Comments Please

CSGnet Archive CSG2012
1

The most downloaded paper on my web site is one I wrote several years ago about writing good work objectives. It address where you get them and how to specify them. I’m planning to add a section that relates to PCT and I’d appreciate any comments folks on CSGNet might care to make. Here’s the text I’m thinking about adding.

Some New Words about the Importance of Work Objectives

We behave in ways that serve to make what we sense match what we want. We are guided along the way by comparing our perceptions of what is with our vision of what should be. That comparison is the basis for action. If a gap exists we act to close it. That comparison also serves to inform us regarding progress and achievement. Are we closing the gap? Is it closed? Moreover, we are able to control in complex and changing circumstances, countering, offsetting and negating the influences of other actors and factors that also affect whatever it is we are trying to control. We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand. Thus it is that we successfully meet challenges and surmount barriers, obstacles and disruptions. We prevail in the face of adversity. We are, to use William T. Powers’ term, “living control systems.”

None of that changes when we become employees. We are still “living control systems” and we still behave in ways meant to change what we see so as to align it with what we want. Unfortunately, a great deal of management effort goes into trying to control our behavior, which also happens to be the very means by which we accomplish our goals and objectives. Why? Because “they” (i.e., management) view our behavior as the means by which they can achieve their goals and objectives. Therein lies a great deal of conflict, game-playing, deception and what B.F. Skinner termed “counter-control.” Why? Because at any point in time we are striving to keep many, many variables under control, ranging from moving half a dozen or so projects forward to keeping the boss happy to figuring out what to do about that so-and-so in accounting to responding to the latest inquiry from HR to picking out a suitable present for our spouse’s birthday. We are awash in a sea of goals and objectives, some personal, some work-related, some professional, some long-term, some-short term, some clearly in view and well in hand, some behind, some in jeopardy and some still out there as a puzzle to be solved. Our behavior needs to be free from unnecessary restraints and constraints, available to us at all times to wield as circumstances demand, else we can’t achieve a blessed thing.

Control, as Peter Drucker pointed out, is always against a standard – some preferred or required state of affairs. Goals and objectives serve to define these preferred or desired conditions. In short, they define what we want.

When work was materials-based and working was a primarily physical activity, the “one right way” could be determined and imposed. Results and feedback were direct and immediate. Compliance could be ensured through a system of rewards and punishments. The employee’s mind didn’t matter much to management and employees could use it as they saw fit during working hours. Management got what it wanted via overt, physical employee behavior. The employee was an extension of managerial will. The locus of control over working clearly rested with management.

Things have changed. Work is information-based and working activities are mainly mental and verbal. Moreover, they are configured in response to the ever-changing circumstances at hand. Results and feedback are indirect and delayed. The mind of the employee has moved center stage and employees and management vie for the uses to which it will be put. In this competition, the employee has the advantage.

In today’s world of work, management must rethink the role of the employee and revise its approach to getting what it wants. In a nutshell, this boils down to (a) getting employees to set/adopt goals that contribute to the organization and (b) supporting them as they pursue those goals. Work objectives take on important differences in this context. Instead of simply saddling employees with objectives specified by management, employees must be involved in and have a genuine say in setting goals and objectives. Why? Because if an employee – that “living control system” – is to achieve an objective the employee must be committed to its achievement. Why? Because prefigured routines can no longer be imposed in advance, compliance is irrelevant and supervision of mental activities is literally impossible. The locus of control over working has moved from management to the employee. As a consequence, the employee must be viewed as an autonomous agent, acting on the employer’s behalf and in the employer’s best interest. And management must shift its focus from worker behavior to its rightful and appropriate locus of control: the work itself.

In short, work objectives are more important than ever.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Home to “Solution Engineering”

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems”

2

Hi Fred,

You have made many good points. I have to disagree with, or at least would modify, one point. Setting the objectives for work output (I called them valid requirements) are the responsibility of management, not the worker. But, all the other points you make are still very true and becoming more applicable in the evolving service economy where outputs are less frequently physical goods that can be inspected by a third party.

One related point you make is that the employee should be aware of and hopefully accept the management selected work output objective(s). I would also stress that management must ensure that their objectives/requirements must be achievable (that evidence is what makes them valid), at least most of the time under typical conditions. That is where work process design and employee training (also often neglected responsibilities of management) comes into play and that is done with the direct help and experiment by real work output production by the employees. Management often resists taking the time and money needed for these essential pieces where the employee’s control system can handle atypical or even unforseen circumstances most of the time and know when they need to ask for help from management which is expected and appreciated.

Lastly, to obtain the objectives set by management, it works best if the person doing the work inspects their own output. This helps them control getting what they know is wanted by management and reduces the need for third-party inspection and its attendant cost without offsetting value. What company can afford to pay an inspector to try to find one defective output in 1,000 inspected outcomes? And, in service output, it is almost impossible to inspect the output at all—except by the customer. And, when customers find the output defects, you will soon find your higher-quality competitors taking the business. The only objectives left will be in the HR department to get the names right on the pink slips.

