卓越的 管理者 彼得德鲁克_保留成功与失败–违反管理者彼得原则

卓越的 管理者 彼得德鲁克

No matter what your position, unless perhaps you work for the post office, typically you are required to do more to earn a promotion, not just do your job long longer. The trouble is that not everyone can or will do more. Some lack the motivation, some the potential and others endurance to continually progress. For whatever reason, even if there are growth slots available, not everyone will move up and instead some will ultimately hit their career ceiling aka plateau. This concept is often described at the Peter Principle

无论您的职位是什么，除非您可能在邮局工作，否则通常您需要做更多的工作才能获得升职，而不仅仅是长时间工作。 问题在于，并非每个人都能或将做更多的事情。 有些人缺乏动力，有些人缺乏潜力，而其他人则忍受着不断进步。 无论出于什么原因，即使有可用的增长机会，也并不是每个人都会升职，而是有些人最终会达到事业顶峰，也就是高原。 彼得原理经常描述这个概念

The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their “level of incompetence”. In other words, an employee is promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another. The concept was elucidated in the 1969 book The Peter Principle by Peter and Raymond Hull. ¹

彼得原理是劳伦斯·J·彼得（Laurence J. Peter）提出的管理概念，它观察到等级制度中的人倾向于上升到“无能的水平”。 换句话说，根据以前工作的成功来晋升员工，直到达到不再胜任的水平为止，因为一项工作的技能不一定会转化为另一项技能。 这个概念在1969年由Peter and Raymond Hull撰写的《彼得原理》中得到了阐明。 ^1个

But how can we deal with the Peter Principle without the ranks of “dead enders” growing in the company?

但是，如果公司中没有“死胡同”的行列，我们如何应对彼得原则？

堆栈排名和其他非解决方案 (Stack ranks and other non-solutions)

A few years back, stack ranking, as one solution to the Peter Principle problem, was all in vogue. The thinking is that each team must have members that fit on a typical bell curve and that you can simply prune the lowest ranking member(s) and keep the human resources ecosystem healthy and over-achieving.

几年前，栈排名一直是流行的彼得原理问题的一种解决方案。 这种想法是，每个团队都必须拥有符合典型钟形曲线的成员，并且您可以简单地修剪排名最低的成员，并保持人力资源生态系统的健康和超额成就。

Problems with this approach, and particularly applying it to people just to be able to keep their jobs, are legion and, as such, already covered but some quick examples include:

这种方法存在的问题，尤其是将其应用到仅能维持工作的人们身上，已经存在很多问题，因此已经涵盖了一些问题，但一些快速示例包括：

• teams that are too small don’t have enough members for proper statistical dispersion.
  太小的团队没有足够的成员来进行适当的统计分散。
• It doesn’t consider some teams might be better, and significantly so, than other teams,
  它不认为某些团队可能比其他团队更好，而且明显如此，
• it might be considered inherently unfair to compete just to retain a job you were hired for, if you are doing it adequately.
  如果您做得足够好，那么仅仅为了保留您被雇用的工作而竞争可能是天生的不公平。

As stack ranking has fallen out of favor, what are some other things that can be considered?

随着堆栈排名逐渐失宠，还有哪些其他事情可以考虑？

并非所有分离都不好，也不是所有保留都很好 (Not all separations are bad and not all retentions are good)

As a young analyst at a Boston area investment firm, I was tasked with our VP to create an automated spreadsheet, that would determine raises for the company that year. The spreadsheet had to be based on a research study, with various calculations and formulas that took an interesting take on raises. The gist of it was to allocate an oversized percentage of raises to the over-achievers, which was supplied to the company via various inputs, to give a much smaller percentage to the average/marginal performers and to give the rest … nothing. At the time, and in this company in particular, it was a pretty radical concept, since most company would define a pretty narrow range of between 2 to 5%. Everyone got a raise, and there wasn’t much more for the best performer than from someone who was average, or even below average.

作为波士顿地区一家投资公司的年轻分析师，我被任命为副总裁，负责创建一个自动电子表格，该电子表格将决定当年该公司的收入。 该电子表格必须以一项研究为基础，并进行了各种有趣的计算和公式计算。 其要旨是将超额的加薪百分比分配给通过各种投入提供给公司的超额成就，使平均/边际绩效的百分比小得多，而其余的则什么也不给。 当时，尤其是在这家公司中，这是一个非常激进的概念，因为大多数公司会在2％到5％之间定义一个很小的范围。 每个人都有加薪，而且表现最佳的人最多的不是平均水平甚至低于平均水平的人。

The research that we were using, though, indicated a few key things. Unless you over allocated raises to the high performers you would lose a good percentage of them. Good, simply wasn’t good enough for these movers and shakers. But it got more interesting. Money given to the low performers was not only wasted, it provided a disincentive for them to quit, which would mean the company would retain these underperformers, potentially forever, or they would have to be terminated, which can get very costly (severance, litigation etc).

但是，我们正在使用的研究表明了一些关键的东西。 除非您为绩效高的人分配了过多的加薪，否则您将损失很多。 好，对于这些动子和振动器来说根本不够好。 但这变得更加有趣。 给予表现欠佳的员工的钱不仅浪费了，还给他们提供了激励，这意味着公司将永久保留这些表现不佳的员工，或者永久终止他们，这会造成非常高昂的代价（遣散费，诉讼费）等等）。

This analysis, manifest in my spreadsheet, would seek to increase retention of high performers while decreasing retention of low performers which was the sweet spot of HR managed results. This not only addressed the Peter Principle problem but add a retention kicker at your high performance end.

这种分析显示在我的电子表格中，旨在寻求提高高绩效员工的 保留率 ，同时减少低绩效员工的 保留率 ，这是人力资源管理结果的最佳体现。 这不仅解决了Peter Principle问题，而且在您的高性能端增加了保留功能。

The approach can be summarized as “You can’t ever pay your good team members too much, or your bad ones too little”

这种方法可以概括为“您永远不能付给您的好团队成员太多，或者您付给您的坏团队成员太少”

并非每个人都能晋升 (Not everyone can get promoted)

Systems that force a promotion event, will preclude people simply existing in your organization structure, if the end result is “up” or “out”.

如果最终结果是“升级”或“淘汰”，则强制进行升迁活动的系统将排除仅存在于组织结构中的人员。

A few years later I received a strange looking, oversized package from the US Army. I was a commissioned officer in the US Army Reserve and had been either active in a reserve unit or in the inactive ready reserve, intermittently over the last several years. When I opened this packet I saw it was promotion material to Captain (from my current rank as 1^st Lieutenant). Not actively assigned to a unit, working full time, kids, etc my military career in the Army reserves, wasn’t a high priority … so I pretty quickly through the entire packet away, without even responding.

几年后，我从美国陆军收到了一个看起来很奇怪的超大包裹。 我曾是美国陆军预备役的特派官，过去几年间断断续续地活跃在后备部队或不活跃的现役预备役中。 当我打开这个包，我看到它的推广材料上尉（从我目前的排名为1 ^日中尉）。 没有积极分配单位，全职工作，孩子们等，我在陆军预备役中的军事生涯并不是很重要的事情……所以我很快就把整个包裹都搬走了，甚至没有回应。

A few years pass again and I get another packet, with the same results.

又过了几年，我又得到了另一个包装，结果也一样。

With each year, I heard less and less from the Army until suddenly I became the object of significant attention, with increasingly threatening letters, phone calls etc demanding that I contact some personnel office. This coincided with the need to staff up the war in Iraq. Just when I figured my gig was up and Uncle Sam was going to ship me overseas, I got one more letter from the Army. Opening it with dread, then confusion, I noticed it was my honorable discharge.

每年，我听到陆军的声音越来越少，直到突然间，我成为了备受关注的对象，越来越多的威胁，信件，电话等要求我联系一些人事办公室。 这恰逢需要加紧伊拉克战争。 就在我发现演出结束并且山姆大叔要把我运送到国外时，我又收到了陆军的一封信。 恐惧地打开它，然后感到困惑，我注意到这是我的荣幸。

It was typical in the military for the left hand to not know what the right hand was doing, but this seemed particularly strange. Why was the Army working so hard to pull me back in and at the same time discharging me?

在军队中，左手通常不知道右手在做什么，但这似乎特别奇怪。 为什么陆军如此努力地将我拉回并同时将我解雇？

Armed with my discharge, I had the confidence to call my tormentors back and tell them that, unless the US re-instituted the draft, they’d be unlikely to ship me to a warzone, as I was a civilian (and not to mention would have been the world’s oldest platoon leader had they done so).

武装解除后，我有信心将折磨者召回并告诉他们，除非美国重新提出草案，否则他们不太可能将我运送到战区，因为我是平民（更不用说了如果这样做的话，那将是世界上最古老的排长）。

To be honest, I was so relieved that I quickly put the whole thing behind me without much thought. It was only years later that I began to dig into these circumstances. Why was I discharged? Even though I had no assigned unit and wasn’t actively drilling in the Reserves, I still had over 10 years of obligations (from scholarships and bonuses I had taken in exchange for service time I would be obligated to). Why was the Army going to just throw that away?

老实说，我感到很放心，以至于我很快就把整个事情抛在脑后了。 仅仅几年后，我才开始研究这些情况。 我怎么出院了 即使我没有分配的单位，也没有积极地在预备役中进行钻探，但我仍然有超过10年的义务（来自为交换服务时间而必须获得的奖学金和奖金）。 陆军为什么要把它扔掉？

It turns out that, when you are passed over for promotion twice in the US military, you are automatically discharged. Those promotion packets that had found their way to the bottom of my trash can, had turned into my proverbial get out of jail cards. But why was the system set up like that?

事实证明，当您两次被美国陆军晋升时，您将自动出院。 那些已经到达我的垃圾桶底部的促销包，变成了我众所周知的从监狱卡中走出来的信息。 但是为什么要这样设置系统？

It seems obvious, when I began to think about it. A Captain leads a company. In the infantry this is typically 250 or so people and 4 platoons. Each platoon is run by a Lieutenant, platoon leader. So only one Lieutenant can make it to Captain. 1 or 2 might drop out when their tour is done, but others might want to progress in their military career, but bolo out, as I did. For every for Captains, each running a company in a typical infantry battalion ², there is a Lieutenant Colonel, who runs the battalion. So a captain has a 1 in 4 chance of ever becoming a Lt. Colonel. And so on and so on, up to 4-star general. There simply is no room in the organization hierarchy to promote more than a small percentage of potential candidates, let alone all of them

当我开始考虑时，这似乎很明显。 队长领导一家公司。 在步兵中，通常是250人左右和4个排。 每个排均由排中尉领导。 因此，只有一名中尉可以晋升为上尉。 巡回演出结束后可能会退出1或2，但是其他人可能想在军事生涯中取得进步，但是像我一样放弃。 对于每位上尉，每位在典型的步兵营^2中连任的公司，都有一个中校，由他任职。 因此，上尉有四分之一的机会成为上校。 依此类推，最多可达4星级。 在组织层次结构中，根本没有晋升空间的空间超过一小部分潜在候选人，更不用说所有这些候选人了

This simple but effective process illustrates the typical promotion trajectory of personnel. Everyone has a time-limit to achieve a promotion, but if they fail on successive occasions, they are terminated. This is the “up” or “out” approach

这个简单而有效的过程说明了人员的典型晋升轨迹。 每个人都有晋升的时间限制，但是如果他们连续失败，就会被终止。 这是“向上”或“向外”的方法

保留误解和谬误 (Retention misconceptions and fallacies)

