If Dilbert needed inspiration, Dr Peter and Raymond Hull provided it way back in 1969. They wrote a satirical book, tilted “The Peter Principle” on managerial incompetence, based on fictional characters and imagined examples.. The principle infers that everyone in an organisation keeps on getting promoted, until they reach their level of incompetence, at which point they stop getting promoted. The (almost wicked) conclusion – given enough time and promotions, every managerial position is occupied by someone incompetent. According to a New York Times obituary to Dr Peter, the book became so popular that “some conglomerates offered to hire Dr. Peter as their management guru. He turned them down, saying he did not want to rise above his own level of competence”. Back then, even Harvard Business Review took it seriously enough to publish two sombre responses, both of which were remarkably quick to accept the book’s premise. Every miffed subordinate will impulsively agree to the premise. Yet, the irony is that a lot of subordinate are also managers themselves. In time, a lot has been thought and written about how organisations overcome this, backed with some real research.

Taking inspiration from eastern philosophical wisdom, my instinctive question is; “how do I, as a leader, rise above my Peter’s plateau” ? Principles of self improvement are quite clear most of us – continue to learn new skills, inculcate a growth mindset, hire subordinates smarter than yourself and several more. However, the underlying principles of growing into a better leader isn’t that obvious. Below are three (of possibly many) ideas that I’m working on.

Learn to Ask better questions, keep aside your favourite answer

Socrates, who’s well known for his “Socratic method” of inquiry, a technique designed to trigger an examination of one’s own beliefs and reflecting upon its validity. The irony of this piece of history is this – Socrates himself did not write any of his teachings. We only know of Socrates from writings of secondary sources (Plato’s work being the most famous), which are often contradictory and dramatic texts. There are no straightforward histories, contemporary with Socrates, that dealt with his own time and place. Sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan. Historians, therefore, face the challenge of reconciling the various evidences and attempt an accurate and consistent account of Socrates’s life and work. The result of such an effort, even if consistent, is not necessarily realistic.

An unexamined life is not worth living

Socrates, apparently uttered in his trial

Questioning, when done with skill and humility, is a powerful tool for unlocking value. It spurs learning and the exchange of ideas, it fuels innovation and better performance and also builds trust among team members. It can also help in uncovering unforeseen pitfalls and hazards. In the book “The surprising power of questions”, the authors attempt to define, The New Socratic Method for usage in more mundane business affairs and an outline of it is as below:

• As a first step, simply ask more questions: The type, tone, sequence, and framing matter a lot
• Understand conversational goals: is the discussion cooperative or competitive ?
• Ask follow-up questions: it signals that your listening and that you care
• Use open ended questions, but carefully: this often the results in finding the hidden, unexpected answers
• Get the sequence right: This is a delicate balance and here is one useful framework

Nurture the green shoots within Confusion & Dissonance

We all form mental models of how the world works and how we should operate within it. Updating these models take time and mental effort. This work is the hard part, which is why we avoid it. Charlie Munger, Warren Buffets’ business partner for 6 decades says, “The ability to destroy your ideas rapidly instead of slowly when the occasion is right is one of the most valuable things. You have to work hard on it. Ask yourself what are the arguments on the other side.  It’s bad to have an opinion you’re proud of if you can’t state the  arguments for the other side better than your opponents. This is a great mental discipline.” 

Fortunately, there is a simple cue that can help trigger this mental habit – your own confusion. When I find myself in confusion or in dissonance, recognising the mental state (or emotion) and labelling creates an opportunity to update my mental models. Putting ourselves into that vulnerable state of disequilibrium can appear to be risky, especially if we are “visible” leaders. Usually, it is not just a cognitive demand but also an emotional roller coaster. We are, almost certainly, heavily invested in current mental models.

“Experts who acknowledge the full extent of their ignorance may expect to be replaced by more confident competitors, who are better able to gain the trust of clients. An unbiased appreciation of uncertainty is a cornerstone of rationality—but it is not what people and organizations want.”

