4 ms·

I'm curious how executives like Meg Whitman end up constantly getting more leadership opportunities despite screwing things up. What am I missing?

Spinfusor 6y ago
eBay did well when she was CEO.
jeffbee 6y ago
Merit is not a component of American meritocracy. If you're born into an ancient line of people with ridiculous ordinal suffixes after their names, study at Princeton and Harvard, and marry some other guy who also has a ridiculous name, you are guaranteed a lifelong supply of lucrative opportunities no matter how many times you have to write down an eight billion dollar loss after a botched acquisition.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  While there are outliers, it was never a meritocracy, it's just an aristocracy and all these people at the top are cronies, sitting on the board of each others companies, paying themselves and others outrageous compensations, that why they can fail upwards and get promoted even more with each screw up, because they are here to maintain the power of a clique. I don't know anything about the Whitman family but I guess it's a bit, old, rich one with a lot of political ties everywhere. Calling all that a meritocracy makes no sense. It never was. Now the problem today is some people thinking that replacing an aristocracy with a nomenklatura is going to make things better for people at the bottom...
  - yvdriess 6y ago
    The very origin of the word meritocracy is to satire the very concept it has taken now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology
golemiprague 6y ago
There is a theory called the Gervais Principle trying to explain the dynamics on advancement in the corporate based on the The Office TV show. Don't know if it is true or not but you can read about it here: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

Spinfusor 6y ago

eBay did well when she was CEO.

jeffbee 6y ago

Merit is not a component of American meritocracy. If you're born into an ancient line of people with ridiculous ordinal suffixes after their names, study at Princeton and Harvard, and marry some other guy who also has a ridiculous name, you are guaranteed a lifelong supply of lucrative opportunities no matter how many times you have to write down an eight billion dollar loss after a botched acquisition.

throw_m239339 6y ago
While there are outliers, it was never a meritocracy, it's just an aristocracy and all these people at the top are cronies, sitting on the board of each others companies, paying themselves and others outrageous compensations, that why they can fail upwards and get promoted even more with each screw up, because they are here to maintain the power of a clique. I don't know anything about the Whitman family but I guess it's a bit, old, rich one with a lot of political ties everywhere. Calling all that a meritocracy makes no sense. It never was. Now the problem today is some people thinking that replacing an aristocracy with a nomenklatura is going to make things better for people at the bottom...
- yvdriess 6y ago
  The very origin of the word meritocracy is to satire the very concept it has taken now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology

golemiprague 6y ago

There is a theory called the Gervais Principle trying to explain the dynamics on advancement in the corporate based on the The Office TV show. Don't know if it is true or not but you can read about it here: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...