Peter Principle: When People Get Promoted Into Maximum Incompetence
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 гру 2024
- The Peter Principle argues that people who have success in big hierarchical organizations are promoted until they reach their own "level of incompetence”. Here they are often stuck for life.
Let's look at the story about David and Diana, two graduates, who first met at a sales training. They were so proud to have gotten a job in which they could actually help people. Little did they know, that they had joined one of the most dangerous organizations in modern America.
A special thank you to our patrons: Avigail, Badrah, Cedric Wang, Eva Marie Koblin, Denis Kraus, Don Bone, John Zhang, Julien Dumesnil, Mathis Nu, and all the others!!! You keep us going!
If you want to join us, visit / sprouts
Read the entire script here.
Sources:
en.wikipedia.o...
www.nber.org/p...
www-siepr.stanf...
igormroz.com/d...
en.wikipedia.o...
drugabuse.com/...
www.ncbi.nlm.n...
documents.latim...
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Support our work: patreon.com/sprouts
I have seen this proven, time and time again. But, there was, also, the "reverse Peter principle" that said that people who were extremely good at their jobs are never promoted because they are too valuable where they are.
Scott Adams called it "The Dilbert Principle" after the shenanigans of the pointy haired boss in his comics.
Multiple co-workers I know, have actually been TOLD BY THEIR BOSS that was the reason for not getting promoted.
@@BoltRM I'd start doing a slightly worse job and then ask for a promotion.
I've also known people who get promoted out of harms way.
However being good at a job, lets say a sales job or technical job, doesn't mean you'll be a good manager, it requires different skills, so not promoting people who are good at their job might be good for the company, but can demotivate the worker, who wants higher wages and to build their career.
In the late 90's I worked in the IT department of an Insurance and finance company, they realised they had good programmers, who deserved to be promoted, but this would mean they would lose a good person in the role of a programmer and, through years of experience, they knew they might not be a good manager, so they they introduced a promotion ladder for those programmers who wished to stay in a technical role.
I thought I was the victim of a reverse Peter principle with a former employer. Turned out it was actually the Dunning-Kruger effect. I thought I was great, but I sucked.
Moral of the story: ask for a raise not a promotion
Newby Ton Only get promoted to the position that you are competent with.
Amen
Some tech companies actually have special titles for people that need to be recognized, but not promoted. Kind of like "Legendary Engineer". Give him a great salary and let him just keep doing his job, not trying to manage people (which he might be terrible at). I worked at a place that had an engineer like that. He ignored management, hid in his corner, and just did engineering stuff. If he had a problem, he went straight to the president.
nobody important you should go see a doctor
I dont buy this rationale, I think high functioning individuals are high functioning at almost all levels of life. Sales people are usually soulless devils to begin with but they probably think they already know better so dont push themselves to learn more because they already think they know the most. This is just a hit piece. Perdue did make a huge mistake but it wasnt mismanaged they knew exactly what they were doing.
The fallacy here is the idea that management is the highest level of competence rather than a different skill set. Management gets too much focus and too much financial priority. Businesses need fewer managers and more doers.
Also, the real promotion is giving people larger scale projects and having them mentor less experienced employees. Eventually they may outgrow the company, but as long as they train people before they go, the company wins. Give them a good recommendation and let them go.
1000% this.
Damn man what you do to get that insight? Managerial more about leadership so its not something that can effectively fit on everyone.
Wish you worked for my company.
for reals
I'd say real promotion is asking the good-performing employee about their aspirations and career goals - if they are compatible with the organization, make them happen.
Example: one of my best (if not my best) supervisors was getting a bit burnt out by the typical management issues (people handling, meeting corporate targets, etc.). He was outstanding, though, so he was asked what he wanted to do. They essentially let him become a consultant for one of our "clients" for about a year, paid by the original organization. As a result the client got stronger, he got a fresh challenge, and came back with a fresh perspective on things and the job in general. But all this is because they asked him instead of just giving him something his managers think is what he wanted.
In other words: if you have a good employee ask him/her what he wants, and see if it is viable and compatible with your goals, and make things happen. My dad was an entrepreneur and he said he never let a good candidate go even if he had to create a new job for that set of abilities.
Part of the problem is the mentality that if one does not eventually advance in their job then they have somehow failed.
Exactly! Now that's just stupid in a way..
@Neil Wiggs wow! You took that from the prophet's hadiths (sayings) ? I mean the last quote? Awesome..lol
@@hisexcellencypresidentofre4118 I wouldnt call them hadiths, but a parable, but yeah. That's a quote from Jesus.
