3 ms·
This also leads to an interesting conclusion. If we assume that, generally speaking, the most competent individuals tend to get promoted, then those who have st
by _7acn 2y ago
This also leads to an interesting conclusion. If we assume that, generally speaking, the most competent individuals tend to get promoted, then those who have stopped being promoted are likely the least incompetent among all possible options :D
- stefs 2y agodid you mean "the most incompetent"?
- _7acn 2y agoNo. The Peter Principle states that in a hierarchical organization, everyone gets promoted until they reach their level of incompetence. This means we could conclude that if someone has stopped being promoted, they are incompetent in their current position. However, if we assume that promotions are generally given to the most competent individuals within a group, then ultimately, while such a person may be incompetent, they will still be the least incompetent option compared to others.
- stefs 2y agoah, i remembered the principle wrong - incompetent people get promoted, because competent people are most valuable right where they are right now.
- Volundr 2y agoOtherwise known as the curse of competence.
- cookie_monsta 2y agoThis is pretty much the opposite of every explanation I have seen of this principle
- stefs 2y agobecause it's not quite the same principle. i remembered it wrong.
- MattPalmer1086 2y agoNo, wrong way around. Competent people get promoted, until they end up in a position they are not competent in.
- numpad0 2y agoand the chain of least incompetent really sounds rational, no? Surely moreso than the chain of perceived peak competency... which is just a gamble.
- _7acn 2y agoPersonally, I find the so-called hydraulic theory of management the most accurate. The crap flows from the top to the bottom.