> Assuming that any attempt to change the system necessarily involves hiring/promoting "unqualified" people shows one of those biases: the bias to believe that anyone who does not resemble the existing majority must be "unqualified" or else they'd already have succeeded
You're not describing meritocracy, which has literally nothing to do with majority conformity, but literally reduces to ability. It's the most unbiased position possible.
There is literally zero unjustified bias in a true meritocracy.
When trying to build a meritocracy, pre-existing bias can certainly skew who has more ability, because some group or other has better access to education or opportunities for acquiring better experience. The solution is not to decry meritocracy, but to enforce those principles even more strongly.
They're describing what Michael Young coined the term "meritocracy" to warn about.
The closest thing to a consensus on programmer productivity is that it's impossible to quantify. How can we objectively predict ability when we don't know how to objectively measure outcomes?
You can't measure productivity in an interview, so I don't see how this is relevant. At best, you can test for knowledge and understanding, which is exactly what people do. I don't see how this entails some kind cultural homogeneity.
> The closest thing to a consensus on programmer productivity is that it's impossible to quantify
Precision isn't as important as accuracy, and this is achievable. It's difficult, but not impossible.
You're not describing meritocracy, which has literally nothing to do with majority conformity, but literally reduces to ability. It's the most unbiased position possible.
There is literally zero unjustified bias in a true meritocracy.
When trying to build a meritocracy, pre-existing bias can certainly skew who has more ability, because some group or other has better access to education or opportunities for acquiring better experience. The solution is not to decry meritocracy, but to enforce those principles even more strongly.