Category Archives: Timespan

Pace and Quality Output of the Team

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

This is Part 2 of 5 in a series. This post is in response to a question by Herb Koplowitz, contributing editor to Global Organization Design Society. It is based on a discussion about Collins’ organizational model.

  • Level 5 – Level 5 Executive
  • Level 4 – Effective Leader
  • Level 3 – Competent Manager
  • Level 2 – Contributing Team Member
  • Level 1 – Highly Capable Individual

Question:
I didn’t read Collins’ levels as layers, but as personality fit to being a good manager. (He actually describes behaviors and then ascribes them to the manager as though ones manager has nothing to do with ones behavior.) Please explain how you see Collins’ levels as relating to Jaques’ strata. What is Stratum I about being a capable individual, what is Stratum II about being a contributing team member?

Response:
Yesterday, we looked at Collins’ Level 1. Today, Level 2.

Level 2 – Collins – Contributing Team Member. The central decisions in Stratum II roles (Requisite Organization), are also about pace and quality. But no longer, necessarily about my pace and my quality (individual output), but the output of the team. Calibrating Stratum II roles, I typically see job titles like supervisor, coordinator, project manager. This enlarged role requires a higher level of capability in solving problems and making decisions. It is the first layer in the organization where I hold the supervisor (coordinator, project manager) accountable for the output of the team. These roles require cumulative processing, adding many elements together in a coordinated recipe, with longest Time Span task assignments landing between 3-12 months.

Tomorrow, we will look at the decisions associated with Stratum III.

Collins and Jaques

2 Replies

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

I have to set this up, because the source of this discussion began in January of this year. On this site, under Organizational Models, I listed a specific reference to Jim Collins and his take on organizational layers.

  • Level 5 – Level 5 Executive
  • Level 4 – Effective Leader
  • Level 3 – Competent Manager
  • Level 2 – Contributing Team Member
  • Level 1 – Highly Capable Individual

What makes this question special is that it was posed by Herb Koplowitz. Herb is a contributing editor to the Global Organization Design Society, a deep, international resource on organizational design, based in large part on the research of Elliott Jaques.

This is Part 1 of 5 in a series.

Question:
I didn’t read Collins’ levels as layers, but as personality fit to being a good manager. (He actually describes behaviors and then ascribes them to the manager as though ones manager has nothing to do with ones behavior.) Please explain how you see Collins’ levels as relating to Jaques’ strata. What is Stratum I about being a capable individual, what is Stratum II about being a contributing team member?

Response:
Since 2003, I have conducted more than 300 workshops for more than 3,500 CEOs, sharing the research of Elliott Jaques. By a show of hands, I always ask, who has any exposure to this research. Over the years, less than 100 have raised their hands.

“Next question,” I ask, “Who has read Good to Great, by Jim Collins?” Almost 100 percent have read, own a copy of the book and memorized that most famous bus analogy, right people, right seats.

I look at Collins, not because he is the best place to start, but because his book is a familiar touchstone in the room.

I didn’t piece some of this together until I was working with an independent school district in Detroit. Their organization, mildly different from manufacturing, held roles like superintendents, principals and teachers. There was interest to look at Requisite Organization to see how it might help in understanding the accountability and authority tied to each role.

And everyone in the room was familiar with Good to Great.

Collins provides a chart depicting his framework of Level Five Leadership. His focus in the book was on Level V, leaving us with only brief descriptions of the levels of work below. Rather than pick them apart, I looked for intersection, to see where Jaques could be instructive and helpful in understanding each level described by Collins.

Level V – Level V Leadership
Level IV – Effective Leader
Level III – Competent Manager
Level II – Contributing Team Member
Level I – Individual Contributor

Level 1 – Collins – Individual Contributor. When I think about the decisions at Stratum I (Requisite Organization), most of those decisions fall to pace and quality.

  • In my role, given my work instructions, am I working fast enough to complete the task within the time span allotted?
  • At that pace, is the output of my work within the quality standards set by my manager?

That is my accountability.

