Meritocracy in the workplace

When was the last time you were introduced to someone new? If you are like most people, it’s probably not very long ago. If you look back at that encounter, there is one question that you ought to have answered. The question of what do you do for living. Employment and job titles have become a defining attribute of this generation. Societies are organized around the idea of going to work. To see this, try to think about how we design our cities, transport systems, and homes. Some societies are notoriously known for their addiction to work. Individuals are judged around the idea of what they do. To be more precise, individuals are categorized around the idea of what people perceive they do for a living. But then, what if these judgments are absolutely wrong? Or what if an individual can’t fit in the box of job categories?  And is there a better way to organize the work environment? Maybe. The role of employment has become very pervasive to the extent that it also defines our retirement and health care. If you are like myself, then the concept of employment is one that is worth thought and critical inquiry. The first part of this essay will describe my observations of current state of employment and I will conclude the essay with proposals of how to create a meritocracy at work.

Employment is a legal contract

 Employment is not inherently a bad thing as some young people tend to think of it. More wealth has been created in America by corporations. Employment and jobs have allowed corporations and governments to channel mass labor with spectacular results.  On the other hand, employment is simply a legal contract between two parties. One that is often masqueraded in the rhetoric of doing what you love. With the exception of self-employed individuals, most employees are in a contract with their employers. This is the first lesson to learn.  This contract is very delicate and very much in favor of the employer. I started this paragraph with how employment has created so much wealth. What I should have said is how very few people have benefited from organized employment. The employer will strive to pay you just enough to make the contract attractive and to keep you. In a situation where you become expensive or ineffective, the employer will terminate you. What baffles me is the hesitancy of the other party to exercise their right to terminate the contract when the time is right. Another point is that there is no such thing as loyalty in employment.  How can the concept of loyalty even become inter-mingled with a legal contract? Tell me, where else in the world would people try to influence a legal contract by claiming loyalty? Basically, it’s a legal contract treat it as it is. There is no such thing as loyalty. Employers will fire good employees and employees will leave good employers. In other words, when a legal contract does not work for you, there is no need to continue agreeing to it. Employment is a rolling legal contract that should be reviewed continuously. 

Companies are political structures

Companies are political structures. At every company there is the ruling class, the generals of the ruling class and effectively the working class. You could break down every group in a company to these categories. But why care? Depending on which class you belong to, the legal contract we talked about before becomes strikingly different. That does not necessarily mean you are not happy with what you do. Some people are forever happy being foot soldiers.  But let us talk about the ruling class first. In short, they get paid the most and do the least. In fact, I could stop here.  Not all of them but most of them. Most of them hide in the idea of managing other people. People that put emphasis on this tend to think they have a higher calling of some sort. But the best type of management is the type that manages the least. If I could borrow from the bible, the life of Jesus tends to have set an example of leadership that no one follows. Jesus exemplified the leadership I recommend without any religious attachments. Remember when he washed his disciples’ feet?  Unfortunately, we need more Jesus-type of leaders. This is true at almost every institution.  I would be biased not to say that they are other individuals who truly deserve to lead and inspire people. In addition, the ruling class tend to fit a general persona: “attended a set of particular schools”, “might tend to be a particular race” and “tend to smile a lot” (The last one is a joke). They fit a certain image accepted as gospel. That is why the character of Jesus is fascinating to me because of his uncommon traits. But we also know how his story ends. It is almost nauseating when you can identify these trends. The working class on the other hand is, well, the working class, go figure. The point I want to make here is that every political structure requires politicians.  And you don’t succeed in a political structure without playing politics. So politics continues to increase. Partly, it’s because humans are social animals and a collection of at least 5 humans breads a structure. So we have to play politics. If you are the individual that is going to be forever tied to a job, it is so much more important for you to understand that structure. Because in politics lies your promotions whether you deserve them or not. Finally, I don’t advocate for striking down the corporate structure. I am not smart enough. But I do have some ideas on how we can organize the corporate structure by meritocracy. 

Meritocracy

Most corporate institutions claim to reward talent, but the truth is there is little to no meritocracy at the workplace. Or at least at most work places. The few instances of meritocracy are observed in occupations that have strict performance metrics. Two examples are sales or trading. Traders and sales people tend to be judged by performance. The key to meritocracy is to have a direct measurement of what it means to be successful and not successful on a purely objective and quantitative analysis. Unfortunately, not all occupations tend to be quantifiable. So where numbers can’t define success, politics tend to be the new measurement. Be wary of jobs that don’t have a direct measurement system! This is why I studied Mathematics in college because it is purely objective. There are no emotions involved in mathematics. Its either you get it right or wrong. 1 + 1 = 2, whether I am white or black or you like me or don’t like me. This concept of objectivity is even important to minorities. The one way I know of getting past most prejudices is to have measurable way for people to judge my abilities. I intend to write more about this.  Meritocracy is also mutually beneficial to employers and employees. If you reward the top performing employees the odds are they would stay. It’s a better risk either way even if they leave. The alternative is dire. But talented people can and will almost see when they are being taken for granted.  In most cases, they are waiting to strike at their opportune time.

