FREE ESSAY ON THE PETE PRINCIPLE

THE PETE PRINCIPLE

The Peter Principle
The Peter Principle was first introduced by Lawrence Peter in a book titled The Peter
Principle. This book describes the downfalls of bureaucratic organizations. The book
states that in a hierarchically structured business, people tend to be promoted up to
their level of incompetence.
This principle is based on the fact that in bureaucratic organizations new employees
usually start in the lower ranks, but when they prove to be competent in the job that
they were assigned, they get promoted to a higher-ranking job. This process of climbing
the ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches a position where they are
no longer competent. This is the moment the process stops, since the basic established
rules in bureaucracies make it very difficult to demote someone to a lower rank, even if
that person would be much better fitted and more happy in that lower position. The result
is that most of the higher level positions will be filled with incompetent people, who
get there because they were good at doing a different and usually easier task then the
one that they are expected to do.
This is a very disturbing concept since we all tend to rise to our own level of
incompetence. This concept is most likely and usually is ignored by most senior managers
since to admit it is to admit that they too may also be at their own level of
incompetence.
The end result is that non-growing companies are most likely to have incompetent people
at many levels in the organizational structure. Where growing companies add new positions
and employees fast enough that the results of the Peter Principle, which seems to be
inevitable, are delayed as long as there is continuing growth.
It may be asked, how does a company stay alive? What is seen is the work being done by
people that have not reached their level of incompetence. This is why organizations can
still function while the Peter Principle causes employees to take one to many promotions.
Dr. Peter's conclusion is that In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee
who is incompetent to carry out its duties.
In organizations that see some one as being incompetent will move that person up or
laterally to make room for a competent person. The new employee would not be at his level
of incompetence and would be able to do the job as it is meant to be. Is this the right
thing to do? I believe it is not, I believe that mentorship would stop the Peter
Principle. Also more training in the new position could have positive effects. As is
stated in Dr. Peter's book hiring a new employee that can do the job would increase total
output of the organization. This statement may be true but what about all the dead horses
that are lying around. Would it not be morally and financially better to utilize the
resources that already exist. Providing training and mentors seems to be an area that
needs to be looked at also demotion (as a last resort), as hard as that may seem. 
Dr. Peter points out that employees do not want to be incompetent, but they are offered
promotions that put them into their level of incompetence. It is most unlikely that the
employee knows that this would happen ahead of time. After all if the offer is made it is
because management knows that the employee can do the job competently. Many managers are
at their own level of incompetence this is why they make these poor decisions.