2 ms·

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

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.

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.