| BoleroOfFire said:
Are these people at the top because they are truly the best? Or do you think that other factors should be considered such as location and opportunity? A yes or no response is sufficient but if you have time to provide your reasoning it will be appreciated. |
No. I will use the Peter Principle to support my belief:
The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." While formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1968 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter, the principle has real validity. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence"
The people at the top may have excelled prior to their reaching their current positions however that does not necessarily imply that they are or will excel in their current ones.
