
The Peter Principle Tested - drkimball
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/05/the-peter-principle-tested.html
======
zelias
Every time I see this brought up I'm reminded of The Office. Mostly due to
this incredibly in depth analysis: [https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-
gervais-principle-...](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-
principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/)

~~~
dunk010
That's a brilliant series of articles. Everyone should read it.

~~~
bitL
It's totally depressing/demotivating.

~~~
hinkley
I've reached a point in my career where I know how I want a project to go, and
the only hope I have to make it go that way is to take a management position.

But then _I_ don't get to enjoy the project, because I'm not participating in
creating it. I'm the host of the party, or I'm a reveler, but I can't be both.

The handful of former bosses who foster the sorts of things I look for are no
longer project managers. I now joke about winning the lottery so I have enough
money to do one of my hobbies for a living, or write software for one. What I
know about running a software project has come at the expense of knowing how
to _sell_ a software project.

~~~
mekane8
Dang, I can relate to this 100%. I had to check the username to see if I
actually wrote this myself :-p

------
lordnacho
Some of the big tech companies already have a solution to this problem (good
performers might not be good managers):

They make it possible to make good money as an individual contributor without
climbing the management ladder.

~~~
abakker
That is almost word for word mentioned in the article:

>For example, technical organisations, like Microsoft and IBM have long used
split career ladders, allowing their engineers to advance as individual
contributors or managers. These practices recognize workers for succeeding in
one area without transferring them to another.

I think there is an interesting component here, though. There are no C-level
individual contributors, really. At the head of an organization, is a
manager/leader. The skill of management really is rewarded/recognized in
organizations more readily. I think that makes sense, since the coordination
of individual contributors is the most difficult problem to solve.

OTOH, I'd say casually that most of the best leaders are those that were also
excellent individual contributors. To really be the top of the management
ladder, I think the empathy of personal experience is the more important than
most managers give it credit for.

~~~
ip26
_There are no C-level individual contributors, really. At the head of an
organization, is a manager /leader._

Even the top level technical track folks who are nominally IC's wind up doing
some leadership. This makes sense; there's fundamentally a limit on how much
you can accomplish all by yourself. Somewhere along the road, your visions
will require the work of more people than only yourself.

You can be a technical leader without being a manager, so it's not all bad.

------
jsdalton
The Peter Principle has always struck me as an unnecessarily pessimistic way
of looking at the world. Why should we find it surprising that when workers
are promoted into a role with a greater -- and often vastly different --
responsibilities than what they have experience with, they are not immediately
competent? This is especially true when the skills required are non trivial.

Maybe rather than assuming that people come out of the womb "competent" or
"incompetent" at a certain level, we could consider providing more training
and support both before and after they are promoted into significantly higher
roles.

~~~
ysavir
> Why should we find it surprising that when workers are promoted into a role
> with a greater -- and often vastly different -- responsibilities than what
> they have experience with, they are not immediately competent?

I think we all agree with you in this regard. However, that's not what The
Peter Principle is about. It agrees that most people can handle their
promotions, even if it takes time. It is an observation on occasions where
people _stop_ getting promotions.

The point being made is that people stop getting promoted once they are put in
a position they are not capable of performing well. If they _are_ capable of
performing well, they will likely be promoted again, and later again, until
promoted to a role not fit for their skillset. So it is not so much a
commentary on competence as it is on circumstance, but circumstance that many
systems are designed to allow or even encourage.

------
Tycho
Obvious solution is just give people more money for doing the same thing.

~~~
jldugger
Apparently no management ever wants to be paid less than their employees.

~~~
WillPostForFood
I see it all the time: sales people making monster salaries, far more than
management. It is effective at retaining and keeping sales people.
Unfortunately it introduces a different set of distortions because the short
term value of making the next deal can derail long term health and goals.

~~~
stcredzero
I was a junior presales engineer at this one company, which was very, very
sales oriented. At one point I realized that I had more latitude to expense a
meal for a business meeting than the VP in charge of engineering, who had 30
people under him.

------
projectramo
There are many reasons not to continue to be promoted (limited spots at the
top being the primary reason).

Sales -> Management is a unique story though. Sales people are often
competitive with each other. It would be interesting to know if any managers
add value to the sales process or if the value add is more or less random.
(i.e. simply not predicted by prior sales or other metrics).

------
itsdrewmiller
This was discussed last year when the working paper was published:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972249)

