At first, the management team was understanding. While Wilfred Brown, president of Glacier Metals, expressed an interest in teamwork, perhaps it would take some time for the evidence of productive teamwork to emerge. And while the management team was learning to get to consensus quicker, they would have to endure Wilfred Brown’s veto at the conclusion of most of the Management Team Meetings.

But the ying became more separated from the yang. Efforts to influence the agenda and the decisions became aggressive, then passive. What was the point? Team members could collaborate, advance their cause, form alliances to outvote, finally to manipulate, but in the end, Wilfred Brown would make the decision.

You see, there was something the management team did not know. Actually, they did know, but they did not understand its impact.

In 1948, in London, Elliott began to work closely with the Glacier Metals Company, a manufacturer of precision steel ball bearings. It was a company of some size and technical complication, with different departments, a complement of engineers, a management team and a president named Wilfred Brown.

Like most companies, each week or so, a high level meeting took place, called the Management Team Meeting. It was Wilfred’s intention to purposefully build his executive team by including them in on the company’s largest problems to be solved and decisions to be made.

The executive team responded with enthusiasm to be included in such important activities. By harnessing all the brain power in that room, certainly, they could tackle the toughest challenge and make the best decisions.

The intentions were noble.

As time went by, however, the productivity of the group began to wear thin. In their efforts to reach consensus, to be cooperative and supportive, to be the team they intended to be, the pace began to slow. Discussions became arguments, agendas became political, quid pro quo became active.

And then, the unthinkable. The group would finally arrive at its decision and Wilfred Brown, the President, would invoke his veto.

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.

“But I have told him a dozen times how to get the job done,” Nelson explained. “So, it can’t be a matter of skill.”

“You mean, you have explained the technical part to him?” I confirmed.

“Till I am blue in the face.”

“What about the other part?” I asked.

“What other part?”

“Look, Nelson, I can explain it to you, how to throw a ball. I can demonstrate a hundred times, but if you want to gain the skill, is that enough? What do you have to do?”

“Well, I would have to practice,” he replied.

“So, when you explain things to Isaac, it does not mean he has the skill. Isaac has to practice. If there is any degree of difficulty, he has to practice a lot. And what is your role while Isaac is practicing?”

“I am pretty sure that Isaac is a Stratum I and that’s why he is having difficulty with his new responsibilities,” Nelson explained.

“Isaac’s not doing well?” I asked.

“No, I swear, I have explained things to him a dozen times. He always says that he understands, but when I look at the work, he is like a deer in the headlights. Definitely Stratum I.”

“And if you are wrong?”

“I might be wrong?” Nelson tilted.

“What if he is just not interested in the work he is assigned?”

“But that’s the work I gave him to do,” Nelson replied.

“Just because you gave it to him, doesn’t mean he places value on that work. And just because he underperforms, doesn’t mean he is a Stratum I. Your assumption may lead you down the wrong road. Here are some better questions that are more helpful.

1. Does Isaac have the right skills for the assigned task? Is there some technical knowledge that he needs to know and has he practiced enough to gain the required skill?
2. Is Isaac interested in the work? Does he place a high value on its completion?
3. Has Isaac been effective in completing tasks with a similar Time Span?

From Time Span 101 (in final beta test).

Question:
Can a person move from one Stratum to another Stratum?

Response:
Instead of defining all the words necessary to understand the answer to this question, let me rephrase the question. Takes some of the mystery out of all this.

Can people, as they grow and mature through their lifetime, also grow to handle tasks of increasing complexity?

The re-stated question is easier to answer. Yes, as people grow and mature through their lifetime, they also grow in their capability to handle tasks of increasing complexity.

The Time Span of a task can be used to measure its complexity. In the workplace, the Time Span of a task can last from brief minutes to several years. Stratum is used to describe a range of Time Spans.

• Stratum I – ranges from 1 day to 3 months
• Stratum II – ranges from 3 months to 12 months
• Stratum III – ranges from 12 months to 24 months

Stratum is a way to measure. So, let’s restate the question again.

Can we measure the growth of a person’s capability to handle increasingly complex tasks through their lifetime?

Yes, we can measure that growth using Time Span as a measuring stick.

From Time Span 101 (scheduled for release in about a week).

Question:
I’m not all the way through the sessions yet, but I’m wondering how small businesses (less than 30) fill the roles of Stratum III and Stratum IV managers? I can see they have Stratum I and Stratum II but can the role of Stratum III and IV be filled by the same person? Can a person have two different time span roles depending on the “hat” they need to wear?

Response:
Sometimes, through necessity, one person can “fill in” by playing a role with shorter Time Span goals. Even in longer Time Span roles, we have many short Time Span goals, so the shift is not difficult, in terms of capability.

Beware, however, the shift may prove difficult in terms of interest. If all I ever get is short Time Span goals, with no challenge, you may find my interest begin to lag.

In small business, it is likely the entrepreneur will fill the role at Stratum III. And in a small business with less than 30 people, it is unlikely there is a need for the Stratum IV Integrator role. There isn’t anything to integrate. The business isn’t big enough to have those problems (yet).

There are many successful Stratum II companies (with less than 30 people). In their competitive environment, all they have to do is follow consistent processes. This would be typical of a fleet based service company (like plumbing or carpet cleaning).

Most of the time, the discussion here is about the practice part of management. And, for the past several years, I have trucked around the US and Canada, doing a workshop called Management Myths and Time Span, an introduction to the research of Elliott Jaques. That’s the theory part.

Now, an online version.
Management Myths and Time Span has generated so much interest, that we created an online version of the workshop, scheduled for release in a couple of weeks.

I need 20 people.
Right now, I need 20 people to test drive the program, kick the tires and give us some feedback. The test group will receive a free login to the program.

If you are interested, please [reply] to this email and I will put you on the list.

Details, for those who sign up.
The online version will go faster than the original workshop, but, it’s in-depth with tantalizing detail, so I don’t want you to think you can skim this in 6-7 minutes. The menu navigation organizes the program so you can pick it up and put it down.

You will most likely be interested if you have

• attended one of our workshops
• tried to explain it to someone else
• tried to read Requisite Organization

If you have any questions, please let me know. Looking forward to seeing you online. -TF

From Working Leadership Online:

Question:
You talked about capability as one of the factors in underperformance. How can I measure that, so I can make better decisions about assignments?

Response:
As a Manager, you may think you have only a feeling about someone’s capability, but, in fact, that feeling can be objectively measured. This measurement was documented in statistically valid research studies by Dr. Elliott Jaques as early as 1952 and continuously validated in studies until his death in 2003.

The metric is Time Span. Time Span is the length of time a person can work into the future, without direction, using their own discretionary judgment.

As a Manager, think about any task assignment for any of your team members. Some will complete the immediate parts of the task and then get stuck, come back to you for more direction or just check out. Those Time Spans are relatively short.

Others can take a complex task assignment and carry it forward to its completion. These Time Spans may last for a few days, weeks or months. Time Span is the length of time a person can work into the future, without direction, using their own discretionary judgment.

Once a manager understands this simple concept, the intuitive feeling about a person’s capability can be objectively measured and better decisions can be made about task assignments. -TF
__
Working Leadership Online, register now.
Mar 16 – Planning – Creating the Future
Apr 6 – Delegation – Ultimate Leverage
Apr 27 – Control Systems and Feedback Loops