From Wired Innovation Insights:
In 1958, Michael Young coined the term "meritocracy" in his book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. Young used the term satirically to depict a United Kingdom ruled by a system that favored intelligence and merit above all else, including past personal achievements.
However:
Who decides who is listened to? Who decides which ideas are the best? At my company, Red Hat, the people who are listened to are the ones who have earned the right. They have built a reputation and history of contributing good ideas, going beyond their day jobs, and achieving stellar results.
In many technology companies that employ a meritocracy — Red Hat being one example — people forge their own path to leadership, not simply by working hard and smart, but also by expressing unique ideas that have the ability to positively impact their team and their company. Entire paths have been paved at Red Hat because a single person spoke up when it mattered, had gained enough trust and respect from teammates so people truly listened, and, as a result, was able to influence direction of an initiative (or start a new one).
For example, I think back to a Red Hat associate who, as we were developing our virtualization business at Red Hat, spoke up in a meeting when he thought myself, his boss's boss, his boss and others, were making a wrong decision. While we didn't follow his guidance that day, eventually we did because we valued his opinion, and frankly, because he was right.
Of course, this doesn't happen overnight. It takes time and a consistent track record to begin to earn respect and influence in a meritocracy. As you can imagine, given the right vehicles for communication and encouragement, the natural thought leaders emerge.
The article also includes some fairly standard advice about decision making.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Friday October 17 2014, @09:51AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Geotti on Friday October 17 2014, @09:54AM
At my company, Red Hat, the people who are listened to are the ones who have earned the right. They have built a reputation and history of contributing good ideas, going beyond their day jobs, and achieving stellar results.
Lennart, is that you? Could you please leave GNU/Linux alone and make your own SystemD/Linux already, as well as kindly go fuck yourself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @03:29AM
I can smell Lentard's stench all over those comments.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday October 17 2014, @10:03AM
Perhaps that's the best they can now muster *within* Red Hat. A meritocracy must still have bright people.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @10:11AM
I saw it in the queue and had this prepared:
Subject line: One word
Comment:
systemd
RedHat has adopted an incomplete methodology which shits on multiple elements of the Unix philosophy.
RedHat has become an example of a meritocracy that is completely broken.
...then again, RedHat has given indications that it doesn't really want to be in the Linux business any more and would rather be in the "Cloud" business.
Perhaps systemd was just them pissing in the pool before they leave.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @11:02AM
A meritocracy depends on a certain perception of what is merit. Since Red Hat is a publicly traded company, "merit" means what is best for Red Hat, not what is best for Linux. For Red Hat, of course the best that could happen is if everyone depends on software they have the lead developers of. And the more complex the software, the more likely the main expertise will stay inside the company. In addition, Red Hat profits from maintenance being more complex because it means they'll get more support contracts.
Basically it's code obfuscation taken to the next level: The code itself may be clean, but the system as a whole is overly complex, and therefore the effort you have to make to understand it is increased.
That's why it goes against the Unix philosophy: The Unix philosophy is KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid". The goal of KISS is exactly opposite of the goal of vendor lock-in.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Bot on Friday October 17 2014, @11:15AM
I also stopped reading at Red Hat and went to see where systemd were going to be mentioned in the comments.
systemd- your argument is invalid.
OTOH given that systemd is the trojan horse that put all major distros under the de-facto control of red hat, I guess that the reasoning works well when you rename it slightly to cleverbastardocracy.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Friday October 17 2014, @11:34PM
Why yes I am! Systemd is a "great" "technology" written by "people" who are "competent".
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2) by nyder on Friday October 17 2014, @10:19AM
Unfortunately, real life rarely works like you want it to.
Boss's generally have ego's, so they don't to hear what you have to say.
Other workers are going to steal any good ideas you have, so they can hopefully one day become the boss.
The lady workers are generally getting paid less for the same work then their male counterparts, so they aren't happy.
