Companies systematically bring less qualified employees to managerial positions. The reason they do this is to minimize the damage employees can cause to the company. These types of people have personalities who do not want to do real and workable things.
Two economists, George Akerlof and Pascal Michaillat, decided to work on understanding the basics of getting promoted in the business world. For them, most of the promotions can be explained in terms of same-sex and xenophobia. This is also called insect syndrome. In other words, when promotions are made, managers generally attach importance to similarity and tend to reject differences.
This logic actually explains why women are less involved in the business world. Insect syndrome causes managers to promote employees who resemble them and therefore adopt a negative attitude especially towards the opposite sex.
An incompetent software developer is promoted to allow more skilled and high-capacity software developers around him to work comfortably. This new manager spends the whole day attending non-essential meetings. In the meantime, employees doing the main work continue to produce on the subjects they need in line with the company's goals.
On the other hand, in a situation where it has little to do with the real world, it becomes even more difficult for one to empathize and participate in "common problems faced daily". Also, from a different perspective, it is much easier to quarrel with a person because he or she does not do anything or does not do the things they do correctly.
So if you are really good at your job, then are you less likely to be promoted? Will your talents and achievements be an obstacle to your professional career?
People working around the table
Dilbert's Principle: The Origin of the Concept
The Dilbert Principle is actually based on another concept: the Peter Principle. This principle is based on the rationale that people who do their job well get promoted. This process suggests that employees continue until they are no longer inadequate in the position they work in, that is, until they have no more potential to give more.
However, the Dilbert Principle argues the opposite. That is, it suggests that inadequate employees are deliberately promoted to avoid damage to truly important and sensitive positions.
How Are Promotions Given?
Promotions are given this way, according to Adams, the author of the book, because the top management positions have extremely low relevance to the company's products. In a company managed by the Dilbert Principle, people with less competence are systematically assigned to positions where they can cause the least harm, that is, executive positions.
According to Peter Principle, an incompetent manager is a sufficient person in his previous role. The Dilbert Principle advocates an opposite point of view. In other words, leaders are the people who have the worst performance among their colleagues in their previous positions. If they do not understand technology and lack common sense, it would be wise to put them in positions where their incompetence would not harm the company. These types of positions are usually at the management and administrative levels.
Statistical Approach to Promotion at Work
Many economists see the concept of luck as the most valid reason for good business performance. Of course, no one should be surprised at how important the luck factor plays. Unlike the material world where the laws of physics and mathematics make it possible to predict events with a controlled margin of error, it is not that easy to program or predict human behavior.
Being comfortable and haphazard in the business world actually benefits many issues to be organized. Factors such as closeness between colleagues or an employee getting used to the city they have just moved to are extremely difficult to calculate and predict.
Although it has brought a satirical and critical approach to human resources preferences and practices, it has become one of the must-read books in many business organizations since its release. To what extent do you think this logical and surprising approach is valid in real life?
On the other hand, is it possible to say that the highest positions have less weight and effectiveness than lower positions in a company with an organizational structure as part of a common belief? Perhaps the answers to this question vary according to many different factors. Therefore, it would be quite difficult to say that the Dilbert Principle is a viable system.