Archives for posts with tag: Peter Principle

This Blog “The Philosopher on Politics has been combined with “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking”.  All new Posts will appear on effective 12/12/2016.

Thanks for your interest in these topics.

The Philosopher


We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the USA, It starts with ‘W’ and that Stands for Women? Ver. 1.0.1

    The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired


The First Presidential Debate:

    We just had our first real Presidential debate. I believe there were 10 men on the stage each with their own podium. The debate moderator was a female news reporter from a major news outlet. The front runner in the polls was center stage and the only non-politician on the stage. I did not watch the debate as I’m sure many Americans did not watch the debate. If the debate was about candidates voicing their opinions on the important issues that our country faces, then unless one actively watched the debate, we know nothing about the views of the candidates on any issue, as the news media insisted on making how we speak and regard women as the principle issue in this Presidential campaign.

      From the news reports, apparently the female debate moderator posed a question to the front runner, the non-politician who is a little rough around the edges, something like President Harry Truman or President Theodore Roosevelt. She was evidently taking questions from the general population and putting them before the candidates. The question she posed to the front runner was about remarks he in the past had made about women, such as about their weight, their looks, and probably their intelligence. This Debate Moderator obviously never heard her mother teach her that “People who live in class houses should not throw rocks”. The front runner was greatly taken back by this question that had absolutely nothing to do with national issues and took the question as an ad hominem question designed to disqualify him for the office of President based on his attitude towards women. The front runner responded to this female debate moderator with some ad hominem statements of his own, designed to prove her incompetence of being an impartial debate moderator. The front runner is now being accused of bringing earthy and inappropriate language into a Presidential debate. I believe one of the derogatory comments the front runner was accused of making to women is that they were FAT.

    Fat is a Good Thing:

We have had, thanks to advances in agricultural technology, a feast environment in which to live. The media has portrayed women as slender – with the exception of “Mike and Molly” – and as runway models and even slender model television news reporters. All this hype has led us Americans to think that women should all be like these role models the media has displayed.

    The population of Homo sapiens is increasing on this planet and agricultural land is decreasing to accommodate the increased population and, of course, keep our unemployment down and our economy up with this new construction. It should not take a seer to see a famine coming. Women are created to hold more fat than men. Men were created to have more muscle than women. When times of famines were a natural part of life, women were better suited to survive
    the famine than men because they had stored up more fat than the men. A 20th century example was the German siege on Stalingrad. It was the women who survived this siege because of their fat content. Therefore calling a woman FAT is to give her a compliment; she is getting ready for the next famine and these runway models and model news reporters will be the first to succumb to the famine.

Bad Language not fit for President:

    Other candidates have now argued that the front runner’s language skills are inappropriate for the office of President and that he has offended 53% of the voting citizens and their party could never win the election against the other party’s front runner, who is also a female.

      Much Discussion Ahead:

    These events of recent activity have so many issues involved with them; it may not be possible to address them all in anything less than several volumes of written works. This writer will attempt, at least, to scratch the surface of the national issues involved in these discussions and charges.

Topics that Need Discussion:

     The role of women in national politics
     The voting rights of women in national politics
     An elitist society, that lends itself to promoting the educated and the educated from our elite colleges
     The dynamics of men and women serving together
     The focus of our nation on the equal rights of women in our society
     The basic difference of men and women
     The difference of how women vote for a President and how men vote for a President
     How men and women think, act and make decisions
     The priorities of men and women
     The functions of men and women in our nation
     The different styles of leadership of men and women
     The extreme: a matriarchal controlled nation

      The Role of Women in our Nation</ul>

      There are basic instincts involved with men and women. Men have a natural propensity to protect women. Historically, wars often took the lives of many men. Women are the only ones who have the ability to reproduce and replace the missing generation of men with newborn boys and raise them into manhood. Women are the future of our country; without women our country has no future. For this reason we protect our women and keep them out of harm’s way.

    A friend of mine recently brought forward information concerning Israel’s experience with women on the front lines of a combat situation during their six-day war in the mid-1960s. He said that many of the men were killed trying to protect the women on the front line of this war. In a small group discussion in a church, two of the male class leaders were adamant about protecting women and had judged the front runner of the debate as acting wrongly towards a woman.

