Talk:Peter principle/Archives/2012

Is the Kelileh va Demneh quotation really a historical precedent?

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)

In the Kalila wa Dimna, a Sassanid Persian collection of fables, one of the characters states that "The baseborn weakling is always sincere and useful until he reaches an office he is unworthy of."

rant

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.

Management as a whole sets wages in most companies, so it is then unsurprising that in most organisations management is given a premium wage. From personal experience I can agree with the point about managers not allowing their subordinates to be paid more than themselves - in the IT industry this became very problematic in some places (particularly in the late 90s) due to skilled IT staff requiring a very high wage to employ. This was one of the driving factors of large scale contracting, as it was somehow deemed okay to have temporary staff earning 2,3 or even 4 times as much as the manager, but all permanent staff had to earn less than their manager frequently. -- 217.42.3.37 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the most bizarre managements I've encountered have been those where people are promoted because of their technical competence rather than their ability to lead and motivate. This happens in a lot of technology companies. It's something I try to avoid, as it's usually the case that these sorts of people are just not cut out to manage projects, and in my experience disaster and disappointment has usually been the result. The phenomenon is usually accompanied by an extreme gender imbalance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.92.25 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I used to know a man who was a brilliant engineer -- he quite literally wrote the book on his specialty. He was promoted to group leader, which meant that he spent about half his time doing engineering and the other half doing management. He was promoted once again to department head, and spent all his time managing. After a few months, he decided that he wanted to go back to doing engineering, and requested that he be demoted (he was willing to accept a cut in pay). His managers refused, so he went to his company's chief competitor, asking that he be given a job with the requirement that he never be promoted into management. They cheerfully hired him, and gave him a position which gave him the pay and perqs of a manager, with no one to manage. Jhobson1 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

LJ Peter was Chilliwack, BC school board administrator?

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)

The first chapter of the book discusses Peter's experience with incompetent school administration as a teacher, though it doesn't say where.Pol098 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote contradicting article

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).

Article is factually incorrect as well as badly written

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)

Humour (or satire)

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

• "peter principle" humour OR humor OR humorous (32000 hits)
• "peter principle" satire OR satirical (5000 hits)

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)

Is Google now the basis for a Wikipedia article? I don't think so. Additionally, your search would also find arcticles stating the Peter Principle is not statirical or not humorous. My impression is, that the book may sound humorous, however for Peter this is really a serious topic. Therefore it was nice if you could add some references (and please: no Google search) to the article that support your opinion. --JogyB (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrast with meritocracy

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)

That company doesn't exist. It would be more useful to find a name for the law that forces Wikipedia articles to remain at a certain level of mediocrity because any improvement beyond that point will be instantly reverted by some pseudo-meritocrat admin.--87.162.5.253 (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. God bless you, 87.162.5.253, I do believe you're on to something (two things, actually). Shame it took me a year to discover this talk thread. In all seriousness, Guroadrunner, I think 87.162.5.253 is for the most part humorously correct—two killing jokes in one comment—although I must say that some companies seem to catch spans of a few years when something goes especially right. Many examples over the past century at various moments—Ford, GM, Toyota, Boeing, IBM, Microsoft, Google, to name a few. Sadly, it never seems to last continuously, although I'd say that ones like Ford, GM, Toyota, Boeing, and IBM show some potential for waxing and waning and waxing again. If I had to guess, I'd say that up-or-out has been the only way to make meritocracy persist over years by bypassing or shorting the Peter Principle circuit. I'd like to see an experiment made of up-or-back-down, where the back-down part is without shame or pay cut, because I believe that would be the best of all worlds brought together. If I ever get into a position to make a trial of it, I'll let you know how it turns out. — ¾-10 00:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Corollary to the Peter Principal

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

30 Rock?

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)

Up-or-out versus up-or-back-down

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)

Scientific Proof?

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 think here's your answer, from the article: "Although humorous, Peter's book contains many real-world examples and thought-provoking explanations of human behavior." Yes, it's a joke of sorts, but it has enough (apparently anecdotal) truth that it's stuck around. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So in other words it's complete bullshit. I'm changing the article to indicate this is just a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaptorHunter (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a leap to "complete bullshit". I'm reverting your introduction of the POV language "farcical" in the lead, as well as a POV paragraph that is redundant with what the article already says. You may well be right about the subject, but it's not our place to make that evaluation. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is all of the real world evidence anecdotal?

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:

• Sales managers: Marketing's best example of the peter principle? Ralph E. Anderson Alan J. Dubinskyb and Rajiv Mehtaca Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAb Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USAc Loyola University New Orleans, USA Available online 19 January 2000.
• Things Can Only get Worse? An Empirical Examination of the Peter Principle .Authors: Barmby, Tim Eberth, Barbara Ma, University of Aberdeen Business School Working Paper Series2006-05 Abstract: The results reported in this paper suggest the possible operation of the Peter Principle in a large hierarchical financial sector firm. This result holds even after we allow for variation in optimal effort over stages in the hierarchy. The method also allows us to attribute the contributory factors for the observed fall in performance after a promotion. It appears that approximately 2/3 of the fall is due to the Peter Principle and 1/3 due to lessening incentives.
• Managing the career plateau TP Ference, JA Stoner… - The academy of Management review, 1977 - JSTOR... A. The Life-cycle View of Careers C B. The Peter Principle (Unsuccessful Plateauing)... This description of the progress of a managerial career resembles the Peter Principle,a popular but pessimistic description of organizational life. (Based on interviews of managers in 9 major organisations.)
• Overcoming the Peter Principle: Successful Transitions to a New Management Role Dr Eric G. Flamholtz, (Professor of Management, Graduate School of Management and Chairman, Center for Research on Human Resource, Institute of Industrial Relations, UCLA, President, Managerial System's Consulting Corporation) A high producing salesman in a medium-sized estate agency who was promoted to Branch Manager and subsequently terminated for "lack of management skills". ... • An Assistant Personnel Manager in a New York Stock Exchange Company who was promoted to Director of ... Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done (or read) any science on the topic, but I know I've seen it in action in real life. I realize that's only anecdotal, but nevertheless, I can't agree with RaptorHunter that it's complete BS in the sense of "a joke that's not true". It's a killing joke—a joke that's "funny because it's true" (at least in some people's experience). Funny like Dilbert comics—all too close to reality. — ¾-10 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's really true, that's fine. However, if you want to prove it, you will need real citations, not "people's experience" and dilbert comics.--RaptorHunter (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

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]

NO - Putt's law is specific to technical organizations, while the peter principle is generic. (BTW, I read the book.) 212.199.157.50 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. These should not be merged. The Peter Principle precedes Putt's law by at least a decade and deals with the general case, as 212.199.157.50 said. While they may be variations on the same theme, it is worth noting that Putt's is very specific and, furthermore, the Putt's law article's full title is Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat and refers specifically to the book, not merely the law. Because of this I feel that they should not be merged. --fakelvis (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't merge these - they do express different ideas. -- RavenFeat (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the merge of The Dilbert principle to this article. See the talk page of that article for details. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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)