Why Requisite Organization Will Not Survive
I’ve been wondering lately if Requisite Organization (the ideas formulated by Elliott Jaques) will survive for much longer. The GO Society identified several years ago that most of their members were “gray” — retirees or close to retirement age — and there were few young people in the pipeline to replace them.
I’ve worked with Requisite Organization people for several years now, since being found while blogging about Elliott Jaques’s books. I reckon that I know most of the people in the field these days, by name at least. I can only think of a couple of people my age or younger who are active in it, Michelle Carter and Sergei (whose last name escapes me). Many of what the RO people consider the “younger generation” are actually close 50. Younger people like Michael Raynor (author of The Strategy Paradox) use the ideas developed at Wilfred Brown’s Glacier Metal Company in the 1950s and 1960s, but not especially those from Elliott Jaques’s later works. Especially not Requisite Organization.
If you want to have a movement, it’s probably a bad idea to not be developing young people to take your place. It’s interesting that for the most part this isn’t happening.
It may be that RO attracts certain personalities that are less able or less willing to develop others. There may also be personal histories that follow similar pathways. It may also be that Elliott Jaques did not develop or maintain disciples. There is a lot of bad blood with people who worked with him while younger. (Dr. Jacques has been dead for some years now and is no longer part of the equation.)
I’ve heard that there are tight restrictions on using RO materials. Others who parted ways with Dr. Jaques also are aggressive in restricting use of their trademarked ideas. Nothing wrong with that at all, unless your restrictions limit the expansion and growth of the ideas.
I talk with people who would love to use Jaques’s insights but need mentoring. I have no idea how they would get that. The firms that use Requisite Organization theory seem to be small, person-driven shops that will die with their principals. I can’t think of any school that would provide training: using Dr. Jaques’ insights in most Masters degree programs would be degree suicide.
If you’re an RO professional and have better insight, perhaps you would say what is true. Maybe there is a large cadre of young people coming up in the ranks, but my impression is that the generation that Jaques trained himself is the end of the group.
As one of Elliott’s 60 year old lost sheep, I agree with all you have said here.
Could it be that management science is still so new? Is this just the nature of alchemy? Will it be another 100 to 300 years before a future genius uncovers & advances these concepts?
Hopefully not: but one thinks of this stuff and tends to feel powerless.
D.M.
Thanks for the comment, Darwin.
IMO, the best thing that the “old guard” can do is to start apprenticing younger folks. There is simply not that many places where one can have that experience. Bioss might be that in the future, as there seems to be changes in the air. I can’t think of anywhere else.
And I did think that Michael Raynor used EJ’s theories particularly adeptly in his recent book on strategy. He seems to be unaware of the large amount of work that attempts to correct and extend it, though.
I think there are a lot of issues going around at the same time.
A major issue is that of reverence. Many of the “old guard” knew Elliott fairly well and have a tendency to say “Elliott said”. This somewhat fundamentalistic approach erodes over time. A lot of modern organizational research and findings make more sense seen through an RO lens, but need not be thumped to smithereens for being wrong.
RO had its roots in research. First at Tavistock and then at Brunel. Elliott was positioned in groups of gifted people and a lot of research was done mainly using collaborative methodology. The aim of the research was solving organizational issues, from which RO evolved. Any RO related research today is fragmented and/or focused on perpetuating RO.
Loosing the research basis also meant loosing a larger organizational body at the heart of the knowledge. The people working with RO today are highly fragmented working independently or in small constellations. The Global Organizational Design Society is an attempt to get people together, but I have my doubts that it can overcome the fragmentation.
Bioss is still the major organization in the field. Although it has left its research roots it has an international presence and as at least as many employees and associates as there are GO members. There is a considerable recruitment of younger people into Bioss internationally and Bioss is undergoing a major organizational transformation.
There is hope even if it at present is not happening on the North American continent. But I do not believe that RO will survive if we all strive for it to remain unchanged.
It seems that the most reverent Jaques-ians are those who didn’t actually work with him as a colleague. A lot of them seemed to have gotten fed up and went their separate ways, perhaps because they thought the work was collaborative and but Elliot Jaques thought it was all his. (This was the accusation made by the Tavistock people about the early work at Glacier Metal.) One of them told me at one of the GO Society conferences that EJ tended to attract worshippers. Worshippers want things unchanged. There does seem to be a “I am completely right” side to Requisite Organization (the book) even though it is clearly not what worked at Glacier Metal in places.
