For maximum efficiency, promotion at work should be random

[Aimless]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f&searchtype=a

Discuss at length

[wiggin]

As usual, a simplistic model based on unrealistic assumptions results in a 'surprising' result.

[Aimless]

I don't want my best iPhone assembler promoted to the position of worst iPhone-assembler-manager! I want him to experience the best iPhone-assembling conditions possible

[Dreadnaught]

Agreed —*it's really not common or sensical for people to be promoted to jobs they are totally unqualified for. I think the overall observation that large organizations can make dumb choices is more a function of decision making in large organizations, rather than human resources managment.

[Ominous Gamer]

Didn't read the link, but if promotion is random, why would I work harder than my co-workers? Hell, the only reason I've been tucking my shirt in these last few weeks is because of the senior promotion rumors that have been going around.

[Catgrrl]

‘Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum incompetence

That was the gist of the abstract in the link. I have to say in many of the jobs I've held, this is true for middle management types. It's not usually a random promotion though; more that someone was really good at the position they held, then asked if they'd like to move up. And then they find out they aren't so strong-suited for the managerial position.

I've actually been told to apply for certain positions because of my great performance when I worked in food service, but flat out refused because a) I don't like having to manage teenagers, b) I didn't want that to be my career, and c) I hate the goddamn public and their attempts to get free stuff out of people. I have taken positions that were managerial in other jobs I've had, some with success and some with a little turbulence. So you could say I've also been promoted to my level of incompetence at least once. (Right now as a stay at home I can argue I'm at that level yet again. But that's probably a general feeling most parents have)

[wiggin]

I don't dispute that the Peter principle has some truth to it, but it's a simplistic understanding of a complex dynamic. I think it most often happens when people are put into management with no prior experience or training in management. While it helps that they're versed in the content area of the people they're managing, there's a lot more you need to be trained in for adequate management. (The reverse issue happens as well; brand new MBAs managing a bunch of engineers or whatever when they have no idea of the fundamental technology, process, or product involved.)

But outside of that particular trap, I think it's a lot more nuanced. People are promoted not just on the basis of how they perform in their previous job, but how well they are suited for the next position. Oftentimes, the person in question has been carrying out the responsibilities of the higher position for a while before they are promoted, and it's more of a formality than a risky choice. Other times, there are clear similarities between the skill sets needed for the higher position and the previous one, so it's not unreasonable to extrapolate from one to the other. Lastly, it's not uncommon for an employee to show unusual aptitude for a peripheral aspect of their job (say, an engineer who's good at sales) and then result in their 'promotion' into a job where that skill can be best exploited.

There's always risk when you hand someone new responsibilities, but I don't think it works in the simplistic model presented in the paper, and the realities of how it does work reduces some of the risk and make random promotion much less attractive.

[Khendraja'aro]

And yet people think that they can teach just fine because they're either experts in their field or have been to school themselves

It's the same principle, actually.

[sheadunne]

How would you award a 'great performer' without promoting them? Say you have 5 people and one of them is clearly the best and you want to pay that person more, how do you do that without promoting them? If you gave them a raise to reflect their great performance, how would the other four react when they're doing the same job, even if it's not as good? How would it look if that employee was making more money than their manager because they're doing a great job?

I don't know. Usually they get/take a promotion to a job they can't/don't want to do, just to make more money.

Sometimes the loudest and most incompetent employee is the one that gets promoted, just because their manager doesn't want to listen to them anymore and doesn't want to fire anyone because they'll feel like a bad guy, so he recommends them for promotion to get them moved out of their department.

Maybe random is just as likely to work as the current system.

[Aimless]

Why you reward exceptional performers by making them feel great and by not working against them of course or by giving them the most fun jobs.