Please let me know if you disagree or if any of this helps. In your perception and mine, the benefit for management to change and use PCT seems obvious. Most management does not respond well to telling them either one. I have had some good fortune in this and believe you are just as capable. Best wishes, Kenny

In a message dated 3/31/2012 6:04:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, fred@NICKOLS.US writes:

···

The most downloaded paper on my web site is one I wrote several years ago about writing good work objectives. It address where you get them and how to specify them. I’m planning to add a section that relates to PCT and I’d appreciate any comments folks on CSGNet might care to make. Here’s the text I’m thinking about adding.

Some New Words about the Importance of Work Objectives

We behave in ways that serve to make what we sense match what we want. We are guided along the way by comparing our perceptions of what is with our vision of what should be . That comparison is the basis for action. If a gap exists we act to close it. That comparison also serves to inform us regarding progress and achievement. Are we closing the gap? Is it closed? Moreover, we are able to control in complex and changing circumstances, countering, offsetting and negating the influences of other actors and factors that also affect whatever it is we are trying to control. We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand. Thus it is that we successfully meet challenges and surmount barriers, obstacles and disruptions. We prevail in the face of adversity. We are, to use William T. Powers’ term, “living control systems.�

None of that changes when we become employees. We are still “living control systems� and we still behave in ways meant to change what we see so as to align it with what we want. Unfortunately, a great deal of management effort goes into trying to control our behavior, which also happens to be the very means by which we accomplish our goals and objectives. Why? Because “they� (i.e., management) view our behavior as the means by which they can achieve their goals and objectives. Therein lies a great deal of conflict, game-playing, deception and what B.F. Skinner termed “counter-control.� Why? Because at any point in time we are striving to keep many, many variables under control, ranging from moving half a dozen or so projects forward to keeping the boss happy to figuring out what to do about that so-and-so in accounting to responding to the latest inquiry from HR to picking out a suitable present for our spouse’s birthday. We are awash in a sea of goals and objectives, some personal, some work-related, some professional, some long-term, some-short term, some clearly in view and well in hand, some behind, some in jeopardy and some still out there as a puzzle to be solved. Our behavior needs to be free from unnecessary restraints and constraints, available to us at all times to wield as circumstances demand, else we can’t achieve a blessed thing.

Control, as Peter Drucker pointed out, is always against a standard – some preferred or required state of affairs. Goaals and objectives serve to define these preferred or desired conditions. In short, they define what we want.

When work was materials-based and working was a primarily physical activity, the “one right way� could be determined and imposed. Results and feedback were direct and immediate. Compliance could be ensured through a system of rewards and punishments. The employee’s mind didn’t matter much to management and employees could use it as they saw fit during working hours. Management got what it wanted via overt, physical employee behavior. The employee was an extension of managerial will. The locus of control over working clearly rested with management.

Things have changed. Work is information-based and working activities are mainly mental and verbal. Moreover, they are configured in response to the ever-changing circumstances at hand. Results and feedback are indirect and delayed. The mind of the employee has moved center stage and employees and management vie for the uses to which it will be put. In this competition, the employee has the advantage.

In today’s world of work, management must rethink the role of the employee and revise its approach to getting what it wants. In a nutshell, this boils down to (a) getting employees to set/adopt goals that contribute to the organization and (b) supporting them as they pursue those goals. Work objectives take on important differences in this context. Instead of simply saddling employees with objectives specified by management, employees must be involved in and have a genuine say in setting goals and objectives. Why? Because if an employee – tthat “living control systemâ€? – is to achieve an objective the employeee must be committed to its achievement. Why? Because prefigured routines can no longer be imposed in advance, compliance is irrelevant and supervision of mental activities is literally impossible. The locus of control over working has moved from management to the employee. As a consequence, the employee must be viewed as an autonomous agent, acting on the employer’s behalf and in the employer’s best interest. And management must shift its focus from worker behavior to its rightful and appropriate locus of control: the work itself.

In short, work objectives are more important than ever.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

** Distance Consulting LLC**

*** Home to “Solution Engineering�***

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us

fred@nickols.us

  • “We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problemsâ€?*
3

[From Fred Nickols (2012.04.01.0514 MST)]

Kenny: Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get your point about management responsibility for setting objectives for work output; however, in at least some (and in an increasing number of instances) the worker is in a better position to do that. I would not contest the notion that it is indeed management’s responsibility to sign off on work objectives, to approve them as it were, but I’m not convinced they’re always in the best position to set them, which is why collaboration is required.

I agree wholeheartedly about commitment, achievability and employees being able to assess the results they achieve; that’s basic PCT. Under what you call achievability I would place a couple of additional points. When results are indirect and delayed, we have to take a look at the connections between ultimate targets, proximate targets and the linkages between the two. If an employee is to be held accountable for some ultimate result then that employee better have a good grasp of the linkages and connections between that ultimate result (the product of many interacting variables) and proximate results (those variables the employee can affect in fairly direct and immediate way). Otherwise, action is little more than a shot in the dark. That’s point one. Point two is that the employee better have access to the relevant variables and be able to influence them. Otherwise, action is little more than whistling in the wind.

