[HN Gopher] The Peter Principle still resonates
___________________________________________________________________
The Peter Principle still resonates
Author : empressplay
Score : 61 points
Date : 2025-01-02 15:23 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Peter principle_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39844104 - March 2024 (180
| comments)
|
| _Peter Principle_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855815 - Dec 2022 (5
| comments)
|
| _The Peter Principle (1974) [video]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32627396 - Aug 2022 (39
| comments)
|
| _The Peter Principle: Are you at your level of incompetence?
| (1974) [video]_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32243969 -
| July 2022 (1 comment)
|
| _Employees are promoted based on their success until they are no
| longer competent_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31561825
| - May 2022 (1 comment)
|
| _Ask HN: Operational Peter Principle?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30436105 - Feb 2022 (4
| comments)
|
| _The Peter Principle_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24433059 - Sept 2020 (1
| comment)
|
| _The Peter Principle Tested_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19797375 - May 2019 (47
| comments)
|
| _The Peter Principle is a joke taken seriously. Is it true?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17845289 - Aug 2018 (108
| comments)
|
| _The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (2009)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17301215 - June 2018 (50
| comments)
|
| _The Peter Principle Isn 't Just Real, It's Costly_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972249 - May 2018 (48
| comments)
|
| _The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study [pdf]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2270053 - Feb 2011 (2
| comments)
|
| _The Peter Principle: Why Most Managers Suck_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488442 - July 2010 (1
| comment)
|
| _The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1121507 - Feb 2010 (1
| comment)
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Dang's deja vu feeling was triggered correctly! No Peter in
| sight!
| supportengineer wrote:
| Let's give dang a promotion!
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I've made my peace with The Peter Principle. People can surprise
| you and can "rise to the occasion" -- or in the case of
| employment, rise to the difficulties of the tasks or jobs you
| give them.
|
| Not everyone can, but to deny someone that opportunity is perhaps
| ... cruel?
|
| So we err on over-promotion -- realizing our mistake only when it
| is too late. And I'm fine with that.
| amelius wrote:
| So you are OK with incompetent people occupying positions they
| should not have?
| frank_nitti wrote:
| If we had a crystal ball to know beforehand, then of course
| not.
|
| How can we know if someone will be incompetent in a role they
| have never been given the opportunity?
|
| If an excellent contributor/leader wants to take on more
| responsibility, or are forced to because it's the only way to
| get a nontrivial salary increase, it seems like that decision
| leaves middle management with the ultimatum: promote or lose
| the excellent team member.
|
| I'm not the commenter you replied to, just my take. In some
| tech orgs they are barely starting to expand from Sr Engineer
| for ICs, many of previous cohorts were forced into management
| or hit a dead-end on comp
| wizardforhire wrote:
| I am. Because by this logic no one save for a select few
| should ever be employed.
|
| Personally I'd rather live in a world where people are doing
| the best they can and given room to fail then a rigid
| bureaucratic hegemony of ultra efficiency.
| wbl wrote:
| You don't need to be the best to be worth it. The ok ER doc
| still saves lives.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I'm presuming that "promoted to their level of incompetency"
| is phrased that way because it is humorous -- but puts too
| fine a point on the _incompetent_ part.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| a lot of people are perfectly fine with it nowadays in the
| name of "equity", unfortunately
| OskarS wrote:
| Yeah, me too. Nobody is born being a great manager. The only
| way to learn is to actually become a manager and actually do
| the job.
|
| And you can tell if someone has potential. Like, a good manager
| needs to be a good communicator, well-organized and a good
| leader. These are skills you can notice if a person has before
| promoting them. Similarly going further up the hierarchy.
| cortesoft wrote:
| My issue with the Peter Principle is the idea that each 'level'
| requires more competence... I think the issue is that the levels
| actually require completely different skills.
|
| For example, being a good developer doesn't mean you will be a
| good dev manager, but the reverse is also true... being a good
| dev manager doesn't mean you would be a good developer.
|
| If you only promote good devs into the role of dev manager, you
| aren't getting the all the best dev managers.
| Epa095 wrote:
| I dont tvink your insight, that there are completely different
| skills at different levels, are at odds with the Peter
| principle at all.
|
| The intro in the Wikipedia article even states:
|
| > "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_. "
| paxys wrote:
| > If you only promote good devs into the role of dev manager,
| you aren't getting the all the best dev managers.
