Historical Background
This framework, only named recently, is of historic significance. It was the first THEE Structural Hierarchy discovered—in the mid-1980s. Referred to at the time as "a new model for managing", it was published in the Journal of Applied Systems Analysis (1990).
This posting updates and revises that published material. Corrections are based on a greater understanding of the surrounding frameworks, especially the nature of i.e. doing work v carrying responsibility for work. (See a comparison in the Review section.) A deeper understanding of the Structural Hierarchy form also contributed to corrections and improved formulations.
Clues
Although it was evident that the NHS had seven fundamentally different levels of work to be done, we noted that others often spoke as if there were a specific lesser number of levels e.g. a Royal Commission distinguished just two levels: planning and operational, while those at the top of the NHS saw 4 levels: National, Regional, District and Unit.
Certain combinations of levels forced themselves on our attention:
- and management was often confused or pushed together. These managers dealt with , and their work contrasted with higher managers who worked in a more global and political way, and lower managers whose work focused on particular cases or situations. We also noted the overlap in nursing practice and training between professional nurses () and nursing aides ().
- When success was trumpeted, we noted that it appeared in one of three forms: in terms of simple (e.g. more operations! more transplants!), in terms of (e.g. more money spent! more nurses!) or in terms of needs met (e.g. fewer heart attacks! less skin cancer!). only took place between ; were only provided between , and were only determined between .
Additional evidence and suggestive findings from the management literature are detailed in the published paper.
Investigations
Looking more deeply, other combinations came into view. Eventually, it became evident that every possible grouping of adjacent work-levels has some relevance to managing large-scale organizations.
Each Grouping of Levels forms a specific number of Groups e.g. Grouping two adjacent Levels generates 6 Groups, while Grouping four adjacent Levels generates 4 Groups.
These Groups were found to have an internal hierarchical structure that conformed to a deeper pattern. This confirmed the significance of the structure, helped provide for internal structural validation, and led to investigations of other hierarchies (initially ) for something similar.
Evidently the Groupings and their Groups are ways to integrate (or &c.) and overcome the differentiation and discontinuity demanded by hierarchical stratification. This study also brought to our attention how the different social realities of organizational life demanded corresponding psychological qualities.
Confirmations
Once the taxonomic contents were formulated, this framework quickly became part of our consulting tool-kit. It was regularly used to deal with issues and was judged by managers to be illuminating. However, it did require prior appreciation of the .
This Structural Hierarchy would be expected to generate a Tree Framework. The Tree gives particular insight into socio-emotional life within an organization. You can see the results in the next section.
Confirmation of the structural form rather quickly emerged from investigations of the . This Structural Hierarchy was about integrating the various . It had a wide scope and included persons, organizations and society as a whole, and was named: . See details here.
Subsequently, several Structural Hierarchies have been developed. You can see them on the website in relation to: creativity and political life. However, the framework most relevant to was discovered during investigations of : obligations and expectations in employment ). In the review section, there is an illuminating comparison.
Originally posted: 19-Mar-2014