Latest news with #PeterPrinciple
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Punished for being perfect: Man denied promotion for 'making it look too easy' sparks Reddit outrage
In an era where hustle is glorified and productivity is often the golden ticket to success, a Reddit post has shaken the internet with a paradox that's all too familiar for many workers: being too good at your job might actually hold you back. A user on Reddit's r/antiwork forum recently shared his baffling experience of being denied a promotion not for underperformance, but for excelling too quietly. In his words: ' Got denied a promotion because I 'make it look too easy ." The story has since gone viral, sparking a cascade of comments, stories, and indignation from workers across industries who've found themselves caught in what many are now calling the 'punishment for competence' trap. Making It Look Easy… Until It Hurts The anonymous Redditor works at a city records office, handling everything from document scanning to database maintenance and citizen assistance. After nearly four years in the role, he had mastered the intricate systems and shortcuts that made the otherwise mundane tasks efficient and seamless. He wasn't just good—he was the go-to guy. The trainer, the troubleshooter, the one who held the operation together when things went south. So, when a promotion opportunity surfaced—offering better pay and fewer interruptions—he was a natural choice. Or so he thought. Despite a solid interview and unmatched experience, he didn't get the job. Instead, it went to a newcomer he had trained just six months prior. The reason, as explained by his manager, left him stunned: 'You're so efficient in your current role that we'd struggle to replace you. You make it look too easy.' You Might Also Like: Is your promotion a trap? The Peter Principle reveals how employees can rise to a level of incompetence and identity crisis In short, his competence made him indispensable in his existing position—too valuable to be moved, and ultimately too efficient to be promoted. When Excellence Equals Invisibility Left behind with routine work and mounting frustration, the Redditor has chosen silent protest over dramatic rebellion. 'I'm not quitting. Not staging a rebellion. I'm just here. Clocking in. Doing exactly what's asked. No more, no less,' he wrote. His story struck a deep chord online, with users flooding the thread with empathy and shared experiences. Some urged him to adopt the minimalist approach—stop answering questions, stop offering help, stop training the very people who leapfrog into promotions. 'This is the classic punishment for competence trap,' one user wrote. 'Your plan is solid—do exactly what's required, nothing extra. And definitely don't answer her questions anymore.' You Might Also Like: Is India's love for fresh food burdening its working women? Reddit post sparks heated discussion Another added a cautionary tale of their own: 'They expected me to train the person they passed me over for. I flat-out refused. I was threatened with termination and called their bluff. They backed off.' The Unspoken Epidemic in the Modern Workplace What began as a singular post quickly evolved into a reflection of a widespread workplace phenomenon. Employees who quietly keep the wheels turning often find themselves overlooked in favor of louder, flashier, or more politically savvy peers. Promotions, in some cases, go not to the most capable—but to the most replaceable. 'There's no way out without resigning,' lamented one commenter, recounting a brilliant co-worker who faced the same fate until she finally left. 'They eventually had to replace her. It's a shame it happened to you.' Another summed it up succinctly: 'The reward for competence is invisibility.' You Might Also Like: 'They think we will settle for less': Redditor's HR nightmare spurs outrage over salary negotiation games Efficiency vs. Advancement: A Broken System? The post—and the avalanche of reactions it triggered—highlights a stark contradiction in modern work culture . While companies preach the gospel of productivity, those who embody it often find themselves stuck. Their reliability becomes a trap. Their silence a weakness. And their loyalty, a one-way street. As the original poster returns to his daily grind, now stripped of motivation and recognition, he becomes a symbol of a silent rebellion—one where excellence is no longer rewarded, but rationed. It raises a critical question for employers everywhere: in a world that champions performance, are we truly recognizing those who deliver it? Until the system changes, the message is clear: sometimes, being the best at your job means you'll never leave it.
Forbes
19-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
How Did They Get Promoted? The Office Trainwreck Explained
angry and frustrated woman talking on video call looking at webcam, angrily gesturing with hands ... More while sitting on sofa at home We've all asked it—sometimes out loud, often in disbelief: 'How in the world did they get promoted?' As you watch someone stumble through meetings, unable to make hard decisions, and creating chaos through self made nightmares, you ask yourself, 'What was leadership thinking?' Perhaps they were half decent in their last role, but now, as 'Director' or 'Vice President' in their email signature, they're sinking fast—and dragging the team down with them. This isn't just a case of office politics gone wrong. Promoting the wrong person is a predictable workplace trap—it's called the Peter Principle. Coined in 1969 by Dr. Laurence J. Peter, the principle is simple: people keep getting promoted until they reach a role beyond their capacity. It's one of those concepts that sounds like satire- until you see it come to life- across all industries, departments and job titles. At its core? We have a tendency to promote people based on past performance, not on future potential. If you are a rock star analyst, financial guru, or a star engineer, that skill set does not translate into a reality where you thrive at leading people. Leadership requires an entirely different tool kit - you need a high level of emotional intelligence, the ability to manage conflict, a strategic thinking mindset, and we rarely, if ever, test for those before handing someone the keys to a new team. Let's be honest: a promotion is like a reward. You can't offer them more money? You could give them a new title. Want to keep a high performers from leaving? Promise them a 'leadership growth opportunity'. An easy fix. But, the danger is that this turns leadership into a prize for loyalty instead of a serious, highly skilled role that will determine organizational health and culture. Dr. Ryan Warner in Psychology Today notes, 'Effective leadership isn't just about skills or expertise—it's about mindset, behavior, and the ability to inspire others.' And he's right—strong leadership transcends technical proficiency; it's about mindset and the ability to motivate and support people. Generally speaking, most workplaces are not designed to say 'no' to promotion-hungry employees. So, we end up over-promoting and under-preparing, while setting up people and teams to fail. A bad promotion doesn't impact one person - it affects the entire organization and damages the culture. Think about the department head who can't seem to deliver on anything, yet senior leadership hands them another portfolio. Or even better, they put an inexperienced leader on mission-critical tasks where they consistently fail to meet the mark. Employees start wondering why leadership is promoting people who can't manage their way out of a paper bag. They start asking questions like: 'Why are we rewarding incompetence?' Or 'Why is feedback being ignored?' And, 'Why am I still reporting to someone who can't lead?' Over time, trust erodes. The high performers start brushing up their résumé's and spending more time job searching on LinkedIn, and the organization begins losing the very talent it was attempting to keep. According to Gallup, managers account for 70% of the variance in employee engagement. An untrained and incompetent leader can undo years of team cohesion in months. So why do it? Einstein had a way with words - he said, "The definition of insanity is -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." If you do what you've always done, you will always get what you've always got. If we want to stop asking 'how in the world did they get promoted?' we must start changing the rules. Be bold and reimagine. Here's how to flip the chess board and avoid the leadership pitfalls of promotion: Split the Ladder: Create two career tracks: one for leadership, one for expert contributors. Make both respected, visible, and well-compensated. Not everyone should manage—and that's not a bad thing. Test for the Right Skills: Use behavioural interviews, simulations, and peer feedback to evaluate readiness. Can they give hard feedback? Navigate team dynamics? Set strategy? If not, don't promote yet. Give People a Trial Run: Don't just give them the keys to the car without making sure they know how to drive. Offer interim leadership roles or project-based team lead positions. See how they operate when given authority, without making it permanent too soon. Support After the Promotion: It's all about mentorship - so create that space. Even the best new leaders need help. Ongoing coaching, peer mentoring, and leadership training should be the norm, not the exception. When someone asks, 'How in the world did they get promoted?' It's often a sign that something's broken in your leadership pipeline. The best advice is to stop assuming great performers will make great leaders. Leadership isn't a reward. It's a responsibility - getting it wrong has consequences that most organizations can't afford.
Time of India
27-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Is your promotion a trap? The Peter Principle reveals how employees can rise to a level of incompetence and identity crisis
Have you ever wondered how highly skilled professionals can struggle when promoted to managerial roles? The answer could lie in a psychological phenomenon known as the Peter Principle—a concept that sheds light on the stark reality of hierarchical organizations . Based on the groundbreaking research by Laurence J. Peter, this principle argues that employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence. It's a bitter truth that has far-reaching implications for businesses and employees alike. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack India stares at a 'water bomb' threat as it freezes Indus Treaty India readies short, mid & long-term Indus River plans Shehbaz Sharif calls India's stand "worn-out narrative" From Competence to Incompetence: The Rise of the Overburdened Leader Imagine this: you've been an outstanding engineer, praised for your exceptional problem-solving abilities. Your technical expertise is unparalleled, and your peers look up to you. Naturally, you're promoted to a supervisory position. But here's the catch: while you excel at solving technical issues, you falter at managing people, a skill set you've never developed. This is the very essence of the Peter Principle , where employees reach a position where their skills no longer align with their new responsibilities, and they remain stuck there. In his 1969 book, The Peter Principle , Peter and co-author Raymond Hull introduced this theory to the world, which, despite being intended as satire, struck a nerve with employees across industries. The principle is deceptively simple: employees rise within an organization until they are no longer competent at their job. At that point, they are "stuck," unable to continue improving or excelling. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas In Dubai | Search Ads View Deals Undo — BBCArchive (@BBCArchive) An Identity Crisis: How Promotions Can Lead to Self-Doubt The Peter Principle isn't just about mismatched skill sets; it touches on a deeper issue—an identity crisis. Laurence Peter observed that many individuals in hierarchical structures begin to question their own worth once they are promoted to roles that they can't quite handle. These employees, who were once certain of their professional capabilities, now find themselves asking, "Who am I?" and "What is my purpose?" The dissonance between what they were once good at and the new demands placed on them can lead to self-doubt and a loss of professional direction. The feeling of being stuck in a role they are not equipped for is, unfortunately, all too common. iStock The Peter Principle isn't just about mismatched skill sets; it touches on a deeper issue—an identity crisis. Laurence Peter observed that many individuals in hierarchical structures begin to question their own worth once they are promoted to roles that they can't quite handle. Beyond the Corporate Trenches: Is the Peter Principle Universal? The Peter Principle's relevance extends beyond individual industries. Its influence can be seen in academic studies and even popular culture. Research conducted by Edward Lazear in 2000 explained how employees who rise through the ranks based on performance in their current roles often struggle when they reach positions that require new skills. The concept also drew comparisons to the Dilbert Principle by Scott Adams, which humorously suggested that incompetent employees are often promoted simply to "get them out of the way." You Might Also Like: Employee quits on Day 1. Reason No. 1: No laptop allowed for work. Reason No. 2 will surprise you less Moreover, recent studies on sales workers have confirmed that high performers often fail as managers. This, too, echoes the Peter Principle's assertion that excellence in one role doesn't guarantee success in another, especially when the skills required are vastly different. The Unfortunate Reality: A Vicious Cycle of Mediocrity The consequences of the Peter Principle can be far-reaching. When employees are promoted to roles where they cannot perform effectively, the entire organization suffers. Productivity declines, and businesses experience inefficiencies. This explains why many organizations see a dip in performance once certain individuals reach higher management roles, despite their initial success. It's not just about individuals; it's about the system's failure to recognize the mismatch of skills and roles. In fact, studies have shown that companies following the Peter Principle may even fall behind competitors, as inefficiency becomes institutionalized. Is There a Solution? Breaking the Cycle of Promotion While the Peter Principle outlines a sobering reality, there are ways to break free from this cycle. Promoting based on potential, rather than past success, could be one solution. Leaders in organizations need to recognize that technical expertise doesn't necessarily translate to leadership ability. Effective training, mentorship, and leadership development programs are critical in helping employees transition from one role to another without succumbing to the pitfalls of the Peter Principle. Are We Doomed to Fail? The Peter Principle forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: promotions are not always the reward they seem to be. Rising through the ranks might be seen as the ultimate career achievement, but it can also lead to incompetence if the necessary skills for the new role are absent. As organizations, and as individuals, we need to acknowledge this phenomenon and find ways to address it before it becomes an irreversible cycle of underperformance. After all, in a world where promotion is often seen as a given, the real question we must ask ourselves is: What happens after we get promoted? You Might Also Like: 7 years and 4 job switches: Techie finally decides to move to home town after failing to find work-life balance You Might Also Like: Techie experiences burnout in 60 days due to bullying manager, compares work culture to a 'pressure cooker'
