5 ms·

The peters principle makes an assumption about the convexity of competency that I’ve never thought was great. Essentially someone could get promoted to their l

by spott 3y ago

The peters principle makes an assumption about the convexity of competency that I’ve never thought was great. Essentially someone could get promoted to their level of incompetence, when if they were promoted again they would actually get better at their job. There is an implicit assumption that competence at job a is less than competence at a job b above job a, which isn’t necessarily true.

abadpoli 3y ago
I don’t think there is that implicit assumption. My understanding of the principle is that a person would never get “promoted again”, because their incompetence at their level prevents it. Essentially: if you’re good at a job, you get promoted out of it. If you’re not good at a job, you don’t get promoted out of it. So the end state for everyone is that they remain in jobs they are not good at.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  That’s brilliant … Or a brilliant restatement if the original peter principle (to gives props eleswwhere :-) So we just stop promotions … I think ???
  - the_cramer 3y ago
    Where i work the only way to get a noticeable jump in salary is promotion. I call this "horizontal scaling" of salaries. I believe the "vertical scaling" of salaries would be a better fit. Some already have it in tariffs, most of the time there are tough limits to what you can earn as "simple developer/project manager/sales clerk". So yes, probably promotions are not the right action often, but the other options need to be improved. edit: i lacked the explanation of vertical scaling: rising salary in the job you are currently doing and building expertise and experience. Opposed to being horizontally moved to a whole different job where your expertise is probably worse.
- mare5x 3y ago
  So people that are good at their jobs should be kept on the brink of promotion for as long as possible?
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Promotion should not be into a different job.
    - dagw 3y ago
      If you're doing the same job after your promotion it's not really a promotion, it's just a pay rise with extra steps.
  - eschneider 3y ago
    That's not a good recipe for retention of quality people.
  - BeetleB 3y ago
    Or simply pay them more without a promotion. That's what bonuses are for.
    - dagw 3y ago
      I'm personally of the opinion that promotion and pay rises should be entirely separate discussions and it should be both possible and normal to get one without the other. In fact you should have to work your new position for at least 6 month after a promotion before you can discuss any pay rise.
  - lucianbr 3y ago
    Ideally you should evaluate if a person will be good in the new position, where they will be promoted. Don't know if that's always possible, or how easy it is. Also, maybe if someone is bad at their job, they should be demoted or otherwise moved. It's another way to break the convergence to people unfit to their positions.
- scaryclam 3y ago
  Though, I have seen on more than one occasion someone promoted again and again after reaching their level of incompetance. This seems to be more driven by the incompetance of the person/people doing the promoting to cover their tracks though. They can't be seen as incompetant themselves, so they move the original incompetant employee up the ladder again, but to the side so they're less able to cause problems, but still look good.
P_I_Staker 3y ago
It's often misunderstood, IMO. It's not purely about hierarchies and eventually "advancing" until you aren't talented enough to do the job (because the higher jobs are harder). Lots of the Scott Adams types misunderstand it this way, because they have a "40 rules of power" perspective. It works better as like a law of nature and physics. Perhaps even better as a mathematic or logical rule (don't know the exact name, axium? law?). Could even be considered a paradox of sorts. Think of it like this: Assuming an organization promotes people that excel at their jobs, but not if they are incompetent. Draw a flowchart. If someone succeeds what happens? If they fail what happens? (not clear, but it isn't really mentioned if the incompetent ones are fired). Either way it's a guarantee under this system that all will be promoted to incompetence. You could even compare it to an ideal system like circuits. Yeah the real world doesn't work exactly like this, but it kinda can. So, it's not about the above job being more challenging per se. You might just not have the right stuff. You could even add being accepted by the team or boss, because you can't be successful otherwise (though I dislike this one). Actually, I tend to think it's the drive to "advance" that's the problem, and unwillingness to just pay senior people more (though there's often good reasons there too).
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if Stalin had the right idea. Purge the leadership every so often to start with a clean slate. Of course this only works with bureaucracies and not things that require tons of experience. You also have to have somewhere for them to move on to if you don't want to murder them or ship them to Siberia.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    Was this strategy very successful?
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      Successful in what regard? Stalin ended up dying of natural causes, Russia and Ukraine transformed from a backwards agrarian economy to a despotic industrial economy, the Soviet Army took a good chunk of Europe during WWII, the Soviet Union became a superpower, and during his rule it could be argued that the Soviet bureaucracy was incredibly efficient. I don't actually think we should take Stalin as a role-model for how to run a government (I was being tongue-in-cheek in my above comment) but it is amazing what you can accomplish when you have a total disregard for human rights, all of the levers of the State, a ruthless secret police, and an enormous amount of natural resources.

