The culture war in action. I don't know why, but Mozilla is one of the few corporations that has fully embraced the toxic ideology of "diversity" and "feminism".
So much, that it will probably perish of it.
Their corporate culture has been overtaken by what one could call toxic womanhood.
I want to emphasize this with a quote by famous thinker Hannah Arendt:
"I was actually old-fashioned. I have always been of the opinion that there are certain occupations which do not suit women, if I may put it that way. It does not look good for a woman to give orders. She should try not to get into such positions if she wants to retain female qualities. I do not know whether I am right or wrong about this. I myself have somehow, more or less unconsciously - or let's say better: more or less consciously - directed myself accordingly. The problem itself played no role for me personally. You see, I just did what I wanted to do."
This quote to highlight how the cultural perception of reality can change within a mere 60 or 70 years.
The culture war has progressed to such a state that I don't even know if such matters are allowed to be discussed here anymore, because the "progressive forces" don't want to accept that there is anyone that could reasonably be against their ideology, that is, the counter-ideology gets suppressed.
Get woke, go broke. I hope Mozilla suffers relentlessly from this and the other stupid decisions they are making, until they either repent of this foolishness, or go away entirely.
Obviously, more competition in the browser space is better, but this toxic ideology poisons everything it touches.
So there is an extent to which I'm sympathetic to what you've written here. I do think that feminists (and I consider myself to be a feminist) are often dogmatic and not open to discussion or criticism. There is reason for this, namely that they are trying to protect groups (such as women and racial minorities) whose voices have traditionally been ignored, and thus there is a tendency to err on the side of favouring the opinions of these groups over other groups. I think there are positives and negatives to this, but it can be dogmatic.
However, I think you need to consider what you're saying:
> It does not look good for a woman to give orders. She should try not to get into such positions if she wants to retain female qualities.
Are you saying that women should not be in positions of power?
That quote also talks about "female qualities". And I think you should consider that many women are not very feminine, and many men are not very masculine. And to my mind there is no reason why those people should be constrained to act in a certain way just because of their gender. If you think that they should, then I'd be interested to hear why...
> Are you saying that women should not be in positions of power?
Nah he just cares about ethics in open source software ;)
(In case you’re unaware, there are alt-right/whatever they call themselves nowadays websites that have an “open source software culture” section where they fume over stuff like this and rush comment sections together. This person isn’t arguing in good faith and if you want to get to the bottom of anything, ask him instead what ethnicities should be in charge of software orgs. He probably has a paragraph to copy paste you)
This isn't a fair take. You can click on the original poster's comments and see that they're a legitimate member of this community. You can't just say someone is arguing in bad faith because you disagree with them.
The fact that my comment got deleted will make me stop contributing in such a controversial way, as I respect the house rules.
But it leaves a bad aftertaste, even though the strong moderation on this site undoubtly keeps everything civil.
I think provocative theses are necessary, in line with the Socratic method, and even though my original comment wasn't directly aimed at the arguments in the article, the entire point of a provocative viewpoint is to question the entire narrative of something on a fundamental level.
> I think provocative theses are necessary, in line with the Socratic method, and even though my original comment wasn't directly aimed at the arguments in the article, the entire point of a provocative viewpoint is to question the entire narrative of something on a fundamental level.
I agree, especially since the original article was making a similar type of claim. When you go that for down a line politically, it's useful to look at things from the opposite perspective. People don't have to agree, but I don't think we should be flagging or banning comments like yours on topics like this.
I can't speak about this particular person, but I feel like there are a fairly large group of people who are genuinely confused by feminist ideology to the point that it seems utterly bizarre to them. I think it's important to take their arguments at face value and debate with them in good faith.
Note that I quoted someone else. This is not my thoughts.
I am not interested in what should or shouldn't be, first and foremost. I am interested, sociologically, in understanding. I am interested to see what can happen with women in positions of power, embedded within a specific culture that tells them they are victims. I am equally interested in the corruption of men within positions of power.
Interestingly, women are expected to act in a certain way nowadays thanks to feminism. Culture says: "Women, you need to have a place in this corporations, independent of your abilities."
I think women should be free to act, independent of gender. Feminist culture reduces women to their gender, and associates it with helplessness. This attracts women who have been hurt by men, and unconsciously use it to fight back against men on an institutional/organizational level.
So I am not arguing for women to be constrained, I am argueing for a distorted view of women not to be used as a political weapon against men, which is what feminism is. Ideally women wouldn't be pushed into positions of power based on their gender, but based on their abilities.
Wow dude, way to misread the Hannah Arendt quote. You MRA's are priceless.
Also, 'progessive forces'. Yes, we're all part of a shadowy cult trying to stop you saying stupid shit. Can't be very good at it though, given you all seem to be free as ever to do just that...
Is there a place where developers who disagree with this type of political movement can gather? I do believe in meritocracy, I believe on the internet no one knows you're a dog and I believe in judging people based on their code contribution alone. I also have very little interest in letting non-tech interlopers into projects.
It seems to me that by rejecting the idea that merit is important, these projects will decay and devolve into irrelevance. The problem is that even the Linux kernel itself has been infected with this memetic cancer.
I would suggest it's time to re-read "1984", because real life is rushing towards imitating it, and it's not just the government. Newspeak and doublethink are rapidly infecting many corporations.
I hope Google rejects meritocracy harder and faster than Mozilla, so we can continue to have a competitive open-source browser not built by an advertising and tracking company.
Why though? Is this some kind of political stunt? I can basically guarantee this will increase the usage of the word meritocracy across the internet. So.. good job Mozilla.
Actual title of article: "Words Matter – Moving Beyond 'Meritocracy'"
More descriptive title, taken from the article text: "Mozilla has taken steps to discontinue using the word meritocracy as a way to describe governance and leadership structures."
Good! Meritocracy is a fake idea used to justify giving power to those who are already powerful, and the word was invented in order to satirize the idea[0].
The only time I ever hear it is from SJWs talking about how we shouldn't value open source contributors on their merit, but we should instead somehow ascertain their race and treat them differently according to it.
I personally long for a word that conveys a person’s ability to demonstrate competence and expertise and commitment separate from
We have a word for that: "meritocracy". The fact that we may have failed to achieve this fully doesn't mean we should throw out the word.
By the Mozilla logic, we should also throw out "democracy" because our government(s) have failed to include all stakeholders; throw out "feminism" because a few of them have demonstrated that they're anti-male rather than pro-female; "education" because we've so badly failed to properly educate our youth (and adults!).
