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

31–40 of 190 posts

Re: Peter principle

#31

Post by dang »

Related threads below. The 1974 video is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39wzku9KIEM.

Peter Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855815 - Dec 2022 (5 comments)

The Peter Principle (1974) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32627396 - Aug 2022 (39 comments)

The Peter Principle: Are you at your level of incompetence? (1974) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32243969 - July 2022 (1 comment)

The Peter Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24433059 - Sept 2020 (1 comment)

The Peter Principle Tested - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19797375 - May 2019 (47 comments)

The Peter Principle is a joke taken seriously. Is it true? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17845289 - Aug 2018 (108 comments)

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17301215 - June 2018 (50 comments)

The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972249 - May 2018 (48 comments)

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2270053 - Feb 2011 (2 comments)

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1121507 - Feb 2010 (1 comment)

Re: Peter principle

#32

Post by CobrastanJorji »

jacknews wrote: post #23

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.

That's the "Dilbert Principal:" Promote incompetent employees to management to minimize their ability to harm productivity.

Re: Peter principle

#33

Post by tivert »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #25

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 sup…

> 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.

According to Wikipedia, he got an equivalent rank that was named "General of the Army" It was not called "Field Marshal" because having a "Marshal Marshall" was considered undignified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_marshal#United_States:)

Re: Peter principle

#35

Post by ghaff »

Willish42 wrote: post #21
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 mone…

The problem is the step function differences. Someone may be an exceptional individual contributor but a lousy manager even at a relatively low level. A manager of a small team may not be great at handling a big team that may need to be realigned.

Some of it's about a company having reasonable tracks for people depending upon their preferences. But people may also have preferences they're just not suited for.

Re: Peter principle

#36

Post by amackera »

People aren't static, nor are companies or roles within them. Treating every person as unchanging and treating the requirements of each level in the hierarchy as unchanging are just plain bad assumptions to make.

People grow. Companies change.

This book was meant as satire, and the fact that so many people take it as fact is honestly quite concerning.

Re: Peter principle

#37

Post by OhMeadhbh »

tivert wrote: post #33
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #25

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 sup…

> 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. According to Wikipedia, he got an equivalent rank that was named "General of the Army" It was not called "Field Marshal" because having a "Marshal Marshall" was considered undignified ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_marshal#United_States :)

_considered_ for the rank of field marshal. i did not imply he was promoted to field marshal. and even then, it was very likely just a joke.

Re: Peter principle

#38

Post by Waterluvian »

I know the book is satire, but I’ve never actually witnessed this concept at play. What I have witnessed, many times, are people who always were incompetent rising because they are good at the social and political aspects of the workplace.

Re: Peter principle

#39

Post by kovezd »

habitue wrote: post #8

Biggest 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

> getting promoted again requires someone else quitting.

I can imagine this being true for 80% of high-mamager positions. But there's also a good portion of leadership positions that get created with new lines of business.

That is blue ocean thinking. Generally, it will give you more ownership about the outcome of your career.

Re: Peter principle

#40

Post by bdw5204 »

tivert wrote: post #33
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #25

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 sup…

> 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. According to Wikipedia, he got an equivalent rank that was named "General of the Army" It was not called "Field Marshal" because having a "Marshal Marshall" was considered undignified ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_marshal#United_States :)

I imagine that's where Joseph Heller got the idea for a character named Major Major Major Major:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Major_Major_Major

Post reply on HN