A promotion gives someone a different set of responsibilities․ An expert may become responsible for helping others make judgments, coordinating work across boundaries and deciding where the team should concentrate its effort․ The selection question is what that person can do in the new role․
What the Peter Principle describes
The Peter Principle describes a risk in hierarchical organizations․ People advance because they perform well in their current jobs, eventually reaching a role whose demands exceed their capabilities․ The useful distinction is between achievement in one role and readiness for another․
Treat it as a question to investigate in a particular promotion, rather than a prediction about every successful employee․ A change in responsibility may require capabilities that the current job has given someone little opportunity to demonstrate․
What the promotion research found
Alan Benson, Danielle Li and Kelly Shue examined sales workers at 131 US firms in their study of promotions and the Peter Principle․ Strong sales performance increased the likelihood of promotion․ Yet among those promoted, higher previous sales performance was associated with a lower contribution to their subordinates’ subsequent sales performance․
The authors also examine an organizational trade-off․ Promotion rewards achievement and can encourage effort, while an appointment needs to place someone where they can contribute effectively․ Firms placed less weight on sales performance when management responsibilities were greater or other pay incentives were stronger․
The study concerns sales-to-management promotions․ It does not establish that previous achievement predicts failure in every leadership role or quantify the risk in external executive hiring․
Give achievement and readiness different jobs
Recognition acknowledges a contribution already made․ Selection examines the work ahead․ Keeping both purposes visible lets an organization reward expertise while developing a sound basis for a leadership appointment․
Begin with the responsibilities that will change․ Will the person need to allocate resources, resolve competing priorities, develop other people’s judgment or work through disagreement with senior stakeholders? Identify which of those demands deserve most attention in this appointment․
Previous achievements then become material to examine․ Ask what the person actually did, which conditions supported the result and how that evidence bears on the new responsibilities․ A title or an impressive outcome is the beginning of that inquiry․
Look for evidence in the work ahead
Consider an illustrative promotion in a team introducing AI-assisted expert work․ Its strongest specialist is excellent at producing and checking individual outputs․ The leadership role also involves deciding which judgments need human review, helping colleagues learn and resolving disagreements about quality and responsibility․
The specialist’s technical record establishes relevant expertise․ Evidence of leadership readiness might come from how they have helped others improve their work, handled a contested decision or coordinated an experiment across functions․ A supported stretch assignment can give the person an opportunity to demonstrate those capabilities before the appointment․
The example changes the question from how much the person has achieved to how they would enable the team to perform the new work․ The appropriate evidence will differ in another role․
Make the decision easier to examine
Before deciding, work through three questions․
- Which responsibilities make this role different from the person’s current work?
- What evidence supports their capability to handle the most important demands?
- Where would further experience, assessment or support help resolve uncertainty?
Teams can develop these answers as their understanding of the role grows․ Oiketos helps organizations define and prioritize leadership requirements, giving the promotion discussion a clearer basis for examining readiness․
