How well does this stuff really work and how do we know?

Speaker A Okay, well, good afternoon and welcome to our session. I'm Jerry Gray and this is Kim Shepherd to my synchronic to my left, and we're the moderators for this session. We were having lunch, doing our final preparation of presenters. We were wondering how many would show up because there's competition in the building with other sessions and with the agenda here, which is on the research issues. Sometimes it's not framing very high. In fact, as Ron said, maybe that's indicative of state of the art. On the other hand, we have a good turnout, so maybe it's not that. So I believe in truth and advertising, but I just want to clarify, I think, what the context of today is and want to comment on that. That's fine as well. I would add you the title and say yes, how well does this stuff work and how do we know that's the research side of things. So we do want to include the evidential side of the issue and the research side. It'll take us a little bit into the other side, which is where we go from here in terms of the educational side and on the research side within universities or research units or consulting firms. I've always said that, and I thought about this years ago, by the way, in the depths of my depression as a follower and a believer in our old concepts, is that I'd rather be criticized and ignored. And I've be curious, your comments later on is, has this been ignored in the research literature? And Ken, I'll be asking to make some comments on that as well. So all these are things we're going to do. So it really has to do with what is the evidence. And we're going to have some samples here today from our two presenters, and then Ken and I will make some comments about it. We'll have a discussion on one of those issues and see where it takes us to start us off. I'm going to have Ron come first, but I asked him to do something and I like, can't do it in maybe about five minutes. Nobody knows the literature better than this guy over here. He has eat, slept, climbed on it, slept on it, and everything else that known to mankind. And I say, could you start us off with just a quick overview of given what he has seen? He's probably read all this stuff too. I didn't ask him that, but I'm pretty sure he has, is what would he see as the state of the art, where are we today or where have we been? Any kind of trends that he could pick out that we could just take as kind of a context, then go into our presenters, then come back into the flow of the research and the evaluated research kind of issues. So Ken, can you give us four, five, six quick? My brain tells me this.

Speaker B He asked me just about an hour.

Speaker A Ago summarize your life work in five minutes.

Speaker B And what I'm going to do is I'm just going to give just a couple comments and then as we go along, I'll throw in some comments because I can't do it quite in this format. One of the major problems is the isolation of researchers on this. People have been scattered all over the place. One here, one there, one the next place, and very, very few places has there been more than one. And one of the few places is at Deacon University down in Melbourne. And they were able to put the resources together for a section like this without 65 people last December. The real problem is we have so many consultants here and not enough academics in this group. And so the result ultimately, how do we build bridges between these two groups? That's the overall question. Second, there's no reason for people to feel that there isn't research behind it. If you looked at the bibliography, it's now up to 675 pages, which is the one that's online right now that's available for download is only 520. I've identified 72 doctoral dissertations done on this and may actually be able to. So it turns out there's quite a little bit of research on this and the research is OD in that.

Speaker A We'Ve.

Speaker B Got a number of studies done with correlations regarding time span, discretion, felt, fair pay, the it. Unfortunately, when I was preparing, I cut out the part one of the bibliography. So I'm going to go like this. Correlations run like this and it's zero eightyn correlations. And there are nine studies on that either published or PhD, reviewed and awarded PhDs. Yeah, there's five over here. HL is oh, sorry, hierarchy level. Okay. And on this side we end up with zero 80 and there's twelve studies. These studies, some of them are replications.

Speaker C Thank you.

Speaker B Some of them are replications, but most of them were done independently isolated. People read the material, made their best definitions of what they could and put it up there. So the issue is it is in fact robust because you're using slightly different definitions and they're still coming up with correlations like this. So question is, is there intellectual validity to this stuff? Again, you can go into the dissertations and some of them we have posted online at Global Ro website and we're going to have more up there. Others may be available to you through umi, or theses.com over in the UK and you can get it from the British Library. So there's one caveat here. There's three studies done very, very confusing. What would cause such a drop off like that down to 00:35?

Speaker C How do they operationalize the measures?

Speaker B Well, all three of course, claim that they disprove theory because the low correlations turns out what's really hidden in these three, and I've now written it up, that will be in the next edition, is that they are all done within a single strata. They don't cross strata, and they're all done within stratum one. So you're not getting the differential pay at all. You're not picking up any of that stuff. So it turns out these three over here are in there, and it's unique. The second thing is that a number of studies were done in the 60s which, again, claims have disproved this theory, but in point effect, did no such thing. The most famous is Paul Goodman's stuff, which some of you may have run across. When you search on Google, you almost always pick up his 1967 article based on his 66 dissertation at Cornell. And you have to get the entire article, read the whole article. And about the next little last page, you will find a footnote wherein instead of doing what he did, which was basically to.

Speaker A What Goodman did, I need to stay a little bit higher in looking at the broad trends in the research. If we could. Yes, I could hear that for days because it fascinates me, but I want to hear the higher level trend stuff.

Speaker B Okay. Thank you. Yeah. In your book, you had Goodman's article.

Speaker D Yeah.

Speaker B Okay. Shortly after that, you rescinded in an article co authored with Bob up there, which you now know.

Speaker A I didn't know that.

Speaker B So all of a sudden, Goodman is faced with a real problem. Bob had done some work over at Glacier Institute of Management and had started at Cornell and done a survey of requisite levels inside libraries. And then he had crippus's stuff as well. So Goodman's dropped, by the way, dropped those that claim that they've disproven back in the 60s started to drop out in the 70s. You had Goodman's study dropped out. You had what's his name, alan Fox's stuff dropped out. And there was a third one, also dropped out, where they made this wonderful claim they'd disproven Jackson's theory. And the answer, in the end, is no. Eventually, they collapsed. Now, what happens then is in the 80s, it starts to pick up what we have here. Ken, just before you go on, could.

Speaker C You just define those three points on the triangle again, please?

Speaker B Okay, I have it in the timestamp, discretion.

Speaker C Okay.

Speaker B Welfare pay. And then I throw in hierarchy going over here.

Speaker E What does that mean?

Speaker B Strata, but sometimes a bit fuzzy about what strata is in individual studies. The point really is that this correlation sticks even in a relative rather than absolute measure.

Speaker C So time span of discretion correlates with.

Speaker B The number of levels. Yes, just as we would expect. Just as we would expect. The one that is the weakest here is welfare pay, the hierarchy level. And Sean Carraher, who is out in Not, Oklahoma at Cameron, has been doing a number of studies here in this area, and he has developed quite a bit of stuff, particularly in Europe, different countries of entrepreneurs and their welfare pay for hierarchy levels. And some of it's still in the pipeline. It's not yet been published. And some of it I've asked him to look exactly at this and he will in future. So we have somebody on this. The problem is several of these studies, of these, five are qualitative rather than quantitative studies. And one and a half of these we're actually a college student. So make a problem. We need something on actual video breathing managers. Is that all right? I just wanted to give you an overview here on number of number of schools in which these degrees have been awarded. 25 in the US, eight in the UK, Australia, five Argentina, one Raquel, yes. And one in Israel, which I didn't get to mention the other day. The 72 breakout like this. You have six on social analysis, 50 on time span, welfare pay, stratified systems, that grouping of stuff. One on works councils, one on a form of time, and this was the one done in Israel. And 13 on human capability, mental complexity, information processing, levels of abstraction, and one on organization as a defense against anxiety, which is the one paper that Elliot withdrew. But it was postulated in such a way that it has to do with health and AIDS clinics, which may be the one place where in point effect tonization may be in defense against anxiety because most of your patients are dying right in front of you. So I left that in there for a number of reasons. It also had to do with organization. And just to keep this in perspective, in terms of PhDs here, you've got about 1980. Just before 1980, a number of study academic shifts went into cultic culture, which I'm sure you're all aware of. Massive number of PhDs, of which about 110 cited the changing culture of a factoring. But starting around 1986, that fades into the background because they're quoting earlier studies. And so today you have any number of PhDs done on corporate culture would not necessarily cite any of Elliot's work. This particular work, a couple relate to his psychoanalytic work and death and midlife crisis. 66 dissertations. These are almost all in North America, mostly in the US. In the UK, they don't identify it that way. They give a psychology degree and it doesn't necessarily have the kind of dissertation attached to it that gets published in many in the United States. There are psychoanalytic clinics may give a PhD or something, but won't necessarily identify it in the same way it doesn't get published. It may be a research degree, but not that. And this is the summary of what I just gave you. So a total of 250 dissertations that relate back to Elliot and Wilfred's work, 72 are organization theory, which is the area that we're here for. I'm going to go over this tomorrow afternoon with the main group, just to give them a sense of it. But the bibliography looks like this. We have 670 right now this is where it stands. Not the one that's online, but the one that's coming soon. 674 published articles and books and chapters based directly on Jack's theory of organization. The 72 PhDs, 50 masters, which are usually terminal masters rather than masters leading to the PhD. I didn't worry too much about the masters leading to the PhD. About 35 clinical studies. Notice they came to a negative conclusion and they're all identified in the bibliography. But this is the counts. About a little under 500 were descriptive rather than research pieces on the theory. Many times you'll find people someone just giving a description of the theory and because they suddenly came across it and found it fascinating, so they give you descriptions, but it may not go anywhere, may not go very far at all. A little over 200 book reviews about well, actually, this number is way on the low side, but about 100 unpublished research studies, very often private. A lot of the BIOS material is private. They don't publish, and it's in there. And I talked to them, trying to see if we can get them to publish some of their stuff. Conference, 51 conference papers. Again, that's on the low side because many of the proceedings are just not available. I can't find them. I can sense that something happened there, but from them. So that gives us a subtotal of a little under 1700 directly on the theory, testing the theory. I then put in a next group, which is mainstream findings supporting the theory. And we have over 500 research. These are people who never heard of Wilford Brown glacier metal la Jacks, never Hoyte, not invented here. But their research findings support the theory. So I reached outside of the community and looked to find because if it's really there, other people will stumble across it, won't they? In their research automatically. They'll have to find it somewhere. So they got 160 related PhDs who are in that same group. They've never heard of the theory, but they're finding support it. And again, masters. 32 masters. Again, I didn't stress that too much. You come up with just about 2400, and by the time this gets published, it will be 2400, but 2400 academic pieces that have come out. Now, over on the right side here, you get peer reviewed journal articles, just under 300 from the research, including the articles that came out of PhDs, of which is good. Number 15, critical, descriptive, again, peer reviewed. But they just included the description of the theory without any testing of it. Comes at 136. I didn't include any of those that were I'm not counting them down here as A level. So you get the research supported stuff where, again, knows nothing about the theory, but had findings that support the theory. 250, a total of just under 700 peer reviewed journal articles out there. Of that number, 140 are in A level journals. The description I have on this one is that I use Columbia's list because Columbia is driven for its tenure. In order to get tenure that you have to publish in A level journals, american Academy of Management journals, the AMR, AMJ ASQ, but also drips across. And this is one of the problems with this theory is it drifts across multiple disciplines. So we're also talking about psychology and sociology, A level journals, not just organization theory, A level journals. So this is cross disciplinary and therefore it comes across as being 20 in psychology, 25 at top levels in sociology, et cetera. And also it's about 25 in economics. This stuff has migrated over into economics at least three different ways. One, the effort wage bargain, which some of you may have heard about, that is directly triggerable right back to Jack. The other is the size effect, which determines that, which is an economic theory, which it claims or uses Elliot's stuff to demonstrate that CEOs are paid not on profits, but on the size of the organization. And that is sort of drifted off stage because as we got into options and stuff like that for CEOs, then that sort of threw that model somewhat out. And the last is ex efficiency. Have any of you ever heard of Ex efficiency? What sometimes called inefficiency it addresses the question why don't managers adopt technology right away, as soon as it's available, as soon as science or engineering finds technology and brings it up to the Snuff, why don't they adopt it? It takes them ten years to adopt. Now, this theory was not acknowledged as the source for this theory. I mean, our requisite theory wasn't elliot Jack wasn't acknowledged as the source of it. And that has sort of petered out a little bit. But it's still there because if you're understaffing your organization systematically throughout the managerial hierarchy with people who are underpowered, it takes them that much longer to identify the path by which they can take raw research, data research, basic research and apply it. They can't find the path to do it. So as a result, what happens when you have a situation like Japan, Japanese translated Elliot's and Wilfred's work between 1965 and 1969? I don't know who read it, but I do know it's on deposited Japanese and English in a number of universities, also in the parliamentary library over there. And from everything I can tell, Toyota is using it thoroughly. So there is no question that Toyota is using both Denning and Jack's stuff, at least from what I can tell, from what I can see inside of yeah, there's some other stuff in the bibliography. I just want to say that the bibliography is a group called In Newspapers, periodicals, which are on theory, but they're sort of date related, think something was happening about theory. It gets reported in the newspaper. The miscellaneous stuff are the classics of management, which are either the superstitious management kind of stuff, alchemical management kind of stuff, but which are still, I think, valid and then mostly quantitative stuff. The leading one on this one is Jester Barnard's Functions of an Executive. But I put that in there also. So interesting PhDs, which are in a separate section in Part One rather than the main fieldgraphy, the introduction and all this other stuff is in a separate section called Part One Introduction. And the interesting PhDs are maybe future research directions, I don't know. Then I found some that were just lost wingers, broken sites. That kind of the real. The concept of bibliography started just simply documenting Elliot and Wilfred's stuff. It then grew out to include all these other people. And finally it grows out into something quite different, which is where is the reality of business education whereby this stuff has a center in it and what else supports it, which is why you get into the supporting research. The mainstreamers will claim there's nothing there. The answer is they've got the results in their own research. They're pointing at the results are already there. So that opens a question about syllabi and how we're actually going to reform management education. So let me stop.

Speaker A Thank you, Kim. I need the mic to pass this around.

Speaker B Ken, could you comment?

Speaker C There's a lot of stuff so the goodness a lot of stuff is opposed to not.

Speaker B There's probably two seminal questions.

Speaker C One is in terms of the underlying concepts, are they valid and reliable? And the higher level question is in terms of organization performance, real organization real performance doesn't make any difference. Could you comment on those two questions that I think are really the seminal questions?

Speaker B The answer is, has it been validated in terms of actual research? I think at this point the answer is going to be pretty definitively. Yes. This many dissertations in terms of valid and reliable concepts constructs, in the end, I think that the bibliography answers that question. There's so much data in there at this point that it has been approached from so many different angles. Those academic questions are now moved. Okay, not that they won't be challenged, but it's a dead letter. Your second question, does it make any difference for yes. The answer to that is we're beginning to get after the fact, after installation PhDs done. For example, one in the army deals with infantry training of infantry officers versus armored officers. And it showed up that after having this in, the armored folks went to sleep and there ended up not having a fully trained officer for it to be able to respond to kind of emergencies that they would be facing in combat. So why did that happen?

Speaker F And so forth.

Speaker B But it didn't happen in the industry, did happen in the army. So then you have to go back. And once you make these changes, that doesn't mean your problems go over. And there's a couple of others that are also shown up in after exploitation that's the question. Does it make a difference? Yeah, we're starting to get those studies now.

Speaker C Okay, so there's not as much on that. Sort of.

Speaker E Like Carnegie showed the curve, revenue, et cetera, kind of hockey sticking up. Yes, but that's not written up anywhere.

Speaker B Right.

Speaker E Which is Carnegie. The CRA results.

Speaker B No, you mean the financial results.

Speaker C Ron, you published some, you've got one.

Speaker B Study, published it's on his website.

Speaker E Okay, but it's really not very broadly disseminated.

Speaker C No, that stuff isn't for sure.

Speaker B Yeah, that's the other thing. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of companies won't talk about it publicly and for exactly this reason, they're showing high level profitability directly related to this approach and they don't want their competition to know about it, which is why it's difficult to get them to fess up. One of the things that you might be aware of this might not be that I'm getting some downloads, Kirby, from the Chinese without an email to go back to.

Speaker A Okay, Ken, thank you very much. Just a couple quick comments and we'll bring Ron up. Bob just mentioned the CRA thing and the graph on the thing, and my immediate reaction was a typical skeptical academic. That could have happened for a variety of principles, right? I mean, the price of lead goes up or I don't know what the hell it is. And that's the academic kinds of issues and maybe you're those kind of things we talk about. Remember also, Rob Pierce yesterday, he made a very, to me, a very cogent but very passing comment when somebody said, do you have the confidence this stuff has had an impact and it works. And he said, well, understand, we have not done a controlled group study, and went on and gave a good business person's answer to the question. But he recognized the fact that, yeah, I feel my gut this stuff works, but do we have a real scientifically controlled experience? No, the answer is no, we don't. So that's one of the questions we'll talk about later on and make one final comment on Ken's work versus web five eight, which this really surprised me in a sense of a year ago when I first looked at Ken's, I was really struck by the amount of work being done. I'm happy for that. I mentioned this briefly the other night. I'll mention again because to me, as a university professor, retired has always bothered me, and as a prompt, I would receive a lot of free textbooks and the publishers wanting me to use their book in my classes. And I'll call this cocktail party research. It's not nearly as good as done, but with a couple of scotches I could probably defend it. And I would always take these new books and go to the index, look under the author index, okay. And I can simply tell you and I'll go back as much as five years ago when I did this in less than 5% of the textbooks would you find Ellie Jackson even referenced. And my question is, okay, we're doing all this research and this is very impressive, but my sense is and if you argue me, please do it after we're through, I mean, session, it is not getting into the university textbooks that we're educating our undergraduate students. Now, you may say yes for MBAs, but most of the textbooks used for undergraduate are also used for MBAs. There's not a big distinction in those textbooks, quite frankly. In fact, every author who wants to make a buck says this book is for both MBAs undergraduates, right? I mean, you want to cover the market. So I don't think there's a big difference between executive MBAs. My own case, in order to teach requisite in a classroom, I had no choice but put a photocopy bunch of stuff in the library and say, go read this, because there was nowhere in a commercial textbook they could read enough. And I mentioned again in the night where my publisher told me to take that jack shit out of there before they would publish it. Okay? Not only was it not available, it was, in my experience, actively discouraged. So just take that as a case in point. We'll come back when we hear the presenters and talk about, can we make a difference in this, can we change this? Because if you're not getting it in the introductory classes at the undergraduate level, at much less MBA level, well, I tell you, it's a pretty bleak future, quite frankly. And Maurice has a great story that made by Dave. If you tell that later, I would appreciate it. Anyways, let's start with Ron, okay. And we're going to hear about, yes, it does work. We've got some evidence and we'll take that as our segue into the other issue, which is how we deal with this. And one of the major issues, particularly maybe what the society should do with itself. Ron.

