|
Limits to Growth?
I'm going to make a heretical suggestion. I'm going to suggest that a relentless climb up the corporate career ladder into positions of ever greater responsibility, stress and remuneration may not always be the best thing for everyone in the world of supply management - or in any other field for that matter.
Many of you are probably familiar with the "Peter Principle." This is the theory - advanced by Laurence J. Peter in his book The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong - that employees tend to rise through the ranks until they reach a level at which the challenges become too much for them. This is their "Level of Incompetence," and here they will remain for the rest of their working lives.
I haven't read the book and I don't know if the theory was meant as a joke or as a serious explanation of career patterns. Probably a bit of both. It does make sense intuitively when you think about it. But I believe that the Peter Principle can be a needlessly negative way to explain why some people reach a certain point in their careers and stay there.
There are many more reasons besides plain incompetence for a climber to stop climbing. Simple corporate politics can sidetrack your rise through the ranks as effectively as anything else. Get on the wrong side of someone who has the power to move you ahead and see how fast you grind to a halt. And if you don't show the right people what you can do, perhaps because you're shy about making your accomplishments known (you can do it without becoming an egotistical jerk), you're not going to advance as quickly as you could. The career equivalent of "build it and they will come" is a non-starter. Tough world, but there it is.
Marla Goldstone deals with career-building issues like these in this month's cover story. One point Marla keeps coming back to is that you should always be completely conscious of what your goals are and where your career is.
One of the most interesting points Marla makes, however, comes right at the end of her discussion. It's an observation that doesn't get made very often. For some of us at a certain point in our working lives, she says, further advancement may no longer be the main objective. It's not that we've necessarily reached our Level of Incompetence either. Maybe we really like what we're doing. Maybe the added stress that would come with a higher salary just isn't worth it. Maybe we want that elusive 'life-work balance.'
I don't want to take anything away from those of you who've decided they want to make a grab for the brass ring. From time to time we run career-oriented articles in these pages, and advice on working well with others, spreading the word about your good deeds and the profession, and being a better manager has always been well received.
I'm just saying that the decision to take the foot off the pedal can be valid one too, for some people in some circumstances. It doesn't have to mean you're taking it easy or not concerned about doing a good job; it doesn't have to mean you've finally found a challenge that's beyond you; and it doesn't have to mean you've given up on supply management as an exciting, rewarding profession.
Why can't it just mean that you've had a look around and you happen to like being where you are? Is there something wrong with that?
Andrew Brooks
Editor
|