Thanks again, Kenny.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Home to “Solution Engineering�

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems�

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:49 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Comments Please

Hi Fred,

You have made many good points. I have to disagree with, or at least would modify, one point. Setting the objectives for work output (I called them valid requirements) are the responsibility of management, not the worker. But, all the other points you make are still very true and becoming more applicable in the evolving service economy where outputs are less frequently physical goods that can be inspected by a third party.

One related point you make is that the employee should be aware of and hopefully accept the management selected work output objective(s). I would also stress that management must ensure that their objectives/requirements must be achievable (that evidence is what makes them valid), at least most of the time under typical conditions. That is where work process design and employee training (also often neglected responsibilities of management) comes into play and that is done with the direct help and experiment by real work output production by the employees. Management often resists taking the time and money needed for these essential pieces where the employee’s control system can handle atypical or even unforseen circumstances most of the time and know when they need to ask for help from management which is expected and appreciated.

Lastly, to obtain the objectives set by management, it works best if the person doing the work inspects their own output. This helps them control getting what they know is wanted by management and reduces the need for third-party inspection and its attendant cost without offsetting value. What company can afford to pay an inspector to try to find one defective output in 1,000 inspected outcomes? And, in service output, it is almost impossible to inspect the output at all—except by the customer. And, when customers find the output defects, you will soon find your higher-quality competitors taking the business. The only objectives left will be in the HR department to get the names right on the pink slips.

Please let me know if you disagree or if any of this helps. In your perception and mine, the benefit for management to change and use PCT seems obvious. Most management does not respond well to telling them either one. I have had some good fortune in this and believe you are just as capable. Best wishes, Kenny

In a message dated 3/31/2012 6:04:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, fred@NICKOLS.US writes:

The most downloaded paper on my web site is one I wrote several years ago about writing good work objectives. It address where you get them and how to specify them. I’m planning to add a section that relates to PCT and I’d appreciate any comments folks on CSGNet might care to make. Here’s the text I’m thinking about adding.

Some New Words about the Importance of Work Objectives

We behave in ways that serve to make what we sense match what we want. We are guided along the way by comparing our perceptions of what is with our vision of what should be. That comparison is the basis for action. If a gap exists we act to close it. That comparison also serves to inform us regarding progress and achievement. Are we closing the gap? Is it closed? Moreover, we are able to control in complex and changing circumstances, countering, offsetting and negating the influences of other actors and factors that also affect whatever it is we are trying to control. We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand. Thus it is that we successfully meet challenges and surmount barriers, obstacles and disruptions. We prevail in the face of adversity. We are, to use William T. Powers’ term, “living control systems.�

None of that changes when we become employees. We are still “living control systems� and we still behave in ways meant to change what we see so as to align it with what we want. Unfortunately, a great deal of management effort goes into trying to control our behavior, which also happens to be the very means by which we accomplish our goals and objectives. Why? Because “they� (i.e., management) view our behavior as the means by which they can achieve their goals and objectives. Therein lies a great deal of conflict, game-playing, deception and what B.F. Skinner termed “counter-control.� Why? Because at any point in time we are striving to keep many, many variables under control, ranging from moving half a dozen or so projects forward to keeping the boss happy to figuring out what to do about that so-and-so in accounting to responding to the latest inquiry from HR to picking out a suitable present for our spouse’s birthday. We are awash in a sea of goals and objectives, some personal, some work-related, some professional, some long-term, some-short term, some clearly in view and well in hand, some behind, some in jeopardy and some still out there as a puzzle to be solved. Our behavior needs to be free from unnecessary restraints and constraints, available to us at all times to wield as circumstances demand, else we can’t achieve a blessed thing.

Control, as Peter Drucker pointed out, is always against a standard – some preferred or required state of affairs. Goals and objectives serve to define these preferred or desired conditions. In short, they define what we want.

When work was materials-based and working was a primarily physical activity, the “one right way� could be determined and imposed. Results and feedback were direct and immediate. Compliance could be ensured through a system of rewards and punishments. The employee’s mind didn’t matter much to management and employees could use it as they saw fit during working hours. Management got what it wanted via overt, physical employee behavior. The employee was an extension of managerial will. The locus of control over working clearly rested with management.

Things have changed. Work is information-based and working activities are mainly mental and verbal. Moreover, they are configured in response to the ever-changing circumstances at hand. Results and feedback are indirect and delayed. The mind of the employee has moved center stage and employees and management vie for the uses to which it will be put. In this competition, the employee has the advantage.

In today’s world of work, management must rethink the role of the employee and revise its approach to getting what it wants. In a nutshell, this boils down to (a) getting employees to set/adopt goals that contribute to the organization and (b) supporting them as they pursue those goals. Work objectives take on important differences in this context. Instead of simply saddling employees with objectives specified by management, employees must be involved in and have a genuine say in setting goals and objectives. Why? Because if an employee – that “living control systemâ€? – is to achieve an objective the employee must be committed to its achievement. Why? Because prefigured routines can no longer be imposed in advance, compliance is irrelevant and supervision of mental activities is literally impossible. The locus of control over working has moved from management to the employee. As a consequence, the employee must be viewed as an autonomous agent, acting on the employer’s behalf and in the employer’s best interest. And management must shift its focus from worker behavior to its rightful and appropriate locus of control: the work itself.

In short, work objectives are more important than ever.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Home to “Solution Engineering�

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems�

4

[From Kenny Kitzke (01.04.2012)]

I will revisit the subject of who establishes work output objectives one more time. You are right that a worker is in a better position to know what work outputs are possible and practical than management. Management is in better position (or should be) to know what output is needed down the process line, especially by a customer, the end user of the output.

If you have three shift painters, you can’t have them selecting their favorite part color objective: black, silver or orange. There is probably a drawing that specifies the required color. That specification is set by management based upon business or customer knowledge not available to a worker. There still will be many variables that the worker must control in doing the painting of the required color. And management usually doesn’t or can’t understand those variables to insist the work be done only one way.

As a PCTer, perhaps this will make more sense in the way the hierarchy of levels works. The higher level (management) sets the reference perception for the lower level (worker) who is responsible to control the work variables in a way that meets the reference.

This all gets fuzzier in service outputs where your points apply a bit more. A bank teller, or cashier at WalMart, may have a valid management required objective to thank the customer for their business and/or wish them a nice day. But, exactly how that appreciation or intention is expressed by the worker is next to impossible to specify. In fact, management who try to do this for the worker: “You say 'Have a great day!” or you are fired" take the risk of this commanded work response being seen by a customer as perfunctory, impersonal and insincere not to mention a resentment by the employee feeling they are being treated as an uncreative idiot.

This is the kind of PCT and HPCT knowledge about human behavior and human nature that I have found valuable as a leadership and management consultant. While it has helped me advise executives, very few have adopted any in depth interest in learning PCT science. I suppose in part I don’t get too upset about this reluctance since if they figured it out for themselves, they would need me much less. I am essentially retired now by my own controlled choice so it matters hardly at all except for the millions of memories of what might have been.

Best wishes in all your endeavors,

Kenny

In a message dated 4/1/2012 8:22:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, fred@NICKOLS.US writes:

···

[From Fred Nickols (2012.04.01.0514 MST)]

Kenny: Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get your point about management responsibility for setting objectives for work output; however, in at least some (and in an increasing number of instances) the worker is in a better position to do that. I would not contest the notion that it is indeed management’s responsibility to sign off on work objectives, to approve them as it were, but I’m not convinced they’re always in the best position to set them, which is why collaboration is required.

5

[From Rick Marken (2012.04.01.0920)]

Kenny Kitzke (01.04.2012)–

In fact, management who try to do this for the worker: “You say 'Have a great day!” or you are fired" take the risk of this commanded work response being seen by a customer as perfunctory, impersonal and insincere not to mention a resentment by the employee feeling they are being treated as an uncreative idiot.

This is the kind of PCT and HPCT knowledge about human behavior and human nature that I have found valuable as a leadership and management consultant.

Thanks goodness that you learned PCT then. I myself figured it out on my own by the time I was five. I’m surprised you didn’t get this knowledge much sooner from Christianity. Wasn’t there something in there about treating others as you would have them treat you?

RSM

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

6

[From Kenny Kitzke (01.04.2012)]

I surely can’t compete with anyone as smart as you Rick, wise at age 5.

However, I suggest you stick with PCT, something you know a lot about.

I first read the Bible in 1990 at the age of 43. Call me a slow starter. But, I have learned a lot from it ever since reading it many times over and over. Have you ever read it? I doubt it. If you had you would realize how inane your comment is. There is a difference between how one should treat a neighbor and how one should treat an authoritative superior.

Is this something a five year old can grasp or does it take a thorough study by a 55 year old? I wish this was an April fool joke, but fear it was really just you on your high horse.

In a message dated 4/1/2012 12:22:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rsmarken@GMAIL.COM writes:

···

Kenny Kitzke (01.04.2012)–

In fact, management who try to do this for the worker: "You say 'Have a great day!" or you are fired" take the risk of this commanded work response being seen by a customer as perfunctory, impersonal and insincere not to mention a resentment by the employee feeling they are being treated as an uncreative idiot.

This is the kind of PCT and HPCT knowledge about human behavior and human nature that I have found valuable as a leadership and management consultant.

Thanks goodness that you learned PCT then. I myself figured it out on my own by the time I was five. I’m surprised you didn’t get this knowledge much sooner from Christianity. Wasn’t there something in there about treating others as you would have them treat you?

RSM

[From Rick Marken (2012.04.01.0920)]

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

7

[From Rick Marken (2012.04.02.1740)]

Kenny Kitzke (01.04.2012)--

KK. I surely can't compete with anyone as smart as you Rick, wise at age 5.

RM. I shouldn't have said that I "figured it out"; there was no
reasoning involved at that age, of course. What I meant is that by the
time I was 5 I though it was wrong for powerful people to be mean to
weaker ones. You described a situation where a powerful person (the
employer) was trying to get someone to do something by threatening to
fire them. I suspect that I felt this way because, being 5, I was
typically the weak person in these kinds of relationships. So all I
was doing was empathizing with the weaker person. I also thought that
all people must recognize that this is not a good way to deal with
others and that they would be embarrassed if they actually did behave
this way. It turns out I was wrong about that; powerful people still
act mean to weaker ones. So either there are many people who don't
see this kind of unkindness as a bad way to deal with others or they
see it and don't care.

The purpose of my comment, by the way, was to point out that many
people -- I would hope most -- don't have to learn PCT to know that
an employer telling an employee to "Do this or I'll fire you" is not
a nice way for an employer to deal with the employee. Indeed, I don't
even think PCT tells you that it's not a good idea; there may be
circumstances were it actually is the right thing to do -- an
employee, for example, how has contracted with the employer to do X
and refuses to do X after getting the job. At some point I think the
employer would be quite justified to say "Do X or quit". An observer
who didn't know the back story might thing the employer was being mean
but if I know the back story I would see the employee as the mean one.

I think this is why it's important to work these things out for
yourself rather than to rely on quotes from a book (or to tell others
that they should). PCT can help us work these things out in many
circumstances; but you have to apply the model, not just verbal quotes
(like "it's all perception").

KK: However, I suggest you stick with PCT, something you know a lot about.

RM: I always try to.

KK: I first read the Bible in 1990 at the age of 43.� Call me a slow starter.
But, I have learned a lot from it ever since reading it many times over and
over.� Have you ever read it?�I doubt it.

RM: I have read the _whole_ thing (in the King's James translation),
Old and New Testament and even the apocrypha. I've read some of the
best parts -- the parts I like -- many times. Many parts of what we
call the bible -- especially the King James translation thereof -- is
really great literature; but the whole book could use a very serious
editor.

KK: If you had you would realize how
inane your comment is.� There is a difference between how one should treat a
neighbor and how one should treat an authoritative�superior.

RM: My first contact with the bible was the story of Jacob and Esau
(my shiksa girlfriend read it to me). I was floored because I knew
that Jacob is one of the "heros" of the bible but, to me, the real
hero of that story was Esau. Jacob was a tricky gonif; Esau was a
mensch.

The old testament has some great stories but I found it's morality
appalling (God commanding that the Hebrews commit genocide and getting
mad at them when they didn't was enough to convince me that the
morality of yaweh & jehovah had very little overlap with my own.

The New Testament, on the other hand-- particularly the teachings of
Jesus -- were almost completely compatible with my own morality. I
think Jesus was a real "up a level" teacher; he went from the program
level "commandments" of the Old Testament to the principle level
principles (like "Do unto others"). Once you have the principle, then
rules -- like "thou shalt not enslave", which were left out of both
Old and New Testament-- can be derived. Jesus taught _why_ people
were coming up with those commandments (and why some of those rules
were really irrelevant).

KK. Is this something a five year old can grasp or does it take a thorough study
by a 55 year old?

RM: I would say that these are things that any human can figure out
for themselves once they are able to think in terms of principles and
system concepts - probably by the time most people are in their teens.

RSM

···

In a message dated 4/1/2012 12:22:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rsmarken@GMAIL.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2012.04.01.0920)]

Kenny Kitzke (01.04.2012)--

In fact, management who try to do this for the worker: "You say 'Have a
great day!" or you are fired" take the risk of this commanded work response
being seen by a customer as perfunctory, impersonal and insincere not to
mention a resentment by the employee feeling they are being treated as an
uncreative idiot.

This is the kind of PCT and HPCT knowledge about human behavior and human
nature that I have found valuable as a leadership and management consultant.

Thanks goodness that you learned PCT then. I myself figured it out on my own
by the time I was five. I'm surprised you didn't get this knowledge much
sooner from Christianity.� Wasn't there something in there about treating
others as you would have them treat you?

RSM
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

8

Hi Fred,

I’m sorry that I’m a little late. I’m not reading PCT post continuously as they are coming. So reading it occasionally as I have time, I miss quite some “timing”.

It’s interesting your vision of PCT, and a probably good description. I only don’t understand one sentence : “We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand”.

Could you explain in other words (maybe in PCT words), what this excatly means ? Maybe I didn’t understand the terms you used.

Best,

Boris

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Fred Nickols

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 12:03 AM

Subject: Comments Please

The most downloaded paper on my web site is one I wrote several years ago about writing good work objectives. It address where you get them and how to specify them. I’m planning to add a section that relates to PCT and I’d appreciate any comments folks on CSGNet might care to make. Here’s the text I’m thinking about adding.

Some New Words about the Importance of Work Objectives

We behave in ways that serve to make what we sense match what we want. We are guided along the way by comparing our perceptions of what is with our vision of what should be . That comparison is the basis for action. If a gap exists we act to close it. That comparison also serves to inform us regarding progress and achievement. Are we closing the gap? Is it closed? Moreover, we are able to control in complex and changing circumstances, countering, offsetting and negating the influences of other actors and factors that also affect whatever it is we are trying to control. We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand. Thus it is that we successfully meet challenges and surmount barriers, obstacles and disruptions. We prevail in the face of adversity. We are, to use William T. Powers’ term, “living control systems.”

None of that changes when we become employees. We are still “living control systems” and we still behave in ways meant to change what we see so as to align it with what we want. Unfortunately, a great deal of management effort goes into trying to control our behavior, which also happens to be the very means by which we accomplish our goals and objectives. Why? Because “they” (i.e., management) view our behavior as the means by which they can achieve their goals and objectives. Therein lies a great deal of conflict, game-playing, deception and what B.F. Skinner termed “counter-control.” Why? Because at any point in time we are striving to keep many, many variables under control, ranging from moving half a dozen or so projects forward to keeping the boss happy to figuring out what to do about that so-and-so in accounting to responding to the latest inquiry from HR to picking out a suitable present for our spouse’s birthday. We are awash in a sea of goals and objectives, some personal, some work-related, some professional, some long-term, some-short term, some clearly in view and well in hand, some behind, some in jeopardy and some still out there as a puzzle to be solved. Our behavior needs to be free from unnecessary restraints and constraints, available to us at all times to wield as circumstances demand, else we can’t achieve a blessed thing.

Control, as Peter Drucker pointed out, is always against a standard – some preferred or required state of affairs. Goals and objectives serve to define these preferred or desired conditions. In short, they define what we want.

When work was materials-based and working was a primarily physical activity, the “one right way” could be determined and imposed. Results and feedback were direct and immediate. Compliance could be ensured through a system of rewards and punishments. The employee’s mind didn’t matter much to management and employees could use it as they saw fit during working hours. Management got what it wanted via overt, physical employee behavior. The employee was an extension of managerial will. The locus of control over working clearly rested with management.

Things have changed. Work is information-based and working activities are mainly mental and verbal. Moreover, they are configured in response to the ever-changing circumstances at hand. Results and feedback are indirect and delayed. The mind of the employee has moved center stage and employees and management vie for the uses to which it will be put. In this competition, the employee has the advantage.

In today’s world of work, management must rethink the role of the employee and revise its approach to getting what it wants. In a nutshell, this boils down to (a) getting employees to set/adopt goals that contribute to the organization and (b) supporting them as they pursue those goals. Work objectives take on important differences in this context. Instead of simply saddling employees with objectives specified by management, employees must be involved in and have a genuine say in setting goals and objectives. Why? Because if an employee – that “living control system” – is to achieve an objective the employee must be committed to its achievement. Why? Because prefigured routines can no longer be imposed in advance, compliance is irrelevant and supervision of mental activities is literally impossible. The locus of control over working has moved from management to the employee. As a consequence, the employee must be viewed as an autonomous agent, acting on the employer’s behalf and in the employer’s best interest. And management must shift its focus from worker behavior to its rightful and appropriate locus of control: the work itself.

In short, work objectives are more important than ever.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

** Distance Consulting LLC**

*** Home to “Solution Engineering”***

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

  • “We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems”*
9

[From Fred Nickols (2012.04.07.0608 AZ)]

What I was getting at is that as circumstances change, as disruptions or disturbances occur, our behavior changes. We vary our behavior in order to keep whatever it is we’re trying to control at or acceptably near some preferred value.

Does this help, Boris?

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Home to “Solution Engineering”

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems”

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of boris_upc
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 8:43 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Comments Please

Hi Fred,

I’m sorry that I’m a little late. I’m not reading PCT post continuously as they are coming. So reading it occasionally as I have time, I miss quite some “timing”.

It’s interesting your vision of PCT, and a probably good description. I only don’t understand one sentence : “We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand”.

Could you explain in other words (maybe in PCT words), what this excatly means ? Maybe I didn’t understand the terms you used.

Best,

Boris

----- Original Message -----

From: Fred Nickols

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 12:03 AM

Subject: Comments Please

The most downloaded paper on my web site is one I wrote several years ago about writing good work objectives. It address where you get them and how to specify them. I’m planning to add a section that relates to PCT and I’d appreciate any comments folks on CSGNet might care to make. Here’s the text I’m thinking about adding.

Some New Words about the Importance of Work Objectives

We behave in ways that serve to make what we sense match what we want. We are guided along the way by comparing our perceptions of what is with our vision of what should be. That comparison is the basis for action. If a gap exists we act to close it. That comparison also serves to inform us regarding progress and achievement. Are we closing the gap? Is it closed? Moreover, we are able to control in complex and changing circumstances, countering, offsetting and negating the influences of other actors and factors that also affect whatever it is we are trying to control. We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand. Thus it is that we successfully meet challenges and surmount barriers, obstacles and disruptions. We prevail in the face of adversity. We are, to use William T. Powers’ term, “living control systems.”

None of that changes when we become employees. We are still “living control systems” and we still behave in ways meant to change what we see so as to align it with what we want. Unfortunately, a great deal of management effort goes into trying to control our behavior, which also happens to be the very means by which we accomplish our goals and objectives. Why? Because “they” (i.e., management) view our behavior as the means by which they can achieve their goals and objectives. Therein lies a great deal of conflict, game-playing, deception and what B.F. Skinner termed “counter-control.” Why? Because at any point in time we are striving to keep many, many variables under control, ranging from moving half a dozen or so projects forward to keeping the boss happy to figuring out what to do about that so-and-so in accounting to responding to the latest inquiry from HR to picking out a suitable present for our spouse’s birthday. We are awash in a sea of goals and objectives, some personal, some work-related, some professional, some long-term, some-short term, some clearly in view and well in hand, some behind, some in jeopardy and some still out there as a puzzle to be solved. Our behavior needs to be free from unnecessary restraints and constraints, available to us at all times to wield as circumstances demand, else we can’t achieve a blessed thing.

