PCT intro to Business Process Reengineering list
Posts from the archives of BPR-L:
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 23:45 EST
Subject: Human dimension & Feelings
[From Dag Forssell (940528 2140) PST]
Introduction:
My professional background is that of engineering manager with marketingresponsibility in an industrial manufacturing company. I am now an independenteducator.
I have been interested in TQM, particularly the Deming ManagementPhilosophy, for several years, but only recently heard of BPR-Land through it QUALITY and TQM-L. I have listened in on all three, and find that human issues are discussed withvigor:
Loads of research, and plain old common experience, indicates that thehuman element is the most critical, yet hardest to get right, part of anychange effort. Business Process Reengineering is not exempt from this.
-robertpadulo on BPR-L,May 5, 1994
There is a strong lack of attention to the human aspects of TQMimplementation, and the implications are many and somewhat profound foreveryone involved!
R. Ivan Blanco on TQM-L,May 23, 1994
The human emotion has proven to be the most complex of ingredients in anyeffort for implementation of any plan anywhere on earth.
Sandra M. Winn on TQM-L,May 24, 1994
Managers strike fear into the hearts of employees because that is the waywe have all been brought up, (from fear of parent, to fear of God, to fear ofteacher). ... Psychology tells us that a certain level of fear & pressureis necessary to assure focus. ...
Kevin Laframboise on QUALITY, May 23, 1994
Dale Worley guesses (guessing is the essence of internet communication):
> My guess would be that it is beneficial to the company to haveworkers be afraid.
Seems to me that it would not be beneficial. Fear and the high stress andanxiety ridden environment engendered by fear should lead to a significantunderutilization of the workforce skills, not to mention the detrimental effecton safety and health of the worker. ...
Michael Koopman on QUALITY, May 23, 1994
These issues are important for our well being and productivity.
I have come to believe that the basic reason it is so hard to get the humanelement right is that people lack a theory of human behavior that fits the wayhuman beings work.
Purpose:
This post introduces an emerging science called Perceptual Control Theory(PCT), that does explain the way human beings work. From the perspective ofPCT, people engaging in debates about emotions and other aspects of the humandimension take for granted many things that just are not so. It will take sometime to explain why. A short post commenting on any one issue might beconfusing. I believe the best contribution I can make to the practice of TQMand BPR is to simply invite you to study the perspective of PCT yourself, soI'll post this introduction on all three lists.
I know from experience as well as PCT that new information that does notfit the ideas a person already has learned and decided to believe in is eithernot comprehended or resisted as a disturbance.
PCT does not fit well with today's predominant understandings. I shallintroduce it as clearly as I can, point out the contrast with current scienceand offer literature and other references. Please excuse some redundancies. Ibelieve it is desirable to illustrate the concept several ways, in order toconnect with existing ideas and interests at different levels and areas ofexperience. This post is no longer than some conference announcements, so Iwon't apologize for length.
I have organized this post under these headings:
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Excerpts from a PCT Introduction and Resource Guide.
Other comments
Feelings explained
Analogy
Free information
Background:
Current social science has ignored the purposiveness of human behavior,considering purpose unscientific. So models of human nature assume thatbehavior is an effect that is caused --by external stimuli or internal (mental) events. Perceptual Control Theoryputs the purpose back into behavior; and it not only shows that purpose is realand scientific, it shows that you can do scientific research of much higherquality when you deal with the real phenomenon --purposeful behavior.
Purposeful behavior is also known as "control" --it is the process of producing intended results doing whatever is necessary tomake these results happen.
The basic principle of control was introduced into behavioral science inthe 1940's by Norbert Wiener's book: _Cybernetics or Control and Communicationin the Animal and the Machine._
The technical concept of control proved easy to misunderstand. Peopleinterpreting Wiener's presentation using their existing event-basedframework created the impression that control is a step by step process,internal to the organism. This allowed the incorporation of cybernetics intothe basic cause-effectscheme. It also allowed the understanding of cybernetics and control theory tomean control of the organism's actions or output, a mis-understanding that is widespread to this day. As a result of these earlymisunderstandings, every psychologist, cognitivist and behaviorist alike, KNOWSthat the cybernetic model, also known as the negative feedback model, can'texplain human behavior.
