It is a great feeling to be promoted. We
work hard, fast and pray for it. It
comes: with a new position, higher
salary, a bigger office, higher status,
more respect and more responsibility.
Life in the new role looks sweet.
But not all promotions are good fit,
and both benefactor and beneficiary
should maybe look again at promotion
as a reward.
Not all promotions are good for us.
Success in the corporate world does
not guarantee success as high political
office holder; a good local council
chairman may not necessarily be a
good state governor – a fact which
politicians ignore; and as it has been
observed severally, in the corporate
world, promotion could take people
into the level of incompetence.
It happens often in sports. Coaches and
players are bought with humongous
amounts of money by bigger clubs
only to end up as flops.
That is common in sports. Memphis
Depay, also known simply as Memphis,
is a Dutch professional footballer who
plays as a winger for English club
Manchester United and the
Netherlands national team.
A hot and celebrated player at PSV
Eindhoven, he was sought after by
bigger clubs. On 12 June 2015, United
confirmed his signing for a reported
fee of £25 million, on a four-year
contract with the option to extend for a
further year.
Today, he is described as a flop, at least
by his own standards, in the just
ended season. And his fate under
United’s new coach is uncertain.
Similarly, Rafael “Rafa” BenÃtez was
promoted last season as a coach from
Italian club Napoli to one of the
world’s top and richest clubs, Real
Madrid. Big-money promotion! That
was in June 2015, but on January 2016,
however, he was dismissed following a
2–2 draw against Valencia, with Real
Madrid third in La Liga behind
Barcelona and Atletico Madrid. He
joined Newcastle United towards the
end of the season and showed sparkles
of the old Benitez, but it was too late to save the club
from relegation.
Both men are victims of a concept called the Peter
Principle. Anything that works will be used in
progressively more challenging applications until it
fails. This is the “generalized Peter principle”. There
is much temptation to use what has worked before,
even when it may exceed its effective scope.
The Peter Principle is described by Wikipedia as a
concept in management theory formulated by
Laurence J. Peter in which the selection of a
candidate for a position is based on the candidate’s
performance in their current role, rather than on
abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus,
employees only stop being promoted once they can
no longer perform effectively, and “managers rise to
the level of their incompetence.”
I relate very well to this. As a secondary school
teacher years ago, I was rewarded with the
promotion to be a Vice Principal in another school
in the town. Celebration time! But I couldn’t
convince myself I was wired for that career path.
Having discovered my gift in writing, I turned the
offer down and concentrated on it. A year later, I got
a job in one of the top newspapers in Nigeria.
The Peter Principle was first introduced in an article
written by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in the January 1967
issue of Esquire magazine. It struck a chord among
American office-dwellers. Following the response to
the article, Peter, with the help of writer Raymond
Hull, wrote the book, “The Peter Principle: Why
Things Always Go Wrong.” The Peter Principle
uncovers a real flaw in the structure of hierarchies.
A very good example of the Peter Principle is cited
Josh Clark. According to him, after Hurricane
Katrina struck New Orleans, US, millions of families
were stranded or displaced, food and water was
scarce, and public safety became an issue of grave
concern. The city was in a genuine humanitarian
crisis, and many were calling for aid from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
But following Hurricane Katrina, FEMA proved to be
sluggish and unresponsive. The agency had trouble
coordinating efforts between subordinate agencies,
like the Red Cross and state departments, and
delivering supplies to families that needed them.
President George W. Bush complimented the head of
FEMA, his friend and appointee Michael D. Brown,
but to the people in need of help in New Orleans as
well as the press, Brown bungled the relief
operation. In fact, the U.S. Congress held an
investigation into the series of mishaps that made
up FEMA’s operations in New Orleans.
It was later revealed why Brown experienced
hardship as the head of FEMA: Brown was the victim
of a poor promotion. Put simply, he had risen to a
job with responsibilities that he couldn’t fulfill.
Before his role as FEMA director, Brown served as
the commissioner of judges for the International
Arabian Horse Association. He excelled in that
position, and as such, was promoted by President
Bush into a role with greater responsibilities: that of
FEMA director.
Brown was widely perceived to have failed in this
position. To make matters worse, his incompetence
was displayed as publicly as is possible, with the
international media focusing their attention on his
every misstep. Brown eventually requested to be
removed from his position as FEMA director, with
his famous question, “Can I quit now?”
Fighting the Peter Principle
For the Employer
• Experts say the best way to address the Peter
Principle in an organisation would be to institute a
policy of demoting employees — without the stigma
of failure — to their most appropriate level of work
competence. If an employee isn’t working out in a
higher position, allowing him to go back to
whatever position he excelled in would avoid the
effects of the principle. But the big question is
whether the individual’s salary will be cut.
• A way around the money issue may be higher pay
without promotions. It has been observed that
employees often accept a promotion — not for the
power and prestige — but the increased pay attached
to it. If companies were willing to offer large pay
increases for excellent work within the same
position, the Peter Principle would be averted, and
the employee could make more money while staying
in the position he enjoys and in which he’s
competent.
• I have seen this done in a number of places; where
people are promoted into nothingness. Peter
suggests an incompetent employee could be given a
longer title with less responsibility. This way the
employee still feels important, but is kept away from
the flammable material, so to speak.
• Peter also has what he calls Peter’s Parry, described
as perhaps the most important factor in avoiding the
Peter Principle. It is to alert employee, one who is
aware of the extent of his capabilities. The offer of a
promotion is tempting, but the employee must
consider the extra responsibilities and jobs that
come with it. Of course, the employee can simply
turn down a promotion if he feels it’s beyond his
capability.
For the Employee
• The good fit promotion is one which involves
much of the same skill set with a minimal addition
of new skills. If however, the new position would
draw you away from your core strengths, then
perhaps you should reconsider. According to
experts, either way, it’s important to examine
whether any new competencies are ones you feel
capable of acquiring. If you feel like you’d be a quick
learner, then it might be worth rolling the dice. If
not, then perhaps you should pass and wait for a
more fitting assignment to come along.
• Experts warn that if you’re in line for a promotion,
it’s worth thinking about whether it’s something
you’ll really be good at. It’s easy to just accept a
promotion right away because it gets you further
along in the company, but if it’s not a good fit it
might end up getting you in more trouble than it’s
worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment