Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 15 2018, @02:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the I'm-not-competent-enough-to-judge dept.

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.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by FatPhil on Friday June 15 2018, @03:15PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday June 15 2018, @03:15PM (#693522) Homepage
    That it is clearly a fairly accurate description of the outcome of whatever machinations have taken place, even if it's not for the reasons given. So it looks right, but is probably wrong.

    One example of alternative reasons driving this tendancy, as mentioned elsestory today, dictators like to pull up spineless followers close to them, so it's not necessarily pressure from below making them bubble up until they're out of the way.

    Similarly, the "fact" that they're *promoted* to that position is also not accurate, often they move sideways to be managing something they have no familiarity with at all. Case in point 3 jobs back: Head of group, 500+ people under her, leading a *linux* project. Receives a text file in a mail from me, claims it's unreadable because she's not even aware that there's such a thing as a difference between unix and dos line termination. Shortest job I've ever held. Quit within 2 months. I won't name the company, to spare embarassment for anyone still stupid or enslaved enough to work for Samsung.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday June 15 2018, @03:16PM (19 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday June 15 2018, @03:16PM (#693523)

    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)

      by ledow (5567) on Friday June 15 2018, @03:33PM (#693533) Homepage

      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)

        by Gaaark (41) on Friday June 15 2018, @03:54PM (#693545) Journal

        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)

          by Snow (1601) on Friday June 15 2018, @04:23PM (#693558) Journal

          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

            by Gaaark (41) on Friday June 15 2018, @04:51PM (#693569) Journal

            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)

          by rcamera (2360) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:11PM (#693580) Homepage Journal

          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

            by Gaaark (41) on Friday June 15 2018, @09:08PM (#693714) Journal

            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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 16 2018, @04:50AM (#693858) Journal

          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.

          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)

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday June 15 2018, @04:05PM (#693552)

        You don't need a trick. Just say "Thanks, but I'm happy where I am and I wouldn't want to do that".

        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

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:35PM (#693632) Journal

          Peter anticipated that too.

          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.

          - 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.

          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.

          - Whoever offered you the promotion has just lost face and standing, and will now hate you.

          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.)

          - Management in general will label you as not being serious about your career or your job, and treat you accordingly.

          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)

        by sjames (2882) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:35PM (#693601) Journal

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @10:03PM (#694051)

          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

        by urza9814 (3954) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:56PM (#693612) Journal

        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".

        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

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday June 15 2018, @03:36PM (#693535) Homepage
      As long as you employ people as just developers or engineers, then you can not just give them more money as they prove their worth, but can add "senior", "lead", "principal", etc. to their job descriptions, if that is deemed necessary. That should be enough to keep them happy for nearly a decade, and if they've been at the company that long, they probably don't give a shit what the job title is anyway, they're clearly happy just doing the work (and getting the pay).
      --
      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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @05:12PM (#693581)

      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

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:35PM (#693600)

        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)

        by frojack (1554) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:44PM (#693606) Journal

        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

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday June 16 2018, @02:45AM (#693835) Journal

          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.

          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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @08:05PM (#693678)

      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.

      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

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @08:21PM (#693687)

      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]
  • (Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday June 15 2018, @03:20PM (5 children)

    by fadrian (3194) on Friday June 15 2018, @03:20PM (#693526) Homepage

    The problem with hiring for any position is that for any position worth taking time to hire, you really don't know who is going to be the best at it. And there are few skills transferable between the practice of STEM and management. This makes the hiring of technical managers problematic. But then why should STEM management be its own special snowflake? Hiring is just hard.

    --
    That is all.
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @03:43PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @03:43PM (#693540)

      I had (a very nice, VERY expensive) dinner with a retired CEO who had presided over 15 years of unprecedented growth in his company. Good guy, 5 years post retirement when he walked the production floor he still knew line workers by name and they all loved and respected him, middle management even still feared disagreeing with him face to face. He made a couple of memorable statements:

      Regarding record growth: "I didn't do anything special or great, I was just in the right place at the right time and managed to not completely screw it up."

      Regarding hiring: "When more than 50% of the people I picked ended up doing more good than harm after they were hired, that was a good batch."

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday June 15 2018, @05:48PM (3 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:48PM (#693608)

      And there are few skills transferable between the practice of STEM and management. This makes the hiring of technical managers problematic.

      See, I've never had any difficulties identifying who would make a good technical manager.

      Look at your crew of techies. Find the one that is, in addition to doing their own job, regularly helping the other techies. In fact, they often seem to enjoy that mentoring work more than coding themselves, and are well-regarded by their peers for all that work. That's your real team lead right there, regardless of what their job title says they are, and if you're their boss you'd do well to change their job title and salary to reflect that.

