Jump to content
Crinklyfox

The Peter Principle

Recommended Posts

The Peter Principle states that in any hierarchy an employee reaches their level of maximum incompetency. Which means if an employee does a job well they are promoted, if they do that job well they are promoted again, and so on until they are promoted into a job they can't do, and there they stay.

In football this applies to both players and managers. A player who has performed well in the Championship may not perform well in the Premier League as the additional requirements are too much for them. Similarly, a manager who has performed well in the Championship may find that they don't have the necessary skills to perform in the PL.

From the performances I've seen this season we have too many players who haven't made the step up to the PL. NP gave them their chance, and either they've not adapted yet or they never will. The manager is a more difficult situation to comment on as I don't know what budgetary restrictions were imposed in the summer, and I don't want to turn this into another 'Pearson out' thread.

I am retired now but spent a good portion of my working life in management positions. I state that only to support my belief that it is sometimes difficult to tell if a person will be able to perform at a higher level to the position they occupy. Whilst many individuals in my teams showing promise did make the step up, there were cases where they couldn't handle the additional responsibilities or duties and had to be re-assigned to other positions.

In each case I was responsible for the performance of the individuals; in the same way NP bears the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the team, and for his performance as manager.

I hope to be proved wrong but I do not expect a turn round in our current fortunes based on the abilities demonstrated so far this season. I am bitterly disappointed at this as I felt that we came into this season in a better structural and team position for many years. Nevertheless, we must have one eye on the future, and the owners must make the right decisions to lead the club forward. There is little alternative in my view but to put in place a manager and a team either immediately capable, or capable of developing on a fairly short learning curve, into a group with Premier League quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Peter Principle states that in any hierarchy an employee reaches their level of maximum incompetency. Which means if an employee does a job well they are promoted, if they do that job well they are promoted again, and so on until they are promoted into a job they can't do, and there they stay.

In football this applies to both players and managers. A player who has performed well in the Championship may not perform well in the Premier League as the additional requirements are too much for them. Similarly, a manager who has performed well in the Championship may find that they don't have the necessary skills to perform in the PL.

From the performances I've seen this season we have too many players who haven't made the step up to the PL. NP gave them their chance, and either they've not adapted yet or they never will. The manager is a more difficult situation to comment on as I don't know what budgetary restrictions were imposed in the summer, and I don't want to turn this into another 'Pearson out' thread.

I am retired now but spent a good portion of my working life in management positions. I state that only to support my belief that it is sometimes difficult to tell if a person will be able to perform at a higher level to the position they occupy. Whilst many individuals in my teams showing promise did make the step up, there were cases where they couldn't handle the additional responsibilities or duties and had to be re-assigned to other positions.

In each case I was responsible for the performance of the individuals; in the same way NP bears the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the team, and for his performance as manager.

I hope to be proved wrong but I do not expect a turn round in our current fortunes based on the abilities demonstrated so far this season. I am bitterly disappointed at this as I felt that we came into this season in a better structural and team position for many years. Nevertheless, we must have one eye on the future, and the owners must make the right decisions to lead the club forward. There is little alternative in my view but to put in place a manager and a team either immediately capable, or capable of developing on a fairly short learning curve, into a group with Premier League quality.

 

The Peter Principle states that in any hierarchy an employee reaches their level of maximum incompetency. Which means if an employee does a job well they are promoted, if they do that job well they are promoted again, and so on until they are promoted into a job they can't do, and there they stay.

In football this applies to both players and managers. A player who has performed well in the Championship may not perform well in the Premier League as the additional requirements are too much for them. Similarly, a manager who has performed well in the Championship may find that they don't have the necessary skills to perform in the PL.

From the performances I've seen this season we have too many players who haven't made the step up to the PL. NP gave them their chance, and either they've not adapted yet or they never will. The manager is a more difficult situation to comment on as I don't know what budgetary restrictions were imposed in the summer, and I don't want to turn this into another 'Pearson out' thread.

I am retired now but spent a good portion of my working life in management positions. I state that only to support my belief that it is sometimes difficult to tell if a person will be able to perform at a higher level to the position they occupy. Whilst many individuals in my teams showing promise did make the step up, there were cases where they couldn't handle the additional responsibilities or duties and had to be re-assigned to other positions.

