I recently had dinner with a former professional colleague from many years ago. We worked together at a large, multi-national insurance company in the 1980's and 1990's, and while neither of us work there any longer, we've managed to stay in touch.
For the better part of two hours, we discussed a number of common individuals and personalities we worked with at that company. Many of these folks had more lofty job titles than we did at the time, which is also what made them commonly known to us. And most of them were lousy at their jobs.
After swapping stories about those mid-to-upper level management people, it became obvious to us that their work had little correlation to organizational success. Most of them had far exceeded the Peter Principle, reaching a level even beyond their competence. They were actually better examples of the so-called Dilbert Principle, meaning they were promoted to management because they would do less harm there than on the front lines.
However, what really struck me is how they didn't do any better managing their personal lives. It was notable how many of them today are divorced, and/or obese, and/or still working because they can't afford to retire. If there was any correlation, that was it -- if you aren't that good at your occupation, you probably aren't that that good at life, either.
Maybe you learn what you work?
However, what really struck me is how they didn't do any better managing their personal lives. It was notable how many of them today are divorced, and/or obese, and/or still working because they can't afford to retire. If there was any correlation, that was it -- if you aren't that good at your occupation, you probably aren't that that good at life, either.
Maybe you learn what you work?