1. The Peter Principle: An Experiment David L. Dickinson Marie-Claire Villeval Appalachian State CNRS-GATE, IZA University

2. The Peter Principal Post-promotion, observed ability falls Lazear (2004) framework attributes this to transitory component of observed ability Testable implications include: –Observed ability declines (rises), on average, after promotion (after non-promotion). –Job sorting is only efficient if workers self-select into jobs. –When employers choose jobs for workers, effort will be distorted in predictable ways.

4. Experimental Design Subjects are all agents (i.e., workers). An exogenous promotion standard is applied when needed Real cognitive effort task with two difficulty levels to create “easy” and “hard” tasks –Grammatical transformation task (AXFND) Subjects paid for “observed” output, Y. –Y=actual output ± random error term Treatments are: –Calibration treatment to establish population parameters and promotion cutoff point –Self-Selection versus Promotion rule comparison –Variance of error component manipulation within Promotion treatments, Promotion-  Low, Promotion-  Medium, Promotion-  High

6. Design of the promotion payment schemes Figure 2 Efficient job sorting involves low ability workers in easy task, high ability workers in hard task. (achieved by setting relative wage rate W H /W E steeper than opportunity of hard task)

8. Figure 2. Proportion of lucky subjects in stage 3 sorted by task in stage 4

10. Table 3. Average ability of promoted and non-promoted subjects and mistakes in task assignment

12. Table 4. Efficiency rate of promotion standard and self-selection vs. random task assignment Self-Selection is NOT efficient as predicted (imperfect knowledge of one’s abilities is likely the cause)

14. Effort Distortion Theory predicts low (high) ability agents will distort effort down (up) in promotion treatments to ensure efficient task assignment. We find no effort distortion in comparing Stage 3 and 4 outcomes for those promoted and not promoted (controlling for learning trends). Alternatively, outcomes variance should be higher in Stage 3 or Promotion treatments than in Stage 3 of Selection treatments (which was not followed by promotions), relative to Stage 1 of each treatment. –We find no significant difference, thus rejecting the effort distortion hypothesis.

16. Conclusions Peter Principle is observed when transitory component of output is large relative to ability (as predicted) –Random assignment can even dominate a promotion standard if transitory component is large enough. Contrary to theory, Self-Selection is NOT necessarily efficient, but often dominates random assignment –Likely due to imperfect knowledge of own-ability. Contrary to theory, effort is not distorted (pre-promotion) –Also likely due to imperfect knowledge of own-ability.

17. THE END