Struggling to Read the Boss’ Mind – A Friday Funny
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 10, 2008
Do you ever feel like your boss expects you to read his mind?? Sometimes the mind games start during the interview process.? The more things change; the more they stay the same.? This 1969 Monty Python clip is a classic.
What’s the strangest thing that has ever happened to you during an interview?
Filed Under Managerial Leadership, Talent Management | 4 Comments
Are Your Employees Fully Present at Work? Coping with Convoluted Systems
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 8, 2008
Much energy within organizations is channeled into coping and compensating for poor systems.? Instead of fixing the toaster, we set up entire departments of burned toast scrapers.
Organizations could release a mother-lode of energy if the re-engineered and integrated their people systems, their organizational structure, and their managerial leadership frameworks to enable productive work.
Then, employees could spend their energy working – not coping, compensating, and circumventing convoluted systems.
It?s like holding a beach ball underwater.? It?s not really a difficult task, but if I try to have a conversation with you while doing it, I really can?t be fully present in our conversation.?? Due to deficient systems, employees cannot be fully present for their work.? What affect do you suppose that has on productivity?
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Systems drive behavior.? Convoluted systems drive convoluted behavior.? What is the most bizarre way you have ever compensated or coped with a deficient system?
Filed Under Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy | 4 Comments
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. We Don’t Really Want Management Science
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 5, 2008
I?read a post at Slow Leadership about the need for more management science and the love of the quick fix by managers.? The love of the quick fix is pervasive, not just with managers but with executives, Wall Street, and Boards as well.? A lack of science?is not a problem.? A large body of science already exists.? It’s just waiting for a little respect.
Espoused theory does not always align with practice.? We all would say we want to be healthy, but most continue to over eat, drink, and remain sedentary.
My experience has been that even the people who say they want science, deny it when it clashes with their dearly held beliefs.?
Jerry Harvey, author of the Abilene Paradox, calls the emotional crisis we encounter when?truth exposes our perceptions as distorted,?anaclitic depression.? He specifically stated that he believes the reason why executives refuse to embrace Requisite Organization, the only science-based, total-systems model for organization design and managerial leadership, is that it is too threatening to current management worldviews.? (Meanwhile, engagement scores and other research continue to find that they are not working.)
This moment of truth is a character choice point, we can embrace a new truth, which calls for changing our behaviors to align with the new truth, or we can deny it and remain within our comfort zone.
Ignoring validated management science is understandable?when you realize that it will take discipline, maturity, and hard work over years to?re-engineer their current systems and organizational structure to make productive use of the scientific principles that already exist.
The executives who are wise enough to grasp what I am offering?and who actually have the capability to successfully navigate a re-engineering, upgrading, and integration of their talent management system, organizational structure, and their managerial leadership framework, must also have the authority, character, and intestinal fortitude to embark on the adventure.? We’ve met?a few, and we refer to them as clientopia.
Most, however, choose the safety zone.? I’ve said before, safe is not the same as risk-free.? When the pain of today’s way surpasses the pain of embracing a new way, I’m here to work with you, Mr. or Mrs. Executive.
We?had a CEO of a respected, industry-leading, multinational corporation who was authentic enough to?say to us, “I know what you are telling me [about the need to re-engineer and integrate our systems] is the truth, but our business model is working well enough.? I’m not that far from retirement.? Good luck in your venture, but I’m not getting on board.”
Have you ever watched a leader pass on a plate full of potential for a portion of good-enough?? Do tell.
In the defense of executives, they are in a tough?spot.? Until we get beyond using quarterly financial measures as an indicator of success rather than holding executives accountable (and giving them the authority and resources) to bring about?long-term organizational sustainability, we will get more of the same.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
If you know a character-strong executive who is looking for a better way but believes management science is a sham, send a link.? We need no longer rely on a wink and a prayer.
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Executive Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy, Talent Management | Comments Off on Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. We Don’t Really Want Management Science
Work Levels’ Link to Strategy and Productivity – With an Evidence Base
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 3, 2008
In 2005, I attended a fascinating session led by Julian Fairfield at a Global Organization Design Society?conference.? In it, he discussed the relationship of work levels to strategy.? He presented a historical account of?organizations gaining a competitive edge by shifting their entire business strategy up by one level of complexity.?
Because work levels is an relatively obscure concept, the leaders of these organizations may not have articulated their strategy methodology in such language, but essentially that is how breakaway performance occurs.
One?way to become an industry leader?is to shift from the status quo “either/or” thinking to higher-level?”and” thinking.? For example, the US auto industry in the 1960’s offered EITHER low cost OR quality.? The Japanese raised the bar by raising the complexity level of the strategy by finding a way to offer low cost AND quality.
In my last post, I discussed how another key piece of executive organization design work is to find the appropriate strategic leverage level for individual functions as well.
For the evidenced-based management crowd, Julian Fairfield, a management consultant from Australia, shared the results of?his experiences with raising the highest work level of a function by one, and I’ll share them with you.
| Function | Measure | Gain From Level Shift |
| ?Quality | Scrap rate Defect rate |
?12 – 15%?to?1.8% 1-2%?to 0.000001% |
| ?Purchasing | Cost of purchase | ?10-12 % reduction |
| ?Sales | Sales per mortgage banker Value per mortgage |
?2/week to 5/week $80,000?to?$130,000 |
| ?Maintenance | ?Multi-system plant uptime | ?64%?to?85% |
| ?Marketing | ?Value share | ?7% share gain for 3 years |
| ?Operations | ?Labor and machine productivity | ?100-200% improvement |
Are you convinced that work levels theory and its meta model, Requisite Organization,?is worth investigating?? If you are hungry for more on a Friday, here’s a well-written, relatively short article, Thinking about Organization Strategically,?by Don Fowke that includes Julian’s ideas from that conference within a slightly larger context.
Questions?? Comments?? Ah-ha moments?? Throw me a bone.? It’s been a quiet comment week.
Photo titled,?shifty,?use allowed with attribution to Sarah Jane.
Filed Under Executive Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy | Comments Off on Work Levels’ Link to Strategy and Productivity – With an Evidence Base
Work-Levels Goggles – A Business Strategy Tool
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 2, 2008
My last post was about work levels.? I gave an example of how sales work?looks different at different levels.? I’ve also said that innovation looks different at different levels.
Work Level Examples from the World of Recruiting
I was reading Amitai Givertz’s?Recruitomatic Blog which led me to an older?post by Jeff Hunter’s Talent Seeker blog.? In it he describes three different recruiting models, Commodity Recruiting, Value Recruiting, and Experience Recruiting.? Essentially, Jeff Hunter has done an outstanding job of describing what recruiting looks like at different levels.?
I posted Jeff’s recruiting model descriptions below; then, for?your enjoyment,?I put on my work-levels goggles and described what I saw in these models.
One Strategic Significance to Understanding Work Levels
The complexity level of the model or framework an organization adopts (for any function, not just recruiting)?dictates the level of problem solving capability an employee must?have in order to carry out the tasks required by the model, which, in turn, will dictate the appropriate salary range for the employees.?
Using a Level 1 Recruiting model will cost you the least in terms of salaries, but will it allow you to meet your strategic goals?? Aligning organizational structure with strategy is executive level work – finding the ROI sweet spot between staffing a function at a high enough level to meet strategy and paying higher salaries to staff a higher level function.? (More on this tomorrow.)
What Recruiting “Looks Like” at Different?Levels?- Words in quotes from Jeff Hunter
Level 1 or 2 Recruiting Model – Commodity Recruiting
Requires employees with level 1 or 2 problem solving capability
“Commodity Recruiting:? Takes the specification (the job description) posts it on a job board, gets candidate flow, evaluates candidate flow against the spec and then forwards the favorably rated resumes to the hiring manager. Everything in this transaction can either be done by the hiring manager or by an administrative assistant making minimum wage, or be automated (the holy grail of electronic recruiting is matching, which is the final step in recruiting commoditization).”
Looking at?Commodity Recruiting with Work-Levels Goggles:? If this work can be done solely by matching to spec, i.e. following procedures, then this is level one work.? If it requires some data analysis. i.e. picking up multiple bits of information to draw a conclusion about which resumes to forward, it is level two work.
Level?3 or?4 Recruiting Model – Value Recruiting
Requires employees with level?3 or?4 problem solving capability
“Value Recruiting:? Takes the specification, asks probing questions about what is really meant by the description and changes language to fit what is currently acceptable in the market, asks for resumes of previous ?stars? and compares those resumes to the specification, changing the specification as appropriate to more closely match those success profiles, brings specific candidates in against the spec to examine how clear and committed the hiring manager is to the spec, and changes the spec as the process continues to bring the true requirements of the hiring manager and the availability in the market together.”
Looking at?Value Recruiting with Work-Levels Goggles:? Creating a serial pathway and having multiple contingency?pathways established is level 3 work.? This begins to sound like level 4 work due to the statement: “bringing together the requirements of the hiring manager and the availability of the market”.? If these are separate serial pathways that must be integrated to deliver a solution, this is level 4 work.
Level?4 or?5 Recruiting Model – Experience Recruiting
Requires employees with level 4 or 5 problem solving capability
“Experience Recruiting:? Refuses the specification because it will unduly prejudice the truth about what the business needs to succeed, interviews ?stars? as well as ?laggards? to try to identify key cultural, competency and chemistry dynamics that will help describe the perfect candidate, puts together detailed behavioral profile of the target candidate, uses detailed marketing profile techniques to source against a pre-developed grouping of talent (since the experience recruiter will have predicted the broader needs of the client and been actively developing value-for-value relationships in those domains well in advance of the client?s need – perhaps Sumser’s farm system), will bring in specific candidates with specific behavioral profiles and detailed work portfolios to gauge the upper and lower bounds of variation in the specification, marks the specification variances for forward looking business projections, tailors specific work and compensation packages in order to get the most value from the talent, introduces the hiring manager into key talent arenas in order to build the credibility of the client with potential future hires, and periodically report on larger talent trends that the experience recruiter feels will impact the business (the ?what business can we be in?? question).”
Looking at Experience Recruiting with Work-Level Goggles:? There is integration of multiple serial pathways here which is level 4 work, i.e. talent trends, business projections, compensation, talent pipeline, credibility building, business trends, candidate capability assessment, role clarification.? This begins to sound like level 5 work with the introduction of the question, “what business can we be in”.? Optimizing a total business unit to deliver a strategy?is level 5 work.? Defining what business you are in is level five work as well.
Jeff Hunter is clearly a talented, highly-capable recruiter and no doubt a valued business partner to his clients.? He clearly understands work.? Adopting a work levels framework and investing in a pair of work-levels goggles would add a universal measurement tool to his toolbox which would?provide him with?a common language for discussing and aligning work levels and candidate capability.
Potential Competitive Edge
Research shows that 35% of employees are mismatched to their roles in terms of problem solving capability, leaving them either bored or incapable.? A recruiter with a proven process for matching employee capability to level of work would certainly have a competitive edge in a very competitive business.
In high school the geeks wore glasses, in the business world, the geeks wear work-levels goggles.? It’s been said that the geeks will inherit the earth.
Successful leaders have an eye for spotting potential.? Do you see the potential in adopting a work levels framework??
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Filed Under Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, High Potential, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy, Talent Management | Comments Off on Work-Levels Goggles – A Business Strategy Tool
Not All Work is Created Equal – Exploring Work Levels 1 through 4
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 1, 2008
I talk quite a bit about work levels so I thought I would offer a?primer on work levels 1 through 4.? The work levels model provides a universal measurement system for role complexity.? Any role, in any organization, in any industry, in any country can be categorized?by?level.
Work Levels and Problem Solving Capability Should Be Aligned
Human problem solving capability can be stratified by level as well.? Therefore, someone with current problem solving capability at level 2 will be best suited to work at a level 2 role.? They will be incapable of carrying out the work of a level 3 role.? They will be over-capable for a level 1 role and will likely become bored within 6 months.
Early-Adopter Executives Take Heed for a Competitive Advantage Strategy Suggestion
If organizations?grasped my last paragraph?and operationalized this information into systems for matching employees to roles, principles for organizational design and managerial leadership, much of what ails organizations would fall away.?
Research shows about 35% of employees are mismatched to their roles, and 39% are mismatched to their managers who should have capability one level higher than any direct report.? Mismatches cause dysfunction.
Back to Work Levels
I suggested in my Innovation Snobbery post that?innovation should occur at all levels of the organization, but that innovation will look different at different levels.?
Competencies, as well, look different at different levels.? Competency models are not very useful without stratification.
For example, I may be a successful sales person?at an?entry level sales role in a small company.? Therefore, I have?a sales competency, right?? But not all sales roles are the same.? I’ve closed this post with an example of how sales work would become increasingly complex at higher levels.
Work Levels Defined?
Level 1 Work
Follow a procedure. If that doesn?t work, follow another.? Use a single piece of information to make decisions and solve problems.
Nature of the Problem Solving Embedded in the Work:? Declarative processing: Reasons are given one at a time.? Each one is intended to be sufficient.
Longest Task Deliverable Time Horizon: 1 day to 3 months
Level 2 Work
Accumulating data to draw conclusions from.? Diagnosing a problem from a multi-factor model.
Nature of the Problem Solving Embedded in the Work:? Cumulative processing: A number of reasons are given judged together. It is their sum that makes the case.? A number of factors are considered together to diagnose and solve the problem.
