SALS Conference 1989: Tape 5 - Elliott Jaques - Part 5

Speaker A Tasks and what work looks like at different layers or strata of organization. You can certainly do that. Others Dan also mentioned some of you interested in kind of I think that's correct, Anne. Yeah, just think of that. It's a good idea.

Speaker B What have we reviewed that is left on the table?

Speaker A One out, two, three, no, four function alignment. That's the same sort of thing. Performance versus personal effectiveness. Not really. There's a point there I'd like to make sometime during next hour. Incentives, motivation and so on. This was Dan's idea about 2030. Sorry, you think we have covered it? I think we haven't covered it. And non bureaucratic structures we had a gander around, I think. So there's that. And any other perhaps more urgent issues arising out of discussion yesterday or group discussions or whatnot that we could look at together?

Speaker B I was wondering, Dan, would this be the time when you'd be commenting on the HR function and what the work looks like at the upper level? This is where we might get into those kinds of pictures. It's one of those structural pieces, probably, of straighter seven entity. What are the jobs in there?

Speaker A All right, well, I'll tell you what. Let me just tap in and see if this is where we are and possibility of useful discussion. I say there is one, at least very substantial point on Five that I would like to mention. And we'll leave time for it, but shall we plow in around here? First of all, I think these two are connected topics and perhaps an open discussion. I think the most useful thing I could do would be to raise this in terms of problems and take a look at Stratum seven, Stratum six, Stratum Five organization and Functions and Problems. And let me couch it in terms of problems because we might get the most useful discussion out of it that way first and then bring out the whole range of difficulties that are there slap in front of. I know a number of us I include myself with a number of you whom I know are facing these problems right now. When you get into corporate organization, stratum Seven, Stratum Eight, these difficulties arise. The working proposition, which sometimes is very difficult to arrange in practice and therefore one wonders about the proposition would be something of this order that there is a great divide at the ten year time span level and that between five and ten years at stratum five that requisite organization would call for the organization of a whole system. These are all propositions for testing. Now, let's be absolutely clear about this and let me make this general point about systems here, and that is that I don't find that we have what I would think of as serious systems thinking in the social sciences, in the human sciences. Because systems thinking, systems orientation comes from biology. And in biology you always start out with a structure. There is an entity, a structured entity. And you can then talk about the way in which that structured entity or those structured entities function as systems, as open systems. And Systems theory talks about open systems in terms of organism and environment and interchange. But you start taking a look at organization organizational work and a so called and systems theory is applied to organizations and we float in free space. Where is the organization? What's related to the environment? What's the organism? The absolute foundation stone of systems theory? Where's the open system? What's the structure? I don't seem to be putting all the emphasis on structure in these discussions and that structure is everything. Structure is everything as far as I'm concerned, in the organizational field only because we haven't got any and therefore we flap around like flag in the wind as far as any possible development of theory is concerned. The problem of finding where something called a whole system that has some kind of open relationship with an environment is important. And one of the things that one has noted is that if you take, let me just say, business organizations, companies and their accountability hierarchy set up to get work done, that there is something that's very characteristic about Stratum five when you get larger scale organizations than stratums organizations that are at Stratum. Five in the stratum. Five area or higher. And that is that as you come up from, let's say, a stratum one, accountability hierarchy, which isn't a hierarchy. That's the newspaper seller private entrepreneur on the corner, if you see what I mean, or the local grocery store. Or a small so called one man business or a larger one man business. Or what begins to look like possibility of something called a full scale business at five. Tell you what I mean by that. In a tick something happens when you shift across that boundary and this seems to be quite general. And once you get up into six and seven, then you run into problems. I mean there are just lots of them around and somewhere along the way, if we're going to be able to cope with large scale accountability, ACH's accountability hierarchies this stuff's going to have to be clarified because in business terms, if we take profit and loss account businesses, there's something consistent. You can get profit and loss all the way up here. But once you cross this boundary the emphasis shifts from profit and loss to balance sheet value. And you get statements of this kind in military organization division, which I think one can demonstrate is Stratum v. Organization is so called highest level of unified organization and the lowest level of comprehensive military functioning. That's straight quotation from every divisional field manual in the US. Army you get into Church of England organization, Episcopal Church organization. Jilly and I are always impressed by the apparent reality of the fact that diocese which is the entity around which real church work centers seems to be, in secular terms, a Stratum Five institution. I say in industrial commercial organizations, you get this shift to balance sheet valuation of P L account trading companies, trading subsidiaries. Something else that fits in there is that there's something about the seven to eight year time span, or at least target completion time on tasks, and that is that you can get finitely budgeted programs or