3 ms·

I hate to play the definition game, but "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability" is given for meritocracy. If your

by taeric 4y ago

I hate to play the definition game, but "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability" is given for meritocracy. If your ability is that you are at that level, you should be held to that level. If this is a meritocracy. If promotion is also bound by availability of "slots" at a given level, than by definition you will exclude some folks that are otherwise at that level. I fully sympathize that inflation of level is a thing. I also fully sympathize that resources to use people at a given level are finite. Such that you will have to do this for practical reasons. Still, the message for that is almost certainly tailored to the individual that you turned down and best left for the specifics. Blasting out this message as generically as it was done just feels wrong.

huhneverthot 4y ago
[dead]
bentlegen 4y ago
Aside (and this is not meant as a rebuttal), it’s interesting to me that nobody denies that managerial roles only have so many “slots” (e.g. can’t have 5 CTOs or 7 VPEs, or Directors managing teams of 2 people), and yet, nobody decries the lack of opportunities for those in the management track.
- taeric 4y ago
  Me thinks you just don't listen to enough people complain? :D I've certainly heard those complaints. More than a few times. Now, I'm fully onboard with what I think I read as part of your main point here. Management is a skill and it can be funny how few folks in the non-management world will acknowledge that. You can see similar with coaches. And it seems to be human nature that we love building a hierarchy up to a single point. Even in very distributed organizations.
jltsiren 4y ago
Meritocracy has never been about that. It's always about filling the necessary roles with the best qualified people available. The purpose of meritocracy is not about rewarding people who meet arbitrary thresholds with fake titles and higher compensation. It's about giving the organization better chances to reach its goals. If you have the ability to perform at a higher level but there are enough people with even more ability, you won't get promoted in a meritocracy.
- taeric 4y ago
  I mean, I know that it can be justified in many ways. But, know that if you have positions that are filled and only promote new ones when "merit is matched by availability," than you are bound to have some people that are more qualified than those in the currently held slots. Which will again hamstring the spirit behind the idea that this was the "best qualified people available." It is at best that with the added "at that time." And you are trying to allude to inflation of role and expectations, I suspect? And that is a thing. But since you don't demote people that fall behind on the inflation, you are back to my first paragraph. That or you are pushing out the folks to make room, but you will regret pushing out some folks from the highest levels.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    Meritocracy is fundamentally about the needs of the organization. It's about making the organization more effective. It's common that there are people who would be more qualified to a position than the person currently holding the position, as long as we view merits in isolation. But the real ability the organization cares about is the ability to advance the goals of the organization when working within the organization. If replacing a person with a "more qualified" one demoralizes other employees enough that the organization's ability to reach its goals is compromised, the replacement is actually less qualified than the original person.

by taeric 4y ago

huhneverthot 4y ago

[dead]

bentlegen 4y ago

Aside (and this is not meant as a rebuttal), it’s interesting to me that nobody denies that managerial roles only have so many “slots” (e.g. can’t have 5 CTOs or 7 VPEs, or Directors managing teams of 2 people), and yet, nobody decries the lack of opportunities for those in the management track.

taeric 4y ago
Me thinks you just don't listen to enough people complain? :D I've certainly heard those complaints. More than a few times. Now, I'm fully onboard with what I think I read as part of your main point here. Management is a skill and it can be funny how few folks in the non-management world will acknowledge that. You can see similar with coaches. And it seems to be human nature that we love building a hierarchy up to a single point. Even in very distributed organizations.

jltsiren 4y ago

Meritocracy has never been about that. It's always about filling the necessary roles with the best qualified people available. The purpose of meritocracy is not about rewarding people who meet arbitrary thresholds with fake titles and higher compensation. It's about giving the organization better chances to reach its goals. If you have the ability to perform at a higher level but there are enough people with even more ability, you won't get promoted in a meritocracy.

taeric 4y ago
I mean, I know that it can be justified in many ways. But, know that if you have positions that are filled and only promote new ones when "merit is matched by availability," than you are bound to have some people that are more qualified than those in the currently held slots. Which will again hamstring the spirit behind the idea that this was the "best qualified people available." It is at best that with the added "at that time." And you are trying to allude to inflation of role and expectations, I suspect? And that is a thing. But since you don't demote people that fall behind on the inflation, you are back to my first paragraph. That or you are pushing out the folks to make room, but you will regret pushing out some folks from the highest levels.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  Meritocracy is fundamentally about the needs of the organization. It's about making the organization more effective. It's common that there are people who would be more qualified to a position than the person currently holding the position, as long as we view merits in isolation. But the real ability the organization cares about is the ability to advance the goals of the organization when working within the organization. If replacing a person with a "more qualified" one demoralizes other employees enough that the organization's ability to reach its goals is compromised, the replacement is actually less qualified than the original person.