Formatted Text
Speaker A So this little section is about the right people for the right work at the right level. So it's the whole notion of fit to roll. And the history of this of course was as the original research was taken, they came under really kind of the sense of these levels of work. But intuitively what happened with people was yeah, that makes a lot of sense and we can see that. But at the same time, when you look at that, you just intuitively know that some people in the world are more able to do work at a particular level, at a particular time than others. There's something different about us in terms of our ability to do that. So intuitively people would say here we have this level four vice president role and we'd have these six or seven people that would potentially be considered candidates for that role. But somehow people intuitively could say, well, those three people could probably do it, but those other five can. So the question is in organizations, what are people assessing in your experience? What are they looking at to make that distinction between those three who can and those four who can't? Too often it's likability. Likability. And sometimes you're right, too often likability one. What other might be in there that people are using as a criteria to assess whether stuff they've heard, stuff they've heard about that person education, their education, perhaps their training as well, their rates.
Speaker B Of progress so far. So the assumption is if someone has.
Speaker A Been progressing recordly, they must be good. They must be good. Often your own image I read our own image. Halo effect, sometimes psychometrics. Psychometrics, yeah, that's right, because sometimes we use assessment tools.
Speaker C Effectiveness in the current role.
Speaker A Effectiveness and current role, probably a minimum critical specification. And if they're not performing well in the current role you're considering although if I go back on the question again, it's a distinction, fortunately a little later on, by the way, in Xerox, I was asked by my president to fix our performance appraisal system and so we got into a whole exercise around that. The main distinction we learned was there's a separateness and a relatedness between performance and potential. Good performance doesn't necessarily indicate potential and poor performance doesn't necessarily indicate lacking potential. So having to make that distinction. So I think what we're kind of saying in some respect is maybe some of these kind of colloquial things we use to assess may not be detailed enough or finite enough relative to our needs and reckless organization. Because what was really determined, of course, is that human capability in dealing with complexity varies from person to person. It's the old adage is that what seems to be true is that we get smarter as we get older or our ability to handle increasing complexity goes up as we get older. Seems to be true. However, what also is true is that it really varies from person to person. We're all kind of on a different track around that to some degree, in some circles, this would raise the old does raise the old nature nurture controversy in terms of on a personality or temperament basis. US the old debate between the skinners and the youngs and the maslows of the world in terms of whether we come into the world with something or not. And I think that whole community has really reached a place where who we are today is a product of both what we came into the world with and our social education. What appears to be true in the world of cognitive science to the degree that and, boy, what I found out of the last particularly spending a lot of time with the last five years, is that this is a complicated subject. It's a really deep and amazing subject. But I think in principle, we're learning that there's something about our development as human beings that's also, at a cognitive level, occurs in a very developmental way. We kind of come into naturally come into the world with some proclivities around that, and it fishes over time. So it's got that sort of a curve to it. In other words, individuals sort of start out at someplace, and then there's a series of curves. Look into some of the reckless stuff. You've seen all those curves that have developed around that in a much more detailed way than I'm showing on here. But that's the basic principle of it. So the notion would be is that at a certain point in time, be it a point in time or whatever, if you could determine what is their cognitive capacity for processing information in a hierarchical organization according to level. In other words, what you're saying is, if you have a role at level three, what you'd be interested in doing is finding out if your candidate or candidates that you're thinking about are able to process information at that stage, at that level, because it becomes kind of a minimum, but insufficient criteria, if you will, to select a person to role. Basically what it's saying is, overall, what you're trying to do is get people in the flow. What you don't want to do is to essentially put someone in a role that they're not quite ready for yet, because that's going to create kind of an overwhelmed and stressful situation and cause some frustration and potentially cause some performance issues, shall we say. And that becomes a problem for who? Their manager, because the manager is accountable for the outputs of that individual. So it's not there. The other side of it, of course, is if you get someone into a role who is for, let's say for an extended, reasonably extended period of time, who's more capable than what the role is required, you really get the same kind of effect. You get stress and frustration and some other thing going on and what's likely to happen in an organization, if you've got a person in that underwhelmed condition.
Speaker C For too long, look outside, look for other opportunities.