projects up to seven, eight, nine years over that. Once you get over this ten year level, it becomes seems difficult to grasp. In terms of finitely budgeted projects, you get into what are called conceptually based programs, that kind of thing. I mean, that's the language that one finds used. People on the way up describe the shift across the Five six boundary as a major shift. There's a change in orientation being described in industry. We got this out very sharply in our interviews with the four star, three star generals. As a divisional commander, you command, you've got your 10,000 troops. As a corps commander, you find you've got a command of six, you've got six divisional commanders. And everything seems to shift and change. Now, can I just stop there for a moment, because there's a proposition that something very significant goes on, and it be in the nature of human beings and the nature of task complexity in that shift across that boundary, not whether the propositions are agreed, but have I just made myself clear? And any comments so far? And the reason I'm putting it this way is that once you run this over and I'd like to talk about the HR stuff and so on, what happens to specialist organization when you go up across that level? Is that when corporations when you get into your larger corporations, I'm talking about your, what do we say? Two, 3 billion plus turnover corporations or into your super corporations? And I would think of as Stratum Eight led supercorporations, which are corporations that have groups or divisions. At Stratum Seven, one common phenomenon is the upward profit loss account and drag, if I can call it that for a moment. And the conception there would be that any kind of transaction, transactional work has to do with the development of whatever you put into the transaction. In the case of business, the development of product services or improvement of your existing products and services that you're going to present to the market as part of the transaction, the provision or production of those products or services. So that's the D, the P and the Ms that is sustaining contact with both individual clients or customers in your market that you're serving or contact with collectives promotional campaigns think of as marketing and you're not in. The HR is not part of the operational spine, not part of the business, nor is finance, nor is programming or production engineering and so on. This is where your profit that's where the profit and loss out of those activities that you generate revenue and as against the total expense of the institution. Now, what happens is that as you come up, if you have a little grocery store operating at Stratum. Two, a little local sweet shop around the corner, whatnot your store owner carries the DP and M s functions undifferentiated in his or her own role. May have an assistant, sales assistant, that will differentiate out a bit of s. You see what I mean? So you get your DPMs function enroll here and maybe an assistant employed at one in an S role. You move up and your one man business may differentiate out. Maybe there may be a separate production outfit, say a little printing company with a print shop, and you may have one salesman going out and getting orders. You may differentiate out P and S, but very unlikely that you're going to get differentiated D. You come to Stratum Four, you'll get the same thing. You get further differentiation out of the p and s, but you will not get the D. And by and large, it's not until you get to stratum five organizations that you will ordinarily get a full scale differentiation out of DP and s so that you've got your DPS integration here in this role and differentiation out at stratum four of DPS functions. Is that clear enough so far? Because the big problem then emerges out of that I didn't mention two others, which I must mention now, along with P, I usually attach in an A and another delivery here underemphasize that in anything I've written so far. But I think it's about time stop. And that is that part of the operational activity or mainstream activities of a business carrying out transactions for the market is the acquisition of raw materials or components as part of the production or provisioning system and delivery. The point about that is that you might at five you will sometimes find differentiated out a full time components acquisition role. It's called raw material purchasing or component purchasing, something of that kind. Now, the catch is that when you come up to six, these are all problems from now on. There is a tendency in corporations to continue this sort of differentiation and to get something called corporate manufacturing director at six, corporate purchasing at six. And then they like corporate finance at six and corporate marketing it's usually called rather than selling at that stage. And that sort of differentiation, that alignment of functions at six where you have your Stratum seven corporation, this is what happens. This is very common. It's called functional organization in corporate this is what I think is called functional organization at corporate level. Your big car companies were all organized like this large scale purchasing functions, corporate purchasing, they're component purchasing businesses, automobile, automotive companies, 70% of the product is bought in. All they do is assemble big assembly operations. And it's a continuation of this kind of thinking. And hunch is it's antirequisite that something's got too big. It's keeping your PNL stuff up here, and you're losing your PNL trading. You're losing that Stratum Five total transactional activity. Am I making myself clear? And a proposition is that part of the art of and I've shifted immediately to seven. I went from five to seven. I did that purposely in order to get this functional alignment out and continue this process up and what it looks like. And that the art of Stratum Seven corporate organization is to find ways of precipitating out Stratum Five full scale trading business units. Sorry. Well, it's the greater autonomy I don't think of it as greater, of giving them a particular kind of accountability that is treating them as your whole system. And that these are not in a particular sense that I'd want to use it whole system structures. These are composites of whole systems. These are coral colonies.

