Expectations

Fred_Nickols2 · November 1, 2002, 12:56pm

[From Fred Nickols (2002.10.31.0710)] --

I changed the subject line because I'm responding to just a portion of a
message in another thread.

[Bill Williams 1 November 2002 3:00 AM CST]

I would assume that no one partisipating in CSG is satisfied with the rate of
progress that has been made thus far in persuading the rest of the world that
the application of control theory is worthwhile because it has the capacity to
provide the solution to at least some of our most urgent problems.

Well, not quite, at least not in my case.

I hang around the list in part because I find PCT a much more satisfying
explanation of why people do what they do than any other explanation I've
come across. And, at an admittedly and obviously very slow pace, I'm
working to increase my grasp of PCT. On that count, I'm satisfied but then
I'm not under any pressure to go faster or do better.

I'm also not sure that I agree with your sentence above owing to an
assumption it makes, namely, that control theory can be applied. That's
the other reason I hang around this list -- looking for the form and
substance of PCT's application. It also seems to me that, without some
form of application, PCT has no potential whatsoever to serve as the basis
for a solution to any problem.

To me, models (and that includes theories and that includes PCT) can offer
powerful explanations and powerful prescriptions. It seems to me that PCT
does just fine with the power of its explanations but I'm not sure where
and how it produces better prescriptions. On this count, I'm less than
satisfied but I don't know that anyone else is and so I recognize that my
expectations (i.e., goal state) might be very different from anyone else's
and not at all appealing to anyone else).

I do think that I can fit most of what is known about performance
management in the workplace into the PCT framework and account for it there
in an integrated way instead of having to deal with it as a hodge-podge of
management principles, methods and techniques with no underlying,
integrating theoretical framework. That's good but, again, that's the
explanatory power of PCT at work, not its prescriptive power. (I do happen
to believe that PCT offers a useful diagnostic framework for examining
performance problems in the workplace but, so far, that framework doesn't
extend beyond what is already known and thus has no competitive edge when
compared with other approaches.)

Finally, the behavior of the members of this list, as manifested in their
postings to the list, doesn't seem to be any better or worse than the
behavior of members of other lists to which I belong, suggesting to me that
even those whose grasp of PCT is as complete as it can be, aren't thereby
empowered or enabled to behave in significantly different or improved
ways. To be sure, the accounts of events taking place on the list are
couched in different -- PCT -- terms but the actions show no evidence of
superior efficacy. The words may be different but the deeds aren't. Where,
then, one might ask, is the value of PCT?

It may well be premature to be searching for applications of PCT; the
theory itself is largely untested, which is why, I believe, Bill Powers and
Rick Marken are so insistent on "doing the science." There is a long way
to go before a technology of PCT exists to accompany its theory.

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

Richard_Marken2 · November 1, 2002, 2:49pm

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.01.0945)]

Fred Nickols (2002.10.31.0710) --

>[Bill Williams 1 November 2002 3:00 AM CST]
>
>I would assume that no one partisipating in CSG is satisfied with the rate of
>progress that has been made thus far in persuading the rest of the world that
>the application of control theory is worthwhile because it has the capacity to
>provide the solution to at least some of our most urgent problems.
...

I'm also not sure that I agree with your sentence above owing to an
assumption it makes, namely, that control theory can be applied. ...

It may well be premature to be searching for applications of PCT; the
theory itself is largely untested, which is why, I believe, Bill Powers and
Rick Marken are so insistent on "doing the science." There is a long way
to go before a technology of PCT exists to accompany its theory.

I agree. But I do think it's important test applications of PCT. My vision was
(and still is) that the scientific and applied work would go on in parallel, and
that those doing the applied work would look carefully at the science and vice
versa. I still think that this can happen. What I think has been getting in the
way of _both_ the scientific and applied work are people's _preconceptions_ about
what the results of the science and the applications will be. In science these
preconceptions show up as the assumption that PCT will explain the existing
findings of "conventional" scientific psychology. So we get the "Carver-Scheier"
approach to PCT science, which misses most of the important things PCT has to
contribute to a scientific understanding of human nature (controlled perceptual
variables, the test, etc). In applications these preconceptions show up as the
assumption that PCT will make us better people (less manipulative, more
productive, etc.). So we get applications that use PCT as a justification for
existing approaches to dealing with people rather than as a source of ideas for
what these approaches should be. I think it is these preconceptions (or, to use
your term, _expectations_) that have kept PCT, as a scientific model of behavior,
from enjoying the attention in scientific and applied circles that Bill Williams
suggests (correctly, I think) that it deserves.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

Bill_Williams · November 3, 2002, 7:37am

[From Fred Nickols (2002.10.31.0710)] --

I changed the subject line because I'm responding to just a portion of a
message in another thread.