      The front runner claims that if we focus on our attitudes towards women, we will never get anywhere in solving our real national problems. Most women and most men seem adamant that women need to be treated respectfully and certainly not be offended. This writer finds many uses for the statement made by Sam Houston, the Texas Ranger that defeated Santa Anna and gave us Texas. He said, “There is no honor in waging war against a woman.” This statement was no doubt directed to his wife who had filed for divorce, but seems to be applicable to many situations. If we, as a nation, put our focus on how we think, act and talk about women, our adversaries could well take advantage of this situation and overrun us or we could become so ineffective in solving our nation’s issues that we end up “Shooting ourselves in the foot.”

    If other candidates for the Chief Executive of our country think that we need to solicit the votes of the women in our nation, then in effect we are putting women in control of our government. This leads to two choices of focus. 1) We seek the women’s vote and address the issues that the women of our country want to address and ensure that they get the respect they deserve. 2) We address the issues that need to be addressed instead of trying to socially engineer our candidates for the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces to the way that we think they should be groomed.

      A Parallel to Bad Language Inappropriate for President:

        There is an interesting parallel that this writer thinks should be presented to this situation of men’s manners and language skills. This parallel lies in the biography of Mr. John Newton. John Newton was the only son of a sea captain in Liverpool, England, which was a working class community. John was not treated very kindly by the other boys in his community. This was probably the result of a clash in the social order, noticeable to others because of John’s greater inheritance of innate knowledge from his sea captain father. John’s mother instilled in John the Gospel message until he was six years old, when she died of tuberculosis. John was exceptional in his ability to write fluently at the age of three, and memorized long text his mother gave to study. At the age of eight, he was sent off to boarding school. At age 10, he finished his formal education and went to sea with his sea captain father. By this time, John exhibited much behavior in being tough. He was mischievous, vulgar and blasphemous (degrading God), and in some countries, this is a crime punishable by death.

      Mr. Newton became involved in the slave trade, as was a common and accepted practice in this time period of history. He landed a position as first mate on a slave ship whose captain was a friend of John’s father. On their return to England, after delivering their slaves to the West Indies and America, in a route crossing the North Atlantic Ocean, the ship experienced a strong hurricane force storm that put the ship in danger of sinking. In an effort to save the ship and its crew, John Newton came to his knees and asked God for his grace. The situation changed and the ship limped to land for repairs with all the crew safe.

    Mr. Newton, with his attention turned back to the Gospel message that his mother had taught him, began a long self-study of God’s Grace. He landed a government position in the service of collecting duties from the incoming ships into Liverpool. This position afforded him and his wife a comfortable living in this working class community. John’s religious studies led him to interfacing with the new Methodist, Baptist and independent churches of England. The congregations of these churches were two social steps below his in-laws and his wife. The only church that would keep the peace in his family was the Church of England. Mr. Newton applied for ordination into the Church of England several times over about a five-year period, being rejected at every attempt. The Church of England was an elitist society and required its priests to have a degree from Cambridge or Oxford, and John’s formal education ended at the age of 10! John was self-taught in the study of God’s Grace. It was not until a wealthy landowner with political power in the Church of England, Lord Dartmouth, took an interest in Mr. Newton as a potential religious leader that John Newton was ordained into the Church of England and given a Parish in Olney, a working class community.

