This also leads to an interesting conclusion. If we assume that, generally speaking, the most competent individuals tend to get promoted, then those who have stopped being promoted are likely the least incompetent among all possible options :D

and the chain of least incompetent really sounds rational, no? Surely moreso than the chain of perceived peak competency... which is just a gamble.

Personally, I find the so-called hydraulic theory of management the most accurate. The crap flows from the top to the bottom.

did you mean "the most incompetent"?

No. The Peter Principle states that in a hierarchical organization, everyone gets promoted until they reach their level of incompetence. This means we could conclude that if someone has stopped being promoted, they are incompetent in their current position.

However, if we assume that promotions are generally given to the most competent individuals within a group, then ultimately, while such a person may be incompetent, they will still be the least incompetent option compared to others.

ah, i remembered the principle wrong - incompetent people get promoted, because competent people are most valuable right where they are right now.

No, wrong way around. Competent people get promoted, until they end up in a position they are not competent in.

This is pretty much the opposite of every explanation I have seen of this principle

because it's not quite the same principle. i remembered it wrong.

Otherwise known as the curse of competence.