This is an amazing system with many applications, most
of which have probably yet to be explained!
Over the past 15 years, I've used this particular
model with a lot of success and even more for research
I've been doing on development--adult, social and
organizational.
This particular TPOV is related to ROLE DYNAMICS as a
system because what I have discovered and what has now
been triggered with the above article is that Jaques
Levels, or for that matter ANY work levels or levels
of development must be dimensionalized in 4
dimensions, such as: time, vertical, oblique,
horizontal. Jaques uses 3 dimensions as best as I
know, (others jump in) and I want to redraw this
system for ROLE DYNAMICS as a set of design tools.
Here's more context (from the above article).
When people learn anything, they usually use it in a
less-complex form, then after they have used it for
awhile, even if it's at the same level of vertical
complexity (as related to Jaques graphic).
Another model Jaques developed can be referred to as
the Model of Human Capability (book with similar name
written mid-90s) based on Jaques research. This model
introduced what I refer to as an oblique component.
The way in which I define oblique is the transition
that occurs between vertical levels (the easiest way I
can relate to it, although it's much more complex
because it involves memetic engineering, where a
meme's elements are disentangled and then reformatted
using a different vertical capability, so we get
things I like to call mashups, and others call
transition steps. (Model of Hierarchical Complexity
identifies these.)
Ok, so, back to the article and economics.
The mistake that people make with economics and the
reason we are so financially illiterate relates to the
fact that complexity occurs in 4 dimensions, thus--to
make the point simple--ROLES must be designed in 4
dimensions as well to improve efficient, effectiveness
and the sustainability of the design
of the business model. MOST people/designers are
just using tasking and not the kind of tasking in job
descriptions, which displays the same "error" as the
author wrote about in economics--which is why I was
triggered by the article to relate to my work in LEVEL
and ROLE DYNAMICS.
Example: [From the article on economics]
"Since the world is complicated, providing many
ways in which incentives can change, economics
training begins with simpler incentive stories,
which provide the building blocks for
understanding more complex situations. So
professors frame questions as: “If everything
relevant other than this variable remained the
same, how would changing this variable affect
individuals’ choices?”
Now, with this in mind, what triggered me and this
TPOV was that all of us when we begin to learn things,
approach it from a mental processing state (my words)
which Jaques identified as declarative...the use of a
single concept. (Others can more fully explain, and
Jaques identified 4 of these "states" in Human
Capability, if my reference is correct.
The economics professor wants to begin to teach us
economics, so they make it simple--to the author's
point and evoke "ceteris paribus" --all things being
equal (more or less, hehe).
Helpful Hint:
BTW, this is appropriate in my view mimetically, as a
"new" concept can't be learned at any more complex
level than we are, and of course those
"capable"--ceteris paribus;)--can jump to more complex
states, levels or orders, which Jaques identified, but
what triggered me in what was lacking in being able to
create "highest probability fit" in ROLE Design, was
that the box we fit people into needs to be
dimensionalized in-depth, no pun intended, as length,
width, depth, AND TIME.
I'm certain this is way too complex for the first time
reader, and I make no apology, but give me just a
little more time to make the point.
Action Step: If
we use all four dimensions, we can create a richer,
simpler approach to ROLE design with the addition of
one thought, that horizontal and oblique complexity
may follow the same developmental sequence as vertical
development in Jaques Mental Processing States (JMPS)
or "Jumps" for short to give Jaques the primary credit
because we are standing on his shoulders (and it makes
a great acronym to use!).
COMPLEX THOUGHT:
I added this category to the TPOV because I want to
take people who can follow this TPOV, or it's modeling
one step further into ROLE DYNAMICS (for free, hehe).
As we "identify" complexity in 4 dimensions, it
MAY be possible to use JMPS as a more than
vertical "marker."
For instance, as we learn, we need simplicity,
right?
We have a tendency to take a new task like ROLE,
and say, let's identify the tasks a person does
while in that role (Job Description) (declaring
the tasks = Declaritive JMPS) in the ROLE.
As we do so, we then "add" links (Cumulative JMPS)
to this task AND that one.
AS the ROLE becomes more defined, we also want the
ROLE to be able to handle more complexity, so we
begin to add "conditionals" such as if then
statements, and their equal. (Serial JMPS)
Even more complex, we begin then to look at
multiple if
then conditionals,
which intersect (parallel?, as in running parallel
alongside a conditional (i'm hesitant to label it
more than that, such as a process or system
because that introduces too much complexity) to
relate it to another conditional producing a new
entity of consideration as a result), such as I
just modeled, a DYNAMIC ROLE DESIGN (DRD), maybe,
hehe. (the new entity for those trying to do
their A->B-->Cs;) -->(Parallel JMPS)
Now, when you look back on the sequence, it all
occurred more or less within the same vertical
"reasoning mode", there was no real shift in
verticality although I was able (I think) to model
[others will set me straight with good reasoning
if mine failed to make muster!]
In other words, I did NOT shift my own vertical
capability to model this example for you, if that
works.
In Jaques, we would be concerned with the "order of
complexity" and that might be well and good, but what
I'm trying to illustrate--possibly ineffectively--that
if you are able to see declarative, cumulative,
serial, and parallel as states which appear in
horizontal and even oblique frames, you can begin to
identify--IMHO--a whole, more efficient, effective and
sustainable way to use DRD. [albeit with a whole lot
more complexity...but I would point out, without
adding the complexity into design, you can't capture
the real world complexity occurring and we continue to
fail in providing fitness which becomes economically
viable over time as a result of role design and
selection.
For a discussion of DRD, ROLE DYNAMICS and further
complexity regarding the TPOV, please join us in ROLE
DYNAMICS: Codifying Role Design and Development.
[MyPAL, please link to the program service letter]
