There is an old but undeservedly forgotten idea in management theory — the Peter Principle. It was formulated in 1969 by the Canadian educator Laurence Peter, and it sounds almost like a joke: in any hierarchy, an employee rises through the ranks until they reach a position they can no longer handle. And that is where they stay.
The mechanics are simple and, because of that, all the more alarming. Companies promote people for results in their current role — not for the skills needed in the next one. The team's best engineer becomes a team lead because they were the best engineer. Yet team leading is a different profession entirely: it's not about writing code, but distributing work, resolving conflicts, and managing the team's stress. One does not guarantee the other.
As a result, here is what happens: as long as a person grows, they deliver results. At some point, they land in a role where they stop delivering them. And they stop growing further — simply because there is nothing left to promote them for: the next evaluation once again looks at the current position, and the former brilliance is no longer there.
Peter wrote this as satire, but behind it lies a very real systemic question: if the criterion for promotion is past merit rather than future requirements, the hierarchy will sooner or later fill up with people who sit just above their own ceiling.
What can be done about this is a topic for a separate discussion: dual career ladders, separating performance appraisal from potential appraisal, probationary periods before a final promotion decision. But the diagnosis itself is already useful: before promoting a strong specialist, it is worth asking — what exactly are we promoting them for, and are these skills truly needed in the new role?