Organizational Structure and PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2008
1

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.24.0805 MT)]

A little background...

My area of professional practice has been mainly that of performance in the
workplace, mainly the performance of people and processes. PCT, of course,
ties directly to human performance.

Another practitioner in the field of what is elsewhere known as Human
Performance Technology (HPT) has engaged me in a discussion that has
centered on the feasibility of getting organizational structures to function
in much the same manner as the central nervous system (CNS). In particular,
this other person's notion is that organizational structures are homologous
to the CNS and thus PCT could be applied to the "levels" in an
organizational structure in much the same manner as they function in an
individual's CNS.

I have been pointing out to this person why I think that is most definitely
NOT the case. The crux of our discussion (and my argument) rests on a few
key points.

First, the "levels" in an organization consist of essentially independent
living control systems (LCSs). They all have the capability of setting
their own reference signals. In an individual, the "levels" don't set their
own reference signals.

Second, to make the "levels" of an organization function in a way similar to
the levels in a LCS, you would have to find ways of (a) ensuring that the
reference signals established at one level of the organization would be
unquestionably adopted by the next level down and (b) ensuring that no level
in the organization sets its own reference signals. In short, all volition
would have to be removed.

Third, it doesn't seem to me that doing the things mentioned above, even if
they could be done which I don't think is possible, wouldn't be good things
to do, for the organization or for the people who populate it.

So, while I agree with this fellow that there are some surface/superficial
similarities between cascading goals and objectives down the organizational
hierarchy (and working very hard to develop commitment to them at all levels
of the organization), the levels of an organization do not work in ways that
are all similar to the CNS and can't be made to do so.

Finally, I've suggested to this fellow that he might join the CSGNet list
and pursue his ideas here. He seems familiar with some of the PCT
literature and he's read a piece or two of mine in which I tried to sketch
out how PCT might be used to make things go more smoothly but I think his
take on its applicability is far more expansive than mine.

Anyway, what do folks here think about the basic idea of the fit between
organizational levels and the levels in a CNS? More particularly, am I
correct when I say that any given level in an LCS does not set its own
reference signals?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

2

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.24.1205)]

Fred Nickols (2008.01.24.0805 MT)--

this other person's notion is that organizational structures are homologous
to the CNS and thus PCT could be applied to the "levels" in an
organizational structure in much the same manner as they function in an
individual's CNS.

I have been pointing out to this person why I think that is most definitely
NOT the case. The crux of our discussion (and my argument) rests on a few
key points.

Anyway, what do folks here think about the basic idea of the fit between
organizational levels and the levels in a CNS? More particularly, am I
correct when I say that any given level in an LCS does not set its own
reference signals?

I would say that your best point is the second; the difference between
the hierarchy as implemented in the CNS and a management simulation of
that hierarchy is that, in the CNS the references set by higher level
systems are necessarily adopted by lower level systems, no questions
asked. In the management simulation of the hierarchy, the references
set by higher level systems are not necessarily adopted by the lower
level systems. A manager who tells a worker to "make more widgets per
hour" is like a higher order system in the CNS specifying a reference
(for the perception of rate of widget production) for the lower order
widget rate control system. In the management hierarchy the worker
will not necessarily adopt the reference specified by the manager,
either because the worker doesn't understand what perception is
actually being specified or because adopting that reference would
conflict with other references in the worker. Forcing the lower level
system (worker) in a management hierarchy to adopt the references
specified by higher level systems (management), as in a CNS hierarchy,
would require the use of control of behavior methods (like making
adoption of the reference contingent on getting rewards or
punishments, the current approach) which can result in conflicts (and
the unpleasant behaviors that are associated with them, such as
strikes, sabotage, etc). You don't have those kinds of problems in a
CNS hierarchy.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

3

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.24.1336 MT)]

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.24.1205)]

