This is the definition I am using:

a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.

  • Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is a copy of a reply to @[email protected] :

    Just to make it clear the definition that I used does not talk about choosing people for tasks they are suited for, but rather putting them in positions of power, success, and influence.

    • treadful
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      What’s the difference? The people most deserving of power, success, and influence would be the most qualified to handle it.

      • scoobford
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, but being good at something does not necessarily correlate to being good at managing others doing that thing.

        This is especially pronounced in sales, where good salespeople get promoted to management, before immediately discovering that it requires a totally different skillset and they’ve basically changed fields entirely.

        • treadful
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Managing people is “something.”. It’s a skill. In an ideal meritocracy, managers would be good at managing.