Formulation of Levels

Naming the Levels of Work

The taxonomic starting point in getting this framework effectively used is the challenge of managing a psychosocial reality involving many participants. As part of this, it becomes essential to have clear names for relevant elements of that reality. Here, that means names for work-responsibilities and management.

In organizations where this framework is accepted, formulae or numerical names (e.g. «Level-1», «WL3») may be used as a convenient shorthand in reference to posts or people or organised entities. However, this is unsatisfactory and dangerous for both consultants and managers.

• Formulae are the preferred choice for scientific purposes that transcend cultures and languages: but using them requires long training and discipline.
• Natural language names are needed for everyday use to provide an immediacy of understanding and a richness of meaning.

However QH2-staff are not scientifically inclined, and so formulae quickly become insider jargon and politicized. This fosters ignorance and pseudo-knowledge, and the work itself is left obscure. So misunderstandings spread. The task of evolving the culture further following a successful re-structuring is then made harder. Another problem is level envy which is like title envy, but also occurs between groups seeking political advantage.
Example:

Complaint: It's not fair: the Occupational Therapy Department should have a Level-4 Director like the Speech Therapy Department; especially because it is bigger. Response: It would be far clearer and less political if instead of appealing to numbers of staff or supposed fairness, the complaint made a reference to work issues in Occupational Therapy and the consequences for the Hospital—and that demands understanding and articulate explanation.

Alternatives for Specification

From examples in the original explanation, it is evident that work-level appellations are applied variously to tasks, to posts &/or roles, and to parts of organizations. This can lead to confusion as to which formulation is primary.

• Time-Span. Jaquesian accounts emphasize the maximum "time-scale of discretion" (TSD) i.e. the longest time in any assigned or assignable task. Note that discretion (judgement) is something exercised by a person and refers to what is going through their mind. Work here is seen as primarily psychological and those preferring TSD stratification, focus on work capability rather than producing outputs or enabling processes. The problem is that there are no obvious names for levels here.
  More

Tasks that alter physical reality do not seem to be longer than 10 years (WL5), and referring to longer time-scales (of vision or perspective or responsibility) severs the connection to tangible reality.

Because time-scale is analog and indefinite, Jaques could add WL8 by simply making the time-span longer. But time-scales of 20 or 50 or 100 years have no meaning in accountability terms given turnover of top staff, normal life-spans of organizations, and the rate of technological and socio-political change. (Also, THEE taxonomic logic, especially via QH-domains and the structural hierarchy, makes WL8 most unlikely.)

It is generally recognized that highly capable people work at a much quicker rate on lower level tasks. That throws a wrench into objective measurement i.e. if someone is assigned to a task and given 2 years to complete it, it may not make practical sense to automatically assume this is a WL3 task or that the person is working at WL3.

• Work Output. Taxonomic accounts emphasise the form or type of social output, and the nature of the responsibility for that output. This approach looks at general responsibility and management processes which have no time-span, rather than specific tasks which do. The individual with the capability who is authorized to carry the responsibility is likely to respond to the needs creatively and devise a response with suitable tasks and deadlines, usually without considering time-span theory.
• Organizational Form. Practical accounts for managers within a given organization often label the level of work (or post) via an existing organizational condition e.g. section (and section manager), department, service, platoon, brigade, ward, division, unit, cost-centre, business unit, general management, HQ, subsidiary, conglomerate. Such terms may be used in different ways across society and even within an industry, so there is a potential for confusion.
• Responsibility for Control. This labelling focuses on purposes and the value to action trajectory e.g. WL7-identity control, WL6-policy control, WL5-strategy control, WL4-management control, WL3-operations control, WL2-situations control, WL1-actions control. It will be given more attention when the organisation of management is considered.
• Conceptual Accounts. Other writers have identified the same 7 level system but expressed in a conceptual language: cybernetics in the case of Stafford Beer's Viable System Model. Other writers with an academic orientation or seeking a distinctive consulting service have reformulated Jaquesian ideas. These are usually difficult to comprehend and are rarely usable by managers without the presence of the author-as-consultant.
  Example:

de Visch Jan De Visch, The Vertical Dimension. Blueprint to Align Business and Talent Development (Connect & Transform Press, 2010) ISBN 978-94-9069-538-5. uses his own terms. But other than being a mechanical fact, why is «global governance» (WL7) of greater value or scope than «new business model» (WL5). If «global» means international, is the author suggesting that «national organizations» cannot be run at WL7? For WL4 the size of role is defined as "Breakthrough response: complex system mapping frame of reference. Multiple contexts, emerging changes and abstract modeling provide the framework for decision making. Rules are changed." Obvious? Do you agree that breakthroughs cannot occur at levels above and below? Does anyone really believe that rules set by CEOs at WL5, WL6 &/or WL7 can be changed at WL4?

Conclusion

There is no single simple method of labeling these levels that seems to suit every possible situation or every consultant. Some combination of the above often seems necessary. However, it must make sense. If you look at what organizations claiming to follow Jaquesian ideas specify in their handbooks, you will often find statements that make no logical sense.
Example ►

---

• The next step is to explore the dynamics of accountability between management levels (i.e. between holders of roles at these levels).

  OR

• Return to the Section Guide for other options.

Originally posted: 8-Feb-2014