Oh ya, and of course, there is the threat of downsizing, so they can make sure their shareholders are getting enough return on their shares, and let's not forget the big ass bonus your boss gets for all your ideas.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 17 2014, @11:12AM
Still, even with all those caveats, it beats the geirocracy that unions do so love. A dumbass with a year more time in than you is still a dumbass.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 17 2014, @01:51PM
Yes this is the reality of the workplace, not these management platitudes. They do come out every year, don't they? "I'm a dumbass MBA who lucked into a position at Kewl Company X through my old drinking buddy Bud and inherited a happy confluence of people who gelled well as a team and had markets break their way for a season. So now I'm a genius and you should all buy my book and kiss my ass at the next Do in the Hamptons."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Friday October 17 2014, @06:13PM
The lady workers are generally getting paid less for the same work then their male counterparts
This is a myth. Women make less when averaged over a lifetime, not for the same unit of work at the same level. Let's try to think of why that could be. What's something that only women take time off from their careers to do? Hmm...
So you spend a decade or two having and raising kids, it's going to hurt your lifetime earning figures. You won't progress as far in your career because you've got less time on the job. Women also choose less dangerous jobs, prefer a different (healthier, IMO) work/life balance, and prioritize other aspects of a job than money. You combine all of those things and you realize that the claim that "women earn less than men" is misleading at best, and outright fraudulent at worst.
This isn't unfairness. It's healthy interdependence between the sexes.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Saturday October 18 2014, @04:33AM
Sorry, that's completely inaccurate -- as taken directly from the US Department of Labor's "Myth-busting The Pay Gap" [dol.gov]:
Despite the evidence, myths that women’s choices or other legitimate factors are the “real” cause of the pay gap persist. So does confusion about how to measure the gap and what figures to use. That’s why today, we are going to bust a few myths.
MYTH: Saying women only earn 77 cents on the dollar is a huge exaggeration – the “real” pay gap is much smaller than that (if it even exists).
REALITY: The size of the pay gap depends on how you measure it. The most common estimate is based on differences in annual earnings (currently about 23 cents difference per dollar). Another approach uses weekly earnings data (closer to an 18- or 19-cent difference). ... According to one analysis by the Department of Labor’s Chief Economist, a typical 25-year-old woman working full time would have already earned $5,000 less over the course of her working career than a typical 25-year old man.
MYTH: Women are responsible for the pay gap because they seek out flexible jobs or choose to work fewer hours. Putting family above work is why women earn less.
REALITY: Putting aside whether it’s right to ask women (or men) to sacrifice financially in order to work and have a family, those kinds of choices aren’t enough to explain away the gender pay gap. The gender gap in pay exists for women working full time. Taking time off for children also doesn’t explain gaps at the start of a career.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday October 17 2014, @11:27AM
If meritocracy is so great, why don't people use it in the real world? Sociopathic managers take over companies, drive off the meritocracy, and run them into the ground. The people who shout the loudest and promote themselves get the attention. Bosses use favoritism and cronyism to create cliques. I don't ever see a meritocracy actually being used in the real world. If it's so great, why doesn't it work?
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @11:49AM
Though not exactly what you were referring to, I would suggest that something like that is at work on this very site.
Some users, through their comments here, have earned my respect with their insight and knowledge. Others I've come to recognize as generally more prone to bias and willingness to incite reactions.
Notwithstanding that, I still try to keep an open mind to whatever is posted here, no matter who posts it. And, I still browse at -1 so as to not miss anything.
In my opinion, civility goes a long way to bolster a point; the use of profanity and/or ad hominem attacks diminishes my estimation of a poster's comment. The comment should stand on its own merits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @11:52AM
And failing to close an tag doesn't help, either. =)
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 17 2014, @09:55PM
Did you mean ?
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @11:55AM
I resemble that remark.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 17 2014, @11:54AM
I think the point your missing is what you just described is not meritocracy but cronyism. Meritocracy does work if you demand it and nothing else. You can easily tell which companies are using it by their growth and success.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 17 2014, @12:30PM
The real reason for your question is that there is yet to be formed a true meritocracy.
Remember what was said in TFS: Doing your job really well isn't considered meritorious. Coming up with some sort of brand new idea and leading the team that implements it is. That means that once a potential idea is out there, immediately a bunch of politics starts to figure out who gets credit for the idea (and yes, even if the idea comes out in a meeting with a whole bunch of people there, there will be a question as to who had the idea 3 weeks from now, and the political players can and do take advantage of that) and who gets to lead the team in question. And that could go to a truly meritorious person, or it could go to the best politician, and usually the bosses have no idea which they've picked.
There is no way to get around that problem with objective metrics, because anytime you introduce an objective metric that will determine money and power in an organization, people will figure out how to game said objective metric.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 17 2014, @01:20PM
A noble utopia pretty much as "true communism"... merit takes time to accumulate and be recognized, in the meanwhile the "meritocrat" becomes just a -crat bastard sinking other "merits" around her/him to protect her/his merit (in case you didn't realized, in the real world there's never a single idea or person that has merit).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @07:41PM
A noble utopia pretty much as "true communism"
Yes. (Especially if you replace "as" with "is" and reverse the order.)
merit takes time to accumulate and be recognized
In a properly-functioning working group, each worker will be allowed to find his niche.
In a cooperative, the entire group of **workers** votes on who is assigned what task(s).
When the goal is a harmonious group and maximum efficiency, that gets reevaluated often and things tend to work themselves out.
Is that form of bottom-up enterprise subject to politics? Certainly.
Does it have less of a bad-decisions bottleneck than top-down enterprises? I would say Yes.
A top-down enterprise will have an overseer who is simply a product of the Peter Principle [wikipedia.org] where he has risen 1 slot above his proficiencies and has stalled at that level.
Not only can't he do the job he's been assigned, he can't pick viable replacements for the positions that have opened up below him (because the good workers have transfered out|quit).
IME, the Peter Principle is the way a "meritocracy" works out.
...then there's nepotism, where the boss's kid gets the job of supervisor, skipping multiple levels, having demonstrated no merit at all.
Whenever I hear "meritocracy", I think of the flick "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying". [wikipedia.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 17 2014, @01:11PM
Most of the time (and always on the long run) they are doing society a favour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday October 17 2014, @09:47PM
How is that a benefit to society?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 17 2014, @11:19PM
Invariably, when a company becomes big enough to justify an MBA graduate, it becomes big, bureaucratic and arthritic (as opposed to mobile/flexible). Give it enough time, it becomes a hindrance for "saplings" (new growth, better adapted to newer conditions).
Put shortly: letting aside global extinction events, it takes parasites/illnesses to kill a dinosaur.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday October 17 2014, @11:57PM
I thought keeping good companies, is good?
But MBA as the decision maker in management is likely a warning sign of doom.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 18 2014, @06:59AM
A good company is a small company (unless you happen to like group sex, that is).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:56PM
How would you handle something like a space launch operation of asteroid mining? it will take huge resources both in terms of materials and people. But I guess the optimum is when the corporate size is at parity with the core business task. Giving no room for chaff people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @02:02PM
You have stumbled into what happens in most political economic systems. It ignores the douchbag. It ignores the lazy guy who just wants to skate by. It ignores the guy who is into power for powers sake. It ignores the guy who is greedy.
These systems *only* work perfectly if everyone is perfect and willing to work 100% all the time. That is never true. At which points the regulations come out... Then the regulations are eventually used as a tool to oppress the majority for the whims of the minority.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday October 17 2014, @02:36PM
It's not that "black and white", even the most sociopathic boss will need people to perform actual work. He knows he can't survive solely on bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @02:52PM
The boss only has to survive long enough to get a more lucrative position elsewhere. Any damage that shows up only after he left is no problem for him.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 17 2014, @04:57PM
Au contraire!
The story of one such manager:
1. She starts by buying out a vaguely-but-not-exactly-related business for a 10-figure sum. She is placed in charge of that business, and mismanages it so badly that she turns a growing and profitable business into a shrinking and unprofitable one. Most of the staff that she hired weren't doing their jobs, but furiously trying to out-politic each other to blame other people for the failure. She is not punished for this, but praised by higher-ups for her bold vision.
2. She then doubles down by buying out an even less related business for 5 times more than the purchase of the first business. She runs that into the ground as well, in roughly the same manner, and with many of the same people. In response, upper management promotes her, again citing her risk-taking and bold vision.
3. After her promotion, she immediately fires 3 of the other top executives, who's divisions had been exceeding their expectations to cover over her spectacular losses.
