Speaker A Some context for what I'd like to share with you. This morning when Ken was asking me what was the cutting edge thing, let me take you through some history.
Speaker B And.
Speaker A Try to get your just enormously impressed with Herb's presentation this morning. It about a conceptual level of understanding things, scientific level, engineering level and the human propensity for anesthesis conceptually we're really asking the question what are we talking about? And I want to get to that from a scientific point of view you're really saying how do you know it? When you see it from an engineering point of view you're asking the question, well, how do you actually do it? And from an ecclesiastes point of view is how do you change all of these in the client you're trying to help intervene? So I'm going to try to touch on all of these and we'll see if I've been able to be as rigorous as Herd was encouraging all of.
Speaker C Us to be when we asked Reebok.
Speaker D To send us Terry Tate.
Speaker A Now the Old Testament has something to say about accountability. Thou shalt remember the Lord thy God, for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, delegates, authority, that he may establish his covenant, our mutual commitment, which he swore unto thy fathers, as it is this day, and it shall be. Because if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God and walk after other gods and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day, and ye shall surely perish. Well, that sort of is the way people think about accountability. But you shall perish. Who do we kneecap, who do we hang? For this problem, the New Testament wasn't a whole lot more comforting. But for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. They were clear it is a judgment. For it is written as I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me and every tongue will give praise to God. Therefore each of you will give an account of himself to God. So accountability has something to do with giving an account. I'm just trying to get you some circling the whole field here to understand on a conceptual level what are we really talking about? There was a very interesting summary that was put out by the army after the plane crash in the Balkans when Secretary Brown was killed. And the final conclusion said, there are a multitude of cross pressures in individuals face when they're urged to, on the one hand demonstrate initiative and obedience to command while operating within a web of accountability relationships that represent several different behavioral standards against which their performance can be judged. So here accountability has to do with performance. But now, which is it? Is it obedience? Is it initiative? Is it accountability relationships? Which of this element of the accountability matrix do we really need to hold subordinate employees accountable for? Well, Elliott had a lot of evolution in his thinking. Way back in the Glacier project papers, he talked about employment work as the application of knowledge and the exercise of discretion within the limits described by the immediate manager and higher policies towards an objective. So which are you accountable for? Is it the discretion? Is it the limits? Is the objective which and how? Well, believe me, I couldn't answer this question for my clients who were wedded to either numbers or some kind of pay kind of managerial assessment where everyone ended up in the top quartile. Do any of you wrestle with this or is this just me? That's one of the biggest complaints I get from clients. All right, well, but why do we hold our people accountable and how?
Speaker E I think there's a simplistic answer, but I think it gets tricky. The simplistic answer is performance, which, as I recall earlier, defined as output in circumstances. And it's the judgment of that performance which is part of the manager's job.
Speaker A So a person's accountability then, is an aggregation of many outputs within each of their individual circumstances. It is, but what do you do with that? So is it the output?
Speaker E It's the output in the circumstances. I mean, this is this is the judgment that.
Speaker A Just turn the switch. Oh, is it? Okay.
Speaker C Room.
Speaker E The whole hierarchical structure is built on an accountability. It's a judgment system. And the question for the manager is to set the objective in a way that the subordinate understands and says, and then to judge how well the subordinate has done in attempting to reach that objective given the circumstance.
Speaker A That's the judgment.
Speaker E Right?
Speaker A But what do we do about the output itself? What if they didn't make it? Does that matter?
Speaker B That's manager's accountability, isn't it?
Speaker A Well, that was as close as we got. Well, it's the manager is accountable for whether he actually makes it because he sets the condition.
Speaker B Well, there's a hold on employees and contact my accountability. If you're my manager and I'm your subordinate, my accountability is only to do my best within the limits prescribed by the organization.
Speaker A It's only your best if you come up short. That's okay.
Speaker B It's your judgment that I'm performing. But then if I'm doing my best or not, that should be your judgment and you should be able to remove.
Speaker A I understand about your best, but what about the actual output? Do I measure that? Do I hold you accountable for that?
Speaker B You make a judgment that my outputs are within the quality, within the numbers, and you have to manage.
Speaker A Okay, but what if they're not? What if you didn't achieve the output?
Speaker B Then you should be the one.
Speaker A But that's not anything to do with judgment. What if you just didn't achieve the output?
Speaker D It's like a sales rep that doesn't meet its goal. It's running after the and it sells to the easy customers, and he doesn't work with the big ones, that is, and he doesn't perform, but the other.
Speaker B One is working with the big he.
Speaker D Does perform, but the other one is working with the big customer and doesn't reach the numbers. But business goes for the company. And it was what the manager expected.
Speaker B Right.
Speaker A But if he had made the commitment to get big numbers around the important customers and he didn't meet the commitment, is there no consequence for that?
Speaker B Well.
Speaker A I'm just talking about how do we hold a person to account if they meet or don't meet or exceed the number.
Speaker E But Jerry, I think you said by the set or implied that the manager sets the circumstances in which the employee aims to a target. I would have thought that the exercise of judgment on the part of the manager has to do with other circumstances, not the ones on which the manager has control. So out there in the marketplace beating their head against the wall, trying to sell to impossible prospects. If that's the list that you've been assigned by your manager and you've talked about what chances are selling to these people, and then you go out and do your best and you don't hit the numbers, then it seems to me that the manager's assessment of your accountability is precisely that judgment of I'm going.
Speaker A To stop at this point just because I need to move on and we'll pick this up in the discussion. I'm just trying to create an awareness that it's confusing. It's confusing about what we do about the actual target, if it's met or not met the end of the year.
Speaker C In reality, it's definitely it's very confusing.
Speaker A And what they do, especially in sales, is they tie it to the commission and so they say, well, you'll shoot yourself in the foot if you don't make it. But then that sets up an adversarial relationship because the game between the sales manager and the salesperson is that the salesperson is trying to lowball and the sales manager is trying to highball, and we end up with an adversarial relationship. We essentially incentivize I hate to make a verb out of that. We incentivize people to try to minimize their commitments, but we want people to reach and stretch themselves. How do we reconcile that? Let me move on later. In a general theory, Elliot talked about the accountability of employees for the work. Well, what does that mean? Is it output or is it effectiveness? Because as Alan keeps pointing out, work is the exercise of judgment towards the achievement of the output within the constraints. Which is it? Then he said, well, in the general theory, people are responsible interesting to use the word responsible for using their judgment and discretion in carrying out tasks. Okay, but where does the task come into this? In executive leadership, he talked about accountabilities as the aspect of the roles that dictate things. The accountability is required to do well. That's both outputs and judgment. And it's also adhering to policy. So how do we make this? How do we get a mental model of it so we know it when we see it and that we can actually practically do it? Then he talked about a manager's accountability. Actually, that's a little easier to talk about. So which is I've got a list of the key points of each of the previous slides. What do we do with this dilemma?
