Meritocracy: Who Deserves to Succeed?

Meritocracy is a system in which skills, ability, talent, and knowledge are thought to be the best basis for promoting people to positions of power and social standing. Advancement in a meritocratic system is based on performance, typically as measured through examination, or otherwise demonstrated achievement. Meritocracies can be found as far back as 6th century BC China, where an administrative meritocracy was based on civil service examinations, rather than inherited offices. In contemporary England, there is a Meritocratic political party which believes, among other things, that there should be a 100% inheritance tax, so that the super-rich can’t pass on their wealth to a select few (their privileged children) and that every child should get an equal chance to succeed in life. Needless to say, a fully realized meritocracy could go a long way to ending elite dynasties and hereditary monarchy.

Ironically, the term ‘meritocracy’ was coined as a satirical slur in a dystopic novel, The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870–2033, published in 1958, by the British sociologist and Labor party politician Michael Young. The Rise of the Meritocracy imagines a world in which social class and inherited position has been replaced by a system that promotes those to the top those who have advanced educationally as evidenced via rigid testing and objective standards. The book, however, argues that meritocracy doesn’t eliminate ruling elites, but simply ends up recreating a new class system by means of education and testing. As the conservative commentator, Toby Young, (the son of the author of Rise of the Meritocracy) recently observed “(there is) the tendency within meritocracies for the cognitive elite to become a self-perpetuating oligarchy.”

For many years, the US has been thought to be predominately a meritocracy–one in which the social power of inheritance and privilege had been superseded by a system in which leaders and socially prominent persons are those who possess superior knowledge and talent. A spate of recent articles, some of which were precipitated by the recent college-admissions scandal (See, for example. “A History of College Admissions Schemes, From Encoded Pencils to Paid Stand-Ins,” Adeel Hassan, March 15, 2019, New York Times) calls into question many of the assumptions about the benefits of meritocracy, and suggests that meritocracy has not yet been realized.

There are, of course, a number of criticisms of meritocracy and the concept of “merit” on which it is based. Among these:

• What counts as meritorious and who decides which qualities, skills, and knowledge are worthy of merit?
• In educational systems, do standardized tests and other measures of merit accurately and thoroughly indicate merit/worth?
• Is meritocracy a kind of “social Darwinism,” in which the survival (and promotion) of the physically “fittest,” is replaced by the survival of the cognitively “smartest” (i.e. the best test takers)?
• Does wealth and inheritance affect individuals’ ability to obtain the educational credentials by which meritocracy is demonstrated? (For example, does the level of education required for a person to become competitive in a meritocracy discriminate against those who are unable to afford the often expensive and time-consuming “markers” that an education affords?)
• Does meritocracy, despite its original anti-elitist intentions, merely recreate another kind of permanent elite?

The ultimate question is whether a meritocracy is the best we can do? While meritocracy is problematic, is there a fairer system to replace it? (See for example Richard Dawkins brief discussion, “Democracy or Meritocracy: Which is the Government of Reason?”)

Resources:

“Meritocracy: Real or Myth?”

“A History of College Admissions Schemes, From Encoded Pencils to Paid Stand-Ins,” Adeel Hassan, March 15, 2019, New York Times

“A ‘Meritocracy’ Is Not What People Think It Is.” Ben Zimmer, The Atlantic March 14, 2019

“The Scandals of Meritocracy,” Ross Douthat, New York Times, March 16, 2019

The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, Nicholas Lemann, Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 1st edition (October 1, 1999)

“Meritocracy” at Wikipedia

“What’s (still) wrong with meritocracy” Toby Young, The Spectator

“College Admission Scandal,” various authors, New York Times

Glitches in Philanthropy?

Over the years, Brad Rose Consulting has provided evaluation services to philanthropies and community service organizations. These clients are dedicated to making the world a better place, often through philanthropic work with disadvantaged populations. While the work of philanthropies is generally perceived as laudable, there are a number of potential objections to the rise of philanthropic largesse.

• Charities often target symptoms, not causes- Charity helps the recipient with their problem, but it doesn’t do much to deal with the causes of that problem.
• Charity may become a substitute for real justice- The idea that charity is wrong when it’s used to patch up the effects of the fundamental injustices that are built into the structure and values of a society.
• Charity may not provide the best solution to a problem- Charitable giving may not be the most effective way of solving world poverty. Indeed, charitable giving may even distract from finding the best solution – which might involve a complex rethink of the way the world organizes its economic relationships, and large-scale government initiatives to change people’s conditions.
• Charity may benefit the state rather than the needy- If the charity sector increases spending in an area also funded by government then there is a risk that government will choose to spend less in that area.
• Charities are often accountable to the givers not the receivers- because the recipients of charity are often unorganized and the charity doesn’t know their individual identities, it’s often easier for charities to make their performance reports to the givers.

Resources

Do Work Teams Work?

“Collaboration” and “teamwork” are the catchphrases of the contemporary workplace. Since the 1980s in the U.S., work teams have been hailed as the solution to assembly line workers’ alienation and disaffection, and white-collar workers’ isolation and disconnection. Work teams have been associated with increased productivity, innovation, employee satisfaction, and reduced turnover. Additionally, teams at work are said to have beneficial effects on employee learning, problem-solving, communication, company loyalty, and organizational cohesiveness. Teams are now found throughout the for-profit, non-profit, and governmental sectors, and much of the work of the field of organization development (OD) is devoted to fostering and sustaining teams at work.

In his recent article “Stop Wasting Money on Team Building,” Harvard Business Review, September 11, 2018, Carlos Valdes-Dapena, argues that teams are less effective than many believe them to be. Based on research conducted at Mars, Inc. “a 35 billion dollar global corporation with a commitment to collaboration,” Valdes-Dapena argues that while employees like the idea of teams and team work, employees don’t, in fact, much collaborate in teams. After conducting 125 interviews and administering questionnaires with team members, he writes “If there was one dominant theme from the interviews, it is summarized in this remarkable sentiment: “I really like and value my teammates. And I know we should collaborate more. We just don’t.”

Valdes-Dapena reports that employees “…felt the most clarity about their individual objectives, and felt a strong sense of ownership for the work they were accountable for.” He also shows that “Mars was full of people who loved to get busy on tasks and responsibilities that had their names next to them. It was work they could do exceedingly well, producing results without collaborating. On top of that, they were being affirmed for those results by their bosses and the performance rating system.” Essentially, Valdes-Dapena, argues, teams may sound good in theory, but it is probably better to tap individual self-interest, if you really want to get the job done.

In “3 Types of Dysfunctional Teams and How To Fix Them,” Patty McManus says that there are different types of dysfunctional work teams. She characterizes these different team types as: “The War Zone,” “The Love Fest,” and “The Unteam.” In “War Zone” teams, competition and factionalism among members obscure or derail the potential benefits of teamwork. In the “Love Fest” team, there is a focus on muting disagreements, highlighting areas of agreement, and avoidance of tough issues in the interest of maintaining good feelings. “The Unteam” is characterized by meetings that are used for top-down communication and status updates, and fail to build shared perspective about the organization. In the “Unteam” members may get along as individuals, but they have little connection to one another or a larger purpose they all share.

McManus claims that the problems of teams may be overcome by what she terms “ecosystems teams,” i.e., teams that surface and manage differences, build healthy inter-dependence among members, and engage the organization—beyond the mere confines of the team.

Matthew Swyers also sees problems in teams at work. In “7 Reasons Good Teams Become Dysfunctional,” (Inc. September 27, 2012,) Swyers writes that there are seven types of problems that teams may experience:

• absence of a strong and competent leader
• team members more interested in individual glory than achieving team objectives
• failure to define team goals and desired outcomes
• disproportionately place too much of the team’s work on a few of its members’ shoulders
• lack focus and endless debate, without moving toward an ultimate goal
• lack of accountability and postponed timetables
• failure of decisiveness.

Each of these writers highlight the vulnerabilities of teams at work. Although the work of these writers doesn’t foreclose the positive possibilities of team organization at work, they raise important questions about both the enthusiasm for, and the effectiveness of, teams. Additionally, each author suggests that with enlightened modifications, organizations can overcome the liabilities of teams and begin to reap the benefits of team-based employee collaboration. That said, none of these writers, and few among the other U.S. based writers who have engaged this topic, treat the underlying assumptions of workplace reform—that work can be made more habitable and humane without the independent organizations that have traditionally represented workers’/employees’ interests in the workplace. For discussion of models of workplace reform that genuinely represent workers’ interest in more humane, collaborative, and ultimately, productive working environments, we will need to look elsewhere.