When you have a system that idolizes competition and hierarchy, this is the inevitable result.
Yes but the thing is, with some exceptions, nobody enters the working world earning enough to live a decent life. If you or anybody doesnt advance on their job probably won't have a good life or fail to their family sometime on the future because won't have enough to provide for them. That's sad and scaryest than feiling on the actuall job
What I have witnessed throughout my working life is that incompetent people tend to promote other incompetent people because/so that they are not a threat to them.
Very good point. Peter Squared
So many experts are moved to a management position and are set up for failure as they don’t necessarily have the competencies.. this problem is EVERYWHERE in corporate
TimeFlies - Time Management this is even a problem in education (schools)
Ne Ro true.. let’s go back to the root cause indeed
Yes nowadays ANYONE can do management
because in many case this is only one possibility to rise salary... the company loses experts and gets bad managers
@@gromosawsmiay3000 actually our approach to management has alwyas been conflicting its not something objective but requires dynamic structuring in a company we actually need to sit down and think about management
You're too good at what you do. Let's move you somewhere you have no experience. That's a plan!
Its sad but its true
And provide you with no training on your new role.
The problem is that the only way to get to a decent increase in salary after a certain point is management, so the only way to reward employees is promotion. If you stay as someone who is ground-level, your salary potential is probably going to be severely capped. Also, humans have egos. I doubt many people would be okay with their coworker becoming their boss and/or rising to the top, even if they are paid same.
ezekiel1hen yes the problem is not paying non-management enough to live on. In my sector nobody wants to stop working ground-level with clients, it’s the most rewarding and fulfilling role and every day is different. But just can’t raise a family on the wage. So all the good staff are leaving or miserably shuffling papers and only idiots left dealing with clients. Quality of service is history, places closing down everywhere.
@@jamesdunkerson2908 11
My father worked all his life for the same company and was happy in his job as a senior design draughtsman. He often used to talk about people being promoted to the level of their incompetence. Now I know the principle behind this. Thank you.
In what engineering discipline did your father work? Structure? Piping? Or else?
@@daldi5211 Thank you for your interest. My Dad worked for Dowty Hydraulics, mostly at Staverton near Cheltenham, UK. Most of his drawing was of servo valves, which were sometimes used to make huge dinosaur replicas move around. But he told me they once did design work on the Bristol Bloodhound, a surface to air missile.
Totally agree with this. Management is a skill entirely of it's own and a good manager can make for a great work environment while a bad one can make everyone miserable.
A so this is how Japan's minister of cyber security didn't know what a USB was and couldn't tell the difference between an apple mac and PC.
What the.... Even some 10 year olds know better damn
Tnk4me technically a mac is a PC. The only difference is the operating system.
@@evaahh9584 and the format of the hard drives. But what I meant to say was that he didn't know the difference between mac os, windows and linux.
Wow that was awesome! He even acknowledge that time he didnt even use a computer on years right?
Yeah, that part was hilarious.
That's why I don't ever want to become a leader - I just want to become an expert. I still do the same types of tasks as always, they're just harder now (until I eventually master those too).
Definition of an "expert": "x" is an unknown quantity while a "spurt" is a little drip under pressure. Never claim "expertise;" always claim to be a learner.
@@MrHaighahatta As I said by becoming an expert: I want to become better. When that gets too easy, I just want harder assignments and learn more. I'm constantly learning and constantly getting better. One day I * might * even become a master, if I'm very lucky.
Being an expert (I would say "specialist") is often provided with a glass ceiling :(
@@golternator333 Explain?
@@davecullins1606 I think the ceiling is the hardest challenge (in your field of expertise) that you can get in a job before the corporation needs to change itself (e.g getting bigger, spreading to other markets, adding new products/services, etc). Those things are largely out of one expert's control, so that'll likely be your ceiling.
