|
|
| Questions from the Web & Sergey's Answers If you have a question about Dr. Elliott Jaques, or any societal, organizational, and/or personal question, please contact Dr. Ivanov via Sergey@SergeyIvanov.org.
Paul Lynch, Cairns, Queensland, Australia, asks (November 18, 2009) (September 20, 2010) Q: Is Requisite Organization Theory Dead?
A: Dear Paul,
Marvelous question! It took me over ten months to answer
your question. I was hesitating from Requisite Organization (RO) to becoming
viable in the next 10-20 years to the entire endeavor being dead. It occurred to
me that to answer your question, I had to change my assumptions.
Our general and faulty assumption is that organizations strive
to appoint the best possible leaders to create the best possible organization
to achieve success. If we assume this to be true, the Boards, political
leaders, families, elected members, and so on strive to find the most capable
leader to appoint as the head of the organization. Therefore, appointing a
stratum 7 or 8 leader will develop a stratum 7 or 8 organization, with all the
proper levels of management. The question then becomes why only so few companies
use Jaques’ theory if it enables the corporation to achieve better results?
It came to me today that it is false to assume that our
organizations strive to appoint the best intellectually-capable leaders. On
opposite, and paradoxically, most organizations select the most
incompetent leader who fits in, even if it dooms the organization to failure. I
have not understood this phenomenon entirely yet, but following this finding,
it becomes clear why good ideas would not flow within a commonplace leadership
structure, because using winning principles would lead to success, requiring a change
at the top (see Norman Dixon’s book, On
the Psychology of Military Incompetence), while most organizational leadership
structures are designed for failure. Most competent leaders do not fit in, and
often, get ejected from the organization.
Therefore, the use of Jaques’ theory will remain limited
until the organizational leadership paradigm for failure is well-understood.
Once comprehended and analyzed, and the structures appointing bad leaders are
held accountable, more and more organizations will succumb to appointing better
leaders who will then use good ideas for the betterment of all. When will this
happen? It may happen through a crisis requiring a re-thought of major world’s
organizations, or through a successful stratum 9 organization striving to
create a less violent society. I only hope it happens in our time.
Another side finding is that people at the lower levels of
most organizations are not the culprits; it is the “unaccountable ether” that
appoints intellectually-incompetent leaders to roles which exceed their
capabilities that fails the organizations by these appointments. Note that
folks who have built great organizations are capable leaders; here, I am simply
mentioning those later appointed.
I will try to write more regarding this phenomenon, regards,
Sergey
Marlou van Iersel, The Netherlands, asks (December 16, 2009): Q: I am looking for a book written by Elliott Jaques about work levels/management layers/span of control. Can you tell me which book discusses this subject the most? Kind regards, Marlou van Iersel A: Dear Marlou,
I would get Requisite Organization: Human Capability is good: Life and Behavior of Living Organisms:
I would also get Social Power and the CEO:
What is your interest in the theory/application? Good luck on your journey, Sergey Marlou van Iersel, The Netherlands, follows up (December 16, 2009): Q: Dear Sergey, Thanks for this information. The reason why I’m interested in the theory is because I want to take a closer look at the management layers/ span of control within my organization. Hopefully these books and other benchmark data can help me to form an advice what to optimum amount of layers/span should be. Marlou A: Dear Marlou, That's good. The best book would probably be Requisite Organization. I wouldn't worry about the span of control (how many people work for you), but more about the levels -- the time-spans of the roles below and above you. I have PDF articles; I will try to see which ones would more apply to your case. Here is a popular one written by a journalist ( attached). If you identify the sizes of roles properly, it would greatly assist you in identifying missing work causing pre-made current and upcoming crises vs. creating future systemic opportunities and trust/goodness systems by design. Best, Sergey
Greg Tong, United States, asks (January 31, 2009): Here are websites of a speech by the Iranian president. Ref my question to you at the ASQ509 LSS meeting last Wednesday, what stratum is he most likely at? Sincerely,
Greg Tong
Full text of President Ahmadinejad's speech at General Assembly
IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency
United Nations, New York, Sept 17 2005, IRNA
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2005/iran-050918-irna02.htm Full Text of Ahmadinejad's 2007 UN Speech -- And It Wasn't Easy To Find
http://digg.com/politics/Full_Text_of_Ahmadinejad_s_2007_UN_Speech_And_It_Wasn_t_Easy_To_Find Last update - 00:00 24/09/2008
Full text of Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN General Assembly
By Haaretz Service
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1024097.html A: Dear Mr. Tong,
Even though it was an interesting transcript, I would not claim to determine President Ahmadinejad's capability stratum from it because the speech is scripted. What I need is either a spontaneous letter/writing or recorded talk or transcript of an interview he gave, in which he was engaged and was not scripted. If you send me one of these, I would be glad to send you my evaluation.
