[PREV - FLORID] [TOP]
PETERING_OUT
November 26, 2023
I was wondering recently if there was any
good evidence for the "Peter Principle"-- "The Peter Principle" was the idea
that incompetence was widespread
because of a quirk of hierarchies:
The Peter Principle has a if you're good at your job, you're
certain cynical appeal going promoted, though you won't
for it, but in retrospect, it necessarily be good at the new job.
seems like it's premises are
naive. The entire idea that But if you're *not* good at it
"competence" is the main you're unlikely to be so bad at
criteria for promotion seems it that you'll be fired.
suspect.
And so: "everyone rises to
Another answer for their level of incompetence".
"why is there so
much incompetence?"
might be that Though, it could be the
competence is Peter Principle is
difficult to repairable by just
determine and so reframing it slightly:
hiring and you're allowed to change
promotions are often jobs if you meet with
decided by factors general approval, but if And that
like affinity tests that approval evaporates "general
or corruption: for any reason-- without approval"
quite turning into might be
Racism and sexism; widespread disapproval-- a judgement
or nepotism and you'll be allowed to stay of people
bribery... in place. *above* you
in the
hierarchy
People shuffle but not
around until necessarily.
they're met with
If you're interested in low-grade
whether an organization disapproval.
as a whole is acting
effectively, there's a Whether that's precisely
question of competence because of "incompetence"
at judging competence. is another question.
Any promotion system with
any degree of flaws in it
risks compromising the Looking at someone else's notes--
class of people judging I wrote this from memory-- I see
competence, you can get a Peter covered some of the issues,
bad situation spiraling discussing the problem of incompetence
out-of-control... at judging competence, perverse
preferences for the not-too-competent,
Something I think I was watching and so on.
in action at the Stanford
Materials Science Department in [ref]
the 90s, where the old guard was
recruiting a new guard of guys
just like themselves.
Judging "competence" can be
extremely tricky: e.g. someone
might be competent under one set of
circumstances but not another, and
if the situation changes suddenly
and a formerly competent person is
now in over their heads, the odds
are there's going to be some delay
in recognizing and dealing with the
situation.
We judge competence based on a
perception of whether
individual characteristics are
appropriate for the current
circumstances, and that
perception is always going to
lag behind reality.
The perception may also be based on
flawed rules-of-thumb if not out-right
myths and preconceptions.
One of Peter's more interesting points
was based on the claim that it's
dangerous to simply turn down a
promotion-- the reaction of everyone,
including friends and loved-ones
is likely to be tremendously negative,
creating a stressful situation.
He argued instead that if you're were
happy in your current position, you
should intentionally display some
eccentricity-- which he called In a footnote, Peter
"creative incompetence", in keeping allowed for the
with his meritocratic framing-- possibility that some
that would discourage anyone from might be so extremly
offering you a promotion. competent they have no
"level of incompetence".
(April 2025)
Interestingly, I don't He offered JFK as
think Peter offered any a possible example.
advice at the
organizational level to Ah, Camelot.
fix promotion polices.
Peter's Principle was
regarded as a given, an JFK did okay, e.g. with
inevitable result of the "Cuban Missle
meritocratic hierarchies. Crisis", but I'd suggest
if he was *perfectly*
One thought: assignment of competent he might've
responsibilities is actually been more careful about
somewhat fluid-- there's a assassination attempts.
something like a tradition of
certain functions be Even Mike Pence
connected to positions and knew better than to
titles, but really sometimes blindly trust the
middle-level manager A gets Secret Service.
to do a particular job, and
sometimes it's B--
That gives you room to experimentally
juggle responsibilties, finding a Peter suggested that the
"level of competence" the employee rot takes time to set in--
is comfortable with without needing competent work can be done
to engage in the indignity of an by employees who haven't
explicit demotion. yet been promoted too
far-- which suggests that
*starting over again*
could be an effective
strategy.
E.g. Competition between firms,
with start-ups occasionally
unseating the reining giants.
That pattern of fixing a problem by
forming a new department could actually
be effective, at least temporarily-- got
safety problems? Form a Safety Group.
Already had a Safety Group? Form yet
another, call it something else, like
the Safety Audit Team.
Eventually though, the multiple
layers will get unwieldy.
--------
[NEXT - RENAISSANCE_NERDS]