Speaker D The last one for doing his best.
Speaker A Well, but that's effectiveness.
Speaker B That's what he's accountable for doing his best.
Speaker A He is accountable for doing his best. But is that all? He's accountable?
Speaker F Yes.
Speaker A Well, see, I would argue we still have to reconcile the output itself. We have to reconcile the policy. Good. Well, now, you notice I put in some of Elliot's earlier writings he kind of used accountability and responsibility interchangeably. But as he matured in his thinking he created a very sharp distinction between the use of the word accountability and responsibility. And I first really became aware of this when I began training down in Argentina and used simultaneous interpreters. And I did not know Spanish. And so listening through my headsets to them, the interpreters translating English into Spanish, I realized very quickly whenever I used the word responsibility it got translated into responsibility bad. And every time I used the word accountability got translated into responsibility bad. And I went up to the interpreters at the break, very naively, and I said excuse me, you're making a mistake. You're translating two words in English which had very different meanings into the same word in Spanish. And they looked at me somewhat benignly and forgivingly, as though I was a child, said no, they're the same word. There are no separate words in Spanish, French or German or Swedish for these two words. And I said because I had just come from being a full time clinician to a really ignorant management consultant. And I had never been inside of a business I didn't know. Most businesses use the words interchangeably. Roles and responsibilities accountabilities because in the popular sense she's a very responsible young lady. In that sense, to whom is she responsible? It's a personal matter. Is this person behaving in a way in which she's living up to conscience and her ideals and her standards but when we say she's meeting her accountabilities, it's in relationship to someone else? For me, this was a very important insight because most organizations that don't have the conceptual paradigm that we have and share and don't know how to resolve the differences when they give people accountabilities without the requisite conditions or authorities they say you're responsible for this. And because people by and large feel very responsible they will behave often in dysfunctional ways either within the organization or at great cost to themselves to try to get something done because they feel responsible. But when you actually look at the X's and O's they don't have the requisite authority to take and implement the decisions, it's by influence, right? They have to be accordingly, appropriately magnetic, I would say without those requisite conditions, accountability has no meaning. It simply has no meaning. But we still have the dilemma about some things that can be measured and other things that can't. Which is it?
Speaker D It's the action. This is where the action comes in. You don't have to well, that's right.
Speaker A You can't measure effectiveness, but you can measure outputs and you can measure throughputs what are the consequences there. So let me just try to come up then with the answer. The answer, if you will, is that performance, as it's typically thought of, has to do with things.
Speaker B You can measure.
Speaker A Outputs throughputs things that are fixed, keeping a promise, but effectiveness has to do with things you can only judge. And this has to do with delivering value, commensurate with what the role requires, that the level of value that subordinate is delivering is commensurate with what you expect of a position of that role, of that size, with that economical value. The problem is, since you can't measure it, we're saying that judgment has to be in relationship to the size of role. So I initially began to call these fixed and relative accountabilities. And that's as far as I got three years ago when I wrote this book. In my first chapter, I talked about fixed and relative accountabilities. Now, Elliot was very clear about the dix accountabilities. Your Qtrs limits, boundary constraints, and these are necessary because without them you can have no process control. Without them you can't have just in time working. Without them there's no integrity to the work you're doing. And without that there can be no trust. If you delegate something to a subordinate and that subordinate comes to you when the thing is due, saying sorry, I couldn't get to it because of the other things. And that's the first time you find out compensate for that in the very fabric of the accountability system. Well, what I'm saying about the first aspect of accountability is this needs to be non negotiable. Not that you can't renegotiate that commitment, but it's non negotiable that you either do it or you come back to me and we work out a change. That means you have to start by strictly enforcing consequences for knowing violations of critical, uncontroversial and measurable behaviors, safety, honesty. And you need to then expand gradually to violations of less measurable behaviors such as civility and bell to bell. Working, being insubordinate falls. The consequences fall under the rubric of discipline. That's not ineffective, that's insubordination. You hear the difference? I've gone, what, over half hour?
Speaker C Half an hour, Jerry, keeping one's word. Presumably that would fall within the framework of an agreement between an employee and manager. And that that's a reasonable agreement.
Speaker A Yes.
Speaker C Objective. I mean, hopefully that wouldn't occur within this framework. But if that were to occur, then.
Speaker A What I would need to do in.
Speaker C The first place is say look, I don't think that's realistic.
Speaker A Has to push back to the manager who is trying to voice an accountability that you do not believe is achievable. If you don't yet know how to do it, as long as your manager says it's okay for you to come back and try to renegotiate, then you can accept it. But if you don't believe it's achievable, you should never accept that assignment.
Speaker D Did you discuss with Elliot what a bit about his experience in Argentina and police department and companies like Ford and others what he learned that few years?
Speaker A Why don't you share with us?
Speaker D Yeah, what we discovered was that when people, even the workers, the policeman.
Speaker B Getting.
Speaker D The money from people when they are held responsible for the result, which you are talking about here, the deeper form, when they are held responsible for that, that creates corruption. And also in sales departments that also create corruption. All the incentive systems and everything creates corruption. And you heard Monday morning, tuesday morning they talk about Dos also being corrupted because they run for quarterly results and intelligently what they are supposed to be doing. And what he then came to the conclusion was that you cannot support and responsible for the result and the manager only can hold responsible and the CEO even cannot be held responsible for the result. It's the board that is responsible for the result. The board dictates the conditions for the CEO as well as the manager dictate the conditions.
Speaker A Fortunately saying that these managers completely.
Speaker B Because.
Speaker D If your holders your support is responsible for doing his best, then based on.
Speaker A Judgment they have no control over.
Speaker D Yeah, but you never have control because there is always things happening in a.
Speaker B Company that is outside of the control of the subordinate or the manager.
Speaker A We're not disagreeing. I just want to make a point, and then I have to move on. The point I believe that managers have not felt comfortable with any time. Elliot would explain that. Is that in the assignment defining process, implicit in that assignment and this gets back to what Ron was just saying implicit in that is you will meet this accountability exactly as specified. You will adhere to the policy conditions unless you come back to me and renegotiate.
Speaker D The worst problem we have as practitioners.
