Few people will recognize the name Laurence J. Peter, but
almost everyone has heard of his now famous Peter Principle.
He became widely famous in 1968, on the publication of The
Peter Principle, in which he states:
“In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of
incompetence…in time every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is
incompetent to carry out his duties…”
While Peter’s Principle is funny because it contains more
than a grain of truth, it is a gross overstatement. The dictionary defines
incompetent as: “…lacking the
skills, qualities, or ability to do something properly”, so if his principle
was literally true, no enterprise should survive very long.
But many organizations that we suspect have been infected
with the Peter Principle do endure, some for decades. What is really happening?
In the real world, people are hired and invited to
contribute their skills and energy to the goal of achieving continuing success.
Sometimes their contribution is well beyond what is expected. More often the
performance is outstanding in a few areas and weak in others – overall a
satisfactory outcome.
As they acquire organizational experience, they also get
better known by their peers and their managers. They become candidates for
promotion, and if promoted, their job description changes. All too often they
are thrust into new roles for which they are unprepared and/or under trained.
What then?
In many cases the organization does not respond by adding
training or reversing their promotion decision. Instead, they merely take that
person off the promotion list and leave in place someone who is not
incompetent, but merely mediocre. While it is generally true that “A” players
hire “A” players, these “B” players will hire “C” players. As a result the “B” players, through
their hires, will weaken the organizational talent pool.
And there is another bad side effect. As weaker players are promoted or
brought into the organization, the best and the brightest inevitably see what
is happening and they begin to exodus or refuse to join it.
This insidious process, this pact with the organizational
devil, takes place every day in organizations around the world:
Old Harry isn’t (Fill
in the blank)
A. Building
a strong team.
B. Delivering
long-term expectations.
C. Thinking
strategically.
But,
He is (Fill in the
blank) A. A steadying influence.
B. Good at handling temporary
workers.
C. A long-time employee.
As you think about your own organization in the context of
this topic, if you can honestly tell yourself that it has not been infected
with this phenomenon, pat yourself on the back, for you have attained a level
achievement attained by few.
For the rest of us, I modestly introduce:
The Weissman
Principle, which asserts that:
“In a hierarchy every
employee tends to rise to his or her level of mediocrity…in time every post
tends to be occupied by an employee who is precluding the opportunity to hire a
more productive (better) person to that post.”
It is the Human Resources equivalent of Gresham’s Law, where
weak money drives out strong money, only in this case weak talent drives out or
denies a place for strong talent.
It starts silently, it grows slowly at first, but it spreads
widely and it saps your organizational competitiveness, energy and capability.
Beware of the Weissman
Principle
What do you think? I’m open to ideas. Or if you want to
write me about a specific topic, let me know.
Consider making all promotions temporary. Possibly 12, 18 or 24 months and then you automatically return to your previous level unless it is believed you can be promoted further.
ReplyDeleteEd Cusati
Thanks for your comment, Ed. That is definitely one solution. The other is to make sure there is training and development that takes place to ensure people are competent for their position. If you don't, you will always have to hire qualified people from the outside. However, eventually those outsiders will rise to their level of incompetence if they are not trained and developed.
DeleteYes Ted, the Peter Principal has always had a negative connotation to me. I agree with your proposition that people really need training, rather than assuming that if they are good at this or that they will be good at everything. As humans we all come with our particular weaknesses and it does not mean that we are incompetent, it just needs that our consciousness level needs to be raised a bit. Good post, an interesting read. Thanks
ReplyDeleteTony Puckerin
Thanks, Tony. You have a very rich perspective. Company training can be analogous to an athlete changing sports, like Michael Jordan to baseball. While he was an extraordinary basketball player, it was not so easy to be extraordinary in baseball. The change required a different kind of training, even though both required athletic ability. As you implied, a lack of training does not make us incompetent. Natural ability only takes us so far. To get to the next level, requires development of skills and mindset.
DeleteI look forward to more comments from you in the future.
Ted