I would say that your best point is the second; the difference between
the hierarchy as implemented in the CNS and a management simulation of
that hierarchy is that, in the CNS the references set by higher level
systems are necessarily adopted by lower level systems, no questions
asked. In the management simulation of the hierarchy, the references
set by higher level systems are not necessarily adopted by the lower
level systems. A manager who tells a worker to "make more widgets per
hour" is like a higher order system in the CNS specifying a reference
(for the perception of rate of widget production) for the lower order
widget rate control system. In the management hierarchy the worker
will not necessarily adopt the reference specified by the manager,
either because the worker doesn't understand what perception is
actually being specified or because adopting that reference would
conflict with other references in the worker. Forcing the lower level
system (worker) in a management hierarchy to adopt the references
specified by higher level systems (management), as in a CNS hierarchy,
would require the use of control of behavior methods (like making
adoption of the reference contingent on getting rewards or
punishments, the current approach) which can result in conflicts (and
the unpleasant behaviors that are associated with them, such as
strikes, sabotage, etc). You don't have those kinds of problems in a
CNS hierarchy.

Thanks for responding, Rick. I'm contemplating sending the message below to
my colleague in Human Performance Technology and I am curious if you see a
fit between it and what you say above:

Dear Colleague:

I've been thinking some more about what I think the position is that you're
trying to take. If I grasp it correctly, you're trying to draw parallels
between the way the levels in PCT function via the CNS and the way that the
levels in an organization MIGHT be made to approximate. I think that's a
worthwhile objective. I haven't pursued it myself because I've been focused
on the application of PCT to individual human behavior and performance.
And, as you no doubt know by now, I don't think the two are equivalent.
Where I think there might be some payoff is as follows (via a hypothetical
dialogue between client and consultant):

Client: So, what you're telling me with this PCT stuff is that human
behavior serves as the means by which people act so as to keep things the
way they want them.

Consultant: Right.

Client: Further, the only way they have of knowing how things are is by way
of their perceptions.

Consultant: Right.

Client: So, if I try to influence or control their behavior I run the risk
of generating conflict between me and them because my attempts to control
their behavior can interfere with their efforts to use their behavior to
control their perceptions of the things they're trying to control.

Consultant: Right again.

Client: So, if I want someone to do what I want them to do, I have to make
sure they:

  (a) know what it is I want (and that isn't a simple matter of me telling
them),
  (b) have some way of telling for themselves that they are or aren't
producing it,
  (c) buy in or adopt my goal(s) as their own, which to say they must commit
to doing what I want (this includes making certain we aren't in conflict or
that we can at least agree on how to manage any conflict) and
  (d) are supported in their efforts so that circumstances don't prevent
them from doing what I want (to use your terms, they aren't overwhelmed by
any 'disturbances').

Consultant: Right again.

Client: Moreover, this is true up and down the management hierarchy, at
each and every level. I've got to do that with my people and they've got to
do it with theirs.

Consultant: By George, you've got it.

Client: Damn! That sounds like a lot of hard work.

Consultant: Right once more.

Client: Don't you have any magic wands or silver bullets?

Consultant: Nope.

Client: So what you're basically telling me is that we have to rethink our
basic management practices, reeducate all our managers, execs, supervisors
and probably the worker bees, too, put in place new management control
systems and Lord knows what else. And, to top things off, we'll have to no
doubt tweak, tinker with, and fine tune all of this over some extended
period of time.

Consultant: Yep.

Client: Ouch.

Consultant: But, if you pull it off, you will have an organization capable
of heretofore unattainable levels of performance that are likely to remain
unparalleled for a long, long time. You will have laid hands on a
competitive edge that will be impossible for anyone else to copy and every
bit as difficult for them to develop.

Client: Hmm.

···

----------
End of response to colleague.

So, Rick, whatcha think? Too much like snake oil?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

4

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.24.1515)]

Fred Nickols (2008.01.24.1336 MT)

Thanks for responding, Rick. I'm contemplating sending the message below to
my colleague in Human Performance Technology and I am curious if you see a
fit between it and what you say above:

Dear Colleague:

I've been thinking some more about what I think the position is that you're
trying to take...

So, Rick, whatcha think? Too much like snake oil?

I think it's great, Fred. If anything, I think it's more Castor Oil
than Snake Oil. So I think it could use a bit more of the latter in
the form of some version of MOL.

I think the way to get these management systems to "work" is though
cooperation achieved through continuous efforts to find common ground,
where the common ground (from a PCT perspective) is shared higher
level goals. The search for common ground is achieved by helping
people go up a level.

This search for common ground using MOL would even include an attempt
to find agreement on what it means for the organization to "work". An
organization that "works" might mean something quite different to
management and to workers. If everyone in the company -- management
and labor -- could agree on common high level goals, then, presumably,
they could better find a way to set lower level goals that are not in
conflict. Of course, finding that kind of common ground might not be
easy but, then, that's what you management consultants are for, right?
You are like MOL therapists for producers. Or, at least, that's what I
think you _should_ be;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

5

(Gavin Ritz 2008.01.25.17.27NZ)

Conflicts arise in organisations mainly due to very poor accountability
structures, ie accountability of role relationships.

Set this correctly (and very few organisations do) and almost 90% of the
conflicts are immediately resolved.

The other 10% comes from individual power struggles no matter what power
(accountability) structures are set, unmatched capability, lousy personal
temperament, and personal values unmet.

Using PCT would be dysfunctional, humans are not ants.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2008 4:21 a.m.
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Organizational Structure and PCT

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.24.0805 MT)]

A little background...

My area of professional practice has been mainly that of performance in the
workplace, mainly the performance of people and processes. PCT, of course,
ties directly to human performance.

Another practitioner in the field of what is elsewhere known as Human
Performance Technology (HPT) has engaged me in a discussion that has
centered on the feasibility of getting organizational structures to function
in much the same manner as the central nervous system (CNS). In particular,
this other person's notion is that organizational structures are homologous
to the CNS and thus PCT could be applied to the "levels" in an
organizational structure in much the same manner as they function in an
individual's CNS.

I have been pointing out to this person why I think that is most definitely
NOT the case. The crux of our discussion (and my argument) rests on a few
key points.

First, the "levels" in an organization consist of essentially independent
living control systems (LCSs). They all have the capability of setting
their own reference signals. In an individual, the "levels" don't set their
own reference signals.

Second, to make the "levels" of an organization function in a way similar to
the levels in a LCS, you would have to find ways of (a) ensuring that the
reference signals established at one level of the organization would be
unquestionably adopted by the next level down and (b) ensuring that no level
in the organization sets its own reference signals. In short, all volition
would have to be removed.

Third, it doesn't seem to me that doing the things mentioned above, even if
they could be done which I don't think is possible, wouldn't be good things
to do, for the organization or for the people who populate it.

So, while I agree with this fellow that there are some surface/superficial
similarities between cascading goals and objectives down the organizational
hierarchy (and working very hard to develop commitment to them at all levels
of the organization), the levels of an organization do not work in ways that
are all similar to the CNS and can't be made to do so.

Finally, I've suggested to this fellow that he might join the CSGNet list
and pursue his ideas here. He seems familiar with some of the PCT
literature and he's read a piece or two of mine in which I tried to sketch
out how PCT might be used to make things go more smoothly but I think his
take on its applicability is far more expansive than mine.

Anyway, what do folks here think about the basic idea of the fit between
organizational levels and the levels in a CNS? More particularly, am I
correct when I say that any given level in an LCS does not set its own
reference signals?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

6

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.24.2120)]

Gavin Ritz (2008.01.25.17.27NZ)

Conflicts arise in organisations mainly due to very poor accountability
structures, ie accountability of role relationships.

It is not immediately obvious to me why a lack of accountability would
result in conflict, given my understanding of what a conflict is.
Could you give an example of a conflict in an organization and explain
what a lack of accountability has to do with it.

Thanks.

