In 1968 Lawrence J. Peters, ex-CEO of Avis Corporation, published a humorous book titled "Up the Organization." Research since then has established the theoretical validity of Peters' treatise. His key point was that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence. The book created a big buzz amongst the managerial class of the '70s.
The corollary to the Peter Principle (named after the book's author) is that in time every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties. Dynamite statement!
Questions to ponder:
1. Have you observed this phenomenon in your work setting?
2. What are the consequences of the Peter Principle on an organization?
My view is that we tend to select people for promotion based on their current performance or personal connection without examining whether the person in question has the skills, abilities, and horse-power to handle the demands of the new job.
As examples, we take a great salesperson and make him/her a lousy sales manager, a great engineer and make him/her a disaster prone engineering manager. Both are "lose/lose" transactions.
Experience teaches us that by promoting people so long as they work competently in their current job is not sufficient. We need to assess people's potential to succeed in the new job by using valid criteria. A satellite problem that I have seen, time and again, is that once people reach their level of incompetence, they become blockers to those below who have the potential to advance. Blockers tend to push high potential employees out. They unknowngly generate undesirable turnover.
In my view, this is a widespread problem that needs management attention.
After my tour of duty in the Middle East, I came to realize that there are two general approaches to selection:
1. We select people based on their technical skills primarily, only to see them fail because they are interpersonally inept. I call this the US approach.
2, We select people based on their style or personal relationship, only to see them fail because they are technically inept. I call this the Middle East approach.
Arch-types? Sure. Generalizations? Sure. But they can serve us well as illustrations. What is your view?