Speaker A Let me just ask you, you understand the distinction there that unless you come back and renegotiate it, you are on the hook for it. I have to just find out where the rest of the group is.
Speaker E But isn't that really inherent in the whole Qqtr? I mean what you're talking about is quality, quantity, targeted completion, time of the assigned resources. That's the managerial accountability. Accountability and assigning the best. The individual's responsibility. My understanding of was the individual is responsible to put forward the best efforts and inform their manager when they're going to complete the job on time or not on time in order for them to take the appropriate corrective action. So what you're saying is if I'm assigned the particular tasks that you're talking about, and sales or whatever, and I.
Speaker A Don'T think I'm going to meet those.
Speaker E Targets, my responsibility is to perform my boss.
Speaker A I'm not going to. That's the only point I'm trying to make. What I can tell you, though, is in every encounter I had with Elliot, the client, he was not able to explain just that. Just that that you are on the hook for delivering this unless you judge it's not possible or no longer desirable, and then you're obligated to come back to me, and I get to decide whether you're right or not.
Speaker D How can I do my best if I don't?
Speaker F Okay.
Speaker A Yeah.
Speaker C Just contrasting the two.
Speaker B One position would be that the employee.
Speaker C Is accountable for doing one's best. So something happens and I'm accountable for.
Speaker B Doing my best, and at some point.
Speaker C The manager makes a judgment. What I like about this is that within the framework, and I think the context is critical, but within the context of a real discussion between a manager and a direct report, it's possible to have a commitment.
Speaker A Do your best. I don't know what that means, but this is a commitment to deliver on the promise. No surprises. You explained it beautifully in very simple language. I have not found a way to get managers to understand that until I came to this. Keep your word.
Speaker E I think what you're saying is very important.
Speaker A I'll take us all back to Professor Franklin's famous monogram bullshit, which I mentioned on The Legacy. He points out this is 20 years. He pointed out we're moving into a world now culturally, where people like, I don't want to be political, but let's say George W. Bush and Tony Blair will say quite explicitly with the people, don't judge me on outcomes. Judge me on whether I'm true to my son. He's still bullshitting. Franklin saw that coming 20 years ago. It's now become a cultural thing. We've got I can talk better about Tony Blair.
Speaker E I mean, that's what he's saying to.
Speaker D The British people, don't judge me on.
Speaker A For whether I made a mistake because.
Speaker B I'm true to myself. That should be enough for me.
Speaker A I've done my best. Okay? Now let me move on. I wanted to give you a very quick example. When Inco found they couldn't sell or even give away inco alloys, it's US. Based global nickel alloy manufacturing company. They hired Francis Petro as their CEO. And this is a man who understands accountability very clearly. He says, when you give your word, that is a commitment unless you come back and renegotiate. And this was a company that had at one point had the dominant position in nickel alloy patents and market, and they had been down to about 20%, and they were hemorrhaging. They were losing about $80 million a year. He came in and said to people, the first six months, you're going to hear the following things safety, bell to bell, working honesty. Safety, bell to bell, working, honesty. Within the first three months, four workers and two supervisors were terminated for failing to adhere to safety procedures, and two superintendents were demoted for not having held them accountable and not being proactive in enforcing the policies within the next three months. Just a quick one, Jerry.
Speaker B I don't know the phrase.
Speaker A Bell to bell working hourly workers, when they come in and they check their they punch the clock, there's a bell. And when they come out, they punch the clock, there's a bell. And in many of these bureaucratic, mining and manufacturing companies, people take long breaks.
Speaker F They shower an hour ahead of shower ahead of time at the ship.
Speaker A Within the next three months, three workers were fired for cheating on their time clock, sleeping on the job, and their supervisors were recommended. And within the next three months, several workers were fired or disciplined, either for stealing property well, we've got an extra thing here in the warehouse. Or for conducting side businesses while at work. People had a second job and they were conducting business, they were at work. Within those nine months, they dropped their hemorrhaging. He didn't change anything other than that. When people realized that keeping your word was serious, that alone that alone, no contact setting, no leadership practices, no effectiveness appraisal stopped the hemorrhaging. Okay, now, effectiveness I spent three, four years with Elliot going through his, what he call a personal effectiveness appraisal, demonstrator effectiveness appraisal. And we could never get agreement on what the standards were across the company. What is it we're evaluating? Well, I asked for a little bit of poetic license here in terms of the acronym. Effectiveness is whether or not people add sufficient value relative to the size of role they're in. What does that mean? Making commitments that are vigorous enough for someone who should be effective in this role. So if we now go to the salesperson and say, we're not paying you on commission, we're not going to pay you less if you make more or sell more and more if you make more, we're going to hold you accountable for making the most aggressive commitment you can. And if you met it and we think you were very effective in meeting it, then the fact that you made an aggressive target means your rating will go up if you didn't make it and renegotiated. But we conclude you were very effective anyway. Your effectiveness rating may still go up if you made it and you could have made more, or we believe you should have committed to more. Your effectiveness rating goes down, all of a sudden it changes everything. It's not just making ambitious commitments and meeting them, but doing them in a way that accurately fits the purpose. Because there's a thousand ways you can get the job done. But if you understand the larger context and what that piece is trying to support, the most effective people do it in such a way that improves the overall outcome lateral dynamic teamworking making adjustments continually in order to make sure that the overall outcome is better. Efficient use of resources, not enough to meet your commitments but those people who are constantly conserving resource while meeting their commitments improve the company's bottom line. And finally thinking outside the box and upgrading the capability of your people and processes through continual improvement that these are all subjective but that's where the wealth comes from. It's from employees adding value. That's about earning your keep. So you can now see accountability is not one thing, it's two things. It's keeping your word while earning your keep or more importantly, it's earning your keep while keeping your word. No surprises. That's what accountability is. That means at the outset we have to explain to every employee the standard, the basis against which we're going to judge his effectiveness. What constitutes pulling the role down? Not yet mastering the role? What constitutes fully mastering the role? What constitutes pulling the role up? What constitutes the maximum effectiveness and role? 45 okay, I think I've covered the key points. I want to end on an eight minute video of the CEO of one of our clients who not only did a full requisite project with us, it's a 4000 person chemical engineering company, Global, but invested in our Cynthia, who runs our training programs. A train. The trainer program where they train 15 managers, ten of them line managers in being able to teach a three day train the Trainer Accountability program. This video was shown at the beginning and at the end of each one of those videos and let's see if it adheres to what we're talking about with accountability. Oops, I need to go to the end.
