Yet the same man, with much higher responsibilities, first as first sea lord, then as prime minister during World War II, saved England and possibly the world during the year that the British stood alone against Hitler and his minions. Moreover, this onetime incompetent is now considered the greatest British political figure of the 20th century, and maybe of all time.
Politicians are obvious examples at disproving the Peter Principle. Ronald Reagan was defeated twice as a Republican nominee, finally succeeding in becoming nominee and president of the United States as well on his third attempt. Abraham Lincoln failed at just about everything. He failed in business, ran for the Illinois State Legislature and was defeated, went into business again and went bankrupt, ran for speaker and was defeated, was defeated in a nomination to Congress, was rejected for an appointment for the US Land Office, was defeated in a US Senate race, and two years later defeated again in a nomination for vice president. Then in 1860 he became our 16th president and saved the Union. To the best of my knowledge, not even his detractors, and certainly not historians, call him incompetent.
Certainly one of the most hierarchical of organizations is the military. But did you know that none other than General Colin Powell would have easily been classified as having risen to his level of incompetency? In further disproving the Peter Principle, he did not. As a “one-star”, brigadier general, he had displeased his boss at a critical time and made two serious mistakes. As a result, his two-star boss gave him a mediocre effectiveness report. Since only 50% of brigadier generals went on to promotion to two-stars (major general), Powell was certain that he knew which 50% he would be in. His career would have been at an end. Then, if that weren’t enough, it was felt that he may have mishandled a case of sexual harassment. In his own words, he questioned himself: “Was this ‘strike three’ (as in three strikes and you’re out)?”4 Boy, was he showing up as an incompetent!
Despite this, Powell’s 30-year previous record of outstanding performance and accomplishments earned him his second star. And of course, later he was promoted to three- and then four-star positions and eventually he became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the US military’s highest-ranking officer.
What Exactly Does Drucker’s Denunciation of the Peter Principle Mean for Consultants?
Drucker was probably the first to put people on the positive side of the account ledger. People are not an expense, they are an asset, and every consultant looking in on an organization from the outside must recognize this. Drucker’s consulting took this approach, and so should yours if you intend to follow his principles. So it’s not that people have risen to levels of incompetency. Given that they have had success, maybe considerable success in past assignments, something else may be wrong. Consider the following before recommending or taking any other action:
• Was this the right person to put in this job?
• Rome wasn’t built in a day – is more time needed?
• Are the resources needed available?
• Can you help?
As a consultant, there may not be much you can do about finding the right candidate, i.e., the right person for the right job. This may have happened before your involvement. However, the last three on Drucker’s list all involve care, feeding, and development. You can clearly impact all three, and if early, help get the right person in the job as well.
The Right Person for the Right Job
I’ve devoted a good deal to this because it is the most important, and yet the most often neglected by managers and consultants. This process may have started and been completed long before the consultant came on the scene. However, even if it is too late to do anything about finding the best person for the job, you may get in early enough to help, or even be responsible for the entire process. Drucker said that you need to staff to strengthen an organization, so let’s start there.
Drucker recommended three prime rules to staff for strength:
1. Think through the requirements of the job.
2. Choose three or four candidates for the job rather than deciding immediately on one candidate.
3. Don’t make the final selection without discussing the choice with knowledgeable colleagues.
The Requirements of the Job
A poorly designed job, one in which the requirements have not been thought through, may be an impossible job that no one can do. An impossible job means that work intended to be accomplished can only be accomplished poorly or maybe cannot be done at all. Being impossible or nearly so risks the destruction, or at best, the misallocation of scarce and valuable human resources. To design a job properly, the objectives and requirements of the job must be analysed to decide on those few requirements that are truly crucial to the job’s performance. That way the executive seeking to fill the position can avoid filling it with a candidate who minimally meets all requirements, rather than staffing for strength for the few critical areas of the job that are essential.
Developing the Essential Job Requirements
Thinking through the requirements of the job means developing those basic requirements that an executive must have to accomplish the job successfully. If this is done, it will minimize the chance that a selection is made on less relevant factors. Let’s start with the factor of likeability. It is true that good professionals can work together without liking one another. Likeability does not guarantee success. We have all seen examples of very likeable individuals who fail miserably in jobs at all levels of an organization. However, the chances of success are greater when there is at least no animosity between boss and subordinate at the start.
