The Peter Principle
It's popping up again all over
I haven’t written a musing in a while for various reasons. I started thinking about this one a way back and it’s still relevant. I find myself talking more lately about The Peter Principle, especially since I’m finding more and more people who haven’t heard of it. Since the eponymous book was published in 1969, it’s interesting, but not surprising, that it’s still so relevant. You can see Dr Laurence J. Peter talk about where he got the idea for the book in this 1974 BBC interview, which comes with charmingly dated music, graphics and typefaces as an extra bonus.
The $0.10 summary of the Peter Principle (thanks again Wikipedia) is this: “people in a hierarchy tend to rise to ‘a level of respective incompetence.’ Employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.”
I find that this principle occurs most frequently with managers. Talented and successful engineers, security practitioners and many others besides reach a point in their career where in order to be promoted and recognized they must become managers. And by recognized, I mean “reach a higher salary level,” rather than “get more respect.” Once they have been promoted, it’s very likely their company does not train them in management and assumes they’ll “do fine.” And they very often don’t. I am completely sure we have all come across such managers in our careers, whatever our field.
One solution to this over the years in technical circles has been “fellows” programs. These programs allow an engineer to reach a similar status and salary as a senior manager, without the need to manage people. Examples include at IBM or at my alma mater Interleaf1. A clear benefit of programs such as these is that they put an emphasis on the true work of a manager, which is to facilitate and lead the work of their direct reports.
I am surprised that newer organizations don’t often have fellows programs and wonder why they are no longer in vogue. Then again, I’m also surprised that many companies don’t have proper management training programs.
What are you thoughts on this? Have you see great alternatives to fellows programs? Are you living in the Peter Principle as I type? Let me know how it’s playing out for you.
I worked at Interleaf long enough ago that it doesn’t even appear on my LinkedIn. There I met some of the most wonderful people and am still in touch with many of them. It successfully spoiled me into thinking that work should be fun with fun people, something that was not repeated in a corporate environment until Bit9.
Have definitely seen this occur and it is very irresponsible of any department or team to not have clear lines of personal and professional development that include, but do not require, advancement to positions of management after demonstrating talent as an individual contributor. Some make the transition (those with high EQ usually), but most do not. Or they emulate the failed methods of poor managers that led them in the past as they are not trained in finding their own personal style (or that there are multiple management styles available).