Peter principle
en.wikipedia.org
Peter principle
1–10 of 190 posts
Re: Peter principle
#2Hmm dunno, I have seen 1) people rising >2 levels above their level of incompetence, as well as 2) people staying What’s definitely true is that actual level / title don’t match perfectly with “competence” which itself is a nebulous concept in many companies.
Re: Peter principle
#3Hmm dunno, I have seen 1) people rising >2 levels above their level of incompetence, as well as 2) people staying What’s definitely true is that actual level / title don’t match perfectly with “competence” which itself is a nebulous concept in many companies.
An argument for discrimination is that one then gets highly talented people from the discriminated-against class who stick upon their glass ceilings; I first heard this hypothesis as the British empire having been headed by English but run by Irish, Native, Scots, and Welsh administrators.
(alternative to avoid relying on discrimination: apply "up or out"?)
Re: Peter principle
#4Hmm dunno, I have seen 1) people rising >2 levels above their level of incompetence, as well as 2) people staying What’s definitely true is that actual level / title don’t match perfectly with “competence” which itself is a nebulous concept in many companies.
I believe that example 1) is addressed in the article as "percussive sublimation".
Re: Peter principle
#5The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. If you follow this logic and reverse it, then it would be safe to assume that Steve Jobs would have been one of the best data entry clerks ever employed by Apple.
Re: Peter principle
#6The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. If you follow this logic and reverse it, then it would be safe to assume that Steve Jobs would have been one of the best data entry clerks ever employed by Apple.
I always understood that a person being competent in role A is being promoted because of being good paired with maybe personal or/and corporate development goals. Once in the new role, with likely higher pay, it is very unlikely to go back. Instead of going back the person will try to stay afloat in the new role. Some will rise to the challenge others not.
Re: Peter principle
#7The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. If you follow this logic and reverse it, then it would be safe to assume that Steve Jobs would have been one of the best data entry clerks ever employed by Apple.
> The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role.
No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. If you're not, you'll stay where you are. So you either are good at your job and can be promoted or you're bad at your job. You can be good at your current job and other forces outside of competence are preventing that advancement.
And so, there is no logic to reverse and make that assumption. Also, for your reversal, Steve Jobs would've needs to start as a data entry clerk. Reversing this doesn't mean any job below you is where you came from.
Re: Peter principle
#8Biggest constraint on this principle is that you can get promoted to a level where getting promoted again requires someone else quitting. That doesn't really imply anything about your competence.
Usually if you're blocked from advancing though, you'll move on to another company that needs someone in the higher role
Re: Peter principle
#9There’s a Freakonomics podcast about this topic that’s worth a listen.
It helped me work through what it felt like to be in this position. I’d class myself as a reluctant staff eng at this point who has no wish to progress further at this time.
Most interesting part of the podcast is how it talks about how companies know this happens but let it happen anyways because it’s the least of all evils on their eyes.
One suggestion to beat it is wild: random promotions. As I’ve gotten older and seen how titles/pay are tied closely to experience and age I’ve started to see that maybe it isn’t the worst idea. It does, however, absolutely murder the method of meritocracy.
Re: Peter principle
#10The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. If you follow this logic and reverse it, then it would be safe to assume that Steve Jobs would have been one of the best data entry clerks ever employed by Apple.
> The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. If you're not, you'll stay where you are. So you either are good at your job and can be promoted or you're bad at your job. You can be good at your current job and other forces outside of competence are preventing that…
> No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted.
Respectfully, that's exactly what it says. Why else would someone get promoted "until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent" if one's competence increases with a promotion? e.g. Some people are intuitively better at managing people than they are at programming.