Let’s face facts: Requisite Organization (RO) means that a lot of people (1) aren’t as “smart” as they think they are, and (2) the system in which they have succeeded is built on sand. And that’s a big reason why RO doesn’t succeed. When people read about work levels and Requisite Organization — especially Bioss’s Career Path Appreciation (CPA) and MCPA and Elliott Jaques’s & Kathryn Cason’sHuman Capability — the implications for their own lives is too severe to even contemplate.
Need an example?
How about Brian Dive, who lets the cat out of the bag in hisThe Healthy Organization: A Revolutionary Approach to People & Management:
The subjective interviewing approach of Jaques and Cason was not readily transferable to hundreds of executives charged with assessing their subordinates’ potential. It smacked a little of ‘playing god’ [sic]. Furthermore the Jaques, Cason and [Gillian] Stamp approach was rooted into the limited assessment of strata according only to time span of discretion.
As a final check, a number of my staff and I were subjected to this interviewing methodology. We found it unconvincing. 
Translation: “We didn’t like the results because it meant I was never going to be CEO of the company and I wasn’t a level above most of my direct reports.”
This is not “I have these arguments about the validity of the timespan approach” (which Rowbottom, Kinston, the US Army and others have argued to some extent), nor “The interviews clearly do not line up the managerial judgment approach which Jaques advocated in his initial works, and still does in HC”. Or even, “The interview approach is simply unrealistic for No, this is just “Great horny toads! I’m smarter than that!”
He is right that the interview approach should not replace managerial judgment, for which Jaques always advocated. Nor is the interview approach necessarily good for “talent gearing”. In fact, PeopleFit, one of the leading proponents and teachers of the Jaques and Cason interview method, use managerial judgment for their large-scale talent gearing. The interviews are great for helping individuals (CPA) and for validating the work level finding, but it can only inform managerial judgment. It’s a data point, not the whole enchilada.
Requisite Organization doesn’t even mention interviews. But it does mention “modes” (the set growth trajectory that individuals are on, at least from their twenties) and the progression charts.[To be fair, Dive does get that Jaques is entirely about timespan of discretion (as Cason clearly pointed out during the Legacy Day at the last GO Society conference).]
But this is the struggle. We even see consultants inflating the level (stratum) of their clients and client organizations, seemingly just to feed the client manager’s ego. People just don’t like to face up to the fact that they aren’t the Brilliant Great One that they imagined themselves to be.
Which is sad, because much of the greater “Levels of Work” work has been a great help to individuals in their self-assessments. But when your life is built upon something shown to be an illusion, you’re probably going to try and keep the illusion.
Or, as Jerry Harvey noted in his essay, you will do anything to avoid that anaclitic depression.
Prom rejection (2009) by Mjt16. Public domain.