[From Kenny Kitzke (2012.11.26)]
My TG company has left. I was pretty much off the Internet during their visit. I see that Fred responded to you, Rick, concerning possible collaboration with me and Fred about how a PCT understanding of behavior would impact and hopefully improve the “science” or “art” of management.
From Fred’s answers to your questions, I think Fred and I are on slightly different pages on what we might be trying to do with this collaborative effort. My purpose is mostly focused on the behavior of manager’s and how if PCT were understood to be true, how it would change their practice of the management function by themselves.
Fred seems to be more focused on the how managers should perceive employees differently if they were to adopt a PCT view of human behavior. And, there is a strong element of the change producing higher productivity and business performance because employees will behave in a better way when perceived as valuable PCT living organisms and not the necessary Indians to do work that the managers are supposed to get accomplished.
I did not see anything that Fred wrote that is not relevant and logical to improving business performance overall. Fred’s goal is simply broader than mine. It is not a case of whether me or Fred are more right or wrong. It is more a case of being different in what we perceive the purpose of having manager’s understand PCT is and perhaps what the first step in producing superior performance in businesses.
I want to focus on first helping managers to understand human behavior as the control of perception. And, if it makes sense to them, how could that change how they manage employees. For a simple example, would it help them be a better manager if they learned that telling employees exactly what needed to be accomplished or how to accomplish it (common and probably standard management theory) doesn’t always work very well. So, what should a manager tell employees instead or should they really not tell but ask?
Anyway, it may well turn out that both what PCT managers do differently and what consequences/results will be produced by workers/employees to improve organization performance are both valuable outcomes of our collaboration.
As Fred and I put our heads together (he has written some very convincing articles), hopefully we can boil things down to where our own understanding of PCT can demonstrate what we both have witnessed as assisting in superior business performance results than having a behavioral or cognitive belief among managers of why people do what they do.
So, it will take some time where Fred and I can state, this is what is important about PCT being applied to the role of management. I don’t want a minority report where Kenny says “tastes great” and Fred says “less filling.” I hope we can craft theory and practice which we both claim is superior and then share it with the rest of the CSG to get their impressions as to its accuracy and effectivness. If these ideas and examples pass the stink test, Fred and I will probably be able to write a best selling book and improve the value that businesses can create in a free market America.
I hope this helps but if you are sure Rick that we are barking up a useless tree at the outset, let us know. And, thanks for the empathy about my health. Just know that I was in liver cirrhosis over 10 years ago with little chance of survival without a liver transplant…but somehow I have managed to endure without a transplant. Liver problems are coming around again along with congestive heart failure but I am hoping my time is not up. I am only 69 and a good friend is convinced that I can make it to 100 if I change what I do. If true, that gives me another 30 years to do something else worthwhile. That is exciting and perhaps this PCT Project contribution could be part of that…which would be pretty kool.
In a message dated 11/23/2012 8:43:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rsmarken@GMAIL.COM writes:
[From Rick Marken (2012.11.23.1740)]
Fred Nickols (2012.11.23.1354 AZ)–
FN: Or instead of saying “Behavior is a function of its consequences” you could
say “Consequences are a function of behavior.”
RM: Yes, consequences can be seen to be a function of behavior (
pellets delivery in a Skinner box, for example, is a function of bar
pressing) but there are many consequences of behavior (actions), only
some of which are being controlled; for example, the tapping sounds
that are a consequence of my pressing the keyboard keys; but they are
not a controlled consequence. The main controlled consequence of those
key presses is the lilting prose that you are now reading. So I think
it’s better to say that consequences are controlled by behavior
(actions); behavior (actions) is not controlled by their consequences.
By the way, regarding the PCT for managers project that you are
planning with Kenny (I’m very sorry to hear you’re ill Kenny; my
sincere best wishes to you and your family), I would be interested in
hearing how you (and/or Kenny) would evaluate the benefits of a PCT
approach to management.
Richard S. Marken PhD