(Untitled)

[hairyears]

I've read recent blogs and socially-minded op-ed pieces about equality, fairness, income gaps and they seem to be voicing an increasingly-popular criticism of our economic system: winner takes all.

This has been known to economists for a quarter of a century, as Tournament Theory. I would urge you all to read the second reference on that

Comments

[jamesofengland]

I'm not sure I follow how you get from Hartford's article to your conclusion about meritocracy. Could you expand on that a little? Is this based on your assumption that efforts put in to get promoted are inversely correlated with job performance? My sense is that Hartford is not unequivocally condemning the tournament so much as explaining it, noting some counterintuitive strengths and weaknesses.

[yady]

It seems to me that it's the same difference I once tried to explain to my driving instructor (one would think it should have been the other way round), that what I wanted to learn from him was to drive a car safely and efficiently, and what he was trying to teach me was 'how to pass a driving test'. And it also puts me in mind of students who focus on 'getting passing grades with as little effort as possible'. In other words, 'winning the game' becomes more important than 'doing things properly' - and while ideally 'doing things properly' should be the way to 'win the game', but in practice, this is usually not the case because it simply takes a lot more time and effort to choose who gets promoted based on 'doing things properly'.

[pplfichi]

My youngest brother is currently having this argument with his biology teacher. "You don't need to know that for the exam" is not the right answer to questions, I feel.

[feanelwa]

This is the sentence that made me bunk off lessons in order to read about astrophysics :)

[_nicolai_]

The more unequal the pay distribution, the less meritocratic the organisation.

I take issue with this. What you seem to be saying is that, the stronger the correlation between seniority and rank, and pay, the less meritocratic the organisation is.

My organisation is, at least in the department I work in (which is 150 people, so the size of a reasonable company), highly meritocratic and has widely differing pay distribution. Some of the good people get paid a great deal more than some of the average people, but the best paid people are not the most senior in management; they are often the most able technical people, though some of them are also the most able managers.

[kelemvor]

Then you are most fortunate, and work in a most atypical company. Under the last director where I work, one of the most highly-paid individuals was one who was also the director's favourite.

[_nicolai_]

I know the pay is not nearly as even as it should be, but being the most senior manager or favourite person does not get you the highest pay.
I do consider the company I work for to be atypical in a number of respects, and it is one of the reasons I find it a good place to work. Should you be more interested (particularly if we meet in person) I can explain more of why it's atypical and how it got that way.

[kelemvor]

I would indeed be interested to know more!

My employer is currently moving towards a more hands-on management approach, with people from the lowest level of management and upwards doing less actual work and more planning and reporting on their team's work. They've also rolled out performance-related bonuses to all salaried staff, which has increased the managers' workloads...

[friend_of_tofu]

Article link b0rked!

OT, but have you seen the rapping economists?

[hairyears]

I caught Livejournal wrapping the link; some kind of link diversion to an advertising portal.

Open In New Tab should prevent this happening in a non-IE browser.

[friend_of_tofu]

Sneaky!

[gerald_duck]

I had a somewhat less eloquent rant about this kind of thing when the VP HR paid a visit to the UK office earlier in the year

[feanelwa]

Luck, and being subconsciously that bit more appealing to the person handing out the promotions - receptive, ever full of positive feedback, and giving out the impression of being the sort of person his parents would refer to as people like usI think what went wrong is that some people back in the mists of time started being out to screw other people, laughed at people they met who were out to do a good job, some of those people joined the "out to screw people" contingent because they were cowards who were scared of being laughed at, until 90% of humanity is (a) out to screw people, (b) too much of a bunch of fucking cowards to e.g. cycle on the damn road with the other vehicles despite being fit, healthy and lit up like a christmas tree