |
The spectrum is bidirectional because circumstances change.
An adult may Generate for years, encounter betrayal or illness, shift toward Defend or Cope, recover through Adapt, and eventually resume productive engagement.
Movement toward Escape is not necessarily pathological. Escaping an abusive relationship may be exceptionally adaptive. Defending a legitimate boundary may be necessary to preserve one’s ability to Generate.
Equally, accomplishment is not automatically benevolent. A person may efficiently accomplish destructive goals.
The important consideration is not simply position on the spectrum, but the appropriateness, consequences, and reversibility of the person’s action.
A mature character has an appropriately flexible Range of Action.
3. Temperament: Four Orientations Toward Action
Cima’s guide describes four patterns—Star, Sphere, Square, and Cube—each with Social and Solitary forms.
For this adult synthesis, we propose the following working correspondence with Keirsey Temperaments. These are interpretive alignments, not a claim that the two models have been empirically established as equivalent.
| Cima form | Keirsey temperament | Characteristic concern | Preferred orientation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Star | Artisan | Freedom and opportunity | Acting and experiencing |
| Sphere | Idealist | Identity and relationships | Connecting and becoming |
| Square | Guardian | Responsibility and security | Maintaining and organizing |
| Cube | Rational | Knowledge and competence | Understanding and designing |
These concerns can influence both constructive and defensive actions.
An Artisan may improvise a brilliant solution or impulsively evade an obligation. An Idealist may restore a relationship or become trapped in resentment. A Guardian may preserve a valuable institution or rigidly protect a failing procedure. A Rational may solve a difficult problem or endlessly analyze it rather than act.
Temperament does not determine the position on the Range of Action.
Instead, it helps identify the characteristic form an action might take.
Social and Solitary Orientations
Cima’s distinction between Social and Solitary forms is useful for adults, provided we do not reduce it to a conventional extrovert–introvert classification.
A Social Artisan may generate opportunity by mobilizing a group. A Solitary Artisan may generate it through independent experimentation.
A Social Idealist may develop communities. A Solitary Idealist may cultivate enduring individual relationships or meaningful personal work.
A Social Guardian may organize institutions. A Solitary Guardian may maintain dependable systems and routines.
A Social Rational may construct explanations collaboratively. A Solitary Rational may develop a theory independently.
Both orientations can appear at every position on the action spectrum. Adults may also move between them with changing situations.
4. The Adult Observation Windows
Cima’s eleven windows provide a useful observational foundation. The adult version retains those subjects but adds responsibilities, commitments, relationships, and the Range of Action.
| Window | Adult focus | Central question |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Energy | Initiative and expenditure of effort | What activates this adult, and what sustains their participation? |
| 2. Recovery | Transitions, fatigue, and restoration | How does this adult recover after demanding experiences? |
| 3. Self-Directed Activity | Agency and personal initiative | What does this adult pursue without external direction? |
| 4. Joining Groups | Roles, affiliations, and participation | How does this adult enter and act within established groups? |
| 5. New Situations | Uncertainty and unfamiliar circumstances | What does this adult do when familiar expectations disappear? |
| 6. Excitement | Success, enthusiasm, and celebration | How does this adult express and use positive experiences? |
| 7. Independent Tasks | Responsibility and problem-solving | How does this adult work through difficulty independently? |
| 8. Shared Attention | Cooperation and common understanding | How does this adult participate when others share an objective? |
| 9. Choice-Making | Deliberation and commitment | How does this adult choose among competing possibilities? |
| 10. Conflict | Defense, negotiation, and repair | What does this adult protect or attempt to change when opposed? |
| 11. Rules and Routines | Institutions, authority, and obligation | How does this adult respond to established expectations? |
The important extension is that each observation window can reveal a transition between modes of action.
Consider Window 10, Conflict.
An adult initially Defends a decision, then Copes with continuing disagreement, Adapts the proposal, Engages with an opponent, and eventually Accomplishes a negotiated agreement.
Another adult might respond to the same disagreement by Defending repeatedly, withdrawing from discussions, and ultimately Escaping the organization.
