[HN Gopher] Every employee tends to rise to their level of incom...
___________________________________________________________________
Every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence
Author : steelbrain
Score : 11 points
Date : 2024-03-27 20:19 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| nextworddev wrote:
| Hmm dunno, I have seen 1) people rising >2 levels above their
| level of incompetence, as well as 2) people staying <2 levels
| below their worth.
|
| What's definitely true is that actual level / title don't match
| perfectly with "competence" which itself is a nebulous concept in
| many companies.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| An argument _for_ discrimination is that one then gets highly
| talented people from the discriminated-against class who stick
| upon their glass ceilings; I first heard this hypothesis as the
| British empire having been headed by English but run by Irish,
| Native, Scots, and Welsh administrators.
|
| (alternative to avoid relying on discrimination: apply "up or
| out"?)
| sorokod wrote:
| I believe that example 1) is addressed in the article as
| "percussive sublimation".
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| The peter principle assumes that competence in one role
| automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. If
| you follow this logic and reverse it, then it would be safe to
| assume that Steve Jobs would have been one of the best data entry
| clerks ever employed by Apple.
| seb1204 wrote:
| I always understood that a person being competent in role A is
| being promoted because of being good paired with maybe personal
| or/and corporate development goals. Once in the new role, with
| likely higher pay, it is very unlikely to go back. Instead of
| going back the person will try to stay afloat in the new role.
| Some will rise to the challenge others not.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-27 23:02 UTC)