Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

  • Hacker News
  • This is presented as a fact, but lacks documented real-world instances, direct measurements, or even any proxy measures that suggest it's actually happening.
  • I have never seen or heard of this happening. I have had managers who would not be able to do the grunt work, but they certainly weren't hired because they couldn't do that work.

    For what it's worth I also think the Peter Principle aphorisms are wrong. These basically revolve around the assertion that many managers are incompetent because they got promoted based on competence at a lower role, and therefore if they have been at the same level for a while it implies they are not good enough to advance. Well, it's true that management is a different job function than the actual domain functions, but people can and do learn. It's also not mathematically possible to move up indefinitely, because there just aren't enough management roles for that. Unfortunately, some people take jokes too seriously, as I'm sure was done with this post.

  • I've seen the opposite happen (most competent person applying for promotion passed over because they are too hard to replace in their current role), but not incompetent people being managed up.

    What (to me) is more common - unfireable incompetence is left to fester by avoidant management and then flushed by 24-36 month restructure cycles.

  • The section marked “Examples” has no examples. Not even anecdotes. This is impressively lazy.
  • I'd be surprised if they called out Dave Mitchinson the incompetent lead project manager at GeneralMassiveTech Industries United LLC, but they probably should have just omitted the "Examples" heading entirely if they weren't going to name and shame.
  • Or it's the best option they have at that moment.

    At my old job, my temporary manager was the Jenkins CICD guy who knew nothing that wasn't posted at StackOverflow.

    To give OP credit, the manager that was hired, knew nothing about nothing. He would take his dog for a walk during a system crash :)

    The new CTO was also incompetent, he spent more time with the business team than knowing how to write a simple script.

    One incompetent hired another incompetent.

    The company's warehouse firewall was exposed to the internet, their response?? pfSense is safe enough :)

  • A coworker at one of my former employers put it thus: People who can do engineering become engineers. People who get into engineering but can't do it become Six Sigma consultants.

    I haven't seen companies actually promote incompetents into management. Usually they're just given their walking papers. The more charismatic or well-connected ones are given some sort of lateral career track, like from actual engineering into sales engineering or something. I have never been charismatic nor well-connected enough to pull this off.

  • While this may be a funny take, the real one I tend to see happening in the real world sometimes (and is mentioned by contrast in the post) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
  • I’ve never seen a promotion for this reason - or anything close - in 30 years in engineering, including coaching hundreds of engineering leaders.

    What I HAVE seen is engineers who don’t understand the skills required for management thinking that this is what happened.

    Look at the provenance of this “principle” and its author make it pretty clear that’s really going on here.

  • I've never seen this happen as a reaction to actual incompetence, where the person is a net negative and a drag on everyone.

    I have seen something similar, though: a valued employee doesn't have balanced functional skills at their current position, and yet is a net positive due to other factors. They are good at problem solving but bad at coding; they are great at oncall operations but bad at design; they are good at making others better but not great by themselves.

    They can either acquire the skills to be functionally competent alongside their peers, or management can give them responsibilities that allow them to contribute without actually having them be good at their current job.

    That's definitely flunking upward but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

  • I've supported moving people from IC to manager easily 50+ times in my career and never once has it been to limit the damage someone can do.

    Also, this is not a promotion, it's a role change.

    Edit: btw, the premise is completely wrong. Managers can cause far more damage to teams than an IC on the team can cause.

  • The edit is dead on and this is the very first thing that crossed my mind.

    Bad managers hollow out companies. It's quite devastating.

  • > Managers can cause far more damage to teams than an IC on the team can cause.

    Yep, and a bad manager tends to last a lot longer than a bad individual contributor.

  • I’ve never found this to actually be the case (that somebody promoted someone they thought was incompetent to “limit damage”). Yes, incompetent employees get promoted sometimes, but it’s typically because they have been brown-nosing an executive and the executive thinks they are actually talented.
  • Oh I've seen it many times especially in IT land, but almost always to middle management positions, almost never c-suite.

    Multiple times teams would end up losing their manager and the promotion felt to the one that losing as a contributor would hurt less.

    I've seen it happen outside IT too, e.g. in banking where a higher position also implied legal responsibility so it came with perils. But again middle managers, bank directors, stuff like that.

  • If you see someone incompetent being promoted then it's more likely:

    1) You are wrong about them being incompetent

    2) The person promoting them is also incompetent and has mistakenly promoted the wrong person.

    I have literally never seen or heard of anyone promoting someone to limit the harm they can do. It's something bitter people tell themselves to help them feel better about being passed over. It's not the explanation you are looking for.

  • Incompetent people promoting incompetent people is called a kakocracy and is prevalent in large companies.
  • 3) You’re incorrect about the metrics being used to evaluate who to promote and they are not incompetent according to those metrics.
  • I have seen people not get promoted because they’re too competent, too good at their job. They’re too valuable to lose in their position.
  • There's a subtlety to (1), in that people can be incompetent at things that don't matter, but competent at things that do, and people often latch on to the wrong incompetence.

    For example, a software engineer might be fairly mediocre at programming, understanding systems, debugging, etc, but might have really good people skills and be great at effecting change in the organisation, and that person might be worth promoting into management.

    A learning experience for me was working with people nearly twice my age with decades of experience yet who were at my level, or much less experienced people who were at my level. Promotion and level are not a judgement of skill as an engineer in an abstract sense, they're a judgement of value to the company – you can be great, but if you're not using that in your current role your level may not reflect that.

  • Yeah, and i’m going to take a stab in the dark and guess that it’s the first one much more often than anyone here would like to admit.

    Developers love to act like they understand every other profession and skillset, just by intuition. It’s not incompetent to do things that you wouldn’t do, or to do things that upset you, or to do things that don’t put your desires first.

  • I think there's a third explanation: the person being promoted may indeed be incompetent at the job they have been doing, but be good at the skills required of a manager. I've seen that one happen. Management has very little in common (in terms of skills needed) with doing the work, so just because someone is bad at their current position doesn't mean they'll be a bad manager.
  • I've seen it in action a few times specifically in government.

    It's extremely difficult in my country to fire people in government. Managers want them out of their team but have no way to shift them. They are taking up one FTE in a key area but the person is just swinging the hammock doing just enough to keep from any proceedings.

    Finance won't give them more headcount.

    So they promote them to another useless department instead. Done.

    I know it's been done because I have been to drinks with the senior managers who did this a decade ago when I asked what the deal was with XYZ manager that had been there for years and was truly one of the worst managers I've ever heard of. They intimated a few others were the same across the org.

    Off topic - the manager mentioned was comically hilarious in laziness and lack of care. He once invited a new hire to a meeting, and attached the minutes of the meeting including the conversation that had not happened yet (they'd never even met yet) with statements like "Joe Foo agrees to let manager know if work is too much" etc etc.

    It was a template he sent out and he never even came to those introductory meetings. Just you agree and then neither of you actually meet.

    Government can be a different world so I understand when people think people are just inventing insane theories to justify their own ego, but these things really do happen in certain industries and types of companies.

  • > 1) You are wrong about them being incompetent

    The older I get, the more I recognize how often these takes are just sour grapes from watching other people succeed.

    It was most obvious when I was doing volunteer mentoring for early-career cohorts. A lot of people will comfort themselves by imagining that the real reason they didn't get a promotion or a job was because the company was doing something stupid: Peter Principle, Gervais Principle, Dilbert Principle. Some people would read an article about one of these things and for the next 5 years use it to explain every time they didn't get their way.

    The saddest examples were when people would be passed over for a job and then spend the next month stalking the person who got the job across LinkedIn and social media, theorycrafting explanations for why that person was less qualified and why the company made a big mistake hiring them. They had no idea what the person was like but they'd be convinced it was nepotism or some other -ism that lost them the job, not their interview performance.

    That said, I have worked at a couple companies where promotions into management had nothing to do with reality and everything to do with selecting people who were in the right social circles or, in one case, part of the right religion. When you're at a company like that, sadly the only solution is to leave. You're never going to win it from the inside.