Neither course should be explained solely by temperament. The observer must investigate what happened between successive actions.
5. The Four Temperaments Across the Range of Action
The following matrix provides illustrative tendencies rather than predictions. Each cell represents one possible expression of a temperament at a particular mode of action.
| Action | Artisan — Star | Idealist — Sphere | Guardian — Square | Rational — Cube |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Escape | Abrupt departure | Relational withdrawal | Retreat into routine | Intellectual detachment |
| Defend | Challenge or counterattack | Protect personal meaning | Invoke duty or rules | Challenge premises |
| Cope | Improvise a workaround | Seek reassurance | Maintain established practice | Analyze the difficulty |
| Adapt | Experiment with alternatives | Reinterpret relationships | Revise procedures | Reconstruct the model |
| Engage | Participate actively | Build connection | Assume responsibility | Investigate collaboratively |
| Achieve | Deliver a concrete result | Fulfill a meaningful goal | Meet an obligation | Solve a defined problem |
| Accomplish | Master a craft or enterprise | Establish an enduring relationship or contribution | Build a dependable institution | Produce a coherent system |
| Generate | Create fresh opportunities | Develop others’ potential | Establish lasting capacities | Create new knowledge or methods |
An important implication is that the same outward action may serve different functions.
A Guardian questioning management may be defending organizational reliability. A Rational questioning management may be examining a flawed premise. An Idealist may be defending relationships damaged by the decision. An Artisan may be resisting an unnecessary restriction on effective action.
But these are hypotheses to investigate, not explanations to assume.
6. Haley, Keirsey, Cima, and Erickson: Four Complementary Perspectives
The proposed integration uses four distinct intellectual contributions.
Cima: Observe before explaining. Record repeated actions, settings, changes, and exceptions. Distinguish what the adult actually did from what the observer believes the action meant.
Keirsey: Understand the temperament orientation. Examine whether the adult’s behavior reflects recurring concerns about freedom, meaning, responsibility, or competence, while allowing for individual variation.
Haley: Examine the relational structure of action. An apparent personal problem may be sustained by recurring interactions involving authority, status, obligations, alliances, disagreement, and reciprocal defenses.
Erickson: Discover how the pattern might change. Rather than simply opposing resistance, look for attainable changes in circumstances, communication, roles, or tasks that make a different action possible.
These perspectives complement one another, but they should not be confused. The proposed synthesis is an Action Research framework, not a treatment protocol attributed directly to Haley or Erickson.
Defensive Action as a Relational Process
Suppose an employee repeatedly rejects a manager’s suggestions.
One interpretation is that the employee has a resistant personality.
A Haley-inspired interpretation examines the recurring interaction:
Manager orders → Employee resists → Manager increases control → Employee intensifies resistance.
Each participant may believe they are responding reasonably to the other.
The relationship becomes a self-maintaining defensive pattern.
An Ericksonian or strategic alternative might change the interaction by offering the employee responsibility for designing a limited trial, rather than demanding immediate compliance.
This does not guarantee success. But it changes the conditions that previously made Defend the most available response.
The aim is not to overpower defensive action, but to change the circumstances in which that defense appears necessary.
7. A Worked Adult Example: Four Temperaments, One Circumstance
Imagine a department whose management unexpectedly announces a major reorganization.
The department’s experienced employees were not consulted.
The event itself is the same. The possible orientations and action paths differ.
Artisan — Freedom Under Constraint
The Artisan immediately searches for practical alternatives. If management blocks experimentation, the Artisan may become openly confrontational or disengage.
An effective change may be to provide a limited area of discretion: one team, a short trial, and an opportunity to demonstrate an alternative.
Possible transition: Defend → Adapt → Engage → Achieve
Idealist — Relationships Under Strain
The Idealist notices that coworkers feel excluded or betrayed. The first response may be to defend relationships and question management’s intentions.
The person may withdraw if efforts to restore trust repeatedly fail.
An effective change may be to create a credible opportunity for dialogue, acknowledgement, and shared responsibility.
Possible transition: Defend → Cope → Engage → Accomplish
Guardian — Stability Under Threat
The Guardian notices disrupted responsibilities, unclear procedures, and the possibility of institutional failure.
The initial response may be to insist on existing commitments and resist changes that seem poorly planned.
An effective change may be a transition plan specifying responsibilities, continuity requirements, and review dates.
Possible transition: Defend → Adapt → Achieve → Accomplish
Rational — Competence Under Challenge
The Rational notices unsupported assumptions and possible flaws in the proposed organizational design.
The initial response may be analytical criticism, sometimes interpreted by management as opposition.
An effective change may be to make the proposal testable: explicit assumptions, alternatives, evidence, and clear criteria for evaluating outcomes.
Possible transition: Defend → Engage → Achieve → Generate
The same reorganization can therefore yield four different expressions of defensive action.
The guide seeks to understand which observations support a particular interpretation, and which interventions actually improve the situation.
8. The Action Research Ontology
The existing ontology of Action Research provides a formal way to organize these observations:
AGENT → ACTION → ACTIVITY → SITUATION → CIRCUMSTANCES
For an adult event, the observer identifies:
- Agent: Who is acting, and in what role?
- Action: What observable behavior occurred?
- Activity: What larger undertaking does the action contribute to?
- Situation: What immediate relationships and conditions shaped the event?
- Circumstances: What wider obligations, pressures, history, and constraints were present?
The Adult Range of Action Guide adds three analytical dimensions:
Temperament orientation — Action mode — Temporal transition
A provisional event representation is:
AdultActionEvent(agent, action, activity, situation, circumstances, mode, time)
A transition between two events becomes:
ActionTransition(agent, mode_before, mode_after, changed_conditions)
These are conceptual ontology predicates, not yet a validated computational model.
Hierarchy-Guided Inference
Hierarchy-Guided Inference can support distinctions between observation, interpretation, and explanation.
- Deduction: Given established definitions, determine which more general action categories an observed event belongs to.
- Induction: Identify recurring patterns of action across several situations.
- Abduction: Propose a possible motive, defensive purpose, or relational mechanism that explains an observation.
- Retroduction: Investigate the underlying conditions necessary to produce the recurring pattern.
- Conduction: Integrate evidence and relationships across temperament, activity, circumstance, and action hierarchies into a coherent interpretation.
The most important principle is to preserve uncertainty.
One defensive action is not proof of a defensive character. One accomplished task is not proof of a generative character.
A defensible explanation requires recurring observations and attention to exceptions.
9. The Adult Action Observation Sheet
The following worksheet can be used by an adult reflecting on personal actions or, with appropriate respect and consent, by someone observing recurring workplace or family interactions.
Adult / role: ______________________________
Date and setting: ______________________________
Observation window: ______________________________
- What was happening? Describe the immediate event without explaining motives.
- What did the adult actually say or do? Record words, actions, decisions, and changes.
- What was the adult apparently trying to protect, accomplish, avoid, or create? List possible explanations, including alternatives.
- What circumstances constrained the available choices? Consider authority, responsibilities, resources, relationships, uncertainty, and previous events.
- Which Range of Action mode best describes the behavior? Escape / Defend / Cope / Adapt / Engage / Achieve / Accomplish / Generate
- What happened afterward? Identify the next observed action rather than assuming a transition occurred.
- When did this adult behave differently in a comparable situation? Look for exceptions that challenge the interpretation.
- What small change might enable a more appropriate action? Propose a specific change in a task, relationship, communication, or circumstance.
- What would count as evidence that the interpretation was wrong? Record a possible disconfirming observation.
The worksheet is not a personality test. It is a record of action and possible explanations.
10. From Observation to Action Research
Adult observation can become a modest, repeatable process of inquiry.
Observe → Describe → Compare → Hypothesize → Change → Observe Again
For example, a manager may believe that an employee avoids independent responsibility.
