Words Of Wisdom said:
No. I will use the Peter Principle to support my belief: Wikipedia said:
The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." While formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1968 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter, the principle has real validity. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence" The people at the top may have excelled prior to their reaching their current positions however that does not necessarily imply that they are or will excel in their current ones. |
Wouldn't that suggest however that those in the very top are infact the best at what they do? Afterall the other people couldn't even bother to be promoted to where they would suck, because based on that theory they already suck there.
The difference between college and proffesional basketball isn't really the same as the difference between being an employee and movign to management or a different kind of management. The kind of player who sucks at the NBA game or other sports games don't really stick around that long honestly.
Now when you get to Players being promoted to the front office... there i think the Peter principle holds merit. People like Mike Dunleavy and Michael Jordan suck at their current jobs.
For other jobs this may hold more true... but even then i believe that's why there is limited growth in most jobs.
