I've started using "ferretocracy" to describe what actually exists in most places where "meritocracy" gets thrown around a lot. The idea of letting people succe

I've started using "ferretocracy" to describe what actually exists in most places where "meritocracy" gets thrown around a lot. The idea of letting people succeed or fail according to merit instead of position is laudable, but (as crankylinuxuser already pointed out) the measurement of merit is problematic. A true meritocracy can only exist when the metrics for merit are both the right metrics and accurately measured, with all involved able and willing to keep it so. That's a bit like communism's reliance on altruism or laissez-faire capitalism's reliance on honesty. Things never work out that way. In reality, weasels always find ways to game the system. They exploit every flaw in how merit is defined or measured, who gets to define it, who is aided and who is isolated in their respective quests for merit, etc. Ultimately, the pursuit of "merit" veers off target. Focus on pure technical merit has to be balanced with consideration of other kinds, and with goals (e.g. diversity) that are not necessarily merit-maximizing.