6 ms·

Another nail in the coffin of meritocracy

rdndlkciw3829 8y ago
Are you sure about that? Perhaps it's a tool to help overcome implicit bias against women and people of color -- bias that makes the current system less meritocratic, insofar as hiring managers may mistakenly (and perhaps even unintentionally) think such candidates are less qualified than they actually are.
paulcole 8y ago
The real trick was making us think it was a meritocracy until now.
Barrin92 8y ago
One of the most important principles at the executive level is seniority, not meritocracy. McKinsey research (among others) has repeatedly shown that higher diversity correlates with higher performance. This is not surprising. If roles up the corporate ladder are filled based on status and networks, talented people from disadvantaged or novel backgrounds lose out. In this case increasing diversity disrupts old networks and has a corrective function.
- tomp 8y ago
  So you're saying that meritocracy is good but neglected, and diversity often has more meritocracy as a consequence... Why not focus directly on meritocracy in the first place? In particular, the conversation in IT, which is probably among the most meritocratic fields (no certifications required, most learning material available for free online), is focused on employees, not executives, so I'd say it possible that focusing on diversity has no, or even negative, effect on meritocracy.
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    >Why not focus directly on meritocracy in the first place? Because it's not clear how you 'access' meritocracy directly. For example, if many talented people have not great access to the software industry because the barrier to entry is relatively high (which is still I think a reasonable assumption), then you'll need to find a way to improve the discovery of those people. And I also don't agree that the industry is very meritocratic, especially in the valley. There's lots of insider networking going on, the big companies hire overwhelmingly out of established institutions (I'd be surprised if Google has many employees without certifications) etc.. It's very good at marketing itself as meritocratic, hip and young, but it's rarely been my own experience at least.
    - tomp 8y ago
      > then you'll need to find a way to improve the discovery of those people. Exactly. Isn’t that already a big part of the “gender equality” efforts? We could do the same for meritocracy directly. > And I also don't agree that the industry is very meritocratic, I never said that. Just that’s it’s more meritocratic than most other (high-paying, professional) industries, because the barriers to entry are lower... I mean, when was the last time a college dropout self-taught doctor became a billionaire, or the last billion dollar hedge fund that was started in a garage?
kolpa 8y ago
Indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Early_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Early_definitions > the original, condemnatory use of the term in 1958 by Michael Young in his work "The Rise of the Meritocracy", who was satirizing the ostensibly merit-based Tripartite System of education practiced in the United Kingdom at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy > It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.
- anon12345690 8y ago
  #1 is just the origins that dont have bearing on the modern use and #2 is a fiction book so what are you saying? you would rather have hiring based on what you look like? no thanks

Are you sure about that? Perhaps it's a tool to help overcome implicit bias against women and people of color -- bias that makes the current system less meritocratic, insofar as hiring managers may mistakenly (and perhaps even unintentionally) think such candidates are less qualified than they actually are.

paulcole 8y ago

The real trick was making us think it was a meritocracy until now.

Barrin92 8y ago

One of the most important principles at the executive level is seniority, not meritocracy. McKinsey research (among others) has repeatedly shown that higher diversity correlates with higher performance. This is not surprising. If roles up the corporate ladder are filled based on status and networks, talented people from disadvantaged or novel backgrounds lose out. In this case increasing diversity disrupts old networks and has a corrective function.

tomp 8y ago
So you're saying that meritocracy is good but neglected, and diversity often has more meritocracy as a consequence... Why not focus directly on meritocracy in the first place? In particular, the conversation in IT, which is probably among the most meritocratic fields (no certifications required, most learning material available for free online), is focused on employees, not executives, so I'd say it possible that focusing on diversity has no, or even negative, effect on meritocracy.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  >Why not focus directly on meritocracy in the first place? Because it's not clear how you 'access' meritocracy directly. For example, if many talented people have not great access to the software industry because the barrier to entry is relatively high (which is still I think a reasonable assumption), then you'll need to find a way to improve the discovery of those people. And I also don't agree that the industry is very meritocratic, especially in the valley. There's lots of insider networking going on, the big companies hire overwhelmingly out of established institutions (I'd be surprised if Google has many employees without certifications) etc.. It's very good at marketing itself as meritocratic, hip and young, but it's rarely been my own experience at least.
  - tomp 8y ago
    > then you'll need to find a way to improve the discovery of those people. Exactly. Isn’t that already a big part of the “gender equality” efforts? We could do the same for meritocracy directly. > And I also don't agree that the industry is very meritocratic, I never said that. Just that’s it’s more meritocratic than most other (high-paying, professional) industries, because the barriers to entry are lower... I mean, when was the last time a college dropout self-taught doctor became a billionaire, or the last billion dollar hedge fund that was started in a garage?

kolpa 8y ago

Indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Early_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Early_definitions > the original, condemnatory use of the term in 1958 by Michael Young in his work "The Rise of the Meritocracy", who was satirizing the ostensibly merit-based Tripartite System of education practiced in the United Kingdom at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy > It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.

anon12345690 8y ago
#1 is just the origins that dont have bearing on the modern use and #2 is a fiction book so what are you saying? you would rather have hiring based on what you look like? no thanks