Final answer:
The statement that most management positions are eventually filled by those who are not capable of doing a proper job is true as a re-statement of The Peter Principle, which asserts that people tend to be promoted to their "level of incompetence." This perspective differs from the Davis-Moore thesis, which ties the importance of a job to the amount of skill required and its scarcity.
Step-by-step explanation:
To suggest that most management positions are eventually filled by those who are not capable of doing a proper job is indeed a re-statement of The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter, which posits that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence". Essentially, employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.
In contrast, the Davis-Moore thesis focuses on social stratification and argues that the most difficult jobs in any society are the most necessary and require the highest rewards and incentives to sufficiently motivate individuals to fill them.
This concept suggests that a job's importance is determined by the degree of skill required to perform it and that higher rewards are offered for jobs with fewer qualified individuals. This contrasts with The Peter Principle's focus on the shortcomings of promotional practices within organizations.
Furthermore, the Davis-Moore thesis recognizes the need for certain positions to be filled by highly skilled individuals and implies that workers are selected based on their expertise. However, concerns such as those expressed by Melvin Tumin highlight that structural inequalities might prevent some skilled individuals from ascending to higher-level job positions, a reflection on the varying dynamics within the social structure of work.