> Without concrete and public metrics of "merit", it becomes a buzzword for reinforcing the biases (conscious or not) of the evaluators.
I wish we could have discussions like this in the wider community without people going knee-jerk against the idea of it, itself.
I'd be willing to accept that a lot of companies here are nepotistic. I'd even be willing to accept that they cloak their nepotism in the rhetoric of meritocracy. But I have to draw the line at people opposing the idea itself. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could even hold that position. Don't you want the best people, at least in principle?
If people were more nuanced in these things we could hold discussions like "yes, this is a great ideal, but it gets corrupted. The problem is the corruption, not the ideal"
Your comment reminds me of a story I heard on NPR a while back, about an effort to reclaim the word "jihad". Basically, jihad is a concept of struggling or striving for something worthwhile but most Americans only hear the word coming from the mouths of horrible people.
I think the word meritocracy is in a similar situation. It's an interesting and useful concept, but the word tends to get thrown around by people you probably don't want to get associated with or confused with, so if you want to be heard and understood maybe try a different word.
> Don't you want the best people, at least in principle?
Maybe not. In many situations you want the best team, and the best team is not necessarily the team that has the most top flight individual contributors.
The best teams I've been on seem stronger than the sum of their individual members, and I've definitely been on teams I rate less highly that had some very strong individual contributors.
The best person form the job is the person who will make the team perform at its best. Which in IT would probably mean a technically savvy, creative person with good social skills and some domain knowledge. Those would be the merits upon which to build our meritocracy.
So you can be a productive coder or a good presenter or whatever but by themselves, these are incomplete metrics. If you happen to also be an a*hole, you are probably an overall liability.
An even more useless metric, though, is your specific flavour of sexuality or your skin colour. None of these count as qualifications in any sense, and if management if measuring these things I'd be wary of their sense of judgement.
Nowhere do I say that I don't care at all about the quality of my staff. In fact I'm often told my hiring process is pretty rigorous.
What I am claiming is that work is generally done by teams and optimising for high performing and highly capable teams is not the same as optimising for high performing and highly capable individuals (my understanding of what most people mean by 'meritocracy').
It's not merely word games. I've observed poorly performing teams built entirely of highly capable people. That kind of dynamic can hobble a company.
Don't just look to companies for examples -- look to sports.
There are professional sports franchises who go out and just throw money at "the best" players in their leagues. And the track record of doing that is pretty mixed; it turns out that just hiring a bunch of top individuals easily loses to putting together a group of players who are each objectively "worse" but whose play as a team is superior.
That's pretty rare! Almost all great teams have great players - and the teams that don't, usually have chronically underrated players, e.g. the Pistons with Ben Wallace - one of the greatest defenders ever.
HOWEVER, I will say that, rather than a great team, strategic / tactical innovation can cover for flaws. The Sydney Swans pioneered "flooding" and made a grand final with a sub-standard team. Next season though, the league caught up and the Swans did poorly. It wasn't the team or the players that got there, rather it was a tactical innovation, and that is usually short lived.
In similar ways, a coding change - new library, microservices etc can all be short term gains. Ultimately, though, when everyone starts using those tactics, what you want is the best people, fullstop.
That's pretty rare! Almost all great teams have great players
You're disagreeing with something I never said.
Imagine you're a baseball GM. You decide to build a winning roster by taking an unlimited amount of money, and then identifying the statistically best left fielder, the statistically best center fielder, the statistically best right fielder, and so on through all the field positions. You also identify the five statistically best starting pitchers, etc., and sign all of them.
There are franchises which try this "just sign a bunch of superstars, they have to win because they're so good" approach, and the track record of that approach is very, very mixed. But "just sign a bunch of superstars" is basically how tech companies claim they try to hire.
I can't create a comprehensive definition for it, but I can identify many components that are objective and purely technical in nature:
* Able to clearly communicate technical concepts. Evidenced by seeing displaying in wiring logical ordering of thought, separation of complex pieces into smaller, less complicated, and clearly delineated pieces, effective and actuate command of technical vocabulary.
* Able to code. Evidenced by watching them code.
* Familiarity with the data structures and algorithmic approaches native to the problem domain. Evidenced by discussion around that domain, perhaps a psuedo-code exercise with a relevant problem paired with discussion of design tradeoffs of different approaches.
* Understanding of the cross-cutting concerns related to maintainable software: testing, documentation, modularity, etc. Evidenced by Socratic discussion of said topics. "Given this problem common to sustainable software development, what would you do/have you done?"
