prediction and control of behavior

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)]

Here you go, Bruce.Â

After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stick doesn’t work. Truth is it never did. It was all an illusion. You wanted so badly to believe it worked that you deceived yourself into believing that it did. It didn’t. What was going on is what has been going on for thousands of years; namely, the folks in charge use carrots and sticks to get the rest of the world to go along with their program, to do what they say and behave in ways they want. And so the rest of us have played along for thousands of years, making it look like were going along with the program when in fact we were gaming the system. We got what we wanted and we made it look like you were getting what you wanted. We adopted protective coloration; we walked, talked, looked and acted like the compliant little patsies you seemed to want. Sad to say many of you still do and so many of us continue to game the system, your system.

What you don’t seem to get is that you and the rest of us are whole lot more alike than you want to admit. You have purposes; so do we. You are a “living control system;� so are we. We all have goals and we all pursue them. Our chief means of doing this is our behavior. We all behave in ways that are meant to bring what we see into alignment with what we want to see. When you start messing around with my behavior you are interfering with my means for obtaining what I want. You probably don’t care about that but know this as well: When you interfere with my behavior you are also interfering with the chief means I have at my disposal for delivering what you want me to. You need to back off and let me do my job. I’m perfectly willing to bust my buns getting you what you want, providing you pay me a decent amount, support me in doing it, don’t ask me to do something that I believe is illegal, immoral or unethical, and say “Thanks� when I deliver.

There was a time when you were primarily interested in my overt, observable behavior. My working activities consisted of interactions between me and materials; I made things, I produced a product. You could see what I was doing and how I was doing it. You could even pay an industrial engineer to figure out the best way of doing it and then pay me to do that. What you wanted from me was compliance and I gave it to you. On occasion, you wanted me to do something stupid. Me being me, I shrugged and did what you asked. Sorry about that but you wanted compliance and I gave it to you. In any case, because you see what I was doing and if it was what you wanted you came to believe that carrots and sticks worked. You could see that for yourself – or so you thought.

;

Now my working activities consist primarily of interactions between me and information and between me and other people. You can’t see what’s going on in my head and, often enough, you can’t tell me what to do. I have to figure things out. Gone are the good old days of prefigured working activities; now, they have to be configured in response to the circumstances at hand.  Whether you realize it or not you are no longer paying me to comply with your wishes or dictates or commands; instead, you are (or should be) paying me to produce results of value. To do that I require no small amount of discretion regarding the what, how, when and why of my work. In a word, I require “autonomy.� I also require support, cooperation, the right tools and help coping with various obstacles and barriers when they crop up. I can’t do it alone and neither can you.

Yet, you cling to those carrots and sticks and I find that very puzzling. Why? Because I know you know they don’t work with you so why do you think they work with me? You and I are both human beings. You and I are both “living control systems.� Why do you cling to those carrots and sticks? Is facing up to the fact that we are more alike than different too much for you? Is it perhaps that you can’t relinquish the illusion of control? Or is it perhaps just that you’re a mean S.O.B. who doesn’t care about people? I certainly hope not but I have run into one or two of those in my time. I will tell you this: We can accomplish a whole lot more working together than we can if we’re at odds with one another. Think about that. Think about what you might be able to achieve if you had an army of committed, dedicated, competent, autonomous employees, all of whom were communicating, cooperating and collaborating in pursuit of goals and objective that all of us valued. Nothing could stop us.

If you think this all just an empty rant on the part of a disgruntled worker let me assure you that is not the case. I opened with “after all these years� which was my way of referring to the shift to knowledge work which knocked carrot and stick approaches into the dustbin of history. So let me tell you a little story, a “sea story� from my Navy days, one that took place way, way back in 1957. It’s a story about compliance and I’ve titled it “Aye-Aye, Sir.�

The year was 1957. The ship was the USS Gregory (DD-802), an old WW II Fletcher-class, 2100-ton destroyer. We were in Subic Bay in the Philippines, taking a break from our assignment of patrolling the Formosa Straits.

Tommy Lee Crabtree, a Gunner’s Mate second class (GM2), was working on Mount 53, one of the ship’s five, five-inch gun mounts, trying to repair an as yet unidentified malfunction. I was new on board – a Fire Conntrol Technician (FT) with the rank of seaman (FTSN) – and I was worrking on Tommy Lee, trying to persuade him to invite me to join the armory coffee mess. The armory coffee mess was, in my mind, the most prestigious coffee mess on board the Gregory and I badly wanted an invitation to join. The invitation had to come from Tommy Lee; he was the Gunner’s Mate in charge of the armory. Short-term, my hopes weren’t high but I was prepared to hang in there for the long haul.

Tommy Lee and I were taking a break, hunkered down on our haunches next to the gun mount, sipping coffee and chatting in a way calculated to help him take my measure, when we spotted our division officer approaching.

Our division officer was a Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) whose last name was Wilson. A bit of a martinet, he had been nicknamed “Whip,� an appellation borrowed from a star of western movies of the 1940s.

“What are you two doing?� he demanded.

“Drinkin’ coffee and shootin’ the breeze,� replied Tommy Lee.

“What are you doing here?� Whip asked of me.

As a Fire Control Technician, my work required close coordination with the Gunners Mates so I had a convenient and true cover story. Standing up, I said, “I came down to find out when Tommy Lee thinks we’ll be able to include the gun mount in the daily workouts and if he thinks we’ll have to realign it with the rest of the gun battery.�

“Well,� demanded Mr. Wilson, turning to Tommy Lee who was still squatting, “when will it be fixed?�

“I dunno. I’m workin’ on it. Probably sometime today.�

“That’s not good enough! Get off your ass and get back to work! I want that gun mount back in working order A.S.A.P.!â€?

Tommy Lee looked up at Mr. Wilson, studying him much the way he might contemplate a cockroach he was thinking about stepping on. Then, rising slowly to his feet, Tommy Lee grinned wickedly and asked, “Are you ordering me to fix this here gun mount, Mr. Wilson?�

“Yes, I am,� snapped Mr. Wilson.

Shifting his coffee cup to his left hand, Tommy Lee saluted smartly, and said, “Aye‑aye, sir. What would you like me to do first?�

The reactions played across Mr. Wilson’s face like moving scenery: first puzzlement, then comprehension, followed in quick order by surprise, shock, humiliation and, finally, red-faced, apoplectic anger.

“Whip� Wilson had been heisted on his own authoritarian petard by a master of the game. Tommy Lee had done what all those who must submit to authority have been doing for thousands of years, he submitted. He went passive. He asked Mr. Wilson to tell him what to do and he would do it. The problem for Mr. Wilson was that he couldn’t issue the necessary orders. Tommy Lee knew that all along. “Whip� Wilson was just now finding that out.

Furious, Mr. Wilson glared at Tommy Lee, then turned and stomped off without a word.

Tommy Lee watched him go, and then turned to me, doubtless feeling expansive as a result of besting Wilson, and said, “Nick, you can hang your cup in the mess when you’re finished.â€?

Witness to Tommy Lee’s triumph, the potential value of my testimony at future gatherings outside the armory had earned me the invitation I sought. I was in.

So let me ask you:Â Do you get it now?

···

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
Subject: prediction and control of behavior

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

This short paper is instructive. https://goo.gl/DgCvhA (PDF download).

The PCT message is that people are autonomous and that although coercion can influence the internal processes setting references, it has destructive unintended effects that are unpredictable. (NB that this formulation is not the same as saying “it doesn’t work”. Using a hammer to open a window “works”.)

This paper shows why this PCT message is unwelcome, and why funding continues to go preferentially to those who promise prediction and control of behavior.

Strategy and tactics for advancing recognition and acceptance of PCT must take this into account. I can think of several avenues.

  • Address progressives who oppose policies and activities that these APA psychologists and psychiatrists have supported.

  • Bring PCT in support of management writings about motivation that say the old stick and carrot don’t work and instead emphasize autonomy, e.g. http://goo.gl/8GBCDu.

  • Analyze how collectively controlled variables are exploited for manipulative purposes. This would take us into PR, propaganda, peer pressure, the ‘epidemic’ theories for things like teenage suicide and increase in number of mass shootings in schools, and much else currently viewed with carrot/stick glasses.

I’m sure you can think of more. Many people are frightened at current social, economic, and political conditions, and would like to understand how to participate more deliberately and constructively in improving our collective social and economic arrangements. Some proportion of those in positions of great influence are people of good will but impoverished understandings.

/Bruce

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

This short paper is instructive. https://goo.gl/DgCvhA (PDF download).