Bioss seems to be the only ones having any impact on younger consultants, but then they are the only Jaques-y firm of any size. And they aren’t really Jaquesians: they seem to use the Gillian Stamp fork of the project, which is different from say the David Billis fork of the ideas. Still, I’ve been glad to hear that news about bioss’s recent changes, as it’s a crying shame if such interesting work by so many people goes to waste.
I agree as far as the aging group is concerned. My other concern why this will become more problematic is the lack of new research and the growing mis-alignment between the less vertical world of work and the vertical management practices of EJ. The lack of linearity of the new world of work and the more linear thinking in e.g. time frames of EJ. There are changes around certain EJ understandings that are in the process of redefining/refining some of the basic principles. While bioss, under Gillian, has taken a step away, the step as yet has not been strong enough to convince the new generation that the framework is principally sound. That is what we need to address and what we in Kontextit have tried to address over the past couple of years. We are in the process of growing younger people in a more progressive value generation focus around context and contexts of value generation that speaks to the dilemmas the younger generation needs to deal with in companies.
Great point, Pieter. Over here, the two people who have advanced worklevels findings the most are Art Kleiner, editor of strategy+business, and Deloitte’s Michael Raynor in his Strategy Paradox. Warren Kinston has done some amazing work but is just now getting around to sharing it through the THEE Online Project. Good to hear that Kontextit is doing some new stuff: I’m not familiar with y’all at all and will have to get up to speed.
I’m pretty sure that SST is a network model, and that Elliott Jaques got the timespans incorrect as they should follow a power law more coherently. Presenting it as a network model, and showing that if given the right to choose their own boss, an extant requisite organization will follow, would do wonders for its reputation. I’ve always been amused at management people who don’t understand the hierarchies of networks.
I’ve not found too many people who rejected the ideas of worklevels amongst my own GenXers, but I also explain them in a way that irritates and alienates the Jaquesians. I really do think that Wilfred Brown was doing something amazing at Glacier, something that people should pay attention to and something that Jaques unilaterally decided to abandon for just strict hierarchy, which made no sense.
OBTW, now that I’ve read a bit on y’all’s website, I really like the way that you put it, “Context (the wider application of Stratified Systems Theory)”.
Interesting arguments about age and some suggestion of decline. I must admit I cannot agree to the comment ‘The firms that use Requisite Organization theory seem to be small, person-driven shops that will die with their principals.’ Since the advent of computer systems that truly represent RO, I would not classify Anglo Gold Ashanti with 60,000 persons in over 20 countries around the world as small. The latest technology has brought in many new young consultants in RO and the workshops provided by RSC (www.requisitesystemconsulting.com) on behalf of the Institute are creating much new blood and rejuvenated the greying masses!
David, by “firm” I meant “consulting firm” of a decent size (say 1,000+). There are of course several large corporations that are using SST or Glacier principles, including GE, Tata Sons and — from what I can tell — Microsoft. None credits Jaques or Glacier; Tata credits David Billis, for example, and Microsoft keeps this like a trade secret. And even I’ve been a sub on replies to RFPs in a few countries, all stemming from the Glacier methods — don’t know who got them, of course. All to say that sure there are many corporations using the ideas.
I still contend that teaching the ideas is insufficient: some form of development of consultants up through the practice must also be in place. I’m not sure other than bioss that I can cite a consulting firm who is growing their young consultants in any of the methods and findings from out of Glacier. In my own field, I know that IBM (Canada) has used them to develop project management methods and DEC used them before they imploded (RIP, DEC: I dearly loved my Alpha). Raynor is at Deloitte and as I’ve said, I think he’s extended the worklevels ideas greatly by adding uncertainty; but I don’t think that it’s being used across the company, as evidenced by the recent Marin County, CA project failure. But as far as I know, the consultants involved did not develop anyone other than themselves.
It’s good to see that RSC is doing something. From what I can see from your website, the software tools that you are providing are going to go a long way to making it easier for people who are interested to adopt these principals for organization design. I wish you great success.
Hello Forrest!
Here is me, “the lost Sergei”
I actually just posted an answer on my website regarding a similar question, http://sergeyivanov.org/AskSergey.aspx.
Forrest, you are right on all points. Curious about Microsoft, perhaps my answer exactly talks about Microsoft’s failure.
Best,
Sergey
(Sorry about this, Sergey: I somehow didn’t get this comment approved!)
Sergey’s answer is at the top of that page, and is really interesting. I would disagree that most people are appointed to fail: I think that it’s just that most appointments are not to succeed but to “not fail”. It’s like choosing IBM back in the day: you won’t get fired over it even if they do a mediocre job. But it’s certainly true that most people aren’t hired to make a company successful, except in turnaround situations. Which Sergey points out about crises.
