5 Facebook Twitter Hacker News

The Greatest Organizational Technology of All-Time?

by Sebastian on 3 February 2012

From my studies of history, I’ve found one, exactly one, and only one organizational technology that’s been consistently used by organizations that rise from nothing to greatness with quick speed.

And that is -

Promotion By Merit.

It’s such an easy concept to get your mind around – the people who do the best job, get promoted and get greater responsibility – but it’s actually tremendously hard to implement in reality.

For instance, the following are all things that have no direct bearing on merit in most cases -

*Seniority
*Credentials
*Pedigree
*Charm
*Appearance
*Resume

…and yet, these are how the majority of positions are filled, and how the majority of promotions go throughout the world.

See, the damn thing about this whole thing is that it’s very hard to know who is good at doing their job. In fact, especially when it comes to high-tension and even crisis situations, the majority of people put in those positions won’t actually face the highest tension and crisis so often.

So… you default to credentials, certifications, appearances. There’s indeed something to those things, which is why they’re used. But they’re not pure merit.

So, to implement this, what do you need?

You need leadership who are very good at evaluating people quickly, their real character, and who are willing to risk looking stupid when someone young and uncredentialed who they took a chance on — fails. And this will happen, of course. “Nobody gets fired for buying IBM,” but it’s very easy to question someone who fails on a more daring move or with a more unconventional promotion.

You need to transcend politics and personal like/dislike, which is incredibly difficult. Practically speaking, there has to be some massively important unifying cause or external threat to do this. I’m open to the idea that someone, someday, will be able to build a politics-free organization without a unifying cause or external threat, but if it’s ever happened, it’s extremely rare. Human nature is politics, and politics is the decay and eventual destruction of organizations.

You need to be highly attractive to the best people, which puts you in an awful chicken-and-egg position of needing to find the people and resources that make your organization attractive to the best people and abundant resources.

You need to understand that you’ll lose people – sometimes very solid people – who feel like they deserve promotion on the basis of suffering and “putting their hours in”… or alternatively, you need to avoid clock-punching, suffering-prone people in the first place.

Merit is a hard standard to reach. It’s not easy to assess, people naturally try to subvert it for their own gain, getting high-merit people is hard enough on its own, and you come into conflict with many people who think conservatively and traditionally that those who put in long hours and days should rule, regardless of their ability.

And yet! There it is, emblazoned on the banners of all the greatest successes of history. Merit, merit, merit. And then, victory.

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Danny Mulligan February 3, 2012 at 1:53 am

> Merit is a hard standard to reach. It’s not easy to assess, people naturally try to subvert it for their own gain

There’s a double whammy here. Not only do people of low merit pretend to be of high merit, but people of high merit are often self questioning and self-deprecating.

One of the ways to become of high merit is to focus on “what went wrong?” and “what can I learn from this?” even when things go well. Another is to share credit and glory for the benefit of the team – “we succeed” rather than “I succeeded”. Both of these improve the performance of whoever practices them, in the long run, but make it harder for others to assess their merit in the short term.

Reply

Isaac Lewis February 3, 2012 at 5:12 am

Seems war-time is often a period when promotions by merit happen – combatants either realise they need to promote their best people, or fail to realise this and get beaten by their opponents who do. (Would be cool to find a specific example of this).

Read Eisenhower’s biography on Wikipedia the other day. Guy was in the Army for a long time, his career stagnated in the 30s when nothing much was going on. Then WWII breaks out, he shows his competence, and he rapidly goes from colonel, to general, to grand commander of all the Allied forces in Europe. After the War there’s a grassroots campaign where people beg him to become president. Would that have happened if he didn’t have WWII to show himself?

At the same time, a similar thing happened on a smaller scale to millions of women, when the powers that be realised they needed competent people running the economy and could no longer afford to be picky about gender.

Highly competitive and dynamic industries like tech might be other examples.

Reply

Isaac Lewis February 3, 2012 at 5:19 am

Oh, thought of a good counter-example. Back in the 90s, PayPal was an organisation staffed by very smart, dynamic people. For example, one young intern accidentally hit “reply all” when sending a scathing criticism of the top management’s new strategy. Instead of getting in trouble, he actually got a pat on the back from the top execs when they realised he was right. No doubt when that intern was given a job offer, it was for a position with increased responsibility and compensation.

Then PayPal got bought by eBay, who integrated them into their existing, more traditional, more beuracratic, management structure. Very quickly the culture of the company changed and most of the top talent was driven out in a few years.

Reply

Isaac Lewis February 3, 2012 at 5:22 am

BTW, have you read the “Gervais Principle” series? (Google it if not).

I think the top talent are normally “sociopaths” (not normal use of the term, just means people who play power effectively) and so there’s always going to be politics in teams of A-players. You just have to give them a good outlet for it, ie, make sure they’re scheming to bring down competing firms, not each other.

Reply

Dirk Estievenart February 3, 2012 at 8:06 pm

Meritocracy is the model for a lot of open source projects, people that contribute most to the project get more to say in decision making. If a couple of competent guys disagree with the direction of the project, they can always “fork” it (split off and continue in another direction). History will tell if they were right, because if the project doesn’t gain enough popularity, it will die.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: