Talk:Peter principle

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)

Solutions - More Information?

At the end of the solutions section it mentions "parallel career paths" for technical people. I was hoping to find more info on the companies that do this and the formats these paths take but there is no more info linked. Can anyone suggest any additions or links (or citations / references) to add to this paragraph? DaveChild (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this quite fits into your question but I don't want to branch more incompetente hierarchies!

A reference I think to Prof. Cyril Northcote Parkson's book Parkinsons Law--- which discusses various subjects but starts with the premiss that organisations grow *regardless* of the amount of work to do-- I think would be relevant. I don't know really the best way to do this.

SiTrew xxii-Jan-mmix 21:28 GMT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.156.63 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ericsson, the Swedish communications company, has parallel career paths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.82.88 (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2013 (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

Earlier version

The same experience was described as early as 1767 by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in his comedy “Minna von Barnhelm” (3, 7) as follows: “Mehr als Wachtmeister zu werden? Daran denke ich nicht. Ich bin ein guter Wachtmeister und dürfte leicht ein schlechter Rittmeister und sicherlich noch ein schlechtrer General werden. Die Erfahrung hat man.” – Can someone please find an English translation of the comedy or translate the quotation into English, showing due credit to Lessing in the article? -- Wegner8 (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, with kind help of http://www.erinatranslations.de -- Wegner8 (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jetzt verstehe ich, warum du es auch in der deutschen Version haben willst. TF und Etablierung in möglicht vielen Versionen.

This quote is freely associated by Wegner8, who tries now - without success - to establish it also in the German Wikipedia. There is no reference in Peter/Hull to Lessing or with Lessing to the Peter Principle. Please comment. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Recognizing the same experience elsewhere is not research, let alone "Original Research" (see the reason for deletion). Identity of the experience has never been questioned. Please restore. -- Wegner8 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The two forerunners are factual, verifiable, whether someone else referenced them or not. As forerunners, even a weaker relation to the later principle would be enough. -- Wegner8 07:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The ideas are basically old, but this book expressed them in a humorous way. Long time since I read it, but I think the discussion here is actually quite misleading and shallow. In particular, he was talking about mature organizations nearing equilibrium status, because it takes quite a bit of time for some people to reach their level of incompetence. He also addressed some of the organizational countermeasures to get the incompetent deadwood out of the way, for example by lateral transfer to a relatively harmless position. However my own reason for visiting the article was to search for successor books, and once again Wikipedia hasn't been helpful... I suppose you can treat this comment as an invitation to send me references to such books? Oh wait. Wikipedia is a poor communication channel, too, though the spammers are increasingly fond of it... Shanen (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Dolson Principle

The following text was removed on the basis that there is not reliable 3rd party reference for this variant of Peters Principle. On a quick inspection I can't find a suitable reference to support it. I am putting it here because it would be a shame to loose it if there is a suitable reference out there.

"The satirist D. Dolson Dolson has argued in his book Rule Zero [Dolson, D. Dolson (2007). Rule Zero: How things Really Work. Published online on Lulu] that the Peter Principle is in fact not really applicable, because it implicitly assumes that higher levels of competence are required at higher levels of an organization. Dolson maintains, in his "Dolson Principle," that "the higher the management level, the easier the job." Those in the middle and lower levels of organizations really need to know what they are doing, and are highly accountable, while those at higher levels can reach those levels politically and/or by luck, and need very little actual ability or knowledge to perform their jobs. Dolson argues that people can be demoted, not promoted, to their level of incompetence."

-- PeterEastern (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since another editor, User:BusinessSense20000 has seen fit to add it back, I'd like to seek consensus on the "Dolson principle" and its inclusion in the article. There seem to be no reliable sources that indicate it's a real thing. It's simply one guy's self-published book. Do others have thoughts? Esrever ^(klaT) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Without third-party sources showing that it's relevant or WP:DUE, it most certainly does not belong on an article. Just because it exists and can be verified through a primary source doesn't mean it belongs on an article. - SudoGhost 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Overview - first paragraph

I believe the recently removed initial paragraph should be restored to the overview section, as I believe it provides important information regarding the wider context of the Peter Principle: "The Peter Principle is a special case of an ubiquitous observation: Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. This is "The Generalized Peter Principle." Peter observed it applied to hardware, e.g., vacuum cleaners as aspirators, and to administrative devices, such as the "Safety Evaluations" used for managing change. There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Peter observed this about humans." --HarryHenryGebel (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, except for the specific examples "applied to hardware, e.g., vacuum cleaners as aspirators, and to administrative devices, such as the 'Safety Evaluations' used for managing change." Those specific examples were part of a larger sentence formerly attributed (without a reference) in an earlier version to a specific scientist named William R. Corcoran. In the meantime some idiot evidently "edited" it (screwed it up) it in a way that removed the attribution and misattributed those specific examples to Peter. Since the Corcoran examples were not referenced, we should probably just leave them deleted. But the overall paragraph that you mentioned needs restoring, and I'm about to go do it in a minute. — ¾-10 19:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I restored that paragraph, minus the detailed examples. It's a shame I don't have time to watchlist this article properly (that is, examine the diff for every edit to it that appears on my watchlist). Evidently some of the people who mess with it degrade it rather than improve it. Oh well, we do what we can with volunteering our time. — ¾-10 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have added some detail to this paragraph, added a citation and also moved it to the end of the section where I think it fits better (I have also trimmed out some uncited content from the section until someone cmoes up with a reference for it - see below). This citation does support the inclusion of William R. Corcoran and the other examples. PeterEastern (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Opps, I have just noticed that the citation I used had a big banner at the top that read 'do not cite' and noted that the content had come from this article in the first place! I have reverted my edits, but have added a 'citation needed' tag to para under discussion. PeterEastern (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncited content removed from article

I have removed the following claims from the article until suitable citations are added: PeterEastern (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Staff who find themselves with what they consider to be incompetent superiors may try to "manage upward" and support or manipulate them to be more effective, or may simply devise ways to minimise the damage and influence they have on the organisation."
• "Peter proposed that systems based on social class (or caste) were more efficient at avoiding incompetence. Lower-level competent workers would not be promoted above their level of competence as the higher jobs were reserved for members of a higher class. "The prospect of starting near the top of the pyramid will attract to the hierarchy a group of brilliant higher class employees who would never have come there at all if they had been forced to start at the bottom". Thus he concludes that the hierarchies were "more efficient than those of a classless or egalitarian society"."

Forerunners Dispute Regarding Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

Three editors deleted the following passage several times from Peter_Principle#Forerunners or contest it; User:Robertgreer and I restored it in vain. Reasons for and against inclusion are stated in the first subsection here. Please append your comments at the end of the chapter. -- Wegner8 10:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, in his comedy Minna von Barnhelm (1767), has a sergeant say (here translated from German to English): “To become more than a sergeant? I don't consider it. I am a good sergeant; I might easily make a bad captain, and certainly an even worse general. One knows from experience.

Reference

There seems to be a dispute regarding whether the above passage should remain in the article; seeing as it's an on-and-off edit war that's been going on for quite a few months, I feel the need to attempt to turn it into a discussion instead.

May I ask for the main points of the discussion on the German Wikipedia (which seems to be against its inclusion) to be paraphrased here, as well as the arguments for why some might feel it should be included? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for embarking on this dispute. I would regret a lot if this forerunner would be excluded (whether or not the other forerunner remains accepted). – When restoring I had assumed that the reasons given on 25 July 2014‎ by Robertgreer would do: translation is not original research, and the Lessing quotation is apt. – Let me state the main points of the related discussion as I see them. -- Wegner8 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Main points of discussion

Each numbered paragraph in italics reflects an objection against including the passage. The subsequent text is my reply. Indented paragraphs following a reply quote objections from the next section that may not be covered by my reply. – Wegner8 (this paragraph revised and quotations added on 2 October 2014)

1. The passage presents Original Research (WP:OR).

It presents a trivial observation in literature that can easily be made and confirmed by everyone. There is no research at all. (If research were that easy!) Nothing is new or original, except my proposed mention in the article of an obvious fact. WP:OR says: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." However, if you require such sources even for obvious facts, you may delete much text in many articles asking to present publications. – As an arbitrary example, take the second paragraph of the article Paper. Should I delete it as alleged OR, you might rightly blame me. Likewise, the debated passage should be considered legitimate. – It might help to turn the quoted OR text into "ideas, allegations, and non-obvious facts". – One might argue that those deleting the debated passage have to prove that "no reliable, published sources exist". To prevent such abusage, I propose to turn the OR text into "no reliable, published sources are presented".

