Jaques’s Null Hypothesis

E. Forrest Christian Theory 3 Comments

One of the things I’ve been thinking about recently is the null hypothesis for RO. There would have to be one that’s pretty clearly testable. Some thoughts:

  1. A StrX person can create a StrX+1 organization. This is a weird one that you just won’t test, since why would you try something that you think will fail? Maybe a historical analysis.
  2. Persons at StrX will fill fulfilled at work under a StrX manager. That should be testable.
  3. The person that a group will choose as its leader will not be the one with the highest CIP. I’d actually like to see this tested. It’s a relatively easy experiment: you get a group of people, variety of ages, who don’t know each other, and have them work on solving a problem together. Unfortunately, there are several intervening variables here. But if Jaques was right they shouldn’t matter. I’d like to see it.

    There may be something interesting in that people may only follow those who can adequately set context for them, someone at MyStratum+1 or MyStratum+2. MyStratum+3 will not add much value to me and so I will probably not turn to them for context setting. Interesting thought.

I’m sure that someone else has had better (or more recent) training in methodology and can put a better null hypothesis set together.

It has bothered me thatHuman Capability doesn’t seem to have null hypothesis testing. Maybe I missed it in reading. But it’s always dangerous to believe something on supporting evidence. You can find supporting evidence for any belief that you want. You can’t be certain of anything in science, of course. You can only say that something has been supported and the null hypotheses have not been supported. Sometimes you get support for both in the same experiment, which tells you something was wrong with your formulation, since your null hypothesis wasn’t testing against the hypothesis. Or something.

I’d love to hear other people’s take on this, so drop me a line.

About the Author

Forrest Christian

Twitter Google+

E. Forrest Christian is a consultant, coach, author, trainer and speaker at The Manasclerk Company who helps managers and experts find insight and solutions to what seem like insolvable problems. Cited for his "unique ability and insight" by his clients, Forrest has worked with people from almost every background, from artists to programmers to executives to global consultants. Forrest lives and works plain view of North Carolina's Mount Baker.  [contact]

Comments 3

  1. More scientific research is definitely required. I think there are acutally lots of hypotheses you could test, but the most important ones would relate to core assumptions and tenets of the theories.
    When people talk about “why this work is not more widely known or adopted”, this rarely comes up as a reason, however I believe a lack of academic research from “non-believers” likely has a lot to do with adoption.
    When I look at Ken’s bibliography of research, I don’t see a lot of research by outsiders.
    The role of research is critical to expand and test a theory, fill in gaps, and so forth. Darwin was brilliant, but he was not complete. And neither is Jaques.

  2. It is worth distinguishing capability versus raw CIP.(I prefer CMP.) Capability is expressed not only in terms of CIP but also relevant skilled knowledge, work valuing, and required behaviors.

    Considering this there will be times when the individual with the highest CIP would not be selected to lead the team. If, for example, the problem was highly technical in nature, the specialist with the relevant skilled knowledge might be selected to lead.

    In another example an individual may possess the CIP, skills and knowledge and not value the work. Would you want the team led by an individual who does not value the assignment? Or, the high CIP individual demonstrates poor values in his or her business transactions. Do we wish to have the team led by someone who is dishonest or uncaring and whom we do not trust?

    There are a range of considerations here. You may be looking for an answer that is too black and white; too disjunctive. (A characteristic commonly displayed at SI and SV.)
    Cheers!
    Al

  3. Post
    Author

    All I’m really asking for is the null hypothesis. Without one, it’s untestable and simply smoke. The null hypothesis is the basis of the scientific method nowadays: you don’t prove your point but test the null hypothesis and see whether or not it is supported. How it’s done is open. I just would like to see the research.

Tell Forrest how wrong he is:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.