9 ms·

As an industry, we used to be in favor of approaching meritocracy as a goal. We'd take pride in using github in lieu of a resume, difficult technical tests, and

As an industry, we used to be in favor of approaching meritocracy as a goal. We'd take pride in using github in lieu of a resume, difficult technical tests, and general attempts at objectivity. Strangely, the pushback against meritocracy as a goal and objective measurement as a method doesn't come from the alleged "good old boy" network. http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-the-oss-community http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-an...

pyrocat 12y ago
The problem with "meritocracy" is that the judging mechanism is inherently vulnerable to bias.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  So therefore we shouldn't try? What should our goal be instead?
  - pyrocat 12y ago
    http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-myth-of-silicon-valley-meritocracy-destroyed-in-one-1307760029 http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-myth-of-silicon-valley-merit... As for what our goal should be instead: equal pay for equal work.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      That's completely non-responsive to the question of hiring. Salary negotiations usually come after acceptability as a candidate has been established. (Indeed, it's considered a faux pas to bring it up before then) The goal of any hiring process would seem to be to acquire the best possible candidate for the position in question, where "best" is usually determined by factors such as job performance and culture fit. Note that if you're trying to come up with what the definition of "best" is as a rule that can be applied generally, you lose already, since that will vary based on what the job is, where the job is located, who you're working with, and many many other factors.
techpeace 12y ago
"The word meritocracy comes from a political satire. It was never meant to be something we should aspire to. It was the opposite, actually, a warning about how we rationalize what we believe we’ve 'earned'. If that sentence doesn’t seem to you applicable to the tech industry and our cyclical discussions about sexism, racism, and even occasionally classism, go get yourself another cup of coffee." from http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/you-keep-using-that-word/ http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/you-keep-using-that-word/
swampangel 12y ago
Consider 2 candidates with github profiles: - A has a created small number of functional and elegant projects - B has created a large number of functional but sloppy projects Which is objectively better? The candidate who is more productive, or the candidate whose products have higher quality? One may be a better fit for your organization, based on your group's needs and existing makeup, but that doesn't mean they are objectively "better" than the other candidate. Do you believe one of these candidates has more "merit" than the other? Some people who believe a person has objective merit (as opposed to suitability for a particular organization or role) are actually expressing an aesthetic preference (selecting for tidy code, or work ethic, etc) while claiming/believing that their preference is "objective" truth. People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Wait, I can go one better. Candidate A) has a large number of elegant projects. Candidate B) is a ninja with a large number of high profile assassinations under his belt. Obviously the question of "objectively better" comes with an implicit "for the role in question". People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams. That sounds pretty but it's totally vacuous - it doesn't give me any information on how the decision process would be altered.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  >People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance This sentence is an oxymoron. An objective hiring process is one that looks at facts, more specifically those related to job performance and past performance with related tasks. Those are, IMO, quite literally the only things that should factor into the process since at the end of the day they're the only things that matter. Coincidentally, this is described as a meritocracy. A process where you're judged solely on what you do, not what you are.

pyrocat 12y ago

The problem with "meritocracy" is that the judging mechanism is inherently vulnerable to bias.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
So therefore we shouldn't try? What should our goal be instead?
- pyrocat 12y ago
  http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-myth-of-silicon-valley-meritocracy-destroyed-in-one-1307760029 http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-myth-of-silicon-valley-merit... As for what our goal should be instead: equal pay for equal work.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    That's completely non-responsive to the question of hiring. Salary negotiations usually come after acceptability as a candidate has been established. (Indeed, it's considered a faux pas to bring it up before then) The goal of any hiring process would seem to be to acquire the best possible candidate for the position in question, where "best" is usually determined by factors such as job performance and culture fit. Note that if you're trying to come up with what the definition of "best" is as a rule that can be applied generally, you lose already, since that will vary based on what the job is, where the job is located, who you're working with, and many many other factors.

techpeace 12y ago

"The word meritocracy comes from a political satire. It was never meant to be something we should aspire to. It was the opposite, actually, a warning about how we rationalize what we believe we’ve 'earned'. If that sentence doesn’t seem to you applicable to the tech industry and our cyclical discussions about sexism, racism, and even occasionally classism, go get yourself another cup of coffee." from http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/you-keep-using-that-word/ http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/you-keep-using-that-word/

swampangel 12y ago

Consider 2 candidates with github profiles: - A has a created small number of functional and elegant projects - B has created a large number of functional but sloppy projects Which is objectively better? The candidate who is more productive, or the candidate whose products have higher quality? One may be a better fit for your organization, based on your group's needs and existing makeup, but that doesn't mean they are objectively "better" than the other candidate. Do you believe one of these candidates has more "merit" than the other? Some people who believe a person has objective merit (as opposed to suitability for a particular organization or role) are actually expressing an aesthetic preference (selecting for tidy code, or work ethic, etc) while claiming/believing that their preference is "objective" truth. People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Wait, I can go one better. Candidate A) has a large number of elegant projects. Candidate B) is a ninja with a large number of high profile assassinations under his belt. Obviously the question of "objectively better" comes with an implicit "for the role in question". People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams. That sounds pretty but it's totally vacuous - it doesn't give me any information on how the decision process would be altered.
Karunamon 12y ago
>People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance This sentence is an oxymoron. An objective hiring process is one that looks at facts, more specifically those related to job performance and past performance with related tasks. Those are, IMO, quite literally the only things that should factor into the process since at the end of the day they're the only things that matter. Coincidentally, this is described as a meritocracy. A process where you're judged solely on what you do, not what you are.