The PCT message is that people are autonomous and that although coercion can influence the internal processes setting references, it has destructive unintended effects that are unpredictable. (NB that this formulation is not the same as saying “it doesn’t work”. Using a hammer to open a window “works”.)

This paper shows why this PCT message is unwelcome, and why funding continues to go preferentially to those who promise prediction and control of behavior.

Strategy and tactics for advancing recognition and acceptance of PCT must take this into account. I can think of several avenues.

  • Address progressives who oppose policies and activities that these APA psychologists and psychiatrists have supported.
  • Bring PCT in support of management writings about motivation that say the old stick and carrot don’t work and instead emphasize autonomy, e.g. http://goo.gl/8GBCDu.
  • Analyze how collectively controlled variables are exploited for manipulative purposes. This would take us into PR, propaganda, peer pressure, the ‘epidemic’ theories for things like teenage suicide and increase in number of mass shootings in schools, and much else currently viewed with carrot/stick glasses.
    I’m sure you can think of more. Many people are frightened at current social, economic, and political conditions, and would like to understand how to participate more deliberately and constructively in improving our collective social and economic arrangements. Some proportion of those in positions of great influence are people of good will but impoverished understandings.
···

/Bruce

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.0901)]

Bruce:

I’ve been writing about it for years. I’ve been pointing to the shift to knowledge work and to the requirement for constant results in the face of changing circumstances. That highlights the needs for variability in behavior and autonomy on the part of the worker. Don’t know that I’ve made a dent but I keep hammering away. I don’t chide them for trying to control the worker; instead, I suggest they need to focus on the work and on supporting the worker.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
Subject: prediction and control of behavior

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

This short paper is instructive. https://goo.gl/DgCvhA (PDF download).

The PCT message is that people are autonomous and that although coercion can influence the internal processes setting references, it has destructive unintended effects that are unpredictable. (NB that this formulation is not the same as saying “it doesn’t work”. Using a hammer to open a window “works”.)

This paper shows why this PCT message is unwelcome, and why funding continues to go preferentially to those who promise prediction and control of behavior.

Strategy and tactics for advancing recognition and acceptance of PCT must take this into account. I can think of several avenues.

  • Address progressives who oppose policies and activities that these APA psychologists and psychiatrists have supported.

  • Bring PCT in support of management writings about motivation that say the old stick and carrot don’t work and instead emphasize autonomy, e.g. http://goo.gl/8GBCDu.

  • Analyze how collectively controlled variables are exploited for manipulative purposes. This would take us into PR, propaganda, peer pressure, the ‘epidemic’ theories for things like teenage suicide and increase in number of mass shootings in schools, and much else currently viewed with carrot/stick glasses.

I’m sure you can think of more. Many people are frightened at current social, economic, and political conditions, and would like to understand how to participate more deliberately and constructively in improving our collective social and economic arrangements. Some proportion of those in positions of great influence are people of good will but impoverished understandings.

/Bruce

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.0910)]

I read the paper. The link to PCT is not as clear to me as it seems to be to you. What is clear is that many professional psychologists, including some very highly placed ones, are basically practicing prostitutes; anything for a little fame, fortune and, oh yes, some power, too. Pandering to the preferences and predilections of the powerful is an old game.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
Subject: prediction and control of behavior

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

This short paper is instructive. https://goo.gl/DgCvhA (PDF download).

The PCT message is that people are autonomous and that although coercion can influence the internal processes setting references, it has destructive unintended effects that are unpredictable. (NB that this formulation is not the same as saying “it doesn’t work”. Using a hammer to open a window “works”.)

This paper shows why this PCT message is unwelcome, and why funding continues to go preferentially to those who promise prediction and control of behavior.

Strategy and tactics for advancing recognition and acceptance of PCT must take this into account. I can think of several avenues.

  • Address progressives who oppose policies and activities that these APA psychologists and psychiatrists have supported.

  • Bring PCT in support of management writings about motivation that say the old stick and carrot don’t work and instead emphasize autonomy, e.g. http://goo.gl/8GBCDu.

  • Analyze how collectively controlled variables are exploited for manipulative purposes. This would take us into PR, propaganda, peer pressure, the ‘epidemic’ theories for things like teenage suicide and increase in number of mass shootings in schools, and much else currently viewed with carrot/stick glasses.

I’m sure you can think of more. Many people are frightened at current social, economic, and political conditions, and would like to understand how to participate more deliberately and constructively in improving our collective social and economic arrangements. Some proportion of those in positions of great influence are people of good will but impoverished understandings.

/Bruce

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.0910)

I didn’t mean to suggest that this paper has a direct connection to PCT (except insofar as everything does). I meant that this paper is instructive about influences that have shaped psychology and psychiatry since WWI and WWII. What is at stake for psychologists and psychiatrists when we propose to them that they change their views? Why do conventional views continue to draw the research funding? For example, what would it take to change the priorities of e.g. the NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences? Many of us have been hammering at this for years. Why has the hammering had the effect only of nibbling? What perceptions are we controlling, to which we apply words like “the future of PCT”? Could this information help us to try alternative perceptions or alternative means of controlling them?

···

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.0910)]

I read the paper. The link to PCT is not as clear to me as it seems to be to you. What is clear is that many professional psychologists, including some very highly placed ones, are basically practicing prostitutes; anything for a little fame, fortune and, oh yes, some power, too. Pandering to the preferences and predilections of the powerful is an old game.

Fred Nickols

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
Subject: prediction and control of behavior

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

This short paper is instructive. https://goo.gl/DgCvhA (PDF download).

The PCT message is that people are autonomous and that although coercion can influence the internal processes setting references, it has destructive unintended effects that are unpredictable. (NB that this formulation is not the same as saying “it doesn’t work”. Using a hammer to open a window “works”.)

This paper shows why this PCT message is unwelcome, and why funding continues to go preferentially to those who promise prediction and control of behavior.

Strategy and tactics for advancing recognition and acceptance of PCT must take this into account. I can think of several avenues.

  • Address progressives who oppose policies and activities that these APA psychologists and psychiatrists have supported.
  • Bring PCT in support of management writings about motivation that say the old stick and carrot don’t work and instead emphasize autonomy, e.g. http://goo.gl/8GBCDu.
  • Analyze how collectively controlled variables are exploited for manipulative purposes. This would take us into PR, propaganda, peer pressure, the ‘epidemic’ theories for things like teenage suicide and increase in number of mass shootings in schools, and much else currently viewed with carrot/stick glasses.
    I’m sure you can think of more. Many people are frightened at current social, economic, and political conditions, and would like to understand how to participate more deliberately and constructively in improving our collective social and economic arrangements. Some proportion of those in positions of great influence are people of good will but impoverished understandings.

/Bruce

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.04.10:52 ET)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)

Nice. Where was this published? Who read it? What have you learned about what they did about it? Who is the “you” in the first sentence, and did that include all the readership? Â

···

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)]

Â

Here you go, Bruce.Â

Â

After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stick doesn’t work. Truth is it never did. It was all an illusion. You wanted so badly to believe it worked that you deceived yourself into believing that it did. It didn’t. What was going on is what has been going on for thousands of years; namely, the folks in charge use carrots and sticks to get the rest of the world to go along with their program, to do what they say and behave in ways they want. And so the rest of us have played along for thousands of years, making it look like were going along with the program when in fact we were gaming the system. We got what we wanted and we made it look like you were getting what you wanted. We adopted protective coloration; we walked, talked, looked and acted like the compliant little patsies you seemed to want. Sad to say many of you still do and so many of us continue to game the system, your system.

Â

What you don’t seem to get is that you and the rest of us are whole lot more alike than you want to admit. You have purposes; so do we. You are a “living control system;� so are we. We all have goals and we all pursue them. Our chief means of doing this is our behavior. We all behave in ways that are meant to bring what we see into alignment with what we want to see. When you start messing around with my behavior you are interfering with my means for obtaining what I want. You probably don’t care about that but know this as well: When you interfere with my behavior you are also interfering with the chief means I have at my disposal for delivering what you want me to. You need to back off and let me do my job. I’m perfectly willing to bust my buns getting you what you want, providing you pay me a decent amount, support me in doing it, don’t ask me to do something that I believe is illegal, immoral or unethical, and say “Thanks� when I deliver.

Â

There was a time when you were primarily interested in my overt, observable behavior. My working activities consisted of interactions between me and materials; I made things, I produced a product. You could see what I was doing and how I was doing it. You could even pay an industrial engineer to figure out the best way of doing it and then pay me to do that. What you wanted from me was compliance and I gave it to you. On occasion, you wanted me to do something stupid. Me being me, I shrugged and did what you asked. Sorry about that but you wanted compliance and I gave it to you. In any case, because you see what I was doing and if it was what you wanted you came to believe that carrots and sticks worked. You could see that for yourself – or so you thought.

