From the Ask Tom mailbag.
Question:
I have been reading Elliott Jaques’ book Social Power and the CEO. As I read, I get the feeling that he proposes a rigid command and control structure. I have been working hard to create an atmosphere of teamwork and command and control seems to go against my current thinking.
Response:
Since you attended one of my workshops, you have a good foundation to more clearly understand the framework of Requisite Organization. Still, you must read Elliott’s books carefully. Elliott was very precise in his language and sometimes you have to fight your own interpretation of his descriptions.
Because we talked offline, I know your struggle has to do with Elliott’s description of accountability and how that lines up with your interpretation of teamwork.
Most managers think about teamwork as collective thinking, collective problem solving and collective decision making. The intent is to bring more thinking power to bear on problems and to make better decisions. The intent is noble, but the result often falls short.
A consensus decision does not mean it is a better decision. And, in the end, it is not the team who will be held accountable for that decision. It is the leader who will be held accountable. Indeed, if it is the leader who is accountable, it is the leader who must make the decision.
This is not command and control and it is not consensus. This understanding is a shift toward a more effective way for the team, working together, to achieve the goal.
Tomorrow, I will tell the story of how Elliott came to this insight.
No response necessary
The book EXPLORATION IN MANAGEMENT by Wilfred Brown (a write-up of the Glacier experiment) appears far less rigid in its approach. However, the chairman of the committee (Peter Forrester, later to be Director of The Cranfield University School of Management and my thesis supervisor) did make the point that in those days the relationships in the workplace were more formal than is the case now.