Search them out. Letter.

[From Dag Forssell (931025 1930)]

Christine and I spent four interesting days supporting sales training,
getting a refresher ourselves in the bargain. A useful pause before we
invest in mailing a large quantity of letters. I now find the two
following quotes relevant. The first is a fresh perspective, the second
is the existing and continuing objective.

Bill Powers (931022.1500 MDT)l

I don't know how to get this across. I've actually had people tell me
essentially the same thing about every higher level in the model. It all
depended on where they liked to spend their time being aware from.
People who like to operate from the principle/generalization level have
told me that principles are simply the basic laws of nature, not a level
of perception. People who like to be logical have told me that logic is
just inherent in the way things interact with each other. People who
like to study relationships assure me that they study relationships,
they don't make them up. Now you, who like to categorize, are telling
me that categories aren't a level of perception. What am I supposed to
say? What would you say if someone said to you that colors aren't
perceptions, they're attributes of objects? If I start backing down
here, I'll soon have to admit that relationships, configurations,
sensations, events, principles, yahdahyahdahyahdah, are really there and
somehow we just sort of KNOW about them, without the aid of perceptual
functions to construct them. The whole thing would collapse, wouldn't
it?

Bill Powers (931025.0900 MDT)

All you have to do is search them out. Ten percent of the human race is
more than enough to save it.

I can now see more clearly than before where the sales trainer and I
differ. His program is a collection of rules of what to do under a lot
of typical circumstances. It is one long script, which must be memorized.
The "integration" of this into the individual student's world is left to
the student. I integrate it into my world, using my principles my way and
think it is a good program, as such programs go. The best I have seen.

The trainer keeps telling me that nobody, but nobody, will be interested
in principles or theory. We use the metaphor of the TV set. He teaches
people how to turn the knobs successfully. I teach people something about
the structure internal to the TV, what the buttons do, and incidentally
offer some advice on how to turn them. He insists that I will never
succeed in interesting anyone in how the TV works, because people are not
interested in that. People want to know how to turn the buttons. He
advises me to teach how to turn the buttons, using role plays and rules
for behavior, and to show the theory as an afterthought. When I showed
him my "letter", I was told that nobody would read past the first line.

Bill's point above that "It all depended on where they liked to spend
their time being aware from." rings true to me. This trainer is part of
a majority who have never progressed past the program level when it comes
to dealing with people. He cannot conceive of a principle level and
systems concept level that makes any sense, when it comes to the
behavioral sciences. I, on the other hand, like to spend time at the
principle and systems concept level, and can view the program level from
above. I am in a position to use his program's suggestions, but must
recognize the differences in levels where we like to spend our time.

The rejection I suffer can be taken for what it is, but still stimulate
careful review and some reorganization. I have paid particular attention
to attracting curiosity in the first paragraph of the letter, as shown
(again) below.

Here I try to bring out principle and systems concept issues in the first
paragraph, and keep the program level issues in the second paragraph. I
have also changed terminology from explanatory principles to functional
principles. I think this communicates better. Christine offered the
suggestion of helping the prospect visualize a new science, similar to
the physical sciences.

Readers who like my friend like to spend their time being aware at the
program level, will not see any advantage to Purposeful Leadership and
PCT. They will throw away the letter. That is fine. They would be
disappointed in the program anyway. They would see it as completely
equivalent to all the other programs that glut the market.

Readers who like to spend their time at the principle and systems concept
level, (in whatever field) may recognize that this promises a different
approach and inquire. They will not be disappointed in the program when
it proves high in learning and modest in entertainment.

As always, comments will be most helpful, even if they are not welcome.
(Severe complaints will cause reorganization).

ยทยทยท

------------------------------------------
Tom Bourbon, Research Instructor October 25, 1993
Department of Neurosurgery
Univ of Texas Houston Medical School
6431 Fannin, Suite 7.148
Houston, TX 77030

Dear Mr. Bourbon:

Are you satisfied with the kind of explanations offered by behavioral
science? Have you noticed that modest statistical correlations often
substitute for functional explanations, yet frequently become widely
accepted "facts" in public discussion? Understanding people is
considered complex and confusing, a matter of luck or a gift. The reason
is that our usual ideas about human behavior do not fit the way human
beings actually work. Leading an organization or a team is more
difficult than it needs to be.

As an executive, you may be frustrated with associates who don't commit
themselves to do the job that is required and don't stay motivated on a
lengthy project, with associates who don't pull their weight in a team,
or with the process of implementing Total Quality Management. Your
associates may be uncomfortable or ineffective with conflicts, with
performance reviews, or with sales.

Most leaders have developed an understanding about what makes people tick
from their own experience, from the ways in which cultural differences
are explained, and from leadership training programs. Leadership
programs offer principles (meaning rules of conduct) based on
generalizations from experience. Each leader will interpret the rules
of conduct differently, based on personal experience. This is what makes
it hard to develop consistent management practices in an organization.

Physical science has progressed in recent centuries because of functional
principles (meaning laws of nature), which allow accurate predictions and
tests of the behavior of material things. Today's behavioral sciences
offer no equivalent functional principles. Can you imagine the progress
possible if we could begin to construct a new behavioral science on
proven functional principles, including those of the physical sciences?

Suppose there is a way to give your leaders the capability to deal with
all leadership, performance and relationship issues by using functional
principles to determine how to proceed in each situation. Would you be
interested?

We would like an opportunity to show you such principles and how to apply
them.

Sincerely,

        Dag Forssell

To learn more, call or fax this letter back to us.
--------------------------------------------------
This fits nicely on one page.

Best, Dag