![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The quotation from Kelileh va Demneh does not appear to be a historical precedent at all. The claim that "baseborn weaklings" are no longer sincere and useful after they reach an office they are unworthy of is just a judgement about the effect of officeholders being unworthy of their office. The Peter Principle addresses the cause of that effect. The citation is also particularly unhelpful by failing to provide more reference info -- what character? in which story? -- and it's not clear why Kelileh va Demneh, the Persian translation of the Sanskrit Panchatantra, is cited instead of the original. Mtiffany 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and thus moved the Historical precedents section here. A better sourced precedent quote would be nice. 84.239.128.9 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The Peter Principle points up a long recognized problem: The failure to reward employees for competence AT THEIR EXISTING LEVEL. It has long been the case in most bureaucracies that the only avenue to advancement beyond a journeyman level is promotion to management. Management requires very different skills from most technical jobs such as engineering. Hence, it is unavoidable that we create a cadre of incompetent managers. For a time it was proposed that individuals be offered alternate paths to advancement within professional tracks, but this idea seems to have fallen from favor without much application. Perhaps this is due to the fact that in many organizations management is valued more for political power and social status than its functional significance. Thus, it is offensive to managers that highly skilled technical workers might be more highly compensated.
According to local myth, and as far as I know it's true because my teachers in Mission, British Columbia, knew the guy, Laurence J. Peter wrote The Peter Principle as a result of his experiences as an administerator (or superintendent?) of the local school board in Chilliwack, British Columbia. Anyone else here heard of this? Skookum1 08:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to make a direct edit on an existing mature article like, this, but I think the following is the key phrase for the whole piece, and probably should be right at teh top of the page:
"The Peter Principle addresses the practice of hierarchical organizations (such as corporations and government agencies) to use promotions as a way to reward employees who demonstrate competence in their current position. It goes on to state that, due to this practice, a competent employee will eventually be promoted to, and remain at, a position at which he or she is incompetent."
(currently its the second paragraph in the overview section).
As the above quote by an anon editor shows, this article gets it completely wrong. Principle states employees rise as long as they are competent to finally settle in a position where they are incompetent thus unworthy of promotion. There's even a corollary saying at any given moment all employees are incompetent (or they'd have been promoted, duh) -- or something like that.
Besides, all these objections why the principle doesn't apply are irrelevant, or, at least, should be moved under a section prominently titled "criticism" or "some editor's musings". I don't remember any such thing in the book. And the style is, ugh, a mess.
I have the book, but find it lousy (compared to Parkinson's, eg) so don't feel too inclined to put too much effort here... Please write me if I can help with quotes (as did the previous editor?), or whatever. Zin 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Reading the article as it was until I added the word "humorous" at the beginning one would think that this is a scholarly analysis. While there is much truth in the theory, the book (which I have in my hand) is definitely humorous. And humorous indeed, as distinct from satirical: I document this with a Google search for
And the blurb on the back cover of the book calls it "a classic masterpiece of mangement humour". Pol098 ( talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
How closely would you say the Peter Principle connects to a meritocracy -- where the most skilled workers are advanced up the company ladder? -- Guroadrunner ( talk) 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Prof. Peter said that in an organization a person rises to his level of incompetence.
The Corollary is: Everybody he manages will also be incompetent.
Someone who manages people has to have two sets of skills: 1) Job knowledge and, 2) The ability to teach how to do the job to his subordinates.
If the manager was promoted it may have been because he did his previous job well. But if he can’t teach it, his people will not only be incompetent but they will be incompetent at a lower level of the organization.
68.4.197.102 ( talk) 06:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)MartySK
In the popular culture section it mentions 30 rock and the office. The Office's example is obvious but what is the example from 30 rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.125.33 ( talk) 16:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
A good link to " up or out" was recently provided. The text there mentions the Cravath et al law firm itself and also the U.S. military as examples. This set me to pondering a question I had idly pondered before but never pursued. I don't know where to go with it at the moment and won't waste time investigating, so I'll just pose the question here for anyone who may have any ideas. Wouldn't it be smart, from a wise-management-of-scarce-human-talent-resources perspective, to have a nonpunitive up-or-back-down policy instead of a punitive up-or-out policy? Example: John is the best damn widget stamper this side of the equator, but it turns out that he's not cut out to manage others. Doesn't it make more sense to return him to the widget stamping floor without stigma, at or near his current pay but reduced job title, than to fire him and lose his talents from the organization? One could say that it's unthinkable to maintain him at or near his current pay if he's moving "back down". But I don't think I agree with that. In terms of net costs and benefits to the company, you're better off keeping him at high pay in the job he's good at, rather than either at high pay at the job he's bad at, or at no pay and gone from the company. You'd have to have a bit of a pay-dock built into the published policy for all to fear, or you'd create a perverse incentive for people to ride the up-and-back-down train just to maximize their own satisfaction ("I'm plannin to end up stampin widgets at manager payrates, baby"). Wouldn't an up-or-back-down policy be more agreeable in life, not only for the workers but for the company's bottom line? Skimping pennies on compensation is overrated anyway, in many fields. Meanwhile, building a culture of high talent, high morale, and stigma-free empirical logic is underdone in many fields. There's got to be something to this line of thought. — ¾-10 23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This whole "principle" sounds like a joke or maybe just ironic social commentary. Are their any scientific studies that actually prove the hypothesis? That a company will do better if it promotes people randomly? A computer model, is one thing. Where is the real world proof? I searched, but I found nothing.-- RaptorHunter ( talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. This statement added to the lead recently is quite sweeping: However, all of the real world evidence for it is anecdotal (and often intended to be humorous in nature). I tried to remove it but I was reverted. Not wanting to edit-war I added a citation-needed tag. The justification of the other editor for their revert was that this was a fair summary of the article contents. But the article contents are nowhere reliable enough or supported by reliable sources to support such a conclusion. Just a rudimentary Google scholar search came up with papers that seem to be based on real-world examples and don't appear to be humorous either:
Peter's Principle and Putt's law seem to be variations on the same theme. Time to merge them?-- RaptorHunter ( talk) 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Sources: [1] [2]
It's now 3 months since the proposal to merge The Peter Principle and Putt's Law, and the only person in favour seems to be the original proposer. I'm therefore removing the tag from the this article RavenFeat ( talk) 22:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The quotation from Kelileh va Demneh does not appear to be a historical precedent at all. The claim that "baseborn weaklings" are no longer sincere and useful after they reach an office they are unworthy of is just a judgement about the effect of officeholders being unworthy of their office. The Peter Principle addresses the cause of that effect. The citation is also particularly unhelpful by failing to provide more reference info -- what character? in which story? -- and it's not clear why Kelileh va Demneh, the Persian translation of the Sanskrit Panchatantra, is cited instead of the original. Mtiffany 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and thus moved the Historical precedents section here. A better sourced precedent quote would be nice. 84.239.128.9 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The Peter Principle points up a long recognized problem: The failure to reward employees for competence AT THEIR EXISTING LEVEL. It has long been the case in most bureaucracies that the only avenue to advancement beyond a journeyman level is promotion to management. Management requires very different skills from most technical jobs such as engineering. Hence, it is unavoidable that we create a cadre of incompetent managers. For a time it was proposed that individuals be offered alternate paths to advancement within professional tracks, but this idea seems to have fallen from favor without much application. Perhaps this is due to the fact that in many organizations management is valued more for political power and social status than its functional significance. Thus, it is offensive to managers that highly skilled technical workers might be more highly compensated.
According to local myth, and as far as I know it's true because my teachers in Mission, British Columbia, knew the guy, Laurence J. Peter wrote The Peter Principle as a result of his experiences as an administerator (or superintendent?) of the local school board in Chilliwack, British Columbia. Anyone else here heard of this? Skookum1 08:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to make a direct edit on an existing mature article like, this, but I think the following is the key phrase for the whole piece, and probably should be right at teh top of the page:
"The Peter Principle addresses the practice of hierarchical organizations (such as corporations and government agencies) to use promotions as a way to reward employees who demonstrate competence in their current position. It goes on to state that, due to this practice, a competent employee will eventually be promoted to, and remain at, a position at which he or she is incompetent."
(currently its the second paragraph in the overview section).
As the above quote by an anon editor shows, this article gets it completely wrong. Principle states employees rise as long as they are competent to finally settle in a position where they are incompetent thus unworthy of promotion. There's even a corollary saying at any given moment all employees are incompetent (or they'd have been promoted, duh) -- or something like that.