My authority is to adjust my work-pace and attention-to-quality to meet the task assignment. My authority is to judge whether I can meet the pace and quality set by my manager, and if not, then it is my accountability to tell my manager. It is all about me and my work, with the longest Time Span task assignments landing between one day and three months.

Tomorrow, we will look at Collins-Contributing Team Member and Jaques-Stratum II.

Predictability and Uncertainty

1 Reply

“I understand how we calculate profit, but what does that have to do with my organizational chart?” Derrick asked.

“You design a predictable profit into your price, but what is it that keeps your profit predictable when you actually deliver your product or service?” I replied.

Derrick was thinking. “It becomes predictable when we are able to do the same thing over and over, the same way, with the same methods, in the same amount of time, with the same amount of scrap.”

“And how do you make all that happen over and over?”

“Well, we have designed a system and we train everyone to work the system.”

“And so, if something is happening with the predictability of your profit, what’s wrong, where do you look?” I continued.

“Something has to be wrong with the system,” Derrick nodded.

“So, where do you look?” I insisted.

“We should try to find out what’s wrong with the system.”

“Remember, I said that your problem is seldom a what, almost always a who?”

Derrick grinned. “So, that’s why you want to look at the org chart.”

Time Span is Not Magic

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom Mailbag –

Question:
Can you give me an example of how you would incorporate Time Span in a Role Description?

Response:
This is not magic. Don’t think of Time Span as something extra in the Role Description. Time Span is simply a part of every description of task assignments and defined goals.

Level of Work
Time Span helps us calibrate the Level of Work, so we can more specifically describe the task assignments and embedded goals. What is the difference between these two descriptions –

  • Project Manager – candidate will be managing all project elements, people, materials, equipment, supplies and supporting vendors for projects three months in length.
  • Project Manager – candidate will be managing all project elements, people, materials, equipment, supplies and supporting vendors for projects eighteen months in length.

The Level of Work in the first description would be Stratum II. This would be a coordinating role, likely assembling project elements from known checklists of personnel, materials, equipment and approved vendors.

The Level of Work in the second description would be Stratum III. This coordination will require the manager to deal with many unknown elements one and half years into the future. There will likely be personnel changes during that time, along with changes in scope, materials with lead times, vendors going out of business, equipment that becomes obsolete, changes in materials pricing. The complexity goes way up and will require a higher level of capability.

Time Span is simply the “by when” of every task assignment or embedded goal. The language we use to communicate task assignments doesn’t change, we just, now, understand the significance of time related to the Level of Work.

Detail Thinking at Stratum IV

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
At what Strata levels do details disappear, if they do?

Response:
Strata levels, as elements of Elliott Jaques model, create a visual representation of the Level of Work. Your question appears to ask about the behavioral traits of person, completing a task assignment, specifically curious about attention-to-detail as the task is completed.

Strata levels are descriptive about specific behaviors only as they relate to effectiveness in the completion of task assignments. Details never disappear. Even in longer Time Span task assignments, the devil is always in the details.

This is still an interesting question and may lend insight in describing the Level of Work in each Stratum. My answers, in the form of questions?

Level of Work – Stratum I
What details exist that will impact decision making on the pace and quality of the work?

Level of Work – Stratum II
What details exist that will impact decision making on the coordination of multiple elements, materials, equipment, people in the completion of the work, on time, within spec?

Level of Work – Stratum III
What details exist that will impact decision making in the creation of a system, so that tasks assignments are completed with predictable, consistent results, every time?

Level of Work – Stratum IV
What details exist that will impact decision making in the integration of multiple systems and sub-systems?

You see, there was an exercise described by Peter Senge in the Fifth Discipline (Stratum IV-systems thinking) called the Beer Game. The set-up of the game creates a brewery (system), two-step distribution (system) and a retail store (system). Because these systems in the simulation were not integrated, the end result typically produces the construction of an entire second brewery system. The detail, the retail store put beer on sale for one week during the simulation. The construction of the second brewery occurs NOT from market demand, but from a series of backorders put through the system in a non-integrated attempt to cover the sell-out of beer during a one-week retail sale period.