In each case I was responsible for the performance of the individuals; in the same way NP bears the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the team, and for his performance as manager.

I hope to be proved wrong but I do not expect a turn round in our current fortunes based on the abilities demonstrated so far this season. I am bitterly disappointed at this as I felt that we came into this season in a better structural and team position for many years. Nevertheless, we must have one eye on the future, and the owners must make the right decisions to lead the club forward. There is little alternative in my view but to put in place a manager and a team either immediately capable, or capable of developing on a fairly short learning curve, into a group with Premier League quality.

The buck stops with the manager, after every setback he regurgitates the same mantras and highlights the same problems, then proceeds not to rectify them... what conclusions are we all to draw from this pattern?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The buck stops with the manager, after every setback he regurgitates the same mantras and highlights the same problems, then proceeds not to rectify them... what conclusions are we all to draw from this pattern?

A fair question. I believe that he is sticking to the principle 'Praise in public, criticise in private'. If he came out and said that the team weren't good for the Premier League enough the press would have a field day and the players confidence would drop. So he comes out with the mantras. As for not rectifying the mistakes, either he doesn't recognise them, or ignores them, or hasn't been able to rectify them, none of which bode well.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A fair question. I believe that he is sticking to the principle 'Praise in public, criticise in private'. If he came out and said that the team weren't good for the Premier League enough the press would have a field day and the players confidence would drop. So he comes out with the mantras. As for not rectifying the mistakes, either he doesn't recognise them, or ignores them, or hasn't been able to rectify them, none of which bode well.

Iv'e heard it before from other ex players..after a while when the things they are being instructed to do don't work they stop listening .. the most worrying thing yesterday was there was more then enough experience on the pitch to have sorted the thing out ...it didn't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of fans on here were calling for him to retain the Arsenal formation. (5 at the back).

 

You can argue that we should have been bolder against a team with such a poor goal scoring record, and, like many people I can't understand not using Albrighton.

 

I'm more concerned with our psychological attitude to games like this. We seem to 'turn-up' against the big teams and not so against the Burnley's, Crystal palace's Stoke etc.

 

The first goal was always going to be of major importance... Had James scored????

 

As there is no Manager available at the moment to bring in - I believe we should stick with Pearson and allow him to evolve with the best of his players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As there is no Manager available at the moment to bring in - I believe we should stick with Pearson and allow him to evolve with the best of his players.

But he consistently refuses to use them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to remember City recently sacked the person who 'allegedly' failed to bring big/new names in during summer.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30471366

 

Perhaps this is more a case of Nigel didn't have as much choice as everyone thinks? Budget was clearly available to some extent, but it's not like our Thai owners are quite as aggressively ambitious as say Roman Abramovich, nor is our club situated in the posh end of a major capital city. Our degree of difficulty attracting talent is harder.

 

@crinklyfox you know very well how all employees always fall into [ CAN | CAN'T ] [ WILL | WON'T] categories. The perfect employee CAN and WILL. You sack people who CAN'T and WON'T. But people that WILL but CAN'T are often just victims of the Peter Principle... Employees you are sometimes endeared too because they try SO hard. The problem here is getting rid of well loved team players can upset everyone else. I think Pearson has a few of his players in the latter camp but he is clearly not the type of Manager who will publicly shame them even by sending them out on loan. He's trying to keep a team together the best he can and deal with the hand he has.

 

In terms of team selection and strategy, maybe he could do better, maybe not. But I think he's done a good job as an employer of a bunch of people regardless of the talent situation. Many other managers would have a mutiny on their hands. Unlike us employers in an open market, his options around dealing with the Peter Principle once a season starts are very limited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Peter Principle states that in any hierarchy an employee reaches their level of maximum incompetency. Which means if an employee does a job well they are promoted, if they do that job well they are promoted again, and so on until they are promoted into a job they can't do, and there they stay.

In football this applies to both players and managers. A player who has performed well in the Championship may not perform well in the Premier League as the additional requirements are too much for them. Similarly, a manager who has performed well in the Championship may find that they don't have the necessary skills to perform in the PL.

