82,891
edits
The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong: Difference between revisions
The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong (view source)
Revision as of 14:47, 13 July 2022
, 13 July 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|book review|}}{{br|The Peter Principle}}, by Dr. {{author|Laurence J. Peter}} and {{author|Raymond Hull}} | {{a|book review|}}{{br|The Peter Principle}}, by Dr. {{author|Laurence J. Peter}} and {{author|Raymond Hull}}{{quote|“I don’t know whether the world is run by smart people who are putting it on, or imbeciles who really mean it.”}} | ||
This classic satire of modern management is, of course, largely correct and — but for some rather dated scenarios and value judgments — remains highly relevant to explain the mess of modern [[middle management]]. | This classic satire of modern management is, of course, largely correct and — but for some rather dated scenarios and value judgments — remains highly relevant to explain the mess of modern [[middle management]]. | ||
| 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 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. | |||
===The mathematics of incompetence=== | |||
As formulated by the authors, in the same way the it does with infinity: | |||
{{Quote|''Incompetence plus incompetence equals incompetence.''}} | |||
But this doesn’t quite capture it for, as we know, out of this summed, universal, [[reductionism|irreducible]] incompetence somehow comes significant ''[[value]]''. This is the singular wonder of modern global capitalism: how something steered, collectively, by such a bunch of morons can produce anything worthwhile at all. And clearly, persistently, reliably and notwithstanding the byproducts and idiotic externalities it generates,<ref>The [[human resources]] military industrial complex, for example, seems [[calculated]] specifically to do nothing but frustrate the tenets of basic common sense and good judgment, yet is the most powerful infrastructure component of any modern corporation.</ref> it ''does''. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Agency problem]] | *[[Agency problem]] | ||