It’s really very interesting and I recommend taking a look if you’re someone interested in RO’s future.
For a related but different point of view, check out Mark Van Clieaf’s papers on executive pay at http://www.mvcinternational.com (registration required). Mark studied many of the big companies and found that boards were really managing for level 4 or lower performance.
Hi Forrest,
Thanks for the post.
There is a group of people that have been very close to Elliott that you have apparently never been in contact with. Many of them live and work in Sweden. Please look at http://www.enhancer.se for more information about the company that Elliott co-founded with us.
Enhancer has worked with over 170 companies in the last 10 years.
There is a mix of ages in the group and we have with some of Elliotts closest associates a strong on going development of the concepts and practice.
Robin Rutili
Thanks for pointing out that Sweden has a robust community, Robin. Paul Holmström and I communicate regularly, and I have a few of y’all through him. I had totally blanked in my mind about this strong community. I hadn’t heard about Enhancer and it’s great to have that link.
As strange as it sounds, this post has been great to get responses from people who are not as well known in my hemisphere.
There are some members of the “younger generation” becoming increasingly interested in some of the work of Elliott Jaques. An article here: http://www.researchnexus.org/network/index.php?option=com_joomd&view=joomd&layout=detail&id=15&Itemid=37
Also a critical take on biological maturation: http://www.researchnexus.org/network/index.php?option=com_joomd&view=joomd&layout=detail&id=9&Itemid=37
And I co-taught a course last week in Wroclaw integrating some principles of requisite organisation: http://www.ism.uni.wroc.pl/en/view_news.php?nid=18
The students were quite critical of the theory, particularly what it has to say about biological maturation. But they were certainly engaged and interested.
Just to follow up on the “younger generation.” I just published an article, discussing nuances of the application of the theory and my own research findings, as well as the state of American competitiveness. More papers are upcoming. This one, Why Organizations Fail: A Conversation About American Competitiveness, is available here:
http://sergeyivanov.org/Documents/VOL_4_NUM_1_SUMMER_2011_Why_Organizations_Fail.pdf
Published by The International Journal of Organizational Innovation? ???(IJOI), 2011.
Sergey
It’s been quite a while since I weighed in with respect to Requisite Organization.
I have always believed the “problem” has been in the packaging of the product. The notion of complexity of mental processing (current and future potential capability) is counter culture to the American Dream that has been engrained into the collective psyche of the western world. The dream promotes that anyone, if they work hard enough, can obtain anything, including the presidency of the United States, a concept that is obviously flawed. There is none the less an inherent risk in pidgeon holing people and placing some real or artifical value on their cognitive capability. In the eyes of society a free democracy promotes the fundamental values of equality and justice. Dissidents oppose RO at the core value level. If it doesn’t resonate with the values it quickly gets scrapped.
I think that if requisite managerial practices were promoted and the underlying theory was largely left aside that the whole system would be much more palatable. Even where succession planning is practiced by engaging the MoR, absent the theory related to stratified systems, the organization will define the best candidates for mentoring to senior roles. Assuming people are working near their current potential capability the organization will been relatively content. Those who are incapable of assuming high stratum roles (including the presidency) rarely aspire to that end. The theory, as a consequence, is best left in the unconscious, with the practical components (managerial practices) being brought into the conscious awareness of the organization.
I have also contemplated that human beings are multi dimensional organisms and that while one facet of our existence may be applied at stratum 3 another may be applied at 5 or 2 or some other level of capability. Leonardo DaVinci, for example, was a pure genius, within the context of his artistic ability. He may have only been S1 in his complexity for managing his household finances.
The frangmentation of RO post Elliott Jaques is not unlike a major corporation that contracts following the departure of a highly capable leader and a less capable successor. Jaques, according to Kathryn Cason, was S10 (clearly high level even if one wishes to dispute the 10). His followers were likely not operating at the same level and as a result they ran off with pieces of the whole system and are applying these and their own current potential capability.
Brilliant! Well-written and said, Sergey
I second Sergey re “Brilliant!”. There are those though, who maintain that unless the system is used in its totality, that it won’t work. I wonder if any research has been done in that direction.
Forrest, once again, the internet “path” proves fascinating. While reading Sebastian Unger’s “War”, I came across his mention of the “Dunbar number” which immediately stirred memories of my former companies journey with Elliot Jacques’ SST,and the RO science. Googling Dunbar number + Elliot Jacques’ brought me to your site. So, I’ve been exploring with interest your blogs on this fascinating “science” of organizing people and companies.
The concept was soon the operating system of the company and if nothing else, redefined all the HR systems and elevated the HR professionals to near god-like stature within our organization. It seemed every people, equipment and process issue was first viewed through this lens. It was believed that if these principles (R0) were followed to their scientific limit, the money would fall from the sky in buckets! It didn’t and the compamy later joined the fate of many in the private equity auction where most, if not all of the RO tools, systems, and HR forms were relegated to the bottom drawer. HR became a function of legal and the financial pros assumed the new diety status.
But I digress. The RO concept had it’s strong points and when selected concepts in the hands of solid leadership were applied, very positive outcomes were achieved. Rising to GM status (S4 in a loose interpretation within our new hierarchy), I found myself reverting to some of the organizational theories when faced with lagging productivity, poor product quality,non-existent labor relations and an every man for himself management structure. I was “fortunate” to have the opportunity to lead two plant “turnarounds” and the experience was the pinnacle of my career.
“Retiring” in 08 (one of the “grays” exposed to Jacques concepts, actually met him twice when he visited our company), my mixed bag of management tools in hand, I realized my passion for a people-centered inclusive culture. Certainly not a scientific expert on RO or many of the other leadership and organizational styles, but I knew what worked and have since been trying to share that experience.
Having been exposed to the throngs of consultants our company employed throughout my career, I now fly my own shingle and as one who got up everyday with very tangible manufacturing metrics to “hit”, I focused on the science of pulling every bit of passion, creativity, and capability from the folks who “touched” the product and those who “served” those who touched the product, their managers, both big and small “m’s”.
Not sure how much of “Elliot” is in all that but no doubt, some of stuck and I’m certain, there’s more right about his ideas than not. As an old grad school professor once told us, “throw what you believe out here in the middle of the floor. We’ll all pick it apart, kick it around and when we’re done, what’s left is probably good stuff. Pick it up and take it with you. Cherish it and it will serve you well”.
Interesting blog! I’m delighted Sebastian Unger mentioned the “Dunbar Number”.
Anytime RO is used to strengthen HR rather than management, something has gone off the tracks. I’m actually not that big of a fan of RO, which as others have stated here has a shadow side that is fairly fascist. The actual management methods used at Glacier Metal — where Jaques, John Isaac, Ralph Rowbottom and others first formulated the theories of work levels — is very different. I recommend taking a look at Wilfred Brown’s “ORGANIZATION” which you can get cheaply from UK used book sellers. (I think mine cost US$12 with shipping across the Atlantic.)
I prefer Brown because (a) he actually managed somebody and (b) he understands that there are issues that all people have the right to participate the decisions, even if through representatives. His use of the Works Council — which he advocated to his death but which Jaques rejected and apparently told people that “we” abandoned them because they weren’t needed — gives the necessary balance to the top-only RO system.
[Note to everyone: Michael has a book that looks interesting, People: The Real Business of Leadership. You can read the first chapter free.]
I am 62, so may to some extent prove your point. Yet having been through many many training courses and seminars on management, and having worked for Senior Execs, CEOs, and Boards there are only a few that stand out: 1) Drucker — he really sets a context for management , yet he was so prolific that at this point in my career he can create a background context yet can not be a tool; 2) Peters and Covey provide a kick-in-the-butt that is useful yet skunk-works and/or a reiteration of what everybody already knows is not a catalyst. The only tool that can be passed on to my management team is RO – - yet only certain aspects. Although I may be behind on advances in RO, I am very suspect at anyone’s ability to measure the “level” of a interviewee. Yet over time, the “level” of an individual can be assessed, yet in my opinion clouded by 1) “fire in the belly”, 2) success by sheer adherence to a sales protocol (just get it done), 3) excellence at managing the boss, and 4) sheer brilliance (I very much doubt that RO would have picked out Steve Jobs as a winner 30 years ago). I didn’t spend much time phrasing this, so Kathryn may likely conclude she was right in her assessment of me in 1988.
Thanks for the comment, Gary. (You were really assessed by Kathryn? What was that like back then?) Your comment on Steve Jobs makes me wonder if we couldn’t have seen him as a high potential early on. And I bet that this is testable! The great thing about the PC pioneers is that they were wildly opinionated and didn’t understand yet that they should be watching what they say in the press. Not that the computer press was all that advanced.
