3 ms·

>As a thought expermiment, what kind of world would most people prefer to live in, one in which success and rewards can be gained by skill and hard work or one

>As a thought expermiment, what kind of world would most people prefer to live in, one in which success and rewards can be gained by skill and hard work or one in which success is distributed randomly? This article seems to imply that most people prefer the former. If that's true, then meritocracy is an ideal to work toward, no matter how perfectly or imperfectly it exists today. You mean, the better out of those 2 options. There are more than the 2 options you present though, so the fact that it is ideal doesn't follow. Some people would prefer the option, for example, where rewards aren't random but evenly distributed.

ewzimm 8y ago
I used those two examples because they were the ones presented in the article, luck vs merit. But you're right that there are many more options for distribution. Whether people would prefer opportunities for success with merit without rewards or without certain rewards like financial compensation if they would receive more recognition instead is an interesting line of inquiry. If we can establish that people overall prefer a merit-based rather than a luck-based success system, it opens up opportunities to figure out what kinds of things people value in return for their success. I wonder if people would even prefer fewer rewards for success if that success could be made more merit-based as a result. Maybe companies should reduce salaries and redirect that money toward more robust systems to recognize skill and merit in employees. It would make an interesting experiment. Would you take, for example, a 10% pay cut if in exchange you and everyone else at your job were given weekly evaluations with opportunities for advancement, with at least one person being given more responsibilities with no pay raise and the bottom earners gaining a raise as a result of increased efficiency and reduced pay for the top earners? That might not sound like a great deal, but maybe it could be crafted in a way to be appealing to people.
Recurecur 8y ago
"Some people would prefer the option, for example, where rewards aren't random but evenly distributed." Some would also prefer the option of having it rain $100 bills every morning...however wildly unrealistic that might be.

ewzimm 8y ago

I used those two examples because they were the ones presented in the article, luck vs merit. But you're right that there are many more options for distribution. Whether people would prefer opportunities for success with merit without rewards or without certain rewards like financial compensation if they would receive more recognition instead is an interesting line of inquiry. If we can establish that people overall prefer a merit-based rather than a luck-based success system, it opens up opportunities to figure out what kinds of things people value in return for their success. I wonder if people would even prefer fewer rewards for success if that success could be made more merit-based as a result. Maybe companies should reduce salaries and redirect that money toward more robust systems to recognize skill and merit in employees. It would make an interesting experiment. Would you take, for example, a 10% pay cut if in exchange you and everyone else at your job were given weekly evaluations with opportunities for advancement, with at least one person being given more responsibilities with no pay raise and the bottom earners gaining a raise as a result of increased efficiency and reduced pay for the top earners? That might not sound like a great deal, but maybe it could be crafted in a way to be appealing to people.

Recurecur 8y ago

"Some people would prefer the option, for example, where rewards aren't random but evenly distributed." Some would also prefer the option of having it rain $100 bills every morning...however wildly unrealistic that might be.