Control in a Company

[From Kenny Kitzke (4.19.2009)]

Arthur:

You asked Bill Powers:

To what extend can the PCT concept be transferred to an organisational
environment like an airline ? Has the PCT concept explicitly been used to
model the control structure of a company ? It would be helpful to read about
this. Thanks for any suggestions or links.

···

These questions reside largely in my sandbox. For the past 20 years I have consulted with organizations on how to improve performance and create greater value for their stakeholders. I became acquainted with PCT about 15 years ago. I know, or should know, something about your inquiry.

I will make a few brief observations, and if you, or others, wish to delve into them further, I will try to get more specific.

  1. PCT models organism/people behavior; not organization/company behavior

  2. Since organizations/companies are composed of people, PCT concepts are relevant and can be meaningfully transferred to what companies like an airline do.

  3. The extent of that transfer is not well tested, demonstrated or understood.

  4. The structure of control in organizations is typically a model of hierarchal authority. The method of control is a Stimulus-Response illusion of psychology known as reinforcement theory. You control the behavior in an organization by punishing undesirable behavior and rewarding the desired behavior.

Unfortunately, this authoritative control model of the behavior of people does not work reliably. Attempting to exercise unilateral control of human beings in organizations often backfires; not producing the desired results but unexpected disasters.

While applying PCT concepts in employee behavior offers good potential for better, more reliable performance results by people, it remains far from a proven, scientific means for reliably producing outstanding performance results.

I perceive there are a number of reasons why PCT can only be a help rather than a proven remedy for more successful airlines. Two I would mention are:

a. Human factors alone can’t drive superior performance. Things like technology, available financial resources, etc., can be more significant factors.

b. Even within human factors, PCT has not been developed to the extent to handle human nature and how behavior at the highest levels of perception works, including where our system level references come from or all the ways they can be changed or reorganized.

Despite these limitations, I am convinced that the more people in an organization understand themselves as autonomous living input control systems, the better they will be able to reach mutually agreed upon company goals and exceed the performance of those controlling employees by authoritative coercion.


Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar!

(Gavin Ritz 2009.04.20.17.13NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke (4.19.2009)]

Arthur:

You
asked Bill Powers:

To what
extend can the PCT concept be transferred to an organisational

environment like an airline ? Has the PCT concept explicitly been used to

model the control structure of a company ? It would be helpful to read about

this. Thanks for any suggestions or links.

···

These
questions reside largely in my sandbox. For the past 20 years I have consulted
with organizations on how to improve performance and create greater value for
their stakeholders. I became acquainted with PCT about 15 years
ago. I know, or should know, something about your inquiry.

I will
make a few brief observations, and if you, or others, wish to delve into them
further, I will try to get more specific.

PCT models
organism/people behavior; not organization/company behavior

Correct

Since
organizations/companies are composed of people, PCT concepts are relevant
and can be meaningfully transferred to what companies like an airline do.

The PCT context is relevant in terms of
how a person deals with their role and other person(s) in their roles. But not
that helpful in defining control in an organizational sense.

The extent of that transfer is not well tested, demonstrated or understood.

The structure of control
in organizations is typically a model of hierarchal authority.

That’s what I would a TARR a task assigning role relationship
however cross functional roles are as important and they are called TIRR’s
task initiating role relationship each have specific controlling functions. And
much more difficult to assess then the simple hierarchal authority.

The method of control is
a Stimulus-Response illusion of psychology known as reinforcement
theory. You control the behavior in an organization by punishing
undesirable behavior and rewarding the desired behavior.

Not sure I have ever seen this in organisations,
it may be taught in business schools but I have never seen anyone being punished in an organisation
that I have worked in. Anyway the psychological method in an organisational sense
is highly dysfunctional.

Unfortunately,
this authoritative control model of the behavior of people does not work
reliably.

Not too sure what you mean by this, in the
military it works very well, but what exactly do you mean by authoritive
control. Does it have a specific model that is found in organizations?

Attempting
to exercise unilateral control of human beings in organizations often
backfires; not producing the desired results but unexpected disasters.

While
applying PCT concepts in employee behavior offers good potential for better,
more reliable performance results by people, it remains far from a proven,
scientific means for reliably producing outstanding performance results.

The only scientifically theory in organisation
design is Requisite Organization (RO) developed by Elliot Jaques.

I
perceive there are a number of reasons why PCT can only be a help rather than a
proven remedy for more successful airlines. Two I would mention are:

a.
Human factors alone can’t drive superior performance. Things like
technology, available financial resources, etc., can be more significant
factors.

That’s true what you say, however
humans clearly interact with the organisation in their roles and these are
required to be optimally designed.

b. Even
within human factors, PCT has not been developed to the extent to
handle human nature and how behavior at the highest levels of perception
works, including where our system level references come from or all the ways
they can be changed or reorganized.

At the highest level RO has already solved
this problem and it does exist as HPCT. Many of the levels of HPCT can be
clearly defined and measured using RO.

Despite
these limitations, I am convinced that the more people in an organization
understand themselves as autonomous living input control systems, the better
they will be able to reach mutually agreed upon company goals and
exceed the performance of those controlling employees by authoritative
coercion.

I don’t believe that there are too
many organisations that use coercion as a method of control. I have actually
never come across one, besides the army.


Access 350+ FREE radio
stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get
the Radio Toolbar
!

Arthur Dijkstra 2009 04 20 06:31 gmt

(Gavin Ritz 2009.04.20.17.13NZT)

[From
Kenny Kitzke (4.19.2009)]

Arthur:

You asked
Bill Powers:

To what
extend can the PCT concept be transferred to an organisational

environment like an airline ? Has the PCT concept explicitly been used to

model the control structure of a company ? It would be helpful to read about

this. Thanks for any suggestions or links.

···

These
questions reside largely in my sandbox. For the past 20 years I have
consulted with organizations on how to improve performance and create greater
value for their stakeholders. I became acquainted with PCT about 15 years
ago. I know, or should know, something about your inquiry.

I will
make a few brief observations, and if you, or others, wish to delve into them
further, I will try to get more specific.

PCT models organism/people behavior; not organization/company
behavior

Correct

Since organizations/companies are composed of people, PCT
concepts are relevant and can be meaningfully transferred to what companies
like an airline do.

The PCT context is relevant in terms of how a person deals with
their role and other person(s) in their roles. But not that helpful in defining
control in an organizational sense.

AD: If organizational perception (e.g. figures in Balanced Score
Cards) are is disagreement with peoples perceptions I expect loss of
effectiveness and efficiency as measure by the organization.

The extent of that transfer is not well tested, demonstrated or understood.

The structure of control in organizations is typically a model of
hierarchal authority.

That’s what I would a TARR a task assigning role relationship
however cross functional roles are as important and they are called
TIRR’s task initiating role relationship each have specific controlling
functions. And much more difficult to assess then the simple hierarchal
authority.

AD: That is where I think the VSM can be helpful, the design of
the organizational structure from which roles and authorities will follow.

The method of control is a Stimulus-Response illusion of
psychology known as reinforcement theory. You control the behavior in an
organization by punishing undesirable behavior and rewarding the desired
behavior.

Not sure I have ever seen this in organisations, it may be taught
in business schools but I have never seen anyone being punished in an
organisation that I have worked in. Anyway the psychological method in an
organisational sense is highly dysfunctional.

AD: This does not comply with my experience, but from a certain
perspective this might be a valid observation. Management lacks the variety to
evaluate all behavior, but can only deal with aggregates.

Unfortunately,
this authoritative control model of the behavior of people does not work
reliably.

Not too sure what you mean by this, in the military it works very
well, but what exactly do you mean by authoritive control. Does it have a
specific model that is found in organizations?

AD: Do you mean to control the behavior of the people
effectively or the management of an organization ? The authoritative control
model does not amplify variety and allow autonomy to the extent that each layer
in an organization can deal with its problems. That will contribute to organizational
problems.

Attempting
to exercise unilateral control of human beings in organizations often
backfires; not producing the desired results but unexpected disasters.

AD: Agree and I think part of the explanation is my remark
above.

While
applying PCT concepts in employee behavior offers good potential for better,
more reliable performance results by people, it remains far from a proven,
scientific means for reliably producing outstanding performance results.

The only scientifically theory in organisation design is Requisite
Organization (RO) developed by Elliot Jaques.

AD: We better avoid a discussion here about what is scientific
and what not, but lets agree that we want concepts that most probably will work,
since they appeared to do so in the past and are coherent in a field of ‘serious’
continuous publications. Here is some work related to RO and the VSM https://globalro.org/en/go-library/books/books/214-making-work-systems-better-a-practitioners-reflections-.html

I
perceive there are a number of reasons why PCT can only be a help rather than a
proven remedy for more successful airlines. Two I would mention are:

a. Human
factors alone can’t drive superior performance. Things like technology,
available financial resources, etc., can be more significant factors.

That’s true what you say, however humans clearly
interact with the organisation in their roles and these are required to be
optimally designed.

b. Even
within human factors, PCT has not been developed to the extent to
handle human nature and how behavior at the highest levels of perception
works, including where our system level references come from or all the ways
they can be changed or reorganized.

At the highest level RO has already solved this problem and it does
exist as HPCT. Many of the levels of HPCT can be clearly defined and
measured using RO.

Despite
these limitations, I am convinced that the more people in an organization
understand themselves as autonomous living input control systems, the better
they will be able to reach mutually agreed upon company goals and
exceed the performance of those controlling employees by authoritative
coercion.

I don’t believe that there are too many organisations that
use coercion as a method of control. I have actually never come across one,
besides the army.

AD: You have probably seen these sites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_System_Model
and http://cybernetics-and-society.wikispaces.com/


Access
350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get
the Radio Toolbar
!

Arthur:

You asked Bill Powers:

To what extend can the PCT concept be transferred to an
organisational

environment like an airline ? Has the PCT concept explicitly been used
to

model the control structure of a company ? It would be helpful to read
about

this. Thanks for any suggestions or links.


These questions reside largely in my sandbox. For the past 20 years
I have consulted with organizations on how to improve performance and
create greater value for their stakeholders. I became acquainted
with PCT about 15 years ago. I know, or should know, something
about your inquiry.
[From Bill Powers (2009.04.20.0907 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (4.19.2009) –

I agree with most of your well-expressed points, Kenny. I think this is a
good thread and hope it continues.

All those who participate need to realize the importance of one of your
main points, which is that the application of PCT to organizations has
not been worked out in any detail. There’s a good reason for that.

There is no background of expertise, there are no textbooks to study,
there are no authorities in this field. You are it. If there are holes in
the PCT approach, you are the ones who have to fill them. If you can’t
see how to apply PCT to a problem in an organization, you are just going
to have to work it out for yourself. I may know a lot about control
theory, but I don’t know much about organizations from the management
point of view: I can’t teach what I don’t know.

Everyone in PCT is a pioneer. When future generations cite books and
papers to each other, they will be the book and papers you write. PCT
isn’t going to crawl out of B:CP and apply itself. If you don’t do it, it
won’t get done.

I do have to put in one request: don’t try to use PCT to justify or
explain some other theory of behavior. Fifty years of watching this
happen has convinced me that nothing much will come of that. PCT is just
too different from any other theories of human organization. And when you
consider other approaches to organizational design, remember that
underneath the specifics of what they propose are other theories of how
behavior works. For example, Gavin Ritz says he has never known of an
organization that uses punishment, except the Army. But what about
organizations that use rewards? From the standpoint of PCT, there’s
little difference. Both require having control of something that a person
needs, and withholding it until that person behaves as the controlling
person dictates. The purpose of using either rewards or punishments is to
control someone else’s behavior.

And what about organizations that try to tell their employees what
actions to perform? They are thinking like behaviorists, not realizing
that people control their own experiences, not their behaviors, and
telling them how to do that just generates conflict. Then there are the
planning addicts, who try to handle every contingency before it arises,
just as cognitive psychology says they should do, and find that when
something unexpected comes up, they are paralyzed.

PCT says that if you want to get along with people, you don’t tell
them what actions to perform, you tell them what results to achieve. And
you don’t just tell them; you get their agreement first, so among their
goals is the goal of performing a useful function in the organization. It
says you don’t offer them incentives, you help them get what they already
want. It says you don’t try to control their behavior, you bargain with
them for what you want by trading it for what they want. That’s actually
easier to do in a large organization than in a small one.

If you’re going to generate a PCT version of organizational design, then
work it out from first principles. PCT describes how individuals work.
from that, you can work out a lot of principles concerning how they
interact with each other. And if you can work that out, you should be
able to work out how to design an organization that allows people to
interact and behave individually in ways consistent with their underlying
nature.

One last thought (for now, of course). There is a tendency among
designers of organizations to think that management is all there is to an
organization. As a person who has energetically avoided getting sucked
into management, I can cite some extended examples of the result of
forgetting that most organizations can’t work at all unless most of the
people in it have some actual skills, knowledge and expertise about
something other than management. Most companies could continue working
for quite some time if all the managers caught a fatal disease. But if
that happened to those who get managed, the company would cease to exist
overnight.

The result of this management-centered approach is that managers tend to
think of their profession as a kind of nobility, different from other
people, smarter than other people, more worthy of respect than other
people, more deserving of goodies and riches and priviledges. That is a
handicap for an organization.

I like Gavin Ritz’s approach of thinking in terms of roles and
relationships among roles. That’s the way to design an organization; it’s
like designing any machine. The particular person who carries out one
role is pretty much like any other person who could carry out that role,
except perhaps for one or two useful things learned in management
schools. Perhaps. To design roles and the relationships among them one
must of course understand the business world and the world of large
systems; that’s a definite kind of real knowledge and requires real
skill. But all the other roles also require just as much knowledge and
skill, and are filled by people who are also hierarchies of control
systems with just as many levels of organization inside them as anyone
else has.

An organization that works has to be free of internal conflict, just as
an individual person must be. Conflicts can exist between roles simply
because of bad design. But they can also exist because they create
conflicts between individuals. A PCT designer of organizations must know
what causes conflict within and between people and how to avoid
it.

Above all are system concepts. You can’t design any kind of complex
system unless you know what it is for. Why should there be any
organizations at all? Do businesses exist merely to enrich their
stockholders or owners? Is their function in a society merely to suck as
much buying power out of it as possible? Do the owners of organizations
have rights that other people don’t have? Do organizations have rights
and duties independently of the people who occupy the roles? The law
thinks they do. Maybe they should have more rights and duties, especially
duties.

If you’re going to create a new science of organizations, you need to
start from scratch and put everything on the table. I guess I could have
said that first and saved a lot of words. But I don’t mind
writing.

Best,

Bill P.

I

From Arthur Dijkstra (2009.04.20.1723 GMT)

Thanks Bill

From your response:

BP PCT says that if you want to get along with
people, you don’t tell them what actions to perform, you tell them what
results to achieve. And you don’t just tell them; you get their agreement
first, so among their goals is the goal of performing a useful function in the
organization. It says you don’t offer them incentives, you help them get what
they already want. It says you don’t try to control their behavior, you bargain
with them for what you want by trading it for what they want. That’s actually
easier to do in a large organization than in a small one.

AD That sounds compatible with a VSM aspect:

Quoting
Hoverstadt: “Key elements of managing the cohesion of the organisation
are Resource and

Performance
Management, and critically, the balance between the two.

To
ensure viability, the processes for managing resources and performance need to
be

communicative
and participative. Performance measures and targets need to be agreed

between
sub-systems and the management of the system of which they are part. This

is
in contrast with normal practice in many organisations where they are practiced
as

‘top
down’ commands and controls. The arbitrary imposition of either
performance

targets
or resource allocation, risks unrealistic demands and expectations of parts of

the
organisation and increases the probability of failure. The agreement of

performance
targets and measures needs to be matched and balanced by a reciprocal

allocation
of resources.”

BP: If you’re going to create a new science of
organizations, you need to start from scratch and put everything on the table.

AD: No thanks I am not smart enough and lack time to compensate
for that. I would like to stand on the shoulders of giants and apply the
concepts in a somewhat new area like safety management.

AD: In PCT and Engineering Control Theory you state: In
some ways, PCT is rightly considered old-fashioned by some control engineers.
This is because it focuses exclusively on negative feedback control systems as
they were understood 50 years ago, and says little (outside some very
preliminary proposals) about systems that learn and adapt.

AD: It is useful to see the limitations of effectiveness of PCT.
So I theory for adaptation and learning must be found elsewhere. Beer translate
viability as the capacity to keep the systems identity in a changing world. The
VSM describes mechanisms for adaptation. Here is link to a personal VSM as
example of the model: http://www.allennaleonard.com/PersVSM.html

What do you think of that ?

Thanks for your comments,

Arthur

···

Van: Control Systems
Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] Namens Bill
Powers
Verzonden: maandag 20 april 2009 18:08
Aan: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: Control in a Company

[From Bill Powers (2009.04.20.0907 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke
(4.19.2009) –

Arthur:

You asked Bill Powers:

To what extend can the PCT concept be transferred to an organisational

environment like an airline ? Has the PCT concept explicitly been used to

model the control structure of a company ? It would be helpful to read about

this. Thanks for any suggestions or links.


These questions reside largely in my sandbox. For the past 20 years I
have consulted with organizations on how to improve performance and create
greater value for their stakeholders. I became acquainted with PCT about
15 years ago. I know, or should know, something about your inquiry.

I agree with most of your well-expressed points, Kenny. I think this is a good
thread and hope it continues.

All those who participate need to realize the importance of one of your main
points, which is that the application of PCT to organizations has not been
worked out in any detail. There’s a good reason for that.

There is no background of expertise, there are no textbooks to study, there are
no authorities in this field. You are it. If there are holes in the PCT
approach, you are the ones who have to fill them. If you can’t see how to apply
PCT to a problem in an organization, you are just going to have to work it out
for yourself. I may know a lot about control theory, but I don’t know much
about organizations from the management point of view: I can’t teach what I
don’t know.

Everyone in PCT is a pioneer. When future generations cite books and papers to
each other, they will be the book and papers you write. PCT isn’t going to
crawl out of B:CP and apply itself. If you don’t do it, it won’t get done.

I do have to put in one request: don’t try to use PCT to justify or explain
some other theory of behavior. Fifty years of watching this happen has
convinced me that nothing much will come of that. PCT is just too different
from any other theories of human organization. And when you consider other
approaches to organizational design, remember that underneath the specifics of
what they propose are other theories of how behavior works. For example, Gavin
Ritz says he has never known of an organization that uses punishment, except
the Army. But what about organizations that use rewards? From the standpoint of
PCT, there’s little difference. Both require having control of something that a
person needs, and withholding it until that person behaves as the controlling
person dictates. The purpose of using either rewards or punishments is to
control someone else’s behavior.

And what about organizations that try to tell their employees what actions to
perform? They are thinking like behaviorists, not realizing that people control
their own experiences, not their behaviors, and telling them how to do that
just generates conflict. Then there are the planning addicts, who try to handle
every contingency before it arises, just as cognitive psychology says they
should do, and find that when something unexpected comes up, they are paralyzed.

PCT says that if you want to get along with people, you don’t tell them
what actions to perform, you tell them what results to achieve. And you don’t
just tell them; you get their agreement first, so among their goals is the goal
of performing a useful function in the organization. It says you don’t offer
them incentives, you help them get what they already want. It says you don’t
try to control their behavior, you bargain with them for what you want by
trading it for what they want. That’s actually easier to do in a large
organization than in a small one.

If you’re going to generate a PCT version of organizational design, then work
it out from first principles. PCT describes how individuals work. From that,
you can work out a lot of principles concerning how they interact with each
other. And if you can work that out, you should be able to work out how to
design an organization that allows people to interact and behave individually
in ways consistent with their underlying nature.

One last thought (for now, of course). There is a tendency among designers of
organizations to think that management is all there is to an organization. As a
person who has energetically avoided getting sucked into management, I can cite
some extended examples of the result of forgetting that most organizations
can’t work at all unless most of the people in it have some actual skills,
knowledge and expertise about something other than management. Most companies
could continue working for quite some time if all the managers caught a fatal
disease. But if that happened to those who get managed, the company would cease
to exist overnight.

The result of this management-centered approach is that managers tend to think
of their profession as a kind of nobility, different from other people, smarter
than other people, more worthy of respect than other people, more deserving of
goodies and riches and priviledges. That is a handicap for an organization.

I like Gavin Ritz’s approach of thinking in terms of roles and relationships
among roles. That’s the way to design an organization; it’s like designing any
machine. The particular person who carries out one role is pretty much like any
other person who could carry out that role, except perhaps for one or two
useful things learned in management schools. Perhaps. To design roles and the
relationships among them one must of course understand the business world and
the world of large systems; that’s a definite kind of real knowledge and
requires real skill. But all the other roles also require just as much
knowledge and skill, and are filled by people who are also hierarchies of
control systems with just as many levels of organization inside them as anyone
else has.

An organization that works has to be free of internal conflict, just as an individual
person must be. Conflicts can exist between roles simply because of bad design.
But they can also exist because they create conflicts between individuals. A
PCT designer of organizations must know what causes conflict within and between
people and how to avoid it.

Above all are system concepts. You can’t design any kind of complex system
unless you know what it is for. Why should there be any organizations at all?
Do businesses exist merely to enrich their stockholders or owners? Is their
function in a society merely to suck as much buying power out of it as
possible? Do the owners of organizations have rights that other people don’t
have? Do organizations have rights and duties independently of the people who
occupy the roles? The law thinks they do. Maybe they should have more rights
and duties, especially duties.

If you’re going to create a new science of organizations, you need to start
from scratch and put everything on the table. I guess I could have said that
first and saved a lot of words. But I don’t mind writing.

Best,

Bill P.

I

[From Rick Marken (2009.04.20.1120)]

Bill Powers (2009.04.20.0907 MDT)--

If you're going to generate a PCT version of organizational design, then
work it out from first principles. PCT describes how individuals work. From
that, you can work out a lot of principles concerning how they interact with
each other. And if you can work that out, you should be able to work out how
to design an organization that allows people to interact and behave
individually in ways consistent with their underlying nature

Yes, that's true _if_ the goal of the organizational designer is to
design an organization "that allows people to interact and behave
individually in ways consistent with their underlying nature". My
experience has been that organizational designers are hired to design
organizations that maximize profit for the people who hire them:
owners (shareholders) or managers. I think right there you have the
seeds of conflict within the organization itself. Maximizing profits
could (and usually does) make it much easier for some individuals in
the organization (owners and management) to behave in a way that is
consistent with their underlying nature (to be in control of the
variables they care about) than others (workers).

One last thought (for now, of course). There is a tendency among designers
of organizations to think that management is all there is to an
organization.

Yes, that's basically what I am concerned about.

The result of this management-centered approach is that managers tend to
think of their profession as a kind of nobility, different from other
people, smarter than other people, more worthy of respect than other people,
more deserving of goodies and riches and priviledges. That is a handicap for
an organization.

My point exactly!

An organization that works has to be free of internal conflict, just as an
individual person must be.

Yes.

A PCT designer of organizations must know what causes conflict
within and between people and how to avoid it.

But that might involve having to suggest to owners and/or management
that they should get paid less and the workers should get paid more.
That would create a conflict between the organizational designer and
the manager or owner who hired him (or her). I think organizational
management might work best if it were done as a free service.

Above all are system concepts. You can't design any kind of complex system
unless you know what it is for. Why should there be any organizations at
all? Do businesses exist merely to enrich their stockholders or owners? Is
their function in a society merely to suck as much buying power out of it as
possible?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question, in the US anyway, is
probably "yes".

If you're going to create a new science of organizations, you need to start
from scratch and put everything on the table.

And that can only be done, I think, by people who don't have to worry
about selling these ideas. These ideas for organizational goals are at
a higher level than the goals of the owners and managers who hire the
organizational designers. The people who would actually start from
scratch and create this new science would have to be in a position
where they don't depend on selling these ideas as a way of making a
living themselves, I think. Right now, that probably means academics
and eccentric garage scientists;-)

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[From Fred Nickols (2009.04.20.1217 MST)]

Well, we're off in an area where I know a little something.

First off, organizational design (or redesign) often amounts to little more than shuffling around the boxes on the organization chart. This is done for many reasons, two of the main ones being to (1) keep people off balance and (2) to maintain some kind of balance of power.

Sometimes, however, organization design follows process design / redesign, in which case the emphasis is on the efficient performance of the work of the organization.

No matter what comes first or last, there is always the design problem that amounts to balancing the power of the organization. This is typically done through the allocation of resources (i.e., who gets to control what and how much of it).

Two design constraints are posed by thinking about (a) formal power and (b) the exercise of control. Power typically boils down to who gets to make what kinds of decisions and that usually lines up with position in the hierarchy. Control is commonly believed to be exercised by people and over people.

Frankly, the ability of a person who is not strategically placed in the organization to reliably, systematically, predictably and regularly produce specified results in and across a wide range of organizational settings scares the hell out of many corporate denizens because it is an irrefutable illustration of that person's effective exercise of power and control. God forbid that person should not be a member (or member in waiting) of the powers that be. Such a display also almost always includes what most people call "leadership" and that, too, scares the hell out of the powers that be because it is evidence of the potential for mutiny, revolution, guerrilla warfare and all manner of anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment possibilities. Co-optation (or elimination) of such people becomes a priority.

As for profits, if the organization is being design for active owners seeking profits, profits will most assuredly be a consideration. Otherwise, the interests at the top of the list will be those of management, not the owners.

Lastly, the least likely factor to be considered during organizational design is accountability at the higher echelons. They will almost certainly want the ability to put the screws to the lower levels, but don't go introducing anything that remotely looks like real accountability at the upper levels. For decades now, senior execs have been accountable to no one except themselves and they like it that way.

As for PCT in organizations, I think a really good presentation of PCT and its implications for human performance and the management of work would make most managers and execs squirm very uncomfortably and lead them to dismiss it as impractical? Why? Because the chief implication of PCT (so far as I can tell) is that you must deal with individuals as individuals. Try to imagine an employee benefit and compensation system that is tailored to each individual's wants, needs and requirements. Ho, Ho, Ho. Try to imagine a "contract" for each and every employee. Ho, Ho, Ho. Try to imagine managers who are busily negotiating with each of their direct reports for certain specified results and figuring out how to provide them all with the requisite resources. Ho, Ho, Ho.

Most managers already know that control is always against some standard (although they wouldn't use "reference signal" in lieu of "standard"). How do they know this? Because Peter Drucker told 'em, over and over. And so they go around imposing standards here, there and everywhere - all to no avail. What they don't seem to know is that for a given standard to be operational with respect to people, those people must adopt that standard as their own, as something they want to achieve. Absent that genuine buy-in, all that goes on is gaming the system.

What's to be done about it? No much I fear. Why? Because the powers that be are living control systems, too. They do a pretty good job of controlling their inputs (salary, bonuses, perks, etc) and, like most living control systems, they do a pretty good job of keeping those inputs under control (which also means they do a pretty good job of counter, off-setting and negating any real, perceived or potential disturbances. And that, of course, brings us full circle to the core issue: Accountability. As long as the corporate chieftains are accountable to no one except themselves, the game will continue as is.

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"
  
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>

[From Rick Marken (2009.04.20.1120)]

> Bill Powers (2009.04.20.0907 MDT)--

> If you're going to generate a PCT version of organizational design, then
> work it out from first principles. PCT describes how individuals work. From
> that, you can work out a lot of principles concerning how they interact with
> each other. And if you can work that out, you should be able to work out how
> to design an organization that allows people to interact and behave
> individually in ways consistent with their underlying nature

Yes, that's true _if_ the goal of the organizational designer is to
design an organization "that allows people to interact and behave
individually in ways consistent with their underlying nature". My
experience has been that organizational designers are hired to design
organizations that maximize profit for the people who hire them:
owners (shareholders) or managers. I think right there you have the
seeds of conflict within the organization itself. Maximizing profits
could (and usually does) make it much easier for some individuals in
the organization (owners and management) to behave in a way that is
consistent with their underlying nature (to be in control of the
variables they care about) than others (workers).

> One last thought (for now, of course). There is a tendency among designers
> of organizations to think that management is all there is to an
> organization.

Yes, that's basically what I am concerned about.

> The result of this management-centered approach is that managers tend to
> think of their profession as a kind of nobility, different from other
> people, smarter than other people, more worthy of respect than other people,
> more deserving of goodies and riches and priviledges. That is a handicap for
> an organization.

My point exactly!

> An organization that works has to be free of internal conflict, just as an
> individual person must be.

Yes.

> A PCT designer of organizations must know what causes conflict
> within and between people and how to avoid it.

But that might involve having to suggest to owners and/or management
that they should get paid less and the workers should get paid more.
That would create a conflict between the organizational designer and
the manager or owner who hired him (or her). I think organizational
management might work best if it were done as a free service.

> Above all are system concepts. You can't design any kind of complex system
> unless you know what it is for. Why should there be any organizations at
> all? Do businesses exist merely to enrich their stockholders or owners? Is
> their function in a society merely to suck as much buying power out of it as
> possible?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question, in the US anyway, is
probably "yes".

> If you're going to create a new science of organizations, you need to start
> from scratch and put everything on the table.

And that can only be done, I think, by people who don't have to worry
about selling these ideas. These ideas for organizational goals are at
a higher level than the goals of the owners and managers who hire the
organizational designers. The people who would actually start from
scratch and create this new science would have to be in a position
where they don't depend on selling these ideas as a way of making a
living themselves, I think. Right now, that probably means academics
and eccentric garage scientists;-)

Best regards

Rick

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

[From Bill Powers (2009.04.20.1509 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2009.04.20.1217 MST) –

Well, we’re off in an area where
I know a little something.

First off, organizational design (or redesign) often amounts to little
more than shuffling around the boxes on the organization chart.
This is done for many reasons, two of the main ones being to (1) keep
people off balance and (2) to maintain some kind of balance of
power.

Well, well, well. This post opens the door to a rather different approach
to the subject of PCT and organizational design. What you’re saying is
that the real problem is not getting acceptance of PCT by organizations,
but figuring out how to get started doing some therapy on what is
basically an insane system. The actual application of PCT to social
relationships is, I have long thought, not all that complicated, and it’s
not all that original or unique to PCT, either. If people really want to
design and live in an organization (or a society) that does its various
jobs effectively and efficiently, where the people are happy in their
occupations and good at them, where the atmosphere is pleasant and
supportive and interesting or even exciting – well, what’s to keep them
from doing that? Really, does that sound so hard to do?
Obviously, it is hard to do and is hardly ever achieved, or hardly
ever for long. You’ve got me asking the same questions I ask about
psychotherapy. If people have natural mechanisms for reorganizing when
their lives aren’t working right, why haven’t those mechanisms already
solved the problems that all these clients come to their therapists with?
If people can recognize problems and reorganize until they solve them,
why are there all these borderline-psychotic organizations still out
there? Can’t anyone see there’s something seriously wrong with them? Does
everybody just accept that level of hostility and fear and ferocious
competition and me-firstism as natural and normal?

I think that what we need to do is not to find an application of PCT to
organizational design, but to get to work on organizational therapy.
There is something terribly wrong with human interactions in the kinds of
organizations you describe. As you obviously have decided, approaching
such organizations with the idea of using PCT to improve their structure
and function is a futile and naive proposition: if a little education in
PCT were all that was needed (PCT or any other reasonably effective
approach), the needed fixes would already have been accomplished.

What’s wrong is that the normal problem-solving mechanisms are not
working right. In psychotherapy, the solutions to human problems are
usually pretty simple, obvious, and even easy; the problem is not in
finding a solution but in finding the will or the clarity of mind or the
freedom of action needed to apply it. In psychotherapy, I’m pretty sure
that internal conflict, and the external conflict associated with it, is
the great disabler. Something like that has to be the case with
organizational problems, too.

Now that you’ve led me onto that trail, I’m starting to think about MOL
again, which is to say I’m thinking that what we need to do is find a way
to facilitiate the natural self-healing and self-reorganizing capacities
of the people in organizations. We don’t need to solve their problems;
only they know what their problems really are and only they can carry out
the needed reorganizations. The therapist’s job is to help make it
possible to solve problems, and more particularly to help people discover
what all the problems really are, and which problems have to be solved
before others can be approached. In MOL therapy, once people get on the
right track they dispose of their problems rather promptly and without
any long drawn-out agony. The solutions, as I said, are not mysterious or
complicated. But people get themselves into internal tangles that make it
impossible to choose to do one thing or do something else instead. They
end up doing neither.

Thanks, Fred, for that useful little rant. What do the rest of us think
about this new slant on organizational – therapy?

Best,

Bill P.

···

Sometimes, however, organization
design follows process design / redesign, in which case the emphasis is
on the efficient performance of the work of the organization.

No matter what comes first or last, there is always the design problem
that amounts to balancing the power of the organization. This is
typically done through the allocation of resources (i.e., who gets to
control what and how much of it).

Two design constraints are posed by thinking about (a) formal power and
(b) the exercise of control. Power typically boils down to who gets
to make what kinds of decisions and that usually lines up with position
in the hierarchy. Control is commonly believed to be exercised by
people and over people.

Frankly, the ability of a person who is not strategically placed in the
organization to reliably, systematically, predictably and regularly
produce specified results in and across a wide range of organizational
settings scares the hell out of many corporate denizens because it is an
irrefutable illustration of that person’s effective exercise of power and
control. God forbid that person should not be a member (or member
in waiting) of the powers that be. Such a display also almost
always includes what most people call “leadership” and that,
too, scares the hell out of the powers that be because it is evidence of
the potential for mutiny, revolution, guerrilla warfare and all manner of
anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment possibilities. Co-optation
(or elimination) of such people becomes a priority.

As for profits, if the organization is being design for active owners
seeking profits, profits will most assuredly be a consideration.
Otherwise, the interests at the top of the list will be those of
management, not the owners.

Lastly, the least likely factor to be considered during organizational
design is accountability at the higher echelons. They will almost
certainly want the ability to put the screws to the lower levels, but
don’t go introducing anything that remotely looks like real
accountability at the upper levels. For decades now, senior execs
have been accountable to no one except themselves and they like it that
way.

As for PCT in organizations, I think a really good presentation of PCT
and its implications for human performance and the management of work
would make most managers and execs squirm very uncomfortably and lead
them to dismiss it as impractical? Why? Because the chief
implication of PCT (so far as I can tell) is that you must deal with
individuals as individuals. Try to imagine an employee benefit and
compensation system that is tailored to each individual’s wants, needs
and requirements. Ho, Ho, Ho. Try to imagine a
“contract” for each and every employee. Ho, Ho, Ho. Try
to imagine managers who are busily negotiating with each of their direct
reports for certain specified results and figuring out how to provide
them all with the requisite resources. Ho, Ho, Ho.

Most managers already know that control is always against some standard
(although they wouldn’t use “reference signal” in lieu of
“standard”). How do they know this? Because Peter
Drucker told 'em, over and over. And so they go around imposing
standards here, there and everywhere - all to no avail. What they
don’t seem to know is that for a given standard to be operational with
respect to people, those people must adopt that standard as their own, as
something they want to achieve. Absent that genuine buy-in, all
that goes on is gaming the system.

What’s to be done about it? No much I fear. Why?
Because the powers that be are living control systems, too. They do
a pretty good job of controlling their inputs (salary, bonuses, perks,
etc) and, like most living control systems, they do a pretty good job of
keeping those inputs under control (which also means they do a pretty
good job of counter, off-setting and negating any real, perceived or
potential disturbances. And that, of course, brings us full circle
to the core issue: Accountability. As long as the corporate
chieftains are accountable to no one except themselves, the game will
continue as is.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting, LLC

nickols@att.net

www.nickols.us

“Assistance at A Distance”

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM

[From Rick Marken (2009.04.20.1120)]

Bill Powers (2009.04.20.0907 MDT)–

If you’re going to generate a PCT version of organizational
design, then

work it out from first principles. PCT describes how
individuals work. From

that, you can work out a lot of principles concerning how they
interact with

each other. And if you can work that out, you should be able to
work out how

to design an organization that allows people to interact and
behave

individually in ways consistent with their underlying
nature

Yes, that’s true if the goal of the organizational designer is
to

design an organization "that allows people to interact and
behave

individually in ways consistent with their underlying nature".
My

experience has been that organizational designers are hired to
design

organizations that maximize profit for the people who hire
them:

owners (shareholders) or managers. I think right there you have
the

seeds of conflict within the organization itself. Maximizing
profits

could (and usually does) make it much easier for some individuals
in

the organization (owners and management) to behave in a way that
is

consistent with their underlying nature (to be in control of
the

variables they care about) than others (workers).

One last thought (for now, of course). There is a tendency
among designers

of organizations to think that management is all there is to
an

organization.

Yes, that’s basically what I am concerned about.

The result of this management-centered approach is that
managers tend to

think of their profession as a kind of nobility, different from
other

people, smarter than other people, more worthy of respect than
other people,

more deserving of goodies and riches and priviledges. That is a
handicap for

an organization.

My point exactly!

An organization that works has to be free of internal conflict,
just as an

individual person must be.

Yes.

A PCT designer of organizations must know what causes
conflict

within and between people and how to avoid it.

But that might involve having to suggest to owners and/or
management

that they should get paid less and the workers should get paid
more.

That would create a conflict between the organizational designer
and

the manager or owner who hired him (or her). I think
organizational

management might work best if it were done as a free service.

Above all are system concepts. You can’t design any kind of
complex system

unless you know what it is for. Why should there be any
organizations at

all? Do businesses exist merely to enrich their stockholders or
owners? Is

their function in a society merely to suck as much buying power
out of it as

possible?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question, in the US anyway,
is

probably “yes”.

If you’re going to create a new science of organizations, you
need to start

from scratch and put everything on the table.

And that can only be done, I think, by people who don’t have to
worry

about selling these ideas. These ideas for organizational goals are
at

a higher level than the goals of the owners and managers who hire
the

organizational designers. The people who would actually start
from

scratch and create this new science would have to be in a
position

where they don’t depend on selling these ideas as a way of making
a

living themselves, I think. Right now, that probably means
academics

and eccentric garage scientists;-)

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com

–=======AVGMAIL-49ECE3770000=======

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

boundary=“=======AVGMAIL-49ECE3770000=======”

–=======AVGMAIL-49ECE3770000=======

Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Content-Disposition: inline

Content-Description: “AVG certification”

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2069 - Release Date: 04/20/09
10=

:36:00

–=======AVGMAIL-49ECE3770000=======–

–=======AVGMAIL-49ECE3770000=======–

[From Mike Acree (2009.04.20.1512 PDT)]

Bill Powers (2009.04.20.1509 MDT)] –

I wouldn’t venture much about organizational therapy (at least without more thought–you’ve pointed in an interesting direction), but I thought Fred’s post was terrific. It really rang true to my experience with a variety of organizations. Fred also makes me laugh more consistently than probably anyone else on the Net (though Mary was pretty good in her day).

Mike

[From Dick Robertson (2009.04.20.1718CDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2009.04.20.0907 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (4.19.2009) –

I agree with most of your well-expressed points, Kenny. I think this is a good thread and hope it continues.

All those who participate need to realize the importance of one of your main points, which is that the application of PCT to organizations has not been worked out in any detail. There’s a good reason for that.

There is no background of expertise, there are no textbooks to study, there are no authorities in this field. You are it. If there are holes in the PCT approach, you are the ones who have to fill them. If you can’t see how to apply PCT to a problem in an organization, you are just going to have to work it out for yourself. I may know a lot about control theory, but I don’t know much about organizations from the management point of view: I can’t teach what I don’t know.

DR: Well, I remember you telling one time about how you and the other techies at the newspaper found how to get one of your number into a management position that he did well and that none of the rest of you were interested in and that removed him from tangling up the rest of you. Do I remember that at all right?

It made a great story and I think ought to be elaborated in the terms of how you applied your growing understanding of control to arrive at the solution to that problem.

I think Kenny and a number of others would have anecdotes that demonstrate the use of PCT, even if it were mainly an application without conscious reference to the theory. I believe I could recall a time or two that I did make conscious resort to the theory to work on a person-problem (in our department at NEIU, e.g.), and I’ll bet others of us have done so too.

I also wonder whether some of the members, like AD would be willing to spell out a concrete problem and let the net group try to define a PCT approach.

Should there be chapter in IMP2 on the topic then? Or even a companion volume as you suggested in a previous post?

Everyone in PCT is a pioneer. When future generations cite books and papers to each other, they will be the book and papers you write. PCT isn’t going to crawl out of B:CP and apply itself. If you don’t do it, it won’t get done.

I do have to put in one request: don’t try to use PCT to justify or explain some other theory of behavior. Fifty years of watching this happen has convinced me that nothing much will come of that. PCT is just too different from any other theories of human organization.

PCT says that if you want to get along with people, you don’t tell them what actions to perform, you tell them what results to achieve. And you don’t just tell them; you get their agreement first, so among their goals is the goal of performing a useful function in the organization. It says you don’t offer them incentives, you help them get what they already want. It says you don’t try to control their behavior, you bargain with them for what you want by trading it for what they want. That’s actually easier to do in a large organization than in a small one.

If you’re going to generate a PCT version of organizational design, then work it out from first principles. PCT describes how individuals work. From that, you can work out a lot of principles concerning how they interact with each other. And if you can work that out, you should be able to work out how to design an organization that allows people to interact and behave individually in ways consistent with their underlying nature.

One last thought (for now, of course). There is a tendency among designers of organizations to think that management is all there is to an organization. As a person who has energetically avoided getting sucked into management, I can cite some extended examples of the result of forgetting that most organizations can’t work at all unless most of the people in it have some actual skills, knowledge and expertise about something other than management. Most companies could continue working for quite some time if all the managers caught a fatal disease. But if that happened to those who get managed, the company would cease to exist overnight.

DR: Yeah, Citem.

Best,

Dick R

[From Fred Nickols (2009.04.20.1542 MST)]

I think what we’re all dealing with in the world of
organizations and work is a giant disconnect between what is, what was, and
what should be.Â

Years ago I took a look at what was then being called “the shift
to knowledge work� (largely the creation of Peter F. Drucker). As best I could
determine, there was in fact a huge reversal in the composition of the US
workforce between 1920 and 1980. We went from being roughly two-thirds manual
workers and one-third knowledge workers to the other way around – two-thirds
knowledge workers and one-third manual workers. An even starker shift took
place in the first 50 years of the last century (1900-1950): the agricultural
workforce dwindled from roughly one-third of the country’s workers to less than
3 percent.

Now the interesting thing in all this (to me at least), is that
so-called manual work is readily observed. Duh! Consequently, the “one best
way� can be determined and compliance with that one best way (even if it’s not)
can be enforced because it’s all highly visible. In short, the work itself can
be prefigured. So-called “knowledge work� is not so readily observed but that’s
not the big issue. The big issue with knowledge work is that they are not
processing materials so as to produce a product that meets specifications.Â
Instead, they are interacting with information and with other people. The big
deal is this: the responses of most of the workers in today’s workplace must
be configured to meet the circumstances at hand. In other words, they have to
figure out what to do.Â

Where we are, then, is in a situation where, when it comes to
work, management can no longer prescribe prefigured routines to which workers
must adhere. Nor do they have a clue as to how to obtain the results they want
from living control systems or what I call “autonomous performers.� To be
sure, they know all about carrots and sticks, rewards and punishment,
incentives and those nasty little things called “disincentivesâ€? – but it hasn’t
yet dawned on them that the fundamentals of work itself have changed and this
means the fundamentals of working and dealing with workers have changed too.Â
They’re all still living in the past, confident that they can demand or command
and what they want will happen.

What I think is really going on in most modern organizations is
that just about everyone is running around pretty much doing as he or she
pleases. The “system� as it were is easily gamed and lots of people are gaming
it. Bosses are powerless for the most part and, for the most part, that’s
probably a pretty good thing. Why? Because what gets done gets done because
the people doing it see to it that it gets done. In short, there is a
tremendous, unstated, unrecognized reliance on individual initiative,
competence and responsibility.  Are there people out there who take advantage
of this situation and do little more than milk it for personal gain. You
betcha! That’s essentially my take on things like Enron, AIG and others. The “system�
is and has been out of control for quite some time now and the only reason it
hasn’t completely blown up in our faces is that the real snakes are few and far
between. Most people, in my view, are decent, hard-working people and they are
what keeps the ship of commerce afloat. It sure as hell isn’t the dandies and
fops up on the bridge.

In short, we should all be extremely thankful that we are indeed
living control systems and not compliant little patsies doing only as we are
told. Hail PCT!

I first tumbled to the changing nature of work as a technician
in the Navy in 1957. Here’s a little “sea story� to illustrate what I mean.

The
ship was the USS Gregory (DD-802), an old WW II Fletcher-class, 2100-ton
destroyer. We were in Subic Bay in the Philippines, taking a break from our
assignment of patrolling the Formosa Straits.

Â

Tommy
Lee Crabtree, a Gunner’s Mate second class (GM2), was working on Mount 53, one
of the ship’s five, five-inch gun mounts, trying to repair an as yet
unidentified malfunction. I was new on board and I was working on Tommy Lee,
trying to persuade him to invite me to join the armory coffee mess. The armory
coffee mess was, in my mind, the most prestigious coffee mess on board the Gregory
and I badly wanted an invitation to join. The invitation had to come from
Tommy Lee; he was the Gunner’s Mate in charge of the armory. Short-term, my
hopes weren’t high but I was prepared to hang in there for the long haul.

Tommy
Lee and I were taking a break, hunkered down on our haunches next to the gun
mount, sipping coffee and chatting in a way calculated to help him take my
measure, when we spotted our division officer approaching.Â

Our
division officer was a Lieutenant Junior Grade (Ltjg) whose last name was LaRue.Â
A bit of a martinet, he had been nicknamed “Lash,� an appellation borrowed from
a star of western movies of the 1940s.

“What
are you two doing?� he demanded.

“Drinkin’
coffee and shootin’ the breeze,� replied Tommy Lee.

“What
are you doing here?� Mr. LaRue asked of me.

As a
Fire Control Technician (FT), my work required close coordination with the
Gunners Mates so I had a convenient and true cover story. Standing up, I said,
“I came down to find out when Tommy Lee thinks we’ll be able to include the gun
mount in the daily workouts and if he thinks we’ll have to realign it with the
rest of the gun battery.�

“Well,�
demanded Mr. LaRue, turning to Tommy Lee who was still squatting, “when will it
be fixed?�

“I
dunno. I’m workin’ on it. Probably some time today.�

“That’s
not good enough! Get off your ass and get back to work! I want that gun mount
back in working order A.S.A.P.!�

Tommy
Lee looked up at Mr. LaRue, studying him much the way he might contemplate a
cockroach he was thinking about crushing. Then, rising slowly to his feet,
Tommy Lee grinned wickedly and asked, “Are you ordering me to fix this
here gun mount, Mr. LaRue?�

“Yes,
I am,� snapped Mr. LaRue.

Shifting
his coffee cup to his left hand, Tommy Lee saluted smartly, and said, “Aye‑aye,
sir. What would you like me to do first?�

The
reactions played across “Lash� LaRue’s face like moving scenery: first puzzlement,
then compre­hension, followed in quick order by surprise, shock, humiliation
and, finally, red-faced, apoplectic anger.

Ltjg “Lash�
LaRue had been heisted on his own authori­tarian petard by a master of the
game. Tommy Lee had done what all those who must submit to au­thority have
been doing for thousands of years, he submitted. He went passive. He asked Mr.
LaRue to tell him what to do and he would do it. The problem for Mr. LaRue was
that he couldn’t issue the necessary orders. Tommy Lee knew that all along. “Lash�
LaRue was just then finding that out.

Furious,
Mr. LaRue glared at Tommy Lee, then turned and stomped off without a word.

I didn’t know about
prefigured and configured responses back then nor did I know anything about the
shift to knowledge work, human performance, or anything else. That came later.Â
But I did realize that authority had its limits and so did a
command-and-control view of the world and the people in it.

Speaking personally, I have
always made a practice of negotiating results and just about everything else
with the people who reported to me and for whose work I was responsible.Â
Frankly, it’s a whole hell of a lot easier and works out better than trying to be
an order-issuing martinet like Lash LaRue. For me, getting people to do things
because they want to do them is the key and, or so I am told, it is also the hallmark
of real leadership. That’s what’s in short supply in the workplace: real leadership.

End of Rant #2

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

nickols@att.net

www.nickols.us

“Assistance at a Distance”SM

[From Bill Powers (2009.04.22.0701 MDT)]

Arthur Dijkstra (2009.04.20.1723 GMT) –

AD:

That sounds compatible with a VSM aspect:

Quoting Hoverstadt: �Key elements of managing the cohesion of the
organisation are Resource and

Performance Management, and critically, the balance between the two.

To ensure viability, the processes for managing resources and performance
need to be

communicative and participative. Performance measures and targets need to
be agreed

between sub-systems and the management of the system of which they are
part. This

is in contrast with normal practice in many organisations where they are
practiced as

�top down� commands and controls. The arbitrary imposition of either
performance

targets or resource allocation, risks unrealistic demands and
expectations of parts of

the organisation and increases the probability of failure. The agreement
of

performance targets and measures needs to be matched and balanced by a
reciprocal

allocation of resources.

BP: That all sounds familiar, but I’d like to know why Hoverstadt said
those things – they’ve been said before PCT and before Hoverstadt, and
lots of other things have been said along the same lines in the same
words and different words. Why should we believe any of them? Why isn’t a
firm hand at the wheel better than planning by committee? Why should we
think not of what our country can do for us but what we can do for our
country? Doesn’t everyone need something to identify with that’s larger
than himself? You can find words to express any social idea so it sounds
great, but unless we’re just going to “groove on the sounds of the
words,” as my late wife Mary put it, isn’t it better to understand
the principles and reasoning than just to know the words? I can tell you
exactly why I came to the conclusions I listed. PCT is made of those
reasons.

When we’re told to be communicative and participative, does that mean we
need to talk to each other and work together? Didn’t we sort of know that
already? Of course arbitrary top-down imposition of performance targets
and resource allocations risks unrealistic demands and expectations, but
what about thoughtful top-down imposition of targets and allocations,
which results in reasonable demands and expectations – is that kind of
top-down control OK? Or is there something about top-down control that’s
bad? How do you decide what’s reasonable? For example, is it unreasonable
for your own highest-level goals, such as being a good person, to impose
top-down demands and expectations on your ways of behaving at lower
levels?

As soon as you really try to understand what paragraphs like the above
say, you find that the words are just words. Except in PCT.

BP earlier: If you’re going to
create a new science of organizations, you need to start from scratch and
put everything on the table.

AD: No thanks I am not smart
enough and lack time to compensate for that. I would like to stand on the
shoulders of giants and apply the concepts in a somewhat new area like
safety management.

BP: There’s nothing wrong with that; I use cookbooks myself because I
really just want something to eat and don’t aspire to Cordon Bleu
expertise. But how do you decide which cookbook to use? If you just go
through them all and pick out the recipes that seem to use the most
popular terminology, I suppose you’re safe enough. But like me, you’ll
never understand the principles that allow a real cook to come up with a
meal when there’s nothing to eat in the house (it seems). PCT is for
people who want to understand why one way of behaving works and another
doesn’t, so our knowledge doesn’t depend on who has the cleverest way of
putting things this week.

AD: In PCT and Engineering
Control Theory you state: In some ways, PCT is rightly considered
old-fashioned by some control engineers. This is because it focuses
exclusively on negative feedback control systems as they were understood
50 years ago, and says little (outside some very preliminary proposals)
about systems that learn and adapt.

AD: It is useful to see the limitations of effectiveness of PCT. So I
theory for adaptation and learning must be found
elsewhere.

BP: I don’t know why you say that. The theory of reorganization is a
theory of adaptation and learning which I think makes more sense than the
ideas educators and psychologists use today; in my new book there are
three chapters devoted to it, with demonstration programs showing how
this principle works in single control systems and in hierarchical
collections of control systems. I say it “says little” because
I realize how much more there is to say. Other theories say nothing at
all about how learning and adaptation work. They just say people learn
and adapt.

When I say PCT is considered old-fashioned by SOME control engineers, I
refer to those who have fallen for the current fads and never understood
what could actually be accomplished with old-fashioned control theory.
The branch that Ashby followed is a dead end, and PCT is the branch he
should have followed. If the resources he diverted had been put into
exploring negative feedback control further, we would be way beyond the
current state of PCT which has had almost no support and very few
researchers to advance it. But PCT still explains more and in more detail
than any other theory I know about.

AD: Beer translate viability as
the capacity to keep the systems identity in a changing world.

The VSM describes mechanisms for adaptation. Here is link to a
personal VSM as example of the model:

http://www.allennaleonard.com/PersVSM.html

What do you think of that ?

I didn’t see any mechanisms for keeping systems identity – just a lot of
classifications of different behaviors, and a lot of recommendations
without explanations. VSM doesn’t have anything much to say about
perception; it doesn’s say what a goal is; it doesn’t explain how a
higher goal can affect a lower one, or how achieving a lower goal relates
to achieving a higher one. In fact, aside from the diagram, there doesn’t
seem to be any coherent theory behind VSM. I don’t consider the Law of
Requisite Variety to be a coherent theory – as you said yourself, it
really doesn’t help us figure out how to construct a working system. It’s
a little like the new Budweiser commercial here in the States, which
tells us about a new discovery in the science of brewing:
“DRINKABILITY.” Well, sure, I suppose that a beer that people
will buy has the property of being drinkable, just as a system that
continues to work has the property of being viable. But if a system is
viable because it has the requisite amount of variety, can’t we also say
that a beer is drinkable because it has the requisite amount of
consistency? And when we know those things, what is it, exactly, that we
know?
There are many theories like Beer’s, though not many that claim a
connection to cybernetics. They all strike me as peculiarly unaware, as
if the people offering them have their attention focused so closely on
what they are observing and thinking about that they have no attention
left over with which to notice their own role in what is going on. The
language of these theories is almost entirely non-technical – that is,
the most important terms have no formal definitions, but instead rely on
whatever the reader or listener understands them to mean. The language of
these theories is mainly natural language, and the connections between
the terms are whatever connections one has accumulated in life since
kindergarten. What is “top-down control?” It’s what mommy and
daddy did to you, what teachers did to you, what bosses did to you, what
your leaders did to you. OK, fine, but exactly what is it that the top
ones do in relation to the down ones? You weren’t taught that while you
were having these experiences.
In other words, how does it work? That’s what is missing from
Beer’s concepts and from most theories in psychology if not quite
all. That is the question that PCT is intended to answer, or at least to
answer eventually. If that isn’t a question that you need to answer, if
you just want someone smart to tell you what to do, it seems to me that
you end up in a position that’s not completely viable. If two people tell
you different things, how do you decide which one’s recipe to follow?
What if you decide to learn from experience and pick the wrong one? If
the people can’t back up their recommendations with some form of
understandable reasoning and some set of principles that can be tested,
what is left? Maybe one person dresses better or looks more like a genius
or a professor or a radical than the other (whichever appeals to you
most). Maybe the person happens to use some words that resonate with your
past and your beliefs. Maybe the person puts on a good show. If there’s
no real explanation under the words, one you can check out for yourself,
what else can you rely on?

