Asklemmy

43856 readers

1976 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

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why not? The people most qualified should have the positions. The amount of qualified people and said positions probably don't always match and people may not want the jobs they qualify for though, But I think it's an ideal to strive for.

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

This is a copy of a reply to @godzillabacter@lemmy.world :

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.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What's the difference? The people most deserving of power, success, and influence would be the most qualified to handle it.

[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yes, but being good at something does not necessarily correlate to being good at managing others doing that thing.

This is especially pronounced in sales, where good salespeople get promoted to management, before immediately discovering that it requires a totally different skillset and they've basically changed fields entirely.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 months ago

Managing people is "something.". It's a skill. In an ideal meritocracy, managers would be good at managing.

[–] kambusha@feddit.ch 1 points 9 months ago

Halo effect

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago

Ok, I just wanted to make sure if that is what you were saying.