I mean men! My name's Matt (If my profile name hadn't given it away) and I work at a Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen. This by itself can be a very stressful and frustrating job, as with any fast food joint, due to the fast-paced nature high customer demand--And that with little to no intrinsic reward at the end of it all, nothing to show for it. As some of you may know though, these jobs can be loads easier if you work with a tight crew of respectful co-workers always willing to help each other out. Rarely does this in fact happen. Everyone sooner or later resorts to looking out only for their own skin, and occasionally--if not the occasion for the every-man-for-himself mentality--you get a manager who seems less interested in putting the time and effort in to make things go as smoothly as possible than in barking demands and talking down to people when inconsequential, minute deviations are made.
I have just such a manager, which in itself wouldn't be too terrible, I don't think, save for the fact that she seems to pick on me specifically. She has somewhat of an attitude to begin with, one of her most noticeable traits being quick to lose patience with customers who are indecisive or vague. We all do some times, but she lets her annoyance come through at the drop of a single order change. Of course this isn't the point. I am not the most efficient nor the speediest worker by any measure, and unfortunately, due to loss of morale, nor do I care to be (My customers are never any less catered to with urgency, regardless of my motivation). That said, I do work as hard as my co-workers and always try to find something to do. It actually drives me a bit up a wall if I can't remind myself of something to do quickly.
Enter: Bossy manager. She seems to know what I'm doing at all times and always finds something to pick at me about that she doesn't much bother about with my co-workers. But it's not just the nit-picking, it's the tone of voice she uses: She talks to me like I'm one of her rebellious little children, that "You made Mommy mad." tone of voice. It's not condescending, but it is totally devoid of a lack of respect and clearly indicates that she thinks I'm some sort of slacker who never gets anything right. The worst is when I do something that needs to be done, like put biscuits in the oven. This is a prime example for you guys. Even if it needs to be done, if it isn't at her prompting, she gets upset, as though I'm undermining her authority. There have been a handful of occasions where, after wariness of incurring the wrath and not wanting to confront her bossiness (Her response when asked if she wants another pan in, whether yes or no, tends to be offered with attitude) I or other co-workers didn't put a pan of biscuits in because we figured she would simply delegate that to someone, and then she became upset when she realized nobody had taken the initiative to put one in. This is blatant contradiction. That said, I'd be remiss if I didn't emphasize that she treats the other co-workers with much more respect and tact than I.
Some may think, "well, imagine having to be a manager hard at work at a fast food joint". I have, and I work with three other shift managers, including the general manager, who are always hard at work on some priority (I actually have one manager who's a bit pokey, or rather shuffles about with too many targets and not as much ability to focus on a few key priorities, but his overall good demeanor and dedication to making everything work smoothly for everyone else makes it easier for me and others to work and we generally handle the rushes quite a bit better). She does not do this. She literally--not figuratively--stands around until she decides something seems critical enough to get her attention. The word there is 'decides'. I kid you not, we've been backed up on customers, one man short and without a second to catch a breath, and she's just stood at the manager's desk staring out the window. Coincidentally, I don't seem to have any of the performance problems with either of the three other managers. In fact, just the knowledge that she's on the hunt actually stunts my performance because I'm always on edge.
Now, I hope this hasn't come across as some sort of whiny rant from some twenty-something who knows little about the world, but I do need some serious advice in dealing with this. Currently, there's not much else I can do. As I tend to work mornings and she's the morning shift, we see each other all the time, and my only other options are other minimum wage jobs most of which tend have poor management themselves.
Thats not the Peter Principle!
Have your GF punch her in the stomach, ala Jema of Sons Of Anarchy.
How is it not? She seems to have risen to her level of incompetence, which is by definition exactly the Peter Principle.
Words matter-wake up!
I'm awake. Your words are not making sense.
Sorry man just yankin your chain, "Highest" level does improve the meaning, I think.
It may improve the meaning for you, but it's not accurate. As you said "words matter". From wikipedia:
The Peter Principle is a belief that, in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous  treatise, which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology."
The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter's Corollary states that "[i]n time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." "Managing upward" is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly manipulate his or her superiors in order to prevent them from interfering with the subordinate's productive activity or to generally limit the damage done by the superiors' incompetence.
This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity for simulations.
Note the absence of the word "highest".
I seem to remember that "Highest " was stress in the book. But in your quote you are certainty right!
No. Highest level is absolutely NOT correct. You don't get to redefine Dr. Peter's work just because you lack reading comprehension skills. Just accept that you were wrong and get on with your life.
I seem to have the book here in front of me and since I just re-read it and you haven't offered anything in rebuttal other than "I seem to remember" it's time for you to admit that you are wrong and stop embarrassing yourself.
Next time you decide to tell someone "words matter" make sure you have a clue what you're talking about first.