The Peter Principle proven

People who perform well at one level get be promoted on the assumption that they will also do well at another level. Common sense tells us so - a worker who is competent at a given level will also be competent at a higher level of the hierarchy. So it may well seem a good idea to promote such an individual to the next level. Or is it? The problem is that common sense can be counterintuitive. A new position requires different skills, thus the competence at one level may not necessarily mean equal competence in doing another task. We remember in Management 101 this seeming paradox known as Peter's Principle, after the Canadian psychologist Laurence Peter who succinctly described it thus:

"All new members in a hierarchical organization climb the hierarchy until they reach their level of maximum incompetence."

This could lead to the spread of incompetence throughout an organization. But is there a better way of choosing individuals for promotion?

Lately mathematical models are used to take into account collective behavior to discover features often counterintuitive and difficult to predict following the common sense. Scientists study the Peter Principle process within a general context where different promotion strategies compete with others for maximizing the global efficiency of a given hierarchical system.

Alessandro Pluchino, et al, Italian physicists/scientists, have simulated the Peter Principle practice with an agent-based model. Their results (02 July 2009), contained in a paper submitted to Elsevier Science, indicate that the Peter Principle indeed leads to a significant reduction in the efficiency of an organization, as incompetency spreads through it.

So is there a better way of choosing individuals for promotion? Pluchino and co. say there may be better ways.  Their model shows that two other strategies outperform the conventional method of promotion. One is to alternately promote first the most competent and then the least competent individuals. Another way is to promote individuals at random. Both of these methods improve, or at least do not diminish, the efficiency of an organization.

Their simulation showed that what Peter said in 1969 can happen. What the new study does not show is the potential decrease in morale (not just efficiency) due to the Peter Principle. The lower morale can have a multiplier effect in further bringing down efficiency. On the other hand, the study also did not take into account the possible decrease in overall morale if the competent ones are not promoted at all and if promotion was random or given to the least deserving. That defies the reward system and is heartless. As it is, promotions should be made regardless of the probable Peter Principle backlash. If and when the Peter Principle manifests itself, top management should be able to counteract. Top management surely does not want the Peter Principle to happen, but when it does, it must do something about it.

Bureaucracy: Red Tape and Other Negative By-products

This post is lifted entirely from Busting Bureaucracy, a website that attempts to eliminate the crushing, demoralizing and innovation-sapping torments of too much bureaucracy. I'll add  experiences recounted to me by some friends in future posts.

Bureaucracy: Red Tape and Other Negative By-products
Inside the organization, employees live with the red tape and some very negative by-products of the bureaucratic form.

When employees are asked to give examples of things they think of as being bureaucratic, they frequently cite the following:
• Each department has its own agenda, and departments don’t cooperate to help other departments get the job done.
• The head of a department feels responsible first for protecting the department, its people and its budget, even before helping to achieve the organization’s mission.
• There is political in-fighting, with executives striving for personal advancement and power.
• Ideas can be killed because they come from the "wrong" person. Ideas will be supported because the are advanced by the "right" person.
• People in their own department spend much of their time protecting their department’s "turf."
• People in other departments spend so much time protecting their "turf" that they don’t have time to do the work they are responsible to do.
• They are treated as though they can’t be trusted.
• They are treated as though they don’t have good judgment.
• They are treated as though they won’t work hard unless pushed.
• Their work environment includes large amounts of unhealthy stress.
• The tendency of the organization is to grow top-heavy, while the operating units of the organization tend to be too lean.
• Promotions are more likely to be made on the basis of politics, rather than actual achievements on the job.
• Top managers are dangerously ill-informed and insulated from what is happening on the front lines or in "the field."
• Information is hoarded or kept secret and used as the basis for power.
• Data is used selectively, or distorted to make performance look better than it really is.
• Internal communications to employees are distorted to reflect what the organization would like to be, rather than what it really is.
• Mistakes and failures are denied, covered up or ignored.
• Responsibility for mistakes and failure tends to be denied, and where possible, blame is shifted to others.
• Decisions are made by larger and larger groups, so no one can be held accountable.
• Decisions are made based on the perceived desires of superiors, rather than concern for mission achievement.
• Policies, practices and procedures tend to grow endlessly and to be followed more and more rigidly.
• Senior managers become so insulated from the realities of the front line that they may use stereotypical thinking and out-of-date experience in making decisions.
• Quantitative measurements are favored over qualitative measurements, so the concentration is on quantities of output, with less and less concern for quality of output.
• Both employees and customers are treated more as numbers than people. Personal issues and human needs are ignored or discounted.

The Lucifer Effect in Life, Not for Nothing

The story of 4th episode/2nd season of my new favorite TV drama, Life (episode title Not for Nothing)(CS-Origin, Ch31 Destiny Cable) is loosely based on the Phillipi Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971. In the experiment the subjects (college students) were given roles either as guards or as prisoners. Zimbardo wanted to see how much the uniform and the stereotypical role affects normal people. Under minor pressure from their "warden," the "guards" quickly and inventively became abusive and sadistic. The "prisoners", who could have walked out at any time, showed extreme passivity and depression and put up with the abuse. The experiment was cut short because of the to brutality put upon on the "prisoners". In the Life episode a student-"guard" mysteriously got killed (remember that it is a crime drama).

The "guards" merely thought themselves to be "doing their jobs." The "prisoners" quickly came to see themselves as "helpless." Until consultant Christina Maslach condemned it and caused the end of the experiment, Zimbardo, the "warden," did not realize the abuse he was indirectly causing, thinking it was a voluntary behavior of students under contract to participate.

Zimbardo chronicled the experiment in his book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil”.  He uses his findings to explain what makes good people do bad things, how moral people can be seduced to act immorally, where the line is that separates good from evil, and who is in danger of crossing it. He then uses his theories to explain some of the worst examples of man’s inhumanity to man -- the Rwanda massacre, and even more recently, the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

Zimbardo says that the right “situational” forces and group dynamics can work in concert to make decent men and women abandon their moral scruples and cooperate in oppression and violence - bringing out the worst in them. Thus, the Lucifer Effect. The situational forces need not be of an extraordinary nature: wearing a uniform, or dressing in ways that conceal identity, and insecure individuals acquiring new found petty powers. We are reminded of Lord Acton's "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

There is a thin line line between good and evil. Every man has the potential for engaging in evil deeds despite a generally moral upbringing. There is also the “evil of inaction”, a new form of evil that supports its perpetrators, by knowing but not acting to challenge them. Which in turn reminds us of Edmund Burke's "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Winnie Monsod looks at what is happening in the Philippines from a Lucifer Effect perspective. With non-stop news of corruption, military and police cruelty or indifference, there is a tendency to go with the flow. This may explain what some call the People Power fatigue.

Are we then hopeless? No, not at all. Zimbardo argues that not only are we capable of resisting evil, but that we can even teach ourselves to act heroically. We can resist unjust authorities, we can break corrupt systems - we can be heroes. Zimbardo gives us some tips on how to defy the Lucifer Effect. Here are rules 18-19.

 18. Rules are abstractions for controlling behavior and eliciting compliance and conformity – challenge them when necessary: ask, who made the rule? What purpose does it serve? Who maintains it? Does it make sense in this specific situation? What happens if you violate it? Insist that the rule be made explicit, so it cannot be modified and altered over time to suit the influence agent.

19. When developing causal attributions for unusual behavior – yours or others – never rush to the dispositional, always start by considering possible situational forces and variables that are the true causal agent, and seek to highlight them and to change them where possible.

Being an ordinary hero by defying the Lucifer Effect is doing the right thing when it is much easier to keep quiet. We need to have the stuff of which ordinary heroes are made of. There is hope. Be a hero.

Moon landing anniversary, moonwalker memorial

This month we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the moon. He uttered the historic words, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." It was a momentous event for mankind even as many doubt that the event actually took place. Conspiracy theorists say the moon landing is an elaborate hoax.

This month, too, a memorial will be held for the most popular Moonwalker of all time, Michael Jackson. whose sudden death brought a resurgent interest in his body of work. Just like when Elvis Presley died, many will cling to the belief that Michael faked his own death. There are many parallels in their lives. The drugs, the waning popularity, then the early death. It is also conceivable that many will think his death is a hoax.

Michael was clearly ahead of his time. I can think of many comments about his many firsts, but all are in bad taste now that he's dead. But I'm Bad so here goes. Michael could have been the first black man to become a white woman. Michael could have been the first commercial model for glutathione. Michael could have been the poster model for swine flu hygiene (with his disposable surgical mask and gloves). Michael could have been the first model of hair straightening salons. Michael should not have gone too soon, he could have touched many more (boys') lives.

Arghh, enough already, I'm not that bad. Just sad that the Thriller is gone.

Good Sport, bad sport, bad sports fan

Congrats to Roger Federer for once again making history by winning his 15th major. It's not his fault that Nadal's gimpy knees kept him from defending his title. Federer is not only good, the's the best, and on top of it all, he is lucky. Of the only one time that Roger will break Andy's serve, it will break Andy' heart as well. Roger won the 5 setter on a tie-breaker 16-14. But Andy Roddick is a good sport. And the crowd chanted his name to acknowledge the great effort.



Which cannot be said of Danny Ildefonso and a Ginebra fan. The fan heckled the entire San Miguel squad the whole game. After the game, Danny I went after the fan who initially stood his ground until he realized that Danny is not joking. That was when he scampered for safety, then cried afterwards. The TV coverage missed the action because it switched cameras.

Heckling is part of the game. It makes watching live games more exciting. Cursing, flashing the dirty finger sign, challenging the the players to fistfights - fans do what it takes to get the players off their game. What Danny I (and Pingris too) merited fines and suspension. For that, they were not able to play in their next game and their team lost.

But I can understand why Danny I acted that way. His daughter is gravely ill. He missed the all-star game just to be with her. When the fan shouted "ang yabang mo, kaya nagkakasakit ang anak mo, hindi na gagaling yun, gag0", he must have snapped. He must have thought, heckle me all you like, wish me to miss my shots, but don't wish my daughter dead.

Below are photos from Patricia Hizon's blog. The heckler at first stood his ground. He was not able to walk the talk. He ran after he talked.