4 ms·

I would think the Peter Principle would be better represented if there was someone who was a star on the technical side, but messed up as the CEO in a role they

I would think the Peter Principle would be better represented if there was someone who was a star on the technical side, but messed up as the CEO in a role they couldn't handle. i.e. if Brendan Eich was CEO and this happened it would be a Peter Principle moment. All these senior leadership people seem to be straight from the management track. Doesn't seem like they showed their excellence in another discipline and were then misplaced as CEO.

chillfox 7y ago
Just because they might have made excellent middle managers at some point in time does not mean that they would be any good at being executives.
BrendanEich 7y ago
Read the link above. The Peter Principle does not require change from tech to mgmt — it simply describes promotion above one’s level of competence.
- klagermkii 7y ago
  Yes, I'm just using tech as an example. It still requires them to be excellent in any one field and then move into another field on the basis of that excellence, but then fail to have the excellence carry over to the new and different discipline. None of these people show some kind of original standout excellence in a different field that was lost in their transition to Mozilla leadership roles.
  - BrendanEich 7y ago
    You are introducing a change of “field” where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle talks only of skills from lower level position being insufficient for competency at higher level. No change of field in the standard definition. I’ve read about, heard, and used the PP for decades without any change of field or tech vs mgmt being required to use the phrase correctly. It may be that higher level management requires training in a different field from lower, but in many firms it does not exclude promotion from below. Some of the best CEOs confound the PP to rise from the ranks.
  - sgift 7y ago
    I think your comment falls into the same trap that Mozillas leadership probably fell into: Middle manager and top management are different, even if they look superficially the same. Not every good team lead or even department lead is a good fit for being part of a companies leadership.
    - uxcolumbo 7y ago
      Can give some examples or do you know of any blog posts, books etc that talk about this in more detail?
raxxorrax 7y ago
Through the bank my experience is that a technical background with someone growing into a leadership role ultimately creates better results. People whose only skill is "leadership" tend to perform pretty badly. But the Peter principle, doubtful if it even can be taken seriously, doesn't say anything about this specifically. I don't know anything about Eich, but I don't really see how he would have been bad for Mozilla as a CEO. He had some controversial views as some have reported, but I don't really think that would have been very relevant, especially if so many people disagree. All that aside, that the execs at Mozilla get millions and they still lay off 70 people is bad leadership. Really, really bad leadership. And the recent focus seem to underline that failure in my opinion. Mozilla has done incredible things for the net and technology. Sadly, I think this is subject to change.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Surely the Mozilla execs don't take millions? And beg for charity?? I know Mozilla Corp/Org are technically split, but if one head of Cerberus ate all the food surely it doesn't still need feeding.
  - zobzu 7y ago
    they do take millions. the money they take is basically from Google's search deal (thought technically a few other sources too). The money you donate only goes to the foundation, which does not pay the exec, so any donation does not actually go to exec. The donations are required for the foundation to function at all, regardless of how well the corporation does. to be honest, the whole thing is a bit of a hack though, because really mozilla functions 100% like a corporation even if they had a real foundation inside. its just a way to ensure that the board is Mitchell Baker - not a bunch of people who want the company to profit. this has good and bad sides, and right now we're definitely seeing the bad sides: exec get paid 800k to 2500k (Mitchell), senior devs get fired for making - i bet, 100k to 300k. foundations are made to be places where you make the world a better place without having the "i want to make money" motto and that's not what Mozilla does. Mozilla wants money to pay execs and keep on surviving. Many other foundations have similar hacks (or arguably, scams!). The other advantage is that the foundation side does not pay tax of course.

chillfox 7y ago

Just because they might have made excellent middle managers at some point in time does not mean that they would be any good at being executives.

BrendanEich 7y ago

Read the link above. The Peter Principle does not require change from tech to mgmt — it simply describes promotion above one’s level of competence.

klagermkii 7y ago
Yes, I'm just using tech as an example. It still requires them to be excellent in any one field and then move into another field on the basis of that excellence, but then fail to have the excellence carry over to the new and different discipline. None of these people show some kind of original standout excellence in a different field that was lost in their transition to Mozilla leadership roles.
- BrendanEich 7y ago
  You are introducing a change of “field” where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle talks only of skills from lower level position being insufficient for competency at higher level. No change of field in the standard definition. I’ve read about, heard, and used the PP for decades without any change of field or tech vs mgmt being required to use the phrase correctly. It may be that higher level management requires training in a different field from lower, but in many firms it does not exclude promotion from below. Some of the best CEOs confound the PP to rise from the ranks.
- sgift 7y ago
  I think your comment falls into the same trap that Mozillas leadership probably fell into: Middle manager and top management are different, even if they look superficially the same. Not every good team lead or even department lead is a good fit for being part of a companies leadership.
  - uxcolumbo 7y ago
    Can give some examples or do you know of any blog posts, books etc that talk about this in more detail?

raxxorrax 7y ago

Through the bank my experience is that a technical background with someone growing into a leadership role ultimately creates better results. People whose only skill is "leadership" tend to perform pretty badly. But the Peter principle, doubtful if it even can be taken seriously, doesn't say anything about this specifically. I don't know anything about Eich, but I don't really see how he would have been bad for Mozilla as a CEO. He had some controversial views as some have reported, but I don't really think that would have been very relevant, especially if so many people disagree. All that aside, that the execs at Mozilla get millions and they still lay off 70 people is bad leadership. Really, really bad leadership. And the recent focus seem to underline that failure in my opinion. Mozilla has done incredible things for the net and technology. Sadly, I think this is subject to change.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Surely the Mozilla execs don't take millions? And beg for charity?? I know Mozilla Corp/Org are technically split, but if one head of Cerberus ate all the food surely it doesn't still need feeding.
- zobzu 7y ago
  they do take millions. the money they take is basically from Google's search deal (thought technically a few other sources too). The money you donate only goes to the foundation, which does not pay the exec, so any donation does not actually go to exec. The donations are required for the foundation to function at all, regardless of how well the corporation does. to be honest, the whole thing is a bit of a hack though, because really mozilla functions 100% like a corporation even if they had a real foundation inside. its just a way to ensure that the board is Mitchell Baker - not a bunch of people who want the company to profit. this has good and bad sides, and right now we're definitely seeing the bad sides: exec get paid 800k to 2500k (Mitchell), senior devs get fired for making - i bet, 100k to 300k. foundations are made to be places where you make the world a better place without having the "i want to make money" motto and that's not what Mozilla does. Mozilla wants money to pay execs and keep on surviving. Many other foundations have similar hacks (or arguably, scams!). The other advantage is that the foundation side does not pay tax of course.