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

131–140 of 190 posts

Re: Peter principle

#131

Post by yosefk »

aftoprokrustes wrote: post #63
stareatgoats wrote: post #58

The "Peter principle" rests on the assumption that organizations are rational meritocracies, and will reward people that are competent at their given task. And those organizations may (still) exist, but they are not the norm, at least not in my experience. I propose another, more important, principle as an explanation for the obvious incompetence of many managers: Competent people are a source of pain to higher level…

This is, fortunately, not my experience. In all of my jobs, the most highly regarded people, including by management, were/are those who have an informed opinion and are confident enough to voice it, and potentially take responsibilities outside of their job description in order to steer the business in the direction they are convinced is the right one. Note that this handful persons I am referring to _also_ accept c…

Sounds great! Care to share the places you've seen this at?

Re: Peter principle

#132

Post by fsckboy »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #37
tivert wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

well then you should have implied it because he was promoted to a rank equivalent to field marshall, 5 star general. (neither rank existed at the time, and when the rank was created, "field marshall" was eschewed as a name for it)

Re: Peter principle

#133

Post by [deleted] »

jerf wrote: post #126
ttoinou wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh those people disagree with themselves very often, that's how you can recognize them

Finding a reason to echo someone's own opinion back at them after a suitable time where they've forgotten they voiced it is a very effective test for disagreeableness, I've found. You don't need to chase them down about the contradiction. Just note it and take appropriate future actions. It can even be a bit amusing, if they are insulting about it, to watch them vigorous call themselves stupid for expressing their pr…

[deleted]

Re: Peter principle

#134

Post by n1b »

jerf wrote: post #126
ttoinou wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh those people disagree with themselves very often, that's how you can recognize them

Finding a reason to echo someone's own opinion back at them after a suitable time where they've forgotten they voiced it is a very effective test for disagreeableness, I've found. You don't need to chase them down about the contradiction. Just note it and take appropriate future actions. It can even be a bit amusing, if they are insulting about it, to watch them vigorous call themselves stupid for expressing their pr…

Agreed - and you will find not a single living person will pass this test over time. Therefore, it's a worthless, but deeply amusing, test. Human ignorance is so pervasive it even applies to people like you :)

Re: Peter principle

#135

Post by godshatter »

nextworddev wrote: post #111
md_ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of seeming like an asshole: I think for every highly competent person who just lacks a bit of social graces and is unfairly punished by a defensive bureaucracy, I have encountered many more incompetent people who, due to Dunning-Kruger, don't recognize their own incompetence, and instead ascribe the rejection of their (mediocre) ideas to the unfair defensiveness of the bureaucracy above them. Or, in meme…

Dunning-Kruger seems like an overused framework to explain just pure "lack of self-awareness due to immaturity / ego / lack of intelligence, etc."

Not to mention that if someone isn't a psychologist they shouldn't be spouting off about the Dunning-Kruger effect anyway because arguably they don't have enough competence in that particular domain to be able to talk about it intelligently.

Re: Peter principle

#136

Post by maxrecursion »

throwaway458864 wrote: post #50
ranger207 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting reading about WWII generals because they're so well-studied it's relatively easy to notice patterns about them. One is that there were a few different types based on what they were good at. Patton was a good tactician and (mostly) beloved by his men; Eisenhower was a logistician with little experience actually commanding but he got along with everyone; Nimitz was good at delegating (aka finding the r…

> A lot of leadership stuff is universal, but then a lot of it is also dependent on what's needed for the job, and a person's skills and leadership patterns may not be exactly what's needed for the job. Leadership is what's needed for leadership jobs. It's in the title. All leadership is the same: inspire the troops, block the bullshit, elevate the good shit. How you do that changes by rank. > The Peter Principle is…

> Leadership is what's needed for leadership jobs. It's in the title. All leadership is the same: inspire the troops, block the bullshit, elevate the good shit. How you do that changes by rank.

A big part of leadership, which might be covered under your 'block the bullshit' point, is fighting the higher level managerial battles, and only relying on your lower level staff for their specialized support.

If there is one thing I hate about some managers is throwing their employees to fight political battles with other managers, or high level Executives, while the manager hides in the bushes.

The manager's job is to fight those battles, and yet I've seen them hide from them a lot, while using their workers as shields.

Re: Peter principle

#137

Post by n1b »

stareatgoats wrote: post #58

The "Peter principle" rests on the assumption that organizations are rational meritocracies, and will reward people that are competent at their given task. And those organizations may (still) exist, but they are not the norm, at least not in my experience. I propose another, more important, principle as an explanation for the obvious incompetence of many managers: Competent people are a source of pain to higher level…

Rational meritocracies do not exist in the present, have never existed in the past, and will never exist in the future. However, the idea that a meritocracy can or does exist is a useful tool for those with leverage over others. It justifies their decisions, which in reality simply boil down to a combination of their "gut" feeling and what they can get away with socially given their position in the hierarchy.

Re: Peter principle

#138

Post by BeetleB »

mare5x wrote: post #107
abadpoli wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think there is that implicit assumption. My understanding of the principle is that a person would never get “promoted again”, because their incompetence at their level prevents it. Essentially: if you’re good at a job, you get promoted out of it. If you’re not good at a job, you don’t get promoted out of it. So the end state for everyone is that they remain in jobs they are not good at.

So people that are good at their jobs should be kept on the brink of promotion for as long as possible?

Or simply pay them more without a promotion. That's what bonuses are for.

Re: Peter principle

#139

Post by gmane »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #115
hackton wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is that people being good at the job tend to be promoted to managerial positions, but being good at certain tasks does not make you necessarily good at managing people, even if they just do these very tasks. I also have been in companies with two career paths: managerial and technical, both respected and rewarded, to the point you can be paid much higher than your boss if you are senior and performing.…

IMO, most orgs believe more in scaling via adding people vs scaling via tech. This doesn't discredit what you say. It does, however, explain why it's much easier to move up on the management ladder vs the IC ladder.

I'll add on to your point: moving up the IC ladder is often slow because it takes more to both become an expert in a field and to prove it to your leadership. Each step up the IC ladder is harder to actually obtain those skills, and harder to prove that you have obtained those skills to management.

On the flip side, the management ladder is more delivery focused (though not exclusively): are you getting your team to get their work done? It's somewhat easier to demonstrate success on the management side, and because you're leading a team, it's possible (though not necessarily true in most cases) for a manager to get promoted on the strength of their team and not their ability as a manager.

Re: Peter principle

#140

Post by lucianbr »

mare5x wrote: post #107
abadpoli wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think there is that implicit assumption. My understanding of the principle is that a person would never get “promoted again”, because their incompetence at their level prevents it. Essentially: if you’re good at a job, you get promoted out of it. If you’re not good at a job, you don’t get promoted out of it. So the end state for everyone is that they remain in jobs they are not good at.

So people that are good at their jobs should be kept on the brink of promotion for as long as possible?

Ideally you should evaluate if a person will be good in the new position, where they will be promoted. Don't know if that's always possible, or how easy it is.

Also, maybe if someone is bad at their job, they should be demoted or otherwise moved. It's another way to break the convergence to people unfit to their positions.

Post reply on HN