Speaker C Okay, I'm Ron capaldatell Associates. We do primarily consulting work, but we also do research. The firm started in 1977. Since about 1990, we've been doing exclusively organization design work. We've also done research. So I have a personal interest both in doing the consulting, but also doing research to find out if it makes a difference or not. So while our real business is the consulting, we do the research. Now, the downside of having the research as a sideline is that so far.

Speaker B We'Ve only published one study.

Speaker C We've got all kinds of research, but most of it is still in house and white papers and so on and so forth. So our intention is to publish more, but to this point we haven't done as much of that. So what I'd like to do is run through some slides with some of the research we've got, talk about some of the research. There's one study in particular that is published that's available on it and I think of interest and hopefully over the next period of time, we'll be able to publish more of this. I was told that if I press computer come back, it may jar. Okay. I wonder, Kevin, do you mind just asking for a tech person to come up?

Speaker A I think you have to point up.

Speaker C Point up.

Speaker D Okay, I'll try that.

Speaker B Oh, there you go.

Speaker A Four, right.

Speaker C Thank you. So, in terms of the first piece, one of the things we do when we go into an organization and we do an assessment is that we keep track of the data. So what do we find when we go in? So we get different measures when we go into an organization. One of the things we do is collect timespans. So what are the time spans? By collecting the time spans, you can look at what percentage of the manager direct report relationships are requisite or have gaps or have compression. So we do that as kind of a front end. And you can see that what we found, we've got data on over 26,000 manager direct report relationships from over 50 organizations. And what we find going in is that requisite alignment manager exactly one stratum above in terms of the work that's done. And when we go in, we only look at the work that's done. We don't assess any individuals.

Speaker B We'll often do talent pool later, but.

Speaker C The initial work is simply in terms of the work that's done. We find that the requisite situation occurs about 50% of the time, but compression occurs about 38% of the time, and the gaps occur about 12% of the time. So we found that fairly consistently over the years, we found gaps have increased.

Speaker B Slightly, but not a lot.

Speaker C In terms of the research that we've done, that's kind of some baseline, ongoing data about what one finds. What we find is that when we work with an organization around improving organization design, those requisite scores go from about 50 up to about 80, 90% plus. So an organization can significantly improve those scores through an organization design process. But the beginning point for most organizations is not very good. One of the broad comments I have is that what we found, and we found this consistently, is that organization design in general talk about different ways we define it. Organization design in general is related to outcome measures in terms of financial performance, customer satisfaction, and employee satisfaction. What's surprising for us is that we found in our research that one variable by itself relates to those outcome measures, and that one variable by itself is the manager direct report alignment. That one variable by itself relates directly to those outcome measures. And that's a finding that we've replicated a number of times in a number of studies. This is this is the research that's published. So this study is called Organization Design and Performance in the Global Pension Fund Industry. Keith Anne Vicksher, myself and. Tom. Shebelhat did this, published this in 1998, and it's in the Financial Analyst Journal, November December. And basically, this was a study of the global pension fund industry. Eight major pension funds from around the world sponsored this. So in the States, there was IBM, At T. In Canada, there was Teachers and OMRS.

Speaker F In Europe.

Speaker C There was ABP. They sponsored the research. And we did it two ways. One is we developed an instrument and we had CEOs rank their organization in terms of how good the design was. We had a response rate, because Keith works in the pension field, we had a response rate of around I forget exactly what it was, but around 70% from CEOs, which is quite amazing. What we found with that is, in terms of CEO responses, that there was a statistically significant relationship between how the CEOs saw their design and the performance. And the performance was and this was interesting. Again, Keith got incredible data. We found that there was a relationship between that and four year pension fund financial performance, adjusted for cost and risk. It's astounding, when you think about it, you think about the money pension funds have. And to get a statistically significant relationship between this general design measure and that precise, extraordinarily precise outcome measure.

Speaker G Ron, the independent variable there is I'm rating my organization on a scale of.

Speaker A One to five or something.

Speaker C Basically, I forget the number of questions. Around 60, 70 questions. It was a lippard scale, so six point scale was the average. We then did some subdivisions in terms of sub factors that related to it and also individual questions that related to it. What we then did is we went into the pension funds that were the sponsors. So the sponsor pension funds, as part of the deal, they got something more. Something more was we actually went in and we did time spam analysis, and we looked at what percentage was requisite, and there were eight funds, but we only had data points for six. Two of the funds we couldn't go into, so we've got data points for six. Now, for those of you who know statistics, normally you wouldn't bother doing a statistical analysis with an Nana six. In this particular case, the correlation was about 0.9. It was statistically significant with a sample of six, which is quite amazing, but consistent with this other piece. And we're replicating keith and I are not replicating this piece at this point, but we are at this year replicating the first piece. In terms of the general organization design measure.

Speaker B That was statistically significant, correct?

Speaker C Both were yeah. The first one, I forget the correlation. The second correlation was about 0.9. The first one was around 0.5. But both were statistically significant. This is a study, and this is public information. This goes back to Rob Pierce's early days. This is VIMO, bank of Montreal electronic banking services. And we did a study here both on employee satisfaction and financial performance. And you can see here that organization design significantly improved.

Speaker F So we did a pre and post.

Speaker C Measure in terms of organization design and we defined it as percentage requisite positions. That was their definition. And again we found that this is really just a very powerful measure here. We had, in terms of the research piece, we had baseline data, so we had baseline data in terms of performance of a larger entity. And then we had specific information related.

Speaker B To employee satisfaction of that group.

Speaker C And before it was kind of back and forth and it went up significantly higher. What's interesting with both the satisfaction and performance on a financial basis is that while we only tracked it three years, in fact this has been a continuing process. So we don't have a specific additional date on that. But in terms of the information that I have around performance, that's continued and in fact this organization still uses this. Similarly with financial performance, same thing in terms of the design getting better. And again, we've got a baseline that we used. The organization was significantly below the baseline and financial performance and subsequently moved up more significantly than the outside world on that metric. In this particular case, we did build in some baseline measures. So it partially takes away the issue of is it just a fortuitous thing in this one organization?

Speaker E And the baseline is not total organization, it's total organization minus the unit.

Speaker C That correct.

Speaker B Correct.

Speaker C So here it would be the total organization minus the unit. This is a study that we've done twice. We've looked at the top 2000 companies in Canada and we've administered a survey that's gone out to the CEO and the vice president of human resources. Basically they've completed information around their organization, their perceptions of a number of different variables. And we've got several factors that have come out of those questionnaires. So they completed them independently. They looked at some similar variables and some different variables. So we looked at from the HR person there was an assessment of human resources. From the HR person there was an assessment of correct alignment of positions. So a significant correlation between these that you would expect if you look at measures here, intermediate measures. And this is a model that we built based on the data. This is what we would predict the data would show. And then either the data indicates that or not. We're making assumptions about the directionality here, so we're using correlations and making assumptions about the directionality.

Speaker B Manager employee relationship.

Speaker C Employee satisfaction is measured by the CEO, customer satisfaction is measured by the CEO. So these two are measured by the CEO, this input stuff is measured by HR, and the financial performance is also measured by the CEO. And what we found is that in terms of financial performance, there's a direct relationship between organization design and alignment of roles as assessed by the HR person and the financial performance of the organization as determined by the CEO. What we did is one question around the CEO assessment of financial performance. One question is, is this real or is this just what the person thought? So we actually got data here, public data here in terms of actual financial performance, there was a very high correlation between what the CEO said it was and what it actually was in terms of the external data that we had. So this is a model that hypothesizes some directionality. The most important thing, from my perspective is all this stuff is statistically significant. The numbers aren't real high, but it is statistically significant. And it's a pretty consistent pattern that makes its way down to financial performance. So some of the intermediate variables, you'd predict more, but getting the financial performance one as well. So we've done this one twice, and each client had very similar results on an independent basis, taking a look at the information processing capability of an employee and the complexity of work required in a position. So we did in this particular study, we had two independent measures. And in terms of you can see in terms of this graph that there is a statistically significant relationship between what the information processing capability of the individual employee is and the complexity of work required in a position. This organization, by the way, was requisite, had been through a couple of pallet pool processes as well as getting a line. So whether or not you find that high a correlation in an organization that wasn't requisite, you probably would not.

