Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » The PETER PRINCIPLE is alive and well in the PET administration. At every level it is evident including PET. Was Peter prescient?
RosieG

The PETER PRINCIPLE is alive and well in the PET administration. At every level it is evident including PET. Was Peter prescient?

Lawrence J. Peter said that people are evaluated based on performance in a current job rather than for their abilities that would be relevant to the intended role. As a result people keep getting promoted until they reach the level of their incompetence.  Then the promotions stop and they are no longer evaluated on performance but on such things as being on time or being a pleasant co-worker. They are rarely fired for incompetence so they stay there doing the job incompetently until they retire or die. Which pick that PET has made so far is competent to do the intended job in your opinion? Why?

Posted - December 2, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • Not only prescient but powerfully (and in this case portentously) prescient. This guy is in over his head and, when the icky stuff hits the fan, it'll be interesting to see how long it takes his supporters to do a Pontius Pilate and deny ever voting for him.

    But I owe you a vote of thanks for your question because I had never seen "PET" till I came to this site and wondered what the heck it meant. As I started to type in my query I had a flash of prescience myself and it became crystal clear -- so thanks for asking the question, and thanks for making me answer my own.
      December 2, 2016 10:49 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    You're very welcome. For those who don't know,PET is an acronym for President-Elect Trump. Thank you for thanking me. I appreciate it. It doesn't happen often not that I expect it to. I always thank those who take the time to answer my questions whether I agree with them or not. Those who are rude I simply ignore. Anyway I just discovered an online petition to change the way elections go and elect by POPULAR VOTE. It can be found at commoncause.org. I Googled "Overturning the Electoral College" and many sites came up. I clicked on the one about  the petition. Jim and  I each signed one! I asked a question about it for those who might be interested in doing something. I have no idea how many will sign i t or if it will matter. But we can at least try! Thank you for your thoughtful reply Didge!  :)
      December 3, 2016 4:22 AM MST
    1

  • 3934
    No, it doesn't really apply.

    A hidden assumption of the Peter Principle is hirings/firings/promotions are made on a nominally meritocratic basis. While political appointments are SOMETIMES made on the basis of merit, far more often they are made on the basis of political considerations.

    Can anyone plausibly argue that Ben Carson had done ANYTHING which would merit his selection as head of Housing and Urban Development?

    Is Betsy DeVos even the 2nd-best expert on education policy in the United States?

    The examples are legion. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 3, 2016 4:15 AM MST
      December 2, 2016 10:54 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    OS. You just PROVED my point. The fact that they were successful in other areas IN NO WAY qualifies them for the jobs to which PET has appointed them. YOU PROVED MY POINT m'dear. How can you not see that?
      December 3, 2016 4:16 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @RosieG -- I agree many of Trump's appointments have little or nothing to do with the competency of the individuals being appointed. What I don't think is valid is to attribute the appointments to the Peter Principle.

    The Peter Principle applies to hierarchical organizations (the military, business entities, academia, etc.) which tend to promote individuals from within. For example, a school may select one of its best teachers to be assistant principal. But the skill set required for being an assistant principal is sufficiently different that the excellent teacher struggles to do a competent job and, hence, has risen to the level of his or her incompetence.

    In the case of the Trump administration, competence (as we conventionally define it) is besides the point or, in fact, "incompetence" may be the point, because part of GOP political campaigning is "DABGUM GUBMINT CAN'T DO NUTTIN' RIGHT NOHOW!"

    Ms. DeVos was selected not because she will be an incompetent Secrectary of Education. Who knows? If she actually tried to be a good one, she might succeed. She was chosen because she is IDEOLOGICALLY inclined to not do her best to make public education better, in favor of privatizing education. If we measure her "competence" by her ability to WRECK public education policy, she might turn out to be very competent indeed.

    Similarly, Dr. Ben Carson was proposed (I've read his nomination is no longer likely) as HUD Secretary -- and there's really no polite way to say this -- to A) Be the Token House N*gg*r and B) make a mess of HUD so the GOP could campaign with "See, we told you government can't do nothing right!"


    We agree about the observed empirical reality. We disagree about whether the Peter Principle is the causal explanation.
      December 3, 2016 11:05 AM MST
    0

  • 113301
    You do this all the time OS. Look for the flaw and pounce on it. You always notice the weeds first not the roses and you talk about the weeds. Instead of accepting the spirit of the point I was making you took exception to it at great length, your MO. Different strokes. I remember years ago our mutual acquaintance and his wife did some bathroom remodeling. He said the first thing you did when you walked into the bathroom was to comment on a small piece of tile that wasn't set perfectly. It's just what you do. You can't help it. You always go for the imperfection and make that a bigger deal than the rest of it. Your brain is just wired that way. I don't know whether you a contrarian by nature or by design. Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday.
      December 5, 2016 2:49 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @RosieG -- I encourage you to, as best you can, "blank" your mind and reread your question as though someone else wrote it and you were reading it for the first time.

    Can you honestly tell me the "spirit" of the question is "Trump's appointments suck! Amiright?" when the plain text of it is so focused upon the Peter Principle as a causal explanation for the low quality of those appointments?

    I don't think my answers to your question were a case of nitpicking the details. The Peter Principle was a central theme of the question and, as I argued above, I don't think it's a good explanation for the situation we agree is occurring.
      December 5, 2016 10:13 AM MST
    0