Speaker A Yeah. When the headhunter calls, they're more likely to. One of the things that Elliot Oliver says is that people actually have sort of an intuitive sense of their capability, and if they can match it with an actual role situation where they know they can do what's expected, of them, hands down, and they're under challenged. They're just not being given enough bandwidth to kind of exercise what they know they can do. Yeah. They'll start looking around to find a place that either in the organization and start lobbying for a change in position in the organization, or they'll answer the headhunters, what potentially else could happen in that situation?
Speaker C So they start their performance goes down.
Speaker A Their performance could go down.
Speaker B Absolutely.
Speaker A Yeah. And we'll see that in a video a little later.
Speaker D By the way, the head of the largest labor union for the federal government is as capable as the commissioners of many of the federal agencies. Level six, level seven. So people go into they'll find other ways to express their capabilities.
Speaker A Absolutely. And that's a really good point, because two things we find happens is exactly what Jerry is saying. In the inco, for example, the engineering department had about 25 engineers in it. The majority of the work was level two engineering. All right? Occasionally there would be a level three engineering project, an 18 month project or whatever. But when you started to meet these 25 people, you could recognize guys and gals have been out in the field for like, 1012 years, and yet you kind of look at something, they've just got more capability than they're being asked to do. What's that all about? And you find out that when you talk to them, there's other factors that people are using in an organization that doesn't relate that to them. They say, Look, I'm in a lovely town. It's a great place to bring up my kids. I make a pretty good salary. I can walk away from this job at 05:00 and not have to think about it and come back because I can do it hands down and that sort of thing. Then keep talking with a few of them. Well, the board of the local hospital. So people have these other ways of getting these needs met. The other thing that I find that happens sometimes is what we call is they create mischief in the organization. Mischief in the sense that because they have that extra capability they will start getting into things that match that capability and want to do things and want to get things going in an organization which at some level is kind of a good thing. But sometimes it's not within the business plan or it's not what we really need right now. And so you've got this extra little bit of management you have to do with these people in terms of but that's where you get into the cycles back to the mor thing. So if you've got a person that's in a role, underwhelmed in the sense of what are the kinds of things that Mor should be looking at relative to dealing with that situation.
Speaker C Wouldn'T you also find that situation with brand new just promoted an individual, put them into a new role, wouldn't they typically then be overwhelmed and given a period? 1% sure.
Speaker A I think the difference is being overwhelmed more because of the newness and of what they need to know about the organization, about the job itself, as opposed to their inherent capability to deal with the work. That's the difference.
Speaker E Also, we've seen occasions where maybe sort of things are slightly counterintuitive that two senior people, both promoted fairly senior jobs, one of whom is feeling slightly stressed, the other who is fine.
Speaker A Right.
Speaker E In fact, the person who's slightly stressed wasn't going to support from the mor to make that transition. The person who wasn't stressed thought the.
Speaker A Job looked like this and was quite.
Speaker E Happy doing that part of the job while the rest of it was going. And so there are other things that you need, other balances that you need to look at very much below the first immediate stressed or underwhelmed experience.
Speaker A Yeah, what I was trying to get at you with my question a little bit, just in terms of giving the answer is obviously looking for work experiences that you could give to this individual, a special project, something like that, that.
Speaker E Could really tap into there.