Resources:

Workgroups vs. Teams

“Importance of Teamwork at Work,” Tim Zimmer

“Importance of Teamwork in Organizations,” Aaron Marquis

“What Makes Teams Work?” Regina Fazio Maruca, Fast Company

“Stop Wasting Money on Team Building,” Carlos Valdes-Dapena, Harvard Business Review, September 11, 2018

“3 Types Of Dysfunctional Teams And How To Fix Them,” Patty McManus, Fast Company

“When Is Teamwork Really Necessary?” Michael D. Watkins, Harvard Business Review, August 16, 2018

“7 Reasons Good Teams Become Dysfunctional,” Matthew Swyers , Inc. Sept 27 2012

“Why Teams Don’t Work,” Diane Coutu, Harvard Business Review, May 2009

Learning to Learn

In a recent article in the May 2, 2018 Harvard Business Review, “Learning Is a Learned Behavior. Here’s How to Get Better at It,” Ulrich Boser rejects the idea that our capacities for learning are innate and immutable. He argues, instead, that a growing body of research shows that learners are not born, but made. Boser says that we can all get better at learning how to learn, and that improving our knowledge-acquisition skills is a matter of practicing some basic strategies.

Learning how to learn is a matter of:

1. setting clear and achievable targets about what we want to learn
2. developing our metacognition skills (“metacognition” is a fancy way to say thinking about thinking) so that as we learn, we ask ourselves questions like, Could I explain this to a friend? Do I need to get more background knowledge? etc.
3. reflecting on what we are learning by taking time to “step away” from our deliberate learning activities so that during periods of calm and even mind-wondering, new insights emerge

Boser says that research shows we’re more committed, if we develop a learning plan with clear objectives, and that periodic reflection on the skills and concepts we’re trying to master, i.e., utilizing metacognition, makes each of us a better learner.

Brad Addresses Nonprofit Net

Brad recently presented an introductory seminar on program evaluation at Nonprofit Net, a Lexington, Massachusetts-based organization. Nonprofit Net is a forum for Massachusetts nonprofit leaders and nonprofit consultants which offers seminars on topics of importance to the nonprofit community. Brad’s presentation provided an introduction to program evaluation, outlined the benefits of evaluating outcomes in order to demonstrate programs’ achievements and challenges, introduced the use of logic models, and reviewed the key questions that nonprofit leaders should consider as they approach a program evaluation.

The seminar was based on the materials in the following white papers, which you can download for free:

Program Evaluation Essentials for Non-evaluators

Preparing for a Program Evaluation

Logic Modeling

Resources:

Nonprofit Net

Everybody Lies

Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, Dey St., 2017

Too Much Assessment in Higher Education?

In an important article, “The Misguided Drive to Measure ‘Learning Outcomes’”, New York Times, Feb 23, 2018, Molly Worthen argues that the growth of, and seeming obsession with, the assessment of learning outcomes in higher education has profoundly shaped curricula and instruction, undercut the unique capacities of colleges and universities to foster genuine critical thinking, and proven to be both bureaucracy bloating and extremely expensive. Worthen shows that, driven largely by the interests of accrediting agencies and for-profit tech and consulting companies, higher education’s rush to demonstrate student learning and skill-acquisition disproportionately affects non-elite schools, and often compels these under-resourced institutions to devote scarce dollars to obtaining evidence of instructional impact, “…more and more university administrators want campus-wide, quantifiable data that reveal what skills students are learning. Their desire has fed a bureaucratic behemoth known as learning outcomes assessment.”

In order to show that students graduate with job-ready skills and attitudes, Worthen argues that higher education institutions’ focus on assessment obscures the “real crisis” in higher education: “the system’s deepening divide into a narrow tier of elite institutions primarily serving the rich and a vast landscape of glorified trade schools for everyone else.” She notes the cruel irony in the mania for assessment is that there is little evidence beyond occasional anecdotes, that regimes of assessment actually improve student learning. Moreover, more selective (i.e., elite) institutions, themselves, don’t utilize assessment of learning outcomes at the same rate as less prestigious institutions. “Research indicates that the more selective a university, the less likely it is to embrace assessment.”