Control, as Peter Drucker pointed out, is always against a standard – some preferred or required state of affairs. Goals and objectives serve to define these preferred or desired conditions. In short, they define what we want.

When work was materials-based and working was a primarily physical activity, the “one right way” could be determined and imposed. Results and feedback were direct and immediate. Compliance could be ensured through a system of rewards and punishments. The employee’s mind didn’t matter much to management and employees could use it as they saw fit during working hours. Management got what it wanted via overt, physical employee behavior. The employee was an extension of managerial will. The locus of control over working clearly rested with management.

Things have changed. Work is information-based and working activities are mainly mental and verbal. Moreover, they are configured in response to the ever-changing circumstances at hand. Results and feedback are indirect and delayed. The mind of the employee has moved center stage and employees and management vie for the uses to which it will be put. In this competition, the employee has the advantage.

In today’s world of work, management must rethink the role of the employee and revise its approach to getting what it wants. In a nutshell, this boils down to (a) getting employees to set/adopt goals that contribute to the organization and (b) supporting them as they pursue those goals. Work objectives take on important differences in this context. Instead of simply saddling employees with objectives specified by management, employees must be involved in and have a genuine say in setting goals and objectives. Why? Because if an employee – that “living control system” – is to achieve an objective the employee must be committed to its achievement. Why? Because prefigured routines can no longer be imposed in advance, compliance is irrelevant and supervision of mental activities is literally impossible. The locus of control over working has moved from management to the employee. As a consequence, the employee must be viewed as an autonomous agent, acting on the employer’s behalf and in the employer’s best interest. And management must shift its focus from worker behavior to its rightful and appropriate locus of control: the work itself.

In short, work objectives are more important than ever.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Home to “Solution Engineering”

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems”

10

[From Rick Marken (2012.04.07.1450)]

Fred Nickols (2012.04.01) asks for comments on his paper "Some New
Words about the Importance of Work Objectives". I do have a couple
comments. You say:

Unfortunately, a great deal of management effort goes into trying to control our
[employee's] behavior,

I don't understand why you say this is unfortunate. Isn't it the job
of management to control the behavior of employees. Why else would a
manager position exist? You go on to say:

Why?� Because �they� (i.e., management) view our behavior as the means by which they can
achieve their goals and objectives.

How else are they supposed to achieve their goals? Just ignore the
employees and hope that they all coordinate their efforts correctly?

Therein lies a great deal of conflict,

I would say "therein lies a great deal of _possibility_ for conflict.
My manager and I get along great; I don't think we have ever had a
conflict.

game-playing, deception and what B.F. Skinner termed �counter-control.�

Counter-control is just control isn't it? It seems sort of strange to
me that people who understand that humans are controllers (as per PCT)
would think that there is something wrong with controlling.

I think the message of PCT is that people are controlling all the
time. But when this controlling involves other people (who are also
controlling) it has to be done cooperatively. I think trying to
convince managers that they shouldn't control is really not consistent
with PCT; I think managers should be taught what control is, that that
is what they are doing when they manage; that their employees are also
controlling. Then explain that it is _arbitrary_ control -- control
that doesn't take into account the fact that the controllee is a
controller as well -- and not control itself, that is the problem.
Give examples of how well managed groups (like symphony orchestras)
can control when there is agreement about who controls what, when --
in other words, when the control is not arbitrary.

I think most decent managers know this and that PCT doesn't really
have much to offer management except possibly to show that employees
are just as important as managers (including upper management) since
they are part of the means managers use to control what they want to
control and employees should , therefore, be compensated at about the
same level as the manager so they can control their own lives as well
as the manager can.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

11

Thank you Fred for your kind answer. I didn’t understand what could mean “circumstances at hand”, and what could mean “fit” the circumstances. I hope I understand now. You know my language problems :slight_smile:

Fred N:

What I was getting at is that as circumstances change, as disruptions or disturbances occur, our behavior changes.

Boris H:

I’m quite sure now Fred or it seems to me, although probably Bill should say something, that you are describing “outer circumstances” like environment of the organism, which is affecting (disturbing, disrupting) the organism and organism behave in the manner that “serves” (fit) the change in environmental circumstances.

Something like : environmental “stimuli” (change in environment) is disturbing organism and organism “react” (behavior change) so that disruptions “disappear” (fit the environment). So the change in behavior is “totaly” dependend on environmental change of circumastances (occurances of disruptions or disturbances). And we can call this adaption of organism. It sounds to me like behaviorism, like environment which changes (disruptions, distrubances) is “controlling” the organsms actions directly. Or the organism is “responding” to changes (disturbances, disruptions) in environment directly with behavior.