>[Bill Williams 1 November 2002 3:00 AM CST]
>
>I would assume that no one partisipating in CSG is satisfied with the rate of
>progress that has been made thus far in persuading the rest of the world that
>the application of control theory is worthwhile because it has the capacity

to

>provide the solution to at least some of our most urgent problems.

Well, not quite, at least not in my case.

I hang around the list in part because I find PCT a much more satisfying
explanation of why people do what they do than any other explanation I've
come across. And, at an admittedly and obviously very slow pace, I'm
working to increase my grasp of PCT. On that count, I'm satisfied but then
I'm not under any pressure to go faster or do better.

I'm also not sure that I agree with your sentence above owing to an
assumption it makes, namely, that control theory can be applied. That's
the other reason I hang around this list -- looking for the form and
substance of PCT's application. It also seems to me that, without some
form of application, PCT has no potential whatsoever to serve as the basis
for a solution to any problem.

Fred,

My experience has been that control theory offers a very good way of
approaching flight training. For example if you pay attention first to flying
the airplane-- that is keeping the plane upright and in control. Then it makes
sense to navigate. And, if you have these two tasks in hand, then with the
attention that can be spared you might communicate. But, if you reverse the
order and place emphasis upon communication-- then things aren't going to work
very well for long. I've mentioned before on the net the phenomen of a pilot
induced oscilation. I don't see how this can be properly understood without
learning a little bit of control theory.

I don't know, but it is said that the pilot induced oscilation is very
difficult to induce in a simulator. But, maybe the people constructing the
simulator programs are doing something wrong.

I could be mistaken, but it is my impression that flight training does work
better if it is organized from the standpoint of control theory.

best

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

Fred_Nickols2 · November 3, 2002, 12:38pm

[From Fred Nickols (2002.11.03)] --

> [From Fred Nickols (2002.10.31.0710)] --
It also seems to me that, without some
> form of application, PCT has no potential whatsoever to serve as the basis
> for a solution to any problem.

From Bill Williams (no date-time stamp)

Fred,

My experience has been that control theory offers a very good way of
approaching flight training. For example if you pay attention first to flying
the airplane-- that is keeping the plane upright and in control. Then it makes
sense to navigate. And, if you have these two tasks in hand, then with the
attention that can be spared you might communicate. But, if you reverse the
order and place emphasis upon communication-- then things aren't going to work
very well for long. I've mentioned before on the net the phenomen of a pilot
induced oscilation. I don't see how this can be properly understood without
learning a little bit of control theory.

I don't know, but it is said that the pilot induced oscilation is very
difficult to induce in a simulator. But, maybe the people constructing the
simulator programs are doing something wrong.

I could be mistaken, but it is my impression that flight training does work
better if it is organized from the standpoint of control theory.

What you describe above in relation to the sequence of flight training has
a possible counterpart in instructional design known as "retrogressive" or
"backward chaining." The underlying theory is that performances entailing
sequential operations are best learned from the back forward. First you
learn the last step, then the next to last, and so on until you get to the
first. Along the way, practice reinforces the entire sequence. If memory
serves, some of the research arguments in support of backward chaining
pointed to experiments in which attempts to learn sequences from
front-to-back regularly suffered from mid-point breakdowns and, overall,
front-to-back mastery of sequential operations was less successful than
backward chaining.

I'll have to check out your "pilot-induced oscillation" before commenting
much further. But, there are two other comments I'd like to make at this time.

One is a question: If the flight training is effective, and if it is
effective without benefit of control theory, then how would control theory
make it work better?

The other is a comment: I indicated before that I can currently "fit" much
of what is known about human performance and performance management into
the PCT framework; hence, my admiration of it as a powerful
explanation. If my assessment of your flight training example is correct,
that is, the sequencing of the training is important and that control
theory would lead to developing the training in that way, and so would the
design principle of "backward chaining," then where is the difference
between the two in terms of impact on instructional design? If there is
none, then PCT is a difficult sell because its chief claim is that it's a
better explanation, not that it adds to our tool kit or leads to changes in
the way we use those tools.

