Monday, July 06, 2009
Why Incompetence Spreads through Big Organizations
Promoting the people most competent at one job does not mean that they'll be better at another, according to a new simulation of hierarchical organizations.
There's a paradox at the heart of most Western organizations. The people who perform best at one level of an organization tend to be promoted on the premise that they will also be competent at another level within the organization. I imagine that most readers will have had personal experience at the way that this hypothesis fails in practice.
In 1969, a Canadian psychologist named Laurence Peter encapsulated this behavior in a rule that has since become known as Peter's Principle. Here it is:
"All new members in a hierarchical organization climb the hierarchy until they reach their level of maximum incompetence."
That's not as unfair as it sounds, say Alessandro Pluchino and buddies from Universita di Catania, who have modeled this behavior using an agent-based system for the first time. They say that common sense tells us that a member who is competent at a given level will also be competent at a higher level of the hierarchy. So it may well seem a good idea to promote such an individual to the next level.
The problem is that common sense often fools us. It's not so hard to see that a new position in an organization requires different skills, so the competent performance of one task may not correlate well with the ability to perform another task well.
Peter pointed out that in large organizations where these practices are used, it is inevitable that individuals will be promoted until they reach their level of maximum incompetence. The unavoidable result is the runaway spread of incompetence throughout an organization.
Now Pluchino and co have simulated this practice with an agent-based model for the first time. Sure enough, they find that it leads to a significant reduction in the efficiency of an organization, as incompetency spreads through it. That must have an uncomfortable ring of truth for some CEOs.
But is there a better way of choosing individuals for promotion? It turns out that there is, say Pluchino and co. Their model shows that two other strategies outperform the conventional method of promotion.
The first is to alternately promote first the most competent and then the least competent individuals. And the second is to promote individuals at random. Both of these methods improve, or at least do not diminish, the efficiency of an organization.
Interesting idea that would be fascinating to see in action. What would be a suitable prize for the first CEO to implement such a policy?
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455: The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
techguy322
07/06/2009
Posts:1
Example:
The Army, in the 60's and 70's you could be an E6, E7, E8 and not be a people manager. You were the Lead Specialist. Now you have to be a manager or you can’t get promoted and thus forced out.
Sales role, you are an excellent salesperson blowing out your number YOY. However, you are expected to take over as a Sales Manager. Completely failing because you're not a manager and don’t have the ability to manage.
General Manager, excellent at running the regional market. Leading and strategically guiding that specific sector. Promoted to VP of multiple sectors and fail because you don't have the necessary broad vs deep knowledge and management style.
Each of this instances are exactly what they are talking about. The best of the best and the worst of the worst all because of a promotion, either forced or otherwise. Sometimes it's just better to leave those in a specific position in that position and allow them to do what they are good at.
But, that's not the real problem is it. People stop doing what they are good at because they've peaked in a specific role and can't grow (financially). Which forces them to stay there indefinitely, leave, or get promoted. Perhaps the real problem is that Big Organizations pay based on title rather than experience and excellence. Or maybe, we're just geared towards an upward momentum and haven't learned that staying where you are isn't a bad thing.
Then again, you could go the route of the Federal Government and promote people that fail at one level… look where that promotion style got us.
spaq.yetti@g...
07/06/2009
Posts:2
bmpress
07/12/2009
Posts:1
This discussion has been moved to our discussions forum.