This article ignores so many aspects of execution. If you want something done, you need to have somebody's ass on the line. Not 50 people each responsible for "their part" but one person who knows THEY have failed if the whole thing fails.... and you need to give that person the authority needed to make it not fail.

If you have promoted someone into that role who, because of peter principle is failing, then YOU as a leader have failed. You should correct this quickly, or a manager above you should correct your failing.

This does not always happen of course, but this cascading ownership is what makes hierarchies so powerful. Ignoring that power, and replacing hierarchies w/o providing for the many things they provide will fail.

Probably the biggest concern with your idea is that the scope of damage goes up dramatically as you go up the tree, so promoting anyone who is anything less than the best you can for the role is really a disaster. who cares if made room for a 'good person' below if the output of the whole team is now damaged by this elevation?

I am curious, have you ever been a manager?