(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.
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).