Reflections on Control

[Martin_Taylor4]

[Martin Taylor 981231 12:12]

[From Rick Marken (981231.0840)]

PCT shows that you _can_ influence the references set by others;
you can do it by coercion; you can do it by disturbing variables
that can only be kept under control in specific ways (the
reinforcement approach); you can do it by negotiation; you can
do it by being a trusted mentor.

Also, and in the long run more importantly, remember that each person
is part of the environmental feedback path of every other person, some
trivially, some in an important way. When one's actions working through
the environmental feedback path do not result in effective control of
a perception those actions are intended to influence, one is likely to
reorganize. Reorganization almost certainly will affect reference levels,
at least for all lower-level pereptions that are being controlled as part
of the higher-level loop.

If one is a primary component of the environmental feedback path for some
importantly controlled perception of another person--such as being the
main provider of food--one can often induce reorganization by changing
the effect of the other's actions on their perception--such as by denying
food if the other fails to perform some action one desires. The reorganization
may well not result in the other's reference values changing in the way
one wants, but they are likely to change. And so will one's own, the other
being in one's own environmental feedback path.

In the long run, this kind of reorganization can settle into a stable
state only when both parties can control their own perceptions, or when
one or other has given up attempting to control (perhaps by being dead).
That can happen in lots of different ways, often by one or both finding
another environmental feedback path whereby the perception can be
favorably influenced (e.g. the other finds a new food provider, eliminating
the influence one has on their environmental feedback path).

This kind of mutual reorganization, in a more subtle form, is at the heart
of the building of social and cultural communities. And, I venture to say,
it is how PCT shows why people have views of "right" and "wrong" and
why some of those views are universal and some differ dramatically from
community to community.

Martin

[Fred_Nickols3]

[From Fred Nickols (981231.0737 EST)]--

Peter Drucker, among others, has observed that control is
always against some standard. I doubt the good professor
had reference conditions, feedback loops, and PCT in mind
when he wrote that, but the fit is obvious.

I'm now through Chapter 4 and getting ready for Chapter 5
in my self-imposed task of working my way through B:CP for
a second time, and I find I'm having the same reaction I
had the first time. However, this time I have an audience
with which to share it. So, here goes...

For me, the most interesting issue in the PCT view of things
isn't the fact of the feedback loop, or even the central
role that feedback plays, I accept those. For me, it's
the issue of reference conditions--more specifically, how
they come to be set, invoked, altered, discarded, adopted
and so on. I know I'll get to a great deal of that as I
work my way through the rest of B:CP, however, I'm pretty
sure that what's on my mind right now won't change much as
a result of that.

To be very specific, the route to control--in the mean,
nasty, political, manipulative, vicious, externally-centered
sense in which control is commonly used--lies in being able
to influence the reference conditions used by others. This
is not all as harmful as my opening comments in this paragraph
might make it seem. For example, when as a trainer I used to
develop the ability on the part of trainees to discriminate
between a well-constructed test item and one that wasn't so
well-constructed, I would characterize what I was doing as
getting the trainees to adopt and make use of a reference
condition (even if only temporarily). When quotas are set
for piece-work (and, hopefully, on the basis of negotiation),
they are reference conditions for the quantity of work that
is to be accomplished. Everywhere I look, I see the potential
for work performance to be improved through more systematic
ways of identifying, defining, communicating, negotiating and
adopting appropriate reference conditions for the work at hand.

Yet, the prevailing attitude I sense on this list is that
there's nothing to be done about the reference conditions held
by others. Efforts to influence the actions of others head
inevitably down the path of conflict. If my perception is
correct, I simply don't buy it. If my perception is incorrect,
where did I go astray?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095

[Bruce_Gregory8]

[From Bruce Gregory (981231.0820 EDT)]

Fred Nickols (981231.0737 EST)

Yet, the prevailing attitude I sense on this list is that
there's nothing to be done about the reference conditions held
by others. Efforts to influence the actions of others head
inevitably down the path of conflict. If my perception is
correct, I simply don't buy it. If my perception is incorrect,
where did I go astray?

I have no idea what the prevailing attitude is on this list, since so few
post. However, it is true that one cannot _directly_ do anything about the
reference conditions held by others. But I heartily agree that most of time
others have no idea as to what reference level we would _like_ them to
adopt. A major obstacle to effective education, as far as I can tell, is the
unwillingness/inability of teachers to tell students exactly what they want
the students to be able to do. I'm sympathetic, however. I took me four
years to clearly define a set of outcomes for the students who take our
nature of science course. Only when those were defined and communicated did
students have the opportunity to decide if they wanted to adopt those
outcomes as their reference conditions.

Bruce Gregory

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (981231.0840)]

Fred Nickols (981231.0737 EST) --

Everywhere I look, I see the potential for work performance
to be improved through more systematic ways of identifying,
defining, communicating, negotiating and adopting appropriate
reference conditions for the work at hand.

I do too.

Yet, the prevailing attitude I sense on this list is that
there's nothing to be done about the reference conditions held
by others.

The problem is that you cannot (short of surgery) get inside
another person's head and adjust their references for them.
And even if you could, you would likely be screwing up the
person's ability of achieve other goals by varying the
reference that you have forcibly set to the level you desire.

PCT shows that you _can_ influence the references set by others;
you can do it by coercion; you can do it by disturbing variables
that can only be kept under control in specific ways (the
reinforcement approach); you can do it by negotiation; you can
do it by being a trusted mentor.

I think the prevailing PCT "attitude" toward changing the reference
conditions (goals) of others is simply "understand what _you_ are
doing and understand who you are doing it to". Once you understand
that both you and the people you want to change are hierarchical
control systems, then you don't really have to have an "attitude"
toward changing other people; you will just know what's going on.
You'll know that you are trying to control the behavior of others
relative to your own references; and that these references specify
a perception of the observable behavior of others that can be
produced only if they adopt certain goals (references).

PCT shows that you can probably get people to adopt particular
goals using coercion (credible theat of force), disturbances to
controlled variables (rewards and punishments), negotiation
(talking it through) or education (making suggestions). All of
these approaches have their good and bad points (from the point
of view of the person who wants to change the references of
the other people). It depends on what your (the controller's)
references are for things like violence, hurting others, getting
hurt yourself, etc. PCT shows only what is likely to happen when
one tries to control using any of these techniques; whether what
happens is "good" or "bad" can only be judged by the person who
is contemplating the use of these techniques.

If there is a PCT "attitude" toward controlling other people's
goals it is that this controlling should be done with an awareness
that the object of this control has _many_ goals, all of which
are being acheived simultaneously. This suggests that attempts
to control another people's references should not be done
_arbitrarily_. If a person seems to be resisting your efforts to
change their reference (goal) it may be because changing this
reference, though it makes things better for you, is making things
_worse_ (in terms of ability to control) for the person himself.

You can only control _non-arbitrarily_ if you are willing to lighten
up on your own control efforts when there is resistance from the
object of control. And you can only lighten up (I think) if you
are _aware_ of your own controlling. You become aware of your own
controlling by moving your consciousness "up a level" to see that
you are controlling. Understanding PCT is a formal way to take
consciousness of your own controlling (especially your controlling
of other people) "up a level". Going "up a level" in this way let's
you control your _own_ controlling. I have always thought that
this "up a level" aspect of PCT is the most beneficial thing that
PCT can provide to managers. The benefit of PCT is not specific
techniques for _how_ to get people to change their goals but,
rather, an opportunity for the manager's themsevels to become
aware of their own controlling nature.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken