“So, I have a candidate that I hope is up to the job. But what I really want to know is, whether he has Stratum I, Stratum II or Stratum III capability. Can you conduct an interview and tell me?” Ellen asked.

“Not likely,” I replied. “But let’s suppose I could. What would that tell you?”

“Well, if he had Stratum III capability, that would be better than Stratum II?” she guessed.

“Would it?” I pressed.

Ellen’s brow furrowed, wondering if I had forgotten all my math skills. “Three is higher than two.”

“What does that matter?” I asked again. I waited, and then some. “In the end, does it matter whether this person is successful in the role?”

“Well, yes.” Ellen was a bit exasperated with me.

“When you define the role, is it important to define the level of work?”

“That’s what I have been trying to get to, the capability of the person to do the level of work, the level of work required by the role.”

“So, have you defined the level of work?”

“Yes, in the Role Description, we describe the activity and what this person will be responsible for.”

“But have you defined the level of work? What is the complexity of problems that must be solved, the decisions that must be made and the Time Span of the goals in the role?”

Ellen ran through the Role Description in her head. “Not specifically. The job title is Manager and this person will be responsible for everything that goes on in that department. But, we haven’t thought about specifically defining the level of work.”

“If you can do that, define the level of work, the complexity of problems to be solved and the decisions to be made, then, interview for that, you will be ahead of the game. And you will also be in a better position to judge the capability of the person related to the work. It’s all about the work.”

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In yesterday’s blog, you mentioned a Post-It Note mentality. What’s a Post-It Note mentality?

Response:
When Elliott Jaques described the four states of mental processing, he was describing the way our brains perceive the world. This perception is used in problem solving and making decisions. I found this picture of a Post-It Note way of seeing the world. Below the picture I have clipped in the descriptions of Jaques four states. You tell me.

• Stratum I – Declarative Processing – the ability to focus on single task, direct output, solving problems through trial and error. Logic consists mostly of opinion without evidence to support.
• Stratum II – Cumulative Processing – the ability to piece together separate elements of a problem, pattern detecting, solving problems through past experience, documented in SOPs, best practices.
• Stratum III – Serial Processing – the ability, not only to see patterns, but cause and effect relationships between elements. Problem solving through comparative analysis, root cause analysis. The ability to sequence discrete elements into an efficient system.
• Stratum IV – Parallel Processing – the ability to handle multiple serial processes simultaneously. Not multi-tasking, but seeing the interdependency, contingency and bottlenecks that exist between multiple systems and sub-systems. Problem solving through systems analysis.

Post-It Note mentality. Which is it?

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
How do you distinguish between Ten years experience and One year experience ten times?

Response:
I love analogies. When we attempt to describe capability, we most often fall into analogies.

• This person has a Post-It Note mentality.
• We need more band-width in this role.
• We have to get more horsepower on this project.

When I press for articulation, most often the explanation is another analogy. But when I look around the room, everyone knows intuitively what is meant by Post-It Notes, band-width and horsepower.

So, what’s the difference between Ten years experience and One year experience ten times?

Elliott Jaques (Requisite Organization) most clearly depicted these different states of thinking and corresponding levels of work –

• Stratum I – Declarative Processing – the ability to focus on single task, direct output, solving problems through trial and error. Logic consists mostly of opinion without evidence to support.
• Stratum II – Cumulative Processing – the ability to piece together separate elements of a problem, pattern detecting, solving problems through past experience, documented in SOPs, best practices.
• Stratum III – Serial Processing – the ability, not only to see patterns, but cause and effect relationships between elements. Problem solving through comparative analysis, root cause analysis. The ability to sequence discrete elements into an efficient system.
• Stratum IV – Parallel Processing – the ability to handle multiple serial processes simultaneously. Not multi-tasking, but seeing the interdependency, contingency and bottlenecks that exist between multiple systems and sub-systems. Problem solving through systems analysis.

So, now you tell me. What’s the difference between Ten years experience and One year experience ten times?

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
As I look at Elliott Jaques model organization, I notice that it is a hierarchy. Over the years, I have heard, or been taught, or read articles about how it is important to flatten out the hierarchy, drive decision-making down to the front lines, closer to the customer. It makes sense to me, but Jaques seems to ignore these new flat organizational models.

Response:
Your observations about Elliott Jaques’ high regard for hierarchy is correct. And these new organizational models really aren’t new. The flat organization, for all its well intentioned “new-ness” is the way things were before there was hierarchy.

Most people see organizational layers as reporting relationships. Who reports to whom? Who is a direct report? An indirect report? A dotted line report? This view lends itself to command and control and the push-back is predictable in today’s business environment. The central question is NOT, who reports to who, but which manager can be held accountable for the output of the team member?

Elliott saw things differently. Elliott was a scientist who spent his time observing both functional and dysfunctional organizations. He didn’t make up warm and fuzzy theories, he observed, in a scientific way. He gathered data, documented his findings and arrived at principles he found helpful.

Elliott observed, in functional organizations, that each layer had a Time Span orientation distinct from the next and that, if you drew a picture of those layers, from the longest Time Span goals at the top to the shortest Time Span goals at the bottom, you ended up with a picture of hierarchy. If his findings had been a circle, he would have reported it to be a circle, but his findings supported hierarchy.

As he examined each layer, he found that problems were solved differently. And the way problems were solved was directly related to the Time Span of the goals each layer was working on.

The value he found, in this hierarchy, was the capability of each successive layer to assist the next layer down with their problem solving. This capability created a value stream for problem solving and decision making throughout the organization.

Where we get screwed up with all this push-back on hierarchy is that we see hierarchy as a reporting structure. The real power of hierarchy comes from its value stream. Here is the way Elliott saw it:

Every employee is entitled to have a competent manager with the Time Span capability to bring VALUE to their problem solving and their decision making.

