[From Rick Marken (2001.10.15.1145)]
Fred Nickols (2001.10.13.0950)] --
A while back we had a brief discussion about practical applications of
PCT. I posted a brief (two-page) paper about looking at the issues
associated with managing people's performance in the workplace from a PCT
perspective. One person commented. Undeterred, I have continued working
on
it and it's doubled in size (now a whopping four pages in length).
Ok. Here's some quick comments.
On p. 2. you say:
My intentions are actually reference conditions (i.e., idealized or
desired states)
for various aspects of the conditions around me. I also have perceptions
of myself,
my actions, my surrounding conditions and the interactions between the
two,
especially the effects my actions have on my surrounding conditions and
the
implications those conditions portend for me.
I would say that your intentions are reference specifications (I think of
"reference conditions" as the conditions that satisfy the reference
specifications) for perceptions. The "conditions" that we control (intend
to produce) are the conditions we perceive. We control perceptions; not the
"actual" conditions that these perceptions presumably represent. You do
make this clear later in your paper. I would just rewrite the little
section above.
You slip back into what to me seems like a very confusing way of describing
control in your "recap" at the end of p. 2, top of p. 3. Remember, the
variable you control _is_ a perceptual variable. You talk as though people
control some external "condition" and revise their actions based on their
_perception_ of that condition. In fact, all people can control are
perceptions; what you call "conditions" are "perceptions" from the point of
view of the controller. All this is important, I think, because it makes
clear that what we are doing (what we are controlling) is defined by how we
perceive (the perceptual function in models of behavior) not by how we act
(the output function in models of behavior).
Ah, again you say it correctly in the second paragraph on page 3.
In your list of principles regarding management of the performance of
others I would suggest adding the following: Manage with respect to
intended results, not with respect to the means used to achieve those
results. The idea here is that a control system must be free to vary its
actions as necessary to bring perceptions to reference (intended) states
while protecting those perceptions from _unpredicted_ disturbances (what
you call "mediating factors"). I think management has to become skilled at
communicating (rather than "shaping", that sounds to manipulative, I think)
the intentions (references) they want their workers to have. But the
workers have to be free to vary their actions, as necessary, to carry out
those intentions. This means that managers should avoid "micro management".
They do this by deciding what goals they want their workers to achieve and
avoiding attempts to specify the lower level goals -- the means -- the
worker has to vary in order to achieve those goals. You might want to
point out, in this context, that attempts to micro-manage (specify the
desired means) are likely to result in _conflict_ between the worker and
the manager. Conflict occurs when worker and manager have different
reference specifications for the means to be used to achieve a desired
goal; and it happens even when both agree on the goal. It should be easy
to think of examples to illustrate this point.
I would also suggest adding some comments on what is involved in "shaping"
(communicating) intentions. An important part of communicating an intention
is communicating what things will look like ( what state a perceptual
variable will be in) when the goal is achieved.
Anyway, nice paper Fred. Very nice diagrams.
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org