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

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: Peter principle

#181

Post by OhMeadhbh »

fsckboy wrote: post #173
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The US doesn't have a Field Marshal grade, but before 1947, it could have been created by the president. I believe it requires an act of congress now. But there's little will to do it because of its association with aristocratic traditions in Europe. Which is why when FDR suggested it, it was interpreted as a joke.

Re: Peter principle

#182

Post by mcmoor »

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…

I don't know if it's actually a quote someome that era said but it goes like "Best American general in WW2 is General Logistics"

Re: Peter principle

#183

Post by hackable_sand »

Waterluvian wrote: post #38

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.

It sounds as if they are competent then.

Re: Peter principle

#184

Post by md_ »

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.

Isn't people who don't know enough about Dunning-Kruger confidently spouting off about it...sort of evidence of Dunning-Kruger?

I kid of course. Or do I?

Re: Peter principle

#185

Post by lupire »

This is a negative view on human growth. If you don't promote incompetent people, then you promote no one, and the job doesn't get done, and no one learns to do the job.

Re: Peter principle

#186

Post by fsmv »

This is a great excuse to not pay you as much as you deserve because you haven't demonstrated competence at the next level yet

Re: Peter principle

#187

Post by theatomheart »

n1b wrote: post #137
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.

you seem very sure of your declarations here; im not sure you've looked too far beyond your bubble. i have worked within a rational meritocarcy for the past 15 years.

Re: Peter principle

#188

Post by Aeolun »

Eisenstein wrote: post #98
Aeolun wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here being that if you are competent you’ll find it a strain to work in an environment that (often) does not listen to your advice, even if that means everyone is pulling in the same direction. It’s nice for everyone else if they’re all contentedly pulling in the wrong direction, not so much for the one that sees that direction for what it is.

In that case how are you sure that you are correct and everyone else is wrong?

Experience. Can only suffer from imposter syndrome so many times before you start to see a pattern.

Of course, any given instance may be right or wrong, but the balance of probability has shifted.

It’s especially egregious when you have literal years of experience with a subject and some person without any of that makes, or gets people to make decisions their way instead.

Re: Peter principle

#189

Post by ownlife »

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.

I don’t think the takeaway from the Dunning-Kruger effect is "don’t invoke basic aspects of human nature on internet discussion forums unless you’re a trained academic psychologist"

Re: Peter principle

#190

Post by P_I_Staker »

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?

Doubt anyone will see this, but the answer is simple: This causes people problems.

Chances are the employee is dependent on pay. Their lifestyle has likely inflated based on the increased resources. Their ego as well.

It's almost easier to just say: "This isn't done". Too often the result is infighting, tension, and/or the person just leaves. You may see it in niche cases where people just want to focus on their homelife, or clearly bit off more than they could chew.

In our current culture it probably is much better to just impede advancement and let inflation and technical progress do the work.

I think we can both agree this is a problem. It's actually a far deeper issue than people realize. We have a primary education -> professional education -> professional advancement pipeline.

We judge people based on their track record going through this system, unabated. So excessive hang-ups and temporary failures are off the table. Otherwise, you're going to get spit out of the pipeline. A reject. Now there are many assumptions and your professional value will go down.

Also, this is an enormous problem for people with disabilities or obligations in the household.

Post reply on HN