From: rljackson@ATTMAIL.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Comments on Promoting PCT
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:53:35 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Phone: +1 602 963 6474
Content-Type: text

[From Ray Jackson (921118)]

for Dag Forssell

Dag, a few comments on your Promoting PCT post (921116.1940)

>UNDERSTANDING A THEORY-BASED LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
I was thinking maybe using the title to ask the question: WHY A
THEORY-BASED LEADERSHIP PROGRAM? That's what most would be asking.

>Summary
The summary is GREAT. All I would suggest is that you emphasize that
the education your program offers provides a focus for the
consistent ends achieved through the varying means of human
behavior.

>1. PCT is an acronym for Perceptual Control Theory.
Instead of a footnote from the TOC, would you want to name the
theory and explain the acronym in the summary?

>BOLD: The value of a good theory
>The power and practicality of a good theory is awesome. It also
>provides clarity.
Here would be a good spot to comment on how theories offer us a
framework for what we understand...that it Rbolsters our common
senseS When IUm working with people, I suggest that thinking without
a theory (or paradigm), is like merely talking about cities... and
that the theory (or paradigm) provides us with a map to place them.

>...As we shall see, the history of science recounts many phenomena
>that were considered mysterious and too complicated until an
>appropriate concept was offered.
Excellent. Most executives and managers IUve worked with seem to
regard performance technology as magical, and success with the human
element as a matter of luck (although they don't openly admit it).
In fact, IUm convinced that my PCT-based interpretations of
behavioral phenomena at my plant tend to be minimized because Ray is
a teacher, or the kind of guy who Rknows peopleS; I have some kind
of a "gift".

>A good theory makes real breakthroughs possible.
But IUm still not sure the reader knows why. Maybe the piece on Kuhn
and paradigms needs to be worked in here.

>BOLD: Objective "REALITY" versus personal "reality"
I really like this description of reality...in fact, I used it the
other night when Tom Hancock let me introduce his Ed Research class
to PCT (by the way, heUs adopted RunkelUs book  Q Casting Nets Q as
the text).


>BOLD: Individual development
>...This is why the power of a good theory is awesome.
ItUs beginning to come clear to me.

>BOLD: Existing training programs
>Companies spend millions of dollars on training.
The hot button; maybe you could add to the emphasis of the statement
by asking the reader to consider the true effectiveness of these
spent dollars.

>To illustrate the variety, this list...
Nice touch, most managers are very familiar with this stuff in
particular. Also, you may want to add that a major focal point of
most new training programs is that our program is THE ONE...but they
never say why itUs different from the rest.

>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.
I love it. It's too bad this is business as usual for most personnel
and training programs.

>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.
This is a key interest of mine. Not only is this what  people have
come to expect, but this is what they want. Traditionally, education
and training has been a two-dimensional cause-effect world; itUs
outstanding that PCT offers the third dimension of consistent
results through varying means. Certainly, this focus enables me and
other teachers to be better educators, but there is still the
dilemma of the cause-effect mindset towards training in most
learners. More on this in a later post.

>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.
The guys who own CareerTrack probably hate you (thatUs alright,
theyUre awfully rich by now). Don't resent them too much, they will
probably ask you to do a video soon.

>BOLD: Theory-based education and training
>PCT explains a wide variety of phenomena of everyday experience.
One thing you may want to emphasize is WHY theory-based education is
more effective, which you could then reiterate the practical aspects
of in the following section.

>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...
One thing you may want to mention is the adaptability of
theory-based education (so the reader doesnUt actually think you use
the SAME curriculum in every situation).

>BOLD: Scientific revolutions
I love KuhnUs material, and I find a high level of interest every
time I present it; what about using one of the great quotes from
Kuhn himself?

>BOLD: One example of a scientific revolution
Good example, but you end up with two, donUt you (including Newton)?
By the way, has Galileo been in purgatory all these few centuries,
or would he have actually been sent to hell; and when the church
acknowledged the error, was he able to enter heaven? Oh never mind,
I guess thatUs for another Network.

>BOLD: Perceptual Control Theory
There is considerable challenge in presenting a  brief description
of PCT to those with a traditional mindset. Since IUve been
struggling with a this, I found Mary PowerUs intro posted earlier on
the net very helpful. So helpful, in fact, I used it (stole, copied,
plagiarized...) extensively in the name of PCT. Seriously, I was
able to modify it to a single-page summary which IUve used with
managers and students alike. (Mary, thank you very much!).
The summary:
        Perceptual Control Theory: a brief summary.
While the existence of control mechanisms and processes (such as
feedback) in living systems is acknowledged, the implications of
individuals as control systems goes far beyond what is usually
considered in terms of human behavior or motivation. Control
Theorists believe that the fundamental characteristic of organisms
is their ability to control; that they are, in fact, living control
systems, constantly interacting with their environment to maintain a
desired state. This view is referred to as Perceptual Control
Theory, or PCT.

PCT requires a major shift in psychological thinking from the
traditional approach: that is, what is controlled is not behavior,
but the perception of a current reality. The traditional
behavioristic view is a two-dimensional cause/effect model, which
considers behavior as a dependent variable, producing a finite
response to external stimuli. However, this approach provides no
explanation for the phenomenon of achieving consistent ends through
varying means. Attempts to model behavior as planned and computed
output that can be demonstrated to the point of precise calculation
are unobtainable in a real environment that is changing from one
moment to the next.

The PCT model views behavior as the means by which a perceived state
of affairs is brought to and maintained at a reference state. This
approach provides a physically plausible explanation for a third
dimension in human behavior: the consistency of outcomes by  the
variability of means. The PCT model has been successfully used to
explain phenomena as diverse as bacterial chemotaxis, tracking a
target, piloting automobiles or airplanes, incidents in
organizational behavior, and issues in human relationships. In its
elaborated form, a Hierarchy of Perceptual Control Theory (HPCT),
has lent itself to new approaches to education, management,
counseling and psychotherapy. As a prevailing paradigm for the
depiction and explanation of human behavior, PCT holds much promise
for establishing meaningful and accurate definitions of phenomena
previously thought to be happenstance.

>The power of a program based on a good theory is awesome.
>There is nothing as practical as a good theory based program.
At this point, the reader knows why. You may want to emphasize that
this is especially true with education and training programs.

The rest of the descriptions of who will pay attn (nice explanation
of error signals), who can understand, whatUs in the program, and
relevance to work and personal life are perfunctory and adequate.
Anyone who's followed the paper to this point and/or is considering
your program will find the information helpful (not to mention the
PCT threads in the narrative).

Dag, I hope you find these comments encouraging and useful. IUm
convinced that industry will eventually see the value of PCT when
they realize that it is the essence of true empowerment. Keep at it.

Best Regards,
Ray
********************************************************************
Ray L. Jackson                                  602-963-6474
3613 W. Saragosa St.
Chandler, Az 85226
attmail.com!rljackson
********************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU