Peter Principle sees HR
The Peter Principle have it that the promotion of some personnel from their previous position would lead to lower performance (i. e. incompetence) than the performance they would have put in the former occupied position. He also has it that demotions are rare in organization to correct the wrong placement of incompetence staff in higher position (Peter & Hull, 1969). The Human Relations functions include in an organization includes the reward system for deserving workers through promotions and other incentives attached with such higher post. This function has being an effective wage of rewarding hard and efficient workers.
However, the Peter’s principle has seen the promotion of workers to the next higher level that it may be done erroneously, where sometimes the worker tend to be more comfortable and perform effectively in his previous job (Tortorici 2006). And organizations rarely conduct demotions when incompetence is recognized. However, this sometimes, erroneous promotion do not rule out the fact that many promotions are based on right judgment where an industrious worker and achiever who is promoted to higher tend to perform well by justifying the reason for their promotion.
Furthermore, there are instances where incompetent workers are either relieved of their position or replaced with other personnel who supercede his official functions, or rendered redundant, sometimes the ultimate penalty is paid where they are sacked. Thus, the Peter Principle pertaining to worker promotion does not totally negate the practice of HR functions of promotion and workers motivation.
The situation where this function falls short is when the workers is erroneously promoted based on favoritism and other self interest ground other than merit based. A promotion that is based on merit will deliver, and the percentage of incompetence that could be associated with this function will be minimal, compare with the promotion based on favoritism. The decision to promote an individual worker, when he is sure to perform better in his previous position is not really an erroneous function.
Sometimes, this is done with the aim of tasking the worker to work harder and put more effort in self actualization and development, and executing higher functions. According to Koch & Nafziger (2007, pg 3), “Such a decision hence is not a mistake, but optimal: the promotion allows extracting more effort from the agent than he would be willing to provide for the same earnings in the lower level job. As a consequence, employees moving up the career ladder may earn more only because they have to work harder”.
Beside the fact that the promotion function of a Human Resource manager may be sometimes done erroneously where the promoted staff may be incompetent in higher post, this does not make the HR functions totally ineffective outside theoretical setting. For instance, the HR functions do not only pertain to promotion. It involves other functions as workers recruitment, placement, motivation, training, human relations, workers welfares administration, wage and salary administration, termination of worker appointment, and administering worker gratuities and pensions.
Theoretical these functions are good, and in many occasion in the practical sense these HR functions forms the advancement and growth of an organization, whereby it goes a long way to influence an organization’s productivity rate. Apparently, it suffice to say the sometimes erroneous promotion of incompetent workers or one who will not perform well in a higher post does not mean that all workers promotions are aligned with errors and that they will result in incompetence. Furthermore, this does not mean that Peter Principle sees HR functions as infeasible in practice.