Speaker A The inco thing that I thought was really good is that, well, the organization design was that these roles would be placed at level two for those engineers. There was, as I said, occasionally these projects would come along that would be a level three project, 18 to 24 months kind of thing. And so what they did is they identified those people in the troops who were level three capable individuals. So they actually gave those level three assignments to those individuals. Then you say, well, but now they're going to be doing level three work, but they're level two and pay people creatively. What the company did was they actually paid them essentially the equivalency, if you will, of level three pay for the 18 or 24 months that they were in that job. However, what they did is they didn't put it into their salary. They took that amount of money and put it into their long term incentive point. So they didn't get used to having this extra boost in salary and all that kind of stuff, but they got paid that amount for that period of time and that money went into their law. I thought it was incredibly creative in terms of basically what came out of the requisite work was that Elliot would say that the fit to a role, in other words, a person's fit to a role is a function and there are four really major components to the function. One is this one we've been talking about in blue that you were referring to earlier. Nancy named different things, but the concept is the same. It's that information processing capability that relates to the ability to process information in relative to the complexity of the role that they're dealing with. Level three, four, two, whatever it is, that's kind of a minimum and insufficient criteria. The other thing that a person would need to have would be the skilled use of knowledge or knowledge and skills to do the particular job that we're talking about. We're also finding that some work in this whole field is being done and we kind of came across it recently where there's also some ability to assess some basic competencies by level. In other words, there are some distinct competencies that are required at each of these levels. Almost generic competencies, if you will. The fourth one or the third one for me is really valuing the work. It's the notion of if a person really doesn't value what's being offered to them in terms of the nature of this job, even though they have the information processing and they have the skills, if it's not motivating to them, they really aren't going to do it very well for very long. So you really have to assess whether there's an orientation there towards that particular type of work and that particular role. One going back to engineers again, that's another one we've often found in our work to get into is a lot of young engineers go into engineering because they really want to be top notch engineers, professional engineers. That's what they want to do. They get into organizations and to get ahead. If there isn't a good technical ladder, for example, the only thing they can do is take a managerial job. But they don't value managerial leadership work. And you find that they don't do it very well because they really don't value doing it. They'd rather just go back and do well a good technique. So that's sort of a simple example. And then the last one is really and this day over the history. I mean, originally, I think Elliot called it minus t, which is sort of a minus temperament. It was kind of a know, this person was kind of screwed up in some way, whereas he kind of took more of a positive orientation to it later on in terms of saying what would be the required behavior. Of an adult human being in this particular role to ensure that there wouldn't be anything untowards in terms of causing any dysfunction and being able to carry out this role. And that's where you get sometimes you get into the psychometrics in the sense of sometimes you can use some of those things to kind of assess what kind of a character are we dealing with? And is there a central fit between this human being's temperament in terms of what their needs are, which is what temperament measures are? Will that be a reasonable fit with this role? Just another piece of data to help management make a judgment or a decision about whether that's the right person or not.
Speaker B Whole question?
Speaker A Yeah.
Speaker B Required behaviors. What's the view on behavioral competencies? Behavioral competencies and leadership competencies and things like that. In the original work, there seems to.
Speaker A Be no place at all.
Speaker B And managers are allowed to express their own style and their personality doesn't really matter as long as it's not functional. What we're saying required behavior is a more sort of positive statement, which to me, borders on the more traditional work on these mental insurance.
Speaker A Well, I think you're raising like we could be spending the next week talking about that subject.
Speaker F To my understanding, and it's one of, probably every one of us here has his or her own understanding and people in the other room, but the correct understanding for that term, required behaviors. Each of us has tendencies to behave in ways that are not required. Right. And the issue is you may like to drink. Can you every day come in sober? Right. You may have a temper, but can you stop yourself from screaming at people? So for me, my understanding of RB or minus T is do you have the self control required in order to control your tendencies to behave in ways that are not required otherwise? In terms of manager, the formula up.
Speaker A There applies for managers as well.
Speaker F You're being considered for a Stratum Five managerial role. Do you have CIP? At Stratum Five. Do you have skills and knowledge to do the managerial leadership practices? And where it often goes wrong is do you value doing that work also.
Speaker B At Level Five, fitting the organization in an external environment? One would think that you also need to be able and to value building that external network of relationships which all of that competencies.
Speaker F It's all part of valuing the work.
Speaker A That's where the B comes from. What RB at five and up is leadership presence, platform skills. If it's skills.
Speaker F Skills and knowledge.
Speaker A Okay.
Speaker D I've wrestled with the required behavior that might ASP for a long time and had many loud arguments because Ellie was that I finally come to terms with is everyone has a wide range of behaviors under different sets of stressors. Some people require fewer stressors for them to act in a more extreme measure. Some can have that self regulation that you talk about under extreme pressure. So the issue for me is, does this person exhibit behaviors that are sufficiently extreme that they disrupt the work? So we call it the X factor. It's extreme behaviors that disrupt the work. The other thing that finally hit me about two years ago is I've always felt something's missing in that. And it finally hit me that there is something called aptitudes or natural talents. And the way I think of it is you can have three computers with the same processor speed, the IPC, but one of them has circuitry hardwired for graphics, for gaming. Another one has circuitry that's hardwired for music, another one for complex calculations. And what are those? Aptitudes well, there's musical, mathematical, there's artistic empathy. There are a bunch of things that I think are hardwired that, for me, represent the cherry on the top of the Icing. It's the last thing we should consider when we're looking for someone in a role, but it is not a trivial matter. Some people, I'm tone deaf. I couldn't play a musical instrument if my life depended. I may value playing music, but I just don't have the talent. I don't think that's a skilled knowledge issue.
Speaker F Elliot I never saw him write about this, but in conversation, he referred to talent as the constitutional ability to acquire.
Speaker A A type of skill.
Speaker F So when you talk about, like, mozart wasn't born writing music and playing it, but unlike you, he was able to acquire the skill.
Speaker D It may be self acquired, yeah, but it's still acquiring. But it's not the skill itself.
Speaker F It's not the skill itself.
Speaker D It's the capability. We have five things in our formula.
Speaker A And I think the issue with this, in the sense in answer to your question, I think sorry. Is at the end of the day, I'll speak for myself. What I think our job at Core National is relative clients is working with them at a minimum to help them understand in whatever way we do it, from tools to instruments to whatever that they are able to feel. That they've got enough information to make a sound judgment about whether an individual has the capability to do work at the level they're talking about. And I say judgment as opposed to decision, because I think at the end of the day, what you call deciding to put someone in a role, what you're actually doing is making a judgment. You have absolutely no idea how that's going to turn out. You really do not. None whatsoever. So the notion with our work is we try to help clients, over time, increase the confidence in their judgments about the selection for role based on that minimum specific criteria. Primarily what we also advocate is that and we developing a set of tools for that formula that can give that data, if you will, objective data to that individual that provides a much more holistic picture. The kind of things you're talking about, Jerry, in terms of and the temperament factors or whatever labels you put to it that give a more holistic picture of an individual, but focusing for sure on whether that person is capable of working at the level we're talking, first and foremost. The other factors are so variable to the human conditions, all right, that there's not a science to that.
Speaker B I guess just come up with a distinction between this and competencies and other.
Speaker A Stuff back to my head hunting days.
Speaker B This to me sounds like deal breakers. This is the set of deal breakers. The person fits the role or not. The others competencies and values and things like that. They are tiebreakers. If you have two candidates who have this, you're correct. Then you can judge on the mentoral aptitude.
Speaker A And again, the word you used is judge. You can judge all right on the basis of that. And then, as I say, make what we call a decision to actually put the person in. But I think again, I think what's learned if you think of how the as I've been studying this somewhere, how the human brain works. I mean to just to isolate the information because of the front part of the brain from the back part of the brain is probably not a good idea because holistically, our whole functioning is in that. But that is really measurable. And there's various tools out there in the world for measuring that IPC. So I really push on this. Is that a minimum? It's really helping clients make sure that they're getting that in the flow, that if it's a level four role, they've got someone who can process information at level four complexity. And that is measurable and determinable.
Speaker D One of the things that we've been very pleased with the clients and the managers really incorporating this is when they have a slate of potential candidates, they now go in sequence. The first is the IBC. The next is they don't have any bad behavior because they don't want to inherit that. The next is valuing the work. And the final one is, do they have the minimal necessary skill knowledge? So that becomes the fourth thing they ask, whereas most companies, it's the first thing they ask.
Speaker A Well, that's why we asked that fun little question at the beginning, what do we use to assess? And I think what we're saying is, as Gary said, you kind of start with that minimum critical specification. You've got to start there and make sure you've got that at a minimum. And then I like the notion of the tiebreaker thing, Andre, because is that judgment stuff that has to go in there in terms of there's all kinds of dimensions to it. And again, various tools for measuring those various components.
Speaker G I want to say something about the minus C I happened to be working with, learning the process and working with Elliot at the time that he stopped using it.
Speaker A Oh, yes, okay.
Speaker G And the reason he stopped using it and some of it came out of the experience that we had, is you're trying to get them to understand IPC, which is not a trivial exercise because people do that. When we were using minus T, there was a tendency to attribute everything to minus T, and it was extremely difficult to get people off management off it. And we just dropped it.
Speaker A Yeah, interesting, I didn't know that process.