Years ago, when I spent some time as an executive recruiter, I learned that the modus operandi for a recruiter was to submit three to five candidates to the hiring executive for any position. All of these candidates met the basic requirements, which the head-hunter had helped the hiring executive develop in a “job order, including job specifications”. However, these individuals were of differing personalities, backgrounds, and physical appearance. As explained to me by a more experienced executive recruiter, this was to ensure that “the chemistry was right”. “Sometimes a candidate won’t personally like his potential boss,” I was told. “Sometimes, a potential boss won’t like the candidate. And there are times when neither one will like each other. However, with three to five candidates, chances are that in at least one case the candidate will like the potential boss, and visa versa. But in all cases, the candidate must meet all the main requirements for the job.”
This sort of occurrence is far from uncommon. In the executive recruiting business, there is a saying: “Once a candidate meets face-to-face with a client, all bets are off.” What this means is that personality and “chemistry” prevail in most cases over experience and accomplishments documented in resumes. There is nothing particularly wrong with these aspects of a candidate being considered. Personality and the ability to fit into different organizations are extremely important. Meeting basic, well thought through job requirements, including “chemistry”, cannot be ignored. We need to think through the requirements of a job and staff for the strengths that are needed. If a candidate doesn’t meet an essential requirement, don’t promote or hire him or her for the job.
Choose Multiple Candidates for a Job before Selection
The fact is that many promotions or hiring selections are made with only one or two candidates being considered. Managers get in a hurry or they are overly impressed with a single candidate for a position. At the very least, think through and come up with back-up candidates. However, the correct way, according to Drucker, was to consider three or four candidates, all of whom met the minimum qualifications of staffing for strength and to do this right from the start.
Sometimes the reason that this wisdom is ignored is that the hiring executive makes assumptions about a candidate’s suitability before considering all candidates’ qualifications against the prime job requirements. So just getting the requirements nailed down will be immensely helpful.
<
br /> In one organization, the staffing executive, who had been with the company a year, wanted to appoint a particular manager from within the company to a senior position. He sent the recommendation, which had to be approved by his boss, forward. His boss asked to see the résumés of at least two additional internal candidates for the job. His boss was also curious about a particular aspect of the staffing executive’s choice for this promotion.
The staffing executive used the old ploy of straw candidates. He picked three, rather than two, additional candidates for the position. He thought this would give the impression that he had considered many subordinates for the promotion and would show how superior the candidate really was. He did not think the three additional candidates were anything special. In fact, he selected them for that reason. He sent all four résumés to his boss. In addition to demonstrating questionable integrity in his ploy, he made two major errors. First, he did not think through all the job requirements. His boss had. In addition, he relied on his personal knowledge and opinion of the candidates without investigating other aspects of their work at the company. That would have been bad enough. However, he even failed to read the résumés he sent forward. He merely attached a strong letter of recommendation for the candidate that he wanted to get the position.
What the staffing executive did not know is that one of the three additional candidates had been with the organization for many years and had a strong reputation and a long list of accomplishments. However, for the past year he had been on special assignment away from corporate headquarters, so the staffing executive did not know him. As it happened, his background and proven experience were particularly suited to the obvious requirements of the position to be filled. He was so well suited, that he should have been the prime candidate recommended.
This was one reason that the staffing executive’s boss had asked to see the résumés of additional candidates. If this manager was not even included in consideration, he wanted to find out why. If he was included, but not the candidate selected, he wanted to see if he was missing some important information before he approved the promotion. The staffing executive was fortunate enough not to overlook forwarding his résumé. Then he probably would really have been in trouble. However, had he looked closely at the résumés, he would have immediately grasped the fact that he was not recommending the best candidate for the position. Of course, he may have known something about this candidate not known to others, but in this case, he did not.
What his boss saw was that the executive was clearly not recommending the best candidate for the job. In a face-to-face interview with the staffing executive, he soon determined that he did not know who should have been the obvious candidate or this candidate’s background as well as he should have. He could perhaps be forgiven, since this manager had been absent during most of the staffing executive’s time with the organization, but it still did not reflect well on his ability as a high-level manager. Had he promoted the wrong manager, it might have caused a number of problems in the organization, not to mention not having the manager most suitable for the job. After a discussion of the requirements and the qualifications of the candidates, both he and the staffing executive agreed that this ignored candidate – and not the candidate who the staffing executive had earlier recommended – should be promoted to the job.
Discuss Your Choice with Colleagues
Had the executive I mentioned discussed the appointment with his staff or colleagues, he wouldn’t have embarrassed himself in front of his boss. I want to state emphatically that Drucker was not saying that any staffing is a group decision. It is not, and you must take responsibility for the outcome regardless if those you consult give you erroneous information or possibly pass on a poor recommendation. You are still responsible. However, it makes sense to share your plans and get others’ opinions and ideas whenever it is possible to do so. Even if you decide to promote someone who others don’t recommend, at least you’ll know the pitfalls of your appointment and learn more about what others think and know regarding the various candidates you are considering.
