PCT & Management

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.04.16.10.00 EDST)]

Gavin,

I have been a management systems consultant for 20 years and a PCT disciple for over 10 years. While Dag chooses not to engage you here on the subject of “PCT & Management,” I will be pleased to do so. I have changed the Subject accordingly.

Fred Nickols also has specific expertise in the fields of management and PCT. He is a newer convert but has published some interrelated models that you may find interesting. Fred recently reduced his participation here too but I hope this subject might entice him to join in.

I agree with you that PCT has made little impact in the science of management or leadership over the past 35 or so years. This is not the main purpose or goal of PCT. This should not be much of surprise since PCT has not faired much better in impacting the field of behavior and the science of psychology which are far more directly related to PCT.

Why this is so has been discussed on CSGNet and at the annual Conference many times. There has been little consensus on the reasons or the solutions. I don’t want to delve into that here.

What I will be pleased to discuss here is my own perceptions about the relationship of management/leadership to PCT based upon my own experiences. While I am quite familiar with the perceptions of such “gurus” as Deming and Covey, I am not aware that either is a PCT disciple. I am not aware of Elliot Jaques. But, I agree with Dag, it is next to impossible to keep up with every theory of management and every book on leadership or psychology. While some theories or crafty stories may reject a cause-effect foundation for behavior, and may be more beneficial in that respect, books, articles, etc., are few that apply PCT specifically to managing and leading. Those are the ones most worth reading and studying IMHO.

My approach to joining leadership with PCT is quite the opposite to Dag’s more “grass-roots” and foundational theoretical principles approach. I work directly with CEO leaders and help them apply

PCT principles to everyday management experiences and decision making. Basically, they learn PCT by doing, not by reading. The limitation with this approach is how few are impacted and how long it takes to gain comprehension and lasting results.

I do not know much about your experience or theories in the science of management or concepts of effective and honorable leadership, but as you learn PCT and challenge the pop culture of current beliefs, feel free to ask questions or propose new paradigms of thinking. I will try to find time to share my thoughts.

Visiting NZ is high on my list of “Things I’d like to Do.” Are you a native? Have you lived elsewhere? What is your education and work background? Have you been an manager or executive? That is, if you don’t mind sharing some of your background.

Best wishes,

Kenny

Past President of CSG

In a message dated 4/12/2008 11:51:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ writes:

···

(Gavin
Ritz.
2008.04.1315.05NZT)

Dag

This may be a good place to discuss your article. (Page 147)

Management hasn’t lacked a theory of human behavior as related to organisation structure at all. If PCT is to be taken seriously in the management world we need to be far more careful about comments like this. If they are made then they must be robust comments.

You quote only two pop culture leadership gurus (Covey, Deming) who both don’t have any robust model of leadership in the context of organizational structure or any way to measure it.

If PCT is to make inroads into the management field it needs to have a far more powerful fundamental way to penetrate that mine field. I understand you are smitten with PCT, hell I think it looks like a solid theory too.

For just one theory of organizational behavior, I suggest that you have a look at Elliot Jaques’ Requisite Organization, human capability (as a perception) as applied to work has be thoroughly investigated and tested within many organisations world wide and within the US Military structure. (If I‘m to be correct Elliot Jaques even received the Joint Chief of staffs award from Colin Powell for Leadership Theory)

It has been shown that the psychological approach (the cause effect model) has been thoroughly disputed and dysfunctional and in fact just plain wrong.

Jaques model is clearly a way to measure transitions, categories, sequence, programs and systems concepts, of this there is no doubt in my mind. Of course he just uses other names to describe these internal perceptions.

In another theory of behavior, in terms of signal error and the tensions that are generated within organisations, EKS (Engpass Konzentrierten Strategie) a German Theory of tensions and unleashing of bottlenecks is also a non cause and effect theory used by many companies world wide for their strategies and tactics. The German company Karcher comes to mind.

A massive amount of work needs to be done with PCT if it is to effectively penetrate the management and leadership field.

If PCT is going to make inroads we’ll have to measure all the higher perceptions as related to organizational structure. At thi s s tage I haven’t the foggiest how to do that. I’m till battling with the three fundamental proofs that Rick sent me.

Regards

Gavin

---

It’s Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

[Fred_Nickols1]

[From Fred Nickols (2008.04.16.1352 MST)] --

Kenny and Gavin:

I'm still here although mostly quiet for a while. I tend to agree with Kenny that penetrating management practice with PCT-based ideas and practices isn't a high priority item on this list (except for a few like Kenny and me and maybe some others as well).

On my part, one key to making headway with management is to have a consistent framework, one that fits from top to bottom - with very little adaptation required. For my money, that is some kind of systems framework - the organization as a system, processes as systems, and people as systems, too (closed loop, feedback governed systems). There is a "glitch" in my view (if not more than one); namely, organizations can perhaps be engineered and mechanisms established to come close to being closed-loop, feedback-governed entities; however, only people fit that model naturally. That said, we can and do engineer control systems for processes and various machine-based operations so why not for organizations writ large?

For now, I think the current subject line describes the essence of this thread.

Regards,

Fred "Still Here" Nickols
www.skullworks.com
nickols@att.net

···

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems <KJKitzke@AOL.COM>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.04.16.10.00 EDST)]

Gavin,

I have been a management systems consultant for 20 years and a PCT disciple
for over 10 years. While Dag chooses not to engage you here on the subject
of "PCT & Management," I will be pleased to do so. I have changed the Subject
accordingly.

Fred Nickols also has specific expertise in the fields of management and
PCT. He is a newer convert but has published some interrelated models that you
may find interesting. Fred recently reduced his participation here too but I
hope this subject might entice him to join in.

I agree with you that PCT has made little impact in the science of
management or leadership over the past 35 or so years. This is not the main
purpose
or goal of PCT. This should not be much of surprise since PCT has not faired
much better in impacting the field of behavior and the science of psychology
which are far more directly related to PCT.

Why this is so has been discussed on CSGNet and at the annual Conference
many times. There has been little consensus on the reasons or the solutions.
I
don't want to delve into that here.

What I will be pleased to discuss here is my own perceptions about the
relationship of management/leadership to PCT based upon my own experiences.
While
I am quite familiar with the perceptions of such "gurus" as Deming and
Covey, I am not aware that either is a PCT disciple. I am not aware of Elliot
Jaques. But, I agree with Dag, it is next to impossible to keep up with every
theory of management and every book on leadership or psychology. While some
theories or crafty stories may reject a cause-effect foundation for behavior,
and may be more beneficial in that respect, books, articles, etc., are few
that apply PCT specifically to managing and leading. Those are the ones most
worth reading and studying IMHO.

My approach to joining leadership with PCT is quite the opposite to Dag's
more "grass-roots" and foundational theoretical principles approach. I work
directly with CEO leaders and help them apply
PCT principles to everyday management experiences and decision making.
Basically, they learn PCT by doing, not by reading. The limitation with this
approach is how few are impacted and how long it takes to gain comprehension
and
lasting results.

I do not know much about your experience or theories in the science of
management or concepts of effective and honorable leadership, but as you learn
PCT
and challenge the pop culture of current beliefs, feel free to ask questions
or propose new paradigms of thinking. I will try to find time to share my
thoughts.

Visiting NZ is high on my list of "Things I'd like to Do." Are you a
native? Have you lived elsewhere? What is your education and work background?
Have you been an manager or executive? That is, if you don't mind sharing some
of your background.

Best wishes,

Kenny
Past President of CSG

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.04.16.2000EDT)]

<Fred Nickols (2008.04.16.1352 MST)>

In a message dated 4/16/2008 5:01:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nickols@ATT.NET writes:

[From Fred Nickols (2008.04.16.1352 MST)] –

Kenny and Gavin:

I’m still here although mostly quiet for a while. I tend to agree with Kenny that penetrating management practice with PCT-based ideas and practices isn’t a high priority item on this list (except for a few like Kenny and me and maybe some others as well).
I’m pleased to know you are still reading, Fred. I know you pop up here from time to time when your spirit moves you.

On my part, one key to making headway with management is to have a consistent framework, one that fits from top to bottom - with very little adaptation required. For my money, that is some kind of systems framework - the organization as a system, processes as systems, and people as systems, too (closed loop, feedback governed systems).
I completely agree. When I interview with a CEO, they are typically dissatisfied with some aspect of organizational performance. Most frequently it is profit, but it can be sales or even more human factors such as teamwork, productivity, motivation, creativity, turnover, ethics, etc.

I broadly focus on the organization’s quality, strategy or people since one or more of these are often a major cause of the weak or unsatisfactory performance. To improve the organization’s quality, strategy or people performance usually a more advanced organization-wide management system is required. I help clients define one that fits them (as you say), one they can believe in and implement with some education.

