The Peter Principle

You may not have seen it, given you may not be based in Sydney, but in today's Sydney Morning Herald there is an article referring to a NSW government agency responsible for investigating workplace bullying that is harbouring a serious bullying problem in its own ranks which it has been attempting to keep quiet.  According to the article;

The inquiry, conducted by one of WorkCover's own safety inspectors, Petar Ankucic, found bullying had been ''occurring for a prolonged period of time and that various factors, including selective supervision, multiple chains of command, workload equity, continuous negative feedback and a somewhat autocratic management style … have contributed to unintended bullying''.

In the same paper, there is an article in the Executive Style section asking "Are you a bad manager?" that begins like this:

Many are out of their depth when they get promoted into management positions. I call it the competency trap. Good technicians and people who are particularly skilled in an area are turned into managers. The problem is that the qualities that made them a great technician – the ability to work on their own, think laterally and cut corners – are not the same as the skills required to be a manager. And then there are those who are promoted because they are smooth talkers who have sucked up to the right people and said the right things

The article goes on to reference a checklist of "7 Signs You May Be a Bad Manager" by Steve Tobak of BNET.com, which may perhaps have come in handy for some of those NSW Workcover staff allegedly responsible for the bullying that has taken place. Actually it is a useful little list to run against yourself at any time you may be feeling you are a genius at managing people or indeed just as a quick reality check.

You have probably heard of the Peter Principle.  The theory was proposed by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle.  According to Wikipedia, it states that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence".  The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. However, sooner or later, they will be promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they will remain, being unable to earn further promotions.  Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".

If you have been in the workforce for a given length of time, let's say slightly longer than one day, it is highly likely that you will have come across one or more people who will fit the above Principle.  I certainly have encountered them many times in my career.  I have also come across a significant number of potentially very good Managers who have been poorly equipped to face the realities of their new positions and so have become incompetent in that role.  Also, too often it can be the case that the individual who is promoted is the one most skilled at their current role from a technical perspective rather than suitability to lead people in their roles. 

I believe a large number of these individuals could have been rescued from that failure.  Through careful selection, planning for promotion and recruitment of Managers, focused leadership training at the appropriate level, supportive mentoring and appropriate performance management put in place by a business that recognises the value an effectively prepared and equipped Manager can play. HR has a key role to play in ensuring the development of such holistic programs that have as an aim the effective management of the business.  If we get it wrong, we run the very real risk of fulfilling Peter's Corrollary with every post being occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties. 

When the business fails to prepare it's leaders for new roles, not only is the business failing to meet it's obligations to its shareholders but it is failing the individuals most critical to its success.

All the best

Jim