Thoughts on the Peter Principle?

Peter Principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am a FIRM believer in this principle. I've seen so many people promoted due to productivity and attrition only to fall flat on their face, or have to work more than 40 hours to keep up with the role.

I think it's embedded into us to continue to climb the ladder eventually getting to a point you are no longer effective.

Have you ever reached this level? If so how did you cope, did you look for another position or "transition" into another role?

I experienced this for a brief time when the PM on the project just quit and I was abruptly promoted to PM. This was for a transition until another PM came in, but I had to sustain for 2 months in this role. At the time I didn't have the skills to keep up. It was a helpless feeling for those two months until I transitioned into a new position. After a few more years I was able to handle these roles, but at the time I was stinking it up. (Not a good example). However is it possible to extend so far that you no longer can keep up due to pure incomptence? Even with training etc you are so extended and beyond your level of comfort you fall flat on your face? (For the record I think it happens a lot)

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

the_Grinch

Happens where I am at all the time. Management's belief is that you cannot justify a true raise unless the person is a manager. Thus we have a bunch of people who manage one or two people. They were great in their role and the company wanted to give them the money to show it, but due to old school thinking they could only do it if someone is under them. So now we have managers who aren't really good at managing, but who know it was the only way to get a big raise so couldn't say no.

ptilsen

I don't think it's inevitable, but I do think it happens a lot. The problem is that being good at something doesn't mean you'll be good at something related but viewed as more valuable. E.g., being good at supporting user software issues doesn't mean you'll be good at supporting servers. Being good at supporting servers doesn't mean you'll be good at deploying them or designing infrastructure. Even if the promotion chain consists of progressively more difficult jobs with identical duties (say, promotions from junior sales to senior sales), it doesn't mean the improvement continues.

Moreover, this applies even more to management of any kind. Being good at something doesn't imply skill at managing people doing that same job. Being good at implementing IT infrastructure doesn't imply skill at managing IT. Heck, even successful management of one group doesn't imply skill at managing another.

A big part of the problem is how we view hierarchies, really, as a society. The reality is that management shouldn't necessarily be viewed as a promotion. Even if with it comes direct authority over a group of people, I think it is inherently problematic that that automatically makes the management position "above" those of direct reports. While some, maybe even most teams or departments are logically managed by someone who is the best (or very good) at whatever that group's particular function is, some aren't and shouldn't be. The end result is competent engineers, salespeople, whatever get promoted to management when it just isn't their strength.

N2IT

PT and Grinch - You know the ole saying. What happens when you take a awesome developer and turn them into a manager?

You get an average manager

bermovick

I'd heard the term 'promoting to the level of incompetence' before, but never knew it by this term. To WIKIPEDIA!

ptilsen

N2IT wrote: »

PT and Grinch - You know the ole saying. What happens when you take a awesome developer and turn them into a manager?

You get an average manager

Too true, and more importantly, you lose an awesome developer.

On that note, the other issue is how both employers and employees often view promotions and pay raises. Many employers (even my own, which for the most part is a great organization), set limits on pay within certain job titles and/or having limited raises for non-promotions. This is a huge mistake. An employee who is bringing more value than required or expected deserves a commensurate raise, and that reward should keep the employee happy. That's not to say adding responsibilities isn't a good goal for both parties, but every big pay raise doesn't have to mean a different job -- it can and should go along with doing the same job better.

Similarly, many of us should (and granted, many are) actually be content to work more or less the same job, but accept increasing pay for doing a better job at it. As much as employers make the mistake of senseless promotions, many of us do pursue job roles we'll do worse in just for the sake of doing something different or doing more. How many IT infrastructure people view "management" as a destination just because of the connotation of the word, since, after all, once can make north of $200K without being anything but technical? It seems like too many, to me. Not pointing out anyone on TechExams, but many I've worked with had aspirations of being managers that I thought were silly.

N2IT

I made that fatal flaw and while it did increase my bill rate and prestige level (so to speak) it also added needless stress and created a terrible inbalance in my family/personal life and work life.

I am now a Data analyst and like the position overall. I love that fact I get 3-5 emails a day tops and the job is fairly autonomous.

Slowhand

It's definitely not a new concept, as Scott Adams so hilariously pointed out, but it's definitely one that holds true. Just because you're good at your job doesn't mean you would be good at managing others who do the same thing. The same is true for education, just because you know something doesn't mean you can teach it to someone else.

A persons ability to do well in a higher-level or management position is really subjective, and it might be something that he or she may never be ready for. Not everyone wants to move from 'doing' to 'making others do', so to speak. I guess the real issue is that the "Peter" in these scenarios has all the skills to do a particular job, but management fails to take into account that the skills needed to do a more senior-level or management job involves a whole new set of skills, possibly in addition to the existing ones.

paul78

Great discussion and topic, Patrick.

We had a similar conversation where I work a few years ago. @ptilsen and @the_grinch - your comments really resonated with me as far as promoting to management. I hold the viewpoint that promotions are fine but only if the individual is already capable of doing the work at the next level. But more importantly, I am a firm believer that management, leadership, and individual contributor seniority are different career growth paths. And not everyone can do all 3.

I think the Peter Principle is dead concept with a lot of the organization ideas that exist today. For example, if an organization can organize in a more matrix fashion where it's more about authority delegation to the right persons, then promoting people isn't a problem. If the organization is sufficiently mature to have actual levels of competency and a culture of putting people in the right place, then it doubly assures that the Peter Principle doesn't have to exist.

To me - a organization that is able to recognise the difference between a leader, a manager, and a high-performance individual contributor is less likely to encounter the problems of the Peter Principle. I think that too often, management equate authority when that does not always need to be the case.

Although, my comments probably only apply to companies of a certain size and larger.

N2IT

What actually brought this to my attention was a board member from Edward Jones. Retired at 45 and owns several homes all over the US, not to mention he spent over 750 on cigars. We had a few beers and he flashed out his board member gold card. The guy has money and lots of it and from his vantage point this very principle exist. I was interested in what he had to say about this, but essentially you get to a certain point where you need the aptitude, delivery, experience, etc (the whole deal) or you will fail or perform poorly. This shows up in golf and in sports all the time. (The term play within yourself is coined from the Peter Principle). Trying to do to much without having the ability and/or skillsets.

I firmly believe in this principle. There is a certain defeatest element to this principle, almost like predisposition. It's there I am not arguing it, but to what degree I believe is the question. I'll be completely transparent with you, I am not the more brilliant mind and sometimes its takes me 2 -3 tries to get it right and there is no shame in admitting that.

My personal belief is that you need to get to know yourself and once you get a good grasp on that piece, you can transition that into what you are capable of.

These quotes about you can be anything you want to be simply are BS. No you aren't going to be the next Bill Gates nor an Astronaut. (These are extreme examples, but my point is that this isn't little league, people keep score). Some of us are more gifted than others and are able to deliver at a higher level.

I once heard this analogy and I absolutely love it. We are all crusing down the highway. Some of us are ferrari's (very few) but the majority of us are Taurus's and some are Pacers. We can all run at 80 MPH's but the Ferrari has to expend 20% utilization while the Taurus is at 60% and the Pacer is at 90%. We can all do that particular task but some of us are more effcient, which is required to be effective at the higher up positions (usually)

chmod

Did he he mentioned something about the solution? is there a way to avoid the incompetence in the hierachical structure?

N2IT

Eventually IF you keep moving up you WILL become incompetent (in theory)

Extreme example - Most people do not have the aptitude nor the skills to become a CEO (EVER) (If you did make it you would fail miserably)

JMHO

chmod

I know, but you are talking about the career of a person who is moving up, but i mean did he mention something about how a hierarchichal structure avoid this situation?.
You cannot let a person stand still on the same position forever or keep increasing their salary without adding more responsibilites. There must be an approach for this situation from a corporate perspective i guess he mentioned something.

This happens because a promotion is given as a prize for your good work rather than as a recognition of your personal skills(demonstrated on a daily basis).

ptilsen

That's the trick. How do you change responsibilities without giving out responsibilities that are mismatched with the individual or overburdening the individual? It's tough. For more procedural work, I do think you're limited. For more creative work (and this includes most mid-level and up IT positions, IMO), I think you have some options. I think in IT in particular, you could move people between teams and departments without shifting them into something drastically different or that they know nothing about. I would find it very interesting to do networking for, say, 6-12 months, then switch to Linux, then to Windows, etc. Just an idea.

In some of the big-name software firms -- Facebook, Google, Netflix, Valve -- they've got partially or fully flattened organizations, and people are motivated by their work itself, rather than titles or power. "Code wins arguments" is the mantra at Facebook. I'm not saying there aren't promotions, because I really have no idea, but taking the hierarchy out of the picture seems like it really reduces this problem.

Again, for more procedural work, I think you get either get people stuck doing a job they hate or you promote them to a job they can't do. For other work, I think an organization can get a round it. It's just that most don't.

chmod

But i guess Mr peter mentioned something about it in his book. Im going to have to read it, i'll take a look during the weekend.