NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/bit/listserv/csgl/1520

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 25.4 KB | 566 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!MCIMAIL.COM!0004742580
Message-ID: <13921117034431/[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:44:00 GMT
Sender:       "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <[e-mail]>
From:         Dag Forssell <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Promoting PCT
Lines: 555

[From Dag Forssell (921116.1940)]

I think this particular piece is in good shape now. The next step is to merge
it with my demo tape. The interested observer may note the disappearance of
the four kinds of theory. Good for discussion on this net, but unnecessary.
Instead, I have developed a contrast with conventional training and
consequent economic advantage. I have tried to be even more careful and
specific in the claims, without backing off on my convictions. Engineers are
not promoted nearly as much here. A cover letter or phone call is the place
to suggest starting with the engineers. I will appreciate any comments.

--------------------------------------------------------------

UNDERSTANDING A THEORY-BASED LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

Summary

This paper suggests that a program based on a valid theory of human action
is more effective than conventional training, which has no clear and valid
theory at its core. Conventional training attempts to give rules for
behavior. But rules for behavior are not appropriate. Behavior must be
totally flexible to achieve consistent ends under widely changing
circumstances. Human behavior is obviously flexible. A revolutionary theory
shows how and why by explaining control and self-direction in detail. The new
theory gives effective guidance in a large variety of settings.


Content:                                               Page

Summary                                                  2
The value of a good theory                               3
Objective "REALITY" versus personal "reality"            3
Individual development                                   3
Existing training programs                               4
Theory-based education and training                      5
Speed, cost, effectiveness                               5
Scientific revolutions                                   5
One example of a scientific revolution                   6
Perceptual Control Theory                                6
Who will pay attention?                                  7
Who can understand?                                      7
PCT 1 applied in values, methodology and role play       8
Some of what you will learn                              9
Relevance to work life                                   9
Relevance to personal life                               9

1 PCT is an acronym for Perceptual Control Theory.


BOLD: The value of a good theory

Bertrand Russell, the famous British philosopher, is reputed to have said:

      There is nothing as practical as a good theory.

In the engineering and physical sciences, this is obvious. Engineers and
physical scientists recognize that a good theory allows for the prediction
of performance long before actual experiment or production. Good theories
have allowed us to travel, communicate, understand and produce better than
ever before.

The power and practicality of a good theory is awesome. It also provides
clarity.

When it comes to the important area of human affairs, this is not quite so
obvious. Many theories have been offered over the years, attempting to
explain human action, but none have measured up. This is why many
psychologists say that their theories and practices have nothing to do with
each other.

Since the results have been poor, scientists have settled for descriptions
and statistical correlations between described phenomena. Explanations which
yield predictions with 99+% experimental confirmation have not been possible
and are not expected. Levels of explanation and proof required for
publication are orders of magnitude lower than in the engineering sciences.

Some say this is because humans are too complicated. Could it be that the
concepts have been inadequate? As we shall see, the history of science
recounts many phenomena that were considered mysterious and too complicated
until an appropriate concept was offered.

A good theory makes real breakthroughs possible.


BOLD: Objective "REALITY" versus personal "reality"

Let us distinguish between the objective physical REALITY of the world, and
any one person's subjective interpretation of it: personal reality.

     REALITY:    What actually exists (but can never be known).

     reality:    What a person sees, hears, touches and smells.

Personal, subjective reality is like a map of REALITY. The personal reality
is all a person can know. I think of reality as a heads-up display in a
fighter pilot's helmet, except it is internal to our own head. It is only a
display. REALITY is beyond our grasp, but we spend a lifetime trying to
understand it. As we do, the subjective map of reality is formed in the brain
and constitutes a personal world.

To a person who looks at a seamless world in living color and stereophonic
sound, this distinction may seem silly. Obviously, what we see, hear, touch
and smell is REAL, isn't it? Careful thought tells you that it cannot be.
Your senses may be well calibrated and yield a very good map of the physical
world, but a moments reflection tells you that it can only be a map. All you
know is an accumulation of interpretations of signals from nerve endings.
Today we know that there are many things in existence which we as humans can
not sense at all. Elephant-talk below 18 hertz, echo-location beyond 20,000
hertz, infrared light, X-rays; all are part of a long list of phenomena we
cannot sense. Clearly, our sense of the world is just that, sensed
perception, a display.


