It's not that they got there, it's that they stay there.
I have worked in one organization for less than 10 years with three different bosses.
The use of the name Peter isn't referring to principle's eponym, but rather people who make it true. Parker is the first P name I thought of.
The Peter Principle states that:
in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence
This makes intuitive sense as a concept and why it continues to happens despite being known for the same reason: why stop promoting a high performer? After all, past performance is almost always indicative of future results!
What isn't talked about is what happens after Peter gets into his final position. There are a few options available to him:
All three types of Peters exist in the world, but the distribution likely isn't equal—the first option of holding on for dear life seems to be the most common. And in order to not be noticed, Peter must camouflage himself in a ghillie suit made of corporate lingo while ensuring his toes are well behind the company and his boss' lines at all times. Who would notice Peter is horrible at his job when he makes his boss happy, is vocally supportive of the company culture, and actively participates in company initiatives? In fact, some may say that those three qualities make him great at his job!
The Parker Principle states that:
Parkers can do the exact opposite of Peters and expect a promotion due to sheer competence
(Sure, Parkers may experience their names gradually or even automatically turn to Peter at some point during their next few promotions, but ignore that for now.)
Competence compensates for lack of compliance in other areas. Organizations don't care that Parker says lewd remarks or doesn't attend mandatory meetings if he's helping them reach their bottom line, whether that's related to money, fame, or some other goal. They may even pave the road for him and offer a new car.
Tradeoffs exist in all markets, including this one: the organization is trading their supposed values and procedures for betterment in Parker's area. "Rules for thee, but not for me" becomes "Rules for thee (except you if you make us enough money), but not for me". This is obvious when stated, yet still interesting to see the dichotomy in action between people at the same level of the hierarchy.
Some examples in my organization around people who are the exact same rank:
Now that the names have been listed, it's time spotlight them in the audience and call them to the stage.
The existence of Peters is sad, rage-inducing, and understandable at the organizational and individual level. It's sad because Peters probably didn't know they'd be a Peter before the promotion; again, why would they suddenly suck at their job if their current one is going well? (This ignores a long build-up of suckiness over the course of multiple job promotions, but to the previous sentence's point, most promotions include step function increases in responsibilities that may not be filtered for in their current role.) It's rage-inducing because most organizations either haven't acknowledged the existence of Peters, or if they have, don't seem to do much about them. It's understandable for the same reasons it's sad, but also because no self-interested person would resign once (if) they realize they're a Peter—there's no point. Hold on, rake in that dough, and with enough bullshitting and manuevering maybe another rung can be climbed.
But these feelings shouldn't get in the way of trying to oust Peters from their positions of power to ensure Parkers get their time on the throne. Powerful Peters reduce an organization's potential prosperity by definition: unintelligent leaders are likely to make suboptimal, if not downright detrimental, decisions that can send damaging ripples both up and down the hierarchy. On the other hand, Powerful Parkers increase an organization's likelihood of success for the opposite reasons as their Peter counterparts.
Highlighting Peters requires precision and nuance. Other Peters may catch on and attempt to stifle the exposé efforts. It's like They Live, the organization edition. Some ideas on doing so, with the understanding that they may backfire and strengthen their position's stronghold due to seemingly competent responses:
Highlighting Parkers is straightforward and smiled upon:
Organizations, and not just individuals, must take a stand against Peters for the sake of their betterment and competitiveness in the markets they serve. Any organization would jump at the opportunity to increase efficiency by double-digit numbers, which is exactly what a purge of Peters would enable. People are still fallible and prone to bias and judgment.
Testing for potential Peters when they are still a Parker is simple:
There are issues with this approach whose risks can be mitigated:
It's also important to maintain objectivity when reviewing the individual to ensure more powerful people aren't just swinging their political weight around with nothing to back it up. Parker would create a resume for his promotion that would be reviewed by others, while the reviewing parties would also bring evidence that supports and opposes the promotion. The trial period would also take note of objective measures (unbeknownst to Parker to ensure no gaming of the system) to ensure actual competence and not just ~vibes~. Goodharting would need to be avoided, hence the hidden metrics to ensure the promotee has well-rounded performance during their trial period. In a dystopian world, sentiment analysis can be performed on the reviewer's texts, messages, and emails to get rough feelings towards the promotee.