Current Management ideas

From [ Marc Abrams (981024.0239) ]

Seems to be a little lull in posting so I thought I would
try and bring some amusement ( it would if it weren't so
sad ) to the list.
These two posts were gotten from a _very_ popular list
devoted to Senge's concept of the _Learning Organization_
which is supposed to be people centered and a source for
_leading edge_ management practices. I have omitted the name
of the poster ( because it doesn't matter ) Both posts are
from the same person. This material comes from the Learning
Organization List. It was the second post and the discovery
of what this person is that blew me away..

Marc

ยทยทยท

************************************************************
*******
Replying to LO19578 --

Conflict is highly motivating to people. Most people who
find themselves in conflict are highly motivated to resolve
(or get out of) it. Therefore, as a change management
catalyst (that's what my consulting work is), I often find
it necessary to create or heighten the feeling of conflict
in order to get any change at all to happen. As you point
out, however, while some (much) conflict is negative, there
is also positive conflict. I describe the general case of
positive conflict in this way:
You discover that you can be better off doing something
different than doing what you're doing now. The trick is,
because most people expect so much "pain" from changing,
that the expectation of positive results must be great
enough to overcome the expected the pain of changing. And
the discomfort (conflict) from knowing that you could be
better off must be enough to counterbalance the comfort you
feel in continuing to do things the same way.
That's why, and I ask to be forgiven for this, it's
sometimes easier to "catastrophize" the current situation --
make it feel like a disaster is looming -- in order to get
people to consider changing something. And I do resort to
this technique. I don't lie about how bad the current
situation is (or will be in the future), but I do things to
make people experience this negative conflict more
personally and more strongly.
************************************************************
******
Subject: one-time training bonuses LO19598

Replying to LO19575 --
There is lots of research on the general effect of one-time
reinforcers in the behavioral psychology literature. I am
not up on that literature any more so I can't tell you if
there has been any good work on effect size.However, from
the general studies, one thing can surely be expected: That
whatever the size of the effect (of a one-time bonus), it
will lead to some level of under-performance after the bonus
is paid. This used to be called the "post-reinforcement
pause." You get the same effect on any fixed (in time)
schedule of rewards -- that is, little additional activity
until shortly before the scheduled time, followed by a lot
of activity in a brief time immediately before the reward is
to given, followed by an immediate cessation of activity for
a period of time after the reward is
received. There was a brilliant article written, in the
1970's, analyzing the behavior of the U.S. Congress on just
these grounds. It showed a repeated, very predictable
pattern of passing laws (or not passing many) based entirely
on the schedule for the end of each session. Also, as a
behavioral psychologist, I feel I must say the effect of
paying a one-time training bonus are due to the "credible
promise" of paying the
bonus. That is, it is in anticipation of receiving the
bonus that people behave differently -- not as an affect of
having received the bonus. I only mention it because it
means that the effectiveness of such a bonus has a lot to do
with the credibility and attractiveness of the promise (and
how it is made). One cannot simply make a bonus available,
not
publicize it, not make it sound attractive, not make it
sound like "the thing to do," and expect it to have highly
positive effects.
************************************************************
********

[From Hank Folson (981024.0830)

Marc Abrams (981024.0239)

These two posts were gotten from a _very_ popular list
devoted to Senge's concept of the _Learning Organization_
which is supposed to be people centered and a source for
_leading edge_ management practices. .... It was the second post
and the discovery of what this person is that blew me away..

This is a classic example of why it is so hard to sell people on PCT.
This person has no error signals. Behavioral psych works for him. Or at
least, he thinks it does. He thinks he is practicing behavioral
psychology faithfully, and to some extent, he is. But he is nonetheless a
living control system. He is out there controlling his perceptions. If he
can get business world situations to match his reference levels for good
management, he has no error signals. Whenever he does this, he assumes
that behavioral psychology has carried the day. When he can't get
behavioral psych ideas to work he, being a living control system, will
try another variable means to achieve constant ends (sound familiar?).
When he gets things under control again, it will not occur to him to go
back and see if what is now working is compatible with behavioral
psychology theory. Why should he? He's a living control system, and right
now, he has no error signals. This person will never buy into a sales
pitch for PCT. He is controlling just fine, thank you.

To get PCT accepted as part of current management ideas, PCTers will have
to figure out how to handle the business situations described in a PCT
based manner, and apply the psychology that flows from perception control
theory. Only then will people like this behavioral psychologist compare
the relatively painless and certainly more effective PCT approach to his
own. If, and only if, he perceives that the PCT approach is doing the job
more effectively than his old approach will he develop the error signals
that will lead him to look seriously at PCT and how it works. And even
then he may have other priorities, such as maintaining a reputation as a
leading behavioral psychologist that will impede any change.

Note that all his observations/perceptions are the same as a PCTers. The
difference is in how they are processed.

Conflict is highly motivating to people.

from the general studies, one thing can surely be expected: That
whatever the size of the effect (of a one-time bonus), it
will lead to some level of under-performance after the bonus
is paid. This used to be called the "post-reinforcement
pause."

These two statements appear to me to be in conflict with the basics of
behavioral psychology. But the word "motivating" is inserted to make the
sentence sound like good behavioral psych. Similarly, the dormitive
(Where do you find these wonderful words, Bill Powers?) phrase,
"post-reinforcement pause." glosses over the real world failure of
'reinforcement'.

Sincerely,
Hank Folson

704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-361-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com