[From Bruce Abbott (981018.1045 EST)]
Rick Marken (981018.1815)
Me:
psychologists (like Bruce Abbott) believe that environmental
events control behavior.
Bruce Abbott (981018.1920 EST)
If you're going to tell this little fairy tale, Rick, at least
get your facts straight.
1. Bruce Abbott doesn't believe that environmental events control
behavior, not in the sense that you mean "control."
I meant "control" in the sense that you mean "control" (whatever
that is). A PCTer doesn't believe that the environment controls
behavior, in _any_ sense of the word "control"; the environment
is _controlled_ by behavior.
So you are saying that a PCTer doesn't believe that the environment has any
strong influence on behavior. That is what "control" means in one sense of
the word -- exerts a strong influence on. Thus a PCTer doesn't believe
that, for example, disturbances have any strong influence on actions. Wow,
I learn something new here every day.
If all control theory can do is tell managers that they can't do
their jobs, it isn't going to become very popular.
Well, now you know why control theory isn't going to become very
popular... at least in the near future. The problem is that many
managers seem to assume that there job is to control people.
Well "that there job" of theirs is to somehow get those under them to do
what the managers need them to do. Failure can cost the manager his or her
job, or even worse. If arranging things so that employees do what is asked
of them is what you call "controlling people," then it is the manager's job
to control people. If managers assume this, then it would appear they do so
for good reason!
Control
theory doesn't tell these managers that they can't so their job;
it just says that, if they see their job to be "controlling" then
they are going to experience constant conflict.
No, control theory doesn't say anything of the sort. It says that if they
don't do their controlling properly, they are going to experience constant
conflict.
As a control theorist myself, I would tell managers to arrange
work conditions so that employees can achieve control over many
variables important to them (self-esteem, job satisfaction, morale,
perception of being treated fairly, fair wage for good work, and so
on)
How did you determine that employees are controlling these
variables? How did you determine that control of these variables
was important to every employee? You don't mention suggesting
to the manager that s/he negotiate with the employees before
arranging work conditions so that employees can achieve control;
what if many -- or most -- employees think the manager's well-
intentioned arrangements suck?
Finding out what variables employees are controlling in the workplace is an
important part of the program, although I surmise that certain ones are
extremely common among employees, in which case a manager who assumed them
would be doing well with most people. The list I gave merely provided
possible examples.
This advice avoids the conflict problem emphasized in your
advice while helping managers to get what they want, too.
This advice is behaviorism re-phrased in PCT-speak, something you
do with considerable aplomb.
It's not just talking the talk -- it applies control theory correctly to the
problem. If that is true, then I wouldn't spend two seconds worrying that
it may also be consistent with a behavioral analysis. If you think that
it's an incorrect application, then it is up to you to demonstrate such. So
far you've done nothing more than cast aspersions.
Regards,
Bruce