      Among your team leads, you'll see some that are particularly good at big-picture thinking - they know how to get through the swamp but also recognize which swamps to not go into - and are diligent about the paperwork and other non-technical aspects of their job. That's someone who can be promoted beyond the tech work. But, and this is important, they'll retain the respect of the techies because they've been through the swamps before and still have all those team lead skills they've always had.

      Good managers in any field are hard to find, because you have to be both good at the field, and good at managing. And good CEOs are extremely rare, because to be a really good CEO you have to be at least familiar with everything your company does, from sales to marketing to finance to legal to IT to operations, and be good at managing. And that's because if you aren't familiar with how a job is done, you have no basis for judging whether your subordinate is doing the job well.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by urza9814 on Friday June 15 2018, @06:03PM (2 children)

        by urza9814 (3954) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:03PM (#693615) Journal

        Look at your crew of techies. Find the one that is, in addition to doing their own job, regularly helping the other techies. In fact, they often seem to enjoy that mentoring work more than coding themselves, and are well-regarded by their peers for all that work. That's your real team lead right there, regardless of what their job title says they are, and if you're their boss you'd do well to change their job title and salary to reflect that.

        OH GODS NO!

        That might be a good manager...or it might be someone who loves what they already do. I'm on the testing team, but I'm regularly writing entire programs for our developers, I'm helping the Unix team understand how Unix works, I'm helping the monitoring team develop new monitoring tools, I'm helping the managers manage firewall issues...but if they give me one more promotion in the management direction I'm gonna walk out and be looking for a new job the very same day. I help everyone with code and technical stuff because *that's what I love to do*. Half the time I'm doing it to procrastinate on more managerial type work. If you make me a lead, you remove that part of my job and replace it with more spreadsheets and reports, and if you do that I am OUT OF HERE.

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 15 2018, @09:17PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Friday June 15 2018, @09:17PM (#693717) Journal

          Yeah, that's what i fear: the paperwork, the meetings, the slog, the BS. BS thrown at me, i can take and deal with accordingly.

          Having to throw BS downhill because it rolled down to me? Fuck that.

          BS and paperwork, etc, will kill me everytime.

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @11:29PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @11:29PM (#693761)

          Check if your organization has a "principal" or other technical (non-managerial) promotion title - if they do, take it. (I took mine, annual bonus increased by 50% and pay bumped 15%, job description essentially unchanged.)

          If they don't have such a promotional track and the place is small, suggest it. Maybe even research a couple of companies in your area where you could advance on such a track and mention that these other places have the tech-track for promotions... not a threat to leave, just an "on notice" to management that you know what's going on in the world around you - usually your management does too, sometimes they will just assume you don't and let you rot at lower pay as long as you are willing, and on rare occasions your management doesn't even know what the competition really pays for people with your skills and experience.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Friday June 15 2018, @03:39PM (23 children)

    by BsAtHome (889) on Friday June 15 2018, @03:39PM (#693537)

    The general idea that "management" is "better" than other jobs is a wrong way to look at it. It is utterly wrong that "promotion" should mean "moving to management". It simply shows that the a hierarchical view is equated with a prestige value associated with distinct jobs, where the value and view of prestige is created by the hierarchy. The actual value of a job and associated work does not lie in the hierarchical position, but in the value it creates in context of the whole.

    As a simple example, imagine that we abandon some of the lowest prestige jobs, for example cleaning the floors (or, in good HHGTTG style, B-ark workers). You will only recognize the real value of that work once you experience it is missing.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @04:00PM (7 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @04:00PM (#693548)

      Management is valued because of the pyramid principle. Of course floor cleaners are more important than your CEO, that's why you have so many more of them (in a big company.) In Fortune 500 companies, the floor cleaners (and other janitorial staff) collectively earn more than the CEOs. Take Cintas - #500 on the list, CEO annual compensation $8.6M. 42,000 total employees. Janitor salaries average $28.5K [salary.com] - so Mr. Scott Douglas Farmer earns as much as 302 janitors, is it reasonable to assume that janitors and other cleaning staff make up more than 0.72% of the Cintas workforce of 42,000?

      I believe we have made the pyramid too pointy for overall societal harmony, but that's the way it's played these days: if you manage a large number of people, you are generally compensated at a higher level than the average person you manage, and when this gets amplified through 7+ levels of management, we end up with these compensation multiples of 300 and more.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by nobu_the_bard on Friday June 15 2018, @04:40PM (3 children)

        by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Friday June 15 2018, @04:40PM (#693563)

        You assume Cintas has janitors at all. Lots of places contract it out.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @06:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @06:13PM (#693623)

          Do contracted janitors not cost money, or did you just want to nit-pick about something?

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @06:19PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:19PM (#693626)

          So whether the janitors are counted in the 42,000 or they are extra contractors on top, point being, I think it's a safe bet that janitorial services are costing Cintas more than their CEO.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Friday June 15 2018, @10:44PM

          by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday June 15 2018, @10:44PM (#693748)

          This is amusing because Cintas is a company that provides janitorial and uniform services to other companies.

          They have thousands of janitors. :)

          --
          "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday June 15 2018, @04:55PM (1 child)

        by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 15 2018, @04:55PM (#693571)

        > I believe we have made the pyramid too pointy for overall societal harmony, but that's the way it's played these days:

        I think that this has happened as an artifact of consolidation and globalisation - companies are getting bigger, even the big ones. Over last 20 years US dollar inflation is about 50%, whereas Fortune 500 total revenue has gone up well over 100%. Management jobs are valued, at least in part, by how much revenue your decisions affect, hence as companies get bigger managers at the top get more - and I am not sure it is related to number of people managed, I suspect total F500 revenue has gone up faster than total employees (if that has gone up at all).

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @06:33PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:33PM (#693630)

          In most organizations I have worked with it goes something like this: "O.K.: our last manager's wife left him 6 months ago and he had a mental breakdown last week, who wants his job? You'll be reporting to the next-level psycho who acts that way because he's got the next-level psycho above him breathing down his neck three times a week about performance metrics and what we're doing to ensure that HIS stock options will be worth something next quarter. Anybody want to do this for the same pay you currently make? Oh, and by the way you'll need to cover your normal responsibilities during the transition period while we try to claw back your headcount from HR who's trying to snatch it up as an opportunity to not have to downsize another department..." When that pitch doesn't work out, they pull their most likely suckers (candidates) into a room one at a time and make them a lowball pitch offer slightly above their current compensation, and repeat the process until they find the fool willing to step up to the plate and become a shoulder for 15 of their coworkers to cry on, not to mention being procedural tech support for every new hire in the department as well as every existing one who forgets how to do anything, conduct performance reviews, handle layoffs, be heavily involved in the hiring process, yeah, is it any wonder that half the time they end up hiring from outside instead?

          Just kidding, it's not like that most places I've worked, only maybe 40%. Then there was the place where I was hired to replace a guy who was found on the concrete 24 floors below his hotel balcony, I did lots of conference calls from home and my wife was convinced that my primary co-worker there was the reason the last guy jumped.

          Other places have been better - I try to stick with the better places.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday June 15 2018, @05:37PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 15 2018, @05:37PM (#693602) Journal

        Depends on what you mean by "valued". They get more money because they have more leverage over who gets paid how much. They get higher ratings, because they define the rating system. Et multitudinous cetera.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @04:05PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @04:05PM (#693553)

      Everybody (well, all except incompetents) is needed for the company to work. We each have our role to play.
      But it seems you are really complaining about some workers not getting their "fair share" of the rewards: respect, money, etc.
      Your compensation is based on many things, but the biggies are: how much money do you bring into the company -and- how hard is it to find someone who could do your job?
      In the case of cleaning staff, you bring in nothing, and the bar for someone to replace you is can they push a mop? So low a bar that someone with an elementary school education that speaks almost no English who arrived here yesterday from Honduras can do it and start immediately.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Friday June 15 2018, @05:13PM (2 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:13PM (#693584) Journal
        Your criticism seems more accurate aimed at socialism in general than the specific argument he was using.

        It's tradition, and the nature of our existence as mammals, not capitalism that causes us to place management at the top of each career path. In traditional societies; hunter-gatherer, pastoralist, agriculturalist etc. this generally made sense. Those who were young and strong did the hardest work, if one survived into older age ones contribution would gradually shift to supervision and teaching rather than brute work, more or less as ones physical ability to do such work waned, so all to the best.

        With industrialization and medical breakthroughs and so forth this has all tended to break down though. Old people in traditional societies are rare - most died young. The handful that lived to show grey hairs were valued for their wit and wisdom. Today we have warehouses full of people that have been written off as too old and too ill to do anything useful. Back then, the knowledge needed to supervise was mostly the knowledge needed to teach the job. More and more supervisors are 'resource managers' who may not even really know what the 'units' under them actually do - just when they are to arrive and leave, what they get paid, their scores from QA, etc. It's all much more specialized.

        Some workplaces moreso, some less; there are definitely niches where part of that doesn't apply, but the Peter Principle observation applies to the space outside of those niches. And in that space, when you promote a good worker to management, you all too often lose a good worker and gain a poor manager. Because the skills and even personality needed for the roles just are not the same.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday June 15 2018, @06:10PM (1 child)

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:10PM (#693622)

          Old people in traditional societies are rare - most died young.

