I’d never heard of the Peter Principle until about a decade ago; it was about 5 years into working in a corporate type environment where hierarchy seemed valued over expertise. Having spent more than 20 years in academic settings, my life had, up until then, been one of learning, teaching, and the curiosity that underpins both. Hierarchy existed, but it was expected that those below would question and challenge ideas that came before, that they would add knowledge that might disprove the basis on which their supervisors gained their higher rungs. That wasn’t threatening to anyone, it was exciting because it generated new information that would permit new questions to be asked and new things to be learned. Challenging the status quo was expected and encouraged. Ignorance or incompetence doesn’t often send you up those ranks. I’m not saying that there weren’t people who shouldn’t have been teaching or supervising, the institution has requirements and some are forced into roles they are not good at. The hyper focused research scientist is not always the individual who excels at inspiring hundreds of students in a lecture hall they’d rather not be in. Thankfully, some universities are now being more supportive of teaching excellence.
But this new environment differed and was confusing for me to navigate. In many instances, those above were threatened by questions; the hierarchy is an entrenched ideal.
I had existed in a world where the only stupid question was an unasked question. Now I found myself in a place where, in many cases, the opposite was true; questions were frequently unwelcome. And when questions came from above, they were often loaded. Loaded questions contain embedded assumptions, are misleading/misdirecting, manipulating and often designed to pressure, confuse, or trick others into revealing information or agreeing with a position they might not otherwise support. It took me a while to recognize loaded questions because I’d not generally encountered them; I’d previously existed in an environment where questions were based on honest curiosity. I learned that I shouldn’t answer things immediately, because some people don’t lay down all the information needed to adequately answer the real question, the hidden question.
I recall sitting on a large meeting years back and an individual calling in asked an uncomfortable question and expressed a different opinion. A man sitting next to me, a particularly hierarchical individual who eventually moved into a management position, muttered under his breath about the inappropriateness of speaking out in a different opinion than the caller’s manager. He said “X should keep his dog on a tighter leash.” The message I was hearing was clear, this man expected people to think and speak in the same manner as their supervisor, no matter the topic. Do not speak up unless asked. Do not provide a contrary opinion. Do not provide information unless specifically requested. Keep your expertise to yourself.
I have never forgotten that meeting and the realization that I had entered unfamiliar territory.
Some people climb the ladder for the larger paycheque generally associated with it. I’m not particularly money-motivated, but I can understand that underlying driver. Sometimes the money isn’t really worth the pain though.
Some people want a seat at the table because of a lack of transparency on how decisions are made by Leadership. Steve Jobs said: “…the only good reason to be a manager is so some other bozo doesn’t be the manager — and ruin the group you care about”. Some people are so frustrated at being left out of the loop that they are willing to let go of what they currently love and move up the ladder. That’s not a negative statement on them, that’s a reflection of an environment with poor leadership. In an opaque environment, people want to know what’s going on and a lack of transparency leaves people feeling distrustful.
Some people want to build a vision they have; I find that motive admirable so long as the vision is built in a way that promotes growth of the individuals involved, is supportive and inclusive, inspires people to bring themselves to the work. They think about we more than me. These people are looking for ways to lift others up and make things better for everyone, using their skills to make a greater impact, create leverage that leads to success for everyone, and put their vision into action. When someone is spending more time focusing on others, even if subconsciously or indirectly, when they are thinking more about their team, their peers, or organization-wide processes than about themselves being the star…a step up the ladder might be warranted because they are probably going to create positive challenges. If the organization will let them.
Some people climb the corporate ladder for power and influence. They like the titles they acquire, the status feels good. In some cases they mistakenly see a step up as a move to a less demanding role, a rung where they can take it easy. They don’t realize that the step up involves managing teams, resolving conflicts, making sometimes difficult decisions, and dealing with the consequences of those decisions, which can be incredibly stressful and challenging. Some people, when they discover that part, don’t know how to navigate and simply bury their head in the sand to avoid the uncomfortable things. Their influence typically isn’t what they think it is and their team, at least some portion, often eventually becomes resentful.
Some people climb the ladder because it is said to be the next logical step. Maybe someone is likeable. Maybe someone is someone’s friend and there is a bit of cronyism going on. Maybe someone has been around for a long time and there is a sense of ‘they’ve done their time, let’s reward them’. But I think most often, individuals working in a hierarchical structure tend to be promoted based on their performance in their current role rather than their competence for the intended promotion and they are missing necessary tools; the higher on the hierarchy ladder an individual goes, the more likely they are to fail in their new position. They are promoted because they are exceptionally competent at what they are currently doing so they are rewarded with a higher level position….until they are promoted one step too far and into a position for which they are not as competent and at which point they flounder. Promotions based solely on current performance can lead to roles where people are out of their depth, resulting in inefficiency and frustration, both for the individuals and the organization. When people are promoted to roles they don’t have the necessary skills for it can cause grief for the entire team, lowering productivity and leading to poor decision-making, lack of direction, and lower morale. One wrong person can cause a whole lot of hurt across an organization.
This is the Peter Principle.
In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.
~ Laurence J. Peter, Raymond Hull
