A phenomenon where workers get promoted to a higher role until they reach a level of incompetence. Like how workers rise in the ranks of managerial positions but end up being bad managers and were better off as workers.
I'm not there to discuss the subject in academic lens but this is the answer I was looking for when it comes to my own experience with management. As a physician, we have job titles that correspond to a salary grade. The higher the salary grade the fancier the job title sounds, and more responsibilities.
Majority of the time, doctors are just fine being sole proprietors to their craft. This is a profession that doesn't require a higher management to function in private practice. But the story hits different when we're part of an organization like public or public institution because now there are administrative responsibilities tied to the roles.
I met a lot of colleagues that are just fine on their own but the performance drops as soon as they get reassigned to manage other people or administrative work that has little to do with the practice of medicine. Some people just don't have the social skills for the job but because a lack of candidates, tenure, and tradition they get promoted anyway.
From an organizational point of view that maximizes profits, why would you promote someone good at their job and doesn't complain about raises? moving them up the ladder costs more and they might not be setup for the role.
From the wage slave's point of view, years spent in loyalty for the company and no career progress is soul draining. Asking for a promotion makes sense but this entails acquiring more responsibilities that one may not suited to do. And it the event they do get promoted, they just become bad in the role but at least they get paid more. This is just a simplification of the issue and shouldn't be taken generally.
Peter Principle says that workers are promoted until they hit a role where their incompetence shows. And I agree, because why would you promote someone that botches their key performance indicators to the next role? So you get really good at your job, then become a candidate for promotion due to some metrics fulfilled and then adjust to your new role until you can't.
Have this happen in the large scale and you have a Peter Principle at work.
I just think it's amazing that we have labels for how these things happen and come up with explanations that make sense. I know there are many ways to come up with plausible reasons why such phenomenon exists in the workplace but it is interesting to notice.
Thanks for your time.
I remember J quite adamantly turning down a managerial position when it was offered to him, he likes the job that he's doing and hates managing other people XD
Meanwhile I kind of like that this thing sounds well known enough to have a name but not well known enough to keep happening.
With how incentives are given, I doubt changes to accommodate this from not happening would be adapted to pop culture. To get more salary, you need promotion and more responsibility. People want more money for their work but can be resistant to more work/responsibility which may not get them to be good at their role. It's difficult to explain why a low level position gets paid more than the managerial position set above that worker in question so by the wills of tradition, we just promote and see what happens.
I think the Peter Principle exists if you stop developing yourself, you stop acquiring new skills, and thinking that you can provide enough to the table without calibrating. The time is not constant, and the needs of every workplace are evolving from time to time. If you are still on the box and okay with what you have, without adopting the changes, I think this Principle might happen to you.
I'm not incentivize to promote someone who is already good at their job and would likely underperform to a higher position outside their skillset. I do find it reasonable to raise the wage for competency at that level, just not more responsibility. Some people are more suited to be efficient at a certain position and rocking their boats might do more harm than good.
But promotion = more pay, and people want more pay / influence so they take up higher roles that don't really suit them and then move up the ladder until they hit a position that's challenging to move up. It's a principle and not an absolute law but it happens a lot and this has little to do with stopping to acquiring new skills. We all have that asshole executive in our workplace that does less and knows less but somehow got to where they're at just cause they managed to excel at visibility.
For my personal preference, my career's quality of life drags down the higher I go up the ladder because it requires more admin skills and more time invested on other people than actually doing my craft. Instead of spending more time with patients, I'll end up being on meetings more. The pay increases slightly but responsibilities too and if I had to quantify value for my time, I'm earning less for this move. Probably just those things peculiar to my profession.
I don't want to argue with this one, this one I hope dont exists, but there are a lot of them, and I am also one questioning why they are alive 🤣. The start of toxicity.
Your last statement, I think, is the place where most of the managers are experiencing; they are more focused on admin and data gathering to resolve certain issues, and somehow they forgot to face the real battle at hand cause they are more focused on theories and principles.
🤣🤣
even worse when it's part of your family
Congratulations @adamada! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Update: @adamada, I paid out 0.638 HIVE and 0.000 HBD to reward 2 comments in this discussion thread.