Consider a hierarchical organization which promotes to level n+1 the most competent worker in level n. In the organization’s steady state the workers will be sorted into the jobs where they are least competent. (Porkpie ping: Mindhacks)
Top Posts
- Price Gouging
- Why Are Asian Desserts So Bad?
- The Trough
- Page Numbers Are For Wussies
- Please Excuse Our Inefficiently High-Quality Blogging
- Should the AT&T and T-Mobile Merger Be Allowed To Go Through?
- Betting and Probability: A Curious Puzzle.
- Organs for Money
- Jeff's Intermediate Micro Course
- Plants Can Think?
Tags
art art of office politics banana seeds blog books boston california chicago coffee computers crime current events decision-making economics education evolution family financial crisis food and wine friends funny game theory incentives iPhone kludge language law marriage maths movies music obama politics psychology publishing sandeep has bad taste sanitation sport statistics suicide teaching terrorism the web tomatoes travel TV vapor mill war winter writingSubscribe via RSS
Join 1,504 other subscribers
Cheap Talk 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 11, 2009 at 7:25 am
conchis
Meh. The result rely on the assumption that performance at level n+1 is completely uncorrelated with performance at level n, that individuals do not learn, and that they do not respond to incentives for promotion. (In this case, you do best by promoting the worst performer at level n, because you then stop them from negatively affecting productivity at that level.) The result reverses if there’s a high correlation between performance at different levels.
It’s interesting as a toy model to formalize a particular intuition, but a model of what’s likely to go on the real world it ain’t.
July 11, 2009 at 7:27 am
conchis
Double meh. I obviously mean to say that the result *relies* on that assumption, not that it “rely” on it.
March 21, 2014 at 3:14 am
Kailash
Serban,Sofismele care l-au facut celebru pe Socrate il arata un atzarin al deductiilor in spectacolul lor, dar nu si al adevarului. Puteti vedea ca Socrte speculeaza greselile interlocutorului sau. O face cu gratie, e adevarat.Homosexuali “practicanti” 🙂 in Grecia Antinca erau doar cei care isi permiteau sa sustina financiar pasiunea, nu orice prapadit. Era chiar rau vazut ca un barbat bogat sa nu aiba cate un tinerel pe care sa il iubeasca. Stiu ca stiati toate astea, dar am zis ca merita amintite inca odata. Inca un lucru, Crestinismul, in genul tipic al intolerantei, i-a terfelit numele lui Socrate pana la Renastere, cand minti mai luminate l-au acceptat cu toate ale lui.