Speaker A I've seen a result from a colleague in Sweden. The show about the same. Okay.

Speaker C Yeah.

Speaker A Without it being requisite.

Speaker C Without it being requisite.

Speaker A Okay.

Speaker C That's interesting. Okay, so those are the specific slides. Let me just make a couple of other comments around some other related research pieces that are here. One of the things we're currently working on. When we go into an organization.

Speaker B We.

Speaker C Do time span analysis. So we look at percentage of requisite organizations. We've also developed a questionnaire on organization design satisfaction. So what are organization design variables? It correlates with an employee satisfaction survey, so it's a little more precise, it's a little more focused than an employee satisfaction survey is. And we're just doing some research now. We've just got a chart and we've got data on 20 different organizations looking at the relationship between how requisite the manager direct report alignment is and what the satisfaction of the employees is. And we got 20 dots on a page like those dots. And again, it's a statistically significant relationship. So we're just working on that.

Speaker B Now.

Speaker C We'Ve got two studies related to information processing capability. Both of them we did with Elliot. One was a study in the federal government, and we've got some statistically significant relationships in terms of level of capability and level of role. We've also got equally importantly, there's no statistically significant relationship when you look at variables like gender and someone being a minority and so on. It's good in terms of the things we didn't get. We didn't have access to as much information as we would like in that particular study, so don't have as much data. The second one we did, also with Elliot, is in an organization where we had two talent pool assessments. We offered employees an opportunity to go through an assessment of current potential capability, and we've got about 50 volunteers. We had talent pool data from two times. The deal was the employees would get confidential data, the organization would get group level data, and we'd get an opportunity to do research. So Elliot and I did that research and again, we found statistically significant relationships between the assessments Elliot and I did of information processing capability, the talent pool, the level of work, the interrelated reliability. I must admit the results we got were not as high as the ones Elliot gets. Elliot tends to get results that are in the 0.9s. These were more middling. They were statistically significant, but they were more middling as opposed to the 0.9. So we've got a couple of pieces on that as well. What we're trying to do as much as possible is find opportunities through the consultancy to do research. And we think that that's a benefit to our consultancy practice. But we also think it's good for the field. A downside is that because our main business is consulting, we really haven't put the effort into the publication yet. And quite frankly, we're not a skill pad. That's a whole skill set in itself in terms of getting published. The other comment that I would make, having seen some projects, and I guess it's partly related to my question to you, Ken, around qualitative stuff, is I think it's difficult for an academic who doesn't understand the stuff to do research. I think doing time span is a difficult thing. I think doing information processing capability assessment is a difficult thing. I think that's very difficult for an academic to just go out and do so minimally. Consultants need to be involved in that process. I think to the extent that there's better liaison, the academics can bring stuff in in terms of the purity of the research and being able to write.

Speaker B It up in the way a consultant.

Speaker C Would struggle to do. But I think some of those consulting skills, in terms of assessing those sorts of so that it's real stuff, is important, and I think that's difficult for an academic to do independently about it.

Speaker A Thank you very much. Thanks very much. I can't resist, actually Ron said it. I just want to reinforce it because it really is important that as a consultant, research is good for business. If you can do what you have done in your firm and be able to show potential clients the results, what a powerful tool. Maybe you can bill for it, maybe you can't. I don't know, but the research side is very important. Maurice, have you come up, please?

Speaker F Gary, I don't know why I'm here. Ken called me Friday night. I think he was or he was just losing it because it was gone. And he asked me to get involved with this.

Speaker A Yeah, that's his cheese.

Speaker F And research guys, I don't do research and over results like, can you get 20% productivity and growth or 30%? So I'm not sure why I'm here, but I'm just trying to put things together. Maybe in this madness, there's a reason why I'm here. And I was thinking of the theory of abundance when Ron was talking about.

Speaker B This, because when I thought about it.

Speaker F I said, now I do use some of your data with CEOs, and I say about 33% for compression, 10% for gas. And I attribute it to you. I've got a slide that tributed to Rock the Bell. So Ron is doing incredible work, worldwide work in this. I really like what you've done. And so and I don't know how you do this stuff, but it's just incredible. So I guess using the theory of abundance, how do you use some of the research in order to not only for the consultants, but for Canada, for Sweden? Think of what if some of the Swedish companies can grow by 2030, 40%. So we're onto something. So I guess from my standpoint, how do you think the results attributed back to some of the theory? Because, quite frankly, if you go see a CEO and you start talking about these cluster diagrams, he's going to throw you out of his office. He or she is going to throw you out of the office. So how do you get that? Now? Do you need some key templates, like three or four that I'm not methodical? Like, I couldn't do this, the research, but is there three or four variables that you go out and look for? So my practice is moved to strategic planning. I'm president of Mastermind Solutions, but I work with Ken Shepard on a lot of strategic planning. And we've worked with Michelle, there's her name. And when we see CEOs, it's more of we'll help you with your strategy. Then we start talking about requisite within the strategic planning retreat. And then we start talking about, well, if you do that, you might get 20%. Like, I'm doing the supply chain for one of it's the largest company in that industry. So they've got $750,000,000 supply chain stuff. So I'm going to help with the structure. The divisional level eventually go to corporate. So we talk in ballpark. Okay, $750,000,000 if we do the right structure. 10% here's. $75 million. This is the kind of talk that takes place. I'm restructuring a rubber company, and it's almost like a chemical factory because rubber is hard to work with. So that plant has $30 million worth of sales. This company can sell anything they make. So I guarantee in a year we'll move it up by 10%. So 3% more or 30%, that's $3 million more of trueput that they can sell. Customers want that product. They're the only one in North America that can make that product. Now, I think I could get 20%, but I'm not going to tell the CEO 10%. The English work. If you do the stuff right, within 18 months, 33% growth in sales in a declining industry, stealing market share. I've worked with Steve Clement, a beverage company I can talk about. He signed a nondisclosure. I didn't, but I helped him with it.

Speaker B I can talk about it.

Speaker F This is one of the cola companies. So, you know, the cola war has been going on for a long time. It's a $2 billion franchise company, and they group their sales and actually picked up 10% market share within the Coal Award. That's a lot of share. English picked up 15% market share. It's hard to steal market share. And then when you listen to Julian Fairfield on Monday and a bit this morning, he's saying, oh, I could get 20% productivity. That's easy on overhead SGNA. That's some of the work that Julian's done. Now, it's difficult because of these damn non disclosures that consultants are signing. In my case, I don't have any more assets. My wife owns the house. She owns all the cars. I'm moving all the money into her RSP. Even if you have insurance, you don't have it. If someone's upset because of the restructuring, what do you do? So you're going to be very careful what you say, but if we could have like, three or four key measures and try to plot these measures, then maybe we can get somewhere on that. You didn't hear me, but I said you were either drunk or lost Friday night when you asked me to speak here. I'm the worst guy for research around because I want results. So maybe from a standpoint, if you get results that Junin has done or Steve Cement, then try to tie it into three or four key measures and then maybe the Goal Society prints some of this stuff. And again, I'm just going to go back. Theory of abundance. You want a bigger pie for the consultants. You want companies to succeed. You want your clients to succeed. You want your countries to succeed. So I guess that's all I have to say. Mr. Moderator. Thank you.

Speaker A Thank you.

Speaker B Yes.

Speaker A Sorry.

Speaker D A pending question for Ken. Ken, seeing the extensive research you have done in bibliography, do you know if other authors have such a research? I mean, the big shocks. Can you compare what has been written on other famous authors against Elio Jackson? I mean, suppose Stafford Beer literature about Stafford Beer. Does it have the same quality and quantity on this?

Speaker B Well, first, Stafford and Elliot knew each other in London, and.

Speaker H Many people have.

Speaker B Come to Elliot's work by way of Stafford beer because the references inside of Stafford beer's work to Elliot, there's clearly a connection, but they're each going in different directions.

Speaker G The question is, is the quantity and quality of research on Beers stuff comparable to the quantity and quality research he failed more on Deming.

Speaker B Deming's stuff is very powerful, quantitatively valid because he was a statistician, basically. And so the stuff on Demic is over the top in terms of validation and everything else in terms of Elliot. Now it is it's all pulled together. Is it a Stafford beard? No, it's a lot of popular writing. Not real studies.

Speaker D Yes, scientific studies about Drucker, for example.

Speaker B Drucker. High stuff.

Speaker A There is nothing to study.