Speaker B That think of their corporation as a single to think of that single entity like Coral Colony as having lots of little members.

Speaker A Yeah, these are little 100 million to 400 million turnover businesses. And sometimes it's difficult to do that. I mean, in oil companies, for example, where you have huge refineries, they often say they need a refining system with refinery directors. And one refinery will serve a whole series of markets, and you can't break it up organizationally and so on. And there are real technological difficulties that tend to give you an up thrust. And then they'll talk about economies of scale. If you can get all your manufacturing under one good solid command, then you can get big gain in manufacturing, cost effectiveness and so on. And things don't often work out neatly. Smelters big assets could serve lots of markets and so on. So one proposition here, as I say, would be to try and overcome those difficulties. And sometimes it needs quite intense concentration to do so. I was interested in the extent to which it seemed possible to go in the CRA, the Australian project, in splitting out businesses, where at first glance, all of the work seemed to be so interconnected that it didn't seem possible to do so. And with a lot of concentration, it seems possible to do so. So one proposition about organization at this level is that split out. If you arrange that split out, then you come to a whole range of even with that split out, you come to a whole range of problems. One proposition here would be that what you're getting and the reason you get this significance of the fiveness is that what you're dealing with is articulated second order conceptualization concepts. And it's not until you get to Stratum Six that's the QC two, and it's as you get into Stratum Six Q C two, that you're getting into articulated third order concepts. And the mode of working is entirely different. It's interesting. People down in here feel that derogatory comment. Yeah. What they're doing up there is a bunch of conceptual stuff. It's not real business stuff. It's just a bunch of conceptual stuff and whatnot. So they're qualitative shifts and you bet it's a bunch of abstract conceptual stuff. It's proposition a different order of complexity. In effect both task complexity and cognitive complexity. Now coming into these other problems then if you do split this out as D, I'll just make it full DAP delivery, M and S at five, differentiated out functionally at four. The manufacturing stuff by and large falls out. Okay, marketing and selling into your own markets. All right? Difficulties start coming up when you look at product development and improvement and when you begin to look at services like finance or specialist support roles like HR. Perhaps if I just take a look at those two or production technology development because argument would be that requisitely at corporation, what you need this is in terms of functional alignment is CEO chairman or let's say just CEO president for the moment. That kind of role. I really do believe these chairmanship roles should be kept absolutely separate from CEO president roles. The board's. The board sustain the chairman as an elected role. It's a representative role. And in my experience, representative roles and appointed roles do not mix. Not by a long shot. I think there's a tendency in American business over the last year or two to go back to separating out of the chairmanship from corporate CEO roles. So I'm told. What functions then would be requisite here at six in a stratum seven corporation that was differentiated into stratum five profit and loss account business units. Here's a proposition and some problems. That what you need. Are roles here concerned with groupings of business units, the corporate oversight of groupings of business units. I don't know, let's just call them oo roles. That is operating officer roles, not COO where an operating officer may be overseeing. I use the oversight concept here on behalf of the corporation five, 6810, whatever, business units. And if you have more than that, you could have a series of operating officer roles. So the mainstream business is overseed by one or more operating officer roles at six. But you need more than that. Your CEO is concerned here with it's the only use I would make of strategic, I reserve the term strategic for work up at the seven six level. The development of strategic alternatives on the basis of which you precipitate out the action would be the precipitating out or modification of business units. There's development of new business units, modification of existing units, disquisition of existing units. But that's how the strategic thrust is implemented. So there will be functions to assist the CEO in terms of strategic development. And I'm using this bottle shape thing now this is all upward thrust work assisted by one gets this in military chief of staff and his staff specialists concerned with the economic resourcing of the corporation. The human resourcing of the corporation. Let me just call it the technological resourcing of the corporation and come back to that. And then two major strategic functions concerned with external legal contacts, a whole range of activities concerned dealing with government and so on. And possibly something that you might think of as public relations. But it's public relations in the sense of let's just call it cr corporate relations. Again broad external relationships. But this would be a strategic assistance to the CEO set of functions concerned with strategic development. Yeah.

