The modal/right-tail distinction is sharp. Most of the AI debate is about capability. This reframes it as fit. That's a meaningfully different question, and a more useful one.
The framework leaves open one gap: it resolves who takes responsibility, not what happens after.
Even for tasks where the leader must stay high on the Ladder, there are two distinct challenges. The first is deciding. The second is ensuring that decision travels intact to the people who must act on it.
You flag the problem without quite naming it: don't operate at Level 1 when your boss expects Level 2. But that gap, between what the responsible person decides and what the organisation receives and acts on, runs in both directions and at every level of the hierarchy.
The Ladder gives a vocabulary for assigning ownership. It doesn't give a mechanism for ensuring what's owned gets transmitted with sufficient precision.
A leader can still fail, not because they made the wrong decision, but because the people downstream received something different from what was intended. The Ladder solves the governance question. It assumes the communication question is settled elsewhere.
In most organisations, it isn't.
The harder question, and the one the AI debate tends to skip: not just who decides, but how does what was decided land?
Curious if you've come across Jurgen Appelo's Delegation Poker where he shifted a similar model into an explicit tool for forming working agreements - I've found it a great way of strengthening relationships both vertically in the hierarchy and horizontally with peers over the years: https://management30.com/practice/delegation-poker/
A few months ago on LinkedIn I reacted to a "leadership wisdom" post LinkedIn users seem so fond about. It was a quote from Arnold Schwarzenegger who basically said that if a subordinate couldn't come up with a potential solution - even a totally rubbish one - he/she should not bother him with his/her problem.
My reaction was it was not very subtle (even for a Cimmerian barbarian). I'd rather have a subordinate come to me and ask for help (e.g., to learn how to structure his/her problem) than just brainstorm a silly answer. Now if this subordinate can't learn or is just lazy and always ask me to do his/her job then it's a different issue. As usual I was not very popular.
Olivier Sibony (former McKinsey director turned academic) who specialises in decision making has just published a book on how to decided in the era of AI. He seems (I've not read the book yet) to have a different lens than you and frame the issue based on the type of decisions (for some we know AI is better than us and we should accept to delegate the decision to it).
I'm almost tempted to mix both views in a matrix. After all, strategy needs more matrices, damn it!! :-))
The modal/right-tail distinction is sharp. Most of the AI debate is about capability. This reframes it as fit. That's a meaningfully different question, and a more useful one.
The framework leaves open one gap: it resolves who takes responsibility, not what happens after.
Even for tasks where the leader must stay high on the Ladder, there are two distinct challenges. The first is deciding. The second is ensuring that decision travels intact to the people who must act on it.
You flag the problem without quite naming it: don't operate at Level 1 when your boss expects Level 2. But that gap, between what the responsible person decides and what the organisation receives and acts on, runs in both directions and at every level of the hierarchy.
The Ladder gives a vocabulary for assigning ownership. It doesn't give a mechanism for ensuring what's owned gets transmitted with sufficient precision.
A leader can still fail, not because they made the wrong decision, but because the people downstream received something different from what was intended. The Ladder solves the governance question. It assumes the communication question is settled elsewhere.
In most organisations, it isn't.
The harder question, and the one the AI debate tends to skip: not just who decides, but how does what was decided land?
Curious if you've come across Jurgen Appelo's Delegation Poker where he shifted a similar model into an explicit tool for forming working agreements - I've found it a great way of strengthening relationships both vertically in the hierarchy and horizontally with peers over the years: https://management30.com/practice/delegation-poker/
I love this framework!
A few months ago on LinkedIn I reacted to a "leadership wisdom" post LinkedIn users seem so fond about. It was a quote from Arnold Schwarzenegger who basically said that if a subordinate couldn't come up with a potential solution - even a totally rubbish one - he/she should not bother him with his/her problem.
My reaction was it was not very subtle (even for a Cimmerian barbarian). I'd rather have a subordinate come to me and ask for help (e.g., to learn how to structure his/her problem) than just brainstorm a silly answer. Now if this subordinate can't learn or is just lazy and always ask me to do his/her job then it's a different issue. As usual I was not very popular.
Olivier Sibony (former McKinsey director turned academic) who specialises in decision making has just published a book on how to decided in the era of AI. He seems (I've not read the book yet) to have a different lens than you and frame the issue based on the type of decisions (for some we know AI is better than us and we should accept to delegate the decision to it).
I'm almost tempted to mix both views in a matrix. After all, strategy needs more matrices, damn it!! :-))
Well Roger, here's the deal, just for you.
Do you really want a rewrite of "The Responsibility Virus"?
I will do it and make you and Tina Bennett happy.
I have a copy on order and will read it to give you my suggestions. I have written 11 books so I know my way around.
The catch? I am a CEO and you will be my advisor.
Let me know .....