|
| You are literally describing the Peter Principle
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| And you're wasting all your best talent on management, because
| far too many orgs have a compensation ceiling on talent that
| can only be surpassed by moving into management.
| debo_ wrote:
| My favorite part of this article:
|
| > A 2009 study by Italian researchers offered a more radical
| approach to the Peter Principle problem. It found that companies
| may be better served by leaving things to chance and promoting
| people "at random."
|
| The study they linked:
| https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S02195259185...
| MoreMoore wrote:
| Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it worked. I also wouldn't
| be surprised if it led to better outcomes if that's how we
| chose political representatives. The way we do it now just
| seems to select for the most corrupt, greedy and manipulative,
| who are constantly pushing the boundaries of what they can get
| away with personally and professionally.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| This process is known as Sortition.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
| jll29 wrote:
| Goodness you read my mind. (Or rather, I should have read
| on first before commenting!)
| cperciva wrote:
| Japan, with its rigid schedule for promotions, effectively does
| this. Westerners often laugh at Japanese companies privileging
| seniority over demonstrated ability, but maybe they're on to
| something.
| hollowsunsets wrote:
| Measuring ability is a lot more tricky and has more to do at
| times with your ability to manipulate optics. I'd understand
| it as more reliable and a gradual way to increase scope and
| responsibility. You'd only want to go faster if you want to
| chase money and promotions at a pace that is faster than
| normal, which may not be realistic in this market (or in
| normal market conditions generally).
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > Measuring ability is a lot more tricky and has more to do
| ~~at times~~ with your ability to manipulate optics.
|
| fixed it
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Another way would be to narrow down to the top 2 candidates
| and then decide by a literal coin toss if they are equally
| worthy of the position.
| wrp wrote:
| Another relevant aspect of Japanese management is the
| enforcement of consensus decision-making, which blunts the
| influence of the highly competent and incompetent.
| gedy wrote:
| > Westerners often laugh at Japanese companies privileging
| seniority over demonstrated ability
|
| Unions in west have traditionally been built around seniority
| as well.
| cperciva wrote:
| Yes, but union seniority is about getting paid more to do
| the same (or less) work; not about being promoted into
| different jobs.
| jll29 wrote:
| I recently suggested a similar approach to politics, in order
| to address the problem that the people who WANT to be leaders
| are often the most unsuitable (power-hungry corrupt
| sociopaths).
|
| By electring a random person, the probability of this happening
| is minimized.
|
| As a co-worker pointed out, the ancient Greeks had something
| like thats in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
| ghjfrdghibt wrote:
| I think this principle likely does not include the public sector
| which like to promote to incompetence, and beyond; buzz lightyear
| style.
| TheGRS wrote:
| There's a sort of horror to this concept: you realize that
| everyone, including yourself, is doomed to incompetence. That
| every successful business you know of is run at a profit in spite
| of incompetence. Even more horrifying: Most experiences I've had
| in my professional career validates this premise. I can think of
| many projects I was a part of that seemed misguided at best, yet
| the company continued to succeed by momentum and great decisions
| that were made in the past (and sometimes decisions that were not
| even very consciously done).
|
| When the stars align and things are successful, its time to
| celebrate, but maybe don't assume it'll always happen that way.
| Why this concept is also comforting is that you can kind of relax
| a bit on some level. I mean do your job of course and make sure
| things are running, but maybe this new initiative from the CEO
| isn't quite as important to the success of your company as they
| may make you believe.
| cpitman wrote:
| This is great. I think there is a tendency to apply the Peter
| Principle to others (ie the boss), but it applies just as well
| to ourselves. How long until we are all promoted into
| incompetence, and how sure are we that it hasn't already
| happened?
