3 ms·
> because meritocracy is about promotion of ability above all other consideration It depends on the position. I do want this when it comes to surgeons as I’m c
by prepend 5y ago
> because meritocracy is about promotion of ability above all other consideration
It depends on the position. I do want this when it comes to surgeons as I’m concerned with outcome not with fairness to all the surgeons who weren’t born with a silver spoon.
Or when I’m hiring a programmer. I want the best programmer and don’t want to even out all the candidates based when some are worse but have good reasons why.
I also think it’s a good ideal once everyone is in the door and are competing for bonuses or whatnot. If I have a sales organization, I want to incentivize high sales achieved within an ethical, sustainable manner. If one person makes $10 in sales and one makes $5, the person with higher sales gets the bonus. I don’t want to give the bonus to the $5 person because it was harder for them to earn that $5. It’s unclear to know what’s truly fair, but clear to know who sells more.
This is an ideal and not perfect. But if not striving for merit and quality, what’s the goal? The goal isn’t that everyone gets the same. The goal is that the organization excels.
- imtringued 5y ago>Or when I’m hiring a programmer. I want the best programmer and don’t want to even out all the candidates based when some are worse but have good reasons why. This only works because there are more suitable candidates than you want to hire. If you only need to fill one position but there are 10 good candidates out of 1000 applicants you want to pick the cherry. If the position inverses and you have 10 positions to fill but only 5 candidates you are going to get all 5 even if the 5th is terrible but can do the job.
- prepend 5y agoYes, of course. The principle is the same in that you want merit to drive who gets positions. Whether there are a billion applicants or 2.