Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by csense 1229 days ago
If the reward for competence is promotion, in the steady-state equilibrium everybody's incompetent at their current job: If they were competent, they would have been promoted into a different job.

It's called the Peter Principle [1] and it's pretty well-known.

I suppose Facebook's realized it's in a Peter Principle situation, and the remedy for it would, in theory, be to send some of the people back to previous jobs where they were competent.

The problem is that, in practice, it seems a lot like a demotion, especially if the original move was touted as a promotion, and the pay and prestige of your new old job is less.

It's a real puzzle how this can be done without demoralizing the affected employees into quitting -- especially the best ones, who presumably have lots of good career options elsewhere, and whose value is the entire reason for doing this in the first place.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

4 comments

The premise of this always puzzled me. I’ve seen many people “promoted” to a “higher” level because they displayed characteristics that they would be more successful at that role than anyone else despite lacking competence in their current role.

I’ve also seen people who are great at their current role but lack the attributes to rise into higher roles.

So the premise of competence being rewarded by promotion doesn’t really seem useful in practice.

Incompetence being rewarded as in your case doesn't seem better at all though.
The answer is to pay the top IC as much as managers
It is called 'Up or Out' culture. It is practiced everywhere, even in the military. You don't see 50+ year soldiers, do you? Except may be in 'Top Gun' sort of movies, which just only proves the point.

You are supposed to retire or give way to top performers to take the top places.

The Gervais Principle

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

... illustrates the fallacy of the Peter Principle.