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

161–170 of 190 posts

Re: Peter principle

#161

Post by Buttons840 »

hammock wrote: post #124
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…

At middle management levels that approach may be the way it works, because of the incentives. But once you start presenting to board rooms and people who have zero skin in the game of office politics, but 100% skin in the game of the firm’s profits (and more broadly firm profits at large), you absolutely will not succeed unless you are delivering value through competence

It still works that way for anyone who values anything else above profit. If you believe ethics are more important than profit, the board won't like you.

Re: Peter principle

#162

Post by Aloisius »

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…

> Competent people are a source of pain to higher levels of management, because they don't just say "yes boss"

This sounds more like they aren't competent at the kind of politicking and development of political capital required for middle management.

In other words, someone competent is promoted and which they are incompetent at because they lack the skills necessary for the new job - the Peter Principle.

Re: Peter principle

#163

Post by asveikau »

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 true, but it's also subjective. The question of competence and correct behavior is subjective. There could be validity in the "yes boss" perspective. I say that despite having a very strong bias against the "yes boss" personality myself.

Ultimately both sides of this need to approach with humility and understand how little they can see and influence, and how all perception is subjective.

Re: Peter principle

#164

Post by random99292 »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #116
random99292 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just listened to the episode and I am not sure I buy their premise why bad managers exists. There are many reason why someone get promoted into a managerial position, but saying it's because they were good at their current job seems simplistic and a broad generalization. I am also skeptical of their claim about sales numbers and how effective their managerial skills are. Correlation is not causation, and averages i…

> I am also skeptical of their claim about sales numbers and how effective their managerial skills are. That's exactly the issue: there's no causal link. They could be good at both; indeed, this is what the org is banking on. But it's just as likely you're good at sales and not as good at management.

I probably misunderstood it, but what I heard it as you can be a good manager even if you don't have knowledge on what you are managing.

Re: Peter principle

#165

Post by jerf »

n1b wrote: post #134
jerf wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

I can tu quoque right back at you; can you conceive of a person who expresses some opinion (and this includes technical matters, things within the scope of your job, opinions you are being paid to have, not just random political things) only and solely because it is their real opinion? No, if you came at with me with my own opinion two weeks later, you would not find I have radically shifted very often, and even less often without realizing I've shifted, and virtually never insulting whoever held the opinion I held two weeks ago.

I don't base my opinions on whether or not I get to contradict someone else. Clearly some people do.

Re: Peter principle

#166

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

godshatter wrote: post #135
nextworddev wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hell, I have a PhD in psychology and I don't know enough about this effect to talk about it intelligently.

Re: Peter principle

#167

Post by onthecanposting »

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…

I want to agree because I see myself in this, particularly the conclusion of the career arc, but I try to remember that market conditions are beyond my control and aren't productive to dwell on.

I had a boss who cut his teeth at one of the largest AEC firms in the US. He frequently said, "the two most dangerous people are an incompetent that everyone gets along with and the highly competent that nobody gets along with. Both can destroy an organization." I knew who he had in mind on the former, which I thought was pretty callous. I realized that he saw me as the latter after I was fired.

I think we should not infer rules about business behavior from market forces because management in large organizations have enough insulation to develop their own hard to explain customs.

Re: Peter principle

#168

Post by google234123 »

lucianbr wrote: post #142
Eisenstein wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I wonder if Stalin had the right idea. Purge the leadership every so often to start with a clean slate. Of course this only works with bureaucracies and not things that require tons of experience. You also have to have somewhere for them to move on to if you don't want to murder them or ship them to Siberia.

Why doesn't anyone consider things like demotion, lateral motion or promotion contingent on an evaluation of fit for the target role? Must we jump directly to "never promote anyone" or "Stalin-type purges"? Are there really so few options?

people have too much pride for demotion - risk to the company too

Re: Peter principle

#169

Post by rapjr9 »

People can learn. So I've often wondered if the Peter Principle is more of a recognition that people stop learning as they get older. Seems like the data could fit either scenario. People rise until their job requires more skills than they have, or people rise until they stop learning (or learn to stop learning, or until their learning capacity is reduced.) There's this thing that is called "growing up". Does growing up entail not being naive and an end to accepting what you are told (i.e., learning)? "They" say that when you're over 30 you are "over the hill". Has anyone ever tried to measure that? Maybe it's not a physical change in the body, maybe it's a consequence of getting hurt and learning not to be naive and accepting less teaching, being less open. If you've watched children grow up you can see them becoming more reticent and adopting postures.
Post reply on HN