As someone who went from worker bee to upper-middle management I can say this video is probably true for most. I was ready for management. I'm much better suited for leadership than worker bee. However, the unforseen issue was upper management. No matter what company, no matter how big or small has one thing in common. They expect middle management to fix issues like staffing with manipulation techniques instead of meaningful performance incentives. What I mean by this is, let's say you manage a trucking company. Your warehouse workers and drivers make the average wage for those jobs in the area, but the work is far worse than average. Instead of paying above average to compensate or find ways of improving the work upper management expects you to trick workers into doing more for less. The upper management is often guided by outdated ideologies and info. They often assume worker bees are "mouth breathers", yeah they'll give you motivation speeches but it's just a manipulation technique. Soon as you poke a few holes in their thinking, you will be targeted as a problem and removed from the business. That's literally how it works. Proof of this comes from the fact that "job recruiter" jobs are growing. Companies are more willing to pay another person a salary than give you a raise. The high ups still live in the 80's and 90's when workers were ok with getting low wages because it was seen as "the acceptable path". That ideology is dying and will be phased out in about 10-15yrs from now. Until then, expect management to grow all with the plan to keep worker bees inline instead of just making things better. If you're a worker bee who believes you can make meaningful changes you're not going to do well being promoted. You're not promoted to make changes, you're promoted to carry out upper managements awful ideas and be the first person worker bees complain to.
Totally agree. I got promoted to manager position 10 years ago and I was happy with it because I wanted to develop my career and I was and I am a good manager. But then I realized the job was just a facade to deliver bad news or put pressure on the team. Your time is filled with stupid meetings and reports and you have little time to be with the team and support them as they need. And of course, and the worse part was to “obey” to the upper management with crazy ideas …I ended up quitting and even moved to a different country. To this day I don’t want a manager position anymore and I was offered one a few times but I am a happy bee 😅😂 don’t need the manager or director title and don’t like to deal the politics of the corporate world. I am so much happier giving ideas and suggestions and helping the companies to improve than managing a team.
@@sofiasousaesilva what country did you end up moving too?
I did manage to find a company who lets me manage the way I wanna manage. At first it was like pulling teeth, lots of micromanaging. But I was about to give up on managing so I spoke up more because I didn't give a shit if I was fired.
Well, I was given the chance to prove my point and did so 3x. Now I do whatever without question and get pay increases every year.
I still deal with worker drama which is a drag, but at least I'm able to make meaningful changes. This is the only job where I actually have a boss who hired me to solve problems. Most bosses hire you to execute orders, which does nothing to improve culture. Super toxic. I'm very happy where I'm at now though.
That was wise. Thank you.
This highlights the purpose of constant personal and professional development. Our learning is never done - growth is part of the fun in life.
Clint Bevis yes
The Peter principle applies to those in congress, they reach their level of incompetence the day they get elected.
Well the public is to blame for promoting people to congress, not middle managers.
@@ninjacats1647 sonetime i think normal ppl shouldnt have the right to vote, it should be a priviage that needed to be earned
@@Spider-Too-Too thats a oligarchy mate,
@@isakrshol9021 if only the one percent of ppl can earn the right to vote, then they will take it more seriously.
tho, imo, voting is just a bliss so ppl think they can make changes without the threat of violence
@@Spider-Too-Too who decides who votes?
I read the book The Peter Principle back when I was 12. I'm not a big reader but it was the one book that really stuck with me. In fact, I can still remember factoids from the book decades later and as a result have always noticed how the actual principle works in real life.
Factoids are false or unproven statements that are repeated and accepted as true.
@@DoctorPhileasFragg it also means "a briefly stated and usually trivial fact." (Merriam Webster). I was using the word in that manner.
@@viktormuerte Definition added after everyone kept using it wrong.
@@DoctorPhileasFragg well, language evolves so...
Personal growth has to come from a deeper place than an outer stimulation.
Self-development is a personal responsibility and people tend to fall into complacency what they get bossed around.
Interesting point. I think we all need at least some outer stimulation for self-development and personal growth from time to time. Even just to learn to want it from life, get some expectations of what it is and how to drive it, gather resources and use them...
(sorry, it's very late, I'm not sure how much sense I am making)
@@weareallbornmad410 that make sense to me. I thought i was kind of worthless in my profession when i was studying until i came across someone who believed in me and he actually showed me i wasnt worthless. He is a teacher and i will allways greatfull to him for that. I then achieve a lot of difficult goals and proove to myself im not worthless at all and i'm capable to do and to learn whatever i propose to if i study enoght and if i work enough.
Sorry it got long but yes it make sense to me.
I've seen this happen in places where I've worked. Some of the people who got promoted to leadership positions were woefully incompetent yet seemed to think they knew everything and wanted to micromanage constantly.
I love the "oxidevil" example. Thanks! You might want to explore the opposite pattern. That's people who, being bad in one position, move UP the ladder to conceal their inabilities, often becoming administrators of those who're better at their former job than they ever were.
