[From Dag Forssell (930818 1350)]
Note to Martin and others. The tapes are $38 to Canada, $35 to the US.
I ship when I get check. Available for shipment this coming weekend.
···
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Hank Folson, who called to discuss the first draft and offer
detailed suggestions. Thanks also to Rick Marken (930818.0900), but not
to anyone else this time.
I liked the comparison of "control" and "power" in the discussion with the
executive.
This dialog was contributed by RKC wed eve in Durango. Does it fit even
better in this version?
Here is the second draft. Comments appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This paper is written for an audience of engineering managers, but should be
suitable for anyone. Question: Will this address issues of concern to the
manager? Will a manager start reading? The abstract will help, of course.
ABSTRACT:
CONTROL: A KEY MANAGEMENT INSIGHT First in a series
Why is it so hard to get a company running smoothly, with people committing
to the overall objective, caring about their jobs, maintaining their
motivation, resolving problems and taking advantage of opportunities on their
own initiative?
People often talk of "social control systems." For instance, the quality
pioneer Dr. W. Edwards Deming talks of a corporation as a system that must
have an aim, and the aim of the system must be clear to everyone in the
system. Indeed, a corporation can be portrayed as a system of control systems
where each level of executives translates broad goals from above into more
detailed functional goals for their own and lower levels. Ultimately, the
goals are translated into action by individuals.
Fig 1. This example emphasizes engineering functions
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
CEO | | | | | | | |
level | return | | market | | | | business |
sets | on | | share | | profit | | strategy |
goals | investment | | | | | | |
>____________| |____________| |____________| |____________|
> \
> \
> \
____________ ____|_______ \____________ ____________
V.P. | | | | | | | |
level | | | sales of | | sales of | | manu- |
sets | investment | | existing | | new | | facturing |
goals | | | product | | product | | |
>____________| |____________| |____________| |____________|
/ / | \
/ / | \
/ / | \
___________/ _________/__ _____|______ __\_________
DIR | | | | | | | |
level | R & D | | R & D | | product | | market |
sets | project | | project | | improvement| | research |
goals | 1 | | 2 | | project | | project |
>____________| |____________| |____________| |____________|
/ / | \
/ / | \
/ / | \
___________/ _________/__ _____|______ __\_________
MGR | | | | | | | |
level | review | | update | | redesign | | design |
sets | product | | product | | service | | invention |
goals | A | | B | | C | | D |
>____________| |____________| |____________| |____________|
/ | \ \
/ | \ \
/ | \ \
___________/_ ____|_______ \___________ \____________
Team | | | | | competi- | | document- |
level | value | | quality | | tive | | ation |
sets | engineering| | review | | features | | of |
goals | B | | B | | B | | B |
>____________| |____________| |____________| |____________|
/ | \ \
/ | \ \
/ | \ \
___________/_ ____|_______ _\__________ \___________
Indi- | | | | | | | |
viduals | manuf. | | design | | customer | | sales |
set | engineer | | engineer | | service | | engineer |
personal> > > > > engineer | | |
goals |____________| |____________| |____________| |____________|
> > > >
______|_________________|______________|________________|______
> >
> INTERACTION WITH COMPANY'S PHYSICAL AND OUTSIDE WORLD |
> production, service activity, handling of goods |
> customers, vendors, families, associates, community |
>_______________________________________________________________|
Ideally, all the individuals in the corporation respond to the goals set by
management for their area of activity and control. Individual people and
teams can respond to changing circumstances inside and outside the
corporation with their own ingenuity and initiative and still achieve their
assigned goals - stay in control. As a manager, all you have to do is give
people the information and resources they need to do their jobs. If that does
not work, there is something wrong with them, not with the manager.
While in many ways this is a useful portrayal and an ideal to strive for,
there are several reasons why it is misleading to think of a corporation or
any other social system as a "control system." The implication of this view
is that the corporation and the people in it automatically respond to simple
commands issued from higher-level managers. This is not true.
Unlike an engineered control system or the neurons in a human nervous system:
a) People in a social system are not dedicated components.
b) People are not on the job or attentive all the time.
c) People do not react with predictable outputs to given inputs.
d) People perceive differently and misunderstand each other.
e) Capabilities vary.
f) People strive to satisfy a multitude of individual purposes.
g) People develop internal and external conflicts with different purposes.