Maybe I’m just showing my inability to understand how a person could just
want to be told what to do or how to think. There are lots of times when
I do those things – which way is the nearest Walmart? Which judge should
I vote to retain? I can’t know everything or decide everything for myself
– there isn’t enough time. But when it comes to understanding human
behavior, including my own, I really do want very much to understand all
that I can figure out, and to check out anyone else’s idea, and data,
before I decide to accept it. So to quote Prof. Higgens, why can’t you be
MORE … LIKE …ME?

Sorry about that. I don’t mean it, really.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Kenny Kitzke
(4.23.2009)]

Gavin,

Thanks for your perceptions. Please consider my remarks below and explore if we assess control in companies substantially differently.

In a message dated 4/20/2009 1:33:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ writes:

( Gavin Ritz
2009.04.20.17.13NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke
(4.19.2009)]

Arthur:

You asked Bill Powers:

To what extend can the PCT concept be transferred to an organisational
environment like an airline ? Has the PCT concept explicitly been used to
model the control structure of a company ? It would be helpful to read about
this. Thanks for any suggestions or links.


These questions reside largely in my sandbox. For the past 20 years I have consulted with organizations on how to improve performance and create greater value for their stakeholders. I became acquainted with PCT about 15 years ago. I know, or should know, something about your inquiry.

I will make a few brief observations, and if you, or others, wish to delve into them further, I will try to get more specific.

  1.       PCT models organism/people behavior; not organization/company behavior
    

Correct

Well, at least we get off to a good start.

  1.       Since organizations/companies are composed of people, PCT concepts are relevant and can be meaningfully transferred to what companies like an airline do.
    

The PCT context is relevant in terms of how a person deals with their role and other person(s) in their roles. But not that helpful in defining control in an organizational sense.

We probably agree here more than disagree. However, the term “role” of myself or others in an organization is often not well understood. Many organizations attempt to define “role” by published “Division of Responsibilities.” For example, the HR Executive may be given the responsibility to issue Guidelines for Employee Annual Appraisal by managers. Does the HR Executive control what those Guidelines say? Or, are the Guidelines subject to the approval of others? Can a CEO or executive waive the requirement or the details for what any specific manager does for a employee appraisal? Do the Guidelines constitute control over what precisely a manager does? Or, is it in the control of the manager?

  1. The extent of that transfer is not well tested, demonstrated or understood.
  1.       The structure of control in organizations is typically a model of hierarchal authority. 
    

That’s what I would a TARR a task assigning role relationship however cross functional roles are as important and they are called TIRR’s task initiating role relationship each have specific controlling functions. And much more difficult to assess then the simple hierarchal authority.

Gavin, that is helpful for you. For me, I may call the same thing something else and your words and concepts are irrelevant to how I do what I do. I might call the required role in functional or cross functional tasks “valid requirements” for that job. The degree of difficulty is real but I doubt we can conclude that all hierarchal roles are simple, or always more simple than cross functional roles. I might contend that both simple and difficult role relationships can be valid requirements for functional behavior in a company.

  1.       The method of control is a Stim  ulus-Response illusion of psychology known as reinforcement theory.  You control the behavior in an organization by punishing undesirable behavior and rewarding the desired behavior.
    

Not sure I have ever seen this in organisations, it may be taught in busines s s chools but I have never seen anyone being punished in an organisation that I have worked in. Anyway the psychological method in an organisational sense is highly dysfunctional.

Wow, we must define punishment differently! I am not talking about corporal punishment with whips. When an employee’s behavior is not what those in authority accept or desire, they will be “punished.” The systems for punishment include, termination, demotion, transfers, personal reprimands, lower performance ratings and lower or no pay increases, removal from promotion lists, etc.

Undesirable behavior could include sleeping on the job, late starts, unauthorized absence, cheating on an expense report, sexual harassment, falsifying performance data or records, etc., Surely you have seen these things happen in companies? What action was taken by those in authority over employee’s behaving this way? What is your term for such actions by a boss or staff executive?

Are you saying such “punishment” is always dysfunctional? When does it work? What is the alternative that works almost every time?

Unfortunately, this authoritative control model of the behavior of people does not work reliably.

Not too sure what you mean by this, in the military it works very well, but what exactly do you mean by authoritive control. Does it have a specific model that is found in organizations?

I agree that hierarchal control by top-down authority is the method of choice in most military organizations. And, it does seem to work pretty well. Insubordination is a coercive threat to control people. But, it does not work all the time with all people. And, it is recognized that soldiers are not required to follow illegal orders.

I also think this type of control is the prime method of choice in many organizations: parents over children in families, teachers over students and managers/supervisors over employees. Do you think the situation or results in those organizations are substantially different from military organizations?

Attempting to exercise unilateral control of human beings in organizations often backfires; not producing the desired results but unexpected disasters.

While applying PCT concepts in employee behavior offers good potential for better, more reliable performance results by people, it remains far from a proven, scientific means for reliably producing outstanding performance results.

The only scientifically theory in organisation design is Requisite Organization (RO) developed by Elliot Jaques.

Gavin, Jacques may be wonderful. But, your statement seems absurd. Have you studied and tested every other theory of organization design and proven RO is always superior? Have you studied or applied Theory Z? Are you claiming that Toyota or Honda have thrived because they use RO?

I perceive there are a number of reasons why PCT can only be a help rather than a proven remedy for more successful airlines. Two I would mention are:

a. Human factors alone can’t drive superior performance. Things like technology, available financial resources, etc., can be more significant factors.

That’s true what you say, however humans clearly interact with the organisation in their roles and these are required to be optim ally designed.

I do think I agree with you but find your use of “roles” as a bit vague or incomplete. Is a role of an employee to be respectful of the desires or other employees with which you disagree?

b. Even within human factors, PCT has not been developed to the extent to handle human nature and how behavior at the highest levels of perception works, including where our system level references come from or all the ways they can be changed or reorganized.

At the highest level RO has already solved this problem and it does exist as HPCT. Many of the levels of HPCT can be clearly defined and measured using RO.

I am a CEO. I perceive my goal is to make as much profit as I can even using fine print to catch my customers unaware. Where does this fit in with RO? in HPCT? in an honorable way to behave/live?

Despite these limitations, I am convinced that the more people in an organization understand themselves as autonomous living input control systems, the better they will be able to reach mutually agreed upon company goals and exceed the performance of those controlling employees by authoritative coercion.

I don’t believe that there are too many organisations that use coercion as a method of control. I have actually never come across one, besides the army.

I hope that you will reflect on this limitation of your experiences from my point of view. Have other listmates experienced coercion through punishment or threat of punishment in organizations other than the army?

Best wishes,

Kenny

···

Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar!


Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar!

[From Bill Powers (2009.04.25.0749 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (4.23.2009) –

You and Gavin might consider the following possible definitions:

Reward: anything that will reduce a person’s error signals, given if the
person behaves in a specified way or achieves a specified goal.

Punishment: anything that will increase a person’s error signals,
given if the person behaves in a specified way or achieves a specified
goal.

It’s interesting to see what is actually required before you can use
rewards to control someone else. Hint: the person must not already have
the reward, or have a way to get it more easily.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.04.25)]

<Bill Powers (2009.04.25.0749 MDT)>

<You and Gavin might consider the following possible definitions:

Reward: anything that will reduce a person’s error signals, given if the person behaves in a specified way or achieves a specified goal.

Punishment: anything that will increase a person’s error signals, given if the person behaves in a specified way or achieves a specified goal.>

These are fine definitions within a PCT context. But, they won’t mean much to a CEO or manager or an employee in a company who is not educated in PCT.

I can’t speak to the use or understanding of such terms in companies in the countries where Gavin has worked. In the USA business community, I don’t think they are common vernacular. And, even when used in companies, such words do not necessarily have Webster’s meaning:

Reward: 1. something given in return for something done

Punish: 1. to cause to undergo pain, loss, etc., as for a crime, 2. to impose a penalty for [an offense]

Is a wage thought of as a reward? Is a shift differential a reward? Is required overtime pay a reward?

Is being rated below average and deprived of any merit wage increase a punishment? Is being required to pay more for company health insurance if you smoke cigarettes a punishment?

What is often referred to as management action for “controlling” subordinate behavior in USA business jargon for rewards and punishment is “carrots and sticks.” Such terminology (and images) were used in the popular Dilbert cartoon strip.

