SALS Conference 1989: Tape 1 - Elliott Jaques - Part 1

Speaker A You. Can I just leave it like this for the moment? It's the opposite of that. Different. And you oh, you've got it. Only it's not I get it. Fine. Okay. All right. You don't need this, do you? I'll let you leave it. Thanks very much. What I'd like to do this morning, I discussed with Dan and Katie the notion of getting into continuing problems about the scientific nature of what we're at. It's a problem that's my own central interest, and there are a lot of difficulties. I think it might be useful if I recall to you, first of all, that the development of something called social analysis arose specifically as an issue in scientific method. It's only very, very recently, and this is a major shift that's taking place at the present time that I think needs to be considered. It's an interesting one. It's only very recently that SST, or social analytic work or development of requisite organization has begun to become something that might be thought of as a consultancy issue, a practice issue that's brand new. And I think that possibility has only arisen now because enough that has been put together over something over 40 years now by what, dozen people, something like that, having to do with a sounder approach, let me put it that way. Choose my words carefully to the development of understanding of the relationship between social institutions and individual behavior than has been the case so far. And the starting point was post World War II in London at Tavistock Institute in the early days, where the specific aspiration of the institution was to develop this kind of knowledge and understanding. The question at that time we discussed very great length in terms of how does one gain access to the nature of life in social institutions, the straight access issue. And Tommy Wilson, one of the members of the institute, was well known for his very brief summary quips, and we were using a medical analogy. And as he used to put it, in medicine, you can't walk up to people in the street and say, look, would you mind coming in and let us cut your abdomen open in the interests of science? But if people come with a pain in the stomach, the issue is quite different, and you gain access to the abdomen if that's where your interests happen to lie. And one had noticed the same thing, it still goes on. You cannot gain access to real ongoing life, real ongoing events in social institutions by going along and saying, in the interests of science, may we come in and do some research? Some of you have possibly been engaged in attempting that and, you'll know, the real difficulties. So we use a medical model. And the notion was that of working with social institutions that had a problem and wanted help with tackling the particular problems that they had. And that was the basis, foundation of the work of the institute. What has happened in the event is that about the only kinds of organization that tend to come along with difficulties of that kind are so called bureaucratic organizations. Political parties by and large don't or haven't there's no reason why they shouldn't but hasn't quite happened that way and over the years there has been a wider and wider range of institutions but by and large we've been saddled with so called bureaucratic hierarchical organizations with as I say, some exceptions. Some of you were mentioning them yesterday. Jillian's work with the clergy for example the church which not the same aldro's work with partnerships and I mean there are other examples around but the centerpiece has been very much a bureaucratic hierarchy. I make that point because I need to state that the intention never was to gain understanding about bureaucratic hierarchies alone. That's one kind of social institution and there are many others, some of which remain as yet untouched in fact. Now as I say, this was a straight scientific endeavor. How does one gain access to social institutions in such a way as to try to understand better what's going on? Now, I mentioned that just as a bit of background because that kind of work has gone on for numbers of years through the say it's, but during the 80s really, that some of the notions of possible development of consultancy practices began to arise. And that has to do with the possibility that maybe enough knowledge had been gained to make such practice feasible and a reality. Now what I would like to do then is to continue to look at some of the scientific issues that we now get into and would like to talk here this morning on the basis of a dialogue, if we can run it as a dialogue. I'll put it this way that if none of you raises any questions what time do we finish down? A quarter to twelve? Yeah, fine, right. I will be talking until a quarter to twelve. No time for a discussion now. Let me make some general propositions first and then look back at what might be necessary in order to get at these issues. The propositions are these I jotted them down last night and this is some of it self evident I think but certainly hasn't been self evident to me over a period of time. Once had other ideas, some perhaps not so evident and maybe more controversial. The Tavistock work grew up in the setting of groups and groups and groups. Everything was groups. In those days. We had a very close relationship with Kurt Lewin, worked with him, with moreno. And as a matter of fact, when we first started working, we laid it down as a proposition that, if possible, we would avoid seeing any individuals. We worked on the basis of seeing people in small groups of three to six reporting back to groups, discussions with groups and so on. Everything was group dynamics and that's when one came unstuck, a lot of group work still goes on. It's this notion of unstructured groups. And my belief now is that there just is no such thing. Proposition one is that all human interaction goes on within role, within structured role relationships. I know of no freestanding, even interpersonal relationships always in role. Is that clear? As a proposition? The nearest I could think of as a freestanding interpersonal relationship would be friendship, which is a case now that interests me very much. But even there, there are some rules of the game they must go on within the law. For example, there are certain rules and regulations laid down in the culture and it's in terms of social structure that people can know up to a point where they are with each other. They provide the background for the assumptions we can make on what's required, what's appropriate in relationships. Now, I think that's an extremely important proposition and this has come out sharply. Steve will talk about this on Wednesday. If one starts looking at leadership, the assumption that there's something called leadership out there as some kind of personality makeup or something of that sort no leadership other than in role relationships. There are roles that carry leadership, so called leadership accountability, no freestanding leadership.

Speaker B Excuse me.

Speaker A Yes, shoot.

Speaker C People meet for the first time. The argument is either that each of them is assuming a role in relation to the other one or the initial gambit is to discover what the roles are going to be for the rest of the relationship.

Speaker A Well, I thought about that one, and I think your first point is the one that there are assumptions about what's appropriate in the culture under the circumstances, otherwise you don't know how to behave. And that's the lost feeling you get when you're in a strange culture and literally don't know how to behave. Cultural anthropologists, there's lots of documentation on that what's his name's work about how close strangers stand and the very big difference between the Middle Eastern nations, for example, in this regard, as I understand it, and ourselves, their appropriate distance. There are all kinds of assumed regulations. I gather it's quite uncomfortable sitting in a hotel lobby. This is one of what's his name, the anthropologist who's got going on this in a hotel perhaps in Cairo or something like that to find somebody, a stranger standing literally right beside your chair. So no, there are what's the role implication? Well, the role implication is that there are two people and there are structured assumptions about appropriate behavior, required behaviors. You're in role of two strangers standing in a hotel lobby. And those are not just wide open, they're highly regulated.

Speaker D What about a situation in which you've got a leader lex group in a given cultural environment?

Speaker A I don't think this is interesting.

Speaker D And an individual takes over the group and leads it. Are you saying that that is normally.

Speaker A Well, it's interesting, rod Wilford Ben, when he formulated the concept of the leaderless group, did not mean a leaderless group. Wilford was absolutely clear about this, knew him very well, very close friend like Tommy Wilson. He tended to be cryptic in his formulations as well. And he did not mean a leaderless group. What he meant by a leaderless group is a group situation. It's a structured situation, in fact, in terms of assumptions that made it possible for individuals in that group to do something called take the lead, rotating. But the leader's group is certainly not unstructured.

Speaker D I'm not saying it's unstructured.

Speaker A Sorry.

Speaker D Perhaps my mistaken assumption was that there was not such a thing as leadership. I mean, clearly we're going to get onto this whole thing somehow evolves from the culture and the rules, but that's patently not the case.

Speaker A Well, that's an interesting one. I just like to make a comment on that just by the buy, but leave a lot of these just going to leave a lot of issues open this morning, that's for sure. But the proposition is that you have an individual who will do something called take the lead in that group. Is that right? And in doing so will opt into a known role. There'd be rules and regulations. And what I'm saying is that the relationship between the individuals, between the so called leader and that group will be well structured. There'll be well known rules and regulations. Now, the fact is, as you know yourself in these leaderless group situations, that different individuals will do something called take the lead under different circumstances as the group develops. And for reasons which I say let's come back to I have plenty of time to talk about this. Let's leave this issue on the agenda for Wednesday morning. I would like to argue that I don't know of any characteristics, human characteristics called leader that are separable from the requirements of the role. I know of no special human characteristics called leadership qualities separable from the requirements of the particular role. We're disagreeing here at the moment, clearly. No, I just want to get the propositions out sharply is what you're saying.

