
Time Is Finite- Meritocracy’s Rule - mmattox
https://medium.com/@mmattox/time-is-finite-meritocracys-rule-e17d252d2da4
======
eesmith
Well, isn't that special.

Let's try this a different way.

1) "As soon as a player can’t perform at a high level anymore, they’re gone."

Who defines what "high level" means?

Most jobs are a mix of skills. Someone just starting may be good at cranking
code. Someone with more experience may be good at avoiding dead ends, and
providing advice to get those beginners up to speed. Someone with more
leadership skills may be good at management. Someone with more people skills
may be a low performer by most labor measurements, but great at building team
cohesiveness - a catalyst, to use a chemistry term.

2) "Then there are the companies which let older employees linger due to
seniority instead of phasing them out as their performance drops."

This is the Silicon Valley disease. Let someone else train people, pay them a
lot, burn them out, then get rid of them like the worn down parts they are.

Again, how is "performance" measured?

From what I've read, seniority systems can arise when it's hard to figure out
who is good or bad. Is there a 10x commercial airline pilot? If 99+% of
flights are routine, and trained for, then how do you tell who those 10x
pilots are?

3) "There must be no doubt in anyone’s mind that performance is what is valued
throughout the organization."

Again, how is "performance" measured?

4) "If you’re the GM or CEO, this cultural message needs to [... be ...]
People are paid on the value of their performance, nothing else-full stop."

Which backfires in the face of hypocrisy. How many millions did the ex-CEO of
Boeing get paid upon leaving the company after this recent fiasco?

How is the CEO's performance measured, and why is that measurement different
than how the rest of the employees are measured?

5) "This also means that there will be a large discrepancy in salaries,
bonuses, options and rewards."

You know, I've got no problem with that. I just want all that information -
yes, including salary and income for each employee - to be public data.

6) "no one should care if you’re the biggest asshole on the planet."

Except for jobs where team cohesiveness is an important factor. I don't want
to work with asshole, I'm good enough at what I do that I can quit if I'm
forced to work with an unrepentant asshole.

7) "like putting down a once-prized stallion that can no longer stud"

We are all but meat widgets to the all-important corporation. Hail capitalism!

8) "implement a stack rank and tell me what happens?"

The company goes to the crapper, a la "Microsoft's Lost Decade"? -
[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft-l...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft-
lost-mojo-steve-ballmer)

That's behind a paywall. Alternatives at
[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/microsoft-throws-employee-
sta...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/microsoft-throws-employee-stack-
ranking-out-window-steffen-maier)

> Going forward, the system would focus on how employees collaborated with
> each other. Performance reviews wouldn’t just be focused on how well the
> employee did, but how they engaged with their peers around them.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/stack-ranking-employees-
is-a...](https://www.businessinsider.com/stack-ranking-employees-is-a-bad-
idea-2013-11?r=US&IR=T)

> The use of stack ranking, which has been almost ubiquitous at large
> companies for years, has recently plummeted, since many companies now
> realize it can actually hurt performance.

~~~
ksaj
I'm reminded of the song "As Tears Go By" from Marianne Faithful. From when
she first recorded it, until her last performance of it, there were very
notable differences in her singing, and the overall sound of the song. It went
from sad and thoughtful to utterly depressed and desperate, depending on which
versions you heard. But there was change, nonetheless. A lot of it.

The most obvious is the pitch and speed - she started singing it in a fairly
clean high register at a particular beat, but by the end of her career her
voice was very deep and raspy, and the song was performed a lot slower.

Despite significant change in her singing, nobody ever said she and the song
got better, or worse. They just kept some sort of honest likable quality, and
it got more dramatic as the years went by. Pretty much as forecast by the song
itself.

The lack of acceptance for change existed back then, but she lucked out and
was surrounded by grace. It's just more "in your face" as the Internet tends
to be nowadays. Change isn't allowed so much because we constantly click on
the next big thing.

Any amount of change like that in a musician today would be considered
unacceptable and buried under loads of competition and "us and them"
mentalities.

------
The_mboga_real
You know, that is some talented truth there, Mr. Mattocks!

