Hiring is one of the things where the “move fast and break it” mantra can cause real damage, including blowing product release schedules and, in extreme cases, blowing holes in your team or even destroying it.

A couple of yesterday’s links offered ways to avoid the Peter Principle when hiring, here are some others.

1. Analyze your openings and identify the attitudes needed to perform and be successful in your company, not the experience. Just because they have held a similar position previously doesn’t mean they did it well. And even if they did, the ability may not carry over with a different boss and/or culture.
2. Interview for attitude above experience and don’t rule out someone who hasn’t held a similar position — at some point every boss became one via promotion.
3. Managing is composed of various skills; in that respect it is no different than any other specialty, such as engineering, marketing or finance. Supply training/coaching to anyone promoted to management; nobody is born knowing how, nor is it taught particularly well in college.
4. Find ways to reward exceptional effort beyond promotion to a position that isn’t aligned with ability and interests. When people know there are financial/prestigious alternatives to management they are more likely to speak up when offered a promotion they don’t really want. The image above shows one approach that has been successful in technical and nontechnical fields, because the compensation between pairs is equal on each level.

As in most cases, to change results, change how you think.

Image credit: RampUp Solutions

Yesterday I mentioned the Peter Principle, by Laurence J. Peter, a prominent Canadian education scholar. It prompted a call from a young (23) friend asking how accurate it is now, considering it was written nearly 50 years ago .

It wasn’t that “Ben” disagreed with the premise, especially considering his boss, he just thought that there should be more current information.

And there is. So for Ben and others who wonder, here are links to more current information and research in chronological order.

First is Bob Sutton’s marvelous foreword written for the Principle’s 40^th anniversary edition in 2009.

My father loved The Peter Principle because it explained why life could be so maddening—and why everyone around you seems, or is doomed to become, incompetent.

Second, in August, 2014, from Rob Asghar, a good, somewhat depressing, overview of the book, along with a few words of hope.

We’re human, in the end. The Tony Robbins types try to sell us the life-hacks, the superfood diets, the meditation techniques and the mantras to transfigure us from mortal to immortal. That only sets us up to fail in a different and delusional way.

Next, in December, an article in HBR looked at the Principle from the other side — and it only took ten years to happen.

This seems surprising since of course every manager is a subordinate as well. And indeed in The Subordinate’s Predicaments, Case Western Reserve management professor Eric Neilsen and then-doctoral candidate Jan Gypen make that point explicitly.

In April this year, Rodd Wagner described research that proved the Principal was indeed real and ways to circumvent it. Although the research focuses on sales, it is applicable to any career field.

Three professors – Alan Benson of the University of Minnesota, Danielle Li of MIT and Kelly Shue of Yale – analyzed the performance of 53,035 sales employees at 214 American companies from 2005 to 2011. During that time, 1,531 of those sales reps were promoted to become sales managers.

I hope this info (and I’m sure there is plenty more for the searching) is useful to Ben and all those like him, who are either struggling with a very real Peter Principle boss or working hard to avoid becoming one.

Image credit: Barnes and Noble

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

How do you hire? What do you focus on? What carries the most weight with you? How do you decide what is most relevant to your situation? Do you look hardest at what they’ve done or concentrate on what they could do in the future. And the key question, is your approach successful?

We’ll explore these ideas further this week.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Dan McCarthy had a terrific post on why choosing leaders is a gamble—be sure to read the comments.

We see the idiocy of assuming that past performance is always a good predictor of the future all the time, but it seems especially true at senior levels.

First, there is the penchant for identifying ‘high potential’ starting in kindergarten and providing lots of extra training and coaching, while ignoring those who may be late bloomers or less obvious (read quieter).

Then there’s the Peter Principle, which is not only alive and well, but functioning even more efficiently today than it was when Laurence J. Peter first described it back in 1970.

We relish looking at the past to predict the future, thus choosing to ignore all extenuating circumstances and surrounding factors that played a role in the person’s performance.

We forget, or ignore, that

• one manager’s star is another manager’s bomb;
• the skills needed to take advantage of an economic expansion are very different from those needed in a downturn; and
• turmoil or an ongoing crisis in a person’s personal life often impacts their performance at work.

