97-01-07 adelman@primenet.com (Philip J. Adelman)
James E. Easter wrote.People's behavior is often not according to plan or purpose ...we often behave out of sync with our intent-
So how do we change human behavior (or affect it)? Especially the behavior of others? And , as a "last resort", our own.
We often discuss measurements in this section but don't really elaborate.
When Eli Goldratt stated "Tell me how you measure me and I'll tell you how I will behave." He stated something that most of us don't really consider, because behavioural modification is in the literature of organization and human behavior theory and is only touched on briefly in operations management literature.
One of our big failings is in not determining the human behavior measure before we try to change the system. If you still pay someone on commission, they will try to sell the highest priced item. If you pay someone hourly, time will expand to fill the hours available for completion of the work. If your incentive systems are geared toward individual effort and reward, then individuals will not work toward a group goal. Before we implement any of the great solutions, we have to determine how we actually want our employees and co-workers to behave. We then have to design a reward system that will get that behavior. If this measurement system is not in place, prior to implementation of the change, then bad things happen to good people.
If you haven't had the opportunity to look at the POOGI cloud, I strongly recommend it.
97-01-08 jeaster@verinet.com (James E Easter)
Philips' reply reminded me that in addition to measurement as he has summarized there are two other precursors to behavior: the 'physical consequences' and 'reinforcement'--which simply could be described as how other people react. I have a friend who is fond of saying: People do what they do because of what happens to them when they do it.Measurements are leading indicators which tell us how to react-positively, negatively or not at all....but HOW we react reinforces people's behavior-either encouraging it, discouraging it, etc. People in power roles or roles of influence have particular power to influence behavior--thus how we as parents react when our child does something has mighty impact--and how our 'boss' reacts has a similar impact. And how the folks whose opinion we care about is equally powerful. Thus 'peer pressure' is as a real a force as gravity-except we can choose to yield to it or not.
Social reinforcement is a most powerful form of reinforcement.
I also believe that what physically happens is a powerful source of behavior modification--touch a hot stove and you get burned, etc.
The point is that measurements are very powerful but are not the only influence on our behavior.
So the impulse buyer gets some form of positive reinforcement from the behavior--even if it is out of sync with other goals.
97-01-08 holt@vancouver.wsu.edu (James R. Holt)
There as been recent discussion about people's behavior seeming to be irrational.I think a comment from the last Jonah Upgrade Workshop seems relevant. It had to do with people's emotions (which often appear even more irrational) but applies in part here.
FACT
"An individual's emotional response is appropriate for the individual's understanding of their current reality."STORY
A father sees his 3 year old son cry his eyes out after having broken his favorite toy. The father finds it annoying because in five minutes and with $5.00 he can replace the toy with a new one. The son is devastated because he can see now way possible to ever get back this 'one-of-a-kind' toy of his dreams.Which person acts most appropriately? They both do based on their own understanding of the CRT. So, is it any wonder people behave differently when we don't have the same CRT or FRT for that matter?
Ah, the power of careful communication. Hence the Management Skills Workshops are born. Catch one today!
97-01-09 elyakim@netvision.net.il (Eli S)
Which person acts most appropriately? They both do based on their own understanding of the CRT. So, is it any wonder people behave differently when we don't have the same CRT or FRT for that matter?While I agree with James that TP can reduce the impact of emotions in a rational discussion and even sometimes reveal the basic assumptions behind "different CRTs" I still like to point out to certain limits.
TOC/TP speaks about "hidden assumptions" that might be revealed and challenged. Others, especially the organizational behaviour people, also speak about basic assumptions/paradigms/mental pictures.
I think there are two different types of basic assumptions. The first kind is an assumption that we've learned and internalized as "truth". Behind cost accounting there are several such basic assumptions. These basic assumptions can be challenged -- it is not easy, but still possible.
The other type of basic assumptions have a different origin - it goes all the way to the basics of our personality. It is a mixture of character, beliefs and values. This kind is very difficult to challenge. Sometimes it is very hard to make the other person admit to have that basic assumption in the first place.
More, when you try to construct the CRT of another person - your own axioms-of-life (basic assumptions) may prevent you from seeing the other person's basic assumptions. As a matter-of-fact these basic assumptions (our mental picture of the world) impact all our thinking - the CRT and FRT included. Dealing with the TP in teams may reduce the impact of the basic-assumptions-bias, but, in many cases people who work together share some key basic assumptions.
Some trivial examples:
No scientific proof, which I assume is based on sound logic and identified effects, is able to convince a truly religious person that the world exists for more than 6,000 years.
Can a person who doesn't believe in God, really construct the CRT of the Pope?
Can any American construct the CRT of Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro?
You can certainly try - but, please don't be sure you have done it right.We better recognize this limitation of the TP (as a matter of fact of any rationality) - and it is not the only one. I leave issues like: assessment of uncertainty, the impact of time on the cause and effect, variable effect between the cause and effect etc. to another time.
TP is of great practical value. But we should not think it can do everything - this can be one of the most damaging basic assumptions. We better do an analysis (TP analysis?) of the TP in order to pinpoint the necessary conditions for it to be of real value.
97-01-09 kav@ohmail.oh.lucent.com
What is missing in the effort to modify behavior through measurements are the rewards. I Like Expectancy Theory's view of what influences behavior:Expected behavior = f { belief, trust, value }
The expected behavior is a function of:
- A person's belief in themselves that they can accomplish the task,
- How much do I trust that if I accomplish the task, I will receive the reward promised, and
- How much the person values the reward promised him if he completes the task.
97-01-09 LaHir@aol.com
"An individual's emotional response is appropriate for the individual's understanding of their current reality."I think there is an insufficiency in the way that Jim uses the story of the father who is angry at his child for crying over a broken toy The father's anger is not derivable simply from the fact that he has a different conception of the toy's replaceability. If that were the case why would he have to get angry? He could just acknowledge the difference. Why does the fact of a difference itself promote anger? Moreover, in the story it appears that what really makes the father angry is the child's distress. Why should that be? What casual structure connects the child's distress to the father's anger?
One could draw a CRT for this story. For example, the father experiences the child's crying as an indictment of his parenting. This imagined indictment leads him to feel angry. Moreover, if the father is like the rest of us, he will be angry at himself for feeling angry at his own child. He would then face an unsurfaced D-D' of "blame myself" and "blame my child." If that were true, it would mean that while he feels angry at the child he cannot simply ignore or punish him. Instead he feels an internal conflict.
Of course, there could be other causal structures. The point is, if we really want to understand the role of feeling in communication, and thinking, we cannot simly dispense with irrationality by arguing that irrational behavior lies in the eyes of the beholder. Feelings are linked to one another through a causal structure of their own , which must be understood in its own terms.
97-01-09 LaHir@aol.com
I have already written a reply to Jim on his use of the story about the father, the boy and toy. But I want to reiterate a point in response to Eli's note. The causal structure of feelings is not as mysterious as Eli makes it out to be. Feelings are not necessarily "basic assumptions" but rather express assumptions made in response to a particular situation.For example, consider the following story. The client says to the consultant "we spent all that time on the CRT and we came up with a core problem I already knew?" The consultant feels confused and cowed and says "well let me review the tree and get back to you tomorrow." He leaves both worried that he will not be able to satisfy the client but also angry at himself for so quickly giving in to the client's complaint. "The CRT is a good one," he thinks "why did I have to back-off? Why am I a coward?"
I propose that we could write a CRT of this story where the UDE's are the consultant's feelings of fear, cowardice and anger at his own cowardice. I think the casual structure we would derive could be tested for entity existence and causality in the same way that we would scrutinize any other tree. We only have to be willing to engage in the process of reasoning about emotions.
I think Jim Holt's comment and Eli's response are two sides of the same coin. Jim suggests that feelings look irrational only to the eye of the beholder. Eli suggests that feelings lie too deep in character to be explored. The truth is, that each of us as a feelingful person has a deep intuitive understanding of the causal structure of feelings. We simply need to access it.
97-01-10 lleach@srv.net (Larry Leach)
I think Jim Holt's comment and Eli's response are two sides of the same coin. Jim suggests that feelings look irrational only to the eye of the beholder. Eli suggests that feelings lie too deep in character to be explored. The truth is, that each of us as a feelingful person has a deep intuitive understanding of the causal structure of feelings. We simply need to access it.I feel the problem is a little deeper than that. (And therefore the solution more difficult.) We each look at the world through a filter (cloud if you prefer), shaped by our personal history. No two people interpret the same objective evidence the same way. One of the key characteristics of our filter is that we use it to reinforce our own private model of the world. We remember fondly information that supports our notions, and distort or forget information in conflict. Thus, we get deeper and deeper into our individual world models. Some call these 'mind-sets.' These can get so distorted that, for example, 'right to life' people will kill to defend their position. (Fortunately, not very many people go that far off of reality and logic!)
When we communicate with another, we are going out through our filter and in through theirs. And their communication to us is coming out through their filter and in through ours. As a reader of a cloud would say, "No wonder we sometimes see conflict!"
Chris Argyris presents this very well in his book, 'On Organization Learning.' He demonstrates how the filters can cause things to become 'undiscussable' in an organization. And the really difficult one's become 'undiscussable undiscussables.' And, the ultimate (p. 40), "We now have two individuals acting in ways that are undiscussable, and their undicussability is undiscussable."
I leave you to ponder that thought, and highly recommend Argyris to all. He has another great book titled, "Overcoming Organizational Defenses." Both should be required reading for all Jonahs.
97-01-10 elyakim@netvision.net.il (Eli S) Subj: Feelings
Larry has interpreted my post in the following way:Eli suggests that feelings lie too deep in character to be explored
This is not what I have in mind. We can and sometimes must explore feelings, our own and others. What I'm saying that our basic assumptions play a role and it might bias our analysis - not just regarding feelings but any diagnosis we are making. I'm also saying that uncover your friend hidden assumptions may be not enough to make him/her open to challenge these assumptions.
Someone may come with hard facts that validate the proposition that I'm stupid. Let me tell you that I'm not going even to listen to such evidence (crap). I hope I'm open enough to realize I'm mistaken.
When a marketing manager says "I know what my customers want", there are certain hidden assumptions behind the statement. Among others is the assumption "I have the core competence of understanding other people wishes". When something goes wrong - can that marketing guy deal with the possibility that his core competence is far from perfect? Suppose that guy did a detailed CRT for the customer's point-of-view? How many can go back to an old CRT and look hard where did they go wrong? And when they do - can they point the finger on themselves.
I suppose some do. Others don't. And it is not a question of mastering the tools.
By the way, did it happen to anyone to go back to an old FRT/PRT and check how good the trees were? A straightforward control mechanism, isn't it?