The Peter Principle was a business concept that ws popular a few decades ago that went something like this:
People have upper levels of competence that they cannot surmount. Thus, a super-competent person in an entry job will quickly work their way up the ladder to the point where they are then promoted to a position beyond their level of competence - or to their level of imcompetence - where they tend to stay put. We'd say "Peter principle" when we saw somebody showing conspicuous signs that they were clearly in beyond their depth - in government, business, or relative to the current discussion, coaching.
It is the nature if institutions, according to author, to promote everybody to their level of incompetence and that's why leadership becomes a collective failure and things go wrong.
Even under the glaring lights of on-field performance and harsh bottom-line measurement of success in wins and losses, the Peter Principle is applicable in the NFL - where good position coaches fizzle as coordinators, or mediocre head coaches don't last long. In the corporate world, good middle managers who fizzle as COO's or CEO's last longer.
In politics it's worse. As if imbued with lifetime tenure, politicians make a comfortable, corrupt, and sleazy career out of government beyond their usefulness and well over the level of their ability to actually serve the people they bamboozle into electing them - there are no bright lights on the field, and no accountability in the form of wins or losses.
What to do abut it in Staley's case? Should he come back at a level where he was competent or be banished in shame to the bottom of the ladder for his 42-0 halftime implosion?
Maybe he should just chill for a while, get over the shock, go to a place where he can waste away with or without a pitcher of Margaritas - maybe like Cabo San Lucas - for the rest of the winter. Then McVay could meet him there and talk things out.