      John Newton’s reputation as one of the world’s great preachers flourished in his position of curate in this Olney working class Parish. He began writing hymns to supplement his sermons. For his sermon of January 1, 1773, celebrating a new year and a new beginning, he wrote the song that would become “Amazing Grace”. This was published by Mr. Newton in 1779 in a Hymnal the “Olney Hymns,” with the uninspiring title of “Faith’s Review and Expectations,” and it was #41 in the Olney Hymnal. He had collaborated on this hymnal with William Cowper, who became known as one of England’s great poets, and this song remained in obscurity for 60 years. The song that John had written for the 1773 New Year became known as “Amazing Grace.” England ignored this song; it first appeared in writing, at least the last two verses in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” in 1852. It ironically was being sung by the decedents of the slaves that John Newton had brought to America when he was a captain of a slave ship. It had been handed down by oral tradition and was first published in William Walker’s book “The Southern Harmony” in 1835. The last verse, which begins “When we’ve been there ten thousand years,” and had been around orally for half a century in Afro-American worship, was added after the first three verses by Edwin Othello Excell in 1910 in “Coronation Hymns,” and is the accepted 20th century form of “Amazing Grace”. Aretha Franklin took “Amazing Grace” from Gospel Music to popular music by recording it in 1947. It shifted into political consciousness of Black America when she teamed up with Martin Luther King in the 1960s and put “Amazing Grace” on its way to becoming our official National Spiritual Anthem. Judy Collins took “Amazing Grace” beyond the church walls in 1970 as the final track on “Whales and Nightingales.” Many recordings of “Amazing Grace” were recorded onward after 1970. The bagpipes of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards created the use of “Amazing Grace” as a melancholy lament appropriate for sorrowful occasions, and its use at funerals grew widely as when Judy Collins sang it at the funeral of her son in 1992 and it was sung as part of the memorial mass for John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1999. “Amazing Grace” came to be used frequently at joyful church services, weddings, baptisms, celebrations of anniversaries, and on important public occasions ranging from the opening of baseball games to ceremonies of national mourning, such as the loss of the astronauts on the space shuttle Challenger in 1986, and the 3,000 deaths at Ground Zero in New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and led by President Barrack Obama at the memorial service of those killed in a church who were attending a Bible Study group in 2015. In light of its recent history and usage, “Amazing Grace” has been called the Spiritual National Anthem of America. This is a description that can be applied even more widely on an international canvas, for the hymn soars above most boundaries as a simple celebration of the experience of grace. It is sung not only by Christians but by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and people of no particular faith.

    John Newton was influential in the abolishment of slavery in Great Britain and died the same year that England abolished slavery in Great Britain.i

      Who do We want for President?

    What if we compare the life of John Newton, and all that he did for mankind, to the life of the front runner in these Presidential debates? Are we to stand firm and condemn his crude language as inappropriate for the office of President of the USA? Certainly John Newton’s vulgarity and blasphemous words are a greater sin than speaking harshly to a female, news media reporter and debate moderator who deserved what she got for bringing to the debate this sexist “red herring.” Has the USA, like the Church of England, become an elitist society, where one must have a degree from one our prestigious colleges like Harvard Law School to become President of the USA? Is this the result of soliciting the women’s vote? Do women chose their President on different criteria than men chose their President? Are men really from Mars and women from Venus? Germany had a democratic government and the women of Germany overwhelmingly supported Adolf Hitler, for he promised to give them what they wanted. He promoted himself as the savior of Germany and he won the hearts of the women of Germany. Is that who we want for a President – someone who will promise our women what they want to hear in order to solicit their vote and win the election? Or do we want a President that speaks frankly and out front of the issues this country needs to address and how to address these issues? Will the front runner offend certain voting blocs and risk losing the election because he did not promise these voting blocs what they wanted?

The Election System the Founding Fathers Wanted:

    Our Founding Fathers set up the President to be elected by the representative of the states. They did this to isolate the President from public opinion, which would allow our President to do what he thought was best for our country. Our President is no longer isolated from public opinion and therefore must promise the various voting blocs what they want in order to get elected. Once elected, the President can, for the most part, do what he thinks is best for the country, at least in his last and final term of office. If he needs to get reelected, then the President is still greatly subject to public opinion.

      The News Media in Control of our Government:

    The Founding Fathers had set up the election system to somewhat isolate Senators from public opinion, giving them six year terms and counting on the short memories of the voters so they could do what they thought was best for the country. The Founding Fathers gave Congressmen only a two-year term in office so that they would be sensitive to their constituents and represent public opinion. We now have an election system of government where the Chief Executive is subject and partially controlled by public opinion. And who is it that makes the public opinion known? Of course, it is the news media. Therefore, in effect, it is the news media that is in control of our government.

Was the news media upset with the front runner’s words to their representative as the debate moderator and did not the men of the news media come to her rescue and ban the front runner from participating in future debates? Yes, the men came to protect their female counterparts; this is the natural propensity of men to take care of the women.

    How does these actions Affect Voter Rights?

      The female debate moderator was lucky that she was not asking her sexist questions of me. How dare she bring sexism into a Presidential debate, this is a “Red Herring”. If this is a representative of the women in this country, we may have to revoke their right to vote so that we can address the really important issues this country faces and not these “Red Herrings” that a female debate moderator did not have the sense to hold back in the first place. She is lucky that I am not her boss. If I were her boss, I would have handed her a broom and a bowl cleaning brush and sent her to sweep the floors and clean the latrines.


      i Jonathan Aitken, “John Newton” “From Disgrace to Amazing Grace” Crossway, 2007

We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the USA, It starts with “P” and that stands for the Peter Principle Ver. 1.0.1
The Philosopher

The Peter Principle:

“In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence … in time every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties … Work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”i This principle was published in 1968 by Lawrence Johnston Peter and received much acclaim.

In this time period the makeup of the workforce of the USA was much different, the technical workforce was male dominated. In this early twenty-first century women have entered the workforce almost in an equal proportion to the men. Women are graduating from college in technical fields and moving up in the management hierarchy. These two income families have caused quite a disturbance in the economics of the USA. The basic economic theory is that the “price of a commodity” will be determined by “supply and demand”. With two income families the demand for bigger and better housing has increased. As the demand for more housing increases the sale prices increase. Single income families are now having difficulty competing with the two income families for housing. Urban areas are now constantly trying to force the building of “Affordable Housing” for the single income households. To compete with the two income households more untrained workers are entering the workforce, when a mother has her kids in a position where she can contribute to the family income they enter the workforce often in customer relations. This phenomenon has now expanded the definition of the Peter Principle to the entry level of employment.

With all these new ‘non-decision makers’ in customer relations getting something more complicated than routine accomplished can be a difficult, frustrating and time-consuming process, often involving appeals to the ‘decision making’ level of management. It’s the time-consuming part that is of interest to economist because this is an inefficiency that increases ‘the cost of doing businesses which in-turn lowers the national economic operating efficiency which in-turn increases our national debt because we are spending more time and money than necessary to operate this nation.

When some the better educated (classroom educated with degrees) get themselves promoted to positions of responsibility the situation can become quite sever. Personalities weigh into this process. In the family circus, the Firstborns and especially only children are usually the academic achievers in the family. They are also the perfectionists and they pay close attention to the details and are very organized, sometimes beyond all reasonable expectations. Therefore, they become naturals for being “In Charge”, the “Leader of the Pack”, The “King of the Mountain”, etc. They have the power to demand that their perfection, detailed, organized personality characteristic is met by the organization to which they are “In Charge”! This could be termed “The Peter Principle of overeducating”. Some of these personalities have been overeducated until they are above their capabilities of running a cost effective or even goal effective organization. “Control” is a big part of their personality and especially from only children in the sibling less families we hear the words “I Want”, “I don’t want” and “look what I have accomplished by myself”. Getting anything accomplished, in an organization run by one of these personalities, can be difficult and certainly not cost effective.

The same is true for the other end of the family circus, the lastborn. Lastborns are usually defined as having a same sex older sibling within five years of age. They are not well known for their leadership skills, but more for their creativity and having fun. They often think they can talk themselves out of any situation and can talk others into any situation. Is it any wonder our salesforce is predominately made up of lastborn adult children; they hardly ever grow out of the fun of having fun and they think they can talk anybody into buying anything? When one of these lastborns gets themselves overeducated and “In Charge” it could be a rough ride for those who have to work with them and since having fun and not being able to balance a budget, (budget? What’s that?). The expense account should have a constant audit by one of those “Only Children” who can balance a budget and bring organization to the organization.

Who then are the “Perfect Leaders”:

From the family circus there is a disappearing category called the “Middleborns”. Families are getting smaller, it’s hard to get a bunch of kids through college these days and college has become important in our society, so “Middleborns” are a somewhat disappearing breed. But, the personality characteristics that standout for the “Middleborns” is their ability to negotiate a “Workable Compromise” just what is needed to move an organization forward to meet the organizations goals with cost effectiveness. The “Middleborns” will strive to keep peace in the organization for this is their natural operating mode being squeezed between a same sex old sibling and a same sex younger sibling all within five years age of each other. In this situation, they learned how to negotiate for their space and this skill can be applied to an organization as well, usually as a “Middle Manager”ii

This leaves us to an obvious solution:

the Firstborns, only children and lastborns just need to learn how to negotiate a “Workable Compromise” and their organizations will operate with cost and objective effectiveness. And we will have eliminated “The Peter Principle” from our vocabulary when it comes to leading an organization. And also if the customer service representatives learn how to negotiate and are authorized to negotiate a “Workable Compromise” “The Peter Principle” can be eliminated where the organization meets the public. The whole key to improving the cost effectiveness and the objective effectiveness in an organization is to negotiate a “Workable Compromise”.


We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right Here in the USA, it starts with ‘E’ and that stands for “Elitism” Ver. 1.0.1
“The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter”, Retired

Elitism, in the context of education, is the practice of concentrating attention on or allocating funding to the best students, or those students who rank highest in a particular field of endeavor. For example, a politician who promotes advanced classes for students deemed to be highly intelligent might be accused of elitism, even if this were argued to promote an egalitarian goal, such as curing disease. Elitism in education could be based on conventional assessment of learning ability, knowledge or other abilities. However, an “elite” school can also mean a school for the wealthy or one that is difficult to enter.i

As we send more and more of our children to college, the “elite” continues to grow. Those from elite colleges tend to look down at those from other colleges those of the “sub-elite” (not of the same quality as themselves). Those from schools based on 18-week semesters look at those from colleges with abbreviated semesters or shorter terms sub-elite. The elite are the ones doing the hiring, and those who completed their education at an abbreviated semester or terms college may not get hired into an organization controlled by members of the elite.

The USA is funding its veterans to go to a college of their choosing. Many of these veterans are choosing the fast route, getting their degrees at an abbreviated semester college. When they graduate from these colleges, meeting all of the college requirements for their certification, they are finding little support from the elite controlled organizations to put them in a commensurate positions that these shortcut degrees claim they are qualified. This is costing the taxpayers about $50,000 per veteran when the veteran is unable to find employment with their shortcut degrees.

Is this the fault of the colleges offering a degree in an accelerated manor, or has our society become a society controlled by elitism and not hiring these veterans with abbreviated semester graduates? As we send more and more of our children to college, are we creating this elitism in our Society? There is no way to determine the fault for these veterans not being employed by the elite controlled organizations. This is a can of worms that we ourselves have created. “Pendulums swing wide”ii and then there is the “Peter Principle.”

The Peter Principle is a concept in management theory in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate’s performance in their current role rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and “managers rise to the level of their incompetence.”iii Maybe we are overeducating our citizens for jobs they are not capable of performing. President Barack Obama thinks the future job market will be for high tech positions, but are we capable of fulfilling these positions with our home-growing college graduates? Or are we looking at importing college graduates from other countries to fill these future high tech positions? We were not all created equal. We are created with equal rights, but not created with equal abilities or with trainable skills. We can train dogs and chimpanzees, but they will still have the abilities and skill levels of dogs and chimpanzees. Canines have innate knowledge inherited from their ancestors; these natural abilities only require the opportunity for them to put these abilities into use. My canine was a natural herder. He was not trained to be a herder, but with every opportunity given to him to herd other animals, he did so with great expertise, nipping at their heels to drive them in the direction requested by their handler. Can we expect Homo sapiens to be any different? We were all created with innate skills and it is those skills that can be developed further to meet our national job needs. But to try and educate Homo sapiens in a specialty for which they have no natural skill could easily produce a nation of workers falling under the Peter Principle.

Our course the action should be to understand how “innate knowledge” is passed down through the generations resulting in “innate skills” in mammals, Homo sapiens and other spices. The lizard brain is probably the simplest brain to start with, as they seem to have the only the ability to forage, fight and reproduce. The subconscious mind is new territory in “Mind Science,” C. G. Jung being the first to focus on the subconscious mind in the early 20th century. Once the mechanisms for innate skills are known, this could be leveraged to enhance the innate skills of the Homo sapiens.

ii My Mother