• "Show me a book chapter or an academic article where this Lessing text is put in direkt context with the Peter Principle." Geezer
• "I do not agree with you, on this matter and I consider the idea purely a figment of your imagination. Lessing was a great writer. However, there is no proven connection between Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and Laurence J. Peter or Raymond Hull. Unless this connection, either out of their own statements, as of what inspired them, or out of the peer-reviewed analysis of a renown literature analyst, there is no reason to believe, that there is more to the assumed connection, than your private theory of the origin of thought." Yotwen

2. The passage is Original Research because it says that Lessing invented the Peter Principle. (Discussion in German, 17 February 2014)

It does not say so. It says that the quoted text is a forerunner, i. e., something that shows part of the properties offered by some later thing, or similar properties. Nothing more is required from a forerunner.

3. The text quoted from Lessing has nothing to do with the Peter principle.

The relation is easy to see and was perfectly stated by Chricho on 6 April 2014: Both authors, Lessing and Peter, treat the experience of "being overstrained as a consequence of promotions" (Überfordertsein durch Beförderungen). – I do not see any advantage in removing hints and links to some related information provided that the relation ist immediately visible, as is the case here. Such links constitute the most charming achievement of hypertext.

• "... the Peter Principle claims to be a systematic phenomenon, people get promoted till they reach the point where they are not qualified. Lessing only describes that there are occasionally persons who do bad work because of their high rank and that it is not always desirable to get promoted. Neither does he claim to describe a systematic phenomenon, nor is there the notion of the lowest non-suitable rank (instead there is a gradual difference). However, it is enough to state that there are no sources." Chricho
• "The connection between two unrelated objects (e.g. Lessing's Minna and Hull's Peter) is an idea. And as long as there is no reputable paper trail of the connection, it remains an unproven idea, aka figment or wild guess." Yotwen

4. Peter talks of people who where promoted up to their level of incompetence; Lessing's character refused such promotion.

Learning from (or describing) other people's experience does not require repeating their mistakes.
(Please note again that the passage quotes Lessing's text as a forerunner only.)

5. Lessing describes one fictitious case only; Peter states a general principle.

The last phrase in the quotation from Lessing generalizes his example.
(Please note again that the passage quotes Lessing's text as a forerunner only.)

6. At Lessing's lifetime the Peter Principle did not yet exist, so you establish a relation into the past. (23 Feb 2014, Ronald)

I mention an early text as a forerunner of a later text about a similar subject. (Every historian establishes relations into the past.)

7. Deleting is no loss because everyone should be aware that people before Peter were irritated by incompetence and hierarchies. (Chricho, 9 Feb 2014)

It is good practice to honour early contributors, and not many such publications before Peter are known.

Again, I invite everyone to suggest objections or to question my replies by writing into the next section. – Should someone wish to delete one of his contributions there as a result of this discussion, he may delete my reply as well. – Whenever one of the critics no longer objects against inclusion of the passage, I invite him to say so. – Wegner8 09:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion continued

(1) Show me a book chapter or an academic article where this Lessing text is put in direkt context with the Peter Principle. I can't find one.

(2) PP states: "Managers [do] rise to the level of their incompetence." and then the influence on companies is discussed. (so Dilbert is ok, Beetle Bailey not (unless they make direkt ref. to PP)

The guy in Lessing's play (a) is not a manager, (b) considers himself competent in his function (is aware of his status) and (c) is not moving up to a level of incompetence.

Is there more to say? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

On (1): Obvious facts (in this case Lessing, Ortega and Peter—in this order—all describing incompetence as a consequence of promotions) need no academic articles to be true.

On (2) and (a) to (c): A forerunner does not usually match all features of the later improved thing. -- Wegner8 09:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

At least five users in the German Wikipedia have explained Wegner8 correctly, why this is original research. He has not continued the discussion since months. And now he comes to the English Wikipedia and claims I’d vandalise? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, and other users supported me: Hubertl, A1000, Redheadchica (by improving the English article), Robertgreer. And this is not a matter of voting but of good reasons. I apologize for the accusation of vandalism; I did not find another way to call someone else into the conflict. -- Wegner8 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the list of reverts: It might be missleading, since Hubertl and A1000 have never participated in the discussion. I want to add to Geezer that the Peter Principle claims to be a systematic phenomenon, people get promoted till they reach the point where they are not qualified. Lessing only describes that there are occasionally persons who do bad work because of their high rank and that it is not always desirable to get promoted. Neither does he claim to describe a systematic phenomenon, nor is there the notion of the lowest non-suitable rank (instead there is a gradual difference). However, it is enough to state that there are no sources. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, the text quoted does not cover PP, it is a forerunner in describing part of PP as an experience. – Lessings comedy is obviously a forerunner, and obvious facts without sources appear in nearly every article without someone deleting the whole paragraphs containing them. – Please propose here an objection to the present edit summary above if you sustain this contribution. -- Wegner8 19:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How come, you know that - and Laurence J. Peter didn't? (Because he didn't mention Lessing...) The connecting string is in your head (no problems with that - I have a lot of probable and improbable associations, too... (e.g. The first boygroups were Gregorian monks ?!) but I don't write them into articles - I go to the Café/Village Pump) but in the World of an encyclopedia ... where is the connecting string? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The connection you miss is the common main point of both (Lessing's text and Peter's Principle) as stated by Chricho on 6 April 2014 quoted in the previous section. Which aspect of this statement do you not understand? Can you please add your objection to the previous section? –