by spott 3y ago

abadpoli 3y ago

I don’t think there is that implicit assumption. My understanding of the principle is that a person would never get “promoted again”, because their incompetence at their level prevents it. Essentially: if you’re good at a job, you get promoted out of it. If you’re not good at a job, you don’t get promoted out of it. So the end state for everyone is that they remain in jobs they are not good at.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago
That’s brilliant … Or a brilliant restatement if the original peter principle (to gives props eleswwhere :-) So we just stop promotions … I think ???
- the_cramer 3y ago
  Where i work the only way to get a noticeable jump in salary is promotion. I call this "horizontal scaling" of salaries. I believe the "vertical scaling" of salaries would be a better fit. Some already have it in tariffs, most of the time there are tough limits to what you can earn as "simple developer/project manager/sales clerk". So yes, probably promotions are not the right action often, but the other options need to be improved. edit: i lacked the explanation of vertical scaling: rising salary in the job you are currently doing and building expertise and experience. Opposed to being horizontally moved to a whole different job where your expertise is probably worse.
mare5x 3y ago
So people that are good at their jobs should be kept on the brink of promotion for as long as possible?
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Promotion should not be into a different job.
  - dagw 3y ago
    If you're doing the same job after your promotion it's not really a promotion, it's just a pay rise with extra steps.
- eschneider 3y ago
  That's not a good recipe for retention of quality people.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  Or simply pay them more without a promotion. That's what bonuses are for.
  - dagw 3y ago
    I'm personally of the opinion that promotion and pay rises should be entirely separate discussions and it should be both possible and normal to get one without the other. In fact you should have to work your new position for at least 6 month after a promotion before you can discuss any pay rise.
- lucianbr 3y ago
  Ideally you should evaluate if a person will be good in the new position, where they will be promoted. Don't know if that's always possible, or how easy it is. Also, maybe if someone is bad at their job, they should be demoted or otherwise moved. It's another way to break the convergence to people unfit to their positions.
scaryclam 3y ago
Though, I have seen on more than one occasion someone promoted again and again after reaching their level of incompetance. This seems to be more driven by the incompetance of the person/people doing the promoting to cover their tracks though. They can't be seen as incompetant themselves, so they move the original incompetant employee up the ladder again, but to the side so they're less able to cause problems, but still look good.

P_I_Staker 3y ago

It's often misunderstood, IMO. It's not purely about hierarchies and eventually "advancing" until you aren't talented enough to do the job (because the higher jobs are harder). Lots of the Scott Adams types misunderstand it this way, because they have a "40 rules of power" perspective. It works better as like a law of nature and physics. Perhaps even better as a mathematic or logical rule (don't know the exact name, axium? law?). Could even be considered a paradox of sorts. Think of it like this: Assuming an organization promotes people that excel at their jobs, but not if they are incompetent. Draw a flowchart. If someone succeeds what happens? If they fail what happens? (not clear, but it isn't really mentioned if the incompetent ones are fired). Either way it's a guarantee under this system that all will be promoted to incompetence. You could even compare it to an ideal system like circuits. Yeah the real world doesn't work exactly like this, but it kinda can. So, it's not about the above job being more challenging per se. You might just not have the right stuff. You could even add being accepted by the team or boss, because you can't be successful otherwise (though I dislike this one). Actually, I tend to think it's the drive to "advance" that's the problem, and unwillingness to just pay senior people more (though there's often good reasons there too).

Eisenstein 3y ago
Sometimes I wonder if Stalin had the right idea. Purge the leadership every so often to start with a clean slate. Of course this only works with bureaucracies and not things that require tons of experience. You also have to have somewhere for them to move on to if you don't want to murder them or ship them to Siberia.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  Was this strategy very successful?
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Successful in what regard? Stalin ended up dying of natural causes, Russia and Ukraine transformed from a backwards agrarian economy to a despotic industrial economy, the Soviet Army took a good chunk of Europe during WWII, the Soviet Union became a superpower, and during his rule it could be argued that the Soviet bureaucracy was incredibly efficient. I don't actually think we should take Stalin as a role-model for how to run a government (I was being tongue-in-cheek in my above comment) but it is amazing what you can accomplish when you have a total disregard for human rights, all of the levers of the State, a ruthless secret police, and an enormous amount of natural resources.