<
Â

Now my working activities consist primarily of interactions between me and information and between me and other people. You can’t see what’s going on in my head and, often enough, you can’t tell me what to do. I have to figure things out. Gone are the good old days of prefigured working activities; now, they have to be configured in response to the circumstances at hand. Whether you realize it or not you are no longer paying me to comply with your wishes or dictates or commands; instead, you are (or should be) paying me to produce results of value. To do that I require no small amount of discretion regarding the what, how, when and why of my work. In a word, I require “autonomy.� I also require support, cooperation, the right tools and help coping with various obstacles and barriers when they crop up. I can’t do it alone and neither can you.

Â

Yet, you cling to those carrots and sticks and I find that very puzzling. Why? Because I know you know they don’t work with you so why do you think they work with me? You and I are both human beings. You and I are both “living control systems.� Why do you cling to those carrots and sticks? Is facing up to the fact that we are more alike than different too much for you? Is it perhaps that you can’t relinquish the illusion of control? Or is it perhaps just that you’re a mean S.O.B. who doesn’t care about people? I certainly hope not but I have run into one or two of those in my time. I will tell you this: We can accomplish a whole lot more working together than we can if we’re at odds with one another. Think about that. Think about what you might be able to achieve if you had an army of committed, dedicated, competent, autonomous employees, all of whom were communicating, cooperating and collaborating in pursuit of goals and objective that all of us valued. Nothing could stop us.

Â

If you think this all just an empty rant on the part of a disgruntled worker let me assure you that is not the case. I opened with “after all these years� which was my way of referring to the shift to knowledge work which knocked carrot and stick approaches into the dustbin of history. So let me tell you a little story, a “sea story� from my Navy days, one that took place way, way back in 1957. It’s a story about compliance and I’ve titled it “Aye-Aye, Sir.�

The year was 1957. The ship was the USS Gregory (DD-802), an old WW II Fletcher-class, 2100-ton destroyer. We were in Subic Bay in the Philippines, taking a break from our assignment of patrolling the Formosa Straits.

Tommy Lee Crabtree, a Gunner’s Mate second class (GM2), was working on Mount 53, one of the ship’s five, five-inch gun mounts, trying to repair an as yet unidentified malfunction. I was new on board – a Fire Control Technician (FT) with tthe rank of seaman (FTSN) – and I was working on Tommy Lee, trying tto persuade him to invite me to join the armory coffee mess. The armory coffee mess was, in my mind, the most prestigious coffee mess on board the Gregory and I badly wanted an invitation to join. The invitation had to come from Tommy Lee; he was the Gunner’s Mate in charge of the armory. Short-term, my hopes weren’t high but I was prepared to hang in there for the long haul.

Tommy Lee and I were taking a break, hunkered down on our haunches next to the gun mount, sipping coffee and chatting in a way calculated to help him take my measure, when we spotted our division officer approaching.Â

Our division officer was a Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) whose last name was Wilson. A bit of a martinet, he had been nicknamed “Whip,� an appellation borrowed from a star of western movies of the 1940s.

“What are you two doing?� he demanded.

“Drinkin’ coffee and shootin’ the breeze,� replied Tommy Lee.

“What are you doing here?� Whip asked of me.

As a Fire Control Technician, my work required close coordination with the Gunners Mates so I had a convenient and true cover story. Standing up, I said, “I came down to find out when Tommy Lee thinks we’ll be able to include the gun mount in the daily workouts and if he thinks we’ll have to realign it with the rest of the gun battery.�

“Well,� demanded Mr. Wilson, turning to Tommy Lee who was still squatting, “when will it be fixed?�

“I dunno. I’m workin’ on it. Probably sometime today.�

“That’s not good enough! Get off your ass and get back to work! I want that gun mount back in working order A.S.A.P.!â€?

Tommy Lee looked up at Mr. Wilson, studying him much the way he might contemplate a cockroach he was thinking about stepping on. Then, rising slowly to his feet, Tommy Lee grinned wickedly and asked, “Are you ordering me to fix this here gun mount, Mr. Wilson?�

“Yes, I am,� snapped Mr. Wilson.

Shifting his coffee cup to his left hand, Tommy Lee saluted smartly, and said, “Aye‑aye, sir. What would you like me to do first?�

The reactions played across Mr. Wilson’s face like moving scenery:Â first puzzlement, then comprehension, followed in quick order by surprise, shock, humiliation and, finally, red-faced, apoplectic anger.

“Whip� Wilson had been heisted on his own authoritarian petard by a master of the game. Tommy Lee had done what all those who must submit to authority have been doing for thousands of years, he submitted. He went passive. He asked Mr. Wilson to tell him what to do and he would do it. The problem for Mr. Wilson was that he couldn’t issue the necessary orders. Tommy Lee knew that all along. “Whip� Wilson was just now finding that out.

Furious, Mr. Wilson glared at Tommy Lee, then turned and stomped off without a word.

Tommy Lee watched him go, and then turned to me, doubtless feeling expansive as a result of besting Wilson, and said, “Nick, you can hang your cup in the mess when you’re finished.â€?Â

Witness to Tommy Lee’s triumph, the potential value of my testimony at future gatherings outside the armory had earned me the invitation I sought. I was in.

So let me ask you:Â Do you get it now?

Â

Â

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
Subject: prediction and control of behavior

Â

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

Â

This short paper is instructive. https://goo.gl/DgCvhA (PDF download).

Â

The PCT message is that people are autonomous and that although coercion can influence the internal processes setting references, it has destructive unintended effects that are unpredictable. (NB that this formulation is not the same as saying “it doesn’t work”. Using a hammer to open a window “works”.)

Â

This paper shows why this PCT message is unwelcome, and why funding continues to go preferentially to those who promise prediction and control of behavior.

Â

Strategy and tactics for advancing recognition and acceptance of PCT must take this into account. I can think of several avenues.

  • Address progressives who oppose policies and activities that these APA psychologists and psychiatrists have supported.
  • Bring PCT in support of management writings about motivation that say the old stick and carrot don’t work and instead emphasize autonomy, e.g. http://goo.gl/8GBCDu.
  • Analyze how collectively controlled variables are exploited for manipulative purposes. This would take us into PR, propaganda, peer pressure, the ‘epidemic’ theories for things like teenage suicide and increase in number of mass shootings in schools, and much else currently viewed with carrot/stick glasses.Â
    I’m sure you can think of more. Many people are frightened at current social, economic, and political conditions, and would like to understand how to participate more deliberately and constructively in improving our collective social and economic arrangements. Some proportion of those in positions of great influence are people of good will but impoverished understandings.

Â

/Bruce

[Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1100)]

It hasn’t been published; I just now wrote it (except for the Sea Story part). “You� refers to the “swells who run the show� and who seem fixated on carrot and stick.

So far you’re the only one who’s read it.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: prediction and control of behavior

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.04.10:52 ET)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)

Nice. Where was this published? Who read it? What have you learned about what they did about it? Who is the “you” in the first sentence, and did that include all the readership?

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)]

Here you go, Bruce.

After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stick doesn’t work. Truth is it never did. It was all an illusion. You wanted so badly to believe it worked that you deceived yourself into believing that it did. It didn’t. What was going on is what has been going on for thousands of years; namely, the folks in charge use carrots and sticks to get the rest of the world to go along with their program, to do what they say and behave in ways they want. And so the rest of us have played along for thousands of years, making it look like were going along with the program when in fact we were gaming the system. We got what we wanted and we made it look like you were getting what you wanted. We adopted protective coloration; we walked, talked, looked and acted like the compliant little patsies you seemed to want. Sad to say many of you still do and so many of us continue to game the system, your system.

What you don’t seem to get is that you and the rest of us are whole lot more alike than you want to admit. You have purposes; so do we. You are a “living control system;� so are we. We all have goals and we all pursue them. Our chief means of doing this is our behavior. We all behave in ways that are meant to bring what we see into alignment with what we want to see. When you start messing around with my behavior you are interfering with my means for obtaining what I want. You probably don’t care about that but know this as well: When you interfere with my behavior you are also interfering with the chief means I have at my disposal for delivering what you want me to. You need to back off and let me do my job. I’m perfectly willing to bust my buns getting you what you want, providing you pay me a decent amount, support me in doing it, don’t ask me to do something that I believe is illegal, immoral or unethical, and say “Thanks� when I deliver.

There was a time when you were primarily interested in my overt, observable behavior. My working activities consisted of interactions between me and materials; I made things, I produced a product. You could see what I was doing and how I was doing it. You could even pay an industrial engineer to figure out the best way of doing it and then pay me to do that. What you wanted from me was compliance and I gave it to you. On occasion, you wanted me to do something stupid. Me being me, I shrugged and did what you asked. Sorry about that but you wanted compliance and I gave it to you. In any case, because you see what I was doing and if it was what you wanted you came to believe that carrots and sticks worked. You could see that for yourself – or so you thought.

Now my working activities consist primarily of interactions between me and information and between me and other people. You can’t see what’s going on in my head and, often enough, you can’t tell me what to do. I have to figure things out. Gone are the good old days of prefigured working activities; now, they have to be configured in response to the circumstances at hand. Whether you realize it or not you are no longer paying me to comply with your wishes or dictates or commands; instead, you are (or should be) paying me to produce results of value. To do that I require no small amount of discretion regarding the what, how, when and why of my work. In a word, I require “autonomy.� I also require support, cooperation, the right tools and help coping with various obstacles and barriers when they crop up. I can’t do it alone and neither can you.

Yet, you cling to those carrots and sticks and I find that very puzzling. Why? Because I know you know they don’t work with you so why do you think they work with me? You and I are both human beings. You and I are both “living control systems.� Why do you cling to those carrots and sticks? Is facing up to the fact that we are more alike than different too much for you? Is it perhaps that you can’t relinquish the illusion of control? Or is it perhaps just that you’re a mean S.O.B. who doesn’t care about people? I certainly hope not but I have run into one or two of those in my time. I will tell you this: We can accomplish a whole lot more working together than we can if we’re at odds with one another. Think about that. Think about what you might be able to achieve if you had an army of committed, dedicated, competent, autonomous employees, all of whom were communicating, cooperating and collaborating in pursuit of goals and objective that all of us valued. Nothing could stop us.

If you think this all just an empty rant on the part of a disgruntled worker let me assure you that is not the case. I opened with “after all these years� which was my way of referring to the shift to knowledge work which knocked carrot and stick approaches into the dustbin of history. So let me tell you a little story, a “sea story� from my Navy days, one that took place way, way back in 1957. It’s a story about compliance and I’ve titled it “Aye-Aye, Sir.�

The year was 1957. The ship was the USS Gregory (DD-802), an old WW II Fletcher-class, 2100-ton destroyer. We were in Subic Bay in the Philippines, taking a break from our assignment of patrolling the Formosa Straits.

Tommy Lee Crabtree, a Gunner’s Mate second class (GM2), was working on Mount 53, one of the ship’s five, five-inch gun mounts, trying to repair an as yet unidentified malfunction. I was new on board – a Fire Control Technician (FT) with thee rank of seaman (FTSN) – and I was working on Tommy Lee, trying to persuade him to invite me to join the armory coffee mess. The armory coffee mess was, in my mind, the most prestigious coffee mess on board the Gregory and I badly wanted an invitation to join. The invitation had to come from Tommy Lee; he was the Gunner’s Mate in charge of the armory. Short-term, my hopes weren’t high but I was prepared to hang in there for the long haul.

Tommy Lee and I were taking a break, hunkered down on our haunches next to the gun mount, sipping coffee and chatting in a way calculated to help him take my measure, when we spotted our division officer approaching.

Our division officer was a Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) whose last name was Wilson. A bit of a martinet, he had been nicknamed “Whip,� an appellation borrowed from a star of western movies of the 1940s.

“What are you two doing?� he demanded.

“Drinkin’ coffee and shootin’ the breeze,� replied Tommy Lee.

“What are you doing here?� Whip asked of me.

As a Fire Control Technician, my work required close coordination with the Gunners Mates so I had a convenient and true cover story. Standing up, I said, “I came down to find out when Tommy Lee thinks we’ll be able to include the gun mount in the daily workouts and if he thinks we’ll have to realign it with the rest of the gun battery.�

“Well,� demanded Mr. Wilson, turning to Tommy Lee who was still squatting, “when will it be fixed?�

“I dunno. I’m workin’ on it. Probably sometime today.�

“That’s not good enough! Get off your ass and get back to work! I want that gun mount back in working order A.S.A.P.!â€?

Tommy Lee looked up at Mr. Wilson, studying him much the way he might contemplate a cockroach he was thinking about stepping on. Then, rising slowly to his feet, Tommy Lee grinned wickedly and asked, “Are you ordering me to fix this here gun mount, Mr. Wilson?�

“Yes, I am,� snapped Mr. Wilson.

Shifting his coffee cup to his left hand, Tommy Lee saluted smartly, and said, “Aye‑aye, sir. What would you like me to do first?�

The reactions played across Mr. Wilson’s face like moving scenery: first puzzlement, then comprehension, followed in quick order by surprise, shock, humiliation and, finally, red-faced, apoplectic anger.

“Whip� Wilson had been heisted on his own authoritarian petard by a master of the game. Tommy Lee had done what all those who must submit to authority have been doing for thousands of years, he submitted. He went passive. He asked Mr. Wilson to tell him what to do and he would do it. The problem for Mr. Wilson was that he couldn’t issue the necessary orders. Tommy Lee knew that all along. “Whip� Wilson was just now finding that out.

Furious, Mr. Wilson glared at Tommy Lee, then turned and stomped off without a word.

Tommy Lee watched him go, and then turned to me, doubtless feeling expansive as a result of besting Wilson, and said, “Nick, you can hang your cup in the mess when you’re finished.â€?

Witness to Tommy Lee’s triumph, the potential value of my testimony at future gatherings outside the armory had earned me the invitation I sought. I was in.

So let me ask you: Do you get it now?

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
Subject: prediction and control of behavior

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

This short paper is instructive. https://goo.gl/DgCvhA (PDF download).

The PCT message is that people are autonomous and that although coercion can influence the internal processes setting references, it has destructive unintended effects that are unpredictable. (NB that this formulation is not the same as saying “it doesn’t work”. Using a hammer to open a window “works”.)

This paper shows why this PCT message is unwelcome, and why funding continues to go preferentially to those who promise prediction and control of behavior.

Strategy and tactics for advancing recognition and acceptance of PCT must take this into account. I can think of several avenues.

  • Address progressives who oppose policies and activities that these APA psychologists and psychiatrists have supported.

  • Bring PCT in support of management writings about motivation that say the old stick and carrot don’t work and instead emphasize autonomy, e.g. http://goo.gl/8GBCDu.

  • Analyze how collectively controlled variables are exploited for manipulative purposes. This would take us into PR, propaganda, peer pressure, the ‘epidemic’ theories for things like teenage suicide and increase in number of mass shootings in schools, and much else currently viewed with carrot/stick glasses.

I’m sure you can think of more. Many people are frightened at current social, economic, and political conditions, and would like to understand how to participate more deliberately and constructively in improving our collective social and economic arrangements. Some proportion of those in positions of great influence are people of good will but impoverished understandings.

/Bruce

FN: > So far you’re the only one who’s read it.

That’s a plural “you”–all of us on CSGnet.

···

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1100)]

Â

It hasn’t been published; I just now wrote it (except for the Sea Story part). “You� refers to the “swells who run the show� and who seem fixated on carrot and stick.

Â

So far you’re the only one who’s read it.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: prediction and control of behavior

Â

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.04.10:52 ET)]

Â

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)

Â

Nice. Where was this published? Who read it? What have you learned about what they did about it? Who is the “you” in the first sentence, and did that include all the readership? Â

Â

Â

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)]

Â

Here you go, Bruce.Â

Â

After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stick doesn’t work. Truth is it never did. It was all an illusion. You wanted so badly to believe it worked that you deceived yourself into believing that it did. It didn’t. What was going on is what has been going on for thousands of years; namely, the folks in charge use carrots and sticks to get the rest of the world to go along with their program, to do what they say and behave in ways they want. And so the rest of us have played along for thousands of years, making it look like were going along with the program when in fact we were gaming the system. We got what we wanted and we made it look like you were getting what you wanted. We adopted protective coloration; we walked, talked, looked and acted like the compliant little patsies you seemed to want. Sad to say many of you still do and so many of us continue to game the system, your system.

Â

What you don’t seem to get is that you and the rest of us are whole lot more alike than you want to admit. You have purposes; so do we. You are a “living control system;� so are we. We all have goals and we all pursue them. Our chief means of doing this is our behavior. We all behave in ways that are meant to bring what we see into alignment with what we want to see. When you start messing around with my behavior you are interfering with my means for obtaining what I want. You probably don’t care about that but know this as well: When you interfere with my behavior you are also interfering with the chief means I have at my disposal for delivering what you want me to. You need to back off and let me do my job. I’m perfectly willing to bust my buns getting you what you want, providing you pay me a decent amount, support me in doing it, don’t ask me to do something that I believe is illegal, immoral or unethical, and say “Thanks� when I deliver.

