[From Bob Clark (930531.2145 EDT)
Bill Powers (930524.0800 MDT)
Looks I (accidentally) pushed one of your "buttons!"
You quote my remark (RKC 930523.1610 EDT):
... isn't it likely that individuals will construct such groups in
ways that resemble those with which they are already familiar?
You begin:
This question recurs frequently on the net.
Of course it does -- people, at least adults, are familiar with many
versions of hierarchical social organizations. These organizations
consist of the structures of inputs, outputs and objectives required
to form an effective system. And then HCPT comes along and proposes
another application of the hierarchical concept!
ยทยทยท
-----------------------------------
HISTORICAL NOTE
In our early work we did not start with the hierarchical concept.
After exploring, as I recall, a variety of ways to analyze behavior,
we (I think it was you, Bill) pointed out that negative feedback
control systems would be suitable for describing behavior. We knew
that others had looked at this approach. Some had used the concept
as a single over-all system, with behavior consisting of seeking a
return to equilibrium: "homeostasis." We wanted to include more
details in describing behavior. Again it was you, I think, Bill, who
suggested viewing the organism as a large number of individually
simple negative feedback control systems. These systems were
organized by having the lower level systems controlled by higher
level systems. The higher level systems acted by setting (or
"adjusting") the reference levels of the lower systems. This, of
course, is the "hierarchical concept."
In applying this idea, we began at the "bottom," those systems
directly in contact with the physical environment. And we then built
up from there, in terms of what "kinds" of systems would operate
directly through these lowest order systems to achieve "control" of
their own inputs as specified by their own reference levels. We
gradually came to agreement on the names for these lower level
systems, so we could talk about them among ourselves, and present
these ideas to others.
---------------------------------------
TO CONTINUE
Your impressive detailed discussion extensively explores the
differences between individual systems and social systems.
You summarize the operation of individual systems and point out:
The perceptions in the higher system are derived from direct copies
of perceptions in the lower systems, .... A control system of one
level continuously adjusts reference signals for the immediately
lower level and continuously receives information about what the
lower systems are in fact perceiving.
MY QUESTIONS for your view of individual systems.
How, then, can internal conflicts occur?
Does this imply fully automatic, instant (no delay time) response to
any disturbance from outside the individual?
Does this imply that the individual has no control over his own
behavior?
Does this imply that such a concept as "strategy" is a delusion?
YOUR PROBLEMS with your view of social systems.
Unreliable communications
Misunderstandings
Conflicting goals.
Of course, Bill, these, and other, problems will occur. No wonder
there are tremendous conflicts of many kinds within and between
social systems! What else would be expected among independent
assemblies of hierarchical control systems?
You seem to be pointing out many of the reasons that social systems
cannot exist -- or at least cannot exist for long. And you attack
the "traditional command structure" as the cause of more problems
than it solves. Of course this happens -- but the autocratic manager
tends to get into difficulty one way or another. Effective managers
do not behave in that manner -- and never have! The only times such
compelling commands are needed is when the organization faces direct
and immediate threats from outside or an internal break down due to
developing dissension. Management, while recognizing the multiple
interests of the employees, considers the available "lead time" and
avoids use of the "direct command" if possible.
"Time Scale" is a critically important concept in the operation of
social organizations. I find this concept is generally recognized,
accepted and used -- although in somewhat less technical terms.
Social control systems do exist. Some don't work very well, in the
sense that they don't "live" long. They routinely develop conflicts
of assorted kinds, both internal and external. They are formed,
develop, and disappear. I have personally participated in the
formation, development and operation of several organizations of
several types. I have written, and helped to write, sets of by-laws
etc.
Yes, there are always problems with social organizations.
And there are also problems with individual organizations.
Can we learn by observing the organization and activities of social
systems? Being composed of individual control systems, they should
help reveal some of the characteristics of individuals as they
interact with each other.
That is, can we apply what we know of social systems to the
individuals of which they are composed? As it stands, HPCT seems to
have been largely limited to study of individuals (mainly adults, at
that), with emphasis on their lower order systems, up to and
including both spatial and temporal "transactions." [This is a
logical general term, but I find separating the two types of
"transaction" more useful.]
As I see it, a social organization is formed when two or more
independent individuals discover they have common "interests" (goals,
reference levels, whatever) and decide to join forces toward
accomplishing those ends. In order to do this, they commonly find it
useful to work together, "cooperate," perhaps with one pushing while
the other pulls in the same direction. It is often found that each
has abilities that the other lacks, so the combination is more
effective than either alone.
At this level of organization (two individuals), the situation is
pretty straightforward. When a third individual is added, the
situation is much more complex. It is sometimes necessary to decide
which person will perform which specific task. At times a
"consensus" is found, but otherwise some other method of
"decision-making" is necessary. As you pointed out, Bill, this can
take several forms, many of which impose on the freedom of the
individuals in ways that you and I don't like. But the "welfare"
(existence?) of the organization may have become its highest level
goal.
As Dag and others have pointed out, the participating individuals
have a great diversity of internal purposes that can disrupt the
operation of the organization. It is one of the tasks of management
to recognize this and establish ways to include as many of these
personal goals as may be consistent with the organization's
objectives. It's not easy.
We find that individuals join an organization to advance their own
goals. And in the process, they agree to accept assignments
(directives? commands?) within certain limits (is it in my "job
description?") That is, the organization is composed mainly of people
who have agreed to accept certain, limited "commands" in order to
receive certain, limited "rewards." And there are "rules" of
procedure, algorithms, if you like, just as occurs in the "automatic"
portions of the individual's own Hierarchy. In addition, of course,
there are matters requiring "decision-making" at various levels. At
lower levels, many decisions are predetermined by precedent or other
rules. However, even at the lowest levels some decisions will
require imagination, study, analysis, anticipation, and, ultimately
arbitrary selection of the action to be undertaken. [How does the
digger of a hole decide whether to use a shovel or a pick to remove a
rock?]
Individual and social organizations both involve time-scales. The
individual's lower order time scales are largely determined by the
mechanical properties of limbs, neural systems, etc. Memory,
imagination and planning may require longer time scales. An
individual's long-term, life-time goals can involve years. An
organization must consider similar time scales, especially on a day
to day basis. It also uses its memory-equivalent (books, reports,
personal memories etc), "brain-storming," planning, etc on a longer
time scale, often a five year span or even longer. The two sets of
time scales tend to come together on the basis of hours, days, weeks,
months, etc, where both the employee and the organization must use
the same time scales.
In my present capacity as liaison between the Business Association
and the City Government, I am repeatedly struck by the intrinsic time
delays necessitated by the procedures needed to maintain adequate
communication within and between groups. Control of the relevant
Temporal Variables is critically important -- and done inadequately
can create all kinds of problems!
It is interesting to observe the sequence in which the developing
human acquires his lower level capabilities -- initially having only
the minimal genetically determined sets of muscles, nerves, intrinsic
systems, etc. There is a great deal of observational data available
describing the sequences of early development. The development
continues with the adult as more complex, and verbal skills are
learned. Acquisition of verbal skills is both aided and complicated
by additional experience and multiple theories of the world,
philosophy and behavior.
Interestingly, problems of conflict, and conflict resolution appear
quite early.
Enough for now -- maybe too much? These essays take an increasing
amount of time, and it is taking even more time to learn about the
City Government. It's interesting -- and often a better show than TV!
Regards, Bob Clark