“When you have little left to learn on your job, it is time to move on.”
Doesn’t that risk sentencing yourself to eventually being hit by the ‘Peter Principle’? And doesn’t society need people who are actually good at their current job rather than always trying to learn the next one?
I always thought that the ‘Peter Principle’ was part of the genre of flattering the unhappy employee who is convinced that he or she would thrive with a better boss (or thinks that he or she deserves to be the boss). FastCompany Magazine is a leading practitioner of the genre that boosts the hero/martyr self-image of the mid-level employee.
If the Peter Principle were really true, then management strategy consists of setting people up to fail. I don’t buy that. What good managers do is set you up to learn, but not to fail.
there are positions you want dedicated experienced people that aren’t looking for something new. . . two of the three big Business failures I have experience is because our business worked to eliminate these experienced workers. Businesses need the high flyers but also need a high degree of agreeableness to work well.
In my essay, I say that after you learn your job you should train a successor. If an organization lets you go without training your successor, then institutional knowledge gets lost. So of course that is bad strategy.
But if the only way to retain institutional knowledge is to keep people doing the same job for many years, I think that the organization has a problem. That sounds to me like an organization that is not going to get any fresh ideas, and that means no growth in productivity. There are very few companies that can afford to do without productivity growth.
In any case, my rules are not suggestions for businesses. They are suggestions for you as an employee, regardless of what is in the best interest of the business. If you care about career advancement and personal growth, then you should not let your employer leave you in a position that is no longer challenging.