Speaker F Well, just an example I had with that is when you have a manager who abuses subordinates, screams at them, minus P, whose accountability is their working behavior, it's their managers. Has the manager actually had that conversation with them, and very often they haven't. This is how we do things at home.
Speaker A We scream at people all the time, oh, I'm not supposed to do it here. And that's how that caliber, that's going back to that calibrating effect that a manager must remove. Has if you think of it, they're assessing as a manager of a manager, they're assessing their manager's effectiveness in performing those managerial accountabilities and authorities that Nancy was talking about and the practices that go along with management. So there's some assurance in the organization that people are being reviewed and assessed on the quality of their managerial leadership effectiveness, not just their results. And we all know in a lot of organizations, it's more about results and less about how you got those results. And so sometimes you get really good.
Speaker E Results, but that somebody individuals caused a.
Speaker A Pattern of death and destruction for a few organization, well, that would be happening.
Speaker H Just to add another dimension to it, we actually tend not to use the minus T or the required behavior. And one of the changes we've made is we've used some material from Ian.
Speaker A McDonald and some others who have written.
Speaker H A book on requisite organization. They're affiliated with Robbie and BIOS at this point in time. But what they did is they slightly modified the three categories and skilled knowledge. Skilled knowledge is broken into three categories. So one is knowledge could be certification knowledge, whatever. The second is technical skill, and the third is social process, or people skill. And the social process skill, the minimal requirement is for every employee that you get along well, working teams and so.
Speaker A On and so forth.
Speaker H But it changes as you move into different positions. It gets into managerial leadership type things. Not the skills themselves, but the capabilities from a people perspective to do those sorts of things. So we found that breaking those down into those three categories was useful. And they also changed the word valuing the work to application. And we use that word instead of valuing the work.
Speaker A Same idea.
Speaker H But what they talked about, which I found useful is the idea is do you fully apply yourself to all requirements of the position? Do you fully apply yourself to all requirements of the position? And the obvious ones are when you move from managerial or professional roles into, I'm sorry, professional or technical roles into managerial and not really valuing the managerial, but even in the managerial role, there are a number of different expectations. So do you really fully apply yourself to all of those requirements as opposed to doing the pieces of it that you like? So I found that those adaptations that they wrote about were very useful. And another way of thinking about it is that when we look at IPC, IPC helps you determine what strata a person is capable of working in, whereas skilled knowledge and the application or valuing the work applies to a particular position. So one is stratum related, and the second one is position related.
Speaker A So I think you can see that there's some variation in terms of how this is being looked at in the room and in the world today around this. But again, my emphasis and our hope for emphasis is making sure that at a minimum, that you're helping the people make those right decisions and doing the right calibration, whatever the language you want to use, that a person's got the capability to do the work you want them to do at the level. Michael, I don't want to get too.
Speaker F Far field, but I did want to.
Speaker A Ask the panel, is anybody going down the route of Robert Keegan stuff and.
Speaker E Making an assessment in terms of subject object interviews?
Speaker A I'm not looking at that a little bit. And how do you guys want to talk about how you see that?
Speaker E Oh, God.
Speaker A What we know is that I think Owen relationship at that higher order in the Keegan stuff relative to general management work, I think that's the main connection so far that I've gotten out of studying it is that, Paul, can you help me to see if this fits? There's a word again, which Rebecca semantics.
Speaker F But there's a word that's very, very.
