UPDATE NOTE: April 2010 - met with Deakin University to discuss doing a PhD and will update you on topic when more to report. Many thanks to all who responded and contacted me privately.... Andrew
I sent the following email out to a number of people regarding doing a PhD and had a number of interesting responses from CEO's, academics, consultants and friends. Below is my original email asking for comments...I am in the process of thinking about a PhD and weighing up some options for a suitable topic. I would value your insights, knowledge and experience on this matter. What do you think would be a valuable research topic? I have considered the issue listed below and wonder what your feelings are around it, or do you feel some other area may be of greater value? As my work has largely centered on the model and practices of Elliot Jaques, I would use this as a base and create a body of work relative to current day issues.
I am interested in executive teams and their effectiveness, specifically in the formulation and execution of longer term strategy. This would entail an understanding of the level of work; their capability, authority and accountability and times span of completion of work as well as the impact of the strategy.
My proposal is to test the supposition that the sum total of effectiveness of an executive team to deliver on strategy is dependent on level of work; their capability (and the exercise of discretion in judgment), authority and accountability and times span of completion of work being requisite.
If this set of suppositions are if in place is it a reliable predictor of an executive team to deliver on its strategy (longer term strategic). The test would be how much of an executive team's
effectiveness rests on the requisite level of work being present, the requisite accountabilities and authorities allocated and that the team has the capability to execute on the agreed strategy.
Due to the nature of the research historical case studies would need to be examined and for this purpose Australian (and possibly selected South African) case studies would be selected. A source of case studies is "Reaching Up from Down Under" by Doug Stace and "Westpac, the Bank that Broke the Bank" as well as some recent publication about Qantas.
Within these sources, a number of organisations have used Elliott Jaques work in various guises and for different lengths of time.
However, this is only one option is a veritable sea of abundance. Do you have any suggestions or ideas?
Please note, if u want to add a comment, you are most welcome, SCROLL to bottom of document and click on comments....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE 1Dear Andrew, thanks for your confidence in me.
I hope I can live up to it… Research on RO is always in my mind, and over the years I have thought of several initiatives (including now), but so far they have not materialized.
On one hand, I think it is crucial to extend research on RO topics, and on the other hand I am rather daunted by the difficulties involved. When I received your note, I told myself “All I have is doubts. What can I tell Andrew that may be of use to him?” An I feared that if I tried to tell you something in response to this questions months might pass, and then maybe be I would abandon the attempt altogether. Not good. So I thought a much better option is to share my doubts and concerns with you.
One alternative is to replicate “classical” research on RO. I mean by this things like time-span and stratification, fair felt pay, stratification and “mental processes”, etc. The advantage is the number of variables is limited and fairly under control. On the other hand, this would appeal mostly to academics (hopefully!) and to researchers, not so much to potential users or thinkers in other fields. And this is before any considerations on resources required, access to organizations that will support your research in them, etc.
Another alternative is pursuing broader research objectives, related to the value-adding potential of RO in organizations in society. I think this is more in line with what you mention in your note.
We already have many of these. In my mind, Elliott’s account of the Commonwealth Industries Case in chapter 17 of Social Power & the CEO is a leading example. And there are several others, including those you mention and that are new to me.
I have two kinds of doubts about this approach. The first is, do we need to keep adding new cases to the list? Of course, I am speaking from the point of view of diffusion of RO, not of that of complying with requisites for a Ph. degree, which may be your primary interest. And the second is, it is not really possible to isolate variables completely. Elliott clearly acknowledges this in the Commonwealth case.
I have a strong hunch there is a way out of this, but I don’t yet know what it is. For the time being, as I said above, all I can do is share my doubts.
Please send my regards to Verena.
H. CEO/ ACADEMIC ARGENTINA (Posted 18/3)
RESPONSE 2Dear Andrew,
Be glad to share my thoughts on a PhD with you.
There have been several unfortunate incidents where a student wanted to study this theory but was unable to find a friendly academic sponsor. Given the continuing hostility of academics to this theory, this is not a trivial consideration. I suspect finding a friendly sponsor is more of a key to successfully completing a PhD than a great topic. Many academics view RO theory as a threat. (Actually, it is.)
I completed and published the latest version of the Bibliography in Aug. 2009 and found 90 PhDs. A number of them were done in AU. Also, a good number of the 239 Related PhDs were done there as well. (If you search on 'Australia' from the top of the PhD list, I think you will find them.) [From the sponsors/ advisors you can compile a list of 'friendly academics.' Some of the PhD graduates also can give you insights on the programs. Also, some have stayed on as academics themselves
Since the original academic rejection of this theory was on the basis of lack of valid research, it may be wise of you to draw up a list of readings/sources that you will draw on to do your research. (At least a tentative list.) The items you mentioned are a good start. At some point in the process the academics will require this list anyway.)
Since I am not 'on the ground' most of my sources there and in South Africa are second-hand. I am sure I have missed many sources and they never made it into the Biblio. (I'd love to see your lists of publications and firms when you draw them up.)
A good amount of literature on TMTs (top management teams) has been done. You might look at the articles by Donald Hambrick as co-author to get a sense of the best of them. (His use of 'discretion' is very different from Elliott's.)
Don't be surprised if you have to abandon some of the best research by current academics. Many of them have done studies that are worthless. Just quietly bypass them. Show that you have read them and mastered the topic. Find what good you can use. Then move on. Don't be surprised at how few valid results they have to offer.
When you think through your topic (I am aware I have not addressed your main issue yet), think of it as a published book that will come out about 5 years from now. What will TMTs and their selectors (Boards) be interested in then? (What will the customer be willing to pay for? Both in a book and in consulting services. Ask publishers!)
By the way, does the PhD have a time-of-year application deadline there? (For example, in the US it is September of each year.)
That's it for now. Hope this has been helpful and hope to hear from you soon.
My best.
FROM: K. USA.
RESPONSE 3Andrew
I would like to have a chat about this. It looks an interesting topic. My question
are around things like;
- what does success for a team look like?
- how do external factors impact upon success and how do you eliminate these
?- do you need to compare teams in the same industry in the same market at the same
time. Etc
I. CEO AUSTRALIARESPONSE 4Andrew,
I am not an expert on research in this area – it’s very different from the more quantitative and experimental stuff that science does – but what I do see more and more is the effect of unplanned (global, external) events on strategy… i.e. capability and strategy are one thing but Rumsfeld’s “unknown, unknowns” are quite another and an increasing fact of life.
So my email to you about governance and risk – and emerging risks – is relevant here, as is innovation….. to be successful in this postmodern world now involves being strategic and nimble – if that isn’t an oxymoron! – and thinking in new ways about business models (viz the fascinating battle underway between the newspapers, the (now) mainstream electronic media (Murdoch) and the new wave (Google, Facebook, Twitter etc).
So in a way I would say that your proposed topic is not sufficiently forward looking. Didn’t we have an email exchange a way back along the lines that Elliott’s work is now a bit passé – and more fitted to modernism’s certainties and highly structured institutions? Aren’t we now having to be flatter and more nimble, more trans-disciplinary as we look for new business models and opportunities?
To be more forward looking would be to try to envisage how those ideas might be developed in a world of global change, of low C economies and of asymmetric relationships/warfare. Globalisation has changed to a more fluid concept – just look at the way iron ore pricing is changing for BHP; from agreed long term contracts to spot pricing which can change even while the ship is at sea between WA and China! Energy costs now run on 10 min spot prices….. markets are changing.
Big corporations now operate in a different world – one in which it is going to be more and more difficult to define what “effectiveness” means. In my experience there’s a world of difference now between lumbering big corporations and the rapid innovation of start-ups. Indeed, big corporations don’t actually know how to radically and quickly change their business models, if they want to innovate they buy a profitable start up! Murdoch again. If we’re to make it through the next 50 yrs it’s radical innovation we actually need.
Viz your quote “The test would be how much of an executive team's effectiveness rests on the requisite level of work being present, the requisite accountabilities and authorities allocated and that the team has the capability to execute on the agreed strategy.” This whole thing is surely going to be jerked around over time? So what is effectiveness in a new world? e.g. was General Motors effective, Toyota? (I am fascinated by the speed of innovation and change in the automobile design business here in Europe – much faster (and therefore technologically advanced and more fuel efficient) that the USA and Japan.
So in a more complex world risks change and emerging trends lean more towards systemic risks around population, water, food, climate, resources – and their interactions. What is the corporation of tomorrow going to look like and what skills, capabilities and accountabilities will it need? I’ve enjoyed reading the likes of Handy more than Jacques.
So I’d like to see you take a bolder step – don’t just test Elliott’s concepts, consider them as a past effort at understanding how people and institutions worked in a different world. What’s the story for tomorrow’s complex and changing world?
PhDs should be at the forefront of thought, brave and innovative. It’s time to move on – use what you know as a springboard for new concepts – and new business opportunities. From where I sit people need help just coping with change at the moment. We need new ways to conceptualise the emerging problems and respond to increasing rates of change. That would really be a contribution worthy of a PhD.
Hope this helps
G. CEO UKRESPONSE 5
Dear Andrew
Good to hear from you - I hope you are well. I think that the topic that you suggest is very interesting and would form a good basis for a PhD dissertation. From my point of view, high performing teams display a number of the characteristics you outline and certainly levels of capacity, authority and accountability are integral to their success. I would also be interested in how much of this is intuitive to individuals ("birds of a feather flock together") and how much is down to organisational design, discipline and the leadership direction provided.
I'm happy to have a discussion with you about this
M. CEO. AUSTRALIA (Posted 16/03)
RESPONSE 6Hi Andrew,
Lovely to hearfrom you as always and have been contemplating your message during the day.
I really think you should go for it as you've described. My main suggestion though is that somehow within the 'catch all' of capabilty somehow you include the issue of self awareness - for want of a better description and I'm sure there are better ones. As I've deliberated over ET effectiveness particularly in the last 5 years or so, it seems more and more to me that there's an equation, or a puzzle that has its root at capability to deliver strategy - based or foundational upon levels of work and exercise of discretion - but unable to be whole without the executive's ability to understand themsleves and their impact.
You can do very well as a team up to a point with personal ability to deal with complexity, roles at right level - but you can't complete the circle without the awareness part - or at least you can only reach a certain level of high performance, not outstanding performance. I'd love to talk this out further with you in person because I'm sure I'm not being highly articulate here! I've been working very closely with the executive team now for the last 6 months, and seeing how these parts come together - it's quite fascinating. Let me know when you;re next around.
Happy to talk further in need! Let me know how you get on whatever you decide. I think a PhD is definitely in order.
From L. Snr Manager AustraliaRESPONSE 7Hi Andrew,
good to hear from you, and I am very pleased to hear you are seriously considering a PhD.
I've never claimed to be an expert on SST, ROT or Jaques, but given that most management academics are completely ignorant of such matters, I guess I'm ahead of the pack in that regard. Acknowledging my own limitations, however, I am happy to provide some general thoughts on your rough proposal.
I guess my first suggestion would be to be very cautious about claiming to be able to 'test' or 'prove' the efficacy of any management theory. The difficulty is that, unlike the physical sciences, in the area of social science, where management lies, it is very difficult to make claims about the impact of any one factor or set of factors, when there are a myriad of variables impacting on executive performance.
My suggestion would be that the areas you intend to examine - time span, capability, authority and accountability - are very worthwhile indeed, and a deep examination of these issues through a series of case studies would make a marvelous doctoral thesis. To what degree such cases would actually 'test' RO theory is perhaps a bit more problematic. At the very least, however, it would provide an opportunity for a close analysis and would certainly constitute a worthy addition to our body of knowledge in this, much ignored, area of management theory.
Depending on your access to these organisations, you might wish to also examine the barriers or difficulties faced in trying to implement such an organisational model 'out of left field'.
Fundamentally, my suggestion would be to have a general area you wish to examine and to fine tune the actual question, as you proceed with your research. Which ever way you decide to proceed, you will need to devote a lot of time situating Jaques' theory amongst modern organisational theory. This will be crucial for convincing your ultimate examiners of the 'worth' of the Jaquesian model. Otherwise, you run the risk of examiners saying that the results could just as easily be explained by other management practices/theories.
I hope that is of some use to you, but I would be happy to meet over a coffee to talk it through further any time which suits.
Cheers B. Academic. Australia
RESPONSE 8Dear Andrew - My first impressions;
I like it. There is something very important about the power of teams. And the dark side of what potential is missed when such teams fail. So the topis is very important.
