Incompetent individual promoted - Dilbert Principle
There was recently a situation at my office where a junior level manager (6+ years work experience) was being consistently complained about as being a difficult person to work with and for (in fact, at least 3 people have left the company, citing her as one of the main reasons). I logged my own complaint a few weeks ago and was told at the time that I was among the many to complain. She just got promoted this week, conveniently out of the department she was in. Now her only managerial authority is only over some college interns and her work is basically back office work now. Normally I'd just celebrate the good fortune of getting rid of this individual, but she got a fat pay raise and a nice new office with her promotion.
I had only heard of the Dilbert Principle (the concept that the least competent individuals get promoted because the competent individuals need to be doing the actual work) actually being implemented in the federal government, so I'm a little stunned that this apparently exists in the private sector as well.
Has anyone else witnessed this where an individual has been promoted ostensibly to get that person out of his or her current role that he or she isn't performing well in? This is the first time I've ever witnessed this happening and pretty much everyone in my department is, well, stunned and disoriented at the news. My parents were both federal employees so this kind of stuff was par for the course for me, but does this happen at other private sector organizations, too?
[Oh yeah, generic witty, caustic response to someone claiming that I'm just being a hater]
It's extremely difficult to fire someone during good times (unless it's like a 5000 people layoff), especially a female (could be lawsuits, especially if she was pregnant or something). They couldn't just transfer her over to a similar role with same/less pay in a crappier department like the BO (why'd she take it). So they ate the cost and sent her somewhere where she will impact the business less. Right call for the upper management given the situation.
I hear what you're saying, but I think upper management may come to regret the decision when half the department finds new jobs in the next 12 months out of disgust for the move. When I found out earlier this week I started the job search.
Rhetorically, one has to ask himself or herself--can I work for a company that is going to promote the incompetent people and not promote the competent people because the competent people need to do the hands-on work? That's why I'm curious if this is normal in the private sector.
For me, it's not so much a personal affront as it is a question of long-term career strategy. I'm my bank's top real estate analyst--if I don't show up to work because I'm sick deals either don't get done or they may get done poorly. Managers in our organization don't work hands-on on deals. So I'm critical to the organization's bottom line--does this mean that I can't move up to management because I'm actually really good at the actual work? Rhetorical questions, but questions that other good personnel have to ask themselves when the Dilbert Principle is implemented.
I have heard of this happening in private sector. I've also heard of it being done to make a better case for incompetence and/or get the person to find a job elsewhere
It's more like do you want to stay as RE Analyst and wait to move up in that area or would you rather be like that employee and get promoted to some Back Office role (call it mortgage origination or settlement or whatever) for a 20% raise today and get stuck in that path forever? If she was promoted within the department, I could see you questioning the firm strategy. But her getting promoted to an 'undesirable' location is nothing to be angry about for you.
The promotion of incompetent people often has less to do with the actual person and more to do with external company image. Believe it or not tax implications were more likely the reason for the transfer and promotion than all of you that complained. Businesses that meet certain target percentages for women and/or minorities in "leadership" positions get tax benefits. Why do you think so many medium to small enterprise level companies that are still privately held are held under a woman's name? Tax implications.
Hey, at least you don't have to see cumdumpsters get promoted over dudes with multiple combat deployments literally because they suck good dick and know how to politic. Females have no place in the military period, let alone telling men what to do.
Get the fuck out of here with the garbage. I need some mighty joe young gorilla shit to throw on you.
Who pissed in your cheerios?
Pump the brakes kid.
Way off base with both those comments about women, especially those currently in service.
holy shit are you srs bro i totally believe you, but can you direct me as to where to look for these laws? genuinely interested, didn't know they existed at all
They are in the US tax code somewhere. I have no idea what the statue numbers are. I just know that if you have certain percentages of "minority" ownership or leadership you can qualify for special things. I would look in the small business administration website. They will have links to all of the special loans for minorities, they might also have links to the areas of the tax code that pertain to what I was talking about. That was always left to our CPAs to figure out.
god damn this is good to know though if i ever start a business
Especially if you work in an industry that is involved with providing services to government entities. The perks you get for meeting 'diversity' quotas are incredible and many times stated right up front in RFP's for services. It simply doesn't make sense to get rid of someone if they help you meet that quota, because of the competitive advantage it can give you in some scenarios. I'm not saying it makes sense to keep a totally incompetent person totally based on criteria that during the hiring process it would be illegal to make a decision on. Ironic, I think.
