from Hacker News

The Peter Principle still resonates

by empressplay on 1/2/25, 3:23 PM with 75 comments

• by TheGRS on 1/2/25, 8:03 PM

  There's a sort of horror to this concept: you realize that everyone, including yourself, is doomed to incompetence. That every successful business you know of is run at a profit in spite of incompetence. Even more horrifying: Most experiences I've had in my professional career validates this premise. I can think of many projects I was a part of that seemed misguided at best, yet the company continued to succeed by momentum and great decisions that were made in the past (and sometimes decisions that were not even very consciously done).

  When the stars align and things are successful, its time to celebrate, but maybe don't assume it'll always happen that way. Why this concept is also comforting is that you can kind of relax a bit on some level. I mean do your job of course and make sure things are running, but maybe this new initiative from the CEO isn't quite as important to the success of your company as they may make you believe.

• by baazaa on 1/2/25, 10:13 PM

  It doesn't with me, because it only made sense back when firms hired lots of young people and promoted the most competent. This isn't how most firms work nowadays.

  I've never even worked at a place that does promotions. Sure if your boss leaves you can apply for their job but it'll be offered to externals as well and then you'll be compared to them as an external applicant, i.e. with resume + interview. Job performance doesn't matter, HR makes no effort to even measure performance beyond PIPing people who don't show up.

  Weirdly when I mention this to colleagues, who know for a fact that's how things work here, they're surprised because they never noticed. Like everyone has a mental model of 'good workers get promoted' which is seemingly impervious to direct experience.

• by debo_ on 1/2/25, 7:37 PM

  My favorite part of this article:

  > A 2009 study by Italian researchers offered a more radical approach to the Peter Principle problem. It found that companies may be better served by leaving things to chance and promoting people "at random."

  The study they linked: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S02195259185...

• by cortesoft on 1/2/25, 7:27 PM

  My issue with the Peter Principle is the idea that each ‘level’ requires more competence… I think the issue is that the levels actually require completely different skills.

  For example, being a good developer doesn’t mean you will be a good dev manager, but the reverse is also true… being a good dev manager doesn’t mean you would be a good developer.

  If you only promote good devs into the role of dev manager, you aren’t getting the all the best dev managers.

• by JKCalhoun on 1/2/25, 7:20 PM

  I've made my peace with The Peter Principle. People can surprise you and can "rise to the occasion" — or in the case of employment, rise to the difficulties of the tasks or jobs you give them.

  Not everyone can, but to deny someone that opportunity is perhaps ... cruel?

  So we err on over-promotion — realizing our mistake only when it is too late. And I'm fine with that.

• by indigoabstract on 1/2/25, 8:56 PM

  Perhaps "incompetent" isn't the best word for this?

  People tend to get "promoted" when they outgrow their current role and need more challenges.

  But eventually all will reach a point where they stop growing or grow content or complacent and the promotions will also come to a halt.

  It doesn't necessary mean they are "incompetent" though. Just stopped growing bigger than their current role.

• by coolhand2120 on 1/3/25, 5:27 AM

  I work for a FANG level company and when a person is promoted to a higher position and it doesn't work out they'll get let go or moved back to another position, I've seen it happen multiple times and it's happened to me personally. This isn't their decision, higher ups demand performance.

  This "principle" seems to ignore this completely: that employees are regularly evaluated for performance. I don't see that addressed at all in the telling of this story. Yearly performance reviews and KPIs are a thing for most professionals. When people underperform and performance is the norm the rest of the machine will correct.

  I'm sure in more dysfunctional or institutionalized orgs are going to work differently, but it only takes a few empirical examples for me to just completely discount this as something to expect. I believe the research that proves this is likely flawed as well.

• by DoctorOetker on 1/2/25, 10:11 PM

  Omitted from these explanations is that promotions convey 2 things: increased salary and a higher position.

  A good performer can be rewarded without giving a higher position, simply by increasing their wages.

  The catch is of course that regularly an employee may earn more than his/her superior....

  Perhaps relaxing the last requirement is too much to stomach?

• by 486sx33 on 1/8/25, 2:49 AM

  Kind of ironic that this is on the cbc site. The CBC probably has the most people in any facility I can think of which everyone there is incompetent but stays for the pay and the fact they subscribe to the politics and the union of the place.

• by dang on 1/2/25, 7:12 PM

  Related:

  Peter principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39844104 - March 2024 (180 comments)

  Peter Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855815 - Dec 2022 (5 comments)

  The Peter Principle (1974) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32627396 - Aug 2022 (39 comments)

  The Peter Principle: Are you at your level of incompetence? (1974) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32243969 - July 2022 (1 comment)

  Employees are promoted based on their success until they are no longer competent - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31561825 - May 2022 (1 comment)

  Ask HN: Operational Peter Principle? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30436105 - Feb 2022 (4 comments)

  The Peter Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24433059 - Sept 2020 (1 comment)

  The Peter Principle Tested - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19797375 - May 2019 (47 comments)

  The Peter Principle is a joke taken seriously. Is it true? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17845289 - Aug 2018 (108 comments)

  The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17301215 - June 2018 (50 comments)

  The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972249 - May 2018 (48 comments)

  The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2270053 - Feb 2011 (2 comments)

  The Peter Principle: Why Most Managers Suck - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488442 - July 2010 (1 comment)

  The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1121507 - Feb 2010 (1 comment)

• by rapjr9 on 1/3/25, 3:01 PM

  Here's a corrollary to the Peter Principle: Even if you avoid promotion your bosses will continue to heap more responsibility on you without raising your pay so that eventually you'll have more work than it is humanly possible to do and will by definition become functionally incompetent.

• by ghjfrdghibt on 1/2/25, 7:42 PM

  I think this principle likely does not include the public sector which like to promote to incompetence, and beyond; buzz lightyear style.

• by peterldowns on 1/2/25, 8:07 PM

  Unreal that we, as a society, allow this Anti-Peter bias to persist. It's 2025 — time to stamp out hate for good.

  Instead of referencing the "Peter Principle", consider saying:

  - I fucking hate my boss

  - My boss is incompetent

  - My boss can't do anything right

  - My boss should be fired for incompetence

  No need to bring "Peter" into it at all.

• by numpy-thagoras on 1/2/25, 10:29 PM

  It's actually embarrassing to Vancouver's organizational culture that this is where the Peter Principle was identified using case examples. In many ways, that prevailing set of attitudes that were identified as deeply problematic and inefficient have exploded into a city-wide culture problem. There are so many firms that just muddle along, it's a miracle they do as well as they do.

  The upside is that small and efficient firms, grounded in meritocracy, can do a decent job competing with these companies (provided they can get any ins with vendors, clients, etc.)

• by jampa on 1/2/25, 10:25 PM

  I hate this principle. It bases itself on an appeal to nature. It is as if people are born with a hidden upper level of competence that they can never "rise above" while others were born "blessed to be CEO."

  The worst part is that people frame it as an argument to avoid promoting. The truth is that people only reach their "level of incompetence" due to arrogance or just by giving up on putting in effort. I have never seen someone humble and curious underperforming for long.

• by musha68k on 1/2/25, 9:16 PM

  I, for one, will welcome our new AGI CEOs

• by emceestork on 1/2/25, 8:12 PM

  The Peter Principle is an idea manufactured to suppress wages. The idea the you have to work at a level above your current level for a while until you are promoted only benefits employers.

  I have only spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this idea.