Speaker B Does that include that additional role for strategic planning or something? What would you call?

Speaker A Well, I call this the CEO has strategic planning accountability and may have a specialist working to assist with. Specifically, I've got youth now. I do not use title planning. I do not know of any planning roles.

Speaker B And that would be in addition to your economic resource and human resource?

Speaker A No, this is the cell that assists the CEO with his strategic planning. There are no strategic planners and there's no strategic planning cell. This is not repeat, not a strategic planning cell that's I think conceptually important. I mean, I'm reading a lot of problems here. That one for me is no longer a problem. I think that's just a self evident fact. The moment you have something called a subordinate, a strategic planning role subordinate to a manager, it means you put the planning down one level. Boy, it ain't going to be right. If you want to see that, you take a look at military situation where so called strategic planning is done at Stratum three. No, I'm not joking. It's called Action Officer level. That's ollie north. He is not Ollie. No, come on, this is no joke. Ollie north is a typical example of a military defense system action Officer and that's the kind of work that's done at Stratum three. The planning gets delegated right down the damn system. Now here's the strategic planner that's the accountability in that role. The development of strategic alternatives for the corporation. Give him some assistance ado to help him develop his plans. It's the conception that your manager, your officer, your individual contributor, the individual who's doing the work, developing the plan for the work is part of the work. Okay? Then in between here you get into issues of corporate, of development of new businesses, of examination of business opportunities and so on. And I think that there is need for a funk to look at a function here maybe not differentiated out of business organization development. That is, once you've had a strategic look and certain plans, that you decided you better get into the kinds of businesses that are going to use high temperature superconductors or ceramics or whatnot? Or the new quantum mechanic stuff. Energy release stuff and so on that you've then got the problem of either acquiring businesses that can do that kind of work for the corporation, get into that sort of business or to begin to ferret out and develop such businesses either by acquiring external resources and building on them or perhaps building new businesses afresh inside the corporation. And I would see those kinds of activities requiring a function or group of functions here on business organization development that will include, that must include obviously market general, worldwide market analysis. You're into international stuff here and often begins to look like marketing. And so tendency is to begin to think of corporate marketing and that kind of thing. I'd want to keep them clear and I say sort out these functions and then the possibility of and this is your centralization decentralization business of possible corporate services. These would be economy of scale services and this is the one that's got packets of trouble in it always. But what I'm trying to do is to separate out the kinds of functions that would exist up here. If one takes the first step of getting these functions differentiated out here now that then leaves you with problems like the possible relationship between HR here, possible provision of HR, corporate services, recruitment services, that kind of thing. You don't want everybody going around to the universities and HR work down here in the business units. I think those are the kinds of problems that somebody had in mind, if I'm not mistaken. And same with finance. What you need is good central centralized finance because you get control then over your finance and so you're accountable for P L, but you don't need your own finance people. That'll be done from corporate if you get control that way. Or HR at corporate will assign HR people into the business units and will be somehow partly not accountable for them and partly in authority over them. That's the more popular consideration and proposition would be that you want to keep these functions really very well separated out. If a president here of a business unit is going to run a business, then he runs business. He's got his own HR, his own finance, his own production technology development, he's got his own range of products and further product improvement and development out of his existing range of products and that's his business or her business. Not to get mixed up with product technology development that will have to go on up here in connection with business opportunities development. They'll be kept separate. There are companies, for example, in which I think there's a general point I'd make here. They will have something called something like an engineering function or a technology function or it could be mechanical engineering or electronic engineering. I want to go for the technology thing here. And because in this technical strategic appraisal of developing technologies, you might want a mechanical engineer in here or mining and somebody with mining engineering or electronic engineering background or qualification. And because here in business opportunities development, you may want some development work going on, say electronic engineering development work with some laboratory work and because you have some electronic engineering services to your business units going on here, it's all electronic engineering and therefore you have an electronic engineering function. I call that organization by academic discipline, that's professorial stuff simply because it happens to be the same academic field. And just to point out, that the kind of work done by an electronic engineer in here by himself or with a couple or three subordinates assisting him or herself to help a CEO and interact with these others to be looking at strategic development is a very, very different kind of work from electronic engineering work in here concerned with the development of new businesses. Overseeing perhaps a laboratory of 100 to 500 people is very, very different from the function here providing electronic engineering services. Now, what I said, well, I'd raise numbers of problems here, but I think these are some of the problems that arise floating around in here. Organization by academic discipline, putting common functions together simply because they're finance functions carrying the PNL account types of function up over into six and seven. And as I say, here are some propositions which are I think valuable, at least in this sense and probably at most in this sense at this stage. And that is that at least there are some propositions to cut teeth against. And if you've got some propositions, it's always more modifiable than if you don't. Does this raise the kinds of issues that I think you've had in mind.

