Sometimes, meritocracy means some people move faster than others.
Meritocracy: Look at the method, not the substance
Like many other things we take for granted, an uncritical understanding of meritocracy is undesirable. Yet, we often examine meritocracy from the perspective of the substance of meritocracy. We debate about what constitutes merit, whether we should include or exclude examination results, critical thinking or ability in sports, music and so on. But little attention is given to the methodology of meritocracy.
By methodology of meritocracy, I mean the principles on which we select people based on merit. It is not so much of the asking of “what is talent”, but the how, when, and who of talent. How do we choose to measure talent and merit? How can and how shall we recognise it? When in a lifetime should we measure it? Who should be recognised as meritorious? How do we ensure the best person suits the job?
To answer these questions, I would like to propose two different ideal types of meritocracy: egalitarian survival meritocracy, and elite fast-track meritocracy.
The “how” of Egalitarian survival meritocracy is that it operates on leveling the playing field and then stipulating a challenge based on a stipulated measure of merit. The “who” is that everybody should be playing equally. As a product of solidaristic social democracy, Scandinavian universities students are all given a government stipend to live on and are provided student housing. if we can assume that there is little that can happen to disadvantage a significant student population, the best will naturally become to best in fierce and honest competition.
Then, the “when” of egalitarian survival meritocracy should also be as flexible as possible. Everybody will be given a time limit to finish, but for those who want to finish faster, they ought to be able to do so. If we are truly committed to the idea of everybody starting at the same starting line, then we should not extend the finishing line for those who can finish quicker.
But there are many problems with egalitarian survival meritocracy. It will be incredibly cutthroat and organizationally messy after the egalitarian start. Many weaknesses of Singapore’s education system will be exaggerated under such a system: increased competitiveness based on blind adherence to an unholistic criteria, a greater neglect of a spectrum of human experience under pressure to achieve, and if implemented too early, we might be overworking our young children. Hence, the aspect of “survival of the fittest” comes together with an egalitarian meritocracy. In addition, organizationally it will place a great strain onto the system to actualize an equal playing field and to support all those who meet the stipulated criteria.
On the other hand, elite fast-track meritocracy does away with the survival of the fittest and an equalizing same starting line. It is a coping strategy for systems which need to train meritorious individuals within a short period of time. The “how” of fast-track is that it is a method that has less uncertainty and may be faster than that of egalitarian survival democracy. Using a pre-defined set of criteria, we judge the aptitude of current players for future challenges and for those lucky enough to make the cut, they are nurtured with privilege so that they can quickly develop the merit required, i.e. the so-called elite. Hence the logic of “fast-tracking” individuals.
The who of fast-track meritocracy is not all players, but players who have an advantage now. You can imagine companies or political parties grooming certain candidates to become the next CEO or prime minister. These candidates enjoy the insight of their seniors, the networking opportunities granted by their closeness to their mentor and other fringe benefits not enjoyed by their peers. If mentors adhered to survival-styled meritocracy, they would allow as many players as possible to become candidates, set challenges, slowly weed out the poor and observe the best be the best.
Both ideal forms of meritocracy put the premium of merit over other qualities such as kinship, race or religion. However, the fundamental difference between elite fast-track meritocracy and egalitarian democracy is the timing, the fairness and the starting line. Elite fast-track meritocracy does not need an equal starting line in the beginning: whoever is ahead now will be considered now. Under elite fast-track meritocracy, the better become the best and whoever falls back stays at the back; under egalitarian survival meritocracy, there is no systemic bias for the better as they continue to compete in the same fashion with the same people. Finally, timing should be flexible under egalitarian survival meritocracy, but timing can be rather rigid to accommodate the fast-tracking of individuals under elite forms of meritocracy.
Now the question is, what kind of meritocracy do you want to be? There is a dilemma of resources to be fast-track meritocracy is the simpler and quicker of the two. For systems that require responsiveness of technically talented people to changing circumstances, it seems to be the more desirable of the two. On the other hand, while fast-track meritocracy has the interest of the system as a whole, egalitarian democracy is fairer to the individual as it is more committed to the principle of equal opportunity. How can we best solve the dilemma?
