Time Management in light of PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2011
1

A recent discussion of Time Management prompted me to think about it in terms of PCT. I’ve only just started but I have a question about conflict. Here’s a piece of what I’m writing.

Time Management is a waste of time. Your time goes where it goes because that’s where you want it to go. You are a “living control system” and one of the things you control is the way you spend your time. The exception to that assertion consists of “disturbances” to your control over the way you spend your time. For example, suppose you’re in your office, hard at work mapping out an approach to dealing with a problem in your unit when your boss appears and asks you to join her in her office. Off you go. Some might call your boss’ appearance an interruption, a distraction, a disruption or some other term indicating an undesirable event. (PCT would call it a “disturbance.”) Be that as it may, such events are a fact of life and there’s precious little you can do about them.

More important, in addition to controlling your time, you are probably also trying to control (or at least influence) your relationship with your boss and being responsive is part of what you do in that vein. In other words, responding to your boss’ request to join her is probably at least as high in your priorities as that problem you were working on (even if you do dislike or even resent the disruption). So what just happened is that two things you wanted to control came into conflict: working on that problem and responding to your boss. Clearly, responding to your boss took priority.

Now, let’s suppose that just before your boss showed up, the CEO of your company called you and asked that you come to his office in a few minutes. Now, what will you say to your boss when she shows up and invites you to her office? Well, if you’re like me, you’re probably going to say something like, “Gee, boss, I just got a call from the CEO and he wants to see me right away. Can I stop by your office after I see the CEO?” And, chances are, your boss is going to say, “Sure.”

What’s going on here? You’re managing your time, that’s what’s going on. Moreover, you do so naturally and without having to give the matter a lot of conscious thought. Are there things you can do to make better use of your time? It’s tempting to say yes and point to things like to-do lists, setting goals and priorities, tracking your time, blocking out think-time, checking email at specific times instead of answering whatever shows up whenever it shows up, and not answering the phone whenever it rings. But, unless you’re not happy with the way your time is being spent, chances are you’re not going to do any of these things. Why? Because you’re satisfied with the way your time is being spent. You are not experiencing any discrepancy between the way your time is being spent and the way you want it spent. Absent that discrepancy or error you’re not going to do anything about it because there’s nothing to do something about.

The time management example illustrates numerous things:

· Reference signals or goals can be fluid, not necessarily static or fixed

· Conflicting reference signals or goals are or can be resolved through priorities (articulated or not)

· No error signal produces no action

· Actions counter disturbances (consciously or not)

· Not all disturbances are overwhelming

· Not all disturbances can be offset (i.e., some are overwhelming)

· Without a goal/reference signal there can be no error (i.e., what is simply is)

· Adjustment and adaptation is an integral part of life (in or out of organizations)

· Observers’ conclusions about what the person is “up to” can be dead wrong

· Externally-dictated requirements don’t necessarily become goals/reference signals

Here are my questions:

Does the example above, about being interrupted by the boss, actually constitute a conflict in PCT terms?

Does the resolution of that conflict (i.e., going off to the boss’ office) actually resolve the conflict or does it continue?

The conflict between working on the problem, responding to the boss, and responding to the CEO suggests the possibility of numerous conflicts can be operating simultaneously. Is that true?

My apologies if these are “dumb” questions.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“Assistance at a Distance”

2

bob hintz 2011.6.16

I have been meaning to drop you a note about a book I recently read, titled “Drive: A surprising truth about what motivates us” by Daniel H Pink. He proposed that businesses and corporations are stuck using an outdated operating system (similar to a computer operating system) which he label motivation 2.0. This is based on rewards and punishments and has worked just fine as long as employees are only required to do discrete tasks that are assigned by someone else, evaluated by someone else, and meaningful to someone else. He argues this type of organization is becoming outdated and so the way we relate to each other in a business setting needs an upgrade to Motivation 3.0. I have been meaning to take some notes, but as I checked it out of the library as an ebook, it has automatically been returned. I was impressed by the degree to which it seemed compatible with PCT.

To the question at hand, it seems to me that the invitation of the boss might be an opportunity if you left a voice message earlier in the day requesting a meeting ASAP regarding the problem you are currently working on. In this case it would not even be a disturbance much less a conflict. The fact that the boss didn’t answer the phone earlier might have been a disturbance to your desire to have a face-to-face discussion of a problem. On the other hand, if you were supposed to have a plan on her desk this morning and you’re still working on it, her appearance might be one of those overwhelming disturbances that you have been dreading.

Time management issues typically arise as part of relationship management issues and making agreements in the present about something that I will do, or complete, or achieve at some designated time in the future. Perhaps, I don’t have a good understanding of my own limitations, or a I want everyone to like me, or I don’t know how some of the people I work with define being on time. If time management is interpersonal, then no one person has the problem or can solve the problem.

I will look forward to seeing where you go with this.

bob

···

On Jun 16, 2011 7:57am, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

A recent discussion of Time Management prompted me to think about it in terms of PCT. I’ve only just started but I have a question about conflict. Here’s a piece of what I’m writing. Time Management is a waste of time. Your time goes where it goes because that’s where you want it to go. You are a “living control system” and one of the things you control is the way you spend your time. The exception to that assertion consists of “disturbances” to your control over the way you spend your time. For example, suppose you’re in your office, hard at work mapping out an approach to dealing with a problem in your unit when your boss appears and asks you to join her in her office. Off you go. Some might call your boss’ appearance an interruption, a distraction, a disruption or some other term indicating an undesirable event. (PCT would call it a “disturbance.”) Be that as it may, such events are a fact of life and there’s precious little you can do about them. More important, in addition to controlling your time, you are probably also trying to control (or at least influence) your relationship with your boss and being responsive is part of what you do in that vein. In other words, responding to your boss’ request to join her is probably at least as high in your priorities as that problem you were working on (even if you do dislike or even resent the disruption). So what just happened is that two things you wanted to control came into conflict: working on that problem and responding to your boss. Clearly, responding to your boss took priority. Now, let’s suppose that just before your boss showed up, the CEO of your company called you and asked that you come to his office in a few minutes. Now, what will you say to your boss when she shows up and invites you to her office? Well, if you’re like me, you’re probably going to say something like, “Gee, boss, I just got a call from the CEO and he wants to see me right away. Can I stop by your office after I see the CEO?” And, chances are, your boss is going to say, “Sure.” What’s going on here? You’re managing your time, that’s what’s going on. Moreover, you do so naturally and without having to give the matter a lot of conscious thought. Are there things you can do to make better use of your time? It’s tempting to say yes and point to things like to-do lists, setting goals and priorities, tracking your time, blocking out think-time, checking email at specific times instead of answering whatever shows up whenever it shows up, and not answering the phone whenever it rings. But, unless you’re not happy with the way your time is being spent, chances are you’re not going to do any of these things. Why? Because you’re satisfied with the way your time is being spent. You are not experiencing any discrepancy between the way your time is being spent and the way you want it spent. Absent that discrepancy or error you’re not going to do anything about it because there’s nothing to do something about. The time management example illustrates numerous things:
· Reference signals or goals can be fluid, not necessarily static or fixed
· Conflicting reference signals or goals are or can be resolved through priorities (articulated or not)
· No error signal produces no action
· Actions counter disturbances (consciously or not)
· Not all disturbances are overwhelming
· Not all disturbances can be offset (i.e., some are overwhelming)
· Without a goal/reference signal there can be no error (i.e., what is simply is)
· Adjustment and adaptation is an integral part of life (in or out of organizations)
· Observers’ conclusions about what the person is “up to” can be dead wrong
· Externally-dictated requirements don’t necessarily become goals/reference signalsHere are my questions: Does the example above, about being interrupted by the boss, actually constitute a conflict in PCT terms?Does the resolution of that conflict (i.e., going off to the boss’ office) actually resolve the conflict or does it continue?The conflict between working on the problem, responding to the boss, and responding to the CEO suggests the possibility of numerous conflicts can be operating simultaneously. Is that true? My apologies if these are “dumb” questions. Regards, Fred NickolsManaging PartnerDistance Consulting LLC1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303Mount Vernon, OH 43050www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us “Assistance at a Distance”

3

[From Fred Nickols (2011.06.18.0622 MDT)]

I’ve read Pink’s book. I’m not a big fan of motivation per se. I agree that many are stuck in the industrial era and have been hammering on that point since 1983. What Peter Drucker called “the shift to knowledge work” was actually a shift from materials-based to information-based work and an accompanying shift from prefigured routines to configured responses. So far as I can tell, management still hasn’t figured that out or what to do about it. Worse, they don’t seem interested. As one senior HR exec once told me when I explained the situation to him, “So what? I can keep replacing them until I get someone who will do what I want.” Another one said, “I can manage on the basis of results; I don’t have to control their behavior.” He was closer to the mark but still had on his command-and-control hat.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

“Assistance at a Distance”

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bob Hintz
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 3:40 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Time Management in light of PCT

bob hintz 2011.6.16

I have been meaning to drop you a note about a book I recently read, titled “Drive: A surprising truth about what motivates us” by Daniel H Pink. He proposed that businesses and corporations are stuck using an outdated operating system (similar to a computer operating system) which he label motivation 2.0. This is based on rewards and punishments and has worked just fine as long as employees are only required to do discrete tasks that are assigned by someone else, evaluated by someone else, and meaningful to someone else. He argues this type of organization is becoming outdated and so the way we relate to each other in a business setting needs an upgrade to Motivation 3.0. I have been meaning to take some notes, but as I checked it out of the library as an ebook, it has automatically been returned. I was impressed by the degree to which it seemed compatible with PCT.

To the question at hand, it seems to me that the invitation of the boss might be an opportunity if you left a voice message earlier in the day requesting a meeting ASAP regarding the problem you are currently working on. In this case it would not even be a disturbance much less a conflict. The fact that the boss didn’t answer the phone earlier might have been a disturbance to your desire to have a face-to-face discussion of a problem. On the other hand, if you were supposed to have a plan on her desk this morning and you’re still working on it, her appearance might be one of those overwhelming disturbances that you have been dreading.

Time management issues typically arise as part of relationship management issues and making agreements in the present about something that I will do, or complete, or achieve at some designated time in the future. Perhaps, I don’t have a good understanding of my own limitations, or a I want everyone to like me, or I don’t know how some of the people I work with define being on time. If time management is interpersonal, then no one person has the problem or can solve the problem.

I will look forward to seeing where you go with this.

bob

On Jun 16, 2011 7:57am, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

A recent discussion of Time Management prompted me to think about it in terms of PCT. I’ve only just started but I have a question about conflict. Here’s a piece of what I’m writing. Time Management is a waste of time. Your time goes where it goes because that’s where you want it to go. You are a “living control system” and one of the things you control is the way you spend your time. The exception to that assertion consists of “disturbances” to your control over the way you spend your time. For example, suppose you’re in your office, hard at work mapping out an approach to dealing with a problem in your unit when your boss appears and asks you to join her in her office. Off you go. Some might call your boss’ appearance an interruption, a distraction, a disruption or some other term indicating an undesirable event. (PCT would call it a “disturbance.”) Be that as it may, such events are a fact of life and there’s precious little you can do about them. More important, in addition to controlling your time, you are probably also trying to control (or at least influence) your relationship with your boss and being responsive is part of what you do in that vein. In other words, responding to your boss’ request to join her is probably at least as high in your priorities as that problem you were working on (even if you do dislike or even resent the disruption). So what just happened is that two things you wanted to control came into conflict: working on that problem and responding to your boss. Clearly, responding to your boss took priority. Now, let’s suppose that just before your boss showed up, the CEO of your company called you and asked that you come to his office in a few minutes. Now, what will you say to your boss when she shows up and invites you to her office? Well, if you’re like me, you’re probably going to say something like, “Gee, boss, I just got a call from the CEO and he wants to see me right away. Can I stop by your office after I see the CEO?” And, chances are, your boss is going to say, “Sure.” What’s going on here? You’re managing your time, that’s what’s going on. Moreover, you do so naturally and without having to give the matter a lot of conscious thought. Are there things you can do to make better use of your time? It’s tempting to say yes and point to things like to-do lists, setting goals and priorities, tracking your time, blocking out think-time, checking email at specific times instead of answering whatever shows up whenever it shows up, and not answering the phone whenever it rings. But, unless you’re not happy with the way your time is being spent, chances are you’re not going to do any of these things. Why? Because you’re satisfied with the way your time is being spent. You are not experiencing any discrepancy between the way your time is being spent and the way you want it spent. Absent that discrepancy or error you’re not going to do anything about it because there’s nothing to do something about. The time management example illustrates numerous things:
· Reference signals or goals can be fluid, not necessarily static or fixed
· Conflicting reference signals or goals are or can be resolved through priorities (articulated or not)
· No error signal produces no action
· Actions counter disturbances (consciously or not)
· Not all disturbances are overwhelming
· Not all disturbances can be offset (i.e., some are overwhelming)
· Without a goal/reference signal there can be no error (i.e., what is simply is)
· Adjustment and adaptation is an integral part of life (in or out of organizations)
· Observers’ conclusions about what the person is “up to” can be dead wrong
· Externally-dictated requirements don’t necessarily become goals/reference signalsHere are my questions: Does the example above, about being interrupted by the boss, actually constitute a conflict in PCT terms?Does the resolution of that conflict (i.e., going off to the boss’ office) actually resolve the conflict or does it continue?The conflict between working on the problem, responding to the boss, and responding to the CEO suggests the possibility of numerous conflicts can be operating simultaneously. Is that true? My apologies if these are “dumb” questions. Regards, Fred NickolsManaging PartnerDistance Consulting LLC1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303Mount Vernon, OH 43050www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us “Assistance at a Distance”