Speaker D When you say all human interactions occur in a role.

Speaker E By role, what you really mean don't.

Speaker A Choose, just context is a context, a.

Speaker D Social context bounded by space and time. And we can't exist and relate to each other unless there's some kind of.

Speaker A Context where we can create shared well, part of context that for me would be a bit too general, I think if by context you mean a system of related positions, that's what I mean by role. A role for me is a position in a social network of positions. That context, but it also presupposes as a catalog. In other words, there is a catalog of roles.

Speaker C I think of myself as I'm one of those and he's one of these other things.

Speaker A And that causes the structure, the conception of role is something that exists in external social reality. And social reality is one of the subjects I want to raise this morning for discussion. That is where we can make assumptions that given your being in a particular role that I can assume certain kinds of conduct in relation to you.

Speaker F I can accept this, that all human interaction does have such a role latitude about how one actually carries out behavior. There are a lot of role negotiation that seems to go on in any kind of relationship and even something like being this is a bit separate from workers, we've been using it here. But in my own research, in terms of looking at what it means to be a mother, how one is an effective mother or a good mother, behaviors one parent do that and the timing of the behavior are all incredibly different and it's almost as if it's very difficult to pin down. What does it mean to be a.

Speaker E Mother.

Speaker F What does it mean to be a manager?

Speaker A Well, I think it's in that sense that Morris's point about setting context is accurate, that roles set limits within which people behave.

Speaker D One more piece to it maybe. And that is also before you get to the idea of global though, you also have to get to the idea of intention. In other words, if two people meet, they have some kind of intention, whether it's just to get to know them, if they don't know where they are. When I've been in a foreign country, I've been lost. I have an intention to figure out what's going on so I make contact. So it's the intention that may create the role, the role I choose based on.

Speaker A Well, what you've done. However, I don't think you haven't created a new role. Afresh what's name describes it as roles, sort of panoply of possibilities that exist out there and you choose one, in effect you take up a role. What role you take up certainly is going to be determined by intention. I tell you why. One of the reasons for raising this is a proposition I want to come to because we've been forcing ourselves into boxes that are a bit worrying in a way but seeing what happens if you do. The proposition is this that in setting up social institutions, the art of social institutional development is to provide circumstances in terms of role relationships. That is, conduct requirements, behavioral requirements, such that every individual shall be free to use his or her temperament, express his or her temperament desires and so on to the full and definition of normality. This came up last night. And that a healthy social institution is an institution that will make it possible for normal people to do so. And the definition of normal here would be in terms of social interaction, a personal makeup which enables individuals to take part in relationships with others on a basis of trust and mutual support and that that's what normal is about. Got to the point where I want to counterpoint something called because I want to get into the whole notion of requisiteness and what one means by it and why the choice of that particular term and possibility for discussion that a good social institution is an institution that provides for the full range of human behaviors and that it is no part. This is an important, not unimportant one for what goes on in some organizational development work today. It is no part of employing organizations in any way to tamper with the temperament and natural modes of behavior of their people. But the orientation is to develop requisite institutions, that is, social institutions that allow so called normal individuals simply to behave freely. So this is more than just a passing idea. The application of some of this the leadership stuff Steve will talk about on Wednesday. Your orientation here has substantial consequences in reality. This is the point. These are basic assumptions. All I'm suggesting is not that you go along this particular line of thought, but these questions really have to be answered. Otherwise we get into a sort of kind of hollow mechanistic consultancy of a kind that there's too much around anyhow.

Speaker D I'm certainly confused here. I don't understand how people can behave freely. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by the term freely when you said that individuals behave as per their role.

Speaker A Within the limits set by the role. That it's a limit setting construct within.

Speaker C The limits which they accept in the role. In other words, it's the fact that they buy into the deal that frees them to behave within the role. If they're assigned a role with which they are not comfortable or do not accept, then they will violate that role. They will not feel free.

Speaker A That's right. I agree. That no problem. That's right.

Speaker C So in organizational design, you assign roles, you define roles, but the organization becomes effective and viable when people take up those roles willingly.

Speaker A Well, that's not difficult. In employment organizations, which I was referring to, you get into some other difficulties when you come outside them and that is if you seek employment, there are conditions.

Speaker B I found the difficulty many times at the point where a person is changing role within the organization, particularly through promotion, development, management and some of what the required behaviors are for. Taking on that role at an interpersonal level with people who used to be peers becomes the real dilemma. They want the promotions, they want that position, but they don't want to take on that role. They'd like to have a position. Buying the limits of the role comes probably they're unwillingness to live with it.

Speaker C What does the term position mean? Is the question of collecting titles and or purposes to want a position but not the role?

Speaker A No, I think I'd want to change that language. There in fact, that they want the status and the perks that go with that particular role but they don't really want the role. They don't want the limits that's right.

Speaker E They may want to interpret the role. I think you talk about the latitude.

Speaker A Of behaviors within a role.

Speaker E Lots of organizations are much more rigid about how they see fulfillment of a role than attainment. I think there are some latitudes and I think or to take on behaviors that might be predecessors.

Speaker A Well this then raises the problem of the meaning of requisite because I don't think there are to my knowledge anyhow any what I would call requisite institutions around the place. And I think the proposition you're making changes substantially the moment one begins to think of social institutions with positions set up, set up to do whatever their purposes are. That set up organizational structures relevant to the purpose and to provide positions that provide the opportunity for real, honest to God, let me put it quotes now normal human beings to get on with it, with all the coloring of all the different personalities and all the rest of it. This is raising an issue at this stage and we'll come back to this.

Speaker B To say that all interactions go within is that also to say then that.

Speaker A It'S possible to find a requisite within? Sorry, say that again.

Speaker B Is it possible then to say that it's possible to define a requisiteness within?

Speaker A I would hope so. It's an interesting question. Don't know. I'll stay with the bureaucratic hierarchy, I think there but elsewhere I don't know when I take a look at partnerships, for example, where's Aldo? He knows that's different and that's more difficult. So I don't know. It's a nice open question but let me make clear what I'm talking about here. I really mean this that what I mean by roles are nodes in a network string simply that always with relationships and in terms of social roles always carrying accountability that is obligations and authority. That's generic for all role relationships, I think. Now the other side of this is that these role systems have very very powerful impact on human behavior, individual conduct much more than I think we ordinarily allow for. I mean vastly more. And that's one of the problems as far as I'm concerned anyhow. And that is one thing I've never been able to do in working with people in industry, for example is to convey any sense of whether one's right or wrong of the size of the problem that exists with our current institutions. And it's perhaps not unfortunate that it's these bureaucratic systems that are the ones that most easily because they're executively structured could ask for collaboration because they have such a dominant impact in society today. They're all over the place and I think that they're not only by and large socially unhealthy institutions but unhealthy to, I find a very frightening degree an enormous human waste. And so there's a problem here proposition is that if we can give some meaning to let's just call it good organization for the moment, that there is possible here a release of just an enormous amount of human creativeness and satisfaction. But the proposition is, I say forget the personalities of the individuals and let's focus on the development of the institutions. And I don't just mean structure, I mean organizational structure and an acronym Rosp to get through to requisite organizational structure, processes and practices. By structure I mean just straight organizational structuring processes. I mean everything, all the subsystems from planning subsystems, information subsystems through to the key HR subsystems of personal effectiveness, appraisal compensation systems and so on. And by practices I just mean the detailing of precise practices within the general processes. And I say the proposition is let's leave individual personality alone as a matter for the individual and focus on getting these things quotes right. When you say leave it alone, you.

Speaker D Mean leave it alone after one is in the organization?

Speaker A Or could it be a viable concept in deciding whether someone should be admitted to selection processes will be part of this? Oh no, the selecting thing. You're not suggesting that an analytic introvert.

Speaker D Would be a great salesman?

Speaker A No, not necessarily, but sometimes better salesman than you might think. I'm quite familiar with that too, depending on your organizational setup sorry, but not for used guard. Well, that's out beyond you know that's a hell of a thought when you come right down to it. Thanks for opening up new possibilities. No, I mean really, just imagine the effect on customers to be confronted by that sort of thing. I think they might flock to that lot.

Speaker D Organizational values and ethos. Are you suggesting that as long as things are trustful, moving towards trustful situation, that the organizational culture value doesn't make a difference inside the organization moving forward?

Speaker A No, I want to look at values and culture as part of the package that's on what I would call the organizational side of the package. Stuff you can really do something about but not trying to change individual personalities. Leave that on the table for the moment. Um, now the whole notion of freedom has come up as well and this gets away from what I would think of as the 19th century European conception, french English on conception of freedom as freedom from constraint, which doesn't hold anyhow and there's no such thing as freedom from constraint. I'd want to look at freedom as the existence of open ended situations in which people can move freely into life and living within I'm going to repeat the word because I want to come to requisite and what I mean by it within requisite constraints, that freedom is always freedom within constraint. And the big issue is what about the nature of the constraints? And so it focuses on the constraints rather than on something called the elimination of constraints, which I think is a very crude act as I said I just wanted to start out with some quite general issues then assumptions about the individual and proposition. We really need to move away from what I'm now inclined to call pigeon theory of human behavior to a conception of human behavior that assumes that individuals really get the greatest satisfaction out of the opportunity to express their capabilities to the full, to use their creativity and enthusiasm and to get along well with other people. I don't think that's all there is in human nature but that that is there available and we're not tapping it and we're not tapping it, we're restricting it in all kinds of ways. Struck me last night in the discussion, I think it was Dan mentioned the conception of reward that's got embedded in it, a whole pigeon theory orientation. I think I may have left it in the book one place, I'm not sure, but I don't think you'll find reward anywhere in that book. And that's not an accidental oversight. People do not work for reward. Reward is a reward and punishment concept. It's straight conditioning pigeon theory stuff. It's the 1 minute manager and all the rest of it. It contains a whole wrong orientation. I mention that because I would imagine it's the one thing I could pick on that probably you all use and to draw your attention to the fact that every time you talk about reward you're making a pigeon theory assumption about people and people really ain't like that. And it puts the emphasis the other way around the development of institutions that provide people with the opportunity to express their own natural enthusiasm, interest and so on. And the problem, major managerial leadership problem is how not to stumify that. But that's what we do.

Speaker C Doesn't this deny the existence of fear and greed?

Speaker A No, I was just going to say I didn't think that's all there is in human nature. Now let me come to that side. It's a theory of original virtue and original sin, I think, and I have no doubt about the destructiveness in human nature either. And certainly the theory of unconscious processes to which I would describe and have always found useful analytic work is to assume that there really is deep seated destructiveness and hostility in human beings. Not to overlook the fact, however, that there really are very, very powerful values of the kind that I've just described. And for me, another way of cutting into requisite organization is can we develop the kinds of institutions that provide opportunity for the expression of what I would call the phylogenic in individuals? If you take a look at I can illustrate this with institutions nobody's business. Our key institutions in fact, not only encourage but require the expression of greed and selfishness and so on. Institutions have effects on people. Our compensation systems, for example, so called bargaining practices. Bargaining procedures are procedures in which if you do not go in with the attitude to hell with everybody else. We're out to get what we can for our own group. Do you know what happens to you if you're nice nurses and teachers? Do you know what happens to nice nurses and teachers who ain't greedy enough in their negotiations? You won't get by. So I want to talk about antirequis institutions as social institutions and one wants to really look at them and say, okay, what aspects of human nature do these particular institutions require you to express in order satisfactorily to fill the role? And the ones we have at the present time are so strongly inductive of let's call it the evil or negative side of human nature. I think it's really quite overwhelming.

Speaker C This is where I have a bit of difficulty with what you were saying earlier about organizations not being there to fix up the characters of the people in England. Because it seems to me the bad guys have a way of muscling the good guys around, as you just described in the case of nice nurses and teacher. And I'm wondering whether requisite organization can.

Speaker A Neutralize such well, let me put it this way. I don't think it's the be all and end all, but if one at least has institutions that don't require the negative, I'm saying our current institutions require the expression of greed and selfishness and devil take the rest or you get nowhere.

Speaker D Long time ago I read the same society, maybe the first book I read in this field.

Speaker B We have societies that make people insane. And my experience in many of yours.

Speaker D I'm sure when you talk to people.

Speaker B Who have soul destroying jobs, you find.

Speaker D They like them, they don't want to change. Something has put them into that way of viewing themselves and viewing their organization in the world. Stand back from it and look at.

Speaker A How awful the work really is for whom we believe.

Speaker D I believe that the work that they are doing is soul destroying.

Speaker A You do?

Speaker D Yes. They also don't seem to dilemma here.

Speaker A Look. You mean boring and monotonous jobs or something like that. Is that right?

Speaker D Now, these are level one people, presumably. I don't know.

Speaker A Well, I define a boring role as a role in which there is an imbalance between the individual's level of capability and the level of work. Is that all right? I'd like this notion of outsiders saying that's terrible work is, I think, outsiders. We outsiders have to look at our own orientation here in terms of what we would find satisfactory.

Speaker B What about a true victim adolescent who's been abused physically and emotionally, a battered wife, an employee who's been severely abused by a repressive manager who is using their full capability to survive in an environment. And we know clinically how difficult it.

Speaker C Is to get people to actually even.

Speaker B Remove themselves from that environment. That's a nonrequisite environment in which they are required to behave in the most aggressive, hostile way and they will. Want to stay there they will work to remain sabotage.

Speaker A Right. That usually goes along I mean we usually say a behavior of that kind that doesn't feel quite normal. Is that right? We use a criterion of abnormality there. I think some of them will if.

Speaker D You'Re in it for enough years, it is normal.

Speaker B And when I let myself hear it in their language, they are absolutely normal. They're living in a world they know.

Speaker A Okay this takes us into a prime issue of definition of normality. That's why I reacted when it was raised yesterday. And what are your assumptions about what constitutes normal behavior and normal makeup? That's a rough one and absolutely critical. Some of you know colleague of mine, Dan Miller, certainly Sheila does. And Jillian Ian. And we've been talking for years now, back 20 years or more, trying to get through to some conception of what one means by normal personality. And say to you, my current conception of normal personality is this. And that is an individual who can get along and get satisfaction in a requisite institution. Now there's a kind of tautology in there. I know I said I was going to raise some problems this morning. These are absolutely fundamental issues. And when you say that's normal, what you mean you're using the definition of normal you're using is that the person has adjusted to the social situation and I don't think I've been through that one. That one I think won't wear down. That's one of the definitions that it's a common one and you really can't get by with that's.

Speaker B The experience of the victim really confronts us with that.

Speaker A No absolutely agree. And that takes you into funnies.

Speaker D What you're saying normal.

Speaker A One of the difficulties that one of the things much psychology is criticized for. And that is get this in psychiatry that normality has to do with the ability to adjust the society. And you know that's got all kinds of problems in mean what about know people then bring up Hitler and what about the gang who are unable to adjust to Hitler Germany for example? I don't think this adjustment to social situation whatever the social situation might be will do so again some problems to leave around.

Speaker D And yet you live under your authorities for a manager rewarding differential.

Speaker A Well, the term I would use is recognition. It's my entitlement. You don't reward me with compensation. Am I doing the work that I contracted to do? Well, what's the reward? It's a wrong conception. My entitlement, contractual entitlement. I want you as my manager to recognize my level of effectiveness and to give me my due. It's not in your gift. This isn't your rewarding me. Thank you very much sir or madam. The notion behind reward clear about this is that somehow if you reward me, I'll respond positively and that unless you do, I won't.

Speaker F What about the reverse punishment? I can see where you say man isn't rewarded doesn't work particularly tangible, very clear consultancy that I people go out of their way to avoid punishment certainly will not change their behavior as a result.

