Beyond the Peter Plateau

By Herman M. Lagon

It is almost instinctive for people to view promotions as rewards for hard work and competence. One works tirelessly, masters the responsibilities of a position, and is rewarded with the golden ticket—advancement to the next level. Yet, this upward mobility often leads not to continued excellence but to eventual stagnation. Laurence J. Peter’s 1969 satirical-yet-uncannily-accurate observation, now widely known as the Peter Principle, describes this ironic fate: employees are promoted based on their competence in their current roles until they reach a position where they are no longer competent. The climb does not always lead to greater heights but, at times, to a plateau of inefficiency.

Nowhere is the Peter Principle more visible than in schools, government offices, and corporate institutions—arenas where misplaced promotions inconvenience individuals and disrupt entire systems. A brilliant math teacher, adored for engaging lessons and outstanding results, is promoted to department head. Suddenly, their days are consumed with paperwork, budgeting, and managerial meetings—skills unrelated to their prior success. The result? A lackluster leader who neither excels in management nor has the time to teach well anymore. The classroom loses a great educator, and the department gains an unprepared administrator.

In government offices, the situation takes a graver turn. Consider the classic tale of the diligent municipal employee who efficiently processes permits and files reports on time. Seeing his consistent performance, higher-ups reward him with a directorial role requiring policy-making, crisis management, and leadership—capabilities he never developed. Soon, bureaucracy slows, decisions stagnate, and his previous efficiency is rendered useless. When this happens in public service, the cost is not just inefficiency but also widespread disenchantment and frustration from the citizens who depend on the system.

The Peter Principle takes an even more perplexing turn in political dynasties, where promotions are not just earned but inherited. A well-respected mayor, known for genuine leadership and people-centric policies, passes the baton to their son or daughter—not due to tested competence but due to familial ties. The result? A potential disaster in governance is where an unseasoned leader fumbles through the demands of public service, leading to mismanagement, corruption, or outright negligence. Unlike in corporations where poor managers can be replaced, political promotions are often cemented for years, leaving an entire locality at the mercy of an incompetent heir.

Corporate institutions are no less vulnerable to this phenomenon. The high-performing sales executive who singlehandedly secures million peso deals is elevated to a managerial position. However, his prowess in selling does not translate into leadership. The star salesperson drowns in paperwork and office politics, turning from a top performer into a struggling manager, hurting morale and the company’s success.

Studies corroborate the damaging impact of this flawed promotion system. In their research on American firms, Benson, Li, and Shue (2018) found that organizations tend to promote employees based on past performance rather than managerial potential, often resulting in reduced productivity post-promotion. Likewise, the “Dilbert Principle,” introduced by cartoonist Scott Adams, takes this notion further, humorously suggesting that companies deliberately push incompetent employees into management to get them out of the way. While satirical, both principles highlight the core issue: promotions are often based on merit in a past role rather than the skills required for a new one.

So, how do we counteract this cycle? Some firms have started rethinking their promotion policies in the private sector by ensuring that technical experts continue to thrive in their specialties without being forced into leadership roles. Google, for instance, introduced the “Individual Contributor” career track, allowing engineers to advance professionally and financially without being compelled to become managers. More companies should follow suit, designing alternative career paths where employees are rewarded without being shoehorned into roles they are not equipped for.

Public institutions, however, present a more challenging landscape. The promotion of government workers is often dictated by tenure rather than aptitude. One potential solution is integrating competency-based assessments for each level of promotion, ensuring that those who rise through the ranks possess the necessary leadership and managerial acumen. Meritocratic promotions, guided by a robust evaluation system, could curb the trend of promoting merely for the sake of seniority.

Education, too, must reconsider its approach. Teachers, researchers, and administrators should not be forced into paths misaligned with their strengths. Instead, structured mentorship programs and leadership training should be prerequisites before promotion, ensuring that future department heads and school administrators are equipped with subject mastery and the capacity to lead effectively.

At its core, this issue calls for deeper self-awareness in both organizations and individuals. Not every promotion is a step forward; sometimes, it is a step into quicksand. Employees must also reflect on their strengths, aspirations, and readiness before accepting a new role. Prestige is tempting, but misplaced ambition leads to a frustrating, unfulfilling professional life. Ignatian principles emphasize discernment—the ability to assess whether a path aligns with one’s values and capabilities. This form of self-examination can serve as a guide for individuals facing career crossroads.

Promotions should be about the right fit, not just a reward. When people land roles they are not ready for, schools, government offices, and companies pay the price with poor leadership and low morale. The Peter Principle is not fate—it is a warning. And the lesson is simple: climb when ready, not just because the ladder is there.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.