Is there a point where endemic incompetence becomes as actionable as malicious intent?

[The Backlash Cometh]

At what point does the law stop making excuses for incompetence? Is there a benchmark?

[Fumesucker]

1. It all depends on how far up the table of organization you are..

If you're at the bottom, incompetence is swiftly and severely dealt with.

If you're at the top, incompetence is an amusing foible at worst which will hardly ever even be mentioned in polite company.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. "The Peter Principle' was broken during the Bush years

Many got promoted beyond their level of incompetence.



The Peter Principle states that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence", meaning that employees tend to be promoted until they reach a position at which they cannot work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous <1> treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology."

[Fumesucker]

6. I read that book in about 1977 or so..

And I've seen countless applications of the Peter Principle ever since..

[Silent3]

4. +1 n/t

[bemildred]

2. The Law is for the little people. nt

[ThomWV]

5. Yes, there is such a point. When they say someone "knew, or should have known"

Its that "should have known" part that requires the party to be competent. It makes a person culpable for an action their incompetence left them ignorant of.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. I learned about that term about nine years ago.

For me, it put everything into proper perspective.