Speaker D We're all trying to do the best out of the size of drag. The only thing we're talking about here is in the engineering. How do you apply this and obviously.
Speaker C You'Re very.
Speaker D I would like to everyone to understand is that if you looked at the presentation yesterday morning when they talked about the buyout companies performance compared to the companies that are listed it's very obvious that had a much more successful and there are many explanations for that. But one of the more important one is that when you have owners that control your company and are very much involved in what you're doing and if you are the president then something happens externally that you can't impact I mean it's not because of you you're really doing a great job but something has happened there. It's not a matter of they're making a mistake then it's a matter of these buyout guys that they let you stay there because they know you're going to make it as soon as conditions are getting better. But if you are in a company that's listed you are thrown up and you are evaluated only by the performance and results that you did not control. And the thing when we're talking about doing our best that should be, to my mind related to the tasks that you are delegating, the tasks that you are accountable for performing. And if you're doing your best in trying to accomplish that, that is the best way to avoid corruption. Both in salesforces, it's in production lines, it's all over the place. So that's my only contribution.
Speaker A Thank you.
Speaker D Thank you.
Speaker C All right, thank you very much, Jerry.
Speaker B So his lifetime is he passed away in 2003 in a research line is from 47 to 2003. After actually, I think, the last date of his death he actually was still working on a couple of papers. He was a research professor at the George Washington University and author of many books and numerous journal articles. I came to know him. I don't know if you know Jerry Harvey at my school. So I met Jerry. And Jerry was talking about Dr. Jacob all the time. And I said, well, fine. I was looking for my doctoral citizens and well, I'd like to work on something that's useful and something where I can actually make a living afterwards. And he said, well, why don't you work with Dr. Jack? And so I called him up, we met and then I've been working with him since, I think, 2000 and thousand, I think since 2000. So general theory was evolved. It's been developed for the past 55 years and again it was known as the General theory of bureaucracy reference organizational theory. I call it the general theory of Nigerian hierarchy. And it was the last writing by Jackson which he called it as that. So that it's useful to him, I think. And by the way, if you know all that stuff, I'll keep it right forward. But I tried to put all of his theories in perspective. So he started with the Glacier Project in the 50s which later on was developed into the general theory of bureaucracy until the 1970s. And then eventually it was sort of mold over and mold over and became known as rapid organization. And in 2002 it became a General theory of managerial hierarchy. Besides that, Jack developed a theory of time and a theory of political economy which are probably less unknown, which later on in 2000, which I think one of the phenomenal works was developing, the Theory of Life. It was published in 2000. Before his passing away. He was working on a theory of information complexities of which somehow findings are present in the concepts of space and time. And this is a real two foundations, those two behind everything that the reputable organization stands for. And I'll demonstrate in a second what Jack believed is the managerial hierarchy is an organizational expression of human capability. And he defines the capability as the ability of person to do. Work and the current potential capability as the person's highest potential capability in the sense of where you can work at right now. And what's important on this slide is the Charge believes that human capability is discontinuous and matures from first to death predictable patterns. And then later we applied all of those to all of the species. And so you've all seen those charts, I think, in your presentation. So presumably that capability and it doesn't really grow in those patterns. It goes like this. So it's different chart, but it sort of matures the changes as the person matures. What's important is that discontinuity in human capability with the basic structure of managerial layers coincides with the layers of complexity of information processing. And so what exactly? And then it transforms into the strut. And we usually talk about level one, level two and so on. The strategy one, right? People say, Are you strateg one? So that's all familiar. And this is the time span. So if up to three months, I may be able to plan really fast after the three months, if I'm really bright, I can do it up to, let's say, 90 years into the future thinking system patterns. By the way, yesterday when Robert was presenting the beam and I said, well, we need a strat of three talents, right? And then he'll be able to identify independence myself with a strat of three talent is and five talents. I think it would be very useful for us consultants to do the same. If you're looking for a strategy consultant and identify the global, which I don't know if that's going to be because if I'm proposing that to manage your organization, I think it would be very much useful to classify consultants who just trust and not be a scary thought and.
Speaker C Take that one for the marketplace of ideas.
Speaker B Anyway, the basic foundation for the theory is the chapter has a different understanding of time. In his position is two dimensional which he found support in Confucius, ancient Greece. And St. Augustine talked about the same concept. And I went to the original and he read that stuff. And Jack's preposition is that time is two dimensional. One is a historical time that Greeks called Cronus and the second one is a time of intention. And that's a tenant why he developed that stuff. And that's called Cairos time of opportunity, as they called in ancient Greece. For example, if I'm sitting in 2001 and I have to finish a project, let's say by three months, that's my time of contention. And when I get there, I will have finished the project which then becomes that both present, past and future are within the same point with us. So the past by itself doesn't exist. It's the present. What he calls is the present past, present, future and currently present. The purpose of this slide is to demonstrate that the time is two dimensional. And the major point is that today we have that time of intention. For example, I'm trying to graduate by, let's say within the next two months and that's my time of intention to complete that goal, which was of a larger task. Some of you are working on projects and I'm sorry you have a client to complete it within the next ten years, so on and so on and so forth. That's a major foundation for the theory. Another foundation for the theory is the information complexity and Jeff and Bush in the best way before we could start and was really easy, if I didn't know the answer, I would call him up and he'll give me all the solutions. I didn't have to put any of the thoughts of my own. Now I can't steal it any longer. But he published a paper in 2002 and it's a working paper and hopefully it will come out, it's called Audit Complexity of information and the walls were constructed and what he discovered is he moved away from the managerial organization. He said that any principle that you applied within the social theorem, say, between humans should be applicable to other species. And so what he identified is he identified a basic unit of information and it's a tangible something that can be pointed to which objectively, that nest line verse is not his precise word. And he claimed that the basic unit of information is how all of the species exchange information. He gave me an example, for example, when tigers attack, they produce a certain smell and that smell tells another tiger who would attack the policy. If one tiger goes up front, the other tiger just comes from the bottom. He would give me an example, for example, if I have a fan so that will be a way to use this information. I can point to a specific object that exists over here but if I talk about, for example, thread, I can't really objectively point to trash because it's an abstract level. I think it's an order to reset because trash is a collection of different items. He gave me another example of, let's say, training monster to pick up a stick to do a certain thing. But when you train a monster to do something with stress, a monkey wouldn't be able to understand. He claimed that that basic unit of information is how all communicate. And so the foundation for all of his theories are the only two things there is time of intention, time and information complexity but the abstract levels of information and so people's proposition was the time is two dimensionals and their time of intention that's what gives life like theory of life foundation the basic premise is what distinguishes a living organism between a nonliving and a living organism has time of intention try to achieve what biomass so we all do, all of the animals do in all of the species. I don't know how to replace the tree. So the time of intention. That's what creates a living and what capabilities and that information complexity. He discovered there are five orders of information complex. Anybody applies. Yeah, the theory of life has six. After he published the book, he referred back to five. And the reason he said that there is no six is because he couldn't find any data that supports six. Order controller. Any evidence he found was five. He was evidence driven, so there was no evidence he would refer it back. So it was later on revised, but he passed away before the book would revise. There are five orders of conservation complex. By the way, Kevin can sometimes I disagree on that point. She thinks still six, but he told me it's five, so I believe.
