Peter principle and successful programmers
Peter principle
In any hierarchical system, each employee seeks to achieve his level of incompetence.
Consequences
1. Over time, each position will be occupied by an employee who is incompetent in the performance of his duties.
2. Work is done by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.
Do you think this is some kind of nonsense in this life does not happen?
It happens! And quite often.
The survey showed that a quarter of the respondents believe that a good programmer should be encouraged with a new position - a manager position. It would seem logical - a person works well, and it is necessary to thank him for his successful work, having promoted him. But this is a very bad practice, and it is harmful for the team.
First, we lose a programmer who did a significant part of the work: he does not have time to write code, since he is now busy with other things.
Secondly, we do not get a manager, because the employee does not yet have the necessary knowledge and skills.
In short, solid cons.
')
And let's imagine the situation that it did happen: a certain director appointed the best programmer of the company as the project manager. What then?
He begins to work in this position. At first, somehow, by trial and error. But then he accumulates experience, the necessary knowledge and skills appear, after a few years he becomes, finally, a quite good manager. And then he is again raised and given the position of "Chief Manager".
In general, a person will be promoted until he rests on a certain “ceiling” - a position in which he will be incompetent: he performs current duties because of his abilities, but far from perfect - otherwise he would be promoted to the next level but it is already impossible to lower it: after all such a good employee will be offended!
Thus, Corollary 1 of the Peter principle is fulfilled.
Well, who works while a programmer learns to be a manager?
Of course, other programmers who have not yet grown to a manager. This is how Corollary 2 holds.
Conclusion:
It is, of course, necessary to raise employees in a post, but it is necessary to take into account both the personal characteristics of the person and the range of duties that he performs now and will have to perform in a new place.
Thanks to those who voted in the poll for “no” or “in some cases” - this is what I consider the right options.
In any hierarchical system, each employee seeks to achieve his level of incompetence.
Consequences
1. Over time, each position will be occupied by an employee who is incompetent in the performance of his duties.
2. Work is done by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.
Do you think this is some kind of nonsense in this life does not happen?
It happens! And quite often.
The survey showed that a quarter of the respondents believe that a good programmer should be encouraged with a new position - a manager position. It would seem logical - a person works well, and it is necessary to thank him for his successful work, having promoted him. But this is a very bad practice, and it is harmful for the team.
First, we lose a programmer who did a significant part of the work: he does not have time to write code, since he is now busy with other things.
Secondly, we do not get a manager, because the employee does not yet have the necessary knowledge and skills.
In short, solid cons.
')
And let's imagine the situation that it did happen: a certain director appointed the best programmer of the company as the project manager. What then?
He begins to work in this position. At first, somehow, by trial and error. But then he accumulates experience, the necessary knowledge and skills appear, after a few years he becomes, finally, a quite good manager. And then he is again raised and given the position of "Chief Manager".
In general, a person will be promoted until he rests on a certain “ceiling” - a position in which he will be incompetent: he performs current duties because of his abilities, but far from perfect - otherwise he would be promoted to the next level but it is already impossible to lower it: after all such a good employee will be offended!
Thus, Corollary 1 of the Peter principle is fulfilled.
Well, who works while a programmer learns to be a manager?
Of course, other programmers who have not yet grown to a manager. This is how Corollary 2 holds.
Conclusion:
It is, of course, necessary to raise employees in a post, but it is necessary to take into account both the personal characteristics of the person and the range of duties that he performs now and will have to perform in a new place.
Thanks to those who voted in the poll for “no” or “in some cases” - this is what I consider the right options.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/57916/
All Articles