On Friday, 24 February 2017 10:39:55 UTC, tim... wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

Promoting people is also a way to get them moved out of the way to a
different office, if the company has a rule that people can't be promoted
on site.

Why would a company have a rule that said that people can't be promoted on
site?

That seems to be the ultimate in creating dissatisfied employees for
usually, no benefit.

I can see that it might makes sense in an environment where it is absolutely
necessary for subordinates to "follow order" such as the Police/Fire service
(but there you would almost never promote someone who wasn't qualified to be
promoted, just to get them out of the way)

but beyond that, it's an absolutely nonsensical corporate policy

tim

and yet one hears of it at times, like so many other nonsensical corporate happenings. I always wonder if it's the real reason or just an excuse.


NT

On Friday, 24 February 2017 12:15:10 UTC, wrote:
On Friday, 24 February 2017 10:39:55 UTC, tim... wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

Promoting people is also a way to get them moved out of the way to a
different office, if the company has a rule that people can't be promoted
on site.

Why would a company have a rule that said that people can't be promoted on
site?

That seems to be the ultimate in creating dissatisfied employees for
usually, no benefit.

I can see that it might makes sense in an environment where it is absolutely
necessary for subordinates to "follow order" such as the Police/Fire service
(but there you would almost never promote someone who wasn't qualified to be
promoted, just to get them out of the way)

but beyond that, it's an absolutely nonsensical corporate policy

tim

and yet one hears of it at times, like so many other nonsensical corporate happenings. I always wonder if it's the real reason or just an excuse.


NT

if yuo;ve empoyed somneone that canlt do the job, then what yuo need is someone that can, if you;ve employed someone that canl;t do the job yuo employed them to do, who gets the blame ?
If you don't want the blame and sacking them is too difficult or embaressing then give them a good refernce and hope they leave or promote them and that leaves a 'hole' or post that needs filling, you can then get someone in that can do the job.

On 24/02/2017 10:39, tim... wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

Promoting people is also a way to get them moved out of the way to a
different office, if the company has a rule that people can't be
promoted on site.

Why would a company have a rule that said that people can't be promoted
on site?

People might be reluctant to obey someone who was their peer until
recently. Or they might be jealous that a mate has been promoted over them.

--
Max Demian

On Friday, 24 February 2017 14:41:00 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/02/2017 10:39, tim... wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

Promoting people is also a way to get them moved out of the way to a
different office, if the company has a rule that people can't be
promoted on site.

Why would a company have a rule that said that people can't be promoted
on site?

People might be reluctant to obey someone who was their peer until
recently. Or they might be jealous that a mate has been promoted over them.


Especailly if that 'mate' is better in bed.

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 24/02/2017 10:39, tim... wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

Promoting people is also a way to get them moved out of the way to a
different office, if the company has a rule that people can't be
promoted on site.

Why would a company have a rule that said that people can't be promoted
on site?

People might be reluctant to obey someone who was their peer until
recently. Or they might be jealous that a mate has been promoted over
them.

Happened all the time in my job. Most just accept it. If you work closely
with others doing the same sort of job and any promotion is fair, why
would others not accept it?

I'd say bringing in some unknown is likely to cause more resentment.
Especially if they fail to deliver - which is quite often the case.

Say you want a foreman. Be reasonable to expect him to have a very good
working knowledge of both the job and those he will supervise. And decent
management will already have marked him (and others) out as a suitable
candidate for future promotion by noting his performance, both skills and
getting on with others.

Bringing in an outsider tells that workforce what their management thinks
of them.

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 24/02/2017 15:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 24/02/2017 10:39, tim... wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

Promoting people is also a way to get them moved out of the way to a
different office, if the company has a rule that people can't be
promoted on site.

Why would a company have a rule that said that people can't be promoted
on site?

People might be reluctant to obey someone who was their peer until
recently. Or they might be jealous that a mate has been promoted over
them.

Happened all the time in my job. Most just accept it. If you work closely
with others doing the same sort of job and any promotion is fair, why
would others not accept it?

I'd say bringing in some unknown is likely to cause more resentment.
Especially if they fail to deliver - which is quite often the case.

Say you want a foreman. Be reasonable to expect him to have a very good
working knowledge of both the job and those he will supervise.

#The working class can kiss my arse...#

--
Max Demian

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:37:18 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:08:48 +0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/02/2017 11:30, charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 February 2017 17:08:01 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
wrote:
it shows poor management.

either poor managers or poor workers. (Or both.) It's the shop
floor workers that are doing it after all.

even shop floor workers need to have some sort of training or
should have.

of course. But you can't always sack the ones that fall short.

Yup. It should be much easier to sack poor managers.

It's easier to promote them.

Very true. ;-)

The Peter Principle, I believe.

AIUI that states that if you can do your job you get promoted. This
keeps happening until you are in a level where you can't.

Andy

"You get promoted to your level of incompetance" is the way I read it.

IIRC it's slightly more subtle that that. "In a hierarchical
organisation,
people tend to be promoted *beyond* their level of competence. Any
useful work in the organisation is done by people who are still
competent in their positions."

Exactly. I first heard about it in Cyril Northcote Parkinson's book,
"Parkinson's Law". I found that *very* interesting, and still have the
copy I bought decades ago. Lots of useful advice on running committees,
etc.

I got even more useful advice when Parkinson retired to Canterbury and I
goit to know him at various dinners!



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
The problem - very real - is that people don't realise they are
incompetent until it's too late.

If say working in a department, many genuinely think they could do the
next job up well. But only find they can't when actually given it. Decent
management would provide training attachments where it could be seen if
they are capable of progressing. But this is far more difficult to do for
the very senior positions or position.

But of course why spend money on training when you can simply get someone
from elsewhere?

--
*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27/02/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The problem - very real - is that people don't realise they are
incompetent until it's too late.

If say working in a department, many genuinely think they could do the
next job up well. But only find they can't when actually given it. Decent
management would provide training attachments where it could be seen if
they are capable of progressing. But this is far more difficult to do for
the very senior positions or position.


It's a well known principle that people are progressively promoted until
they reach their first level of incompetence. This means that most
people are in jobs they can't do!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
The problem - very real - is that people don't realise they are
incompetent until it's too late.

If say working in a department, many genuinely think they could do the
next job up well. But only find they can't when actually given it. Decent
management would provide training attachments where it could be seen if
they are capable of progressing. But this is far more difficult to do for
the very senior positions or position.

But of course why spend money on training when
you can simply get someone from elsewhere?

But MUCH harder to know what you are getting when you do it that way.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 27/02/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The problem - very real - is that people don't realise they are
incompetent until it's too late.

If say working in a department, many genuinely think they could do the
next job up well. But only find they can't when actually given it.
Decent
management would provide training attachments where it could be seen if
they are capable of progressing. But this is far more difficult to do for
the very senior positions or position.

It's a well known principle that people are progressively promoted until
they reach their first level of incompetence.

The problem with that mindlessly superficial line is that there
are **** all managerial jobs compare with the average wage slave.

This means that most people are in jobs they can't do!

Even sillier than you usually manage. Its only the
most stupid that cant do the most basic jobs in
a supermarket or factory or retail operation or
anything else. You don't even have to be able
to make change anymore, the machine tells you.