Speaker B At least in a case study sense? It seems to me there's a growing body of evidence that that kind of organization works. When GE splits itself up and starts to structure into worldwide three groups and its profits take offenses decline and other companies like that, that starts to validate. It seems to me.

Speaker A There are some opinions in the room. I know there are difficulties as well. I don't know if you know, Carl's, in one of those business unit functions that used not to exist, is that right?

Speaker B Yeah, it has empowered the organization. Carl, do you have the right these.

Speaker A Are those bits of corporate services. Carl.

Speaker B Sense we did have level five led students otherwise finance and even though they were set up so that they had to operate standalone businesses, business owners could either use them or not if they chose successfully. Totally understand legal tax gutters personal realize that corporate banking and the corporate account consolidation we split that craft unbelievably complex accounting system occasions where the business unit boundary matches the legal just take the unit that I run turnover last year was about 1.6. We don't have a legal entity boundary, we don't have a legal entity called but we are involved in two, three, four separate legal entities. So we have to compare five sets of accounts each month and that is not unusual for business units in the Cris, the internal account consolidation load. We would like to clean all that up, but we employ a reasonable number of extremely able accounting. So there are reasons why we couldn't get rid of our account. But we now have one corporate advisor on tax positions. Is it your sense now, Carl, that while it's conceptually possible to have service business units that are large, that your senses that is not very wise, that tends not to work.

Speaker A It's interesting experience being very real phrase that comes in listening to Carl is you do this for so called economies of scale and you may gain an economy of scale, but what you lose is dis economy of thrust. And I think that economy of scale thing by and large, I would have thought it's a snare and an illusion that is to be looked at with great skepticism. Indeed.

Speaker B We were talking yesterday about in the human resources area the question of what a straight applied human resources service business unit would look like.

Speaker A Service providing HR services. Yeah. No, you mean a business PNL account HR services business. That's right. Yeah.