I still believe in the value of meritocracy. Actually pursuing meritocracy solves a lot of the inclusivity problems we think we have. The problem is that people are inherently biased and unless we are purposeful in accounting for these biases it is easy to weave then into any system you design, no matter what the name or started goals.
Doesn't change the value of an actual meritocracy. Just highlights one of the challenges of being human.
Your definitely is not actually the definition of objectivity, though it is one way to be relatively confident that you are being objective, so I won't argue the semantics too much.
All of these can be objectively measured to a degree if you actually care to take the time:
* Logical ordering of thought: identify and diagram the main ideas in the text. Identify transitions in the text. Identify explicitly named connections between pieces. Multiple people can do this and expect to have a high degree of similarly in their results.
* Separation of components: similarly identify and diagram the components they list by name, the relationships the identify by name, the responsibilities they identify by name.
* Technical vocabulary: list all of the technical terms. Compare their usage against a dictionary.
* Ability to code: run their code. Does it complete and produce the expected output? This is absolutely objective. You can add further constraints and retain absolute objectivity: does it complete within a certain time, stay within a certain memory budget, stay within a certain cyclomatic complexity threshold, have a certain percentage of test coverage, etc.
* Familiarity with data structures and algorithms common to the problem domain: list the major constraints of the problem domain, list the data structures according to feature which addresses the constraints, similarly list algorithms. Compare to the candidate's answers. How many of the major concerns did they address? How many of the applicable data structures/algorithms did they know? Did they volunteer anything new and were they able to explain how it addressed the problem constraints?
* Understanding of the cross-cutting concerns. This could almost be a checklist. I would make it a little more involved. As a mentioned, Q&A, see what solutions they present, but to have a quantifiable metric we can identify major components and identify the major concerns each of those addresses, see how many the candidate reached, give bonus points for value concerns they addressed that we didn't.
I'm sure if I spent more time I could expand both of these lists.
I will concede that this is still subjective in many ways, especially in the interviewers choices of what is "correct" ( what are the problem constraints, etc.) and what parts of the answers after important.
In that regard I will concede to you that there is an ultimately subjective nature to most of this, because deciding what is valuable has an element of subjectivity, but that is going to be true of pretty much any pursuit outside of pure mathematics (and I'm not convinced we have entirely objective values there either). However, once we have decided what we value it's possible to eliminate a lot of the subjectivity from measuring it. In most interview processes it's not a lack of ability to be objective, it's a lack of concern about being objective.
And actually, I'm not too bothered by that. A healthy meritocracy does not require absolute objectivity. What it requires is an explicit statement of what the values are and a transparent means of evaluating people against those values, and but according to any other values. The values can be subjective. The evaluation can be subjective. As long as the values are known and the evaluation process is transparent it can function as intended. Even better, by clearly communicating the values of the system you send a strong signal to others so the can determine if your organization is something they want to be a part of.
Objectivity is a good tool to help maintain that transparency. But I'm not worried so much about the subjectivity of it as I am hidden values and opaque evaluations tied to things that should be irrelevant according to the stated values.
Defining "best" need not imply an objective definition in the same way that describing the "best" database architecture for a given set of requirements isn't entirely objective: "our programmers like to work with SQL more than MongoDB" is a subjective but sufficient argument to tip the scales.
Defining the "best people" is _obviously_ subjective. _People_ are subjective. There isn't just one "best"-- there is a set of "bests" that you can strive for. Just like the above example, it depends on your requirements, your priorities, etc.-- but most importantly, it doesn't need to be objective to work well, which brings us full circle to:
> "Best people" can mean the best team.
If you prioritize teamwork among individual contributors, this is what best people would imply.
The awesome part about a capitalist system is that companies have the freedom to experiment with these configurations of how they define "best". GitHub may define it differently from you, but that doesn't make their definition less valid.
Meritocracy is an idea, not a specification-- there is no one true meritocracy implementation. The discussion needs to start from there.
> Meritocracy is an idea, not a specification-- there is no one true meritocracy implementation. The discussion needs to start from there.
Im not convinced it does. If you want to say meritocracy says merely that we should try to hire the best people all things considered then no-one would disagree. The disagreement is precisely about which things it's appropriate to consider.
Typically meritocratic systems in practice make the assumption that it is possible to determine merit outside the context of a specific team. I think this assumption is highly suspect. Merit is not a fixed characteristic of the individual but rather an emergent property of them in their context and in relationship with those around them.
Not "an", as in singular measure, no. But what about several? Is there a single metric for "heathy"? Someone can be OK in almost all ways but have a broken leg. Are they "healthy" by a single metric? What about diabetes that is managed? Can you think of any field in life where there is a singular metric for performance? If not, why does the non-existence of a singular metric in tech invalidate the idea?
And what about in reverse? What if, rather than finding the "best", we merely have a metric/s that weed out the worst? If I remove the bottom 15% effectively, and replace them with average performers, then the net gain is massive, especially as each extra bug introduced is a massive time sink for any team, and poor developers are a massive cause of that.
I dunno - there's a fair case to be made that Kante was the essential lynchpin which dragged the rest of them upwards. Especially since we can check this in the subsequent season when he joined a different team (who also won the league whilst Leicester languished mid-table.)
"Chelsea were so happy with N'Golo Kante that they sent Leicester flowers to say thank you for selling him to them."
Fun fact: The original intent of the word `meritocracy` was satirical so it's connotations were intended to be closer to those of the OP than those which current defenders of the terms ascribe to it.
If the idea sounds great and is arguably great on all accounts, but in practice proves to not work, time and time again, perhaps the idea needs to be parked until the environment is fixed. Otherwise, arguing about it becomes a distraction while, in its corrupted form, the idea actively damages the things it should be improving.
So you just say "don't do <<idea>>" and, rather than expand and qualify the statement with a paragraph like the above, you just move on to the actual topic you want to focus on.
> So you just say "don't do <<idea>>" and, rather than expand and qualify the statement with a paragraph like the above, you just move on to the actual topic you want to focus on.
That's a terrible plan because it blanket dismisses a rational and widely accepted idea without explaining why or even forcing you to think about it.
How about you at least take the courtesy to explain why you're dismissing something that at face value provides a better solution than what you're suggesting. Even with its problems, you need to explain why your suggested solution is better than meritocracy.
I personally at least am yet to see a better alternative to meritocracy, despite its definite problems. In my opinion all proposed alternatives seem to introduce more unfairness and problems of their own.
Ok so apparently my attempt to offer an alternative pov for people who I believed did not grasp the original, is getting me some downvotes. Let me just link to what she has said about meritocracy in the context of her Code of Conduct:
"Marginalized people also suffer some of the unintended consequences of dogmatic insistence on meritocratic principles of governance. Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality. People with "merit" are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people. (For more critical analysis of meritocracy, refer to this entry on the Geek Feminism wiki.)
An easy way to begin addressing this problem is to be overt in our openness, welcoming all people to contribute, and pledging in return to value them as human beings and to foster an atmosphere of kindness, cooperation, and understanding."
AFAIK the word "merit" doesn't appear at all in the actual Code of Conduct.
But what's her alternative proposal - that we say, accept pull requests from someone because of their race or sex without critiquing at all? Based on the way she responded to some stuff in this job... maybe that's actually what she wants, but it's not what I want and it sounds like a terrible idea in general.
Meritocracy is still the best we have. It may be flawed, yes, but there exists no superior alternative. It's likely possible to get away with a few minor tweaks - but there doesn't seem to be anyone looking into what exactly those could be, instead they shit on the concept without providing any viable alternative.
It seems like many of the things she and others mention are not necessarily bias in individuals in the workplace, but "resources, free time, life experiences" - which seem much easier to attack and if done fully I think could help make up for other biases too. I think the best bet honestly is stuff like Black Girls Code where they try to get people up to speed in order to compete successfully by merit.
Being a "meritocracy" doesn't mean that you have to reject pull reqests until the author gets it perfect. For someone who's new, you can instead have someone with more experience with the project fix it up as an example, and for the second give some advice but fix it up for the author if the author seems stuck, and for the next one, ...
+1. Parent comment's argument is not great because, among other things, the exact same argument could be made right back at them.
Amongst almost everybody I know, "meritocracy" still means it's dictionary definition. If the definition is contested, I don't understand why other peoples' definitions of it take priority over the official one
I wish we could have discussions like this in the wider community without people going knee-jerk against the idea of it, itself.
I'd be willing to accept that a lot of companies here are nepotistic. I'd even be willing to accept that they cloak their nepotism in the rhetoric of meritocracy. But I have to draw the line at people opposing the idea itself. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could even hold that position. Don't you want the best people, at least in principle?
If people were more nuanced in these things we could hold discussions like "yes, this is a great ideal, but it gets corrupted. The problem is the corruption, not the ideal"