Peter’s Principle: When Ascension Leads To Incompetence

Peter’s principle says that often the fact that a worker deserves a promotion does not mean that he is prepared to be promoted. Or that promotion is the most beneficial option for him or the company. According to this theory, many promotions are actually a setback. Occasionally, the worker has to take on challenges without having enough resources to take them on successfully, or without a good deal of anxiety.

This principle is almost sixty years old and yet it is still current. It was in the late 1960s that Drs Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull, educators at the University of Washington, wrote a book with a touch of humor called ‘The Peter Principle’.

Probably, even they couldn’t imagine the impact their work would have. It was a very controversial, acidic and critical work about the mistakes they themselves saw in any company, educational center or work setting, in which certain promotions constituted an error.

However, the message Peter and Hull wanted to leave was more serious than the tone used when their ideas were conveyed. We cannot forget what it means, for example, to put an inexperienced person in a position of power. Something like this implies, in the first place, ‘putting in check’ the functioning of the system.

So when this happens, it is not uncommon for an organization to deteriorate, discomfort, sadness, low productivity and the spread of this incompetence to other scenarios that can also be affected by bad decisions.

Peter’s principle, what does it consist of?

Peter’s principle is summed up in a basic idea: in the hierarchical structure of each organization, workers will be promoted to a position for which they are not prepared. Likewise, they will remain on this ascent for the rest of their careers.

In turn, this implies another, no less relevant aspect: managers are also not able to respond successfully to the responsibilities they have taken on.

As we might guess, this theory has as many detractors as it does supporters. Thus, studies such as the one carried out by the Harvard Business School indicate that the Peter principle does not exist in “all” companies or in as many scenarios as we might think. Now what we can do is put measures in place to reduce how often this happens.

The challenge of occupying responsible positions

There are highly efficient employees in their work. Therefore, it is very possible that, at some point, the organization will decide to promote them. Give them a position in which the company can make more and better use of their capacity and disposition. Now, as the slogan says: every job has its responsibility.

Therefore, it is often not important how efficient we are, how competent we are in a series of specific tasks and services. Promotion can be a reward, but not a smart move.

• Ascension in many cases also broadens the range of skills needed: communication, leadership, conflict resolution, decision-making skills, people management, creative vision, risk anticipation.
• Not everyone is fit for this ascension, not everyone, no matter how competent in an area, can assume a position of greater responsibility.

In this way, the Peter Principle often promotes highly stressed leaders who are aware of their incompetence. Others, however, take the position with complete ease. They don’t care about the impact of their bad decisions.

• Promote the best employee. It is necessary to avoid automatic promotions. Likewise, assessments must be made more appropriately.
• Train better. It is necessary to constantly train the person who has been promoted. It is essential to regularly refresh all appropriate leadership competencies and skills for each role.
• Reverse promotion. In that case, every organization must implement adequate oversight measures so that anyone holding a particular position is demoted when they prove ineffective.