It seems to miss a dynamic piece - ie levels of work etc seems assessable. But what of behaviours? What of learning It may be a team that fires as a team can outperform one of higher potential. ie the interplay between potential and performance. Or maybe capability/level of work etc is what gives a team the ability to have the right dynamics?
It would be really useful if it included a field guide - how to get to the state of the high performing team - ie not just this exec team worked b/c.......and this team didn't b/c they had.......The question on my mind would be how do I take an existing business and work with it to achieve a high potential executive team that is performing to that potential - what do you do? what conversations? what changes?
I'll have a deeper read but these my first impressions
A: Snr Manager AustraliaRESPONSE 9Hi Andrew
it may be difficult to do this since you will need to essentially piece together teams historically. It may be easier to select three new teams with strategies – one who have RO in place and one who dont and one who have other documentated managment theoires in place...?I think the uncertainties in the market are so great even the best strategies get distorted with time...
Good thesis... cheers. J. CEO & MD SOUTH AFRICA
RESPONSE 10Andrew,
Good to hear from you. Challenging theme and in my view I would agree with you, but defining organisational success and then measuring it is a huge issue. Secondly, in my view there are other factors that you haven't mentioned that which are also important, some extraneous... eg Economic conditions, free markets, subsidized competitors, corruption, team dynamics and personalities, execution and pragmatism, to mention a few.
I would also focus on global companies which need greater capability - Citibank, HSBC, Alliance, Deutsche Bank, BHP, BP, Exxon, Shell, Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Singapore (as a country)
M – CEO. UKRESPONSE 11Andrew, My apologies for not responding sooner been have been in Thailand at JV Board meeting.
My initial reaction to your proposal is one of endorsement , it would make a very good piece of work and I would encourage you to proceed down this pathway.
Measuring success of Executive teams will be a challenge in itself as we have seen many failures over time but in the initial phases looked good and with extremely talented and experienced people in Leadership positions but after a number of years ,the strategy being followed was flawed and did not rise to the surface until times got tough. eg GM, Chrysler etc.
I wish you well in your endeavours
Regards R – CEO, Director, Australia
RESPONSE 12Dear Andrew,
Good for you! I admire your courage to take this on at your ripe old age. I am flattered that you are interested in my view. I spend much of my working time with helping executive teams operate in a more effective manner…I have to acknowledge I am definitely projecting my own current interest, but I might look at the role of the executive team in BOTH managing the Innovation Domain of work as well as the Operations Domain. See attached small paper I wrote recently on this topic.
Cheers,
B Consultant. Canada.RESPONSE 13In my opinion, as the world is moving towards financial modeling, this means that we need to be able, as a consultant in financial benefits, to show how a company
1) Can improve their Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT) / FTE performance, by
2) removing the excess layers and roles, in order to
3) value / compute what the excess is currently costing them in hard $$$ , in other words being able to calculate the cost of management structure and benchmark it with (different) financial drivers of creating shareholder value, to
4) redeploy some of the wasted compensation into NEW roles to drive innovation and growth, (which means being able to make the distinction between current and future growth indicators), to
5) create sustainable/viable companies where people can contribute in accordance to their full potential.
It is not the team that makes the difference, but the management structure set-up. Look at the NOPAT development over the last five years of a company and relate it to general measures of ‘overlaps’, ‘gaps’ ... Here you will find relationships with strategy excecution effectiveness (this is what makes the difference in growth).
(YOUR PROPOSAL ...)addresses person-role fits. In my opinion, you need to take into account three types of mismatches (person-role, person-manager and role-role). The dysfunctional effect of role-role mismatches is very often underestimated.
Your assumption is that you will find executive teams who have known a certain stability during the last years (or will have them in the next years). It will be very hard to find these ! Do not focus on the team. Focus on the organisation !
You can easily collect your own data ! Published case material is rarely covering the specific RO focus.
Consultant J. Belguim.
RESPONSE 14Nice to hear from you and fascinating work you are doing - terrific to see someone taking executive team effectiveness seriously.
Your request is probably something best handled by way of a conversation so let me know what would suit you - I am in Sydney relatively frequently.
I had dinner with XXXX recently and he spoke very well of you and the work you are doing - he mentioned some work you have done in testing underprivileged kids to determine capability and capacity. I am developing a program to find jobs for capable but disadvantaged kids and would value a chat re the work you have done.
Hope to catch up soon
D. CEO AUSTRALIA
