by Thomas Lim | Jul 4, 2025
This article is originally published on Forbes on 26 Jun 2025 [Link to original article]
Business leaders and CEOs today are facing mounting pressure to deliver both short-term results and long-term transformation. At the same time, they are asked to build organisations that are agile, resilient, and aligned from the C-suite to the frontline. I had the opportunity to speak to Dr Gerry Kraines when he was in Singapore recently. We observed that to thrive in this BANI environment, many leaders are turning to two powerful frameworks: Strategic Organisation™ and Systems Leadership. While often discussed independently, these two disciplines are deeply complementary. Strategic Organisation™ focuses on designing the structure, roles, talent capabilities, leadership, accountability, and work systems of an organisation to ensure effectiveness. Systems Leadership focuses on the mindset, behaviours, and processes required to lead in complexity, mobilise stakeholders, and enable learning across boundaries.
Strategic Organisation™: Building the Conditions for Success
Strategic Organisation™ (SO) emphasises that organisational performance is less about individual brilliance or capabilities, and more about system design. At its core, SO is a discipline that helps leaders align five key elements: structure, process, people, leadership, and values. When these are aligned, organisations gain clarity of purpose, consistency in execution, and coherence in how people work together.
One of SO’s most powerful concepts is the idea of “time-span of discretion” invented by Elliott Jaques in the 1950s. Every role in the organisation, from shop floor to CEO, has a time horizon for which it is accountable. Misalignment between role complexity and capability leads to dysfunction. This concept, when applied, helps organisations calibrate managerial layers, streamline bureaucracy, and avoid over-engineering or leadership vacuums. But just asking a subordinate to ‘fix it’ or ‘do what makes sense’ is neither helpful nor effective. As Gerry would put it “Accountability without Authority is Fantasy and Stress.”
From a Systems Thinking lens, the Nested Hierarchy of Choices offers a clear framework for translating an organisation’s purpose and vision into coherent strategies, tactics, and daily activities across the enterprise. When integrated with the design principles of Strategic Organisation™, it enables each layer of the organisation to take ownership of decisions appropriate to their scope of responsibility—ranging from long-term vision-setting and strategic direction to tactical planning and frontline execution. This structured approach ensures that conceptual strategies are not just abstract ideas but are operationalised holistically throughout the organisation. It promotes vertical alignment, reinforces accountability, and empowers individuals to make decisions that are connected to a shared purpose, ultimately creating a more agile and focused organisation, anchored on clear accountability at every level of leadership.
Take HR, for example. In most companies, HR is seen as an enabler. But in a strategically organised company, HR becomes a systemic lever for transformation. Roles are defined not just by titles, but by accountabilities. Career progression is aligned with the complexity of work, and performance systems are designed around the effectiveness with which employees overcome obstacles and create opportunities, not just competencies. This changes the game from “managing people” to “managing systems of roles.”
Strategy in Action: A Manufacturing Example
Consider a mid-to-large sized manufacturing company undergoing a shift toward smart factory operations. Leadership has invested heavily in IoT, automation, and analytics—but results are mixed. Frontline workers resist the change, middle managers struggle to bridge the technical and human elements, and the executive team is firefighting rather than leading.
By applying Strategic Organisation™ principles, they redesigned their operating model using the Functional Model of a Level 5 Business Unit. Strategic roles were separated from tactical ones. Cross-functional direct-and-indirect accountabilities for outputs (i.e., QQT/R: Quantity, Quality, Time, Resources) are mapped to clarify who is accountable for what in relation to whom. Leaders used accountability mapping to see where execution bottlenecks lay. And at the heart of the transformation, a new system for decision rights, role expectations, and time-span alignment was implemented.
The result? Resistance decreased, productivity increased, and managers had more time to lead rather than plug gaps. Systems Leadership principles—like double-loop learning and surfacing mental models—were used to reframe the cultural assumptions holding the organisation back.
Systems Leadership: Navigating Complexity Through A Theory of Success
If Strategic Organisation™ builds the structure as espoused by Gerry Kraines and Elliott Jaques, Systems Leadership provides the lens. Developed by thought leaders like Peter Senge and Daniel Kim, Systems Leadership challenges leaders to think beyond event-led chains and start recognising patterns, loops, and interdependencies.
A Systems Leader is someone who can hold the long-term vision while navigating short-term complexity. They build capacity for generative conversations, suspend assumptions, and use tools like the Casual Loops and the Levels of Perspective to perform diagnosis and co-creation. Most importantly, they see change not as a linear ‘project’, but as an emergent, iterative process.
When applied together, Strategic Organisation™ provides the infrastructure for accountability and alignment, while Systems Leadership provides the mindset and practice for adaptation and innovation. The synergy between the two creates a powerful enterprise that not only delivers but evolves.
Leading the System: How Executives Can Apply Both
So how can leaders combine Strategic Organisation and Systems Thinking in practical terms? It starts with diagnosis. Leaders need to move from a reactive mindset to one of systemic awareness. Instead of asking “Who dropped the ball?”, they must ask “What in the system allowed this problem to emerge?”.
Second, leaders need to design for learning. This means embedding double-loop learning into strategy reviews, building in feedback loops at multiple levels, and using tools like the Creative Tension Model to manage the gap between current reality and vision. Strategic Organisation™ helps formalise the ‘what’: structure, role design, accountability. Systems Thinking guides the ‘how’: adaptation, sensemaking, and emergent strategy.
Third, leadership development must be re-imagined. Instead of generic competency models, organisations should develop leaders who can lead systems and understand authority and roles. This means teaching managers how to design role architectures, align team charters, and diagnose systemic causes of conflict.
Conclusion: The Future of Work is Systemic
As complexity increases, the leaders who will thrive are those who can simultaneously engineer the conditions for performance and cultivate the learning environment for growth. Strategic Organisation™ and Systems Leadership are not just frameworks; they are leadership imperatives. By embracing both, organisations move from managing chaos to leading change. From reacting to building capacity. And from siloed excellence to enterprise-wide coherence.
Thomas Lim is the Vice-Dean of Centre for Systems Leadership at SIM Academy. He is an AI+Web3 practitioner & author of Think.Coach.Thrive!
by Seah Chin Siong | Jun 10, 2025
In today’s rapidly evolving business environment, understanding the nature of “work” and the varying levels of complexity involved is essential for organisations seeking to enhance productivity and foster value-creating roles. As we explored in Part 1, many organisations are mired in structural inefficiencies that obscure accountability and hinder meaningful contribution.
Employees often struggle with unclear expectations, overlapping responsibilities, and excessive managerial interference—symptoms of poor role definition and misaligned structures. To address this, organisations must align role design and reporting relationships with the complexity of work required at each level. This article focuses on aligning roles by work complexity; the question of talent and capacity will be addressed in the next instalment.
Understanding Work Complexity
In the Strategic Organisation framework, work complexity is assessed through the concept of time-span of discretion—the maximum duration within which an individual is expected to exercise judgment and deliver outcomes without further instruction.
For instance:
- A frontline employee working within a 1- to 3-month time span typically handles well-defined tasks and solves immediate problems using standard procedures.
- A supervisor operating within a 3-month to 1-year time span coordinates schedules, manages short-term performance, and sets tactical goals—requiring broader judgment and planning.
As the time-span increases, so does the inherent complexity of the role, encompassing greater ambiguity, integration, and long-term thinking. Thus, time-span of discretion offers a measurable and practical lens for mapping work across the organisation.
Naturally Occurring Levels of Work Complexity
Based on in-depth research, it is found that there are natural levels of complexity within an organisation that can be mapped using time-span as a measure of decision-making scope. For most organisations, these levels progress as follows:
- Level 1 (1 day to 3 months) involves direct task execution;
- Level 2 (3 months to 1 year) includes supervisory planning and short-term coordination;
- Level 3 (1 to 2 years) encompasses managerial integration across functions;
- Level 4 (2 to 5 years) focuses on business unit leadership and mid-range strategy; and
- Level 5 (5 to 10 years) addresses enterprise-level strategy and long-term value creation.
