50 internautes sur 51 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
It's interesting yet perplexing, that when I studied Public Administration (yawn), we studied German economist and sociologist Max Weber, but never once, did our courses include the work of Laurence Peter. They should have.
The "Peter Principle" was written in 1969, but you'll realize immediately it's still very accurate and useful today. Many anecdotes and case studies may remind you of yourself, someone, or some people you've worked with. There are illustrations, diagrams, charts, graphs, and the ever-present Bell Curve. There are too many good things in this book to list. It's also a quick and easy-read.
The author's background is very relevant to the credibility of this book, which in my opinion, is a true classic. Laurence J. Peter received an Ed.D from Washington State University and had extensive experience as a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, prison instructor, consultant, and university professor. (I don't know much about the other author, Raymond Hull.) Here a a couple of concepts from the many things in the "Peter Principle."
Push & Pull:
Two different ways to "move up." No reason to go into detail, but a person pushing upward usually will not get the result of a person who's "pulled up from above." My favorite quote in the "Peter Principle" is on the "Push & Promotion" chapter on page 63:
"Never stand when you can sit; never walk when can ride; never Push when you can Pull."
Judging the competence of an employee:
Outsiders usually don't judge your performance. In general, your superior does. So if you have a:
If a superior is competent they evaluate his/her subordinate by the usefulness of work. Performance. Output.
If a superior is incompetent they will often judge the subordinate by "behavior that supports the rules, rituals, and forms of the status quo. Promptness, neatness, courtesy to superiors...." This is evaluating input, not output.
Most of us have witnessed and perhaps experienced a happy and talented person doing well at what they do in the workplace. Because of his/her optimum performance they're offered a promotion. A raise, yes. But also more stress, more time consumed, more responsibilities, and often new duties and skill-sets needed at the new position.
Some employees understand that in their particular circumstances the negatives outweigh the positives of a promotion. When realize they are next in line, or close to getting that promotion they don't want, they have (at least 2) options:
One, carefully refuse the promotion, while vocalizing that he/she is still committed and dedicated to the company, etc. This is called "Peter's Parry," and is not recommended by the author for most (but not all) employees.
The second option for the employee to avoid advancement, is not by refusing promotion but by intentionally doing minor and forgivable mistakes that will cause him/her to never be offered a promotion, but retain the current position. This is ---> Creative Incompetence. The author offers some techniques in the sub-section of this chapter for successfully executing Creative Incompetence. Peter states it's important that one conceal the fact that they want to avoid a promotion.
Again this book is almost 40 years old. Some of the individual (worker) values and the corporate climate has changed since then. But in private, public, and non-profit organizations, we see many of Peter's situations today. Too many.
HEALTH & HAPPINESS AT ZERO PQ:
When someone reaches his/her level of incompetence (called Peter's Plateau) the Zero PQ - Zero Promotion Quotient - 0% chance of a promotion exists. Understanding when one reaches the point of Zero PQ is very important. Many employees don't recognize when they hit it, and sometimes when an employee hits the ceiling he/she thinks it's incompetence, inferier skills, or lack of production, when it might actually be politics. They think they are not working "hard enough," or good enough. This person pushes harder by working longer, skipping breaks, and going the extra mile. These are the symptoms of ---> Final Placement Syndrome.
Have you ever witnessed or even experienced Zero PQ at work?
In organizations (i.e., hierarchies) people get promoted as long as they continue to be competent. Eventually they are promoted to a position in which their skills are not adequately applicable for their new position. Therefore other employees at the same level or below carry out the tasks, because these "other employees" have not hit their level of their incompetence, yet.
The Chapters are worthy of listing because they do highlight the points and topics in the book:
1. The Peter Principle
2. The Principle in Action
3. Apparent Exceptions
4. Pull & Promotion
5. Push & Promotion
6. Followers & Leaders
7. Hierarchically & Politics
8. Hints & Foreshadowings
9. The Psychology of Hierarchiology
10 Peter's Spiral
11 The Pathology of Success
12 Non-Medical Indices of Final Placement
13 Health & Happiness at Zero PQ
14 Creative Incompetence
15 The Darwinian Extension
There are numerous sub-chapters within the chapters, as well. This is a practical book with many anecdotes we've seen in real life. The "Peter Principle" can help corporate hierarchical rejectionists and corporate minions alike. A great glossary and chapter index is in the back of this classic.
6 internautes sur 6 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I thought this book was pretty good. I only gave 4 stars because it gets a bit silly at some points. The author comes up with a lot of different names for a lot of different principles. By the end, you lose track of which is which. I feel like that sometimes after a hard night after a concert with my groupies. There is this girl here and that girl over there and then this other girl passed out on the sofa. Who is that? What was her name? Bah… doesn’t matter…
It’s an interesting concept that individuals rise to their level of incompetence. However, I think we could also explore how many individuals aren’t competent to begin with. I submit that a large segment of the population is incompetent, period. They don’t have to rise to their level of incompetence because they are inherently incompetent. It doesn’t matter what they do for a living… they will do it in an incompetent manner. Let’s call it the Moondonkey Principle.
