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.
In essence, the PP states that employees will be promoted through the ranks based on their competence until they reach the inevitable point where the challenge of the job exceeds their talents. So, the question is this: if performance in one’s current job is not always an accurate predictor of future performance, what predictor can be used?
ReplyDeleteIf leaders tend to hire individuals in their own image, in order to break the PP cycle a proper “vetting” method is required. This method should include three distinct areas of inquiry: company fit, skills match, job fit. Specifically, the job fit area provides the best opportunity to break the PP cycle. Here, we assess cognitive ability and personality. All previous areas being equal, i.e., company fit and skills match, the distinction can be made in the cognitive ability area.
Thanks!