Each level represents a qualitative leap in complexity, requiring greater cognitive capability, judgment under uncertainty, and responsibility for longer-term outcomes. Roles at the higher levels must deal with greater ambiguity, integration across functions, and strategic planning under uncertain conditions. From a practical standpoint, the longer the time horizon a role is accountable for, the more complex the decisions become, as they involve more variables, longer-term consequences, and fewer clear precedents.
At each ascending level, roles demand more abstract thinking, broader systems integration, and accountability over longer horizons. This progression provides the foundation for a vertically aligned organisational structure—one that reflects the true complexity of the work at each level.
Symptoms of Misalignment: Too Many or Too Few Layers?
Many organisations suffer from structural misalignments that distort the natural levels of work:
- Role compression occurs when multiple roles operate at the same level of complexity. This leads to micromanagement, decision bottlenecks, and stifled initiative as people are unable to exercise discretion appropriate to their title or responsibility.
- Role vacuums arise when a level of work is absent altogether—leaving vital integrative or strategic tasks undone. This results in poor coordination, unclear ownership, and missed long-term opportunities.
Both conditions produce friction, miscommunication, and inefficiencies. Without a structure that clearly delineates levels of complexity and corresponding authority, organisations struggle to scale, adapt, or execute strategy with discipline.
Conclusion
Strategic Organisations are deliberately designed to reflect the inherent levels of work complexity. By assigning roles based on appropriate time-span of discretion and decision-making authority, organisations eliminate structural distortions like compression and vacuums.
The outcome is a clear, accountable, and scalable structure—where each role adds unique value and supports the levels above and below. This vertical alignment enables effective delegation, stronger strategic execution, and a culture built on trust and performance.
By matching people to the real complexity of their work, organisations can unlock deeper engagement, enhanced productivity, and long-term adaptability.
by Seah Chin Siong | Apr 11, 2025
Have you ever stopped to consider just how much of your team’s time is wasted “working the system” rather than doing real value-added work?
Organisations often find themselves trapped in a cycle of inefficiency, dedicating as much as 30-60% of their efforts to navigating dysfunctional structures and processes instead of focusing on value-added work. This reality highlights a critical issue: most organisations are therefore not designed to operate at their potential.
Understanding the root causes
What are the root causes of this time and energy drain?
Many organisations struggle with structures that do not align with their business strategy, which can also lead to a lack of the requisite capabilities arising from unclear roles and expectations. This ambiguity can breed frustration, disengagement, and an environment where real collaboration becomes a challenge. Sometimes, employees even feel like they are competing with their colleagues, turning the potential for synergy into competition—thus, 1 + 1 ends up being less than 2.
Accountability as the Basic Building Block
Accountability—or the absence of it—stands as one of the primary barriers to effective organisational design. Being “called to account” by someone to whom a commitment was made focuses on the essence of accountability. Accountability must also come with the requisite authority. When individuals are assigned accountabilities without the necessary authority or clarity of purpose and context, the system inevitably falters. This misalignment impacts not just individuals but also creates silos that undermine organisational culture.
Accountability serves as a basic building block of successful organisations. All employees are accountable for meeting their commitments and within specific constraints, which fosters trust. They are also expected to exercise discretion for innovating and creating value at their levels. Managers, on the other hand, are accountable for the outputs, adherence, and effectiveness of their teams. It’s vital that appropriate consequences are established for meeting (positive) or not meeting (negative) these accountabilities, as this reinforces a culture where accountability thrives.
In a well-designed organisation, there is clarity of accountability within and between job roles. Job roles at different levels of complexity must coexist in a requisite manner. This is an essential first and foundational step for building an organisation that can meet it strategic objectives.
Enhancing Organisational Performance through Strategic Organisation™
Building a Strategic Organisation™ requires engagement and commitment from leadership at all levels. Aligning organisational structures with strategic objectives can yield significant results. By establishing clearly defined roles and fostering a culture that prioritises accountability, organisations can unlock the full potential of their workforce, enabling employees to develop to their full potential and contribute to better results. . Embracing the principles of Strategic Organisation™ can transform not just individual performance but the entire organisational culture, steering companies toward sustainable success.
In my next article, I will discuss the nature of work and how the understanding of it can help managers better organise around accountabilities and lead their teams to better performance.
