Didn't get that promotion? Blame The Peter Principle

Ever heard of The Peter Principle? I might have mentioned it in a previous blogpost, in passing. No matter, you're about to.

In a nutshell, The Peter Principle describes a phenomenon where people are employed to the level of their incompetence. Thus, if someone is doing very well in their current role, they get promoted. If they do very well in that next role, they again get promoted. But if they don't do well, they aren't demoted, but rather stay stuck at the role in which they're not doing so well. Therefore, it follows that most people who are in their current roles are underqualified for them, because if they weren't, they would already have been promoted.

Your profession is not a game

This is relevant because many people have come to me with little nuggets of wisdom such as, the assumption that I should be able to manage other programmers just because I can do the job of programming. Not only is that absolute rubbish with regard to software development, I suspect that this is untrue in many other positions outside of software development where the term "Management" actually comes with the requirement for said Management to, well, manage someone. The skillsets for Management and for doing the grunt work of writing code, are two very different animals.

This is not a scenario where if you kill enough goblins, eventually you will be promoted and start killing dragons. Life is not that straightforward, and the workplace has evolved from factory conditions of yore. No, in this case, you have to develop the skills necessary for dragon-slaying. It's a somewhat wobbly analogy, but I think my point has been made.

How this is seen in the workplace

This is relevant also because I've seen people get resentful and disillusioned over not getting promoted. When there's a vacancy higher up, it's natural for people to expect to be considered. More often than not, what happens is that someone from outside the company gets hired for that position and becomes their superior.

Why do companies do this? Wouldn't it make more sense to promote someone who's already proven themselves at this level? No, it would not, and let me explain why.

Example 1

Here's a hypothetical example. Let's say a position above you opened up. Either you or your colleague are potentially up for promotion. You are the better, more organized, more experienced and more productive worker. Your colleague? Well, she kind of sucks on occasion. But she got the promotion.

Ascending!

Why? Is she prettier than you? Did she kiss ass harder? That's certainly possible.

But the simpler reason was, she represented the safer choice. You're doing well in your current position. The Peter Principle dictates that there is a chance that you might struggle if promoted. On the other hand, your colleague already sucks in her current position. Even if she ends up sucking in her new role, it would still be preferable to you being promoted and both of you sucking at your jobs.

From Management's point of view, promoting your less stellar colleague represents a zero net loss for them, at worst.

Example 2

Here's another example, this time on a larger scale. A Software Project Manager is leaving the company for greener pastures. Now, Upper Management is faced with the age-old question - do they promote one of the existing Senior Software Engineers, or hire someone from outside the company?

Let's assume they go with the first choice. Reward loyalty, right? But then, if they promote that Senior Software Engineer, that leaves another vacuum to be filled. Do they just redistribute that workload among the other Senior Software Engineers? Bad idea. How about promoting a Mid-senior Software Engineer to the title (and the perks, and workload) of a Senior Software Engineer? And if that also leaves a vacuum, perhaps more promotions?

It's all well and good so far, assuming that all these recently-promoted people have no problems in their new role. But as we all know, that rarely happens. There are always teething issues, and in the worst-case scenario, the newly-promoted Software Project Manager is terrible. He or she simply isn't cut out for it despite being an excellent Senior Software Engineer. If you find yourself a bit too surprised by that, then you obviously don't understand software development very well.

But hang on - that's not actually the worst-case scenario. The worst that can happen is that all of the newly-promoted people suck in their new roles, all at the same time. Whereas before promotion, they were flourishing! So, from a Management standpoint, why would you screw that up? Why would you promote a bunch of people into new roles and pay them more, just for them to potentially struggle?

There can be only one.

But what if they just hired someone from outside the company, into the newly-vacated role? Well, there's only been one promotion and therefore only one possible point of failure!

That's the logic anyway. Real life is rarely that cut and dry.

The takeaway

Nothing I've said here today is hyperbole. The Peter Principle is real.

When you don't get that promotion, it probably has nothing to do with you. In fact, the better you are at what you do, the more indispensable you make yourself at your position, and consequently, the harder it is to promote you.

Signing off in principled fashion,
T___T