Hi David Howard,
I wanted to respond to your request for comments on implementing Jaques
Requisite Organization. Although I have no direct experience with
implementation, I think I can respond to some of the conceptual issues
managers may experience when exposed to Jaques work.
I should say at the outset that I am both attracted and repelled by
Jaques work. His book The Form of Time (Crane Russak Heinemann, 1982)
is one of my all time favourites, but I find it difficult to link it
philosophically with his other works. Although I would not go quite as
far, he is to some The most creative, stimulating, exciting, rigorous,
confronting, intellectually demanding and morally provocative writer in
management.
Some major conceptual issues are:
(1) His work comes from a unique background unfamiliar to many North
American managers and he makes no attempt to integrate his work with
anyone elses. It seems that if one embraces Jaques one has to forsake all
others! There just arent any links. Some have said it is like joining a
cult!
(2) One of the reasons there arent any links is that Jaques work does
not accept that a working group performs two functions: a technical
task-related function and a social function. He focuses on the task
function exclusively and ignores much of what we know about individual and
small group dynamics. These are seen as pathological responses to
dysfunctional hierarchies (which may have more than a grain of truth to
it!). Anyway, personalities dont (or shouldnt) matter. At the
sociopolitical level this implies that one can substitute a system of laws
for values.
(3) The time span of discretion used to define level of work seems to
imply that some people are innately suited to high level work and that
once you are typed there is no possibility of advancement to higher
levels. This can be seen as elitist. This perception is enhanced by the
arcane language and lack of links.
(4) Jaques work often appeals to executives who value intellect over other
abilities and clarity and order (XXTJ in Myers-Briggs terms) and it is not
surprising that the U.S. military has been a user of his work. One
consultant who is a fan and uses Jaques stuff has confided to me that it
comes across a militaristic and that he has to soften it for most
CEOs.
So most CEOs who like Jaques that I have come across find that they cannot
embrace the whole thing, but pick and choose. Jaques is a valuable
antidote to those who believe that hierarchy is dead and he gives
sensible advice on how to build the requisite hierarchical organization.
But IMHO his strength - lack of connections to most of management thought
- is also a weakness. You have to bring a very strong set of values as a
context to his work, because you wont get them from the work: there are
no warning labels.
Also I just know how to fit a really dynamic business like software
development to such a schema without small group dynamics. Maybe it works
better in more stable environments. Nevertheless, the problems (all
hearsay) I have heard on implementation seem to have taken place in
technical organizations run by technical people (engineers, actuaries
etc.) who have accepted the implementation as an exercise in technical
rationality and proceeded lockstep into implementation. The informal
organization, personalities, the roles of small groups were all devalued
with apparently adverse consequences. It seems that while Jaques has an
excellent idea of what the hierarchy should look like, he may not have any
better ideas on the change process itself: on how to get there from here.
This kind of change should not be undertaken by organizations with weak
hearts!
Hope that this helps.
Best wishes,
David Hurst (dhurst1046@aol.com)
Speaker, Consultant and Writer on Management
Author of "Crisis & Renewal" (HBS Press, 1995) See <A HREF="http://www.mghr.c
om/books/0875845827.html">McGraw-Hill Ryerson - Crisis & Renewal</A>
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>