Reading 02: Meritocracy?
I think the Tech industry likes to believe it is a true meritocracy because it is one of the ways that people in technology can claim they are better than other industries. There is definitely a difference between meritocracy of individuals and of firms as a whole. As pointed out in “The Capitol of meritocracy is Silicon Valley, Not Wall Street” blog, the technology sector, unlike maybe Wall Street, has much more volatility between which companies are dominant in the field. This indicates an inter-firm meritocracy because the minute a company stops producing good software, it loses it’s status as the best. While it appears there is still some meritocracy at the company level, I think the more important question is whether or not individuals within the tech sector are treated in a meritocratic way.
The people who succeed in this industry like for it to be known that they got there based on the quality of their work and not due to a family connection or luck of the draw. This concept is flawed for a number of reasons including what was pointed out in the “Silicon Valley Isn’t a Meritocracy. And It’s Dangerous to Hero-Worship” blog. Tech may have a lower barrier to entry than say, banking, where you often can’t land a job without knowing someone, but it continues to be harder for women, minorities, and people of a lower socioeconomic status.
Referring to an industry as a true meritocracy implies that everyone was given an even playing field to begin with. If everyone was given the same tools, education, and opportunities, then yes, those who rise to the top would be the most qualified. But you cannot make this claim for an industry where “women have been systematically excluded from the highest levels of the technology scene” (“Silicon Valley Isn’t a Meritocracy” blog).
It is dangerous for companies to adopt a true meritocratic approach to hiring and promoting if this approach excludes certain voices. Diversity creates a well-rounded team that a full-blown meritocracy might preclude. One of the blogs “Why hiring the ‘best’ people produces the least creative results” explains that to answer today’s complex problems we need a diversity of backgrounds and minds because no one person can understand all of the components and stakeholders associated with a problem. In addition to a diversity of disciplines, a diversity of educational experiences, upbringings, and professional approaches.
The Post-Meritocracy Manifesto supports the idea that meritocracy is biased and that the technology industry needs to shift towards a collection of values that urge technologists to make space for a variety of people. These values include the dedication to creating a better work-life balance which would help diversity efforts by making space for men and women with families and interests outside of work. I loved the value “We can be successful while leading rich, full lives. Our success and value is not dependent on exerting all of our energy on contributing to software.” It is so vital for people to have lives and interests outside of their work. I do, however, wonder what percentage of people in the Technology industry have read this, believe it, and more importantly, have truly adopted it. Maybe I am missing something but I feel as though the space is still dominated by one group and still glorifies spending ungodly hours in the office. The concept of a positive work-life balance is great in theory but I think will take some time to be adopted in a real way.
