Greetings from Philadelphia. Talking to a group about Elliott Jaques.
__
So, what was the point of this Management Team Meeting? The Management Team was asked to participate in the biggest decisions and solve the biggest problems. Yet, all too often, Wilfred Brown the Managing Director, would make his own decision.

What is the point of your Management Team Meetings? Is it important to set the context for the work of the company, to describe the market, identify the customers? Is it important to describe the ultimate goals of the organization, the long term vision?

Is it then important to capture the input of the management team, to identify the challenges that exist, both in the external market and the internal organization? Is it important to identify the technical details and consider alternative solutions?

And is it better to do this alone, in the solitude of the president’s office, or is it better to put together the heads of the management team?

You see, Wilfred Brown’s intention to include his management team was not only noble, it made common sense. More than that, it was necessary.

But what was the point, if Wilfred was going to veto some of the important decisions?

And Elliott watched. He made notes. He talked to the members of the management team, and he talked with Wilfred Brown.

You see, before the Management Team Meeting, Wilfred Brown sat in another meeting. This meeting was behind closed doors. It wasn’t secret, but the doors were closed. This meeting was a meeting of the Board of Directors. In this meeting, Wilfred Brown was given his marching orders. The Board made its decisions, decided direction and set its goal. These were not operational directives, but strategic milestones well into the future.

So, Wilfred Brown arrived at the Management Team Meeting, knowing the goal assigned to him by the Board of Directors. Wilfred had noble intentions of creating an atmosphere of teamwork. He held a deep belief in the importance of his management team participating in the largest problems and making the biggest decisions.

But, in the end, (of many meetings), the decisions, made by the executive team, would fall short of those directives determined by the Board. And it would not be the team sitting in that next Board meeting. It would be Wilfred who would be held accountable for the decisions made in the Management Team Meeting. Often enough to disturb the team, Wilfred, reluctantly had to step in.

So, what was the point of this Management Team Meeting?

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).