Retention is one of the least understood facets of human resources. We get recruiting and hiring (or at least we should), we get promotions. We get firing and even layoffs. But retention is sort of the taboo subject of many companies, especially if a positive retention outcome is a necessary and planned separation. But team members themselves are the ones most likely to misunderstand the goals and objectives of retention in a company

保留是对人力资源了解最少的方面之一。 我们得到招聘和雇用（或者至少应该这样做），得到晋升。 我们被解雇，甚至裁员。 但是，保留是许多公司的禁忌话题，特别是如果积极的保留结果是必要且有计划的分离的话。 但是团队成员本身是最容易误解保留公司的目的和目标的人

One problem is that many people cling to outdated notions from bygone eras where you were essentially employed for life e.g. IBM in the 60’s. Even though, logically, we understand that this economy no longer exists anymore (at least in the US) we still cling to these fanciful notions of lifelong employment and security, especially if we get too firmly ensconced in a comfort zone. These notions cloud our ability to understand the competitive nature for continued development in any organization and convince us that we don’t need to continually improve, in some cases just to retain our job/position, let alone get promoted.

一个问题是，许多人都坚持过往时代的过时观念，在这些时代中，您实际上是终身受雇的人，例如60年代的IBM。 即使从逻辑上讲，我们了解到这种经济已经不复存在了（至少在美国如此），我们仍然坚持这些终生就业和安全的幻想，尤其是如果我们在一个舒适区过分稳固地陷入困境时。 这些观念使我们无法理解任何组织中持续发展的竞争性质，并说服我们不需要持续改进，在某些情况下只是为了保留我们的工作/职位，更不用说晋升了。

Fallacy #1 – Everyone is good and has the potential to succeed, they just need to be managed properly

谬论＃1 –每个人都是好人，有成功的潜力，只需要对他们进行适当的管理

Unfortunately, the real world isn’t Lake Wobegon, and not everyone is “above average”. People’s performance, potential and results generally sit quite neatly on a typical bell curve. So unless your company can accommodate people who perform below the mean level of performance you most likely have people in your organization who won’t be successful

不幸的是，现实世界不是沃比贡湖，并不是每个人都“高于平均水平”。 人们的表现，潜力和成果通常都整齐地排列在典型的钟形曲线上。 因此，除非您的公司能够容纳绩效低于平均水平的人员，否则您的组织中很可能会有无法成功的人员

Fallacy #2 – It is HR’s job to find perfect employees and once recruited, it is assumed, by definition that they have the potential for success

谬论＃2 –寻找完美的员工是人力资源的工作，一旦被录用，就定义而言，假设他们具有成功的潜力

It would be nice, but HR is an incredibly imperfect science and there will be hits and unfortunately some misses. Even the best HR department can hire people who don’t have the potential and/or inclination to succeed in an organization.

很好，但是人力资源学是一门非常不完善的科学，并且会遇到一些打击，但不幸的是会错过一些机会。 即使是最好的人事部门，也可以雇用没有潜力和/或没有意愿在组织中成功的人。

Fallacy #3 – Because I’m good at my current level, it means that, by default, I’ll be good at the next level.

谬论3 –因为我擅长于当前水平，所以默认情况下，我会擅长于下一水平。

Most careers have a built in cap, that unless we adjust with continuous learning and skills development, will eventually cap out career growth. You may progress through various levels until you hit your ceiling but hit it you will, if you don’t work to push that ceiling up. And meeting the requirements at one level, does not entitle or guarantee you to move to the next. You might be an excellent Level I, an average Level II but not ever be qualified to be a Level III. In such an example, your effective ceiling is Level II. Unless you invest to move your upper career parameter higher by training, growth, professional improvement, that is likely the peak level of your career.

