The Peter Principle is formulated as follows:

“In a hierarchy, each employee rises to his level of incompetence.”

The “mechanism” described by Peter works like this; an employee who performs well in his first position within the hierarchy is in principle eligible for promotion to a higher position. If he also performs well in that next position, the path to the next higher position, if available, will be open again.

However, that process stops when the employee no longer complies after his promotion. His (extra) skills or qualities are apparently overestimated. From that moment on, his usefulness to the organization decreases rapidly, if necessary until he (on balance) makes a negative contribution to the organization. (1)

I was surprised that in my career as a trainer at companies I have regularly worked on topics such as collaboration and trust, which in fact implies that there is a chance that trust and collaboration are not standard in these companies or are insufficiently present or missing. . It is an open argument to say that this should be the case. Many companies are not sufficiently aware of this, let alone look for implementation options. I will return to the connection with “the Peter Principle” at a later stage in this blog.

Statement: There are two things that great leaders must have and that many leaders lack; empathy and perspective. I realize that this is a bold statement, so I would like to substantiate it. Partly under the influence of today's society, they are so concerned with their status and position within a company that they forget their real job. It is not about being in charge, but it is about taking care of the people who are in charge, or in other words, you are not “in charge” but responsible for the people who are “in charge”. These leaders do not realize this and they are not trained for it.

If you are a newcomer to a company, all you have to do is be the best you can in your role. That is your only responsibility. Some are even trained for it, for example accountants. Example; As an accountant you must complete a rigorous training course with a successful exam before you can start working. And all you have to do after that is show up to work and work really hard. Thousands of euros are spent to teach you how to use the software or you are sent away for days to be trained in what you do for your company. If you are good you will be rewarded and even promoted. You then become responsible for the people who do the work that you used to do and that you are good at. But no one tells you how you should do that; that's why we get managers but not leaders. What they are doing is a kind of micro-management because they are good at the work their employees have to do, which is why the promotion is ultimately earned.

So we need to move towards a transition. Some people can do that quickly, some take a little longer and some never succeed. A transition from “responsible for the position” to “responsible for the people responsible for the position”. The big pitfall in many companies is that they do not teach new managers how to lead. Leadership is a skill just like other skills and can therefore be learned and trained. It's like a muscle, if you train it a lot it gets stronger, if you don't train it it becomes weak. So if you train a lot as a leader you will become a strong leader, if you do not train you will become a weak leader. It's like parenting; Everyone has the capacity to be a parent, but that doesn't mean everyone wants parenthood, nor does it mean everyone should want parenthood. It is the same with leaders; everyone has the capacity to be a leader, but not everyone wants to be a leader and some should not be leaders. And that's because in both cases great personal sacrifice is necessary. You are not “in charge” but you are responsible for the people who are “in charge”. That also means that when things go well you have to give all the praise to those who deserve it. But if things go wrong, all responsibility rests on you; “so that really sucks.” It means going home last because you have to show someone what to do. It means that if things really go wrong, you shouldn't shout, rant and swear and take over, but you should say “try again.” The pressure is not on your employees, the pressure is on you as their leader. Although leaders are of course responsible for the result, you could also say that real leaders are responsible for the people who are responsible for the result.

If you ask some CEOs what their priority is, they say “our customer”, even though it has been years since they have spoken to a customer. They are not responsible for the customer; they are responsible for the people responsible for the people responsible for the customer.

A true story; More than a year ago I went for a drink on a terrace in Eindhoven, to be precise at Queen on the Markt. It is a great terrace and not because they have special drinks or a special menu. In fact, there are terraces where they really have a much better menu than at Queen. It's great because of the people who work there, people like Sam. Sam is a waiter on the terrace and every time I go there he is super fun, attentive and entertaining. When I asked him if he liked his job, he immediately replied, “I love my job, I really love it.” When I asked what his employer did to ensure that he loved his job, he replied: “During the day my boss regularly walks by and asks me how I am doing and if I need anything to improve my position. great to be able to fill in and not only my boss but also my boss's partner." Without me counting on it, he said something else: “I sometimes work on the terrace of another catering business and the boss there checks whether we are doing everything right. He catches me when I do something wrong, for example charging errors to my tip jar. In fact, he believes he is also entitled to a share of the tip pool. There I ensure that I remain invisible, get through the day and get my salary. Here I feel like I can be myself and I feel safe.” One and the same person with two completely different experiences at two employers, meaning customers also have a completely different experience.

Our working conditions and the world that goes with them have changed enormously over the past 25 years, but we are still led by theories from the 80s and 90s that are bad for people but also bad for companies. An example of this is shareholders-value, invented in the 70s, popularized in the 80s and 90s and still standard today. Ask any listed company what their priority is and the answer is maximizing Shareholders Value. That is just like a football coach who considers the needs of the fans or sponsors more important than the needs of his players. So how do you build a winning team; by starting from the needs of your players. Yet it is apparently normal and accepted to do things differently. Those models are old-fashioned and outdated. In the years that they were conceived, there was plenty and everything went well.

Another example that it no longer works; mass layoffs. An example of how we eliminate human well-being in order to bring the books back into balance or restore profits so that shareholders get their money's worth. We don't realize how devastating that can be for people, nor do we realize how bad it is for businesses. On the one hand, employers want to realize trust and cooperation and invest in them. But if you want to frustrate trust and cooperation within a day, the best way to do that is to fire people. If you send people away, everyone in the company becomes afraid. Sending someone away and telling him at home that he no longer has any income because otherwise the company would not be able to pay out its shareholders undermines the confidence of all employees. They will wonder if they are next or how they can prevent someone else but not them from being next. The company has clearly communicated that it doesn't matter how long you work there or how hard, if the numbers are negative and you're on the wrong side of the spreadsheet, you're out of luck. So people come to work afraid, every day. We tell our children to dare to be vulnerable. How do you create an environment in which people dare to be that way, dare to admit that they have made a mistake or that they have no idea how to do their job properly if they are not safe? You create vulnerability when you create an environment in which people are safe. Then people start to admit that they made a mistake, that they need help or training, but they also come up with great ideas and initiatives.

We now need to create environments where managers are vulnerable and empathetic so that young people dare to be vulnerable, build relationships with their colleagues and customers. Dare to ask for help and develop into a better version of

Now the connection with “the Peter Principle”. We need to stop making the mistake of making someone a manager because he does his job well. We have to make someone a manager because he dares to be responsible for the people who do their job well, responsible for the people who just don't know what to do anymore. Managers who take responsibility when things go wrong and stand up for their people, but give their people credit when there is success.

We must realize that what Laurence J. Peter researched in 1969 and was written down by Raymond Hull is still valid. True leaders are still being born, but just like top athletes, those talents only come to fruition if the talents are given the opportunity to develop through training and coaching. Johan Cruijff has achieved what he has achieved by training hard day in, day out. A high-performing employee is not rewarded but punished if he is promoted to the position of manager without training and coaching. And not just him, but also all those people who become dependent on his leadership.

“In a hierarchy, each employee rises to his level of incompetence, and to rise further he must develop other skills.”

• Source Wikipedia

The author used lectures by Simon Sinek as inspiration for this article