The interaction of people is critical at all levels and in all areas of the
corporations functions or "control systems." That is why management
philosophy, management skills and motivation are such hot topics, with one
proposed approach replacing another with such regularity that each new
program is greeted as the next fad, to be suffered by the rank and file until
that fad is found wanting and the next one comes along.
----------------------------------------
Many rules about management flow naturally from the basic assumption of
conventional psychology -- which we all have learned in school -- that what
people do depends on what happens to them. This assumption is called the
"cause-effect" model of behavior. In psychoanalytic psychology, the
"cause-effect" model shows up as the idea that past traumas are the cause of
present emotional problems. In behavioristic psychology, the "cause-effect"
model shows up as the idea that environmental stimuli (and reinforcements)
are the cause complex human behavior. In cognitive psychology, the
"cause-effect" model shows up as the idea that internal stimuli (plans) are
the cause of action - sometimes called controlled output or controlled
behavior.
The "cause-effect" model is the unspoken basis of all scientific psychology.
It can be illustrated as follows:
Fig 2.
_________ __________ __________
> > > > > >
> Cause | --> | Organism | --> | Effect |
>_________| |__________| |__________|
The terms Cause-Effect have several equivalents: Stimulus-Response,
Plan-Action, Input-Output, Independent Variable-Dependent Variable or IV-DV.
The community of behavioral scientists generates large numbers of studies
reporting statistical correlations between Independent Variables and
Dependent Variables, inferring guesses about functions and motivations of
people, but incapable of explaining any functional relationships. We read
about new insight in the newspapers all the time.
There is nothing per se wrong with studies correlating IV-DV. But a problem
arises when studies with poor correlations are published. They get elevated
to the status of scientific fact when they get quoted without all the caveats
that were reported (or should have been reported) in the initial publication.
While the quality of statistical studies vary, a more significant problem is
that the "cause-effect" model itself, when applied to people, is incomplete
and misleading.
The "cause-effect" model is incomplete because it describes only one aspect
at a time of the relationship between people and their environment. It is
true that what people do depends on what happens to them or what they plan,
but it is also true that what happens to people depends on what they do.
Behavior is part of a circle of simultaneous and continuous cause and effect
that has no beginning and no end. What occurs in this circle is a phenomenon
called control -- the process of producing predictable results in an
unpredictable environment. Control can be as simple as keeping your car in
its lane on a windy day or as complex as keeping your business profitable in
a shifting economy. Control is the process of carrying out and maintaining
a purpose, such as driving or making money; control is purposeful behavior.
Behaviorism and cognitive psychology are both partially correct. That is why
they are so suggestive and seductive. But being partially correct, they are
totally wrong. That is why neither works as a theoretical foundation for
psychological or management practice.
In the absence of valid theory, contemporary psychology offers a collection
of observations and prescriptions for how to deal with people, based on trial
and error by many practitioners, collected over a long time.
Even the best contemporary leadership programs, such as Dr. Stephen R.
Covey's _7 Habits of Highly Effective People_ or Dr. W. Edwards Deming's _The
Deming Management Philosophy_ can only offer a set of suggested "principles"
(= rules of conduct or prescriptions). Without valid in-depth functional
explanations of how people function, these rules will be interpreted
differently by different individuals based on their own personal experiences.
Consistent management understanding is hard to attain, and any such
management program hard to implement in an organization.
This is not a criticism of these leadership programs, but a sad commentary
on the lack of understanding in our society. The rules of a wise leadership
program are most likely quite well aligned with the underlying functional
relationships that govern the behavior of people. The point is that we all
would be better off if the functional relationships themselves were laid
bare. That would allow clearer understanding and more effective teaching.
A proper in-depth understanding of self and others can lead to respect and
cooperation instead of the alienation we often experience.
--------------------------------------
Contrasting the basic assumption of conventional psychology is the intuitive
recognition wise managers often develop that:
People ARE control systems.
Ask any manager: "What does control mean to you?" You will probably get the
answer: "Oh, power." "Fine," you say, "you can't control anything if you
don't have the necessary power."