10 Responses to “Meritocracy: Look at the method, not the substance”
Leave a Reply
Advertisement
Polls
Loading ...
Hi here are some relevant articles that may help you in future articles and research:
Meritocracy In Singapore, A Mythical Illusion – http://wayangparty.com/?p=7969
Old and new citizens do not get equal chance in Singapore – http://wayangparty.com/?p=7665
Rethinking the meritocratic education system – the case for welfare – http://wayangparty.com/?p=7503
we need to move away from these polar modes of thought and get ready to delve into the space between: what combination of both would allow us to acheive our relevance and competitiveness in the world?
I think meritocracy as a concept actually has not much, if any, merit in it at all.
It is a false idea, just a good-sounding word, a spin to justify things that people who has a say wants to be.
The fundamental flaw in "merit" is that people are all individuals, and each is very different, even between twins. In other words, take any measure, and someone will naturally be better of than another, just by the fact that he is what he is, and conversely the other is worst off, again just because he is.
We use "merit" to motivate, ie I say the one more hardworking, more loyal, more obedient, as deserving more "merit"; or I can use "merit" to justify fast tracking the careers of President scholars, here academic performance being deemed "merit".
So "merit' really has no meaning, it is simply spin for you to justify what you do to people, and in a way that is seemingly fair and those without "merit" having no grounds to complain. And also there can be no accusation of favoritism or nepotism. But really "meritocracy" are just new clothes.
So I think we can drop this whole false facade of fairness and egalitarianism and things will immediately become better. For instead of ranking or promoting people by "merit", it will be far better to just simply say you value industry or loyalty or academic performance or physical prowess or obedience or whatever, more than anything else. Then at least I know where I need to "perform", if I want to perform at all.
And you put someone in a position because you assess he or she can do the job, whatever "merit" being irrelevant. (And if "merit" was "performance" at a lower level job then you may end up with Peter's Principle.) And if that person then failed in the job, then not only the incumbent failed, but the one who put that person also failed in his performance as an assessor of potential performance. Again no need to resort to any idea of "merit" whatsoever.
The problem of course is when u have a job to fill, you may not know who is best suited to fill the job, if it is other than your son or friend to do it. So you make some criteria and so on, and attempt to rank people based on this criteria, and you call this process meritocracy, ie the one most deserving according to your measures gets the job.
But no measures are perfect and if you are wise you will still end up with a heavy dose of subjectivity and intuitive knowledge of persons, eg referees, if not depending entirely on subjective assessments altogether.
The person you eventually chooses, is someone you deemed can best do the job, with some maybe unknown error margin, and not that he is somehow "measured" and came out ahead of everyone else.
It is really more a reflection of your – or the combined – state of knowledge at that time and not of any true merit per se. And people not chosen are not necessarily without merit but maybe just unknown.
Singaporean 'meritocracy' is based on the socialised demerits of the employer.
In a country that sinically fetishises tradition, conformity, subservience, uniformity,
…which in turn makes one more susceptible to the salient as opposed to the detail, and the superficial as opposed to the essence,
…and which in turn leads these people to fall back on mere power, position and prestige for the exertion and maintenance of control,
…it serves as a foundation for the emergence of a whole a la carte-load of bigotries,
….that goes into the formulation of the lines between the lines of the criteria comprising 'meritocracy'.
"On the other hand, while fast-track meritocracy has the interest of the system as a whole, egalitarian democracy is fairer to the individual as it is more committed to the principle of equal opportunity."
'Fast-track meritocracy' does not bring 'the best' to the fore, but rather relies on existing biases to identify them. It is only the sum total of the intelligence of the people, given its maximal egalitarian development, that is able to produce the best criteria by which 'fast-trackers' may be best identified.
At present, we have various levels of discrimination in this country, along with the acutely partial intellectual development of the people. Putting these two perspectivally debilitating conditions together, we cannot produce a criteria by which 'fast-trackers' may truly be discerned.
Preparatory work at the ground level must first be done. The consequences of injustices can affect generations, and it will take some time before those who’ve been reared within such a scheme of things to be weaned off their socialised proclivities.