I/O Psychologists

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Fred Nickols (981017.1300)] --

Jeff Vancouver 981016.1354 EST
Interestingly, I have found that I have had no luck converting I/O
psychologists to PCT, particularly with the details. On the other hand, I
have made in-roads with some more basic researchers.

Allow me to wax cynical for a moment (having had some experiences
in trying to persuade I/O psychologists of the utility of viewing
employees as "autonomous performers."

You ain't gonna have much luck on accounta them there I/O
psychologists are mostly in the employ of management.
(I'm feelin' "country" today :slight_smile:

Any I/O psychologist who subscribes to the PCT point of view
is faced with being the King's messenger, that is, of having
to tell the boss that the boss can't control behavior the
way the I/O psychologists have been saying for at least 50
years and probably longer.

To illustrate my point, consider the example below, from a
post of mine to CSG exactly a year ago...

Two things have come together for me recently. One is the PCT-based model

I'll be using to illustrate issues related to human behavior and
performance; the other is an example. Both should be of interest to this
list.

THE MODEL (Actually, it's just a diagram)

       INTENTIONS OTHER ACTORS
           > & FACTORS
           > >
           > >
           \/ |
       _________ \/
       > >
       > ? |--------> ACTIONS -----------> CONDITIONS
       >________|
                                                     >
           /\ |
           > >
           > >
           > >
       PERCEPTIONS <---------------------------------

THE EXAMPLE

Many years ago, while still doing custom training development, I was

working on a sales training project for the old AT&T Yellow Pages
operations. The target group consisted of the sales canvassing crews that
moved from town to town renewing Yellow Pages ads.

One of the managers asked me if, as a side issue, I would look into a

puzzling pattern in sick time. The situation he described was essentially
this:

       Some of his top salespeople would be on a roll, really
       racking up sales and then, with no warning, call in sick.
       He wanted to know why. Not all of his top salespeople
       did this, and some who weren't top salespeople did it,
       too. But he wanted to understand the motives of his top
       salespeople.

Very little sleuth work was required. I simply asked one of the

salespeople with whom I had established a pretty good relationship and he
explained it to me.

Commissions from sales formed the bulk of their compensation. Base pay

was, in their eyes, quite modest. Commissions accumulated during a
two-week period, and were paid two weeks after the end of the accumulation
period. (See the diagram below)

         Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7
       >----|----|----|----|----|----|----|

       <---------> X
       Commissions |
       Accumulated |
                           >
                       commissions
                          Paid

Commissions earned during weeks 1 and 2 were paid at the end of week 4.
However, sick pay was paid for in a different way Any sick days during

weeks 2 and 3 were paid for in week 4 as well. Moreover, sick pay was paid
for on the basis of base pay plus average daily commissions, not base pay
alone. If a sales rep had a bad run for a couple of days in week 2 and
started off week 3 on a good run, he could take the end of week 3 as sick
days and offset the loss of income from the bad sales days in week 2. This
boosted the size of his pay check at the end of week 4. In short, the reps
had figured out how to use sick days to manage their income stream.

The manager thought all the salespeople were (or should be) controlling

for maximum income (although he would never have stated it that way). Some
were. But some were controlling for a stable or level income stream, and
some were controlling for a minimum-sized paycheck. All were controlling
for control of income, whatever their particular intentions might have been.

I/O psychologists of my acquaintance would have the darndest
time explaining the salespeoples' behavior in ways that would
a) be consistent with I/O psychology and b) be acceptable to
management.

For me, it was simply a matter of pointing out to the manager
in question that the salespeople were doing what all people do,
that is, "playing the system" in which they find themselves to
their individual advantage. In the last analysis, that's what
"living control systems" do, isn't it?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095