Anyway, the upshot is that we can test your hypothesis by grabbing some old interviews of Jobs and use PeopleFit’s method, which modifies Jaques and Cason a bit, and see what we get. We can grab some from the Apple II days, before he would be scripting his responses, and then some from the NeXT days when no one was listening so he probably didn’t script that either.
Sales is tricky, in my opinion. Because of the commission structure, most of them operate more like independent agents than employees. That makes it like the “piecework” worker Brown and Jaques talk about.
I’ve seen a consistent change in people who were “not doing the work to succeed” in jobs too small for them suddenly “work like all get out” when put in jobs that fit with either a Real Boss. My hunch is that this is not true for everyone and some people should be their own bosses. I think that is related to the issue of managing the boss seems to be much less of an issue in requisite relationships (where the boss is actually one stratum higher), at least in my experience. I’ve been amazed at how everything changes when the relationships get more aligned to a natural hierarchy, which is usually a lot flatter.
In the end, measuring the interviewee is what all testing methods are trying to do. CIP can only tell you what level of work a person could do if they were working full out. Almost no one works full out, and Jaques and Cason never fully explored the issues of work-fit, leaving it to “you just don’t want to do the work”. All it says is what level you could work at, not what type of job or even whether you can actually do the work. I think it works well to evaluate the severely under-employed.
It’s interesting that if you used your 3 points to evaluate Ulysses Grant before the outbreak of the Civil War, he’d be a loser in all aspects. Which is a great segue into my next topic about how underemployed people can get out of it, even in mid- and later-life!
Hi Forrest, I’m one of the ‘young’ Requisite Organization practitioners (working with Glenn and Michelle @ http://www.PeopleFit.com for the last 5 years) at the age of 48. In our particular branch of consulting we have a 2-fold problem. First, as a field, we don’t have a good methodology for passing on our collective knowledge (Not an uncommon occurrence in the consulting world as a whole). There are a couple of things play into this such as the work is not widely known in industry (at least not by name), and that by nature we are competitive and/or we are not as good at passing on what we know for a variety of reasons.
Next, it takes a certain amount of capability to be able to learn this stuff and a particular set of skills to be effective to passing it on to others. While the concepts at a base level are easy to understand, when we get to engaging with our target clients, there are a couple of things at play. First, context is best provided by someone one level higher that the person getting the information. In our client world, that means that we are usually dealing with Stratum 4, 5 or 6 level executives. It’s hard to have a person capable at those levels at a really young age (although by no means impossible), and if they are, there is credibility gap with the senior level executives that we commonly need to get our sponsorship from. A certain amount of ‘grey hair’ if you will is expected in consulting. An element of ‘Been there, done that’ seems to be expected.
So, are we a dying breed? No our ‘Next Generation’ is out there today. They are the young, high potentials that we are all working with inside our clients and they are driving transformation and being successful using Requisite Organization as a key component. Some will have the values and desire to work as consultants transforming systems from the outside. Others will remain powerful agents for change and transformation inside organizations for decades to come.
Hi Gene,
I don’t think you will find it is absolutely necessary to be one level higher in capability than the individual you are pitching the product to. Naturally, those whose CPC resides within the abstract world may wish to delve into the theoretical postulations behind stratified systems theory however the concrete elements all reside within the context of capable managers applying requisite managerial practices. This is the real meat and potatoes of the system and this is what nurtures an engaged workforce applying its individual and collective capability.
The brilliance of Jaques is that he has observed the underlying theory and then elevated it to a level of simplicity in respect of how organizations should be organized and what managerial practices should be applied in order to gain maximum benefit. The real challenge is it all requires a behavioral change by management and as we all know behaviors are not necessarily so easily modified.
Very much enjoyed reading all of the comments – I’m a General Manager (Level 4 in our organisation) who has found the principles of requisite organisatioan to be extremely valuable in our workplace.
I was lucky enough years ago at uni to have a jurisprudence professor who was interested in drawing an analogy between the common law – derived through the legal judgements, and the laws of nature which are derived through experimentation. He pointed out that the power of both methods is in review – if it is found that a certain object does not appear to obey, say, the law of gravity, it is not the object that is rejected, it is the laws of physics that are reviewed.
(As Robert Pirsig (best known for Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) wrote: “the pencil is mightier than the pen”.)
The laws of physics help us build bridges. If a bridge falls down, we need to revisit our application of the laws of physics to stop it happening again. To me, the equivalent in an organisation of a bridge falling down is simply people being frustrated due to internal reasons.