But to the OP, yes. It happens a lot more than you think. What can make you feel better is that normally you will outpace those who get promoted this way. It may not be in that specific company, but chances are in 20 years you two won't be in the same stratosphere. Don't worry about other people, just make yourself as valuable as possible at work and things will work themselves out. If not there, then somewhere else.
tldnr
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=carl+icahn+anti+darwinian
'bout to hit you with a reality check.
don't know if anyone ever told you, it's because life isn't fair.
in reality, there are incompetent people everywhere. be thankful, it's easier to surpass them in life.
I'll take it a step further: most people are idiots. and by most, I mean like 90%. (out of 7 billion people, I think 700 million non idiots is pretty reasonable, if not generous)
oh, and don't let it worry you, 'cause life's too short.
-end
Sincerely
Brofessor
Big corporations are not much different than government. Finance and consulting jobs tend to be more performance based and there's a built in stop gap to get people out (like 2-3 year analyst and associate programs-they don't have to fire you, they just don't offer for you to stay) but I've seen some of the lamest, dumbest and worst employees get promoted in corporate America for various reasons.
I don't think the way you've described the Dilbert principle makes much sense. You want the competent people to be responsible for the work through thought leadership/guidance/oversight, not necessarily in the weeds doing it. You don't hire a talented contractor to hammer in nails for your new home that's being built...you hire him to make sure your house turns out spectacular.
It also goes without saying that promotions anywhere often have very little to do with actual competence.
It's a lot easier to promote someone than fire someone. I agree it's a horrible strategy, but think about it from her manager's perspective. He could either go through all this red tape and BS to get her fired, or he could just recommend her for a promotion or transfer and make her someone else's problem.
This isn't uncommon. I've seen people land substantial promotions to satellite offices far away. Could also have to do with politics. Perhaps a high ranking exec personally likes that under-performing employee, if their boss fires them it makes the bosses boss upset. Easier to promote them out and everyone wins.
Can't believe no one has brought up the Seinfeld episode where Elaine's advertising company promotes a loon because he is so tough to work with:
From what I've seen, moving up the ranks in management is mostly due to political maneuvering, not competence. You'll see it everywhere from corporations, government, banking, PE, the military, etc. The term I've heard for it is "cooperate and graduate." This is the reason you find the senior ranks of most corporations, investment banks, and the military filled with B teamers. The A players just got their necessary experience and moved on.
You're in DC, right? I know for a fact there are different tax benefits worked out between companies and the city regarding the percentage thing....
Also, if you fire someone you personally hired or fire them much later than you really should have it reflects poorly on you. Promoting them out is just doubling down on your failure instead of admitting your mistake.
Fuck up, move up.
And not that it's necessarily the case here, but if a manager is well liked by superiors and hated by subordinates, the superiors' perception wins out. Gotta love it.
interesting that there are two "theories" out there that are in direct contradiction of each other regarding why incompetency is so rampant in corporate hierarchy: peter principle vs. dilbert principle.
is it the person who is just generally shitty, or is it the role that makes the person shitty?
Assumenda maxime et earum est quae ad et. Excepturi eius magnam ad sit a voluptas. Consequuntur qui optio neque saepe.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Nihil id qui reiciendis numquam esse a. Quia sit assumenda a ipsam qui nulla facere. Aut illo perspiciatis laboriosam reiciendis placeat.
Error quisquam aut veritatis et magni corrupti. Qui ipsam explicabo quod dicta et. Iste in numquam fugit sapiente dolores exercitationem tempora neque. Impedit autem soluta dicta voluptas voluptas consequatur.
Totam optio ex placeat asperiores accusantium possimus. Cupiditate nobis adipisci culpa vel. Voluptas quidem praesentium rerum tenetur facere. Esse possimus labore commodi.
Et delectus ut numquam nobis. Excepturi laudantium perspiciatis aut autem in. Ab repellendus quis facere dicta quae.