Peter principle • Hacker News Board

Re: Peter principle

#81

Post by rokkamokka » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 9:54 AM UTC

aftoprokrustes wrote: post #63

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, fortunately, not my experience. In all of my jobs, the most highly regarded people, including by management, were/are those who have an informed opinion and are confident enough to voice it, and potentially take responsibilities outside of their job description in order to steer the business in the direction they are convinced is the right one. Note that this handful persons I am referring to _also_ accept c…

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.

Re: Peter principle

#82

Post by keybored » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 9:55 AM UTC

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…

> So it was like finding the right guy (and it definitely was a guy back in those days) for the right job.

I almost spit out my coffee while reading HN. “Holy shit” I think to myself, “the second world war was a boys club!” My mind reels as a I pace the room and look at my Condoleezza Rice and RBG posters. “How many potential career women did WWII hold back? And in turn their daughters and granddaughters from the lack of example and inspiration that those women could set?” I now know that I have a new research project on my hands. The electric typewriter beckons.

Re: Peter principle

#83

Post by helpfulmandrill » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 9:57 AM UTC

wrp wrote: post #16

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

Even better, have time-limited temporary promotions, which automatically revert after 6 months or a year. Permanent promotions are generally only available to those who have done a temporary promotion in the past.

That gives the organisation a way to tell if you are ready for permanent promotion, but removes the humiliating experience of "not passing your probation".

Re: Peter principle

#84

Post by helpfulmandrill » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 9:58 AM UTC

influx wrote: post #20

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.

But you can't e.g. prove your ability to manage without being given a team to manage...

Re: Peter principle

#85

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 9:59 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Peter principle

#86

Post by pi-e-sigma » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 10:00 AM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #51

It's astonishing how many people come to me with a Peter Principle story from their own work. It's also incredible just how many people from all walks of life experience that they are working with incompetents. What I'd throw in there as well is competence noise. The people who are sitting with someone day-to-day can tell whether they are competent. But the person who decides who gets promoted is somehow blind to thi…

Actually it's not universally true that people working closely together know who is competent and who is not. Because you yourself need to be competent to know if others are doing a good job or not. If you are surrounded by incompetent morons you as likely might be labeled as incompetent by them and since they are the majority you lose the battle. It doesn't even have to be done on purpose by the morons, they just don't know they are bad at what they are are doing and create a kind of a circlejerk re-assuring themselves

Re: Peter principle

#87

Post by hackton » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 10:11 AM UTC

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…

My experience is that people being good at the job tend to be promoted to managerial positions, but being good at certain tasks does not make you necessarily good at managing people, even if they just do these very tasks.

I also have been in companies with two career paths: managerial and technical, both respected and rewarded, to the point you can be paid much higher than your boss if you are senior and performing. Might not work in every sector/size though.

Re: Peter principle

#88

Post by md_ » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 10:29 AM UTC

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 the risk of seeming like an asshole:

I think for every highly competent person who just lacks a bit of social graces and is unfairly punished by a defensive bureaucracy, I have encountered many more incompetent people who, due to Dunning-Kruger, don't recognize their own incompetence, and instead ascribe the rejection of their (mediocre) ideas to the unfair defensiveness of the bureaucracy above them.

Or, in meme form: https://imgflip.com/i/8ks5kq.

Re: Peter principle

#89

Post by alecco » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 10:39 AM UTC

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"

Fits the MacLeod/Gervais pyramid of losers / clueless / sociopaths.

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

Re: Peter principle

#90

Post by Aeolun » Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 10:42 AM UTC

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…

Hmm, that’s a great summary of what I meant when I recently told my coworker I couldn’t help him because I’d recently burned through all my political capital.