Taking Work Capability Seriously

Appraising Capability

Work capability derives from the use of language to make sense of reality with the goal of changing it. It appears to correspond to an innate ability to bear responsibility i.e. to diligently pursue purposes of a particular complexity through to completion.

Sufficient work capability is not the only requirement for handling a job, but it is absolutely necessary. Other factors like temperament, skill and knowledge, or decision style, can often be worked around by the individual or by the line manager.

Reminder: Capability is not reducible to IQ, personality traits, emotional intelligence or other psychological factors. Many factors require appraisal if you wish to use yourself or your subordinates effectively, and most apply independently of level/capability. See more.

Because work capability underpins role performance, its appraisal is essential. Appraising capability intuitively is common both about others and oneself e.g. "he'll go far"; "I'll never be a general manager". But line-management and talent pool management require a more specific framework: essentially as provided by this taxonomy following its initial discovery and development by Elliott Jaques.

Trained specialized practitioners using systematic methods have emerged to capitalize on Jaques' findings. However, once work is grasped in the terms described in this section, determining capability through sensible discussions between manager and subordinate is perfectly possible. The manager only needs to observe work as it occurs, listen specifically to how the subordinate describes working, and probe for level-specific issues.

Don't Confuse Capability with Performance on Targets

Employees are accountable for their work, not for the outcome because that is affected by factors outside their control, including the context set by the line manager. Performance in terms of outcome must be assessed as part of ensuring achievement. This assessment may say a lot about a person, e.g. whether they gave appropriate feedback when it became obvious the task had become very easy, but it says little in itself about capability. Achievement of targeted outputs says nothing about whether promotion is appropriate.

Payment for performance is currently conventional wisdom. It is appropriate for contracts, but not for employment. It reflects a faulty conception of work and of how people work. In relationships, it damages the sense of responsibility and weakens the exercise of creativity. As a policy, it is bad and wrong.

Integrating Pay and Grading

There are gradations in capability within a level. Such gradations are primmarily based on differences in experience and knowledge, and they enable pay differentials. Typically there is room for 2-4 grades in a work-level. Grades should (ideally) manifest as progressively longer time-spans of discretion within the range typical of the level.

Capability Mismatch

Work capability is dynamic and evolves in an individually unique fashion. It is probably a continuation of growth of the everyday ability to cope, which is evident from earliest childhood.

Jaques plotted movement through the work-levels against age for staff working in conventional organizations. He and colleagues identified characteristic career progression curves, which have been confirmed in subsequent studies.

The dynamics of capability, as well as errors in determining capability, leads to mismatches with roles. Capability mismatch only comes into play if the role is defined appropriately in work-level terms. (If roles and levels are not aligned, then there is just a mess.)

• If a person is in a role above the work-level that they are currently capable of, then the work will not get done. There will be activities but the outputs will be inappropriate or absent or disruptive. They may or may not be aware of this.
• If a person is in a role that is below the work-level of which they are currently capable then they will do the work, but experience frustration and dissatisfaction. They may be tempted to make choices outside the given bounds.

The difficulty in handling capability comes with its natural growth over time while, at the same time, the organization changes. Both the employee and the organization should perceive career progression as a mutual expectation. Below is a typical set of career progression curves (blue lines) presented in relation to a specific job, X, which is in the upper part of WL4 (green line).

The uppermost line in this family of progression curves represents a «high flyer» moving up the ranks rapidly, and likely to be a Top Officer in their early 30s. The lowest line refers to someone who may be invaluable but will probably never assess needs for their own tasks during their working lifetime. The red boxed letters refer to individuals of different ages at different points in their career: see dropdown below for implications.

Work Potential & the Manager-Once-Removed

An organization is dynamic, with work and roles evolving and with staff becoming more capable over time. Unless this is effectively managed—commonly called talent pool management—the organization will waste its most valuable resource. Staff will become discontented and disconnect.

It is natural that some subordinates will have greater potential capability than their managers (i.e. be on a higher curve). From the diagram, you can see that this is more likely the younger the subordinate and the older the manager. This can be a difficult emotional situation for both parties.

To avoid issues that may arise (e.g. hostility, exploitation, unwitting disruption) and to ensure the organization gets the benefit of higher-capability staff, a subordinate needs to have regular work review and career development meetings with the manager-once-removed (i.e. the line-manager of the subordinate’s line-manager).

---

• Having considered the basics, it is time for a review.

Originally posted: 10-Jan-2014