In our opinion, one of the least understood mechanisms of work
design is the LeaderROLE™, and with an extension of that, the
design of roles in an organization to get work done.
PRIMARILY, we think this comes from a set of assumptions @BS
centered around "equality", sameness, and an idea that because
people can learn, they will, and after they do, they will use
the learning symmetrically.
These basic assumptions cause us to focus role creation on the
work, or strategy to get work done rather than as a point of
respect for individual differences.
Diversity in how we reason, or go about thinking,
emotionalizing, or attending to work both consciously and
subconsciously, brings about a new set of questions for role
designers.
Understanding that people reason at a level of hierarchical
complexity and within a range of those limits, leaders should
develop more horizontal complexity than vertical complexity
over time.
Horizontal complexity, or horizontal sophistication
of the network of understanding within a range of vertical
complexity is a big key to learning most job roles.
However, when we disregard the ideas that we are in fact bound
by limits in our vertical complexity and how we can range up
to and past that potential over time, we set people up to
fail.
THIS DOESN’T MEAN that everything is deterministic based on
vertical complexity or what we can refer to as hierarchical
complexity. Yet, respecting the capacity to reason in a
particular space-time situation can bring about more
efficient, effective, and sustainable work flows @F-L-O-W.
The other portion of this argument stems from being able to
organize ourselves well and ask/get help when the ranges of
our own abilities begin to show up as limits.
HOWEVER, this collaborative approach means that we have to
adopt the idea that we do have limits, that we can begin to
recognize them, design with them and then create systems which
allow for collaboration using this information.
AND this requires a huge leap in our ego understanding of what
is good and bad about this process.
THIS WILL BE THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE to
overcome.
Yet, it still means that we should begin to create density and
frequency of the memes required to help us navigate these
barriers to change, as well as the turbulence created by
adopting new assumptions about the way people manage tasks.
MANY will discount the ideas here because they are too complex
and thus require too much change or flexibility–beyond which
most systems are incapable of managing.
But throughout this process, we hope to be able to make the
leadership case for beginning to embrace the idea of using
hierarchical complexity in design roles @F-L-O-W.
ONE point of contention will be in drawing discrete lines for
what appears to be a continuous process of making meaning and
sense of things that are not in a discrete format.
AND YET, there are discrete lines surrounding how we reason.
THIS dilemma seems to be insurmountable and might be without
Models of Hierarchical Complexity, and while it comes with
particular cautions and disclaimers, proceeding in this
fashion may provide us with the easiest way to offset
accelerating complexity in our life, work, and relationships.
You need to be reminded that the shifts in attribution here
are key, and that as we find new ways of describing what are
very difficult problems to solve, that in the process we can
redefine the LeaderROLE and it’s constituent parts.
In a 4 session discovery process, we are going to outline the
process as we have developed it thus far with the team Mike is
using to reference the work, strategy, and role design
@F-L-O-W.
You may register for this program beginning now and until June
14, 2013, for a fee of $197, and $297 afterwards. Class
begins June 24 and continues each evening that week.
NOTE: All classes will be recorded for you
incase you want to re-listen or if you miss a class.
You can register for this program for a tuition of $297. To
get this program and 9 other programs for a "certificate"
price, see our 2013
offer here.
|