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

7

[From Bill Powers (2008.01.24.1109 PM)]

Fred Nickols (2008.01.24.1336 MT)

I agree with your assessment of the parallels (and differences) between
an individual hierarchy of control and the structure of organizations. I
was asked about this recently and my answers were essentially identical
to yours!

There are some useful things to say about organizations, based on the PCT
nature of the people involved. One is that higher level managers should
tell lower levels not what actions to produce, but what results to
achieve. Only the lower levels really know what actions are needed and
appropriate to their jobs, and only they can react quickly enough to
disturbances at their level to avoid passing on the disturbances to
higher levels. Something like this has been recognized in the form of
discussions about “micromanagement.”

Another is that each person in the organization should, as nearly as
possible, have the same concept of the structure of the organization and
the functions in that organization that the person is in charge of. And
this brings up the point of the difference between the functional
hierarchy in an organization and the social hierarchy. A manager at any
level has certain functions appropriate to his or her job, but it’s
counterproductive for these functions to be confused with social
relationships. The fact that my job requires me to coordinate the efforts
of a group of others does not make them socially subordinate to me. It
means only that they and I have the same understanding of our duties in
the organization, so they expect to be assigned objectives to achieve at
their own level of responsibility, while retaining the freedom to achieve
them in ways determined by their own judgment and experience. All the
people in an organization have the same levels of perception and control,
and they must participate at all the levels, if only as as a means of
understanding how the whole organization functions and where they fit
into it. In short, they must share similar system concepts.

Best,

Bill P.

P.S. I hope that other PCTers will forgive me for not entering into some
of the ongoing discussions. I’ve fought those battles for long enough,
and need a vacation from the undercurrents of hostility.

8

Using PCT would be
dysfunctional,humans are not ants.
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.24. 1136 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2008.01.25.17.27NZ –

Now that I’ve clipped that quote, I find that I’m too flabbergasted to
think of anything to say about it.

Bill P.

9

[From Dag Forssell (2008.01.25.0540 PST)]

`> [Fred Nickols (2008.01.24.1336 MT)]

`

Client: So what
you’re basically telling me is that we have to rethink our

basic management practices, reeducate all our managers, execs,
supervisors

and probably the worker bees, too, put in place new management
control

systems and Lord knows what else. And, to top things off, we’ll
have to no

doubt tweak, tinker with, and fine tune all of this over some
extended

period of time.

Consultant: Yep.

Client: Ouch.

Consultant: But, if you pull it off, you will have an organization
capable

of heretofore unattainable levels of performance that are likely to
remain

unparalleled for a long, long time. You will have laid hands on
a

competitive edge that will be impossible for anyone else to copy and
every

bit as difficult for them to develop.

Client: Hmm.

Fred, I think your draft is just fine. I would just want to point out
that Jim Soldani has been there, done that. Check out


http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/personnel_mgmt.pdf

Jim had been an operations manager at an Intel plant in Phoenix where
they assembled big memory modules for IBM. He was assigned to Intel
headquarters for a while and returned to the plant as minister without
portfolio.

Along the way, Jim had taken an interest in human relationships and
attended training from Glasser. He sought to understand more and found
B:CP and Ed Ford. I could be off on the sequencing. Having read B:CP five
times until he thought he had done due diligence, Jim called Bill Powers,
who, to Jims great surprise, answered his own phone.

Jim was trusted at the plant so at his suggestion they worked with him to
develop and buy in to the goal setting, the daily meetings, the extensive
personal communications and everything else Jim describes in the chapter
he wrote.

The plant won Intel plant of the month for 11 consecutive months circa
1984. Andy Grove patted Jim on the back, but did not ask what he or plant
management was doing.

My more theoretical understanding is shown in my writings and
illustrations, sampled here:


http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/insight/new_mgmt_insight.pdf

I think you have my book with the complete article and more.

You may also want to read CT Psychology in Social Organizations in LCS
II, page 91.

