PDA

View Full Version : Explanation For QANTAS Bad Management?


Sunfish
30th Sep 2011, 18:47
While the authors of this Academic paper will receive an igNobel for their work, it is an eyeopener.

I had forgotten The Peter Principle that all people will eventually be promoted to a level where they are incompetent.

Peter Principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle)

The Authors of this paper go one step further and prove mathematically that randomly promoting people from anywhere in the organisation will produce a more efficient company.

The hiring of external candidates for management could be explained by the incompetence of the existing Qantas management (ie: Anyone who is dumb enough to work here is obviously not good enough to be a manager).

Do we have an explanation for the train wreck that is Qantas here?


In the late sixties the Canadian psychologist Laurence J. Peter advanced an apparently paradoxical principle, named since then after him, which can be summarized as follows: {\it 'Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum incompetence'}. Despite its apparent unreasonableness, such a principle would realistically act in any organization where the mechanism of promotion rewards the best members and where the mechanism at their new level in the hierarchical structure does not depend on the competence they had at the previous level, usually because the tasks of the levels are very different to each other. Here we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the latter two features actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical structure, then not only is the Peter principle unavoidable, but also it yields in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization. Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence.


[0907.0455] The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455)

Wally Mk2
30th Sep 2011, 23:38
"Sunny" I've heard of the 'Peter principal' a few times over the years & even though it was more a tongue in cheek principal in some ways I think it's relevant in a lot of situations, QF top end being one of them.
The way I see it many ascend during their working career to a position where they find that it's unmanageable or more to the point where they can't do the job efficiently (The Peter principle) & there is where they stay 'till something breaks & they get removed from that position. Only trouble is the only ones that don't know of the Peter principal or don't wanna believe it are those that are at the top 'thinking' they are doing a great job!

I really feel for QF, the staff, that's QF not the 'suits' at the top.




Wmk2

airtags
1st Oct 2011, 01:41
Wally - its called promotion to the point of incompetence - then later it is called actions of a rogue manager (when an incident arises or the errors are uncovered)

This together with bypassing and blindsiding the Regulatory environment have been pioneered and perfected by QF.

Classic example is a report I received into reduced evac capability of the 380 during the hot turnarounds in SIN - might even be worth posting here for others to be astounded at Q's flawed logic and the Regulator's open willingness to accept such B.S.

stubby jumbo
1st Oct 2011, 01:57
In my 23 years at Qantas........there were ONLY 2 "Managers" that I reckon stand out in my mind.

Both were Line Controllers (Bob H. in SYD and DH in PER)
Both sadly......left way too early.

One due to that great brain wave of a Pommie GM ...now gone back to BA...he called it:
CREW CONNECT. Lets get rid of all of the operational managers and throw in some clowns with no aviation experience and put them on KPI's -work them Monday to Friday and allocate 1 Cabin Crew Manager to manage 100 CSM's. This experiment was /is / and continues to be an unadulterated farce. How can anyone manage 100 Direct Reports effectively:ugh:

Its now called........ CREW DISCONNECT.
The hiring of external candidates for management could be explained by the incompetence of the existing Qantas management (ie: Anyone who is dumb enough to work here is obviously not good enough to be a manager).:D:D:D

The manager I had in Perth.....had the respect of the 99% of crew. He was fair and compassionate,had integrity,knew the operational issues with flying and could see the big picture. Happy Crew=Happy Customers.
Then the "experiment" came......he left -went back to SYD...drifted for a while and apparently left a few years back.....thanks to the Peter Principle.

As you're aware there has been a massive clean-out of management numbers over the past 3 years. Sure ...there have been plenty who deserved the punt. BUT, many who had been around for a long time with loads of experience and talent either left or put their hands up for VR -because they had had a gutful and/or were treated with disdain by the "new order" of accountants and numb-nutz.

People Management at Qantas is appalling. Qantas is a case study for many tertiary institutions in how NOT to manage HUMAN RESOURCES (Beings..is a better term)
It should be all about :
# Treating people with Respect
# Telling it like it is
# Being consistent
# Recognising and Rewarding good performance
# Managing poor performance
# Celebrating successes
# Regular communication with NO SPIN.:ugh:

This ain't Rocket Science......you don't need an MBA to compile a list like this.


Agree Sunny.....there is a lot to this Peter Principle.
Am sure it will be referred to at the QF Obituary.

LeadSled
1st Oct 2011, 03:55
Folks,
There is nothing theoretical about the Peter Principle.

In his day, Peters was a highly successful management consultant, most famous for resurrecting the first Avis Rent-A-Car after it wound up in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Likewise, there is nothing theoretical about Parkinson's Law, C.Northcott Parkinson ( for all his hilarious books) was the British equivalent , in about the same era.

Both clearly understood the results of human nature in a hierarchical organization, if left unfettered. The peactime armed forces are always a good example.

Tootle pip!!

Jethro Gibbs
1st Oct 2011, 05:04
NCIS LA Amusing Hetty Moments - YouTube[YOUTUBE]

SEE 2.15 MINUTE POINT :ok: