One of my Linkedin contacts posted a picture of the fabulous book on management called the “Peter Principle” a moment ago. The Peter Principle was written by Laurence J Peter, who observed that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence.
We are told that we need to go to school and study
hard so that we can climb that ladder. Climbing the academic ladder and getting
paper qualifications is supposed to be the sure-fire way of ensuring that you
will never have to do a menial job like sweep the streets and you should, at
the very worst case, retire a manager of sorts. Back in the 1990s, a reasonably
fit a-level student was bound for one of the command schools (Officer or
Specialist) during national service. We were told back then that learning to lead
in the army was going to stand us in good stead for the day we would lead people
in management roles.
So, everyone’s working life is about rising the
corporate hierarchy. The higher you are and the bigger the organization, the
better. Hence, it becomes the goal of every Singaporean to become the regional
director of a multinational or a permanent secretary in a ministry.
In a way, its very understandable why people want to
climb the proverbial ladder. The higher up you get, the better paid you get,
which means you can afford to live a nicer lifestyle than the next guy and the
rest of society looks at you with a bit more awe.
Whilst wanting to climb to the top is understandable,
we’ve had a few too many corporate boo-boos happening (think of the losses in
former monopoly companies)and we need to ask whether we’ve put so much emphasis
on climbing to the top that we’ve neglected glorifying basic competence at the
job on hand.
Let’s face it, certain jobs require different skills
and whilst a person might be good at the job on hand, it doesn’t necessarily make
them good at the next job. Why can’t we reward people for being good at the job
they’re doing without the pressure to move onto a “higher” job which they may
not necessarily be good at or be happy at doing?
Interestingly enough, the one organization that
actually does this is the Ministry of Education (MOE), which recognized that there
is a distinct difference in the skills needed to be a good teacher and a good
principle. A teacher needs to teach, whilst a principal needs to be a good
administrator.
In a normal hierarchy, every teacher should have aimed
to become a principal (climbing through the ranks of head of department, vice-principal and so on). However, to it’s credit MOE actually recognized that there were teachers
who liked to teach and didn’t want to become school administrators. Hence, they
created the “teaching track” where good teachers could advance as teachers. An
explanation of MOE’s career pathways can be found at:
https://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/become-teachers/pri-sec-jc-ci/professional-development
Sure, not every organization (particularly commercial
ones) can structure themselves in a way to suite as many individuals as
possible. However, the recognition that not everybody is suited to be at the top
and may simply excel at being where they are is an important step in the right
direction.
Everything has been about giving the good things to
people at the top, without consideration of whether they had the skills to be
at the top. We need to recognize that while its important to have good people
at the top, you also need competence at the other levels and those levels need
to be rewarded appropriately too.
Covid-19 showed us that many ground level jobs were
actually more essential to our daily lives than many executive level jobs. Isn’t
it time we acted on the reality and rewarded people appropriately for being
competent at the level that they’re at instead of putting so much at the top
that everyone would be rushing to get promoted to their level of incompetence? We
should not want the Peter Principle to have a KNN effect on the entire system.
No comments
Post a Comment