Yes, the devil is in the details, even at Stratum IV.

The Measure of Performance

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I attended one of your workshops last week. How do you evaluate the Potential Capability of prospective or current employees, using Time Span as the metric?

Response:
While this sounds like a simple question, there are many elements to it. Your question is all about Capability.

  • Does this person have the Capability to fill the role, now?
  • Does this person have the Potential Capability to fill this role in one or two years?
  • Is the underperformance, that I observe, related to a lack of Capability, OR another factor?

These are all absolutely legitimate questions for a manager to ask when making a decision related to task assignment, internal promotion and external recruiting from a candidate pool.

It is critical to understand that successful performance in ANY role can be traced to these four factors –

  • Capability (your question above)
  • Skill (Technical knowledge and practiced performance)
  • Interest or Passion (Value for the work)
  • Reasonable Behavior (Habits and the absence of extreme negative temperament)

And I depend on the judgment of the manager to determine which factor(s) are most directly related to the performance I observe. And if the primary factor turns out to be Capability, the most descriptive term is Applied Capability. Indeed, the person may have greater Potential Capability, but as a manager, I am only able to see Applied Capability. I can see Applied Capability because there is a work product, direct output.

But your question was about Potential Capability. As a manager, I may make an intuitive judgment that a team member has greater Potential. This typically means, that, as a manager, I observe underperformance that I deem “could be better.” The question is “why?” What factors could be changed to create higher levels of effectiveness in the role (or task)?

Changing the degree of Applied Capability has little to do with Capability. It has more to do with the other three factors. The limits to Applied Capability have to do with Skill, Interest and Reasonable Behavior. Change any one of those factors and you will see a change in Applied Capability.

But your question was about Potential Capability. The only method, as a manager, to gain insight into a person’s Potential Capability is to test for it. Project work is the single best way to test for Potential Capability. Lee Thayer says it best, “The only measure of performance, is performance.”
_____
Our next online program Hiring Talent kicks off Mar 19, 2012. Pre-register now.

Evidence, Not Hope

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
How do you un-do some internal promotions that probably shouldn’t have happened? The person is just not effective in their new Stratum III role?

Response:
Troubleshooting effectiveness in a role can be traced to one of these four factors –

  • Capability
  • Skill
  • Interest (Value for the work)
  • Reasonable Behavior

I rely on the manager’s judgment to determine which of the factors may be in play. In my Time Span workshop, I describe a team member with the following characteristics –

  • Worked for the company – 8 years
  • Always shows up early, stays late
  • Wears a snappy company uniform (belt around waist, cap on straight)
  • Knows the company Fight Song
  • Makes the best potato salad at the company picnic

And yet, is under performing in his role. Put that list against the four factors and I arrive at capability mis-matched for the role. To do a thorough inspection, I would examine each of the Key Result Areas in the role to see where the underperformance occurs. It is likely there are parts of the role that are done well, and parts where we observe underperformance. The mis-match is likely to occur on those longest Time Span task assignments.

In your question, you describe a Stratum III role. I would examine each of the KRAs and task assignments to see which is the culprit and modify that specific task assignment. The modification might be to break the longer task into a series of shorter tasks with more oversight, or to shift an analytic step to another resource.

All of this can be avoided by assigning project work to team members BEFORE they receive promotions. Successful completion, evidence is what I look for, not hopes and promises.

Where to Start

2 Replies

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I have been following your posts on Requisite Organization. How do I implement this management strategy after seven years with a lack of organization or structure?

Response:
You start at the beginning, of course. Before you wreak havoc on everyone else, start with yourself. The first place to look is at your own Role Description. If you can even find it, it’s likely a mess. That’s where you start.

List out all the tasks and activities in your role. I use 2×2 sticky notes, one for each task. You should end up with 50-75 tasks. Look at the tasks and see which go together. Separate the tasks (the ones that go together) into piles. You will likely end up with 5-8 piles.

