A correction of mere perception

[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