Longest Task Deliverable Time Horizon: 3 months to 1 year
Level 3 Work
Devising one or more paths to get to the solution of a problem
Nature of the Problem Solving Embedded in the Work: Serial processing:? A sequence is built in which A leads to B which leads to C (and possibly beyond).
Longest Task Deliverable Time Horizon: 1 year to 2 years
Level 4 Work
Coordinating and integrating two or more serial paths to get to the solution of a problem.
Nature of the Problem Solving Embedded in the Work:? Parallel processing: ?A system of causal sequences is built in which A leads to B leads to C and a leads a to b leads to c and 1 leads to 2 leads to 3 are all coordinated and integrated to produce the desired output.
Longest Task Deliverable Time Horizon: 2 years to 5 years
Based on the descriptions above, can you figure out the work level of your current role?? If you are a manager, what level of work are you?expecting from your direct reports?
Sample Sales Tasks by Level?
Level 1 Sales Task:? Ask any customer who doesn?t order French fries, if they want fries with the order.? (i.e. Follow a procedure)
Level 2 Sales Task:? Engage your customers in conversation to build a relationship with them. Use the information you accumulate to suggest additional products or services that may suit their needs.? (i.e. Accumulate information and turn it into sales.)
Level 3 Sales Task:? Create a process for obtaining referrals, contacting them, selling them, and using them to generate more referrals. At the end of 14 months, have a referral pipeline established that will generate a minimum of X in annual sales.? (i.e. Create a serial process.)
Level 4 Sales Task:? Expand our sales footprint beyond the US by establishing a sales force in Mexico which should be responsible for 15% of total sales at the end of four years.? (i.e. Integrate multiple serial pathways:? recruiting, staffing, facilities, technology, Mexican human resource law and customs, customer identification, sales process, product offerings, marketing, advertising, operations, delivery, warehousing. etc.)
Cheaper and More Useful Than an MBA
I daresay that acting upon this one little post could do more to help an executive successfully lead an organization than anything s/he learned at MBA school.? Unfortunately, I don’t know of any MBA school that teaches work levels theory or its meta model, Requisite Organization developed by Elliott Jaques.
Do You have an MBA?? Have you every heard of work levels or Requisite Organization??
Filed Under Executive Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 10 Comments
Making the High Road Accessible – My Hope for 2008 and 2009 and 2010…
By Michelle Malay Carter on December 28, 2007
I’m feeling philosophical at year’s end – an intriguing mix of sadness and restlessness?tempered by faithfulness and hopefulness.
Systematically Building Trust?through Integrated, Consistent Systems Design
One of the greatest attractors I have toward Elliott Jaques’ total-systems Requisite Organization model for organization design and managerial leadership?is that it is the epitome of the high road.??I believe those who criticize it have not considered it or grasped it?in its entirety.
One of the litmus tests Jaques used when deciding whether to integrate a concept into his model was:??? Will this increase trust within an organization?? Anything deemed to reduce trust was deemed incompatible with the Requisite Organization model.
Believing?the Best about Human Nature?
Further, the requisite model is based upon the belief that humans are wired to create.? All work is creative, and therefore, all humans are inherently motivated to give their best at work.? We need not motivate employees to work in their areas of interest, but conversely, we can create conditions that make them unwilling?to give their best or unable to reach the high road.
What Work Could Be
I’ve said that I?believe work has the potential to be a highly gratifying and noble expression of a unique human soul.? We make ourselves vulnerable through work, as when we creatively give of ourselves at work, we are exposing our souls.? When our work is rejected through ingratitude or impediments or unfair judgment, it is the emotional equivalent of unrequited love.
Work can be a source of great joy or a source of unending misery.? Systems drive behavior.? Executives are accountable for organizational systems.? Therefore, executives either drive joy or misery via the systems they create or leave to default.???
What Behaviors Do Your Systems Drive?
Using?Requisite Organization as a basis for creating organizational leadership systems creates an environment that allows for the fullest expression of employee talent and, hence, drives joy (as well as productivity and sustainability).?
Our current leadership systems simply make the high road inaccessible to employees by constantly thwarting their efforts to work.? This leaves?many hard-working and well-intentioned workers are stuck in a cycle of unending misery.? Been there.? Done that.?
Should We Laugh or Should We Cry?
I was torn about posting this Bad Day at the Office Compilation video clip below sent to me by Nathania of Bold Interactive.??Helplessness breeds cynicism (and, it appears, violence too.)? It can be quite funny if you view it at face value, but it loses its comedic value when you consider what?a sad statement it makes about the condition of the organizations we rely upon to make a living.? What makes it worse is that most of these conditions spring from leadership-system ignorance, and they?can be rectified through integrated, science-based systems design.
My?passion is to help executives design systems that allow the human spirit to soar – for the benefit of the individual worker, the organization, and our society.? Shall we partner in this endeavor?
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Has your work day ever gotten this bad?
Filed Under Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Personal Observation, Requisite Organization | Comments Off on Making the High Road Accessible – My Hope for 2008 and 2009 and 2010…
Wii Wish You a Merry Christmas and a Tax Write Off Too
By Michelle Malay Carter on December 24, 2007
Good news.? Those of you have purchased a Wii for your enjoyment might be able to claim it as a business expense.***
I don’t consider myself much of a tech-head.? Gadgits and gizmos don’t turn my head, but this video of?Johnny Chung Lee’s?unique use of the Wii remote was too good not to share.
***I am not a tax accountant and don’t play one on TV.? My words in this post are solely provided for your entertainment value and do not constitute professional tax advice.? :)
Filed Under High Potential, Personal Observation | 2 Comments
Why Disneyland is the Happiest Place on Earth
By Michelle Malay Carter on December 21, 2007
Disney has revealed its secret to being the happiest place on earth – a systems-level approach!
Thanks to Bob Sutton at Work Matters?for?pointing me to?this sign generator website.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
My posts will fall in the range of?sparse to non-existent until 2008!?
Thank you to my readers and commenters for your support during Mission Minded’s first few months.
New Year’s Resolutions???
Have any of you resolved to take an integrated approach to organization design, talent management, and managerial leadership next year?
Filed Under Requisite Organization | Comments Off on Why Disneyland is the Happiest Place on Earth
Using Requisite Science to Design Work-Enabling Organizations
By Michelle Malay Carter on December 20, 2007
This post is a continuation from yesterday’s post in which I mentioned that we were able to predict the turnover of specific individuals within a client’s?organization.? I promised to tell you more on how we spot?under-utilization?today.
Management Science Should Take a Page from Physical Science
An analogy:? An understanding of work levels and its relationship to levels of human?problem solving capability?is to management science what the understanding of?energy and its relationship to temperature is to physical science.
Simple Tools and Engineering Templates Allow for the Easy and Practical Application of Scientific Theory?
When the thermometer became a tool for the easy, practical application of scientific laws toward predicting the “behavior” of matter, our ability to engineer our physical world to our benefit improved dramatically.
For example, not only could we now observe that H2O?existed in three different states (ice, water, steam),?the thermometer allowed us to?reliably forecast when these states would change.
Back to (Little Known) Management Science
1.? Not all work is the same.? Work exists in discreet levels of complexity, and any given work role can be categorized?by level.? Time span of discretion allows us to measure this.
2.? Raw talent capability to solve problems in humans exists (independent of experience, education, or knowledge) and it?can be categorized by level.? Managers, given a common language and framework for interpretation, can reliably judge their employees’ capability levels.
3.? Human problem solving capability levels can be aligned one-for-one?with work levels.?
Need Proof, Want Research?
If you would like to read more on the management science part, you can access the 210-page Requisite Organization annotated research bibliography or 1010 pages of dissertations on the theory by clicking here.
The Turnover Prediction Part?- Continued from Yesterday’s Post
Under normal circumstances, people prefer working in a role that matches their current problem solving capacity level.? In other words, if I have level 3 problem solving capability, I will be best suited to work at a level 3 role.? I cannot yet work at level 4; I will be underutilized at level 2.
Therefore, employees who are underutilized, i.e. have problem solving capability above that called for by their role, represent an organization’s highest risk population?for turnover.? Underutilized employees will want more challenge and will look for it either within your organization or elsewhere.
Managerial Leadership Tools and Organizational Engineering Templates?Based on Scientific Theory
Tools do exist for the easy practical application of work levels theory toward predicting the behavior of employees.? Hence, our ability to engineer our organization’s systems to tap full potential is one benefit of using work levels theory to design work enabling systems.? Other applications of the theory can benefit organizational?effectiveness in a variety of ways.
Further, work levels is just one piece of the meta-model,?Requisite Organization,?which offers an integrated approach?for organization design, managerial leadership, and talent management.? It’s not rocket science; it’s people science.? I suspect the job title, organizational engineer, will be mainstream one day.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Questions?
Filed Under Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, High Potential, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 3 Comments
Subscribe in a reader
