3 ms·
> 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 prom
by 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
- Jimmc414 3y agoI quoted directly from the source you provided.
- OhMeadhbh 3y agoI was going to comment on this thread but realized I had reached my level of incompetence at explaining things to other people on the internet.
- jmholla 3y agoI do not see your verbiage on that page. Can you point me to it? Edit: You seem to be referring to this quote of yours: > 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? My response explained why your leaps in logic don't make sense. That line just means there's a point at which their skills won't apply. Not that every rung above results in reduced competence. You can be better and better and then worse and the Peter Principle would still be applicable. The Peter Principle is just about the changing competencies as one rises and how one hits a wall.
- Jimmc414 3y agoYou make valid points, and your interpretation is likely a more accurate interpretation of the Peter Principle.