[From Fred Nickols (2008.10.23.0948 MST)]
I’m reading a paper about Activity Theory as applied
to organizational analysis, and a section in it mentions disturbances, which
are defined as interruptions or interferences with goal attainment. Sound
familiar? Anyway, it goes on to say that if disturbances are seen
as irritants, as problems to be overcome, it is unlike that the people involved
will get beyond “firefighting” (i.e., treating the symptoms and
then returning to business as usual).
It seems to me that “firefighting” as encountered
in many organizations is simply a matter of people acting to restore control
over some targeted variable and is to be expected from a PCT perspective.
Further, also from a PCT perspective, you wouldn’t expect people to get
beyond firefighting in relation to some targeted variable (goal) UNLESS they
also had a reference value for things like “eliminating root cause”
or “reducing the amount of firefighting” or some such other, more
fundamental goal. In short, firefighting is a form of action that serves
to counter a disturbance. Getting beyond firefighting would require
having a goal of doing so.
Does that sound right to the rest of you?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
[From Bruce Abbott (2008.10.23.1435 EST)]
That sounds right to me. The situation you
describe resembles the situation in which you are attempting to drive in a
particular direction but a wheel alignment problem causes the wheel to pull to
the left. One strategy is to keep enough counteracting pressure on the
wheel to keep the car going where you want it to (i.e., continually correcting
the disturbance). Another strategy is to get the wheels aligned and
eliminate this source of disturbance.
Executing strategies like the second one
presumes that you can identify the source of the disturbance, that it is
possible to eliminate (or at least reduce) the disturbance, and that the potential
benefits associated with doing so are perceived as outweighing the costs.
Such actions seem to me to presume the existence of higher-level control
systems (relative to the one in question) that have references for the
variables involved in the decision to follow the second stragegy (e.g.,
longer-term goals such as minimizing the strain incurred while driving, or keeping
your money in the bank rather than spending it on repairs).
Bruce A.
Fred
Nickols (2008.10.23.0948 MST) –
I’m
reading a paper about Activity Theory as applied to organizational analysis,
and a section in it mentions disturbances, which are defined as interruptions
or interferences with goal attainment. Sound familiar? Anyway,
it goes on to say that if disturbances are seen as irritants, as problems
to be overcome, it is unlike that the people involved will get beyond
“firefighting” (i.e., treating the symptoms and then returning to
business as usual).
It
seems to me that “firefighting” as encountered in many
organizations is simply a matter of people acting to restore control over some
targeted variable and is to be expected from a PCT perspective. Further,
also from a PCT perspective, you wouldn’t expect people to get beyond
firefighting in relation to some targeted variable (goal) UNLESS they also had
a reference value for things like “eliminating root cause” or
“reducing the amount of firefighting” or some such other, more
fundamental goal. In short, firefighting is a form of action that serves
to counter a disturbance. Getting beyond firefighting would require
having a goal of doing so.
Does
that sound right to the rest of you?
[From Rick Marken (2008.10.23.1255)
Fred Nickols (2008.10.23.0948 MST)
...
It seems to me that "firefighting" as encountered in many organizations is
simply a matter of people acting to restore control over some targeted
variable and is to be expected from a PCT perspective. Further, also from a
PCT perspective, you wouldn't expect people to get beyond firefighting in
relation to some targeted variable (goal) UNLESS they also had a reference
value for things like "eliminating root cause" or "reducing the amount of
firefighting" or some such other, more fundamental goal. In short,
firefighting is a form of action that serves to counter a disturbance.
Getting beyond firefighting would require having a goal of doing so.
Does that sound right to the rest of you?
Sounds right to me. But then I'm voting for a socialist, un-American
terrorist sympathizer for president so how much could I know;-)
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Bill Powers (2008.10.23.1442 MDT)]
Four days until the movers get here.
[From Fred Nickols (2008.10.23.0948 MST)]
It seems to me that "firefighting" as encountered in many
organizations is simply a matter of people acting to restore control
over some targeted variable and is to be expected from a PCT
perspective. Further, also from a PCT perspective, you wouldn't
expect people to get beyond firefighting in relation to some
targeted variable (goal) UNLESS they also had a reference value for
things like "eliminating root cause" or "reducing the amount of
firefighting" or some such other, more fundamental goal.
For "more fundamental" read "higher level." "Firefighting" means
acting to counteract disturbances relative to a constant goal. This
is what happens when people get stuck in a conflict; when they
encounter a disturbance, all they can think of doing is pushing back
harder. If they stay focused on that problem, they will just make the
conflict more and more severe.
In short, firefighting is a form of action that serves to counter a
disturbance. Getting beyond firefighting would require having a
goal of doing so.
It would require changing the goal, which requires going up a level
and asking questions like "how important is it to win this conflict?"
or "am I trying to achieve the right goal?"
Best,
Bill P.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1741 - Release Date: 10/23/2008 7:54 AM
[From Rick Marken (2008.10.23.1450)]
Bill Powers (2008.10.23.1442 MDT)--
Fred Nickols (2008.10.23.0948 MST)--
It seems to me that "firefighting" as encountered in many organizations
For "more fundamental" read "higher level." "Firefighting" means acting to
counteract disturbances relative to a constant goal. This is what happens
when people get stuck in a conflict; when they encounter a disturbance, all
they can think of doing is pushing back harder. If they stay focused on that
problem, they will just make the conflict more and more severe.
Dear me, I thought Fred was talking about fighting _fires_. Never mind;-)
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com