The Peter principle revisited: A computational study (original) (raw)
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: ‘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 competence 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.
Section snippets
Introduction: The Peter principle
The efficiency of an organization in terms of improving the ability to perform a job, minimizing the respective costs, is a key concept in several fields like economics [1] and game theory [2]. But it could also be very important in ecology to understand the behaviour of social insects [3], in computer science when you have to allocate different tasks to a cluster of computers having different performances [4] or in science policy concerning how individual tasks are distributed among the
Dynamical rules of the model
In order to simplify the problem, we chose for our study a prototypical pyramidal organization (see Fig. 1), made up of a total of 160 positions distributed over six levels numbered from 6 (the bottom level) to 1 (the top one), with 81 members (agents) in level 6, 41 in level 5, 21 in level 4, 11 in level 3, 5 in level 2 and 1 in level 1. We verified that the numerical results that we found for such an organization are very robust and show only a little dependence on the number of levels or on
Strategies in competition: Simulation results
We realized all the simulations presented in the paper with NetLogo [23], a programmable environment designed for developing agent based simulations of complex systems. In Fig. 2 we show the time evolution of the global efficiency considering the six possible combinations among the mechanisms of competence transmission and the promotion strategies. The evolution is calculated for 1000 time steps, a duration long enough to reach a stationary (on average) asymptotic value, and is further averaged
Conclusions
In conclusion, our computational study of the Peter principle process applied to a prototypical organization with pyramidal hierarchical structure shows that the strategy of promoting the best members in the PH case induces a rapid decrease of efficiency, while it works well only if members would ideally maintain their competence at each level, a hypothesis that, although in agreement with common sense, seems in practice very unrealistic in the majority of real situations. On the other hand we
References (24)
Physica A
(2009)
- J.D. Farmer et al.
Frontiers of finance: Evolution and efficient markets
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
(1999)
- R. Gibbons
Game Theory for Applied Economists
(1992)
- A. Dornhaus
Specialization does not predict individual efficiency in an ant
PLoS Biology
(2008)
- I. Foster et al.
The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling scalable virtual organizations
International Journal of Supercomputer Applications
(2001)
- L.J. Peter et al.
The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong
(1969)
- J. Kane
Dynamics of the Peter principle
Management Science
(1970)
- S. Adams
The Dilbert Principle
(1996)
- E.P. Lazear
The Peter principle: A theory of decline
Journal of Political Economy
(2001)
D.L. Dickinson, M. Villeval, The Peter Principle: An Experiment, GATE Working Paper, No. 07-28...
P. Klimek
Parkinson’s Law quantified: Three investigations on bureaucratic inefficiency
Journal of Statistical Mechanics
(2009)
- M. Buchanan
Explaining the curse of work
New Scientist
(2009)
Cited by (65)
2019, Research in Transportation Economics
If RCS is EVAR, each vehicle drives only on its prefixed assigned flexible route, except when it is randomly extracted to keep on driving on the fixed route. The randomness component has been considered to add some “noise” to the system, since it has been shown that random strategies can have a beneficial role in increasing the efficiency of social and economic complex systems (Biondo, Pluchino, Rapisarda, & Helbing, 2013; Pluchino, Rapisarda, & Garofalo, 2010; Pluchino, Garofalo, Rapisarda, Spagano, & Caserta, 2011). Performance indicators.
View all citing articles on Scopus
Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.