Talk:Peter Principle

1. It's not an "internet law", do we have a broader category? And 2., that evolution bit is rather bizarre. Guess I'd better read the footnote... 23:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that reference is shite. 23:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Principle corollary
If you look at the record of successful UK prime ministers and US Presidents, oftentimes it's the case that the better ones didn't have the required 'chops' but excelled anyway. Now while promoting incompetent people on the hopes of them becoming competent is much sketchier I don't think it's without merit. I blame the idea that people higher up in the hierarchy necessarily need to be more prestigious and better paid, especially if the skills required to be a good supervisor don't overlap much with the skills required to be a good, say, physician or engineer. But because we insist on this idea that supervisors are 'better' in a bunch of intangible ways than the people they lead it creates the Peter Principle and deprives potential geniuses of the chance to be awesome. Not to say that someone higher up in the hierarchy never needs to have skills that people in the lower echelon has, it's just that technical competence is a factor on whether someone will be a good manager than an overriding one. --Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)