Re: Elliott Jaques … I have always appreciated his insight with respect to the Time Span of Decision-making that is core to his Requisite Organization Method.

That said, I have also always had problems with his assumptions about the need for rigorous superior – subordinate relationships.

What I think is useful and maybe workable from his theories is the notion of relatively few levels in an organization (effectively, this is a different form of job grading), with more differentiation between individuals based on individual and team performance.

But to your specific question: Do you think that the nature of our traditional organizations makes us infantile? Do you think that not having any say about what we do or how we do it makes us like a 2 year old again?

Yes. basically. I have often (only half-jokingly) suggested that many workplaces are the adult-version (or continuance) of grade-school or high-school … and usually more grade-school than high-school).

I know I am stubborn, but I still do not see why more adults, as individuals or as part of work groups and work teams, cannot be for the most part self-directed and/or self-managed.

As always, and as backed up by virtually all the research I have ever seen, that requires a core philosophy about humans by the organization’s leadership and the walk-the-talk culture of shared beliefs and values that lest appropriate self-direction and self-management flourish.

Another point about Jaques’ theory or method and the notion of Time .. I think that operating in electronically-hyperlinked networks changes the assumptions about the relationship(s) between time, organizational responsiveness and making forward decisions. McLuhan called what we are doing thinking, working and playing at the speed of light, and he suggested that the “job” as we understood it would disappear, in favour of “playing a role”.

I think Jaques’ theory (originating in the middle of the 20th Century, like the others) assumed a certainly degree of static “requisite” architecture and stability to business conditions and events that is likely to be viewed as “quaint” from the perspective of interlinked networks of information flowing “at the speed of light”.

In other words, “Time” ain’t what it used to be .. and neither are decisions or decision-making.

Haven’t I heard the term “we’re now all living in a beta world” somewhere before ?

His core subject was always “Time” – in an earlier work he talked about linear and non linear time.

People do seem to be divided on how they experience time – some live almost in the present – maybe a few weeks or months is the maximum time horozon. Some have a time horizon of 6 months. A few can look out a year or so and very few can look out and back in decades.

EJ saw some of this as developmental – a small child has no concept of tome – that is why they are always asking if “we are here yet” on trips. Over time with luck our time horizon can stretch – a year for a teenager is an eternity. A year for me at 60 is gone in a flash!

But many I think have been stuck like a child in a tiny time box. I used to think that this is how it was BUT now my question.

Do you think that the nature of our traditional organizations makes us infantile? Do you think that not having any say about what we do or how we do it makes us like a 2 year old again?

If so then Job Grading – that locks in 85% of employees in roles that utterly controlled by “parental” forces erodes our development as human beings?

What does decades of low control work do to us?

First I totally agree that the way the managers make their job evaluation is outdated. They focus on individual performance (is it still possible to perform alone ?) and hierarchical position in a world of collective performance and network. More than a question of HR or management, it’s a question of organization too (matrix). The organization must reflect too,the way it’s really work or should work.

However, I believe that to change people and things, you need incentive and recognition (and usualy appraisal in enterprise is a big part of this incentive). If you change the type of evaluation, you change the work requirements, cause KPI can be linked to your job and the way you do it.

If you’are evaluated on collective work, the weight of the function decrease. It’s not anymore a question of where you are on the system, but how you do your job.

this issue couldn’t be solved in the “traditional” way, as his expectations were larger than what can be achieved through the usual stuff, eg. monthly meetings and case studies sharing.
Incentives were rapidly put aside, as, if they foster initial activity, aren’t a sustainable way to “commoditize” knowledge exchange as part of day-to-day job. Then, an answer became evident: some part of the members’ individual objectives had to be shifted to community objectives, and employees’ yearly evaluation had to take this into account.

… made me think of the notion of contribution-based pay”. I’ve done a few research projects and a couple of experiments with clients in my Hay days (ha ha), but it’s too long a story for the comments section.