Nitpickers found lots of problems with the Peter Principle, but on the whole it worked. Lately, however, the Peter Principle has given way to the ``Dilbert Principle.'' The basic concept of the Dilbert Principle is that the most ineffective workers are systematically moved to the place where they can do the least damage: management.
This has not proved to be the winning strategy that you might think.
Maybe we should learn something from nature. In the wild, the weakest moose is hunted down and killed by dingo dogs, thus ensuring survival of the fittest. This is a harsh system - especially for the dingo dogs who have to fly all the way from Australia. But nature's process is a good one; everybody agrees, except perhaps for the dingo dogs and the moose in question ... and the flight attendants. But the point is that we'd all be better off if the least competent managers were being eaten by dingo dogs instead of writing Mission Statements.
It seems as if we've turned nature's rules upside down. We systematically identify and promote the people who have the least skills.The usual business rationalization for promoting idiots (the Dilbert Principle in a nutshell) is something along the lines of ``Well, he can't write code, he can't design a network, and he doesn't have any sales skill. But he has very good hair ...''
If nature started organizing itself like a modern business, you'd see, for example, a band of mountain gorillas led by an ``alpha'' squirrel. And it wouldn't be the most skilled squirrel; it would be the squirrel nobody wanted to hang around with.
* * *
Any business school professor will tell you that the objective of business communication is the clear transfer of information. That's why professors rarely succeed in business.
The real objective of business communication is to advance your career. That objective is generally at odds with the notion of "clear transfer of information".
The successful manager knows that the best kind of communication is one that conveys the message "I am worthy of promotion" without accidentally transferring any other information. Clear communication can only get you in trouble. Remember, you can't be wrong unless you take a position. Don't fall into that trap.
* * *
By definition, risk-takers often fail. So do morons. In practice, it's difficult to sort them out.
* * *
If a document is over two pages long, few people will ever read it. And those who read it won't remember it in twenty-four hours. That's why all your documents should be over two pages long. You don't want your readers to be influenced by a bunch of facts. You want them to look at your creative use of fonts, your brilliant application of white space, and your inspired graphics. Good formatting leaves the reader with the clear impression that you are a genius and therefore whatever you are writing about must be a good idea.
* * *
You can short-circuit the two or three neurons that people use for common sense by appealing to their greed. Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things for phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating and religion. You can use this quirk of human nature to your advantage and it won't cost you a dime.
* * *
Speak loudly and act irrationally. Co-workers and even bosses will bend to your will if you use this method consistently. Consistency is the key. Send a clear signal that you cannot be swayed by reason and that you'll never stop being loud and obnoxious until you get your way. This method is effective because the law prevents people from killing you and there's no other practical way to make you stop.
At first, your victim might try to wait you out, hoping you'll get tired and go away. That's where most Machiavellian wannabes fail with the loudness method -- they give up too early. You must be persistent, bordering on loony. Never let up.
After you get your way, turn instantly into the sweetest person your victim has ever seen. Buy candy. Call the victim's boss and leave kudos. Sing the victim's praise while others are nearby. This widens the gap between the experience people have when they satisfy you and the experience they have when they don't.
This method is most effective when used on people who were raised in dysfunctional families. Fortunately, that's nearly everybody. These people will start to believe you're their best personal friend. At that point you can abuse them even more.
* * *
There are documented cases of employees who experienced low-level food poisoning in the company cafeteria and later, when this was combined with the hypnotic trance state induced by the boredom of the job, reacted
to the inspirational message on a company bulletin board and accidentally acted in the best interest of the company.
It could happen to you. Just be careful what you eat. That's the best advice I can give.
* * *
A good advertising campaign is engineered to fit a precise audience. In particular, there is a huge distinction between what message works for men and what message works for women.
Males are predictable creatures. That makes it easy to craft a marketing message that appeals to them. All successful advertising campaigns that target men include one of these two messages:
1. This product will help you get dates with bikini models.
2. This product will save you time and money, which you'll need if you want to date bikini models.
Compared to simpleminded, brutish men, women are much more intricate and complex. Your advertising message must appeal to women's greater range of intellectual interests and aesthetic preferences. Specifically, your message has to say this:
1. If you buy this product you.ll be a bikini model.
* * *
A group of bored Europeans had a few too many Heinekens and decided to play an elaborate prank on the big companies of the world.This prank came to be known as ISO 9000, the second part referring to the number of beers consumed that night and the first part being either an unintelligible phrase or possibly one of the four hundred European slang words meaning `Is that my beer?'
* * *
Companies use a lot of energy trying to increase the employee satisfaction. That's nice of them, but let's face it - work sucks. If people liked work they'd do it for free. The reason we have to pay people to work is that work is inherently unpleasant compared to the alternatives.
* * *