The Peter Principle says "people are always promoted to the level at which they are incompetent". The logic here is that employee are rewarded for good performance by being promoted to a higher level. For example, a good slaesman becomes a sales manager. However, different levels of management require different skill set. A good salesman may not be a good manager of other sales people. At one level, you are trying to persuade others to buy. At the managerial level you need to motivate others to sell. Now you may argue or question how come the top management does not relaize this principle and avoid such mistakes? For example, why not instead of promotion just reward the good salesperson with a higher salary. Answer: such reward not not publicaly acknowledged since it is not customary for employees to brag about salaries.  In some professions, such as academia, good scholars are given prestigious titles, chaired professorship, higher ranks without being promoted to department heads or deanships; without asking them to give up work/research for which they are good at. This is one way to avois the traps of the Peter Principle. The US is often described as a nation of awards. Recognition via awards exist for any accomplishment one can imagine in every copmmunity and institutions. Again, one can argue this is one way to avoid the Peter Principle. More on this can be found at https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+peter+principle+definition&pc=GD01&form=GDAVST&ptag=3444