Bear with me as I lay out some logic (at least I hope it is)...
IF... Person A says, "I am committed to achieving and maintaining result X"
(X being some objectively measurable condition)
AND... Result X is NOT being achieved or maintained
THEN... Person A is NOT really controlling for X (do "the test" here to
confirm)
ELSE... Person A IS controlling for X but is overwhelmed by disturbances.
I think that covers the basic PCT bases regarding performance.
From a different theoretical vantage point, I would add another ELSE...
ELSE... Person A lacks the behavioral repertoire necessary to achieve and
maintain X (which might be lack of knowledge or of skill). In other words,
even though there might be no insurmountable "disturbances", Person A is
simply incapable of doing what is necessary to achieve and maintain X.
Where does the lack of ability or know-how show up in the PCT scheme of
things? Is it in missing reference signals at lower levels, making it
impossible to control for some higher-level reference signal? Or is it
perhaps in very different basic behavioral capacities (which is why one ball
player might catch a particular fly ball and another miss it)?
To restate the whole thing above in a more condensed form, if someone is
trying to control for X and isn't, is it because they're overwhelmed or is
it simply because they can't?
Performance problems, that is, discrepancies between actual and desired
performance, often take center stage. Right now, I can deal with any and
all aspects of such problems in PCT terms - except for skill and knowledge
(i.e., repertoire) shortcomings. I suspect these would be expressed in PCT
terms partly in terms of missing reference signals but I also think there's
more to it than that.
Comments?
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at A Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us