Last, but not least, we need to get over our love affair with the idea of the hero-leader who, with a wave of the hand, can part the seas and eliminate obstacles.

Image credit: Valerie Everett on flickr

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

The Peter Principle was published in 1969, but the principle was just as true in 3000 BC as it is in 2018 and all the time in-between. It’s a lucky team that has a boss wise enough to keep the principle firmly in mind.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Bob Sutton, author of The No Asshole Rule, recently wrote a 40th anniversary tribute called The Peter Principle Lives.

For those of you too young to remember, the Peter Principle states that “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”

“Dr. Peter argued, “When people do their jobs well, society can’t leave well enough alone. We ask for more and more until we ask too much. Then these individuals—promoted to positions in which they are doomed to fail—start using a bag of tricks to mask their incompetence. They distract us from their crummy work with giant desks, replace action with incomprehensible acronyms, blame others for failure, cheat to create the illusion of progress.”

Well put and oh, so, ironic.

The very supermen who performed such extraordinary feats of financial legerdemain were actually at the peak of their Peter Principle.

Sutton writes, “If Dr. Peter were alive today, he’d find that a new lust for superhuman accomplishments has helped create an almost unprecedented level of incompetence. The message has been this: Perform extraordinary feats, or consider yourself a loser.”

What do you ask of your people?

Do you ask for competency; for them to do the best they are capable of at that point in time? Do you give them the tools, training, support and opportunities to grow and develop?

Or do you promote your people before any of these happen, tossing them into the deep end of the pool to swim—or drown.

As a manager at any level you hold your people’s future in your hands. At any point you have the choice of helping them on their path to success, slowing them down or destroying them.

What do you choose?

Image credit: Barnes and Noble

Dan McCarthy had a terrific post on why choosing leaders is a gamble—be sure to read the comments.

We see the idiocy of assuming that past performance is always a good predictor of the future all the time, but it seems especially true at senior levels.

First, there is the penchant for identifying ‘high potential’ starting in kindergarten and providing lots of extra training and coaching, while ignoring those who may be late bloomers or less obvious (read quieter).

Then there’s the Peter Principle, which is not only alive and well, but functioning even more efficiently today than it was when Laurence J. Peter first described it back in 1970.

We relish looking at the past to predict the future, thus choosing to ignore all extenuating circumstances and surrounding factors that played a role in the person’s performance.

We forget, or ignore, that

• one manager’s star is another manager’s bomb;
• the skills needed to take advantage of an economic expansion are very different from those needed in a downturn; and
• turmoil or an ongoing crisis in a person’s personal life often impacts their performance at work.

Last, but not least, we need to get over our love affair with the idea of the hero-leader who, with a wave of the hand, can part the seas and eliminate obstacles.

Your comments—priceless

Image credit: Valerie Everett on flickr

Bob Sutton, author of The No Asshole Rule, recently wrote a 40th anniversary tribute called The Peter Principle Lives.

For those of you too young to remember, the Peter Principle states that “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”

“Dr. Peter argued, “When people do their jobs well, society can’t leave well enough alone. We ask for more and more until we ask too much. Then these individuals—promoted to positions in which they are doomed to fail—start using a bag of tricks to mask their incompetence. They distract us from their crummy work with giant desks, replace action with incomprehensible acronyms, blame others for failure, cheat to create the illusion of progress.”

Well put and oh, so, ironic.

The very supermen who performed such extraordinary feats of financial legerdemain were actually at the peak of their Peter Principle.

Sutton writes, “If Dr. Peter were alive today, he’d find that a new lust for superhuman accomplishments has helped create an almost unprecedented level of incompetence. The message has been this: Perform extraordinary feats, or consider yourself a loser.”

What do you ask of your people?

Do you ask for competency; for them to do the best they are capable of at that point in time? Do you give them the tools, training, support and opportunities to grow and develop?

Or do you promote your people before any of these happen, tossing them into the deep end of the pool to swim—or drown.

As a manager at any level you hold your people’s future in your hands. At any point you have the choice of helping them on their path to success, slowing them down or destroying them.

What do you choose?

Image credit: Barnes and Noble