As bureaucracies became more prevalent as a feature of organizations post-WWII, questions surfaced as to how they could be improved. Was there an optimal way to design them? What was the best role of individual members within a bureaucracy? Could individuals be developed to handle higher level roles?
Among those asking such questions was Elliott Jaques, co-founder of the Tavistock Institute and later the author of the renowned book Requisite Organization that combined social theories with theories of organization. As a scientific approach to organizational design, the “stratified systems theory” of requisite organization sought to optimize the hierarchical structure based on the time-span of decisions at echelon. Then, using methods for measuring individual capabilities and capacity for decision making, members could be assigned posts within the organization based on best fit. Stratified systems theory (SST) established a common schema for using time-span that could be applied to any organization.
Stratified systems theory found a home in the U.S. Army due to its immediate applicability in the Army’s large, complex hierarchical structures during the Cold War. The seven strata prescribed in the Theory were found to be analogous with various echelons in combat organizations, and the individual capabilities mirrored the duties and requirements of officers at particular ranks from lieutenant (lowest stratum or Stratum I) to general (highest or Stratum VII). For this reason, and because the report is in the public domain, we opted to read Jaques’ Army Research Institute Report Level and Type of Capability in Relation to Executive Organization, co-authored with Brunel University colleague Gillian Stamp in 1991. The report gives both a good summary of the theory and a thorough explication of its potential use in practice.
But as a scientific approach to organization, SST has been heavily criticized and largely shunned. Why, and whether or not this is fair is among the many topics we tackle in this episode.
You may also download the audio files here: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
Read With Us:
Jaques, E. & Stamp, G. (1991). Level and Type of Capability in Relation to Executive Organization. Alexandria, Virginia: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Public domain.
To Learn More:
Kleiner, A. (2001). Elliott Jaques Levels With You, Strategy + Business, 22
Jaques, E. (1997). Requisite Organization: Total System for Effective Managerial Organization and Managerial Leadership for the 21st Century. London: Gower.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. In Clark, K. E. & Clark, M.. B. (Eds.) Measures of leadership (pp. 281-295). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
________ (1991). Executive leadership. In Gal, R. & Mangelsdorff, A. D. (Eds.) The handbook of military psychology (pp. 431-448). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Re: Part 3: It has nothing to do with “dumbing down” anything. It has to do with the ability to manage complexity which Eliot associated with time… i.e. tasks that are longer term in duration are inherently more complex than tasks of a short term duration. I agree that Eliot’s definitions were often dogmatic (which is a frequent criticism of Requisite Organization practitioners). We use SST exclusively with our clients which range from banks, to oil & gas companies, to tech firms… practically any organization of a sufficient level of complexity (which it typically more than 5,000 people). We also refer to Stratum as Levels of Work (LW) so I’ll use our shorthand. It is not the role of a Level 5 role holder to “dumb down” any task (which implies, to me, breaking it down into its most basic and detailed parts) however, competent LW5 demonstrate the ability to reach longer term objectives by making constant tradeoffs between alternative (usually referred to as “strategic”) pathways to be successful. Above everything else I have come to believe, SST provides a language and a framework for business leaders to talk about their work and the work of their organizations.
Thanks, Ed.
Also, as the discussion happened, the podcast did refer to how the decisions of levels as they increase in managerial responsibility are inherently going to impact actions and decisions in further time-spans of a role – they even mention something to the point of:: decision made will affect 30 years into the future. Decisions will not impact the short term (1 – 5 yrs) and will move the next round of officers within the force. This is what the time span within a role is meant to be.
Additionally (I know it has changed some), Jaques and Stamp had a similar understanding of Current-Applied-Capacity being some version of Complexity-of-information-Processing + Values + Knowledge & Skills + Wisdom + (-T) the absence of serious personality (temperament) defects:: The behavioral components of leadership are within the areas of consideration of values, wisdom, and absence of -T …
And while SST can be viewed on the individual within the organization, it is or can be seen as a complex-adaptive-system. A CAS where the interaction of people within the organization is what supports the emergence of complexity processing, and some established and known structure for cross-functional work and interactions within + between departments is how tasks are completed. Jaques and SST connect what Jaques and Stamp call Mutual-Recogntion-Units (MRU) to overlapping mentoring, information sharing, and collective teamwork.
To both Ed and Mike, thank you for your thoughtful comments. SST is an interesting theory that I think is easily misunderstood because the strata would seem, to the uninitiated observer, to reinforce old stodgy hierarchies when instead it was a rather rich theory of immediate practical importance. The SST episode was recorded some time ago and was primarily looked at through a military lens since two of us participating in the discussion were familiar with how the military was trying to use it to make its leader development programs better. There may be more to the story which could justify taking another look at the theory, which we’ve done before — we recently did a follow-up on Mary Parker Follett for just such a reason. Thanks again!