If we have a workplace that has people who have some semblance of enjoyment at work, are focussed on their customers and the market rather than on internal issues, and it is achieving what it set out to do – that workplace is requisite. If it’s breaking a principle of requisite organisation, then the principle needs to be reviewed, not the workplace. As I’ve experienced, workplaces that achieve the above generally line up very closely with requisite principles, just like the bridge that does not fall down aligns with what the laws of physics requires in order for it stay up.
In my experience at work, requisite organisation has provided the organisational laws of physics that have provided fantastic insight into underlying causes of people’s frustration. As Alan refers to above, I’ve not found it necessary to teach underyling concepts, it’s just through putting requisite structures and practices in place that things improve. For those that are of a theoretical bent, I’m happy to discuss the concepts of what I’m doing, but as a colleague said “Why do they call it ‘requisite organisation’. Isn’t it just common sense?”.
I think the answer to this is yes and no. If someone working at Level 3 has never been told that the real reason they are there is to make their whole show run better tomorrow while maintainign today, then we’re relying on someone instinctively picking that up. To those that find it obvious, then it’s obvious. To others, though, it can be a revelation.
Thanks to all for all the words, great reading.
Does anyone have a grasp of the academic discussion about RO in universities? Where specifically do we know that young students are exposed to these ideas in undergraduate studies? The few people I know in the field seemed to have stumbled on Jacques’ work, and I wonder if that is the norm.
Heidi,
I’m not an expert in that area but the GO Society (http://www.globalro.org) has had discussions about this at their conferences. Requisite Organzation, Inc. (http://www.requisite.org/) might also have info, as they are or were in the academy. My impression is that Jaques is taught in few places, including at Brunel Univ. where he taught himself. Wilfred Brown is almost unknown. It has seemed that it is spotty, here and there. It may increase with Art Kleiner’s pushing of Jaques’s work to understand a piece of the organization puzzle.
The reality is that Jaques and Brown were derided by the academy by their contemporaries, who went on to control PhD work. This limited the opportunities for academics who wanted to pursue Jaques’s ideas. Jaques taught until he died, so there are those folks, but I understand that many in the department weren’t happy.
I’d bet that that Ken Shepard of the GO Society would know. His contact details should be on the GO Society website.
Our organisation was re-built on RO principles 10 years ago, and has gone from strength to strength. Our implementation inadvertently created a rigid hierarchy that interpreted decision authority as the same as communication – which we’re loosening up now.
Overall – a good structure for predictable times, however in its implementation (ours) seems to struggle with innovation, self-forming workgroups, experts who can float up/down the hierarchy and see out 20+ years – we’re also challenged with organisational agility – how can we nimbly respond to external changes and contexts.
I like EJ’s work – however think that this, with a combination of systems-theory, human-dynamics, and Clare Grave’s work could be the platform for the next 20-years of organisations – perhaps more, if we can shift some of the underlying mindsets about growth.
btw – I’m in the younger category (fun to claim this, still < 50), and in NZ.
-hamish
I’d like to respond regarding “RO implementations.” Comparing “RO implementations” with the ICARUS experiment, through which physicists are debating whether neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, the debate centers around measurement and its precision.
Having read/heard that a particular implementation of RO lead to “struggle with innovation,” I would like to see the measures and data, such as the precision of levels, capabilities, and other data that none of us in the social sciences field shares, including Jaques himself. I also don’t know what “innovation” is, which could be a symptom of a poorly-designed or -functioning organizational system, but I still would not know about what we are talking because we lack a universal language. For example, I have seen multitudes of ways how a particular consultant determines the levels, and so, when we claim level/stratum 3, 4, 5, etc. — they all mean very different things (the last consultant I met “determined” levels by HR pay-grade). So, I very much doubt that there has ever been a scientific (measure-based approach) implementation of RO, and all claims of success/failure are suspect, and not verifiable, considering also coincidental business fortunes/misfortunes.
Jaques, in his genius, observed several important laws of organizational systems, hid their complexities, and presented them in a simple and eloquent way (as brilliantly commented by Gorman). Jaques also created a ratio-scale measuring instrument to observe some organizational dynamics. To our great sin, not a single organizational consultant/researcher, including Jaques himself, has ever published the measurement data. Without this data, we will never be able to move beyond Jaques’ superficiality, just like CERN scholars would not be able to support or reject Einstein’s speed-of-light theories.
Furthermore, Gorman makes an interesting observation about “a behavioral change by management … not necessarily so easily modified.” I would like to fundamentally disagree. All human behavior is a function of a system. Jaques eloquently described (and predicted) human behavior in organizations. The management does not exist in a vacuum. The CEO resides within a different, larger, and arguably, more complex system. Changing or even understanding its laws could have a fundamental shift in the behavior for which some of us so long.