Repeated observations may instead show that the employee works independently when objectives are clear, but seeks approval when assignments contain contradictory instructions.
The initial explanation—avoidance of responsibility—may therefore be too general.
The manager can test an alternative by clarifying one assignment’s boundaries and observing whether the employee acts differently.
A successful change does not prove a temperament explanation. It provides evidence about the relationship between the conditions and the behavior.
Over time, such observations can support better decisions concerning communication, responsibilities, cooperation, and personal development.
11. Character as the Evolution of Action
Temperament describes relatively recurring preferences and dispositions. Character involves the history of choices, habits, commitments, and responses through which an adult develops.
A person’s character is therefore not adequately represented by a single temperament name or by a fixed position on the Range of Action.
An adult may be generally productive while defensive in one relationship. Another may appear passive in an organization but be exceptionally generative within a family or independent project.
The appropriate unit of understanding is often the adult acting within a particular relationship and circumstance over time.
Character integration can be understood as an increasing capacity to select and revise actions appropriate to changing circumstances.
That includes the ability to withdraw when necessary, defend without becoming trapped in defense, cope without indefinite resignation, adapt without losing important commitments, and generate without neglecting responsibilities.
In this sense, character development is not simply movement from Escape toward Generate.
It is an expanding ability to move intelligently within the entire Range of Action.
12. Practical and Ethical Boundaries
This guide is a proposed conceptual and observational framework. It has not been established as a validated psychological assessment.
Observations should not be used to diagnose mental illness, assign permanent labels, or justify employment and relationship decisions on the basis of presumed temperament.
A person’s social role, culture, health, available resources, and exposure to coercion or danger may strongly influence their apparent Range of Action.
Severe despair, self-harm risk, and other acute problems require appropriate safety responses and professional assessment, not temperament interpretation alone.
The central discipline remains Cima’s: observe first, interpret cautiously, and revise interpretations when new evidence appears.
13. Conclusion: From Temperament to Generative Character
Cima’s guide seeks to help an adult recognize the child who is already there.
The Adult Range of Action Guide seeks something complementary: to help adults recognize the actions already occurring, understand how those actions arise, and discover how their possibilities may change.
Keirsey contributes the recurring organization of temperament.
Cima contributes careful observation.
Haley contributes attention to the relational organization of defensive behavior.
Erickson contributes the possibility of strategic change.
Action Research contributes inquiry through observation, intervention, and revision.
Ontology contributes a structure for relating agents, actions, activities, situations, circumstances, and temporal change.
Together, they support a working proposition for Gestalt Science:
Temperament is a recurring orientation toward action. Character is an evolving history of action. Meaning emerges through the relationships, consequences, and possibilities those actions create.
The ultimate purpose is neither to classify adults nor to require them always to be productive.
It is to understand how adults maintain, lose, recover, and expand their capacity to act meaningfully within the circumstances of their lives.
The Range of Action is not merely a spectrum of behavior. It is a spectrum of available possibilities for becoming, relating, accomplishing, and generating.
Further Theoretical Distinction: Action State and Available Range
One particularly important Gestalt Science idea worth developing in the next revision is to distinguish an adult’s observed action mode from their available Range of Action.
For example, two adults may both be in Defend mode. One can readily transition into Adapt or Engage when circumstances change. The other may repeatedly return to Defend regardless of what changes.
Their current action is similar, but their range of possible action is quite different.
This suggests two separate research objects:
Action State(t)
and
Available Actions(t)
The first describes what an adult is doing at a particular time. The second describes the actions that are realistically available given that person’s capabilities, relationships, and circumstances.
That distinction could be especially productive for developing Defensive Action, Character Integration, and Generative Action into a common ontology. It also creates a direct connection to the earlier Gestalt Science distinction between local Measure and broader relational Metric.
The adult’s present action is a local observation. Their Range of Action is a relational structure that becomes understandable only through many observations over time.
Prepared from the full Adult Range of Action Guide response, including the accompanying theoretical distinction. This working manuscript presents proposed mappings and hypotheses, not a validated psychological instrument.