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I understand the concept of Time Span as it relates to a manufacturing environment, based on the the examples you used in your workshop. Our company is a software company, we write code, software as a service based in the cloud. Having trouble translating Time Span to this model.

Response:
The first piece of translation is to calibrate your production activity. In a manufacturing environment, production (individual direct output) is most often calibrated as a Stratum I role (Time Span tasks – 1 day-3 months).

Software programming (production of software code) requires a higher level of capability. Task assignments to write code that produce specific software functions, appear to fall within a short Time Span. A coding project might take two weeks to construct, code, de-bug, and test. Seems like a short Time Span task. But in the role of a programmer, the longest Time Span task (which calibrates the complexity of the role) may have less to do with programming and more to do with learning.

I often ask programmers, if you stopped learning about new routines, new programming objects, how long would your code be effectively written, current with the state of the art. The joking response is five minutes, but the real answer is somewhere between three months and one year. It’s not that their published code would stop working, but there are more efficient routines and ways of manipulating code invented every day. Time frame to obsolescence is somewhere between three months and one year.

A good example of this is the move to HTML 5. HTML 5 solves the current dilemma in the way video is handled on the internet, particularly with mobile computing, in a dispute between Apple and Adobe. Adobe would like all video to be handled using its Flash player, Apple says HTML 5 makes the flash player obsolete (and refuses to support it in their iPad and iPhone products). It will take some time for adoption of HTML 5, but programmers are having to learn its new routines. A year from now, programming code that ignores HTML 5 will still work, but fall short of generally accepted programming standards. So, the longest Time Span task, for a programmer, is not necessarily producing code, but continuously learning about new developments in code construction, requires minimum Stratum II capability (cumulative processing).

But writing code is not the whole story. A simple stand-alone function is useless. Software typically contains hundreds of functions collected together in a system that creates value for the user. Stringing those functions together requires Stratum III capability, a serial state of thinking. So, you may have programmers, but somewhere in your personnel mix, you will have a manager, also likely a skilled programmer, who decides how the functions are put together.

But a software system is not the whole story. Software systems, to be truly valuable are integrated with other software systems, with interoperability hooks, not only among internal software systems, but external software systems, like Facebook and Twitter. This integration will likely require a manager with Stratum IV (parallel processing) capability.

All of this discussion centers around production. Software companies have other disciplines which must also be integrated, like sales and customer service. Effectively integrating those systems into the mix requires Stratum IV and Stratum V capability.

Levels of work
Stratum IV – Parallel processing
Stratum III – Serial processing
Stratum II – Cumulative processing
Stratum I – Declarative processing

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In your Time Span workshop, you say that people max out during their lifetimes, related to capability. Can a person’s situation stunt growth so the individual can never grow to their maximum potential?

Response:
Happens all the time. Sometimes, those factors are internal, some external. Elliott Jaques, Requisite Organization, now available from Amazon, identified these factors as critical to success. Any of these could be a deal-breaker, preventing success. Any of these factors can have an impact on a person’s applied capability related to maximum potential.

1. Skill – without a specific skill, I may not be able to reach my potential. If you are my manager and you recognize this, you would likely send me to training.
2. Interest, or passion for the work – I will be interested in or passionate about work on which I place a high value. If I place a high value of a type of work, it is likely I will be interested or passionate about it. If I do not place a high value on a type of work, it is likely I will NOT be interested or passionate about it. If you are my manager, we will talk about values and you will most likely place me in a role with work on which I place a high value.
3. Reasonable behavior – comes in two flavors, one is positive, one is dark. The positive side of reasonable behavior is my habits. There are habits I have, that contribute to my success, there are habits I have that inhibit my success. My habits will contribute or inhibit the application of my ability. If you are my manager, we will talk about my habits.

   The dark side of reasonable behavior, Elliott described as Minus-T. The “T” stands for Temperament. Most psychometric assessments attempt to tie specific behaviors to temperament. These instruments will typically divide behaviors (temperament) into four quadrants and assign a letter or color to designate that temperament. While Elliott observed no positive correlation any “normal” temperament, he did observe that an extreme negative temperament could be a deal killer for success. Extreme negative temperament might relate to elements like defensiveness or arrogance.

Any of these factors can get in the way. Some may have internal causes, others external. AND I expect the manager to pay enough attention to tell the difference.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question
In your workshop, you use a manufacturing business model to illustrate the levels of work. How does that translate for a professional service organization?

Response
I use a manufacturing model because most of us can remember that video clip at Ford Motor Company, with automobiles coming down the assembly line. It is a quick picture for production work in a manufacturing environment. With that in mind, here is a typical table describing levels of work. The time frame designates the longest Time Span task associated with the role. In manufacturing, most production work falls easily into Stratum I.

Levels of Work

In other business models, like professional service firms, production work (direct output to the customer) may be more complex and require a higher level of capability to effectively complete that work. Supervisory work and managerial work remains the same, it is the shift in the complexity of production work that changes.

For example. A patent case in a law firm, production work (direct output to the customer) might necessarily be done at Stratum III, IV or even V, depending on the complexity of the case. We can measure that complexity using Time Span as our calibration. A patent case still unresolved after five years of litigation might necessarily have required Stratum V capability to effectively deal with the uncertainty in the case.

In a CPA firm, tax production work might effectively be performed at Stratum III. Tax code is typically nailed down in 12 month increments. How a company might prepare for the tax/penalty implications of Obamacare might require Stratum IV capability (2-5 year decisions) to effectively make the right choices.

In summary, the levels of work in a professional service firm will hinge on the complexity of its production (direct output to the customer), and most often, that complexity shifts production toward higher Stratum capability.