Perhaps the greatest irony, Worthen writes, is that assessment regimes subvert the unique purposes and capacities of higher education. “The value of universities to a capitalist society depends on their ability to resist capitalism, to carve out space for intellectual endeavors that don’t have obvious metrics or market value.” She further observes, “Producing thoughtful, talented graduates is not a matter of focusing on market-ready skills. It’s about giving students an opportunity that most of them will never have again in their lives: the chance for serious exploration of complicated intellectual problems, the gift of time in an institution where curiosity and discovery are the source of meaning.”

Resources:

“The Misguided Drive to Measure ‘Learning Outcomes’”, Molly Worthen, New York Times, 23 February 2018

Dark Factories

We’ve previously written about the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics, and the impact of these new technologies on employment and the future of work.
(See our previous blog posts: “Humans Need Not Apply: What Happens When There’s No More Work?” and “Will President Trump’s Wall Keep Out the Robots?”) Today we’d like to refer readers to an important article, “Dark Factory”, that recently appeared in The New Yorker. “Dark Factory” explores the growing impact of robotics and AI on the manufacturing and service sectors of the U.S. Economy.

A Brief Guide to Evaluation (Part 3): The Uses of Evaluation Findings

One of the most important questions to consider before starting an evaluation is, “How will evaluation findings be used?” There are a number of ways the findings from an evaluation can be used. These include:

• to improve the program (formative evaluation)
• to make judgements about the ultimate value/benefits of the program to participants and stakeholders (summative evaluation)
• to sustain and/or expand the program
• to document and publicize the program’s achievements (outreach and marketing)
• to curtail the program

By being clear about the intended uses of evaluation findings, organizations can choose the most effective and stakeholder-relevant evaluation design. If, for example, a program funder wants to know whether their investment yielded desired outcomes for program participants, it may not be useful to focus the evaluation on gathering data that primarily indicate ways to improve the program’s delivery. On the other hand, if an organization is curious about how its programming is being implemented, and if such implementation is in fidelity with a research-based program design, the evaluation will want to focus more on implementation processes, rather than ultimate program outcomes.

Needless to say, stipulating the use of evaluation findings is closely related to the question of who are the major audiences for the evaluation. See our previous post, Identifying Evaluation Stakeholders. By clarifying potential audiences for findings, organizations and evaluators can identify the most useful evaluation strategy and design. In the next blog post we will discuss a related question, i.e., “What information will stakeholders find useful and valuable?” And to learn more about our data collection and evaluation click here.

Resources:

Understanding Different Types of Evaluations

Program Evaluation Essentials for Non-Evaluators 

A Brief Guide to Evaluation (Part 1)

This is the first in a series of blog posts, that outlines the key elements of an evaluation.

There are many things in the world that can be evaluated. You will want to decide and define the specific object (i.e. the “evaluand”) of the evaluation. One useful approach is for program managers, and program implementers to speak with the evaluator, and together, consider these defining questions about what needs to be evaluated:

Whether you are managing a program, funding an initiative, or about to undertake a policy review, you will want to first consider:

What is the “it” that’s being evaluated?

• program
• initiative
• organization
• set of processes or relationships
• campaign
• services
• activities
• product

Once you’ve identified what is being evaluated, it will be useful to consider these additional questions:

• What’s being done? What are the intentional actions that are being undertaken?
• Who does what to whom, and when do they do it?
• Why—for what set of reasons—are these things being done? Describe the need for the initiative or program?
• Who (which people, and which positions) are doing/carrying out the of the program, initiative, policy?
• What resources (i.e. inputs) are involved? (not just money and time, but knowledge, cooperation of others, networks of collaborators, etc.)
• Who (or what) are implementers working to change? What specifically is supposed to change, or be different as a result of the program or initiative doing what it does?
• Describe who benefits (e.g. program participants, beneficiaries, consumers, etc.) and what the benefits are.

By clearly identifying a determinate entity (i.e., “evaluand”) and the effects (i.e., outcomes) of the operation or implementation of that entity, you will help to ensure a successful evaluation. The clearer you can be in describing what the program, initiative, or policy is, the more effective the evaluation will be. Answering the above questions and sketching out a logic model of the program’s operation (which we’ll discuss in a subsequent blog post), will ensure an effective, accurate, and ultimately highly useful evaluation.

