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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

slm

slm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.215.174 (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]