the question of merit

whether it is capitalism or just the american way, we live with some false notions in our society regarding merit. there is this idea that in a free market, the cream rises to the top. this is to say, those who possess merit are promoted and reap rewards. while things do work in that manner occasionally, it is not necessarily the exception. still, this myth of merit deserves examination.


have you ever read atlas shrugged? in this piece of fiction the heroes of capitalism and the leaders of industry, are portrayed as towering, fair-haired, blue-eyed, indefatigable pistons of the free market, golden and glistening in the sun as they tirelessly create better lives for everyone by believing in their ideas and pursuing them single-mindedly. steel and oil barons contend with lazy masses of ne'er-do-wells, listless slackers who give up easily, often resorting to crime when things get tough, and generally stewing in their own shiftless juices throughout the course of the novel. i do not think ayn rand meant the novel to be absurd but in some respects it is just that.


what i have learned in my days and years of work is that the higher one is on the proverbial totem pole, the less work one does. yes, more expertise is required. better judgment and perhaps more creativity are also required the higher one gets, but gone are the days of punching clocks. gone are the days of having one's shoulder looked over once a certain level is achieved. gone are the days of 15 minute breaks.


some do work harder and longer hours at whatever it is they do as they get higher in the pecking order but their work also tends to be interesting and closer to something one could reasonably have some passion for. (show me a csr who is passionate about their work, or someone who works in insurance, and i will show you a buffoon.)


as people advance in a work place many factors play a role in that advancement. merit is one of those factors but for the most part, it doesn't hold any greater sway than any of the other factors. nepotism often plays a large part. friends can be seen promoting friends all through our society on a daily basis. people often promote their nieces and nephews or their buddy's kids. ass kissers are often rewarded for their humble efforts. all manner of favoritism occurs.


i have seen big people promote big people in the work place. i've seen blacks help blacks up the corporate ladder, asians watching each other's backs, latinos protecting the interests of other latinos, caucasians helping their melatonin deficient friends out, as well as about any other manner of race-related affinities. i have stood by as gender was a deciding factor. i have seen preferential treatment based on region. i have witnessed religious affiliations determine promotions just as i have seen political party's play a part. of course, wealth favors wealth everyday, everywwhere and all about us. all of this is to say i have seen many forms of discrimination in the work place and in life.


luck plays a role as well and to illustrate this, i will point to the fact that i often see the dull and obtuse leading their intellectual superiors around the work place. since it cannot all be based on nepotism, luck must be involved in many of these unimpressive bosses gaining their positions.


in addition to the topsy turvy nature of the corporate ladder, soft skills are overvalued and/or overstated in our society. engineers are engineers. they are experts and they assume their roles as they should and this can be said of all experts such as doctors and physicists. once you get away from those fields that require expertise, (without any doubts,) there are many other fields for which the expertise is overrated if not exagerrated.


ceo's get paid whopping amounts of cash supposedly for taking ultimate responsibility and providing direction for a business. in addition to judgment, the skills they are expected to possess include some expert knowledge of their industry, how to use some software, how to report, how to present, the nature of things political, and perhaps a few other nebulous and soft skills.


rupert murdoch makes a good example. murdoch knows how to do math. as a businessman and journalist, (of a sort,) he practiced some tried and true techniques... he parlayed a silver spoon and some luck into ownership of a newspaper. the newspaper did not turn ultra-successful or anything but murdoch constantly tinkered with it, ultimately making it profitable and using good credit and a favorable bank interested in promoting aussie businessmen to purchase another paper. he and his papers have often gotten involved in politics. this picture as a cycle is perpetuated by murdoch still. murdoch possesses the quality most common among all living species, he is opportunistic.


conventional thought suggests murdoch has a blend of skill sets uniquely suited to excel in business and the world of business. i would argue his fortune has been nearly random. in building his empire he has merely been willing to play to the lowest common denominator as he embraced tabloid journalism. face it-most people simply tend to make better moral choices. for example, if you were to go to school for journalism and came to know the nature of tabloid journalism and its affect on society versus a non-sensational journalism that is less profitable but seeks to serve mankind, in addition to any profit motive, you would choose lower profits along with the altruistic goal. right?


i think there is a substantial segment of the population who could do what rupert murdoch does on a daily basis successfully. surely i could step into murdoch's shoes for a quarter and maintain profits, image and the rudder. if murdoch suddenly disappeared, another person of similar values would pop right into his place, (to that person's detriment.)


how about a pro sports coach? these guys get media coverage that portrays them as geniuses if they are successful. surely i could step into the shoes of a pro sports coach for a month and maintain the status quo, without any special training. the coaches do not play the games.


what about united states congressman? since congress is typically made up of people from diverse backgrounds and professions, it is obvious that no special skill set is required. armed with robert's rules of order, surely i could serve a couple of months in congress without even getting noticed, (at worst.) in fact, in congress i would have advantages over our elected officials as i would not owe any of those infamous favors for favors.


what other faux-meritorious positions are there?


what about consultants? surely i could step into say, a hospital, interview their department heads on what is wrong with the organization, draw some conclusions, create a great report with lots of color, present some ideas for positive changes, and thereby wow the top-dog with my consultant expertise.


how could our economic system be meritorious if so much of the reward ends up in the hands of investors who do not do any of the work? a meritocracy would proportionately reward those who accomplish that which causes profits; the work. surely i could step into a position as a stockbroker with a firm who would explain their philosophy and direct me on the basics and i could do that job for a spell without doing anything out of the ordinary compared to the average.


how about running a hotel? the person responsible for everything needs to have a good financial person below them to balance books. he needs a good kitchen staff and basically just good staffing all the way around. after that, the job is customer service. piece of cake.


how is it that many young actors end up in the director's chair? this one is ironic, too, because i think directors are the foremost artists of our age but in reality, theirs is to make decisions and stand back and watch how scenes look within frames. it would be one thing if they were all like von trier and wrote their own material but especially in the case of big-time hollywood directors, they do not. they simply get a script and a production schedule from the producers and they step in and direct. i mean, i could do that. right?


surely a regular guy like me could be the mayor, or the restarauteur, or the chief of police, or the building manager, or the park ranger. it's not like you have to know how to do algorithms for these things.


the thing is, as kids we are taught that the american way is to reward the person who works hard. we come to believe the mythology of ayn rand but then we get into the real world and we realize the theory resembles the reality at best.


where is the merit in tax shelters? where is the merit in foreign-based businesses? i suppose halliburton and the others are just doing what businesses do; they seek to maximize profits. avoiding taxes in dubai and going to where the money is and away from where the money clearly will not be soon, is simple business sense.

what about the authority given to universities and the degrees they confer?


my u.s. history class from my junior year in high school should have taught the real nature of the united states and its brand of capitalism. the curriculum should have focused more on the history being made today and the legacy we will leave imprinted on history. after all, it is to be a guide for future decisions, right?

these examples of faux-merit merely underscore the fact that capitalism is a system which should be watched and checked closely. capitalism naturally encourages dishonesty and deceit. i believe it encourages good things too, such as hard work for personal gain, which again, is not in and of itslef bad. still, instead of buying in to rand's images, (and those continuing to be put forth today by the rand institute,) the nature of capitalism should be noted and america should pursue a blend of socio-economic systems.

merit in and of itself is not a myth and all who work hard deserve credit. the point of this essay is merely to suggest we should be honest with ourselves about our society, l'est we pass falsehoods on to our children.