Specifically, the request was for:? “Role mandates, describing individual and shared accountabilities, decision rights, key metrics, financial targets.”? Again, by title.

Heavy Sigh
I?am disheartened and disconcerted?that well-reputed business consultants believe that benchmarking and universally specifying roles by title would be a reliable methodology.

It’s?akin to?my thinking that once I’ve driven on Main Street in Warren, Ohio, I’ll know what to expect when I hit Main Street in Toronto, Ontario.

Not All Roles Are Created Equal
I’ve said before that not all roles are created equal.? For example, CEO roles can be found from work level 3, a small,?local organization (a restaurant with 2 or 3 locations), all the way to level 7 or 8 (Walmart or General Motors).

The Price We Are Paying for Organizational Malpractice
This ignorance costs us greatly.? One of the reasons CEO compensation is so squirrelly is that there is no science-based methodology for creating organizational peer groups for CEO pay benchmarking.? Talk about organizational malpractice!

Disengagement
I think our current employee engagement numbers (about 21% engaged) reflect the fact that employees are tired of being treated like lab rats in a laboratory run with no mind toward science nor scientific methodology.

Have you ever suffered at the hands of a well-intentioned but disastrous organizational experiment??

Organizational Experiments
How about pay for performance?? How about being forced to lob the bottom 10% of your employees each year?? How about being subject to two masters (matrix management)?? How about being forced to attend useless training or follow a restrictive policy because no one wanted to confront the one person who was creating problems?

I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.

Justin does a great job of describing work levels 5, 4, and 3.

Here’s Justin’s description:

• Vision – Develop the simple idea. This is very likely the original reason a venture or effort was started. In addition, the Vision is the picture of success in the mind of the founder, CEO, et al.? (aka work level 5)
• Systems – Determine the business model, infrastructure needs, tools, etc. (aka work level 4, business model decision is probably made at 5)
• Execution – Get things done on-time and on-budget.? (aka level 3)

Work Levels are a Natural Phenomenon
The reason why we keep intuiting work levels is because they are natural phenomenon.? The reason why we organize ourselves in hierarchies is because it is natural to do so.? Human cognitive ability to solve problems exists in levels too.

We don’t have to know anything about thermometers to sense that there is a difference between 50 degrees and 90 degrees.

Want Research?
There is over 50 years of research on the subject, started by Wilfred Brown and Elliott Jaques.? If?you care to peruse it, you can access it in exchange for filling out a brief survey here.?

Or you can bop around this blog and read about it yourself.? Just type your area of interest (succession planning, talent assessment, performance management, leadership, strategy, compensation) in the Mission Minded Management search box, and see how work levels impact it.

Work Levels Described
For a reminder on my descriptions of level 5 – 1 work, click here.

Hierarchies Have Existed for?Thousands?of Years
As I’ve said before, hierarchies are not the problem.? It’s is our ignorance of how to structure organizations to naturally align with naturally occurring work levels that causes dysfunction.

I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.

Have you ever sensed work levels?

It’s a platform for management professionals, academicians and graduate business students to share their knowledge and insights with the corporate world, solve management issues collaboratively, and network with peers who have similar professional interests.

Their goal is to do for management knowledge what Wikipedia has done for general knowledge i.e. put it out on the “open” web, so that those who have expertise can add to it, and those who need the expertise can tap into it.

Short Management Articles
Although latetly most of my writing has been in the form of blog posts, I do write articles as well.? I posted a sampling of them on Insightory.? I’ll link to them here, as well, for your reading pleasure.

• What To Do About Attitude Problems?? Promote Them!
• But I Really Like Her.? When To Risk Hiring Someone With No Experience.
• Looking For Talent in All the Wrong Places
• The Answer is Communication and Leadership, But What Was the Question?
• Why HR Can’t Get No Respect

Have you heard, I’m OK. You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system?

HR’s Image Problem May Be Rooted in Promoting From Within
In my last post, I eluded to the fact that this happens in HR quite frequently, and this may be why HR has an image problem.

HR Evolved from Personnel
Over at Maximize Possibility, Chris Young features?quote from a report released by the Human Capital Institute and Vurv that says:? “The HR profession, which evolved from “personnel” in the 80′s and 90′s, seems unable to make a definitive move up the corporate ladder ? in prestige or influence.”? My questions:?Is this because we’ve tried to “evolve” our personnel clerks into strategic HR staff?

When Organization’s Explode Up From Under Hard-Working, Loyal Employees
When organizations try?to use their HR employee hired to cut paychecks back when the company had 50 employees to now design an integrated Talent Management system when your company is?20 times the size, you’ve got trouble.? I’ve seen organizations do this.? “Right place at the right time” promotions wreak havoc.

I’ve seen organizations explode up from under people who end up in a job way out of their capability level through no fault of their own but from an organization’s noble intention to want to promote from within.

Purchasing Example
Another example is when the person who volunteered to buy the office supplies 5 years ago because they had a friend at the local office supply store ends up as vice president of purchasing – accountable for purchasing systems design and continuous improvement.? Danger!? Danger!? Will Robinson.

Staffing Under the Tenured Employee Rather Than Staffing Over
As the company grew, they hired staff to fill roles under this original person, when in reality, it would have been in the best interest of everyone to hire over this person.? Someone level 4+ capable, i.e. strategic capability, to design, implement and improve the purchasing system.

Legitimate Internal Promotions Exist
I’m not saying people don’t grow in capability and that there aren’t legitimate internal promotions, but you simply cannot rocket people up multiple levels – even with?heroic training efforts.

When Current Executive Leadership Doesn’t Understand Strategic HR
Because strategic HR is a relatively new concept, it is executive level ignorance surrounding what contribution a?strategic HR?role could make that leads executive management not to properly scope and staff a strategic HR role when their organization has grown to require one.

They either don’t create the role in the first place, or the give it to someone who is not capable of designing and owning an integrated?system.

Honoring Tenure
Honoring tenure is a great thing, but granting “right place at the right time” promotions is dangerous business.? ?Chances are the employee who was satisfied and excellent at cutting paychecks is not the person to fill a strategic HR, systems design role.? Both roles are important to the organization, we wouldn’t want to stop issuing paychecks, but the roles are vastly different, and call for vastly different capability.

I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.

Have you ever seen an organization explode out from under someone?? Have you ever worked under one?

A Conscious Choice not an Ignorant One
However, overhiring as a conscious choice of a talent planning component of a growth strategy is not what caused the striking statistic I used repeatedly last week – one in five employees is underutilized. Rather, this situation is clearly the result of ignorance.

System Design Considerations When Consciously Overhiring
When overhiring consciously, it should be wrapped in dialog about growth expectations for the organization and the employee.

Whenever possible, underutilized employees’ work should be supplemented with opportunities to lead or help with special projects which tap their full capacity.

Possibly, more face time with their manager-once-removed (i.e. their likely next manager) should be afforded to them.

The point is, don’t leave them unvalidated or unattended.

Don’t Tarry
It likely goes without being said that when consciously overhiring, aim for promoting the overhired as quickly as possible. Because, back to the unattended idea, a simmering pan on the stove will eventually dry up, damage the pan, and potentially burn down the building! (Did I say that?)

I’m OK. You’re OK. Let’s fix the system.

Have you ever consciously overhired? How did it go?

I’m teaching a course this week called Judging Candidate and Employee Potential. As it turns out, managers are quite good at judging employee potential, when you provide them a contextual framework within which to make their judgments. Then, when we overlay a science-based, work-level complexity scale on top of their relative judgments, you’ve got a powerful tool for matching employees to jobs both today and in the future.

An Avoidable Problem – Role Mismatch
Our research shows that 35% of employees are cognitively mismatched to their roles – either underemployed and bored (20%) or over their heads and incompetent (15%).

Helping Managers Assess Talent
Our talent assessment process allows managers to make meaning of the shades of gray like medical professionals do with x-rays. Additionally, it shows them which inputs are relevant and which to exclude from their evidence base.

Why We Don’t Do Succession Planning
As I said in my succession planning posts, I think the reason organizations say succession planning is important but don’t do it is that they don’t have a credible process for distinguishing the shades of gray.

How do you bolster your managers’ ability to match employees to roles?

We’re smart and savvy. I’ll stop short of hip. We, as well, have tremendously unique and valuable services to offer that aren’t the easiest to explain — specifically because they are so unique. One of those services being – Executive Talent Assessment.

How Do You Decide If a CEO is Qualified? – Not All CEO Jobs Are Equal
It seems that Adaptive Path is growing, and its three founders are looking to add a CEO. What PeopleFit could do for Adaptive Path that few others could is use a validated, science based approach to assess the work complexity level of the proposed CEO role and then screen their candidates for the corresponding level of cognitive capability.

The cognitive capacity of the CEO will do more to seal the fate of this startup than any other factor. Good, bad or more of the same.

Hugely Important Strategic Question
My question is are they going to continue with their “team leadership” approach or are these thought leaders looking to hire themselves a thought leader? It’s unclear. Here’s what they say:

“Right now, all three of us (Peter, Jesse, and Bryan) work as a team to keep Adaptive Path growing culturally, creatively, and financially. We don?t want to replace any of the current executives. We want someone with a unique mix of business experience, operational savvy, and leadership qualities.”

