A meritocracy can easily devolve into a credential-ocracy where the ones promoted are the ones with the right paper pedigree. Ironically, that is exactly what a meritocracy is supposed to replace.

I remember a casual conversation I had with the head of the investments unit of the company I was working for then. She was looking to fill an opening in her department and was optimistic about the then-current economic doldrums because she could "hire someone from Harvard for state school prices."

What she really wanted was to be able to say she managed people who went to Harvard. Credentials were very big with that company in both hiring and promotion decisions. There were few meetings in which some Ivy or Ivy-adjacent alum didn't manage to slip the name of his or her school into the conversation.

You didn't mention Griggs v. Duke Power? that's what started us down the road to ever more credentialism. It isn't inherently discriminatory if I only hire people with credential X.

Credentialism in one picture.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/469276/

Our so-called meritocracy disappeared in most career/employment areas a long time ago. Not that it ever existed 100% in any area.

Our country now has to endure being run by arrogant, well-credentialed, egotistical jerks who have rarely (if ever) made anything practical work in the real world. Despite all their theories, authored white papers, and policies, everything they touch turns to crap. And they never seem to pay a price for it. The Ivy League has churned out tens of thousands of these defective products and inflicted them on us.

"I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. Not, heaven knows, because I hold lightly the brainpower or knowledge or generosity or even the affability of the Harvard faculty: but because I greatly fear intellectual arrogance, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise."
Bill Buckley had it right.

What I have noted over the years is that in general folks who are successful in a given system are very strong proponents that it is indeed based on merit.

By contrast, in general folks who are not successful in a given system are very quick to claim that there is no meritocracy and that their lack of success is because the system itself is corrupt in some way.

Also, while it is true that credentials and degrees can certainly help get your foot in the door (not any different than having personal or family connections to be fair)... once you are in you still need to perform.

Some folks are particularly good at gaming the politics of industry culture... knowing the right people, networking to get on the juicy projects, etc... while others are good at backstabbing and throwing other people under the bus... still others are good at taking credit for the work and efforts of others... and occasionally you will find someone who is good at all 3.

The point being that the idea of a true meritocracy is largely a fiction... the people who design the metrics upon which people are evaluated are the ones who determine what constitutes merit... which ultimately means that merit is largely a subjective assessment.

Objective metrics are wonderful, but they simply do not apply to many areas of the work environment... particularly areas where innovation and creativity are critical.

In sales it works fine because you can see for yourself in an objective sense who is bringing in more revenue.

If one believes they are a creative or innovative type of person you are going to have to have a thick skin to fight for your ideas and convince others that you've got the goods... degrees can help... but nothing beats a consistent track record of objectively successful outcomes.

Credentialism in one picture. ~ IRA Darth Aggie at August 23, 2021 9:36 AM

Nice picture. And there is some truth to that.

However, there's also the fact that Eisenhower didn't serve in a combat or combat-adjacent position until World War II. In fact, in his 35-year Army career, he never saw combat. His service, until chosen by Marshall to lead Torch, was mostly clerical. He never really had a chance to earn many medals or service ribbons. Paper cuts yes, but medals, no.

In contrast, George S. Patton served in World War I and in the Pancho Villa chase in Mexico, both of which made Eisenhower jealous of his fellow officer. In fact, Patton was wounded in World War I. As a favorite of General Pershing, who dated his sister, Patton was in a position to request and get career-making assignments.

Eisenhower had to rely on connections he made personally as a aide to higher-ranking officers and in clerical positions in Washington. Fortunately for the allies, he made a number of those connections, including a strong one to General George C. Marshall, who chose him to participate in the 1941 Louisiana Maneuvers, where many of the American generals who would command in World War II learned how to handle large armies in a fast-moving conflict.

This is a pretty good starting point if you want to learn about the history of the three most famous American generals in the European Theater.

Conan, My grandfather, an Army Colonel and Veterinarian was on the Louisiana maneuvers with Patton in 1941.

Back then medals were for service in active combat zones. Starting the the 90’s the services started handing them out like candy because they became necessary for promotion.

You can have a meritocracy or a good-old-boy network, your choice. My friend left Iran because everything was who you knew and bribes. Do we want that?
Of course no meritocracy is perfect. But the calls to remove standards ends up like giving out participation trophies in schools to avoid hurting feelings: meaningless trinkets. My friends have a small HVAC business. If they can't install your new furnace they lose money. They must be competent. They love it. A mechanic has to actually be able to fix your car. These are what merit looks like.

My grandfather, an Army Colonel and Veterinarian was on the Louisiana maneuvers with Patton in 1941. ~ Isab at August 23, 2021 12:44 PM

Cool story.

Back then medals were for service in active combat zones. Starting the the 90’s the services started handing them out like candy because they became necessary for promotion. ~ Isab at August 23, 2021 12:44 PM

Not just the '90s.

The New York Times reported in 1984 that for the Grenada operation, the US Army "gave out 8,337 medals." Some of those medals went to personnel that got no closer to Grenada than the Pentagon.

In contrast, the US Marine Corps "reported granting 10 Purple Heart medals for combat deaths and wounds, with an additional 100 recommendations for bravery being studied." The US Navy "awarded 7 Purple Hearts for combat deaths or wounds."

The Army went ashore with 7,000 men (8,337 medals), the Marines with 1,000 (10 medals), and the Navy with 50 (7 medals). So, the Army awarded more medals than it had troops involved in potential combat. Making that distinction even worse is the fact that the Army performed poorly in that operation, failing to achieve most of its objectives.

The Washington Post reports that the Bronze Star was awarded in Vietnam to "virtually every soldier who kept his nose clean and managed simply to survive his tour ... whether on the field of battle or behind a desk in Saigon," degrading a medal once worn with pride.

Awarding medals to everyone, regardless of actual conduct in said operation, degrades the value of the award and saps morale. No wonder John Kerry threw some other guy's medals over the White House fence.

"Objective metrics are wonderful, but they simply do not apply to many areas of the work environment... particularly areas where innovation and creativity are critical."

W. Edwards Deming's work mocks your every breath, as even in Hollywood and on the Las Vegas strip competition produces measurable results.

(cue paragraphs of incidental noise tl;dr)

I'm so old that I remember when "standardized tests" were just known as tests.

Same with "lived experience" when we just called it "experience."

Radwaste,

I would be more than happy to chat with W. Edwards Deming about his thoughts on this topic... but alas he is deceased for many decades at this point and you were not designated his intellectual advocate to speak on his behalf after his death.

You haven't even really said anything of value or made a real contribution to the discussion.

All you are trying to do is inappropriately steal the credibility of a dead person instead of making your own argument.

It's like when people speak on behalf of the founding fathers, or the American people, or god.

Speak for yourself Radwaste... quote others directly if you must, but what you have written above is all smoke and no fire.

"All you are trying to do is inappropriately steal the credibility of a dead person instead of making your own argument."

You wouldn't recognize one if it appeared.

In fact, the market assesses everything people produce, independently of the level of creativity, and sets its value in terms everyone - other than you, apparently - can understand.

The market has decided, just for one instance, that your opinion here is worthless, if for no other reason that the process disciplines Deming is revered for are a mystery to you. Hey, your value to this blog is a mystery to me, as low as your signal/noise ratio usually is.

No one needs to be alive to render your utterings moot - and your idea that anyone can steal Deming's work is flatly wrong. For a self-professed intellectual (hey!), that's telling.

Radwaste,

I don't think for one moment that it has occurred to you that your understanding of what I am talking about is way off base.

You appear to have a faith-based belief in how markets function that boarder on a child's dogged belief that Santa lives at the north pole and puts presents under their tree.

You also confuse your own personal opinion with some intangible broader market at work with respect to my own opinion being "worthless". What a self-absorbed world you live in where you conflate your own beliefs with some unerring invisible hand that attaches value to anything and everything.

In any event, you would do well to expand your horizons beyond Deming and whatever it is you believe he thinks on this topic. I don't actually think he would object to anything I've said... and you don't speak for him.

I will point you to the likes of Peter Thiel though whose assessment of the innovation space very much aligns with my own. Innovation and competition are often at odds with one another and do not in fact have the synergy you naively presume they do. The world is a complex place and your simplistic way of looking at things does not capture what is actually happens.

The best research ideas do not always get funded, the best products do not always make it to market, the people with the brightest ideas do not always capture the value of those ideas.

That you want to turn this into some kind of tautological belief system where whatever got funded was by definition the best isn’t actually helpful… it is also a pathological way to manage a business or any other enterprise because it prevents course correction in the face of evidence that a poor choice was made.

“and your idea that anyone can steal Deming's work is flatly wrong.”

I didn’t claim you stole his work… I said you were attempting to steal his credibility by speaking on his behalf on a topic he hasn’t expressed an opinion on.

You might as well have dug him up from the grave, shoved your hand up his ass, and tried to turn him into your personal puppet.

