Meritocracy tastes like justice: it promises (but does not guarantee) a positive consequence for our effort, but it perpetuates individualistic notions...
We wake up every day with a goal. It varies per person. But there is an inner spark that compels us to get out of bed, to work, to study, to strive. Within us there is a goal, a promise to be fulfilled.
"Give it your best shot" we were told ad nauseam from an early age. Try hard and you will achieve things. That's a promise. There is no possibility that it won't happen. We are taught effort, dedication, resilience and tireless work as the tool to achieve success. Or at the very least, avoid failure.
Effort makes you a worthy person, deserving of everything good. How can I not be rewarded if I have worked so hard? It seems that someday it will be measured by some almighty entity. It will become merit. An abstract score that we can redeem for a final reward.
It sounds fair - Reward those who work hard, pay for hard work, let the merits speak. But if we stop to do a personal exercise....
What are the merits that brought us to where we stand? By what yardstick have they been measured? Who is deserving and who is not?
There is a term for this system: meritocracy. You've probably heard it before. From the Latin merĭtum, value, merit or salary and kratos, power. The power of merit.
The term emerged in 1958 thanks to Michael Young and his dystopian fiction novel, "The Triumph of Meritocracy". In it Michael posited a future United Kingdom where intelligence and merit carried full weight, thereby attempting to replace the current social class division. Ironically, creating a new elite and lower class who inherited their position to their offspring. A "perfect" system where both classes were convinced they deserved their position based on merit.
Things have gotten a little out of control since then. And the term has been evolving and transforming depending on who uses it, from politics to literature. It is not complicated to find discussions on the internet about whether criticizing the meritocracy system is useful or not. If I stop making an effort, am I being mediocre, if I complain about my disadvantages, am I being resentful, what is wrong with making an effort and seeking merit by taking advantage of the social advantages I was born with?
Michael Sandel, philosopher and Harvard Law professor, explains that meritocracy is a problem of attitude toward success:
"Meritocracy leads to dividing people into winners and losers. Meritocracy creates arrogance among the winners and humiliation toward those left behind."
"That's the way the system is, by nature no one is equal and we have to live with that." say some to close once and for all a subject loaded with politics, economics and morals. Does it make sense to talk about meritocracy in this system that seems to be hopeless?
When one speaks of failure, one inevitably speaks of success, even for some people, one depends on the other. Following that duality, those who participate in that dynamic are labeled as either the winners or the losers. There are no half measures, you are either one or the other and it is a definite status until you fight to be the opposite.
If we used to make judgments according to what we achieved or not, with meritocracy and the culture of effort, now we get into processes and attempts. You've failed before you even lose because you're not trying hard enough. Mind you, success tastes better. Whether it's through effort, privilege or sheer luck.
We have to be careful when we talk about merit for privilege. Sandel also mentions the division that meritocracy generates. The winners look down on the losers, who according to the fair rules of meritocracy, are there because they want to be. This system is flexible, not striving is a choice. And the losers look up to the winners. They got there because of the vicious circle of selective meritocracy that only gives tools to those who can and have.
Meritocracy tastes like justice: it promises (but does not guarantee) a positive consequence for our effort, but it perpetuates individualistic and selfish notions that damage our perception of others. It feeds an obsession with deserving or undeserving. And it gives us the sense that we can apply our own value systems on others without considering their contexts.
What if we don't earn merit and are actually born with it? If our skin color, nationality, gender, religion, etc are going to define how valid and easy to achieve our efforts will be, I don't think we should keep talking about meritocracies. We should stop talking about meritocracy and start talking about privilege and class consciousness.
According to a study, people are more generous, tolerant and willing to share when a reward is obtained by "luck" versus when the same reward was obtained because they "earned it" or made an effort. Does meritocracy give us the right not to share opportunities?
We should stop talking about meritocracy, leave doors open, encourage others to cross them, share the key to those that are closed and welcome those who want to cross them.
Do you want your team to feel intrinsically motivated and improve productivity? As part of The Failure Program, we have a variety of online courses, workshops and private events, plus a survey that will diagnose how you are managing failure in your company. Leave us your details and let's start collaborating to make failure work for you.
Edited by
Santiago da Silva
.svg)
Let's transform our perception of failure and use it as a catalyst for growth.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
