12 ms·
You haven’t seen many hierarchies have you…? The people you get at the top are usually the people who are great at getting to the top and not much else. Dull b
by api 5y ago
You haven’t seen many hierarchies have you…?
The people you get at the top are usually the people who are great at getting to the top and not much else. Dull bureaucratic players are the most numerically common. Sociopaths are next in the ranking. They would be the most common if they were not so often as destructive to themselves as others.
Every now and then you do get a “good king” who is both competent and effective and not a total psycho. These can be wonderful and very effective but they are rare. Usually they get beat out in hierarchy games by those who specialize in winning those games.
- agumonkey 5y agoAh please, I've seen my share. All the peter principle might be true, that doesn't mean what I say isn't complementary. I can criticize them all day long (which I do enough already). This wasn't an apraisal but a metalevel observation. Hierarchies survived enough.. they must have enough intrisic value. In structures, very few people have knowledge (everything is distributed and fuzzy), most of them react, the irrationality just bubbles up until someone has just enough distance to calm the irrationality. It might lead to a bad solution (boss can just shove the effort down back onto employee) but somehow the fuzzy information problem is reduced to its minimum in this tree.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]