The "Peter Principle" is an example of a limitation regarding the use of performance appraisals in making internal staffing decisions.

It is based on the promotions of employees on the basis of their past job performances which can eventually lead to employees not being promoted when they don't perform well. This can then lead to positions being filled by incompetent individuals.

The best way to address the situation is to look more thoroughly at past job evaluations of an employee. Looking for known or unknown skills that match the postion that you are currently wanting to fill. Keep in mind that each supervisior has their own way of evaluating employees, which could lead to bias of some sort.

Taking a good look at the skills needed to perform a job and what the current skills are of a candidate would be very helpful in making a competent choice.

The "Peter Principle"

The "Peter Principle" is the principle that individuals rise to their lowest level of incompetence. This means that employees continue to be promoted based on their past performance until they become incompetent in a position. At that point, they stop being promoted.

In order to avoid the "Peter Principle," it is necessary to look deeper into the employee's current job performance when considering them for advancement. Such as:

• Look at the candidate's current job requirements and skill sets and seeing if they match with the job requirements and skill sets of the new position.
• If they don't, then you need to make sure the candidate has demonstrated the KSAOs needed in the new positon in a measurable way either in the current position, in past positions or with outside organizations (volunteer work).
• It is also important to know that performance appraisals can be unreliable and biased. No two supervisors will rate a person's performance the same way. So, it would be helpful to review several years' worth of performance appraisals.

After exploring these three areas, you will be better able to determine if the internal candidate will be successful in the new position. Thus, avoiding the "Peter Principle."

The "Peter Principle"

In the Heneman textbook, the Peter Principle is described as when people rise to their lowest level of incompetence, it illustrates another imitation with using performance appraisals as a method of internal staffing decisions. The argument behind the peter principle is that if companies promote based on past performance, the only time that people are not promoted is when they perform poorly. Eventually, companies will be internally staffed by incompetents.
A way to avoid the peter principle are to ask these questions when promoting internally:
-Who has exhibited the initiative to perform above and beyond the required job duties?
-Is the employee willing to take on a leadership role with additional responsibilities?
-Has the employee’s performance improved on a consistent basis or fluctuated?
-Does the employee exhibit leadership behaviors or have the capacity to perform well within key supervisor/management competencies?
Also make sure the candidate exhibits these competencies:
Respect and trust
Planning and organizing skills
Ability to manage, perform and delegate
Communication skills
Problem solving and decision making skills
Before offering a promotion to an employee based completely on past performance, take a step back and make sure the person is qualified over all for the advanced position

"Peter Principle"

The "Peter Principle" as stated in the Heneman text is described as that individuals rise to their lowest level of incompetence, illustrating another limitation with using performance appraisal as a method of an internal staffing decisions. It also argues that behind this "Peter Principle" organizations promote individuals on the basis of their past performance. So in other words as an employee continues to get good evaluations they continue to get promoted.

The problem with the "Peter Principle" is that employees might not know the job that they are being promoted to. So the company ends up with employees who don't know there jobs. What good will that do for the company?

Trying to avoid the "Peter Principle" would be not promoting employees on the basis of their performance appraisals but appointing employees by their knowledge and skills of the particular job. I think if you have openings in a company then the positions should be filled by employees who know the position. Also for receiving a good performance appraisal, the employee should be rewarded in other ways.

Glass Ceiling:

Refers to a "stifling of advancement" for women and minorities in the workplace.

The following are some causes of the barrier, known as the "glass ceiling."

• Internal recruitment practices - this could be resolved by eliminating "seniority based" promotions and replacing them with job related assessment methods.
• Biased performance ratings - instead of giving "well liked" employees raises without merit, you could instead, rate employees on their job performance, job knowledge and reliability.
• Not promoting because of judgments regarding whether or not a women has been able to find work/life balance - this could be resolved by addressing the company's belief's regarding what is needed to acquire a work/life balance.
• Denying women and minorities access to developmental assignments - By even distribution of new assignments between men and women, you can find what your employee's capabilities are. By following this practice, you will be able to make fair and educated decisions when considering all employees for promotion.

I don't know if the glass ceiling will ever be eliminated. I think that some men percieve themselves as being the "provider" of the family and will always want to be superior to women in the workplace. On the other hand, there will always be women that want to excel and should be given the chance to do so.

The Glass Ceiling

The "glass ceiling" is a term used to characterize strong but invisible barriers for women and minorities to promotion into the higher levels of the organization. First, let me say I do not agree with Shell's comments. They call it an invisible barrier for a reason. The culture of a company starts from the top of the organization down. If the top executives of any organization do not believe in promoting women and minorities, then it won't happen, especially in organizations where Affirmative Action policies do not have to be followed. A minority can want it bad enough and be as goal-oriented as any top male or white manager, it simply will not happen if the executive levels of management do not "buy" into it. I believe there are more organizations out there than we want to believe exist. Think of the age of some of the top executives of the major corporations. Most I would say are in their 60's, which means they grew up in the 1950's and 1960's when most women stayed home. So, I think that Affirmative Action is a good plan to force some organizations into a new mindset. I also think the tide is beginning to change with younger management taking over the top executive roles as the current executives retire. According to the Henneman text, women in the officials and managers EEO category is still only 36% overall; and it is estimated that minorities fall along the same percentage.

The Glass Ceiling

As stated in the Heneman text, the "glass ceiling" is a term used to characterize strong but invisible barriers for women and minorities to promotion in the organization, particularly to the highest levels.
To make an assumption on glass ceilings I guess I would have to say that I haven't been personally affected by it. But sometimes I think that the "glass ceiling" card gets played when it is convenient. Yes, men sometimes seem to have it all but please if women and/or minorities want it bad enough and are goal oriented they can also have it. We live in a great country and we can succeed. The question is whether or not we want to? We have so much that is offered in the United States to women and most definitely minorites that we are the fools when we dont take advatage of it.
As for "glass ceilings" we have built and created them so if you want to blame someone when you think that they are there, blame yourself! Break the glass !

The Glass Ceiling

The definition of a glass ceiling is an invisible barrier that determines the level to which a women or other member of a demographic minority can rise in an orgainization.
Although the expression of the glass ceiling is a metaphorical phrase, many women and other minorities find it very real when confronted with it. It is a sexist attitude that is found often in a male dominent organization that is geared towards females. In regards to the corporate ladder,it sets a limit to how far someone can advance. Sometimes it is real and sometimes it is implied that it is impossible to break through. I feel that in this day and age, where more women are becoming increasingly successful, in some cases, surpaasing the success of their male coworkers, the glass ceiling is diminishing. The fact that we almost had a female president and that we do, for the first time in history, have a non-white president is proof that the glass ceiling may someday be completely shattered!