BOLD: Individual development

A person grows up and develops a personal understanding of how the world
"works" from personal experience, supplemented by experiences told by others,
seen on TV and read in books. Each person develops a unique framework of
ideas, a reality which governs that person's life. These personal ideas will
vary. The quality of the personal map reality will vary widely from person
to person.

A personal map of high quality, a good reality, allows us to navigate
successfully in that elusive REALITY the map portrays. A good theory is a
good reality; a map of a specific aspect of REALITY, expressed as
description, explanation and perhaps a set of clear rules for prediction that
follow from the explanation. Many people can easily share the same good piece
of reality. This is why the power of a good theory is awesome.


BOLD: Existing training programs

Companies spend millions of dollars on training.

To illustrate the variety, this list is taken from a recent CareerTrackR
brochure:

     Team Building: How To Motivate And Manage PeopleTM
     Total Quality ManagementTM
     Getting Things DoneTM
     Making Meetings WorkTM
     The One Minute Manager Live!TM
     Selling SmartTM
     How to Delegate Work and Ensure It's Done RightTM
     Assertiveness TrainingTM
     Personal PowerTM
     How To Give Exceptional Customer ServiceTM
     Negotiate Like The ProsTM
     How To Set And Achieve GoalsTM
     Stress Management For ProfessionalsTM
     Controlling AngerTM
     How To Deal With Difficult PeopleTM
     Self-Esteem And Peak PerformanceTM
     Enhancing IntimacyTM

These programs may each be very good, but none are based on a good theory of
human action. They are based on "what seems to work" - anecdotal experiences
by the authors, experiences from many sources and conclusions drawn by the
authors. These programs of course each portray a reality, but in the absence
of proven theories in the area of human affairs they cannot offer a universal
framework of explanation. The focus and quality varies.

These multiple programs, offering multiple scenarios and stories, suggesting
multiple prescriptions for "what/how to DO," make understanding and dealing
with people far more complex than it needs to be.

In most cases, people have fun and like the training, but four or five months
later, little has changed in the workplace. I believe a large reason for this
is that the training is situational / anecdotal and focuses on "what/how to
DO." Each participant is left to integrate the many disparate lessons of the
training experience into the framework of their personal reality, such as it
is.

People want "practical" seminars focusing on "techniques," "skills" and
"tools." This is all they have ever been offered, because absent a good
theory, that is all anyone has been able to deliver.

People ask: Show me what to DO (cause) so I will get results (effect). Our
program shows clearly why this is fallacious, but that does not change the
fact that this is what many people have come to expect.

Instructions on "what/how to DO" are valid only in a given set of
circumstances. Typically a training scenario is carefully selected and told
with drama and humor by a speaker. You are told what the circumstances were,
what was done and what the results were. You imagine that the same thing will
happen if you do the same thing. You feel euphoric as you imagine success.

A large part of the "what/how to DO" training does not really apply in
individual cases because the world is full of varying conditions and changing
disturbances. The lessons become irrelevant and are soon forgotten. Euphoria
fades away.

If much training is ineffective, how can we suggest that Purposeful
Leadership is of lasting value?


BOLD: Theory-based education and training

The major strength of the Purposeful Leadership program is that it explains
and applies a new theory called Perceptual Control Theory (PCT). PCT
recognizes and explains the phenomenon of control1. PCT explains why and how
people do what they do. PCT is based on neurology and clear, detailed and
tested engineering concepts. PCT requires and offers scientific rigor with
explanation and prediction.

1  See separate paper: Control; what it is, where it applies.

PCT is an engineering science of psychology that is easy to understand for
anyone who pays attention to the step by step explanation and expects a clear
explanation, prediction, test and 100% validity.