Speaker A Anyway.
Speaker B There are five orders of information complexity. And what he found is that the way the capability changes and predictably for all of the species is in stratification and sort of strategy one, two, three and four, which they repeat on each order. So you have strategy 1234. So declare that serial and parallel in order one, the same as on the two, three and four and five. So most of the speed is resides in order one, two and children in order two. Normal working adults. That's where you have differential capability, orders three and four. And if you're order five, you're genius like Einstein, Freud and a couple of other people who have changed the course of the society because they're able to think of systems as general systems and produce those results. And so that order three and four creates an natural hierarchy because we all operate within a different time of intention. So one through eight and nine. But nine would be in those orders, every piece, those process. So you have declared the cumulative serial in parallel how we process the information that resides in the real world. So no matter how many orders you eventually end up happening, the types of organizations that Jacques talk to are too, I'm sure everybody knows it's algorithm very quickly. So he talks about two association in a managerial hierarchy. In an association with shareholders or citizens of a country. If I'm say a citizen, you don't report to the president. I don't think you can actually come with a flag and say then we have a managerial hierarchy with role consists of roles. I think other speakers have done that and so you have different roles. And then we try to fit people into that. And again, the managerial hierarchy, it's called the managerial system, managerial accountability hierarchy, bureaucracy, employment system and people employed for wages. Salary consists of managers and subordinates. So what is an ideal requisite organization? Ideally what you would want to have according to Jacques and the research, what it does is test the fundamental prepositions of the theory and see if it's valid or not. So the Jax claims that if you have, let's say, components that managing the subordinate should be one struggle removed right? That's about right? So now he discovered another thing which is he called eventually manager subordinate relationship and that probably is better wording for that, I'm not sure but that's what he calls it. And so what he found is and it's an empirical finding in managerial organizations describing how subordinate feels towards the manager and how the manager feels towards the subordinates in consistency claim of three types the manager feels just right, too close or too for example Beverly is my manager so I will feel well, the relationship is just right. I will say it's too close, it's breathing down my neck or so it's too fast, it's just way too bright. I have no clue what he's trying to do. And he claimed that there are just those three states and so the manager feels one of those three states and the subwaterness fields one of those three states he calls the tax force called if you feel too powerless, if the manager is pulled down into the weed. So if for example I'm working for Wolf and I'm coming into Wolf office every ten minutes I said well, how do I do this? How do I do this? How do this? Well I'm really pulled down into the weeds or the breathing down my neck I say just can you just leave and leave me alone? I know what I'm doing. I don't need your preposition. The proposition of the theory is that if you have a rack of structure, then everyone fulfills just try the manager field. Just try to know the support and the supporting field. Just try and he called it an effective relationship. That would be what makes it effective. And then that relation would be too close. If you have a manager that's operating within the same stratum, it's an ineffective relation because the field too close. It means you're stepping down. Mining. The manager doesn't have the values to me and too quiet. You have one stratum or more removed except for the secretary's role. So you would have that. The manager loses me totally into the week and I have to pull the manager's work into stratum two because otherwise the component will be left is not being able to set the fundraisers. And so the primary research question is to test that position. There is a relationship between that structuring and those feelings that the managers and subordinates get. And that proposition, to my knowledge, has not been tested, or at least I haven't read. As far as test tested, it has not been tested by I'm just saying it firstly, but that's exactly what I'll rephrase it. So the research question is, well, okay, if I get this structure in the real world, does the field just strike over the chat? If I feel them constrained within one do I get that too close and that's what the theory predicts and if I get them one or more stress and remove do I feel that they're too far? And that's what I am testing. And then the second research question that I have and I'm trying to discover the effect of current potential capability because the size of the role and the capability could differ and let me just not read it, but rather you chart. So what I'm saying is fine. What I want to do also I want to align it for the capability. So let's say if manager is in stratum four and the subordinate is in stratum three, I also want to make sure that the manager's capability is in stratum four and the subordinate capability is on stratum three. So not just the roles of one stratum and partner, but the capabilities match the role and the capabilities exactly one stratum and partner. And I'm trying to discover that do they still feel just drive too close or too far? Does that make sense?
Speaker C So the first research question is sometimes in client organizations you can take that middle and where they're kind of bunched up together, the two are bunched up. Some clients have indicated we can understand it from a diagnostic point of view that that would look like a jam up, but at some level of sort of experientially, they don't feel that necessarily yeah, it could be any number of reasons, but they don't feel that that's necessarily right jam up that we're describing. So is that what your research question is once to find out?
Speaker B Well, the third research question is no capability. So for example, I could have, let's say stratum four, let's say manager and supportive chart on four, but the manager's capability may be in chart of four and the subordinate capability may be in chart of six. I'm satellite.
Speaker C So that's what your second question gets.
Speaker B Into and the second question aligns with that. So it makes sure that the capability and the roles coincide. And it's hard to find data because that's just an approach that every time I do research and actually every time I have to even take a load of the client, I have to get a license. I don't know if it's the same in Canada, but in the United States I have to have a license where you can sue me and somebody else can be foundable. But it's true. So I have the license. And I've had actually with those clients, if you wanted to do that I once did a research project and I asked the manager what does that get proportionate does or something similar. The manager got so upset that they called Jerry Harvey and complained. So I hope none of you do that. But I've set out a support structure to deal with that anyway.
Speaker C So what's the phone number?
Speaker B Yeah, I've had them, they discovered the phone number. They're already anyway. So I'm collecting the role of the management to support on the current potential equipment and the manager support on relation how does it feel to close? Just try some special notes and some other stuff let's say I want to collect it. How long have you been employed? Because only one day they haven't generated those fields. So I'm coming to the conclusion that it takes about three months for them to generate that just drive. So if you just hire, Say within six months, I can collect the data. But if that, I cannot. So another preposition key is that I believe also that all of managerial organizations are exactly the same. So even if I find one, organization. That should suffice. To satisfy my commitment, I have to put in this disclaimer that I'll do it in three comparisons. But generally, if you wanted to contradict my study, all you have to do is find one company. With sufficient number of cases and say that that study is incorrect because all of them are hierarchies. They're exactly the same everywhere.
