[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.01)
<Gavin Ritz 2008.08.01.10.10NZT>
<This begs the question can PCT if it’s a scientific theory, can it ever reflect the true nature of human beings who after all are sensual qualities with skin and bones.>
Oh, I have little doubt that PCT is a scientific theory. I have even less doubt that PCT reflects the true nature of human behavior. I have no doubt that PCT is a complete explanation of the nature of human beings.
(Gavin Ritz 2008.08.2.19.16NZt)
[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.01)
<Gavin
Ritz 2008.08.01.10.10NZT>
<This
begs the question can PCT if it’s a scientific theory, can it ever reflect the
true nature of human beings who after all are sensual qualities with skin and
bones.>
Oh, I
have little doubt that PCT is a scientific theory. I have even less doubt
that PCT reflects the true nature of human behavior. I have no doubt that
PCT is a complete explanation of the nature of human beings.
In that case there is obviously little more to be said. You have
the complete explanation of all human nature, qualities and behaviours.
[From Kenny Kitzke
(2008.09.01.09:17EDT)
<Gavin Ritz
2008.08.2.19.16NZt>
<In that case there is obviously little more to be said. You have the complete explanation of all human nature, qualities and behaviours.>
I should know better than try to respond to a serious proposition late at night while also watching the US Tennis Open on TV which I had attended last week. I am sorry that I left out an important word in my statement to which you responded as above. I was actually agreeing with you. I preceive that if all you knew about human nature was PCT, you would probably be intellectually handicapped.
Below is what my statement should have been with the addition in pink capital letters. Listmates are aware of my perception of the incompleteness of PCT to describe human nature. I have stated it many times in many ways over the last decade on the net and at the conference.
Oh, I have little doubt that PCT is a scientific theory. I have even less doubt that PCT reflects the true nature of human behavior. I have no doubt that PCT is NOT a complete explanation of the nature of human beings.
I do NOT believe that I have a complete explanation of all human nature. I don’t believe Bill Powers does either. And, I perceive he would be humble enough to admit he has made a good first stab at explaining how behavior works. But, learning PCT gave me a more valuable and useful understanding of the nature of human beings since they do not control behavior but their perceptions. That is upside-down from most “experts” and “scientists” who have thought about human behavior and tried to write about it qualitatively with lots of blah, blah, blah.
Bill’s first stab at a theory of behavior is much more credible and useful IMHO than your first stab at defining or explaining “power” in organizations or society But, this is just my opinion. Yours is naturally different, exactly as PCT would predict.
I do concede that you may have some better explanations of human behavior or science or organization structure than I do. I would hope you could concede the same about me. I doubt if either of us has a clear picture of what that qualitative statement actually means. And, life goes on.
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.02.9.30NZT)
[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.01.09:17EDT)
<Gavin Ritz 2008.08.2.19.16NZt>
<In that case there is obviously little more to be said. You have the complete explanation of all human nature, qualities and behaviours.>
Oh, I have little doubt that PCT is a scientific theory. I have even less doubt that PCT reflects the true >nature of human behavior. I have no doubt that PCT is NOT a complete explanation of the nature of >human beings.
That sounds a lot different.
I do NOT believe that I have a complete explanation of all human nature. I don’t believe Bill Powers does either. >And, I perceive he would be humble enough to admit he has made a good first stab at explaining how behavior >works. But, learning PCT gave me a more valuable and useful understanding of the nature of human beings since >they do not control behavior but their perceptions. That is upside-down from most “experts” and “scientists” who >have thought about human behavior and tried to write about it qualitatively with lots of blah, blah, blah.
Bill’s first stab at a theory of behavior is much more credible and useful IMHO than your first stab at defining or >explaining “power” in organizations or society
It doesn’t explain the notion of power at all. But that is my opinion.
But, this is just my opinion. Yours is naturally different, exactly as >PCT would predict.
WE don’t need PCT to predict this.
I do concede that you may have some better explanations of human behavior or science or organization >structure than I do. I would hope you could concede the same about me. I doubt if either of us has a clear picture >of what that qualitative statement actually means. And, life goes on.
