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.
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.
Thanks for this, James. It's helpful to think about the relationship this way, and avoids too much of a self-ego
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.
same here! thanks for writing this article. Can you give me some examples of second option? It will help in understanding it better. thanks
This article is an important blow for my ego, as I almost always chose the first path, feeling superior. Thanks.
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.