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| The litmus I use to determine if I've been promoted to
| incompetence is whether my presence improves situations or
| not. There have been cases where I joined projects and didn't
| improve things or -- unfortunately -- made things worse.
|
| All you can do is address the problem openly, find strategies
| to improve the situation, and try to find ways to remedy it.
|
| If you can't, well, you've got to regress a bit and restore a
| role you're competent in. I think a common strategy is to try
| and shift blame or manipulate situations so it isn't
| obviously your incompetence that caused the problem. Many
| people might even do this without realizing it. I certainly
| did earlier in my career, but I never intended to lie or
| trick people. It was mostly the conflation of insecurities
| and imposter syndrome, along with my inability to ascertain
| my actual skill level. In self-defence I'd try to protect
| myself from the reality that I was doing a bad job.
|
| The only way to get promoted without eventually reaching
| incompetence is to rinse and repeat that process, as far as I
| can tell.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I was once in a position that I was sure was above my
| competency. It was certainly above anything I had ever done
| before in terms of responsibility. It ended up working out
| well, I think because I _knew_ I didn 't know what I was
| doing so I asked for a lot of input from others and tried
| to do what seemed the most sensible after considering that.
|
| The funny thing is, it was for a volunteer organization,
| not a paid job. I would not do it again, because (for me at
| least) it ended up being way more work than I thought it
| would be. But it was a valuable experience.
| strict9 wrote:
| > _you realize that everyone, including yourself, is doomed to
| incompetence_
|
| Appreciate the perspective of applying this to one's self
| instead of only others.
|
| I've often wondered if I can escape this or delay it by
| refusing management positions or other promotions beyond an IC
| role. Continue gaining efficiency and knowledge and striving to
| excel in a lower position I'm competent for.
|
| Maybe the best hope is just delaying it. And even then you're
| probably just limiting yourself in other ways, which can lead
| to resentment.
| ido wrote:
| You might potentially be a great manager and you'd never know
| it until you tried!
| cpitman wrote:
| FWIW, this doesn't only happen with promotions to
| "management". Senior IC roles often come with new
| responsibilities, like influencing influencing technical
| direction, often without any "hard" power to do so. I've seen
| plenty of people struggle with the change in scope of their
| job. Some rise to it.
|
| Or you could do what I did. Quit your job, found a startup,
| and be definitely incompetent at most of what you need to do.
| Feathercrown wrote:
| Isn't the Peter Principle only true if you consider skillsets
| to be static? If you learn and grow into new roles, it can be
| avoided or mitigated.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i tell my kids, "get good at learning and you don't have to
| get good at any anything else".
| TheGRS wrote:
| I'd agree personally. My secret is that I've always
| considered myself incompetent, but I also have a growth
| mindset to improve, and so far its worked out for me. But I
| do meet people often who have a static mindset even in very
| skilled fields. Some air of "I did all my learning already,
| now its time to work, I deserve this position because I
| already did all that learning."
| eikenberry wrote:
| You are only doomed if you decide to play the promotion game.
| That isn't required.
| timewizard wrote:
| > everyone, including yourself, is doomed to incompetence.
|
| Welcome to the human condition. You are imperfect and will
| always lack perfect information.
|
| > That every successful business you know of is run at a profit
| in spite of incompetence
|
| That's just called "compromise." Those who are good at it are
| generally recognized as "good businessmen." Not because of
| their extreme competence but because of their willingness to
| accept these facts and remain positive and agile in the face of
| them.
|
| > yet the company continued to succeed by momentum and great
| decisions that were made in the past
|
| Well, precisely, skillful compromise can move mountains that
| otherwise would seem impossible.
|
| > When the stars align and things are successful, its time to
| celebrate, but maybe don't assume it'll always happen that way.
|
| It won't. And if it does it's likely due to your competition
| being absent or tardy, so, even if you do enjoy this once or
| twice in your career, it's certainly not going to last.
|
| > but maybe this new initiative from the CEO isn't quite as
| important to the success of your company as they may make you
| believe.
|
| Yea but they're going to pay you the same for the work anyways.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I used to tell people who asked how work was going that "I'm
| rising to my level of incompetence" (i.e. meaning I was still
| doing competent work). Most people got the joke but it got me
| the occasional odd look.
| peterldowns wrote:
| Unreal that we, as a society, allow this Anti-Peter bias to
| persist. It's 2025 -- time to stamp out hate for good.
|
| Instead of referencing the "Peter Principle", consider saying:
|
| - I fucking hate my boss
|
| - My boss is incompetent
|
| - My boss can't do anything right
|
| - My boss should be fired for incompetence
|
| No need to bring "Peter" into it at all.
| howard941 wrote:
| username checks out
| pixelmonkey wrote:
| Reminds me of:
|
| "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks."