Besides, all these objections why the principle doesn't apply are irrelevant, or, at least, should be moved under a section prominently titled "criticism" or "some editor's musings". I don't remember any such thing in the book. And the style is, ugh, a mess.
I have the book, but find it lousy (compared to Parkinson's, eg) so don't feel too inclined to put too much effort here... Please write me if I can help with quotes (as did the previous editor?), or whatever. Zin 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Reading the article as it was until I added the word "humorous" at the beginning one would think that this is a scholarly analysis. While there is much truth in the theory, the book (which I have in my hand) is definitely humorous. And humorous indeed, as distinct from satirical: I document this with a Google search for
And the blurb on the back cover of the book calls it "a classic masterpiece of mangement humour". Pol098 ( talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
How closely would you say the Peter Principle connects to a meritocracy -- where the most skilled workers are advanced up the company ladder? -- Guroadrunner ( talk) 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Prof. Peter said that in an organization a person rises to his level of incompetence.
The Corollary is: Everybody he manages will also be incompetent.
Someone who manages people has to have two sets of skills: 1) Job knowledge and, 2) The ability to teach how to do the job to his subordinates.
If the manager was promoted it may have been because he did his previous job well. But if he can’t teach it, his people will not only be incompetent but they will be incompetent at a lower level of the organization.
68.4.197.102 ( talk) 06:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)MartySK
In the popular culture section it mentions 30 rock and the office. The Office's example is obvious but what is the example from 30 rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.125.33 ( talk) 16:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
A good link to " up or out" was recently provided. The text there mentions the Cravath et al law firm itself and also the U.S. military as examples. This set me to pondering a question I had idly pondered before but never pursued. I don't know where to go with it at the moment and won't waste time investigating, so I'll just pose the question here for anyone who may have any ideas. Wouldn't it be smart, from a wise-management-of-scarce-human-talent-resources perspective, to have a nonpunitive up-or-back-down policy instead of a punitive up-or-out policy? Example: John is the best damn widget stamper this side of the equator, but it turns out that he's not cut out to manage others. Doesn't it make more sense to return him to the widget stamping floor without stigma, at or near his current pay but reduced job title, than to fire him and lose his talents from the organization? One could say that it's unthinkable to maintain him at or near his current pay if he's moving "back down". But I don't think I agree with that. In terms of net costs and benefits to the company, you're better off keeping him at high pay in the job he's good at, rather than either at high pay at the job he's bad at, or at no pay and gone from the company. You'd have to have a bit of a pay-dock built into the published policy for all to fear, or you'd create a perverse incentive for people to ride the up-and-back-down train just to maximize their own satisfaction ("I'm plannin to end up stampin widgets at manager payrates, baby"). Wouldn't an up-or-back-down policy be more agreeable in life, not only for the workers but for the company's bottom line? Skimping pennies on compensation is overrated anyway, in many fields. Meanwhile, building a culture of high talent, high morale, and stigma-free empirical logic is underdone in many fields. There's got to be something to this line of thought. — ¾-10 23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This whole "principle" sounds like a joke or maybe just ironic social commentary. Are their any scientific studies that actually prove the hypothesis? That a company will do better if it promotes people randomly? A computer model, is one thing. Where is the real world proof? I searched, but I found nothing.-- RaptorHunter ( talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. This statement added to the lead recently is quite sweeping: However, all of the real world evidence for it is anecdotal (and often intended to be humorous in nature). I tried to remove it but I was reverted. Not wanting to edit-war I added a citation-needed tag. The justification of the other editor for their revert was that this was a fair summary of the article contents. But the article contents are nowhere reliable enough or supported by reliable sources to support such a conclusion. Just a rudimentary Google scholar search came up with papers that seem to be based on real-world examples and don't appear to be humorous either:
Peter's Principle and Putt's law seem to be variations on the same theme. Time to merge them?-- RaptorHunter ( talk) 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Sources: [1] [2]
It's now 3 months since the proposal to merge The Peter Principle and Putt's Law, and the only person in favour seems to be the original proposer. I'm therefore removing the tag from the this article RavenFeat ( talk) 22:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)