The Peter Principle Introduced By Laurence J Peter - Coursework Example

The Peter Principle Name & ID Course & Code Instructor’s Name 5th April 2010 HR is a function in an organization that makes and formulates the strategic decisions concerning the management of the organization’s work force. They formulate policies on how the work force should be managed (Philips & McConnell, 2005). Some activities that are done by a HR function within an organization include hiring recruiting selection developing and controlling the work force. The main role of this function is to maximize the return from the investment on the workforce that the organization pays. Promotion is one important role that HR plays. However more often than not there are poor promotion decisions and these are prompted by various reasons as discussed in this paper. Promotion refers to the situation where an employee rises in hierarchy in his work place. This thus is accompanied by higher benefits and privileges as well as pay rise. There are various theories that have been put forward concerning promotion and one such theory is the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle was propagated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter. It states that in an organization people are promoted to the level of their incompetence. It states that there are no more promotions when an employee reaches a level in which they are incompetent (McConnell, 2003). An employee has to prove to be competent in their current job so as to be promoted to a higher position. It put forward that as soon as one goes to a higher position and they prove to be competent they are promoted to a higher position and this goes on until they are in a position where they are now incompetent. It emphasizes that work is accomplished by those who are not competent at it yet. The Peter Principle so much emphasized on hierarchical order in an organization where by there are classes in the jobs available in an organization (McConnell, 2003). It emphasizes on the caste system within an organization. As much as promotions are based on competence, there are classes of jobs. These are levels such as the subordinate staff level, the clerical staff level, the managerial staff level that all require different qualifications. One is normally promoted within their levels. The only way of promotion to a higher level for example from the subordinate level to the clerical level would be through attending the necessary classes to get the qualifications required. Otherwise, promotion is within the level that one has skills. Promotion is done by the HR department using different strategies in different organizations. Some organizations base it on merit in the current position that an employee is holding at a particular time. Exemplary performance in a given field causes the management to consider him for a higher job in which his competence has not been tested (Philips & McConnell, 2005). However, many times the new job may prove to be hard for the employee in question for he might not posses the skills that are required in the new position. The job which earned him the promotion may have required skills that are different from those that are required in the new job and this may result in his being pressured. This observation highly supports the Peter Principle, which states that an employee is promoted to the level of their incompetence. Such an employee cannot be further promoted because in their new position they must first show exemplary performance before further promotion. If for some reason, they cannot cope with the demands of the new job then that is the employees ceiling in that organization. It is their ceiling because they cannot rise higher. An example would be an accountant who is so excellent at his work and this earns him a promotion to the level of a manager. He may not posses the skills required for a manager because the accountancy skills may be all that he posses and this thus turns out to be an unwise promotion decision that might actually cost the organization a lot in the market place. This would be so because a managerial position requires interpersonal skills as well as managerial skills which he might not posses. There are other techniques that are used by the HR department in making promotion decisions .These include carrying out interviews for the positions that are vacant and they need to be filled. This would be a promotion if the organization in question uses internal sourcing. Normally the HR management team will come up with a list of candidates considered for promotion. They then form a panel that will now decide on the candidates who qualify for promotion. This has been criticized by various scholars on various grounds .These include the fact that interviews are relatively unreliable and they also have some degree of inconsistency and thus sometimes they are invalid. Unreliability in this context means that it is quite impossible to obtain the same result from a group of candidates of for some reason the interview is repeated. Thus, there is some degree of unreliability. The interviews are viewed as inconsistent because the panel’s judgment many times is formed by the first few seconds of the interview. The details of the whole interview do not always matter to the panel (Gunderloy, 2004). Inconsistence is also as a result of the rating varying between the different members of the panel concerning the various candidates. However, eventually the panel comes to a consensus and decides which candidate deserves the promotion (McCrie, 2001). They sometimes would choose the wrong candidate due to the deficiencies that are displayed by this method among them the inconsistence, which brings invalidity and unreliability (Milgram, Spector & Treger, 1999) .If this, is the case then there is a poor choice on who is finally picked. Wrong choice of a candidate inevitably implies that they may not give the full measure of competence that is expected from them. This is in support of the Peter Principle, which states that in an employment hierarchy an employee is promoted only to their level of competence. When a wrong candidate is picked and they cannot fulfill the mandate to which they are called effectively then they hit their ceiling in the organization and their incompetence then makes them not earn further promotions (McCrie, 2001). Another method used for promotion decisions is the psychometric testing, which includes such tests as personality testing. This is mainly carried out for people who are being promoted to such posts as managerial posts because when one is in managerial position they need to have great interactive as well as leadership skills (Gunderloy, 2004). However when such tests are carried the candidate in question has to put their best foot forward because what they need then is just the promotion. However, this could also fail to give good result when they get to their place of duty because then their true colors come to action and they might not be able to portray the same image they portrayed during their day of the test (Armstrong, 2008). If this is, the case they are then unable to give the result expected and this is also a wrong promotion decisions that is based on the result of the test. This just like the other case supports the Peter Principle, which states promotion, is up to the level of an individual’s incompetence. A candidate chosen on the wrong criteria always reaches the rock bottom of their career in that organization (McKeown, 2002). Personality tests could also involve personality questionnaires, which gauge the personality of the individual. Use of this may also not give results as expected because no one will fill in their weaknesses in a questionnaire (Armstrong, 2008). The information given may be misguiding causing the HR to promote the wrong candidate (Webber & Feinsilber, 1999). The other criticism of this mode is that no matter how excellent a person’s personality may be the degree to which may determine their performance may not be so clear based on this test. This sometimes may not give good result. When this is the case then promotion decision may have been arrived at using the wrong information (McKeown, 2002). When such an act results to promotion of the wrong candidate then it goes without saying that they cannot portray competence in their work performance. Thus, can never earn further promotions until they perfect their art and just as the peter principle states they might then be able to earn their promotions into another level which they will still have to work till they proves their competence. Another type of psychometric testing is the use of aptitude tests and ability tests, which focus on the sharpness of the employee in question. These are normally used for such promotions for such posts as the clerical staff posts and accountants’ posts and they are meant to measure how sharp an employee is. Poorly designed tests by the HR also can lead to promotions of the wrong candidates and incomprehensible tests may also rule out the best candidates who may be best suited for the work. This may result into promotion of the wrong candidates whose performance may affect the overall performance of the whole organization. This also supports the Peter Principle in that a candidate like this who proves to be incompetent reaches their ceiling as far as promotion is concerned in that organization. Reference Armstrong, M. (2008). How to Be an Even Better Manager: A Complete A-Z of Proven Techniques and Essential Skills 7th Ed. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Gunderloy, M. (2004). Coder to developer: tools and strategies for delivering your software. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Milgram, L., Spector, A. & Treger, M. (1999). Managing smart: 325 high-performance tips every manager must know. London: Gulf Professional Publishing. McCrie, R. (2001). Security operations management. New York: Elsevier. McConnell, C. (2003). The effective health care supervisor, 5th Ed. London: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. McKeown, J. (2002). Retaining top employees. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Philips, R. & McConnell, C. (2005). The effective corrections manager: correctional supervision for the future, 2nd Ed. London: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Webber, E. & Feinsilber, M. (1999). Merriam-Webster's dictionary of allusions. New York: Merriam-Webster. Read More