07-12-2021, 07:09 PM
Nice idea for a thread because this is an interesting and important topic. 
I have a slightly controversial take on this. That is, all promotion and raise decisions are perfectly meritocratic...from the management's perspective.
For example, let's take kxingstar's example of well-connected colleagues being promoted faster than others. That makes sense because the management sees merit in promoting a well-connected employee, i.e. they can curry favour and gain some kind of social capital from the rich and powerful connections that employee has.
Of course, there's always a chance that they're essentially promoting someone who'll underperform in his/her new role or cause adverse effects that'll ripple throughout the rest of the company. But that's the price to pay for whatever benefits the management feels can be gained from their decision. So whether or not this cost/benefit analysis is a net positive or negative is another issue; more related to managerial decision-making than whether or not meritocracy exists.
But is it fair to the other employees? Probably not, especially if that well-connected employee was born into his/her connections.
Perhaps some younger or more naive employees (I was one of them
) will feel most unfairly treated when they see something like this happening because maybe they thought or were taught that good work is all it takes to succeed in an organisational environment. Well, unfortunately meritocracy has never been about fairness even though it sounds fair. It's always good to remember that the "meritocracy" was invented or at least popularised by an English writer who used it as a satirical term.
Anyway, I'm probably stretching this thread too far for now. Will be interested to read about other people's experiences.
I have a slightly controversial take on this. That is, all promotion and raise decisions are perfectly meritocratic...from the management's perspective.
For example, let's take kxingstar's example of well-connected colleagues being promoted faster than others. That makes sense because the management sees merit in promoting a well-connected employee, i.e. they can curry favour and gain some kind of social capital from the rich and powerful connections that employee has.
Of course, there's always a chance that they're essentially promoting someone who'll underperform in his/her new role or cause adverse effects that'll ripple throughout the rest of the company. But that's the price to pay for whatever benefits the management feels can be gained from their decision. So whether or not this cost/benefit analysis is a net positive or negative is another issue; more related to managerial decision-making than whether or not meritocracy exists.
But is it fair to the other employees? Probably not, especially if that well-connected employee was born into his/her connections.
Perhaps some younger or more naive employees (I was one of them
) will feel most unfairly treated when they see something like this happening because maybe they thought or were taught that good work is all it takes to succeed in an organisational environment. Well, unfortunately meritocracy has never been about fairness even though it sounds fair. It's always good to remember that the "meritocracy" was invented or at least popularised by an English writer who used it as a satirical term.Anyway, I'm probably stretching this thread too far for now. Will be interested to read about other people's experiences.
![[-]](https://damnlocal.sg/images/collapse.png)