The Peter Principle, an explanation for senior level incompetence.

2014-01-19T02:18:21-05:00

There have a number of posts regarding incompetence/misbehavior in our senior leadership, and the military in general. As a possible explanation, I present to you, the Peter Principle. I've always believed this to be the culprit, but let me know what you think;

What is the Peter Principle?
Peter Principle Management is the concept that in
bureaucratic organizations, new employees typically start in the lower ranks,
but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they are assigned,
they get promoted to a higher rank, generally management. This process of
climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches
a position where he or she is no longer competent. At that moment the process
typically stops, since the established rules of bureaucracies make it very
difficult to "demote" someone to a lower rank, even if that person
would be a much better fit and happier in a non-management role. The net result
of this principle is that most of the management levels of a bureaucracy will
be filled by incompetent people, who got there because they were quite good at
doing different (and usually, but not always, easier) work than the work they
are currently expected to perform.

According to Laurence Johnston Pieter: Work is accomplished
by those employees who have not reached their level of incompetence. Thus we
can see why organizations still function even as Peter Principled employees
accept one too many promotions. Laurence Peter provides an insightful analysis
of why so many positions in so many organizations seem to be populated by
employees who seem incompetent. This concept is likely to be ignored by most
senior managers since to admit one's organization is suffering from this
bureaucratic malady is admission that people have been improperly promoted.
This, in turn, suggests that senior management might have attained their own
level incompetence, and the problem is easily ignored, lest it become suggested
that senior management be more closely examined for their incompetence.

An example:
If you're a proficient and effective software developer,
you're most likely demonstrating peak competence in your job right now. As a
result of your performance, your valuable contribution results in a promotion
to a management position. In this new position, you now do few of the original
tasks which gained you acclaim. In fact, little of your current job remains
enjoyable, therefore your heart is no longer in your work, and it shows. Given
this, promotions stop, and there you stay, until you retire or your company
goes under due to mismanagement.

Companies will attract and expand on a certain level of
incompetence. Once a company forms a culture of incompetence, only the incompetent staff will remain, and the competent ones will tire of trying to soar with eagles while surrounded by turkeys, and therefore leave.

Response by 1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 11:16 AM

2014-01-19T11:16:31-05:00

Do 2Lt's ever reach a level of competence?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 12:57 PM

2014-01-19T12:57:12-05:00

<div>tl;dr - It is awful, true, and can be addressed through more bureaucracy. </div><div><br></div><div>I use the Peter Principle in ALC to teach how to comprehend and navigate the Army better.  It depresses a lot of people and opens the eyes of some to a world of incompetence they took for granted.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Problem:</div><div><br></div>Here is the funny thing about the military and the Peter Principle:  Our 20 year retirement system makes it worse.  There are a lot of incompetent people who know that they suck or would be removed via a number of our quality control systems if it weren't for an all-or-nothing system when it comes to retirement.<div>Consider the per capita levels of incompetence you experienced in the active duty population inbetween 10 and 22 years TIS as compared to 23 years and up.  A lot of incompetent people retire the moment their lack of upward mobility prevents promotion beyond the point where they can draw benefits for life.<br><br>Example:  You peaked at 14 years TIS as a SSG after you went indef.  You will never see SFC and you're holding a spot someone else could serve in better than you.  You'd be an idiot to not stick around for another six years and draw 50% of base-pay for the rest of your natural life.<br><br>Remember the outrage about QSP in the Army possibly eliminating people prior to reaching 20 years?  We had to promise TERA to make it politically acceptable.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Solution:</div><div><br></div><div>I have a pet project solution to lessening the impact of the Peter Principle with a two-prong approach: Make retirement variable based on total TIS with payout at social security age and give a weighted score for accuracy of ERS assessments of past subordinates that factors into promotion.</div><div><br></div><div>The change in retirement is to making you eligible for X% of base pay at 60/65 years of age based on total TIS.  X is the fraction of 20 years TIS equaling 50%.  So, 5 years TIS equals 12.5% and 40 equals 100%.  Hell, we can cap it at 75% for all I care.  This eliminates the incentive to stay in beyond your useful service life as the financial benefit of transitioning to civilian life in the absence of promotion potential should be greater than adding a few percent to your retirement in a few decades before QSP (permanent program, please) snatches you up.<br><br>The ERS weighted score is a little reminiscent of the mob.  When you rate someone as Above Center Mass or 1/1; you put your career on the line by vouching for their future performance.  Meaning that if they violate the entire UCMJ, that's a black mark on your record.  Now, this weighted score would have to account for how far back this rating occurred an what the respective grades of the rated Soldier and senior rater were at that time.<br>This would address the issue of dishonest ratings given in order to "not hurt someone's career" by making you accountable for the potential you said someone had.  This could be tracked via the individual SSNs through the computed value of the ERS and reliefs for cause/GOMRs given.  <br>We could prevent consistent low ratings for potential by having the weighted average swing both ways.  As in, if you rate everyone as a 3/3 and over half of them end up outstripping you in their own duty performance then you are a bad judge of potential, and it's a black mark.<br><br>Combine the reform to ERS to create honest ratings with an incentive to end your service when you can't give to Uncle Sam anymore good stuff, and we should see a reduction in people staying at their level of incompetence.  'Tis a pipe dream.</div>

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 8:48 PM

2014-01-19T20:48:47-05:00

What happens when the person in question is a 2LT? 

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 10:46 PM

2014-01-19T22:46:29-05:00

The problem is that some are not the best leaders/managers and yet you would them having your back. Should be a way of rewarding a person for being honest enough to not be upper management but able to bring the best product available, especially in combat.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Jan 20 at 2014 2:02 PM

2014-01-20T14:02:15-05:00

<p>The Peter Principle is a long established leadership maxim offering an explanation of why we find ourselves where we are, but its difficulty lies in that it doesn't provide  concrete suggestions for what to do about it once it occurs, or more importantly how to avoid it. Likewise, the explanation of advancement based on prior performance is telling. We assume far too often that past behavior is a good predictor of future performance, but that isn't always the case. Current war time service demands have created an environment where people are (and have been for some time) pushed to move up frequently without the mastering the skills required for the billet they hold much less the position they are being pushed to assume. Case in point, when I advanced to chief petty officer (E7), I was required to attend the Chiefs' Academy. There was a member in my class who had gone from boot camp the CPOA in six and half years. The is no way he could have accomplished all that is required to be proficient at his job.</p><p><br></p><p>Organizationally, knowing we have a problem is a great place to start but clearly this is an issue that cries for a solution since leadership competence establishes the direction and performance of the masses. I would offer that as leaders, we can prevent in some instances the promotion of people without the aptitude to holder higher positions resulting in a living example of the Peter Principle by leaning forward more in our leadership, and by being more demanding in our expectations. As a supervisor, I have told a member that they weren't ready to advance to the next challenge, and that absent some significant change in their world, they would never be ready. I realize that we will never completely eliminate the promotion to a level of incompetency of everybody, but we could reduce the possibility through intrusive leadership, and ensuring that everybody adheres to the same standard.</p><p><br></p><p>As to what to do with those who embody the Peter Principle, it is anybody's guess.</p><p><br></p><p>Good post. Good food for thought.</p><p><br></p>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 2:28 PM

2014-02-27T14:28:47-05:00

<p>You see, this is why I joined the dark side!  I was nearing that ceiling as a SFC and rather than reach the Peter Level, I became a Butter Bar!  LMAO</p><p> </p><p>But in all seriousness, this is why recommendations for promotion in the military are supposed to be based on POTENTIAL, not PERFORMANCE.  Exceptional performance at one level does not guarantee continued excellence at a higher level.  As a military leader, you should be testing your subordinates for their innate potential by occassionally giving them a job that pushes their limits and falls into that next rank category.  That way, when the 1SG comes around with his waivers to PFC/SPC or asks what SPC/CPL/SGT you have that is ready for the board, you can give him a no bulls*** answer.</p>

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Feb 27 at 2014 2:34 PM

2014-02-27T14:34:17-05:00

Great explanation, SSG. I'm hoping I've not yet reached my level of incompetence.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2014 5:49 PM

2014-03-10T17:49:07-04:00

<p>Sounds exactly right!</p><p> </p><p>Having been in the corporate (I.T.) world for many years prior to the Army, I have seen this happen several times.</p>

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Mar 15 at 2014 3:43 AM

2014-03-15T03:43:42-04:00

you ever notice that the ball gets smaller as per rank and sport? 

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 13 at 2014 10:58 AM

2014-04-13T10:58:09-04:00

Great post, and great example. This is a real issue in both the corporate world as well as the military. I got here via a link in a discussion of NCOER performance/potential bullet "misalignment."<div><br></div><div>On the civilian side, I used to be a software developer. I got a project management position largely on the strength of my performance as a software developer. Luckily, I have a decent level of ability in the disciple, and had been training/preparing for the move (and the training the Army gave me didn't hurt). I was a good PM, but I've got to say that I seem to have been the exception. Most people that I saw follow the same pattern sucked and didn't last long. (in most organizations, most management positions are "figure it out, chief!" OJT.)</div><div><br></div><div>I am now a PMO manager, and hoping that this isn't he high-water mark of my competence. My next promotion will let me know. </div>

Response by SSG Justin Smith made Jul 6 at 2014 1:42 PM

2014-07-06T13:42:13-04:00

I would like to point out one other small but I think important point within the Peter Principle. All these ideas about being promoted to ones level of incompetence apply within hierarchies. The important part is that it applies in connection to the actual purpose, not the stated purpose, of that hierarchy. The stated purpose of the US Army would be something along the lines of enforcing US foreign policy, or as it is said blowing stuff up and killing people. The actual purpose of the Army, as with any and all hierarchies, is to preserve and strengthen the institution of the Army.