Best, Dag

Best, Dag

10

[Kenny Kitzke (2008.01.25.1400EST)]

<Dag Forssell (2008.01.25.0540 PST)>

<Fred, I think your draft is just fine. I would just want to point out that Jim Soldani has been there, done that.>

I read Jim’s article when I first met you. It was relevant to my business purpose of total quality management at the time. It was fantastic and one of the bricks in the wall that made learning HPCT another goal in my life.

I agree with you that Fred’s point is fine. I guess what is new to people is not necessarily new to others. The concepts of goal setting and goal deployment (like the CNS) are not new, but perhaps the words used to describe them to Fred are new.

I done that before Jim Soldani, and others did it before me. One of the “Fingerprints of a Quality Champion” in a paper I presented at the Annual Quality Congress of the American Society for Quality Control in the spring of 1988 in Dallas, Texas concerned the setting and deploying of quality goals in an organiziation. I had done this in 1983 and it was a factor in my division of Westinghouse winning the first Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1988. What Jim added was an explanation via HPCT of how to deploy goals down the organization hierarchy successfully.

It worked then and still works. There are even better tools available now to executives in how to deploy their strategic goals. I used Target-Means matrix diagrams in my Proteus Strategy Management System (a technique I learned in Japan in 1991). One retained client in the mid-1990’s used Proteus to increase sales 700% in four years. It was a quality revolution! It left their competitors scratching their heads.

What is so great is that while some of these management/leadership methods worked well without any knowledge of HPCT, with that knowledge they work even better…any still better, you then gain a scientific understanding of why they work better! Amazing HPCT in action.

Hey, with the CSG Conference now on my planning screen, I had agreed to get a couple of CSG President jerseys for the next conference. I think I gave the one I had in China to David in Michigan. So, I would like to replace it and get another one for whomever is going to succeed David. I recall you said you had the supplier contact info. Rick give me it some years ago, but it is in cyber space on an old computer or the trash dump now. Could you dig it out for me and send it (on the net or private) and I’ll make an order. Thanks.

Kenny

In a message dated 1/25/2008 9:03:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, team@FORSSELLTRANS.COM writes:

··· 
Client:  So what you're basically telling me is that we have to rethink our
basic management practices, reeducate all our managers, execs, supervisors
and probably the worker bees, too, put in place new management control
systems and Lord knows what else.  And, to top things off, we'll have to no
doubt tweak, tinker with, and fine tune all of this over some extended

period of time.

Consultant:  Yep.

Client: Ouch.

Consultant:  But, if you pull it off, you will have an organization capable
of heretofore unattainable levels of performance that are likely to remain
unparalleled for a long, long time.  You will have laid hands on a
competitive edge that will be impossible for anyone else to copy and every
bit as difficult for them to develop.

Client: Hmm.
[From Dag Forssell (2008.01.25.0540 PST)]

` > [Fred Nickols (2008.01.24.1336 MT)]

`
Check out

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/personnel_mgmt.pdf

Jim had been an operations manager at an Intel plant in Phoenix where they assembled big memory modules for IBM. He was assigned to Intel headquarters for a while and returned to the plant as minister without portfolio.

Along the way, Jim had taken an interest in human relationships and attended training from Glasser. He sought to understand more and found B:CP and Ed Ford. I could be off on the sequencing. Having read B:CP five times until he thought he had done due diligence, Jim called Bill Powers, who, to Jims great surprise, answered his own phone.

Jim was trusted at the plant so at his suggestion they worked with him to develop and buy in to the goal setting, the daily meetings, the extensive personal communications and everything else Jim describes in the chapter he wrote.

The plant won Intel plant of the month for 11 consecutive months circa 1984. Andy Grove patted Jim on the back, but did not ask what he or plant management was doing.

My more theoretical understanding is shown in my writings and illustrations, sampled here:

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/insight/new_mgmt_insight.pdf

I think you have my book with the complete article and more.

You may also want to read CT Psychology in Social Organizations in LCS II, page 91.

Best, Dag

Best, Dag

Who’s never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

11

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.25.1251 MT)]

[Kenny Kitzke (2008.01.25.1400EST)]

<Dag Forssell (2008.01.25.0540 PST)>

<Fred, I think your draft is just fine. I would just want to point out that
Jim Soldani has been there, done that.>

I read Jim's article when I first met you. It was relevant to my business
purpose of total quality management at the time. It was fantastic and one of
the bricks in the wall that made learning HPCT another goal in my life.

I agree with you that Fred's point is fine. I guess what is new to people
is not necessarily new to others. The concepts of goal setting and goal
deployment (like the CNS) are not new, but perhaps the words used to describe
them
to Fred are new.

No, they're not new to me, Kenny. What's new is PCT to my colleague and I'm trying to help him sharpen his take on how PCT fits with organizational hierarchies. That said, my grasp of goal setting and goal deployment is that they are far more dictatorial (or, in softer terms, driven downward) processes than what I think is required to successfully obtain buy-in and commitment to higher-level goals at lower levels of the organization (and that's separate and apart from the problem of de-composing higher level goals into lower level ones - that's a problem all its own).

I will make it a point to dig out and read the Soldani piece. Sounds likes its a gem.

<snip>

What is so great is that while some of these management/leadership methods
worked well without any knowledge of HPCT, with that knowledge they work even
better...any still better, you then gain a scientific understanding of why
they work better! Amazing HPCT in action.

That is my impression as well. I even have an explanation. I think practice proceeds and progresses apart from theory. The reverse is true as well. Thus, empiricism yields some proven practices and principles. Every now and then we are able to link these up with theory. So, as you say, I think PCT provides a much better and more satisfying explanation for a lot of what has been proven to work. At least that's my take on it.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

12

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.01.25.1800EST)]

<Fred Nickols (2008.01.25.1251 MT)>

What is so great is that while some of these management/leadership methods
worked well without any knowledge of HPCT, with that knowledge they work even
better…any still better, you then gain a scientific understanding of why
they work better! Amazing HPCT in action.

<That is my impression as well. I even have an explanation. I think practice proceeds and progresses apart from theory. The reverse is true as well. Thus, empiricism yields some proven practices and principles. Every now and then we are able to link these up with theory. So, as you say, I think PCT provides a much better and more satisfying explanation for a lot of what has been proven to work. At least that’s my take on it.>

Well said, Fred. And, I am glad to see you posting again.

BTW, in the Target/Means Matrix method of goal deployment I facilitate, there is a process known as “Catchball” where the two levels expose their up-level issues and agree on the goals as being reasonable from both viewpoints. This is fundamentally different than the commanded target from above based on higher level and authority. They are often opposed.

Kenny

In a message dated 1/25/2008 3:01:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@ATT.NET writes:

···

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.25.1251 MT)]

[Kenny Kitzke (2008.01.25.1400EST)]

<Dag Forssell (2008.01.25.0540 PST)>

<Fred, I think your draft is just fine. I would just want to point out that
Jim Soldani has been there, done that.>

I read Jim’s article when I first met you. It was relevant to my business
purpose of total quality management at the time. It was fantastic and one of
the bricks in the wall that made learning HPCT another goal in my life.

I agree with you that Fred’s point is fine. I guess what is new to people
is not necessarily new to others. The concepts of goal setting and goal
deployment (like the CNS) are not new, but perhaps the words used to describe
them
to Fred are new.

No, they’re not new to me, Kenny. What’s new is PCT to my colleague and I’m trying to help him sharpen his take on how PCT fits with organizational hierarchies. That said, my grasp of goal setting and goal deployment is that they are far more dictatorial (or, in softer terms, driven downward) processes than what I think is required to successfully obtain buy-in and commitment to higher-level goals at lower levels of the organization (and that’s separate and apart from the problem of de-composing higher level goals into lower level ones - that’s a problem all its own).

I will make it a point to dig out and read the Soldani piece. Sounds likes its a gem.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

Who’s never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.