PCT does not build on Wiener's work, but has been developed independentlybased on physics, neurology, and engineering science and is testable to thestandards of these sciences. --Meaning correlations in the high 90's in tests to date.
In the field of social science, with a multitude of verbal theories, noneof which can be tested clearly, it seems customary to respectfully accept themall. But PCT challenges both the core assumptions and the conclusions of thewell established and widely quoted social sciences and therefore the expertiseand life work of many famous scientists. Publication in relevant journals hasbeen resisted by reviewers who dismiss PCT as old hat and without merit. PCT ispresently understood by a rather small group of people.
I hope this introduction will be read by independent thinkers in business,engineering, schools, homes, --anyone who is concerned about human relationships and not satisfied with thepsychological and sociological explanations offered today.
As you study the literature and duplicate the experiments, you will be ableto demonstrate the principles and basic observations of PCT to yourself. Onceyou grasp the structure and logical implications of PCT, you can begin toreconsider many things you already KNOW. You can do this as you apply the PCTexplanation to questions that arise in daily life. This process can takemonths and years, but will be well worth it. You will find that the newscience of PCT is clear, deep and already quite well tested in simpleexperiments. Application guidelines are available, but since situations vary,the principles of PCT are themselves the simplest guide. When you haveinternalized PCT, you will have a different mindset about human behavior --your own and that of those around you.
Sociologist Clark McPhail comments on this process of discovery:
Most people find it very difficult to break out of Stimulus->Response thinking. Of those who do, most either reject any form of systematicscientific thinking and research on human experience and action and resort tophilosophical nonsense or post-moderninterpretations and the like; the remainder who reject Stimulus->Responsethinking sometimes view cognitive models as a useful alternative to Stimulus->Responsemodels. That was my entre' to PCT and it took a while to understand that PCTwas not about the control of action outputs. My perception is that this alwayscomes as a shock when newcomers realize this counter-intuitive"truth". It is a disturbing epiphany. They have to start over again and re-thinktheir way back through the entire PCT argument.
Maybe someone should forewarn those who "rush to judgment" that they don'thave it until they can wake up in the morning, walk around throughout the day,and try to fall asleep in wonderstruck realization that "all I know about theworld and all I can accomplish regarding what I and others do in the worldreduces to my perceptions".
Excerpts from a PCT Resource Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are pages 1, 2 and 8 of the recently compiled -----------
(page 1)
PCT RESOURCE GUIDE
Cut to save space. See the file RESOURCE.PCT
----------------------------------------------------------
Other comments:
The role of management is to provide leadership and resolve conflict, butironically, our common practice of suggesting and evaluating behavior as weattempt to lead creates conflict instead of resolving it. PCT explainswhy.
Behavior is the only thing clearly visible when we look at what anotherperson is doing. Naturally, it attracts your personal attention as you grow upand gain experience. That's why it is the focus of all mainstream contemporarypsychological theories, public debate, and most leadership programs.Unfortunately, this obvious perspective looks only on the outside. Incompleteand therefore misleading, it provides little useful insight into what causesbehavior. The many attempted explanations offered in the past have turned intopsychobabble which is now part of our language.
For example, feelings such as fear are an important consideration in TQM.But the debate among the participants on QUALITY shows clearly that people havewidely divergent opinions about what fear is, what causes it and what to doabout it. Contemporary psychology has no explanation for emotions!Nevertheless, people generally agree that emotions are separate from thinking.The writers of the _Star Trek _television show (and participants on TQM-L)have had much fun with this, first with Mr. Spock, and later as the androidCommander Data has tried to get an explanation for anger and other feelingsfrom his human companions. PCT offers an explanation for feelings.
The basic concept of PCT is
that our perceptions are the only reality we can know, and that thepurpose of all our actions is to control the state of this perceivedworld.
PCT Resource Guide, p. 3.
From the inside perspective of a living control system, action/ behavior isan automatic result of a comparison between wants and perceptions. IT IS INFACT INVISIBLE TO THE CONTROL SYSTEM WHICH IS ACTING AT THE MOMENT, although itcan be visible to other, parallel perceptual functions. When we realize thatpeople ARE living control systems, and that action is only a means to an end,we realize that to focus on behavior has been a fundamental mistake, and weunderstand why it is so hard to "learn from experience" by looking atbehavior.