A good illustration, and one I know all too well, in nursing. Good nurses typically stay in nursing itself, often moving on to ever more demanding positions. They love what they do. Those who fail at nursing itself often escape into nursing administration where they display resentment toward good nurses and destroy morale by being hypercritical. I write about my experience with just such a situation in a book, Senior Nurse Mentor. The floor nurses eventually became so frustrated, they quit in a mass exodus. A nurse mentor is a new nursing speciality tasked with keeping nursing morale high.
Could you elaborate paper in fail nursing and become administrator ? And how it become bad for floor nurse
It's similar to the saying "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach". Or in this case, not teach, but administer.
Bait and switch. Story isn’t told to reflect the real pricipal
I’ve been at this incompetence before. I was recently hired as an intern at an engineering firm. I was so terrified I would mess up I became incompetent. Safe to say it was a learning experience. I’ve learnt to always study the material for the job, understand and learn within my own constraints. Finally know my strengths and weaknesses beforehand.
I think this sort of promotion comes from a sort of meritocracy that assumes that people are skilled at everything or nothing, competent at everything or nothing, either good overall or bad overall. Thus your meritocracy just needs to sort people from worst to best and give the most important jobs to the best. Either that or somebody realized that the promise of power would be the best motivator. People will work hard so that maybe one day they will be promoted and then have power over their coworkers, and more control in the company. Both of these seem insane to me.
Ha, ye understand! 😉👍
I don't think thinj meritocracy says anything about that spesifically. It's not like we always appoint best hunter to manage farmer association.
Altough i agree in practice people just appoint whoever considered the best.
That really just sounds like a stupid meritocracy.
@@steamnamebbderinvade__ welcome to the one you likely live in.
I think the best examples are at industrial level, where highly skilled people get promoted after a few years (sometimes even against their will). A brilliant toolmaker may become a lousy team director for the loss of everyone. It's better to promote people only after knowing how they will perform in a different kind of work, or increase their salaries and compensations instead of promoting them to a position to which they don't have skills. This also has a lot of responsibility from trade unions, that impose promotions by time, not skills.
I can't believe I have been living this for the past 7 years. I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Still waiting.
@@CharalamposKoundourakis I'm back. Turns out managers back supervisors in their incompetence and everyone suffers.
I avoided getting "promoted" (it often meant only more work for no more money) beyond where I felt I was realtively competent. I didn't feel "stuck", I was well compensated and I was doing what I liked best. Often promotion is in the hands of people without the knowledge to understand what you actually do.
I imagine this is why some organizations require certain rotations through different positions and offices. Instead of getting stuck in a dead-end position for 20 years, you test the employee in several new roles and potentially find a much better fit for them.
Proving once again the Peter Principle...It'd be amazing if we actually had competency in a bureaucracy like the NIH, and in a nation controlled by a plutocracy/corporate fascism, it'd be a true miracle.
At least in sales you have to have some kind of competence to start off with, but look at catering, you can be incompetent at the very start. Some can be promoted to supervisor, then manager without having any clue whatsoever all along the way. And that's without mentioning how many people get a job simply by connections, i.e. nepotism and favouritism. That could be another subject, how many incompetent managers confuse "people skills" or social skills with favouritism.
The only thing I would add to the video is that training needs for the incompetent won't be identified first because of the costs involved, second because in many cases it would instantly highlight the incompetence of their managers who promoted them without any prerequisites.
It’s a good video on the Peter Principle, but after watching it I still feel Peter Principle ≠ Opioid Epidemic. The real world example just didn’t tie into the concept in any way I could clearly identify.
Indeed.
Charalampos Koundourakis yes indeed.
I’ve recognised this principle from years of involvement in management. My hubby has too and turned down a promotion to a higher grade on the basis that the new role contained little of what he both enjoyed and excelled at. And that’s his point: why promote the super competent into roles that take them away from what they love? Just pay them more! 🤑
Smart husband !
40 years ago my father (a military man) told me that in the military, people are promoted to their highest level of incompetence. i've personally seen this play out in both academia and corporate america. the peter principle is real, and it's a real threat to civil society.
But it is recognized in the military and used to keep the brass from filling up with incompetence. Get passed over for promotion 3 times and you are out. It doesn't always work. West Point officers have a long reputation of promoting their incompetent classmates. There was a term for it. The WPPA, West Point Protective Association.
