Get a Perspective

The Story So Far

This Framework applies directly to all organizations that produce tangible goods and services. However, it is relevant to all bodies, regardless of their output, insofar as all are compelled to do the ordinary work of engaging with tangible realities.

The organisation-QH2 of concrete activities to produce tangible goods was summarized at the outset and then explained via:

  • a social account of levels of work-responsibility with examples of tasks, roles and social bodies;
  • clarification of progressive contexts of concern for the basics within organizations—mission pursuit, resource handling, information use;
  • the principle that line-management should link work effectively from level to level;
  • the psychological component corresponding to work-levels: personal capability.

This Organizational Levels Framework is not an abstruse theory that you can take or leave. It is a coherent account of work-responsibility that people can carry properly and creatively.

The hierarchy matters in terms of how authority is legitimated and structured. So it is an unavoidable and absolutely fundamental concern in employment within large organizations.

Getting work-levels wrong, either structurally or in capability-matching is the source of most complaints about «command and control» systems. It generates most of the phenomena referred to as a «bad boss».

Fundamental differences in the human capability to do work at a particular level seem to be universally recognized—in general. However, it can be difficult or painful in particular cases i.e. facing up to whether a person can work in a particular post and how far up the hierarchy a person can expect to go.

Although it is common to find some intuitive recognition of levels of work, expedience rules far too often. Where there are personal issues or political factors, the necessary rigour can vanish and capability, definition of posts, and line-management become a mess. See brief accounts of some of the commonest design mistakes.

Perspective on Paradoxes

Many paradoxes used to justify structuring (or tinkering with structural principles), disappear when viewed in terms of the work-levels framework.

ClosedCentralization v Decentralization

Within the Levels of Work Framework, it is foolish and counter-productive to either centralize or de-centralize authority. Posts must have the authority they need to handle their responsibilities, no more no less.

It can be dangerous to centralize or decentralize responsibilities because this may effectively be a demotion of certain roles. This can render managers helpless. However, it is possible to centralize or decentralize decision-making on non-core issues, or on a core issue as an emergency measure.

ClosedChange v Stability

In the Levels of Work Framework, the whole hierarchy is about change: work involves changing reality. So there is no conflict between change and stability, there is simply work-to-be-done.The higher levels deal with what changes are necessary and desirable for the whole organization, while lower levels must handle change within their area of responsibility. All keep the show on the road.

Integration and programming of major change initiatives within operations is the duty of general management at WL4, lying at the centre of the hierarchy. Nevertheless the higher levels (WL5-WL7) should recognize that they must set parameters—especially those specifying change—that have a degree of stability. Without that stability, operations flail in the wind and cannot deliver the required results on the ground.

ClosedControl v Empowerment

The work-levels approach provides for control over the context so as to empower employees to use their capabilities to the full. It rejects the «telling what to do» style of management because work is not primarily about doing (PH1) but about responsibility. Doing depends on the individual's creative interpretation of that responsibility within the situation.

The primary need is to ensure that the structure is designed properly (in accord with levels of management), that roles are filled properly (in accord with work capability) and line-management is properly installed (in accord with the expectations of employment framework).

Additional Perspectives

The notion of levels of work has achieved considerable recognition, although general acceptance and deep understanding is yet to come. The commonest issues and reactions have been covered, but now it is time to consider essential perspectives.

  • Objectors commonly claim that application is impossible or too hard because the 'theory' does not fit reality. It is true that compromises are often necessary, but the framework helps you avoid arrangements that will surely fail.
  • Purpose is fundamental because organizations are creatures of purpose and so is all work. See how the Levels of Purpose Framework relates to levels of work.
  • Power is a pervasive preoccupation: both to get things done and in terms of personal and group interests. See how different preoccupations split the management hierarchy.
  • Quantity and Quality:  This inherent tension affects the group's socio-emotional states and demands for leadership. See this play out level by level.
  • Design of structures requires conscious appreciation of the levels and the nature of line management. See how arrangements go wrong.
  • Formulation of levels can draw on the basic account, the above additional perspectives, and the wider literature. Review the alternatives.

Originally posted: 8-Feb-2014. Last updated: 9-Feb-2014