For nearly a decade, I worked as in-house counsel in Ghana’s power sector. In that time, I had the privilege of working with some of the finest engineers and technical professionals in the country.
Their expertise kept our lights on, our transmission network stable, and our grid reliable in the face of enormous challenges. Yet I also witnessed a recurring pattern that undermined both individual careers and institutional effectiveness.
Brilliant engineers were often promoted into management and leadership roles for which they were ill-suited, and the results were sometimes disastrous.
This was not unique to any one institution but could be observed across the utilities and in many state institutions in Ghana. The promotion model was simple. Technical excellence was rewarded with upward movement into supervisory, managerial, and eventually directorial positions. In practice, the outcome often matched what management theorists long ago identified as the Peter Principle.
The Peter Principle Explained
The Peter Principle, articulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong, is deceptively simple:
“In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”
The principle suggests that organizations tend to promote individuals based on success in their current roles rather than on the skills actually required for the new roles. For example, a technically brilliant engineer may be promoted to team leader. If they succeed, they may become a manager, and later a director. But at each stage the skills required shift dramatically. What was once a matter of solving engineering problems becomes a matter of managing budgets, handling conflict, motivating teams, and shaping organizational vision.
Eventually the individual reaches a position where their skillset no longer aligns with the role’s demands. At that point both the individual and the organization suffer. Morale dips, productivity wanes, and the employee stagnates in a role they neither enjoy nor excel at.
How This Plays Out in Ghana’s State Institutions
In the power sector this dynamic has long been visible. Technical experts who are indispensable in project execution are moved into administrative roles that require leadership, diplomacy, and strategic thinking. Some adapt but many do not. Highly competent engineers who could troubleshoot the most complex grid problems often struggle with leading teams, negotiating with stakeholders, or managing organizational politics.
The result is often frustration on all sides. The professional feels trapped in a role that does not play to their strengths. The team loses an excellent engineer and gains an indifferent manager. The organization, meanwhile, suffers inefficiency, poor decision-making, and sometimes even reputational damage.
This problem has been compounded because compensation and benefits in state institutions have historically been heavily skewed in favor of managerial and directorial positions. Ambitious professionals have had little choice but to pursue those roles even if their real strength lay in technical mastery.
The New Reward Management System and Its Flaws
Recognizing this, some utilities in Ghana, and others have begun adopting a new reward management system meant to address this imbalance. The system was designed to ensure that technical staff could earn competitive compensation without necessarily moving into managerial or directorial roles. On paper, it promised to break the cycle where everyone aimed solely at leadership positions.
In practice, however, the new system has a major flaw. Progression within the technical track still depends on the availability of vacancies. If an assistant engineer joins a department where there is no engineer or principal engineer role available in the structure, they remain stuck at the entry-level designation. Over time, they may indeed earn as much as a manager through salary adjustments, but their title remains “assistant engineer.” This creates a glass ceiling of recognition and status, even if the financial aspect is partially addressed.
In effect, while the new system attempts to value technical excellence, it inadvertently reproduces the same frustrations. Professionals can be locked into titles that understate their expertise, leaving them demotivated and limiting their sense of career growth.
A Better Model: Distinct Tiers for Growth
The lesson remains clear. Ghana’s institutions need to go further in rethinking career progression. Instead of treating leadership as the inevitable endpoint of technical excellence, organizations should create dual career pathways that do not rely on vacancies to validate growth:
1. Technical Excellence Track – Professionals should be able to grow, earn recognition, and receive compensation as senior specialists, fellows, or technical directors, without being forced into management roles or constrained by vacancy-based structures.
2. Leadership Track – Employees with an aptitude for managing people and resources can be trained, mentored, and prepared for managerial and executive responsibilities.
This model ensures that organizations get the best of both worlds. Skilled managers lead effectively, while technical experts remain in roles where their contributions are most valuable.
Why This Matters for Ghana
In a sector as critical as power, where efficiency, reliability, and innovation are paramount, the costs of misaligned promotions are high. Our utilities and state institutions must keep pace with rapid technological change, growing demand, and pressing challenges such as renewable integration and digital transformation. These tasks require both strong leadership and deep technical expertise but not always in the same person.
By adopting a true dual-path promotion model, Ghanaian organizations could become more agile, more attractive to talent, and ultimately more effective in delivering their mandates. This is not merely a matter of organizational design. It is about national competitiveness, institutional credibility, and the wellbeing of millions of citizens.
Conclusion
The Peter Principle is not destiny. It is a warning. We do not have to accept a system where our brightest minds are set up to fail simply because we equate career progression with managerial promotion. By recognizing the difference between technical excellence and leadership ability and by creating distinct pathways that reward both without vacancy bottlenecks we can build stronger institutions and unlock the full potential of our people.
Until then, good professionals will continue to chase managerial roles, not because they are suited for them, but because the system leaves them no better option.
*******
Lom Nuku Ahlijah is a Ghanaian lawyer, academic, and entrepreneur whose work bridges law, policy, and business. He is the author of Ghana Energy Law and Policy: Electricity and leads initiatives such as the Ghana Energy Hub. His writings explore how legal frameworks can drive development in Ghana and beyond.
About the Author