There is a ton of this in corporate America. Overflating resumes with good interview skills can be dangerous. But ... what I've noticed is, if you have good people at the ground level, management is hardly needed. I've seen this alot. Easy tale sign, when they're out, they are not even missed. Business as usual, sometimes even better.
The key is for organizations to be able to recognize this as it occurs and make corrections. Besides some feelings getting hurt, it’s a win-win for everyone. We do it in sports…”we tried you as a clean-up hitter, but you’re a better hitter for us leading off.” Coaches who fit better in the assistant role than head coach. They tried as a head coach and just weren’t ready. Nothing is permanent.
These sales people are doing what they are good at and put themselves in such positions . I for once have over represented myself and gotten in weird situations where a company overestimates me . But my experiences are minor , one friend is amazing at sales and this is how he got jobs that he is under qualified , leading to unsatisfied employer and him being overstressed . Eventually this would lead to either him quitting or being fired .
To some degree these aren’t bad things , simply because this way you explore your competence and work ethics in practice . The problem is if you aren’t able to create a realistic self perspective .
Hope this info can be useful to someone out there .
Many companies have ceilings on pay for lower level workers, so promotion is a way reward high performers.
A paradigm shift is to stop capping pay and reward performance.
my mum said that her time as 'head secretary' was the worst possition she ever held.
she quit after six months and became a nurse, where she ended up wasting her time with paperwork, not at patient beds
she joined the army, cleaned and then became a house wife
only to discover that her fantasy prince was all the terrible positions combined
That explains why Lowes doesn't promote, but hires managers and supervisors from outside the company.
It makes sense, people leave jobs. Those who stay are promoted, to be managers to train the newer people. Newer people leave - those who stay get more promoted. They can't leave now or get other jobs because their skills are degraded in one company. Repeat for 10 years this process...
🎯
This is the most accurate thing I have seen on UA-cam. The video was spot on and the comments were seemingly from intelligent, insightful people. I learned a lot about why lower management does what they do. They are, unfortunately, speed bumps in between worker bees and upper management. That’s why there are so many of them.
This how system is built upon the assumption that we live in a system of meritocracy, which often isn't the case.
Seen this many time, the problem is also the fact that there are many very competent people who don't want to take responsibility.
Smart folks
What an absolutely brilliant way to tie together two different topics. Very well done 👍
Oh holy cow. This explains so well how the company I work in got hollow. Punish the hard work while rewarding the incompetence.
Happens everywhere... Capable people in the end pose a threat as well as a clear and present danger to the system.
I’m confused as to how the Peterson Principle applies to Purdue. They were not incompetent, they were greedy and soulless
I think the point is that so many of the managers and directors had been promoted to their maximum level of incompetence and therefore were too insecure in their positions to challenge the shady behaviour of the company. That was my take home message anyway!
So, basically they don't want to rock the boat even though they know that the boat can explode at any time. And sometimes, they are no longer in the position where they can even help to fix the problem, because they have to do the "managerial duties" and have to make sure their managed employees meet the "target" set by their own higher ups, which they themselves are also in the similar situation. Chain of incompetent commanders, basically.
Imagine a tech company in which they know that they have security holes in their system. But instead of assigning their most experienced engineers to fix the issue, the company keep promoting them up into the managerial chain, where they no longer able to even touch the issue day to day. So the issues are never fixed, the junior engineers have no clue how to fix it, and the senior engineers no longer care, or unable to care because of their new set of duties. The company grows and grows, until someday they have data breach. And everyone keeps asking why there is no one who fixed the damn thing.
Great video and some great input in the comments section below. I've had the pleasure of working for some incredible and not so incredible organizations. The key defining trait that I've found and one that is not omni-present in most organizational structures is the over arching focus on training and development of your people. Whether it's a trainng budget for your technical people that allow them to consistently grow their skill sets or leadership training for those entering leadership and/or moving up that ladder, the key is understanding both technical and leadership skills are grown not born. We tend to over romanticize both areas when we see a "natural" at work. We wrongly invest ourselves in the thought that some people are leaders and some followers. Even the best "natural" will at some point require advanced training when they reach a point where their skillsets have been stretched. Lastly, per the comments below, consistently communicating with those people to ensure the path that you've put them on is one they are vested in. Anyway, great video and that particular issue, with that company and all the players involved inside and outside could be utilized to make MANY MANY MANY videos on where as humans, we often fail. Something that still has yet to be addressed, for people who suffer from significant chronic pain is, what do you do, where do you go, when the only med available to make your life even remotely bearable, is gone? Addiction? Sure, of course they are but, there are so many for which there is no other option simply just to survive a day and be even remotely functional. Tough subject to be sure.
The real people suited to be managers only need three things
1. The proper skill and mindset of a manager
2. The empathy to care about both profits and the wellbeing of others.
3. A focus on now, this moment rather than far-distant goals, or clinging to the past in hopes to stay afloat.
What’s proper skill and mindset of a manager?
Thank you. I’m using this for my business English class.
Wonderful! Thank You, Andrew!
If you want to support us to make more videos like this one, there are a few things you can do right now.
1. You can subscribe and click the bell icon to get notified when we upload a new video.
2. You can share this video with a friend or people from school or work.
3. You can also support us directly, with a small monthly subscription at www.patreon.com/sprouts
It's a marvel how this happens so much more in organizations than you think.
I didn't think it was possible for one UA-cam video to explain everyone's bosses.
Lessons learned from decades observing "successful people": it does not matter one bit what they can actually do or achieve. What counts is the dream sold needs to be pleasant to the managers (even if this is not even remotely possible), always give crazy forecasts but achievable if the person was a god with the best luck in the world, then always find excuses to postpone (blaming it on someone else usually: engineering, legal, logistics usually works well), then when you fail you can claim you've been pushing hard but nobody's moving thus it's not your fault.
And the golden rule: ask for a raise immediately after taking credit for someone else's achievement (such as the guy in the position before or someone else who is focused on work, not on politics).
Managers won't care about what's true, what's important to them is what kind of BS you can push down their throat without them choking on them.
And the more a company claims to be "honest", "no BS politics" etc... the more it is about BS and politics.
yes, and it's not just a matter of training, it's a matter of passion and brain wiring. some people are wired for math, some for art, some for language, some for compassion. people have strengths and weaknesses. if you put them in a position where they can use none of their strengths, your business is doomed to fail.
ABSOLUTELY!
The answer is simple. Request a demotion or pay reduction and task redistribution. Or leave and get a different job.
🍿
Have witnessed this myself: a simple garden centre, had new workers continually, it either promoted the able ones, or did not, because there were a maximum number of people at that rank already. Many were fired as 'unsuitable' after a few days revealed their character, something usually apparent in interviews.
They needed new workers all the time because managers didn't do the work they knew how to do, but had to fill their time somehow.
All activity was recorded in a diary, including who had ordered what to be done, who had suggested it, daily sales and daily wastage, and so on.
This was rarely used to make decisions of who got promoted.
The result was a small number of workers being told by a number of managers to move, re-display, or store and then set out again, the produce, usually resulting in it being damaged, drying out or being broken and wasted.
The solution was arrived at by the workers: they had discretion to sell things below displayed price to be rid of it, or due to it taking shelf space needed for new produce.
The stuff most often moved around by managers got quickly sold, the amount of wasted stock and produce fell dramatically, profit improved.
The a manager heard a worker doing this... you know where this goes. Profits tanked and people were laid off, with minor managers trying to do all the work of moving things continually themselves, and with no discretion to discount things, and no customer can find anyone who knows where the thing they want is.
The diary, naturally, disappeared and has never been found.
I read the book 20 years ago.
It blew me away how accurate it is.
It applied to me many times.
Excellent information. Rings a bell like I might have learned it at some point in life. I'm so glad that most of my life I have not had a so-called real job and haven't had any concern about moving up in the bs corporate world. Moreover, what exactly does moving up indicate? More money? That's a serious pitfall. More money doesn't satisfy and doesn't last. Sucks all the joy out of your life.
I've seen the next level - what I call "the Peter Principle Plus." I used have a non-academic job at a major university, and it was accepted knowledge that the civil-service rules made it so difficult to terminate incompetent workers that the only way their bosses could get rid of them was to recommend them for promotion. I saw this in action many times.
For LARGE companies that I have worked for...the policy was to promote people who are already incompetent (that way they don't work in the field anymore and therefore can not cause any more damage to the company). Thus you end up with people in higher levels who have zero real experience in the field and they lack skills to be in a higher up roll.
It sounds like there is a lot of waste at the middle management level. A bunch of lazy and unsatisfied employees appear to crowd this level.
OMG! This completely explains the US ARMY!
or my family. I used to criticize my dad about his many failings. Now for many years I've become a dad myself, I realize I've become just like him. Looks like I've been 'promoted' into incompetence myself.
@@elivevile What does that have to do with my comment? You could have just made that comment on your own. I mean...why are you replying to my comment with your Dad story?
elivevile in psychoanalysis that’s called “the return of the repressed”
Freud himself noticed it very early on- we eventually turn into our parents, regardless of how hard we tried not to, earlier on in our life.
I've had so many supervisors that are great at putting labels on boxes, but can't lead worth a damn. I've also had coworkers that are natural leaders on the floor, but only hit 80 to 90 percent of their rate and therefore, by company policy, can't be promoted.
I see this first hand all the time. It's completely nonsensical. Part of the reason it happens though? Those of us who might make good leaders are for whatever reason not interested in moving up to a middling position where we're responsible for a lot more people but still don't REALLY have the power to actually make decisions.
@@therealbahamut also, if competant leaders were put in management (and not prevented from being effective) they would become a threat to current management.
@@dynamicworlds1 Yeah...wouldn't THAT be awesome...
Excellent tie-in with a historic real life example we can all understand - and will never forget.
Glad you noticed
Freakonomics did a great podcast on this very subject. Just because one is a good employee among others, does not mean they will be good in leadership roles.
“Let’s look at a real life example.” Proceeds with cartoon rendering.
"Based on real-life events"
Had a discussion with a H.R manager a few years ago (was 2nd in charge to supervisor ) which I actually claimed soon after starting . The topic was how a person would be made supervisor without any guidance whatsoever. His response was not comforting and rather disturbing . Since that conversation the production manager retired and a certain supervisor took (given) the vacated position . With that came promotions , demotions , swapping /changing workers to different shifts/tasks and re-arranging responsibilities (micromanagement) . Comments like , " Thats your department , your responsible " or , " You have a problem with...... What are you telling me for " . Fortunately I'm my own boss at the company and there are some who cannot handle the concept of individualism and autonomy of duties . Any ideas you suggest are mocked at first before becoming appropiated as theirs months later . Yes it happens . The Peter principle would also overlap with narcissistic game plays , very toxic indeed .
I usually see someone "FAIL UPWARDS"
And low level employees who suck at their jobs may be better managers. But they never get promoted. That's the main problem with it. I'm definitely in that category. I hate doing busywork, but I'm pretty good at delegating and making necessary changes where needed. Bad employees who are constantly coming up with ideas on how to innovate should be promoted over good ones who are thriving in their positions. It's good business.
Then, there is the "Inverse Peter Principal" that says the more valuable you are in you job, the less likely you will be promoted.
Often it's people who have more ambition than talent or they take the laziest one promote him so he can just bark orders and not actually work!!!
Or the biggest kissass.
It's almost like we have a system designed to reward people with a greater desire for power than capability to responsibly handle it with exactly what they keep asking for.
Don't forget a promotion to manager is a great way to get rid of somebody who will break under the pressure lol.
Poor guy.... so many promotions! Now they are stuck at the top.... very sad :(
😆😂🤣 smart comment!
Money ain't everything, especially when you have no time to yourself to enjoy it.
@eternity cosplay lol no
@eternity cosplay yea... stories... grow up
Really enjoying this channels contents. More please!
Thank you so much for this video
A great example of the Peter Principle in action is “On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors” by Ralph DeLorean.
luckily I work for the federal govt and we only fall up no matter how many levels incompetence we reach.
This a point, that I never understood. I work in a relatively big family company. The guy, who started the business in a small workshop is now the boss and don't do the things, that build up his company. So I always asked myself, why you would give up your nice and loved work and become a boss.
I have a feeling that the Peter Principle will have a limited time viability. It is one of those things that was true but now that it's been pointed out to us, we can now consciously change the process and provide mentorship each and every step of the way for every person promoted to the next higher rank. This is a good thing as we now will look to older and more experienced people as assets instead of people to get rid of with forced retirement at 65.
I agree. Practices will evolve to ensure better success.
*this explains my terrible boss...*
Michael Scott?
You should train to be his boss
🤩
I feel that I will be a much greater leader/manager of a software development team than a few leaders I had in the past, some of which, have reached a software development expertise that I will never reach. And that is the problem, you get your star employee and promote him to a job that is "higher" but in fact is just different and requires different skill sets. Just because you have an amazingly performing software engineer or QA, they should manage the team.
In fact, no QA should ever manage a software engineer and vice versa. But, corporate is corporate, and that usually makes both the "expert" and his subordinates to both quit.
