[from Jeff Vancouver 980929.1250 EST]
[From Rick Marken (980925.1540)]
Rick, I do not know if you are correct or not.
Jeff Vancouver (980925.1600 EST)
So, if I understand you, it is not that the desire to control
behavior is the problem, it is the use of rewards to do it, yes?
No. It's not the means that's are problem; it's the unilateral
attempt to control that's the problem. My Java demo of "Control
of Behavior" does show that behavior can be controlled without
producing conflict. What it doesn't show is that it is unlikely
that you can get away with this control for long when you are
dealing with a real living system. The reason is that humans are made
up of _many_ control systems (not just one, as in my Java demo);
what you make a person do is likely to disturb other perceptions
that person is controlling.
Indeed, because we are controlling many perceptions, it is likely that my
actions will disturb other perceptions I am trying to control, whether
those actions relate to actions someone else wishes me to perform or not.
That is, over time conflict is likely to arise, regardless of the
environmental source of disturbances. In other words, while I wait quitely
for my food to wander by the water hole, I am not procreating (although I
might be thinking about procreating).
Often, the only way for the person to
counter those disturbances is to _stop_ doing what you want them
to do (as when the controllee in the rubber band demo stops acting
to counter your disturbances when those actions place his finger
over a hot solding iron). This is why it a bad idea to even _want_
to control the behavior of another person. If you want something
from another person, the way to get it is through negotiation, not
control.
Enter a new PCT concept - negotiation. I will enter into the lexicon.
Please provide a definition (this is a rhetorical statement).
The message of PCT is not that you _can't_ control people; the
message is that you _shouldn't_; at least, you should only do it
only with care. The most likely result of your attempt to control
other people is conflict.
Although I suspect you are likely correct, you are still going beyond the
data and the theory of PCT. It may be that, at least for some, a
higher-level goal is "seek what to do from others." Witness religion. You
have not tested for this controlled variable in individuals (unless you
have some study I do not know about), so you cannot say this not a desired
perception. You are _assuming_ the other goals will conflict.
BTW, You were correct that you did not have the word "ought" in your
previous post. But should and ought are pretty interchangable in common
parlance (they may have special meanings in PCT).
ME:
Whether it is in the way the animals or plants I eat (which is
one of the ultimate perceptions we control) come to a water
hole (and hence my actions take me to that water hole), or the
conscious policies of some managers in an organization (who
gives me pay - with which I buy my food - for going to the water
hole), it makes no difference in PCT terms. Does it?
Yes, it does. The animals are not varying their behavior in
order to control yours; the managers are,
Don't I need to perceive this? You are suggesting that we have some
understanding of the nature of the disturbances to our CVs. I believe that
we often do, and I suspect that were I to perceive this, it would cause a
disturbance. But I am _speculating_. And PCT does not inform the
speculation of the content of my CVs. At least the last time I look, PCT
was contentless.
if they are using pay
as a means of controlling your behavior without your having agreed
that you will do X amount of work for Y amount of pay. If they
are giving you extra pay as the means of controlling how much
you work -- and if you haven't agreed, via negotiation, to this
policy -- then there is a good chance that you will end up in
conflict with yourself or with the manager.
And if I negotiate, all is well? Could I not come to dislike my
arrangement? Could I not find the fact that I need to negotiate pushing a
perception out of line. Alternatively, could I not be appreciative that
someone was willing to give money for something I had to offer? Or as you
say later, could I not find a pay for performance contingency a fair
arrangement? Could I not join an organization knowing that was the
arrangement, even if I had no part in negotiation the arrangement?
There is an organization near Cleveland (I can never remember the name).
The pay system there is based heavy on piece rate. From time to time, the
employees are interview by a news magazine etc. The employees laud the
system. They also note that it is not for everyone. New employees either
love it or hate it. If you were hired as a consultant to that
organization, don't let the employees know where you live.
The system controlling for pay may be getting what it wants
while the system controlling for effort may not. By adopting
this unilateral control policy, it is likely that the manager
has placed two control systems (in the employee) into conflict;
or, at least, exacerbated an existing conflict.
If I must choose, I vote for that latter. I am an automonous worker. I
must deal with the conflict between time for work and time home frequently.
The best my employer can to is make the contingencies known so I can
calculate the balance (a perception I try to maintain) more easily. In
other words, the conflict already existed. The manager may have attenuated
it!
This is the kind
of thing that happens when there is unilateral control. This
kind of conflict is felt as stress by the employee.
Rick, you are the guy who will not model higher-level systems without a
well-founded understanding of the lower level systems. Yet, here you are
_knowing_ what stress is and what causes it.
From the
manager's perspective, he's just being a nice, fair guy -- giving
extra money for extra work. From the employee's perspective,
he is having a hell of a time getting what he wants (more money
and more time to enjoy it). If the manager actually cared about
the employee -- what the employee wanted -- he would have negotiated
with the employee instead of putting his policy into effect
unilaterally.
Let me get this straight. All I need to do is negotiate the policy. Then
everything is cool. In my business, some call this co-opting. It is an
underhanded method for the proletariet to control the masses (I don't
remember the jargon).
The point is, you are going way beyond the theory.
The insidious thing about this kind of unilateral control by the
manager is that it _looks_ so good; it looks like the manager
is being a nice guy by offering more money for more work. Even
the employee is likely to see this policy as fair. That's why
this approach to dealing with people has stayed with us for so
long. And that's why it's so hard to convince people that there
might be something wrong with this approach to dealing with
humans. Control can look pretty good when you ignore the
intentions of the controllee.
It is hard to convince people when you use rhetoric and not data.
Stick to what is known, speculate on what is unknown, and design and
collect data to test your speculation against the speculation of others.
When you, or Bill, make statements that go beyond the theory, it disturbs a
perception I am trying to maintain.
[setting gain to zero]
Later
Jeff
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