Â

There was a time when you were primarily interested in my overt, observable behavior. My working activities consisted of interactions between me and materials; I made things, I produced a product. You could see what I was doing and how I was doing it. You could even pay an industrial engineer to figure out the best way of doing it and then pay me to do that. What you wanted from me was compliance and I gave it to you. On occasion, you wanted me to do something stupid. Me being me, I shrugged and did what you asked. Sorry about that but you wanted compliance and I gave it to you. In any case, because you see what I was doing and if it was what you wanted you came to believe that carrots and sticks worked. You could see that for yourself – or so you thought…

Â

Now my working activities consist primarily of interactions between me and information and between me and other people. You can’t see what’s going on in my head and, often enough, you can’t tell me what to do. I have to figure things out. Gone are the good old days of prefigured working activities; now, they have to be configured in response to the circumstances at hand. Whether you realize it or not you are no longer paying me to comply with your wishes or dictates or commands; instead, you are (or should be) paying me to produce results of value. To do that I require no small amount of discretion regarding the what, how, when and why of my work. In a word, I require “autonomy.� I also require support, cooperation, the right tools and help coping with various obstacles and barriers when they crop up. I can’t do it alone and neither can you.

Â

Yet, you cling to those carrots and sticks and I find that very puzzling. Why? Because I know you know they don’t work with you so why do you think they work with me? You and I are both human beings. You and I are both “living control systems.� Why do you cling to those carrots and sticks? Is facing up to the fact that we are more alike than different too much for you? Is it perhaps that you can’t relinquish the illusion of control? Or is it perhaps just that you’re a mean S.O.B. who doesn’t care about people? I certainly hope not but I have run into one or two of those in my time. I will tell you this: We can accomplish a whole lot more working together than we can if we’re at odds with one another. Think about that. Think about what you might be able to achieve if you had an army of committed, dedicated, competent, autonomous employees, all of whom were communicating, cooperating and collaborating in pursuit of goals and objective that all of us valued. Nothing could stop us.

Â

If you think this all just an empty rant on the part of a disgruntled worker let me assure you that is not the case. I opened with “after all these years� which was my way of referring to the shift to knowledge work which knocked carrot and stick approaches into the dustbin of history. So let me tell you a little story, a “sea story� from my Navy days, one that took place way, way back in 1957. It’s a story about compliance and I’ve titled it “Aye-Aye, Sir.�

The year was 1957. The ship was the USS Gregory (DD-802), an old WW II Fletcher-class, 2100-ton destroyer. We were in Subic Bay in the Philippines, taking a break from our assignment of patrolling the Formosa Straits.

Tommy Lee Crabtree, a Gunner’s Mate second class (GM2), was working on Mount 53, one of the ship’s five, five-inch gun mounts, trying to repair an as yet unidentified malfunction. I was new on board –“ a Fire Control Technician (FT) with the rank of seaman (FTSN) – annd I was working on Tommy Lee, trying to persuade him to invite me to join the armory coffee mess. The armory coffee mess was, in my mind, the most prestigious coffee mess on board the Gregory and I badly wanted an invitation to join. The invitation had to come from Tommy Lee; he was the Gunner’s Mate in charge of the armory. Short-term, my hopes weren’t high but I was prepared to hang in there for the long haul.

Tommy Lee and I were taking a break, hunkered down on our haunches next to the gun mount, sipping coffee and chatting in a way calculated to help him take my measure, when we spotted our division officer approaching.Â

Our division officer was a Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) whose last name was Wilson. A bit of a martinet, he had been nicknamed “Whip,� an appellation borrowed from a star of western movies of the 1940s.

“What are you two doing?� he demanded.

“Drinkin’ coffee and shootin’ the breeze,� replied Tommy Lee.

“What are you doing here?� Whip asked of me.

As a Fire Control Technician, my work required close coordination with the Gunners Mates so I had a convenient and true cover story. Standing up, I said, “I came down to find out when Tommy Lee thinks we’ll be able to include the gun mount in the daily workouts and if he thinks we’ll have to realign it with the rest of the gun battery.�

“Well,� demanded Mr. Wilson, turning to Tommy Lee who was still squatting, “when will it be fixed?�

“I dunno. I’m workin’ on it. Probably sometime today.�

“That’s not good enough! Get off your ass and get back to work! I want that gun mount back in working order A.S.A.P.!â€?

Tommy Lee looked up at Mr. Wilson, studying him much the way he might contemplate a cockroach he was thinking about stepping on. Then, rising slowly to his feet, Tommy Lee grinned wickedly and asked, “Are you ordering me to fix this here gun mount, Mr. Wilson?�

“Yes, I am,� snapped Mr. Wilson.

Shifting his coffee cup to his left hand, Tommy Lee saluted smartly, and said, “Aye‑aye, sir. What would you like me to do first?�

The reactions played across Mr. Wilson’s face like moving scenery:Â first puzzlement, then comprehension, followed in quick order by surprise, shock, humiliation and, finally, red-faced, apoplectic anger.

“Whip� Wilson had been heisted on his own authoritarian petard by a master of the game. Tommy Lee had done what all those who must submit to authority have been doing for thousands of years, he submitted. He went passive. He asked Mr. Wilson to tell him what to do and he would do it. The problem for Mr. Wilson was that he couldn’t issue the necessary orders. Tommy Lee knew that all along. “Whip� Wilson was just now finding that out.

Furious, Mr. Wilson glared at Tommy Lee, then turned and stomped off without a word.

Tommy Lee watched him go, and then turned to me, doubtless feeling expansive as a result of besting Wilson, and said, “Nick, you can hang your cup in the mess when you’re finished.â€?Â

Witness to Tommy Lee’s triumph, the potential value of my testimony at future gatherings outside the armory had earned me the invitation I sought. I was in.

So let me ask you:Â Do you get it now?

Â

Â

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
Subject: prediction and control of behavior

Â

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.3.10:36 ET)]

Â

This short paper is instructive. https://goo.gl/DgCvhA (PDF download).

Â

The PCT message is that people are autonomous and that although coercion can influence the internal processes setting references, it has destructive unintended effects that are unpredictable. (NB that this formulation is not the same as saying “it doesn’t work”. Using a hammer to open a window “works”.)

Â

This paper shows why this PCT message is unwelcome, and why funding continues to go preferentially to those who promise prediction and control of behavior.

Â

Strategy and tactics for advancing recognition and acceptance of PCT must take this into account. I can think of several avenues.

  • Address progressives who oppose policies and activities that these APA psychologists and psychiatrists have supported.
  • Bring PCT in support of management writings about motivation that say the old stick and carrot don’t work and instead emphasize autonomy, e.g. http://goo.gl/8GBCDu.
  • Analyze how collectively controlled variables are exploited for manipulative purposes. This would take us into PR, propaganda, peer pressure, the ‘epidemic’ theories for things like teenage suicide and increase in number of mass shootings in schools, and much else currently viewed with carrot/stick glasses.Â
    I’m sure you can think of more. Many people are frightened at current social, economic, and political conditions, and would like to understand how to participate more deliberately and constructively in improving our collective social and economic arrangements. Some proportion of those in positions of great influence are people of good will but impoverished understandings.

Â

/Bruce

Â

[From Fred Nickols
(2015.11.04.1012)]

Here you go, Bruce.Â

After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stick
doesn’t work. Truth is it never did. It was all an
illusion. You wanted so badly to believe it worked that you
deceived yourself into believing that it did. It didn’t.Â
What was going on is what has been going on for thousands of years;
namely, the folks in charge use carrots and sticks to get the rest of the
world to go along with their program, to do what they say and behave in
ways they want. And so the rest of us have played along for
thousands of years, making it look like were going along with the program
when in fact we were gaming the system. We got what we wanted and
we made it look like you were getting what you wanted. We adopted
protective coloration; we walked, talked, looked and acted like the
compliant little patsies you seemed to want. Sad to say many of
you still do and so many of us continue to game the system, your
system.
[From Dag Forssell (2015.11.04.1740)

Fred, that was delicious. It came through in Eudora with funny
characters, so I lifted it into Word and ran spell check. Attached.

Why don’t you expand on this by prefacing with some context, then post
it. I would love to refer to it.