Next you ask: "You've got the power, you are trying to control something.
What are you trying to control?" "Why, I have to have a purpose, a goal."
Now you suggest: "If you are going to control-achieve your goal-you can only
do that if you know what is happening right now." - "Of course."
"So you have to have a goal and you have to know what is happening." Now you
point out: "Well, look, you have to make some kind of comparison between your
goal and where you are now. On the basis of that comparison, you can use your
power. What for?" Likely answer: "To make what you are working on more like
what your goal calls for."
Now you have a complete control system described. People understand that they
control. (Let's avoid the term feedback, because it is often misunderstood
and misapplied).
Missing from this intuitive understanding of control is:
a) clarity and formalization of the process.
b) a clear understanding of how control works including such things as
- speed of response.
- sensitivity.
- amplification: use of resources.
- what is being controlled: perception, not output or behavior.
- that control systems resist disturbances.
- the simultaneous and continuous nature of control.
c) recognition that understanding the phenomenon of control explains the
appearance of stimulus-response in behaviorism as well as the appearance
of plan-action (control of output) in cognitive science.
d) understanding of how control systems can form stable hierarchies.
e) understanding that it is "control all the way down." Control is not an
occasional activity but a pervasive, continuous fact of life.
The control process we just discussed can be illustrated as shown:
Fig 3.
_______________
> > HUMAN
> Purpose, | CONTROL
> goal | SYSTEM:
>_______________|
> THE BRAIN
> + goal signal
what is going on: ______v______
perception signal - | | = difference signal (variance)
o--->| Compare |----o
> >_____________| | arrows
______|______ ______v_____ signify
> Input: | | Output: | signals
> interpret | | convert |
> data | | difference |
>____________ | |____________|
^ /
Input signal --| / ----output signal
(raw data from | sensors) / (instructions to muscles)
=================|==============/=====================================
______|___ ____v____ __________
> PHYSICAL | | ACTION: | | OTHER | PHYSICAL
> VARIABLE:|<--| |-->| EFFECTS: | ENVIRONMENT
> what you | |movement,| | various, |
> work on | | talk | |unintended| arrows
>__________| |_________| |__________| signify
^ (physical)
_____|_________________________________ influences
> >
> DISTURBANCES: | your
> other influences on what you work on, | influence
> natural or deliberate | = power
>_______________________________________|
Control mechanisms have been invented several times in history. James Watt's
steam engine governor is one of the best known examples. In 1868 James
Maxwell published equations "On Governors," but it was not until 1927, with
the invention of the electronic amplifier, that the feedback loop concept of
control was clearly described. All modern "purposeful machines" such as the
cruise control in your car, thermostat and furnace in your home and military
"smart weapons" use this concept.
This principle was introduced into social science in the 1940's by Norbert
Wiener in his book _Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal
and the machine._ Unfortunately, Wieners presentation left the impression
that feedback is internal to the organism. This allowed the incorporation of
cybernetics into the basic Cause-Effect scheme, which was already well
established. It also allowed the understanding of cybernetics and control
theory to mean control of the organism's output or behavior, a
misunderstanding which is widespread among authorities in the life sciences
to this day.
A framework which accurately describes how and what people control has been
developed. It is now called Perceptual Control Theory (PCT). This framework
is laid out in the book _Behavior: The Control of Perception_ by William T.
Powers (references). This book presents physical details of neurons, internal
human organization and an accurate engineering-oriented understanding of
control. A small but dedicated group of researchers have built on Powers'
work with his full cooperation. Unfortunately, a few social scientists have
tried to simplify the ideas of control theory and make them their own without
understanding them properly. As a consequence there is some recently
published literature available which continues the misunderstandings of the
1940's.
What makes PCT hard to accept and comprehend is the idea that what is
controlled is not behavior or output -- precisely that which psychology has
focused on for over a century -- but perception.
Even engineers talk about control systems as controlling output, where output
is understood to be the physical action or behavior of a mechanism. But think
for a moment: If engineers at NASA are controlling the position of a
satellite, are they really controlling the actual, physical position of the
satellite? All they know about the position of the satellite is the reading
of the instrument that tells them where the satellite is. This is their
perception of the satellite's position. This is what they control. They
compare the reported instrument reading with the desired instrument reading,
and take action on any difference. If the reading is wrong because the
instrument is out of calibration, the engineer will never know. All the
engineer knows about the position of the satellite is what her instrument
tells her. The only thing she can possibly control is her perception of the
satellite position. Behavior or output is the means we use to control the
perception. What stays constant is the perception, the output varies.
The same reasoning is true of human organisms. The ends are controlled, the
means vary. All we know about the world outside our brains (including our
body functions) is what we sense as our perceptions. The view from inside the
brain is the one that counts, and it is made up of nothing but our own
perceptions.
A large part of the confusion and difficulty of understanding how control
works comes from taking the point of view of an observer, who knows details
of the world outside the brain that the brain itself cannot know. When you
restrict your thinking to the point of view of the brain itself, only PCT
makes sense among the suggested theories of the social sciences.
PCT demonstrates with compelling tests that human beings function like one
control system when focused on a single control task. When a person focuses
on one high level task (such as keeping a rubber band knot over a target),
lower-levels automatically control many different variables (such as multiple
muscles) so that the selected perception and corresponding physical variable
is controlled.
An extension of PCT called _Hierarchical Perceptual Control Theory (HPCT)_
suggests a construct of a human as a system of control systems. HPCT offers
explanations of how we think imagine and dream, observe passively, control
body functions without paying attention and control selected things with full
attention.
Some evidence for this hierarchical organization is easy to demonstrate for
the lowest 4-5 levels of vision-muscle coordination. Individual introspection
demonstrates it for higher levels. After all, the individual is the only one
who has access to the internal workings of the individual brain.
Once you accept the concept of people as autonomous hierarchical systems of
control systems, with a system of internal understandings and purposes,
controlling their perceptions, you gain a different outlook:
You see conflict and cooperation in terms of purposes and perceptions.
You recognize external and internal conflict as the source of problems.
You see how you can support others and resolve conflicts by discussing
their understanding, purposes and perceptions, NOT their actions.
You understand that a manager must take the time to find out what the
employee's goals and perceptions are and then align them with the
company's goals, using careful questioning while allowing the employee
the control the employee's perceptions all along, respecting the employee
as an autonomous living control system.
Here is a partial list of the things you learn from a detailed study of PCT:
How perceptual feedback works and why it is critical for effectiveness.
Why you cannot tell what people do by watching what they are doing.
Why two people can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions.
What motivation is and why you cannot "motivate" another person.
How to communicate effectively with subordinates with respect.
How to conduct mutually satisfying and productive performance reviews.
How to develop and maintain effective team spirit.
How to resolve conflict with another person if it is at all possible.
How quality is one dimension of individual control.
How to develop and support individual effectiveness.
How you can influence what another person wants with respect.
How you can influence what another person perceives with respect.
When helping a person conflicts with respect for the person.
An understanding of PCT gives insight which allows you to improve and align
personal relationships on and off the job. This is the foundation of
cooperation and improved morale.
Your results from studying PCT and learning how to apply it will depend on
your situation, of course. In one Fortune 500 technology company with 25,000
employees, where the principles were applied to teamwork in a manufacturing
group of 120 people, line delivery on time went up from 23 to 98%. Ability
to ship customer orders on time went up from 83 to 101%. Overtime was reduced
from 12 to 3%. Productivity went up 21%. Defects fell by a factor of 5, and
work in process inventory fell from 75 days to 52. These improvements were
achieved over a seven month period and the group won "site of the month
award" 11 out of 12 months after that.
As you can see from the explanation of control in this paper, what drives a
person to action is the difference between what the person perceives (in a
given dimension or subject area) and what the person wants to perceive. This
difference signal can be called dissatisfaction, concern - even interest.
This introduction of Perceptual Control Theory can be expanded in any of
several different directions. I want it to be of interest to you. Therefore,
the next installment in this series will address questions raised by readers.
About the author:
References:
This time, I'll appreciate some serious feedback. Thanks.
Best to all
Dag Forssell
23903 Via Flamenco
Valencia, Ca 91355-2808
Phone (805) 254-1195 Fax (805) 254-7956
Internet: 0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM
MCI mail: Forssell, Dag or 474-2580