Speaker F Okay.
Speaker B Measuring. And some of the slides that I've put in, I wanted to specify measuring role. And I underlined that word because Jax had a very specific meaning for the word measuring versus evaluation. What he might under measuring is that he would obtain ratio scale numbers for the way it measured. So I can actually measure the role. And he claimed it was more precise than physics. So I can know your role. I can actually measure it. It says on one year or a little bit less, let's say 300. And how many days? It is, and so he developed it in 1960. There was some presentation earlier. I think the very first job integrated ideas of father that I'm not sure how I wasn't alive in the was a little baby in the 70s either also but the way Jack described how he discovered it and that's why I'm putting it that it was developed by Jack when he had a sending him the GW to discuss when he found the Samsung instrument. He said that he's been working in it for three years. And then three workers came by and they said in Jax world was ducked. Anything to do with sign. And then he came up with the idea with Temps. And measurement instruments. But as far as texture workers in helping him to move on to yeah, it takes me about one to three minutes to measure. Can you tell us how you do that? Well, I took it at face down. I have lunch a couple of times and some of the criticism, well, it's just protocol. Exact. And we walked out. The protocol how I'm going to do it step by step. And then I did that and he does say one to three minutes. Sometimes I was very successful, sometimes I was not. In his later life, he was saying that you don't need to know anything about the work in order to measure the size of the role. And I took that and then some of you have said, I think suggested Robert from here presented about BMO is that we tried to explain the principles of the students to the employees and they would never get those. So we stopped doing that because it was a waste of time and they wouldn't communicate. I've had the same problem if I start explaining how I'm doing things my clients never get so anyways, I have failed a couple of times but generally it took me months from independently confronted discontinuity in capability. I don't know if anybody has ever read his work. It's very easy to read actually. It does not forget to sleep. He published four articles and it's quite fun. It's totally independent of jacques Lewin published The Need for Dynamics jean Pierre, if you read his stuff and it's totally to me it was very much unreadable and I had to gallons of coffee. I spoke to Terry Levinson. What I did is I found that there was a lack of studies on chart theories and I'm sorry, yeah, I know he's done that pile of work but when you actually try to find stuff there isn't much. So I called him up and we spoke for about an hour or so and he, you know, Jack contributed enough. His major fault is that she didn't bring emotion into theory. But Jack didn't know how to measure emotion and therefore it was thrown out. But otherwise he said that hepatosis and everything else is failing. And then some doctoral dissertations beverly, who is going to be speaking after me, congratulations. And a bunch of other people stuff within that. Anyway, so I went to in 2005, this March I went to Las Veg and I analyzed four companies and a small knucklehead. Two of them are global companies. One is operating in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and one is a local company, just operates in Latvia and two are global. So if you go to any country in the world, they are there. One is a manufacturing facility and the other one is a rental car agency. And so what I most found that all of those organizations were not let's say had I done my study in the bank of Montreal in their division, I would have found different answers. But they are finding a lot of problems and organizations did have a lot of different problems and so that impacted the manager subordinates relationship. But I also have found that the manager subordinates are always working within the same structure for a lot of those and sometimes manager once removed. I even have found that there was a manager once removed managing the shopping had two managers and they all reported to a manager once removed them all within the same strut and so impacted the result of the studies greater. There were tremendous various organizational problems from unequivocal depression because the organization was laid off and the companies were in the former Soviet Union and so they hired all the people who worked in a factory. They were all former Soviet Union factories, and so they had a lot of theft problems. And when the company was transitioning, they would lay off a lot of people, bring in a lot of people, blame a lot of people. So stuff that happened, so a lot of people were depressed and sort of very apprehensive of whatever the management was doing. I also found, and I talked to Katherine Casson about that, that shot of zero level of work, for example, in the rental car agency, the longest answer to two days. And I haven't figured out how to interpret that. When the answer? Not today, 2 hours. So pick up.
Speaker F You didn't bring my presentation?
Speaker B I probably not.
Speaker A But we'll hear about it.
Speaker B But anyways, I did find job of chopping zero. The first attack that I've had is I've carried out the study wrong. So you told me that it takes you now when I take two, one or three minutes to do that stuff, maybe ten minutes to get the stuff. So the first attack that I had on my study was that, well, you carried it out wrong, you should have done it differently. Thinking about that, I don't know what I would have done differently, but I did find that I don't know, Gary, you may have had more experience with that stuff. And I went to the factory and they had a lot of factory workers, let's say about 100. And it was a single tasking role. It was less than a day. If jack told me if it's less than a day, it goes to the shop of Depu. If I went to the shop, let's say Barbara shop at two companies over there, it was about maximum assignment was four and a half hours. It's less than a day. And that would generally be an hour to two. And so that sort of troubles me a little bit because I don't know how to interpret those results. People say that there is only one level of war.
Speaker F Don't worry about it's not true.
Speaker B Maybe I've done a mistake.
Speaker A But Elliot talks about the relationship between the fire squad leader and the 17 year old soldier. And the 17 year old soldier is essentially operating at concrete level four, concrete step four. And he would refer to that as stratum zero because the fire squad leader would say, in the next ten minutes, go to that tree and fire at that target and then give him the next all right, now in the next half hour, get to that hill and fire at that target. That's what he called stratum zero.
Speaker B And that's what I have found in some and that was the topic finding maybe I was anyway, so when I ran those correlations how are we doing.
Speaker C For time for you?
Speaker B I'm almost done.
Speaker C Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker B I'm almost on a thank you note. So when I ran the correlations and again, this data is dirty because what I have to do now is I have so for correlation in the subordinate so what I did this correlation shows how subordinates feel towards the manager towards the manager says they have one shot my far do you feel just right or do close? Just about right. I have one hundred and one K and I'm getting about the same as I found in pilot stud about 40% I think when I clean the page it's going to go a little bit higher I just don't have the time. I have to go to vacation clean it up. The reason I have to clean it up is when I have found, for example, one company manager wants to move managers support us all within the same startup and the answer was yeah, I feel just about right actually. I had a case where the manager was sitting on this side of the table on support, sitting in this side of the yeah, I feel just about right that's my colleague we have a colleague's relationship, he's not my manager. What accountability isn't even understood. If I bring it up, I would turn it off and I only had this discussion one time within the company and so I got a lot of job strikes because there weren't real managers and so I have to go through each case and figure it out. But the correlation isn't particularly actually, it was funny the first time I ran the correlation with the pilot study and I found the correlation was insignificant. I made a statistical error and I facted to Dr. Shark and said hey I guess this validated all of your theories. So he looked at it and said oh so I was wrong all this time and he was fine with that and I called him about 50 minutes later I'm sorry I clicked on the wrong button. It was funny, it was amazed me that he was ready to throw everything away just because I have data showing that he was wrong. The second correlation how to manage your fuels in the same I had 50.
