Well, ring the church bells and pull out your best parade bonnets - I am back! Life has done its level best to put me off this blog, but I've wrestled it to the ground and showed it who's boss. (In case you're having trouble following the metaphor: *points* There's life over there, hog-tied and prone. Here's me, winning and grinning.)
Anyway, what I'd like to discuss tonight is The Peter Principle. Now, before you snicker and/or warily type that phrase into Google, hands over your eyes in horrified anticipation, let's get a definition out:
"The Peter Principle is a belief that in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle."
Further more, dear readers: " 'Peter's Corollary states that "[i]n time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." "Managing upward" is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly "manage" superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing.' "
Our scene opens on yours truly, having a heart to heart with a member of upper management at our corporate office. What began as a discussion of ways to improve a new training initiative quickly shifted into a tirade on the lack of consistency in recent promotions within the company. Said member of upper management confided in me (because she "trusts" and "respects" me) that she vehemently disagreed with several of the recent promotions and believed that certain individuals had been unequivocally elevated above their knowledge levels. (Me? I thought they'd been elevated above their intelligence levels, but that would be rude to say and well, I'm never rude, am I?)
Instead of openly agreeing, I demurred and returned the conversation to the subject with which I am most comfortable at the corporate level: the facts. I asked her if a set of parameters had been developed by which one could qualify for these upper positions. She admitted they had not. I asked if those recently promoted were now receiving training to at least better enable them to do the jobs they had achieved (but not earned). She admitted they were not. She went on to say that she feels that the most senior manager at the company, someone who has had more responsibility than any other manager to come before or after her, "doesn't have the skill set" to move up any further.
*sigh*
Thankfully, I have yet to reach my level of incompetence. (And truthfully, so has my boss.) Apparently though, I have nothing to worry about since my employer will very likely promote me regardless of tenure or acumen. Sadly, this means all accolades are suspect and all praise is worthless. This is probably not the time to mention I recently received several emails from the CEO and head of HR, congratulating me on being amazing, is it? Nor would anyone applaud my recent nomination for a state-sponsored award in my field, would they?
My dismay is resounding. No organization is perfect, but I truly believed my company was above this sort of "Office Space"-like behavior. Why work hard? Why bother to strive for excellence? I mean, even someone grounded in astounding personal ethics can be worn down in the face of such obvious nonsense.
And, quite frankly, some days I can be bribed with Twizzlers and the latest copy of Architectural Digest.
No comments:
Post a Comment