Why the incompetent get promoted as the competent are let go

Such action is supported by the Peter Principle, which states that employees tend to be promoted to “levels of respective incompetence.”

What this means is that the skills required in the previous role are different from those one has been promoted to.

In Rose’s case, she was promoted based on her previous skills with no regard for the new set of skills required for the new position, leading to incompetence.

The concept comes from a 1969 book, The Peter Principle, whose authors are Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull.

While the book was meant for satirical purposes, it became a major reference in management, Human Resource (HR) training, and research.  

A high number of entry positions in organisations require skills in specific areas. Therefore, the Peter Principle is mostly exhibited by technically skilled employees who are later promoted to managerial roles.

Such promotions take place even though the competence of such employees is based on their technical prowess and not their ability to lead and manage others.  

Promotions tend to be based on the current performance of employees, as opposed to their suitability for the new role, leading to leadership positions getting occupied by incompetent staff.

The Peter Principle further argues that over time, some learn and become competent leaders, while quite a number do not.

If not mitigated, the Peter Principle has the potential of degrading productivity with less effective leaders, low work morale, high turnover, high potential for errors, and trickle-down effects of poor work outcomes.

Higher positions

Unless the Peter Principle is addressed, leadership positions will continue getting filled with incompetent staff, while the competent ones will have no option but to leave.

HR measures to prevent Peter Principle include training of employees due for a promotion on leadership skills.

Higher positions are generally about managing and leading other staff.

By default, no organisation wants its competent employees to leave. However, it should be noted that the workplace is a pyramid in nature. This means that there are fewer positions for promotion at the top than at the bottom of the pyramid and not everyone can be promoted.

A dilemma that HR can solve by ensuring that competent staff are promoted to increase morale. Otherwise, for those likely to miss out, HR should offer them alternative incentives, such as higher salaries without necessarily a promotion. Most employees are happy with the idea of a promotion, not because of the prestige and power it comes with, but the salary aspect of it.

Because of the excellent work, such employees should have a pay rise while remaining in their current roles where they perform competently.

After all, not all competent employees are good leaders even after training. In case there is no budget for a salary increase or other viable incentives for such competent employees, what management will be saying is, “you can leave if you so wish.” Quite unfortunate!

Finally, HR can borrow a leaf from the author, Dr Peter, who advises how to get rid of incompetent staff without sacking them.

Employees such as Rose can be reassigned to another position, with a long title but of less responsibilities. The author terms the practice as  “lateral arabesque” – where the promoted employee will not be aware that she has been fired from the role she had been promoted to.