Divide et Impera in the Workplace: Why We Promote Incompetence (and HR Doesn’t Help)

The Workplace as an Arena, Not a Team

Have you ever wondered why promotions in companies often seem to defy all logic? Why do we end up working under managers who not only fail to lead a team but seem more focused on protecting their position rather than making things work?

The answer is simple: corporate systems reward political survival, not competence.

And if you think this is solely the fault of managers, wait until you see the role HR plays in this story. In theory, HR is supposed to find and nurture the best talent. In reality, however, they often end up selecting people who “fit in” with the existing system, helping to perpetuate its flaws.

Welcome to the corporate power game, where Divide et Impera is still the dominant strategy, the Peter Principle is law, and HR is more of an obstacle than a solution.

The Peter Principle: Why We Promote Incompetence

In 1969, Laurence J. Peter formulated a principle that is as simple as it is ruthless:

“In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence.”

In other words, if you’re good at a role, you get promoted. If you perform well in the next role, you get promoted again. But eventually, you reach a level where you’re no longer competent, and that’s where you stay.

This isn’t just an academic theory. It’s something we see every day in offices, restaurants, hotels, and any workplace with a hierarchical structure. Managers who have no idea how to lead a team, department heads incapable of making sound decisions, supervisors more focused on protecting their own power than supporting their employees.

Why does this happen?

Because promotions are not based on managerial skills but on how well a person performed in their previous role.

• A great waiter becomes a head waiter.
• A great developer becomes a project manager.
• But being excellent in a technical role does not mean knowing how to manage people.

And that’s how dysfunctional leadership is born.

Divide et Impera: The Game of Corporate Survival

Divide et Impera is a strategy as old as power itself. In politics, it’s used to maintain control over fragmented populations. In the workplace, it works the same way:

1. Pit employees against each other with internal competition, individual KPIs, and performance-based bonuses that encourage rivalry rather than collaboration.
2. Fragment teams and restrict information so that no one has the full picture of the company’s situation.
3. Create job insecurity and high turnover to prevent employees from forming stable alliances.

The result? An environment where everyone is focused on surviving rather than growing collectively.

And who thrives in this scenario?
Not the most competent, but the most skilled at navigating power dynamics.

Which brings us back to the Peter Principle: corporate leadership is based on the ability to play internal politics, not the ability to lead people.

HR: The Gatekeepers (Without the Right Keys)

Now, here’s the interesting part: HR, the so-called talent selectors, the experts in personnel management.
Or at least, that’s what they should be.

Because in reality, HR is not there to find the best candidates. They are there to find those who best fit into the existing corporate structure.

And here lies the problem:

• HR prefers candidates with a “safe” profile, avoiding those with strong or disruptive personalities.
• They prioritize compatibility with the company’s current culture over real potential.
• They rely on standardized interviews, generic questions, and aptitude tests, reducing recruitment to an algorithm (when it works at all).

The result? Mediocre hires who won’t disrupt the internal balance, while the real talents go elsewhere.

And then companies wonder why they fail to innovate.

Where Does This Lead?

We now have:

• The Peter Principle, which pushes people to the top until they reach their level of incompetence.
• Divide et Impera, which turns the workplace into an arena where alliances fail, and those who play power games win.
• HR, which instead of fixing the problem, reinforces it by selecting employees who won’t challenge the system.

The outcome? A company that looks functional but is actually stuck.

• The best employees leave.
• The worst managers protect their positions instead of fostering team growth.
• And the system continues in an endless cycle of mediocrity.

Can We Change This System?

Now the real question: can this system be changed?

The answer is yes, but it won’t be management that fixes it, nor HR.

To break this cycle, companies need to:

• Evaluate managerial skills before promoting someone.
• Foster collaboration instead of competition.
• Revolutionize recruitment processes, abandoning obsolete HR practices.

But don’t hold your breath. As long as the system continues to reward those who manage power rather than people, we will keep seeing:

• Incompetent managers,
• HR detached from reality,
• And companies complaining about low productivity without realizing that the real problem is at the top, not the bottom.

And maybe it’s time to stop justifying the system’s inefficiency. Because it’s not an accident—it’s designed to be this way.