Speaker D Do I have all the pain? I'm going to do this for a week.
Speaker C They actually plan ahead a week for those 1 hour tasks that occur. So for me, I look at that technician and say, he's l one, stratum one because his time and span is.
Speaker D Actually a week or two, but the.
Speaker C Task may be a single hour. But in that case, the task with the longest target completion time, in fact, would be a week or two, about an hour. So the complexity of a role is measured by the task with the longest target completion time within the role. So it depends how you delegate it. If you call that person every hour and say do this next, do this next, do this next, then it's an hour long accountability. If you say to that person, go out and get all your stuff, go.
Speaker B Out for a day and I'll check.
Speaker C Back at the end of a day, or go out for a week and.
Speaker B I'll check back at the end of.
Speaker C The week, then it's a day long or a week long task. I guess what I'm saying is, how do you find the strategy, role accountability or the task? The task, because there's many tasks within.
Speaker B The role accountability task with the longest.
Speaker C Target completion time defines the complexity of the role. Not for that one task, but that's how far out you have to manage that work life.
Speaker D I have also one comment and that relates what you said, Paul, which is.
Speaker B Important for you to consider.
Speaker D Why is it that managers continue to work with a management team that doesn't work where several are too far away? Why do that? Because they don't always perceive the distance that you're asking for. So I think your research will be very interesting, but it's important to realize that not everyone feels that it's too far or too close. They will always feel that way, even though it is.
Speaker C That's why I think we would encourage.
Speaker D You to keep the oven at about.
Speaker C 300 degrees and keep baking that cake because I think we're relying on someone. One comment I would have I think you're probably about on target. We've got data on over 25,000 manager direct report relationships. And unfortunately we've only published one study, but we find going into organizations, only about 50% of the relationships are requisite. After working with an organization, we get up to 90. Plus we found that the amount requisite, the percentage requisite correlates both with employee satisfaction. We've got data over 20 studies and also output measures including financial performance, employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction. So I think those midlink correlations going into an organization are probably pretty close.
Speaker B I think you're sort of surprised. I found so many dysfunctional outlets within the company, one global company, they just established a managing director of outputs and they were building several factors. So the managing director business unit, Patch Five, he's operating in 2004 because the country is small, that's fine, but he's coming from a Soviet type of leadership and everyone's reported to him. And he wants to put a structure director in Strategic Two. So a lot of people, bright people that are leaving another company I found that the president of the company should be in Strategic Four and over Stratum Five. She's working in Stratum three and hates her job and then polygonization when he pushed down. So I was dealing with a lot of different anomalies and so people didn't know what to say. And then of course, a lot of people, and it was funny. My last comment was and I'm finding since I worked with the smaller companies generally, just because by the nature that I knew some people, I have found a lot of people at those lower strata very underpaid and people at the higher strata grossly. Overpaid, let's say at the CEO level in bank of Montreal, some of the men that we're overpaying our people. And I'm surprised that I think a lot of people, if you walk in trouble one and two, our story would be getting screwed.
Speaker A I think we need to.
Speaker F Okay, what's your point? What you have here is a narration that has some similarities to The PowerPoint. If you'd like a copy of The PowerPoint, we can find out for that the purpose of the study. What I'm going to talk about is my dissertation, which I also had the privilege of working with elliot Jackson initially gotten through proposal and gotten through his working with me on different things. And then he up and died. So I was very thankful for the privilege of working with him initially and honored to do my oral defense on the one year anniversary. So this is a rather recent thing been working on. Oh, I think this is that if there is a fit between person and job role, that there would also be global satisfaction with the organization. Higher global satisfaction and that there would be higher global satisfaction if there was a person superior fit as well. Means of data collection, I used two means. One was a survey. Survey for the three kinds of satisfaction. There were the JDI job satisfaction and JDI also job descriptive index. And Jig stands for Job in general and they use jobs in that way. And then there was another part of the survey that was self report, which I outright asked them, and I did each question in two different ways. Outright ask them how well do you feel your natural abilities fit the demand of the job? And then another way. And then also ask them about Time Horizon and the time span of discretion of their roles. And then some demographic questions. The responses I got back on surveys, I did it of three different departments within one organization, which gave me a variety of roles. RL stands for Resident Life. This was at a very large retirement home in the DC area. And Resident Life had 100% response rate, fewer people, and also that's where my contact was. So they were all appreciatively positive and participated. General Services is GS, that included maintenance and basically housekeeping landscaping and so on. DS stands for Dining Services. They ran several different restaurants within the facility and so those are overall 48% rate lowest.
Speaker B Obviously, within general services.
Speaker F And Dining Services has an impact on satisfaction. So we controlled for that. And Department was an important one and had a big impact actually on satisfaction. So controlled for that. The results, these are showing up, so that's good. Just some descriptive results which I think are interesting. Is that okay, this is indirect. So this is calculated according to Jack. Superiors thought 52% thought their subordinates were just right. The people using their data, only 40% thought they were just right. But it was low response rate for the people. Indirect person superior fit basically most people both by the person information by the person and by the superior thought that their superiors were too low 40% and down here, 65%. And then quite a good number thought they were too high. That was one actually in resonant life is particularly true. And so the lowest in this case was that their superior was just right. One problem I ran into, which I know that this is a problem in requisite organizations, lack non requisite organizations, but I wasn't quite prepared for this, was that I had a really hard time deciding who to call their boss. Because when I did the interviews, certain the superior would list who everyone who reported to them and then on survey they had to write in who did they report to? So out of the 137 on the survey who listed one superior, that was 85% listed only one superior. Of those, only 116 matched the person who claimed to be their superior in the interview. 71. Nine person were not claimed as a subordinate in an interview. So either whatever and twelve respondents didn't match. Then 14 people listed multiple superiors. 13 of the 14 who listed multiple superiors had one of their listings match the person. So that was good.
Speaker B That was good.
Speaker F And three cited I mean, three people cited three superiors and the other eleven, only 210 listed no superior. That was interesting. One listed the residents as their superior. That's who they reported to. And two said not applicable. Now that I found that really interesting. And seven left at blank.
Speaker A Just as an aside, what's really frightening.
Speaker C Is when you get the not applicable impossible.
Speaker F Yeah. So another descriptive result that I think is just interesting is that as you look at this, which satisfaction was rated the highest? Which satisfaction is rated the highest? What are people most satisfied with?
Speaker E Job in general?
Speaker F The job in general, right here the average is 74.9 the least satisfaction. They were least satisfied with their job role. So that's just an interesting thing to keep in mind.
Speaker A Is that statistically significantly different?
Speaker F No, wait a minute. I'm not sure you'll see.
Speaker A This is.
Speaker B Just.
Speaker F No, I don't think it is. I'm looking thinking back to the correlation matrix, but an interesting pattern nonetheless. And it does have some impact. We'll see later on there is discriminate validity among the three different types of satisfaction. Interesting here I not only went what I first started calling this one Stratum zero, but then when I started getting lower than Stratum zero, I started having a negative one, negative two. And I thought, okay, well, I didn't like the idea of having negative. So I learned one free, one free, two free, and went the other director. So one of the reasons for having so many people below Stratum one one, they had a high school youth program, but I only could use data from 18 year olds and up, but still it was 18. So that's a little bit lower than some of the normal work situations. The other thing is they had it programmed for people with special needs that work in maintenance and dining hall to help set up the table. Well, they were a bit lower, but I think that's an important part of the workforce. And this is sort of a bell shaped curve. Now, it's not exactly the proportions that Jack has. He has about 40 in these two stratums. I came out with more in one and eleven there. But still you have a bit of the bell shaped curve there. Okay, that last one, that last one, if we can get back there, that was time horizon estimates by their superior. Okay. Now this one is the role, how they define the role. So the roles were only defined this way. So actually there was no stratum four role listed. The others were listed as actual rules. The p one. P two, p three. Okay. Now getting into some inferential statistics, the results that may be slightly more interesting, though I think this is important. This is using the three covariance that I control for note that there was and the reason I show you this is for the fact that there was significant, et cetera. But they responded and it came out with the anticipated it supported the anticipated hypothesis. That is, using the person's own direct comment about do I feel I fit the role? Okay. Then using the Jacksonian method oh, no, I'm sorry. This is the person's superior fit indirect. This is Jack's method. The other Jack's method or direct, both were the previous ones. They both correlated significantly with higher fit equals higher the person superior fit. The only significant difference was if the boss was too low, there was a significantly less satisfaction than if there was right. But if the boss was too high there was still a drop, but it wasn't significant. But it's an interesting pattern. Okay. And then this is with general satisfaction. Again, if the job was too hard, there was a significant difference between that and the job being just right. But if the job was too easy, it didn't as negatively impact some conclusion. Wait a minute, I pushed the wrong button. There we go. Closing Comments some comments means of data collection the interviews worked a lot better for collecting the indirect fits. But the survey worked fine for getting people's direct estimates of their own fit. That person job fit impacted job satisfaction with the job itself and not with the superior. And that person superior fit impacted satisfaction with the superior and not satisfaction with the job. And I think those are important things to remember and that fit actually did impact satisfaction. Another couple of things is lack of satisfaction occurs whether the job is too easy or too hard. And having a boss too low is worse than having a box too high and we won't have time for getting into these discussions. Okay.
Speaker C Do you want to just field a few questions? Are there any questions that arise from this that people want to ask?
Speaker F Okay.
Speaker A Could you clarify for measurement?
Speaker F Right. Indirect measurement simply means the calculated measurement. How do you calculate that? I got the time span of horizon and from the interview and the survey I got them from both ways, but the one that was most valid and consistent was through the interview. Okay. Interviewing the superior, I got their estimate of the time horizon of the individual and their estimate of the time span.
Speaker B And discretion of the role.
Speaker F If they were in the same stratum, it was a fifth. So that was the indirect calculated measure of fit. Direct was does this person fit the role? Just a direct question. Okay. I actually have a second presentation, so maybe I'll quickly run through that in five minutes and through my demonstration of how this works for a number of reasons, but you can figure it out. This is styling processing. This is orders of information. And so wait a minute, I'm missing a there we go. Pegs are people pegs come in all different shapes and sizes and material?
Speaker C I certainly can.
Speaker A Can you put a square peg in a round hole?
Speaker F Around square pegs are tasks. Okay. So people are different and the difference.
Speaker A Is.
Speaker F They'Re made of different material, character, plastic and so on. And then you ask them and then knowledge. They're small, there's different and different diameters is the processing level and materials, character, temperament, and the length is the amount of knowledge, skilled knowledge in Jack's terms, KFAS in other terms. And then you say, okay, if you are working to fill this role, can you fill it with somebody like this? What's the first primary thing you have to do? You have to make sure the diameter is the right diameter. And then you can consider other aspects anyway. And again, we won't go into all the details of how I use this in training, but that's what we do. And then just to finish out the model we'll go to and block our tasks. The length of task is the time span of discretion is the length. You can have a thing that you have to really look far into the future, but it doesn't take as much time as someone that's shorter. The volume is the amount of time that it takes to accomplish it. And then this is the blow up of the holes. How do you decide the diameter of these holes? You decide them by finding all your identifying all your tasks and finding which the largest, which one can it fit into and et cetera, voila. Sitting.
Speaker C Just again, that is that was for teaching folks. And the audience who received speakers, primarily.
Speaker F Being in this case the audience, were African government leaders. I teach a set of them about monthly through the Washington International. And so it was just trying to get across the Jacksonian concept a little more quickly. The reputable organization and Tangibly and to have them I think it has lots of applications. Actually, that was my next thing. Okay. Anyway, I think this has potential applications, but I welcome your feedback, et cetera.
Speaker C Thank you very much.
Speaker E I guess the only comment and I realized, because when Elliot talked, you always talked about a total management system. And I guess I'd be interested sometime, both you and Sergey saying, if you put felt fair pay, how do you start paying these sub one roles? When do they start contributing to the organization?
Speaker F As you get down lower, they all are contributing to the organization. And I think you can use the same I think you can use the same scale. Instead of X, you can go we can play with the scale.
Speaker E Sarcasm was when do they start paying to be an employee?
Speaker B Okay.
Speaker C Thank you very much.
Speaker A Sam. Sam.
