The problem is how to measure that skill. For example, I've known very skilled individuals who switched over to my industry later in life. They neither had past experience, nor strong technical abilities when I first met them. But what they did bring to the table was the ability to learn quickly, and after investing in them, they were capable of delivering fantastic results. Furthermore, even early on, they brought their experiences from other industries with them, breaking up the group think that would have formed without them.
Some companies believe the most skilled people are the ones who have demonstrated certain technical abilities. Under this form of meritocracy, the companies delude themselves into thinking they've hired the most skilled people, but they haven't.
The inclusive meritocracy in the article solves that problem by expanding the definition of skilled, and by investing in a more diverse group of individuals. This results in more (in number) skilled people at the end of the investment.
Then it's a testing/measurement problem, not a meritocracy problem.
> The inclusive meritocracy in the article solves that problem by expanding the definition of skilled, and by investing in a more diverse group of individuals. This results in more (in number) skilled people at the end of the investment.
There is no problem to solve. If you don't choose the best, you choose sub-optimal personal. Also the definition of "inclusiveness" is ridiculous, as it assumes that diversity means hiring different sex or race, but not diversity of thoughts or culture.
In fact, it opposes different ideas, it's exactly the inverse of diversity. It's a thought monoculture.
It IS a meritocracy problem. If you are unable to measure who has the most merit, if you're not concerned with this problem, how can you possibly be having a meritocracy?
Connections and the ability to play politics seem to be much more important for getting to the top. Current systems, managers, etc., are just not setup to evaluate skill from what I've seen, you have to sell yourself, which means "ability to sell yourself" is how the system is stratified, and that's not merit.
So when you say "the best", often what you get is "best at selling self", which is not actually the best.
Some companies believe the most skilled people are the ones who have demonstrated certain technical abilities. Under this form of meritocracy, the companies delude themselves into thinking they've hired the most skilled people, but they haven't.
The inclusive meritocracy in the article solves that problem by expanding the definition of skilled, and by investing in a more diverse group of individuals. This results in more (in number) skilled people at the end of the investment.