Random Acts of Management Pt. 1: The Peter Principle

Wed Apr 26, 01:53 AM by

In “Dilbert,” Scott Adams’ everyman engineer is regularly plagued by a variety of cubicle-related troubles. Among the most often occurring problems that Adams illustrates is the classic ‘Dilbert vs. pointy-haired boss.’ His boss, the very paragon of incompetence, would demand something that was in effect impossible: deadlines a week before the project began or expecting employees’ work 178 hours a week (a week has 168 hours – he expected the employees families to help) for example. The pointy-haired boss is defined by his blatant illogical behavior, his complete incompetence in his (and his subordinates) duties, and his impressive use of double-speak and faulty statistics. Most bosses I have had exhibit many of the same behaviors. I could imagine many of the American CEO’s, who make an alarming 475 times what the line level employees make, behaving much like Dilbert’s boss. Some would argue that the federal government, in all its efficient glory, is the institutional manifestation of illogical incompetence. We really must ask ourselves, how do these positions of power become filled with the most incompetent, ineffective leaders and managers? Author, educator, and former teacher Dr. Laurence J. Peter has an answer to offer.

In his book The Peter Principle, Dr. Peter outlined what he called ‘hierarchology.’ The core tenet of his argument, which shares the same name as the book it appears in, is that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” The effective and competent employee will, following this principle, climb their way up the corporate (or educational or political or artistic, ad nauseum) ladder until they manifest this incompetence. The employee does not all of a sudden realize “hey, I’m the boss” and instantly become soft. Nor is it the higher-level work more difficult. The employee’s ineptitude is derived from the essential difference between the tasks that they were doing that earned them advancement and the tasks that their advancement requires. Promotion occurs because an employee has mastered the set of knowledge and skills essential for a particular role, job, or set of tasks. When the employee is promoted, they are presented with an entirely new set of knowledge and skills to be mastered. Repeated promotion ceases when an individual is no longer able to master a skill or knowledge set; they lack to capacity to progress any further. Or: you can’t teach on old dog new tricks. Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss is grossly incompetent in his current role. Adams exaggerates all of our bosses for comedic effect, but let’s assume that he is simply incompetent. He may very well have been an effective or at least competent engineer (or janitor). However, placed in a position of leadership, he failed not only because he lacked the anticipatory set connected to his new role, but he also lacks any of the fundamental skills for his position. Dr. Peters offers another example, in which a factory worker whose hard work earned him a promotion. But in his new position as manager, none of his skills as a factory worker are useful.

This principle points out that a particular worker may have at one level succeeded, but at their new position, they are incompetent. Plenty of examples of this exist. President Bush, like him or not (not!), was a capable governor. Some disagreed with his policy but as a whole, the state managed to improve school funding and make significant changes in criminal justice. However, as the highest elected official in the nation, President Bush’s performance is less than spectacular. I would argue that he simply lacks the anticipatory set and qualifying skills essential to being a successful president. Another example of this is Bill Lumbergh from Office Space: a useless, ineffective manager whose only real task seems to be inconveniencing his employees. He may very well have been a great cubicle-drone, but as a manager, he kinda sucks.

Does this mean that we are all destined for incompetence? Are we, instead of becoming our mothers or fathers, becoming our bosses; clueless and ineffectual? In order to remedy this problem we need to consider the way we promote. On one hand do we use the ‘fail upward’ model outlined above, or do we ascribe to a Gattica-esque system where our maximum station is (pre-)determined by our sheer natural potential. While this genetic predestination is scary, incompetence is just plain maddening. Both the large wealth gap between employees and their bosses and the uniquely American cutthroat corporate ladder are to blame. We are eager to rise up as fast as we can for the power, wealth, and prestige of a higher position, but are oftentimes unprepared. We need to refocus our motivation. Instead of power, we need to regain some pride in workmanship, even in paperwork or logistics. Unfortunately, us Americans are a product of a social system, one that tells us it’s better to make money and be in charge than to do a job well. That is sad. One would guess that, since in all likelihood, I have been or will be promoted to the point of incompetence.

It seems to follow that the best job I ever did is the one I just had. And that could be true in some instances. However, by attempting to maintain at least a modicum of professional integrity and attempting a small quantity of mastery, we can be better than our bosses. Which is good, because they always get the good offices, a nice secretary, and lots of fringe benefits.

Previous Article: Almost as Funny as Family Circus: Los Angeles Douchebag Pt.1
Next Article: Better than Coachella: A Possibly Annoying Live Music Journal