I am attaching an interview transcript with Bill Gates, from which it is possible to determine stratum 9 capability (attached):
Here is an example of a stratum 9 declarative statement:
GATES: Well, I looked at what is the greatest inequity in the world. The U.S. is very oriented towards solving inequity -- gender inequity, racial inequity. In fact, you'd have to say, the great inequity is that we let people die of these diseases. We treat their lives as being worth less than a few hundred dollars because that's what it would take to save them. And so there's a huge disparity and bringing the advances in science to those diseases can change that in a big way. So, my goal was to pick the thing I thought was the greatest inequity in the world, focus on that as our top priority and that's world health and then take the greatest challenge for the United States and make that also a priority and that's the work we're doing in education.
Thanks for a great question,
Sergey Ivanov, Ph.D. Can you give me an analysis of why you believed that your highlighted quote represents a stratum 9 capability? A: Dear Mr. Tong,
Why stratum 9? Because he makes a declarative statement, "greatest inequity in the world," and then deciphers it into if-then-else joined/inter-linked stratum 8 statements.
Keep in touch,
Dr. Ivanov
Captain Tom Tolman, Army, United States, asks (November 28, 2008): Q: Sergey, Let's say you do not have a better project manager. If, in a hypothetical situation, you have a project which requires a Stratum 5 leader and you only have a Stratum 4 leader available, what do you do? Can you modify the project in some way to increase the likelihood the Stratum 4 leader will be successful? I think we have situations like this throughout organizations all the time. This is essentially a question about delegating tasks. What is the best way to delegate tasks if you do not have the leadership you think you need? I'm interested in your thoughts. Tom A: Dear Tom,
I think you answer your own question. Let's look at the extremes; in math it is the zero point on X- or Y-line.
Let's say I need another E=mc2. To achieve this, I need a minimally stratum 9 person. Would you be able to split the problem to lower strata to solve it?
Another example is war. Why don't we replace General Petraeus with ten stratum 1 people? Sounds absurd, right? My answer to you is that the world is full of high capability people, find them. The Army, similarly, is full of underemployed Generals, like yourself, Yingling, and lots of others -- identify, train, and recognize these people, and promote according to capability?
If I were the opposing Army General, and I saw that the enemy forces were commanded by a stratum 4 General -- I'd attack and wipe them out instantly. So, if you don't have the capability -- run, there is nothing else you can do except that to delay and buy time until you find the right capability.
P.S. We can have a conversation on this question when we meet, a great question!
John Gemmell, Australia, asks (September 23, 2007): Q: We are implementing a requisite change so I am looking for a job description template that is suitable for use in a requisite organization (engineering company with a turnover of 30 million).
A: Dear John,
It appears your company is a stratum-4 business, right? CEO/President’s role is in stratum 4, VPs in 3, etc. Job description – I think you might be the first company with a most creative, laconic, and accurate job description:
1. Role Stratum
2. Authorities
3. Accountabilities
4. Role Relationships (what authorities and accountabilities this role has towards the others it interacts with; see Jaques’ Requisite Organization book pages 88-89)
5. Assumption to do your best, and leave all dysfunctional traits outside the organization
Do brainstorming within your organization, and see what else your people would want in their own job descriptions, and let me know what you would add/change.
I am also attaching one of my working papers that may have helped determine the stratum of your organization (I have not tested it extensively yet).
Luis J. Martinez, UASLP, Mexico, asks (August 20, 2007): Q: First of all, congratulations for your work on Elliott Jaques' theory. I also read the work you've presented at GO in Toronto, and it's all very interesting. Have you found a necessary step to make sure top management is totally convinced of the benefits of RO theory/systems in order to implement it throughout the organization?
Regards,
Luis J. Martinez
A: Dear Luis, Thank you so much for this important question everyone asks, including myself, for the past several years. First of all, I hope you and your family are not in the harm’s way of Hurricane Dean; safety and peace to you.
This is a very important question. How come, if the benefits of using the theory are so apparently obvious, top management, owners, governments and other institutions, such as academics, for example, have most arrogantly ignored the findings of Dr. Elliott Jaques’ works? Why aren’t we as or more successful than most competitive consulting firms offering high-priced palm readings to the CEOs even if we have solid scientific (meaning true measurable and testable) propositions, and are usually treated as fraud, just like these high-priced consultants of emotional intelligence, personality leadership, and other unicorn-based harm and nonsense.
I have not found a magic elixir that works for all CEOs. There is one magnum-size institution (stratum 8) (that I know of) that is going through a change to become a requisite organization because of the business need to eradicate spending dollars for nothing; they want to be most effective and efficient having recognized the need for the right structure and organization design. Hopefully, this will lead to other institutions following, and perhaps, in 5-10 years, the market advantage that these companies gain would be the breaking point for the theory to become mainstream. I think there is a need for one or two desperate mega-corporations/countries willing to allow for the theory to transform them to survive.
Unfortunately, the academic world does not help; there is not a single university in the United States that even talks about Elliott Jaques and his theories; having been actively involved in research and academia for over ten years, even using his name is a taboo. Frankly, here is what I think is going on. As I understand, until the beginning of the 19th century, the scientific world was still divided whether matter consisted of small particles (atoms) or Aristotelian Earth, Fire, Air and Water, until Einstein proved that it was in fact particles. We need another Einstein to prove to the academic world, and extend into the political institutions of democracy, war, church and other structures solidifying our growing civilization that this theory might alleviate tremendous psychological stress and fear of large numbers of people who in fact live in these man-created institutions of violence-enforced democracies, autocracies, elite-based societies; perhaps the elite will realize that war is a riskier business to engage in than allowing for less stressful institutions to exist, which just might ameliorate some “unsolvable” health costs, and in fact, preserve the very institutions being saved by radicalizing one unhappy group against another.
Thank you for the question; I am not sure if I answered it, but don’t give up. Get the structure right; it will free up resources in your organization to succeed against many odds, appearing miraculous that such great achievements could even have been conceived in the first place.
Luis J. Martinez, UASLP, Mexico, follows up (August 22, 2007): Q: Dear Sergey,
Thank you very much for your concern on my family's and personal safety due to Hurricane Dean. Thanks God we are doing just fine, and I hope it will not cause any kind of harm to other folks in states both in Mexico and the U.S.
I want to sincerely appreciate your interest in answering my question about the adoption of Jaques' epistemology in modern organizations. As you put it, there is not a single university in countries like Mexico and the United States that even talks about Elliott Jaques and his theories, which is very unfortunate. I agree with the fact that, as you said, it is hard to understand why top management, business owners, governments and other institutions, such as academics, for example, have most arrogantly ignored the findings of Dr. Elliott Jaques' works. "Jaques is old-economy stuff," Gareth Morgan has said. In other words, cognitive capabilities as applied to the pursuit of organization results do not matter any longer. Or how could they really matter? Creativity, innovation and results have instead given way to conformity, luck, and the "don't fix it if it ain't broken" mentality.
As long as people do not realize the most important changes in organizations only occur in the long-term, they will not be able to understand how transformations and the evolution of organizations happen. As you suggested it, high-priced consultants sell products that only become 'quick-fix fads', and the lack of critical judgment spreads out in managers from all sorts of companies.
I work as an academic at a state local university (UASLP) down here in Mexico, and I can see how interesting seems to some psychology students the analysis of the nature of jobs in a hierarchical organization. I think I share some of these thoughts as well with colleagues like Harald Solaas, a colleague friend I just visited this year in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He has also been doing a great job in promoting the work and applications of Elliott Jaques' theory, as you are too. And I think Jaques' ideas need to be shared more widely in Mexico.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas about the fascinating world of the Requisite Organisation. Hope I can pursue a Ph.D. program at George Washington University, if the future allows me to do so.
Best regards,
Luis J. Martinez.
San Luis Potosi, MX
A: Dear Luis,
Thank you so much for a sweet and thoughtful response. Change is coming! I can feel it. Largest U.S. organizations are finally fed up. I have just read a study where the “CEO” screamed at the “EVP” that he either is going to fix the system or be fired (thus, holding him accountable and giving him the authority to change the system; the CEOs are looking for the right organizational structure!). The CEOs are looking to understand and put in place a system of accountabilities and give proper authorities to their “EVPs” because their organizations need to get things done efficiently, effectively, timely, within the right cost, at the right time, reliably and safely.
The universities are deep asleep; they have become stratum-5 (at most) departments of corporate America sold or up for sale; more on this later as I promised an article on this societal tragedy to a friend of mine at www.WorldAffairsMonthly.com.
For Mexico, to get out of the problems it faces, it needs to allow its own stratum-8 thinkers to allow to think, be (exist), and do, and trust me, Mexico has some incredible people. It is the country the population about one-third of the U.S.; it has the potential to surpass Canada, U.K. and many European countries within 15-25 years if allowed. I only hope that it does because people deserve better lives, in ideally Mexican unique and creative ways.
Much love from America,
Sergey
P.S. Pursuing a Ph.D. at George Washington is great, though you won’t learn much of Jaques; how sad it is that there is nowhere on the planet to learn the real deal.
Alf Rock, IBM, Canada, asks (July 21, 2007):Q: Sergey, I am looking and looking for the research or descriptions of the structural tensions of an Un Requisite Hierarchy.
There are two points of tensions I am seeking:
- a) Where individuals are inhabiting a "current levels of work" beyond their "current potential capability" to do the work, and
- b) Where the individuals are inhabiting a "current levels of work" that is beyond their "current potential capability" to do the work.
A simple table for a:
- a) show Level 3 work inhabited by a level 2 person and so on upwards the levels showing the CPC level being n+1.
- b) you get the picture :-) A: Most hierarchies are not requisite and harmful to people in them. Your question (a) usually (in my experience) happens with higher levels of work, beginning with stratum 3, 4, and above. Continuing with a good example you are giving below (a), what happens would be as follows. For example, if the CEO's role is stratum 7 (a normal large multi-national corporation), but the CEO's current potential capability is stratum 6 (or lower), the role becomes a stratum 6 role, compressing the roles below by one or more levels. So, now the CEO is doing the work of his/her EVP, stratum 6 EVP is struggling and would most likely leave the company or become a "de-facto" business unit CEO, while the business unit CEO (stratum 5 role) would be failing his or her role by being pushed in the stratum 4 role, and so it all compounds. I have recently seen this happen in a stratum 7 company being "pushed" down into the stratum 6 business (this was my evaluation); the company was purchased at the stratum 7 price and integrated into another corporation.
When this, your question (b), or another systemic problem of this magnitude happens, it harms the people employed by the hierarchy. The person who is "overemployed" is hurt because he or she is put into the role to fail, while the people underneath suffer from all kinds of symptoms flowing from the improperly designed corporate system. There is no measure that has been invented to measure the complexity of a task yet; so, it is rather difficult to say which task requires which current potential capability level of a person. So, this question is hard to answer, but one can guess that if serial processing is required at a basic level -- this would be stratum 3, parallel -- stratum 4, and so we go. A new geopolitical approach -- stratum 5, and new theory of a great civilization-changing endeavor -- minimum stratum 9.
Please let me know if you would like me to expand my answers. Best Regards.
Alf Rock, IBM, Canada, follows up (July 22, 2007): Q: Two things however. Please send the link to the blog or message board, and your answer was too high level.
I am interested in bringing RO to a wider audience. Most of the dialogue is around level 7 and 6, and I believe that RO concepts are attainable to level 4s and 5s. Specifically I am still interested in a table with a set of bullet points that capture the essence of the stress of being a level 3 person in a level 4 job, or being a level 4 person in a level 3 job.
I believe that just that one 3/4 and 4/3 description would open up RO to a vast amount of people, because the description would cause quite a few people to say "OMG that just how I feel", or "OMG that's exactly the manager I have".
The thing is that each stress level or a 3/4 or 4/3 mismatch should have specific characteristics. A: You are joking, right? Show me one stratum 7 discussion on RO, just one. Most discussions at the GO conference were stratum 2, 3, and at most stretching/approaching 4. Alf, you cannot look at symptoms and diagnose a disease, and then prescribe medication. You have to measure the fever of a person, take other measurements, and only then guess a diagnosis, and then prescribe treatment. You cannot tell that here is a description, and if you fall into it, well -- then it must be 3 person in 4 role, or vice versa; it won't work like this; you have to do measurements first.
A current potential capability (CPC)-3 person in a stratum 4 role feels over-employed and stretched. Very busy, always running and unable to catch his/her breath, and ultimately is working in a stratum 3 role, not 4. A stratum 4 CPC person in a stratum 3 role, or simply CPC n+1 in a role n, feels underemployed by the level of work. These people may run their own businesses on a side, get involved in other endeavors, and are bored, disillusioned, unhappy, etc.
It would be nice to do a research to collect such descriptions, though I would wary against all kinds of descriptions in favor of precise ratio-scale measurements.
Until our next discussion
| |
|
|