Really, pretty much everything we've set as a goal for ourselves, we've failed to achieve in its entirety: such is the nature of goals. But those lapses are just further goals for us to cover. Throwing up our hands and changing the goal posts, or at least how we reference the goal posts, isn't going to get us any closer to them, and seems more likely to confuse the issue, taking us at least somewhat farther away.
"Sometimes good words and good aspirations get tarnished with history, and need to be set aside"
...and...
"Sadly, “meritocracy” is not that word. Maybe it once was, or could have been. But not today."
Like it or not, words have more than etymological meaning. They also have historical and cultural meaning, that might be sharply at odds with their etymology, and that precludes their use even in situations where they're technically accurate. "Meritocracy" has become such a word. Like "traditional American values" and "celebration of European culture" as synonyms for racism, "meritocracy" has become a rallying cry for opposition to diversity, inclusion, and egalitarianism. All as the person who originally coined the word meant it, BTW. We can coin new words that are just as etymologically valid without the cultural baggage.
Well, the OP mentions it. But you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to my analogy with terminology for other missed goals. I think they're pretty good examples of words that are "historically tarnished" in similar ways.
You just said what it is? I mean, what is Hispanic culture if not Mexican/Spanish/Venezuelan/etc., what the hell is Asian culture if not Chinese/Japanese/Korean/etc.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "celebrate Asian culture". Precisely because it's a barely meaningful agglomeration. Now if we examine the context in which "European culture" is celebrated... hm, yes I see.
I have heard it. There are just generic Asian American society functions, which celebrate the melting pot of everyone who isn't strictly first generation and has multiple ethnic backgrounds.
You've never heard of this as a dog whistle? I really want an answer from you on this - are you completely unaware of the way the phrase is used by right wing nationalists?
I'm aware and I don't care. I'm a product of those cultures and I'm happy to celebrate them- and I certainly won't allow others to dictate my lexicon based on association with groups they don't like
Depends on the issue and the group. If you're making the argument that those who have no issue with the phrase 'celebrating European culture' tend to be more conservative then I'd agree
Then I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with whatever name they choose to call you based on your skin color etc., right? Because it's their lexicon, it's not for you to decide. Or maybe being able to say others must accept your choice of words is an assertion of privilege.
> "Sometimes good words and good aspirations get tarnished with history, and need to be set aside"
Every word, every ideal, and every good intention becomes tarnished by history. Humanity is not a perfect phenomenon: it is deeply imperfect. There is no way to have progress if our moral view of the world is purely associative.
"Meritocracy" is only tarnished by the very same people writing blogs like this. Don't be surprised if you spend years trashing a house then suddenly realize you don't want to live there anymore. Plenty of people will continue to use the word and try to live up to it's concept because they did not buy the FUD heaped on it (by the very people who now conveniently want to abandon it) in the first place.
No it’s more akin to black lives matter not allowing themselves to say “all lives matter”. Fine in a vacuum, but the phrase has become loaded by the opposition, which Mozilla mentions in TFA.
"All lives matter" was never fine with BLM. Their objection to the phrase began before any Republican uttered it, when they booed a Democratic Presidential candidate for saying it and forced him to apologize.
It happens a lot actually. The word "empower" has done so many circuits on this track that I don't know if it is good or bad this year. It was once (90's, but probably still) good grant writing practice to know what the "in" words were at a department or agency. The word churn was a real item. "Socialize" was another word that went through some gyrations.
Frankly, I looked at this aspect of word smithing as a sort of shibboleth to identify the accepted crowd.
Meritocracy as a normal read of its definition should be a fine word, but Silicon Valley seems to be going through the same word smithing that DC goes through. New beliefs, new words, and must demonize the old words.
There is another point in a very similar vein - maybe a decade ago, Firefox was one of the jewels of open source. An example of how a group of volunteers could come together and assemble great software without hiding the source code and going for a quick buck.
Whatever Mozilla sees themselves as today, this language is clearly different from that original vision. Meritocracy is closely aligned to technical outcomes in a way that diversity and inclusiveness are not.
What I mean is, if your meritocracy fails to produce good software, obviously it is broken. If your ... inclusivocracy? ... fails to produce good software then it doesn't mean anything.
Obviously this language doesn't preclude the technical, but the focus has clearly shifted in the intervening years.
Meritocracy, when the term was coined, referred to a society that was essentially a reboot of aristocracy.
A new group takes charge by their own merit, then they embed their own descendants in the leader caste through a combination of shaping society to their own definition of merit, and designing an education system to confer "merit" on their own offspring at the expense of less "merit-worthy" children (i.e. most children who do not have meritorious ancestors).
A meritocratic society also suffers from an additional problem over that of an aristocracy because it embeds the complementary statement - that those who are not well rewarded are in that position because they are not as good/hard-working/clever as their "betters".
I get it; meritocracy often breaks down over time. But then it's become something else (perhaps a new aristocracy). But its not a different word for the same thing.
The problem in my last paragraph exists from the beginning. I would not be surprised if one of the reasons that the gap between C-level and worker salaries has widened so much, is due to the adoption of the term "meritocratic".
On a smaller scale, the aristocracy problem exists from very early on in the forms of "hiring in ones own image" and placing certain roles in higher regard (with higher reward or more opportunity for career progression) than others (e.g. sales > developers > UX > QA) even if they make equal contributions.
It is very difficult to evaluate merit across different professions (e.g is Tom Cruise a better actor than Lionel Messi is a footballer? Does a lawyer contribute more to society than teacher?) However, once you start claiming that you have a meritocracy, you are also claiming that those who receive the most reward have the most merit. i.e. in the example above, that your sales people are more hard-working and clever than your developers, who are in turn more hard-working and clever than your UX people etc.
Aristocracies also have that statement. Usually the aristocrats are there because of divine decree showing their merit, and the underclass are similarly slotted into that position due to their bloodlines.
Unlike meritocracy though, there is no way out of the situation beyond tearing down the system.
It is also possible for commoners to be ennobled if they show sufficient merit. It also doesn't take many generations of second and subsequent children under primogeniture to fall out of the nobility entirely.
Neither system necessitates the active oppression and exclusion of out groups.
The problem in both systems is that "merit" is defined by the few at the top, and is often either defined or executed in a way that favours individuals in a preferred class.