WE all have valid opinions.
Actually what I really like about PCT is that its flies in the face of accepted knowledge and makes much more sense to me that the psychological theories around and I have spent time on reading these theories, some like Object Relations theory is just plain wonky but Attachment Theory is pretty good.
What I want is just one practical test that I can replicate in the workplace and then build from there.
[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.01.1613 MDT)]
(Gavin Ritz 2008.09.02.9.30NZT)
What I want is just one practical test that I can replicate in the workplace and
then build from there.
I don't know if I can give you a practical test or not but I can tell you a story that might suggest one of your own.
Back in 1971, while stationed at the Navy's Instructor Training School in San Diego, I wound up heading up the Programmed Instruction Writer's Course. It was a real headache: tough to teach, lots of drop outs and folks who barely squeaked by. So I set out to rewrite it. I did not know of PCT at the time but was instead influenced by Bloom's Taxonomy for the cognitive domain. Like HPTC, the taxonomy was hiearchical in nature, with evaluation at the very top. My understanding of the taxonomy was that if I could successfully teach the course at the evaluation level, the trainees could more or less figure out how to write the materials on their own (there were no component behaviors not already in their repertoire). So, that's what I did: I built the course around exercises requiring them to apply standards to evaluate already existing (and sample) materials. When it came time to develop their own materials, they simply did it. No more drop outs, no more failures, no more crappy materials.
A few years later, in 1976, at the recommendation of a client, I obtained a copy of B:CP by Bill Powers. I was delighted to learn that there was a much more satisfying and scientifically sound explanation for the success of my rewrite; namely, PCT. Since then I have always focused my efforts and those of any group I've led on making sure we have a common grasp of the end result we're after. Works wonders.
Does that sound like good old fashioned goal setting? Sure it does. But there is a big difference between providing people with specific goals and objectives and enabling them to perform a competent evaluation of their own work products (which, by the way, they do anyway - we just don't have a clue as to the standards they use and the standards they use are often different from those their manager uses).
As I've said before regarding PCT: there is theory and there is practice. So, far PCT hasn't produced a lot of tools or techniques that good (and empirically-based) management practice doesn't already incorporate. However, PCT does offer a much better explanation as to why what works works.
We live in a age where the more important performances in the workplace require a great deal of autonomy on the part of the performer, hence my interest in what I call "the autonomous performer." A successful, competent, autonomous performance can only be accomplished by someone capable of defining the right result and then of configuring their own behavior in order to realize it - and that includes intervening in larger structures to realize those results.
So, if you want an experiment, try this: Train one group of people to work at management's direction (i.e., to obey orders and comply with direction). Train a second group to be able to evaluate their work results. Equip both with the necessary tools and equipment, then check to see which group does the better job.
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
"Assistance at A Distance"
[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.02)]
<Fred Nickols (2008.09.01.1613 MDT)>
<A few years later, in 1976, at the recommendation of a client, I obtained a copy of B:CP by Bill Powers. I was delighted to learn that there was a much more satisfying and scientifically sound explanation for the success of my rewrite; namely, PCT. Since then I have always focused my efforts and those of any group I’ve led on making sure we have a common grasp of the end result we’re after. Works wonders.>
Totally agree, Fred. Executives have found ways to improve performance without any knowledge of PCT. This is equivalent to therapists helping people resolve conflict without any knowledge of MOL. For me, the advantage of PCT and MOL is that they help explain why the actions work. And, perhaps more valuable, why various actions don’t work…all the time.
I don’t know if you or Gavin have studied Hoshin Kanri? It is the Japanese method of creating and deploying strategic organization goals. Look at the long-term success of Japanese auto makers and you can surmise that Hoshin seems to work better than the methods used by GM and Ford. I have used a similar system of active goal alignment (I call it Proteus) with a number of clients. One, facing extinction at the hands of international competitors, grew 700% in four years to become the world leader. And, in the last year of my consultant retainer, they provided every employee with a gainsharing check of $2,500. That was quite amazing for a draftsman making $25,000 a year, or for a secretary making $15,000.