          There were and are lots of hunter-gatherers that live to 70 or so. The 2 major barriers to that depend on your sex:
          - Everybody's at high risk of dying before age 5. Illness, injury, predators, etc. Babies, infants, and toddlers have a really hard time defending themselves and a really easy time doing all kinds of stupid things that get themselves killed.
          - Young women are at high risk of dying when they give birth, particularly to their first child, typically around age 14-17.
          - Young men are at high risk of dying in battle, which in a lot of these societies was around age 15-30.

          Ancient civilizations weren't that different: There are lots of historical figures that made it well past 40. The image of the lives of cave men being nasty, brutish, and short (or even living primarily in caves) is not really in line with either the archaeology or anthropology.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday June 15 2018, @08:07PM

            by Arik (4543) on Friday June 15 2018, @08:07PM (#693680) Journal
            "There were and are lots of hunter-gatherers that live to 70 or so"
            "There are lots of historical figures that made it well past 40."

            Indeed there are but it's also quite clear that they were unusual for that fact. As you say, infant mortality was high, and young adulthood was also a time when many died; women in childhood, young men in hunting accidents or conflicts with others. Once someone did get reach what we now think of as middle age, yes, a fair number might then live on several more decades. But the percentage who made it that far was clearly much lower.

            "The image of the lives of cave men being nasty, brutish, and short (or even living primarily in caves) is not really in line with either the archaeology or anthropology."

            That's true, it's not; but no moreso is the romantic image of the noble savage living in perfect health and harmony. "Nasty, brutish, and short" applies more aptly to the lives of the supposedly more advanced agricultural peasants than to the hunter gatherers, that's true, it's good that you appreciate it, but don't jump from one ditch all the way across the road into the other. Relatively good nutrition and constant exercise do make for healthy bodies. But it's also a lifestyle which entails constant risk of injury, and without any real medical care available, many injuries, even ones we would consider minor today, can easily kill you.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @06:47PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:47PM (#693637)

        how much money do you bring into the company

        Which is an impossible metric. Does the head of a project get credit for all the revenue the project team brings in? How is it divided between R&D, Sales, Customer Support, HR, Food Services, etc?

        Generally speaking, I think the people at the top get disproportionate credit for their contributions, primarily because they are the faces that are seen by the next level up. Yes, the head of a project probably does contribute more than a line-worker functionary who participated in it, but... how much? 2x? 10x? 300x? If Cintas is any gauge, assuming they have seven levels of management, each level makes a bit more than twice as much as the level beneath it, on average (2.26^7 = 301), in practice the multiples climb as you climb the ladder, Janitors at 30K, Janitors' managers at 45K, next level at 80K, etc. accelerating to multiples of 3 and 4 nearer the top.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 15 2018, @07:14PM (1 child)

        by sjames (2882) on Friday June 15 2018, @07:14PM (#693655) Journal

        Unfortunately, that assessment is usually illogical on it's face. For example, sales is considered a profit center but development and manufacturing are counted as cost centers, as if the sales guys could get anyone to give them a dime if there was no product or service to sell.

        As for cleaning, if the office becomes a festering pit of pestilence, nobody can or will work there.

        As for management, MBAs are plentiful but they still tend to get paid more than the harder to find people they mis-manage.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:32AM (#693814)

          And if the guy with the key to the building doesn't show up, nobody can get in and start working.
          Does that mean he should get paid the same as the CEO?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday June 15 2018, @05:03PM (7 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 15 2018, @05:03PM (#693575) Journal

      You hit the nail on the head. I was going to write a similar thought from a different angle.

      It is Managers who seem to think that getting promoted to Management is some kind of a "reward" instead of a demotion from what you know and love doing.

      Managers don't actually contribute value (or if any, then not much) to the organization. Just like the floor sweeper. There must be management. Accounting. HR. I certainly don't want those jobs.

      What there needs to be is an actual career track for a lifetime developer. One should be able to become a senior developer with perks that are similar to being a manager.

      A hypothetical, like Sony might have a guy that is an antenna designer. Maybe been doing it for decades. Maybe the best antenna designer on the planet. Why should he have to get demoted into management? That guy should be recognized as having a senior position -- but just not managing. He has as much (probably more) value than a manager does and should be recognized as such.

      The real problem is that Managers have a narrow view. It only seems to be managers who think they should not understand what it is that they manage. If you manage tech, then you should have a basic understanding of the tech you manage. Otherwise how can you even make good decisions?

