Proximal and Distal

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
1

[From Fred Nickols (2007.06.23.1144)]

I consider myself an amateur when it comes to PCT. I give myself more credibility when it comes to performance whether it be of people, processes or organizations. For several years now, I've been trying to fit PCT into a larger scheme having to do with human and organizational performance. Lately, I've been toying with the notions of proximal and distal performance.

First a word about performance. In my other life, as a human performance specialist (a.k.a. Certified Performance Technologist), performance refers to the outcomes or effects of behavior. To PCTers, that sounds a lot like controlled variables and it is. However, performance entails more than just the direct and immediate effects of behavior. Some results are far away in space and time, hence my pondering the use of proximal and distal performance.

Now it seems to me that PCT pretty well accounts for what I am calling proximal performance. I am less sure how it accommodates or accounts for distal performance. Currently, I make the links between proximal and distal performance as follows:

  All organizations may be viewed as possessing a "performance architecture." This "architecture" consists of three related domains of performance: human, operational and financial (people, processes and profits more or less). These three domains are related and linked. Thus, the direct and immediate effects of a person's behavior are often felt first in work procedures and processes with subsequent effects being felt in operational terms (e.g., error rates) and financial terms (e.g., costs of waste). Similarly, managers who seek to realize financial and operational results must often work backwards from the results sought to the means by which they might be achieved. Often these means involve human behavior and changing it. Thus managers and consultants must be prepared and equipped to make their way from proximal to distal performance and back again.

I know enough PCT to know that not all behavior or action is consciously, deliberately thought through but I'm also sensible enough to recognize that some is. So, here's my question: When we're thinking through an intervention in an organization's processes or patterns of human behavior so as to realize some predetermined operational or financial result, at what level of the PCT hierarchy are we ourselves operating? Is it system, principles, more, all?

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

2

I know enough PCT to know that
not all behavior or action is consciously, deliberately thought through
but I’m also sensible enough to recognize that some is. So, here’s
my question: When we’re thinking through an intervention in an
organization’s processes or patterns of human behavior so as to realize
some predetermined operational or financial result, at what level of the
PCT hierarchy are we ourselves operating? Is it system, principles,
more, all?
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.24.0725 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2007.06.23.1144) –

I think your distinction of proximal versus distal can be seen somewhat
differently. When you’e intervening in the operation of a system, you
yourself are using your own levels of perception, probably all the way up
to system concepts. That’s the “proximal” view. It doesn’t
matter whether the system is electronic, mechanical, or social. The
success of your design, or redesign, will depend on how well and
self-consistently you understand the organization of the system and the
components that make it up.

Then we have to consider the system on its own terms, independently of
you. I think that’s what you mean by “distal.” Now we
pretend we’re simply discussing reality rather than some person’s
perceptual model of it. Does Sales relate properly to Engineering? Does
Management communicate with Labor by telling them what to do, or what to
achieve? The properties of human beings enter into the design, the rules
of the organization link the people together, and the physical world sets
the conditions under which everything must work. That’s just a job of
systems engineering. The design exists in someone’s head, but when you
test it you allow Reality to have its say by actually letting the real
system run and observing what happens.

Is that any sort of answer to your question?

Best,

Bill P>

3

[From Fred Nickols (2007.06.24.1307)]

It's a very good answer and consistent with the way I look at things even if I didn't articulate it that way - from my perspective as an intervenor.

from the perspective of someone observing an intervenor (me watching me or you watching me?), I think your description is a fine fit.

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"
      
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>

[From Bill Powers (2007.06.24.0725 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2007.06.23.1144) --

>I know enough PCT to know that not all behavior or action is
>consciously, deliberately thought through but I'm also sensible
>enough to recognize that some is. So, here's my question: When
>we're thinking through an intervention in an organization's
>processes or patterns of human behavior so as to realize some
>predetermined operational or financial result, at what level of the
>PCT hierarchy are we ourselves operating? Is it system, principles, more, all?

I think your distinction of proximal versus distal can be seen
somewhat differently. When you'e intervening in the operation of a
system, you yourself are using your own levels of perception,
probably all the way up to system concepts. That's the "proximal"
view. It doesn't matter whether the system is electronic, mechanical,
or social. The success of your design, or redesign, will depend on
how well and self-consistently you understand the organization of the
system and the components that make it up.

Then we have to consider the system on its own terms, independently
of you. I think that's what you mean by "distal." Now we pretend
we're simply discussing reality rather than some person's perceptual
model of it. Does Sales relate properly to Engineering? Does
Management communicate with Labor by telling them what to do, or what
to achieve? The properties of human beings enter into the design, the
rules of the organization link the people together, and the physical
world sets the conditions under which everything must work. That's
just a job of systems engineering. The design exists in someone's
head, but when you test it you allow Reality to have its say by
actually letting the real system run and observing what happens.

Is that any sort of answer to your question?

Best,

Bill P>