The Peter Principle

Over the weekend, I began re-reading The Peter Principle, by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull. The basic premise of this book is that in any hierarchy, an individual will rise to his or her point of incompetence. We all have things that we’re good at doing – but as we’re “rewarded” for good performance through promotion, Peter and Hull say that eventually we’ll get into a position for which we don’t have the skills. I’ve seen that in my own life. I was a fairly competent newspaper reporter, but when I was promoted to a newspaper editor, I reached my level of incompetence. I recognize that it’s leadership and proactivity skills I do not possess. I’m happy now as a technical writer, because the job I have does not call on those skills. Were I to be promoted to tech lead, I’d be in trouble. So I’m content to stay where my competencies can shine.

Can a person learn to overcome his or her incompetencies? I believe so. I’m not sure Peter and Hull believe that, but then again I’m infected with the Alger Complex that they fear leads to a false sense of hope and security among the upwardly-moving class.

Anyway, the reason I bring The Peter Principle up is because of its application to politics. As Dr. Peter writes (page72): “Even if a majority of the nominating committee consists of competent judges of men, it will select the candidate, not for his potential wisdom as a legislator, but on his presumed ability to win elections! We hear this going on in both the Republican and Democratic parties this year as various candidates vie for nomination to run for president. Each side is talking about electability as primary motivators to support so-and-so candidate. Yes, they give lip service to other qualities, including legislative and executive ability, but the linch pin in the whole process seems to be “who can we nominate who’ll beat the other party?” This illogical push is aided and abetted by the media, who come up front with the question: Can Democrat X beat Republican Y? With the sublimation that if, yes, that can be done, then Democrat X (or if you want to flip-flop, Republican Y) will be the best one to pick. No one, not even the public at large, seems to care what other abilities these people have, whether they’re good at building consensus, good at coming up with innovative solutions to problems, good at anything except looking good in a suit (and I include Hillary Clinton in this; makes no matter if the suits are conservative blue or feminine pastels (unless, of course, John McCain were to wear a pastel suit. That would get attention.))

I’d like to continue this discussion further, but my thoughts are being drowned out by two of my children, who have dragged their toys into the study to continue their dolly dialogue:

Isaac (playing with a Superman doll): Hey, where’s Superman?
Lexie (playing with a bevy of Disney Princess dollies, and, I think, a Barbie doll): Isaac, I will do my own words, you do your words!
Then lots of blah blah blah but VERY LOUD.
Now they’re leaving.

What was I talking about again?