Slashdot Mirror
Yes, You Can Blame Your Pointy-Haired Boss On the Peter Principle
Nerval's Lobster writes: You've heard of the Peter Principle, which suggests that all employees manage to rise to the level of their incompetence. (That is to say, everybody is promoted until their skills and strengths no longer align with their current position.) While the Peter Principle is often treated as a truism, a recent Gallup study (registration required)—the result of four decades' worth of research, involving 2.5 million manager-led teams—suggests that it holds a significant degree of real-world truth. "Gallup has found that only 10 percent of working people possess the talent to be a great manager," the study mentions in its introduction. "Companies use outdated notions of succession to put people in these roles." In Gallup's estimation, there are so many bad managers out there that one out of every two employees have "left their job to get away," according to the study. "Managers who are not engaged or who are actively disengaged cost the U.S. economy $319 billion to $398 billion annually." In other words, there are a lot of pointy-haired managers out there.
Been programming professionally for 18 years and have managed to keep out of the manager roll, where I have no doubt that I'd be truly terrible.
there are two bedrock norms in America that cause all sorts of distortions in the labor pool:
* you can promote people but not demote them
* you can give people raises but not cut their base pay.
As a result of these norms, it's easier to fire 10% of your workforce then lower all pay by 10%. Similarly they can cut benefits (ie by lowering their retirement contribution or increasing health costs) which is effectively a salary reduction. If you're hourly they also will cut back your hours, but not your pay.
This is how societal norms distort what economists like to imagine is the free market.
I doubt it. It's too easy NOT to be.
Just realize that you are NOT smarter than the people reporting to you. You just happened to get stuck in that management slot.
Next, learn that just because you've been TALKING since you were 2 does not mean that you are a master at COMMUNICATION. Take classes. Read books. LEARN to communicate.
Now you can give rapid feedback to your people. Instead of the once-a-year-review aim for the every-2-weeks-review. That way you will remember all the reasons why the main project was delayed. Remember your new communication skills.
Finally, decide whether you're going to fuck your people in order to make other managers look good or whether you're going to help your people get the skills to move up and onward.
should never become an Admiral. Also why Kirk sucked at the position.
Ha! It WAS me!
I was a really good developer. Then a great developer (in my mind, and others) so I moved up the ranks.
I was pretty good, and made it to the top of the tech heap at a fairly large organization, with 3 levels of employees under me.
It was horrible. I did a really crappy job.
Instead of being a great developer or architect, I become a HORRIBLE business contract negotiator and director. I got involved in 2 HR actions at the same time. I completely failed. In fact I think I 'Petered Out'.
I bailed on that life, and found an organization willing to match my salary- back down at a developer position. I'm a nominal supervisor to 2 people.
I really think I am doing great work again- even better than before, because my viewpoint is even better. I love being a developer, and they love what I'm doing.
The Peter Principal is real. I was promoted beyond my abilities, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Being really good at something doesn't necessarily mean that I'm able to manage a bunch of other people.
No reason to lie.
Yes, just like everybody could be great at higher mathematics if they just studied diligently, and win Olympic races if they would just train regularly.
Recognizing that you're incompetent is an important first step - but it does not directly imply that you can substantially correct the deficiency.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If you are not getting promoted you have already risen to your level of incompetence.
What you are describing is called the "Dilbert Principle" wherein the worst producers are promoted to management to get them out of the productive flow.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
It was horrible. I did a really crappy job.
Sadly, you were probably better than the guy before you and the guy after you.
I venture to say that just because you realized you were doing a bad job, you were already doing a better job than the vast majority of managers (especially ones who think of themselves as "good").
I don't necessarily think of it as being beyond your abilities as much as outside of the scope of your abilities; is managing inherently more difficult than developing? For some people sure, but I think perhaps looking at the career ladder hierarchically is part of what leads us into this. My boss is not a great coder (he started out coding) but he is a great negotiator, salesman and organizer. It takes all sorts, right?