But is it even possible to make the work place a meritocracy? I don’t know. But I have a few suggestions.

Secrecy

One corporate culture that I think is the number one cause of the death of Meritocracy is secrecy. Secrecy begets tyranny. And the opposite of secrecy is transparency. Secrecy is so embedded in the workplace that it limits motivation. First, talking about salaries is a taboo at work. Why? Because someone who doesn’t deserve to be paid that much is getting paid that much. And if the rest knew, we will have a situation. I believe in total transparency in salaries as much as I believe in total transparency in taxes. Believe me, the reason why sports teams function well is because athletes are paid based on transparency and what they actually do. The idea of dead weight was created by paying other people a lot of money and keeping it a secret. “Why bother to work hard, no one knows what I make”.  People that are smart will always know when they are being taken for advantage. This is a good thing to remember, particularly for management. To put it blunt, if I had my company, I would put the salaries of all employees on a board in a high school test results style. And I have no intention to grow a monstrous company, but I would require that this be done for every group.  If it’s justifiable, it doesn’t need to be a secret.

Promotions

Secondly, I think promotions should be bottom up. Here is a puzzling fact. Management does not know half the stuff that actual workers do. Tell me why in the hell, they get to choose who to promote with a limited knowledge? In most well run sports teams, team captains are chosen by the teammates.  It is very dangerous to make a decision about something you absolutely don’t know anything about. To my surprise, this is how management makes decisions. Promotions should be bottom up. Here is an example of a rough system I recommend. At the end of the year, employees should nominate who to promote. This list can then be taken to the promoting committee, which involves both employees and managers (employees voted by peers to be part of it). Say you need to promote 10 individuals, the top 5 employees with votes can automatically be promoted if they meet their measurable tasks. The next five, will be based on the hiring committee discretion. This system is not perfect, but it’s a starting point. It gives management power, without making the work place a fascist society. What does not work is management going into a room a deciding the career fate of an employee that they know least about.  This is the tyranny of employment.You are almost guaranteed to promote the politicians all the time. And that’s why you stop innovating. The only innovative politicians where the ones that actually wrote political theory and not the ones that practice it.

Internal Mobility

Finally, internal mobility is the biggest joke in corporate culture. First, only do internal mobility if you are moving for experience and not compensation.  HR rules are almost slavery-like in nature. And they are outdated.  Also not all internal mobility programs are the same. High levels internal mobility tend to be more justified than low levels. At some point, you are so overpaid that the only thing that matters is a change in experience. However, for most people, leaving your current employer might be the best decision. From a purely mathematical point of view, if you have the skills you ought to move outside. Here is why. No matter how big of a rock-star you are, your promotion will never give you more than 10% salary bump. On the other hand, that is almost the lowest that you can get if you move outside, meaning you will get at least 10% bump. This is based on the assumption that your main attraction is compensation. If its experience, then by all means do internal mobility. You already have the contacts and you are familiar with the culture.

In addition, there is such a thing as lateral movement which is insidious to the work place. This means you get to do the new job with less pay. It’s even more disheartening when the same job is given to an outsider with higher compensation plans. This is almost universal truth for all companies. This outsider-hiring is also an indication of the bias towards external hires. They are two ways to maintain a meritocracy at work. Internal mobility should come with full benefits. Lateral movements were created in an age where employees did not have a choice.  Ask any Software Developer how many job offers they receive daily, and you will realize that it’s a free market once again! Pay your current employee as much as you will pay the external. After all, that is why you advertised the job. The excuse of not having budget is so nauseating. There is budget that is why you are willing to pay the external candidate more. Be wary of management that loves to hire more externally; they are addicted to the idea of new. In simple terms, pay an employee as much as they deserve.  The other way to maintain a healthy exchange of roles in the workplace is to balance external hiring to internal hiring. A balance of both activities will keep good employees and attract more good employees. 

Conclusion

I do believe meritocracy is possible in the work place, however, it is hard to achieve. Our current corporate structure has evolved from almost archaic structures and we have made good progress. Certain companies have continued to innovate in the idea of work-life balance and they should be commended for this. We have become more inclusive and more diverse and for that we should be commended. Our managers do have good intentions, after all, they are just a victim of the system also. But we have a long way to evolve in creating the work environment that is a true meritocracy. A work environment that has the potential to drastically change our course of life as a species, making us more efficient and motivated to improve our lives. And I believe the first step is to start with our work environment and questioning everything.