To think that “failing upward” is way too common?

[ForBreezySloth]

I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve come across who were clearly struggling in their roles - only to end up getting promoted. It’s like some workplaces would rather move someone up than deal with the hassle of replacing them properly. Is this just my experience or is failing upwards a real phenomenon?

Not something I've come across, personally.

Yes, it’s known as the Peter Principle. I’ve seen it quite often.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/peter-principle/#:~:text=The%20Peter%20Principle%20states%20that,fail%20in%20his%20new%20position.

This gives me mega rage

I just cannot understand what it's about. Although I've long thought that most organisations are run by psychopaths. So I suppose they find it funny.

I actually don't think the Peter principle explains the mindset behind promoting somebody who is already incompetent in their current role. But most corporate speak is just a load of wank and I think the Peter principle is the same.

Happens a lot in schools and MATs!!! I think it’s so hard to sack teachers that the really shit ones need to be promoted out of the classroom asap!

I’ve not seen this to be honest. In my industry, you get promoted on merit, simple as that.

Agree that we see this a lot in schools - so frustrating.

I haven’t seen this but I’ve seen people promoted to manager level because they are good at their job, but they have no idea how to manage a team.

This happens a lot with sales people, I find. They get an effective sales person - great at hitting targets and assume they will be able to manage a team to do the same. Often they can’t.

I know of this happening in schools, people given an extra good reference, manage to perform at interview and then you hear on the grapevine that they were ineffective and not widely respected at previous school.

I'm not sure it's 'clearly struggling', I think the problem is people who seem to be fine to the casual glance at how they are doing but actually just talk a good game without producing results, so they ultimately get away with it

NHS, yes. It’s painful to watch.

This doesn't happen in my industry. If you promote incompetent people into positions of authority mistakes are made which could be catastrophic.

Yes, I've seen it. One bloke got promoted because he made a complaint that he'd been overlooked for promotion a few times and it wasn't fair!

Although, I once heard of something far nastier happening. An ambitious, but mediocre employee applied for promotions and got promoted more than once. The final promotion was part of a plot to get rid of her. In her new role, she was deliberately set up to fail and then sacked. I thought that was psychopathic behaviour.

This is the backbone of the civil service, its so frustrating to watch it happens so much in our department that we just laugh now, its amazing how many folk excel at interviews but can't actually do the job they are paid for!

I’ve seen it happen. At schools and where I am now.

In schools it definitely appeared to be those struggling that got promoted out of the classrooms to prevent further failings. It’s a terrible management decision in the long run! I only worked across 2 schools but saw it happen at both, I can’t speak for all schools but I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

Where I am now I see promotions that appear to be based on merit but also for other reasons - obviously I am just an onlooker and don’t know the ins and outs so can only surmise!

In 40+ years of teaching in two countries, yes I've seen this. Some shockers.

I've not seen struggling though, just hard-boiled self-confidence and utter faith in themseves + the unstinting support of however gave them the job. Oh, and the extra work of those immediately below them in the hierarchy without whom they would have been exposed a good deal earlier than they were.

Without exception, all outside the magic circle could see what was going on.

I'm happy to say that several had spectacular crash and burns.

This 💯 Technical skills and managing a team are so different, most Managers are useless (and many don't have the technical skills either!) I'm baffled when I go on LinkedIn and see so many incompetent people I've worked with in fancy roles. I will say though, there are also not that many smart and hard-working people either so it's slim pickings from the start.

I work for an Arms Length Body and happens all the time. Really bloody annoying

I think that happens a lot. A large organisation I once worked for had a massive restructure in which most employees had to reapply for their own jobs (or any other vacancy in the organisation that they fancied having a go at). Some very experienced workers hadn't had a job interview for more than ten years and didn't score that well. So they effectively got demoted, having to settle for roles at a lower grade.

Some of the people who replaced them either left because they didn't enjoy the work, or it turned out that they were much better at interviews than the work itself. One colleague grabbed the first role she was offered, then was bored as her new team was very slow-paced and she had little work to do. As soon as our team had a vacancy, she came back.

Two years and a ridiculous amount of disruption later, several of these people were finally back in the roles they had originally lost!

I’ve seen it plenty in both retail and academic support services, and DH always commented on it in the military and engineering circles. In general it’s usually used as a way to get someone out of your team - if they can be promoted to another team, that’s the ideal and they get a lovely shiny reference to help seal the deal…

Yep. Public sector.

One of the interesting things that happens in schools is a reluctance to promote good classroom practitioners. I've actually heard it discussed when I was in middle management and not part of the selection process. Two candidates apply for an internal promotion. One of them...A... is an excellent classroom practitioner. Amazing results in a core subject which high schools get judged on. Stays late, runs extra classes, really dedicated. One...B... mediocre. Gets the job done but exam results just ok. Nothing much between them at interview for the promotion which will put the successful candidate on half a teaching timetable. The discussion went like this. They could both do the job but if we promote A our exam results will take a dip whereas if we promote B it won't affect our results much. So candidate B gets a higher paid position with half the stress of classroom teaching while A gradually realises over a period of time that regardless of how her hard work brings success to the school, she is never going to be promoted here. I'm pleased to say that, in this case, realization dawned and A moved on to a new school so instead of losing her classroom talents for half the time, the school lost her skills full time. Happens a lot in teaching.

In my experience, this is a view almost universally held by those who miss out on said promotions/opportunities/career progressions.

The people who say "I'm not doing that, it's not my job", then point their fingers at the people who put extra effort in as 'kiss arses'.

People who lack the capacity to understand the wider implications of a role, who spend the majority of their time complaining that their 'face doesn't fit' when people get promoted above them.

There will always be exceptions to rules, but the vast, vast majority of people that have moved up in their careers are constantly judged on their results.

Yes. Back in my day (the 90s / naughties), they used to get moved into marketing where they couldnt do much damage or, failing that, low level sales (no key clients).

Anyone competent at admin or organisation wouldnt get promoted at all, despite doing a sterling job.

Best way to be promoted to assistant head in a school is to lead a failing department

The flip side of this is people who would be great at the job but don't have a Butlin's entertainer type personality to get through interviews. I've seen it so often - people who can talk for England and are quite loud get the job over people who are quieter but more competent.