Make your own case Radwaste. Cite Deming if you wish… but you haven’t cited anything, you are just claiming to speak on behalf of a dead man. Furthermore, I see no evidence that he actually shares your take on how innovation is rewarded within the workplace from the perspective of performance evaluations... which is of course what we are talking about here given we are discussing meritocracies as it pertains to individual performance.

@Artemis
If one examines the postconceptual paradigm of discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject semiotic discourse or conclude that the significance of the writer is deconstruction. But many narratives concerning the postconceptual paradigm of discourse may be discovered. D'Erlette suggests that we have to choose between subcultural theory and dialectic rationalism.
In a sense, Foucault uses the term 'the postconceptual paradigm of discourse' to denote a neoconstructivist whole. The primary theme of the works of Fellini is the role of the artist as participant.
However, Debord suggests the use of dialectic subcultural theory to deconstruct the status quo. Baudrillard's essay on neostructuralist nationalism holds that sexuality is capable of truth.
Therefore, if the postconceptual paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between dialectic submodernist theory and cultural narrative. Sartre uses the term 'dialectic subcultural theory' to denote the bridge between class and narrativity.
But the premise of predialectic libertarianism states that society has objective value, given that truth is distinct from art. The characteristic theme of Geoffrey's critique of neostructuralist nationalism is not, in fact, theory, but pretheory.

Ydris Moosumi,

I do not adhere to postmodernist interpretations of culture or reality.

While they can present an interesting read if one decides to delve deep the subject, at the end of the day is it no different than deciding to look at the works of Spinoza (whose philosophical take is by contrast wildly axiomatic and formulaic).

When you suggest that we must choose between postmodernism and dialectic rationalism this is not really a difficult choice to make for someone who has spent time studying and understanding what we understand to be objective reality.

If one is looking for a philosophy by which to try and live ones life I would generally defer to the works of Marcus Aurelius.

Postmodernism is not a philosophy I would choose to live by and it is not a philosophy that really recognizes the existence of knowable or non-subjective truth... let alone sets out a path by which to effectively discern fact from opinion.

Radwaste,

Recognizing that you have an extremely short attention span, let me provide you with the following food for thought:

1 - It is frequently the case that important factors to manage within a business are unknown or in some cases unknowable. This is where subjective judgment comes into play and separates successful decision makers from ineffective ones.

2 - Competition within an organization is often antithetical to overall business goals (i.e., it can and does set the individual interests against the health of the business as a whole). It serves to erode trust in an arena where you need a spirit of cooperation and teamwork to succeed.

3 - While the idea of a merit rating is at first glace attractive. When you attempt to you pay for what you get; get what you pay for; and try to motivate people to do their best, for their own good. The effect is often the opposite of what the words promise.

Just some points you should seriously consider instead of trying to speak on behalf of deceased individuals.

Keep going, Art. You missed a spot.

Meanwhile, any blog reader may skip your comment, secure in the knowledge that they will not miss a thing.

You should draw on your extensive intellect and command of the language to know when to simply shut up.

Radwaste,

It is times such as this that I can be secure in the knowledge that you are a complete and utter fraud.

What did you take, a web-based training that recently introduced you to SPC charts and manufacturing line control and suddenly you think you are a mouth piece for W. Edwards Deming?

Let me give you a little clue... all of the 3 points I made in my post at August 25, 2021 8:01 AM are almost direct quotes of Deming when it comes to business management.

"The most important figures that one needs for management are unknown or unknowable." - page 121 Out of the Crisis

"Evaluation of performance, merit rating, or annual review… The idea of a merit rating is alluring. the sound of the words captivates the imagination: pay for what you get; get what you pay for; motivate people to do their best, for their own good. The effect is exactly the opposite of what the words promise." - page 101 Our of the Crisis.

What is abundantly clear is that you've never actually sat in the decision maker chair, nor have you been in the meeting where the decision was being made.

At most you've been a tech on the factory floor reporting out on OOC's to engineers and management before following RFCs written by experts to fix equipment... and then escalating when the problem is beyond the scope of your knowledge.

Stop pretending you know more than you do here.

Deming was indeed a proponent of data based decision making... but he also understood very well that not all decisions can be made based on data because not every situation is conducive to statistical analysis... especially early on when risk decisions are being made on extremely limited information.

If you ever had such responsibility you would understand this... but clearly this is outside the scope of your work experience... and yet here you are pretending to be an expert on how all of this works.

You're a buffoon.

Once again I will chastise you for trying to make Deming your puppet when you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.