Speaker E Like equity theory. I mean, how does it compare with equity theory in terms of the quantity, quality?

Speaker B Okay, what happened with equity theory is you have Stacey Adams and you have Homos, george Homons and Martin patchon and then Elliot Jacks.

Speaker E Basically those are the maybe equity theory wasn't that good.

Speaker B But you understand what well, what happened is as a result of Stacey Adams being attacked in 69 and being basically shown he had a flaw in his research design, in how he was giving instructions to the overpaid group. If you're not familiar with this, you just study of those who are overpaid. Those are underpaid, those are equitably paid, that kind of stuff. And in the 70s, well, Elliot's credibility.

Speaker E Fell with it in terms of client independent of the I was thinking it's.

Speaker C Something the operationalized maybe reengineering.

Speaker E Yeah, maybe that's a better example. I would think that they would be.

Speaker A Management would be another example.

Speaker B Reengineering, we know, has 71% failure rate.

Speaker E But they're probably tens of thousands of.

Speaker B Research, popular studies, not real depth studies because when you get down reengineering it falls apart. Yes.

Speaker C Your comments are really interesting one and.

Speaker B If you look at the research in.

Speaker C A number of fields, reengineering, quality, whatever, the failure rate does tend to be around two thirds and it's pretty consistently two thirds when you look at those different literature fields. One of the things I'm interested in is what's the failure rate in our field?

Speaker B Yeah, failure rate and requisite during implementation. One of the reasons for the high failure rate generally, I think, is because of the misalignment of managers. All these studies run heavily into that. So the question is if the number is different or representative. By the way, no one's done a study on that. If the failure rate is higher or lower, that would be very interesting to know. We just don't have a study done.

Speaker C My hypothesis would be that it wouldn't be different and the rationale would be that the failures come about because of bad implementation practices. And I think we're just as guilty as bad implementation practices as any of those other areas.

Speaker B The other side is you're going into a non requisite or anti requisite organization. So you're running into a windmill.

Speaker F I forgot to mention your jerry mentioned something about education. Oh, yeah, just as a short story.

Speaker A Anecdotal, but it's very anecdotal.

Speaker F Steve Levin and I were doing the three M, canada Talent Pool system. So after we left corporate, we went to every plant, and we would spend half a day with plant manager, and he would do the assessments of the sor, his sors. And then the next day, we ran a three quarter day mor talentful session for the plant managers in his direct report and basically had the evaluation of the sor up. And it was a good learning day. And I remember we were in Morden.

Speaker A Manitoba, which is about 500 people.

Speaker F It's really small. And I'm presenting some of the requisite concept within this group. And two of the engineers that were there said, well, we know this stuff, and they were engineers from the University of Manitoba. And we know Jerry. Jerry taught us that. So this may be the only school, I think, in Canada where they teach could be. So that's my little anecdote.

Speaker A Thank you. This is why engineers remembered it. Just let me start then get a discussion going on this, because we'd like to get some closure to this and maybe this model will be helpful. I put down here some reasons and from my academic viewpoint as to what some of the barriers were, the research questions and why this stuff doesn't translate that much into the traditional academic areas where it has to eventually. I think this was a model that actually fellow I mentioned the other night, Bud Schul developed. He wrote an article in the Academy Journal about this theory development. He talked about the three stages of developing a theory in our world of management. And the three stages, and they are not mutually exclusive. It's a flow. That's the point here. Not that these things occur in isolation, is descriptive and prescriptive. And if you look at how theories are generated, they start with a description of a situation or situations, we would call them case studies would be a good example where case writers go in and look at an organization, write up a case, and then we would teach it. As you know, if you ever had a case teacher, a pure case teacher, they will never give you the answer. And they'll say, this is for purpose of observation, discussion, and inform your own views later on, so forth and so on. And the point that Bud made was that all disciplines start with a descriptive kind of phase. And in some it starts earlier, last one than others. But it's common to all the generic theories. And once you get a collection of descriptions around where you see a pattern emerge. So, theoretically, if you wrote 50 case studies on CG planning, you'd see some patterns emerge. And out of that, you then would have evolved to the second level, which is more the causal analysis. You'd say, well, we observed this thing so many times now that if this then this, we can predict what's going to happen. And the elegant phase for all academics and scientific research is that second phase. You can get to a stage where you can give be a client or a student or whoever, if this happens, this will follow with some reasonable rate of probability, of course, not 100%. And that's what most academic areas would strive for, is that predictive phase. Then they would say that okay, now you go to the third phase. Since you're confident in the prediction, now you can start prescribing remedial action. We know that this situation, this solution always works. Therefore you should do this. Just given that very quick description, and I will just stand back in abstract. If I was to be critical, not in the negative sense, but analytical, I should say a requisite. We have been light on stage two. And that is why when we go to stage three and people say prove it, or how do you know this works, we start hinting and hauling and talking about Elliot's confidentiality of data and blah, blah, blah. We don't know what people like Ron have done and we're kind of light on this. And intuitively business people know this. They're not academics. But it's the old Missouri thing show me. And if you can't show me, well, then I'll listen to you maybe politely and go somewhere else. So if I were to say we have to put more emphasis on something, it's probably on that second phase. I'm not talking simply lab studies with a pure acne research all that's probably okay. But certainly we have to be able to give more confidence in what we say is going to work, actually does work, or when it doesn't, why it doesn't. Either way it's okay. And I think we have, for reasons which are historical and of not much consequence today, we have leaped from stage one, probably to stage three. And sometimes it works not because we're lucky, but we don't go back and document the descriptive side and the predictive side that well. So that's my take on this and just a couple more things to add on to that and then I'll open it up is that the barriers I have found in my life, both as a scholar and as a consultant, is you have to undo stuff where you can do it. And I found that half my time is spent undoing knowledge as opposed. That's why students are great. I mean, they're greenfield, right? They don't squat, so they'll believe anything. And these engineers didn't know any different, right? So in one year you can turn out people who understand the concepts because they have so little to undo. And in our case, we're undoing all the clutter that's been talked know in terms of the magic theory jungle and all the fads. You got to get by that first. Or you can open people up into requisite. Ron mentioned it came up yesterday, too, and it's been common. It's the combination confidentiality, proprietary issues. It's got to be a real dilemma as a consultant to go in and do great work and can't tell anybody about it, okay, because the organization is confidential, and I understand that. Unfortunately, it does mitigate against, of course, the developing stage two of the research model, because that is the nature of business. The other thing I'll stop with this one is one I encountered back when I was an active scholar, as opposed to a fundraising dean, which all of these do these days. I didn't know where to start. The thing was just it's like a big elephant. And people had described the elephant. I mean, Elliot and Wilford did this very, very well, I thought. So if I was going to make my name as a university typical stereotypical clinically oriented scholar, where would I start? What would I pick out to research? And the part I had time was picking out a particular part, how to isolate it from the system. Because to me, the system is what makes the thing work. And it's a real paradox between finding what we might call academics dancing ahead of a pen strategy versus finding something that I could manage and work on that would be relevant and would add to the development of the second stage. And I never, frankly, never got there. For example, in the early years, people tried to validate time span. Now, regardless how good research was, my point is that's something people could work with, okay? And maybe you didn't do it right, but that was a concept. People could work on its own and try to tie it in. Remember, they'll try to relate to the job evaluation systems and all the other stuff. At least it was an attempt to pick out something and validate it short of evaluating something. And by the way, you might remember Joe Kelly's book. Read Joe Kelly's book. I know you've read everything. Okay. Joe Kelly wrote a book called is Scientific Management possible? And it came out, I think, in the mid 70s. Joe was a faculty member at what was now McGill then it was Sir George Williams University, Montreal. And Joe was a redheaded Irish skeptic and really a nice guy and a good academic, solid researcher. He spent a year at Glass here. Now, he didn't get into the Elliot stuff. He was mostly on the Brown organization theory side and all this stuff. And he came out of this book, 450 pages, I recall. Okay. On. Is Scientific Management possible? I will never forget the last line of his book. This is after a year of living there and aucka, he said, scientifically, elegant, yes. Transferable, no. And after a year, that was he came up with, and whether or not agree or disagree is not the point. But that was probably the most in depth, but. It was a macro thing. The guy lived there for a year, for Pete's sakes. And you interviewed thousands of people in the whole bed. And people just don't do that kind of research anymore. So what I'm saying here is it's hard to go in there and pick out a single thing that you can work on and contribute to, because it really is its strength is this integrated system, its liability is this integrated system.

Speaker F What about looking at the future and just picking three key variables and plotting.

Speaker A Those for the future?

Speaker F Make it simple.

Speaker A Well, you do what Ron has done in the work and looking correlating the satisfaction and the time spans that matches with performance. You can do that over time. Now again, you got to hang around a long time in your organization to do that job.

Speaker B Sets back sorry, go ahead. I was going to say, if you.

