| > A given engineer is not better or worse in some absolute sense. I'll just address this first: Often they are. It is idealist and simplistic to claim otherwise. Some surgeons are better at performing surgery than others, some engineers are better at building bridges than others, and some programmers are better at programming than others. They're not inherently better people, but that's not relevant. I think the view expressed in your comment is overly reductionist. Of course everyone works on teams, and of course there are more factors at play than simply being better at some task in a vacuum. But that doesn't change facts like: * Some people are smarter than others * Some people are more dedicated than others * Some people have more experience than others * Some people have life circumstances that allow them to contribute more than others * Some people have values more in line with the company's success than others This is kind of what I mean by "the world as it is" vs "the world as you want it to be." The points above are common sense to people that don't have the world view expressed in your comment. The idea that all people are equally valuable is only true in the abstract sense. When you actually need to accomplish a concrete goal (like putting a man on the moon), some people are absolutely more valuable than others toward doing that, and an organization that pretends that's not the case is shooting itself in the foot. Having a meritocratic structure doesn't even inherently mean individualist. It could be measured at the team or project level. It also doesn't have to be (and typically isn't) exactly the measurable contributions ("load-bearing capacity") to the goal itself that determines the best "engineer." More often your "best" engineer is the one who is easy to work with, embraces tough challenges, and can adapt well to changes. But honestly: I think everyone already knows these things. That's why I see this more as virtue signaling: it's one thing to change a governance statement. It's another when it's actually put into practice. |
Yeah I totally agree with that. To me, that shows that the measure of merit is, #1: extremely subjective and #2: influenced by all kinds of factors that would not traditionally be associated with merit.
Basically, I think that it often makes sense to do affirmative action within a true meritocratic framework, but that the term meritocracy is generally used to juxtapose against affirmative action. If the term is being used to argue against its true meaning, then it's not a useful term and should be retired.