4 ms·

>meritocratic purpose

• dgb23 3y ago
  English is not my first language, when I wrote this I was suspicious too. What I wanted so say is that, these structures want to promote people upwards based on expertise, effort, popularity etc. So the structure is in part based on meritocracy - in theory. My personal belief is that any hierarchical social structure is arbitrary and exploitable to a degree. We seem to be very good at creating personal and financial incentives without coupling them with the appropriate level of accountability.
  • harry8 3y ago
    Sorry, in no way criticising your english. Was meant to be a cynical comment on the number people one sees simply failing upwards. Success has many parents, failure is an orphan. Merit at playing political games, backstabbing, lying, appearing plausible and convincing, looking like the kind of person expected at that time. Talent, ability, hard work, placing the common goal first? Vastly less important. Aligning self-interest with a common goal is very much an unsolved problem. Being slightly less bad is amazing. One of the most powerful facets of the visionary founder ceo owner despite most being such epic idiots is they aren't professional managers looking to cut themselves into inter-generational levels of wealth from their employer, whether they have MBAs from Harvard like G.W.Bush or not. Structure based on on meritocracy is indeed, as you say, theory. Or justification. Or rationalisation.