Speaker A Well, I've kept the concept of penalties, drop rewards, but kept penalties for a very particular reason. Penalties have to do with going outside the agreed limits of roles like stealing if you're a cashier but it's going outside prescribed limits. And this is an interesting one. There are very few controls on this. You can steal quite a while without being you can steal for longer than you can get by with sort of substandard effectiveness but the price of being caught is very different. So I want to retain a concept of penalties having to do with what happens if a person consistently goes outside established limits of the role because that's breaking down the system and that's where we get into issues of dismissal, for example. So penalties and recognition, penalties and entitlements if you like, but not the reward conception. Now, as I say, there's an underlying conception of human nature here. This means that you don't have bonuses and you don't have peacework and all that stuff. The concept of incentives goes some things like that.

Speaker C Excuse me, you said a concept of human nature. It more like a concept of human dignity because I think the rewards and punishments do jerk people around.

Speaker A Oh, they jerk them around is exploitable to that extent.

Speaker C One assumes that people being jerked around aren't having much fun but they are acting within the limits of human nature.

Speaker A Yeah, all I'm saying is I think that's not all there is to human nature and if you use the reward conception, you will not, I think, good evidence for this get the release of individual creativeness and innovation and so on that you're looking for that incentive systems in fact suppress innovativeness I can demonstrate that right, left and center. I'm talking about a full release of what people really get satisfaction of out of which is working at full steam with full capability. These are all propositions, I'm not for consideration but depending on your assumptions, you will have very, very different range of meanings for something called requisite organization. I think these assumptions are critical indeed, looking at and so what one got into was the question of if you adopt this orientation, how does one go about getting at the design? Let me just leave the issue open, more open for a moment of more effective rather than less effective social institutions. And big question is it possible to develop some kind of scientific foundation for that? And that takes us into the question of what one means by a scientific foundation. And my next proposition is that if you take a look at so called organizational science and management science and where we are and institutional development that except for the political science field where for what, 2000 years or more at least a lot of constructive thought has been put into the issue of development of institutions. The moment to get outside that I'm going to make as a serious proposition that the state of play in the field at the moment is the last stages of alchemy in the mid 16th century. I didn't put that alchemy thing in the book as a joke. I was persuaded to take out a lovely picture of an alchemist with a big hat as being just going a bit too far. But I really mean that. And I'm saying I think it is a demonstrable fact that there is no science. And the base of that proposition is this that in courses on so called scientific method there is always a lot of emphasis upon observation, systematic observation, systematic recording and then sometimes even through to experimental work and experimental method and so on. But the first thing that happens is usually left out of the descriptions. And that is there has to be a univocal vocabulary. That is, a vocabulary of terms, a taxonomy such that one term has one meaning and one meaning alone. And interestingly, the people who were taught that in their first year as I found some time ago, are your pharmacists. The first thing you get taught when you go in is one term, one substance because if you don't, it is mayhem. Now, I don't know of a single term that is I don't know of a single agreed concept in the whole of our field and I'm including this room that has the same meaning for everybody. Now, it may or may not be serious. You may think this is just a matter of semantics and so on. It means that you can't think. It means you can't talk. It means that we can waste a lot of time at a conference like this thinking we're talking to each other. I saw a lot of heads nod last night, for example, when a few of you mentioned you're interested in entrepreneurial organizations. Everybody was assuming you all know what we mean by an entrepreneurial organization. Is that right? Yeah, I joined that group. I know what entrepreneurial organization means to one person in this room. Flyn. He's had to sort this out. He's had to teach the damn stuff. I wouldn't have a clue as to what it meant to any of you. Do you think you'd have a clue as to what it meant to anybody else in the room? I mean, just a single clue. And what's the difference between an entrepreneurial organization and a bureaucratic one?

Speaker C Obviously, if there is a difference, it has something to do with differences in the role relationships amongst the people in an entrepreneurial.

Speaker A Yeah, that's obvious.

Speaker C Which means well, in that case continue the laugh.

Speaker A No, what differences presumably has something not.

Speaker C To do with managerial relationships as defined, does it?