Gavin mentioned Deming, seemingly derogatorily. Deming’s thinking about “systems” was quite advanced. I have taught many of his 14 Points of Management. They were extensively deployed in Japan with great success affecting how quality, strategy and people are managed. But, times have changed, and with him being dead for 15 years, the Deming Philosophy has been fading away being replaced by new “gurus” with new mantras.

There is a "glitch" in my view (if not more than one); namely, organizations can perhaps be engineered and mechanisms established to come close to being closed-loop, feedback-governed entities; however, only people fit that model naturally.  That said, we can and do engineer control systems for processes and various machine-based operations so why not for organizations writ large?

Well, I will venture a guess. We can control/engineer systems and processes without resistance from them. When we try to control/reengineer people against their will, they resist. This is of significant value to managers who must lead people into new beliefs and practices within new management systems.

For now, I think the current subject line describes the essence of this thread.

Regards,

Fred “Still Here” Nickols
www.skullworks.com
nickols@att.net
Hopefully, we’ll get some perceptions from Gavin and others about these matters.

Kenny

···

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems KJKitzke@AOL.COM

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.04.16.10.00 EDST)]

Gavin,

I have been a management systems consultant for 20 years and a PCT disciple
for over 10 years. While Dag chooses not to engage you here on the subject
of “PCT & Management,” I will be pleased to do so. I have changed the Subject
accordingly.

Fred Nickols also has specific expertise in the fields of management and
PCT. He is a newer convert but has published some interrelated models that you
may find interesting. Fred recently reduced his participation here too but I
hope this subject might entice him to join in.

I agree with you that PCT has made little impact in the science of
management or leadership over the past 35 or so years. This is not the main
purpose
or goal of PCT. This should not be much of surprise since PCT has not faired
much better in impacting the field of behavior and the science of psychology
which are far more directly related to PCT.

Why this is so has been discussed on CSGNet and at the annual Conference
many times. There has been little consensus on the reasons or the solutions.
I
don’t want to delve into that here.

What I will be pleased to discuss here is my own perceptions about the
relationship of management/leadership to PCT based upon my own experiences.
While
I am quite familiar with the perceptions of such “gurus” as Deming and
Covey, I am not aware that either is a PCT disciple. I am not aware of Elliot
Jaques. But, I agree with Dag, it is next to impossible to keep up with every
theory of management and every book on leadership or psychology. While some
theories or crafty stories may reject a cause-effect foundation for behavior,
and may be more beneficial in that respect, books, articles, etc., are few
that apply PCT specifically to managing and leading. Those are the ones most
worth reading and studying IMHO.

My approach to joining leadership with PCT is quite the opposite to Dag’s
more “grass-roots” and foundational theoretical principles approach. I work
directly with CEO leaders and help them apply
PCT principles to everyday management experiences and decision making.
Basically, they learn PCT by doing, not by reading. The limitation with this
approach is how few are impacted and how long it takes to gain comprehension
and
lasting results.

I do not know much about your experience or theories in the science of
management or concepts of effective and honorable leadership, but as you learn
PCT
and challenge the pop culture of current beliefs, feel free to ask questions
or propose new paradigms of thinking. I will try to find time to share my
thoughts.

Visiting NZ is high on my list of “Things I’d like to Do.” Are you a
native? Have you lived elsewhere? What is your education and work background?
Have you been an manager or executive? That is, if you don’t mind sharing some
of your background.

Best wishes,

Kenny
Past President of CSG

---

Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2008.04.17.22.28NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.04.16.10.00
EDST)]

Kenny

I have
been a management systems consultant for 20 years and a PCT disciple for over
10 years. While Dag chooses not to engage you here on the subject of
“PCT & Management,” I will be pleased to do so. I have
changed the Subject accordingly.

I have been a company owner, investor,
management consultant, manager and passionate researcher of business models for
22 years. I have investigated probably a dozen business models in great depth. E.g.
some of the models I’ve spent a lot of time with. (Some are not business
related).

• Engpass Konzentrierten Strategie (Bottleneck
  Concentration Theory)
• The Energon Theory
• Hypercell Organisms

•  Requisite Organisation- Stratified
  

  Systems Theory
• Complexity Theory
• Systems Thinking
• Viable Systems Model
• Dissipative Structures
• Chaos theory
• Living Systems
• Social Theories of Power

•  And obscure stuff like Rosen’s
  

  Relational Biology.

