The Peter Principle

If you are like me you will have encountered some great leaders along the way. And some not quite so good, or frankly terrible. For many years it was a source of great mystery to me as to how some apparently incompetent people reached high office. What possessed someone to put them in that role, and equally baffling, why when everyone could see it, did it persist?

This is an issue in many ways. Bad leaders have a huge impact on your business. They make bad decisions (or no decision at all) and are a major contributor to the loss of talent. Why would you, a young aspiring talented person, work for someone who not only can you not learn from, but are effectively blocking your path?

My confusion was solved many years ago when I watched a BBC comedy series “The Peter Principle” starring the wonderful Jim Broadbent. I thought it hilarious, but I could not work out why it was so named; this was pre Google days, so no asking Mr(s) Google. A colleague at work pointed me in the right direction, and I came across the academic work that spawned the theory. Suddenly all was clear, and as I’ve progressed through my career, more and more I’ve realised that most of the people whose presence at the top table you question are there as a result of the Peter Principle.

From Wikipedia ‘The?Peter principle?is a concept in?management?developed by?Laurence J. Peter?which observes that people in a?hierarchy?tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer?competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another. The concept was explained in the 1969 book?The Peter Principle?(William Morrow and Company) by Laurence Peter and?Raymond Hull.’

This principle manifests itself all over the place and all of the time. As an old project manager, I was always infuriated by the notion that a good project manager would make a good programme manager. They are completely different jobs requiring different capabilities! Promoting an excellent salesperson to be a global sales leader running a complex demand organisation requires an almost entirely different skillset and abilities. Promote a person to be a Country Leader/MD because they are ‘good with clients’? How about can they lead a team of 400+ people effectively? It’s not that being ‘good with clients’ is not an excellent skill to have, but it is not the core one for the role. Quite often the fault is not with the individual concerned. They are ambitious and offered a bigger role. You have to be very self-aware of your own limitations to turn down that kind of opportunity and in any case even if it doesn’t work out you’ve got it on your CV/resume. No-one ever said ‘Global Head of Sales, but hey I wasn’t very good at it’ on their CV/Resume. The problem lies with those that make those promotion decisions.

We all, as leaders, have a responsibility to grow and nurture talent. That requires taking risks and active coaching/mentoring - that is a subject for another day/blog. This is about thinking hard and asking the right questions about who you promote into bigger roles. Don’t just look at past success; look at what is needed. If that capability doesn’t exist and you can’t wait to build it, go and hire - don’t accept someone who in your heart you know doesn’t have the skills and is unlikely to acquire them. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take a chance on people; these are mostly subjective decisions, but if it goes wrong don’t compound your mistake by not taking action. I’ve had direct experience of people who not only are in a particular role as a result of the Peter Principle but have been left there for years. Not only is that damaging to your organisation, it is quite often damaging to the individual who will likely be unhappy and stressed.

We all make ‘bad’ hires and ‘bad’ decisions about people. When recruiting it is common to have a ‘probation period’ - quite often three months, at which point you can make a clear decision as to whether the hiring decision you made is still the right one. This is very sensible as there is always a limit to what you can understand during an interview process. Why not do that internally? At some point everyone is put into a stretch role. Chances of success can be improved by active coaching and mentoring, but even with that, sometimes you’ve just made a mistake. That is particularly true in the kinds of examples noted earlier. Give yourself a break point and review your decision after 3 or 6 months. Clearly you should define success criteria for this initial period, but give yourself the opportunity to change your decision. If it is already a milestone agreed by both parties, as it is for probation following a hire, it is an easier decision to make. My advice is when promoting into a new and bigger leadership role is to:

1. Consider the Peter Principle. Ask yourself what are the real skills and attributes needed for the role. Do not base your decision on past performance in a different role.
2. Do you think the person you are considering has the raw attributes to learn the necessary skills in the time you have??
3. If yes can you, or someone else, provide the coaching needed? If not look at recruiting someone who has a track record of having done the role successfully previously or find an external coach to give your internal candidate the best chance of success.
4. Set a probation period and agree measures of success with the person in question and ensure you review at the agreed time. If necessary extend the probation, but not indefinitely.
5. Don’t be afraid, whichever way it goes, to make a tough decision.