While I would not concede Gavin’s perception that punishment seldom or never happens in companies, I would agree that it is more subtle, less frequent and far less favored than reward. Not until I learned PCT did I understand how extensively rewards, bonuses, incentives, etc., are used to try to control the behaviors of employees and why they often work only for a while or not at all.

Positive reinforcement is so culturally engrained and seems to work from time to time that I have yet to find a CEO willing to manage employees [and themselves] by expecting people to perform their best without any contingent external reward. Without truly understanding behavior as the control of input perceptions, I doubt if I ever will. I have had to settle for leaders who at least understand that the reward has to be rewarding not merely in general, or on average, or to their own references for reward, but to the subordinates references. And, often, merely recognizing and appreciating exceptional performance is all the reward an employee needs to control for it forever, even if the recognition is not always provided.

KK

In a message dated 4/25/2009 9:56:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

[From Bill Powers (2009.04.25.0749 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (4.23.2009) –

You and Gavin might consider the following possible definitions:

Reward: anything that will reduce a person’s error signals, given if the person behaves in a specified way or achieves a specified goal.

Punishment: anything that will increase a person’s error signals, given if the person behaves in a specified way or achieves a specified goal.

It’s interesting to see what is actually required before you can use rewards to control someone else. Hint: the person must not already have the reward, or have a way to get it more easily.

Best,

Bill P.


Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar!

[From Bill Powers (2009.04.26.0645 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2009.04.25) --

KK: These are fine definitions within a PCT context. But, they won't mean much to a CEO or manager or an employee in a company who is not educated in PCT.

I can't speak to the use or understanding of such terms in companies in the countries where Gavin has worked. In the USA business community, I don't think they are common vernacular. And, even when used in companies, such words do not necessarily have Webster's meaning:

Reward: 1. something given in return for something done

Punish: 1. to cause to undergo pain, loss, etc., as for a crime, 2. to impose a penalty for [an offense]

BP: If you ask about those meanings a bit further, they come out the same as the PCT meanings. By asking about them, you can turn a consulting session into an MOL session, or at least a Socratic dialogue.

Is a reward just something you give someone after they do anything unusual, like standing on their heads, or do you give it specifically for something that you wanted that person to do? Do you just surprise the person with the reward, or did you tell him or her beforehand that IF they did what you wanted, you would give them something extra? Do you you give the reward if the person tries to do what you want, but can't do it? Do you give it if the person just asks you for it without doing anything?

Is a reward just any old thing, like a rusty nail, or is it something that the rewarded person values and wants? Is it something the person already has enough of? Is it something the person can get in a different way that's easier than doing what you want done? Is it something there's plenty of available all the time anyway (a nice drink of water)? Is it something you have no control over?

When you start asking questions about rewards, you begin to discover just what is involved in giving them to people. These things would have meaning to managers.

So far this is just exploring the foreground topic.

Then the question turns to "why." Why do you give someone a reward? Is it to get them to do something you want done, (or to stop doing something you want stopped)? Whose goal is that? Do you want the person to satisfy your goal instead of that person's goal if there has to be a choice? If the person satisfies your goal by carrying out some action, what effect does that action have on reaching the person's own goals? Does it matter if the person doesn't want your goal to be achieved?

If you follow this path you get to the questions about value that you started to raise with Gavin. And of course you get into the subject of people controlling other people's behavior, and so on.

You can do something similar starting with the subject of punishments, ending up pretty much in the same place: controlling other people, values. Try it.

The big subject on the news now is torture. How would you define torture in PCT terms?

I wrote a letter to the local paper which I doubt will be published. In it, I proposed that if harsh methods are justified by their results (getting useful information about terrorist plans and activities), then what is to stop us from using whatever methods are needed to get those results? Why not, for example, kidnap the children of a resistant suspect, bring them to the interrogation room, and start pulling out their fingernails until the suspect gives in? Indirect methods like that have been used before and they work. Vital information could be obtained that way, so why not do it when we can?

My intent was to show that there is a conflict between the value of the information and the value of our own standards for human behavior. I asked, "Is there anything we will NOT do to another human being just to save our own miserable necks?" Apparently, there are people in government and the military, and people who phone their opinions in to CNN, who would answer "no." From that I conclude that there are uncivilized savages on both sides in the war on terror, and the human race still has some evolving left to do.

But name-calling won't fix that problem any more than it will teach managers about reward, punishment, and trying to control other people. Torture is just one extreme of a spectrum ranging from mild to desperate trouble, and all these problems come from thinking we are different from other people and deserve to be in control of them. That's why the world needs PCT. If managers (and workers) can't understand the PCT terminology as we do, then translate into normal language, which is always possible. PCT shows us how we are all alike.

Here's a little test, just to see if you understand the principles or just know the words: Describe correctly, clearly, and simply how a control system works without using the words input, variable, signal, perception, compare, error, reference, output, feedback, or control. If you can do that, you can claim to understand PCT. I'll give you two weeks to work it out.

Come on, folks, let's see you try it. I don't offer any reward except what you get from doing it. But if you don't, I'll punish you by taking away your garbage.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Richard Kennaway (2009.04.26.2216 BST)]

[From Bill Powers (2009.04.26.0645 MDT)]
Here's a little test, just to see if you understand the principles or just know the words: Describe correctly, clearly, and simply how a control system works without using the words input, variable, signal, perception, compare, error, reference, output, feedback, or control. If you can do that, you can claim to understand PCT. I'll give you two weeks to work it out.

Come on, folks, let's see you try it. I don't offer any reward except what you get from doing it. But if you don't, I'll punish you by taking away your garbage.

As it happens, right now I'm drafting an essay to introduce some people in another forum to control theory, and I've written this little parable:

···

====
Alien Space Bats have abducted you. You find yourself in a sealed cell, featureless but for two devices on the wall. One seems to be some sort of meter with an unbreakable cover, the needle of which wanders over a scale marked off in units, but without any indication of what, if anything, it is measuring. There is a red blob at one point on the scale. The other device is a knob next to the meter, that you can turn. The Alien Space Bats give you to know that you must ensure that the needle always remains close to the red dot. If you twiddle the knob at random, it seems to have some effect on the needle, but there is no fixed relationship. You do not know what moves the needle, and you do not know what turning the knob actually does. You know nothing of what lies outside the cell. You just have the needle, the red dot, and the knob. To make matters worse, the red dot also moves along the scale from time to time, and nothing you do seems to have any effect on it. You don't know why, only that wherever it moves, you must keep the needle aligned with it.

Solve this problem.

This is for an audience accustomed to thinking in terms of Bayesian reasoning, utility functions, prediction, optimisation, and so on, in the context of human rationality, i.e. how to think better. I then go on to say that this is what such mundane devices as a room thermostat or the cruise control on a car do, pointing out that they successfully push back on all the disturbing forces, despite having no idea that such forces exist, making no predictions, using no models, performing no Bayesian calculations, etc. Eventually I will say that that scenario is the situation that all living organisms are in, perhaps with many meters and knobs, but still shut in the cell with no possibility of digging one's way out to get any more "direct" contact with reality. At most you just get a bigger cell with more knobs and meters. And while the theorems of Bayesian probability are correct, successful control does not require any of that apparatus.

Then I intend to cover hierarchical arrangements of control systems, conflict, and so forth, and giving pointers to the PCT demos.

I hope I can do your work justice.

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.04.26)]

<Bill Powers (2009.04.26.0645 MDT)>

<Here’s a little test, just to see if you understand the principles or
just know the words: Describe correctly, clearly, and simply how a
control system works without using the words input, variable, signal,
perception, compare, error, reference, output, feedback, or control.
If you can do that, you can claim to understand PCT. I’ll give you
two weeks to work it out.

Come on, folks, let’s see you try it. I don’t offer any reward except
what you get from doing it. But if you don’t, I’ll punish you by
taking away your garbage.>

After reading B: CP (at least the easier parts), the first time I met you I tried to state what I thought PCT revealed about people and their behavior. It went something like this:

People continuously act in what they believe to be their own best interest.

As I recall, you smiled, shrugged a bit, seemingly not too impressed, and humbly and kindly said something like: I suppose you could say that, Kenny.

I still think that it is basically true. Unfortunately, trying for brevity, it leaves a lot out. One reason I seldom explain PCT that way when asked, “Well, what is this PCT all about?”, is that with Christian friends, they find it to have a very “selfish” ring to it. Surely it does not apply to the church. It disturbs them and their ears close.

In all sincerity, I still think it reasonably reflects the science of PCT psychology (as opposed to behaviorism or cognition) and (if you consider the whole word of God in the Bible), it also reflects the Biblical view of humans, unfortunately even Christians who are often not well versed in the Bible.

Kenny

(misbehaving as usual)

···

Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar!

[From Fred Nickols (2009.04.26.1858 MST)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.04.26)]

People continuously act in what they believe to be their own best interest.

I think the problem many people might have with that statement is that is does indeed sound "selfish" - at least I can see how it might sound that way. Goals, or reference signals, if you prefer, don't have to tie to self interest in such an obvious way. I might have a goal of being a generous donor to charity. To be sure, if I achieve that goal it seems clear enough that I am acting in my own best interest (i.e., being a generous donor to charity); however, others benefit as well. That is far different from simple self-indulgence, especially when it is at others' expense.

Just a thought...

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"