![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Something in Hope's LJ reminds me...
I know way too many high-level executives who are less than competent at their jobs. They're either stupid, or lazy, or have allowed themselves to remain ignorant. I know more than a few who are downright unethical. I've seen them lie to my face. I think to myself "How did these people ever rise to these positions?" They would have been fired for complete incompetence, or put on review for gross misrepresentation, if they'd ever had a position as an individual contributor.
I have come to the brilliant conclusion that most of these people did not "rise" to these positions. They never had grunt jobs. They're not qualified for one!
Seems simple, but it reverses many of the unspoken assumptions underlying this capitalist culture.
Assumption: Jobs with higher pay require MORE ... skill, experience, talent, effort, drive, intelligence, hard work, ability to produce results ... than jobs with lower pay. Not just luck, not just good-old-boy networking (although our culture does tend to recognize that those play a part), but things that could be regarded somehow as virtues, things that bring a benefit to the company. This is the underlying assumption I've fallen for. From what I have seen, however, the opposite is true. Individual contributor is the job in which hard work and results actually matter the most. (It is at the very least a job in which results are often easiest to MEASURE.)
Assumption: To become CEO, a man starts on the bottom rung of the ladder and works hard for years. He educates himself about the business and the marketplace, learns how to work with people as well as how to succeed alone, and develops a reputation for getting the job done. His stellar performance is rewarded through a series of promotions. From what I have seen, yes, this does happen, but most CEOs could never have done this. They quite simply don't have the character required for it. (Or if they once did, they lost it on the way up.)
So OK, the Peter Principle could account for some of this. But if it were the major factor, I would expect to see VPs who would make good mid-level managers, CEOs who would make good VPs, etc. Not what I've seen.
Instead, I think many of these people get "promoted" by switching companies at each step. Exaggerate on the resume, apply for a job at a new company with more responsibility, get friends to do your recommendations. Who's to tell the new company that really, at the old place, you weren't doing all that well?
And there's a few who don't even do that. Straight out of school, start a company. Who cares if you are competent? When you're done there (you're bored or it failed or who knows, you're actually good and it went IPO) you become a venture capitalist, based on your connections. Talent or skill may or may not ever enter the picture, but you'll never drink box wine again.
*sigh* I think too much.
I know way too many high-level executives who are less than competent at their jobs. They're either stupid, or lazy, or have allowed themselves to remain ignorant. I know more than a few who are downright unethical. I've seen them lie to my face. I think to myself "How did these people ever rise to these positions?" They would have been fired for complete incompetence, or put on review for gross misrepresentation, if they'd ever had a position as an individual contributor.
I have come to the brilliant conclusion that most of these people did not "rise" to these positions. They never had grunt jobs. They're not qualified for one!
Seems simple, but it reverses many of the unspoken assumptions underlying this capitalist culture.
Assumption: Jobs with higher pay require MORE ... skill, experience, talent, effort, drive, intelligence, hard work, ability to produce results ... than jobs with lower pay. Not just luck, not just good-old-boy networking (although our culture does tend to recognize that those play a part), but things that could be regarded somehow as virtues, things that bring a benefit to the company. This is the underlying assumption I've fallen for. From what I have seen, however, the opposite is true. Individual contributor is the job in which hard work and results actually matter the most. (It is at the very least a job in which results are often easiest to MEASURE.)
Assumption: To become CEO, a man starts on the bottom rung of the ladder and works hard for years. He educates himself about the business and the marketplace, learns how to work with people as well as how to succeed alone, and develops a reputation for getting the job done. His stellar performance is rewarded through a series of promotions. From what I have seen, yes, this does happen, but most CEOs could never have done this. They quite simply don't have the character required for it. (Or if they once did, they lost it on the way up.)
So OK, the Peter Principle could account for some of this. But if it were the major factor, I would expect to see VPs who would make good mid-level managers, CEOs who would make good VPs, etc. Not what I've seen.
Instead, I think many of these people get "promoted" by switching companies at each step. Exaggerate on the resume, apply for a job at a new company with more responsibility, get friends to do your recommendations. Who's to tell the new company that really, at the old place, you weren't doing all that well?
And there's a few who don't even do that. Straight out of school, start a company. Who cares if you are competent? When you're done there (you're bored or it failed or who knows, you're actually good and it went IPO) you become a venture capitalist, based on your connections. Talent or skill may or may not ever enter the picture, but you'll never drink box wine again.
*sigh* I think too much.