Did I get it this time…:slight_smile:

It’s nice chating with you after all this time. I remember you are a very methodical thinker. So I think we’ll have no problem in solving some misunderstandings. Maybe we can take our conversation as a contribution to your writings as comments :slight_smile:

Best,

Boris

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Fred Nickols

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 3:12 PM

Subject: Re: Comments Please

[From Fred Nickols (2012.04.07.0608 AZ)]

What I was getting at is that as circumstances change, as disruptions or disturbances occur, our behavior changes. We vary our behavior in order to keep whatever it is we’re trying to control at or acceptably near some preferred value.

Does this help, Boris?

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

** Distance Consulting LLC**

*** Home to “Solution Engineering”***

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

  • “We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems”*

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] ** On Behalf Of** boris_upc
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 8:43 PM
To:
CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Comments Please

Hi Fred,

I’m sorry that I’m a little late. I’m not reading PCT post continuously as they are coming. So reading it occasionally as I have time, I miss quite some “timing”.

It’s interesting your vision of PCT, and a probably good description. I only don’t understand one sentence : “We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand”.

Could you explain in other words (maybe in PCT words), what this excatly means ? Maybe I didn’t understand the terms you used.

Best,

Boris

----- Original Message -----

From: Fred Nickols

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 12:03 AM

Subject: Comments Please

The most downloaded paper on my web site is one I wrote several years ago about writing good work objectives.  It address where you get them and how to specify them.  I’m planning to add a section that relates to PCT and I’d appreciate any comments folks on CSGNet might care to make.  Here’s the text I’m thinking about adding.

Some New Words about the Importance of Work Objectives

We behave in ways that serve to make what we sense match what we want.  We are guided along the way by comparing our perceptions of *what is* with our vision of *what should be*    .  That comparison is the basis for action.  If a gap exists we act to close it.  That comparison also serves to inform us regarding progress and achievement.  Are we closing the gap?  Is it closed?  Moreover, we are able to control in complex and changing circumstances, countering, offsetting and negating the influences of other actors and factors that also affect whatever it is we are trying to control.   We adapt, adjusting our behavior to fit the circumstances at hand.  Thus it is that we successfully meet challenges and surmount barriers, obstacles and disruptions.  We prevail in the face of adversity.  We are, to use William T. Powers’ term, “living control systems.”

None of that changes when we become employees.  We are still “living control systems” and we still behave in ways meant to change what we see so as to align it with what we want. Unfortunately, a great deal of management effort goes into trying to control our behavior, which also happens to be the very means by which we accomplish our goals and objectives.  Why?  Because “they” (i.e., management) view our behavior as the means by which they can achieve their goals and objectives.  Therein lies a great deal of conflict, game-playing, deception and what B.F. Skinner termed “counter-control.”  Why?  Because at any point in time we are striving to keep many, many variables under control, ranging from moving half a dozen or so projects forward to keeping the boss happy to figuring out what to do about that so-and-so in accounting to responding to the latest inquiry from HR to picking out a suitable present for our spouse’s birthday.  We are awash in a sea of goals and objectives, some personal, some work-related, some professional, some long-term, some-short term, some clearly in view and well in hand, some behind, some in jeopardy and some still out there as a puzzle to be solved.  Our behavior needs to be free from unnecessary restraints and constraints, available to us at all times to wield as circumstances demand, else we can’t achieve a blessed thing.

Control, as Peter Drucker pointed out, is always against a standard – some preferred or required state of affairs.  Goals and objectives serve to define these preferred or desired conditions.  In short, they define what we want.

When work was materials-based and working was a primarily physical activity, the “one right way” could be determined and imposed.  Results and feedback were direct and immediate.  Compliance could be ensured through a system of rewards and punishments.  The employee’s mind didn’t matter much to management and employees could use it as they saw fit during working hours.  Management got what it wanted via overt, physical employee behavior.  The employee was an extension of managerial will.  The locus of control over working clearly rested with management.

Things have changed.  Work is information-based and working activities are mainly mental and verbal.  Moreover, they are configured in response to the ever-changing circumstances at hand.  Results and feedback are indirect and delayed.  The mind of the employee has moved center stage and employees and management vie for the uses to which it will be put.  In this competition, the employee has the advantage.

In today’s world of work, management must rethink the role of the employee and revise its approach to getting what it wants.  In a nutshell, this boils down to (a) getting employees to set/adopt goals that contribute to the organization and (b) supporting them as they pursue those goals.  Work objectives take on important differences in this context.  Instead of simply saddling employees with objectives specified by management, employees must be involved in and have a genuine say in setting goals and objectives.  Why?  Because if an employee – that “living control system” – is to achieve an objective the employee must be committed to its achievement.  Why?  Because prefigured routines can no longer be imposed in advance, compliance is irrelevant and supervision of mental activities is literally impossible.  The locus of control over working has moved from management to the employee.  As a consequence, the employee must be viewed as an autonomous agent, acting on the employer’s behalf and in the employer’s best interest.  And management must shift its focus from worker behavior to its rightful and appropriate locus of control: the work itself.

In short, work objectives are more important than ever.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

** Distance Consulting LLC**

*** Home to “Solution Engineering”***

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

  • “We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems”*