Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a slightly different view. It's often somwmeone who was just adequate as an individual contributer but who has a great personality that moves up. Then in their new job they can no longer hide their lack of skills behind a veneer of personality.
I don't think I claimed my example was the exclusive one. I agree, sometimes people can coast on personality and being likeable, until they end up in a position that requires skills they don't possess but the lack of those skills becomes more visible.
But I don't think that is necessarily linked to differences between an individual contributor role and a management role.
Actually, I'm sure some would argue that a good personality and ability to BS is all that managers need since there are many people who post on this forum who believe that managers do no actual work.
have you ever met a person, maybe store clerk, waitresss, service manager, that is so stupid you wonder how they got a job. that the peterson principal, you rise till you are incompetent, and you stuck there for life, when it would be better if they got demoted a level
Can anyone explain to me what is the story about the peter principle or hitting the glass ceiling?
Meaning you've been promoted so much, you've had a great career and at your previous job you were really good but now that you've taken a new role you feel not only incompetent but you compare yourself to others and think you cant do the thing this person has done for over 10 years in the same company but you're still new
Why don't you read the book? The Peter Principle. Written in 1969. Lawrence J. Peter. A concept in management that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence
In the Dilbert strip of February 5, 1995, Dogbert says that "leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow". Adams himself explained,[1]
I wrote The Dilbert Principle around the concept that in many cases the least competent, least smart people are promoted, simply because they’re the ones you don't want doing actual work. You want them ordering the doughnuts and yelling at people for not doing their assignments—you know, the easy work. Your heart surgeons and your computer programmers—your smart people—aren’t in management. That principle was literally happening everywhere.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Sometimes the lower range jobs in a department or industry are something almost anyone can do and someone may just be a good worker and do well just because of that. But they have chosen an industry that doesn't highlight their strengths and the farther up they go the more that is an issue. They could do much better doing something much different.
That is a problem caused by our college system. The college major that we choose as teenagers determines what jobs are available to us for the rest of our lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
that's one possible way, but the plateau often happens when someone who is a great individual contributor gets promoted to a management position. It's a completely different skill set, and some would argue potentially even a different personality type. It's not always a discrete skill you can just pick up.
That is going to be a serious problem for myself. I have zero management skills and don't have the management personality type. With the up and our culture of most industries, I'm going to be in serious trouble once it becomes expected for me to be a manager rather than a worker.
have you ever met a person, maybe store clerk, waitresss, service manager, that is so stupid you wonder how they got a job. that the peterson principal, you rise till you are incompetent, and you stuck there for life, when it would be better if they got demoted a level
A perfect example was one of the assistant principals at the middle school that I attended. Based on everything I heard about her, she was an excellent teacher, which is why she was promoted to assistant principal. But she was a completely incompetent assistant principal. She was universally hated by students, teachers, and parents. So she stayed in that assistant principal position for most of her career, since it's basically a lifetime appointment. She retired at age 55 with a 6 figure pension and moved to a lost cost of living area.
I have a slightly different view. It's often somwmeone who was just adequate as an individual contributer but who has a great personality that moves up. Then in their new job they can no longer hide their lack of skills behind a veneer of personality.
I agree with your view. Saw it in action. Caused me to lose massive amounts of respect for the organization this person worked for, as well as their leadership. They prided themselves on hiring qualify workers. I'm thinking, "Really? Well how'd this trash slip through the door???"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