Also, for purposes of clarity, it may be useful for program managers and implementers to consider and discuss with the evaluator what isn’t being evaluated. This conversation can help to define the necessary boundaries around the program and will help to prevent evaluators expending unnecessary and potentially costly efforts to design evaluations of things that exist outside the boundary of the initiative, program or policy. To learn more about our evaluation practices visit our Impact & Assessment page.

Using Qualitative Interviews in Program Evaluations

Qualitative interviews can be an important source of program evaluation data. Both in-depth individual interviews and focus group interviews are important methods that provide insights and phenomenologically rich descriptive information that other, numerically oriented data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires and surveys), are often unable to capture. Typically, interviews are either structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. (Structured interviews are, essentially, verbally administered questionnaires, in which a list of predetermined questions is asked. Semi-structured interviews consist of several key questions that help to define the areas to be explored, but allow the interviewer to diverge from the questions in order to pursue or follow up to an idea or response. Unstructured interviews start with an opening question, but don’t employ a detailed interview protocol, favoring instead the interviewer’s spontaneous generation of subsequent follow-up questions. See P. Gill1, K. Stewart2, E. Treasure3 & B. Chadwick, cited below.)

Interviews, especially one-on-one, in-person, interviews, allow an evaluator to participate in direct conversations with program participants, program staff, community members, and other program stakeholders. These conversations enable the evaluator to learn about interviewees’ experiences, perspectives, attitudes, motivations, beliefs, personal history, and knowledge. Interviews can be the source of pertinent information that is often unavailable to other methodological approaches. Qualitative interviews enable evaluators to: elicit direct responses from interviewees, probe and ask follow-up questions, gather rich and detailed descriptive data, offer real-time opportunities to explain and clarify interview questions, observe the affective responses of interviewees, and ultimately, to conduct thorough-going explorations of topics and issues critical to the evaluation initiative.

Although less intimate, focus group interviews are another key source of evaluation data. Organized around a set of guiding questions, focus groups typically are composed of 6-10 people and a moderator who poses open-ended questions to focus group participants. Focus groups usually include people who are somewhat similar in characteristics or social roles. Participants are selected for their knowledge, reflectiveness, and willingness to engage topics or questions. Ideally – although not always possible – it is best to involve participants who don’t previously know one another. Focus groups can be especially useful in clarifying, qualifying, and/or challenging data collected through other methods. Consequently they can be useful as a tool for corroborating findings from other research methodologies.

Regardless of the specific form of qualitative interview—individual or focus group, in-person or telephone—qualitative interviews can be useful in providing data about participants’ experience in, and ultimately the effectiveness of, programs and initiatives. To find out more about our use of qualitative data visit our Data collection & Outcome measurement page.

Resources:

Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies, Robert S. Weiss, Free Press.

Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences, Irving Seidman. Fourth Edition.

Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. P. Gill1, K. Stewart2, E. Treasure3 & B. Chadwick.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in Qualitative Research,  Raymond Opdenakker.

Qualitative Research Methods Overview

Interviewing—The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Pros & Cons of Interviewing

Advantages and Disadvantages of Face-to-Face Data Collection

The Fall Will Probably Kill You

I like quotes and have collected them for a number of years. Quotes from literature, film, newspapers, and other sources, often capture in a few insightful words, the way the world really works or how it should work. Below are some quotes that maybe useful to you and your colleagues, who manage, staff, and fund programs.

Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
— Douglas Adams

Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear– not absence of fear.
— Mark Twain

One doesn’t discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.
— Andre Gide

You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
— Wayne Gretzky

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts.
— Albert Einstein

I myself am human and free only to the extent that I acknowledge the humanity and liberty of all my fellows… I am properly free when all the men and women about me are equally free. Far from being a limitation or a denial of my liberty, the liberty of another is its necessary condition and confirmation.
— Michael Bakunin

An optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; the pessimist fears this is true.
— James Bench Cabell

The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a human heart. One must imagine that Sisyphus is happy.
— Albert Camus

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
— Charles Darwin

Sixty years ago I knew everything; now I know nothing; education is the progressive discovery of our ignorance.
— Will Durant

An error can never become true however many times you repeat it. The truth can never be wrong, even if no one hears it.
— Mahatma Gandhi

It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others.
— John Andrew Holmes

One of my favorite quotes is from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. You can see the one minute scene here: