4 ms·

I'm not finding a case for the moral peril of meritocracy in this essay. Whatever the differences between the second versus the first mountain, isn't the abilit

• webmaven 8y ago
  Broadly speaking, I think "merit" is being used by Brooks here as a vague stand-in for extrinsic motivation. In his terms, being motivated by getting to the top of the mountain isn't as good as being motivated by the climb, and for that to happen, the climb itself has to be meaningful in some sense besides just as a means of getting to the top. IOW, he's comparing someone trying to do a good job in order to get a promotion (which will make them feel good) with someone doing a good job because doing a good job makes them feel good. There are various related metaphors (eg. journey>destination, etc.), he could have used and most of them resonate to some extent, but I am not sure I buy the further connections he's drawing to the surrender of ego/self, I think there is some correlation but not necessarily causation. IOW, there is some correlation between people who are intrinsically motivated and people who are motivated by working for a larger cause, but selfless/egoless causes can be extrinsically motivating too (think of volunteering for a political campaign, for example). Finally, for this site's audience, the janitor story might make more sense if cast in terms Ulwick's jobs-to-be-done framework.