Likes to think

There are many companies that band the word ‘meritocracy’ around, but what does it mean and what is involved?

Meritocracy is a form of leadership where decisions about an employee’s wage, role, bonuses and the like are made on the merits that that employee presents. Skill, performance, punctuality, experience and enthusiasm are all examples that one might use to measure merit – of course that depends on the decision being made.

A meritocracy is heavily dependent on skills. Not just in the shape of employing and promoting those who have skills over those who don’t – regardless of things like gender, sexuality, age, disability, race and allegiance; but also on the part of those making the decisions.

It’s not easy to assess the skills someone has, nor is it easy to assess the skills that someone might need for a particular scenario. Yet, despite its difficulty many feel they are up to the task.

This can be seen in the somewhat whimsical manor that a lot of companies run interviews. It’s assumed that, if someone is in a certain position, then they must have the appropriate skills. A logical decision, granted, that a team leader – whose job it is to assess and maintain the skills of their charge, might be appropriate.

What if, however, it transpires that one of those very team leaders were themselves employed in a floored process? What if, throughout their tenure, no real attempt is made to confirm their skills, let alone those of their teams? Would that not forgo the benefits of afore mentioned assumption?

How do you know?

Can you tell if a team leader is a skilled team leader – by monitoring their team’s performance?

No, you can say that their team is performing well – but that doesn’t prove that their performance is due to the diligence of the leader. There are many teams that functions well, despite having very poor leadership. In fact, a good team doesn’t need a designated leader, as order is distributed automatically.

Most designated team leaders are in fact team managers.

Most real team leaders are actually part of the team – a well organised and motivated individual within its ranks. They are often over looked, don’t realise themselves, and they are often too busy getting on with it. Real team leaders don’t require a pay rise, a pedestal or an inflated sense of self-importance.

Team managers

A team manager is someone responsible for assessing skill levels, constructing feedback and providing a channel of communication for the team. They are, and rarely need to be, the person motivating and driving the team. You can have someone who is a team manager as well as a team leader – but they are few and far between.

It’s the team manager who, if affective, should be getting involved in meritocratic assessments – like those in interviews.

A good thermometer

Measuring the skills of a team manager, or an interviewer is oft over looked. It’s a scientific process, and should never be approached otherwise.

Perhaps, I try to sell to you a thermometer – a very familiar piece of measuring equipment. You, as a diligent science teacher, cook or anyone else interested in such a purchase might say, “How do I know it is a good thermometer?”
“Well,” I proclaim, “I’ll prove it!”
I take said thermometer and place in hot water, the dial, mercury or digits respond and provide a reading.

Does that prove my thermometer is good?

No, it proves that there is an apparent correlation between the temperature and the response of my instrument, but – it does not prove the instrument is correct and accurate.

You may trust me, and buy in good faith. If you were a particle physicist, however, and you were measuring the energy produced as two atoms collided – you’d want some confirmation. You’d want to make a long series of tests to confirm the accuracy of your new instrument’s design and a guarantee of its quality – or at the very least a seal of approval by some government supported body of professors.

Now, let’s get back to your team managers.

Do you trust that they can make accurate assessments of an individual – to such a skill level, as to do it in one or two hours with the aid of only a clipboard or notepad? Do you trust this, based only on fact that they have made assessments of someone before? Or, do you verify their skills of assessment stand up to scrutiny?

So where’s the merit?

What I’ve said above, can be paraphrased into many attempts as assessing and making decisions on merit. A floor in many businesses, is that they assume they are doing things right. They assume that decisions are based on merit.

That’s not to say that they aren’t doing things right. More, if you don’t assess things correctly and you don’t pay attention to the right principles – it’s all the more likely that you won’t be doing it correctly.

If you can’t assess someone’s skill – then how do you develop it, or promote it or reward it? If your assessments of someone’s skills are inaccurate, then how should you view those decisions based on them?

The problem with meritocracy

There is a major fault in a drive for a more meritocratic organisation, in that more people say, “Yes, that’s a brilliant idea – I love that” – yet rarely do you find someone actually making changes to truly satisfy the needs of a meritocracy – that of true assessment.