I’ve been thinking about this a bit. I believe what has become a greater source of frustration is that there are a lot of people who do have real skills and subject matter expertise that they spent years working on but still can’t find someone to pay them to do it.
Agreed…perhaps part of the issue is that employers have become less willing to train such people “on the job,” instead limiting their hiring to candidates who can show up job-ready on Day 1. (Or they only provide that training in the form of unpaid internships.)
And then they complain that it is hard to find already trained people. And I’ve heard CIOS complain that schools don’t train people in the systems that the employer is using right now, and are therefore useless.
That’s by far the biggest issue that I see in the tech industry. It’s not just for young people- it’s more of an attitude by the suits that the company/department doesn’t want the disruption caused by hiring or promoting someone inexperienced.
So they neither hire entry level people nor promote from within so much anymore, which means that people both don’t get hired, and for the ones already there, they have to look elsewhere for vertical mobility.
From where I sit, the real gatekeeping is based on job title. If you’re a staff person, nobody’s going to hire you for a managerial job, because you have no experience, and they’re not willing to train or take chances. But if you’ve got that job title, you’re more or less golden. So if you manage to weasel your way into having that job title, or just embellish your own job title, you can break into the upper ranks. But without it, you’re destined to languish forever as a staff person.
Exactly. Babies are worthless.
You say that as if it’s not rational. The suits are trying to run a business. And they are often looking for near term solutions where they don’t have the time or budget to bring on someone and train them to be ready in 6 to 24 months.
With any “skills” based job, you’re getting paid to do a skill that solves a specific problem. You aren’t there to put in your time to get some credibility to position you for your next step on the corporate ladder.
Most people think they want a “managerial job” because it’s usually (but not always) more pay and a better title. Maybe get to boss people around. But do they really want to (or are they even ready) to lead an entire department of engineers. I often find myself telling people in junior management roles that there gets to be a point where they don’t get to complain about the company anymore because at that point their position makes them more of a contributor to those problems.
Thank you, this is something that has been frustrating me a bit about the discussion, though it has been touched upon – the issue of what IS “merit” and is that a one-size-fits all definition.
Whether when we are talking about “merit” we are talking about some sort of moral worthiness or about performance results. Whether it is something you demonstrate or is it an inherent trait with an intrinsic assigned value.
Seems in many of the exchanges in this thread there is the notion of looking at “merit” as in the sense of “to deserve”.
And when you get on that track is when we get arguments along the lines whether seeing one activity as more economically productive and compensating it in proportion to the monetary yield means society is seeing it as “more meritorious” as in some sort of moral judgement.
A fun little note on this: Toby Young has today been nominated for a peerage in the House of Lords, and thus completed the work his father began all those years ago, specifically: Failing Up.
That is not a “Meritocracy” as most people understand the definition. In fact, getting into privileged schools and getting promotions based on connections and political cloud is generally considered the opposite of a meritocracy. Meritocracy is usually considered being placed into a role or position based on some objective demonstration of ability.
Yes, I know. This is kind of the point: an actual meritocracy would last one generation at best.
In a meritocracy, an able child of parents in the bottom 20% of household by income has a fair chance of entering the top 20% of households as an adult, on their merit. That’s great! We love that, it seems only fair.
But the flip side is, a sub-par child of parents in the top 20% has a fair chance of ending up in the bottom 20% as an adult, as that’s what they merit. Which also seems fair, but:
No parent will ever allow this to happen to their kid and they will use their wealth, connections and political clout to subvert any system that tries to make them.
Unless you outlaw private schools and private tutoring, ban people in the upper echelons from rubbing shoulders with each other, legally enforce the anonymisation of all donations to institutions etc. etc. then there will always be a way to scratch backs, buy a leg-up for idiot failsons; smooth the path; and gently or not so gently tread on the fingers of the able kids climbing the ladder.
Any society which actually stopped e.g. the phone call saying “Tarquin’s interested in banking; I heard you had an intern programme. By the way is Genevieve still interested in going into politics, I’m having dinner with the local party chair next week?” would end up a highly meritocratic but fairly illiberal one. But that’s by the by - we’re nowhere near that and have to fight damn hard to end the most egregious abuses of fairness.
Yes, it’s right that competence gets rewarded; both fair for the individual and in society’s best interest that we get the best person for a role doing that role.
However, this kind of thing gets raised in the context of affirmative action or taxation, and I don’t think it’s all that simple when it comes to how a society operates and sets tax policy.
Affirmative action is an attempt to move towards a meritocracy. It recognizes that certain groups have faced discrimination and have likely come from poorer backgrounds. So, among those people who are qualified, you factor this in, because the woman who has jumped all those hurdles to arrive at point B may well be a fitter candidate than the person who was dropped off at B by her driver (ok I’m exaggerating slightly).
And taxation is part of the social contract. We benefit from being part of this society and are required to do our part to maintain it. The wealthy can afford to contribute more without it affecting their lifestyle, and successful societies thus have progressive taxation.
Communism was supposed to be a meritocracy, with only the smartest and most public-spirited people being selected to be Party members and run the government and economy. But turns out that basically nobody is so public-spirited as to not want to give their kids an edge in life, so the Party quickly turned into just another ruling class.
Well said.
IOW …
The problem with a meritocracy is that actual humans lack sufficient merit to implement one.
Very French.