Skip to content

Pattern Taxonomy.

What this page is

This page explains how Dioratikos names, organises, and works with patterns.

It is not a catalogue of diagnoses. It is not a checklist. It is not a typology of people.

Pattern Taxonomy is the structural language of the discipline.

What a pattern is (in Dioratikos terms)

A pattern is a stable, repeatable configuration of behaviour produced by a system.

Patterns are not traits. They are not intentions. They are not moral failures or personal shortcomings.

A pattern exists when the same outcomes recur even as people change, effort increases, or surface solutions are applied.

If replacing individuals does not change the result, you are not dealing with a person. You are dealing with a pattern.

Why a taxonomy is necessary

Without a shared naming system, leaders and institutions:

  • argue about symptoms
  • personalise structural issues
  • repeat the same interventions under new language
  • mistake effort for leverage

Taxonomy does not simplify reality. It stabilises perception.

Naming allows a pattern to be:

  • recognised without defensiveness
  • discussed without blame
  • tracked over time
  • distinguished from adjacent patterns

This is why naming is an intervention.

What patterns are made of

In Dioratikos, patterns are composed of interacting elements that recur in relation to one another.

These elements may include:

  • individuals
  • roles or functions
  • decision authorities
  • incentives or pressures
  • inherited norms
  • behavioural responses
  • risk transfer points
  • burden absorption points

The same elements can produce different patterns depending on how they are arranged.

The work is not identifying elements. The work is identifying configuration.

How patterns differ from systems

A system is the environment that conditions behaviour. A pattern is the behavioural shape that emerges inside it.

Systems persist across time. Patterns can stabilise, mutate, or dissolve.

You do not change a system by naming a pattern. You gain the ability to choose how to respond to it.

How Dioratikos classifies patterns

Patterns are not organised by industry, personality, or function.

They are organised by mechanism.

Each pattern is defined by:

  • Trigger: what reliably activates it
  • Configuration: how elements arrange under that trigger
  • Loop: how the behaviour sustains itself
  • Second-order effects: what the pattern produces over time
  • Stability conditions: what keeps it in place

This structure allows patterns to be recognised across domains without collapsing into generalisation.

Pattern families

While each pattern is distinct, patterns tend to cluster into families based on shared mechanics rather than surface behaviour.

These families describe how distortion forms and stabilises, not what an organisation “is.”

Examples of pattern families include:

  • authority distortion patterns
  • translation and signal loss patterns
  • burden displacement patterns
  • avoidance and deferral patterns
  • overfunctioning and compensation patterns
  • legitimacy and protection patterns

Pattern families are analytical groupings, not diagnostic labels applied to people, teams, or organisations.

They exist to support recognition and comparison across contexts, not to reduce complexity or impose fixed classifications.

Importantly, pattern families are not exhaustive.

They remain open to refinement as new structural dynamics are observed. A single pattern may sit across multiple families depending on which forces are dominant in the system.

This openness is intentional. Dioratikos treats pattern taxonomy as a living structure, not a closed framework.

What patterns are not used for

Patterns are not used to:

  • categorise individuals
  • assign blame
  • predict behaviour mechanically
  • replace judgement

They are used to:

  • sharpen perception
  • reduce distortion
  • improve decision quality
  • prevent misdiagnosis

How the taxonomy is applied

The Pattern Taxonomy underpins:

Patterns exist independently of application. They are not owned by the intervention that reveals them.

On completeness

The taxonomy is not closed.

Patterns emerge as environments change. Language evolves as new configurations stabilise.

What matters is not exhaustiveness. What matters is precision.

A note on restraint

Not every difficulty needs a pattern name.

Naming is reserved for configurations that:

  • recur
  • mislead perception
  • resist surface correction
  • carry second-order consequences

Over-naming creates noise. Under-naming creates blindness.

The discipline sits between the two.