[From Chuck Tucker 931218 07:55:17]
Re: Tom Bourbon's post of 931217.1348
You are correct that Peters and Austin DO NOT see
perception as the PIF or PS that we do in PCT. I
am sorry that I created that impression for you and
perhaps others. I just find that particular quote
useful to make the statement "Its all perception"
then I would go on (for others unfamiliar with PCT)
to define and specify what I meant by perception
within the PCT model. I just use the Peters and
Austin statement to "hook" a person (usually a
student in my class) on the notion of perception.
You are also correct that one (as least not me)
will NOT find that this book by Peters and Autin or
any of the other books by Peters to be expressions
of PCT. The only ideas (which Peters says over and
over [you may have seen his TV shows]) is that a
business should pays close attention to what the
customer wants. I, of course, do not find this
idea very startling since I have always believed
it. But what I find interesting is that this is
now such a great idea and one that business seems
to be using such as the recent "buyout" plan for
United Airlines wherein the employees will own the
airline (at reduced pay, of course) so that they
can get closer to the customer. Peters encourages
such plans and also encourages the companies organize
themselves into "small groups" operated by the
employees. Since, in my view as an academic and a
long time supporter of AAUP (and President of the
local chapter at USC-East) is the we are independent
and "run our own show" I find none of his ideas new.
Again, what I find interesting is that business folks
find them new and revolutionary.
Another note of caution. What I don't like about
Peters proposals is that I believe they lead to the
exploitation of workers. What should happen is that
managers and owners salaries should be reduced to
those of the workers and that they be required to
work as eveyone else does (you won't be surprised
to know that this suggestion to the administrators
in our university is not greeted with joy or acceptance).
It seems to me that Peters just shifts more work to
the workers, makes them assume the role of managers
while the other managers continue to get their fat
salaries and continue to "manage" (which we know is
not possible with regard to others; people "manage"
themselves!). Perhaps Dag might have something useful
to say about Peters work - or he may disagree with my
brief comments.
Speaking of Dag's work (excuse me Tom for using a note
re: you for this comment). In my class this Fall several
students found Dag's to be published paper very useful
and quoted it extensively in their papers. They also used
the notion of perception correctly (a contrast to Peters)
and applied the ideas to their interests (one student was
interested in redesigning the Navy based on PCT!). So I
would recommend Dag's last version (perhaps with the
changes proposed by Runkel) to those who have an interest
in PCT. (PS to Dag: I will send you the paper of my student
by snail mail next week).
Regards, Chuck