Peter Incarnate

An unwritten law is that every organization needs at least one administrator, though after working under and with many, as well as my year as one, I'm not convinced. One would think that when there are thousands of parts to an operation, someone needs to coordinate their coming together so there's no chaos. On the other hand, if a system is well structured from the beginning, then all the parts flow in harmony and no overseer is needed: everyone simply does his job. The psychologist or historian might counter with, but the master-slave, lord-serf, boss-worker mentality has been around so long that now administratorsareneeded.

My forty-three year observations at Sugar Loaf suggest that if you remove ego, power trips, and control-freaks, train everyone for his job well, then the position of coordinator may be helpful, occasionally a convenience, but almost never a necessity. Everyone who's been at a company party knows that when job titles are forgotten, the janitor is as worthy --- often even as knowledgeable --- as the executive vice-president: so, too, on the job when he's not labeled and expected to act as a subservient.

I remember well one of Sugar Loaf's Directors in the late sixty's because she was the walking Peter Principle. She'd been a mediocre student so was given a mediocre job. When she couldn't quite handle keeping the broom closet orderly but had been there a few years, she was promoted to Supply Supervisor. When that didn't work out well, she was

elevated in title and responsibilities to Chief Janitor. From there she was a prime candidate for the ladder-climb from Med Aide to Program Manager, upward to Office Assistant and, of eventually the ultimate Peter Position, Director. This progression took years, of course, but it seemed as inevitable as water running down a gutter into a sewer.

When I first encountered Claudia Barnard she quickly put me in my place: "Thirty-eight years ago whenIpushed a broom I knew not to stick my nose in the Residents' business. I just looked aside whenever ..." I couldn't believe my ears. The Director of a state-known Health Center coming off with a tone so intimidating, so lacking in human warmth! I knew immediately why the Happies rebelled.

This incident, along with several others, made me wonder about job-site competency. How could Claudia be in such a position with her attitude? I got a glimpse of the reason after I became a Program Manager. I was given a cubbyhole for an office and in it I found an age-yellowed cardboard box with reports and evaluations from the distant past. With some time on my hands, I closed the door and investigated. To my amazement, form after form showed our very own Claudia to be inept, insensitive, and ill-suited for working with people. And yet she was elevated year after year. This was amazing enough, but as if to add salt to the wound, she held onto her poor evaluations as if they were something to be proud of. Almost as if some day they would be bronzed and shown to the world to prove what a country girl can do when she goes to a community college and works her way from Janitor's Assistant to Director.

The revelation made me wonder if Claudia was the daughter of the owner, niece of a Congressman, or maybe married to someone at Headquarters. Perhaps she had come into money and bought her way into all those promotions. But none of these proved true. There was simply no

explanation how this square peg had successfully fit into so many of Sugar Loaf's round holes.

My notes through the years abound in red entries, those that signal noteworthy occurrences. And many of them have to do with Claudia Barnard. How she was given a certificate for this, a trophy for that, an accommodation for these, a recommendation for those. When I strung them all together, I found a progression of successes built upon a prior success, and each based on a previous degree of ineptitude. It's the old story in the military: when one can't cut it in one outfit, promote and transfer him.

So how did Claudia do it? Did she sleep with someone? Catch some superior in a compromising situation? How, position after position, was this disagreeable woman able to march to the ship's helm?

The mystery was so great that Istudiedmy red entries: maybe I could find some pattern. One day when I was Program Manager working with the more literate Residents, I assigned a research project requiring a few trips to the public library. As I watched the people research the common topic, I realized that when more than one person focused on the same task, a non-verbal understanding took place. Some how the group mind began to function on the same brain wave so the job became easier. I applied the principle to Claudia. That was when I glimpsed a possible way she not only survived but miraculously succeeded in her many promotions. Could it have been because of the people who workedwithher?

That made me search intently. I scoured the cardboard box, the stacks of notebooks, Journals, official files, and Claudia's evaluations. Religiously I drew charts of every position Claudia had held complete with everyone who had worked with her. I wrote a brief descriptions of each employee's basic traits. After all that, I finally found the answer, the

cryptic riddle of the Claudia Phenomenon and why I labeled her Peter Principle Incarnate, the one who rose to the highest level of ineptness. In each job Claudia had gathered around her a competent Staff.Theywere the ones who pulled off the jobs that required skill and expertise. And if any trouble brewed, she simply fired one of them which temporarily took the blame off her.

Isn't it strange how sometimes the obvious is the hardest thing to see? I'm glad I kept detailed Journals throughout the years or I may never have solved the riddle. And yet it still puzzles me why the Peter Principle works at all. It must be that God has blessed the Claudia Barnard's of the world. How else could an inept end as a Director? I suppose, too, The Principle gives us a sense of progress.