Bills Reply to MOL & Therapy

From [Marc S Abrams (980127.0133)] Originally :slight_smile:
From [Marc S Abrams (980128.1330)}

This was posted to the BPR-L List by mistake yesterday. I have made
some changes after some reflection, but the thrust has remained the
same :slight_smile:

I originally sent Bill a private e-mail on his reply to David and Dick
(Bill Powers (980127.0135 MST))and after some thought decided to go on
the net with a similar message for all.

It was _never_ said any more clearly by anyone since I have been on
the net (a little over 3 years).

My "focus" has always been on "applying" PCT. Mainly in organizations
who are themselves interested in change. (i.e.. TQM, BPR, etc).
_Every_ method I know of has loads of techniques for changing the
_behavior_ of individuals (or at least attempting to :-)). _THEY
(meaning the well intentioned interventionists) ARE ALL MISSING THE
POINT_ :-).

BEHAVIOR IS AN _ARTIFACT_ of _CONTROL_. Most of you will say So,

whats the news ? Well for a relative newbie like myself the _focus_ of
a lot of attention _seemed_ to have been the _behavior_ of individuals
and _what_ _caused_ it. Wether it was generated due to Stimulus,
Motivation, Incentives, etc. seemed to be the focus of the arguments .
The answer for me now is very simple. _CONTROL_ causes behavior.
_PERIOD_. Again, most of you will say SO, whats the big deal? I knew
that all along :-). Well, For those of us interested in helping
others, Bills post brought forth a number of _very_ important points,

_Behavior_ is _NOT_ the issue. _IF_ you believe in the theory (PCT)
Then _behavior_ is a _moot_ point. _NOT_ unimportant. Just moot.
_Behavior_ (no matter _how_ the skills were aquired) will follow our
intention of reducing error. _What_ that specific behavior will be
will be based on two things. What we perceive and what kinds of skills
(behaviors) we have to utilize. For those of us interested in helping
others (and possibly ourselves) changing ones behavior _without_
changing ones perception(s) (and with that, the reference level) is a
_possible_ fix for _the here and now_ only. No guarantees about any
ability to deal with any future similar problems. Changing behaviors
is a _necassary_ way for us to manuver and get around in most everyday
situations. Sometimes it just isn't sufficent.

Fred Nickols, in any number of discussions has always talked about
going up a level to better be able to _Understand_ _what_ the problem
is. Given that kind of view he felt that "solutions" became
self-evident (sometimes :-)). I always thought that was some great no
BS method.. Kinda homespun, and to the point. Fred, if your out there
maybe you could share an experience or two. Similair to Davids use of
the MOL.

Anyway. When us consultant types :slight_smile: talk about _change_ we are
generally _not_ talking about (or interested in :-)) the kind that
happens when you focus on behavior.(although, unfortunately thats what
usually happens). I will only speak for myself here but hope that
Fred, Kenny and other business consultants will jump in Some

When is a change in behavior sufficent? When isn't it ? :slight_smile: What
_kinds_ of situations seem to go one way or the other?
Can the MOL be "directed" (channeled for specific kinds of data)
without "helping" or "infringing" upon someone else.

Without a PCT foundation our efforts to try and "help" people will be
mired in continual short term "solutions" that don't "solve" anything.
Sound familiar to anyone? :slight_smile:

Now I know for a lot of you this is nothing new, or revealing. But for
me It was the _WOW_ post :-).

Thanks Bill