Okay, the Peter Principle, that each person in an organization is promoted to their level of incompetence, is legendary. Since it was first advanced by Lawrence J. Peter in the 1960s, it’s been one of those things that is spoken about amusingly but with a certain element of “yeah, right.” (which is, I believe, the only example of a double-positive making a negative, but I digress.)
Well, if you’ve ever wondered if the Peter Principle works, it turns out that it does. This year’s management Ignoble Prize went to The Peter Principle: A Computational Study. The researchers found that not only does it work, it’s potentially unavoidable if ones duties following a promotion are essentially unrelated to ones duties before the promotion. In other words, the skills of an engineering manager are not identical to those of an engineer. Being a good salesmanager is not the same as being a good salesman, and so on. The study went on to state that organizations could improve their efficiency by promoting randomly the most and least competent performers!
Looking at this study, I’m struck by the basic assumption underlying it: the principle works if the duties as you move up are substantially different from what they were at the “lower” level. Unfortunately, this is a pretty valid assumption. There is a cultural belief in most businesses that management is “higher” on the corporate ladder than being an individual contributor. As a result, if you really want to increase your salary and status in the company, you need to keep climbing. Unfortunately, this means that there’s a very good chance that eventually you’ll reach the point that you can’t do the job well anymore, and hence you’ll be stuck in a job that doesn’t fit your skills and talents.
It’s a very perverse incentive!
It occurs to me that instead of insisting on the ladder or believing that doing well at job X means that you’ll do well at job(not x), perhaps a better approach might be to give people the opportunity to try out a new job. Providing some sort of training for the new job is also a good idea. It’s rather disturbing how often people are “promoted” into management and then given no training on what to do. In a perfect example of the Peter Principle, they are taken out of the job that they excel in and for which they probably trained for many years, and put into a job for which they have no training and possibly no talent. The former, at least, can be fixed.
Of course, even when there is management training, it has to be done right. The occasional one-off, soon forgotten until the next year, is hardly sufficient. Consider how much training it probably took for the person to be successful in their previous job! Management training needs to be focused, given the reality of time constraints that exist in most businesses, and it also needs followup. Waiting a year until the next training won’t do it!
It takes a lot of effort to avoid the Peter Principle. I suspect that many businesses are figuring they can’t afford to do anything about it. My question is, can they afford not to?
My first jujitsu sensei liked to frequently remind us that if you wanted to go from San Francisco to LA, you didn’t go by way of Portland, Oregon. Naturally, the wise-guys in the class, which included me, would make cracks about the airline schedules. I don’t know if there actually were flights that went from San Francisco to LA via Portland, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest!
Of course, the point my sensei was trying to make was that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. While this is certainly true in normal mathematics, fans of “A Wrinkle in Time,” might recall that a tesseract is the shortest distance between two points. While traveling via tesseract is purely science fiction, the fact remains that sometimes the direct route, that is, the straight line, is not the most rapid means of getting to your destination. Sometimes, you’re better off with a metaphorical tesseract. This is true in business and, as it happens, also in jujitsu (although that’s a separate topic). As a case in point, let’s look at the increasingly popular Results Oriented Work Environments (ROWE).
Read the rest at Corp! Magazine
Remember the classic kid’s TV show, the Flintstones? Fred and Wilma Flintstone are a stone age couple who live in something that looks oddly like the 1950s with rocks. Lots and lots of rocks. Despite this, the show had nothing to do with either rock music or getting stoned. It did, however, have an episode which predicted that the Beatles were a passing fad. So much for prognostication! Fortunately, that episode is not the point of this article.
In one episode, Fred complains to Wilma that he can’t understand what she does all day. How hard can it be to take care of a house? Of course, as Fred swiftly learns, after he and Wilma make a bet, the answer is very hard. Fred, of course, makes a total mess of the whole thing. Now, obviously, the cartoon was playing off of social issues of the time and was intended to make people laugh. The obvious lesson, that a “non-working mother” is a contradiction in terms, is hopefully one that most people have figured out by now. The less obvious lesson is the much more interesting one: it is often impossible to gauge from the results, or from watching someone work, just how difficult a job actually is or even how hard they are working! Conversely, how people feel about the results has little bearing on how hard you worked to get them.
Read the rest at the CEO Refresher
In an upcoming Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership I talk about the perils of “hiring slow” and “firing fast.” As I’ve been doing, I wanted to give you just a taste of the “hiring slow” part here.
A company can hire slow for two major reasons: because they know exactly who they’re looking for and are willing to wait for the right people to apply, or because they don’t know who they’re looking for and believe they’ll know when the right person applies.
The first is more useful. If you’ve done your homework and figured out the characteristics of the employees you’re looking for, and if you’ve trained your interviewers to recognize those people, then by all means hire slow. Take your time and wait for the right people or, better yet, go out and attract them to the company.
Once upon a time there was a company known as Robotic Chromosomes. Don’t bother Googling it; it’s no longer in business, and besides, that’s not the real name. Robotic Chromosomes had a way of hiring programmers that isn’t all that unfamiliar to folks in the software industry: logic puzzles. Like Microsoft, and various other companies, Robotic Chromosomes put every potential engineer
through a series of logic puzzles in order to determine if those engineers were qualified.
There is, in fact, no actual correlation between programming ability and the ability to solve logic puzzles.This did not stop the folks at Robotic Chromosomes, who were convinced of the validity of their methods and were not interested in allowing facts to get in the way.
Even within the logic puzzle method, though, there were some definite oddities and idiosyncrasies that distinguished Robotic
Chromosomes from other companies.
For several years, no one skilled in visual presentation or user interface development was ever good enough to solve
the logic puzzles, or at least they could never satisfy the solutions that the existing engineers believed were correct.
Read the rest at the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership
If you missed my appearance on MYOB Radio on Sunday (or if you heard it and can’t wait to hear it again 🙂 ), you can listen to my interview on what makes successful leadership here.
|
“Mind your Own Business”
A Radio Show for Entrepreneurs by Entrepreneurs |
I will be appearing on the “Mind your Own Business” Radio Show this week. The show provides advice, information and connections for entrepreneurs, service providers and established companies. Tune into MYOB this Sunday between 9-11 AM to hear my segment!
Local Stations:
WBNW 1120 AM – Needham, MA
WPLM 1390 AM – Plymouth, MA
WESO 970 AM – Southbridge, MA
WSMN 1590 AM – Nashua, NH
or stream online @ MYOBTheRadioShow.com
Last Friday, I was on Business Insanity Talk Radio speaking on the five components of effective leadership. If I’ve done this right, here’s the segment I was in:
SteveOnBusinessInsanityRadio20August
I just got the word from McGraw-Hill: My book, The 36-Hour Course on Organizational Development, went to the printer today! Although the official release date isn’t until mid-October, pre-orders should start shipping by the end of September.
Here’s a brief excerpt:
Why Are They So Unmotivated?
I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard about some “impossible to motivate” employee who is busily training for a marathon or something else that requires a tremendous amount of dedication, focus, energy, and, you guessed it, motivation.
What you’re looking for are those employees who approach their jobs with the same level of dedication and focus that they approach training for a marathon or other activity. It’s very hard to find those employees. It’s easier to create them.
Motivation comes from many sources. It starts with the culture you’ve built, the vision you’ve created for your company, the goals you set, and your hiring process. Those elements make up your foundation.
Ultimately, motivation is a strong desire to do (or sometimes not do) something. That desire can be imposed from without, or it can come from within and be supported from without. You want the second.
Remember, no one becomes an Olympic athlete for the money, although some Olympians might end up making a great deal of money. Top athletes succeed because they are driven to perform at a high level. The money and the adulation only reinforce that drive. The ones who are out solely for the money are the ones who are most likely to give up.
Push, Pull, or Get Out of the Way
In the Japanese martial art of jujitsu, the practitioner learns to not respond to a push with a push or a pull with a pull. Meeting force with force only creates opposition. While you might be strong enough to win some conflicts, eventually they take their toll. When someone pulls, you push. When someone pushes, you pull or you get out of the way. You don’t oppose.
In jujitsu, the harder you make it for someone to stay on his feet, the harder it is for you to make him fall down. The goal is not to make it hard for your opponent to remain standing; the goal is to make it easy for him to fall down. The workplace is not all that different. Force creates opposition. Threats, fear, even many incentives, only lead to resistance. The very act of trying to force people to do something causes them to become suspicious and reduces their willingness to do it. It doesn’t matter how much they might want to do it.
To be fair, I do hear from managers who insist that force works: they make sure their employees know who is boss and what will happen if they don’t toe the line. There are problems with this approach. Constantly pushing people means that you can’t see where you’re going. All of your effort is going into the act of pushing. Sometimes they’ll feel like you’re going too fast. Sometimes they’ll mistake an attempt to change course as a shove and resist, or they’ll go too far and step to one side, leaving you to fall on your nose. The more you push, the harder it is to hit that moving target.
You want the employees who know where to go and why they should go there—and who understand how to get to their destination without you constantly having to force them to do it. You want a team so dedicated that if you don’t get out of their way, they’ll run you over.
Understanding motivation is the first step to getting such a team.
