The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study · HackerPapers discussions

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:23:01 GMT

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:03:35 GMT

Promoting Employees Randomly Is Demonstrably Better

2 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — mentioned by plint

Sun, 04 Dec 2022 01:40:12 GMT

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 thought it was at least as interesting as Robert Axelrod's simulation of successful strategies in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. In fact, I think it would be even warranted to do an extension of this model, considering possible assumptions such as Dilbert principle, negative selection, and alignment of agents with…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — mentioned by cbcoutinho

Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:50:24 GMT

View the arxiv paper as a webpage: https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/0907.0455/

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:06:43 GMT

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (2009)

101 points; 50 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — mentioned by GuB-42

Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:38:41 GMT

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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:40:29 GMT

Organizations would become more efficient randomly promoting employees

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — mentioned by waltherg

Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:57:01 GMT

Also see the Peter Principle: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:02:24 GMT

The Peter Principle

7 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — mentioned by mikeryan

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:58:36 GMT

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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:38:23 GMT

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study [pdf]

13 points; 2 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — mentioned by kenjackson

Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:10:39 GMT

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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:47:21 GMT

Randomly Promoting People is More Efficient Than Using Merit

4 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Sat, 02 Oct 2010 06:55:16 GMT

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study(IgNobel 2010)

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — HN submission

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:28:25 GMT

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study

5 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study — mentioned by gjm11

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:28:02 GMT

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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.