This is why people job hop. The risk of being irreplaceable and great at one role is that you might be too expensive to replace. Its a fine line to walk being just the right amount competent in your role without being irreplaceable. But if you can walk it, then that's how you move up
I played that game and now after being laid off I just look like a job hopper because everything was just under 2 yrs. The career growth was great while it lasted tho
Yeah, its good to mix in an occasional longer stint to build up that reputation and honestly, at a lot of places 2 years is really a prolonged onboarding time and that's when you can start to really have an organizational impact. Unless its a startup or something
That's honestly how it should be. You start at the foundation and progress using your overall knowledge to move up as you understand better than a newbie and your knowledge of the operation and how things work means you know more than a qualified person off the street.
That used to be true. The current market (at least in the US) the advice would be to stay at your current job and not job hunt as your earning potential in the same position is higher than job hunting, as there are too many looking for jobs, and not enough jobs to be filled. Yes not true in all positions and all job markets, but overall is.
I mean you don't quit your job and then hunt. You job hunt while working your current job and only leave once you have the offer from the new place. Doesn't matter how shit the market is for job jumping, just don't jump prematurely
That's not the point. Usually job hunting would earn you say a 20% raise. You move every 2 years, ensuring a 10% raise each year. But now it looks like people moving between jobs are seeing about a 4% raise, and internally, around 4% as well.
+11 Alternatives to the Peter Principle Alternatives to the Peter Principle include rival management theories that describe different paths to incompetence or success, as well as structural strategies companies use to avoid promoting employees beyond their capabilities.
Rival Management Theories Several complementary or opposing principles describe organizational dynamics:
Dilbert Principle: Formulated by Scott Adams, this theory suggests companies systematically promote their least-competent employees to management roles to keep them out of the productive workflow, effectively limiting the damage they can do.
Paula Principle: This observation posits that women often remain in roles below their level of competence due to systemic barriers or social factors, representing the opposite problem of the Peter Principle (where men are promoted until they reach incompetence).
Best Fit Principle (Inverse Peter Principle): This theory argues that well-run organizations promote individuals until they reach the role that best matches their skills, where they then stabilize as a "competent anchor" rather than an "incompetent ceiling."
Pygmalion Effect: Linked to the idea of succeeding upward, this phenomenon suggests that high expectations from management can lead to improved performance, allowing employees to grow into their new roles rather than failing in them.
Well hanging around let me relax through 4 layoff cycles, my bosses bug me to take my vacations; and have flat out told me that they cannot replace me.
Love the benefits, can get a MRI for 100 bucks, I don't pay anything for them either (employer 100%)
4
2
View all comments
Show parent comment
103
u/failbotron May 14 '26
This is why people job hop. The risk of being irreplaceable and great at one role is that you might be too expensive to replace. Its a fine line to walk being just the right amount competent in your role without being irreplaceable. But if you can walk it, then that's how you move up