The Peter Principle
In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.
This insight is the key to the science of hierarchiology - that is the study of hierachies - introduced to the world in 1969 by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong (with Raymond Hull).
Pursuing this principle Dr. Peter made the depressing discovery that “In time every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties.” He also offered several other insights into the workings of hierarchies the first two of which class as corollaries and the third as prescription for action:
Incompetence knows no barriers of time or place.
Work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached the level of their incompetence and;
If at first you don’t succeed try something else.
In addition Dr. Peter introduced a number of subsidiary rules in this work including:
Peter’s Inversion: Internal consistency is valued more highly than efficiency.
Peter’s Paradox: Employees in a hierarchy do not really object to the incompetence of their colleagues.
Peter’s Placebo: An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.
Peter’s Theorum: Incompetence plus incompetence equals incompetence
Dr. Peter termed his basic concept a ‘principle’ rather than a ‘law’ because it describes a tendency rather than a universal immutable progression. As exceptions, he noted that on occasion a good teacher will choose to remain a teacher instead of becoming a poor administrator, a successful sales representative may decline a promotion to sales manager, a competent mayor may decide not to run for governor or president, and so on. In general, though, the principle holds and exceptions to it are more apparent than real. Among the apparent exceptions:
1. The Percussive Sublimation i.e. being kicked upstairs, which is not as might first appear a move from a position of incompetence to one of competence but a pseudo-promotion from one unproductive job to another. The object of the Percussive Sublimation usually is to deceive the outside world. It camouflages the flaws in the employer’s promotion policy, supports staff morale, and maintains the hierarchy (in lieu of firing the incompetent person which might result in him getting another job with a competitor where, despite his incompetence, his knowledge could be dangerous).
2. The Lateral Arabesque Another pseudo-promotion in which the incompetent person is not really raised in rank (and perhaps not in pay either) but is given a longer title and a new office in a remote part of the building. (See also McGovern’s Law for another take on the length of titles.) Dr. Peter also pointed out that the larger the hierarchy, the easier The Lateral Arabesque, citing as an example one corporation that had banished no less than twenty-five senior executives to the provinces as regional vice presidents.
3. The Eichmann Exception Also known as Peter’s Invert or the professional automaton, who has little or no capacity for independent judgment but always obeys and never never decides. This is the kind of person who shows obsessive concern with filling out forms correctly permitting no deviations from established routine. “To the professional automaton, it is clear that means are more important than ends; the paperwork is more important than the purpose for which it was originally designed” wrote Dr. Peter. The automaton “no longer sees himself as existing to serve the public; he sees the public as the raw material that serves to maintain him, the forms, the rituals, and the hierarchy!” Unfortunately for the public, the automaton appears to be competent from the hierarchy’s point of view. As a result he remains eligible for promotion until by some mischance he is elevated into a position where he absolutely has to make a decision. It is at that point that he reaches his level of incompetence.
Dr. Peter confessed that his book was intended more as satire than actual fact, but a great many people took his message to heart, particularly middle managers who looked around them at their peers - above them at their bosses - and saw much truth in what he said. As a result The Peter Principle became an immediate bestseller putting Dr. Peter in the same league as a lawgiver with the authors of Murphy’s Law and Parkinson’s Law. Success begetting success, it also led to additional books, all of which sold well including The Peter Prescription (1972) Peter’s Quotations (1977) and The Peter Pyramid (1986). The latter works introduced such additional rules as:
Peter’s Law The unexpected always happens.
Mrs. (Irene) Peter’s Law Today, if you are not confused, you’re just not thinking clearly. (See also Kerr’s Law.)
Peter’s Statement of Objectives If you don’t know where you are going, you will end up somewhere else (which has a Yogi-esque ring to it; see Berra’s Law).
For would-be authors this tale also has a pleasing moral: The manuscript of The Peter Principle was turned down by thirty book publishers over a five-year period before it was accepted by William Morrow. The first rejection from an editor at McGraw-Hill which had previously published a textbook by Dr. Peter was fairly typical: “I can foresee no commercial possibilities for such a book and consequently can offer no encouragement.” Even Morrow which paid the author a less-than-princely advance against royalties of $2,500 was bowled over by its success - 200,000 copies sold in the first year alone followed by translations into 38 languages. So much for the prescience of publishing hierarchies.
Discussion of The Peter Principle
Post your comment here
