Petered (what happens after the Peter Principle)

(aworkinglibrary.com)

19 points | by adrianhoward 54 minutes ago

6 comments

  • carschno 1 minute ago
    I think the Peter Principle addresses a good point, but misses a critical one: the hierarchy itself. Obviously, a manager requires different skills than an engineer, so why should a good engineer be a good manager? This holds the other way round: a good manager is not particularly likely to be a good engineer.

    Both is fine, these are just different jobs. However, the problem is that the manager is 'above' the engineer in the generally accepted hierarchy. Consequently, engineers are pressured to become managers for the development. As long as this hierarchy exists, the problem will exist.

  • JSR_FDED 24 minutes ago
    After they’ve been promoted to their level of incompetence, they lean in very hard on relationships to survive.

    Organizations where they get away with this are miserable to work for, and their influence ensures nothing merit-related ever happens again. Literally the source of the famous expression “A-people hire A-people, B-people hire C-people”.

  • aetherspawn 27 minutes ago
    The word illegal used a lot, but really, how pervasive is people doing illegal stuff at work? Surely not very.
    • ba1afd89f34cb23 19 minutes ago
      The word “illegal” appears exactly once, paired with “unethical”. That doesn’t seem to be a major takeaway from the article to me.
    • Joel_Mckay 4 minutes ago
      Usually, all sins are forgiven if a project launches on time.

      Often it is board-level folks that have a naive understanding of the problem scope, and ruminate on their bruised ego from the harsh words burned-out staff spew.

      There is also silly folks that honestly believe they will figure anything out faster, or can get away with a quick MVP bodge before jumping firms. I would argue they form an ecosystem, that keeps people that clean up messes fully employed. =3

  • rusk 2 minutes ago
    Apropos of nothing
  • arjie 0 minutes ago
    > What we call imposter syndrome was originally termed imposter phenomena, a term that makes plain that it is something that can be observed, not merely felt. The transformation into a syndrome shifted the experience of being impostered by a patriarchal, white supremacist society into a medicalized disorder, something for which the impostered person must be treated

    Sounds like garbage, I’ve got to be honest. First of all, they didn’t call it phenomenon for this outside business. It’s just an observation of a feeling.

    Second, I don’t really believe that patriarchal things have weak gender effect[0]. Sounds like a reach.

    Third, it’s not a medicalized disorder. Note that neither the DSM or the ICD have imposter syndrome in it so you can’t really call it medicalized. It’s just a colloquial term. To make it worse the ICD-11 actually has one of these “phenomenons”: “occupational phenomenon” [1] for burnout.

    Finally, Koreans in Korea have this. Iranians in Iran have this. Feeling self-doubt is normal and human. Feeling an overwhelming amount sucks. But it’s hardly white supremacy when it appears in homogenous non-White cultures with a long history.

    Considering that, this whole thing sounds like garbage.

    0: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1

    1: https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-ask...

  • gherkinnn 17 minutes ago
    Smells awfully like the Gervais Principle to me, where the petering manager is part of the clueless class.