I'll give you one more example and then I'll shut up.

Years ago, I completely redesigned the Navy's Programmed Instruction
Writer's training course. I took a very unusual approach. The traditional
approach was to teach the students how to conduct job/task and behavioral
analyses preparatory to writing the programmed instructional
materials. Then they were taught how to write the materials, in
painstaking detail.

My approach was to dump that entire structure in favor of first teaching
them how to tell if the materials they were producing were any good. This
required providing them with sample materials in various stages of
development (and I worked from back to front) and also providing them with
criteria for evaluating those materials. In short, I taught them how to
tell if they had produced a decent product. Once that objective was safely
in hand, I taught them how to conduct the kind of analyses they needed in
order to prepare decent instructional materials. I spent practically no
time teaching them "how" to write materials or "how" to conduct an analysis.

Looking back over the 30 years involved, I could probably be convinced that
I somehow got them to adopt a reference signal for "good programmed
instructional materials." The theoretical basis at the time had nothing to
do with PCT. It was predicated on something known as "discrimination
training" and Bloom's Taxonomy for the cognitive domain, which held that
the highest level in that taxonomy, evaluation, subsumed the lower
levels. My simple-minded reasoning was that if I could teach them to
correctly evaluate programmed instructional materials, they would know
enough to be able to figure out how to write them. Ditto for the task and
behavioral analyses; if they could judge them they could produce them. The
course worked like a champ.

Finally, the neat thing about all this applied stuff is that it's
empirical. It works or it doesn't. If it works, and if it works on a
regular, repeated, reliable basis, the underlying reasons are no doubt of
great importance but of incidental interest to many application-oriented
practitioners (though certainly not to all or even to most).

I'll search through the CSG stuff and see if I can find the "pilot
oscillation" postings you mention.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

Bill_Powers1 · November 3, 2002, 4:14pm

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.03.0901 MST)]

Fred Nickols (2002.11.03) --

>Years ago, I completely redesigned the Navy's Programmed Instruction
> ... My simple-minded reasoning was that if I could teach them to

correctly evaluate programmed instructional materials, they would know
enough to be able to figure out how to write them. Ditto for the task and
behavioral analyses; if they could judge them they could produce them. The
course worked like a champ.

Finally, the neat thing about all this applied stuff is that it's
empirical. It works or it doesn't. If it works, and if it works on a
regular, repeated, reliable basis, the underlying reasons are no doubt of
great importance but of incidental interest to many application-oriented
practitioners (though certainly not to all or even to most).

I take it that the message here is that you know all you need to know about
instructional methods, and do not plan to use PCT to improve them (since
they already work as well as possible). PCT isn't good for anything but
explaining things after they are already understood empirically. Do I have
that right?
Just checking.

Best,

Bill P.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 3, 2002, 4:20pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.11.03)]

<I hang around the list in part because I find PCT a much more satisfying

explanation of why people do what they do than any other explanation I’ve

come across. And, at an admittedly and obviously very slow pace, I’m

working to increase my grasp of PCT.>

Me too.

<I’m also not sure that I agree with your sentence above owing to an

assumption it makes, namely, that control theory can be applied. That’s

the other reason I hang around this list – looking for the form and

substance of PCT’s application. It also seems to me that, without some

form of application, PCT has no potential whatsoever to serve as the basis

for a solution to any problem.>

I am quite certain that PCT can be applied. Ed Ford has applied PCT to a better way for “discipline in schools.” I have applied it (through MOL) to conflict resolution with one of my sons with incomprehensible results. I have applied PCT in the management of organizations to dramatically improve performance of results (real measured data).

There are quite a number of practical applications by a number of people, some with astounding results. Unfortunately, many have left this forum, perhaps related to the latter issue you address. One that always amazes me is its use in capital crime mediation services where even the murderer of Michael Jordan’s father escapes the death penalty and is granted life imprisonment.

<(I do happen

to believe that PCT offers a useful diagnostic framework for examining

performance problems in the workplace but, so far, that framework doesn’t

extend beyond what is already known and thus has no competitive edge when

compared with other approaches.)>

Again, I disagree. I can also understand that if you have not witnessed its extension or the competitive edge it offers that you would perceive PCT this way.

My experience is that the incorrect theories of psychology almost universally practiced in the workplace facilitate many of the performance problems you observe. This would include the carrot and stick methodology for controlling what employees do.

PCT is in total contradiction to these theories. And, when PCT is applied, organizational performance results can be, and have been, dramatically improved.

