“Consistent with the Peter Principle, we find that promotion decisions place more weight on current performance than would be justified if firms only tried to promote the best potential managers,” the researchers concluded. The data show that the best salespeople were more likely to a) be promoted and b) perform poorly as managers. During that time, 1,531 of those sales reps were promoted to become sales managers. Three professors - Alan Benson of the University of Minnesota, Danielle Li of MIT and Kelly Shue of Yale - analyzed the performance of 53,035 sales employees at 214 American companies from 2005 to 2011. Peter’s observation, although it had a certain amount of what researchers call “face validity,” was at best a theory. It did not achieve that level of success strictly for its humor. The book sold over one million copies and stayed on the bestseller lists in the United States for 33 weeks. ADDENDUM TO 'THE PETER PRINCIPLE'.The concept is funny the reality, for those unfortunate enough to run into it, is not. ADDENDUM TO 'THE PETER PRINCIPLE'., Comment by jack tunstill

ADDENDUM TO 'THE PETER PRINCIPLE', Comment by jack tunstill

Incorrect observation, Comment by Mrs.

The force of the Red Queen Principle, Comment by John F CatherwoodPETER, Refutation by Karl Schiller.

Principles of Systems and Cybernetics / Direction and Speed of Evolution If ever a species would get control over all its evolutionary problems, then the ' Red Queen Principle' would make sure that new, more complex problems would arise, so that the species would continue to balance on the border of its domain of incompetence.In conclusion, the generalized Peter principle states that in evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence.Ĭopyright© 1993 Principia Cybernetica - Referencing this page This explains why even the most complex and adaptive species (such as ourselves, humans) are always still 'struggling for survival' in their niches as energetically as are the most primitive organisms such as bacteria.

Getting stuck here does not mean 'being unfit', it just means having reached the limit of one's competence, and thus having great difficulty advancing further. The better (more fit, smarter, more competent, more adaptive) a system is, the more quickly it will solve all the easy problems, but the more difficult the problem will be it finally gets stuck in. But what will certainly remain is that systems confronted by evolutionary problems will quickly tackle the easy ones, but tend to get stuck in the difficult ones. The evolutionary generalization of the principle is less pessimistic in its implications, since evolution lacks the bureaucratic inertia that pushes and maintains people in an unfit position. The net result is that most of the higher levels of a bureaucracy will be filled by incompetent people, who got there because they were quite good at doing a different (and usually, but not always, easier) task than the one they are expected to do. At that moment the process typically stops, since the established rules of bureacracies make that it is very difficult to 'demote' someone to a lower rank, even if that person would be much better fitted and more happy in that lower position. This process of climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no longer competent. The principle is based on the observation that in such an organization new employees typically start in the lower ranks, but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they are assigned, they get promoted to a higher rank. The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their 'level of incompetence'. Peter in a humoristic book (of the same title) describing the pitfalls of bureaucratic organization. The Peter Principle was first introduced by L. In evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence

Promoted until incompetent