Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

#31

Post by bluGill »

angersock wrote: post #9
wool_gather wrote: post #4

The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…

I don't care about status so much as compensation. With most IC roles, you cap out pretty quickly in salary and equity pretty quickly regardless of performance. If you want better money, or just to get paid the equity you're worth, you are forced into management roles.

I know I'd be a bad manager, but I can still make more money as a bad manager than as a great technical person. When I look at toys I want (and the retirement I hope to get someday) it is hard to not think maybe I should jump ship - I might hate my job for a while, but overall I might be happier anyway.

Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

#32

Post by bluGill »

karma_fountain wrote: post #25

I was a high performing software engineer who just got promoted to management and is currently Petering it up. Any tips on how become a competent Charlie?

Pay attention to people. Assume technical competence until proven otherwise. Ask your people where they want to go, and then figure out what they need to do to get there. If they want your job bring them to all the training you need to take now. (there is a lot of training out there are on how to be a good manager, the good stuff is backed by science) If they want to be a better developer help them in that. If they want to retire as a software engineer, make sure there is something meaningful for them to do.

Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

#33

Post by BlackFly »

wool_gather wrote: post #4

The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…

I remember seeing a paper that showed that at moderate correlations of "Good as an X -> good as a manager of Xs" you are still better off promoting people randomly. The reason being, promoting your best X eliminates your best X and does not replace them by a great manager of Xs, so you take a definite loss, at least some time transition until they become a functioning manager, and then a risk that they will never be as productive in their new role as they were in the last.

Definitely the solution is to decouple reward hierarchy from managerial hierarchy. Unfortunately, the people who would make that decision in most situations stand to lose from such a decision. There is too much focus on leaders when the best a leader can ever hope for is to allow the formation of a gestalt out of all the team members including themselves.

Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

#34

Post by justherefortart »

jessaustin wrote: post #26
justherefortart wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite thing is seeing people I wouldn't hire to be a low level IT tech as CIO/IT Director because they're a "network guy". So not only do they end up not understanding 90%+ of IT's functions in any real sense, they are typically not even trained on how to manage. I work with one such moron at my current job. The entire company goes around the fool, yet they keep him. Why? The acting CEO is likely embezzling and…

Wow if accounting/finance can't find that level of embezzlement the CIO is the least of their problems.

Accounting is in on it. Everything they do here is cooking the books. They give the auditors doctored spreadsheets for everything.

It's pretty funny to me. I don't give a shit because I'm just riding this out until I have to get something else or I get a few more clients for my startup.

Oh, everyone's 401k got stolen by a friend of the CEO's kid. So that was nice.

Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

#35

Post by yosito »

My hypothesis is that salespeople do best without strong managers. So when a poor-performing salesperson becomes a manager, the sales team is forced to step up to the plate and give it their all because the manager isn't carrying the team. But when a high performing salesperson becomes a manager, the team rests on the manager's performance and individual effort decreases.

Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

#37

Post by collyw »

BlackFly wrote: post #33
wool_gather wrote: post #4

The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…

I remember seeing a paper that showed that at moderate correlations of "Good as an X -> good as a manager of Xs" you are still better off promoting people randomly. The reason being, promoting your best X eliminates your best X and does not replace them by a great manager of Xs, so you take a definite loss, at least some time transition until they become a functioning manager, and then a risk that they will never be…

"Definitely the solution is to decouple reward hierarchy from managerial hierarchy."

Completely agree with this.

Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

#39

Post by da_chicken »

wool_gather wrote: post #4

The corollary to the Peter Principle, I think, has always been that it's caused by bad management. Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy. You are not considering the person/what they're good at. You're just using an easy shortcut to reward them for their performance. One problem is high-contributing ICs who think they should get promotions to manager. For whatever reas…

> Taking "is good at IC duties" as the measure for "should lead a team of ICs" is sloppy.

Yeah, but the flip side is that "has an MBA" is equally sloppy. Anybody who's ever had a paper manager that "doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground" knows that while hiring an MBA might get you someone who is good enough at managing people, if they have no understanding of the core business -- or worse, no capacity to understand the core business -- then they can't lead.

Leadership and management are two very different things just like leadership and expertise or management and expertise are two very different things.

Re: The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly

#40

Post by PunchTornado »

Why assume that someone wants to be forever competent in his position?

Many people just want to be mangers, even disregarding the salary. I would take a management job anytime even if my salary is reduced and even if I'm not competent enough.

What do they think that I'll be productive in my current role forever? NO. I'm productive now so that I can be a manager someday.

Post reply on HN