Formatted Text
Speaker A I know there are some folks watching this who know the Jack's theory, and they think about accountability and the leveling. They also think about some of the cross functional relationships. They think about the talent pool and succession. They think about manager practices to make it work, time span, progression curves. There are a number of pieces of the theory, and I know, Steve, you may have more working knowledge of this, but I wonder if there's a way to weave in the extent to which you use some of these pieces of the concepts and which ones were more helpful or not or something. I think there's some people watching who might want to hear some of that.
Speaker B Yeah, that audience you probably know better than I do, and I know how I used it, and I know how we then felt that here's what we did was we used theory to figure out what jobs had to be general officer jobs. Right. Because we had to take some cuts in general officer slots.
Speaker C We analyzed the complexity of the roles and to decide which ones were the kinds of roles that we needed to put general officers in and which ones could we put colonels in by looking at the underlying complexity of the work that went into those particular roles.
Speaker B But you had come in and said, based on your familiarity with the theory, here's what you think is the level, the kind of work of a three star a two star, one star organization. Colonels, I mean, I think you had in your own mind it, modeled it, yes.
Speaker C And having looked at, for example, the tradeoff organization, I had a good feel for what should two star be doing and what should these regional commanders be doing versus what roles could we not afford to fill? And we had some medical r D was a critical role in terms of.
Speaker B Well, we had a couple things. We were facing the fact that we were probably going to have fewer general officers in the Army Medical Department than we had before. So as we looked at the organization at large, we had to identify what particular major sub organizations or directorates and so forth, or business units in that language. We had to make sure that a general officer was assigned to lead. We had identified those business units because of the kind of work we did. Second, we also had a very idiosyncratic problem was as a really highly specialized group within the military, we had general officers that normally were working even at their rank, were working at a level or two above what their rank was because it is in the military combat arms. And most of this general officers are infantry or armor or artillery. So we had a peculiarity with that in that we had to take generals who might be in other branches, two and three stars, and maybe put one stars in the plus. But it doesn't change the fact that we knew we had to have a particular officer with a particular capability going in a particular job because their timeline out for how long they were going to have to think and what they had to contend with and survey the world at large meant that they had.
Speaker C To be worked at a particular level. And I think we also so we had to look at how we grew the next generation and how we had to make some fundamental shifts when we realigned accountability's authorities. We had to make sure that the doctor understood that he or she was going to now be the raider of performance review of the nurse, for example. And they had to understand the context within which that rating had to occur, because those were completely different career fields within the medical department. And in the past, their rating scheme had stayed in those career fields, and we varied that. And so we had to do a tremendous amount of development to ensure that people were in fact rated appropriately so that they would be able to progress in their particular career field. And that was important because not all doctors understood nor all nurses understood what their skill sets were, and the work was required of the other specialists in the medical department. So that was a significant shift in terms of understanding the practices that had to go into day to day management or supervision of your particular area. So we took the concepts and put them in those kinds of languages to do that.
Speaker A To what extent are Jax's managerial, effective managerial leadership practices, the three level management, all of his holding people accountable for effective team meetings, coaching, all of those processes that he outlined.
Speaker C I think that when you get down to supervising a department, it's supervising a department of professionals, and the concepts apply uniformly. It's just that you may have a department that has multiple individuals working at multiple levels simultaneous. And so you may have some people in your department working at the same level as yourself. You may have some people working a level below you. So it's even more complex than running a traditional managing a traditional department where everybody is a subordinate, or subordinate two levels down. And so one of the issues is to understand the dynamics of the output in healthcare, and it's different than you would see in other kinds of areas. Certainly the output of surgeon is different than the cardiothoracic, surgeon is different than the output of just a standard general practitioner. And so one had to take that into context with how you manage that. I'm not sure we've got as far along that as we wanted to, but that was pretty significant change.
Speaker B You, sam.