“Oxydevil” I’m sensing a bit of a connection there 😂
Wow amazing to see this recommended after watching Dopesick, Georg Rockall-Schmidt and John Oliver cover the oxy story. And getting to learn about the Peter Principle - a concept I have often thought about and not known there was a thing about. Thank you!
In my experience if you suck at everything you get promoted if you are good at your job they are afraid to lose you in that position.
It's a weird feeling to have had friends affected by opioid addiction, with no knowledge on how to save them from themselves... to get a glimpse of what was behind it all in a youtube video.
3:21:-People advance because they have high skills in a specific task but new position might not require any of those skills
3:41:-Lack of incentive
3:56-People Lose passion for learning as a result they become lazy and lead to poor quality of work and refute things which might hinder their position even though
5:12-People who are exceptionally good at their jobs is promoted in the corporate ladder
Very well made video! But the question still remains: what's the alternative to promoting people who perform well, are passionate and successful in their current roles? Often promotion is a motivation for people to work hard and do well.
Should they be trained a lot before/after a promotion? Should people be hired from outside for a specific opening and the current internal employees be not considered for promotion?
This video could have been even better if it presented the possible solutions to this problem instead of just explaining the problem very nicely and then suddenly ending!
Easy solution: Pay people more for a work well done while allowing them to continue doing what they're doing with the added bonus of having more say in it, thus not requiring them to get promoted if they want to earn more money.
"Our personnel are our greatest asset" yeah sure that's why nearly all corporates often sweep through massive redundancies
it's probably true I work for a cleaning company and another business hires the company I work for. I get paid about minimum wage and the company I work for wants it cut what means the company that hires them must be being charged above minimum wage even if that's by a penny. Paying by the hour is expensive and companies wouldn't pay it if it weren't worth is a worse situation the job would just be left undone if it wasn't worth paying for.
If people are treated as the greatest asset is another question.
Don't cap high performers, so they don't feel like they must move on from the work they're doing.
Keep the promotion and just give me the raise.
i think, except for those with no interest in critical observation and analysis, we have all witnessed this happening for a long time
Those with no interest in critical observation and analysis are very, _very_ common. (Probably most people, if we're being honest)
@@dynamicworlds1 you have a point...
Fascinating video, thanks a lot I subscribed.
Think i agree more with the dalbert priciple. Its about how good you are at bullshitting and not about competence
We need more coverage on how the war on opiates is killing the already dependent and hurting those who live a lower quality of life due to pain. Yes it was bad to push in Mass quantities, but worse as it led many down a path to unstable life and eventually death
Pay good performers well, and they will continue to preform well. A promotion is not always the best way to reward good work.
I was promoted from mime to clown with my company and immediately regreted it! How could I ever of thought I could fill those shoes!
Everyone is incompetent in new positions. The difference between people who adapt and those who don't, is learning. You've got to be very self aware to know how and where to adapt. Business needs to give plenty of feedback as some areas we start off as incompetent in, are "unknown" to us. Criticism makes these "known unknowns" and we can work on them - if you are self aware enough to take the criticism well
Loved the drawing style. :)
Thanks!
My time in the armed forces was filled with people saying 'why don't you want to get promoted?
Answer was always the same. 'I've seen what gets promoted, I'm not one of those'.
My father was on Oxy for cancer pain two decades ago. We all knew it was addictive then. Like cigarettes, those who used the product basically hid behind the words of the manufacturer, knowing all the while that the product was addictive and dangerous. Governments turned their backs, until some of the higher echelon citizens dropped dead.
So it's not as if the danger of addiction was hidden; it was merely ignored.
What really matter is admit and recognize your flaws and error work on it ,studies and train yourself,
Not give up (because is hard) sure if you do nothing you get nothing
NEVER STOP LEARNING , BE OPEN OBJECTIVE AND MOST OF ALL DARE TO QUESTION YOURSELF
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU REACH THE TOP COPYING IS SIMPLER AND FASTER THAN INNOVATING BUT BRING LESS VALUE
Based on what I've learned at my engineering job is, it are most often those who are good at boot-licking yet incompetent as an engineer that get promoted.
Most engineers don't mind this at all, based on the fact that both inept engineers and inept managers cause additional workload on the rest of the engineering team. We rather prefer to have centralized incompetence higher up the corporate ladder, than being forced to work besides it.
Occasionally an incompetent engineer proofs him/her-selves to be a very competent leader... It's a win-win situation.
Happens alot in restaurants, the worst among waiters get a pass to become managers for less money, long hours but with power and a salary