Next, name each pile with a short 2-3 word name. These names will be things like –

  • Planning
  • Personnel and Recruiting
  • Production
  • Administrative (Paperwork, every role has paperwork)
  • Reporting (Metrics, measurements)
  • Process Improvement
  • Safety
  • Equipment Maintenance
  • Scheduling
  • Training
  • Quality Control
  • Research

The names of these piles-of-tasks become the Key Result Areas for your role. These Key Result Areas (KRAs) become the structure for your Role Description.

Drafting the Role Description, using your KRAs as your outline, the organization of the document falls together. Inside each KRA, list the specific tasks, identify the Level of Work, and the accountability.

KRA #1
Tasks
Level of Work
Accountabilities

KRA #2
Tasks
Level of Work
Accountabilities

And so on.

Once you have written your Role Description, then pick a team member (to torture) and collaborate through this same exercise. Pick someone friendly and cooperative. It will likely take 3-4 meetings over a period of 1-2 weeks before you get agreement. Then move to the next team member. By then, you will get the hang of it and you will be ready to move to the next step.

Let me know how it goes.

Rare Air

2 Replies

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I have started the process of locating candidates for a Stratum IV position. How do you test an individual for capability given a specific job requirement. Specifically, after narrowing the field of candidates I would like to have them tested for the capability required in the position? Most of the canidates in our pool are age 30-38 and have promise but lack validating comparative experience.

Response:
I know you have been following the series we completed yesterday, defining the Level of Work in typical roles.
Calibrating Level I Roles
Calibrating Level II Roles
Calibrating Level III Roles
Calibrating Level IV Roles

I am often asked to interview candidates to assess their current capability or potential capability. It’s like a dog barking up the wrong tree. The cat’s not in that tree.

Instead of attempting to assess the potential capability of the candidate, spend your time defining the Level of Work in the role. Then, interview the candidates related to the work. I know this is a simple solution, but here is the brilliance.

You are absolutely NOT qualified to assess a person’s current or potential capability. Here is my humble news. I’m not either. Leave that assessment to higher powers.

But, managers are absolutely qualified to observe and assess behavior related to work. Competent managers can easily spot positive behavior, negative behavior and can instantaneously tell the difference. Play to your strengths as a manager. Define the Level of Work and interview the candidates related to the work. You will always stand on firm ground within your competence to conduct that interview.

The second part of your question indicates you are working through a young candidate pool, age 30-38, for a Stratum IV role. Elliott’s research is very clear. In the snapshot of a candidate pool, age 21-50, the frequency of people demonstrating capability for Stratum IV roles was 1 in 200. If you can expand your age search up to age 21-70, you will double your odds to 1 in 100. It is rare air. (Source – Life and Behavior of Living Organisms, pp 188).

Calibrating Level IV Roles

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
How do you incorporate Time Span into a Role Description?

Response:
This is the fourth post in this series.
Calibrating Level I Roles
Calibrating Level II Roles
Calibrating Level III Roles

Level IV Roles
Level IV roles are typically responsible for multiple systems and subsystems. Left to their own devices, organizational systems fend for themselves and create friction at the departmental level. It is the role at Level IV to integrate these systems together. More than multi-tasking, Level IV managers understand the dependencies, inter-dependencies, contingencies and bottlenecks that exist between multiple systems. The goal is to integrate these systems together into a “whole system.”

Problem solving at Level IV is generally related to longer term initiatives which may take 2-5 years to achieve defined objectives. The focus in problem solving often requires the Level IV manager to step out of the internal elements of a single system to examine (often counter-intuitive) the output of multiple systems interacting together. This may involve the momentum of a reinforcing system offset by the impact of a balancing system. Sales, as a reinforcing system, are often offset by the capacity of operations, as a balancing system. Unrestrained sales that outstrip operational fulfillment create backorders and unhappy customers. Unrestrained operations that outstrip sales create inventory overstocks, carrying costs and bloated balance sheets.

Task assignments at Level IV are defined by operational planning and longer term strategic planning.