SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Three authors at the Harvard Business Review briefly discuss the Peter Principle by dealing with a quantifiable data set. That principle is the one which states that people are promoted to rise to their particular level of their incompetence. At the end they propose several possible solutions or work-arounds.
The Peter Principle problem arises when the skills that make someone successful at one job level don’t translate to success in the next level. In these cases, organizations must choose whether to reward the top performer with a promotion or to instead promote the worker that has the best skill match with a managerial position. When organizations reward success in one role with a promotion to another, the usual grumbles ensue; the best engineer doesn’t make the best engineering manager, and the best professor doesn’t make the best dean. The same problem may apply to scientists, physicians, lawyers, or in any other profession where technical aptitude doesn’t necessarily translate into managerial skill.
[...] While the Peter Principle may sound intuitively plausible, it has never been empirically tested using data from many firms. To test whether firms really are passing over the best potential managers by promoting the top performers in their old roles, we examined data on the performance of salespeople and their managers at 214 firms. Sales is an ideal setting to test for the Peter Principle because, unlike other professional settings, it’s easy to identify high performing salespeople and managers — for salespeople, we know their sales records, and for the sales managers, we can measure their managerial ability as the extent to which they help improve the performance of their subordinates. The data, which come from a company that administers sales performance management software over the cloud, allow us to track the sales performance of a large number of salespeople and managers in a large number of firms. Armed with these data, we asked: Do organizations really pass over the best potential managers by promoting the best individual contributors? And if so, how do organizations manage around the Peter Principle?
[...] Both solutions can be implemented as part of the performance evaluation process. One approach, embedded in evaluation regimes like the ninebox, asks raters to decouple evaluating future career potential from prior job performance. People who score highly on future career potential can be rewarded with promotion to management roles and stock options to retain them until their potential can be realized. People who score highly on prior job performance can be rewarded with bonuses, promotions up an individual contributor track, or recognition. The process should be designed to recognize and reward excellence in one’s role without necessarily changing one’s role.
Incentive pay, dual career ladders, and thoughtful performance evaluations can recognize that people contribute to the success of the organization in different ways. But it seems that, at least in sales, companies nonetheless reward sales talent by promoting top sales workers into management.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday June 15 2018, @03:16PM (19 children)
In the book "The Peter Principle", he describes exactly how you prevent the principle from operating:
- If you want to avoid promotion to your own level of incompetence and instead keep doing a job you're happy doing, then find something creative to do that doesn't really cause any problems for your job but is seen as a sign of incompetence. This will remove you from consideration for promotion. As a simple example, wear your hair unkempt in the office.
- If you are in charge of a hierarchy and you want to keep competent people working at jobs they can handle, then you impose a caste system where you formally or informally place a ceiling on how far people can be promoted no matter how good they are at what they do. And this is definitely operating: Most organizations will not promote the best techie in their organization past the team lead or senior architect level under any circumstances. The odds of the best retail associate in existence getting past store manager is approximately zero. And so forth.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Friday June 15 2018, @03:33PM (11 children)
I practice the first. But then, if you want to avoid promotion above your OWN level of incompetence, just say "No thanks". You don't need a trick. Just say "Thanks, but I'm happy where I am and I wouldn't want to do that".
If you're in charge of the hierarchy, you don't need to blatantly lay down limits either. The good people will eventually disappear if you do that.
What you do, is you say "I'll put you alongside the guy doing this job for a year, see how it goes, if it goes well, we could move you up". And then you DENY promotion if it doesn't go well. Let them have as many trials as they like. Until they meet the necessary standard, they don't get the full job, and you explain why.
The Peter Principle is alive and well because of two things: People who don't understand their own limits and are too scared to point them out when they do, and people who DON'T promote appropriately.
If you have to have a few month's "probation" when you start a new job, why is that any different whether you're new to the company, or new to your promoted position in that company.
I'm sure a lot of people would be glad to be told "Hey, we think you're struggling here. Would you rather go back to what you were doing?" rather than sit and stress that they are going to lose ALL their positions and so keep quiet about any problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Friday June 15 2018, @03:54PM (5 children)
I like finding enthusiastic people who are team players: people willing to learn and help out. TRAIN AND CROSS TRAIN THE FUCK OUT OF THEM.
That way, you find out who is good at what, who ENJOYS doing what, and if you find out you have a shortage somewhere (someone dies, goes on extended leave, DECIDES TO BUCK FOR 'DISABILITY' (which is what we are going through with a same level co-worker of mine....she's not disabled: she just wasn't good at her job (Peter Principle candidate #1), tried to delegate everything without training and pissed people off (losing her best friend at work at the same time) until she found no one had her back. Now she's busy trying to trick her doctor into giving her disability (she can cry at the drop of a hat)) you can easily replace them short term and see if they are long term material (and they can see if they WANT the job full time or just want to stay put but help out once in a while).
Luckily, even though we have to hold her job open for her, we know she won't be back and it's been relatively easy to replace her due to a couple of enthusiastic people we trained (one REALLY good person, but a relatively new hire, the other is good but DESPERATELY NEEDS to find a girl friend or a sexy flock of sheep or something.....sheesh to the horn dog MAX we need to get him LAID!!!!!).
HIRE FOR ATTITUDE AND TRAIN.
Trick will be if the new guy is a better hire than the longer term horny guy.... may lose the horny guy....
"....may lose the horny guy..."
Did that sound GAY to you? (damn, what show is that phrase FROM!?!?!)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Snow on Friday June 15 2018, @04:23PM (1 child)
Tell us more about this horny guy. Sounds like there are a couple good stories there...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Friday June 15 2018, @04:51PM
Nah: he's good and enthusiastic, but he flirts tooo much and let's himself get pussy whipped by the 'hot girls'... he does what THEY want instead of what he should be doing, sometimes.
If you give him specific jobs, he's fine unless *pussy whipped whip crack sound*.
If he starts getting regular sex, he'll be fine, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rcamera on Friday June 15 2018, @05:11PM (1 child)
cross training the enthusiastic works to a point. until the competent guy notices that he's getting burned out doing the job of many people across many departments of incompetent clowns. then he updates his resume, which now totally rocks, and has other would-be-employers calling within a day of posting it. doesn't sound like it works out for the company in the long run.
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 15 2018, @09:08PM
No, you cross train but you don't make them do other peoples jobs. If the others are incompetent clowns, they should be moved out and THEN promote people who have been trained to do the job and show enthusiasm and ability to do the clowns job.
That way, you get rid of the clowns and always have enthusiastic, able people ready to step up when the clowns ARE gone.
Works out WELL, short and long term: as long as you treat your people right and pay them accordingly... or they WILL leave (treat them well, pay them accordingly and they will always have that doubt; "will it REALLY be better at the new place?"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 16 2018, @04:50AM
One of the things that is missed here is that people aren't static objects. People can improve to capably take on more challenging jobs or projects. Training, education, and experience are big ways this happens.
For example, a common higher level manager prep strategy is to have the prospective manager work for a time in each of the departments they would be supervising - cross-training in other words. They then get experience in working in each of the departments and have a much better understanding of the departments and their needs and activities, than someone who never did that.
Another sort of preparation is to give the potential candidate work with increasing responsibility. While it's often not the case, if there is a functional system for evaluating the performance of employees over such activities, that help would be employers figure out if an employee can handle a higher level of responsibility or not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday June 15 2018, @04:05PM (1 child)
Peter anticipated that too. Here are the problems he laid out:
- The people around you who benefit from what you earn (e.g. your spouse and children) are likely to want more and apply whatever pressure is at their disposal to force you to take it.
- Whoever offered you the promotion has just lost face and standing, and will now hate you.
- Management in general will label you as not being serious about your career or your job, and treat you accordingly.
Hence the recommendation to avoid the offer in the first place by being incompetent at something totally harmless. Examples he cites included losing pointless paperwork like receipts and delivery slips, having a messy office, neglecting to immediately deposit paychecks, and passing out copies of Walden and talking about anti-materialism all the time.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 15 2018, @06:35PM
It's important to remember sometimes that the book originally written was meant to be satirical. Yes, there's a LOT of truth in it, but it isn't necessarily a blueprint for behavior.
Okay, there could be several issues here. If you happen to be someone who views "happiness" and "finding your right place" as an important goal, rather than the constant accumulation of more wealth or prestige in corporate positions, but you married someone who has different views on this -- you have bigger problems to worry about for the long-term strength of your relationship. Does anyone seriously think the nagging from a spouse like that would stop just because you weren't offered a promotion? If anything, it's liable to get WORSE if you're in the same position for the long-term. Better to be honest about this and be clear with your spouse that you're happy where you are... and deal with the repercussions. (Or not. Divorce is very common these days.)
If you were foolish enough to marry someone who has significantly different life and financial priorities than you, the strategy here won't help.
Also, frankly, don't be a spineless twit and stand up for yourself. Set an example for your kids and teach them to find something they love and stick with it. It likely will bring you and your kids more happiness in the long-run.
Which proves that whoever offered you the promotion is a self-conscious spineless twit.
In all seriousness, if this is a legitimate concern, you didn't turn down the promotion in the right way. Either that, or you're clearly working for a company that doesn't value you or your abilities enough to retain you doing work that you're actually good at. A good manager or boss should recognize that having happier and more fulfilled employees will make them better workers who are likely to stick around and do good work. If you explain how remaining in your position will enable that for you personally, a manager who decides to hate you for no good reason is worse than a bad manager -- they are an idiot and should be fired. (So stop being a spineless twit and go get them fired. I'm only half joking.)
How about rather than lying to your family and pretending to be incompetent, you just demonstrate why having you stay in a given position is actually good for the company?? Lead by doing. If you don't view a managerial position as a "promotion" because it would take you away from what you love to do and make you less effective, offer to do something in your current position, perhaps modified, that would help the company. Show your creativity. Show your skills. Show that awesome competence at your current position by demonstrating your worth. Maybe that's mentoring others with your methods. If you're not a "people person" and would be bad at management (or mentoring) anyway, perhaps find other ways to share your expertise to help your team or offering ways to make a bigger impact.
