• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Peter's Principle

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I was pondering on this, so I went out and got a quote for informational purposes of discussion.

The Peter Principle is the principle that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence".

It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modelled and has theoretical validity for simulations.[1] Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence". Managing upward is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly "manage" superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing.

I think that it's obvious in its business applications but, on a more serious note, and since our American agenda is more and more one of business interests, it seems that this principle has shown itself in our inability to maintain a higher standard of respectability in the world. I cannot think of any other reasonable or rational explanation for it.

Thoughts?
 
Seniority advancement systems virtually assure that this will occur.
 
Seniority advancement systems virtually assure that this will occur.

It all depends on what types of advancements you're talking about I think. In regular business settings it's been my experience that seniority means nothing, and although business likes to advance from inside for cohesive purposes, depending on the requirements though, business wastes no time in head hunting. The principle however seems only too on target when we consider corporate and political behavior. I mean; Meg Whitman is a classic example of the principle at work: she's a failure at the human experience of political outreach and support, yet she is incompetent enough to have gambled away $100 million dollars of her own money! So what does that say about her abilities in business? More money means more power and more power means more money is what it says to me.
 
Last edited:
It all depends on what types of advancements you're talking about I think. In regular business settings it's been my experience that seniority means nothing, and although business likes to advance from inside for cohesive purposes, depending on the requirements though, business wastes no time in head hunting. The principle however seems only too on target when we consider corporate and political behavior. I mean; Meg Whitman is a classic example of the principle at work: she's a failure at the human experience of political outreach and support, yet she is incompetent enough to have gambled away $100 million dollars of her own money! So what does that say about her abilities in business? More money means more power and more power means more money is what it says to me.

Too often one must "advance" to a management position in order to get a decent pay rate even if they have no real skill at managing people. Few professions have managers that are paid the same or less than the typical worker. I am good at managing myself, but not so good at managing others, so self employment suits me just fine.
 
Too often one must "advance" to a management position in order to get a decent pay rate even if they have no real skill at managing people. Few professions have managers that are paid the same or less than the typical worker. I am good at managing myself, but not so good at managing others, so self employment suits me just fine.

Yeah, I heard that. I went into heavy transportation at a real young age and the pay and bennies were so good that I raised my family. Moreover, the industry was highly professional; no babies allowed. On topic; the one big thing I noticed however, is that from running with big boys, all the way down to the mom and pop barn, old school meant that everybody knew what the hell they were doing and that was required. The industry was extremely fast and heavy. This new paradigm of MBAs coming into industries that know bean counting and how to improve productivity but don't know dick about the operation is the reason I was pondering the whole question and the principle jumped out like a lightening bolt.
 
It all depends on what types of advancements you're talking about I think. In regular business settings it's been my experience that seniority means nothing, and although business likes to advance from inside for cohesive purposes, depending on the requirements though, business wastes no time in head hunting. The principle however seems only too on target when we consider corporate and political behavior. I mean; Meg Whitman is a classic example of the principle at work: she's a failure at the human experience of political outreach and support, yet she is incompetent enough to have gambled away $100 million dollars of her own money! So what does that say about her abilities in business? More money means more power and more power means more money is what it says to me.



Unfortunately, the reverse is true. The rule is that the larger, more complex is an organization, the more the Peter Principle will apply. Large corporations and especially Western governments operate on the neo-mandarin system, where functional becomes managers without leadership skills....and become "managers", or more correctly cover-your-ass bureaucrats.

In a small to medium sized operation, a non-linear distribution of "management duties [managers talking with managers instead of up and back down again] which enables true 'leaders' to rise to the top like cream.

The problem lies with the difference between management and leadership, with the latter you can pretty much do anything, like drive Nazism out of Europe.
 
Too often one must "advance" to a management position in order to get a decent pay rate even if they have no real skill at managing people. Few professions have managers that are paid the same or less than the typical worker. I am good at managing myself, but not so good at managing others, so self employment suits me just fine.

That would be classic Western government
 
That would be classic Western government

Nope, since they cannot even manage themselves well. ;)

The typical politician need only be 2% less disgusting than their opponent in order to win. Perhaps you meant the career civil servants; in that case, they usually must be promoted (even if incompetent) since they cannot easily be removed by termination.
 
Unfortunately, the reverse is true. The rule is that the larger, more complex is an organization, the more the Peter Principle will apply. Large corporations and especially Western governments operate on the neo-mandarin system, where functional becomes managers without leadership skills....and become "managers", or more correctly cover-your-ass bureaucrats.

In a small to medium sized operation, a non-linear distribution of "management duties [managers talking with managers instead of up and back down again] which enables true 'leaders' to rise to the top like cream.

The problem lies with the difference between management and leadership, with the latter you can pretty much do anything, like drive Nazism out of Europe.

Leaders are "people persons": they have a natural empathy that enables them to talk turkey, so they have no trouble gathering people toward an end; as in everyday in the business world. Good managers never talk at anybody, they talk with you, they value your trust, because that trust engenders a desire to perform over and above. This is why I mentioned old school styles.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reverse is true". I don't know what it was that Is aid that inspired that response. First one too....

In larger industry you are quite correct which is why I made the comparison with our federal government and a clearly failing agenda that goes back to Nixon if my memory serves.
 
I was pondering on this, so I went out and got a quote for informational purposes of discussion.



I think that it's obvious in its business applications but, on a more serious note, and since our American agenda is more and more one of business interests, it seems that this principle has shown itself in our inability to maintain a higher standard of respectability in the world. I cannot think of any other reasonable or rational explanation for it.

Thoughts?

We don't have a higher standard of respectability in the world because we do not deserve a higher amount of respect. In all honesty, I think the world gives the US too much respect and deferment
 
We don't have a higher standard of respectability in the world because we do not deserve a higher amount of respect. In all honesty, I think the world gives the US too much respect and deferment

Right; the question is however, does the Peter's Principle apply? Is that the... binding reason for our failure as a world leader and the ruin of The Dream?
 
Right; the question is however, does the Peter's Principle apply? Is that the... binding reason for our failure as a world leader and the ruin of The Dream?

Since the obvious response is that I think the US has been promoted beyond its level of incompetence, the George W. Principle applies, not Peter's.
 
Since the obvious response is that I think the US has been promoted beyond its level of incompetence, the George W. Principle applies, not Peter's.

Yeah; very funny.

Nothing to say I guess.
 
Yeah; very funny.

Nothing to say I guess.

I have responded to your question twice. What more would you like to discuss? Please tell us how American Exceptionalism has saved the planet and civilization time and time again. That is always a hoot for me to hear people discuss.
 
We don't have a higher standard of respectability in the world because we do not deserve a higher amount of respect. In all honesty, I think the world gives the US too much respect and deferment

The question is: how does the principle lead you to that conclusion?

Since the obvious response is that I think the US has been promoted beyond its level of incompetence, the George W. Principle applies, not Peter's.

We can and do blame Bush, but the principle was set in motion some time ago and our changed dynamic led to introducing such incompetence into the White House that has furthered our demise in standing. So, is it your position then that the US was promoted erroneously in 1947 at the outset of the Marshall Plan? and can you put your comments into context?

I have responded to your question twice. What more would you like to discuss? Please tell us how American Exceptionalism has saved the planet and civilization time and time again. That is always a hoot for me to hear people discuss.

I don't believe the conservative meme of American excepionalism and it, as a tool is just more evidence of incompetence.
 
The question is: how does the principle lead you to that conclusion?

The Peter Principle doesn't lead me to that conclusion-- Post WWII American history does. Reality informs my opinions more than abstract theories and the reality is that America is a sucky place for far too many people, suckier than it need be given our tremendous national wealth, and if it isn't in the interest of corporate america, then it isn't of interest to the political parties.



We can and do blame Bush, but the principle was set in motion some time ago and our changed dynamic led to introducing such incompetence into the White House that has furthered our demise in standing. So, is it your position then that the US was promoted erroneously in 1947 at the outset of the Marshall Plan? and can you put your comments into context?

Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam, Cold War II, Persian Gulf War, OIF, OEF, Wider War on Terror, various military escapades in between....does America have a guiding principle or national identity other than warring on something or somebody? Do we have a principle that is not about wall street or oil or ego?





I don't believe the conservative meme of American excepionalism and it, as a tool is just more evidence of incompetence.

So you do not believe America is exceptional? Commie pinko
 
The Peter Principle doesn't lead me to that conclusion-- Post WWII American history does. Reality informs my opinions more than abstract theories and the reality is that America is a sucky place for far too many people, suckier than it need be given our tremendous national wealth, and if it isn't in the interest of corporate america, then it isn't of interest to the political parties.





Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam, Cold War II, Persian Gulf War, OIF, OEF, Wider War on Terror, various military escapades in between....does America have a guiding principle or national identity other than warring on something or somebody? Do we have a principle that is not about wall street or oil or ego?







So you do not believe America is exceptional? Commie pinko

I said all that stuff in opening, particularly the business about the merger; or shall I say acquisition of American government by the corporate.
Now, immediately following WWII, America could do no wrong in the world. After Vietnam: an exercise of gross incompetence, we began to feel the ground giving way. But due to the principle, as GW would say, we "stayed the course". And here we are today. I don't how the theory of the principle escapes your conclusions.
 
I said all that stuff in opening, particularly the business about the merger; or shall I say acquisition of American government by the corporate.
Now, immediately following WWII, America could do no wrong in the world. After Vietnam: an exercise of gross incompetence, we began to feel the ground giving way. But due to the principle, as GW would say, we "stayed the course". And here we are today. I don't how the theory of the principle escapes your conclusions.

Because I know that America can do better--it just doesn't do better--ergo the Peter Principle is inapplicable as far as I am concerned.
 
Right; the question is however, does the Peter's Principle apply? Is that the... binding reason for our failure as a world leader and the ruin of The Dream?

It's the Peter Principle.
 
I have read this book. It was funny how outdated the book was. I really liked it.
 
I have read this book. It was funny how outdated the book was. I really liked it.

Yeah, I've heard that it's really sort "Vonnegut". But as human nature goes, don't you agree that as a working concept it applies? I mean, I can't think of a better explanation for the situation that we find our country in today.
 
Yeah, I've heard that it's really sort "Vonnegut". But as human nature goes, don't you agree that as a working concept it applies? I mean, I can't think of a better explanation for the situation that we find our country in today.

I disagree that this book was a timeless assessment of human nature. It was based on the popular business hierarchy system of that time and maybe a few decades afterwards. I think the Peter Principle was a cure for a disease affecting the business world at that time. I don't think the book will make any sense to someone reading it 100 years from now. It might not even make sense to a youngster reading it today. All of the problems mentioned in the Peter Principle have been addressed and cured.

The Dilbert Principle is a self proclaimed sequel to the Peter Principle.
 
I disagree that this book was a timeless assessment of human nature. It was based on the popular business hierarchy system of that time and maybe a few decades afterwards. I think the Peter Principle was a cure for a disease affecting the business world at that time. I don't think the book will make any sense to someone reading it 100 years from now. It might not even make sense to a youngster reading it today. All of the problems mentioned in the Peter Principle have been addressed and cured.

The Dilbert Principle is a self proclaimed sequel to the Peter Principle.

Interesting. You know actually I remembered something I read that plays right into my thesis: Chain of Command; Seymour Hersh, 2004; Haper Collins; pp, 17; with respect to how Donald Rumsfeld wanted to handle the war on terrorism in 2002:
One of Rumsfled’s goals was bureaucratic: to give the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, and not the CIA, the lead in fighting terrorism
And there you go. So it sounds at any rate, that the concept is alive and kicking. This is not to discount what you say about it being fashionable at an earlier time, it just says that the theory was indeed drawn from something operative and apparently, it’s easy to conclude, is still active.
 
Back
Top Bottom