Promotion != Management

Are you familiar with the Peter Principle?  In a sentence, it states that employees are promoted to their level of incompetence.  Think about that for a second.

Sure it’s kinda cute and makes you chuckle, but what does that really mean for your organization?  It means you have a certain percentage of your employees/co-workers that are incompetent at their current positions.  The scary thing is that most of these people are in management positions… they are running your company. 

The sad thing is that these same people were most likely competent if not exceptional in another non-management position in your company.  How else did they get promoted to that management position if not by demonstrating competence in another role?  But that also means that there are people in your organization that are getting paid to fail instead of being put in a position to succeed.

So the question is why?  Why waste all this talent and ability?  Why not put them in a position to succeed?  Because to put them in their old positions would often result in a “demotion” and this is culturally difficult to do.

The trick is not to tie promotions to role.  Otherwise you artificially limit promotions/salaries for those in individual contributor positions because they aren’t “moving up” the org chart.  You contribute to a culture that the only way to progress your career is to “get into management”.  This is a mistake.

The flawed fundamental assumption is that if you are good at something, you’ll be good at managing people that are doing that something.  Managing people requires a unique skill that is often not found in your top individual performers.  People management needs to be its own role within your company.  Those that recognize their limitations and feel that they are best in an individual contributor position may feel less valued in the organization, causing them to leave.

On wikipedia it is says that a result of the Peter Principle is that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”.  Make sure that your organization keeps people below their level of incompetence or else who’s going to do the work?

Movement != Momentum

Momentum is an interesting thing.  One of those cheesy “motivational” posters states “Momentum: It is not of importance where we stand but in what direction we are moving”.  Cheesy?  Yes.  Partly true?  Sure.

The problem is that movement can cause the illusion of momentum.  Let’s do a little physics refresher.  The equation for momentum is:

   

• p = momentum
• m = mass
• v = velocity

If you have friction, you might be able to exert enough force to overcome that friction and move for a brief period of time, but as soon as that force is removed, the counterforce of friction quickly slows things to a stop. 

This stop and start movement does not equate with momentum. In terms of your life or team, if you have momentum, one change can trigger another change, can trigger another change, like an avalanche.  Working to get some movement is important, but do not mistake it for momentum.  To get momentum, you need to increase force or reduce friction.  Probably you’ll need both!

Stop and start movement can yield positive results, but it requires too much effort and is not sustainable.  Getting “the big Mo” (as Josh Lyman calls it) is very important to any effort.

Impractical != Impossible

Recently at Utah Code Camp, I got into a conversation about which solution should be used to solve a problem (given that there are multiple solutions… and there normally are).  Somebody (yeah, I didn’t get his name… my bad) mentioned that he had a boss that always looked for the “third best” solution.  This was based on the assumption that 1) the “first best” solution was “impossible” and 2) the “second best” solution was too expensive.  That was supposed to make the “third best” solution the “best” solution.

Well, somebody else commented that an “impossible” solution wasn’t really a solution and I agree!  What he really meant (after some additional explanation) was that it was impractical as he commented that it might be a viable solution in a few years.  Things that seemed impossible only a few years ago are common! 

Think about some examples:

• Imagine telling someone a few years ago with dialup about streaming high definition video.  Impossible!
• Imagine telling someone in the era of tube TVs about high definition flat panel displays.  Impossible!
• Imagine telling someone in era of computers that filled rooms that you would one day have a gigahertz processor and gigabytes of storage in your pocket.  Impossible!

To me this emphasizes the fact that we should be careful how we use absolute terms such as “impossible” or “never” or even “always”.  Using these terms can limit your credibility as it takes only ONE counterexample for you to be proven wrong.  Use them with care!