Jack Fallow had an excellent article in the recent GO Society book, Organization Design, Levels of Work and Human Capability: Executive Guide (“On Being Heard: Insights from complexity theory
and values as touchstones for effective executive communication
across the levels”). In it, Jack talks about the values that followers seem to expect from a leader who is supposed to be at each level. I imagine that it also goes the other way: this is the type of leadership behaviours that managers expect out of their subordinates.
Here’s his table:
And what he calls his theory fits in perfectly with my last post about managing your image!
No, no, no: just pulling your leg. He’s talking about leadership that attracts followers rather than leadership that demands you obey. And, yes, before you ask, Jack is Scottish.
I’ll be referencing this quite a bit. So do try and keep up.
The rest of his article is gold, too: you will want to go to the GO Society website and sign up to download an electronic copy of the book. He starts on page 143 or so.
Dome of the Belgian royal greenhouses in Laeken (external). © E. Forrest Christian. All rights reserved.
Jack, like me, uses the term “transformational leader” in a way that is different from the way it is normally used in leadership circles. My excuse is that I had no idea of the 1970s formulation, so I just used it as it means on the face: leaders who transform the reality they are in. He says that he can’t go into the explanation in his article: perhaps he’d do so here in a comment. Or an email.
Caught up in unavoidable busy-ness, but will comment tomorrow. Has anyone else ever written about values and the levels of complexity?
I’m not sure that they have in the way that you are talking about it. Part of the problem is that too many Jaques people (and I think EJ himself) focus on the manager. They don’t seem to understand that if EJ found something truly natural, then you should be able to see if when people choose their own bosses. I’m pretty sure that Gore & Associates shows this if someone would bother with the network analysis.
Can you talk a bit more about your table? Is it that Level 1 expects to be managed for accuracy, or that they value accuracy in their managers?