Speaker E Look at the time span of a graduate student getting your dissertation out, we're talking about a year and a half, ideally, and this is a complex system. What you said, Ron, I think a lot of academics don't understand, certainly a lot of graduates students don't understand this. And you're looking for something you can do, but you're looking for data, both.

Speaker C The faculty member as well as the.

Speaker E Student, and possibility for collaboration with a database like you have, and working with academic institutions to do research in collaboration, I think is a possibility.

Speaker D You may end up, however, that you.

Speaker E Spend more time mentoring the research project than if you did it yourself. But databases are wonderful things if you're.

Speaker A A graduate student looking for well also but we said why you're here. I know why, but I'll say something else. Imagine if you had a CEO who knew absolutely nothing about requisite your typical CEO. I don't stratum whatever. Okay. And they looked at Ron's data and her drawn and listened to Mo who has said, I've been through this, I got a few, I can prove this works, I've been through it four times. Who do they don't pay most attention to? I think listen more to Mo. I think that's the nature of the CEO animal, so to speak. And so what we've had over the years is most of the spreading has been done not by the research, of course, but by word of mouth, which is very credible in their eyes.

Speaker F Sorry, but if you had the research while you're saying that.

Speaker C I think two are complicated because we have the other side as well in terms of the work. But I think the research is really critical as being foundational and dealing with that scientific aspect that I think is important in what Ellie has developed.

Speaker G I think there's another aspect to that credibility is our own credibility to ourselves. It's hard for me, just my personality. I don't get prescriptive unless I really.

Speaker C Feel I'm a solid grain, pretty pretty confident.

Speaker G And so that research helps me be more prescriptive.

Speaker B To give you an example of another thing that just to show you. What is it? This is replicated over three studies, beginning with homeless PhD in 67, Goldman in 99, and Ron did it. We did a study on the same thing. All three came up with almost identical numbers of the number percentage of people who are competent in role were capable of role, and 23% were overcapable for their roles and 26% were under capable for the role. And this was found over that same population that you had there. So in other words, when the consultants go in to do the study for exant, you're actually also collecting before that, and then you can go through the process and then after that. So there's an actual way of structuring how we go about collecting data that if the academics and the consultants could work together that then we would be able to generate quite a bit of solid stuff, I think. But it requires that marriage between the academics and the consultants, I think, going in. But you have to remember how BIOS got started. Elliot set it up in unit meeting in 1967 as he got consulting contracts, and he used some of his colleagues to be the lead consultants on this stuff, and he himself sometimes was. But they used the graduate students, PhD students, as their.

Speaker C Whatever you want to.

Speaker B Call it, the researchers. And they got through the PhD at Brunel after about ten years. It took them a little bit longer, but basically they were working as they went along and they came out without a lot of graduate school debts, which is, I think, a reasonably good trade off for most PhDs. It took them longer, but finally they got their own project. And what happened then was they became the lead researcher on that and got their PhD project that generated 14 PhDs. So 14 of those 72 came out of that process. So there's a good deal of replicated research that is solid this stuff. If you allow me to toy with a little bit, I've not yet fully developed it. Well, what happens when you go out to actual pay and you look at these correlations? I haven't done it yet. Elliot said that the time span to actual pay had a wider variation on it, much wider variation than without fair pay. Fine, but we've got this. I have to go back through this.

Speaker H Because you're standing in front of I'm.

Speaker B Sorry, I haven't yet gone back into the database to calculate to find these and do the same sort of Tim.

Speaker C Hoy Richardson have that?

Speaker B No, he did time span to felt fair pay.

Speaker G He did a lot of correlations in.

Speaker B Yes, actual pay is one. I just haven't pulled it together in this form because it's not only his, a lot of other studies also did actual pay.

Speaker C Yes, we've got data on that as well because we go into an organization. Another variable we get is actual pay. And the correlation between time span and actual pay is up around 0.7.75 over thousands.

Speaker A Have you ever correlated the gap between the satisfaction index? That'd be another interesting thing.

Speaker B We haven't got down that, but that would be absolutely well, Beverly and Iberg did her PhD on that. I don't hear her presentation. I don't know what it was. I assume it was on that. There have been a number on employee satisfaction and how it correlates to time span and pay. So that correlates. So there's other aspects that need to be I'll have to pull that together, but it'll be available shortly coming out of this database, the bibliography. But there's a lot more stuff to be done. Did you want to talk about that?

Speaker A Yeah, I want to move into that. And two things, if we have time to each one is on the research side. What would this group think? The crucial research questions that need to be addressed are don't worry about who's going to do it and how it's not. But right now, what are the major research issues that you think other than evaluative? Because I think that we would agree on that. We need evaluative of results. But other than that, is there anything that comes to mind that really needs some research done on it that we're still back in the descriptive stage? Pretty well, perfect.

Speaker G I love to see more stuff on and just coming out of the session before lunch. Trust and 360 feedback. So, issues of is this felt as invasive by employees? Is it trust busting? And on the other hand, do managers have the information they need in a reasonably requisitely managed organization? Do managers have the information they need to manage without getting precision?

Speaker A Oh, I see. Okay.

Speaker F Sure.

Speaker A Yes.

Speaker D I think that speaking in scientific terms, this theory, we should do some effort in order to formalize fundamental, let us say concepts. Of course, you cannot formalize perhaps everything, but I feel that there is a lot of primitives and a lot of consequences and between comma theories within the theory that perhaps it is possible to make some formalization, which is a big step for any scientific theory.

Speaker A What do you mean by formalization?

Speaker D To put it in logic terms.

Speaker A I see. Okay.

Speaker H Could one, in fact, apply the levels to the question and actually say at different levels, what sort of research would we look at? Because to apply the logic would seem to be straight level three type research, which is saying this is serial thinking and there's good value in expanding that. The 360 perhaps may be level two or maybe level one. But what about the research that would be developed at level four or five in terms of the conceptual abstract ideas and the rationale for those? And what's the academic contribution that the universities should be making? What are the contributions that consultants who are academically trained can be doing. I think we need to be a bit smart about how to leverage.

Speaker E The research.

Speaker H Good effort.

Speaker E The research around strategic planning and and how it shifts by level, I think is a real it was an eye opener to me in the last few days, and I think I'd be very powerful because strategic planning is very important in many organizations today.

Speaker B I pulled together some of this stuff sorry, how do I get this back on? What did you hit?

Speaker C I hit computer.

Speaker A That was for the computer, though. But that thing just has a switch, doesn't it?

Speaker B Video.

Speaker A Up there and just hit something.

Speaker B Video.

Speaker A What do I do? Right.

Speaker C Yeah. Video, I think, would do it.

Speaker D You have to place first.

Speaker B I did pull some things together. This is a series of articles, chapters, books, and PhDs done around the issue of trust, because that becomes eminently clear as to what the problem is. The problem turns out to be a split between the Tavistock and with Elliott's traveling often. The question then becomes the question, how do you bring trust into an organization? The Tavistock approach basically is from the bottom up. It's empowerment and so forth. That does not work. And what happens is it comes in only from the top, and it can only has to be that the manager says they trust the employee. And that actually even happened in Scandinavia, where the taste people went in and brought in scandinavia said this was the greatest thing in the world. And then the Swedish and Scandinavian Employers Association did another study, which was then reviewed and published as a book review by Wilfred Brown, where he said, guess what? Go back in, look at it. The accountable manager was always in place, and it was always a trust established that was not broken despite what the write ups were. It's a real problem. But this is from page 128 to page 133 of various studies. Some of these are Elliot stuff. Some of them like Tony Simons at Cornell, at HBR, you name it. Richard Walton, some PhDs from London School of Economics. By the way, 17 of those 72 dissertations have done in elite schools. So the question again of quality shouldn't be a problem. Berkeley, Harvard, Venice School of Economics, so forth. I mean, the top schools.

Speaker G At a psychological level, I'd love to see research on. We've always talked about the maturation from one spratum to the next as a phase change. Starts making sense to me that from one band to the next is also a phase change.

Speaker B And I'd like to see some research.

Speaker G Yeah, that when you go move from low to mid strategy. There really is a real shift there.

Speaker E There may be a real shift there. I don't have sense for that. But certainly what does the shift between bands, not bands between levels look like? How can you predict that a person is in transition from a level three.

Speaker F To a level four.

Speaker E What's the dynamics there and how long does it take? What does it look like psychologically and.

Speaker B Behaviorally pardon and organizationally, I think that.

Speaker H Becomes the other critical thing.

Speaker E And what's the level of support mentored by the manager once removed in order to help that transition?

Speaker G Where I'm coming, elliot said timestampan of eleven months is not necessarily more complex than ten months, and that would lower the correlations.

Speaker A And also, Dave, one step further, 30 to one year level. Eleven months is a different from 13, seven is from eleven or something. These are not continuous things, they're perfectly free. I see your sense. If I'm right on this, would you agree, I'm looking now again why we fought in the dark all these years. Would you agree that most of the world either doesn't agree or isn't aware that the Thomas plan is a major level of responsibility? Is that still a major issue?

Speaker B When I teach it?

Speaker A That is a major point of you must be nuts. Even though I try to qualify, I'm a regional person, believe it or not. They don't accept that you can major something by this particular dimension.

Speaker G I think in the UK, I don't.

Speaker B Know if anyone here, I mean, this.

Speaker G Stuff Ken Shepard and Paul McAllen back, but they found in the UK, people just consultants do not lead with time spent. You talk about levels, people have a sense of level, they can handle it. You can do that. And then kind of as a find.

Speaker A A way well, sorry, that would be an area maybe of research. I couldn't conceive how to conceptualize that issue, but that is one that needs evidence.

Speaker B There is one. One of the dissertations is done exactly on the question by Martin Richards, and it was done at Georgia under Bud Show, and he was more interested in risk analysis for insurance. The question he was asking was how much risk will somebody bear? Is that the measure or is it for how long they have to bear the risk? And he actually nailed it exactly right. Which is the distinction there. And if the answer is delay, it turns out, yeah, that is it. We now have some valid data on that exact central point, which is the semicretion.

Speaker F I was wondering if we could take that one step further. If you read Julian Fairfield's book and the mortgage company, he said one shift, I forget what it is like 40% increase in sales. If we had a measurement saying what was one year after doing the shift, what is the increase in sales per employee? If we had those kind of measures.

Speaker C Yeah. Two things I think would be useful. One is if you look at the individual, one measure is the information processing capability. And then the other Elliot came up with later was Time Horizon, which is kind of a surrogate in terms of information processing capability. I don't think that's well enough operationally defined. So we have a taxonomy for it. Glenn Meltrader has a taxonomy for it. I've done it with Elliot. The good news is it statistically significantly correlates. The bad news is we have missus. So why do we have missus? There's some people we don't. So I think there's more work that's necessary when operationally defining that. The other piece I think would be interesting ties in with some of this other stuff is if you look at what Elliot did, on the individual side, he had information processing capability and time horizon. On the organizational side, he has time span. I think there's another dimension which is information processing requirement. And I think extrapolating and defining that and using it as an ancillary to time span as Elliot used Time Horizon as an ancillary to information processing capability, I think would help with some of.

Speaker B The.

Speaker C Because I think it would be easier to lead with that concept than to lead with time spent. And if we could set it up so that it was consistent, but some of the stuff I've seen here is not consistent. Like, I've looked at one person's made presentations around levels of work. There's an aspect of that that my.

Speaker B Judgment is clearly inconsistent.

Speaker C So if we're going to do it, it really needs to be consistent. But if we could do that, I think it would add value to the field. I think we'll be looking at a complementary dimension and I think it's an area that people have tapped pieces on, but no one's really pulled it together as a concept.

Speaker G I realize I just carry this with me all the time. And this is kind of like Moe's point before. This is Glenn Meltredter's research.

Speaker A And.

Speaker G I think the way it printed out, some of the verticals things may not be linear the way they were, but it's a sales force in a non requisite organization. And the horizontal access is cognitive capacity of the salespeople. And the vertical asset access is their sales. And what it does the interesting thing for me is look at the top line of the dots and that says here's how your cognitive capacity limits your total sales. And anything below that is potential to increase. And the reason why someone is below may be a lack of they don't value the work in the role. Could be lack of skilled knowledge. And it could be we load you.

Speaker C Down with so much other committee work.

Speaker G But I find this a very powerful chart and seeing this sort of stuff replicating.

Speaker E So we're looking at the gap between.

Speaker A Over here on the right hand side is the key. Right?

Speaker E I can't see it.

Speaker G So this is are you I think it's high two transition into three. Low three.

Speaker E What are the points?

Speaker G And then the points are these are individual employees.

Speaker D Okay.

Speaker G And this is my level of capability.

Speaker B And this is my sales.

Speaker G Sales is the vertical dimension. So what it's saying is that's the.

Speaker B Person here's the most you could sell.

Speaker G At high two, the most you could sell.

Speaker E So it's a gap kind of for the highest level of lines is the potential upper limit.

Speaker G I think it's very clever, very powerful.

Speaker A If I could please switch gears into the other side, which is the education transferring knowledge the future on this I won't say my past anymore. You heard that several times. I will tell you that I am basically pessimistic about the role of universities in this. I think we lost a generation of people for whatever reason and we'll debate that. Yeah, we're turning out people and so forth. But the pipeline is if he's got 22 dissertations. I can tell you my memory tells me the ACB accredited schools the last five years they've turned down something like 55,000 doctors or some ungodly number. So we're not high on the curve is what I'm saying. Okay. Yet 22 is certainly better than zero. So what do you think of the quote unquote getting this thing going back again? We are in a new era here. It may be time for something different and so forth. And just what are your thoughts? Again, I am pessimistic about the university's role. It'll happen, but don't hold your breath.

Speaker B Jerry.

Speaker D As you probably know, we are teaching Ro in undergraduate level in the last year of engineering career and we are doing fairly well since year 2001. People leave this theory with the capacity of solving a rather complicated case where they have to make an organizational scheme. They have to define levels, they have to define retributions and they have to define successors through the curves talent pool. I think that we are planting seeds at least in Buenos Aires for the future because people needed this matter, understand what it means within their experience. Of course, people who are working are grasping the whole thing much better because they can correlate their, let us say, recent young experiences against the theory. People who has not had working experience, they accept it as a theory, more or less abstract theory. But they are coming back after graduation and they say well, professor, really what you said in these circumstances and in these others we are finding and many times they say well, my company is not practicing so it's for the future.

Speaker A Let me give you a quick example, get your thinking going. Two things. One is I always wanted to have an impact with this stuff. I couldn't as a consultant because I didn't have the time to kind of want it to be a part time job. One thing I proposed quietly I might add, to my own faculty was if you're by all stretches a small business school prairies of Canada and other than having they asked for who's never going to notice you right? What do you do to get noticed? And so I proposed that we be the only MBA program in the world that used capability and jumped the GMAT to select MBA students. The GMAT is an awful predictor, by the way, of anything. It is the LSAT, maybe the MCAT's better, I don't know. But nobody's ever really the GMAT than anything except you graduating. Okay? So I thought if we could be the only school that used this as the tool, then we make a name for Zealous. But more than that, I'm looking very selfishly. Who do you want in the NBA program? You want high potential people, and GMAT doesn't pick that one out, I can tell you. It picks out those who can read and write and those who can't. But beyond that, it's not a very valid thing. So I talked to several of my people on faculty who were reasonable people. This sounds interesting.

Speaker B So.

Speaker A Actually, I called Elias. Elias, here's what I like to do. What do you think? They said, just your thoughts on? And he was a little nervous in the sense that he was always nervous about people using stuff. Okay, so I wasn't unique in that regard. He was concerned about it getting out of hand and people misusing, and he was very concerned about things like that. And I said, well, tell you what, because in those days, which is 98, I guess I interviewed every MBA applicant. I just thought that was a dean's job. That was one of the things I should be doing. So let me interview four or five people in my selection interview, and I'll tape record it. I'll use your mental processing stuff to do it, and I'll make a judgment.

Speaker C Send you the tapes, and then you.

Speaker A See if I'm on track. And he was very always very generous at this time. He said, sure. He said yes. So I did five, I think, and each one I said, listen, Peter, before you interview, we're going to do something ahead of time which will not impact your vision decision. This is strictly experimental by your GMAT's.

Speaker B Great.

Speaker A You got 800. You can read and write, but we're going to do this for about ten minutes. And so I did it, and he went back, and I was actually, for my purposes, dead on for all five individuals. And then I had to take it to the I mean, I can't do this as a dean by myself or any dean of faculty agreement. Well, it never got beyond the boys at interesting stage, okay? And I didn't could make my life worth doing this, but I would give my life savings to any business school dean who take this all and take it through. Imagine being a school that is noted for using this stuff to admit your high potential students.

Speaker F It's not only that, imagine in 20 years how many of these people are CEOs.

Speaker A I must admit the fundraiser. I had that in mind too. The deans always say, how can this pay off in the long run? Long run here being ten years Raleigh. These are going to turn to be high equity people who are a big bucket of them by donating back.

Speaker G And you talk about the payback. I mean, I'm of the impression that industrial organizations sometimes have an impact on.

Speaker A Research that gets done in university sometimes.

Speaker G Is there any potential that the organizations that are interested in requisite organization? I don't know how we get that.

