A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you

by Clifton Mark Aeon edited by O Society Mar 13, 2019

‘We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else …’  
Barack Obama, inaugural address, 2013 

‘We must create a level playing field for American companies and workers.’
~ Donald Trump, inaugural address, 2017

Meritocracy is a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme the rewards of life – money, power, jobs, university admission – should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the ‘even playing field’ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit.

Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events.

Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the UK, 84 per cent of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either ‘essential’ or ‘very important’ when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found 69 per cent of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.

Although widely held, the belief merit – regardless of  luck –  determines one’s success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit,’ depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.

If where you were born and what family you were born into isn’t luck, what is it then?

This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck (2016), the US economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best.

According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There were in the past, and certainly are now, programmers at least as skillful as Gates, who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed.

What separates the two is luck.

In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways.

Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.

The ‘ultimatum game’ is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50.

One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behaviour. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had ‘won’ claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding.

The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the ‘winners.’

By contrast, research on gratitude indicates remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) which contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill).

Locus of Control

Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behaviour. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies.

They found in companies who explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.

This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The ‘even playing field’ is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities it aims to eliminate.

They suggest this ‘paradox of meritocracy’ occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of our own moral bona fides. Satisfied we are just, we become less inclined to examine our own behaviour for signs of prejudice.

Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle people prefer to believe the world is just.

However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses.

While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there.

How Norman Vincent Peale Taught Donald Trump to Worship Himself

This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are ‘self-made’ and over the effects of various forms of ‘privilege’ can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much ‘credit’ people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about the superiority of their own inner qualities.

This is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion personal success is the result of ‘luck’ can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit.

Many Voters Think Trump’s a Self-Made Man. What Happens When You Tell Them Otherwise? 4 American Narratives

Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery meritocracy offers the successful, it ought to be abandoned, both as a belief about how the world works, and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate.

Living.jpg

 

6 thoughts on “A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you

    1. Indeed. It’s a marketing gimmick. Just like “New & Improved” is a marketing gimmick.

      This one’s called “Nothing Sells Like Success.” This marketing slogan helps the Harvard MBA and JD crowd sleep at night.

      Ethics and real philosophical debate are not allowed at MBA school, or in Congress for that matter.

      So instead of ethics and morality, the Mark Zuckerberg and Jared Kushner types try to fill the gaping hole with “Meritocracy,” which is the Land of Make Believe principle Americans believe in instead of any of that silly religious stuff, such as “Love Thy Neighbor as Thy Self.”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There was a study done a while back. Many European countries have greater economic mobility than the US. But when asked, US kids have greater ambitions for economic success. So, US kids are set up for failure and then they are scapegoated for the failure of the economic system (or rather its success as a system of social control). The European kids were more realistic about their future prospects and were more likely to succeed at a higher level.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s