Why Are Managers Bad At Their Jobs? (The Peter Principle)
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Related videos
So... What Was the Point of Artemis II?
ColdFusion
56.9k views
AI Fails at 96% of Jobs (New Study)
ColdFusion
190.9k views
The Metaverse: A $70 Billion Disaster
ColdFusion
435.1k views
Why Apple Just Gave Up on AI
ColdFusion
212.5k views
Forget AI, The Robots Are Coming!
ColdFusion
678.2k views
Why Young Men Are Falling Even Further Behind
ColdFusion
618.8k views
Why Gen Z Graduates Are in Crisis
ColdFusion
842.9k views
Why Boats and Planes Are Also Going Electric
ColdFusion
311.5k views
Why the US Government Plans to Buy 1 Million Bitcoin
ColdFusion
675.6k views
The Scammer Who Sold A Fake Country
ColdFusion
231.5k views
Top Comments (10)
As a manager who started as a basic entry-level employee, I think managers are bad at their job, because they're simply not trained correctly. Managers need managing skills, something which regular employees are typically never taught.
Upper management never learns from their mistakes and is never punished for making piss poor decisions. Layoffs happen at the lower level when they should happen at the upper level.
The worst managers are the ones who can’t stand up for their team. If you can’t push back on deadlines set by your superiors, for example, you’ll create a bad work environment — especially if your technical knowledge is limited.
The Peter Principle says that in any large organization, if you're good at your job you get promoted. This continues until you get promoted into a job you're not good at. Eventually everyone gets promoted into their level of incompetence. Think of the TV series "The Office" (American version). The incompetence of regional manager Michael Scott is the source of much of the humor. But in the second season we find out that Michael was once an excellent salesman, which is what lead to his promotion. The show is a classic example of the principle.
Back when I still worked in an office, I had two bosses, one I'd go to if I wanted a problem solved, one I'd go to if I wanted a problem ignored. The first's expertise was in finding solutions, the second's expertise was in finding excuses.
The issue is that skilled workers that have no human skills are bad managers, but people trained for leadership with zero technical knowledge are just as bad. You need both for good communication. It's best to keep promoting the good workers but keeping in mind their psychological profile AND training them on leadership skills.
In my experience, I have seen these four factors: 1. Lack of training into management. 2. Promotion is based on not being a threat to the higher up or sucking up (aka Kneepads). 3. Nepotism, having a senior manager's daughter or son, breeze through the process into leadership without skills or competence. 4. Discrimination: If you are not part of the click, whether it is gender, race, or keen folk.
8:00 “People don’t quit companies they quit bosses” I’ve never we heard this before but it rings true to me.
Retired exec here. This is all true. And managing is a DIFFERENT job than what is usually the jobs below them. Also, the egotistical / narcissistic are attracted to the money / power and do and say whatever to get the job. Add one more factor: A level managers (rare) hire A level managers. B level mangers hire C level managers because they are more concerned with not being replaced than doing the job. It's not 1 in 10 that have the ability, from experience it's more like 1 in 500. Up and out does not end the Peter Principle. But firing managers who make mistakes is the best way to get rid of those who can't run a company. Dealing with employees is a different area to consider.
My first manager advised me not to get too technical if I ever wanted to be promoted and climb the ladder. When I asked why, he said the top executives would worry about who could take over my current role.
Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge
- Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
- Chat with videos, export text & PDF
- $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research
Free forever plan • All features unlocked
Top Comments (10)
As a manager who started as a basic entry-level employee, I think managers are bad at their job, because they're simply not trained correctly. Managers need managing skills, something which regular employees are typically never taught.
Upper management never learns from their mistakes and is never punished for making piss poor decisions. Layoffs happen at the lower level when they should happen at the upper level.
The worst managers are the ones who can’t stand up for their team. If you can’t push back on deadlines set by your superiors, for example, you’ll create a bad work environment — especially if your technical knowledge is limited.
The Peter Principle says that in any large organization, if you're good at your job you get promoted. This continues until you get promoted into a job you're not good at. Eventually everyone gets promoted into their level of incompetence. Think of the TV series "The Office" (American version). The incompetence of regional manager Michael Scott is the source of much of the humor. But in the second season we find out that Michael was once an excellent salesman, which is what lead to his promotion. The show is a classic example of the principle.
Back when I still worked in an office, I had two bosses, one I'd go to if I wanted a problem solved, one I'd go to if I wanted a problem ignored. The first's expertise was in finding solutions, the second's expertise was in finding excuses.
The issue is that skilled workers that have no human skills are bad managers, but people trained for leadership with zero technical knowledge are just as bad. You need both for good communication. It's best to keep promoting the good workers but keeping in mind their psychological profile AND training them on leadership skills.
In my experience, I have seen these four factors: 1. Lack of training into management. 2. Promotion is based on not being a threat to the higher up or sucking up (aka Kneepads). 3. Nepotism, having a senior manager's daughter or son, breeze through the process into leadership without skills or competence. 4. Discrimination: If you are not part of the click, whether it is gender, race, or keen folk.
8:00 “People don’t quit companies they quit bosses” I’ve never we heard this before but it rings true to me.
Retired exec here. This is all true. And managing is a DIFFERENT job than what is usually the jobs below them. Also, the egotistical / narcissistic are attracted to the money / power and do and say whatever to get the job. Add one more factor: A level managers (rare) hire A level managers. B level mangers hire C level managers because they are more concerned with not being replaced than doing the job. It's not 1 in 10 that have the ability, from experience it's more like 1 in 500. Up and out does not end the Peter Principle. But firing managers who make mistakes is the best way to get rid of those who can't run a company. Dealing with employees is a different area to consider.
My first manager advised me not to get too technical if I ever wanted to be promoted and climb the ladder. When I asked why, he said the top executives would worry about who could take over my current role.