What is usually meant is that everyone is to be judged by results. (of course, how they're judged and by whom is important too)
What often actually happens is they're judged on executing a standarised test (bureaucracy) or by peers. (oligarchy)
Worse, some systems called meritocracy do not try to properly fit people into functions at all, forcing them instead. In those, you get thrust into a function despite not fitting it and then judged low merit, preventing changing the function.
This is a typical bureaucratic failure.
The definition of "results" and the criteria by which they are measured is the critical thing.
If you measure everyone in a company by how much money they directly make, then salespeople are the best, and everyone else is just drifting along on their wake. You could measure by functionality added, defects found, bugs fixed, projects completed, requirements gathered, and in each case, you assign merit to one class and not to others. Even if you have a reliable way to measure merit in one job family, how do you align the merit metrics across them?
Trying to turn running a software project or a company into an algorithm is a definition of bureaucracy. You do not look at metrics but judge performance.
The solution is either to be a judge or appoint a jury, preferably as unbiased as possible. Get a devil's advocate too.
You can rotate these people and pick some who do not know much about the person mentioned to be impartial and prevent oligarchies from forming.
Look at number of mistakes and their severity, flaws. Check when and if there are successes and the person working above and beyond the standard of service or overcoming adversity. Look for initiative and improvements.
It works almost exactly like military promotion if you think about it. It's a very human definition and not one turned into a metric. It's what we use and should use in courts of law too.
There may be some guidelines to help judging but they should not be hard law as that way lies bureaucracy and lack of adaptability.
Ultimately, all metrics depend on someone's judgement so why not make it explicit and transparent.
The trickiest part is to maintain fairness. Fairness as defined by the subject accepting the judgement, which is different from equality. This generally comes with informing them of why a certain judgement has been made which is contrary to what happens in most companies - both in hiring and advancement.
Most of that doesn't translate well to open source projects, so I'd guess that "meritocracy" in open source means something else than "meritocracy" in a stratified British society of 1958.
For example, that the _code_ has to have merit (OSS), not the people (new aristocracy).
There's something to be said about _paid_ open source software development though: once money is involved the meritocracy that can work with OSS clashes with the demands of those who pay or are paid - and therefore want the paid-for work landed no matter its technical merit, since that brings along the business or one's own promotion.
I'd wager the guess that the politics aren't very different from any other corporate politics, but potentially more visible due to the projects' structure.
With that in mind, I blame the disconnect about meritocracy in paid Open Source on the "paid-for" part, not on "Open Source bros fighting to exclude those who are not Like Them".
A survey of projects with no monetary interests (no sponsors, no donations to pay devs, not even companies using the code) to see if they have similar issues could test that hypothesis.
(disclosure: I'm paid to do open source development)
Your soapbox speech against the entire idea of changing connotations is bewildering to me. We change and abandon words all of the time. What you're saying is in line with "Why should I let some jerk from history ruin the name 'Adolph' for me. I'm gonna name my son that anyway!"
Words are for other people and other people might have opinions about them. Why are you so invested in putting up blinders to ignore that?
also your examples are bad. You picked non-controversial ones that aren't currently cultural wedge issues or dog-whistles. Try ones like "pro-life" or "liberal" instead.
> We change and abandon words all of the time. Why are you so invested in putting up blinders to ignore that?
The genesis story of meritocracy as told by its enemies is that it was used satirically (eg. Wikipedia: "It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay The Rise of the Meritocracy").
Why are they so invested in putting up blinders to ignore that "meritocracy" in the context of open source development doesn't carry that demeaning connotation, because people changed the word's meaning within their subculture sometimes in the 1980's? We change and abandon words all of the time.
I believe your "question" is loaded, misleading and missing the point:
It's not the OSS folks complaining about a change in meaning, but those who wish to retire meritocracy because they're too inflexible to accept that other people make a word mean something else.
> Why are they so invested in putting up blinders to ignore that "meritocracy" in the context of open source development doesn't carry that demeaning connotation
They aren't. They are arguing that it should be because, as arguably is part of the subtext of the original usage, what “meritocracy” used non-ironically denotes is very much something which humans fundamentally do not do, or even approximate, without deliberate and active correction for social and cultural biases of the exact type that the description of “meritocracy” is generally, and specifically in the case of those who apply the term non-ironically to the open source community, used to deny the need for.
> "Why should I let some jerk from history ruin the name 'Adolph' for me. I'm gonna name my son that anyway!"
My science teacher was called that and btw he was from Austria, no one in the classroom cared not even the slightest joke was made about his name or why his parents might named him that. If we would judge others based on their name or ethnicity -that's the definition of the discrimination and xenophobia.
> Words are for other people and other people might have opinions about them.
Stop spewing your ideological opinions as if they apply to everyone!
1. I named my cat “Nigger Man” after the cat in that HP Lovecraft story and people got really mad at me. I’m glad that things are going well for Adolph and hopefully one day my cat “N-man” (as I call him in public now) can be afforded the same respect.
2. Also I’m sorry for saying that words are a communication medium that carry different meaning to different humans. I now realize that they’re just bytes in a computer.
We need a word that conveys “yes, there are systemic problems that are unaddressed in use of this word, and I did not include it in the document using this word, please direct all conversation unrelated to the topic at hand off thread.”
And then we can use it instead of meritocracy*. Inventing a new word will have the same problem and likely be worse due to the confusion around using a word with the same meaning except it’s not bad.
I was interested what wrong could be perpetrated here. The key reason given is,
> The notion of “meritocracy” can often obscure bias and can help perpetuate a dominant culture.
The link at Atlantic is dead at the moment but it's on wayback[0]. Atlantic asserts that you can't use performance as an objective metric because, in practice, when all other things equal, they are still observing discrimination.
I don't know what to think any more. I would like an objective measurement but I don't know if the data support it.
The metrics are bad. And since the metrics are believed to be good, they further entrench winners.
It's like a ML algo. You take all people who have been put in prison, how long, and their faces. You also take a big subset of non-prison people - same thing. (You know where this is going). You build a classifier that, for a given face, estimates yes/no for prison and how long if yes.
Lo and behold, you show it darker face images, and prison estimation ratchets up and the estimated time served up up up.
Is the ML racist? Technically, yes. But it's observing racist underlying societal things.
Yeah, it's ugly. No, I don't have good answers, other than directly addressing when we catch stuff. But We (royal) don't see it as a problem. The status quo changes slowly.