|
| -Michael Bolton in 'Office Space'
|
| Also funny since the main character in Office Space is named
| "Peter." I now wonder if this character name is, itself, a
| reference to the Peter Principle. I wouldn't be surprised given
| that it was written by Mike Judge (same creator as HBO/Max
| 'Silicon Valley' years later).
| emceestork wrote:
| The Peter Principle is an idea manufactured to suppress wages.
| The idea the you have to work at a level above your current level
| for a while until you are promoted only benefits employers.
|
| I have only spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this
| idea.
| radley wrote:
| > The Peter Principle is an idea manufactured to suppress
| wages.
|
| It's a satirical theory, not an applied practice.
| dallasg3 wrote:
| It also presupposes the necessity of hierarchy.
| moron4hire wrote:
| [delayed]
| jbgt wrote:
| Please spend another 30s. It can an interesting bit of
| philosophy about competence and ambition - and humility.
| indigoabstract wrote:
| Perhaps "incompetent" isn't the best word for this?
|
| People tend to get "promoted" when they outgrow their current
| role and need more challenges.
|
| But eventually all will reach a point where they stop growing or
| grow content or complacent and the promotions will also come to a
| halt.
|
| It doesn't necessary mean they are "incompetent" though. Just
| stopped growing bigger than their current role.
| matwood wrote:
| Also, I don't view the Peter Principle as necessarily bad. How
| do I know my peak level without going beyond it? And, without
| going beyond, how do I continue to grow? Will I eventually
| reach some level that I can't go beyond no matter how much
| effort I put in? I'm sure I will, but I haven't yet so keep
| going.
| musha68k wrote:
| I, for one, will welcome our new AGI CEOs
| DoctorOetker wrote:
| Omitted from these explanations is that promotions convey 2
| things: increased salary and a higher position.
|
| A good performer can be rewarded without giving a higher
| position, simply by increasing their wages.
|
| The catch is of course that regularly an employee may earn more
| than his/her superior....
|
| Perhaps relaxing the last requirement is too much to stomach?
| baazaa wrote:
| It doesn't with me, because it only made sense back when firms
| hired lots of young people and promoted the most competent. This
| isn't how most firms work nowadays.
|
| I've never even worked at a place that _does_ promotions. Sure if
| your boss leaves you can apply for their job but it 'll be
| offered to externals as well and then you'll be compared to them
| _as an external applicant_ , i.e. with resume + interview. Job
| performance doesn't matter, HR makes no effort to even measure
| performance beyond PIPing people who don't show up.
|
| Weirdly when I mention this to colleagues, who know for a fact
| that's how things work here, they're surprised because they never
| noticed. Like everyone has a mental model of 'good workers get
| promoted' which is seemingly impervious to direct experience.
| supportengineer wrote:
| This matches my experience. I've been working 30 years, I've
| very rarely ever seen anyone get promoted. Also, I have never
| been promoted. But, 99% of this wasn't in FAANG companies.
| There is a "Promo culture" now that didn't exist before.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > Sure if your boss leaves you can apply for their job
|
| I've never considered a move to management to be a promotion.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| For the converse, work at someplace like a university. Open
| positions are advertised (because legally they have to be) but
| the vast majority are given to insiders. Qualifications are
| almost entirely who you know and who they know. I would guess
| many government organizations are similar.
| jampa wrote:
| I hate this principle. It bases itself on an appeal to nature. It
| is as if people are born with a hidden upper level of competence
| that they can never "rise above" while others were born "blessed
| to be CEO."
|
| The worst part is that people frame it as an argument to avoid
| promoting. The truth is that people only reach their "level of
| incompetence" due to arrogance or just by giving up on putting in
| effort. I have never seen someone humble and curious
| underperforming for long.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I don't take that meaning from it. To me the message is just
| that in many cases, up is a stupid direction to go. The
| hierarchies we use to organize the world are a blindness to be
| overcome, not a set of goals to be pursued.
| numpy-thagoras wrote:
| It's actually embarrassing to Vancouver's organizational culture
| that this is where the Peter Principle was identified using case
| examples. In many ways, that prevailing set of attitudes that
| were identified as deeply problematic and inefficient have
| exploded into a city-wide culture problem. There are so many
| firms that just muddle along, it's a miracle they do as well as
| they do.
|
| The upside is that small and efficient firms, grounded in
| meritocracy, can do a decent job competing with these companies
| (provided they can get any ins with vendors, clients, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-02 23:01 UTC)