Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meritocracy at Scale

scale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#31

Post by gumbo »

verticalscaler wrote: post #24
y7 wrote: post #21

The interesting question is not the choice between diversity and merit, but how you attract and select the most meritorious candidates in a setting where your company overwhelmingly skews towards one demographic, given that people are more likely to hire others that are similar to them (and conversely, potential candidates are not likely to join companies when there are no people similar to them).

[flagged]

Now the burden is on you to provide the many examples of such a company that has been reshaped to the image of those minorities?

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#32

Post by wmanley »

x3ro wrote: post #9
Waterluvian wrote: post #6

My hot take: a meritocracy will never fully exist in a workplace so long as there’s a hierarchy of power and therefore politics. But I’m not advocating for removing a hierarchy.

Out of curiosity, are you implying that "no hierarchy" is possible? And would "no hierarchy" somehow mean no politics, as your statement seems to imply? I'm personally convinced that "no hierarchy" or "flat hierarchies" mostly means that hidden hierarchies will form anyway, and thus the situation you end up with, while different to traditional strict hierarchies, is still extremely hierarchical in the end.

This is known as "The Tyranny of Structurelessness": https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

The argument goes that there is always a power structure and it's better that it's explicit rather than implicit.

Reading that article changed the way I viewed organisations and structure, and how one should act within one.

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#33

Post by sneak »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #7

> Hiring on merit will be a permanent policy at Scale. Isn't this what everyone tries to do? > A hiring process based on merit will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. It might, but probably not because you have found people who have 'merit' whatever that nebulously defined thing might be.

> Hiring on merit will be a permanent policy at Scale.

> It’s a big deal whenever we invite someone to join our mission, and those decisions have never been swayed by orthodoxy or virtue signaling or whatever the current thing is. I think of our guiding principle as MEI: merit, excellence, and intelligence.

This isn’t about “hiring on merit”. This is a dogwhistle, saying to people “we are an anti-“woke” workplace”, specifically rejecting the concept of DEI principles.

It’s an attempt to differentiate, probably to attempt to attract stereotypical programmers who are “tired of politics in the workplace” (as if working for a salary, paying taxes, and building technological tools were somehow apolitical). A less charitable interpretation is that they are attempting specifically to recruit people who would prefer to work exclusively amongst people very similar to themselves.

There are a lot of good and reasonable arguments against this, even if you aren’t all-in on the modern concept of DEI (which is a whole ideology, separate and distinct from the basic non-jargon usages of the words “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion”).

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#34

Post by mdp2021 »

bberrry wrote: post #16
kwhitefoot wrote: post #7

> Hiring on merit will be a permanent policy at Scale. Isn't this what everyone tries to do? > A hiring process based on merit will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. It might, but probably not because you have found people who have 'merit' whatever that nebulously defined thing might be.

> > Hiring on merit will be a permanent policy at Scale. > Isn't this what everyone tries to do? You seem to have missed that meritocracy has recently become a bad word and undesirable in some political circles.

> You seem to have missed that meritocracy has recently become a bad word and undesirable in some political circles

I also did (miss that). Could you explain, or were you just drawing conclusion from the Wang's «There is a mistaken belief that meritocracy somehow conflicts with diversity»?

Edit: I think I found an acronym in this page that I cannot recall ever meeting (at least, never so strongly highlighted), and I suspect that is the reference (to political circles).

Edit 2: but really, has there been anywhere an explicit attack declaring "meritocracy" a "bad" concept? Or is it just an implicit perception/conclusion?

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#35

Post by mdp2021 »

catapart wrote: post #25
ipnon wrote: post #5

How brave of a company to say they will only hire those who will contribute the most to the bottom line!

While also providing no actual metrics for their so-called "merit"-based system. Oh, you prefer "smart" people, you say?! What a concept! It's like the screechers about "meritocracy" never get the memo that the issue people have with it is not it's conceptual structure, but that its details aren't ever (in any situation I've seen) spelled out with the kind of logical consistency that they pretend they are relying on.…

> Is it contextual?

Yes. How decided? Pretty easily sometimes. (In your example, it depends whether the impact of the solution exceeds or not the time bargain or constraint).

Do you see that those metrics you are requesting are very doable, just sometimes not worth expliciting - common sense should do?

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#36

Post by catapart »

mdp2021 wrote: post #35
catapart wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While also providing no actual metrics for their so-called "merit"-based system. Oh, you prefer "smart" people, you say?! What a concept! It's like the screechers about "meritocracy" never get the memo that the issue people have with it is not it's conceptual structure, but that its details aren't ever (in any situation I've seen) spelled out with the kind of logical consistency that they pretend they are relying on.…

> Is it contextual? Yes. How decided? Pretty easily sometimes. (In your example, it depends whether the impact of the solution exceeds or not the time bargain or constraint). Do you see that those metrics you are requesting are very doable, just sometimes not worth expliciting - common sense should do?

When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom?

All I see is someone saying "don't worry, it's obvious. When the time comes, we'll make decisions based on what we believe to be metrics, but we will back that up with literally nothing."

If you wanted me to believe you, you should provide some examples. And, again, I've never received any actual examples of specific binary evaluations for specific actions. And the handwave is always the same as the one you're trotting out now: 'if you need everything to be spelled out, you're probably not smart enough'.