– Daniel Kahneman, in the book Thinking Fast and Slow

To begin with, we need to acknowledge deeply, that outdated mental models is our Peter’s Plateau. Acknowledging to ourselves, that we are confused or in dissonance can actually makes it feel less stressful. Acknowledging this to others takes courage and sometimes a daft sense of humour, creating the space needed for learning to happen. We can then examine our assumptions, listen to opposing arguments and distill insights to either updated or entirely new mental models. When I read the book Blitzscaling by Reid Hoffman (which is now an established model) and thought deeply on how to approach challenges of scaling the startup I was part of, I had developed several mental models for decision making around the principle of “pursuing growth by prioritising speed over efficiency, in the face of uncertainty”. However, the COVID 19 pandemic upended the business model so much, each decision that came up led to confusion. That’s when I chose to slow down, instead of the instinct to react & respond quickly in the face of extreme uncertainty and danger. I had to first rebuild my mental model on which decisions where high burden of proof and where was speed essential. Subsequently, I spent a considerable amount of time talking to my peers and management team members to refine my mental models. However, since I’m still in the middle of all the choas, this has been a period of considerable confusion and hopefully considerable learning too. I’d only begun to ask myself if “Blitzscaling” was even relevant now, when I discovered Reid’s updated opinion, challenging my mental model again. As Jeff Hunter says, we can learn to embrace the chaos.

Practicing Deliberate Reflection

Daniel Kahneman, in his bestselling book ” Thinking Fast and slow”, dissects our thinking system in two parts. System 1 is our fast, automatic, intuitive and largely unconscious mode. System 2, by contrast, is our slow, deliberate, analytical and consciously effortful mode of reasoning about the world. Generally, System 1 uses association and metaphor to produce a quick and dirty draft of reality, which System 2 draws on to arrive at explicit beliefs and reasoned choices. System 1 proposes, System 2 disposes. We surely need both.

So thinking slow (system 2) would appear to be the driver, right? However fast thinking (System 2), in addition to being more deliberate and rational, is also lazy. And it tires easily. Too often, instead of slowing things down and critically analyzing, System 2 is content to accept the story that “fast thinking” feeds to it. How coherent narrative is, instead of how probable it is becomes the mental model, which can lead to lazy conclusions and cognitive biases. How do we then strengthen our ability to reflect critically? For me, reading , engaging in a deep one-to-one dialogues and creating time for reflecting quietly help.

Reading books (or well researched essays), for me, is better than reading blogs, tweets or wall posts in at-least three ways. First, the person who wrote it thought about it a lot more carefully. The book is the result of the author’s solitude, his or her attempt to think clearly. Second, most books are not extremely recent, often old. They contrast the conventional wisdom of today simply because they’re not from today. Even if they merely reflect the conventional wisdom of their own day, they say something different from what you hear all the time. Truly great books however, don’t reflect the conventional wisdom of their day. They say things that have the permanent power to disrupt our habits of thought, our mental models. They were provocative in their own time, and they are still thought provoking today. Third, thinking for yourself means finding yourself, finding your own reality. When you expose yourself to news, facebook and twitter feeds, especially in the constant way that people do now, you are continuously bombarding yourself with a stream of other people’s thoughts. In other words, you are marinating yourself in the conventional wisdom or mere rhetoric. It may as well become a cacophony in which it is impossible to hear your own voice.

In contrast to reading, speaking to someone you trust, usually a friend or sometimes someone deeply knowledgable on the subject invigorates my thinking in a different dimension. I’m talking about deep conversations, often lasting hours that help me clearly articulate my own thoughts, its basis and inconsistencies. The sheer pleasure of being augment and challenged from a different viewing point. That’s probably what Kahneman says, when recounting his collaboration with his long time associate Tversky.

“The pleasure we found in working together made us exceptionally patient; it is much easier to strive for perfection when you are never bored.” 

Daniel Kahneman in Thinking fast and Slow

Finally, reflecting in solitude (or concentrating) for a long periods is when the insights really get distilled. This is also what I’ve come to struggle with the most. Carving out the time and space for it is often the first challenge, but not the most daunting. The drifting mind, for me, is the mountain to climb over. To provide some aid and structure is why I’ve taken to writing reflective essays, often refined in several passes. With my work, I’ve found writing a note without worrying about structure at first, helps me reason with myself to create better working mental models. Yet, I have a tendency to be comprehensive, which often demands more of my time than I can dedicate. The other aid of course, is my practice of mindfulness and meditation. Although, increasing my ability to concentrate for longer is not the primary goal for this practice, it will hopefully be a fortunate side effect.

Curious questioning, recognising moments of truth within my confusions and deliberate reflection are my current ladders to climb out of my Peter’s Peter’s plateau. Hopefully, I’ll find more when I need them.

Have you found others ?