Meritocratic; what does it mean exactly?

[Obvious Leo]

#2- "Meritocracy" from a practical standpoint is plutocracy with a much cooler sounding name, because of the nature of what we have decided to call merit namely standardized test scores, prestigious degrees and internships, letters of recomendation etc.

In my lexicon "sycophancy" would also pass as a synonym.

[LuckyR]

#2- "Meritocracy" from a practical standpoint is plutocracy with a much cooler sounding name, because of the nature of what we have decided to call merit namely standardized test scores, prestigious degrees and internships, letters of recomendation etc.

In my lexicon "sycophancy" would also pass as a synonym.

Please explain in detail the similarity.

[Sy Borg]

Well, there are two problems and your post addresses one of them.

#1- Conscious and subconscious favoritism (cronyism and the like). I agree with you that of all the possible outcomes, conscious favoritism is the least likely, but clearly still present. Unconscious favoritism is much more common but the impact for the applicant is the same.

#2- "Meritocracy" from a practical standpoint is plutocracy with a much cooler sounding name, because of the nature of what we have decided to call merit namely standardized test scores, prestigious degrees and internships, letters of recomendation etc. This, of course is a systemic problem inherant with the subject and is immune to the individual efforts and quality of decision makers.

#1 is frequently addressed - unconscious cronyism, the halo effects etc - the various biases that can stand between managers and getting the best person for the job. Interview biases have been studied in detail, although the training info given to managers and supervisors can be pretty basic.

There is always seniority, if you prefer. Some codger who's sat on his bum for 20 years and expects a reward. Or just openly employ mates and forget about merit - it's been done and that's why merit selection was attempted. It can only be attempted - there are no guarantees, even with the best will in the world.

Employment is a lottery at the best of times. The greatest fear is being duped by a smooth talking applicant who turns out to be pretty weak at everything except interviews.

[Obvious Leo]

Please explain in detail the similarity.

I guess I was just venting my spleen at my experiences in a previous life. As an intermediate cog in a vast corporate wheel I saw precious little evidence of a meritocracy and no rewards to be gained for thinking outside a precisely defined box. Needless to say this system was not to my taste and I exited it as early as I sensibly could. For most of my life I've been self-employed, which is not without its pitfalls. However I never have to look far to find the bloke to congratulate when things go well, nor do I have to look far to find the bloke to blame when things go pear-shaped.

Regards Leo

[LuckyR]

#1 is frequently addressed - unconscious cronyism, the halo effects etc - the various biases that can stand between managers and getting the best person for the job. Interview biases have been studied in detail, although the training info given to managers and supervisors can be pretty basic.

There is always seniority, if you prefer. Some codger who's sat on his bum for 20 years and expects a reward. Or just openly employ mates and forget about merit - it's been done and that's why merit selection was attempted. It can only be attempted - there are no guarantees, even with the best will in the world.

Employment is a lottery at the best of times. The greatest fear is being duped by a smooth talking applicant who turns out to be pretty weak at everything except interviews.

Okay, okay, I can see we are a little bit at apples and oranges. I am addressing meritocracy in the context of an applicant unknown to the reviewer who is going off of supposed objective evidence of merit (of the types I described: letters of recommendation, GPA, test scores etc), you are referencing a promotion of individuals known to the supervisor where on the job performance is known.

In your context, I agree with you that my #2 problem with meritocracy would be absent. Though in my context it would be paramount.

So, we're both right.

-- Updated February 22nd, 2015, 10:02 pm to add the following --

Please explain in detail the similarity.

I guess I was just venting my spleen at my experiences in a previous life. As an intermediate cog in a vast corporate wheel I saw precious little evidence of a meritocracy and no rewards to be gained for thinking outside a precisely defined box. Needless to say this system was not to my taste and I exited it as early as I sensibly could. For most of my life I've been self-employed, which is not without its pitfalls. However I never have to look far to find the bloke to congratulate when things go well, nor do I have to look far to find the bloke to blame when things go pear-shaped.

Regards Leo

My condolences for having to deal with the types of situations that you did. Your current situation has what most folks seek in their work, namely, autonomy and some power. That is a different subject from meritocracy but still important. Your prior situation was, unfortunately a classic example of a #1 type problem in my lexicon.

[Sy Borg]

Okay, okay, I can see we are a little bit at apples and oranges. I am addressing meritocracy in the context of an applicant unknown to the reviewer who is going off of supposed objective evidence of merit (of the types I described: letters of recommendation, GPA, test scores etc), you are referencing a promotion of individuals known to the supervisor where on the job performance is known.

No, I'm talking about both. A manager or supervisor needs to fill a vacant function in the work team, advertises and then tries to work out how will be best. The applicants may be known or not known - and how useful or otherwise "being known" is depends on the existing relationship or prior impressions.

As a former intermediate cog I agree with Leo that often the term "merit" has a strong undercurrent of conformism, but less so than seniority and overt cronyism.

[LuckyR]

As a former intermediate cog I agree with Leo that often the term "merit" has a strong undercurrent of conformism, but less so than seniority and overt cronyism.

Well, my posts agree with the above statement.

[MHopcroft1963]

The central premise of Meritocracy appears to be "I am a better person than you are. Therefore, I have the right to make you follow my wishes, and you do not have the right to make me listen to yours."

Sound familiar? It sounds exactly the same as most hierarchical systems of social organization. The only difference is that you don't get to be the one giving the orders just because your father was before you (although it helps your cause if he was), but rather because something you had done had somehow given you the right to be the one giving the orders.

[LuckyR]

The central premise of Meritocracy appears to be "I am a better person than you are. Therefore, I have the right to make you follow my wishes, and you do not have the right to make me listen to yours."

Sound familiar? It sounds exactly the same as most hierarchical systems of social organization. The only difference is that you don't get to be the one giving the orders just because your father was before you (although it helps your cause if he was), but rather because something you had done had somehow given you the right to be the one giving the orders.

The special case of meritocracy, as opposed to other systems, IMO is the veneer of impartiality and lack of favoritism that it implies, yet does NOT deliver on, thus it tries to appear superior to other forms of decision making, yet is likely equally vulnerable to manipulation.

[MHopcroft1963]

The central premise of Meritocracy appears to be "I am a better person than you are. Therefore, I have the right to make you follow my wishes, and you do not have the right to make me listen to yours."

Sound familiar? It sounds exactly the same as most hierarchical systems of social organization. The only difference is that you don't get to be the one giving the orders just because your father was before you (although it helps your cause if he was), but rather because something you had done had somehow given you the right to be the one giving the orders.

The special case of meritocracy, as opposed to other systems, IMO is the veneer of impartiality and lack of favoritism that it implies, yet does NOT deliver on, thus it tries to appear superior to other forms of decision making, yet is likely equally vulnerable to manipulation.

Impartiality is like objectivity. One of the first things I was told in my first and only Journalism class was that truly objective journalism did not, and could not, exist. Likewise, the ideal criminal trial is impartial, yet many factors besides the actual evidence play a role on whether someone is released or sent to the injection table.

If you have a brilliant legal mind, but have a lot of ties to anarchists or radical environmentalists, you're still not going to be admitted to Harvard Law School. If you are an LGBT person or a Muslim in Indiana, you will not become Governor even if you can do the job ten times better than the guy who is already there. Nobody can be selected for anything solely on "merit", because nobody can define what "merit" means.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)



The special case of meritocracy, as opposed to other systems, IMO is the veneer of impartiality and lack of favoritism that it implies, yet does NOT deliver on, thus it tries to appear superior to other forms of decision making, yet is likely equally vulnerable to manipulation.

Impartiality is like objectivity. One of the first things I was told in my first and only Journalism class was that truly objective journalism did not, and could not, exist. Likewise, the ideal criminal trial is impartial, yet many factors besides the actual evidence play a role on whether someone is released or sent to the injection table.

If you have a brilliant legal mind, but have a lot of ties to anarchists or radical environmentalists, you're still not going to be admitted to Harvard Law School. If you are an LGBT person or a Muslim in Indiana, you will not become Governor even if you can do the job ten times better than the guy who is already there. Nobody can be selected for anything solely on "merit", because nobody can define what "merit" means.

There is agreement (at least from me) that the definition of merit varies dramatically when moving from the theoretical to the practical. Essentially this difference is the core of my argument. In theory, the definition of merit is ability in a measurable accomplishment that predicts excellence in whatever is being hired for. SATs for college prowess, for example. Yet SAT scores don't, in fact have much correlation to college success and thus the breakdown when moving from the theoretic to the practical.

[MHopcroft1963]

There is agreement (at least from me) that the definition of merit varies dramatically when moving from the theoretical to the practical. Essentially this difference is the core of my argument. In theory, the definition of merit is ability in a measurable accomplishment that predicts excellence in whatever is being hired for. SATs for college prowess, for example. Yet SAT scores don't, in fact have much correlation to college success and thus the breakdown when moving from the theoretic to the practical.

One of the ironies of the SAT is that, thanks to multiple choice, I got a 590 in Math despite my utter lack of math training. I just selected which answers made the most sense and, somehow, they did. I don't know if that was exceptional luck, bad test design, genuine mental/logical prowess, or all of the above.

[LuckyR]

Yet another anecdote that supports my position.

[Obvious Leo]

I have a rather similar anecdote which refers to IQ tests which are possibly the most absurd tests ever devised. Many years ago my eldest son was applying for a traineeship and he knew beforehand that one of the tests he would need to endure was an IQ test. He's an intelligent bloke who'd been very successful at school but he'd never done such a test before and had no idea what was involved. I advised him to get online, chase up as many of such tests as he could find and just practice doing them. I was also able to give him a few tips and strategies as to method. Sure enough, he just got better and better the more of them he did and by the time it came to the actual test he got a score which marked him as a genius. As it happened he didn't go through with the traineeship but it taught him 2 valuable life lessons. A. IQ tests are a load of crap and B. Practice makes perfect.

Regards Leo

[Jklint]

Speaking of IQ testing this is one of the best scenes of one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1cvQfyIayM - at ~ the 9:20 stop.