The "Peter principle" rests on the assumption that organizations are rational meritocracies, and will reward people that are competent at their given task. And those organizations may (still) exist, but they are not the norm, at least not in my experience.

I propose another, more important, principle as an explanation for the obvious incompetence of many managers:

Competent people are a source of pain to higher levels of management, because they don't just say "yes boss", they will tend to point out the risks of flying blind, offer a better solution than what was recently clubbed at the board of directors meeting, and have ethical guardrails regarding what chemicals to put in the product, how to treat coworkers, etc. They are brilliant at their tasks, but have opinions that go beyond their designated area, they are expensive and demanding. And they usually end up getting the can, with or without a severance pay. And the incompetent, but "yes boss"-employee gets the promotion instead.

There you have it.

George Marshall who was, among other things, Chief of Staff of the Army during WWII was lauded for his policy of yanking commanding generals if they didn't adapt to new positions quickly. But he lessened the stigma of being relieved by transferring them to other commands, still at flag rank. Several commanders early in '42 were removed from commanding infantry divisions, but were given commands of units in combat support or material support or training where they went on to deliver stellar service. So it was like finding the right guy (and it definitely was a guy back in those days) for the right job.

This is in contrast to continental armies with aristocratic baggage who found it difficult to fire flag grade commanders (looking at you, monty.)

But the political risk to his own career was enormous and the only way he got away with it was with the full support of FDR and his reputation earned partially as Pershing's Chief of Staff in WWI.

He is also the only person in the US Army to be considered for the rank of Field Marshall, mostly because FDR thought it would be funny to have Field Marshal Marshall.

Which is to say... you might be able to cheat the Peter Principal, but the amount of effort seems great and you would have to work very hard to sooth the egos of those demoted or reframe the demotion as a lateral xfer.

Related threads below. The 1974 video is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39wzku9KIEM.

Peter Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33855815 - Dec 2022 (5 comments)

The Peter Principle (1974) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32627396 - Aug 2022 (39 comments)

The Peter Principle: Are you at your level of incompetence? (1974) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32243969 - July 2022 (1 comment)

The Peter Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24433059 - Sept 2020 (1 comment)

The Peter Principle Tested - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19797375 - May 2019 (47 comments)

The Peter Principle is a joke taken seriously. Is it true? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17845289 - Aug 2018 (108 comments)

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17301215 - June 2018 (50 comments)

The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972249 - May 2018 (48 comments)

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2270053 - Feb 2011 (2 comments)

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1121507 - Feb 2010 (1 comment)

The peters principle makes an assumption about the convexity of competency that I’ve never thought was great. Essentially someone could get promoted to their level of incompetence, when if they were promoted again they would actually get better at their job.

There is an implicit assumption that competence at job a is less than competence at a job b above job a, which isn’t necessarily true.

People aren't static, nor are companies or roles within them. Treating every person as unchanging and treating the requirements of each level in the hierarchy as unchanging are just plain bad assumptions to make.

People grow. Companies change.

This book was meant as satire, and the fact that so many people take it as fact is honestly quite concerning.