Speaker B Didn't work supply ultimately loud service. If there was a continual war going, it's concerned me why that seems to happen all over the place. And I started looking around. It's not that business line of businesses don't use those services. They buy better ones and the better ones they buy over consulting houses disagree might buy a better one. What we did was that service business unit in the human resources area will supply you with will do work for you at levels three and two and one. That's not what you want. That's just what a service business unit.

Speaker A Can'T do because all of the rest.

Speaker B Is absolutely locked into your organization. If you get it from outside, you've handed away your future.

Speaker A This is the point I'm not set up HR down here is not HR services, it's HR specialist support to the managing director. You're not buying in services standalone individual contribution.

Speaker B So there are HR roles on occasion in the industrial environment 23456 of corporation they are standalone roles because the work required at each of those levels is different and it is work of that level of complexity.

Speaker A The minute you put a hierarchy underneath, you've done it. Nobody wants to play that's right.

Speaker B That's why we were saying we don't know how you buy Carl. My experience is that's what I meant by a consultant corporation treat their internal high potential people. You can't find a straight five human resources person, you have to go to a consultant. They've all been pushed out of the program. We actually have well, but my experience across the board is that by the time you get to straight three and human resources work, you have to go outside.

Speaker A That's right. That's right. Because this is Carl's point. The moment you set up a stratum four HR role here as so called HR services with a nice organization down here of threes and twos. So the twos are provided. You've got your training officer who's got a bunch of trainers and the service is a level two service and this chapter manager managing all this stuff. And the answer is a lemon. You're not getting any for HR work specifically in relation to this gang up here, which is what it's about. Carl emphasized with his voice freestanding single occupant roles, maybe with one or two subordinates, but by and large it's an HR role. That is HR and it's not HR services.

Speaker B I can give you an example of an HR task to manufacture things and what you want to do because it's part of giving you an economic advantage. Set that up as a single union shop but legislatively it is going to be very difficult to get that single union coverage over all of the work you want done. So you Mr. HR specialist advice. Work your way through the legislation, contact with the various heat bodies, both employer and employee, understanding the processes which go on inside your and have an award structured and agreed upon so that the drop of a hatching and whip it through the courts before anybody else is aware of what you're doing. Present the entire world with a fair compliator. That's a level five human resource task.

Speaker A That'Ll be up in here or then. But I think Dan's point still holds that we're not growing. By and large, we're not growing. Those people inside corporations. So you have no choice. You got to go outside, you don't get the service you want. And I think it's striking that in the situation that I know of, not just CRA where corporations, in fact, are beginning seriously to look at growing HR work, that the incumbents, by and large, are not from the HR field. You use damn mining engineers and that kind of thing and retrain them or use them for a while and then let them go back to engineering. And whatnot resource is only one of.

Speaker B A range of group service possibilities. Information, services, facilities, material, all sorts of things. And in major most corporations that I've observed and worked in, those are, in today's language, very, very big.

Speaker A Well I'd like to take a look at just quickly at each of those information services seems to me to be a serious misnomer that has extraordinarily deleterious consequences. I'm aware of computer services but I do not equate computers with information and we get into serious trouble when we do I don't know what information services are that is serving up information, carrying out computer transactions. I think one could see a lot of computers in one place providing computer services but we've let the computer boys and let's not be sexist here and the computer girls take over information. You've got computers, you're the information. I do not think of information services. You centralize something called information services and brother is at a definition of trouble. I just couldn't resist picking up one point out of what you said. The thing is as you examine these possibilities of corporate services you get funnies like that will fall out and if you go at it quite seriously that is with a good skeptical eye the need for these things decreases.

Speaker B My point that there is that range I've lived in most of the most.

Speaker A I know you have but we talked.