BTW, I noted your web page with book reviews and ordered a few. Now
reading The Management Myth. Many thanks :slight_smile:

Best, Dag

CarrotStick.doc (27.5 KB)

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.05.0547)]

Thanks, Dag. I plan on posting it. What kind of preface did you have in mind?

Fred

···

From: Dag Forssell [mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: prediction and control of behavior

[From Dag Forssell (2015.11.04.1740)

Fred, that was delicious. It came through in Eudora with funny characters, so I lifted it into Word and ran spell check. Attached.

Why don’t you expand on this by prefacing with some context, then post it. I would love to refer to it.

BTW, I noted your web page with book reviews and ordered a few. Now reading The Management Myth. Many thanks :slight_smile:

Best, Dag

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)]

Here you go, Bruce.Â

After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stickick doesn’t work. Truth is it never did.Ãd. It was all an illusion. You wanted so badly to believe it worked that you deceived yourself into believing that it did. It didn’t. What was going on is whathat has been going on for thousands of years; namely, the folks in charge use carrots and sticks to get the rest of the world to go along with their program, to do what they say and behave in ways they want. And so the rest of us have played along for thousands of years, making it look like were going along with the program when in fact we were gaming the system. We got what we wanted and we made it look like you were getting what you wanted. We adopted protective coloration; we walked, talked, looked and acted like the compliant little patsies you seemed to want. Sad to say many of you still do and so many of us continue to game the system, your system.

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.05.0903)]

At Dag’s suggestion I added some brief prefacing comments. I also did some tweaking to the main piece. Current version is attached.

Fred Nickols

You Still Dont Get It.docx (25.7 KB)

···

From: Dag Forssell [mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: prediction and control of behavior

[From Dag Forssell (2015.11.04.1740)

Fred, that was delicious. It came through in Eudora with funny characters, so I lifted it into Word and ran spell check. Attached.

Why don’t you expand on this by prefacing with some context, then post it. I would love to refer to it.

BTW, I noted your web page with book reviews and ordered a few. Now reading The Management Myth. Many thanks :slight_smile:

Best, Dag

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.04.1012)]

Here you go, Bruce.Â

After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stick doesnesn’t work. Truth is it never did.Â&nb It was all an illusion. You wanted so badly to believe it worked that you deceived yourself into believing that it did. It didn’t. What was going on is what has bs been going on for thousands of years; namely, the folks in charge use carrots and sticks to get the rest of the world to go along with their program, to do what they say and behave in ways they want. And so the rest of us have played along for thousands of years, making it look like were going along with the program when in fact we were gaming the system. We got what we wanted and we made it look like you were getting what you wanted. We adopted protective coloration; we walked, talked, looked and acted like the compliant little patsies you seemed to want. Sad to say many of you still do and so many of us continue to game the system, your system.

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.0930)]

···

Fred Nickols (2015.11.05.0903)–

FN: At Dag’s suggestion I added some brief prefacing comments. I also did some tweaking to the main piece. Current version is attached.

RM: Here’s my comments on your essay “You still don’t get it”

RM: First, I don’t like the title very much. It strikes me as way too contentious. How about “Your employees want to be in control, too”

RM: In your introduction you write:“You are clearly focused on controlling employee behavior and
you rely on carrots and sticks to do it.
That’s a big mistake and here’s what I have to say on that score.” This is a bit ambiguous. It’s not clear whether the mistake is focusing on controlling employee behavior or using the carrot and stick approach to do it or both.

RM: You start the next paragraph with: “After
all these years you still don’t get it!
Carrot and stick doesn’t work”, which suggests that the mistake is the use of carrot and stick, not the controlling. This is confirmed by your next statement: “Truth is it never did. It was all an illusion”. The illusion is apparently that carrot and stick looks like it works but it actually doesn’t. But your description of the illusion doesn’t sound too much like it’s an illusion. You say it’s an illusion because people are “gaming the system”. They are getting what they want and making it “look like” you are getting what you want. But how is this an illusion? If what I want a person to do is pick up the garbage and they will do that only if I pay them (give a carrot) contingent on their doing it then what do I care if, from their perspective, they are just making it “look like” they are picking up the garbage. If I see that the garbage has, indeed, been getting picked up then they have done what I wanted and I’ll give them the carrot; the carrot worked.

RM: In the next paragraph I think you correctly describe the problem you want to solve. You tell your audience: “When
you interfere with my behavior you are also interfering with the chief means I
have at my disposal for delivering what you want from me. You need to back off and let me do my job”. What you are describing here is the main problem that results from trying to control other people: conflict. This problem arises when you use any approach to controlling other people: carrot/stick (selection by reinforcing consequences), disturbance to a controlled variable or deception. Conflict arises, not because of the particular method you use to control behavior or even because you want to control behavior. Conflict is a result of attempts to arbitrarily control behavior; that is, when you try to get someone to do what you want them to do without taking into consideration that they might not want to do it themselves.

RM: So I think the message to managers to not that carrot/stick control doesn’t work (it clearly does) or that it’s an illusion (it is clearly not). The message is that when you use carrot/stick or any other approach to control of behavior arbitrarily – without taking into account that the behavior you want to control is that of a control system just like yourself, with its own goals and means of achieving them – the result will be loss of control by both you and the controllee due to conflict.

RM: So how do you non-arbitrarily control other people. You 1) understand and accept your own nature as a controller (that you can’t help wanting people to behave the way you want) 2) understand that other people are the same as you (something you mention in your paper already) 3) once you’ve got 1 and 2 down you will more easily become aware of when you are in conflict and 4) once you identify the conflict you can start trying to resolve it by becoming aware of what you “really” want (you “go up levels” of awareness in yourself) and/or by negotiating with the controllee.

RM: Of course, managers will only take your advice if they care more about their employees than their stockholders. And that’s a high hurdle to overcome.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1237)]

Thanks, Rick. You’ve given me plenty to ponder.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:29 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: prediction and control of behavior

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.0930)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.05.0903)–

FN: At Dag’s suggestion I added some brief prefacing comments. I also did some tweaking to the main piece. Current version is attached.

RM: Here’s my comments on your essay “You still don’t get it”

RM: First, I don’t like the title very much. It strikes me as way too contentious. How about “Your employees want to be in control, too”

RM: In your introduction you write:“You are clearly focused on controlling employee behavior and you rely on carrots and sticks to do it. That’s a big mistake and here’s what I have to say on that score.” This is a bit ambiguous. It’s not clear whether the mistake is focusing on controlling employee behavior or using the carrot and stick approach to do it or both.

RM: You start the next paragraph with: “After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stick doesn’t work”, which suggests that the mistake is the use of carrot and stick, not the controlling. This is confirmed by your next statement: “Truth is it never did. It was all an illusion”. The illusion is apparently that carrot and stick looks like it works but it actually doesn’t. But your description of the illusion doesn’t sound too much like it’s an illusion. You say it’s an illusion because people are “gaming the system”. They are getting what they want and making it “look like” you are getting what you want. But how is this an illusion? If what I want a person to do is pick up the garbage and they will do that only if I pay them (give a carrot) contingent on their doing it then what do I care if, from their perspective, they are just making it “look like” they are picking up the garbage. If I see that the garbage has, indeed, been getting picked up then they have done what I wanted and I’ll give them the carrot; the carrot worked.

RM: In the next paragraph I think you correctly describe the problem you want to solve. You tell your audience: “When you interfere with my behavior you are also interfering with the chief means I have at my disposal for delivering what you want from me. You need to back off and let me do my job”. What you are describing here is the main problem that results from trying to control other people: conflict. This problem arises when you use any approach to controlling other people: carrot/stick (selection by reinforcing consequences), disturbance to a controlled variable or deception. Conflict arises, not because of the particular method you use to control behavior or even because you want to control behavior. Conflict is a result of attempts to arbitrarily control behavior; that is, when you try to get someone to do what you want them to do without taking into consideration that they might not want to do it themselves.

RM: So I think the message to managers to not that carrot/stick control doesn’t work (it clearly does) or that it’s an illusion (it is clearly not). The message is that when you use carrot/stick or any other approach to control of behavior arbitrarily – without taking into account that the behavior you want to control is that of a control system just like yourself, with its own goals and means of achieving them – the result will be loss of control by both you and the controllee due to conflict.

RM: So how do you non-arbitrarily control other people. You 1) understand and accept your own nature as a controller (that you can’t help wanting people to behave the way you want) 2) understand that other people are the same as you (something you mention in your paper already) 3) once you’ve got 1 and 2 down you will more easily become aware of when you are in conflict and 4) once you identify the conflict you can start trying to resolve it by becoming aware of what you “really” want (you “go up levels” of awareness in yourself) and/or by negotiating with the controllee.

