Transitions: A part of life

 

     Transitions occur as part of many aspects of life and business. On a personal level, transitions occur as we grow older and as we accumulate experience and start applying that experience in different ways. For a business, key personnel will come and go, products will be retired and new ones come into being, and events will bring about unforeseen changes -- perhaps very rapid changes.

     We all grow older. We make transitions from newborn to toddler to young child to older child, adolescent, early adulthood, etc. It is certainly possible to separate the phases differently. In some ways, the transitions are continuous. We each age a day per day. But, usually, there is a defining event to indicate a transition. In some cultures, there are specific rituals and customs to mark the occasion of moving from adolescent to young adult, but many have no such thing. The transition may be obvious -- first time walking unaided, for example.

     Although our specific futures are not available for us to know, we can sometimes prepare somewhat. A baby practices the movements, and exercises the muscles, needed to walk. But I am not convinced that we can really prepare for adolescence (when those hormones kick in and changes our moods, interests, and reactions). In the business world, we can prepare for known changes and, perhaps, improve skills and methods that will allow easier adaptation to unforeseen future changes.

     Similar to transition lenses versus bifocals, transitions may be gradual or abrupt. A gradual transition may seem like an easier one but it may lead to a situation when you pass from safety to danger without noticing the change -- it is easier to notice danger when the change is abrupt. Note the old tale of the frog who was put into a pot of cold water which was gradually heated up to a boil. Much situational training concerns being able to make plans quickly, and act upon them, when faced with a difficult (possibly dangerous) situation. This can apply to being charged by a tiger or a necessary supplier going out of business.

     The one thing you cannot do safely during a transition is to ignore it. A change in circumstances (which affect you) means there will be a need for changes in reactions, processes, and attitudes. (Of course, if the change affects only someone else you can still be there to listen or offer assistance.) Although it is not true that an ostrich will hide their head in the sand upon encountering approaching danger, the metaphor is valid. Perhaps the monkey triad of "see no evil", "hear no evil", "speak no evil" is better. It probably depends on the circumstances and the direction from which the transition occurs.

     Internal transitions are, by definition, not visible to others. This makes them hard for others to help. There is an additional difficulty that the person involved with the internal transition may, themself, not be able to properly describe the changes. These are likely to be among the more difficult of transitions.

     How can a person prepare for transitions (whether in personal lives or business)? The foundation element is that of recognizing that circumstances, needs, and goals change -- and can change in a moment. This is much easier for Myers-Briggs types "P" (process oriented) who are inherently not as fixed on a goal. The "J" (judicious) types must learn to be flexible and ready for change. Although Myers-Briggs is directly applicable to humans, some of the same behaviors are true about corporate cultures.

     Other preparations are to know how to determine the components of a change. Much easier said than done, especially with internal transitions. Even external transitions may have important parts of which no one is aware. You cannot know all of the components of a change before the change (though you may know many of them) -- you are wanting to learn how to identify those components.

     Once the components are recognized, it will be time to decide what responses need to be. It is very difficult to do this in advance as there are so many unknowns leading up to most transitions.

     We do know, however, that there will be transitions.

The Peter Principle: Levels and Ceilings

 

     Lawrence J. Peter published his "The Peter Principle" back in 1969. It was considered, in part, "tongue-in-cheek". Not fully serious. But, like the Dilbert views of management, there is still a lot of truth to the idea. At the base, this principle says that a person will rise to a level in which they are no longer competent. If taken to extreme, this says that a lot of positions within management will be filled with non-competent people. The only competent ones would be the ones still in the process of rising to their own, individual, levels on incompetency.

     In order to weigh the realities of this, it is important to understand the reasons people get promoted and how they actively try to achieve promotion. People get promoted because of time, connections, rewards for accomplishments, and demonstration of required skills. People actively achieve promotion primarily via self-visibility and networking.

     The factor of time is especially important within strongly bureaucratic organizations. Government positions are often of this nature. There are strictly defined employment "levels" and it is expected that people will rise from one level to the next within a specific range of years. Thus, some rise more quickly and others more slowly but all are expected to rise in a steady fashion. This has some merit in that it is possible to gather applicable experience as years progress (it is also possible to avoid gathering experience and, instead, make use of methods of avoiding actual work).

     Connections can include nepotism but it also can include general networking. In the case of general networking, it usually means being brought in to a position from outside the company rather than being promoted into it. Within certain types of businesses, having a large active personal network may be considered to be an attribute useful to the company and a factor for promotion.

     The factor of awards for accomplishment seems to have merit. A promotion usually includes an increase in salary, perks, and title. With these, an increase in authority and recognition usually occurs. The problem with this route of promotion is that the skills, for which the person is rewarded, are not necessarily the skills needed in the position to which they are promoted.

     The other major path for promotion is demonstration of required skills. This requires active participation by current management -- preferably the person to whom one reports. Tasks are delegated, skills learned, and eventually the person can "step into the shoes" of the person to whom they report. These required skills can be obtained in other ways but recognition, and rewarding, of such becomes more difficult without active management participation.

     The factor of time just requires a calendar and the ability to check it occasionally. Other paths require that the person be noticed. This varies a lot between different work cultures. In some cultures, a person can explicitly self-promote -- "see what I've done, can you assign me to that, are there any positions opening up for promotion?". Doing this can be difficult for many people. In other cultures, active self-promotion can be counter-productive as it can be seen as not being part of the team.

     So, with these ways of being promoted, what about the "Peter Principle"?  Both time and awards have considerable danger of the person not having the skills needed for the level to which they are promoted. Developing the skills SHOULD, inherently, mean that the person is qualified for that next level, It often may do such but there is also the possibility that the skills learned are not the skills needed for continued promotion.

     With such caveats, it looks like the Peter Principle can still often take place. There is nothing wrong with a person hitting a ceiling -- as long as they are qualified for the position in which they rest and if they are not actively prevented from acquiring the skills, experience, and ability to continue to rise. The latter often occurs within company cultures and may make it difficult for the culture to change or to accept all those who can positively contribute to the value of the company.