I think the key observation is that metrics (of employee performance) are always bad. And thus it makes sense to compensate for that by taking into account other factors.
Meritocracy comes down to "Who deems someone worthy of merit?". Who or what makes the consideration? Is it done in a fair and impartial manner, or is the word "Meritocracy" used as a tool to further disenfranchise people out of the 'in group'?
If you dig in further, past the simple buzzword, its a method of distributed control of power, controlling social acceptance and shrouding it as "merit".
What does "Meritocracy" come down to? Turns out women don't get 'merit'. They get 'social media' positions. They get the fuzzy fluffy jobs because that's all they're good for, regarding merit. Similar with African Americans. Pidgeonholed, natch. Older people, same - seriously they 'just can't keep up!'.
I read the Hacker Manifesto back in '89. I accepted it. I lived it. And as much as I wanted to accept "that we're all alike", Real Names and similar forced policies to disclose identity have poisoned this back to racism, sexism, nationalism, and ageism. I don't like it, and I don't like whatever pretty glitzy name is given to do this round of demeaning and ostracization.
1. Players have a range of qualities. It is nigh on impossible to rank them in a simple linear order, since strengths and weaknesses come in bundles, not as a single order of merit.
2. What makes someone a winner or a loser varies as they move up the ladder? Success criteria are context-dependent. Qualities suited to the top position may have little value in the middle, and vice versa. Indeed we may kill off the very leaders we need in middle echelon tournaments.
3. Something like the Peter Principle operates, where people are promoted to their level of incompetence. We advance people on yesterday's, not tomorrow's, competence. It is also striking that no one goes down. Losers just get stuck in their positions or exit the game.
4. People move ahead as much by luck as through performance. They get a good break, have a strong sponsor, make the right friends and get handed an opportunity to shine.
"In the U.S., women own 39 percent of all privately owned businesses but receive only around 4 percent of venture capital funding. Put another way, male-led ventures receive 96 percent of all funding." https://www.nawbo.org/resources/women-business-owner-statist...
Women account for just 6 percent of the chief executives of the top 100 tech companies
There's plenty enough to dig further in this area. The numbers are damning, and show that "Turns out women don't get 'merit'." rather effectively. Well, unless you think that half of the population has 'fair' representation with only 4% VC funding, or 6% CEOs.
You've shown that merit isn't a simple cardinal value; I buy that.
You've also shown that outcomes aren't equal. You haven't provided any reason to believe that the outcomes should be equal - in particular, that a comparable number of women are actually competing with the men. There's a fundamental assumption here that women have the same goals as men, and prioritize them against other life choices in the same way. There's a lot of reason to think that both of those things are false.
> You've also shown that outcomes aren't equal. You haven't provided any reason to believe that the outcomes should be equal - in particular, that a comparable number of African Americans are actually competing with whites. There's a fundamental assumption here that African Americans have the same goals as whites, and prioritize them against other life choices in the same way. There's a lot of reason to think that both of those things are false.
By subtly changing a few words, I've replicated the same sentiment against African Americans. And before that, the Irish immigrants. And Chinese immigrants.
You come from a superiority position, and that the "inferiors" don't really want nor care. I reject that worldview wholeheartedly.
Reject away, but your counterexample doesn't prove anything.
Once again, you're continuing to make the assumption that all outcomes should, prescriptively, be equal for any demographic you might care to examine.
There's no reason to believe that everyone is identical. That idea is a religion to some people, but it's all based on faith with no real evidence. People are free to pursue different goals, and to prioritize different things.
For your argument to prevail, you've got to get past that as an assumption. You need to actually demonstrate that for completely equivalent cases, some demographics are being held back. That's remarkably difficult to do.
Otherwise, I can do this: women compromise 56% of college enrollees, with men only at 44%. There's clearly some kind of superiority position with an interest in keeping men out of college.
I'm not claiming that's a problem, but with your model of presumptive discrimination, you're going to have to come up with an explanation.
The issue isn't that current outcomes aren't exactly equal. The inequality is larger than typical sex differences can explain. If current outcomes reflect an innate difference, the separation between the median woman and the median man has to be exceptionally large, the trait has to be exceptionally more variable in men, organizations have to be far more selective than other evidence suggests, and/or the trait must not be normally distributed.
I don't know what standard you have for "exceptionally more variable" but in a normal population you only need a 33% difference in standard deviation to get a ratio of 2x at +2stdev or almost 4x at +3stdev (here stdev is of the less-variable population).
I think relative to the population at large it's reasonable to think a programming career is a +2stdev event in inclination and skill toward abstract systems (programmers are ballpark 5% of the working population).
I don't mean to suggest that the male variability hypothesis is all or even most of the story, but to me a 33% difference in variability, while substantial, doesn't sound impossibly large — and it suggests male:female ratios that are in line with what we see in the industry.
> women don't get 'merit'. They get 'social media' positions.
Well, hang on - some do, but not all. I've worked with plenty of very competent women programmers (Grace Hopper was a woman, after all), BUT they weren't exactly 50% of them. In fact, they were far fewer. I think most people have observed the same thing and the problem comes up when you try to figure out why, since, so far, there have only been two suggested possibilities: 1) women just aren't that interested in programming or, 2) the men are being sexist and keeping them out. Whenever somebody goes off on an "anti-meritocracy" rant, they're almost always _also_ insisting that the second suggestion is the truth, but there's really not that much evidence to support it.
Shouldn’t be better if we made meritocracy still valid and fight with biased opinions and decisions? Statements claiming that meritocracy induces biased behaviour will result in a huge backlash :(
It's a shame, as disagreeing that this type of publicity stunt will actually help diversity and equality means to some type of people that you are against equality..
In any case, it did inspire me to delete the Firefox app from my phone as another symbolic stunt.
Leaving aside the culture war third rail topics, the idea of meritocracy is on ethically shaky ground anyway.
People who are highly intelligent and motivated already reap the largest share of the rewards in society. Why do we have to go further than that and say that these people "deserve" more? A person who is born with low IQ or low conscientiousness (or both) "deserves less"? At least in a society where rewards are distributed somewhat randomly there is a chance for everyone to have a share. With a meritocracy, no such chance exists, since rewards are then determined by immutable aspects of a person's brain.
Maybe if we could build a society where decision-making was separate from reward, we could have a just meritocracy. But right now, as it is, those who make the decisions use their power to grant themselves all the rewards.
