82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Now if we substitute “breeding” for “promotion”, we see that, in a population of workers in a hierarchy, those with traits that are useful for promotion — note, it is for “promotion”, not “once promoted” — will tend to fare better than those that do not. Traits “useful for promotion” can only be judged from traits observable at one’s current rank — basic competencies, in other words — so those most competent at their current role will be the ones suitable for promotion. If they turn out to be competent at their promoted role, too, they will remain in the game for onward promotion, they remain in the upward flow; if they don’t —if they are bad at it — they will get stuck. Hence the “Peter Principle”, which on this read is as self-evidently, mathematically true<ref>mathematically, not scientifically. Scientific truths aren’t allowed to be self-evident. See [[falsifiability]].</ref> as is [[evolution by natural selection]]. | Now if we substitute “breeding” for “promotion”, we see that, in a population of workers in a hierarchy, those with traits that are useful for promotion — note, it is for “promotion”, not “once promoted” — will tend to fare better than those that do not. Traits “useful for promotion” can only be judged from traits observable at one’s current rank — basic competencies, in other words — so those most competent at their current role will be the ones suitable for promotion. If they turn out to be competent at their promoted role, too, they will remain in the game for onward promotion, they remain in the upward flow; if they don’t —if they are bad at it — they will get stuck. Hence the “Peter Principle”, which on this read is as self-evidently, mathematically true<ref>mathematically, not scientifically. Scientific truths aren’t allowed to be self-evident. See [[falsifiability]].</ref> as is [[evolution by natural selection]]. | ||
As with evolution, the trick is understanding what ''is'' “fitness”, or “competence”. This is judged not | As with evolution, the trick is understanding what ''is'' “fitness”, or “competence”. This is judged not in terms of the original common purpose, and is certainly not passed upon by a jury of omnibus riders motivated by prudence, neighbourliness and circumspection, but is assessed, gammily, by the needs of the hierarchy, from the point of view of those further up it. The name of the game, in other words, is ''preserving'' the hierarchy. | ||
{{Quote|In their eyes, leadership potential is insubordination, and insubordination is incompetence. ''Good followers do not become good leaders.''}} | |||
Once you understand this, the breathtaking mediocrity of large organisations ceases to be a mystery: what is a mystery is how organisations produce anything of worth or merit at all. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} |