It’s natural progression for me to
tackle PCT which sat of my bookshelf for some years. I have most of the
publications and have gone through them quite a bit. I’m also going to the
local school to have in-depth discussions with the teacher who have had RTP there for at least 7 years.
I’m very interested in PCT and see some obvious problems relating to the
levels.

I have also designed psychometric profilers
that are in commercial use.

I set up New Zealand’s only
semiconductor manufacturer some 6 years ago. I have owned and managed human
resources companies, manufacturing businesses and been in HR management and consulting.
I also am an avid property investor and developer with ½ dozen properties.

Fred
Nickols also has specific expertise in the fields of management and PCT. He is
a newer convert but has published some interrelated models that you may find
interesting. Fred recently reduced his participation here too but I hope this subject might entice him
to join in.

Yes I remember Fred from the LO list some years
ago.

I don’t convert that easily to new
theories without seeing them being robust in their practical application. I don’t
think that PCT is nonsense by any means. But I’ve read so many models and
tried to apply so many and find that a good dose of positive skeptism always motivates
the converts to defend their position. And its how they defend their position
that matters, I’m looking for robust arguments, not myth making and
faith. I do see a lot of faith in some of the writings and a lot of sell. I’m
not sure why this is so. Maybe because PCT has been attacked so much. Even Relativity was
attacked with vigour and this is sign of a healthy thinking democratic process that should lead to a
positive outcome.

We only grow mentally by the law of
polarity and enhancement.

I agree
with you that PCT has made little impact in the science of management or
leadership over the past 35 or so years. This is not the main purpose or
goal of PCT. This should not be much of surprise since PCT has not faired much better
in impacting the field of behavior and the science of psychology which are far
more directly related to PCT.

Fair enough.

Why
this is so has been discussed on CSGNet and at the annual Conference many times. There has been
little consensus on the reasons or the solutions. I don’t want to delve
into that here.

Maybe this is what needs to be done. A
full situational analysis. And a lot of internal perceptual contemplation.

What I
will be pleased to discuss here is my own perceptions about the relationship of
management/leadership to PCT based upon my own experiences. While I am
quite familiar with the perceptions of such “gurus” as Deming and
Covey, I am not aware that either is a PCT disciple. I am not aware of Elliot Jaques.

If you are a business consultant you
should seriously look at Stratified Systems Theory. Because it has a method to
measure some of the levels in PCT.

But,
I agree with Dag, it is next to impossible to keep up with every theory of
management and every book on leadership or psychology. While some
theories or crafty stories may reject a cause-effect foundation for behavior,
and may be more beneficial in that respect, books, articles, etc., are few that
apply PCT specifically to managing and leading. Those are the ones most
worth reading and studying IMHO.

My
approach to joining leadership with PCT is quite the opposite to Dag’s
more “grass-roots” and foundational theoretical principles
approach. I work directly with CEO leaders and help them apply

PCT
principles to everyday management experiences and decision making.
Basically, they learn PCT by doing, not by reading. The limitation with
this approach is how few are impacted and how long it takes to gain
comprehension and lasting results.

I do
not know much about your experience or theories in the science of management or
concepts of effective and honorable leadership, but as you learn PCT and
challenge the pop culture of current beliefs, feel free to ask questions or
propose new paradigms of thinking. I will try to find time to share my
thoughts.

Visiting
NZ is high on my list of “Things I’d like to Do.”

Good place to visit.

Are
you a native?

If you mean, am I Maori, the answer is no.
I was born in South Africa and migrated here in the early nineties.

Have
you lived elsewhere? What is your education and work background?

I’m an engineer by training, educated
at the University of Stellenbosch an undergraduate engineering degree, with two post graduate business
degrees. I had a short stint at the ETH (in Zurich).Technical Hochshule.

Have
you been an manager or executive?

Too long probably. I answered this above. I
obviously can’t stop because I have just developed an underwater robot
that cleans and filters fresh water that will be hopefully going into
production in the next year.

That
is, if you don’t mind sharing some of your background.

Sure I don’t.

Regards

Gavin

Best
wishes,

Kenny

Past
President of CSG

In a
message dated 4/12/2008 11:51:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ
writes:

···

(Gavin
Ritz. 2008.04.1315.05NZT)

Dag

This may
be a good place to discuss your article. (Page 147)

Management
hasn’t lacked a theory of human behavior as related to organisation
structure at all. If PCT is to be taken seriously in the management world we
need to be far more careful about comments like this. If they are made then
they must be robust comments.

You
quote only two pop culture leadership gurus (Covey, Deming) who both
don’t have any robust model of leadership in the context of
organizational structure or any way to measure it.

If PCT
is to make inroads into the management field it needs to have a far more
powerful fundamental way to penetrate that mine field. I understand you are smitten
with PCT, hell I think it looks like a solid theory too.

For just
one theory of organizational behavior, I suggest that you have a look at Elliot
Jaques’ Requisite Organization, human capability (as a perception) as
applied to work has be thoroughly investigated and tested within many
organisations world wide and within the US Military structure. (If I‘m to
be correct Elliot Jaques even received the Joint Chief of staffs award from
Colin Powell for Leadership Theory)

It has
been shown that the psychological approach (the cause effect model) has been
thoroughly disputed and dysfunctional and in fact just plain wrong.

Jaques
model is clearly a way to measure transitions, categories, sequence, programs
and systems concepts, of this there is no doubt in my mind. Of course he just
uses other names to describe these internal perceptions.

In
another theory of behavior, in terms of signal error and the tensions that are
generated within organisations, EKS (Engpass Konzentrierten Strategie) a German
Theory of tensions and unleashing of bottlenecks is also a non cause and effect
theory used by many companies world wide for their strategies and tactics. The
German company Karcher comes to mind.

A
massive amount of work needs to be done with PCT if it is to effectively
penetrate the management and leadership field.

If PCT
is going to make inroads we’ll have to measure all the higher perceptions
as related to organizational structure. At this stage I haven’t the
foggiest how to do that. I’m till battling with the three fundamental
proofs that Rick sent me.

Regards

Gavin

---

It’s Tax Time! Get tips,
forms and advice on AOL
Money & Finance.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2008.04.17.1000)]

Gavin Ritz (2008.04.17.22.28NZT)

I don't convert that easily to new theories without seeing them
being robust in their practical application.

How does one measure the robustness of a theory? Does it have anything
to do with accounting for the data?

I don't think that PCT
is nonsense by any means. But I've read so many models and
tried to apply so many and find that a good dose of positive
skeptism always motivates the converts to defend their position.
And its how they defend their position that matters, I'm looking
for robust arguments, not myth making and faith.

I hope you are also looking for empirical tests. I think robust
arguments can be fun but so Middle Ages;-)

I do see a lot of faith in some of the writings and a lot of sell.

I agree that neither faith nor sales should have much of place in
science. But most of the writing on PCT with which I am familiar is
characterized by an absence of faith and salesmanship. Maybe you've
come in contact with some of the weaker stuff. Could you tell me which
writings on PCT you have found that are characterized by a lot of
faith and sell?

Best

Rick

···

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

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

Gavin Ritz (2008.04.2008.14.16NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2008.04.17.1000)]

Gavin Ritz (2008.04.17.22.28NZT)

I don't convert that easily to new theories without seeing them
being robust in their practical application.

How does one measure the robustness of a theory? Does it have anything
to do with accounting for the data?

You can't but I'm not trying to measure robustness. And in terms of the data
robustness has nothing to do with the accounting of the data. A robust
theory is one that has a link with the accounting and the quality. Quality
is a limitless semantic concept but quantity seals that limitless to a
limit. For example the concept of energy has a clearly defined limit (in the
semantical sense) that can be calculated from the measuring variables,
length, mass, time, temperature etc. In this sense Energy is the quality and
the accounting is the measurable variables.

So when I say "robust" that is what I mean. Without going into a whole
hoo-ha.

I hope you are also looking for empirical tests. I think robust
arguments can be fun but so Middle Ages;-)

Not sure excatly or specifically what you are trying to refer to.

It's all just a bit of fun.

I do see a lot of faith in some of the writings and a lot of sell.

I agree that neither faith nor sales should have much of place in
science. But most of the writing on PCT with which I am familiar is
characterized by an absence of faith and salesmanship. Maybe you've
come in contact with some of the weaker stuff. Could you tell me which
writings on PCT you have found that are characterized by a lot of
faith and sell?

There's quite a bit of this in the management section of the on-line book,
which I have downloaded and read.

Regards
Gavin