Thank you for the response: you call out what I feel is the main paradigm-shift in my thinking of the past 5 years: in the detail of each specific situation, the next best answer is always context-based!
That symbiosis and higher-level priority/goal is certainly what I found... once I got out of my own way, to the point of your article.
A specific version of this that I have experienced is the first time 'Reporting To Peter' meant reporting to someone who was no longer in the same capability. It increased the impact of the point you raise about 'being the expert'. In this case I was in engineering and was reporting to someone who had a sales background.
Any specific further thoughts on that situation?
It frustrated me in the short term, and then I realised their capability was complementary so there was more to learn from each other.
Hard to give specific advice without knowing about the situation without knowing the details!
However, certainly there's a lot of symbiosis to be had from having such different backgrounds: they bring a lot of knowledge about the periphery and what is important, and you bring a lot of technical expertise and ideas.
Thanks a lot! Do you mean examples of building a symbiotic relationship with your manager? If so, some examples could be if they are always too busy to meet and it is causing friction, you could instead take ownership and start up a practice of writing to them weekly instead so you can collaborate asynchronously. Also, perhaps you find yourself underwhelmed by their weekly staff meeting. Why not take ownership and ask them to make you the chair and person in charge of the agenda? That way you get to fix your own problem.
This article shreds light when you are a newbie or don't have enough experience. I see it as a way of growing when you have lot of colleagues at your same level and promotion allows the company keep growing.
However, in a situation where you are at the third level from the CEO or the GM and there is no vacancy at the second level, you can find specific persons not doing their job. And, showing that you can do it won't open you the door to that position for multiple reasons not related with meritocracy.
As an example, we all know some kind of influencers (small ones but enough to get known in specific niches) that occupies a position because the company wants to be more visible to the public. And, in the end, these people don't do the corresponding tasks for that position.
Thanks for your article. There's a fundamental issue though: if someone is Reporting to Peter Principle, then by definition, his/her/its manager is incompetent. You said, "This [forcing a change] is short-term, selfish thinking that turns a functioning organization into a dysfunctional one." but if the manager is incompetent, then the organization _cannot_ be functioning properly (ask me how I know). It's already dysfunctional!
The real question is: how do you save an organization from the incompetence of an erroneously promoted manager? The answer, in my opinion, is: you can't. Someone above the manager has to do it, but this rarely happens, particularly when the higher ups were also a result of the Peter Principle. Incompetence begets incompetence.
The silver lining here is that a competent manager will have no trouble distinguishing him-/her-/it-self. Just as competent production workers do.
I think maybe there's a bit of a misunderstanding — I was trying to get across that in your mind may be thinking that they are incompetent for whatever reason you have (they don't spend enough time with you, they focus elsewhere, they have a different style to you, etc.), whereas they actually aren't incompetent in terms of their impact. You just don't have the whole picture: you have to fix your own mindset first.
"they actually aren't incompetent": then your whole premise goes out the window! The whole point of the Peter Principle is that people rise to the level of their incompetence. Like I said, by definition, the manager is incompetent, and thus the organization--or the very least the manager's team/department/division/whatever--is dysfunctional. I've seen it happen over and over again, like the same bad dream every night!
Perceived "incompetence" due to bitterness, envy, ignorance, bias, or bad judgment is NOT the Peter Principle!
Thanks for this, James. It's helpful to think about the relationship this way, and avoids too much of a self-ego
Pleased you liked it!
This article has come at the right point in my career. I'm currently struggling with this. Second option it is!! Thank you James.
🙏
Thank you for the response: you call out what I feel is the main paradigm-shift in my thinking of the past 5 years: in the detail of each specific situation, the next best answer is always context-based!
That symbiosis and higher-level priority/goal is certainly what I found... once I got out of my own way, to the point of your article.
A specific version of this that I have experienced is the first time 'Reporting To Peter' meant reporting to someone who was no longer in the same capability. It increased the impact of the point you raise about 'being the expert'. In this case I was in engineering and was reporting to someone who had a sales background.
Any specific further thoughts on that situation?
It frustrated me in the short term, and then I realised their capability was complementary so there was more to learn from each other.
Hard to give specific advice without knowing about the situation without knowing the details!
However, certainly there's a lot of symbiosis to be had from having such different backgrounds: they bring a lot of knowledge about the periphery and what is important, and you bring a lot of technical expertise and ideas.
same here! thanks for writing this article. Can you give me some examples of second option? It will help in understanding it better. thanks
Thanks a lot! Do you mean examples of building a symbiotic relationship with your manager? If so, some examples could be if they are always too busy to meet and it is causing friction, you could instead take ownership and start up a practice of writing to them weekly instead so you can collaborate asynchronously. Also, perhaps you find yourself underwhelmed by their weekly staff meeting. Why not take ownership and ask them to make you the chair and person in charge of the agenda? That way you get to fix your own problem.
This article is an important blow for my ego, as I almost always chose the first path, feeling superior. Thanks.
You’re not alone! Thanks for the comment.
This article shreds light when you are a newbie or don't have enough experience. I see it as a way of growing when you have lot of colleagues at your same level and promotion allows the company keep growing.
However, in a situation where you are at the third level from the CEO or the GM and there is no vacancy at the second level, you can find specific persons not doing their job. And, showing that you can do it won't open you the door to that position for multiple reasons not related with meritocracy.
As an example, we all know some kind of influencers (small ones but enough to get known in specific niches) that occupies a position because the company wants to be more visible to the public. And, in the end, these people don't do the corresponding tasks for that position.
Thanks for your article. There's a fundamental issue though: if someone is Reporting to Peter Principle, then by definition, his/her/its manager is incompetent. You said, "This [forcing a change] is short-term, selfish thinking that turns a functioning organization into a dysfunctional one." but if the manager is incompetent, then the organization _cannot_ be functioning properly (ask me how I know). It's already dysfunctional!
The real question is: how do you save an organization from the incompetence of an erroneously promoted manager? The answer, in my opinion, is: you can't. Someone above the manager has to do it, but this rarely happens, particularly when the higher ups were also a result of the Peter Principle. Incompetence begets incompetence.
The silver lining here is that a competent manager will have no trouble distinguishing him-/her-/it-self. Just as competent production workers do.
I think maybe there's a bit of a misunderstanding — I was trying to get across that in your mind may be thinking that they are incompetent for whatever reason you have (they don't spend enough time with you, they focus elsewhere, they have a different style to you, etc.), whereas they actually aren't incompetent in terms of their impact. You just don't have the whole picture: you have to fix your own mindset first.
"they actually aren't incompetent": then your whole premise goes out the window! The whole point of the Peter Principle is that people rise to the level of their incompetence. Like I said, by definition, the manager is incompetent, and thus the organization--or the very least the manager's team/department/division/whatever--is dysfunctional. I've seen it happen over and over again, like the same bad dream every night!
Perceived "incompetence" due to bitterness, envy, ignorance, bias, or bad judgment is NOT the Peter Principle!
That’s why I’ve called it the “Reporting To Peter Principle”.