From Strata to Levels: How Managerial Capability Must Progress as Organizations Grow - Why Elliott Jaques’ Work Matters More Today Than Ever

As organizations scale, leaders often struggle to answer a deceptively simple question: What actually changes about managerial ability as careers progress? Titles grow, scopes expand, and decision rights widen—but many organizations lack a coherent model explaining how thinking, judgment, and time-horizon must evolve.

More than three decades ago, Elliott Jaques offered one of the most rigorous answers to this question in his seminal work on Stratified Systems Theory (SST). Writing in The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (1986), Jaques argued that managerial work progresses through predictable levels of increasing complexity, defined not by hierarchy or headcount, but by time-span of discretion—the length of time a person must think ahead and act independently to deliver a complete result.

This article revisits Jaques’ thinking, renames “strata” as “management levels” for modern audiences, and argues that understanding—and developing—this progression is now mission-critical in an era of rapid growth, digital complexity, and continuous transformation.

The Core Insight: Time-Span Defines Managerial Level

At the heart of Jaques’ theory is a powerful idea:

The true measure of managerial capability is the maximum time-horizon over which a leader can make effective, independent decisions.

A frontline supervisor may think in days or weeks. A functional leader must think in years. An enterprise executive must shape decisions whose consequences unfold over decades.

Jaques showed that these differences are not merely experiential—they reflect qualitatively different modes of thinking, and they emerge in distinct developmental stages across a career.

Reframing the Seven Strata as Management Levels

To modernize Jaques’ framework, we can translate his original strata into seven management levels, each defined by increasing time-span, complexity, and system scope.

🧭 The Seven Levels of Managerial Capability (Adapted from Jaques, 1986)

Level	Time-Span of Discretion	Nature of Work	Primary Leadership Question
Level 1	Up to 3 months	Direct, task-focused execution	“What needs to be done now?”
Level 2	3 months – 1 year	Process supervision and coordination	“How do we make this run reliably?”
Level 3	1 – 2 years	Cross-functional problem solving	“How do we improve this system?”
Level 4	2 – 5 years	Functional or program design	“How should this system be structured?”
Level 5	5 – 10 years	Multi-system and portfolio leadership	“How do these systems align?”
Level 6	10 – 20 years	Enterprise repositioning	“How must the enterprise evolve?”
Level 7	20 – 50 years	Societal or ecosystem shaping	“What future should exist?”

Jaques emphasized that very few individuals ever reach Level 7. These are not merely CEOs, but architects of new economic or technological realities—figures such as Bill Gates or Elon Musk, whose decisions reshape industries and time-horizons far beyond a single firm.

Why the Old Executive Hiring Model Is Breaking Down

Historically, companies scaled by hiring leaders from more mature organizations—assuming those leaders would “bring the playbook” and install proven processes.

That strategy is far harder today.

Modern enterprises face:

• Rapid technology cycles

• Ambiguous regulatory environments

• Continuous re-platforming

• Networked ecosystems rather than stable value chains

In this context, experience alone is insufficient. Leaders must demonstrate:

• The ability to think at the required time-span

• Comfort operating without precedents

• Capacity to design systems that do not yet exist

In Jaques’ terms, organizations can no longer rely on borrowed maturity—they must develop managerial capability internally, level by level.

The Hidden Risk: Role–Capability Mismatch

One of Jaques’ most enduring warnings is that misalignment between role complexity and managerial capability creates systemic failure.

When leaders are placed into roles requiring a longer time-span than they can handle:

• Decision-making collapses into firefighting

• Strategy becomes reactive

• Stress and burnout rise

Conversely, placing high-capability leaders into roles below their level leads to:

• Micromanagement

• Disengagement

• Talent attrition

Growth, therefore, is not just an organizational challenge—it is a developmental challenge.

Why Training Must Be Developmental, Not Just Skill-Based

Traditional leadership development focuses on skills: finance, communication, influence, execution. Jaques’ work suggests something deeper is required:

Managers must be developed to think differently as they move up levels—not simply do more.

Effective organizations:

• Design roles explicitly around time-span

• Assess readiness for the next level, not just past performance

• Provide experiences that expand systems thinking, ambiguity tolerance, and long-term judgment

Without this intentional progression, organizations accumulate senior leaders who are over-titled but under-leveled.

Final Thought: Giving Credit Where It’s Due

Elliott Jaques did not merely describe hierarchy—he explained how human capability and organizational design must evolve together. While modern organizations are faster, flatter, and more networked than those of 1986, the underlying truth remains:

As organizations grow, managerial work changes in kind, not just in scale.

Leaders who understand this progression—and organizations that design for it—gain a decisive advantage in execution, resilience, and long-term value creation.

References

• Jaques, E. (1986). The development of intellectual capability: A discussion of stratified systems theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(4), 361–383.

• Jaques, E., & Cason, K. (1994). Human Capability: A Study of Individual Potential and Its Application. Cason Hall.

• Jaques, E. (1998). Requisite Organization. Cason Hall.

• Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201.