Once the phenomenon of control is observed and the detailed explanation
understood, it will be seen that control is the fundamental organizing
principle of life. Control is pervasive and can be seen operating at a
microscopic level as well as at the macro level of human activity.

PCT explains a wide variety of phenomena of everyday experience.


BOLD: Speed, cost, effectiveness

Instead of using *multiple* programs, each one covering some aspect of human
interaction, you can use *one* to understand yourself and others in some
detail. Participants can decide that the theory is good, by testing it in
their own life. Everyone can draw conclusions from one theory supplemented
with specific information as required by specialized applications. The time
and expense of training is dramatically reduced. This one education is
effective even as jobs are rotated, because a good theory applies everywhere
(if it is really good and valid).

If this new theory is so much better, why is it not widely known already?

The reason is that this theory is dramatically different from the prevailing
descriptive science of psychology. It causes a scientific revolution.


BOLD: Scientific revolutions

Thomas S. Kuhn, a leading scientific philosopher, professor at MIT and author
of: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions3, explains. From the book cover:

     ....Thomas S. Kuhn wastes little time on demolishing the logical
     empiricist view of science as an objective progression toward the
     truth. Instead, he erects from the ground up a structure in which
     science is seen to be heavily influenced by nonrational
     procedures... ....Science is not the steady, cumulative
     acquisition of knowledge that is portrayed in our textbooks.
     Rather it is a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by
     intellectually violent revolutions  ....in each of which one
     conceptual world view is replaced by another....

                                  Nicholas Wade, Science

3  University of Chicago Press, 1970. (In print 1992).

Thomas Kuhn introduced the term "paradigm" in this book and suggests that
scientists schooled in a certain set of views adopt them as their personal
"paradigms" (or reality) and then view the world through these paradigms -
as if they were eyeglasses filtering information. The word paradigm means
pattern. It is used to signify how we interpret a phenomenon; how we explain
the world to ourselves.

In Kuhn's view, everyone is a scientist, and every world view (or reality)
might be called a personal science. Everyone has some framework of ideas of
how the world "works" and  views the world through those personal paradigms.

When a new theory (normally an extension of existing theory) is offered to
an engineering scientist, the course is clear. Study the theory based on
existing paradigms (which have proven 99.999+% dependable and usually allow
excellent comprehension). Predict something based on the new theory, perform
the experiment and accept or reject the theory expecting 99.999+%
performance.

When a radically new theory is offered to a scientist, understanding can be
difficult. If the old and the new concepts are incompatible, it may literally
be impossible to see the new theory through the eyes of the old paradigm.


BOLD: One example of a scientific revolution

To illustrate, let us go back to a well known episode of a revolution between
a well established descriptive science of astronomy and a new, incompatible,
engineering science of astronomy.

In the beginning of the 17th century, Ptolemy's model (AD 140) of an
earth-centered universe was still fully accepted. This model was complete
with crystal spheres to carry the heavenly bodies and ample room for heaven
and hell beyond the eighth sphere, the firmament. Learned scholars who had
studied and accepted this model and fitted it into their reality, were not
open to a new and different explanation.

In 1543, on his deathbed, Copernicus published a model of a sun-centered
universe. (Kepler published additions in 1609-18). In 1610 and more
explicitly in 1632, Galileo supported Copernicus' theory, based on the first
ever observations by telescope and the discovery of Jupiter's moons. He had
trouble being published in the scientific journals of the day (church
bulletins?), due to the requirement that his manuscript be reviewed by a
group of his peers.

(It is of passing interest that on October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II
acknowledged the church's error in this matter).

We understand today that his ideas were incomprehensible to the (church)
scholars of the day, due to what they already understood as their personal
paradigm. Of course Galileo's writings were irrelevant to their science as
they understood it and not a constructive and welcome contribution to the
state of the art.

So Galileo self-published. Despite the persecution he personally suffered as
a result, astronomy started over as an engineering science and made rapid
progress.

Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, (1687) completed
the revolution, but was resisted in the same way. According to Kuhn, it took
fifty years for Newton's work to be fully accepted.

This well known revolution is not an isolated case. Kuhn describes many
upheavals in several disciplines. The opportunity for a revolution arises
when a current paradigm fails to solve problems and competing paradigms are
offered to provide better explanations. A struggle of many decades typically
takes place. Established scientists continue the development, application and
defense of the existing paradigm as usual while outsiders and early converts
champion a new one.

A reading of Kuhn's seminal book makes it clear that there is lots of room
in our sciences of today for coming revolutions.

New information - on any subject - is always filtered by what you already
understand. PCT itself explains why this is so. Where a person has existing
convictions, conflicting information is either not comprehended or rejected.

A person without convictions on a certain subject is more open to new
information.

This is why scientific revolutions typically originate from outside the
scientific community which has accepted the present paradigm.


BOLD: Perceptual Control Theory

Perceptual Control Theory is a new engineering science of psychology, 35
years young from its inception. It offers description, explanation and
prediction. Explanations which yield predictions with 99+% experimental
confirmation are possible and are expected in time. Much development work
remains to be done, of course. Tests to date show 95-98+% correlation in
simple experiments (which we will duplicate in class), with the remaining
2-5% accounted for by expected imperfection of control: less than infinite
loop gain, slow response and sloppy connections in the environment.

PCT offers an opportunity for a transition from a descriptive science of
psychology where theory and application are worlds apart to an engineering
science of psychology, where theory and application fit like hand in glove.

For contemporary journals of psychology to publish articles on PCT, the
phenomenon of control must be understood in detail in a review by peers who
have internalized an understanding and strong convictions based on a
scientific method limited to the study of cause and effect. An understanding,
endorsement and acceptance of PCT is obviously very difficult. PCT itself
explains why.

On the other hand, PCT is immediately acceptable -intuitively obvious- to
people without such understanding and convictions. It is easy to understand
and immediately useful.

Without a good theory, every problem must be solved by trial and error. You
have to learn a lot of rules for every conceivable circumstance.

With a good theory (in high school or engineering school), you learn the
theory, then spend time on problem after problem to learn to recognize how
the theory applies and get used to using it. What you remember is the theory,
not individual solutions.

With Purposeful Leadership and PCT, you learn a good theory, then spend time
with application after application to recognize how the theory applies and
get used to think that way. What you remember is the theory, not individual
"what/how to DO" solutions.

The power of a program based on a good theory is awesome.

There is nothing as practical as a good theory based program.


BOLD: Who will pay attention?

PCT explains clearly that the only thing that drives us are our concerns. For
this reason, the program, theory and applications must be understood to have
relevance to the concerns that are in the forefront of the mind of each
participant.

Those participants who have concerns which are addressed by the things PCT
promises to explain will want to pay attention. Those who are satisfied with
their own understanding, skills and results have no reason to pay attention.


BOLD: Who can understand?

Because personal concerns determine what is of interest and relevant, the
program is structured to provide immediate relevance and usefulness as much
as possible, with maximum clarity:

Day 1:     Introduction to theory, values and methodology
           Effectiveness application

Day 2:     Related concepts
           Leadership applications

The first and second day require careful attention, nothing more.

Day 3:     Biology / engineering details.
           Structural details.
           Computer demonstrations.

Again, attention and interest is the key. A willingness to think in terms of
explanation, prediction and test is very helpful.


BOLD: PCT applied in values, methodology and role play:

The value of Purposeful Leadership is in the theory we teach. To make the
theory come alive with relevance to the individual, it must be applied. As
the Chinese proverb says:

           I hear     - I forget.
           I see      - I remember.
           I do       - I understand.

PCT describes how an individual operates in all circumstances. (We illustrate
both cooperation and conflict in active demonstrations). PCT makes no value
judgements.

But most people adopt values which constrain their options in working with
others.

We specifically define (using PCT) what we mean by:

     Supporting individual effectiveness
     Respect for the individual
     Balance: Appropriate level of direction and involvement
           - minimize conflict
           - maximize cooperation

Given an acceptance of these leadership values/objectives, we offer a
comprehensive methodology which can serve as a guide in a great number of
circumstances.

We illustrate the theory, using this methodology, in several scripted
vignettes. These are read, broken down to show the use of the methodology and
discussed among participants.

The variety of interpretations and applications in these role plays makes it
clear that the methodology is NOT a rigid "what/how to DO" set of rules, but
only a guide to help you systematically consider various aspects of what the
theory teaches you. Situations and disturbances in real life vary so much
that the action required to accomplish the same outcome is almost never the
same. This is why it is fallacious to teach "what/how to DO."

Some participants will view the methodology as a comprehensive "what/how to
DO" prescription despite our comments to the contrary. (After all that is
what people have come to expect from seminars in a cause-effect world). There
is no harm in this. Taken as that, the methodology is an excellent "what/how
to DO" prescription.

Participants are then invited to plan and act out a sequence of similar
situations, given a scenario which is relevant to them, taken from their
world of daily work. This scenario is developed ahead of time by a
representative of the group and the teacher.

Each role play for a participant provides practice for a work situation, the
way a sales role play provides practice for the salesman's work. This makes
it personally relevant. The scenario for role plays is tied to the work
environment where the training is to be applied, and provides continuity
between role plays, from one to the next. Additional details will come from
the common experience and imagination of participants.

This detailed scenario will do triple or quadruple duty. It portrays (for
each group) some typical problem or source of conflict between fictitious
characters such as Joe, Dave and Bill which can:

1)   be resolved between Joe and Dave in a manager / subordinate or peer to
     peer conflict role play, focusing on wants, then

2)   be facilitated by Joe in a team building situation between Dave and
     Bill, focusing on mutual perceptions, then later

3)   proudly reported as an accomplishment by the employee Dave or brought
     up as a concern by the manager Joe in a performance review and finally

4)   serve as a concern Dave has, addressed by the salesman Joe. (Sales only
     if a sales application is desirable given a particular audience).

Role play 1 is on the agenda for Day 1, role plays 2-4 are on the agenda for
Day 2.

With a well chosen role play scenario, participants will in effect begin to
solve (if all parties to a problem are present) or plan how to solve those
problems that are close to their hearts.

Some of what you will learn:

* How quality is one dimension of individual self-direction.
  How and why all understanding is individually subjective.
  How and why what you choose to want affects what you do.
  How and why what you choose to perceive affects what you do.
* How and why dissatisfaction is the only mother of invention.
  How you can influence what another person wants without conflict.
  How you can influence what another person perceives without conflict.
  How the last two points can add up to cooperation,
      and how this relates to the old maxim: The customer is always right.
* Why you cannot tell what people do by watching what they are doing.
  How and why all behavior controls perception.
* What motivation is and why you cannot motivate another person.
  How to develop and support individual effectiveness.
* Why two people can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions.
  How and why your memories affect what you do.
  How habits are memories behaving.
  A way to understand imagination.
  A way to understand feelings. Do they drive you?
  What it means to respect another person.
  How and why stimulus-response is an illusion.
* How and why a reward may not motivate but create resentment instead.
* When helping a person conflicts with respect for the person.
* How to communicate effectively with subordinates without conflict.
* How to conduct mutually satisfying and productive performance reviews.
  What is required to develop and maintain an effective team effort.
* How to resolve conflict with another person if at all possible.

(* = bold to break up list and attract attention)


BOLD: Relevance to work life:

Conflict resolution:  - in a superior / subordinate relationship.
                      - in a peer - to - peer relationship.
                      - in a subordinate / superior relationship.
Total Quality Management framework.
Leadership understanding.
Team development.
Performance reviews.
Vision/Mission statements.
Goal setting.
Non-manipulative selling.
Teaching effectiveness, initiative and responsibility.
Develop trust, mutual respect and high morale.


BOLD: Relevance to personal life:

Conflict resolution.
Develop loving relationships.
Encourage self-sufficient, capable family members.
Develop self confidence.

                          -End-

Best to all, Dag