A meritocracy is a system in which individuals succeed solely on the basis of their ability. Of that much, I am certain. However, the first issue with this concept arises when we try to define ability. In the tech industry, does this mean good programmers? Communicators? Leaders? At what point do soft skills contribute to an individual's ability, and at what point do these intangible factors only contribute to people's perception of that individual's ability?
Imagine two candidates' resumes. One attended an Ivy League school, and the other attended a state school. Would a recruiter develop a preconceived notion of which candidate is more skilled? Is it merited? That recruiter does not know the situation that led each candidate to their respective schools. Perhaps they each got into the same colleges, but one could not afford to attend the more highly ranked institution. Perhaps the candidate who attended the Ivy League school was a seventh generation legacy with a building named for his family. Perhaps the state school candidate was accepted to the Ivy League school, but their declination to attend allowed the Ivy League candidate to be accepted off of the waitlist. With more situations possible than can be enumerated, I think it's fair to say assuming one candidate's superiority based off of school is not merited. That doesn't stop us, however, from associating one positive characteristic from another. This thought is echoed by Joseph Reagle in "Naive Meritocracy and the Meaning of Myth" as he writes, "So-called meritocracies reproduce extant members and favor incidental attributes; they are biased, susceptible to privilege, and unconcerned with inequitable outcomes." There's a technical term for this- the Halo Effect. The Halo Effect, researched and named by Edward Thorndike in the early 20th century, is "the way our own cognitive bias changes how we perceive the character or ability of an individual" (Vikus). Attractiveness, trustworthiness, and intellect are all intertwined in our brains whether we consciously realize it or not. We've all seen the articles on LinkedIn- "Size Does Matter: Tall Men and Slender Women Earn More Throughout Life", "Physical Attractiveness Bias in Hiring", the list goes on. In The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, Matt Ridley explains that we are, to a certain extent, genetically programmed to associate these characteristics for the survival of the species and of our line. It goes further than just genetics; however, putting pretty people on a pedestal is part of our culture- exogenetic heredity so to speak. The phenomenon of physiognomy- "assessing a person's character or personality from their outer appearance" has been discussed by philosophers as far back as the ancient Greek (Wikipedia). Even Aristotle discussed the idea of physiognomy, writing "It is possible to infer character from features" (Prior Analytics 2.27). Research on the topic recently began to spike again, aided by facial recognition software. Although physiognomy refer specifically to appearance, but you can substitute a number of features in- charisma, eloquence, etc. Considering physiognomy and the Halo Effect, if we all as humans have subconscious biases, how could we ever have a complete meritocracy? Until we find a completely objective way to measure ability, meritocracies cannot exist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives |