Donald Trump: Taking the Peter Principle To Unprecedented Heights
Read Time:4 Minute, 3 Second
by E.A. Blair
Does anyone remember the Peter Principle (no, it’s not some exaggerated notion of masculinity)? It was the title and subject of a 1969 book by Canadian educator Laurence J. Peter, and it involves an element of management theory that states that people are selected for or promoted to a new position, not based on their suitability for the intended position, but on their performance in their current one. Once people so selected or promoted reach the limits of their ability, they become stalled in that position, since their performance no longer qualifies them for promotion.
A more compact way of saying that is the maxim, “managers rise to the level of their incompetence”.
There is a concept found in organizations that is similar to the Peter Principle which is called negative selection. It occurs when the person at the top appoints or promotes his immediate subordinates, based not on their ability to do the job, but on the basis of their incompetence. This can happen in corporations and it can happen in governments. In governments, it’s usually found in dictatorships and other totalitarian states.
This usually happens when the leader is stupid, insecure, paranoid, egotistical, immature, sociopathic or any combination of those qualities. He chooses his subordinates using the criterion that they must neither be intelligent enough nor competent enough to challenge his authority. The leader’s behavior is often reflected in the actions of his immediate subordinates, who then choose their subordinates on the same basis.
Thus, incompetence (rather than the economy) experiences a trickle-down effect that eventually permeates the entire organization. In corporations, this usually leads to bankruptcy; in nations, this usually leads to a failed state.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
It looks as if negative promotion is the best explanation for the likes of the Trump cabinet: Rex Tillerson, Betsy DeVos, Steven Mnuchin, Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Elaine Chao, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price, Ben Carson, Reince Priebus, Mick Mulvaney, Linda McMahon and Scott Pruitt.
It also explains other Trump appointees, including Sean Spicer, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Dina Powell, Stephen Miller, Sebastian Gorka and a host of others, including his family members.
In all these cases, the number one criterion is loyalty to the leader and, after that, a general lack of the skills needed to perform their duties. The theory is that they will be so busy mismanaging their own offices they won’t have time to challenge the leader. Without exception, every one of these appointees are of questionable competency and have little, if any, experience that qualifies them for their positions.
Nevertheless, the leader does not hesitate to eliminate those who threaten him, with the number one example being former FBI Director James Comey. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, also fired, was not so much a threat as he was a magnet for unwanted attention. They’re lucky that Trump could only give them the axe and not a firing squad.*
And what happens to the positions vacated by the unluckily competent? Typically, their positions are filled by promoting from below, replacing the fired by those who are even less able than their predecessors. As this goes on and on, the organization, be it corporation or government, grinds to an agonizing halt.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly said things like, “But we got** to be smart and we got to use our best people…And I know the best people.” At the same time, he is on record repeatedly saying that he would not rely on the advice or support of others:
“I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff.”
“Nobody but Donald Trump will save Israel”
“Nobody understands politicians like I do”
“Nobody beats me on National Security”
“Nobody would fight harder for free speech than me”
“Nobody can beat me on the economy (and jobs)”
“Nobody will protect our Nation like Donald J. Trump”
“I am the only one who can Make America Great Again”
Eventually, the leader goes – the dictator dies, there’s a coup, a hostile takeover, an impeachment, a forced retirement or resignation, and therein lies a note of caution for those who are eagerly anticipating a Trump impeachment: when the alpha dog is gone, what is left is an hierarchy of ineptitude.
*Recently, Trump said of his son-in-law, “Jared’s actually become much more famous than me, I’m a little bit upset about that.” He said something similar to James Comey in January. Watch your tailfeathers, Kushner.
**”We got”? I was broken of that bad habit in Kindergarten.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
I do agree, but there’s more iniquity, I fear, in a rise to power through dishonest and even criminal means than through convincing one’s boss one is a valuable asset. Trump has never had a boss or even a conscience. None of his subordinates will survive long, I think without his eerie charisma to protect them. Many are going to jail even with it.
We can only hope so. Subscribng to comments.
“Many are going to jail….” This is true, but do you think the “many” actually believe it? I’ll bet Trump has them convinced he is so mighty no one will go to jail on his watch.
I spent over 30 years in management, government management, and that can be a breeding ground for the Peter Principle. Never once, however, did I see such incompetence as rises out of this White House. Great article.
The difference between the Peter Principle and Negative promotion is that the former is akin to natural selection where the latter is more like (un)intelligent design.