This is fascinating.
I recall Cason emphatically telling Ken Craddock, “If they weren’t doing timespan, they weren’t doing Jaques!” Seems relevant here. I also recall hearing that in a well-known implementation, the company’s CEO role was bumped up a stratum to appease his/her ego, creating a fake layer somewhere in the organization. Maybe they were supposed to grow into it, as I tell my kid when she gets pants that are too big. There is way too much of this stuff going around.
That said, the consultants I know and have worked with seem pretty adamant with their clients about reality. They also use timespan.
I wonder if Sergey can talk more about what he means by “ratio-scale measuring instrument”. I’m unclear on what this is.
Forrest, thanks for the opportunity, glad to contribute. Yes, I am discussing the timespan method to obtain the ratio-scale measurement of the size of the role within a managerial hierarchy (not association). Now, the language problem that we all face is daunting, because I would not know what “timespan” means when other consultants or researchers claim to use it. There are many different timespan methods. Regarding this, I will be giving a presentation on this very topic on June 3-6 at http://www.tocico.org International Conference in Chicago. I would be glad to share the presentation when it is ready, and hoping to develop a scholarly article afterwards (would be glad to learn of any journal suggestions). Back to timespan, when someone says he used timespan to derive at stratum-n, I would still have no idea what that means; the error could be n+/-1 at least.
Stratum is nothing more than an interpretation of the measurement derived by using timespan of the role (when all of us agree on what that method is), which simply gauges the actual work in this particular role (just like blood pressure, it can go up and down). So, when we discuss stratification, we really need to publish the “timespan” set of data, amongst other information, not just accept strata and interpreted conclusions at face value.
On your other point regarding raising the CEO’s role by one level, this never happens in reality, only on a diagram. Stratum (derived through a ratio-scale systemic measurement method) is just a reflection of actual work. I have similarly seen, for appeasement reasons, “adding” level 8, 7, etc., but we are just kidding ourselves, and simply creating extra levels in a hierarchy that likely functions at level 5 or below.
Wow. St Charles is close to my old stomping grounds at Fermilab. Perhaps we can meet up if you have time before or after the conference. Think about doing a recording of the talk, too, if possible. It sounds very interesting.
Jaques was very precise in what he intended discretionary timespan to represent. My recollection is that discretionary timespan denoted the longest task an individual was capable of working on. This is limited, in the first instance, by the complexity of mental processing the individual possesses. For example, an individual capable of rationalizing third order declarative processing (Level 1) cannot lead cultural change in an organziation as this task requires an individual capable of abstract information processing in the fourth order of information complexity.
Returning to behavior versus system we need to acknowledge that all organizational systems are led by people and that the behavior of the individual leading the system will impact the ordering of the organization compelled by the managerial systems. These behaviors will also impact how readily the systems are employed and what values are prevalent within the organization.
Organizations are much more complex than they appear on the surface and much of what is observed, particularly in larger organizations, is not so much a function of what has been deliberately intended. A lot of what we onserve is the consequence of the unintended and the interpretations of those affected by the system. Human beings have a propensity to individualize the effects of the system (both good and bad) within the domain of how it makes me feel. Specifically we filter what is occurring in respect of an individual or collective interpretation of values. (McDonald has done some very good work on the subject.) Systems should enhance trust within organizations and should be fair however many interpret them as being unfair and deceptive and in particular when they are changed within organizations that are dycfunctional the first response will almost always be one of “they’re doing it to us again”.
A shift to an RO implementation requires are pretty resilient CEO and board recognizing that the effects of its implementation may not be fully visible for five years or so (I doubt that a cultural transformation can occur in much less time unless the organization is very small) and the marketplace for publically traded companies can barely look beyond a few quarters.
You’d be surprised, Al, at how much controversy there is over timespan. I’ve heard people go at it for hours at professional meetings, to not really get anywhere. Rowbottom and Billis essentially say that it’s worthless above stratum 5 (the first real executive level) and so let’s not use it. Many of the other people at Brunel Institute of Social Sciences felt the same way. Jaques always got these timespans in his work, they said, but we can’t replicate whatever he’s seeing.
One of the current detractors is the US Army. They feel that there is “timespan compression” for battle troops. One could argue that the fact that very few of the US military brass were thinking much beyond the initial conflict (handily won) that we have such problems in the post-war Iraqi peace (more or less bungled).
