RE: people vs psychology in SOPK

["Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." <ANTON@wsh.state.wy.us>]

Charles Miller wrote (way back on May 23rd)

>   In his classes he refers to, "Psychology," pie as, "People," pie, because
> of his experience and desire to get this point across (The point that people
> make the difference).  The Society of, "Psychology," pie bakers are
> concerned because, this professor is running thousands of pupils through his
> educational and training courses and they are using, "People," pie in the
> place of, "Psychology," pie.

I really like Charles' pie metaphor here, and thought it was time I weighed
in on this thread.  I did so early on and then backed off, wanting to see
some of the messages.  (And I have no idea if Charles was referring to me as
the pie baker since there are other DENizen psychologists).

I understand the point that "psychology" probably as Deming meant it and
certainly as most DENizen responses I have read to date seem to have taken
it, is larger than "people" in one sense.  However, from an insider's
perspective they are virtually synonymous.  I cannot understand people
without psychology and I cannot understand psychology without looking at
people.  I believe I said in my original post (and if I didn't, then I should
have) that when I refer to this element of SoPK I sometimes call it
"Understanding how people really behave".  In this context, "behave" also
equals emote and think.  In my mind, this phrase captures the essence of
psychology as Deming intended it to be.  For example, this
phrase, to me anyway, captures (among other things):

 -- elements of motivation, intrinsic vs extrinsic
 -- impact of biases, heuristics on decision-making
 -- formation and development and impact of schemata (or mental models to
borrow Senge's terminology) upon decision-making and change
 -- impact of external rewards on people's emotional reactions
 -- social elements of the workplace and importance of relationships (this
was a critical piece missed by Taylor)
 -- the counter-intuitive nature of some forms of statistical reasoning
 -- joy in work
 -- teamwork and team functioning, communication
 -- emotional impact of performance appraisals, etc.
 -- emotional intelligence

I also usually follow this up with examples of some of these things and point
out that often managers make *assumptions* or have expectations about how
people *should* behave or are likely to behave that are just not true -- and
that the element of psychology in the SoPK deliberately points managers
toward seeking to better understand how their people *actually* behave and
the elements that lead to more effective work environments and teamwork etc.
I also usually inform people that part of the Psychology element of SoPK
involves *taking into account the emotional impact of management decisions
upon employees* since this is usually something that they do NOT consider.
They consider the bottom line, they consider productivity, they consider
costs, they consider feasibility, but they do not usually consider *how* they
involve people in the decision and *how* people will actually react to
management dictates.  By including Psychology as an explicit pillar of SoPK,
I think Deming made a brilliant contribution to quality.  That inclusion
forces non-psychologists to confront psychological issues on some level.

So in terms of application, psychology is understanding the reality of
people.  One benefit I have received from writing this and reading the
messages in this thread is that I have a better understanding of perhaps my
own biases and need to communicate more clearly on this issue with people I
work with.  Thank you all for that.



Anton Tolman, PhD, CPHQ, Psychological Services Manager &
Quality Management Coordinator, Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177, Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us    (307) 789-3464

"All great things are done for their own sake."   -- Robert Frost
=========================================================================