So you're saying that reward should be separated from the decision? If I make a shit decision regarding architecture on my current project which drag down the entire thing, I should receive the same amount of praise as if I had taken the best possible decision?
Or you could remove all possible reward, just so that there's no more incentive to do anything.
It doesn't have to be absolute perfection, it just has to be a system whereby someone who is a little bit better than you gets to replace you. That is, selection is based on monotonically increasing merit.
People at the bottom of such an arrangement have no incentive at all to participate in society.
You can argue that such an arrangement isn't realistic, that in real life you get to keep your job because you've made relationships with your coworkers. But then, that's not a meritocracy anymore, since nepotism/cronyism has taken the place of merit.
I'd argue in the tech industry at least you get to keep your job because you have very specific domain knowledge and are not easily replaceable without a lot risk and lost time, even if there are people who are theoretically better in some general way.
I think your definition of meritocracy is needlessly binary. People don't get assigned a merit number where they get to instantly supersede anyone with a lower one like sorting a list. What most people consider the word to mean is if you do good work you will be rewarded as such (more important role, more money etc.), not some king-of-the hill winner take all competition.
There's no question that this very often does not work out in practice, because life is messy. There is no such thing as pure anything when it comes to human relationships, but it's still a good idea to strive for.
It's certainly better than the alternative anyway....which is....actually what is the alternative? I've not heard anything besides "meritocracy is bad because not everyone benefits and some get screwed". What should we do, hand out positions and salaries based on random number generators? I think no matter what kind of hand wringing and word twisting people do you're always gonna end up back at a system of quasi-meritocracy combined with nepotism, cronyism and other human bullshit.
I would hazard a guess that the connection is how the Gulag was supposedly a punishment for the least meritorious (criminals) but in fact the inmates often possessed great merit and it was the guards/administrators who lacked any, because the definition and application of "merit" in Soviet society had become so twisted. But that's just a guess. More elucidation from the GP would be appreciated.
Given the current climate of tension in the English speaking world, I'm not going to comment publicly anymore on this issue. If you are genuinely intellectually curious as to my opinion, I'm happy to discuss it privately via email.
I think meritocracy isn't really desirable if you think more closely about it. Still, this is ridiculous.
Mozilla has done some fantastic work in shaping the internet like it is today, but this doesn't really bode well for the future.
On the contrary, I would think words like "diversity" and "inclusivity", since their politicization, shoulder a lot more subtext directly excluding certain political views.
An constructive environment doesn't need to check it's language. Maybe appeal to the conscience of the community. Worked pretty great in my opinion.
disclaimer: Only contributed tiny bits to OSS, but I believe this to be false:
> open source projects tend to have less diversity than other software organizations.
I also think that there isn't any real discrimination based on the idea or the word meritocracy. Ironically, although there is not much merit to meritocracy, there seems to be even less with inclusiveness and diversity.
>> open source projects tend to have less diversity than other software organizations.
You won't find some high school student or a stay at home mom have real impact in corporate software projects, but that's not the type of diversity that's measured these days.
I've started using "ferretocracy" to describe what actually exists in most places where "meritocracy" gets thrown around a lot. The idea of letting people succeed or fail according to merit instead of position is laudable, but (as crankylinuxuser already pointed out) the measurement of merit is problematic. A true meritocracy can only exist when the metrics for merit are both the right metrics and accurately measured, with all involved able and willing to keep it so. That's a bit like communism's reliance on altruism or laissez-faire capitalism's reliance on honesty. Things never work out that way. In reality, weasels always find ways to game the system. They exploit every flaw in how merit is defined or measured, who gets to define it, who is aided and who is isolated in their respective quests for merit, etc. Ultimately, the pursuit of "merit" veers off target. Focus on pure technical merit has to be balanced with consideration of other kinds, and with goals (e.g. diversity) that are not necessarily merit-maximizing.
You can guard against the metrics being inaccurate by calibration and anchoring.
And also verification. (and watch the watchers too)
It is obviously an active process, much like guarding democracy against demagoguery.
Attempts to subvert the system can usually be spotted early.
A person designing right secondary metrics that result in good primary endpoints is also meritorious.
The usual problems are either complacency, where meritorious people stop being so and are not being degraded, stagnation - lack of further development of merit or unnecessarily high barriers of entry.
Merit when developed should accrue over time, yet it should be possible for a "nobody" to get in at high levels.
> I personally long for a word that conveys a person’s ability to demonstrate competence and expertise and commitment separate from job title
Totally.
> or college degree
Absolutely.
> or management hierarchy
This one's less clear. On the one hand, obviously a toxic work environment can ruin anyone's performance, and accounting for that is important. On the other hand, most work has to happen in some kind of work environment, and to some extent we all have to learn how to work well with people around us. That's an important skill for any job.
105 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadSo much, that it will probably perish of it.
Their corporate culture has been overtaken by what one could call toxic womanhood.
I want to emphasize this with a quote by famous thinker Hannah Arendt:
"I was actually old-fashioned. I have always been of the opinion that there are certain occupations which do not suit women, if I may put it that way. It does not look good for a woman to give orders. She should try not to get into such positions if she wants to retain female qualities. I do not know whether I am right or wrong about this. I myself have somehow, more or less unconsciously - or let's say better: more or less consciously - directed myself accordingly. The problem itself played no role for me personally. You see, I just did what I wanted to do."
This quote to highlight how the cultural perception of reality can change within a mere 60 or 70 years.
The culture war has progressed to such a state that I don't even know if such matters are allowed to be discussed here anymore, because the "progressive forces" don't want to accept that there is anyone that could reasonably be against their ideology, that is, the counter-ideology gets suppressed.
Obviously, more competition in the browser space is better, but this toxic ideology poisons everything it touches.
However, I think you need to consider what you're saying:
> It does not look good for a woman to give orders. She should try not to get into such positions if she wants to retain female qualities.
Are you saying that women should not be in positions of power?
That quote also talks about "female qualities". And I think you should consider that many women are not very feminine, and many men are not very masculine. And to my mind there is no reason why those people should be constrained to act in a certain way just because of their gender. If you think that they should, then I'd be interested to hear why...
Nah he just cares about ethics in open source software ;)
(In case you’re unaware, there are alt-right/whatever they call themselves nowadays websites that have an “open source software culture” section where they fume over stuff like this and rush comment sections together. This person isn’t arguing in good faith and if you want to get to the bottom of anything, ask him instead what ethnicities should be in charge of software orgs. He probably has a paragraph to copy paste you)
The fact that my comment got deleted will make me stop contributing in such a controversial way, as I respect the house rules.
But it leaves a bad aftertaste, even though the strong moderation on this site undoubtly keeps everything civil.
I think provocative theses are necessary, in line with the Socratic method, and even though my original comment wasn't directly aimed at the arguments in the article, the entire point of a provocative viewpoint is to question the entire narrative of something on a fundamental level.
I agree, especially since the original article was making a similar type of claim. When you go that for down a line politically, it's useful to look at things from the opposite perspective. People don't have to agree, but I don't think we should be flagging or banning comments like yours on topics like this.
Reducing people to gender is sexist, and reducing them to ethnics is racist.
It's not my fault that the meaning of words has been turned upside down by popular culture.
I am not interested in what should or shouldn't be, first and foremost. I am interested, sociologically, in understanding. I am interested to see what can happen with women in positions of power, embedded within a specific culture that tells them they are victims. I am equally interested in the corruption of men within positions of power.
Interestingly, women are expected to act in a certain way nowadays thanks to feminism. Culture says: "Women, you need to have a place in this corporations, independent of your abilities."
I think women should be free to act, independent of gender. Feminist culture reduces women to their gender, and associates it with helplessness. This attracts women who have been hurt by men, and unconsciously use it to fight back against men on an institutional/organizational level.
So I am not arguing for women to be constrained, I am argueing for a distorted view of women not to be used as a political weapon against men, which is what feminism is. Ideally women wouldn't be pushed into positions of power based on their gender, but based on their abilities.
Also, 'progessive forces'. Yes, we're all part of a shadowy cult trying to stop you saying stupid shit. Can't be very good at it though, given you all seem to be free as ever to do just that...
Where do I go?
I would suggest it's time to re-read "1984", because real life is rushing towards imitating it, and it's not just the government. Newspeak and doublethink are rapidly infecting many corporations.
George Orwell - A Final Warning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXm5hklbBsA)
More descriptive title, taken from the article text: "Mozilla has taken steps to discontinue using the word meritocracy as a way to describe governance and leadership structures."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology
We have a word for that: "meritocracy". The fact that we may have failed to achieve this fully doesn't mean we should throw out the word.
By the Mozilla logic, we should also throw out "democracy" because our government(s) have failed to include all stakeholders; throw out "feminism" because a few of them have demonstrated that they're anti-male rather than pro-female; "education" because we've so badly failed to properly educate our youth (and adults!).
Really, pretty much everything we've set as a goal for ourselves, we've failed to achieve in its entirety: such is the nature of goals. But those lapses are just further goals for us to cover. Throwing up our hands and changing the goal posts, or at least how we reference the goal posts, isn't going to get us any closer to them, and seems more likely to confuse the issue, taking us at least somewhat farther away.
"Sometimes good words and good aspirations get tarnished with history, and need to be set aside"
...and...
"Sadly, “meritocracy” is not that word. Maybe it once was, or could have been. But not today."
Like it or not, words have more than etymological meaning. They also have historical and cultural meaning, that might be sharply at odds with their etymology, and that precludes their use even in situations where they're technically accurate. "Meritocracy" has become such a word. Like "traditional American values" and "celebration of European culture" as synonyms for racism, "meritocracy" has become a rallying cry for opposition to diversity, inclusion, and egalitarianism. All as the person who originally coined the word meant it, BTW. We can coin new words that are just as etymologically valid without the cultural baggage.
Or diversity and inclusiveness.
Every word, every ideal, and every good intention becomes tarnished by history. Humanity is not a perfect phenomenon: it is deeply imperfect. There is no way to have progress if our moral view of the world is purely associative.
Step 2: Bemoan that you need a new word for what meritocracy used to mean
Step 3: ??? (my guess is: rinse and repeat)
Frankly, I looked at this aspect of word smithing as a sort of shibboleth to identify the accepted crowd.
Meritocracy as a normal read of its definition should be a fine word, but Silicon Valley seems to be going through the same word smithing that DC goes through. New beliefs, new words, and must demonize the old words.
Whatever Mozilla sees themselves as today, this language is clearly different from that original vision. Meritocracy is closely aligned to technical outcomes in a way that diversity and inclusiveness are not.
What I mean is, if your meritocracy fails to produce good software, obviously it is broken. If your ... inclusivocracy? ... fails to produce good software then it doesn't mean anything.
Obviously this language doesn't preclude the technical, but the focus has clearly shifted in the intervening years.
A new group takes charge by their own merit, then they embed their own descendants in the leader caste through a combination of shaping society to their own definition of merit, and designing an education system to confer "merit" on their own offspring at the expense of less "merit-worthy" children (i.e. most children who do not have meritorious ancestors).
A meritocratic society also suffers from an additional problem over that of an aristocracy because it embeds the complementary statement - that those who are not well rewarded are in that position because they are not as good/hard-working/clever as their "betters".
On a smaller scale, the aristocracy problem exists from very early on in the forms of "hiring in ones own image" and placing certain roles in higher regard (with higher reward or more opportunity for career progression) than others (e.g. sales > developers > UX > QA) even if they make equal contributions.
It is very difficult to evaluate merit across different professions (e.g is Tom Cruise a better actor than Lionel Messi is a footballer? Does a lawyer contribute more to society than teacher?) However, once you start claiming that you have a meritocracy, you are also claiming that those who receive the most reward have the most merit. i.e. in the example above, that your sales people are more hard-working and clever than your developers, who are in turn more hard-working and clever than your UX people etc.
Unlike meritocracy though, there is no way out of the situation beyond tearing down the system.
Neither system necessitates the active oppression and exclusion of out groups.
The problem in both systems is that "merit" is defined by the few at the top, and is often either defined or executed in a way that favours individuals in a preferred class.
What often actually happens is they're judged on executing a standarised test (bureaucracy) or by peers. (oligarchy)
Worse, some systems called meritocracy do not try to properly fit people into functions at all, forcing them instead. In those, you get thrust into a function despite not fitting it and then judged low merit, preventing changing the function. This is a typical bureaucratic failure.
If you measure everyone in a company by how much money they directly make, then salespeople are the best, and everyone else is just drifting along on their wake. You could measure by functionality added, defects found, bugs fixed, projects completed, requirements gathered, and in each case, you assign merit to one class and not to others. Even if you have a reliable way to measure merit in one job family, how do you align the merit metrics across them?
The solution is either to be a judge or appoint a jury, preferably as unbiased as possible. Get a devil's advocate too. You can rotate these people and pick some who do not know much about the person mentioned to be impartial and prevent oligarchies from forming.
Look at number of mistakes and their severity, flaws. Check when and if there are successes and the person working above and beyond the standard of service or overcoming adversity. Look for initiative and improvements.
It works almost exactly like military promotion if you think about it. It's a very human definition and not one turned into a metric. It's what we use and should use in courts of law too. There may be some guidelines to help judging but they should not be hard law as that way lies bureaucracy and lack of adaptability.
Ultimately, all metrics depend on someone's judgement so why not make it explicit and transparent.
The trickiest part is to maintain fairness. Fairness as defined by the subject accepting the judgement, which is different from equality. This generally comes with informing them of why a certain judgement has been made which is contrary to what happens in most companies - both in hiring and advancement.
For example, that the _code_ has to have merit (OSS), not the people (new aristocracy).
There's something to be said about _paid_ open source software development though: once money is involved the meritocracy that can work with OSS clashes with the demands of those who pay or are paid - and therefore want the paid-for work landed no matter its technical merit, since that brings along the business or one's own promotion.
I'd wager the guess that the politics aren't very different from any other corporate politics, but potentially more visible due to the projects' structure.
With that in mind, I blame the disconnect about meritocracy in paid Open Source on the "paid-for" part, not on "Open Source bros fighting to exclude those who are not Like Them".
A survey of projects with no monetary interests (no sponsors, no donations to pay devs, not even companies using the code) to see if they have similar issues could test that hypothesis.
(disclosure: I'm paid to do open source development)
Words are for other people and other people might have opinions about them. Why are you so invested in putting up blinders to ignore that?
also your examples are bad. You picked non-controversial ones that aren't currently cultural wedge issues or dog-whistles. Try ones like "pro-life" or "liberal" instead.
The genesis story of meritocracy as told by its enemies is that it was used satirically (eg. Wikipedia: "It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay The Rise of the Meritocracy").
Why are they so invested in putting up blinders to ignore that "meritocracy" in the context of open source development doesn't carry that demeaning connotation, because people changed the word's meaning within their subculture sometimes in the 1980's? We change and abandon words all of the time.
Also answering a question with a question is an evasion technique. Just say what you believe, and don’t drill me on stuff other people said.
It's not the OSS folks complaining about a change in meaning, but those who wish to retire meritocracy because they're too inflexible to accept that other people make a word mean something else.
They aren't. They are arguing that it should be because, as arguably is part of the subtext of the original usage, what “meritocracy” used non-ironically denotes is very much something which humans fundamentally do not do, or even approximate, without deliberate and active correction for social and cultural biases of the exact type that the description of “meritocracy” is generally, and specifically in the case of those who apply the term non-ironically to the open source community, used to deny the need for.
... when applied to a situation where people are ranked.
The meritocracy of open source wasn't about "who gets promoted", but about the merit of the code being contributed.
It's the code that was ranked, not its authors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_... and all that.
My science teacher was called that and btw he was from Austria, no one in the classroom cared not even the slightest joke was made about his name or why his parents might named him that. If we would judge others based on their name or ethnicity -that's the definition of the discrimination and xenophobia.
> Words are for other people and other people might have opinions about them.
Stop spewing your ideological opinions as if they apply to everyone!
2. Also I’m sorry for saying that words are a communication medium that carry different meaning to different humans. I now realize that they’re just bytes in a computer.
“Adolph” hasn't really been ruined. “Hitler” on the other hand…
And then we can use it instead of meritocracy*. Inventing a new word will have the same problem and likely be worse due to the confusion around using a word with the same meaning except it’s not bad.
> The notion of “meritocracy” can often obscure bias and can help perpetuate a dominant culture.
The link at Atlantic is dead at the moment but it's on wayback[0]. Atlantic asserts that you can't use performance as an objective metric because, in practice, when all other things equal, they are still observing discrimination.
I don't know what to think any more. I would like an objective measurement but I don't know if the data support it.
0: https://web.archive.org/web/20181004050116/https://www.theat...
It's like a ML algo. You take all people who have been put in prison, how long, and their faces. You also take a big subset of non-prison people - same thing. (You know where this is going). You build a classifier that, for a given face, estimates yes/no for prison and how long if yes.
Lo and behold, you show it darker face images, and prison estimation ratchets up and the estimated time served up up up.
Is the ML racist? Technically, yes. But it's observing racist underlying societal things.
Yeah, it's ugly. No, I don't have good answers, other than directly addressing when we catch stuff. But We (royal) don't see it as a problem. The status quo changes slowly.
In meritocracy, direct results should matter.
If you dig in further, past the simple buzzword, its a method of distributed control of power, controlling social acceptance and shrouding it as "merit".
What does "Meritocracy" come down to? Turns out women don't get 'merit'. They get 'social media' positions. They get the fuzzy fluffy jobs because that's all they're good for, regarding merit. Similar with African Americans. Pidgeonholed, natch. Older people, same - seriously they 'just can't keep up!'.
I read the Hacker Manifesto back in '89. I accepted it. I lived it. And as much as I wanted to accept "that we're all alike", Real Names and similar forced policies to disclose identity have poisoned this back to racism, sexism, nationalism, and ageism. I don't like it, and I don't like whatever pretty glitzy name is given to do this round of demeaning and ostracization.
Please provide citations.
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/jun/24/...
The main takeaways here are:
1. Players have a range of qualities. It is nigh on impossible to rank them in a simple linear order, since strengths and weaknesses come in bundles, not as a single order of merit.
2. What makes someone a winner or a loser varies as they move up the ladder? Success criteria are context-dependent. Qualities suited to the top position may have little value in the middle, and vice versa. Indeed we may kill off the very leaders we need in middle echelon tournaments.
3. Something like the Peter Principle operates, where people are promoted to their level of incompetence. We advance people on yesterday's, not tomorrow's, competence. It is also striking that no one goes down. Losers just get stuck in their positions or exit the game.
4. People move ahead as much by luck as through performance. They get a good break, have a strong sponsor, make the right friends and get handed an opportunity to shine.
https://theconversation.com/women-in-tech-suffer-because-of-...
"In the U.S., women own 39 percent of all privately owned businesses but receive only around 4 percent of venture capital funding. Put another way, male-led ventures receive 96 percent of all funding." https://www.nawbo.org/resources/women-business-owner-statist...
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/27...
Women account for just 6 percent of the chief executives of the top 100 tech companies
There's plenty enough to dig further in this area. The numbers are damning, and show that "Turns out women don't get 'merit'." rather effectively. Well, unless you think that half of the population has 'fair' representation with only 4% VC funding, or 6% CEOs.
You've also shown that outcomes aren't equal. You haven't provided any reason to believe that the outcomes should be equal - in particular, that a comparable number of women are actually competing with the men. There's a fundamental assumption here that women have the same goals as men, and prioritize them against other life choices in the same way. There's a lot of reason to think that both of those things are false.
By subtly changing a few words, I've replicated the same sentiment against African Americans. And before that, the Irish immigrants. And Chinese immigrants.
You come from a superiority position, and that the "inferiors" don't really want nor care. I reject that worldview wholeheartedly.
Once again, you're continuing to make the assumption that all outcomes should, prescriptively, be equal for any demographic you might care to examine.
There's no reason to believe that everyone is identical. That idea is a religion to some people, but it's all based on faith with no real evidence. People are free to pursue different goals, and to prioritize different things.
For your argument to prevail, you've got to get past that as an assumption. You need to actually demonstrate that for completely equivalent cases, some demographics are being held back. That's remarkably difficult to do.
Otherwise, I can do this: women compromise 56% of college enrollees, with men only at 44%. There's clearly some kind of superiority position with an interest in keeping men out of college.
I'm not claiming that's a problem, but with your model of presumptive discrimination, you're going to have to come up with an explanation.
I think relative to the population at large it's reasonable to think a programming career is a +2stdev event in inclination and skill toward abstract systems (programmers are ballpark 5% of the working population).
I don't mean to suggest that the male variability hypothesis is all or even most of the story, but to me a 33% difference in variability, while substantial, doesn't sound impossibly large — and it suggests male:female ratios that are in line with what we see in the industry.
Well, hang on - some do, but not all. I've worked with plenty of very competent women programmers (Grace Hopper was a woman, after all), BUT they weren't exactly 50% of them. In fact, they were far fewer. I think most people have observed the same thing and the problem comes up when you try to figure out why, since, so far, there have only been two suggested possibilities: 1) women just aren't that interested in programming or, 2) the men are being sexist and keeping them out. Whenever somebody goes off on an "anti-meritocracy" rant, they're almost always _also_ insisting that the second suggestion is the truth, but there's really not that much evidence to support it.
In any case, it did inspire me to delete the Firefox app from my phone as another symbolic stunt.
People who are highly intelligent and motivated already reap the largest share of the rewards in society. Why do we have to go further than that and say that these people "deserve" more? A person who is born with low IQ or low conscientiousness (or both) "deserves less"? At least in a society where rewards are distributed somewhat randomly there is a chance for everyone to have a share. With a meritocracy, no such chance exists, since rewards are then determined by immutable aspects of a person's brain.
Maybe if we could build a society where decision-making was separate from reward, we could have a just meritocracy. But right now, as it is, those who make the decisions use their power to grant themselves all the rewards.
Or you could remove all possible reward, just so that there's no more incentive to do anything.
In a society where merit is rewarded perfectly, there's no incentive to do anything for all those who lack merit (i.e. the bottom 99%).
Regardless, merit != absolute perfection. Most people are bad at lots of things and good enough at one or two.
People at the bottom of such an arrangement have no incentive at all to participate in society.
You can argue that such an arrangement isn't realistic, that in real life you get to keep your job because you've made relationships with your coworkers. But then, that's not a meritocracy anymore, since nepotism/cronyism has taken the place of merit.
I think your definition of meritocracy is needlessly binary. People don't get assigned a merit number where they get to instantly supersede anyone with a lower one like sorting a list. What most people consider the word to mean is if you do good work you will be rewarded as such (more important role, more money etc.), not some king-of-the hill winner take all competition.
There's no question that this very often does not work out in practice, because life is messy. There is no such thing as pure anything when it comes to human relationships, but it's still a good idea to strive for.
It's certainly better than the alternative anyway....which is....actually what is the alternative? I've not heard anything besides "meritocracy is bad because not everyone benefits and some get screwed". What should we do, hand out positions and salaries based on random number generators? I think no matter what kind of hand wringing and word twisting people do you're always gonna end up back at a system of quasi-meritocracy combined with nepotism, cronyism and other human bullshit.
Given the current climate of tension in the English speaking world, I'm not going to comment publicly anymore on this issue. If you are genuinely intellectually curious as to my opinion, I'm happy to discuss it privately via email.
This is a common misunderstanding on the site.
Mozilla has done some fantastic work in shaping the internet like it is today, but this doesn't really bode well for the future.
On the contrary, I would think words like "diversity" and "inclusivity", since their politicization, shoulder a lot more subtext directly excluding certain political views.
An constructive environment doesn't need to check it's language. Maybe appeal to the conscience of the community. Worked pretty great in my opinion.
disclaimer: Only contributed tiny bits to OSS, but I believe this to be false:
> open source projects tend to have less diversity than other software organizations.
I also think that there isn't any real discrimination based on the idea or the word meritocracy. Ironically, although there is not much merit to meritocracy, there seems to be even less with inclusiveness and diversity.
>> open source projects tend to have less diversity than other software organizations.
You won't find some high school student or a stay at home mom have real impact in corporate software projects, but that's not the type of diversity that's measured these days.
It is obviously an active process, much like guarding democracy against demagoguery.
Attempts to subvert the system can usually be spotted early.
A person designing right secondary metrics that result in good primary endpoints is also meritorious.
The usual problems are either complacency, where meritorious people stop being so and are not being degraded, stagnation - lack of further development of merit or unnecessarily high barriers of entry.
Merit when developed should accrue over time, yet it should be possible for a "nobody" to get in at high levels.
Totally.
> or college degree
Absolutely.
> or management hierarchy
This one's less clear. On the one hand, obviously a toxic work environment can ruin anyone's performance, and accounting for that is important. On the other hand, most work has to happen in some kind of work environment, and to some extent we all have to learn how to work well with people around us. That's an important skill for any job.