SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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
(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_