0

I'm seeking either a word or phrase that captures the phenomenon in an organization that relatively junior employees possess far more skills germane to the organization's purpose than supervisory and upper-level management employees do, because the managerial employees were in an entirely different industry when they were junior employees. The upper-level employees' only experience in the industry has come from being upper-level management, so they do not understand what it is like to do the "front-line" jobs in the industry.

So far, my best attempt at a phrase to describe this situation is a "skill inversion" between the low-level employees and their management. Phrases that address either the hard skills aspect (management doesn't know how to do the lower-level employees' jobs), the soft skills aspect (management doesn't understand what it's like to be a lower-level employee), or both, are welcome.

2
  • 1
    Since you've tagged this as a single word request, you should include a sample sentence demonstrating how the word would be used. Dec 12, 2021 at 20:22
  • 1
    The people at the top are pencil pushers. The people in the trenches have the technical know-how. No matter how you phrase it, the people at the top may find your observation offensive, so be careful. You could talk about taking a team approach and mention something the managers can contribute, that doesn't sound snide, in addition to the programming chops (or whatever) that the infantry can contribute. Dec 13, 2021 at 4:28

1 Answer 1

3

There are various phrases regarding this kind of managerial competence that may be useful:

"The Dilbert Principle": People are promoted to management because they lack competence in their technical role. In management they are "out of the way", thereby improving the workflow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle

Under the Dilbert principle, employees who were never competent are promoted to management to limit the damage they can do.

"The Peter Principle": People are promoted based on good performance until they reach a role that is too demanding for them, where they underperform and thus are not promoted further. Thus everybody in the hierarchy inevitably finds themselves in a position where they are incompetent / underperforming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

People in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.

"Putt's Law" is similarly related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putt%27s_Law_and_the_Successful_Technocrat

Putt's Law: "Technology is dominated by two types of people, those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand." Putt's Corollary: "Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion." with incompetence being "flushed out of the lower levels" of a technocratic hierarchy, ensuring that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual technology while those without technical competence move into management.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be a term for your very specific example of upper-level managers not being familiar with the details of what they manage due to having switched industries, but I think "Putt's Law" best encapsulates the aspect of management not having a technical familiarity or proficiency in what they are managing.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.