Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter principle

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 190 posts

Re: Peter principle

#21

Post by Willish42 »

wrp wrote: post #16

Since first hearing about the Peter principle, I've wondered whether it would work to just make all promotions probationary.

Some big tech organizations basically do this without the pay. Essentially in some FAANG corps, you have to prove having worked at L+1 while still at L to get promoted to L+1.

In my biased / personal experience, the veracity of such a bar kinda deteriorates over time and the short average tenure makes most promo processes corrupt B.S. when folks are more incentivized to just quit and join somewhere else for more money.

Also, this process and your suggestion at a "probation" tends to motivate working harder for the window being measured, regardless of how actually adept or well equipped the person is at the level for which they're trying to illustrate competence.

Re: Peter principle

#22

Post by OhMeadhbh »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #17
jmholla wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not. To quote Wikipedia [0]: > employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another. That does not translate to or imply that: > The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. It is saying you will keep get…

I quoted directly from the source you provided.

I was going to comment on this thread but realized I had reached my level of incompetence at explaining things to other people on the internet.

Re: Peter principle

#23

Post by jacknews »

The assumption here is that being good at a job is what 'earns' a promotion.

In fact, it can be the opposite; why risk promoting someone to a new role, when they are doing great at the current one?

What actually marks someone for promotion is clear potential for the target role, sometimes despite a not-so-good current performance, indeed sometimes because of it.

Re: Peter principle

#24

Post by BobbyTables2 »

This is all fine for lower levels.

For executives, there are only a few paths:

- take over your boss’s job when they retire/get fired. (One can slowly go from individual contributor to vice president this way!)

- fit non-competence based corporate goals and have the polish to visibly demonstrate such (industry track record not required!). More about fluff than stuff…

- have strong corporate political alliances with higher leaders

None of this has anything to do with vision, ability, or merit.

Re: Peter principle

#25

Post by OhMeadhbh »

George Marshall who was, among other things, Chief of Staff of the Army during WWII was lauded for his policy of yanking commanding generals if they didn't adapt to new positions quickly. But he lessened the stigma of being relieved by transferring them to other commands, still at flag rank. Several commanders early in '42 were removed from commanding infantry divisions, but were given commands of units in combat support or material support or training where they went on to deliver stellar service. So it was like finding the right guy (and it definitely was a guy back in those days) for the right job.

This is in contrast to continental armies with aristocratic baggage who found it difficult to fire flag grade commanders (looking at you, monty.)

But the political risk to his own career was enormous and the only way he got away with it was with the full support of FDR and his reputation earned partially as Pershing's Chief of Staff in WWI.

He is also the only person in the US Army to be considered for the rank of Field Marshall, mostly because FDR thought it would be funny to have Field Marshal Marshall.

Which is to say... you might be able to cheat the Peter Principal, but the amount of effort seems great and you would have to work very hard to sooth the egos of those demoted or reframe the demotion as a lateral xfer.

Re: Peter principle

#26

Post by jmholla »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #17
jmholla wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not. To quote Wikipedia [0]: > employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another. That does not translate to or imply that: > The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. It is saying you will keep get…

I quoted directly from the source you provided.

I do not see your verbiage on that page. Can you point me to it?

Edit: You seem to be referring to this quote of yours:

> 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?

My response explained why your leaps in logic don't make sense. That line just means there's a point at which their skills won't apply. Not that every rung above results in reduced competence. You can be better and better and then worse and the Peter Principle would still be applicable.

The Peter Principle is just about the changing competencies as one rises and how one hits a wall.

Re: Peter principle

#28

Post by spott »

The peters principle makes an assumption about the convexity of competency that I’ve never thought was great. Essentially someone could get promoted to their level of incompetence, when if they were promoted again they would actually get better at their job.

There is an implicit assumption that competence at job a is less than competence at a job b above job a, which isn’t necessarily true.

Re: Peter principle

#29

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #12
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those people who are good at management will get promoted to directors. The ones who aren't remain incompetent managers.

And some will be better at being a director than they were as a manager.

And those ones will become senior directors, and so on. The principle isn't that no one will ever be good at their job; it's that they won't stay in that job long-term if they are good.

Re: Peter principle

#30

Post by Jimmc414 »

jmholla wrote: post #26
Jimmc414 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quoted directly from the source you provided.

I do not see your verbiage on that page. Can you point me to it? Edit: You seem to be referring to this quote of yours: > 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? My response explained why your leaps in logic don't make sense. That line just means there's a point at which their skills won't apply. Not that ever…

You make valid points, and your interpretation is likely a more accurate interpretation of the Peter Principle.
Post reply on HN