Financial Times

Do you think you are suited for your job?
By Nilooka Dissanayake
How suited are you for your job? If you are in business, how suited are you for that business? Treat not this question lightly. If the answer is no, the implications are serious: you and your organization and business are just like everyone else's. If your answer is yes, you still need to watch out.

Have you heard of the Peter Principle? It simply says that in a hierarchy-like your office or business - every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. It does not end there. We can add two corollaries to the Peter Principle. That is, in time every post will be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties. It may also mean that all the work is accomplished by those who are yet to reach their level of incompetence.

I do not intend to argue whether or not there's any truth in the Peter Principle and its discomforting corollaries. Instead, let us see how far all this is applicable to us as employees, managers, professionals, entrepreneurs or business people. Recently, I came across an article that really made me sit up. In my career, spanning now over a decade, and the varied fields of accounting, consultancy, management, entrepreneurship and journalism I have not come across such a useful and thought provoking article.

Each question in it is a mine waiting to blow up your delusions about yourself. Each question leads you to rethink everything that you do. I recommend it as regular reading for all managers regardless of the level. It is a must for entrepreneurs. For an entrepreneur, the risks of incompetence are higher and consequences more dangerous.

Titled "Self Study Questions for Managers," and included in Experiential Organizational Behaviour by Theodore T. Herbert and Peter Lorenzi, this piece touches on all aspects of how you work, react and communicate. While not the object of the authors, it can help you determine whether you are really competent or whether you are merely a result of the Freeman's Rule.

Never heard of that before? Well, it states that 'circumstances can force a generalized incompetent person - that could be you - to become competent at least in a specialized field.' This may end up giving you and everyone else a false sense of your competence. It can also tell you very clearly if you are a believer in Parkinson's Fifth Law which says that 'if there is a way to delay an important decision, the good bureaucracy, public or private, will find it'.

And if you are in business or dreaming of it, you are more in danger. Why? Because you promoted yourself to the top; or your family did. You may have reached your own level of incompetence in one short sweep without the whole process it takes for a mere employee to reach his or her level of incompetence. Scary, don't you think?

Those in high positions also need to remember the Match's Maxim: 'A fool in a high station is like a man on the top of a high mountain; everything appears small to him and he appears small to everybody'. Also, remember the Imhoff's Law: 'The organization of any bureaucracy is very much like a septic tank - the really big chunks always rise to the top'. Before we get onto the questions that will - if you have a conscience - keep you awake tonight, there's one more thing. Make sure you do not fall prey to Cornuelle's Law. It says that: 'Authority tends to assign jobs to those least able to do them'.

Now for the questions. Here is just a random sample of the questions. In what areas is my knowledge weakest? Do I keep too much information to myself because dissemination of it is time consuming or inconvenient? Do I tend to act before information is in? Or do I wait so long for all the information that opportunities pass me by and I become a bottleneck in my organization?

Am I sufficiently well informed to pass judgment on the proposals that my subordinates make? Is it possible to leave final authorization for more of the proposals with subordinates?

What is my vision of direction for this organization? Are these plans primarily in my own mind in loose form? Should I make them explicit in order to guide the decisions of others in the organization better?

How do my subordinates react to my managerial style? Am I sufficiently sensitive to the powerful influence my actions have on them? Do I fully understand their reactions to my action? Do I find an appropriate balance between encouragement and pressure? Do I stifle their initiative?

Is there any system to my time scheduling, or am I just reacting to the pressures of the moment? Do I find the appropriate mix of activities, or do I tend to concentrate on one particular function or one type of problem just because I find it interesting? Am I more efficient with particular kinds of work at special times of the day or week?

Does my schedule reflect this? Do key problems receive the attention they deserve? Should I spend more time reading and probing deeply into certain issues? Could I be more reflective? Should I be?

Am I too detached from the heart of my organization's activities, seeing things only in an abstract way? If you have any comments or wish to receive all the questions by email, you can contact on ft@sundaytimes.wnl.lk or on 075-552524
The writer is the Managing Editor of Athwela Vyaparika Sangarawa (Athwela Business Journal), the only Sinhala management monthly targeting the small and medium enterprises and its English version, Small Business International magazine.

Back to Business