5 ms·
According to the Peter Principle [1], the entire concept of promotion is flawed in that people get promoted according to their performance in their current role
by rndn 11y ago
According to the Peter Principle [1], the entire concept of promotion is flawed in that people get promoted according to their performance in their current role, not the future role. Perhaps, it would generally be better if promotions would require a test run in the new role over a long time period (e.g. a year) before it is set in stone.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
- brador 11y agoJust because someone is promoted doesn't mean they can't be fired or demoted. What difference is their in your 1 year training period suggestion and simply promoting then firing or demoting in 1 year if things don't work out? I personally prefer providing opportunities for a gradual increase in responsibilities over outright "here's your new job title and fresh office". Then once they've shown capability with the new roles they get the increased pay and job title. I guess that's the middle ground between the two possibilities you suggested.
- eitally 11y agoMost companies don't demote at all. Even if an employee requests demotion (I have gone through this a few times, where a great technical staffer was promoted to supervisor or manager and then decided later that they really hated the change.), it was always a huge hassle trying to convince HR to accommodate it, and the employee in question had to write a personal letter requesting the demotion and explaining why.)
- viewer5 11y agoDoes that seem unreasonable? I don't have any experience with such things, but it seems reasonable to me. The company decided you'd be most effective in position Y, so they put you there and gave you a pay/benefits raise, and now you're saying "I'd really like to do position X which is less optimal for the company even though you want me at Y and might/probably have already found someone to do X, and my reasons are A, B, and C". A letter sounds like the perfect medium to communicate something like that.
- eitally 11y agoYes, it was the right way to handle it, but my impression when I went through it was that it was completely novel to the HR organization and they were reluctant to agree to demote anyone at all, whether they were requesting it or not.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoIt's a loss of face for HR and the company. Admitting they made a bad mistake makes everyone unhappy.
- s73v3r 11y ago"What difference is their in your 1 year training period suggestion and simply promoting then firing or demoting in 1 year if things don't work out?" You don't have to pay them the higher pay for the year.
- eitally 11y agoA lot of companies only promote individuals after they have been acting in a de facto capacity as the higher position.
- sgt101 11y agoYes - and this is commonly misunderstood. The critical thing in getting a promotion is the ability to demonstrate the capabilities that will be required in the new position. This means actually being able to point at examples of you doing that successfully. This is really different from being brilliant at your current job.
- pyre 11y agoI think you misunderstood the post your replied to. That poster was talking about employees that have been going above and beyond their current role and taking on many/most of the responsibilities that their "promoted to" role would entail. The promotion is just becomes a recognition of the increased capacity that they are currently taking on.
- rndn 11y agoThat’s still just one sample outside their expected competence. Ideally, you’ll want to test people over a long time period to take as many samples as possible.
- s73v3r 11y agoThe problem being that people are going to have to perform both their current job AND their future job, for the same pay they have now.