Organising «Performance» & «Management»

As noted at the outset, this management framework was originally developed in the mid-1980s and published in 1990. The overall picture is still similar but there are numerous differences in this revision. Most corrections are unremarkable and reflect greater clarity, especially in the higher Groupings.

The most significant error stemmed from the authors' confusion between work as performance i.e. doing/deciding (G1 in PH'1CsH) and work as duties/responsibility (G1 in PH'5QsH2). This was particularly evident at G2, previously formulated as «decision-action» and now viewed as about oversight-dialogue (which leads to action, but so does every other Grouping). The work performance framework was not developed until nearly two decades later. The inquiry was from first principles and without concern for consistency with the early management duties framework. A comparison is therefore valuable.

In making this comparison, keep in mind that one of our Primal Needs appears to be achievement. Neither work nor management nor an organization happens for its own sake: it is all for achievement.

Primal Need is a non-taxonomic concept currently
under development in the Architecture Room.

Organising Management of Work-to-be-Done

Management must organise performance, but management itself requires to be organised. Organising management requires a focus on how responsibilities for the work to be done are carried.

The present framework shows how work-as-responsibility must be differentiated, and then how the resulting differentiation needs organising to ensure the integration of work. The full diagram is shown again below. Every column (Grouping) represents a necessity for «organising management» properly.

The rationale for putting effort into organising management is to ensure actual achievement. This is «the management» that determines performance and achievement. However, as evident from G5, achievement based on doing-PH1 must be organised and channeled via goals if it is to be judged worthwhile.

Better viewing: Use browser zoom if needed.

Organising the Doing of Agreed Work

Achievement, the rationale for organising managing (as above), depends primarily on decision and action-PH1. This is about actually getting work done. Taxonomic inquiry has shown that achievement within an organization in the sense of doing work requires values from all the decision methods (see: PH'1CHK).

It is possible to derive a framework (PH'1CsH) for an organization's methods for doing work to ensure achievement. In this framework, a staff member's employment compact-G7 needs to be differentiated into 7 different forms (Levels) of doing work-G1. That allows a staff member to be fully aware of what is expected of them.

As shown in the diagram below, every column (Grouping) represents a necessary method for «managing work-activity» based on integrating G1-levels of doing work. This managing depends on pre-existing arrangements devised in the above duties-based framework (PH'5QsH2) .

Any staff member is both a representative of the organization (i.e. «the management» with responsibilities as per the duties framework) and a private person (i.e. an autonomous individual responsible for oneself). So the various methods for activity control necessarily generate two perspectives, shown in the lower part of the diagram.

Better viewing: Use browser zoom if needed.

For a quick review, see summary matrices of the work-as-doing framework.
For full details, return to the beginning of that framework.

Correspondences

It certainly seems that there is a correspondence between the above two Structural Hierarchies that is at least as interesting as the differences, and that can be understood in energy terms.

Duties-Oriented
PH'5QsH2		   Action-Oriented
PH'1CsH
G1: Assigning Duties
assumes prescriptive responsibility		 but it also expects/requires G1: Doing Work
because that is what duties naturally entail.
G2: Ensure Oversight
assumes appropriate
dialogues		 but it also expects/requires G2: Legitimating Authority
because dialogue without authority goes nowhere.
G3: Driving Improvement
assumes systematic
co-evolution		 but it also expects/requires G3: Delivering Results
because there must be a pay-off for the costs and effort.
G4: Designing Roles
assumes comprehensive functions		 but it also expects/requires G4: Making Assessments
because competence and contribution must be checked.
G5: Determining Goals
assumes realistic
ambition		 but it also expects/requires G5: Offering Flexibility
because otherwise ambitions will never be achieved.
G6: Expecting Motivation
assumes natural
consent		 but it also expects/requires G6: Showing Commitment
because otherwise the energy released will be minimal.
G7: Enabling Commitment
assumes voluntary membership.		 but it also expects/requires G7: Providing Incentives
because otherwise no-one would voluntarily commit.

The original work of Jaques not only focused on responsibility and accountability, but also on tasks and their performance i.e. features of the above two Frameworks were pushed together. Certainly time-span was important, and people are constantly deciding and acting in organizations. But why was there little focus (except in passing) on values? or change? or indeed any of the other Root Levels?

I believe the reason is that there is a Root Projection to QH2 from RL1-Action. Root Levels are currently conjectured to provide the energy that brings taxonomic entities to life.

And Another Feature

In developing the dynamic duality for the accountability framework, it was natural to consider work-style which is closely related to decision-making. The tension in working systematically v responsively, is similar (probably identical) to the approach duality found in the decision methods-PH'1 TET (Typology Essentials Table).

THEE Conjecture: It is predicted that QH2 generated by all other Principal Typologies (i.e. PH'•QH2) will also have a projection from Action-RL1. This is testable using appropriate taxonomic inquiries.

Originally posted: 11-Apr-2014