Excellent read! This is one of the few mistakes I have made multiple times and finally learned from. We do it because it's easiest at the time and we are comfortable with the person. We need someone in the role, they are doing well in their role and have "potential". The end result is I set them up for failure and that's exactly what happened.
Great post and I totally agree. I'm all for providing stretch goals and training opportunities but there are many areas to master for most roles.
For example, a team member may be incredible at the technical side of the job, but their interpersonal skills may be appalling. Better to consider everything that's required and get all skills up to at least a competent level.
Allowing potential leaders to succeed with challenging assignments or stretch goals is a wise choice. If you as the leader or your team member haven't explored their 'zone of genius', you want to explore a project with them before moving them up the ladder with key responsibilities they aren't suited for.
Great case for trial leadership opportunities. Before formally promoting someone, give them a leadership role on a complex project. Watch how they handle increased responsibility without fully locking them into the position.
This is great advice. To help people grow, they have to be in situations they are not familiar with, which is generally uncomfortable. It might lead to failure, but it's to ensure they are best equipped for the future.
Does management not have men and women among the ranks who are living examples of the Peter Principle (Peter. 1969)?
Most competent and respected team members (I know of) remain in that position. They want nothing to do with the politics and the BS involved in management.
Great content and truly valid points! Stretch assignments along with challenging delegation can not only help leaders vet out potential successors but also gauge readiness. I have also noticed that on occasion leaders are resistant to this exposure due to their own perfectionism. I actually wrote something on this a few weeks ago, would love your take on this!
Stretching people via projects and assignments - such leadership pushes can affect relationships too -- for the good, or otherwise, depending on outcomes.
Great points on the difference between the risks of failing at a stretch assignment (minimal) and failing to meet the expectations of a role (potentially devastating). As a manager, I've found it can be challenging to walk the line of giving stretch assignments but not take advantage of someone who really should be promoted but is taking on extra work routinely. I've mostly tackled this with time-constrained stretch assignments for early career individuals: "you expressed interest in learning more about how we budget, so I'm going to have you model out how our monthly costs change if we get 2x the amount of traffic" is a true stretch assignment vs. an ongoing expansion of responsibilities. For more senior leaders, longer term stretch goals keep us all improving as a team and keep everyone growing toward their next role.
Excellent read! This is one of the few mistakes I have made multiple times and finally learned from. We do it because it's easiest at the time and we are comfortable with the person. We need someone in the role, they are doing well in their role and have "potential". The end result is I set them up for failure and that's exactly what happened.
Thanks for sharing, Mike. Sorry to hear your experience, glad you saw your way through it.
Great post and I totally agree. I'm all for providing stretch goals and training opportunities but there are many areas to master for most roles.
For example, a team member may be incredible at the technical side of the job, but their interpersonal skills may be appalling. Better to consider everything that's required and get all skills up to at least a competent level.
Allowing potential leaders to succeed with challenging assignments or stretch goals is a wise choice. If you as the leader or your team member haven't explored their 'zone of genius', you want to explore a project with them before moving them up the ladder with key responsibilities they aren't suited for.
Hi Darlene. Is “zone of genius” related to an author’s work somewhere? Interested in it if that might be why you placed it in quotes.
Yes, the work of Gay Hendricks.
Great case for trial leadership opportunities. Before formally promoting someone, give them a leadership role on a complex project. Watch how they handle increased responsibility without fully locking them into the position.
This is great advice. To help people grow, they have to be in situations they are not familiar with, which is generally uncomfortable. It might lead to failure, but it's to ensure they are best equipped for the future.
Good morning,
Solid post.
I do put forth an inquiry:
What about these "leaders"?
Does management not have men and women among the ranks who are living examples of the Peter Principle (Peter. 1969)?
Most competent and respected team members (I know of) remain in that position. They want nothing to do with the politics and the BS involved in management.
I look forward to hearing your feedback.
Thank you for your time.
Most would remain simply because of the numbers.
It wouldn't necessarily be evidence that most intentionally opt out.
Great content and truly valid points! Stretch assignments along with challenging delegation can not only help leaders vet out potential successors but also gauge readiness. I have also noticed that on occasion leaders are resistant to this exposure due to their own perfectionism. I actually wrote something on this a few weeks ago, would love your take on this!
Stretching people via projects and assignments - such leadership pushes can affect relationships too -- for the good, or otherwise, depending on outcomes.
Does the success of the assignment need to be based on it's outcome?
It does not. The perspective of the person(s) involved can certainly be variables.
Great points on the difference between the risks of failing at a stretch assignment (minimal) and failing to meet the expectations of a role (potentially devastating). As a manager, I've found it can be challenging to walk the line of giving stretch assignments but not take advantage of someone who really should be promoted but is taking on extra work routinely. I've mostly tackled this with time-constrained stretch assignments for early career individuals: "you expressed interest in learning more about how we budget, so I'm going to have you model out how our monthly costs change if we get 2x the amount of traffic" is a true stretch assignment vs. an ongoing expansion of responsibilities. For more senior leaders, longer term stretch goals keep us all improving as a team and keep everyone growing toward their next role.
True, The "Peter Principle" will come into effect:
It says people get promoted because they did a good job, to a new job where a new skill set is required. They may not have that skillet.
Hence their level of incompetence is not really incompetence, but inappropriate skill for the new job.
So to get rid of this
Satirically it says people are generally promoted to their level of incompetence.
So it is vital that organisations offer some training in areas of lack to such promoted individuals immediatetly!