The Peter Principle (i.e. Deep Thought for the Day)
Today was a fairly slow work day, and as I was sitting at my desk thinking of ways to pass the time, I was reminded of a discussion with my brother and father a few weeks back regarding the Peter Principle. (For those unfamiliar with the theory, it states that "In a Hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence".)
As I am employed as an in-house designer in a fairly standard Business Process Outsourcing company, I often have the chance to sit back and observe the people around me without actually being involved. I pretty much answer only to my direct superior, the VP, because everyone else is concerned with the actual training programs that we provide.
In any case, what I've learned from observation is this: the people who are in the upper echelons are the people who work the least. I can't go into more detail at the risk of getting my ass fired, but suffice to say that all work is done by the low-level employees. They're the ones who have been employed the longest, are paid the least, and yet they do the most work.
Peter's principle states that if an employee is no longer being promoted, then he/she has risen to their level of incompetence. But does that still apply to the lowest level of employees? For example: In a call center, the agent performs the actual services provided by the company. Above them you have Team Leaders, Supervisors, and so on. But the actual service that the Team Leaders manage, that the Marketing Officers sell, etc. are provided by the agents.
So what happens when an agent stays an agent for more than a year, but is neither better or worse at their job? Team Leaders become Supervisors, Supervisors become Managers, and Managers leave and/or get pirated by other companies.
Does the Peter Principle still apply in this case? If it does, then I find it somewhat odd that a company making millions of pesos per month is doing so because of the efforts of low-level and (supposedly) incompetent grunts.
Of course, I may just be thinking this because I *am* a low-level grunt, but so far I haven't seen much to prove the Peter Principle true.
As I am employed as an in-house designer in a fairly standard Business Process Outsourcing company, I often have the chance to sit back and observe the people around me without actually being involved. I pretty much answer only to my direct superior, the VP, because everyone else is concerned with the actual training programs that we provide.
In any case, what I've learned from observation is this: the people who are in the upper echelons are the people who work the least. I can't go into more detail at the risk of getting my ass fired, but suffice to say that all work is done by the low-level employees. They're the ones who have been employed the longest, are paid the least, and yet they do the most work.
Peter's principle states that if an employee is no longer being promoted, then he/she has risen to their level of incompetence. But does that still apply to the lowest level of employees? For example: In a call center, the agent performs the actual services provided by the company. Above them you have Team Leaders, Supervisors, and so on. But the actual service that the Team Leaders manage, that the Marketing Officers sell, etc. are provided by the agents.
So what happens when an agent stays an agent for more than a year, but is neither better or worse at their job? Team Leaders become Supervisors, Supervisors become Managers, and Managers leave and/or get pirated by other companies.
Does the Peter Principle still apply in this case? If it does, then I find it somewhat odd that a company making millions of pesos per month is doing so because of the efforts of low-level and (supposedly) incompetent grunts.
Of course, I may just be thinking this because I *am* a low-level grunt, but so far I haven't seen much to prove the Peter Principle true.
(Anonymous)
(Anonymous)