Pitfalls of Meritocracy:

Nowadays, a lot of companies have adopted to a system of meritocracy in lines with western companies like GE to manage performance. Simply put, meritocracy is a method by which people are evaluated based on their performance and rewarded accordingly. This method takes cognizance of the fact that all employees do not contribute equally to the performance of the organization and that it is necessary to differentiate in the recognition and rewards of people to reflect this. Some proponents of this method also promote the need for sharp differentiation and this results in increments and bonuses being significantly different for different performance levels. This method is expected to make people strive to perform better and thus increasing the overall performance of the corporation.

Conceptually, this is a straightforward method and believes that all people are motivated and respond to stimulus similarly. However, there are some basic flaws in this thinking and method. I give below various reasons why, in my considered opinion, meritocracy is a undesirable tool for performance management.

1> For a corporation to perform well, there needs to be synergy and collaboration between the different units and individuals within the corporation. However, a system of meritocracy encourages people within the organization to compete with one another. Some people use fair methods of competing and improving self-performance. This includes setting stretch goals and striving to over-achieve it. But, such individuals are few. And even these individuals face problems as we will see later.

2> A majority of the individual / units within an organization spends precious time in either blowing their own trumpets (perception management in lieu of performance management). They would stake claim on every achievement that is worth staking claim on, keep talking about self / team achievement at every forum and occasion and eventually would like to be seen as high performers by their supervisors and superiors.

3> While this is happening, others who can see this blatant acts of "blowing own trumpets" get disgusted and start plotting on ways how to undermine this. At the same time, there are people who use this tool (undermining others) as a method of managing self perception. They would, at every possible occasion, talk ill of their peers and how they have made significant mistakes. They will jointly work with the disgusted group and bring down the reputation of the trumpet blowing group.

4> There will be another group working hard at pleasing the boss by doing urgent work, fire fighting etc. while ignoring their key deliverables. Bosses will have their hands full with managing various such groups.

5> Instead of competing with competitors, people in such organizations are busy competing with their own peers.

6> Compounded to this is the difficulty of identifying and evaluating performance across different functions and units. More so in cases where the units are geographically separated and are doing mix of objective and subjective work. Evaluation also becomes difficult where performance is affected by a variety of internal and external factors (all of which are not controllable). Under such circumstances, evaluation is largely based on inputs derived from the huge PR exercises carried out.

7> Thus, while it will be synergy, motivation and commitment which can take the company to larger heights, the system of meritocracy actually inculcates fierce internal competition and rivalry which is bound to take the company in the opposite direction. The author is not in favour of completely replacing meritocracy with a socialist approach which is equally (if not more) dangerous. A tempered down approach in meritocracy will be more conducive to organization growth. Also, a clear culture where cooperation, collaboration and synergy is encouraged and any behaviour which is contrary to that is killed at the inception will help focus on real performance. In addition, objective goal setting with periodic review and course correction initiated would be the right approach to performance management.

Vish

One of the great things about the traditional system of education in India was that the student was taught about values. In fact, values were one of the strong focus areas and early subjects. Students not only had to learn about values - they also had to live them. They had no options in terms of skipping the subject or dropping a few of the topics.

The education was not about having a bookish knowledge which evaporates once the exams are over. Education was about imbibing the learnings and putting them to practice with a rigour that made it difficult to ever forget it.

This education on values was started off at a very early stage when the child is highly impressionable and tuned to learn without asking questions. So, it became second nature to the child.

Values was the foundation upon which the entire education was built. Come to think of it, values are critical to the success of an individual and of the society. If we see degeneration in the society today, it is because the traditional system of education has been replaced by a system that is focussed on making people literate only. Of what use is the ability to read and write if we do not know how to take decisions based on a value system ?

Stories, mythology etc. were used traditionally to reinforce and motivate people with the use of examples of heros and heroines who would display fairness, honesty, valour, truth, integrity and such other values. Thus peole would be encouraged to tread the path followed by such divine and righteous people.

This was a great way to encourage people to form their own decisions on adopting and accepting the value system. Typically, people tend to reject ideas that are thrust on them. If we think we can get people to be honest by repeatedly telling them to be honest, it may not work. But if we use stories and have the lead characters display such behaviour and show the consequences of not conforming, it will have a much better acceptance.

Skills development was then focussed on with a view to make people gainfully employed to earn a livelihood whilst serving society. Thus, people were encouraged to look at employment both as a means of sustenance and as a tool to serve society. People were taught to be selfless and more service oriented in this manner. Skills were imparted to people based on what they were already aware of and exposed to. Therefore, the system of specialisation (later called caste system) was born. It is not that there was any absolute restriction in people switching professions. However, it would be correct to state that it was not encouraged. This was esecially true as the purpose of skills development, as stated earlier, was to serve society and not for building personal wealth.

There was also a tradition wherein during the education period, the children would typically stay with the teacher. Thus focus was ensured as also the need for learning by observing. This system also imparted the ability of non-attachment to the student.

More on this later....