Another argument, made most recently by Tom Foster in his blog, says that the timespan of your training you have to keep up with is relevant. Which is silly prima facie: all pre-med students would have to have 10-year timespans. He was making the argument about software developers, and it’s just not right. Speaking as someone who has managed software developers in three countries.
The Canadian RO people seem to be more coherent, perhaps because almost all of them learned RO after, well, RO, as opposed to back in the SST or BIOSS days. European Jaques-ians have more differences, many of which keep them from working together.
One of the issues may be differentiating Timespan (the time it takes to accomplish your longest task [or see the results of your work?]) and Time Horizon (a personal quality of how far into the future one can see). There has been task timespan data published but it feels like it’s been awhile, and the vast majority of implementations don’t ever try to measure the timespan of the roles.
Hello Forrest, absolutely yes to recording the talk, and meeting in Chicago at http://www.tocico.org International Conference. Would you be able to record it (we could take this discussion off-line, sergey@SergeyIvanov.org, 202-556-1660, Skype sergeygw)? I will try to cover as much of the method as possible. I think eventual agreement on the method is necessary to succeed in moving the field towards science. Agreeing on the method would also disclose the measurement error in our reporting, thus, enabling alternative interpretations. We need the same measurement standards for organizations as the ones that exist for length, weight, etc. – kept by the General Conference on Weights and Measures, as I understand on an international territory somewhere in France (the standard of meter, kilo). I am sure there will be other cleverer measurement ideas developed later, but at least we would have a Galilean foundation for future Einsteins. Without that, the discussion of stratification is intriguing, possibly fascinating, but hollow.
Phew, there are so many things to comment on in this thread
I had a few days with Elliott back in 1997. One day was with one of my clients discussing how generals lead war. Elliott introduced the concept of “compressed time” as a way of coping with speeded up time during war. I figured that this is what happens in industries where rapid change takes place. My personal conclusion was that time span analysis might not be easy if the speed of time can be considered as variable.
Timespan has been controversial for a long time. According to what I have heard Elliott was explicitly forbidden to do time span analysis at the National Health Service in the eighties.
Forrests quote from Cason “If they weren’t doing timespan, they weren’t doing Jaques!” , makes me recall my comment 2010 in this thread about fundamentalistic attitudes hindering the development of the field and making it less attractive to newcomers. Which capable person wants to work with something that is set in cement? Unfortunately the term “requisite organization” has become unrequisite. Going back to the work done at Glacier and later described in Social Analysis, “requisite organization” has become “manifest”, a description of how things should be, rather than a search for the better way of working.
Sergey touches on the research roots in the field. I have heard that Elliotts original data was lost, but considerable research was done both at ARI and Bioss. Gillian Stamp developed CPA/MCPA and some of the research was published at ARI, including the longitudinal studies if my memory serves me right.
As far as I understand about what has been done, there is a research base for time span analysis and CPA/MCPA, but no other methods. Also the original research does not go beyond seven levels and eight modes. Given that there is no further research any additional levels and modes are hypothetical, not proven.
I disagree with Sergey when he writes “Stratum is nothing more than an interpretation of the measurement derived by using timespan of the role”. The work by Isaac and Gibson as described in “Levels of Abstraction in Logic and Human Action”, suggests otherwise. Isaac and Gibson had independently found a discontinuous stratification, which as I understand it made Elliott reinterpret time span analysis and set in motion the work of Gillian Stamp in developing the CPA.
Lovely and lively discussion. On compressed time. I think Jaques was wrong there. If you cannot measure the phenomenon, then how are you going to test it? Everything then becomes “compressed” time. Stalin, in 1942, when the Germans were right near Moscow, was discussing plans about dividing Europe after the WW2.
About Isaac’s research on capability, which he called capacity. His research was paramount, unfortunately largely forgotten. He developed the Theory of Discontinuity of Psychological Development, finding distinct populations of capacity amongst the college students, evaluating this capacity using him-invented capability-measuring tool, something like an abacus, which came close to measuring Isaac’s capacity/Jaques’ capability. Unfortunately, his tool is also lost to history.
Gorman’s idea about multi-dimensional capability is brilliant; I agree with it. Now then, back to the organizational/hierarchy’s stratum, how are you going to get at stratum without a measuring tool? By title? By gut-feeling? By clothes people wear? Or how far they think into the future? My point was that without a precise measuring tool, you cannot get at the phenomenon, be it the level of work in the hierarchy, or a dimensional capability of a person (try measuring the speed of your vehicle without an odometer). The tool(s) should also be widely understood by others so that a conversation about data and findings could be possible.