The Peter Principle revisited

The Peter Principle: people will tend to be promoted until they reach their "position of incompetence." Laurence J. Peter.

I've been thinking about the Peter Principle* a lot this spring. It's the time of year many in education start looking for greener career pastures.

When most people think about the Peter Principle it is as an explanation for why people are not good at their jobs. I've never been a total believer in Peter Principle, working with many people who know themselves, appreciate their personal skill sets, and strive to do the best job possible rather than climb a career level until they find themselves unable to perform well. I'd put most classroom teachers and librarians in this category - they like what they do, feel competent doing it, and know they are making a difference in the world. 

What I am bedeviled with are those wonderful people with whom I work who are career climbers and who have not yet reached their level of incompetence. These are younger, early or mid-career people who do great work at their current position and are looking for more responsibility, more challenge, and possibly more prestige, if not better pay.

As a supervisor and faithful district employee, I should be doing everything in my power to keep these folks where they are because they benefit the district. In creating a positive, flexible work environment, not micro-managing, and empowering whenever possible, I am proactive in this regard. 

But I also recognize that in an organization/department of our size, career paths are rather stunted. If a person wants more responsibility and greater remuneration, he/she will probably have to move elsewhere. I've long come to accept that we are sort of a farm team for bigger schools and even the private sector in producing good tech people. 

So when people in my department talk to me about other positions they've applied for, my question is always: "Will this new job offer you the opportunity to stretch, to grow, to be challenged?" and remind them that one has to make a hell of a lot more money to see much difference in the individual paycheck. If the job is bigger than the one they have, I'll do what I can to help them get it.

Doesn't everyone deserve the chance to rise to the level of their incompetence?

Any tips for keeping career climbers when you can't offer more pay or a lot more responsibility?

*The 1969 book The Peter Principle is now available as an e-book. I am going to re-read it. 

See also:

Career Evolution

Peter's Laws (The Creed of the Sociopathic Obsessive Compulsive)

Personalized PD for teachers?

 At a regional tech meeting yesterday, we discussed the Personalized PD graphic below, asking ourselves and each other what percent of our staff have "personalized" their own learning. The numbers were not encouraging. (We are an amazingly honest group, very will to share our challenges and failures, as well as our successes.)

https://www.edsurge.com/guide/how-teachers-are-learning-professional-development-remix

My comment during the meeting was that it is unlikely that schools will move to a personalized PD model for staff. School culture traditionally gives the organization, not the individual, responsibility for staff training. Schools have common goals for all staff and discourage independent initiatives, and therefore prescribe a standard set of skills and knowledge for all teachers. And given the overburdened schedules of most teachers, the likelihood of finding time to pursue personal learning experiences is low.

But after the meeting I reviewed Barbara Bray and Kathleen McClaskey's excellent chart that defines personalized learning:

http://www.personalizelearning.com/2013/03/new-personalization-vs-differentiation.html

 

And here is what I came away with...  We should try to move this mountain and change the culture of professional development, even knowing the odds. 

The de-professionalizing of teaching is already too common through mandated curriculum, teaching methods, and "best practices." Teachers are not trusted and are undervalued. And how can we expect teachers to move toward personalizing education for their own students if they themselves are not given the experience of learning in that fashion?

But perhaps the biggest reason we should move to personalized PD is that it shows we truly value teachers as human beings and unique individuals deserving of respect.

Can you think of a better reason for trying to move a mountain?

____________________________

Here's a description of an earlier attempt our district made to personal PD - even before it was defined as such:

 

Now That You Know the Basics - Rubrics to Guide Professional Development 
Part 1, Leading & Learning with Technology, Dec/Jan 2000-01
Part 2, Leading & Learning with Technology, Feb/Mar 2001

Do you lead with your heart or your head?

Edmund Burke once wrote, “The true lawgiver ought to have a heart full of sensibility. He ought to love and respect his kind, and to fear himself.” Burke was emphasizing that leadership is a passionate activity. It begins with a warm gratitude toward that which you have inherited and a fervent wish to steward it well. It is propelled by an ardent moral imagination, a vision of a good society that can’t be realized in one lifetime. It is informed by seasoned affections, a love of the way certain people concretely are and a desire to give all a chance to live at their highest level.

This kind of leader is warm-blooded and leads with full humanity. In every White House, and in many private offices, there seems to be a tug of war between those who want to express this messy amateur humanism and those calculators who emphasize message discipline, preventing leaks and maximum control. In most of the offices, there’s a fear of natural messiness, a fear of uncertainty, a distrust of that which is not scientific. The calculators are given too much control.

The leadership emotions, which should propel things, get amputated. The shrewd tacticians end up timidly and defensively running the expedition. David Brooks "The Leadership Emotions," NYT, April 21, 2014

It's rare in day-to-day school operations when you see an adult speak with passion about a deeply-held belief.

Yes, emotions are often seen in schools - but too often they are fear, sadness, or anger. And we certainly discourage kids expressing these emotions and behave as good little robots whenever possible. Teachers are expected to model this. Acting from the heart gets a bad rap.

And I would say that the higher up the leadership level in a school, the less likely leadership from the heart occurs - at least visibly.  I often come away from meetings feeling somewhat embarrassed because I get passionate about ideas and philosophies and policies - either yea or nay - and showed this through public comment. With most of the administration in the district being more my children's age than my own, I'm quite sure I'm written off a senile crank. And I recognize that being eligible for retirement without enormous personal financial risk and not having to worry anymore about climbing any professional ladders allows me to be brave. 

Dispassionate decision-making is a dangerous virtue, as Brooks suggests. Especially so in education. 

At your next meeting speak out, just once, from the heart. The feeling embarrassment passes.

Eventually.