Percussive Sublimation is sort of a means of motivating everyone else. The most interesting are the cases in which incompetent employees are promoted from their current position. Peter’s astute observations: what Peter described almost 60 years ago doesn’t even exist in the public service anymore.įortunately, Laurence Peter keeps a slew of special cases on hand so that his principle can be applied to even more situations. There are still flaws in the system, but who knows, perhaps today’s working world owes something to Laurence J. So why should we even consider the Peter Principle today? Because it can be seen as an introduction to a complex topic, a kind of beginner course. Or better yet, they adapt their position to their own abilities. This is the essence of the error behind the Peter Principle – people are able to learn. People change jobs much more often, start something new and, most importantly, they are able to learn. In most businesses, it’s quite helpful to master the tasks required at the lower hierarchy levels, and linear, steady progression up the ladder of a company is much rarer today than it was 60 years ago. All positions are precisely defined in his model, the tasks associated with them cannot be changed and, moreover, the activities in one job are completely different from those of the job above it. We soon realize that today’s working world very rarely fits into these extreme conditions. Peter assumes that all companies have a pyramid shape, that is the number of staff members decreases as the hierarchy level rises. Now let’s go back to the model’s premise. If you really look at it, a school principal is a kind of an anti-teacher.
You have to have a much longer planning horizon and less patience, and the people you work with already know everything and certainly don’t want to learn anything new. As a school principal, you have to exhibit political skills. The job of principal isn’t necessarily harder than that of a teacher (and vice versa) – it’s just different. Lunt becomes overwhelmed in the bureaucratic world of decision-makers and influencers he lacks finesse and tactical skills. The newly minted principal cannot cope with his new job. Since this is an example, the disaster predicted by the Peter Principle unfolds immediately.
Soon he moves up the ranks to principal of the school. The young man had been an exemplary student and is a talented and intellectually competent teacher. To illustrate this, Peter introduces the teacher B. Sounds logical, but as we’ve already suspected, a bit simple. Since mediocrity is usually not a reason for dismissal, the person remains in a position where they are simply out of their depth. The essence of this model is the assumption that every employee is promoted until they reach the point that they are incapable of accomplishing the task at hand. Then the employee can no longer manage their job and they’re no longer promoted. If they again master this position, another promotion is due. In it, a career path is seen as a linear chain: if a person does their job well, according to Peter, they will eventually be promoted to the next higher position in the company hierarchy. In 1969, Peter published a book of the same name together with Raymond Hull. This is no different with hierarchiology and its central thesis, the Peter Principle. Peter | © Toronto StarQuite often, the chief problem with scientific models are the basic assumptions that precede them, which simplify reality as if an architect were learning the principles of engineering based on a Lego house. “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”
0 kommentar(er)
