“How big is the role, and how big is the person filling that role?” I asked the group. “Elliott calls this the size of can. How big is the can and how big is the person filling the can?”

“Well, certainly, experience is something we look at,” came a retort from the far corner of the table. “The more experience someone has, the larger role they can fill.”

“Experience is certainly something most managers look at,” I replied. “And how often does experience lead us astray. In fact, does someone have ten years’ experience or one year’s experience ten times? How many of you have placed someone, with experience, in a role, only to find them failing after a few short weeks? What did we miss by relying on experience as our determining factor?”

“Who was Elliott Jaques, and what was his research all about?” There were six of us seated around the table and the question floated like a pass from Drew Brees.

My usual response to that question takes 3 hours, but it was late and I had to be up early. I struggle with that question, because any response is the first step in a long and important journey for any manager. But still, it was late and I had to be up early.

“Elliott Jaques was the most profound management scientist on the planet,” I began. “His study of organizations spanned more than 50 years, generated 23 books and left a legacy for every manager to follow. Elliott observed that each person has, within themselves, an innate ability to deal with a certain level of complexity in the world. Some people are quite comfortable working on projects that will not be completed for one year or more; some cannot manage to get beyond next week.

“Each of us is different. And that difference is measurable.

“As managers, we look at the individuals on our team, and we make running intuitive judgments about what tasks we can assign to which person. It is that judgment — about who can do what, by when? — that was the focus of Elliott’s research.

“How big is the role, and how big is the person filling that role? This is not about personality or a skill set. This judgment is about capability.”

But it was late and I had to be up early.

Next Monday is Labor Day in the US. And I wonder, why do people work? Elliott Jaques is very specific in his response.

“People want work in which they can have the opportunity to exercise their full potential capability, to spread their wings widely, to receive a fair compensation for that work and to be recognized and understood as not needing artificial carrot and stick treatment on order to get on with that work.

By work, I mean an organism’s use of judgment in making the decisions necessary to reach a goal. Goal directed work is a basic feature of all life.

All humans need to do work that not only benefits oneself, but is, at the same time, of value to others.

It may be noted that, not only do millions gain work opportunities by becoming engaged in employment, but need something on the order of 40 hours per week of such engagement. That is what explains the fact that the employment work week, which came down to 40 hours during the first half of the twentieth century, has gone no lower. Any smaller number of hours is not sufficiently fulfilling. Indeed, people who work on their own, routinely spend many more than 40 hours per week.”

Elliott Jaques – Social Power and the CEO

Fascinating article by Forrest Christian on the role of trust required for an organization to deal with uncertainty. As you read the article, you may think about how this operates in your own organization. Stepping back, you may see more clearly the dysfunction in the current US operating government by its lack of trust.

Forrest Christian – Trust is Necessary

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
When I hear about the concept of Time Span, I am reminded about the Peter Principle. Any connection?

Response:
This is an easy one. The book The Peter Principle is an amusing description of Time Span Capability and what happens to someone when we have mis-match in a role. I have written more about that at the following link.

The Peter Principle

Let me know if you have more questions.

“Did you know that you can measure that mental horsepower by measuring the Time Span embedded in each of the goals?” I repeated. “You see, each of us has an innate ability to handle a measured amount of uncertainty in the world. For some, that Time Span is short. It is impossible for that person to think out beyond a week, or a month. Impossible to plan and execute goals, business or personal, beyond that measured capability. It makes that person uncomfortable to consider what life might be like in a year or two years.”

Jonas was listening.

“There are just a handful of critical factors that determine success in any role on your team. Measuring a person’s Time Span Capability is an intuitive judgment. Every manager keeps this running assessment going about each team member. This is a judgment you have been making about each person from the minute they joined your team.”

“But isn’t that subjective?” Jonas interjected.

“It might feel subjective, but when you realize that this intuitive judgment can be measured, using Time Span as the metric, this judgment becomes scientific.”

Jonas tilted his head, puzzled.

“Jonas, the temperature in this room, does it feel warm or cold to you?”

“Warm, I guess,” he replied.

“For me, it feels chilly. Those observations are subjective. But if we look at the thermostat on the wall, here, can we both agree that the temperature is 73 degrees?”

The light came on for Jonas. “Warm for me, chilly for you, but 73 degrees is an objective observation. Measuring capability, and agreeing on the Time Span,” Jonas was thinking out loud. “That measurement is an objective observation.”

“Well, that makes sense,” Jonas replied. “My team member has been a valuable supervisor, but this leap to manager is a big leap. The responsibilities are bigger.”

“How big?” I asked.

“Really big. I need someone with more than a Post-It Note mentality.”

“How can you measure that?” I pressed.

“I’m not really sure,” Jonas paused, searching his bag of mental metrics.

“What are the goals attached to this managerial role you are thinking about?”

“Oh, there are goals. We have a complete role description for this position.”

“Good. I would expect that. But when you look at the goals, you know, the what, by when, how long are the by-whens of each of the goals, longer or shorter than the goals in his current role, as a supervisor?”

“Longer,” Jonas snapped, instinctively. “I guess that’s what makes them more complicated. The goals in this new role, as a manager, take longer to complete. More things can go wrong. The manager has to think ahead, create contingency plans, recognize when things are going off track, take corrective action. It takes more mental horsepower.”

“Did you know that you can measure that mental horsepower by measuring the Time Span embedded in each of the goals?”

“Tell me, why do you think it is important to match the person’s Time Span capability with the Time Span required in the task?” I asked. This was like an impromptu quiz, with a point.

Jonas looked left. “Because if the person doesn’t have the capability to complete the task, it won’t get done. Obvious, I think.”

“And how does that person feel about that task, their role in the company?”

“I suppose they would feel frustrated, a bit overwhelmed,” Jonas replied.

“And so what happens then?”

“Well, usually, that person gets put on the bubble. And if they stay on the bubble, long enough, they’re history.”

“Theoretically, that sounds good,” I pushed, “but that’s not what I see. Can this person make it on the basis of their performance?”

Jonas shook his head, “Nope.”

“So, how does this person survive? How does this person stay on your payroll?”

Jonas smiled. “You’re right. I call it Teflon. Nothing sticks. And try to hold the person accountable, you hear every excuse.”

“So, why is it important to match the person’s Time Span capability with the Time Span required in the task?”

“So, how can you tell?” Jonas asked. “How do you measure Time Span capability in a person?”

“How can you tell anything about a person?” I replied.

“I can tell you the most about people I know,” he nodded.

“Let’s start there. With the people you know the most. In fact, let’s make a list of those people who see you, as their manager. That should be a list of four or five people.”

“Okay, I have the list, now what?”

“Take that list and rank them according to Time Span. Longest Time Span at the top of the list and shortest Time Span at the bottom of the list. Here are some questions I ask myself.

• If I had a project that would take a year to complete, which of those on the list would I feel most comfortable with?
• And if I had a slightly shorter project, who is the next person I would feel comfortable in making that assignment?
• And if I only felt comfortable assigning a short phase of a larger project, who would that person be?
• And who on the list, do I have to check up on every ten minutes, just to see if they are still working?

With that list in hand, how does it look?”

Jonas was working while I was talking. “Got it,” he finished.

“And now, as you look at that list, your team ranked in Time Span order, how confident do you feel about the accuracy of your ranking?”

Jonas nodded, “I think I did a pretty good job.”

“If I were to tell you that you did a highly accurate assessment of your team members, why would I have such a high level of confidence in your ability to make this assessment? Do you consider yourself an expert on Time Span?”

“Well, no, but I know these people. I have known each of them for several years.”

“Exactly, you see, you have not been doing this exercise for the past few minutes. You have been doing this exercise for years. Every manager always maintains a running intuitive judgment about the Time Span capability of their team. You just never though about it this way before. And now, you have a very simple tool to work with.”