In the business world, promotions are often viewed as symbols of success and recognition for a job well done. However, the journey to the top can sometimes lead to a trap, resulting in the rise of incompetent employees who were once considered outstanding.
The so-called Peter Principle helps explain the professional stagnation and incompetence that frequently occurs within the hierarchy of large companies.
What’s the Peter Principle?
Imagine you’re an exceptional employee within your organization–someone who’s efficient, loyal, and dedicated to advancing projects. As a result, your managers reward your efforts, and you gradually climb the ranks.
However, you may eventually find yourself in a position that makes you feel out of your depth because it falls outside your expertise and capabilities. This situation is at the core of the Peter Principle.
Developed by Canadian writer Laurence Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle, this theory reveals a significant workplace trend.
Peter’s theory suggests that in organizations, people are promoted based on merit until they reach a role for which they’re not qualified and can’t perform effectively, regardless of how well they managed their previous positions. In his book, Peter pointed out, “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence… the cream rises until it sours.”
The Paradox of Failure as a Reward
The Peter Principle is rooted in a misunderstanding of meritocracy within companies. They often reward their most brilliant employees by promoting them to roles where they lack the necessary skills.
For instance, a highly effective employee who excels in their technical role may be promoted to a team supervisor position, which requires strong communication and organizational skills. While the employee may eventually adapt, they might struggle in a subsequent promotion to a manager role, which could involve finance or business management.
As a result, these individuals often experience professional stagnation. That’s when incompetence takes over. In the mid-term, they tend to feel overwhelmed by their new roles and experience a decline in their performance. Meanwhile, their supervisors may be surprised to see that someone who was previously highly productive has become ineffective after being promoted.
The explanation is straightforward. Despite their strong performance in their previous roles, these employees typically wouldn’t qualify for their new positions if they had to go through a selection process. This is because they lack the required preparation, even if they’ve consistently demonstrated their talent.
The paradox of the Peter Principle encourages the business world to reconsider promotion practices within companies. It highlights that true success shouldn’t be measured by hierarchical advancement but by employee competence and satisfaction.
Avoiding the Peter Principle
Does this mean that no one should be promoted beyond the position for which they were hired? Obviously not. The Peter Principle describes a situation where individuals are promoted without having acquired the necessary skills and knowledge for their new roles. This lack of preparation can lead to a mismatch between their previous competencies and the demands of their new positions.
For employees, the first step before accepting a promotion is to recognize the risk of being promoted to a level of “incompetence” and to understand the challenges that come with it.
To mitigate this risk, candidates should receive training to develop the skills essential for the new position. For example, running a screw factory doesn’t require one to understand how to operate the machines that produce screws, nor does it necessitate knowing how to manufacture screws themselves. Different roles require different skills.
Image | Headway
Related | Experts Say These Common Mistakes Will Ruin Your Job Interview, Including Arriving Too Early
View 0 comments