I facilitate a group of CEO’s know as the Upside-Down Leader Forum. I polled them on what leadership issues were most difficult/disturbing for them. Top on the list was getting their employee’s to adopt their organizations goals. Thanks to PCT they learned new ways to do that more successfully.
<As I’ve said before regarding PCT: there is theory and there is practice. So, far PCT hasn’t produced a lot of tools or techniques that good (and empirically-based) management practice doesn’t already incorporate. However, PCT does offer a much better explanation as to why what works works.>
Precisely! And, the great value is that it changes great leadership from anecdotal chance to methodologies that work all the time in any application. So, managers/executives can share the seemingly magic “power” (that is for you Gavin).
<So, if you want an experiment, try this: Train one group of people to work at management’s direction (i.e., to obey orders and comply with direction). Train a second group to be able to evaluate their work results. Equip both with the necessary tools and equipment, then check to see which group does the better job.>
You got it Fred! And, BTW, it is good to see you posting again. The management buzzword for this phenomena is emPOWERment (for you again, Gavin). You don’t need PCT in order to produce great results, but having a better theoretical basis for explaining why the results are so much better, can only be more POWERful. Ask Gerry McGinnis. He started a company called Respironics and read about PCT about 1990 in Freedom from Stress by Ed Ford while a retained client. He just sold his stake for $500 million. Does PCT make a difference in organizations? Ask Gerry. Or, perhaps he is just lucky?
[From Kenny Kitzke
(2008.09.02)]
<Gavin Ritz 2008.09.02.9.30NZT>
[Oh, I have little doubt that PCT is a scientific theory. I have even less doubt that PCT reflects the true nature of human behavior. I have no doubt that PCT is NOT a complete explanation of the nature of human beings.]
[It sounds, and is, profoundly different IMHO.]
<It doesn’t explain the notion of power at all. But that is my opinion.>
Opinions are like noses, every human has on and every one is different. If your opinion is relevant and useful, others often adopt similar opinions. Our ability/power to learn is a more unique element of human nature than our ability/power to control our perceptions…and perhaps more important?
[But, this is just my opinion. Yours is naturally different, exactly as >PCT would predict.]
<WE don’t need PCT to predict this.>
Of course not. People have been living and predicting and achieving objectives successfully for thousands of years without any knowledge of PCT. The question is only whether having become aware of PCT do the explanations of what works well and not so well, is your understanding of the reasons better. Fred and I say yes. You may not yet have reached a conclusion. And, I would suspect you will be skeptical (and are, as the reactions of Rick and Bill demonstrate) until you test some PCT principles yourself and find them to provide a better understanding of human nature, behavior and organizational performance. After that, you may become a PCT disciple too. 
<Actually what I really like about PCT is that its flies in the face of accepted knowledge and makes much more sense to me that the psychological theories around and I have spent time on reading these theories, some like Object Relations theory is just plain wonky but Attachment Theory is pretty good.
What I want is just one practical test that I can replicate in the workplace and then build from there.>
Fred gave you one possibility. The one I use repeatedly is to get CEO’s to abandon their attempts to control the behavior of their employees using the common method known as “carrots and sticks.” This is behaviorism with great illusion. It is reinforcement theory. Instead, try employee emPOWERment! No numerical targets, no incentives, just improved performance that employees can adopt themselves and share together equally in the results.
That is what produced the $2500 per employee gainsharing result that put smiles on the faces of everyone that I mentioned previously. In fact, as everyone caught on to the POWER in individual initiative (a PCT principle) combined with shared-goal teamwork, the gainshare payment in the year the company was sold was an amazing $5000. The CEO was smiling too. He sold the company for $10 million and played golf whenever and wherever he wanted until his death. He died a happy man who benefited at work and in life from learning PCT. He told me how sorry he was to learn about people so late in his historic life as an inventor and entrepreneur who thought he knew what others should do and became a fool and life was full of disturbances every day.