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, 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.