At least where I am, there’s no management role I could go to that would make me happier or better paid.
The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#22The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…
Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individual contributor
>Individual contributor Thanks. First I've heard that one.
It reminds me of George Carlin's bit on "Shell Shock"/"Post Traumatic Stress Disorder".
Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#24The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…
Because traditionally that's the only way to get better comp' once you reach a certain point. In most companies, regardless of your IC and management skills if you don't step on the management track you're going to cap out pretty fast.
Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#25Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#26The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…
My favorite thing is seeing people I wouldn't hire to be a low level IT tech as CIO/IT Director because they're a "network guy". So not only do they end up not understanding 90%+ of IT's functions in any real sense, they are typically not even trained on how to manage. I work with one such moron at my current job. The entire company goes around the fool, yet they keep him. Why? The acting CEO is likely embezzling and…
Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#27I was a high performing software engineer who just got promoted to management and is currently Petering it up. Any tips on how become a competent Charlie?
A big thing about management is knowing how to keep people engaged and motivated, with freedom to be creative but enough oversight so they're kept on track and not lost. You'll have to experiment with this. Also importantly different people need different guidance, so the experienced old hand needs little advice just steer them in the right direction, where the new guy needs daily help.
Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#28The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…
So my advice to those considering the switch is: if you are motivated by money and influence, management is basically the only option to advance without killing yourself. If you are motivated by technical challenges and couldn’t care less about the “people” stuff, however, be an IC, with the understanding that your growth will stall well before that of your former peers who went into management.
Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#29This is probably just a variant of Berkson's paradox, similar to Google's observation that success in programming competitions is negatively correlated with job performance: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/programming-competitions-work-p... The mechanism would work this way: sales people exhibit multiple features, and they are promoted based on some combination of those. If a sales person has outstanding other credentia…
----------------------------
Every industry has certain euphemisms for the least savory aspects of its business. In sales, there is the secretly ugly phrase, “goal-oriented.” That sounds pleasant, doesn’t it? If I point at a woman and I say, “That entrepreneur is goal-oriented,” then you probably think I am complimenting her. But if I point at her and say, “That entrepreneur is a lying, manipulative, soulless psychopath who brutally exploits labor from the eleven-year-olds she employs in her sweatshops in Indonesia,” then you probably think I am insulting her, unless you are a libertarian. And yet both statements mean about the same thing: that she is someone who is willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure the success of her business.
When I read about Milburn online, I’d seen testimonials from his colleagues in which he was often described as a goal-oriented salesperson. That probably meant that he was a master of manipulating other people’s emotions. He knew all the tricks: praise, shame, laughter, anger, promises, guilt, threats.
Whether his use of these tools was conscious or unconscious is, of course, unknowable. But it doesn’t matter much. A lifetime as a sales professional left him with an arsenal of psychological ploys that had become second nature to him.
...Milburn truly had a genius for the strategic use of anger. If he sensed the risk of losing control of the conversation, he would indulge in another outburst. If I were to ever switch over to the Dark Side, I would want to study with him. His techniques were fundamentally dishonest and manipulative, but that is probably what made him so good at sales. And his tactics were probably an effective way to drive a sales team, but I sincerely believed that such tactics were the wrong way to run a software development team. Especially when doing something cutting-edge original, like we were doing, I think open and honest communications were extremely important. (I have worked with many companies where the sales team was both friendly and successful. One does not need to use abusive tactics to have success in sales. Indeed, the sales manager who relies on abuse is typically more interested in aggrandizing their own success, rather than the success of the company they work for.)
https://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Tech-Startup-Easy-Steps/dp/09...
Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly
#30The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…
> One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reason Because traditionally that's the only way to get better comp' once you reach a certain point. In most companies, regardless of your IC and management skills if you don't step on the management track you're going to cap out pretty fast.
I was once literally told that I wouldn't be considered for career advancement because I was "a do-er" and too useful doing the things that the incapable-of-doing-things managers told me to do. It never even crossed their minds that they should give the do-er a say in what things should be done. I don't work there any more.