Economic Times
27-04-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Is your promotion a trap? The Peter Principle reveals how employees can rise to a level of incompetence and identity crisis
The Peter Principle asserts that employees are often promoted to their level of incompetence, where their skills no longer align with new responsibilities. This phenomenon leads to inefficiencies and identity crises, as individuals struggle in roles they are unprepared for. Addressing this requires promoting based on leadership potential, not just past success, and providing adequate training. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads From Competence to Incompetence: The Rise of the Overburdened Leader An Identity Crisis: How Promotions Can Lead to Self-Doubt The Peter Principle isn't just about mismatched skill sets; it touches on a deeper issue—an identity crisis. Laurence Peter observed that many individuals in hierarchical structures begin to question their own worth once they are promoted to roles that they can't quite handle. Beyond the Corporate Trenches: Is the Peter Principle Universal? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Unfortunate Reality: A Vicious Cycle of Mediocrity Is There a Solution? Breaking the Cycle of Promotion Are We Doomed to Fail? Have you ever wondered how highly skilled professionals can struggle when promoted to managerial roles? The answer could lie in a psychological phenomenon known as the Peter Principle—a concept that sheds light on the stark reality of hierarchical organizations . Based on the groundbreaking research by Laurence J. Peter, this principle argues that employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence. It's a bitter truth that has far-reaching implications for businesses and employees this: you've been an outstanding engineer, praised for your exceptional problem-solving abilities. Your technical expertise is unparalleled, and your peers look up to you. Naturally, you're promoted to a supervisory position. But here's the catch: while you excel at solving technical issues, you falter at managing people, a skill set you've never developed. This is the very essence of the Peter Principle , where employees reach a position where their skills no longer align with their new responsibilities, and they remain stuck his 1969 book, The Peter Principle, Peter and co-author Raymond Hull introduced this theory to the world, which, despite being intended as satire, struck a nerve with employees across industries. The principle is deceptively simple: employees rise within an organization until they are no longer competent at their job. At that point, they are "stuck," unable to continue improving or Peter Principle isn't just about mismatched skill sets; it touches on a deeper issue—an identity crisis. Laurence Peter observed that many individuals in hierarchical structures begin to question their own worth once they are promoted to roles that they can't quite handle. These employees, who were once certain of their professional capabilities, now find themselves asking, "Who am I?" and "What is my purpose?" The dissonance between what they were once good at and the new demands placed on them can lead to self-doubt and a loss of professional direction. The feeling of being stuck in a role they are not equipped for is, unfortunately, all too Peter Principle's relevance extends beyond individual industries. Its influence can be seen in academic studies and even popular culture. Research conducted by Edward Lazear in 2000 explained how employees who rise through the ranks based on performance in their current roles often struggle when they reach positions that require new skills. The concept also drew comparisons to the Dilbert Principle by Scott Adams, which humorously suggested that incompetent employees are often promoted simply to "get them out of the way."Moreover, recent studies on sales workers have confirmed that high performers often fail as managers. This, too, echoes the Peter Principle's assertion that excellence in one role doesn't guarantee success in another, especially when the skills required are vastly consequences of the Peter Principle can be far-reaching. When employees are promoted to roles where they cannot perform effectively, the entire organization suffers. Productivity declines, and businesses experience inefficiencies. This explains why many organizations see a dip in performance once certain individuals reach higher management roles, despite their initial success. It's not just about individuals; it's about the system's failure to recognize the mismatch of skills and roles. In fact, studies have shown that companies following the Peter Principle may even fall behind competitors, as inefficiency becomes the Peter Principle outlines a sobering reality, there are ways to break free from this cycle. Promoting based on potential, rather than past success, could be one solution. Leaders in organizations need to recognize that technical expertise doesn't necessarily translate to leadership ability. Effective training, mentorship, and leadership development programs are critical in helping employees transition from one role to another without succumbing to the pitfalls of the Peter Peter Principle forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: promotions are not always the reward they seem to be. Rising through the ranks might be seen as the ultimate career achievement, but it can also lead to incompetence if the necessary skills for the new role are absent. As organizations, and as individuals, we need to acknowledge this phenomenon and find ways to address it before it becomes an irreversible cycle of underperformance. After all, in a world where promotion is often seen as a given, the real question we must ask ourselves is: What happens after we get promoted?
Washington Post
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Hegseth is in over his head. No wonder the Pentagon is a mess
Is there a better example of the Peter Principle — the theory that, sooner or later, most employees get promoted above their level of competence — than Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth? By many accounts, he appeared to do well as a junior officer in the Army National Guard, serving as a platoon commander at the Guantánamo detention facility and in Iraq, and later as a counterinsurgency instructor in Afghanistan. On the battlefield, Hegseth appeared calm and levelheaded, two soldiers who served with him told The Post's Dan Lamothe, even though in Iraq, Hegseth was part of a brigade that was notorious for its brutal tactics. But he never rose above the rank of major and never commanded above the platoon level (a typical platoon has 36 soldiers). If he had stayed in the military, it would have taken him years to qualify for battalion or brigade command — not that he would have been likely to make it that far, given his well-documented personal problems. While he is a graduate of Princeton University, Hegseth never attended the military schools — command and staff colleges and war colleges — that are typically necessary for higher-level promotions. His performance as a Fox News weekend host appears to have played a big role in how he landed his present position. Thus, the 44-year-old Hegseth is in way over his head now that he leads a department with 3.4 million civilian and uniformed employees. His lack of readiness for such a senior position, which vaulted him into command of generals and admirals who have decades more military experience than he does, is plainly evident in the continuing Signalgate scandal. This is the revelation that Hegseth shared details of an upcoming U.S. attack on the Houthis in Yemen over the unsecure Signal app. The Atlantic had previously reported that he did so in a group chat that included the magazine's editor. Now the New York Times reports that he also shared the same plans in a Signal group that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer. Such flagrant misbehavior, possibly putting the lives of U.S. service members at risk, probably would result in dismissal, and possibly criminal charges, for a lower-level employee. That Hegseth has so far been able to escape accountability — after issuing weaselly worded denials that he had shared any 'war plans' (as opposed, presumably, to attack plans) — sends a dispiriting signal to the armed forces that the rules apply only to them, not their leader. Hegseth's flouting of guidelines governing the handling of such sensitive information is only one indicator of the 'total chaos' that has engulfed the Defense Department since he took over. That description comes from John Ullyot, a former communications adviser to Hegseth who recently left the Pentagon. Writing in Politico, Ullyot notes that, in a 'strange and baffling purge,' three senior aides to Hegseth were fired last week for allegedly leaking to reporters, and there are reports that Hegseth's chief of staff may be on the way out too. 'The last month has been a full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon,' writes Ullyot, who notes that he had previously been a 'strong backer' of Hegseth and values his friendship. The most interesting explanation I've heard so far for Hegseth's troubled tenure comes from a retired Army officer who described the defense secretary to me as a 'typical major.' No insult intended to majors! A former senior military official told me that 'most majors I know would do a better job than Hegseth is doing right now … because most majors know just how much they don't know.' But the limits of a major's mindset help to explain Hegseth's preoccupation with 'lethality' and the 'warrior ethos.' That's very much in keeping with the outlook of a younger officer who is laser-focused on tactics — i.e., finding and destroying the enemy. But, as Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who now teaches at Hamilton College, emailed me: 'When has lethality been an issue for the U.S. military? We have outclassed everyone on the planet, by far.' Experienced senior leaders know that they have to focus on bigger and tougher issues, such as translating tactical gains into strategic achievements. Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and Iraq War veteran who is now a professor of military history at Ohio State University, told me: 'Military effectiveness is far more than just lethality. The ability to formulate sensible strategy, craft sound operational plans and orders, and inculcate a healthy organizational culture are more critical to military effectiveness than tactical brilliance.' It is precisely on the bigger issues that Hegseth falls so short. While focusing on lethality, he is undermining the military's effectiveness. One of Hegseth's less-noticed measures has been closing the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, a legendary lair of deep thinking on how to counter first the Soviet Union and, in more recent decades, China. Presumably Hegseth thinks its work has nothing to do with 'lethality,' but it has a lot to do with helping the nation to achieve its strategic objectives. Hegseth is further undermining the force with his anti-DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, which have resulted in the removal of 381 books (many by women or minority authors) from the Naval Academy library and the temporary removal of information on Defense Department websites about the Tuskegee Airmen, the Navajo Code Talkers and other minority heroes. Hegseth's firings of a number of general officers who are women and minorities signal to those groups that they are no longer as welcome in the armed forces as they once were. And his dismissal of the top lawyers for the Army, Air Force and Navy indicate that he is not as interested as his predecessors in upholding the laws of war — the ethical lodestar for troops in combat. Hegseth's former aide John Ullyot is right: It's time for Hegseth to go. The job should be given to someone who has the right experience and qualifications to lead one of the world's largest and most complex organizations in these increasingly dangerous times.
