The Peter Principle is formulated as follows:
Additionally, “In a hierarchy, every employee rises to their level of incompetence.”
Moreover, the “mechanism” described by Peter works as follows: an employee who performs well in his first position within the hierarchy is, in principle, eligible for promotion to a higher position.
Furthermore, if he also performs well in that next position, the path to a next higher position, if available, is open again.
However, that process also stops when the employee is no longer suitable after his promotion. His (additional) skills or qualities have apparently been overestimated. From that moment on, his value to the organization decreases rapidly, possibly until he (on balance) makes a negative contribution to the organization. (1)
That is why it surprised me that, in my career as a trainer at companies, I have regularly worked with topics such as collaboration and trust, which actually implies that there is a chance that trust and collaboration are not the standard in these companies.
is insufficiently present or missing.
Therefore, it is stating the obvious to say that this should be the case. Many companies are insufficiently aware of this, let alone looking for opportunities to implement it. I will return to the connection with “the Peter Principle” later in this blog.
Next, the 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 influenced by current society, they are so preoccupied with their status and position within a company that they forget about their real job.
In short, it is not about being in charge, but 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 have not been trained for it either.
For example, if you are a newcomer to a company, the only thing you have to do is be as good as possible in your position. That is your only responsibility. Some are even trained for it, such as accountants.
After all, take an example: as an accountant, you have to complete rigorous training with a successful exam before you are allowed to start working. And the only thing you have to do after that is show up for work and work very hard.
Moreover, thousands of euros are spent to teach you how to work with the software, or you are sent away for days to be trained in what you do for your company. If you are good, you are rewarded and even get a promotion.
Incidentally, you then become responsible for the people doing the work you used to do and are good at.
But no one tells you how you are supposed to do that; that is why we get managers but no leaders. What they are doing is a kind of micro-management because they are good at the work their employees have to do; that is ultimately how they earned their promotion.
Furthermore, 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 who are responsible for the position”.
Ultimately, therefore, the major pitfall at many companies is that they do not teach new managers how to lead. Leadership is a skill just like other skills, and is therefore learnable and trainable.
Moreover, it is like a muscle: if you train it a lot, it becomes stronger; if you don't train it, it becomes weak. So, if you train a lot as a leader, you become a strong leader; if you don't train, you become a weak leader.
Still, it is just like parenthood; everyone has the capacity to be a parent, but that does not mean that everyone wants to be a parent, nor does it mean that everyone should want to be a parent.
Furthermore, 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.
So, and that is because in both cases a great personal sacrifice is necessary. After all, you are not “in charge,” but you are responsible for the people who are “in charge.”
Furthermore, or rather, that also means that if things go well, you must give all the praise to those who deserve it. But if things go wrong, all the responsibility rests on you; “that really sucks.”
Meanwhile, "It means that you go home last because you have to show someone what to do. It means that, if things really go wrong for once, you shouldn't scream, rant, and swear and take over, but you should say, “Try again.”
Furthermore, the pressure does not lie with your employees, but with you as their leader. Although leaders are naturally responsible for the result, one could also say that true leaders are responsible for the people who are responsible for the result.
Moreover, if you ask some CEOs what their priority is, they shout “our customer,” even though it has been years since they spoke to a customer.
Furthermore, they are not responsible for the customer; they are responsible for the people who are responsible for the people who are responsible for the customer.
Also a true story; well over a year ago now, 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.
Moreover, in fact, there are terraces where they really have a much better menu than at Queen. It is great because of the people who work there, people like Sam.
That's why Sam is a waiter on the terrace, and every time I go there he is super nice, attentive, and entertaining. When I asked him if he liked his job, he answered immediately, “I am crazy about my job, I really love it.”
Because of this, when I asked what his employer did to ensure he loved his job, he replied: “During the day, my boss regularly walks past and asks me how I am doing and if I need anything else to perform my role perfectly, and not only my boss, but also my boss’s partner.”
Then, without me expecting it, he said something else: “I also sometimes work on the terrace of another establishment, and there the boss checks if we are doing everything right. He catches me if I make a mistake, for example by charging errors to my tip jar.”
In short, what's more, he believes he is also entitled to a share of the tip jar.
There, too, I make sure I remain invisible, get through the day, and receive 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.
In short, our working conditions and the world that goes with them have changed enormously over the past 25 years, but we are still suffering from theories from the 80s and 90s, and these are bad for people, but also bad for companies.
An example of this is shareholder value, conceived in the 70s, popularized in the 80s and 90s, and still the standard today.
After all, ask any listed company what their priority is, and the answer is maximizing Shareholder Value. That is just like a football manager who considers the needs of the fans or sponsors more important than the needs of his players.
Moreover, how do you build a winning team then? By starting from the needs of your players. Yet, it is apparently common and accepted to do things differently. Those models are old-fashioned and outdated. In the years they were devised, there was abundance and everything was thriving.
Incidentally, another example that it no longer works: mass layoffs. An example of how we cut human well-being to balance the books or restore profits so that shareholders get what they want.
So 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 build trust and cooperation and invest in it.
By the way, if you want to frustrate trust and cooperation within a day, firing people is the best way to do it. When you send people away, everyone in the company becomes afraid.
Ultimately, sending someone away and making him tell his family at home that he no longer has an income because the company otherwise cannot pay its shareholders undermines the trust of all employees.
However, as a result, they will wonder whether they are next or how they can prevent someone else, but not them, from being next.
Yet the company has clearly communicated that it doesn't matter how long you've worked there or how hard; if the figures 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.
So we tell our children that they must dare to be vulnerable. How do you create an environment where people dare to be that, dare to admit that they have made a mistake or that they have no idea how to do their job well, if they are not safe?
In fact, you create vulnerability when you realize an environment where people are safe. Then people will admit that they have made a mistake, that they need help or training, but they will also come up with great ideas and initiatives.
Therefore, in the meantime, we must now 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 themselves.
In addition, now the connection to “the Peter Principle”. We must stop making the mistake of appointing someone as a manager simply because they do their job well.
Moreover, we need to make someone a manager because he has the courage to take responsibility for the people who do their work well, and for the people who are at a loss for a moment.
Furthermore, managers who take responsibility when things go wrong and stand up for their people, but also give their people the credit when there is success.
At the same time, we must realize that what Laurence J. Peter investigated in 1969 and was written down by Raymond Hull still holds true.
That is why true leaders are still born, but just like top athletes, those talents only mature if they are given the opportunity to develop through training and coaching.
This is why Johan Cruyff achieved what he achieved by training extremely hard day in and day out. A high-performing employee is not rewarded but punished if he is promoted to the position of manager without training and coaching.
Subsequently, and not only him, but also all those people who become dependent on his leadership.
Also, “In a hierarchy, every employee rises to his level of incompetence; to rise further, he will have to develop other skills.”
- Source Wikipedia
In short, the author used lectures by Simon Sinek as inspiration for this article.