Why do companies get the worst of every employee? [Part 2 of 2]
Bad solutions or good ideas.
In the first part of the text, I explored the Principle of Peter and its workings within the conventional structures. This text deepens the discussion that began there. So if you haven’t read it yet, I suggest you do this before continuing.
Peter’s Principle, this observed phenomenon in the hierarchical structures, especially the conventional ones, is recurrent and therefore several forms of dealing with him have already been sought. Even the author of the book on the subject, Laurence J. Peter, brings some suggestions on how to deal with it.
He suggests to the manager stuck with an incompetent employee, that he does what Laurence called a lateral arabesque, by giving a bigger title with less responsibility to him so that he feels important but does not have access to important things. Or a percussive sublimation, to get rid of the employee, which would mean promoting him to a position in another division.
To the employee to be promoted, and who acknowledges that he might leave his level of competence, the author suggests creative incompetence. Basically self-sabotage. The person who is happy with one’s own position must take action to appear undesirable to a promotion, but in a way that is irrelevant as to its ability to deliver results. He suggests, as example, to be lightly rude with the boss’s wife at a social event, dressing in a slightly inappropriate way, wearing too much perfume, or parking at the CEO’s parking spot from time to time.
These examples may sound ridiculous and damaging to the structure. And it is because in fact they are. There are also mechanisms that many companies build to try to deal with this phenomenon, such as monitoring skills and training, training for new positions, etc. But these small reforms do not overcome the real problem.
Não é difícil achar uma pessoa escalando os cargos, somente para se distanciar de onde poderia gerar mais valor para a organização.
Let’s think of an organization as a closed environment, without being able to add or remove people. And we seek to achieve the best result out of it, no matter the metric, without changing the functioning or structure, only the role of the people within it. The answer to achieving this is obvious: simply combine people with roles where the end result is the best. But for that, it would be necessary to “raise and lower” people in the organization chart freely. And in a conventional hierarchical structure in which there is a clear path to be followed, there is an obvious limitation in order to seek the role of better overall performance of someone. It is not hard to find a person climbing positions, only to distance himself from where one could generate the most value to the organization.
The reason people seek to enter a structure is to achieve benefits for themselves. I will talk more in depth in another post on the differences of motivations of one hired and the owner of the structure. Even without exploring that yet, I want to place as the focus of the employee one’s search for improvements within the structure, which are recognized as promotions and salary increase and, sometimes, increased influence (power) in decision making.
The competition is internal, despite efforts to build a collaborative culture or be a big family.
Therefore, while an organization’s operating mode could be to maximize its output from internal resources, what happens is different. The people hired seek the best for themselves¹. In the same way, owners also do so, but for them this translates into the pursuit of the company’s profit. Competition is also internal, despite efforts to build a collaborative culture, in which “dresses the shirt” become a “big family”.
To enable this free movement between roles, another form of organization would be necessary. One that recognized skills needed in different roles, but not at different levels. So that it could seek the best for each role.
And if we want to remove the idea of an climb in positions or levels, we can remove this concept in the structure, removing the hierarchy.
Since the amount of benefits in higher positions is what forces people to abandon roles in which they are competent, it would suffice to put an end to the idea of higher and lower positions. Just horizontalize the structure.
Within these horizontal structures, the focus would be to combine people with the ideal roles in the structure as well as their improvement in their positions. A person interested in exploring new skills in a different job might change “laterally.” And if a level of incompetence is reached, one could change again or even return, seeking the ideal.
It is possible to create reward strategies, difference in remuneration, career paths or even stages of responsibility within a horizontal structure. Thus, mobility is allowed, and yet a path to be traveled is created.
My understanding is that the horizontal structure presupposes a horizontalization of power / influence. And that it works in its best form with horizontalization not only of management (all have the same decision-making power), but also of property² (all are equally owners). This tends to create diverse differences in its functioning, from institutional purposes and personal motivations to practices and structuring.
Another important point is that this traditional model of hierarchical functioning, in which the goal is the top, does not mean greater motivation or purpose for people. Although there are extrinsic motivations to the process, such as compensation, rewards and punishments, there is a limit to the impact they can have on employee disposition. From the point where those meet one’s basic needs, such motivations are less effective than intrinsic ones, like autonomy, mastery of competence, and purpose.
This culture leads people to believe that status means a better outcome for themselves.
Peter’s Principle within conventional hierarchical structures, when compared to horizontal structures, reveals not only a curious phenomenon of the former, but also exposes in the same way the existing internal competition and the culture of valorization of titles and power, in contrasting facts to the valorization of the essential roles with people who can perform well in them. This culture leads people to believe that status means a better outcome for themselves. But the truth is that a job in which you can develop and contribute will be more fulfilling than any title or level in a hierarchy.
The reflection that remains is on how much the structure you are a part of creates obstacles for you and the other people inserted in it to perform to full potential.
The exploration of some concepts is necessary to complement the reasoning. To simplify I am breaking it into smaller texts. One should talk about the difference of purpose of the owner and the employee, another one about the equal value of all positions in a structure.
Each of the paragraphs here would give some more content texts to explore. I’m trying to synthesize as best I can. But I invite you to follow up with questions, conversations, arguments, criticisms or any manifestation in the comments below, I will respond as soon as possible. I will be happy with any contribution!
If you liked the ideas, spread them.
- ¹ Some examples of how one can seek the best for oneself without increasing the result for the organization: to create some work that showcases the person but is not aligned with the goals of the company; sabotaging or not collaborating with other internal projects; diverting resources to themselves.
- ² I am still going to explore the reasons for this, its consequences, possibilities of operation, and experiences in many texts yet.
Every document deserves and should be problematized. Analyzed to whom it was destined, as well as the social conjuncture in which the author lived. No writing is neutral, regardless of the ideology that permeates it. I advise that the attentive reader does not disregard this observation, as it will ensure that no anachronisms or any other possible confusion is committed.
I’m an experiential educator, group facilitator, and organizational designer. Supporting cooperation and anti-hierarchy.