Maybe then you even get to stay in your position, add some minor responsibilities you even like (because you came up with them), show your creativity and commitment to your position, and if you're at all in a rational company, you might even get rewarded for them (perhaps with better pay, even without an official "promotion").
If you're at some awful corporate bureaucracy that would never reward such actual initiative, then perhaps after denying the promotion, spend your days talking up your philosophy about trying to find happiness by being competent at a job you love to your coworkers. That will surely prevent your being offered a promotion ever again at a company like that, and it might do more good (and be more honest) than handing out copies of Walden and talking about anti-materialism in a fake way.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 15 2018, @05:35PM (1 child)
The military is so determined to defeat attempts to defeat the Peter Principle that they have an up or out policy..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @10:03PM
Military needs fresh blood. If you are past ideal age interval for your rank, and you are not a material for the next higher rank, basically you are an unnecessary liability.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday June 15 2018, @05:56PM
That was my approach...but unfortunately managers love to lie to get what they want out of people. They'll say the promotion is "for the additional work you've already started doing" and say that there's "no additional responsibilities" in order to get you to accept it, and then once you start getting the increased salary they start telling you that the promotion does in fact come with a bunch of new tasks you're expected to perform. Had they told me ahead of time that I would be responsible for managing a whole team of people, I would have said no. But they didn't tell me that until after the promotion was completed so I was kinda stuck with it.
Of course I have no interest in nor ability for management roles...and I'm not looking to change that even if the whole damn department collapses because of it. That'd be about what they deserve IMO.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday June 15 2018, @03:36PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @05:12PM (3 children)
I worked in a company that had the ceiling. I hit the ceiling. I got passed over for promotion. I complained. They did nothing. I quit about 3 months after being passed over. Before leaving, I found both the job they passed me over for and more money at a competitor. Ceilings are not a good idea if you want to keep the best and those people want promotion.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday June 15 2018, @05:35PM
Another observation in the original book (totally worth reading if you haven't) is that hierarchies will tend to get rid of 2 groups of people:
1. People who are so astoundingly lousy at their jobs that they threaten the hierarchy.
2. People who are so amazingly good at their jobs that they threaten the hierarchy.
Attempting to get a well-qualified promotion threatened the hierarchy, so they were fine with letting you go to a competitor.
And for what it's worth, I pulled the same maneuver at one point in my career, many years ago. I still am happy I did it: Had I stayed, it would have been another 10 years before I had gotten to the same title and salary level I was offered elsewhere, and during those 10 years the division I worked for was shut down.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday June 15 2018, @05:44PM (1 child)
You can also hint that you might quit. Might backfire if they really didn't think you were promotion material.
Or, do what I did, early in my career: Actually quit, start your own business, become a contractor. (Maybe scout some temporary projects for the near future). Then win contracts with the SAME OLD COMPANY doing your old job as an outside contractor. Its utterly amazing how someone they won't listen to as an employee can have them all jumping through hoops as a contractor. Suddenly your word is golden.
Side benefit: you get to skip all those diversity training sessions, pointless meetings, and office birthdays. You can get it set up and working the way you want it, then hire some reasonably smart guy to run it while you move on to more interesting things.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday June 16 2018, @02:45AM
Hate to break it to you, froj, but there is a fatal flaw in your dastardly plan. It may even be recursive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @08:05PM
This is similar to what I have seen happening, but I think for other reasons. First line managers that seem to have stumbled into their jobs by accident, and are exposed to barrages of unrealistic expectations by their superiors and no domain knowledge of the matter they are managing. No way for them to build a career if they want to, because everybody on top is likewise trying to stay in their comfy jobs. And if they want to stay comfortably where they are, they need to keep the shit from above flowing downward, while taking credit when their team succeeds. Headcount is important for status, so even incompetents can stay on as long as the other team members can pull his weight. If someone on the team is career-minded, busy work is piled on him, because 1) he could be a threat to the manager's position, 2) he may not do well in his new responsibilities, and 3) the rest of the team may refuse to accept his leadership role.
In jobs out of the trenches, I have seen more acceptance to letting someone try out a job with greater responsibility, with the caveat that he gets canned after a year of unsatisfactory performance.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @08:21PM
I worked for a company that had a policy of sending all management candidates to Virginia to do a 2 day psych profile. You spent about 10 hours overall with the psychologists, maybe 3 hours of testing, another 4-5 hours of solo projects, including a presentation, and then a couple of "acting sessions" one with an actor peer manager, and another with a subordinate - of course your counterpart actors were scripted to present you with lose-lose scenarios, and your evaluation was based on how gracefully you lost.
My evaluation scores came back, placing my management competency rating in the upper half (maybe top 33%) of management candidates in the company, but they also showed technical competency scores like logical analysis skills for which I ranked much higher. Basically: the paper said I'd be a good manager, better than average within the company, but that I'm much more valuable (and, incidentally, due to their compensation structure: less expensive) in technical roles. They kept me through two rounds of layoffs, but I didn't keep them.
🌻🌻 [google.com]