After the Assignment Is Made
Once you have made the assignment, or as a consultant you have assisted with it, your work is not done. You are responsible for what happens next, and there is always “care and feeding” that is involved. New appointments do not automatically hit the ground running. It would be well to prepare the way as much as possible, including with training. Sure, you can leave it to the new promotee to work it out. If it’s the right selection, the individual may know himself in what areas of the new position he needs help or additional training. But why wait? There is much that you know already that the new appointee probably does not. Unless letting the individual struggle is part of his or her development, why do it? You want your new promotee to be successful and make you look good don’t you?
Without doing the promotee’s job, you want to do everything possible to ensure his or her success at that job. As a retired CEO once told a group of recently promoted vice presidents about leading their subordinates: “Don’t you let them fail!”
Is This a Work in Progress?
It would be nice if every manager could hit the ground running in every new job. However, this isn’t always possible, especially in a new job that is new not only to the placed executive, but also to the organization. Whether new or old, it may present a challenge for a new occupant. A manager can ease the way by clearly laying out requirements, meeting frequently during the early weeks with the individual in a new position, helping or assisting without doing the new appointee’s job for him, but above all, not letting him fail. So don’t be too hasty in immediately replacing a new assignee. Some need time to develop, and sometimes the assignment itself may have been made with insufficient thought on whether adequate resources such as money, personnel, equipment, or facilities have been allocated. Moreover, this can change given the way the new assignee operates or plans to operate. You may never be able to anticipate this precisely because there are many different ways of approaching any task, and this depends on the capabilities and thinking of the one now has the position.
Remember that as the boss, or the consultant, you are there to help and never forget the injunction: “Don’t you let him fail”.
Drucker’s People Approach
The idea that managers rise to their level of incompetence is a dangerous myth. If a manager isn’t performing, of course he needs to be relieved of his duties. But to automatically fire a manager due to failure with no further thought is, as Drucker maintained, a human sacrifice, pure and simple. There may be an equally challenging job available at which he will be successful. Find something or put him in a holding position until you do. Don’t waste individuals who have previously done well over long periods of time due to one job failure. In any case, you can minimize these problems by performing due diligence in the ways recommended:
• Think though the requirements of the position and staff for strength
• Have multiple qualified candidates before settling on one
• Share your intentions with colleagues before promoting
• It’s not over just because the assignment has been filled
• Much falls under care and feeding
Do this and you will have an excellent “batting average” of promoting the right person to the right job. Once in the job, it is still your responsibility to get the person off to the right start. Your success average needs to be equally high in this area.
Take these actions and your organization is on the way to being top heavy with the best and most qualified managers. If it’s your organization, these are your responsibilities. If you are advising and recommending in these matters as a consultant, you too, have major responsibilities for success, all of which have to do with the importance of people, and the Peter Drucker Principle that people have no limits.
1 Peter, Laurence J.; Hull, Raymond, The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong. (New York: William Morrow and Comp
any, 1969), p. 8.
2 Asghar, Rob, “Incompetence Rains, Er, Reigns: What the Peter Principle Means Today,” Forbes, 13 August 2014, accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2014/08/14/incompetence-rains-er-reigns-what-the-peter-principle-means-today/, 27 October 2015.
3 No author listed, “Macy’s,” Wikipedia, accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy%27s, 27 October 2015.
4 Powell, Colin, My American Journey, (New York: Random House, 1995) p. 269.
Chapter 17
10 Things Considered
I don’t believe one can consider Drucker’s unique steps toward becoming and then performing as a management consultant without learning a great deal that anyone can use in building their own successful consulting career. Here’s what I’ve gleaned from his example in this area.
1. None of our upbringings or the opportunities from it are necessarily bad or necessarily good. They just happened, that’s all. Caesar Millan didn’t have any of Drucker’s stuff, and he even entered the US from Mexico illegally. He didn’t attend college, but he learned enough about dogs to become the “dog whisperer” to the extent that he has had his own successful television show for years, and undoubtedly commands consulting and speaking fees for his consulting about our pets, which may not be all that dissimilar from what Drucker’s were once. We all have resources for becoming good, maybe even great consultants, which we can analyse and document. We just need to realize what resources we have, think, and then put them to use.
Consulting Drucker Page 25
