What do you think?
Rate this book
Human Capability: A Study of Individual Potential and Its Objective Evaluation
Reporting research that provides an invaluable tool for utilizing individual capability, it makes it possible for talent pool development programs to effectively meet the organization's future human resource requirements.
165 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 1994
115 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 24, 2018
Фантастически интересная книга про уровни и типы мышления. Объясняет многие проблемы менеджмента, не затронутые другими работами. Спасибо Рею Далио за рекомендацию.
September 1, 2018
Эллиот Жакс описывает свои исследования в отношении уровней комплексности мышления человека, теории страт и горизонтов мышления. Достаточно внимания уделено тому, как можно из дискуссии с человеком по некоторым признакам определить уровень комплексности мышления. Рекомендую к прочтению для управленцев, HR и предпринимателей. Твердые 5 звёзд.
September 29, 2014
This book clearly tells about the theory behind the level of work. It tells about the fundamentals related to mental complexity. It's use is not only related to corporate but also social and personal life.
March 27, 2026
One of my closest friends recommended this book to me a few years ago, claiming it had not only given insight into his own abilities but also changed his perspective on his employees and how he manages them. [TO BE ADDED: more about his views after I discuss with him]
Jacques and Cason have essentially presented an approach to more accurately quantify competency - referred to in this study as 'human capability' - partly to decry attempts to standardize it through IQ tests and the like. They argue that capability can be derived from the level of complexity required in the mental processing of the task, the extent to which the individual values or is committed to the work, and the extent to which that person possesses the necessary skilled knowledge for the work. Labor and organizational studies more often employ the more tangible metrics of competency, such as certifications and required skill levels, but rarely do we see (or at least from what I've read) this element of values and commitment that Jacques and Cason have so rightly emphasized. Testing is often a poor indicator of competency due to the impact of socio-cultural differences: "To know about problems and how to answer them will inevitably be socially influenced (i.e., by family and cultural background, education, language, experience, etc.)." Such a rigid approach focuses upon answers rather than the process, exacerbating development of more mechanical and rote skills that are more susceptible to being replaced by automation.
"None of us is omnicompetent, nor equally interested in every kind of work," Jacques and Carson point out. This, to me, is the missing piece in today's discussions around drivers of labor market frictions. The concern tends to be toward labor demand - more market investments in the hopes of job creation - when supply is increasingly becoming the more prominent challenge. Globally, there is an imbalance in utilized capability: in some markets, there are too many job seekers for the amount of jobs available; in other markets, the jobs do not attract the plethora of skilled workers (e.g., due to low wages, poor benefits, bad management, etc.). "The abysmal social and psychological conditions under which we manage our employment systems do not often provide for such constructive conditions." (p. 64) Skills development and training programs are designed for what is perceived as needed, but demand is concentrated in fields that promise quicker returns.
I also appreciated Jacques and Cason's views on the role of knowledge in decision-making, which also contributes to the counterargument against standardized approaches to measuring capability or competency. "If you know and can articulate the final reasons for making a decision, you have not made a decision - you have merely calculated an inevitable outcome, much as a computer would do" (p. 10). It is a sound reminder that each decision is a commitment amid uncertainty, but still one that is experimental.
While the book is very academic and the analysis jargon-heavy, I believe in Jacques and Cason's vision, even 30 years on: "What we all really yearn for is to have work at a level consistent with our current potential and for progression to match our future potential, and for the chance to get the necessary education and training. That is the true democratic dream." (p. 92-93)
Jacques and Cason have essentially presented an approach to more accurately quantify competency - referred to in this study as 'human capability' - partly to decry attempts to standardize it through IQ tests and the like. They argue that capability can be derived from the level of complexity required in the mental processing of the task, the extent to which the individual values or is committed to the work, and the extent to which that person possesses the necessary skilled knowledge for the work. Labor and organizational studies more often employ the more tangible metrics of competency, such as certifications and required skill levels, but rarely do we see (or at least from what I've read) this element of values and commitment that Jacques and Cason have so rightly emphasized. Testing is often a poor indicator of competency due to the impact of socio-cultural differences: "To know about problems and how to answer them will inevitably be socially influenced (i.e., by family and cultural background, education, language, experience, etc.)." Such a rigid approach focuses upon answers rather than the process, exacerbating development of more mechanical and rote skills that are more susceptible to being replaced by automation.
"None of us is omnicompetent, nor equally interested in every kind of work," Jacques and Carson point out. This, to me, is the missing piece in today's discussions around drivers of labor market frictions. The concern tends to be toward labor demand - more market investments in the hopes of job creation - when supply is increasingly becoming the more prominent challenge. Globally, there is an imbalance in utilized capability: in some markets, there are too many job seekers for the amount of jobs available; in other markets, the jobs do not attract the plethora of skilled workers (e.g., due to low wages, poor benefits, bad management, etc.). "The abysmal social and psychological conditions under which we manage our employment systems do not often provide for such constructive conditions." (p. 64) Skills development and training programs are designed for what is perceived as needed, but demand is concentrated in fields that promise quicker returns.
I also appreciated Jacques and Cason's views on the role of knowledge in decision-making, which also contributes to the counterargument against standardized approaches to measuring capability or competency. "If you know and can articulate the final reasons for making a decision, you have not made a decision - you have merely calculated an inevitable outcome, much as a computer would do" (p. 10). It is a sound reminder that each decision is a commitment amid uncertainty, but still one that is experimental.
While the book is very academic and the analysis jargon-heavy, I believe in Jacques and Cason's vision, even 30 years on: "What we all really yearn for is to have work at a level consistent with our current potential and for progression to match our future potential, and for the chance to get the necessary education and training. That is the true democratic dream." (p. 92-93)
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews