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

171–180 of 190 posts

Re: Peter principle

#171

Post by QuercusMax »

nabla9 wrote: post #97
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…

Wehrmacht gave great support from the sides. At the beginning of the war, American flag officers were humiliated by their much more experienced and skillful Wehrmacht counterparts. Lt. Gen Lloyd Fredendall and other fools just had to go or the war would end before it started. It was a natural evolution. The only subpar American general who thrived in WWII was Gen. Douglas MacArthur. He came out of every mess he creat…

So MacArthur had a "reality-distortion field" like Steve Jobs? Interesting.

Re: Peter principle

#173

Post by fsckboy »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #158
fsckboy wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

it would have been inaccurate to say George Marshall was promoted to Field Marshal, because he wasn't. He was promoted to General of the Army. It's sort of like saying someone who was promoted to Gunner in the Marines is a Chief Warrant Officer. The two are equivalent in rank, but very different roles in their organizations. And if you referred to a Navy Captain as a Colonel, people would look at you funny, even thou…

It's quite normal and ordinary to say and execute as if, for example, a "Group Captain" in a Commonwealth air force is the equivalent to a "Colonel" in the US Air Force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comparative_military_r...

The US doesn't have a Field Marshall rank; European forces do. The promotion of Gen Marshall to five star general was intended to make rational the lines and ranks of command, including between coordinated forces of allied nations.

it's not the name of the title that matters, it's the rank in the hierarchy.

Re: Peter principle

#174

Post by sorokod »

Buttons840 wrote: post #154
rokkamokka wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other side of the coin is the needlessly defiant people. These believe themselves to be those that "have an informed opinion and are confident enough to voice it", but in reality they just disagree with everything and everyone except themselves. From a third party's point of view they're easy to discern, however.

I'm probably one of these defiant people, so I want to speak in their defense. I really just want to be heard. I want to be heard and have a response from someone who has comprehended my point of view and fully engaged with it, but that rarely happens. At my last job I was defiant because the company was storing plain text passwords and PPI in the test database, and every developer had access to it (I'm certain there…

The bottom line is that you failed to achieve the goal you set out to achieve and got laid off.

How is that ”speak in their defense"? Can you think of an alternative approach that would have delivered the result over time without you loosing your job?

Re: Peter principle

#175

Post by 486sx33 »

darkerside wrote: post #77
486sx33 wrote: post #71

I had an employee give me this book one morning. He wasn’t a direct report, he reported to his manager who reported to me. Anyway he came in my office one morning and gave me the book. I hadn’t heard of it so I smiled and thanked him for thinking of me. I had an interesting wave of thoughts reading it… I still don’t know if he thought I was incompetent or what, but, in any case, it was enlightening.

So you never asked him why he gave you the book?

He used to be a pastor and one of his followers had given it to him. I did ask him but his answer amounted to “passing it along I thought you’d be interested”. Of course I spent a long time wondering what his deeper message to me may have been. Perhaps I’ll never exactly know his intent but that’s ok for me. He quit and took a job at a shoe store , but stays in touch with me 5+ years later.

Re: Peter principle

#176

Post by 2devnull »

bowsamic wrote: post #49
amackera wrote: post #36

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.

> This book was meant as satire, and the fact that so many people take it as fact is honestly quite concerning. The article says it was satire but it also says it was based on their real research. Also satire doesn’t necessarily mean something is meant to be untrue

Yep, many “just-so” stories have some aspect of truth. I feel like people citing the Peter principle as a cliche explanation for many things that are likely to be overdetermined probably correlates with intelligence, as it takes greater intelligence to consider more complicated models of career advancement.

Re: Peter principle

#177

Post by [deleted] »

jerf wrote: post #165
n1b wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Peter principle

#178

Post by [deleted] »

sorokod wrote: post #174
Buttons840 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably one of these defiant people, so I want to speak in their defense. I really just want to be heard. I want to be heard and have a response from someone who has comprehended my point of view and fully engaged with it, but that rarely happens. At my last job I was defiant because the company was storing plain text passwords and PPI in the test database, and every developer had access to it (I'm certain there…

The bottom line is that you failed to achieve the goal you set out to achieve and got laid off. How is that ”speak in their defense"? Can you think of an alternative approach that would have delivered the result over time without you loosing your job?

[deleted]

Re: Peter principle

#179

Post by rrr_oh_man »

g4zj wrote: post #103
md_ wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, let me put it this way: I have often run into people who seem to think management is stupid for not accepting their idea, which they then explain--and which I also think is a bad idea. Maybe I'm also just dumb, though!

> highly competent person who just lacks a bit of social graces I consider myself one of these people (let's say above average competency). I don't think management is stupid for not accepting my ideas. I begin to have an issue when they disregard the concerns my idea was meant to address. Too often, it feels as though they choose the path which leads us straight into what I think are clearly foreseeable and avoidabl…

Amusing anecdote: On average, people think they are above average.

Re: Peter principle

#180

Post by TeaBrain »

amackera wrote: post #36

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.

That particular passage in the Wikipedia article on the eponymous book being satire is worded extremely poorly. Satire is a common format for making social commentary. The occurrence in organizations of Lawrence Peter's findings, now known as the Peter Principle, is the social commentary being communicated by the book. It is a phenomenon which had previously been established as occurring prior to the book in Lawrence Peter's research and was the entire basis for the eponymous book being written by Raymond Hull.
Post reply on HN