Dear Ichak,

i was thinking: your ‘PAEI model’ is based on four roles of management. only one of them – ‘E’ – is involved in a positive way with making and adapting to change. E comes up with new ideas and motivates the other managers to agree to make changes, in order to stay ahead of the curve, to create rather than react to change.

but you also make a big point in your work of emphasizing that there are two elements to making change: taking the decision, and implementing.

‘A’ never wants to change, and never wants to implement change, either; it interferes with his meticulous and already established order.

‘P’ never wants to change; he only wants to be allowed to continue to produce according to the specifications that are already laid out.

‘I’ never wants to change – first of all because it creates conflict between people, when I only wants people to agree; and second of all because I has trouble with expressing an opinion that everybody doesn’t already agree with.

So it’s only ‘E’ who is responsible for making change, among the four essential roles of management. But ‘E’ is terrible at implementing; he changes his mind all the time; he can’t be bothered with the details of implementation; and anyway he has a problem with diplomacy – with not antagonizing the people he needs to work with on implementing.

So: among the complementary team, shouldn’t there be a fifth role, one whose talent and focus are on implementation?

in part 2 of the biography you talk about discovering that planning is insufficient for dealing with change. Equally important, there must also be the capability to implement the decisions that are made.

why have an entire role (one out of four) be concerned with moving the company forward by conceiving of new ideas – when, without an implementer, those ideas will never come to fruition?

i understand that your concept of MT&R addresses implementation. but is that enough? shouldn’t there be one member of the team whose major concern this is, just as P is obsessed with production and A with administration, etc.?

i understand that in order to implement, you stress the need for the cooperation and involvement of the whole management group. but that is also true of decision-making – you make a point of saying the interested parties must be brought in from the beginning, from before the decision is made, in order to have full cooperation. so this group process cannot take the place of a manager whose role is implementation. it should, logically, lead this group process, or supplement it – not supplant it.

forgive me if i’ve betrayed my ignorance and missed a key element in your formula that already deals with this.

love,
N

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Very interesting question. But welcome to the club. The Adizes methodology is a never ending field of inquiry. Now you understand why I can not move forward to write new material which I have, or go back to write new editions of old books. The more I think I know the more I realize how little I know.

Now to your question.

E does not cause change. Only initiates change. He needs the others for successful implementation of what he starts ( watch the life cycle theory. E starts it but the other roles in sequence get involved “fighting” with E to stop new changes so the initial change can be completed successful). E needs I to ” sell ” the idea, than the A to organize how it will be done well and the P to execute it.

Without E , as you say there is no spark for change . The PAi just keep going the old way.

Without PAI there is a spark but it dies.

Thanks for asking
Ichak