Good line. Great dodge! But do you see how "we'll know what to do, based on the circumstances and, thus, the more meritorious will be obvious in any given situation" is functionally the same as "the bosses will make whatever decisions in the moment they want, and back it up with whatever they choose to decide is 'merit' for the purposes of their current framing (subject to change for the next situation)"?

But if you're completely sold on it, let's start with an easier question than "how do you metric your merit?"; let's just see if you have an answer for how any employee could determine between the two scenarios I described in the previous paragraph? If a boss passes me over even though I did great work and achieved an agreed-upon goal, but I didn't do some other thing (that was never mentioned) - how would I know that, and how could I possibly petition for redress?

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#37

Post by mdp2021 »

catapart wrote: post #36
mdp2021 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it contextual? Yes. How decided? Pretty easily sometimes. (In your example, it depends whether the impact of the solution exceeds or not the time bargain or constraint). Do you see that those metrics you are requesting are very doable, just sometimes not worth expliciting - common sense should do?

When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? All I see is someone saying "don't worry, it's obvious . When the time comes, we'll make decisions based on what we believe to be metrics, but we will back that up with literally nothing." If you wanted me to believe you, you should provide some examples. And, again, I've never received any actual examples of specific binary evaluations for specific actions. A…

> When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom?

To the to-do list - it is (normally) not worth it to the one who should spend the time writing that metrics. It would also then become potentially heavy if those metrics become "red-tape", obligatory bureaucratic process, which consumed time and resources without returning benefits.

> And the handwave is always the same as the one you're trotting out now: 'if you need everything to be spelled out, you're probably not smart enough'

Err... Noo? It was not what I meant. But, following your example, if somebody could not discriminate after "Please pass me a pen" that which picks an adequate and that who invests time in finding an out-of-context "perfect", and after "Please design our flagship" that which attempts to polish an enviable craft and that who lazily cuts the effort at a potato-head, then there would be a problem of smarts.

> But do you see how ... the bosses will

Yes I see that we require common sense in the whole of active society.

It seems you are depicting a reality in which the judgement from management can be subjective. As if (no detraction from the actual situation meant implied) people accused Greg Davies to give unfair subjective marks at Taskmaster. The solution to such problem would probably not be algorithmic until good AGI, because sophistication of judgement is needed and Expert Systems in the '80s failed in being recognized as useful.

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#38

Post by catapart »

mdp2021 wrote: post #37
catapart wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? All I see is someone saying "don't worry, it's obvious . When the time comes, we'll make decisions based on what we believe to be metrics, but we will back that up with literally nothing." If you wanted me to believe you, you should provide some examples. And, again, I've never received any actual examples of specific binary evaluations for specific actions. A…

> When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? To the to-do list - it is (normally) not worth it to the one who should spend the time writing that metrics. It would also then become potentially heavy if those metrics become "red-tape", obligatory bureaucratic process, which consumed time and resources without returning benefits. > And the handwave is always the same as the one you're trotting out now: 'i…

i'm happy your meritocracy is working out for you. sorry you can't figure out how to outline one in logical terms because of "worth" reasons, or whatever. maybe in your next meritocracy, you can raise someone to the top who can do that kind of thing for you.

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#39

Post by catapart »

mdp2021 wrote: post #37
catapart wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? All I see is someone saying "don't worry, it's obvious . When the time comes, we'll make decisions based on what we believe to be metrics, but we will back that up with literally nothing." If you wanted me to believe you, you should provide some examples. And, again, I've never received any actual examples of specific binary evaluations for specific actions. A…

> When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? To the to-do list - it is (normally) not worth it to the one who should spend the time writing that metrics. It would also then become potentially heavy if those metrics become "red-tape", obligatory bureaucratic process, which consumed time and resources without returning benefits. > And the handwave is always the same as the one you're trotting out now: 'i…

just to be clear, for posterity:

> Err... Noo? It was not what I meant.

Yes it absolutely is what you meant, which is proven by your insisteneces here:

> [...]common sense should do?

> Yes I see that we require common sense[...]

what do you think "common sense" is? would it, maybe, be a certain "level" of "smart" that you think "non stupid" people have?

i honestly can't tell if you aren't able to recognize your criteria as biased, or if you're just philosophy trolling but that's when I dip out of the conversation, hence my other reply.

again, hope it all works out for you, or whatever!

Re: Meritocracy at Scale

#40

Post by mdp2021 »

catapart wrote: post #38
mdp2021 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? To the to-do list - it is (normally) not worth it to the one who should spend the time writing that metrics. It would also then become potentially heavy if those metrics become "red-tape", obligatory bureaucratic process, which consumed time and resources without returning benefits. > And the handwave is always the same as the one you're trotting out now: 'i…

i'm happy your meritocracy is working out for you. sorry you can't figure out how to outline one in logical terms because of "worth" reasons, or whatever. maybe in your next meritocracy, you can raise someone to the top who can do that kind of thing for you.

> sorry you can't figure out how to

Oh no, I could very probably do. I *do* think, so I see things, and I could express them. But it would take a wasted long time, best spent on other efforts.

But if a society needs manuals "how to walk", there is a problem which is not solved with walking manuals - you are not supposed to have that problem.

> i'm happy ... is working out for you

You should restrain that.

Post reply on HN