From the performances I've seen this season we have too many players who haven't made the step up to the PL. NP gave them their chance, and either they've not adapted yet or they never will. The manager is a more difficult situation to comment on as I don't know what budgetary restrictions were imposed in the summer, and I don't want to turn this into another 'Pearson out' thread.

I am retired now but spent a good portion of my working life in management positions. I state that only to support my belief that it is sometimes difficult to tell if a person will be able to perform at a higher level to the position they occupy. Whilst many individuals in my teams showing promise did make the step up, there were cases where they couldn't handle the additional responsibilities or duties and had to be re-assigned to other positions.

In each case I was responsible for the performance of the individuals; in the same way NP bears the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the team, and for his performance as manager.

I hope to be proved wrong but I do not expect a turn round in our current fortunes based on the abilities demonstrated so far this season. I am bitterly disappointed at this as I felt that we came into this season in a better structural and team position for many years. Nevertheless, we must have one eye on the future, and the owners must make the right decisions to lead the club forward. There is little alternative in my view but to put in place a manager and a team either immediately capable, or capable of developing on a fairly short learning curve, into a group with Premier League quality.

 

Yeah, so what's the timeframe for the Peter Principle to be applied?

 

10 minutes, a season, two seasons? Reason I ask is that this fella's dug us out of every hole before and learnt from his experiences in order to do so.

 

Does the Peter Principle allow people to grow into their new roles or do you have to be a single minded bugger to adopt it, stick by it and apply to every situation where you think the individual isn't still growing in their role?

 

Or is it a poor theory that allows mangers/directors alleviation of responsibility for not conducting appropriate professional development of their staff?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to remember City recently sacked the person who 'allegedly' failed to bring big/new names in during summer.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30471366

 

Perhaps this is more a case of Nigel didn't have as much choice as everyone thinks? Budget was clearly available to some extent, but it's not like our Thai owners are quite as aggressively ambitious as say Roman Abramovich, nor is our club situated in the posh end of a major capital city. Our degree of difficulty attracting talent is harder.

 

@crinklyfox you know very well how all employees always fall into [ CAN | CAN'T ] [ WILL | WON'T] categories. The perfect employee CAN and WILL. You sack people who CAN'T and WON'T. But people that WILL but CAN'T are often just victims of the Peter Principle... Employees you are sometimes endeared too because they try SO hard. The problem here is getting rid of well loved team players can upset everyone else. I think Pearson has a few of his players in the latter camp but he is clearly not the type of Manager who will publicly shame them even by sending them out on loan. He's trying to keep a team together the best he can and deal with the hand he has.

 

In terms of team selection and strategy, maybe he could do better, maybe not. But I think he's done a good job as an employer of a bunch of people regardless of the talent situation. Many other managers would have a mutiny on their hands. Unlike us employers in an open market, his options around dealing with the Peter Principle once a season starts are very limited.

Good points, my concern is regarding the number of 'Cants'. We've had two thirds of a season and some of the team have not yet demonstrated that they don't belong in that category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, so what's the timeframe for the Peter Principle to be applied?

 

10 minutes, a season, two seasons? Reason I ask is that this fella's dug us out of every hole before and learnt from his experiences in order to do so.

 

Does the Peter Principle allow people to grow into their new roles or do you have to be a single minded bugger to adopt it, stick by it and apply to every situation where you think the individual isn't still growing in their role?

 

Or is it a poor theory that allows mangers/directors alleviation of responsibility for not conducting appropriate professional development of their staff?

There is no time frame. Some people will take time to get through the learning curve and achieve the competencies required, others will not make it. We've had two thirds of a season so far and my observations are made on progress to date.

The club has coaches so there is the 'professional development of the staff' to which you refer. I have no knowledge of the quality of that coaching so make no comment in that regard. My post was not an attack on NP or his backroom staff, it's an observation of where we are and what may be necessary for the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People develop at different rates and through different experiences, slower learners can often turn out to be the better more rounded employees from my experiences. A good manager will look beneath the surface of a person and that takes time. Unfortunately in modern day football time is not always there.

 

Bill Shankly during Liverpool's golden years nearly always kept new signings, no matter how much they cost out of the first team often for months until they were acclimatised and learnt how he wanted them to play and fit in with the overall team philosophy.  These days fans clamour for new arrivals to be in the team before they've even unpacked their suitcase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People develop at different rates and through different experiences, slower learners can often turn out to be the better more rounded employees from my experiences. A good manager will look beneath the surface of a person and that takes time. Unfortunately in modern day football time is not always there.

 

Bill Shankly during Liverpool's golden years nearly always kept new signings, no matter how much they cost out of the first team often for months until they were acclimatised and learnt how he wanted them to play and fit in with the overall team philosophy.  These days fans clamour for new arrivals to be in the team before they've even unpacked their suitcase.

I agree, we've had the experience of Jamie Vardy not producing in the Championship in his first season then being a significant factor in our promotion the next. But the time isn't there, as you say, this season and my gut feel is that very few of the players currently not producing PL quality football will develop sufficiently. I would love to be wrong as our team next season would then be significantly stronger than I anticipate.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tactics and team selection that has cost Nigel in my opinion.

 

We've tried 4-4-1-1, 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-4-2(diamond), 4-3-3 and 5-4-1.

 

That's absolutely bananas. How is the team supposed to play to their potential when they are constantly being asked to play a different formation?

 

We've mucked about too much and that has led to poor defensive organisation and lack of understanding resulting in inconsistent performances.

 

We've had 3 different goalkeepers, 2 different right backs and 5 different centre backs. Only Koncheskey and Morgan have held their positions and neither have been brilliant. Morgan probably isn't helped by having 3 different keepers behind him and being played on the left and the right of a 2 and in the middle of a 3.

 

Again in midfield we are confused and have given a quite even distribution of time to all 5 of our central midfielders. On the wings we've tried 6 different players when we only need to use 4.

 

Up front we have used 5 different strikers and haven't managed to find working partnerships.

 

Look in the match thread and you will find 50 different formations and selections, last season we knew who the squad would be.

 

He seems a decent manager off field but tactically he's not good enough for this level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tactics and team selection that has cost Nigel in my opinion.

 

We've tried 4-4-1-1, 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-4-2(diamond), 4-3-3 and 5-4-1.

 

That's absolutely bananas. How is the team supposed to play to their potential when they are constantly being asked to play a different formation?

 

We've mucked about too much and that has led to poor defensive organisation and lack of understanding resulting in inconsistent performances.

 

We've had 3 different goalkeepers, 2 different right backs and 5 different centre backs. Only Koncheskey and Morgan have held their positions and neither have been brilliant. Morgan probably isn't helped by having 3 different keepers behind him and being played on the left and the right of a 2 and in the middle of a 3.

 

Again in midfield we are confused and have given a quite even distribution of time to all 5 of our central midfielders. On the wings we've tried 6 different players when we only need to use 4.

 

Up front we have used 5 different strikers and haven't managed to find working partnerships.

 

Look in the match thread and you will find 50 different formations and selections, last season we knew who the squad would be.

 

He seems a decent manager off field but tactically he's not good enough for this level.

 

Yes to a point you are correct. But what you are saying is symptomatic of all the OP stated.

 

He looks to be floundering because ultimately those players at his disposal have not been good enough and several are showing signs of perhaps never being good enough.

 

We've used 5 different strikers for eg because most of the time they don't score goals and therefore he's searching for a combination which might just work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The buck stops with the manager, after every setback he regurgitates the same mantras and highlights the same problems, then proceeds not to rectify them... what conclusions are we all to draw from this pattern

Really good point there from Crinkly Fox and  johny the fox, makes a nice change from the usual gash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes to a point you are correct. But what you are saying is symptomatic of all the OP stated.

 

He looks to be floundering because ultimately those players at his disposal have not been good enough and several are showing signs of perhaps never being good enough.

 

We've used 5 different strikers for eg because most of the time they don't score goals and therefore he's searching for a combination which might just work.

 

What I'm saying is that he's compounded a difficult situation with overthinking such that he's converting a 50% chance of relegation into a 100% one. Changing the strikers is the least disruptive modification so I don't mind that although I don't feel he understands how to get the best from them.

 

I do think most of the other managers in this division would have us clear of the relegation zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...