Asking for a reference to literature here is hardly covered by the wording of WP:OR, see my revised reply to the first objection in the previous section. -- Wegner8 18:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Using your contributions, I adapted my replies to some objections in the previous section and reworded, in italics, some of my replies here. – Time has come to apply the logical bench-vice. Do the objections and my replies in the previous section reflect all your concerns? If they do not, please state what is left. Does someone still asks for references, in spite of the previous section? Please explain why. Otherwise please state that you no longer object to inclusion of the passage. – Please reply within a fortnight. – Wegner8 03:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, on this matter and I consider the idea purely a figment of your imagination. Lessing was a great writer. However, there is no proven connection between Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and Laurence J. Peter or Raymond Hull. Unless this connection, either out of their own statements, as of what inspired them, or out of the peer-reviewed analysis of a renown literature analyst, there is no reason to believe, that there is more to the assumed connection, than your private theory of the origin of thought. Yotwen (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Which idea? Can you please specify which part or aspect of the passage seems a figment of my imagination to you? What is wrong with Chricho's wording of the obvious connection? Are there, in the previous section, any replies of mine which you do not accept? If so, can you please state your objection here? Do you really mean that every mention of an obvious fact would need a reference, perhaps even $1+1=2$ ? – Wegner8 14:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Drawing parallels between independent works of literature is very different from routine calculations, it is original research. Anyways: $1+1=2$. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Chricho, Geezer, Yotwen and everyone: Are there any topics not yet covered in the section "Main points of discussion" or not sufficiently dealt with there, any complaints not sorted out – or can we ask JaeDyWolf to submit the case to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee for decision? Please reply within a fortnight. – Wegner8 07:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI Idea... usually construed as mental representational images of some object. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images. The connection between two unrelated objects (e.g. Lessing's Minna and Hull's Peter) is an idea. And as long as there is no reputable paper trail of the connection, it remains an unproven idea, aka figment or wild guess.

However, the fanaticism displayed in pursuing your idea lets me believe, that you are a 'C' short in your suggested solution. But since you won't take to reason, you would even less take that. So go ahead, prove to yourself what everybody else already knows by now. Yotwen (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not everybody: Robertgreer on 25 July 2014‎ restored the deleted text with a concise and convincing Edit summary quoted above in my first contribution here (6 September 2014). -- Wegner8 19:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:JaeDyWolf: Can you please try to resolve the conflict? (See my request of 15 September.) Wegner8 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:JaeDyWolf: Your initial contribution was competent and promising, now please continue to help. Wegner8 14:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that including Lessing in the article on the Peter Principle is original research. Until and unless a reliable source is found which mentions the connection, it should be excluded. Since there seems to be a consensus, I suggest that any editor who reintroduces it be prohibited by admins from editing the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give a reason for your opinion? See Main points of discussion. -- Wegner8 14:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Chricho, @User:Grey Geezer, @User:JaeDyWolf, @User:Willhesucceed @Yotwen and everyone: Are there any reasons against inclusion left (apart from opinions) that are not properly dealt with in the section on Main points? -- Wegner8 12:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wegner8 (talk • contribs)

• Comment This is original research and this is synth of Minna von Barnhelm. Werner says that he is a good Sergeant, but he's not sure he'd be a better as captain or general so he is uninterested in promotion. This is not an example of Peters principle or forerunner to it. He was not sought a promotion and the person he was talking with wasn't offering a promotion. He is explaining why doesn't wish a promotion in the words you want to quote and stick in here. He's trying to placate he's friend the major so he will take the loan.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

After looking thru again I think we have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

 

