Peter and the Three Faces of Competence

The people of Japan say that we have three faces. The first face, you show the world; the second face, you show to your close friends and family; the third face, you never show anyone. The third face is the truest reflection of who you are. I’m just leaving this out there for your consideration as you read this week’s blog.

Now here is a lovely new word for those readers of this blog who might, like me, love words. ‘Hierarchiology’ is the study of how hierarchies operate. It was first used by Raymond Hull, who using the research undertaken by Lawrence Peter, wrote the book ‘The Peter principle’, which was first published in 1969. Their now familiar and famous book was intended to be satire. They were poking fun at the many self-proclaimed organisational and managerial gurus of the time. However, over the years, the book became considered as a serious critique of managerial competence.

At first glance, the book’s premise is deceptively simple. The Peter Principle posits that a person who is competent at their job will earn a promotion that might require different skills. Where the person lacks the skills required for the new role, they will not be promoted again. If, on the other hand, the person succeeds in the new role, they will get promoted again, and continue to be promoted until they reach a level of incompetence. It is a hierarchical process and remains so until the person reaches their eventual level of incompetence.  

Now regular readers of this blog will know that I try and steer clear of politics, but last week’s antics made me think about whether the Peter principle could be applied to politics. There is some evidence to suggest it possibly could. Indeed, in Chapter 7 of their book, Peter and Hull describe the effect of the Peter principle in politics and government. In some ways politics defies the Peter principle. Politicians often get promoted beyond their level of incompetence. Politics as a career is very much dominated by hierarchical structures. So, if you have one job at one level, (whether you do it well or not) you will be expected to continue to rise up the hierarchy and do the next job.

Now I wouldn’t be so careless as to cast aspersions about the competence or not of any of our current government ministers. If you were interested, you might want to have look here. But last week it was hard not to think about the competence of some of our politicians. In particular I was thinking about the 11th hour reversal of the ‘vaccination as a condition of deployment’ (VCOD) policy. If anyone needed to find an example of possible leadership incompetence, this would have been a perfect example.

Last November, those working in social care services such as residential care homes and nursing homes were required by law to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19. It was estimated that some 40,000 jobs would be lost as a consequence of this new legal requirement. The actual loss was far fewer, with around 8,000 people losing their jobs. We shouldn’t forget the enormous personal cost that every one of those 8,000 people would have faced in choosing not to get vaccinated. Indeed, the whole process revealed the true cost in money, time, and stress and anxiety faced by many social care providers and the staff they employed. These experiences provided an evidence base that could rightly inform policymakers should this approach be extended to other areas of public service.

Sadly, it appears such evidence was not utilised in the decision to make it mandatory for all health and social care workers to be fully vaccinated by April this year as a condition of their employment. This does feel as if someone was very incompetent in taking this decision. What further saddens me is that many health services managers, including some very well respected and experienced folk were ignored when they attempted to raise with government the possible negative implications of this policy. It was estimated that up to 70,000 individuals would have to leave their jobs. No one seemed to be particularly concerned about the consequences of this possibility.

Perhaps it is because like those impacted in social care, 70,000 is a big number. Its can be difficult to see the individual amidst this large number of people. However, within this group were cleaners, consultants, nurses, network technicians, midwives and so on. Many had spent many a year giving their all to the NHS. The reasons they might have for not choosing to be vaccinated were manifold and personal. Managers at all levels across the NHS worked with these colleagues to try and understand what these reasons might be and to try and persuade individuals to reconsider their decisions about being vaccinated. Persuasion in the face of compulsion. I think most of us would recognise that vaccinations are the route out of the pandemic, but compulsion was never going to be the right route.

Interestingly, in chapters 11 and 12 of Peter and Hull’s book, they discuss the physical and mental health consequences that many people face when at some point in their career they reach their level of incompetence. I suggest this impact would be the same for all our colleagues trying to work through the implementation of the VCOD policy; both managers and the staff impacted by the policy. The current consultation on reversing this policy will do little to relieve this impact. Unfortunately, it will also do little to ‘undo’ the unintended consequences of the policy – for example, people who got vaccinated just to keep their jobs, or those who lost their jobs because they didn’t want to be vaccinated, who might now feel rightfully aggrieved. 

Perhaps the important lesson from this totally avoidable situation is that we should all keep the faith when it comes to offering, both our patients and colleagues, unconditional positive regard for the life decisions we all take. That’s what make the NHS a great institution, not politics, and certainly not politicians.