The Peter Principle — A Tragedy of Hierarchies: Summary and Reflections
I had the opportunity to reread this book by Laurence Peter & Raymond Hull and understood it a little more this time round. Here are some quick ideas shared in the book.
Key Question:
How did the incompetent boss get promoted?
Main Idea:
The book helps us to understand why, and how people get promoted to their levels of incompetence; thus stop contributing and getting promoted. It also suggests symptoms of such incompetence, and how come people deliberated avoid reaching this level of incompetence (which seems rare).
The circle of incompetence reinforced
Why do extremely competent workers get passed over from promotions and make managers unhappy? Extremely competent employees within a strict hierarchical organisation threatens the very core of the hierarchy that values obedience and seniority. These people are deemed as “incompetent” by the people who benefited from the hierarchy and thus passed over for promotions or are fired. The managers also realise that they will lose their “seniority”, and jobs, if people manage to disrupt the hierarchy, thus they do their best to defend the hierarchy. The people who have reached their levels of incompetence would sustain the productivity of the organisation.
Grooming of the incompetent manager
These managers were likely promoted to their positions by being extremely good followers and at following instructions. However, the ability to follow does not equate to the ability to manage and lead. So why are we rewarding followers by promoting them to become leaders and render them incompetent?
Dominant class and subordinate class
Why is it that some people are inserted into the dominant class (think fast tracked management programs) and reach their levels of incompetency quickly whereas the subordinate class that performs get faced with a ceiling that renders then continually effective at their roles that contributes to work done. This group sustains the dominant class that does no real work because they’ve reached their levels of incompetence earlier.
Incompetent worker vs idle worker
When one reaches his level of incompetence, it doesn’t equate to the person being an idler. In their bid to become “competent” they do things that don’t lead to productive outcomes. They end up being “busy” while not bringing about positive outcomes.
Compulsive alternation
Constantly throwing randomised unrelated work without concern of productivity to throw off competent subordinates. This allows the manager to be on the “defensive” and avoid showing their levels of incompetence. And when the tasks is done, the incompetent manager will doubt the importance and value of that work done.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of any associations that the author is affiliated with.
About the Author:
Zu Hui is currently one of the Heads of Training Development in the Singapore Army where he performs the role of an in-house learning and organisational development consultant. He specialises in performance improvement through learning and organisational development initiatives using design thinking, agile, and learning design methods.
He currently manages a matrix team involving 9 concurrent work streams to deliver the learning capabilities required by the organisation over the next 15 years.
His other interests include:
- Understanding how businesses work
- Investing (YoY returns from stock market of ~85%, and property market YoY returns of ~30%)
- Equestrian activities
- How mechanical watches tick
He enjoys discussing topics related to human performance improvement, process improvement, learning development, organisational transformation, and advancing social good.
Connect with Zu Hui on LinkedIn
