The Peter Principle

Years ago, a colleague introduced me to a book called "The Peter Principle" in which the author tries to explain why so much incompetence exists in business and in other spheres of life. The basic idea is that people, after obtaining a professional position, will succeed if they are well suited to the job and will be rather incompetent if they're not. Those who succeed are viewed as capable of taking on additional responsibility and are often promoted to new responsibilities. If they are well suited to these, they will succeed in their new position and likely be promoted again after some period of time. At some point, they will eventually encounter a position in which they will not perform well and they will have been promoted beyond their level of competence.

The book is quite humorous and a salve for those who are annoyed with incompetence and office politics. But it's a dark humor and, although I saw the truth behind the 'principle,' I was unhappy with the negative aspects of human nature that the author emphasizes.

I've been thinking about this 'principle' again lately and I think there's a lot of value in what the author says in a positive sense. His conclusion is negative because he assumes that peoples' skills and interests remain static. But the tendency for us to promote those who succeed doesn't have to end in stagnation. If the purpose of life is centered around growth and development, then the process of 'The Peter Principle' is a really useful one for making life meaningful. When we encounter responsibilities that seem overwhelming to us, that can present us with an opportunity to grow rather than being an impassable obstacle.

If we find ourselves in a position of being promoted to our 'level of incompetence', rather than looking at the situation grimly and thinking we have nothing left to offer the world (as Peter would have us believe), maybe we can look at that as an opportunity to become more capable by struggling to overcome the challenge. The struggle itself can be a lot of fun and the feeling of success very satisfying.

A couple years ago, I wondered whether I had become a victim of the Peter Principle. I knew I wasn't competent for the job I had inherited, but I was somewhat hopeful I would figure it out. I became pretty despondent occasionally, thinking that perhaps this just wasn't for me, but I never gave up trying to do my best and, with some help from a few colleagues, I found myself growing into my new role and now, instead of feeling overwhelmed all the time, I find myself in a position that gives me more satisfaction than any other job I've ever had. Part of the joy I find in my job is the constant challenge it offers me and I feel like I'm learning and growing all the time. But now, that constant challenge isn't overwhelming because I've found a model for success and I no longer feel like I'm drowning all the time.

I think the Peter Principle is a valid process that reflects some aspects of human group behavior, but by making an incorrect assumption, it arrives at a very negative conclusion that serves no real purpose except to explain the reason for incompetence. I've decided the principle is actually a positive thing because of the opportunity it gives us for growth. When I see incompetence around me, I will try to start looking at the source of that incompetence, a person, with an attitude of hope - that they are at a crossroads and, if they work hard and make good choices, they will become a better, more capable human being than they are now.

Maybe the Peter Principle of one of God's ways of helping us to become like Him.