大多数职业都有固定的上限，除非我们通过不断学习和技能发展进行调整，否则最终将限制职业的发展。 如果您不努力提高上限，则可以逐步达到各个级别，直到达到上限为止。 并且在一个级别上满足要求并不能保证或保证您升级到下一个级别。 您可能是出色的I级，平均是II级，但从未有资格成为III级。 在这样的示例中，您的有效上限为II级。 除非您投资通过培训，成长，职业发展来提高您的职业上限，否则这很可能是您职业生涯的顶峰时期。

Fallacy #4 – It is the company’s responsibility that an employee is successful

谬论＃4 –员工成功是公司的责任

No, a company has three main responsibilities, in order to recruit and retain staff effectively

否，公司有三项主要职责，以便有效地招聘和留住员工

1. It must provide hires with the opportunity to succeed

   它必须为员工提供成功的机会

   This means that they aren’t put in no win situations, in failing teams or projects, teams with bad management, no direction etc. It doesn’t mean that they should require a perfect environment with no challenges, but the challenges shouldn’t be so numerous as to deny the new hire the opportunity, combined with hard work and focus, to succeed.

   这意味着他们不会处于失败的局面，失败的团队或项目，管理不善，没有方向的团队等。这并不意味着他们应该要求一个没有挑战的完美环境，但是挑战不应该如此之多，以至于剥夺了新员工的机会，加上辛勤的工作和专注的心，成功了。

2. It must provide training, help, mentoring and other resources, as needed to facilitate success and mitigate failure

   它必须根据需要提供培训，帮助，指导和其他资源，以促进成功和减少失败

3. It must recognize performance and focus retention efforts on team members with the highest potential value/impact to the company

   它必须认可绩效并将保留工作集中在对公司具有最大潜在价值/影响的团队成员上

   Once hired, trained and developed, a company owes the team member consistent feedback and reward commensurate with progress and maturation.

   一旦被雇用，培训和发展，公司就应向团队成员提供一致的反馈，并根据进步和成熟程度给予相应的奖励。

Fallacy #5 – I have n years of experience and with each year I get more valuable as a human resources

谬论＃5 –我有n年的经验，并且每年我作为人力资源都变得更有价值

You do only have n years’ experience if that experience built on itself by learning and growing, otherwise you simply have 1 year repeated n times.

如果您的经验是通过学习和成长而建立的，那么您只有n年的经验，否则，您只需重复1年n次。

结论 (Conclusion)

Most employees look at their job as an opportunity for advancement and growth and only see it from that perspective. But keep in mind that your organization is also looking at you, in turn, with the expectation that you will continue to improve and make a bigger impact and contribution each year. Don’t underestimate the increased expectations your employer will have for you, even if you are doing the same job. Failing to do so, could lead to a scenario where you may have outstayed your welcome in a particular position, Peter Principled, or missed an opportunity to position yourself for advancement.

大多数员工将他们的工作视为进步和增长的机会，仅从这个角度来看。 但是请记住，您的组织也在反过来看着您，期望您会继续改善并每年产生更大的影响和贡献。 即使您从事相同的工作，也不要低估您的雇主对您的期望增加。 否则，可能会导致您在某个特定职位上失去了欢迎，Peter Principled，或者错过了提升自己的机会。

Instead proactively understand your company’s/manager’s expectations, and then meet, or ideally exceed them. Hopefully, your employer will recognize your efforts and contributions and validate your progress, thus ensuring a retention success, for both sides of the equation

取而代之的是主动了解您公司/经理的期望，然后达到或理想地超出它们。 希望您的雇主会认可您的努力和贡献并验证您的进度，从而确保成功

¹ Petar principal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

^1位 Petar校长https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

² We are skipping 1^st Lieutenant and Major executive officers for Companies and Battalions respectively

²我们跳过1 ^日中尉和主要执行官为公司和营分别

翻译自: https://www.sqlshack.com/retention-successes-and-failures-combatting-the-peter-principle-for-managers/

卓越的 管理者 彼得德鲁克