Do you calculate your employees' future potential using his or her current performance as a basis? You may be falling victim to the Peter Principle.
More...
If you’ve looked at your employee’s current performance and decided to promote him/her on that basis, you may be falling victim to the Peter Principle.
In most hierarchical organizations, future potential is often based on current performance. According to Laurence J. Peter, who published the idea of “Peter principle” first in 1969, this results in the employee being promoted to the highest level of their competence. The cycle continues, only coming to an end when the employee fails to perform effectively and rises to “the level of their incompetence.” Thereafter, the employee reaches the career ceiling and has no chance of further promotion.
In due time, Peter suggests that every post would be occupied by an “incompetent” employee and that only those who’ve not reached their level of incompetence would be able to fulfill their roles.
Don’t be put off by the word “incompetence” here. It merely refers to an inability to do something successfully. Take me for example. I (have been told that I) am a good writer but I don’t have the meticulous detail orientation that an editor requires. Similarly, a talented software engineer might not have the interpersonal skills required to be promoted to a manager. Therefore, my writing skills and the engineer’s coding skills should not be the basis for our promotion to editor and manager respectively. Therefore, as you can see employee’s incompetence may not be a result of more demanding work. It could be due to the individual lacking skills which are required for the position.
Peter categorized incompetence into the following four ways:
Physical Incompetence or incompetence in execution
Social Incompetence or incompetence in interaction
Emotional Incompetence or incompetence in emotional resilience and awareness
Mental Incompetence or incompetence in thoughts
Usually one tries to fix incompetence by trying to add more resources. However, this may lead to a Peter spiral and eventually the Peter plateau. Once an individual reaches the Peter’s Plateau, they have a Promotion Quotient of Zero. Managers on the Peter’s Plateau rely on substitution techniques to delay decision making. Some of these techniques include:
Downward Buckpass:
Asking a subordinate to decide an issue that is really above his/her level of responsibility,
Upward Buckpass:
Examine the case until he/she finds some tiny point which will justify sending it to a superior
Outward Buckpass:
Assemble a committee and follow majority vote to take decisions.
When the above signs appear frequently, it is safe to say that the person was promoted beyond his level of competence and has reached the Peter's Plateau.These techniques allow them to hide their incompetence. Unfortunately this only works for a short period of time. Sooner or later, everybody is aware of their incompetence. However, as with most hierarchical organizations, incompetent individuals who are promoted, are rarely demoted.
As a leader, it is essential that you review your hiring and promotion systems. Consider adopting the following to avoid the Peter Principle in your workplace:
Draw up an “up or out” policy:
Terminate employees you fail who advance either in terms of job roles or skills. By allowing incompetent individuals to occupy positions, you are negatively affecting organizational morale and causing resentment to brew amidst subordinates.
Recognize solo contribution:
Not everyone is cut out for a leadership role. Emphasizing too much on “up or out” may isolate high performers who do not have leadership skills. Allow individuals to contribute on a solo basis and recognize their efforts.
Do not rush:
Ensure that individuals shortlisted for promotion have indicated that they promote the skills to perform at the next level. Only after they have demonstrably proven their competence, should you promote them.
Identify star performers:
These can be found at every level of the organization and should be kept track of as they progress through the career pipeline. If you notice them being resented or treated unfairly by incompetent managers, step in.
Don’t confuse efforts with results:
Effort does not drive business. Results do. Promoting an individual for their effort may be a recipe for disaster. Instead, promote when you find that the outcome resulting from these efforts are more than satisfactory.
Avoid egalitarianism:
Do not make the mistake of not considering individuals for senior roles just because of their age or lack of seniority in the organization.
Coach high-potentials for new positions:
Intervene BEFORE they take on their new role. Hire an executive coach, send them for formal training or let them shadow the incumbent. This will allow them to get a clearer picture of the skills required.
Evaluate the evaluators:
Often it’s the bosses who decide on promotion. How often has the boss’ track record been scrutinized? How many of the promotions they pushed for worked out? Is there a recurring pattern?
Remember, right hiring decisions go beyond core competencies. You can’t change personalities that were locked in long before the individual started working for you. The quicker you accept that, the better your hiring and promotion decisions will be.
Try spending more time on “intangible” aspects of leadership when you evaluate candidates. These are soft skills that may not come across immediately upon glancing through a resume. They only shine through when you ask probing questions in an interview.
If you still make a mistake, admit it and move on. Be more careful the next time. Don’t force square pegs into round holes.
Image Source: Peters Principle