Speaker A Big and very popular right now in the whole world of information management. That word is called cognitive computing. And the irony is, of course, when we're in this building, you see the bust of Watson downstairs. That's actually the product name that IBM uses for cognitive computing. If you remember on Jeopardy. A few years ago, you actually had Jeopardy. Champions playing a question, and Watson would answer it earlier than the three Jeopardy. Champions. So one of the things we see now, which is very, very powerful, because, again, it starts at the board level, and we really go down and we really basically ask, are we really, from a problem solving cognitive computing perspective, are we asking the right questions? Are we solving the right problems that's going to help this institution, this enterprise, be successful well into the future? Because we haven't kind of worked out what those questions are. And again, we got to figure out how would we answer the questions that's an information solution as well as a role based or people solution, but by working out again. So I don't know if that fits under information processing capability, is what I'm getting at, because it's the overlap of the cognitive computing with whether or not they can actually answer those questions. But when we actually then take them down to who are the leaders and who are the problem solvers in the business, we do get down. To the role and whether or not we have the right role motivated and extended in the right ways to answer those questions. And I just don't know if this fits. If you're going across the incentive, I think that's a worthy topic to really explore in a lot more depth. But my intuition would be when you think of processing like a computer processes so in a human sense, it's how information gets brought in, how it gets processed and turned out and on the output is a decision, an action. And so I think for me, intuitively it fits there. But I think there's some again, what we've learned in terms of looking at this in more depth in the last two years in our little firm, is that this whole subject is just incredibly deep and wide. And the kind of recent discoveries around human cognition. And that whole field is just starting to get a little bit exponential right now, which is a little confusing. But I think what I can tell you from a practical point of view is that what we found, generally speaking, if doing some of the stuff we've done at this point really helping managers have to make these selections. That they really understand the notion of level of work, and they've got a reasonably pretty good, accurate idea of what that level of work constitutes in terms of what's going to be required and the nature of it and the kind of mental processing that's going to be required. And they can have an understanding of what some differentiated descriptors of processing capability looks like. They can start matching that to human beings fairly accurately. It's not perfect, but it's fairly accurate. And so sometimes, again, in the issue of budget, there's only so much budget and yeah, you could apply career path appreciation, you could apply any number your techniques, Glenn, for looking at there's all kinds of things to do, but the question is do we have the time to do that? Do we have the money to do that? And how confident do we feel as managers in our judgment from what we've learned from you Paul, about the nature of the work and the nature of capability that allows us to feel fairly comfortable in making our own judgments about putting people involved. And if we make a mistake, well, just like you do in any other mistake you make, you correct it.
Speaker D I think that our understanding of CIP or whatever we call it does inform us to some degree because abstract conceptual thinking doesn't begin until level five. And to be able to ask and answer the question what is the problem we're trying to solve? Not what our solution, I believe requires minimally level five capability and to really come up with a range of models that requires level six capability. So I think that if we're now looking organizationally, where do we need to put in an IBM minimally? The role that's going to be driving. That has to be level six.
Speaker A I would agree, because, again, what we often find when we do this is that the questions being asked in the company today are not the questions that are going to apply to success five to ten years from now. And in terms of the talent strategy and the kind of people and the kind of compensation, if they're not willing to address those issues, then we go through an awful lot of work. And for that reason, I go back to the conversation about the three tier management in the sense that if you have that mor, those kind of hearing meetings, if we guys sometimes call them going on fairly constantly, you're accounting for those changes in the operating environment. I think part of those conversations, that's managerial work, that's what gives it exactly.
Speaker E Just to tie actually the way we.
Speaker F Open today is to give everybody, I.
Speaker A Think, hope in the meeting, at least those who work in the US. Since 2007 and 2008. It's actually come out of the Dodd Frank legislation. There's a lot more formal emphasis right now at the board level on CEO succession plan. It's really a mandated requirement, and it's working into directors and officers, liability insurance. It's really working itself into the infrastructure of corporate governance and behavior. So this argues for this top down, if you will, seven, six, five thinking, because it's all about valuing the solvency of the business for the future, and.
Speaker D Then it's the sustainability.
Speaker A There's a lot of helpful advantages that are coming out of those things in terms of making boards aware, more aware of their real accountability relative to some of these things, in terms of what they're measuring performance. A good colleague of ours, I thought he might be here, Mark Van Cleef, does a lot of work in that whole field around, really looking at the whole notion of what boards are doing or not doing relative to what they're holding CEOs accountable for and what they're measuring them on and that sort of thing. He did a little bit of research.
Speaker C And a lot of work in Felt fair pay. I mean, he's really after this ridiculously, outrageous pay that's being paid to many CEOs in the US.
