Peter principle

Clarifying the Peter Principle

• Core idea discussed: hierarchies often promote people based on success in their current role until they reach a role where they’re no longer competent.
• Multiple comments stress: it does not require that competence strictly decreases with each promotion; only that competence at level A doesn’t guarantee competence at level B.
• Some argue it’s frequently misunderstood as “higher jobs are always harder” rather than “higher jobs require different skills.”

Competence, Promotions, and Meritocracy

• Several note big mismatches between title and actual competence; some people rise far above their level of competence, others stay below their ability.
• There’s pushback on the assumption that organizations are rational meritocracies; many promotions are driven by politics, seniority, or convenience.
• Empirical work (as summarized in the thread) finds firms often promote top performers in one role (e.g., sales) who then underperform as managers.

IC vs Management: Different Jobs, Different Skills

• Strong theme: management is a different job, not a “higher” version of IC work. Being excellent at coding/sales/etc. doesn’t imply being good at managing people.
• Step-function differences: someone can excel as an IC or small-team manager but struggle at larger-scale or more political roles.
• Some orgs offer dual tracks (technical and managerial) where senior ICs can earn more than their managers; commenters see this as healthier.

Mitigations and Alternatives

• Ideas floated:
  • “Up or down” or lateral moves when someone hits incompetence, sometimes keeping pay.
  • Probationary or time-limited promotions.
  • Paying more within the same role (“vertical scaling”) instead of promotion as the only route to higher pay.
  • Random promotions are discussed, but many dislike the idea in practice.

Politics, Personality, and Incompetent Leadership

• Several anecdotes describe “always-incompetent” people rising due to social skills or political safety, rather than via a Peter-style path.
• Some argue highly competent, opinionated people are punished for not being compliant, while agreeable mediocrities advance. Others report the opposite: management values strong, informed voices that can still align once decisions are made.
• Discussion touches on Dunning–Kruger, “yes-boss” cultures, and fiefdoms where misaligned incentives reward gaming metrics over real competence.

Satire, Overuse, and Broader Models

• The original book is described as satire based on real observations; commenters note satire can still capture real dynamics.
• Some feel people over-apply the principle as a catch-all explanation where situations are more complex.
• Alternative framings like the “Gervais Principle” (losers/clueless/sociopaths) are cited as a darker but sometimes more resonant model of organizational behavior.