Speaker B Yesterday about the barriers to represent organizations. Those are the people that are building and controlling and sustaining systems and they're populated by ones and twos and three capability folks working at ones and two and three and just absolutely impervious to change organization. I would say you start with these service arenas and get them distributed out into the field as an entree that's the high five operational spine is not basically the problem. There is a risk that if you do that you will totally get rid of human resource services work to be done. Oh yeah, one or two persons who have capability to work at that work. But in practical terms it's not likely that organization or big corporations that have huge service groups our company has probably between four and 5000 people working in these service business units. Total complement of 18 19,000. The CRA employs about 28,000 people for that segment. A corporation I don't think is going to be likely to engage in the distribution of its service business units. That transformation without the full appreciation of need to have that other human resourcing work as well. It's only a theory that will drive it up. They will not go well.

Speaker A And.

Speaker B Say too that I remain highly skeptical of the need for those service.

Speaker A This over here on that side separated from a bunch well you can't put them in here.

Speaker B Well I'm not sure though it seems to me that people particularly the supports to the strategic work reality what they have to deal with in the world they're not rotating around.

Speaker A Well we'll have to leave this as a problem. We couldn't disagree more. The reasons I would take for disagreeing here is that I know people with this level of conceptual capability operating up here. And if they really have the capability to operate up here, their contact with the real world is by getting out where their role requires them to get out. And that's to get out into the real international world. These people are traveling. They're international networking. If you're to do this technology development thing here you've got to get around to universities in Zurich and know what's going on in Copenhagen and all the rest of it. You've got to get around the world. International networking is one of the sinaquanones of work at these levels. You have me doing something provided called providing services and you turn me into one of these managers you're talking about. It's a totally different focus.

Speaker B But go back to three M which is actually different. Businesses are actually level four businesses but they have their technology coordinated at six.

Speaker A No, but you said you wanted me to be doing having things to do with down here and services and so on.

Speaker B They have their technology resourcing and expenditures coordinated at six. Under the six is a five who is in charge of the science lab, the overall corporation breakdown. They have four level assets application so they've stairstepped that rapidly in terms of how they're structured. But the six role is general oversight, translating those strategic decisions into subtle shifts of emphasis of funding to anticipate 510 20 year outcomes.

Speaker A Well, let me just make two points here and we'll have to stomp just to tick you said the services over here on the right should be over here and that's the one I picked up. But your example was not of that.

Speaker B Services shouldn't be centralized or as you were saying.

Speaker A No, I was picking up that specific point about moving these services over to this side and I'm saying I know that doesn't mix, all that does is drag this level down. But that wasn't your example. Your example was then of separating out this kind of work from this kind of function. I put the development labs and so on in here and I put strategic analysis assistance to the CEO in here separated out because I don't think that the focus in those two functions mixes either. I think those are two cases at cases of oil and water that this kind of work sort of function really has got a very particular orientation to it. And I know that people who can do this are different from people who can do this. I know of those differences. Maybe there are people who can do both. But my hunch is that there are differences in focus that are substantial and that this focus here and out into the international networking and oversight of the development of the total corporation is not necessarily consistent with this kind of focus which you said oversight of labs and coordinating systems and so on sorry here yeah, that's right. I'm saying different from this, that's all. Anyhow, maybe that just gets some problems out onto the table if that's what you wanted to talk about. There's one last point I'd just like to make and it's a funny perhaps I can just round up yesterday and Monday and today in this way if I can just have a quick look at this it there's some interesting phenomena in here. Now here's a proposition that if you're my manager, if you cannot hold me accountable for my output is that self evident? I think it's ordinarily assumed that you as my manager can hold me accountable for my output. Right? I'm going to challenge that assumption and say that is self evidently untrue and it is important. What you can hold me accountable for is using my best endeavors to produce the outputs for which you are accountable. My outputs and equally, your boss cannot hold you accountable for your outputs. And it's important in this sense and underscores the whole of this performance appraisal thing in terms of what? You're appraising it. You decide to give me a task. You set limits, you provide me with resources, you state limits of method within which I'm to work, and you require a given output by a given target completion time, right? You want to feel free. You mean problems arise. All kinds of circumstances rise. You point one have to be able to rely on my achieving the output you set.