PCT explains how thoughts become actions, results and feelings, and itsprinciples can be applied to leadership, coaching, team development, sales,performance reviews, TQM, BPR, vision/mission statements, strategic planning, --any activity involving human motivation and experience. When you understandPCT, you get a whole new picture of human nature and a new perspective on howto deal with people. You understand that human behavior is the control ofperception.
Feelings explained:
Even with the rudimentary summary offered in "PCT in a nutshell," above, itis possible to begin to explain feelings. When you perceive something that isvery different from what you specify in that regard, a large difference signalresults. This signal can give rise to physiological changes through hormonaloutput functions --to release energy for action, for instance. We experience it as a surge ofbodily feeling. Through neural output functions, it also creates outputsignals for action, which we can perceive as thought, even without actuallytaking action. (One reason not to take action might be conflicting outputsignals). We experience the combination of bodily feeling and thought ashappiness, anger, nervousness etc. From this simple explanation, it followsthat feelings are created by ourselves as a result of our comparison of mentalspecifications with current perceptions. Feelings are NOT separate fromthinking. When you understand where your feelings come from, you can deal withwhat causes them.
Analogy:
This post has introduced a new way to conceive of behavior. I think thatthe situation with numerous established experts oblivious to, ignoring (andsome refusing to publish articles by) the few proponents of PCT is analogous tothe situation in the 1600's with people who had thoroughly learned the idea anddetailed model of how the Sun, Moon, and planets circle the Earth and decidedto believe in it, ignoring (and even persecuting) people who proposed the ideaand model that the Earth rotates once a day, while it and the other planetstravel around the Sun.
You cannot tell the difference easily, but the second explanation has madea big difference for our understanding of the entire solar system and thedevelopment of the science of astronomy. The better explanation gave acompetitive edge to the astronomers who adopted it, and science started overwith the new model. Once you have been taught, you visualize it and take itfor granted. But you have to be taught, because the explanation is counter-intuitive.With the new model, you can see that features of the old just are not so --epicycles never existed. It just looked that way.
It is hard to tell the difference between the idea that action is caused bystimuli and the idea that people control what happens to them. But the secondexplanation does make a big difference for our understanding of all humanbehavior and the development of the sciences of management. The betterexplanation will give a competitive edge to leaders who adopt it. Once youhave been taught, you visualize it and take it for granted. But you have to betaught, because the explanation is counter-intuitive. With the new model, you can see that features of the old just are not so --stimulus-responsenever existed. It just looked that way. (But people discuss reward andpunishment as if it is real).
The problem of clearly seeing that the Earth rotates stems in large partfrom your position. You are _on_ the Earth, not looking from _above._ Theproblem of recognizing a person as a control system stems also in large partfrom your position. Even if you are aware of control systems, you are studyingthe person from the _outside,_ not from the _inside._
In each case, the first idea seems self-evident. But once you understand the second idea and its consequences, the first seemslimited and _wrong._
Best, Dag
Subject: Human dimension
[From Dag Forssell (940601 1400) PST]
Ralph and I had the following exchange yesterday. Ralph agreed to let meput both ends of it on BPR-L.
Date: Tue May 31, 1994 7:48 am PST
Subject: Re: Human dimension & Feelings
I found it hard to see what was so shocking in what you wrote. Of course, Ihaven't been trained in psychology. I took a few psychology courses incollege, and considered the teachers and the psychologists we studied to be outof touch with reality.
I agree that looking only at behavior is silly. I control my behavior.But ignoring behavior is silly, too. I don't control other people's behavior.I try to influence other people's behavior. They control theirs, I controlmine, and we each try to get the other to do what we want.
> Maybe someone should forewarn those who "rush to judgment" that theydon't have it until they can wake up in the morning, walk around throughoutthe day, and try to fall asleep in wonderstruck realization that "all I knowabout the world and all I can accomplish regarding what I and others do in theworld reduces to my perceptions".
Sure. Lots of people say this. Some people say that all there IS in theworld is their perception. That is crazy, too. It seems you are very close tothat. The world is real. All we know about it is by our perceptions, however.Our perceptions are never completely accurate. But they are less accurate whenwe are drunk or taking LSD than usual. If we want to be successful at makingthe world do what we want then we need to make sure our perceptions areaccurate.
> The net result of this circular loop of interacting elements andsignals is purposeful behavior. A self-directing"living control system" controls its present perception so that it agrees withthe internally specified reference perception.
It TRIES to control it. Sometimes it succeeds, though usually not forlong. Sometimes it gives up, though it often dies shortly thereafter.Sometimes it changes its goals so that it will have something achievable. Infact, one of the interesting things about the human control mechanism is how itoften makes short-rangedecisions that have such poor long-termresults.
> Conventional scientific attempts to explain behavior have notrecognized or clearly understood the obvious phenomenon of control discussedabove, and are misleading.
It is hard to believe this. You are right that it is obvious. It is hardto believe that everyone ignores it.
> happiness, anger, nervousness etc. From this simple explanation, itfollows that feelings are created by ourselves as a result of our comparison ofmental specifications with current perceptions. Feelings are NOT separate fromthinking.
Behavioralist psychologists don't claim that feelings don't exist, or thatthey are separate from thinking, they just say that they want to ignorefeelings and thinking because they can't tell what someone else is feeling andthinking. They can tell what they do and so they are going to study that.This is like the old story of the guy looking for his keys under a lamppostbecause that is where the light is. It is actually a reasonable strategy ifyou don't know where the keys are, but if you know for sure that the keys aresomewhere else then it is a bad strategy.
-RalphJohnson
[From Dag Forssell (940531 1530)] Ralph Johnson -direct
> I found it hard to see what was so shocking in what you wrote.
You see letters and words on the screen and give them meaning. The meaningcan only come from your own experience. Your personal imagination fleshes outthe picture. You have no doubt experienced KNOWING what another person meansafter three words. --An example of what we call jumping to conclusions. Recent concerns aboutadvertising [there was an objection that my post was an advertisement and notappropriate] lurk in the back of your mind. I did offer information, andexpressed my professional business interest.
Now, if the (subjective) perception (advertising!!!!!) you develop differssubstantially from your (also subjective, of course) mental understanding andspecification-wantin this area, a difference signal arises. The difference signal causes output.Effective output influences that particular aspect of your world so youperceive it the way you want it (advertising verboten) and the differencesignal ceases. I could go into how a difference signal might get convertedinto keystrokes through a hierarchy of control systems....
All these subjective understandings-->wantsand perceptions are what make any collection of individuals, whether in abusiness or subscribed to an E-mailnetwork, diverse and therefore challenging. The conventional answer is tospecify and evaluate behavior. The PCT insight suggests that you ask eachindividual questions about the understandings-->wantsand perceptions (the differences between which drive behavior), and offerinformation so the individual can reconsider them and if they change, behavedifferently.
> Of course, I haven't been trained in psychology. I took a fewpsychology courses in college, and considered the teachers and thepsychologists we studied to be out of touch with reality.
I think of psychology today as the engineer in me thinks of alchemy in the1500's. Prescriptions based on trial and error do work and bring results, butnot reliably --because circumstances always vary. Neither science has / had explanations thathold up. The pretense of understanding where none exists is harmful. It sendspeople off on fruitless goose chases. The debates on TQM and BPR are asconfused as most people are. That is why the problems won't go away. The nextfad will promise yet another solution.
> I agree that looking only at behavior is silly. I control mybehavior. .....
No you don't. That was the major point of the post. But since you (Idon't mean to pick on you personally, 99.99999% of our population think this)KNOW that you control your outputs, you don't read what I wrote; you fit itinto what you already know. The same phenomenon explains why Japanese can'thear the difference between r and l. You put things you perceive (fragmentsof) in classifications you have already developed. If your classifications arebroad, you don't notice the subtleties.
> Maybe someone should forewarn those who "rush to judgment" that
So, you did not get it. Don't rush to judgement. Read the literature andcarry out the demonstrations. This IS counter-intuitive.
> ...All we know about it is by our perceptions, however.
Precisely right. It is ALL perception. REALITY exists, I have zero doubt,but all you or I can know about it is what we perceive it to be. There is noanswer sheet for accuracy.
> If we want to be successful at making the world do what we want thenwe need to make sure our perceptions are accurate.
If by perceptions you mean "models of the world" I agree. The models ofphysical science are quite accurate (give better results in tests), and let usput men on the moon.
>> The net result of this circular loop of interacting elements andsignals is purposeful behavior. A self-directing"living control system" controls its present perception so that it agrees withthe internally specified reference perception.
> It TRIES to control it. Sometimes it succeeds, though usually not forlong....
Also agreed. But sometimes is 99.999% of the time in terms of "simple"perceptions like "standing up" and "walk." Less often in terms of a complexperceptions like "be appreciated."
>> Conventional scientific attempts to explain behavior have notrecognized or clearly understood the obvious phenomenon of control discussedabove, and are misleading.
> It is hard to believe this. You are right that it is obvious. It ishard to believe that everyone ignores it.
1) Check the basic assumptions of contemporary psychological theory. Fewpsychologists can tell you about or will admit to their assumptions, so askabout the "scientific method" they use. I bet you will find that withoutexception, they set up an experiment, define an independent and a dependentvariable, vary the independent variable and observe the dependent one. Fromthis you deduce a causal relationship. Pure cause-effectthinking. Since the results often are incunclusive, statistics are used. With alarge enough sample, significance can most often be found.
2) They have never heard of a (valid) explanation for control. Somepsychologists have written falsehoods about it --even recently. I made a point of dealing with this in my post.
> happiness, anger, nervousness etc. From this simple explanation, itfollows that feelings are created by ourselves as a result of our comparison ofmental specifications with current perceptions. Feelings are NOT separate fromthinking.
> Behavioralist psychologists don't claim that feelings don't exist, orthat they are separate from thinking, they just say that they want to ignorefeelings and thinking because they can't tell what someone else is feeling andthinking. They can tell what they do and so they are going to studythat.
Yes, and the working assumption is that the underlying functionalrelationships are all Cause-effect,straight from Rene Descartes in 1640's.
> This is like the old story of the guy looking for his keys under alamppost because that is where the light is. It is actually a reasonablestrategy if you don't know where the keys are, but if you know for sure thatthe keys are somewhere else then it is a bad strategy.
Well said. Note that cause-effectis a valid approach for study of inanimate objects --all of physical science. You get 99.9999999% correlation. It is NOTparticularly appropriate for the study of living organisms, because they AREcontrol systems (says PCT) and don't work that way. As you could see from mybrief summary explanation, more than two variables enter into the picture.That makes a difference. The concept of PCT shows where the keys are. It showsyou what to look for and therefore how to design tests. With PCT, you canreplicate experiments and get 95-98%correlation yourself.
Ralph, thanks for your comment.
Please share both our posts with the net if you don't mind.
Best, Dag
Subj: Re: Human dimension
Date: 94-05-3119:02:49 EDT
To: DForssell
>> I agree that looking only at behavior is silly. I control mybehavior. .....
> No you don't. That was the major point of the post.
Hmm. If that was the major point, why didn't you say it? The point I wastrying to make was that I read what you said and it all sounded perfectlyreasonable, whereas you said that it was going to shock me. If you had saidthat I didn't control my behavior then I would have been shocked.
>> It TRIES to control it. Sometimes it succeeds, though usually notfor long....
> Also agreed. But sometimes is 99.999% of the time in terms of"simple" perceptions like "standing up" and "walk." Less often in terms of acomplex perceptions like "be appreciated."
Yeah, I didn't think about all the things that we almost always docorrectly. If you count all of them then in general we do a pretty good job ofmaking the world be how we want it to be. Those few cases where we fail surestick in our mind, though!
-RalphE. Johnson
Date: 94-05-3120:12:40 EDT
Subj: Why didn't you say so?
From: DForssell
> Hmm. If that was the major point, why didn't you say it? The point Iwas trying to make was that I read what you said and it all sounded perfectlyreasonable, whereas you said that it was going to shock me. If you had saidthat I didn't control my behavior then I would have been shocked.
I shall consider this. As you may have noted, I have tried many differentways to get the point across.
> Yeah, I didn't think about all the things that we almost always docorrectly. If you count all of them then in general we do a pretty good job ofmaking the world be how we want it to be.
Yes, behavior is regular and consistently successful. Psychologists havehardly tried to either study or explain the (very complex) things we take forgranted, like standing up. A very unstable equilibrium!
> Those few cases where we fail sure stick in our mind, though!
They sure do, and we have the very same problem all over the map, with one(conceptually, at least) simple solution.
Thanks, Dag