The Meritocracy Trap by Daniel Markovits — are winners losing?

When Michael Young coined the term “meritocracy” in 1958, he worried it would not be taken seriously, because it mashes together one Latin and one Greek word. (This is the kind of thing British academics worried about in those days). As it turned out, that was not the problem. Young’s novelised sociology The Rise of the Meritocracy tried to alert readers to the dangers of a world in which merit — “IQ plus effort” — would determine rank. Young’s new word was adopted almost immediately. His warnings were ignored. On the face of it, the idea that rewards should go to the best — to the meritorious — is appealing. Just as the winner of the Wimbledon tennis championships ought to be the one who plays the best, so the newly appointed chief executive should have the most appropriate skills and experience. Certainly, it seems better than an aristocracy, where jobs and status simply fall into the laps of those who win the lottery of birth.

On the face of it, the idea that rewards should go to the best — to the meritorious — is appealing. Just as the winner of the Wimbledon tennis championships ought to be the one who plays the best, so the newly appointed chief executive should have the most appropriate skills and experience. Certainly, it seems better than an aristocracy, where jobs and status simply fall into the laps of those who win the lottery of birth.

Read more at Financial Times