Podcast: Play in new window | Download (8.2MB)
. . . . .
In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. Laurence Peter
This maxim is known as the Peter Principle and is thought to account for the fact that there are incompetent people at all organizational levels, although not necessarily at a given level in a specific organization. Peter’s notion is that people are promoted based on their competence at a lower level. The pool of people who are eligible for promotion to any level in an organization is limited to individuals who have demonstrated competence at a lower level. If you are the employee, you will keep getting promoted until you eventually get a position for which you aren’t competent. That’s as far up as you will go. and since everyone knows that is how it works, you will stay there until you quit or retire. Since Peter is right, at least to some extent, how can this organizational tendency be best managed?
First, recognize that the knowledge and skills (competencies) for success in a lower position aren’t the same as those required for a higher position. Usually, job descriptions are mostly a list of duties and responsibilities. The position description for the next higher level simply says that the employee is expected to supervise or manage employees who perform the duties associated with the lower position. If you are a brick layer, promotion to foreman means that you supervise/manage brick layers. You get the idea.
As a brick layer, the position requirements primarily focused on being able to correctly lay X number of bricks under Y circumstances. As a foreman, the position requirements include knowing a lot about laying bricks. but actually being an expert brick layer isn’t necessarily required. You need to be able to supervise/manage brick layers. The point is that the major competencies needed to be a successful foreman vary a lot from those required to be a successful brick layer. Being a foreman requires a quite different knowledge/skill set. Instead of promoting a brick layer to foreman, it would make as much sense to recruit a competent, non-brick laying foreman and have him supervise/manage the brick layers. The question is whether it is better to have a competent brick layer who knows very little about supervision and management or a competent foreman who knows very little about brick laying.
Since the obvious need is for someone who knows a lot about brick laying and a lot about supervising/managing brick layers, it sure isn’t difficult to see what is needed. If someone wants to be a brick layer, he will need to serve an apprenticeship under a qualified brick layer. To be a foreman, you will need to be a qualified brick layer and then successfully complete an apprenticeship designed especially for foreman. Unfortunately, the higher up one goes in an organization, the less likely one is to find an apprenticeship program at that level. At the highest levels, apprenticeship training should be an integral part of an organization’s succession planning but it typically isn’t, if there is any succession planning at all.
. . . . .
Character cannot be developed in peace and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened. vision cleared. ambition inspired, and success achieved. Helen Keller
The relationship between trial and suffering is a common theme in the success and motivation literature, although failure usually replaces trial and suffering in the equation. For example, Benjamin Disraeli said, All my successes have been built on my failures. The famous Anon. said, Failure is a better teacher than success, but she seldom finds an apple on her desk. and Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, said, Most success springs from an obstacle or failure. Maury Povich joined in too when he said, There’s got to be a glitch along the way, or else you lose touch with reality. Robert Louis Stevenson took the concept to the extreme, Our business in life is not to succeed, but to continue to fail in good spirits. and Winston Churchill echoed the theme, Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.
Now isn’t that just dandy. It’s enough to make one get out there and fail just to get firmly on the path to success. and the bigger the failure, the better. Every failure brings with it the seed of an equivalent success, according to Napoleon Hill. Perhaps a good measure of trial and suffering would also be a terrific addition to one’s optimal success strategy.
Interestingly, simply failing is, by itself, not sufficient. One must develop the right attitude toward failure. Reggie Jackson suggested, I feel the most important requirement in success is learning to overcome failure. You must learn to tolerate it, but never accept it. Dexter Yager said, A winner is one who accepts his failures and mistakes, picks up the pieces, and continues striving to reach his goals. It’s a get back on the horse kind of thing. Denis Waitley puts it this way, Forget about the consequences of failure. Failure is only a temporary change in direction to set you straight for your next success.
At least Norman Vincent Peale didn’t buy into the negative approach to success, We’ve all heard that we have to learn from our mistakes, but I think it is more important to learn from our successes. If you learn only from your mistakes, you are inclined to learn only errors. The conclusion here is simple. Fail if you absolutely can’t avoid it. If you fail, don’t quit. You can’t succeed if you don’t try. Having said that, success is always more fun than failing and there is never any shame in having fun. The key is to do the right things right, the first time, on time, every time. With that as your personal standard, you won’t always have fun but the odds will definitely favor your proactive approach to success.