Paula principle

As Paula principle is called the phenomenon of some authors that women in their professional careers more likely to stay below its potential, while their male counterparts Peter Principle would apply. The naming of the principle comes from a play on words with Peter and Paul .

Concept formation

The Peter Principle, formulated in 1969 by Laurence J. Peter and named after him, describes a mechanism that ensures that employees get into positions they lack the skills for: employees are promoted as long as they perform well in their current position , since it is then assumed that they are also suitable for higher positions. This can continue until they have reached a position with which they are overwhelmed, so that no further promotions are made and they remain at their respective “level of incompetence”.

In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.

Cordelia Grimwood and Ruth Popplestone differentiate this principle in their book Women, Management and Care from 1993 in that men tend to be promoted to positions beyond their competence, while women are held in positions that are below their abilities. This principle is known as the “Paula Principle” and leads to incompetent managers having to be partially absorbed by their subordinates, who they should actually manage - often by efficient secretaries.

Andrew Hede criticized Peter in 1994 for initially expressing his principle in a sexist way (due to the choice of words with the masculine possessive pronoun his ) before later using a non-sexist formulation . He described the "Paula principle" as the long-lost sister of the established Peter principle as follows:

“The Paula principle, by contrast, comprises two propositions:

1. The Peter principle applies mainly to men, and
2. Women tend to be promoted only to the level of their proven competence.

Thus, whereas men are typically assumed to be capable of performing at a level higher than that of their proven competence, women tend to be promoted only after they have demonstrated their capacity to perform at the higher level. "

translated:

"The Paula principle, on the other hand, comprises two statements:

1. The Peter principle applies mainly to men and
2. As a rule, women are only promoted to the level of their proven competence.

While it is assumed that men are usually able to perform at a higher level than their proven competence, women are usually only promoted after they have demonstrated their ability to perform at a higher level. "

He referred to the statement of the journalist Geraldine Doogue , according to which equality in the world of work would be realized if mediocre women fared as well as mediocre men (“We will have achieved equity in employment when mediocre women do as well as mediocre men”) ) .

The term was spread through a book by Tom Schuller published in 2017 with the title The Paula Principle: why women lose out at work - and what needs to be done about it (German: The Paula principle: Why women lose out at work - and what needs to be done about it ). In it, the author explores the question of why there is still a large discrepancy between male and female careers. Schuller worked out that women mostly get stuck in positions that are far below their level of competence, that is, very far below the famous glass ceiling . His first publication on the subject appeared in 2011 as a briefing paper for the UK Commission for Employment and Skills , where he stated that he had introduced the principle for the first time with this publication.

Influencing factors

In his book, Schuller uses the following five main reasons to explain the Paula principle:

1. Discrimination against women

Examples: women politicians are perceived as girls or “mothers”. Young female colleagues are not taken seriously. Sexist slogans and sexual harassment are part of everyday life in many workplaces.

Schuller admits that the working atmosphere for women has improved over the past few decades, but the problem is still big enough to negatively affect women's careers.

2. Male role models and rope teams are still the rule

When management levels are male, male role models are the rule. Conversely, this means that there are fewer female role models. The motto You can only be what you can see is a big problem. In addition, men prefer to include other men in their network and promote them. Schuller describes this as PlUs, "People like us" . Areas in which women dominate, such as the care sector, are in turn often paid significantly less.

3. The ubiquity of men makes women insecure

Old patterns remain valid: men apply confidently for the same suitability, while women doubt their suitability.

4. The assumption that women rated their professional careers as less important

According to Schuller, women asked themselves too many questions before a promotion, such as: Do I need the money, do I need recognition and can I develop myself further in my current position? If they could answer no to two questions, they were more likely to shy away from promotion. Male colleagues then benefited from this. This point is also an often-cited argument for the fact that women do not aspire to a career and are therefore to blame for their situation. Schuller counters this by stating that men should instead adopt this reflective decision-making process as their own.

5. Solidified role stereotypes persisted

The current living situation of women also means that they are mainly the ones who look after the children or take care of relatives, while men go to work full-time.

In order to break up the encrusted social model, Schuller suggests interpreting the professional behavior of women differently: “We have to get rid of the image that you don't want to have a career if you work part-time. When it comes to career issues for women, things will only really change if men also enter mosaic careers and do not subscribe to the full-time concept as the only path. "

reception

The Paula principle has been included in the program of many companies that offer career advice. Reviews of Schuller's book and journalistic articles on the Paula Principle have appeared in prestigious newspapers such as the Independent , the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Harvard Business Review . In a book review, Professors Annette Foley (Melbourne) and Peter Lavender (Wolverhampton) praise the accessibility and data abundance of the book, but note that Schuller does not take into account feminist theories on housework and family work or on the relationship between capitalist modes of production and reproductive work.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Cordelia Grimwood, Ruth Popplestone: Women, Management and Care . Palgrave 1993, p. 4.
2. ^ Andrew Hede: The Glass Ceiling Metaphor . In: Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 1994, 76, 79-85.
3. ↑ Tom Schuller: The Paula Principle: why women lose out at work - and what needs to be done about it . Scribe Publications, 2018, ISBN 978-1-911344-60-5 .
4. ↑ The Paula Principle: How and Why Women Work Below their Level of Competence, by Tom Schuller. May 11, 2017, accessed March 19, 2021 . 
5. ^ The Paula Principle | Working women operate below their level of competence. Retrieved March 19, 2021 (UK English). 
6. ↑ Tom Schuller: Gender and Skills in a Changing Economy. UK Commission for Employment and Skills, September 2011.
7. ↑ Edition F: “The Paula Principle”: Why smart women at work so often lag behind incompetent men. In: ze.tt. Retrieved March 19, 2021 . 
8. ↑ Five reasons women do not get the same career opportunities with men. March 21, 2017, accessed April 5, 2021 . 
9. ↑ Jackie Dent: What's holding so many well-educated women back when it comes to work? June 9, 2017, accessed April 5, 2021 . 
10. ↑ Various Authors: How CEOs Can Put Gender Balance on the Agenda at Their Companies . In: Harvard Business Review . November 30, 2016, ISSN  0017-8012 ( hbr.org [accessed April 5, 2021]).
11. ↑ Annette Foley, Peter Lavender: The Paula principle: How and why women work below their level of competence. In: Australian Journal of Adult Learning 2017, 57.