HackerPapers

arXiv:0907.0455physics.soc-ph

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study

Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, Cesare Garofalo

Abstract

In the late sixties the Canadian psychologist Laurence J. Peter advanced an apparently paradoxical principle, named since then after him, which can be summarized as follows: {\it 'Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum incompetence'}. Despite its apparent unreasonableness, such a principle would realistically act in any organization where the mechanism of promotion rewards the best members and where the mechanism at their new level in the hierarchical structure does not depend on the competence they had at the previous level, usually because the tasks of the levels are very different to each other. Here we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the latter two features actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical structure, then not only is the Peter principle unavoidable, but also it yields in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization. Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence.

arXiv comments
final version published on Physica A, 10 pages, 4 figures, 1 table (for on-line supplementary material see the link: http://www.ct.infn.it/cactus/peter-links.html)
Journal reference
Physica A 389 (2010) 467-472
DOI
doi:10.1016/j.physa.2009.09.045
Subjects
physics.soc-phPhysics and Society cs.GTComputer Science and Game Theory nlin.AOAdaptation and Self-Organizing Systems physics.pop-phPopular Physics

On Hacker News

Linked by 7 identifiable commenters in 7 comments across 7 threads, from Jul 2009 to Dec 2022. Found in 9 HN submissions from Feb 2010 to Jan 2025. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments7 threads

    • There's some game theoryish ideas such as the Peter Principle which might explain why meritocratic promotion may not work out in the long run for organizations. See: https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455 which won the parody Ig Nobel prize, but I don't really understand why, as I…

      plintView on HNParent context

  1. Hotbed of Misinformation 1 comment
    • Also worth noting that a promotion is not just a raise, it is also a change of job. See Peter Principle. There is even a igNobel winning publication suggesting that it might be more efficient to promote people at random... https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

      GuB-42View on HNParent context

  2. Why good managers are so rare 1 comment
    • This fits nicely with the study which shows that organizations are more efficient if people are promoted at random ;-) http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

      mikeryanView on HNParent context

    • This also reminds me of a paper I had submitted in the past. Randomly promoting people is more effective than using merit: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

      kenjacksonView on HNParent context

    • Yes, I read the paper. (Not, I confess, every word, but enough to be pretty sure I'm not misrepresenting it.) It's linked right at the end of the article. http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

      gjm11View on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.