4. Eventually, upper management figures out what she's really all about, and responds by firing or reassigning most of her staff. When they go to fire her clique that had been with her through the 2 failures, she has some sort of change of heart, tries to protect them, and is fired for that. (Had she been willing to backstab her subordinates, I'm quite certain she would have remained as a top executive at that company.)
I guess there were a few people who did actual work in the 2 businesses she ran into the ground, but that was something like 8 people out of a staff of 40.
Remember, most of a business's personnel are professional liars [dilbert.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday October 17 2014, @05:13PM
So, your point is that Capitalism doesn't work?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @08:10PM
CRONY Capitalism certainly doesn't work well for anyone but the cronies.
The total number of people who sit on corporate boards is surprisingly small.
Why is that? They sit on EACH OTHER'S boards.
...and to put a fine point on GP's point: Leo Apotheker.
Having failed at SAP, he was hired by HP (where he failed again).
Both times, he got a giant golden parachute. [wikipedia.org]
He didn't even have to -buy- anything.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @01:28AM
Why do you hate Carly?
(or is there another one just as bad that I haven't heard of?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @03:16PM
The people who shout the loudest and promote themselves get the attention.
This.
Those that are better at influencing others - regardless of their technical abilities or 'rightness' - break the Meritocracy ideal every time. Then they bubble up the management chain and populate the decision making management levels. If you want to create and maintain a Meritocracy, you need to somehow remove influence and maintain facts/success as the decision criteria. Which, in the world today is unheard of.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Friday October 17 2014, @04:01PM
It doesn't work in the real world because it is hard to measure an individual's contribution to the company objectively. Ideas rarely form in a vacuum or come from just one person, and even when they do they are often mis-attributed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 18 2014, @12:13AM
Shouting the loudest and promoting yourself (/ your interests) is how you succeed in sales, and no company succeeds without a successful sales department - so, that will always be some component of the corporate culture, and one that is paid close attention to by top management.
Within some departments, meritocracy can, and even does, work. R&D / Engineering being one - if the rest of the corporate culture will allow the nerds to run their "who's the smartest" fest and ignore what's important "in the real world."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by NoMaster on Saturday October 18 2014, @02:30AM
Possibly because any intelligent person who tries to implement one quickly realises that the concept is (quite literally, as the summary explained) a joke?
So only unintelligent people try to implement one, or claim they've implemented one...
(Cue someone claiming "Linux development is a meritocracy!" - followed by a long pause, and nowhere near enough people going "Doh!"...)
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @12:24PM
was an example of a meritocracy.
Any others? I'm sure there were, but not that many.
Go bottle and sell what PARC leadership put into place!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 17 2014, @04:35PM
What about Bell Labs?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @08:40PM
Their output was remarkable, but maybe it was centered around two guys in the '70s (Thompson and Richie).
Then Bjarne Stroupstrup came along and led the "C with Classes" group in the '80s.
(Score: 1) by srobert on Friday October 17 2014, @03:10PM
... we have lots of meetings but we usually wait for our bosses to tell us what we think before we speak up.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday October 17 2014, @09:57PM
Ah, two hour meeting where no other information than we-need-to-earn-more has been communicated. On the direct order of your boss-boss-management. In the meanwhile all kinds of distracting projects and rules impede performance..
Then there's the meeting that takes hours.. but really could been done in 5-10 minutes by written communication.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday October 17 2014, @10:14PM
Red Hat is a company, which means "merit" is what's best for the profit in the short or long term. What's best for products or customers is secondary, or Linux in this case. This company seems to have utilized the complexity injection attack and making the case that new is better because it's new and of course comes from their company.
All systems in an organization that decides the distribution of power will be gamed.
Actors in an environment that has absolute demands like getting space probes to other planets has to get their act together or have them proved wrong in a spectacular and public way. There's an absolute measurement of accomplishment, or failure. This also applies to doctors and their patient that either get cured or not, corporations that are profitable or not etc.
Two tips: If the top boss like the CEO doesn't had any direct experience in what the organization produces then there might too much disconnect to make the right decisions. And when the decision makers stop to listen to others, it will be like having a nail in your foot an let it result in sepsis and then do nothing about it.
Oh, and individual persons may also get into the delusions by believing in stuff that doesn't have an anchor in reality.
(have a look t List of eponymous laws [wikipedia.org] for suitable principles in an organization)