Re:The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (2009)
by ghaff on Thursday June 14, 2018 @09:35AM
(#17311544)
I'm not sure "project manager" per se is necessarily the best example because that's at least in part a different task. But there are certainly individuals who are good people leaders, protecting their reports from distractions, giving them opportunities, etc. who aren't necessarily particularly brilliant engineers.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (2009)
by pbhjpbhj on Thursday June 14, 2018 @11:13AM
(#17312295)
Isn't that the point of the Peter Principle, you're good at your current tasks so you get promoted to do other tasks that you're not good at; as you're not good at those then you don't get promoted further, but you also don't get demoted to the tasks you excelled at.
The problem is viewing the company as hierarchical. Just because less managers are required doesn't mean it's a more important role.
Re:The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (2009)
by ghaff on Thursday June 14, 2018 @11:17AM
(#17312326)
The Peter Principle would be if a good engineer, in order to be promoted, had to become a manager--even though they didn't want to manage people and aren't good at it. It is rather based on traditional hierarchies which good companies offer ways around, e.g. individual contributor advancement tracks.
What I was saying was that just OK engineers can get promoted to management and actually be quite good at it.