RM: Of course, managers will only take your advice if they care more about their employees than their stockholders. And that’s a high hurdle to overcome.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1458)]

To Rick:Â I think what I was trying to get at with carrot-and-stick being an illusion are things like the following:

On occasion, people “cook the books� to get the carrots they’ve been offered. The data are doctored to make it look like the results were produced when in fact they weren’t.

On occasion, people make it look like they’re going along with the program (e.g., a major change) when in fact they aren’t; they simply took their resistance underground.

On occasion, people will bust their buns to get a certain carrot – but only if they really want it for some reason of their own, not simply because it’s a carrot. To paraphrase “Carrots are carrots in the eye of the beholder.â€?

On occasion, people will engage in very creative evasive action to avoid a “stick,� including laying the blame on someone else.

On occasion, people simply ignore the carrots and the sticks; neither amounts to much in their assessment.

On occasion, etc., etc., etc.

I think I’ll stick with carrots and sticks being illusory. But thanks for making me think some more.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:29 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: prediction and control of behavior

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.08.0930)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.05.0903)–

FN: At Dag’s suggestion I added some brief prefacing comments. I also did some tweaking to the main piece. Current version is attached.

RM: Here’s my comments on your essay “You still don’t get it”

RM: First, I don’t like the title very much. It strikes me as way too contentious. How about “Your employees want to be in control, too”

RM: In your introduction you write:“You are clearly focused on controlling employee behavior and you rely on carrots and sticks to do it. That’s a big mistake and here’s what I have to say on that score.” This is a bit ambiguous. It’s not clear whether the mistake is focusing on controlling employee behavior or using the carrot and stick approach to do it or both.

RM: You start the next paragraph with: “After all these years you still don’t get it! Carrot and stick doesn’t work”, which suggests that the mistake is the use of carrot and stick, not the controlling. This is confirmed by your next statement: “Truth is it never did. It was all an illusion”. The illusion is apparently that carrot and stick looks like it works but it actually doesn’t. But your description of the illusion doesn’t sound too much like it’s an illusion. You say it’s an illusion because people are “gaming the system”. They are getting what they want and making it “look like” you are getting what you want. But how is this an illusion? If what I want a person to do is pick up the garbage and they will do that only if I pay them (give a carrot) contingent on their doing it then what do I care if, from their perspective, they are just making it “look like” they are picking up the garbage. If I see that the garbage has, indeed, been getting picked up then they have done what I wanted and I’ll give them the carrot; the carrot worked.

RM: In the next paragraph I think you correctly describe the problem you want to solve. You tell your audience: “When you interfere with my behavior you are also interfering with the chief means I have at my disposal for delivering what you want from me. You need to back off and let me do my job”. What you are describing here is the main problem that results from trying to control other people: conflict. This problem arises when you use any approach to controlling other people: carrot/stick (selection by reinforcing consequences), disturbance to a controlled variable or deception. Conflict arises, not because of the particular method you use to control behavior or even because you want to control behavior. Conflict is a result of attempts to arbitrarily control behavior; that is, when you try to get someone to do what you want them to do without taking into consideration that they might not want to do it themselves.

RM: So I think the message to managers to not that carrot/stick control doesn’t work (it clearly does) or that it’s an illusion (it is clearly not). The message is that when you use carrot/stick or any other approach to control of behavior arbitrarily – without taking into account that the behavior you want to control is that of a control system just like yourself, with its own goals and means of achieving them – the result will be loss of control by both you and the controllee due to conflict.

RM: So how do you non-arbitrarily control other people. You 1) understand and accept your own nature as a controller (that you can’t help wanting people to behave the way you want) 2) understand that other people are the same as you (something you mention in your paper already) 3) once you’ve got 1 and 2 down you will more easily become aware of when you are in conflict and 4) once you identify the conflict you can start trying to resolve it by becoming aware of what you “really” want (you “go up levels” of awareness in yourself) and/or by negotiating with the controllee.

RM: Of course, managers will only take your advice if they care more about their employees than their stockholders. And that’s a high hurdle to overcome.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.09.0850)]

···

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1458)

FN: To Rick: I think what I was trying to get at with carrot-and-stick being an illusion are things like the following:…

FN: I think I’ll stick with carrots and sticks being illusory. But thanks for making me think some more.

RM: If carrot/stick control is illusory then what are you recommending as the alternative? A different approach to controlling employees? Not trying to control the employees at all? If it’s the latter then what are the manager’s supposed to do to “get the most” out of their employees?

RM: It seems to me that the “message” of PCT regarding the control of other people is not that it’s impossible or illusory but that it can result in conflict – interpersonal and intrapersonal – if it is done arbitrarily. That is, if it is done without regard to the fact that the people you are controlling (or trying to control) are controllers themselves. That’s why the employee in your piece says to the manager “You
need to back off and let me do my job”. It’s not because the employee is objecting to being controlled by the manager’s carrot/stick methods. Indeed, the employee tells the manager “I’m perfectly willing to bust my buns getting
you what you want, providing you pay me a decent amount…”. In other words, the employee is OK with doing what the manager wants (being controlled) in order to get access to the manager’s carrots (decent pay). That’s because the employer and manager have agreed to the terms of this arrangement. There is agreed-on mutual control. Respectful mutual control. The manager gets the work he wants from the employee by giving the carrot and the employee gets the carrot he wants from the manager by doing the work the manager wants done.

RM: What the employee is objecting to is having the manager tell him how to do the work; that is, he is objecting to the manager telling him how to do his own controlling; what means to use to produce the results wanted by both the employee and the manager. This is called “micromanaging” and it betrays the existence of a conflict. The conflict results from the manager’s failure to respect the fact that the employee is a control system and to understand what this means. The manager is arbitrarily trying to control the means the employee uses to produce the result desired by both the manager and the employee. It is arbitrary control in the sense that the manager is trying to get the employee to behave in a particular way (in this case, use a particular means of control) without taking into consideration the fact that the employee has to vary the means used to produce the result as necessary to counter unpredictable disturbances.

RM: So, again, I would say that the problem of management is not the use of carrot/stick control or controlling per se. The problem is arbitrary control that results in conflict. And the conflict that results can be debilitating since when there is conflict people lose control. A person in conflict (or two people in conflict with each other) lose control because they are literally unable to act at all; they are frozen in their tracks and have therefore been deprived of the means to control the perceptions they want to control. This was expressed with remarkable clarity by Claudius in his soliloquy in Act II, Scene 3 of Hamlet:

WS: My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent,
And, like a man to double business bound,
I stand in pause where I shall first begin,
And both neglect.

RM: I saw the Benedict Cumberbatch Hamlet yesterday afternoon (it was fantastic) and was blown away when I heard this part of Claudius’s soliloquy. I had never noticed it before (and I’ve seen at least 4 different Hamlets now in the last seven years) but perhaps our discussion primed me to notice it. And I noticed that you, Fred, also made a reference to a Hamlet line (“there’s the rub” – also a reference to conflict) in one of your recent posts. Now that I think about it, Hamlet is a play that is all about the paralyzing effect of conflict. That Shakespeare fellow really had quite an amazing understanding of human nature and a nice way with words. And, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer, it’s a sobering thought to realize that when Shakespeare was my age he had been dead for 18 years.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1305)]

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.09.0850)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.08.1458)

FN: To Rick: I think what I was trying to get at with carrot-and-stick being an illusion are things like the following:…

FN: I think I’ll stick with carrots and sticks being illusory. But thanks for making me think some more.

RM: If carrot/stick control is illusory then what are you recommending as the alternative? A different approach to controlling employees? Not trying to control the employees at all? If it’s the latter then what are the manager’s supposed to doto “get the most” out of their employees

I think they have to negotiate with their employees. I think they have to enlist their support. I think they have to view and treat them as agents, not instruments. I think they have to support instead of supervise. I think they have to run interference for their employees. I think they have to help them when obstacles arise. I think they have to wield their authority on the employee’s behalf. I think they have to focus on the work, not the worker. I think they have to establish fair, acceptable compensation, benefit and other policies. I don’t think they’ll get much of anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or by cracking a whip behind them.

Fred

image275.png

···

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.09.1700)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1305)

RM: If carrot/stick control is illusory then what are you recommending as the alternative? A different approach to controlling employees? Not trying to control the employees at all? If it’s the latter then what are the manager’s supposed to do to “get the most” out of their employees

FN: I think they have to negotiate with their employees. I think they have to enlist their support. I think they have to view and treat them as agents, not instruments. I think they have to support instead of supervise. I think they have to run interference for their employees. I think they have to help them when obstacles arise. I think they have to wield their authority on the employee’s behalf. I think they have to focus on the work, not the worker. I think they have to establish fair, acceptable compensation, benefit and other policies. I don’t think they’ll get much of anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or by cracking a whip behind them.

