Talk:Requisite organization

Proposal to Merge with Hierarchiology
Those two are two completely different topics, hence can't be merged.
 * It is not obvious to me that they are different topics. It looks like two different authors have invented two different bits of jargon for pretty much the same thing. Jaques is usually regarded as a serious author, while Peter is usually regarded as a humorist.--RichardVeryard 23:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merge. Requisite Organization focuses on the structure of organizations while hierarchy deals more with the placement of the people (it seems to assume the hierarchy already exists while RO examines if and how the hierarchy and other structures exist).  However, almost suggested merging with Elliott Jaques because it seemed to be an article on him and his views (I altered the tone to try to remove this). RJFJR 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hierarchiology is defined as "the social science concerned with the basic principles of hierarchically organized systems". This seems to be exactly what Jaques was concerned with. However, I agree that Peter's discussion of hierarchiology fails to address the structural principles, but concentrates on the (humorous aspects of) placement of people within an existing hierarchy. In which case, it should probably be merged with Peter Principle instead. --RichardVeryard 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Should not be merged with Hierarchiology, it is a separate academic field. It was originally named Stratified Systems Theory and is also known as Levels of Work. There is a wide body of people who have been involved in the development of the theory, after Jaques initial work. Most of them at Brunel University, where Jaques was dean of the school of social studies. The page should not be merged with Jaques page in order to be able to describe and recognize the work of others. PaulHolm (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Organization Development
The opening paragraph makes the claim that some of Jaques' conclusions about organizations run counter to the predominant views of OD, and also that Requisite Organization is somewhat controversial as a result. I would like to see the Requisite Organization page expanded, probably with a new section, to explain that claim in more detail. For example, Let me be clear, I don't disagree with the claim - I just don't understand it.
 * Which conclusions run counter to OD?
 * Which conclusions are shared?
 * Who has spoken out for or against a particular conclusion?

I would write the comparison, but I'd be starting from zero. I have no background in Requisite organization or Organization Development. My hope is that someone more familiar with the subject could make quick work of it. --TravisM (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)