Now to refine the principle:
Competent people only rise to their level of incompetence if they feign incompetence.
The Moondonkey Principle states that the general population exists in a permanent state of incompetence. There is no job at which they will be competent. No task at which they will be competent. No level at which they will be competent. They are simply incompetent. Period.
On the other hand, there are a small minority of people that are competent. However, these competent people find rising to their level of competence difficult because, by definition, they are surrounded by incompetent people. The inherent flaw in The Peter Principle is that it is based on the assumption that competence is recognized and rewarded. That’s bologna. If you work in a business and your boss is incompetent, how will your boss recognize your competence? Your boss is more likely to recognize a similarly incompetent employee because that employee’s incompetence is a reflection of you bosses own incompetence… which they mistakenly believe is competence.
Even if competence is recognized, is it likely that competence will be rewarded? According to The Moondonkey Principle, the answer is no. If incompetent leadership recognizes competence at a lower level, that competence will not be recognized and rewarded… it will be controlled and marginalized in order to maintain the status quo. Competence is more likely to be penalized.
Therefore, in order for a competent person to rise to their level of competence, the competent person must feign incompetence. The competent person must sit in meetings listening to incompetent people voicing incompetent ideas and nod his or her head in agreement. The competent person must slow down the pace of his or her work… maybe even put in overtime that isn’t necessary. If you do your job too efficiently, then you must not be doing it well. The Moondonkey Principle states that you must put in extra time that is not needed in order to create the perception of doing extra work and/or taking extra time to perfect your work. This may require long breaks to the restroom to sit on the toilet and play games on your phone in order to take up the extra time spent in the office doing nothing.
The competent person must be the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Then, when opportunity presents itself, the competent person must trick incompetent leadership into promoting him or her based on meaningless and irrelevant traits that have nothing to do with the competence required for the position… like worthless overtime.
The Moondonkey Principle is very different than The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle holds that an individual will be promoted based on competence in his or her current position. That trend will continue until they become incompetent in a position. Moondonkey holds that promotion of a competent person is based on the competent person’s ability to feign incompetence in order to manipulate incompetent management into making the promotion decision.
I submit the following case study for your review:
Ace, Inc employs 10 people in its file review department. Their job is to process files for some purpose that isn’t relevant to this discussion. 8 of these employees are incompetent. They work slowly, waste time, are inefficient, and put in extra hours every week in order to get their jobs done… or just get extra pay if they can. 1 employee is competent, but pretends to be incompetent. She intentionally works slowly and/or holds completed work on her desk in order to justify overtime every week. 1 employee is competent and acts in a competent manner. This employee does more work than any other employee, but does not work any overtime.
What is the result? Is the competent employee promoted as The Peter Principle would suggest? Heck no. Anyone that has worked in business knows the answer. The competent employee who acts competent is penalized. He may even be put on a performance improvement plan. Incompetent management doesn’t see him as productive… he can’t be… he isn’t working overtime. They don’t see the quantity of work completed as productive… it can’t be… no one else is doing that much and, of course, he doesn’t work overtime. Rather, his production is seen as evidence that he isn’t following procedures or isn’t taking time with his work. He must be doing sloppy work.
So who gets the promotion? Not the competent employee. Rather, probably an incompetent employee who works the most overtime – overtime that should be seen as evidence of incompetence, but is not seen that way in an environment where the majority are incompetent (which is how things really are). The competent employee who pretends to be incompetent may have a chance as well, but only if she wastes a lot of extra time.
This observation should be obvious to anyone who has worked for a business – especially a large business. How can the business be run by a team of people who are totally clueless? Does the business succeed because of management, or somehow succeed in spite of management?
So how do companies manage to stay in business? Luckily for us all, there are always a few competent people that haven’t figured out that they need to pretend to be incompetent. This small number of competent people, who actually continue to act competent, drive the business and get the work done.… well… until they figure out that they need to act incompetent in order to get promoted. Companies go out of business when they run out of those few competent people and are stocked with incompetent people top to bottom.
That’s The Moondonkey Principle.
What does it all mean? It means we are all screwed. It means that competent people are either (1) marginalized by incompetent management, or (2) have been promoted to their level of incompetence by pretended to be incompetent over a number of years. In other words, there are little to no individuals of positions of power in either business or government that have any competence whatsoever. The world is run by bumbling fools.
Anyway…Having read this book, I’ve been wondering what my level of incompetence might be. Apparently, we all have a ceiling and, if we pass over it, we will be incompetent. I’m not so sure though. Maybe I don’t have a ceiling. I may be an example of omnicompetence.