Speaker A Just on that example, he did a little run of some stuff. They took 13 companies, I think, in a sample, and Fortune 500 companies, and over a period of five years, those companies destroyed destroyed $3.5 billion of shareholder value. Those executive teams on those companies were paid $1.1 billion to do that. There's a metric coming out of the US. Okay, so just in terms of what's in the requisite stuff, is that what Elliot was talking about is that there's kind of three levels of the capability. One is the current applied, which is where people are actually working, and the middle one and an important one in terms of the hearing exercise, really in terms of assessing people is that CPC the current potential capability? Where could an individual actually operate right now if given the opportunity to do so? So ideally, what you're looking for at a meeting with to select somebody, you're looking for someone whose CPC is exactly at the level that you're looking for. And then once you know that at a particular point in time using those curves or just using some general assumption that they're going to continue to grow in their capability at some point in the future, there's this future potential capability in terms of where they might, you know, for some firms, it could be very important. It is very important to identify as precisely as they can where that is. So that, for example, if you build that back into the mor process, if we know that Paul has an ability five years from now very likely to be taking a role at level five, all right, then we know that we have to do some things from a developmental point. So the Mor goes into business and says, okay, what's the development? And that plan that we need to put in place for that and who needs to do what to be held accountable for what? To make sure that that development happens. So that when Paul is ready and we need to put him in that role. Everything's in sync. You had a question earlier.
Speaker I Yeah, we might take it back just one step over it just goes back to that cognitive computing question as well. The one thing that attracted me originally to the aura work as looking at things, work coming out of MIT, work coming out of the people's capability, maturity model stuff, even work in the It maturity space process. Maturity space is that there's a universal truth. And that universal truth is when you look at all of this information and you kind of interpret some of the stuff a little bit, but if you have enough distance from all of it, all of the leveling that all of those models do are similar. If you really stand enough far away from it, there's a great similarity in all of them. So I think there's a universal truth that lies at the bottom of all of this. Now, a universal truth for me is a natural law, how things are. And when you start looking at that universal truth, even in that cognitive computing space, it literally appeals or matches so.
Speaker E Well with the Oro work.
Speaker A And that is the pieces that I.
Speaker I Think is valuable as one looks at this type of content in organizations and how functions start to come together. Revolution in the It space. The revolution in the information. Big data space. And bring that back to the universal truth of certain layers of complexity exists and pushing all of that content back into that natural layers that is driven by man's cognitive ability. You get so many things that we can do consistently in companies and organizations without having to bring different models in that confuses people all the time.
Speaker A If you just go back to what.
Speaker I Is that universal truth, and I think auto is part of that universal truth that sits there consistently and mapping things back makes so much sense to it. And if you build from that element, that initial measure in that capability element is that cognitive processing piece is really that I fundamentally agree with it. It's the baseline and the root of everything, no matter how you look at it. If you look at information maturity, it maturity, process application, process maturity, the process maturity model work comes out of India. MIT all says the same thing, just stand away further enough and you actually see it.
Speaker C That's why Elliot called it requisite, because the definition of requisite is according to the nature of things. That's why he chose that word to.
Speaker D Name the body of God.
Speaker I You see, interesting is when you use the word requisite, other people read things into it.
Speaker C I don't.
Speaker I And that takes you down a tunnel, which is not always worthwhile in the beginning. Just stand far enough from it to understand what it can be trying to say and then choose how deep you want to go.
Speaker C But then to Jerry's point, it may be that you have to be to understand universal law, whatever, move on.
Speaker A So again, I think the main thing that we've said in there is that notion that if it's requisite, it's going to be requisite and Ro based. That whole notion of information processing capabilities, the level of work that you're talking about is going to be minimum, but not sufficient criteria. It's one that really can help people understand and to apply and to help them make better judgments and get better fit to role. All right, you're talking more about how to do that or no, that's it. However, what I would say is our bias colleagues are really steep in this whole matter. And I would say some connections with them would be conversations around the next few days would be is that some very sophisticated ways of working on it. Can I just have one thing?
Speaker E I know we can very quickly oto's point about some deep universal truths. One of the texts that much rather than open Jillian on Earth was an 11th century Chinese text written by a Chinese neocompuccin philosopher called Shane Kirk. And I do the Kirk because I had my pronunciation correctly recently, and he described spawn into the swimming industry six levels of complexity in managing a confucian state, which kind of not quite word for word, but absolutely in its essence we would wholly can completely massively recognize. So it's really, to your point about some exploitation and naming some fairly new truths about cognitive capability and social parallel.
Speaker A In terms of complexity decision making.
Speaker E And it's just, to your point, sort.
Speaker A Of support Sandy's point about the natural.
Speaker E Law of the natural ancient things.