The match between us as individuals and the kind of job that we do is of course paramount in job satisfaction, enjoyment and job success. In selection and succession planning we get matched on many different attributes - competencies & skills, values, interests.
But one of the most important matches that is hardly ever taken into account but which is essential to success is the match between the size of our strategic vision and the size of strategic vision required by our job.
So what does this looks like?
Elliot Jaques (1), the Canadian psychologist, talked about the time-span of discretion and he described it as <the time of intention. It can be measured in hours, days, years>.
- it is the time to the attainment of our intention
- the holding together of our intention over time
Taking it while you can - short term success
For some of us our natural propensity is to work over the short term, to get something finished, over with, completed, with an aversion to big, long term complicated projects. Being asked to do a big long term complicated project would stress us out no end. We dislike having to make sense of the ambiguity of it. Our intention is for short term multiple success.
Holding off for the big one - long term success
For some of us, short term, continuous completion would be unfulfilling, it would stress us out no end. We prefer big, long term complicated projects with multiple strands all going on at the same time. We like making sense of the ambiguity of it. Our intention is to achieve a big outcome with a big project.
What happens when there is a mismatch?
Much stress and aggravation is caused by the mismatch between the strategic perspective needs of the job and the strategic thinking perspective of the job holder. It can lead to all sorts of problems.
- stress, anxiety leading to absence
- job failure leading to performance management issues
- attrition - people leave
Some people move into jobs that demand much more strategic perspective than they possess or that they are comfortable dealing with and these people become stressed out and/or burned out. Others are not promoted fast enough and become bored, disgruntled and difficult.
The link between strategic thinking propensities and leadership resilience
The longer our time span of discretion the longer it will be before we achieve our goals. For those who hold off for the big success there is more complexity to deal with, there is more that can go wrong, and most especially, there are many who keep telling us that we are getting it wrong. For this reason those of us who are holding off for the big one and who are working on long term projects need to hold our nerve over the long term and we must take the flack that others give us. This means digging deep into our resilience reserves. Holding our nerve, remaining resilient, and bouncing back after setbacks is the key to long term success. Click here to read about leadership resilience.
How big is the strategic thinking of our boss?
The relationship between our strategic thinking style and that of our boss shapes the relationship that we have with our boss. There must be a single significant step between our strategic thinking perspective and that of our boss. If our boss is not operating at a level that is a significant step above ours (too close) this can lead to leadership problems.
<Such a manager cannot set adequate context; gets involved in too much detail; breathes down the subordinate neck; seems to be more comfortable doing the work that the subordinate ought to be doing; does not add any value…> (2) (p42)
How to get the right match - strategic thinking style can be measured
When thinking about selection and succession planning it is critical to take account of the match between strategic requirements of the job, (the size, the complexity and the time to job completion), a nd the strategic propensities and capabilities of the candidate. Strategic thinking and the time span propensities of candidates can be measured using structured interventions. Click here to find out more.
1) Jaques (1956) Measurement of Responsibility
2) Jaques, E. & Clement, S. (1994) Executive Leadership. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
|