Peter's observation cuts deeper than most org psychology theories because it identifies the mechanism itself as the problem, not the people in it. The Challenger example is chilling - engineers who understood O-rings were overruled by former engineers who'd been promoted into roles where different skillsets mattered. I saw this play out at a startup where our best developer became CTO and basically froze all technical decision-making. The parallel career tracks idea is underrated; not everyone who's brilliant at X wants to manage people doing X, but we've built systems that leave them no other option for advancement.
and we've built systems that pay managers better than non-managers, thus encouraging people to aim for management even if they aren't suited for it. It's the hierarchy of pay levels that is the main part of the problem. There's also the possibility that managers would manage better if it wasn't for the (incompetent) CEOs etc suppressing them!
What prescription for change is suggested as this mismatch of “skills with competence” vs promotion of “unaligned skills that deliver incompetence” continues to harvest mediocrity, or worse as in the Challenger disaster?
Peter's observation cuts deeper than most org psychology theories because it identifies the mechanism itself as the problem, not the people in it. The Challenger example is chilling - engineers who understood O-rings were overruled by former engineers who'd been promoted into roles where different skillsets mattered. I saw this play out at a startup where our best developer became CTO and basically froze all technical decision-making. The parallel career tracks idea is underrated; not everyone who's brilliant at X wants to manage people doing X, but we've built systems that leave them no other option for advancement.
and we've built systems that pay managers better than non-managers, thus encouraging people to aim for management even if they aren't suited for it. It's the hierarchy of pay levels that is the main part of the problem. There's also the possibility that managers would manage better if it wasn't for the (incompetent) CEOs etc suppressing them!
really enyoyed, but why the different voices?
What prescription for change is suggested as this mismatch of “skills with competence” vs promotion of “unaligned skills that deliver incompetence” continues to harvest mediocrity, or worse as in the Challenger disaster?