Speaker A Was my second bottle, Herbert. You led right into it. I couldn't do this. So if you go back into other movements by the oral is in my view, is not a movement was I don't use the word cult, but it's not a movement. There have been movements. Let's just look at quality as the movement. Okay, well, what happened soon after, nothing been any consequence and Elliot was in the university when he did his life still say nothing consequence has ever been invented in business school, hopefully invented by consultants and practitioners. Then we take it up and we rest. So the Quarry movement got into universities after it was proven to be a useful business tool. Right. And then the next stage was and there are stages before this, of course, but the ultimate stage was I can think of offhand five universities, I'm sure there are more who sort of actually master's programs in quality management. That is the alternate stamp of approval by a university. Now, I'm glad I wasn't one of those, because right now that was not a fad, but it wasn't a long term sort of thing. However, if a university, any university, a single university could start a master's program in this, that's probably a little bit of a large leap. You want to start maybe with something else first, but that's the idea. Then you got some credibility now you got people doing it, spraying it out, and that may take it on to the next level. And that is doable. Now, funding is always an issue that is doable in the host. Far more doable than my proposal of choosing MBA students by using personal assessment capability.

Speaker F Right.

Speaker A So to me that's the way that we would have to go with this. But I'm just reluctant to tie this university because they are so undependable and so slow.

Speaker H Can I tell you a lovely story?

Speaker A Please.

Speaker H I teach levels to the MBA class in managing change. And in preparation for coming to here, I emailed my class that had gone through and said, how many of you using this now? And I got the very small reply from the top students, which was totally.

Speaker B Predictable, you see, because they're the ones.

Speaker H Who are going to fly with it. So I had cups of coffee with all of these absolutely super kids and one of the women who's now probably earning three times my salary got out her memory sticks and said, here are all your lectures, it's the most useful thing. I got out of my MBA. I actually believe that one of the things that we can do is to provide superb teaching AIDS which become part of the stories and the pictures that people carry around. I mean, Elliot's pictures himself get reproduced properly so they're not terribly user friendly and they're very gendered. And we could develop a whole range of public domain tools that are used educationally that will disseminate information much faster than you can imagine because people like to copy.

Speaker A There's a transition from promoting it to a group of people then start to get concerned about it. And particularly, for example, when these schools started master's programs or whatever, inquiry management. Can you think in your own minds who was the group that was most nervous? The consultants the guy banking on for all yesterday mentioned this. He said, you know, I'm kind of nervous about doing this because we're in a competitive environment. Do I want imagine going to bemo and saying, would you please fund a master's program in this stuff? They said, yeah, as long as Royal Bank can't come and CFZ can't come. These are competitive tools, right? And so you get to a point and if we had an Ro organization, we're going to turn out, I mean, at a school, we would turn out I'll pick a number to scare you, 500 consultants a year who will start doing this and taking your business. Now I'm being overdramatic here, so bear with me. Okay? But that is part of the dilemma, getting this thing into an institutionalized kind of thing. It's the other edge of the sword. Now, we're a long way from that, believe me. On the other hand, if you had this university of Requisite, it's going to get a lot more publicity and the pie expand, blah, blah, blah. And we all want to do good. But that is one of those things that comes down. I've seen happen in several other instances right now, you people have lots you have a virtual monopoly. Actually just on that.

Speaker C Elliot came to Toronto and put on seminars. Ken Shepard sponsored it, put on seminars and hundreds of people went through. The good news is that very few of them have the capability to do it.

Speaker A That's the good news. And the bad news is, Carl, I.

Speaker D Have another avenue that might be possible. I belong to an organization similar to Malcolm Valdridge or Price in Argentina, which is called Fundacion National Paradox Quality, which every year it's a private organization, gives the price to the best quality component. Certainly you know that these models, Malcolm Baldwich, the European model, et cetera, they are quite phenomenalistic. I mean, they try to describe what to measure, but they do not say absolutely nothing about how to achieve those things. So I think many times that this theory would be extremely useful as a second layer after what is to be measured, how can we achieve that? And I think that both. Malcolm Baldridge. And I know that they are mostly now coming in all countries more or less the same trend. I think that would be a useful thing because if you allow me to go 1 second on ease, the European people are finding that when you start implementing all this thing about microbio, isonite, south, et cetera, let us say results go in this way, but then they get into a flat situation and start dying off universally. My thinking is that this is a kind of a voluntary effort, but which is not rooted in a proper organization. So this is a matter of pumping efforts, money and from the top to the bottom, putting everybody in line, et cetera. This fades off because then you don't have a proper organization will put this into real day to day operation. And that's why I think that we should try to get involved in these organizations in order to provide a second model. Not what, but how, because it's all very much regulated. How many points for making this and how many points for making that and how deep you are in the implementation of this kind of methodology and so on. But the how is never mentioned. And I think that would be a very positive way of the diffusion of these people.

Speaker A Make sure are you saying that maybe we should consider we being the society, having like a voters award, but it call it a Go award for requisite? No. Okay. Sorry.

Speaker D No, I'm saying on top of, let us say, the Michael Barkich, it says what? That we should place in the same model, the how through the requisite organization in each.

Speaker E And it would be linked to the Malcolm Ball Rich. But it would be an additional.

Speaker D Requisite how because this is real. I can mention who made the investigation. Mr. Tito Conti from Italy. We have very good contact with him. And they are weeping. They are weeping because they find everywhere this curve.

Speaker B Yes, Dr. Debbie was very worried about very yeah.

Speaker D So I think this is because it is more or less an artificial and voluntary effort made like slave drivers. But this is not the flesh of the organization. And this model lacks the how.

Speaker B You're applying one thing up to here and then you begin to really effectively over apply it could be perfectly good, but you're just over applying it. And the question is how you then build.

Speaker A Okay, we're out time. Thank you very much. Rebel thanks very maurice and Ron, final words.

Speaker B Ken yeah. One suggestion. Where it's being taught right now are a number of places. George Washington University. Obviously running. School of Economics is teaching it now. They've got several PhDs. Who got their PhDs at Brunell. You should be aware that 1982, London School of Economics raided Brunel just after Elliot left and he swiped two of the research units and brought them down to London and had generated a number of PhDs out of London and a fired people as well. There's one guy in Oslo who did his PhD on this in Harvard, and I'll give you all his particulars right now. Like all the other academics, he's off in Honolulu, but he's starting to reach the point where he's starting to get accepted a little bit. Deakin University down in Australia and a number of other places, but it has been put in certain places and then faded out. So it'll be in someplace for a few years and then fade out when somebody leaves. But their biggest one of the things I want to stress not here, but maybe later on tomorrow or something, is to get the consultants, wherever they are to sign on to become adjunct professors at their local university and just go for quantity on this stuff. And you never know when you're actually going to get a high potential student, as you're saying, go for quarter. Even though as a consultant, being an adjunct is probably more of a pain than anything else. But if we could help to pull together, maybe sylvi and pull that together in cases, and to help the adjunct consultants who know the theory but need to learn how to teach it and that kind of thing and go for quantity somewhat. The other thing is surprisingly, or maybe not surprisingly, many of the number of people who know the theory and got.

Speaker A Their PhD have become Deans of schools despite the rubbish.

Speaker B Yeah, maybe they weren't such high potential. You got Larry Tapp, Jerry Gray, Eugene Picard, who was the dean at McGill in the 1980s. Peggy Lee at UNC. Wilson sue Bishop at Eastern Tennessee State. Ricardo is a director. You have Jack Fallows on the council over brunel is trying to reintroduce it as part of the legacy of Brunell, and hopefully Mike Kirby will be able to give a little punch in a few places. It's already being taught, for example. Oh, I know what I wanted to say, Michael, and that's this. At Carlisle, they go through a one year program, as they do at the Naval Postgraduate School. But at the Naval Postgraduate School, they get a master's degree. I don't think they get a master's degree at Carlisle.

Speaker F Master's degree in strategy.

Speaker B In strategy. Okay. Their thesis is usually a 30 to 50 page thesis isn't really enough. If you somehow we can boost that up to 70 page level, then the thesis potentially is publishable. You've got some kind of something there, so you have a bunch of people coming through there. It might actually help them later in life if they don't make the cut to have a degree of thesis. But it's a place to generate more. For example, at Monterey and at San Diego, the faculty put together a series of thesis by different shifts across a series of years, half dozen each place a master's, which is a solid body of work, complete an on scene. The development. I think I mentioned. So anyway, I'm not trying to put pressure on. One caveat I want to put in here is on this original chart. In the into the 60s, Elliot had it as levels and then age. And then he shifted the middle years from the sorry, I'm standing in front of you dollars in age and then went back to the levels in age. So it's very confusing. You got to watch the horizontal that he's working with, because he flipped back and forth several times, finally settling on levels and age as being the key determinants here. He eventually dropped that he was using because he had people's salaries going back. Yeah.

Speaker D Is this famous study of 250,000 evolutions of salary, is that available? Because I think the curves came from that came from the study of the aggregation of several trajectories with age on salaries.

Speaker B Yes, it was age of salary.

Speaker D Yes. The progression of salaries, it is set in his book, I think, General Hill.

Speaker B Yeah. But then he shifted back to levels.

Speaker A This call it close, staying tall.