      I've observed over a lifetime, one universal thing: the worker bees in any organization, in any business, seem to universally complain that management doesn't understand how things actually work down in the weeds, or where the rubber meets the hard thing, er. . . uh, road.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @06:18PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @06:18PM (#693624)

        In the old days, IBM had a separate technical track with promotions. Not sure if they do it anymore, but a friend was on it for a good 30 years (in manufacturing). He developed all kinds of tools (analysis/software) and also taught his methods around the company as a technical specialist / scientist. Don't know the number of different managers he worked for, but as time went on the managers got younger (absolute and also relative to his age) and it seemed to take longer and longer to break them in and get the managers to understand what he did, why it was necessary and that he was really good at it.

        I haven't heard about other large companies doing this, but it worked out pretty well for him. Things did get a little rough near the end of his career, but his early retirement benefits sounded reasonable. And he's picked up the same job (more or less) with a new company.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @07:01PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @07:01PM (#693646)

          Lots of places say they have technical track, but don't really in practice. I was at one that gave 25 management track promotions for every tech track promotion. I'm at another now that's slightly better - tech track can reach up to about the same level of compensation as managing maybe 200 people, but it's mainly there for people who tried management track and failed - but the company doesn't want to lose them, so they lateral over to a "tech" position.

          Really, that's what's telling about the problem with technical track: even with a relatively small 7:1 reporting ratio, by the time you advance to level 4 you have 343 people reporting beneath you. When you start with a pool of 344 technical workers, how many of them are going to be satisfied if only 1/344 of them "achieves level 4" by their 30th year working in the field?

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @06:55PM (4 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:55PM (#693643)

        Managers don't actually contribute value (or if any, then not much) to the organization.

        Good management actually is very valuable to an organization - they act as a combination of clear communication and buffer. They keep upper management well informed about the things they need to know, while filtering the noise. Likewise, they keep their flock well informed about what they need to know, while also filtering irrelevant noise. They argue (successfully) for additional resources they need to achieve management's goals and aspirations, they minimize waste by repurposing ineffective resources in more effective roles. They keep everybody above and below happy and satisfied in their current roles and help them to progress as they want to in their careers.

        Truly perfect managers are like unicorns, but there are clearly some that are better than others and what they do has real value to the organization, even if they never directly interface with a customer, never lift a finger for product development or support, never have a single thing to do with sales, they do contribute value. If you don't believe me: replace a good manager with a bad one - wait one year and then tell me how much damage has been done.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 15 2018, @07:07PM (1 child)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 15 2018, @07:07PM (#693649) Journal

          I'm glad you qualified it as Good Managers.

          Yes, they do exist. I've had them. And I've had the other kind as well. Fortunately the other kind didn't last so long.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @07:25PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @07:25PM (#693662)

            You can take the view that all management has negative value: the cost of their salary and benefits. However, the best managers will not cost the company too much more than that, while bad ones can do almost infinite damage. In that world view lack of management also does significant damage, so you hire these people to fill the roles and minimize damage.

            I quit a place after 6 months once - at the hiring interview I actually had a chat with the owner about my recent career history, a series of multiple ~2 years and out, and I explained to him how each of them wasn't really my choice but forced by circumstances (which was true...) Amusingly, he lost his temper in a big way one day, took it out on our whole department one by one, myself included, threatening to fire everyone, etc. later that night I got an offer for a "lateral" to what looked like (and turned out to be) a much better job. If "the big man" hadn't just lost his cool, I might have let the other job go as an unknown, but with this "known quantity" going off like that in my first few months on the job.... During my (multiple, highly apologetic and concerned) exit interviews the upper level people there planned to put in an additional level of management and forbid the CEO/owner from approaching his productive workers when he's "in a mood" in the future. Apparently this wasn't his first outburst that was followed by good people leaving.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday June 15 2018, @07:21PM (1 child)

          by sjames (2882) on Friday June 15 2018, @07:21PM (#693658) Journal

          Everything you said is true of GOOD managers. It's telling that so many have yet to meet a GOOD manager that they have concluded that managers are worthless to an organization.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @11:42PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @11:42PM (#693766)

            The "big man" I mentioned earlier was quite the psychotic. He would almost never accept suggestions on their face, in meetings he always told people what shit their ideas were and how things were just fine the way they have been up to now. On the flip side, I was only there for 6 months, but after meetings where he either dismissively grunted or actively ridiculed my suggestions, he would later (like within days) implement almost every thing I ever pitch, anything from updating the asset database to collect more complete information to clearly communicating to the workforce that A) he is taking the company public, and B) that will include bonus shares for the current workforce.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @03:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @03:41PM (#693539)

    I'm my own boss. So in my case, yes people do rise to their level of incompetence.

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @04:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @04:46PM (#693565)

    KDE Applications for Windows 32+64bit [and other OS]

    "Welcome to the Binary Factory for KDE. This CI system is intended to generate binary installers for macOS and Windows, as well as AppImages for Linux for the set of KDE projects which support these."

    Selection Menu: https://binary-factory.kde.org/ [kde.org]
    Windows 64bit: https://binary-factory.kde.org/view/Windows%2064-bit/ [kde.org]
    Windows 32bit: https://binary-factory.kde.org/view/Windows%2032-bit/ [kde.org]
    Android: https://binary-factory.kde.org/view/Android/ [kde.org]
    AppImage: https://binary-factory.kde.org/view/AppImage/ [kde.org]
    MacOS: https://binary-factory.kde.org/view/MacOS/ [kde.org]

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 15 2018, @04:57PM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 15 2018, @04:57PM (#693573) Journal

    I learned my management skills during my Navy years. Formal courses, correspondence courses, informal courses, as well as on the job training. There are all kinds of managers out there, some great, some so poor they deserve to be shot. Very few seem to have any real training in management. When you have executive officers mumbling shit about "attitude", backing it up with "body language", and "feelings", you know that you're in trouble.

    Note: The current crop of MBA's are most certainly not "managers". Perhaps past generations were, but today's MBA's are what was left after the best part of them ran down their mama's legs.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 15 2018, @05:04PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 15 2018, @05:04PM (#693576) Journal

      MBA are primarily experts at being greedy and squeezing a drop of blood from a rock.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JustNiz on Friday June 15 2018, @05:05PM (8 children)

    by JustNiz (1573) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:05PM (#693577)

    I've never really understood why management is perceived as a promotion. Its just a different job requiring different skills.
    It's exactly like promoting an electrician to a plumber's job.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:16PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:16PM (#693657)

      > It's exactly like promoting an electrician to a plumber's job.

      Car analogy please!!

      Although they may not know it, electricians and plumbers both work with the same equations:
          head height = potential (voltage)
          flow rate = current (amperage)
          water hammer = inductive or capacitive spike
          ...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @08:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @08:12PM (#693683)
        It's like "promoting" a tyre to a steering wheel just because the tyre has been doing a very good job. They're both even a similar shape!
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @07:32PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @07:32PM (#693666)

      Electricians and plumbers have a lot more in common than most tech/engineers and managers. To go from programmer or design engineer to manager is like transferring from physics or math to psychology. I mean, if you're managing people who do what you used to do, that's got some tiny bit of relevance and gives you some credibility that you can understand what the rank and file are telling you, but it's no longer your job - your job is now psychology, strategic information filtering, sales and persuasion.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 15 2018, @07:41PM (4 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Friday June 15 2018, @07:41PM (#693670) Journal

      Note also that except in less formal workplaces, managers expect to address the people they manage by first name but they expect to be addressed as Sir/Ma'am or Mr/Ms (last name) even when they're younger and less experienced.

      As a general rule, the stronger that rule is in a workplace, the less capable the management.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @09:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @09:20PM (#693720)

        I've never seen or experienced that in my career (sir/ma'am). Is this a coastal thing?

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @11:50PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @11:50PM (#693770)

        I hired a PhD once, already had two other PhD's on in the team (of 6). About 3 months in he becomes disgruntled, mentions that he's accustomed to people calling him Doctor, we offer to call him Doctor - but that doesn't help, it's too late, we already consider him an equal and he just doesn't know what to feel about that. Held a code review, found a structural thing in his code that was slowing it down 50x - demonstrated a simple fix that got the same answer 50x faster, everyone was supportive and humble with "I've done things like that" stories for him and all... he never got over it, started demanding a 60% pay increase and (thankfully) left within a month. He wasn't bad at his job, but he wasn't happy in it either. Best for all involved when he left.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:42AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:42AM (#693817)

          This is a well-known risk of hiring a PhD.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @03:29AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @03:29AM (#693841)

            We've avoided that problem by growing our own (Phd's that is). We got lucky a few times and new hires went back to uni later to get their advanced degrees, with corporate help. Internally they are treated just like they always were (first name basis), but externally they seem to like being called Dr. which is no big deal either way.

  • (Score: 1) by waximius on Friday June 15 2018, @05:15PM (10 children)

    by waximius (1136) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:15PM (#693589) Homepage

    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect yet. That's what seems to be what's missing from every "Peter Principle" discussion I read, and people on SN are generally pretty smart (no, I'm not challenging you to disprove me).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect [wikipedia.org]

    If we consider the Dunning-Kruger effect in conjunction with the Peter Principle where "people are promoted to their level of incompetence", what we see makes far more sense. Promotions are not a 1:1 skill transfer - when you move up in rank you are expected to do more, often different things that you may or may not be very well experienced in. That's effectively what the Dunning-Kruger effect says. You aren't promoted to your level of incompetence, you're just promoted to a point where the skills from your past that got you to where you are, are no longer the key to succeeding in future roles. Reasonably, future roles will have more responsibility and therefore different skill needs.

    Let's use a relatable example. A software developer moves up from entry level to mid level. Great, they're becoming a code expert. Then they move to senior and are expected to not only code, but to help keep the team on track and coach others. Leadership and coaching is not the same as software development. However, with a little work and polishing they can probably promote into management where their coding skills will be completely unused. At that point, the stellar engineer might look like an abject failure as a manager.

    The Peter Principle would state that this person has reached their level of incompetence, when in reality we all can see, quite reasonably, that the skill set is simply different. Coding ability is a non-transferrable skill into management.

    This person should be spending a lot of time developing their leadership and management skills in order to be a success, but, frankly, they may not want to. This is my own personal lesson: if we fail to grow and pursue self-improvement, then we will most certainly be promoted into our own failure. A college degree will not prepare us for every potential future, the burden is on us not to become obsolete.

    • (Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Friday June 15 2018, @05:47PM

      by BsAtHome (889) on Friday June 15 2018, @05:47PM (#693607)

      The Dunning-Kruger effect is about cognitive bias. In essence, someone who is incompetent cannot see his own incompetence and overestimates his abilities.

      Although related to the Peter Principle, they are distinctly different observations. Dunning and Kruger look at how the individual sees himself. The Peter Principle looks at the individuals in an organizational setting.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday June 15 2018, @06:10PM (1 child)

      by urza9814 (3954) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:10PM (#693621) Journal

      This person should be spending a lot of time developing their leadership and management skills in order to be a success, but, frankly, they may not want to. This is my own personal lesson: if we fail to grow and pursue self-improvement, then we will most certainly be promoted into our own failure. A college degree will not prepare us for every potential future, the burden is on us not to become obsolete.

      Why is a brilliant coder "obsolete" simply because they'd rather code than manage? Why do you expect that EVERYONE should want to be a manager? I certainly don't want to live in a world where all the best, most experienced coders are managers, and the only people actually writing code are straight out of school with low skills and zero experience.

      The problem isn't people who don't pursue things they aren't interested; the problem is managers who "promote" people without giving any consideration to whether the person actually wants or would be good at that new role.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by waximius on Friday June 15 2018, @08:06PM

        by waximius (1136) on Friday June 15 2018, @08:06PM (#693679) Homepage

        Why is a brilliant coder "obsolete"

        Apologies that my statement wasn't clearer. Anybody can become obsolete in any field if they fail to learn new things: doctors, plumbers, electricians, etc, by not re-learning things as their field changes. Developers don't become obsolete by not choosing to go into management, far from it. Obtaining a college degree should just be the beginning of learning, not the end, and developers need to sharpen their skills like everybody does.

        Maybe a better way of phrasing it is Assembler was great but now we use other languages most of the time (despite there still being a need for Assembler, I can't include every nuance in every sentence or we'd never be able to have a conversation).

        And you're exactly right, people should never be promoted into a job class they don't want. Generally, entry level managers are "higher up" in the hierarchy than entry level developers so it is a type of promotion in that regard despite one's feelings on the matter. I'm not saying this is good, or even preferable to an alternative, just that it's a thing we see regularly.

        Fortunately, I work for a company where technical people can rise through the executive ranks without having to choose a "management" or business oriented career path.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:34PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:34PM (#693667)

      The "Dunning-Kruger Effect" has never been formally accepted by peer evaluation, it exists primarily as a grand sounding insult for people one disagrees with.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 15 2018, @09:33PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday June 15 2018, @09:33PM (#693724) Journal

        The "Dunning-Kruger Effect" has never been formally accepted

        And here is a sterling example of it, and thus an argument that peer evaluation would be, um, pointless. The AC parent is clearly an idiot.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 15 2018, @07:35PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 15 2018, @07:35PM (#693668)

      This person should be spending a lot of time developing their leadership and management skills in order to be a success

      In my world, avoiding the BS related to management IS success. It has taken me over 25 years, but I'm finally at a place where tech skills can advance to a reasonable level of compensation and recognition without having to collect a flock of direct reports. Direct reports are hell on flexible work schedules.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 15 2018, @07:52PM (3 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Friday June 15 2018, @07:52PM (#693675) Journal

      Different skillset is PART of the Peter Principle. By level, he means within the company hierarchy.

      Not everyone is cut out to be a manager, but they may be capable of becoming the best in their own area of expertise. Would you claim a chef has failed at personal development if he doesn't eventually become an agronomist?

      • (Score: 1) by waximius on Friday June 15 2018, @08:25PM (2 children)

        by waximius (1136) on Friday June 15 2018, @08:25PM (#693690) Homepage

        Not sure if you are arguing for or against my point. A chef and agronomist are different skill sets. A chef who doesn't work on being the best chef they can be has failed at personal development - if being a great chef is what they are trying to do. However, if they want to be an agronomist and must first be a chef to get there, then they need to spend some time learning agronomy. Being a chef will not make them a great agronomist.

        You bring up the point "within the hierarchy" which is exactly what my example was based on, although I didn't explicitly call that out. In most standard corporate hierarchies, managers typically "outrank" technical people (like it or not, I'm not saying that is a good thing or that devs need to aspire to be a manager). A person wanting to "promote" into management needs to spend time learning leadership and management skills or they will be a crappy manager. If they don't do this, then yes, they have also failed at personal development.

        I don't see how changing the words from dev/manager to chef/agronomist changes the argument. Aim at something and develop skills to do it, don't rely on old tricks to succeed in new fields.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 15 2018, @08:43PM (1 child)

          by sjames (2882) on Friday June 15 2018, @08:43PM (#693694) Journal

          Management and engineering (for example) are also two different skillsets.

          You have fallen into exactly the trap that makes the Peter principle happen, the idea that management is somhow a promotion.

          Without privates, a general is just some old dude shouting at clouds.

          • (Score: 1) by waximius on Friday June 15 2018, @08:58PM

            by waximius (1136) on Friday June 15 2018, @08:58PM (#693706) Homepage

            Management and engineering (for example) are also two different skillsets.

            Agreed.

            You have fallen into exactly the trap that makes the Peter principle happen, the idea that management is somhow a promotion.

            I didn't say that I, personally, felt it was a promotion, it is simply a fact that most corporations define management as a promotion. Thankfully, my corporation is a good one that does not define it this way :)

            Without privates, a general is just some old dude shouting at clouds.

            Absolutely, if everybody is a general or there is no team. A hierachy, by definition, means not everybody can be a general.

            Do we disagree? Still unsure

  • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Friday June 15 2018, @06:23PM

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 15 2018, @06:23PM (#693627) Journal

    Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 15 2018, @06:55PM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday June 15 2018, @06:55PM (#693641) Journal

    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.

    Huh? First off, there are plenty of jobs where such straightforward metrics could be available -- you're in production, the person who produces more stuff is competent. Why is sales so different?

    Second, sales is actually worse, because sales environments shift with the economy, with the behavior of competitors, etc. A great salesperson may still have trouble in a bad time for that profession. Granted, you might still get some data from doing comparisons within a company at a specific location (which is pretty specific) -- though even there, there could be all sorts of other factors at work (e.g., salespeople who have specific contacts or connections that aren't necessarily do to their competence at sales, arrangements where certain senior salespeople get priority in certain situations with clients, etc.).

    Third, "we can measure their managerial ability as the extent to which they help improve the performance of their subordinates."

    HA! Are they joking? Yep, just like it's easy to measure the performance of classroom teachers based on students' performance on standardized tests. Don't worry about the past performance of students. Don't worry about their specific situation or challenges. And if you adopt an "improvement" metric, what happens to the poor manager who inherits a bunch of really competent salespeople already? They don't show as much improvement, so he/she must be a crappy manager?

    Don't get me wrong: you can probably still get some good data out of the raw numbers here, but a lot will depend on how your process it. Claiming this is "easy" in sales or that sales is easier than most other professions seems like a pretty stupid assertion. Like any such data manipulation, you can probably make this study say whatever you want, depending on how your design the metrics. (Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole original study, so maybe they were more sensitive than implied by the summary.)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:37PM (#693669)

      > Claiming this is "easy" in sales or that sales is easier than most other professions seems like a pretty stupid assertion.

      Look at the source, Harvard Business Review, where the best highest-paid MBAs are minted.

  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday June 15 2018, @10:42PM (1 child)

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday June 15 2018, @10:42PM (#693747)

    Scenario: Newly promoted manager worked in the area and was very good at the job. Got along with co-workers, they all knew what was wrong and what needed to be done to fix all the problems they had, they had continuously informed the "incompetent" previous manager of this but things were never fixed. Things are going to be different now!
    New manager dives into the job and starts trying to address the problems. Almost immediately it is discovered that it was not the previous manager there that was the problem, it was the entire management structure of the company. Every step taken to address an issue meets high level resistance. All but the most superficial improvements are rebuffed and shot down by higher management. Former co-workers begin to believe new manager is incompetent. New manager becomes old manager very quickly, bitter and cynical, eventually leaving for a less stressful job elsewhere...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:50AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:50AM (#693820)

      You're right. The low level manager isn't much of a boss at all. In fact, he is mostly just being bossed. Sucks.

(1)