Speaker A How does it? That's interesting because one of the uses of entrepreneurial is that it really has to do with managerial stuff only you want your managers to be entrepreneurial. And what's his name said, well, that doesn't quite click. And he called it intrapreneurial. That solves the problem. Look.

Speaker C I would be laughing too, apparently, because I'm on that side of the argument. But what I'm trying to teach out, if there is a distinction between something.

Speaker A No, all I'm trying no, I'm trying to make another point that any assumptions that we have that we're all talking about the same thing are doomed. That's the only point I'm making. Does it matter? I think it mattered like hell. How are we to think and talk? And Alchemy is lovely. I've gone into this deep. I just got interest in the whole business. And one of the points is that you couldn't define key concepts. I mean, there was one concept, the philosopher's stone. Well, you all know what a philosopher's stone is. Only you could find one. And they were highly skilled metal founders. Carl, know this one. These were your metal founders. These are your metallurgists 2000 years of history. No measuring instruments, no way of defining the temperature of melts, but they could make damn good alloys. The good ones could anyhow, right? And your instruments were potato peels that you'd dump into the melt and see how quickly they went brown, the more courageous of you and wet finger and run it through the melt. I just write poured. No, I mean, it's a good tub molders still do that. They love showing off in the founders, but no language. And I'm really putting it to you that we aren't going to get any possibility of scientific development until terms like grade and entrepreneur and bureaucracy a bedevilling one at the moment, I find is the meaning of level. That's a rough one, I can tell you. I know I certainly had the difficulty myself, and I know a lot of you have the difficulty on what's the difference between a level and a stratum or doesn't it matter? Well, it matters. All right, talk about level one, level two, level three, or stratum one. Stratum two stratum three. Does it matter? You probably don't like that. And very few people like the term stratum. Everybody seems to prefer the word level. It's a more euphonious term or something like that. But I didn't go for stratum for no reason. And the reason is that it isn't level. Good reason. You need two concepts and level has perfectly good, everyday, meaningful. We have bands and then there are points within bands, two concepts. You with me? How about having two terms? Anything wrong with that? In the natural sciences, they tend inclined to refer to this as state. State. They talk about H 20 in liquid state, vapor state, crystal state, right? And then they've got the term level and they don't talk about the H 20 water level. Water level, in fact, has a very nice meaning. It's that reading at water level 12ft right, we need both got to talk about level of work. And Carl knows this and Mark knows this. And CRA got into some confusion over this. A lot of managers in CRA were surprised when the new pay structure came out that it had brackets because they understood that the pay level for such and such a level was so and so and that this was a terrible system because it didn't allow you to have any discrimination in between. Everybody in the same organization layer would have the same pay. And that just didn't seem right, seemed silly. And sorting that out on managerial courses was a problem. You're speaking to managers. Your words have an enormous impact on them, make no mistake about it. And when you say reward, do you know what managers think? They picture pigeons, I can tell you that. They really do. When you talk about these things as levels, that confuse them. They don't like the word stratum either, as I found out, particularly geologists in mining. That one's always galled me. But we need a term for this thing and for these things within. Is that right? Any suggestions? Are you with me? I mean, do you understand what I'm talking about?

Speaker C You use the word band yourself when.

Speaker A You were describing what's one possibility you could call this the band. There's a choice of words. Band, layer, stratum. You're going to need all of them because you're going to need things brackets, pay brackets. There are a lot of things around the place that need describing. I'm going to argue that an absolute prerequisite for any further development is the development of an agreed systematic language with precise boundary definition. And I want to pursue that a bit more because what we're talking about is the nature of social reality. And that's the tough one. Sorry. Cron didn't hear right across the organization.

Speaker D Nobody liked strata.

Speaker B Strata wandered all over.

Speaker A Twisted. Is that the trouble? I didn't realize that was that it? That's how? Oh, God. And you can't win. But the point is, I really honestly think we have to get some language and stick with it. And for a group like this, it's absolutely crucial because you can't make any propositions. There are no testable propositions without a unit. Difficult language. The courage of the training. People always endears them, to me, in a way. Particularly the so called management training departments. The idea that you train without a concept of what a manager is think about it.