RM: This all sounds great but how does it relate to where they (the managers) want to get. What makes you think that managers are not getting anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or cracking whips behind them. My impression, based on actual data, is that managers have been continuously getting more and more out of their workers (in terms of productivity) using carrot (wages) and stick (threat of being fired) control and since 1980 (remember what happened in 1980?) they have continued to get more and more productivity out of their employees with less and less carrot (see graph below).

RM: So I don’t really understand why managers feel that they need management consultants to help them get more out of their workers; they are clearly getting all they could possibly want out of their workers already, and at very little cost in carrots. Unless they are using you guys to make it seem like they are having a tough time, as a way to cover up their insatiable greed.

RM: Of course, not all employers are greedy. But most clearly are (otherwise the data wouldn’t look like this). What these data show is that the people who need help in getting what they want are not the managers/employers but the workers/employees. You should be heading up a union, Fred; your heart is clearly in the right place.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[John Kirkland 2015.11.11 1844 Oz time]

How about somebody being invited to offer a PCT interpretation of this amazing book?

http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553

And, a quickie preview:

https://www.ted.com/talks/ricardo_semler_radical_wisdom_for_a_company_a_school_a_life?language=en

I guess you know this work Fred.

Enjoy, I did.

image275.png

···

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.09.1700)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1305)

RM: If carrot/stick control is illusory then what are you recommending as the alternative? A different approach to controlling employees? Not trying to control the employees at all? If it’s the latter then what are the manager’s supposed to do to “get the most” out of their employees

FN: I think they have to negotiate with their employees. I think they have to enlist their support. I think they have to view and treat them as agents, not instruments. I think they have to support instead of supervise. I think they have to run interference for their employees. I think they have to help them when obstacles arise. I think they have to wield their authority on the employee’s behalf. I think they have to focus on the work, not the worker. I think they have to establish fair, acceptable compensation, benefit and other policies. I don’t think they’ll get much of anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or by cracking a whip behind them.

RM: This all sounds great but how does it relate to where they (the managers) want to get. What makes you think that managers are not getting anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or cracking whips behind them. My impression, based on actual data, is that managers have been continuously getting more and more out of their workers (in terms of productivity) using carrot (wages) and stick (threat of being fired) control and since 1980 (remember what happened in 1980?) they have continued to get more and more productivity out of their employees with less and less carrot (see graph below).

RM: So I don’t really understand why managers feel that they need management consultants to help them get more out of their workers; they are clearly getting all they could possibly want out of their workers already, and at very little cost in carrots. Unless they are using you guys to make it seem like they are having a tough time, as a way to cover up their insatiable greed.

RM: Of course, not all employers are greedy. But most clearly are (otherwise the data wouldn’t look like this). What these data show is that the people who need help in getting what they want are not the managers/employers but the workers/employees. You should be heading up a union, Fred; your heart is clearly in the right place.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.11.10.0840)]

Thanks for the links, John. I’ve known about Semler for years but never read his book. The Look Inside feature on Amazon provided some fascinating tidbits and I’ve ordered the book. (Found a new, hard copy first edition on Abebooks at a really good price.)  I’ll also take a look at the TED talk.

In the meantime, here’s one for you: Team of Teams by General Stanley McChrystal. It’s all about relinquishing command-and-control and shifting to adaptability. I suspect both books have a lot in common.

I’ll bet Rick could write such a review and I’ll bet it would feature the observation that one aspect of Semler’s changes resulted in the complete elimination of “arbitrary� efforts to control and the elimination of the resulting conflict.

Fred Nickols

image00211.png

···

From: John Kirkland [mailto:johnkirkland@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: prediction and control of behavior

[John Kirkland 2015.11.11 1844 Oz time]

How about somebody being invited to offer a PCT interpretation of this amazing book?

http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553

And, a quickie preview:

https://www.ted.com/talks/ricardo_semler_radical_wisdom_for_a_company_a_school_a_life?language=en

I guess you know this work Fred.

Enjoy, I did.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.09.1700)]

Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1305)

RM: If carrot/stick control is illusory then what are you recommending as the alternative? A different approach to controlling employees? Not trying to control the employees at all? If it’s the latter then what are the manager’s supposed to do to “get the most” out of their employees

FN: I think they have to negotiate with their employees. I think they have to enlist their support. I think they have to view and treat them as agents, not instruments. I think they have to support instead of supervise. I think they have to run interference for their employees. I think they have to help them when obstacles arise. I think they have to wield their authority on the employee’s behalf. I think they have to focus on the work, not the worker. I think they have to establish fair, acceptable compensation, benefit and other policies. I don’t think they’ll get much of anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or by cracking a whip behind them.

RM: This all sounds great but how does it relate to where they (the managers) want to get. What makes you think that managers are not getting anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or cracking whips behind them. My impression, based on actual data, is that managers have been continuously getting more and more out of their workers (in terms of productivity) using carrot (wages) and stick (threat of being fired) control and since 1980 (remember what happened in 1980?) they have continued to get more and more productivity out of their employees with less and less carrot (see graph below).

Inline image 1

RM: So I don’t really understand why managers feel that they need management consultants to help them get more out of their workers; they are clearly getting all they could possibly want out of their workers already, and at very little cost in carrots. Unless they are using you guys to make it seem like they are having a tough time, as a way to cover up their insatiable greed.

RM: Of course, not all employers are greedy. But most clearly are (otherwise the data wouldn’t look like this). What these data show is that the people who need help in getting what they want are not the managers/employers but the workers/employees. You should be heading up a union, Fred; your heart is clearly in the right place.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.1745)]

image00211.png

···

Fred Nickols (2015.11.10.0840)]

Â

FN: Thanks for the links, John.Â

RM: Yes, thanks John. The guy seems to be an real mensch. That’s all I ask of employers/managers: mensch up! I haven’t looked at the whole TED talk yet but I did order the book.Â

FN: I’ll bet Rick could write such a review and I’ll bet it would feature the observation that one aspect of Semler’s changes resulted in the complete elimination of “arbitrary� efforts to control and the elimination of the resulting conflict.

RM: Yes, that’s what a mensch is: a person who controls non-arbitrarily. A person who controls arbitrarily is just a schmuck.

BestÂ

RickÂ

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: John Kirkland [mailto:johnkirkland@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: prediction and control of behavior

Â

[John Kirkland 2015.11.11 1844 Oz time]

Â

How about somebody being invited to offer a PCT interpretation of this amazing book?

Â

http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553

Â

And, a quickie preview:

Â

https://www.ted.com/talks/ricardo_semler_radical_wisdom_for_a_company_a_school_a_life?language=en

Â

I guess you know this work Fred.

Â

Enjoy, I did.

Â

Â

Â

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.09.1700)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2015.11.09.1305)

Â

RM: If carrot/stick control is illusory then what are you recommending as the alternative? A different approach to controlling employees? Not trying to control the employees at all? If it’s the latter then what are the manager’s supposed to do to “get the most” out of their employees

Â

FN: I think they have to negotiate with their employees. I think they have to enlist their support. I think they have to view and treat them as agents, not instruments. I think they have to support instead of supervise. I think they have to run interference for their employees. I think they have to help them when obstacles arise. I think they have to wield their authority on the employee’s behalf. I think they have to focus on the work, not the worker. I think they have to establish fair, acceptable compensation, benefit and other policies. I don’t think they’ll get much of anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or by cracking a whip behind them.

Â

RM: This all sounds great but how does it relate to where they (the managers) want to get. What makes you think that managers are not getting anywhere by dangling carrots in front of them or cracking whips behind them. My impression, based on actual data, is that managers have been continuously getting more and more out of their workers (in terms of productivity) using carrot (wages) and stick (threat of being fired) control and since 1980 (remember what happened in 1980?) they have continued to get more and more productivity out of their employees with less and less carrot (see graph below).Â

Â

Â

RM: So I don’t really understand why managers feel that they need management consultants to help them get more out of their workers; they are clearly getting all they could possibly want out of their workers already, and at very little cost in carrots. Unless they are using you guys to make it seem like they are having a tough time, as a way to cover up their insatiable greed.Â

Â

RM: Of course, not all employers are greedy. But most clearly are (otherwise the data wouldn’t look like this). What these data show is that the people who need help in getting what they want are not the managers/employers but the workers/employees. You should be heading up a union, Fred; your heart is clearly in the right place.

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble