I was reading an article that was talking about the history of the word meritocracy. Apparently in 1958, it was originally used as a pejorative term in a satirical novel called "The Rise of the Meritocracy", written by the British Labour Party leader Michael Young.
In it, he warned against the creation of a technocratic elite in which the selection of the few would lead to the abandonment of the many, a new elite whose privileges were even more crushing and fiercely defended because they appeared to be entirely merited. Does this sound familiar? Occupy Wall street?
Although a system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement is advantageous, the problem comes when someone is chosen based on the wrong ability. For example, do you choose someone to lead a company who has the ability of churning out profits, but do not care about the hours worked by the employees? What happens if someone keeps choosing people who has the same working style, thinking it superior than other types of working styles?
In my personal opinion, meritocracy taken to the extreme will drive down innovation because you end up with people who all thinks alike. Although on paper, advancement is based on individual ability or achievement, but do not forget. Who decides what is being categorised as an achievement?
That is the million dollar question.
4 comments:
Please don't make fun of meritocracy. Lee Hsien Loong is the PM wholly on his own merit of selecting the correct genes.
Brotherhood thinks it does. They have to be right? Am I right? Or is it just them and their meritocracy?
I don't think this is making fun of meritocracy. It has its merits but being overzealous in it causes problems.
Too much of a good thing is not really a good idea.
Meritocracy goes against diversity. Diversity is a ket to survival and progress of mankind. What is diversity? Take an example, intermarriage within a close blood related group of people will give rise to defective genes. Likewise, based on a fixed meritocracy scheme to select the leaders will end up stupid leader. We all know the market is short of CEO. Why? It is because most companies select their CEO from a same pool of CEOs. If you do not have experience as a CEO, you are likely not be appointed as CEO. There is missing link that gives everyone a chance to become a CEO. This is a fact. So, most companies are run by stupid and greedy CEO on day sooner or later.
Post a Comment