Partner or To-the-Next-Level Leader?
The candidate pool for hiring a cognitive “partner” who would add a different knowledge and skill base than that of the three founders would be different than the candidate pool for someone who could “take the business to the next level”. Taking the business to the next higher level would require a higher cognitive capacity than that which is currently in place.

Einstein Believed in Levels
If you don’t believe me, how about Einstein who said: “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” (Emphasis mine.)

Their Destiny – Humble Success, Implosion, or Sale?
Very few entrepreneurs have the humility necessary to understand when their “baby” has grown out from under them and now requires a level of leadership greater than they can offer. Relinquishing the top spot to an “outsider” and becoming their direct report takes guts and character. Usually when start ups hit this crucial point, they implode or are purchased.

No Strategic Decision Should Be Made without Looking Through This Lens
There may not be one right answer on this, but using a work levels and cognitive capacity framework to inform these strategic, destiny-determining, structural decisions is the best path to ensuring they continue to grow culturally, creatively, and financially.

As I’ve said before, hierarchy, like bacteria, is not inherently good or bad, but misunderstand or ignore them at your peril.? I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.

What do you think will happen?

Quite a bit of what I write and rant is rooted in Elliott Jaques’ meta-model, Requisite Organization.

On June 4, I’ll be leading a short course on some of the basics of the model and their implications for organizational structure, employee engagement, leadership, talent management and systems design.

Please consider joining us. Click here to read more about the course.

Buy the Book
Of course, you are welcome to buy the book as well.

Why Read the Book?
This book provides a systems design perspective on creating effective and engaging organizations. The book contains 32 short articles authored and edited by over 40 CEOs, consultants, academics, and management educators from seven countries.

This is required reading for those who want to fix the system!

From “Or” Thinking to “And” Thinking, i.e. From Level 5 to Level 6
My historical example was that the US auto industry in the 1960?s offered EITHER low cost OR quality (Level 5 strategy).? The Japanese raised the bar by raising the complexity level of the strategy by finding a way to offer low cost AND quality(Level 6 strategy).

HBS Working Knowledge has released a working paper: Embracing Commitment and Performance: CEOs and Practices Used to Manage Paradox.? Here is their introduction (emphasis mine):

“We tend to assume that great leaders must make difficult choices between two or more conflicting outcomes. In an interview study with 26 CEOs of top American and European companies (incl. IKEA, Campbell Soups, Nokia, H&M), we find that instead of choosing between conflicting outcomes such as long-term strategy or short-term performance drivers, top tier managers argue that their role is to embrace such paradoxes to make both things happen simultaneously. The study identifies five groups of practices that make this possible.”

Have You Heard?? Six is the New Five
What the authors have stumbled upon and are describing when they say “top tier?managers” is a leader with level 6 capability.?

Differentiating Level 5 from Level 6
A leader with level 6 capability will create a level 6 strategy, i.e. let’s combine two (or more)?strategy models.? A leader with level 5 capability will create a level 5 strategy, i.e. we are going to focus on our (one)?core competency – low cost leader.?

Organizations are Shadows of Their Leaders
Different levels of strategy require (or emanate from) different levels of cognitive capacity.? Additionally, different levels require different CEO compensation.? (I’ll be posting on this later this week.)

A Huge Mistake – All CEO Roles are Equal
Another quote from the article, once again, reinforces the idea of work levels and differing cognitive capability but NOT a recognition that not all CEO roles are equal.? The authors clump all CEO roles together.? The particular size and complexity level of an organization will call for a particular level CEO.

A New Bandwagon to Jump Upon – Level 6 Capability
Now that level 6 capacity has been “discovered”, it suddenly becomes the holy grail.? The authors decide that now ALL CEOs must combine models to be successful, i.e. all CEO roles are level six roles and require level 6 leadership capacity.?

“The CEOs did not (as one might have expected) discuss major choices that needed to be made or the dilemmas that they were facing. Instead of speaking in terms of ?either-or?, they spoke consciously of their ability and understanding of how to do ?both-and?.? They argued that seemingly conflicting outcomes cannot be made the subject of choice, nor can they be balanced. Instead, it is the role of the CEO to embrace the paradoxes and meet both ends at the same time. This is signifying for the leadership that they (at least on an espoused level) try to exercise.”

Embracing paradoxes need NOT be the role of ALL CEOs.? A level 5 organization can do well under the leadership of a level 5 CEO with a single model strategy.

We can continue to look through a glass darkly and muse about the shadows on the cave wall, or we can seek to understand work levels?and find?a level of clarity in understanding strategy, talent management, and organization design not seen to date.? Which will you choose?

Your thoughts?? What level is your organization?