Keck Leadership Coaching

The Peter Principle (Peter & Hull, 1969) and the Dilbert Principle (Adams, 1996) both critique the dysfunctions of modern organizational hierarchies, though from different perspectives. The Peter Principle identifies how employees rise to their level of incompetence through cumulative promotion, while the Dilbert Principle suggests that organizations may deliberately assign ineffective employees to management roles to limit their operational damage. Both reveal a disjunction between positional authority and leadership competence.

“The most ineffective workers are systematically moved to the place where they can do the least damage — management.” ~ Scott Adams

In contrast, warrior codes such as the Hávamál and Bushidō articulate leadership as a practice inseparable from personal capability, moral responsibility, and service to followers. The Hávamál, a collection of Old Norse wisdom attributed to Odin, emphasizes prudence, courage, and the reciprocal obligations between leaders and their people (Larrington, 2014). Leadership in this tradition was not positional but functional, with ineffective leaders vulnerable to removal or dishonor. Similarly, Bushidō, the samurai code, stressed integrity (gi), loyalty (chūgi), and competence in both martial and moral domains (Nitobe, 1900/2002). Leaders who failed in these respects forfeited legitimacy, as leadership was defined by character and conduct rather than hierarchical placement.

Placing these traditions alongside the Dilbert and Peter Principles exposes a stark tension. Where modern organizations sometimes tolerate or even institutionalize incompetence through misaligned promotion systems, warrior traditions demanded competence and accountability as prerequisites for authority. In Norse contexts, chieftains who neglected generosity, wisdom, or martial capability lost the support of their followers, who could shift loyalty to more capable leaders (Byock, 2001). In samurai culture, failure to embody the principles of Bushidō risked disgrace and eroded the collective’s trust in its leadership.

The juxtaposition highlights a critical point for leadership studies: while satirical principles reveal how bureaucracies can normalize incompetence, warrior codes demonstrate alternative frameworks where leadership legitimacy was continuously contingent on demonstrated capacity and ethical responsibility. This contrast underscores the potential value of integrating warrior codes into contemporary leadership theory. Doing so provides not only a corrective to the cynical patterns noted by Adams and Peter, but also a historically grounded model for leadership selection and development that prioritizes competence, responsibility, and service over mere positional authority.

References

Adams, S. (1996). The Dilbert principle: A cubicle’s-eye view of bosses, meetings, management fads & other workplace afflictions. HarperBusiness.

Byock, J. (2001). Viking age Iceland. Penguin.

Larrington, C. (Trans.). (2014). The Poetic Edda. Oxford University Press.

Nitobe, I. (2002). Bushidō: The soul of Japan (Original work published 1900). Kodansha International.

Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). The Peter principle: Why things always go wrong. William Morrow.