Asklemmy

43783 readers

878 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Do you believe in meritocracy? Why or why not? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 9 months ago by Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is the definition I am using:

a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just to make it clear the definition that I used does not talk about choosing people for tasks they are suited for, but rather putting them in positions of power, success, and influence.

[–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well you need to clarify further then. Are you saying we should make the best scientist the president, or the person with the most aptitude for politics and rule to be president? I don't see how this is functionally different than what I said.

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well the way I interpret it is that people who demonstrate their ability are put into a position where they are rewarded more relative to their peers and/or have control over what their peers do.

So for example if I was a engineer and based on some metric was considered highly valuable then I would be paid more than other engineers and I would be put into a position where I can give other engineers directions on what needs to be done.

[–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Then no, I don't agree with this specific implementation of the system, at least the second half. I do think more productive/effective workers should be compensated more. But being a good engineer does not make you a good manager, and the issues associated with promoting an excelling worker into management (a job requiring a substantially different skill set) are so common there's a name for their inevitable failure, The Peter Principle