Can a Meritocracy Work?

In conversation with some colleagues I was surprised to find that they believed there were many downsides to a meritocratic system.

This was especially disturbing when you consider that my colleagues are mainly in academia.

So firstly I looked up the definition of a meritocracy to ensure I was thinking about the right thing. From Merriam-Webster Dictionary, April 2022

A Meritocracy - a system, organisation, 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.

The main problem, as my colleagues pointed out, seems to stem from the last part of this definition - “their demonstrated abilities and merit”. As for those at the point of leaving education and moving into the world of work demonstrating their abilities (in wide context) and their merit can be hard. Merit is, without the right guidance and support, quite difficult to demonstrate. Again from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Merit - a praiseworthy quality, a character or conduct deserving reward, honour, or esteem.

I took some time out to read what others had to say about a meritocracy. Again to my surprise many seem to infer that “luck” plays a very large part in the “system”.

Being in the right place at the right time and being seen by the “right” people would appear to play a significant role in advancement within a system where advancement is based on merit.

This is something I find annoyingly obvious!

I certainly learnt very early on in my career that you not only had to do good things but you had to be seen to do good things (Something I regularly stress to my students at Cambridge). This did not mean either manipulating the situation or shouting loudly about accomplishments, but did mean that I had to ensure that my successes were recognisable by those in a position to advance my career, without my being seen as annoying.

But back to “Luck” and how it can be defined.

You could, and many do, define luck as, success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

But I choose to take the line that Seneca (a Roman Philosopher) laid out - “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity”.

And here, I would argue, is where existing within a meritocracy can definitely be of benefit.

If we suppose that opportunities are open to all (please don’t sigh), those with the right preparation should be the ones selected for new roles or advancement. And by preparation I do not mean “cramming” before an interview. Preparation should be something that happens all of the time, just in case that great opportunity opens up. Preparation must include the documentation of successes, supported by independent/ neutral people. A career history should be concisely written and up-to-date (with an introduction that summarises in as few words as possible the details that follow). Serious awards or congratulatory letters from seniors, inside and outside of the organisation, should be documented. And lastly detailed feedback should have already collected from peers and colleagues, on work and achievements over a number of years. (It is generally recognised that an individual’s performance over the last five years will be a reliable forecast of the next two).

All of this will help when that fantastic opportunity opens up, it will also help an individual have a good self image, essentially how you view yourself. This is as important as the documention of achievements. Again through a long career I have learnt that self belief is crucial and that a sensible “self image”, the one you hope others will see, should be an honest representation, one that has been tested in the fires of feedback.

Meeting the criteria for “Merit” (as laid out in the definition above), is hard, but with regular attention it can be demonstrated. Something that in an organisation where employees are judged on effort, skills, abilities and performance, is again essential.

…

It is only when preparation becomes part of your day to day activities, without taking excessive time, are you going to be ready when the, unexpected but amazing, career opportunity presents itself.

And this is all well and good when a solid five years or more of achievements can easily be demonstrated, but how does the university or college student do this?

Worse than this how does the school student ensure they will be selected for the university or college course they desire - the problem starts early!

...

How often do we hear a high school student say, “I’ll do that because it will look good on my college/ university application”?

Of course those who can afford to send their children to an expensive school will expect that as part of their children’s preparation they will be shown how to bolster their CV and pack their application with additional activities of merit. While those at a state school may well miss out on this extra-curricula activity.

And the idea behind the meritocracy was to break down the system where only those with money, or a leading social position, could ensure their children had a great start in life.

It is at this point that I should introduce the “University of Cambridge Dictionary” definition of a meritocracy - a social system, society, or organisation in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position!

This was recently brought into sharp relief by a case in the US where parents with considerable wealth paid a “fixer” to ensure their children were accepted into the best colleges. This was reported in the LA Times in 2019 as “The college admissions scheme”.

...

Then we come to the “Nurture versus Nature” argument.

If some children are born with natural talents and those talents are enhanced by caring parents who encourage and support the talents, which one might argue have not been “earned”, why then should they benefit from a society that rewards talent?

Hopefully reading this last paragraph you will have cringed, but maybe not.

If through an accident of genetics and a loving caring family an individual shows outstanding talent in a particular area, surely as a society we should continue to nurture that talent for the benefit of all in the society?

...

But what happens to the child with the natural talent who through an accident of birth is not provided with support, this perhaps through no fault of their parents but just because the talent is not spotted or the parents struggle just to make ends meet and work at more than one job, leaving them little time to spend with their children?

We rely on our state schools to spot this early talent if parents do not, but do they have the time and/or the expertise to do this? Or is this type of extra-curricula support just for the rich and their schools?

Clearly there are state schools that take this role very seriously and are able to ensure that children from the poorest/ underprivileged backgrounds still make it into the best universities and are able to realise their potential, but it is certainly not the norm in our society today.

…

The more I read about a meritocratic society the more I see the flaws, but as someone from a far from wealthy background, who was educated in the state system, a system enhanced at the time by grammar schools, I was able to make it into industry and a system there that rewarded success. It certainly was not a pure meritocracy, but hard work, invention and good communication skills were rewarded and I progressed relatively rapidly through the ranks.

I passed on these key messages to my children, and they have also done very well in their careers, one in industry the other in academia.

...

So are there issues with a meritocratic system, of course there are!

Can those with money, power and influence navigate around the system, of course!

But does a system that rewards work quality, recognises achievements which are in excess of the norm and allows those from a non-privileged background to realise their potential, a good thing?

Yes of course it is!

Wikipedia tells us that although the concept of meritocracy has existed for centuries, the term itself was coined in 1958 by the sociologist Michael Dunlop Young in his dystopian political and satirical book The Rise of the Meritocracy.

Therefore this system has been around for a very long time and we really should be able to make it, in some form, work for the benefit of both individuals and society?

The author:

Jeff spent over 40 years in industry, rising from an apprentice in engineering to a senior manager responsible for all interactions between his firm and academic institutions and business schools globally. On retiring from industry the University of Cambridge asked if he would like to join them, an opportunity he was very pleased to accept. For the last ten years he has mentored and guided graduate students in both their studies and their transition into senior positions, in industry and academia.