6 ms·
> The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. No it doesn't. It just says that if you
by jmholla 3y ago
> The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role.
No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. If you're not, you'll stay where you are. So you either are good at your job and can be promoted or you're bad at your job. You can be good at your current job and other forces outside of competence are preventing that advancement.
And so, there is no logic to reverse and make that assumption. Also, for your reversal, Steve Jobs would've needs to start as a data entry clerk. Reversing this doesn't mean any job below you is where you came from.
- Jimmc414 3y ago> No it doesn't. It just says that if you're good at your job, you'll get promoted. Respectfully, that's exactly what it says. Why else would someone get promoted "until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent" if one's competence increases with a promotion? e.g. Some people are intuitively better at managing people than they are at programming.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoAnd those people who are good at management will get promoted to directors. The ones who aren't remain incompetent managers.
- Jimmc414 3y agoAnd some will be better at being a director than they were as a manager.
- Scarblac 3y agoBut those aren't the ones who earn a promotion from manager. The people who are good at being manager earn those.
- scaredginger 3y agoAnd some won't, so they'll remain directors
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoAnd those ones will become senior directors, and so on. The principle isn't that no one will ever be good at their job; it's that they won't stay in that job long-term if they are good.
- jmholla 3y agoIt does not. To quote Wikipedia [0]: > 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. That does not translate to or imply that: > The peter principle assumes that competence in one role automatically translates to less competence in a higher role. It is saying you will keep getting promoted until you are incompetent. You can be more competent at a higher role without violating the Peter Principle. That would be another point at which you would be promoted working your way towards incompetence. The Peter Principle just says you were competent at each step in the ladder until you got to the point you weren't promoted anymore because you are incompetent at it. You're then take another logical leap in saying that promotion to the next level means you are competent at every job on every career path that could get you to that level. The Peter Principle only talks about your own career path. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle