
I was watching the Final Four with my wife last night when she posed the question, "Why don't you see more star athletes become great coaches?"
It's a very thoughtful and quite natural thing to ask. After all, in most organizations, the best "players" are often first in line to replace their bosses. That's simply the progression of things.
Her question remined me of a Guy Kawasaki post from a few days ago. Guy points out in his sardonic way just how much the Peter Principle is at work in our world today, despite the fact the the idea has been popular for over forty years.
The Peter Principle is by far one of the handiest HR/OD axioms out there. It's non-obvious (ergo the need for it), and at the same time universally easy to understand and relate to.
The Peter Principle: The principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." (Source: Wikipedia)
So why do we still fall into the trap of promoting people to the point at which they "peter out"? Why don't we simply operate under the assumption that good players don't necessarily make good coaches and act accordingly? Why don't we see that performance and potential aren't one in the same? Maybe it's just human nature, but professional sports seems to suggest that it's something we can overcome. Certainly, the world of work would be a better and more productive place if we only could.