---

We need not analyzing Lessing to answer this, Wegner8. Not the majority opinion is in question, here. It is YOUR dissident opinion that you need to question. It has already been answered satisfactorily by seven users. Yet you insist on wasting everybody's time on your pet idea. This has taken dimensions beyond any reasonable point. I suggest you put your idea on your personal pile of "The World is not yet ready for this", and walk away. Yotwen (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I was invited here randomly by a bot. This RFC is poorly organized and I see very little chance of reaching consensus here. I strongly recommend initiating a proper RFC (Start with a simple, neutral question with no commentary, no names, no history, etc - simple and neutral. Follow that with a Survey section for position statements with brief explanations. Follow that with a Discussion section for threaded dialog.) Keep discussion separate from survey comments. Then it's possible for everyone to get a sense of the group by reading the survey section. Best wishes. I be checking back... Jojalozzo 15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is Peter?

The article doesn't mention where "The Peter Principle" gets its name. However, it mentions Peter, as a person who apparently coined the principle, in many places. No last name, no reference, no information.

Who is Peter? TricksterWolf (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Who is this Peter the article refers too? Stephenjh (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's writer Lawrence Peter.

[3] --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested Mike Cline (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Peter Principle → Peter principle – To match every other page of this sort, from Dunning–Kruger effect to Special relativity. This is one of the last remaining law/theory/meme/aphorism/model/method/doctrine (MOS:DOCTCAPS) pages that is still capitalized in this way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Support though for little reason other than that the topic might otherwise be confused with someone such as a half brother of someone like Elvis. Ngrams do not support the move and, at WP:CRITERIA, Consistency is presented as the final item in the list. If Laurence J. Peter had a surname that was in a form unlike a common given name or if a noun was used such as "effect" then I would have opposed. GregKaye 07:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There would be no basis for such an oppose though; all article titles like this are lower-cased here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The current policy is misguided. The Peter Principle is a proper noun, not a common one, and it is properly and commonly capitalized. Ngram shows that as of 2008 your proposed capitalization was 8× less common in the English language. (Don't worry, though. I'm sure enough people agreed with the policy to get it implemented in the first place and can come to support your well-meaning imposition of consistency. I also support consistency: in the imposition of COMMON ENGLISH names and the avoidance of policy bloat like what we're seeing here. But again I'm sure you mean well.) — LlywelynII 02:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What I mean isn't relevant. If you don't like the current MOS line about this, you can propose to change it, at WT:MOSCAPS. In the interim, it would be applied here just like at second law of thermodynamics and Murphy's law.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. A similar orthographic topic is covered at Eponym#Orthographic conventions, which covers how terms such as "Parkinson disease" and "Down syndrome" are widely considered as better styled that way even though one will always find plenty of instances of "Parkinson Disease" and "Down Syndrome" in the wild. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of tautology, if "Parkinson Disease" and "Down Syndrome" are more commonly capitalized as such "in the wild", then their lower-case variants are not "widely considered better styled" for all meaningful values of "widely". — LlywelynII 02:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your point is taken, but nonetheless professional editing done to AMA style, APA style, CSE style, AP style, and other major regimens follows the norm of lowercasing the disease/syndrome/test part. If Wikipedia aspires to that type of editing, it would use the lowercased style. "In the wild" in this context means "in content that is mostly not copyedited." How much Wikipedia wants copyediting can be debated, but it seems that many Wikipedians prefer it over non-copyedited style. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. Blogs and stuff overcapitalize everything like mad.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The Talk:Somebody else's problem#Requested move 24 July 2015 recently closed in favor of the same kind of move, from Somebody Else's Problem to Somebody else's problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously makes sense to follow our own style guide. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

just a proposal: the peter principle in the 21th century

Preventing & Destroying the hierarchy at all!!

positiv Example: a software company founded in 2015. In software industry this is called "agile development" (SCRUM). Instead of hierarchical structures they (should have - if they understand AND LIVE it) flexible - just AGILE structures.

negative example (i call it the "boomerang effect") VOLKSWAGEN - just the WORDING translated means "fairly produced and sold cars". The FOUNDERS wanted this! But now we have the "HIERARCHY" (including its members) AND some OWNERS (share and stake holders) They dont want "GROWTH" - they measure their success in "THE GROWTH OF THE GROWTH" (second deviation in mathematics). e.g. if the company profit has s growth of 15% in 2014 - they want to have e.g. 17% in the next year!

the boomerang effect of globalization We send fish trawlers to the coast of Somalia - and wonder why they become PIRATES (just modern Robin Hoods!)
--Ch kolumbus (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)