Fw: Power in PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2008
1

(Gavin Ritz 2008.08.26.8.47NZT)

[From Fred Nickols (2008.08.25.0819 MDT)]

G:Fred it is too messy answering the other threads so I’ll focus on this one that is really where our disagreement lies. I do see the role PCT can play on an individual level (I have no problem with this, never have had) but still I don’t see how it can be robustly applied to structure.

There is a strong feedback loop between the structure and human behaviour of-course people will stonewall, find loopholes etc in structures but you and I both know this from the Systems Thinking model that structure is in a causal loop with human behaviour. The beer game which I mentioned, almost 100% of managers acted and made the same wrong decisions because of the structure of both the internal and external processes. That is clearly behaviour caused by structure. There can be no argument over this it has been proved over and over again.

So if we want particular behaviour relevant to organisation (not related to temperament) we changed the power structure- compulsions and incentives, or/and remove/add constraints and bottlenecks, change authority role relationships, delegated authorities, role relationships access etc. All these work and can create highly efficient organisations.

Regards

Gavin

···

FN: I don’t think structure (or anything else for that matter) “dictates” behavior. Structure can pose restraints and constraints and it >clearly provides a context but it doesn’t “dictate” behavior. People “game” the system on a regular basis; indeed, some people enjoy that >more than their real jobs. Even the ordinary “work around” can serve to offset the restrictions posed by structure (and by those exercising >authority in that structure).

–

2

(Gavin Ritz 2008.08.28.9.50NZT)
[From Bill Powers (2008.08.27.0440 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2008.08.27.10.06 NZT –

I don’t know what you mean by a “level of logic.” What are these
levels? I wonder if you’re using the word “logic” the same way I do.
As far as I know, logic is a kind of algebra of thinking made from
the elements “not”, “and,” and “or.” For example, an implication (if
A then B) can be expressed in Boolean algebra as “not (B and not-A)”

Yes that is correct. Truth tables of logic are linked to a time horizon and a organisational structure created by people. Structure reflects the perception.

, which translates into English as “It is not the case that B is true
and A is false.” In PCT all logical operations are assumed
(tentatively) to take place at level 9 of the hierarchy I have

Yes I undertsnd so, that’s why I said it’s there in HPCT I have looked at your levels carefully and you have included all the levels of logic right up to systems concept.

proposed, calling it the “program level”. It may be a combination of
several levels I haven’t distinguished from each other.

That’s correct.

I have also proposed that the category level (level 7) could be
constructed using the “or” operation, since a category is perceived
as present if any of its elements is present: the category “dog” is
perceived if, at a lower level, one perceives the shapes we put in
subcategories such as “collie” OR “terrier” OR “bulldog” and so on.
However, that is not the level where we perceive the “or” operation
tself; I’m using my logic level here to characterize the category level.

yes, it has also been noted our numbering system also may related to logic, nominals, ordinal, intervals, ratio, etc.

All this can be tested using measuring instruments and verified.

I can see how it could be one cause of conflict, but the “biggest”
cause? Did he investigate all possible causes? Or just those commonly
attributed to personality differences?

from what I undertsnd when it was applied company wide at CRA Mining that conflict was reduced by 80%

Regards

Gavin

Well, I shouldn’t be guessing about what Jaques meant. I assume
you’re going to tell us.

Best,

Bill P.

3

From Bill Powers (2008.08.29.1459 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2008.08.28.9.50NZT --

Yes I undertsnd so, that's why I said it's there in HPCT I have looked at your levels carefully and you have included all the levels of logic right up to systems concept.

I call those levels of perception: logic is only one of them. Perception of intensity is level 1, and that's not logic. Perception of a system like physics (level 11) is not logic. So I think you are using the term logic differently from the my way. Could you define what you mean by the word? That would help with communication.

>proposed, calling it the "program level". It may be a combination of
>several levels I haven't distinguished from each other.

That's correct.

Ah, you mean there are subdivisions in the logic level of perception? Could you spell out what they are? I'm not averse to revising the definitions -- there used to be 5 levels, which grew to 9, and then 11., the last change bind due to suggestions from CSG members (Gary Cziko played a part, I think).

>I have also proposed that the category level (level 7) could be
>constructed using the "or" operation, since a category is perceived
>as present if any of its elements is present: the category "dog" is
>perceived if, at a lower level, one perceives the shapes we put in
>subcategories such as "collie" OR "terrier" OR "bulldog" and so on.
>However, that is not the level where we perceive the "or" operation

tself; I'm using my logic level here to characterize the category level.

yes, it has also been noted our numbering system also may related to logic, nominals, ordinal, intervals, ratio, etc.

That's a pretty miscellaneous collection of concepts. Russell and Whitehead, in Principia Mathematica, long ago tried to reduce mathematics to logic, but I think that's been out of fashion for a while. But I could be mistaken. My mathematics looks pretty feeble when a real mathematician comes along. I would put all efforts like that at the logic or principle level, but not any lower.

>I can see how it could be one cause of conflict, but the "biggest"
>cause? Did he investigate all possible causes? Or just those commonly
>attributed to personality differences?

from what I undertsnd when it was applied company wide at CRA Mining that conflict was reduced by 80%

Does that mean that the severity of conflicts was reduced by 80%? If so, how did he measure it? Or did he mean that the number of episodes of conflict, regardless of severity, was reduced that much? Or perhaps that 80% fewer people in the company had recurring significant conflicts with other people? How does he define conflict, and explain what causes it?

Best,

Bill P.