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 08:13, 10 July 2021
, 10 July 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|book review|}}{{br|The Peter Principle}}, by Dr. {{author|Laurence J. Peter}} and {{author|Raymond Hull}} This classic satire of modern management is, of course, largely...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
This classic satire of modern management is, of course, largely correct and but for some rather dated scenarios and value judgments, remains quite relevant to modern management. | This classic satire of modern management is, of course, largely correct and but for some rather dated scenarios and value judgments, remains quite relevant to modern management. | ||
Two of its central concepts can be dressed in terms a modern millennial might understand: The [[hierarchy]], and the principle itself, that ''in a hierarchy, everyone tends to rises to one’s own level of incompetence''.<ref>I have wokified this a little bit from its 1969 formulation; the key change is that it is not just employees, but anyone in a hierarchy. This is a consequence of the [[agency problem]]. | Two of its central concepts can be dressed in terms a modern millennial might understand: The [[hierarchy]], and the principle itself, that ''in a hierarchy, everyone tends to rises to one’s own level of incompetence''.<ref>I have wokified this a little bit from its 1969 formulation; the key change is that it is not just employees, but anyone in a hierarchy. This is a consequence of the [[agency problem]].</ref> | ||
===[[Hierarchy]]=== | ===[[Hierarchy]]=== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
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]]. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Agency problem]] | |||
*[[Evolution by natural selection]] | |||