<Finally, the behavior of the members of this list, as manifested in their

postings to the list, doesn’t seem to be any better or worse than the

behavior of members of other lists to which I belong, suggesting to me that

even those whose grasp of PCT is as complete as it can be, aren’t thereby

empowered or enabled to behave in significantly different or improved

ways. To be sure, the accounts of events taking place on the list are

couched in different – PCT – terms but the actions show no evidence of

superior efficacy. The words may be different but the deeds aren’t. Where,

then, one might ask, is the value of PCT?>

I perceive you have hit upon the $64,000 question! Here is my answer. The value in PCT itself is quite limited. This in no way limits its importance in understanding behavior. It is revolutionary for this purpose.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful? Let’s say some scientist named Bill Bowers discovers how “seeing” actually works. Many good thinks might come of that relating to vision, blindness, eye care, etc. But, the science of how sight works in a human being will not add one iota of knowledge or wisdom for what we should set our sight upon.

And, it seems to me that most humans who are not eye doctors have a minimal interest in how sight works, but an enormous interest in what to gaze upon to help them be better human beings or achieve a gratifying purpose with their life. Bowers theory simply does not help people deal with their every day life and their needs as human beings.

It seems the PCT science developed by Powers is a huge advance in understanding how behavior works, to explain how people do what they do. But this is a relatively minor issue in the lives of most humans, except perhaps psychologists.

The issues that challenge humans most are what to do with our lives. And like the theory and model for how sight works can’t show us what to gaze upon, PCT can’t show us what to do with our behavior. To me, that is part of our human nature. We want to find a purpose in our lives and know what to do to achieve it. PCT offers no help, no application by itself.

Of course, combined with other knowledge about humans and their nature that goes well beyond an explanation of how they do what they do, the combination is an application that can change what people want and what they do. It changes their lives individually and collectively so as to seemingly change the world as we perceive it.

That is pretty exciting. And, when the link between the most successful applications and PCT is better demonstrated and understood, PCT will takes its place along with gravity and the science of motion in being important to every living human being.

Unfortunately, the human behavior observed on this CSGNet by people who supposedly understand PCT, is probably more likely to repulse any desire of practitioners to learn it and apply it along with some compass they hold of what to do to actually achieve any betterment in the species and what it can achieve in the workplace or in life. The alternatives seem easier and more promising and psychologists and management experts indeed fool most of the people most of the time. Try Emotional Intelligence. It does seem to work some of the time to most of our workplace leaders. They flock like moths to a flame with great expectations of wisdom and results, only to get singed and then they turn to some other gimmick of the day searching for anything that might work to actually achieve their goal.

Seeing how people on CSGNet treat one another will probably not be a light to attract them to PCT. We seem to agree on that. But, something will. Keep hope alive and pray for a miracle that escapes current understanding.

···

Richard_Marken2 · November 3, 2002, 5:02pm

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.03.0900)]

Kenny
Kitzke (2002.11.03)–
Unfortunately, the human
behavior observed on this CSGNet by people who supposedly understand PCT,
is probably more likely to repulse any desire of practitioners to learn
it and apply it along with some compass they hold of what to do to actually
achieve any betterment in the species and what it can achieve in the workplace
or in life…

I agree. People who judge the merits of PCT on the basis of the behavior
of those who purport to understand it are likely to be repulsed by PCT
when they see what sometimes goes on on CSGNet. But who cares? People who
judge an idea in terms of superficial aspects of the behavior of its advocates
rather than in terms of the logic and substance of the idea itself wouldn’t
even be able to tell which advocates actually understand the idea and which
don’t.
case for the practical value of understanding PCT. While the behavior
of those who (from my point of view) understand PCT is not always (again
as occasionally is the behavior of those who don’t understand it and are
most convinced that they do.

Best regards

Rick

···

From my point of view, the behavior on CSGNet makes a very convincing
from my point of view) exemplary, it is never as mean and disrespectful

–

Richard S. Marken

MindReadings.com

marken@mindreadings.com

310 474-0313

Fred_Nickols2 · November 3, 2002, 5:12pm

[From Fred Nickols (2002.11.03.1205 EST)] --

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.03.0901 MST)]

Fred Nickols (2002.11.03) --

>Years ago, I completely redesigned the Navy's Programmed Instruction
> ... My simple-minded reasoning was that if I could teach them to

correctly evaluate programmed instructional materials, they would know
enough to be able to figure out how to write them. Ditto for the task and
behavioral analyses; if they could judge them they could produce them. The
course worked like a champ.

Finally, the neat thing about all this applied stuff is that it's
empirical. It works or it doesn't. If it works, and if it works on a
regular, repeated, reliable basis, the underlying reasons are no doubt of
great importance but of incidental interest to many application-oriented
practitioners (though certainly not to all or even to most).

I take it that the message here is that you know all you need to know about
instructional methods, and do not plan to use PCT to improve them (since
they already work as well as possible). PCT isn't good for anything but
explaining things after they are already understood empirically. Do I have
that right?
Just checking.

Nope; I not only don't know all there is to know, I probably know very
little of it (although there was a time when I knew a great deal of
it). I'm assuming instructional design know-how has made some good
progress since my day.

Nor do I not plan to improve them using PCT but, frankly, right now the
best use I see of PCT is in providing better explanations of what already
works, not in devising new approaches. I hang around here because I figure
that, sooner or later, those who know PCT far better than me will point to
a possible application or two even if for no other reason than to shut me
up while I go off and play with it.

Finally, I keep asking what PCT is good for -- other than explaining things
in ways that are more powerful and satisfying than commonly accepted
explanations (Oops, theories) and, equally frankly, I don't get much in the
way of an answer. That's okay, because I recognize that I'm peripheral to
what's going on here and so I try not to be too much of a pest.

Short answer: No, you don't have that right.

Just replying.

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

Fred_Nickols2 · November 3, 2002, 5:29pm

[From Fred Nickols (2002.11.03.1215 EST)] --

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.11.03)]

I am quite certain that PCT can be applied. Ed Ford has applied PCT to a
better way for "discipline in schools." I have applied it (through MOL)
to conflict resolution with one of my sons with incomprehensible
results. I have applied PCT in the management of organizations to
dramatically improve performance of results (real measured data).

Where would I go to study these applications of PCT? Are there materials,
papers, articles I could read?

There are quite a number of practical applications by a number of
people, some with astounding results. Unfortunately, many have left this
forum, perhaps related to the latter issue you address. One that always
amazes me is its use in capital crime mediation services where even the
murderer of Michael Jordan's father escapes the death penalty and is
granted life imprisonment.

What are these practical applications? What are the "astounding"
results? Are you saying that PCT was applied to saving the murderer of
Michael Jordan's father? If so, how did that occur? If not, what are you
saying?

<(I do happen
to believe that PCT offers a useful diagnostic framework for examining
performance problems in the workplace but, so far, that framework doesn't
extend beyond what is already known and thus has no competitive edge when
compared with other approaches.)>

Again, I disagree. I can also understand that if you have not witnessed
its extension or the competitive edge it offers that you would perceive
PCT this way.

How, then, does it add a competitive edge? Can you provide an example or two?

My experience is that the incorrect theories of psychology almost
universally practiced in the workplace *facilitate many of the performance
problems you observe.* This would include the carrot and stick
methodology for controlling what employees do.

Your first sentence immediately above strikes me as having a grain of truth
to it. Regarding the second: I don't think "carrot and stick" is as
ineffective as many would like us to believe -- nor do I believe it's the
best approach around.

PCT is in total contradiction to these theories. And, when PCT is
applied, organizational performance results can be, and have been,
dramatically improved.

I have yet to be convinced of the first sentence immediately above but
that's neither here nor there; I'm not here to quarrel or quibble with that
argument. Regarding the second sentence: Can you point me to instances or,
better yet, to case studies of applications of PCT that have produced
dramatically improved organizational performance results?

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful? Let's say some scientist named Bill
Bowers discovers how "seeing" actually works. Many good thinks might come
of that relating to vision, blindness, eye care, etc. But, the science of
how sight works in a human being will not add one iota of knowledge or
wisdom for what we should set our sight upon.

And, it seems to me that most humans who are not eye doctors have a
minimal interest in how sight works, but an enormous interest in what to
gaze upon to help them be better human beings or achieve a gratifying
purpose with their life. Bowers theory simply does not help people deal
with their every day life and their needs as human beings.

I'd be more inclined to say that most people, including eye doctors, have
an enormous interest in being able to see. I suspect that what they choose
to gaze upon is a different matter.

IUnfortunately, the human behavior observed on this CSGNet by people who
supposedly understand PCT, is probably more likely to repulse any desire
of practitioners to learn it and apply it along with some compass they
hold of what to do to actually achieve any betterment in the species and
what it can achieve in the workplace or in life.

Maybe, maybe not. It simply makes me curious about the potential for PCT
to improve human interactions.

The alternatives seem easier and more promising and psychologists and
management experts indeed fool most of the people most of the time. Try
Emotional Intelligence. It does seem to work some of the time to most of
our workplace leaders. They flock like moths to a flame with great
expectations of wisdom and results, only to get singed and then they turn
to some other gimmick of the day searching for anything that might work to
actually achieve their goal.

There is indeed a lot of snake oil out there.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

Fred_Nickols2 · November 3, 2002, 5:38pm

[From Fred Nickols (2002.11.03.1231 EST)] --

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.03.0901 MST)]

I take it that the message here is that you know all you need to know about
instructional methods, and do not plan to use PCT to improve them (since
they already work as well as possible). PCT isn't good for anything but
explaining things after they are already understood empirically. Do I have
that right?
Just checking.

Hmm. I thought I'd take a second shot at responding to this.

I am not saying that "PCT isn't good for anything but explaining things
after they are already understood empirically."

I am saying that, if that's all it is good for, it doesn't offer a lot of
value in terms of serving as a basis for making things better.

I am also saying that, right now, if I try to picture myself selling the
folks I know best on PCT, I have the strong sense that any arguments I
might proffer would be rebuffed on the basis that all PCT is is a different
(and not necessarily a better) explanation. To overcome those objections,
I'd need to be able to point to some practical applications that are
clearly workable and that produce solid results of value. Moreover, these
applications would have to be equally clearly tied to PCT as a point of
origin and not easily explainable in terms of any competing theories.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "understood empirically." I was
thinking more in terms of "proven" empirically, that is, shown to work on a
reliable basis. I can't decipher "understood empirically."

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

Bill_Williams_UMKC · November 3, 2002, 5:56pm

[From Bill Williams UMKC 3 November 2002 11:40 AM CST]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.11.03)]

I have applied PCT in the management of organizations to dramatically
improve performance of results (real measured data).

Good to hear this. Maybe sometime you could expand upon these "dramatic"
"results?"

There are quite a number of practical applications by a number of people,
some with astounding results.

Again, it would be nice to hear about such results.

Unfortunately, many have left this forum,

perhaps related to the latter issue you address. One that always amazes me
is its use in capital crime mediation services where even the murderer of
Michael Jordan's father escapes the death penalty and is granted life
imprisonment.

As I've said in the past, words aren't sticks and stones. (I'm not very
original!) And, despite some fantasies there have so far been no murders, and
even no hitting.

<(I do happen
to believe that PCT offers a useful diagnostic framework for examining
performance problems in the workplace but, so far, that framework doesn't
extend beyond what is already known and thus has no competitive edge when
compared with other approaches.)>

Again, I disagree. I can also understand that if you have not witnessed its
extension or the competitive edge it offers that you would perceive PCT this
way.

Following Fred's posting, I was wondering. I don't have the sort of experience
with large organizations to have an informed opinion-- so I was inclined to
credit what Fred said. But, you are saying something quite different-- how come
there's such a difference? I like your version much better, but that's not
much of a basis, my itself, for dismissing what Fred says.

PCT is in total contradiction to these theories. And, when PCT is applied,
organizational performance results can be, and have been, dramatically
improved.

<Finally, the behavior of the members of this list, as manifested in their
postings to the list, doesn't seem to be any better or worse than the
behavior of members of other lists to which I belong, suggesting to me that
even those whose grasp of PCT is as complete as it can be, aren't thereby
empowered or enabled to behave in significantly different or improved
ways. To be sure, the accounts of events taking place on the list are
couched in different -- PCT -- terms but the actions show no evidence of
superior efficacy. The words may be different but the deeds aren't. Where,
then, one might ask, is the value of PCT?>

I perceive you have hit upon the $64,000 question....

If you could answer it, I'm sure it would be worth a lot more than $64,000!

It seems the PCT science developed by Powers is a huge advance in
understanding how behavior works, to explain how people do what they do. But
this is a relatively minor issue in the lives of most humans, except perhaps
psychologists.

It seems to me that whether or not people currently perceive that this is a
minor issue, how people think about how and why they and other people do things
is _as a factual matter_ extermely important. If you think people are like the
behaviorists mistaken conception of the behavior of a flat worm, then all sorts
of bad things are going to happen.

Unfortunately, the human behavior observed on this CSGNet by people who
supposedly understand PCT, is probably more likely to repulse any desire of
practitioners to learn it and apply it along with some compass they hold of
what to do to actually achieve any betterment in the species and what it can
achieve in the workplace or in life.

I'll try to do better in the future. Really!

Cordially yours

Bill Williams

pleased to hear that your son is doing better.

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

Bill_Williams_UMKC · November 3, 2002, 6:04pm

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.03.0900)]

> Kenny Kitzke (2002.11.03)--
>
> Unfortunately, the human behavior observed on this CSGNet by people
> who supposedly understand PCT, is probably more likely to repulse any
> desire of practitioners to learn it and apply it along with some
> compass they hold of what to do to actually achieve any betterment in
> the species and what it can achieve in the workplace or in life...

I agree. People who judge the merits of PCT on the basis of the behavior
of those who purport to understand it are likely to be repulsed by PCT
when they see what sometimes goes on on CSGNet. But who cares? People
who judge an idea in terms of superficial aspects of the behavior of its
advocates rather than in terms of the logic and substance of the idea
itself wouldn't even be able to tell which advocates actually understand
the idea and which don't.

Rick, lots of people care. It just that you don't yourself care about this
issue and so you disregard the sensiblities of other people and unnecesarily do
things that they consider offensive. The behavior you describe as "superficial"
is just as real as the matters of "logic and substance."

>From my point of view, the behavior on CSGNet makes a very convincing
case for the practical value of understanding PCT. While the behavior
of those who (from my point of view) understand PCT is not always (again
from my point of view) exemplary, it is never as mean and disrespectful
as occasionally is the behavior of those who don't understand it and are
most convinced that they do.

"Shut up Bob." he explained. QED.

best

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

Richard_Marken2 · November 3, 2002, 7:39pm

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.03.1140)]

Bill Williams (undated)

> [From Rick Marken (2002.11.03.0900)]

> People who judge the merits of PCT on the basis of the behavior
> of those who purport to understand it are likely to be repulsed by PCT
> when they see what sometimes goes on on CSGNet. But who cares? People
> who judge an idea in terms of superficial aspects of the behavior of its
> advocates rather than in terms of the logic and substance of the idea
> itself wouldn't even be able to tell which advocates actually understand
> the idea and which don't.

Rick, lots of people care. It just that you don't yourself care about this
issue and so you disregard the sensiblities of other people and unnecesarily do
things that they consider offensive. The behavior you describe as "superficial"
is just as real as the matters of "logic and substance."

I didn't say that the superficial behavior was not real. It certainly is real, in
the sense that it is an observable (perceptual) phenomenon. What I meant to say
was that one can't tell whether or not these superficial aspects of behavior (such
as its style and tone) are being produced by one who understands PCT without
evaluating the logic and substance of what they say about PCT.

> From my point of view, the behavior on CSGNet makes a very convincing
> case for the practical value of understanding PCT. While the behavior
> of those who (from my point of view) understand PCT is not always (again
> from my point of view) exemplary, it is never as mean and disrespectful
> as occasionally is the behavior of those who don't understand it and are
> most convinced that they do.

"Shut up Bob." he explained. QED.

I think that proves only that Bill Powers, who I think we all agree understands
PCT pretty well, can say things that can sound offensive. But my experience is
that such lapses are rare among people who understand PCT. Among some of those
who don't understand PCT and are most convinced that they do, however, my
experience is that such lapses are neither rare and nor lapses.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 5, 2002, 4:26am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.11.03)]
<Fred Nickols (2002.11.03.1215 EST)>
<Where would I go to study these applications of PCT? Are there materials,
papers, articles I could read?>
Fred, I am not a very good librarian. Certainly there is quite a bit of information available on Ed Ford’s Responsible Thinking Process (RTP), including books. Applications like capital offense remediation services based on PCT were described by Brent Dennis at the Conference in the mid-1990’s but I really don’t recollect or know how much he has put in writing.
We have inspiring reports about suicide counseling in California based on PCT which have been on CSGNet and (last time I heard) a still perfect record of saves. But, again, I just don’t know how much has been written up and is available about the method or the results. There are confidentiality issues I suppose.
There are write-ups about MOL but perhaps less of actual cases (often quite personal or also confidential). There are video tapes available with stories of dramatic results (I remember Tim Carey sharing a number of his cases) at CSG/MOL Workshops. Have you ever attended one?
There were even some interesting, although not earth shaking, successes witnessed right at the CSG/MOL Conference regarding which I think you can still buy a video tape from Dag to see for yourself. David Goldstein also just posted one such MOL example.
<How, then, does it add a competitive edge? Can you provide an example or two?>
PCT has a distinct competitive edge in that it debunks many of the common ideas about management motivation and control of employees employed in organizations. It explains why HR policies and performance improvement programs fail so often and sometimes even backfire making things worse.
In my newspaper today (Greensburg Tribune Review), Weirton Steel is going to seek a change in its ESOP (they were one of the first major companies to use this method of motivating employees and being successful for about two decades). Now, they see ESOP as the biggest threat to the company’s survival. Why? The CEO says “Past experience has taught us that people aren’t interested in investing in Weirton because their control is limited.” I think the ideas here about what people are and are not interested in and why (need to control people) are flawed. All this, I believe would be made much clearer if the ESOP designers understood PCT. But, I can’t prove it and won’t even get a chance.
Shoot, Fred. I have somehow managed to lose your original post that I was responding to here when I went to a telephone call and changed screen names. Best I can recall, you asked for examples from me but I know there were other items to which I wished to respond.
In my case, I have applied PCT to situations like this.
Absenteeism

The client had rates of absenteeism double the region’s average. It was hurting quality, raising costs and causing conflicts among employees and with managers. The CEO kept applying pressure on his managers/supervisors to correct these problems and discipline the offenders. Yet, it just did not reduce the incidences of employees being absent to any significant degree.

Combining PCT with other disciplines, such as Deming’s profound knowledge about quality, productivity and psychology, and the Bible, we developed a new system for how managers could deal with this problem. While there were a number of key changes made in what managers said and did, the key to the success was in my view mostly related to changing the employees perception of whether they wanted to be present. This included establishing higher principles like being absent was stealing from the company, being unfair to coworkers, etc. It also included some gainsharing and a little competition among three facilities. That seemed to pull managers and employees a little closer together to show they were more responsible than those at the other plants. The system also proved that if the employees at a facility chose to be more responsible in showing up for work (unless there was a valid excuse) all the benefits did not go to management bonuses and o!
wner equity increases but came back to them.

In the first year instituting this new management method, absenteeism dropped to half the average, performance improved, morale improved the company saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct cost and ALL employees picked up a few extra $100 bills. Everyone seemed to win.

The CEO was a former HR executive (probably the only such CEO I ever had as a retained client). He even attended a one-day Workshop on Leadership stressing some PCT principles. I can’t say he ever grasped PCT, but he sensed something was different enough that he would try the ideas I suggested. He was amazed. He said in 25 years he had never found any of the numerous absenteeism programs people tried to work this dramatically. Better yet, it seemed to be a lasting change rather than the temporary improvement under the old hammer/coercion method of management. I remember he was so impressed, he actually wanted his son who was graduating with an MBA to learn this system, work with my son Chris, who also studied PCT and worked for me at the time, and start a business selling this system.

I have devised other systems of pay based on PCT principles instead of annual performance appraisal by management. Years later, this same CEO actually tried a version of my system out in one facility. I had lunch with him and he insisted we stop at this facility on the way. He couldn’t stop relating how this worked like nothing he ever tried before. Employee pay and retention both soared and the unit was making the highest profits ever! The Plant Manager was ecstatic. I had to tell them three times he was preaching to the saved and could have done it four years earlier when I designed this advanced management system.

One comment on these cases was that understanding PCT was never the ONLY contributing factor. The change always involved PCT self-control and was done according to Biblical principles. Neither of these inputs were used together in a new management system design by any of the hottest “compensation” gurus or business school professor with a published best seller.

I believe their clients were always stuck with plausible and well-intentioned but inferior psychology theories, models and understandings about how to get people to do what you want them to do. This placed them at a substantial competitive disadvantage when it came to results.

Within his large conglomerate, this CEO and his staff received the largest bonuses of any unit in most of the years I consulted with him. I somewhat expected him to share some of these secrets with the other units. He never did. A PCTer can probably make a good guess of what perception his behavior was controlling.

I hope this helps and encourages you. If I find the rest of your post, or have time to get it on the archives, I will probably respond more. But, it’s late tonight and it is a busy week ahead too, including controlling my perceptions regarding my governor by VOTING.