To refresh our memories, a 1969 management theory (known as the Peter’s Principle) by Peter and Hull stated “that in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”, and it follows that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out the duties”.
Put rather simply, a person who performs well in his or her current job is not necessarily the best candidate to be promoted to higher level work.
This poses a dilemma for every manager. If a manager cannot promote a person on the basis of past performance, what can the manager base the decision on?
Of course, many other factors may come into play in addition to performance, especially in the political field.
Most initial appointments are primarily based on an interview and curriculum vitae, particularly in private industry, but also to some extent in the public service, although in the latter there may also be an exam and possible scrutiny by the Public Service Commission, at least for the more senior posts.
But what happens in the political field?
Before venturing further I must state that I have no particular individual in mind and my views should only be considered as a reflection on the difficulties faced by the person making decisions that may affect the lives and livelihood of hundreds or thousands of people.
In the political field, in most cases, elected officials qualify, prima facie, for portfolios and other political top jobs if given a strong endorsement by their constituents, namely on how many votes they get in an election. But this is not all. Of course, the final decision always rests with the Prime Minister; and that is how it should be.
No one can really second guess the reasons for Cabinet type of appointments but there are some pitfalls which may be avoided and some questions that might be pertinent.
For example, according to the Peter’s Principle quoted above it does not necessarily follow that a good parliamentary secretary may make a good minister, or a good minister, for that matter, may make a good prime minister.
In other words, the performance of a person at a lower grade level does not necessarily mean that a person will also perform well at a higher grade.
Therefore, what other criteria are available to ensure the appointment of the best person for the job besides his or her present performance? How can one determine whether the person being considered for a more senior post will reach his or her level of incompetence with such a post?
Perhaps the basic criterion for the selection of Cabinet has to be the degree of confidence the Prime Minister will have in the individual
Here, the book on the Peter’s Principle offers very little by way of a solution, namely how to avoid the incompetence trap. The book implies that an excellent engineer may be a bad manager and must avoid being put in a managerial position. In the Malta context this is a non-starter considering that the majority of ministers are lawyers or doctors put in jobs that are primarily managerial and most do a good job of it.
Other efforts to prevent a person reaching his or her level of incompetence, in other words to prevent one from falling in the Peter’s Principle trap, are rather weak, and some simply hilarious. One book suggests three ways to do this, namely: promote better, demote and train, probably meaning to develop promotion criteria; ability to demote for non-performance; and to supply adequate training for vacant posts. These suggestions are really not applicable to the political scene.
Another book that won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2010 proposes a panel of the best five candidates and the worst five candidates, and then the person to get the job is chosen randomly. This does not any make sense at all, either in business or in politics.
Probably the safest way in the political environment in Malta for promotion from a parliamentary secretary to a minister is to give the person concerned the ministerial portfolio without the ministerial rank until he or she is considered to have been doing a good job, thus earning the promotion to minister. At a lower level, namely appointments to parliamentary secretary or junior minister, the same procedure could be applied.
In the end, however, there is no magic formula. Perhaps the basic criterion for the selection of Cabinet has to be the degree of confidence the Prime Minister will have in the individual or individuals. This may be easier in the case of a reshuffle since anyone who may have reached his or her level of incompetence may be more apparent.
Beyond this, Mr Prime Minister, you are on your own.
Michael Bartolo is a former Ambassador of Malta to the UN in Geneva.