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

11–20 of 190 posts

Re: Peter principle

#11

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #10
jmholla wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. If you're not, you'll stay where you are. So you either are good at your job and can be promoted or you're bad at your job. You can be good at your current job and other forces outside of competence are preventing that…

> No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. Respectfully, that's exactly what it says. 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? e.g. Some people are intuitively better at managing people than they are at programming.

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

Re: Peter principle

#12

Post by Jimmc414 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #11
Jimmc414 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. Respectfully, that's exactly what it says. 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? e.g. Some people are intuitively better at managing people than they are at programming.

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.

Re: Peter principle

#13

Post by Scarblac »

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.

But those aren't the ones who earn a promotion from manager. The people who are good at being manager earn those.

Re: Peter principle

#14

Post by scaredginger »

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 some won't, so they'll remain directors

Re: Peter principle

#15

Post by jmholla »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #10
jmholla wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. If you're not, you'll stay where you are. So you either are good at your job and can be promoted or you're bad at your job. You can be good at your current job and other forces outside of competence are preventing that…

> No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. Respectfully, that's exactly what it says. 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? e.g. Some people are intuitively better at managing people than they are at programming.

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 getting promoted until you are incompetent. You can be more competent at a higher role without violating the Peter Principle. That would be another point at which you would be promoted working your way towards incompetence. The Peter Principle just says you were competent at each step in the ladder until you got to the point you weren't promoted anymore because you are incompetent at it.

You're then take another logical leap in saying that promotion to the next level means you are competent at every job on every career path that could get you to that level. The Peter Principle only talks about your own career path.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

Re: Peter principle

#16

Post by wrp »

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

Re: Peter principle

#17

Post by Jimmc414 »

jmholla wrote: post #15
Jimmc414 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. Respectfully, that's exactly what it says. 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? e.g. Some people are intuitively better at managing people than they are at programming.

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.

Re: Peter principle

#18

Post by Willish42 »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #9

There’s a Freakonomics podcast about this topic that’s worth a listen. It helped me work through what it felt like to be in this position. I’d class myself as a reluctant staff eng at this point who has no wish to progress further at this time. Most interesting part of the podcast is how it talks about how companies know this happens but let it happen anyways because it’s the least of all evils on their eyes. One sug…

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-are-there-so-many-bad-b...

link for the lazy

Re: Peter principle

#20

Post by influx »

wrp wrote: post #16

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

Most places I've worked require you to be operating at the level you're going to be promoted to before you get actually promoted.
Post reply on HN