June 14, 2013 at 3:08 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Do You Want a Meritocracy at Work?
June 14, 2013 at 4:19 am
I want a meritocracy where technical skills AND soft skills (i.e. all skills) are used to evaluate the individuals value.
I don't care what someone's DNA tells us (be that skin colour or some disability that might hinder them doing some other non-work related things), whether they wear a skirt or not (man or woman), who they go to bed with (including the boss!!!), which way they vote or whether they prefer smooth or crunch peanut butter (it had better be crunchy though).
Once an individual's overall value to the company is evaluated then the renumeration package should match (it might not simply be money).
I like working with a variety of people and I don't think that everyone provides equal value nor value in the same way.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
June 14, 2013 at 4:32 am
Sometimes it's more important to do a job you enjoy and are good at than to clibm the corporate ladder.
I'm in my 50s and am employed as a Senior SQL Developer. That suits me fine - I love writing SQL code and have god fairly good at it over the years. I've done other jobs in the past - everything from postboy to CTO - but this is the one I like and seem to be best at.
Too often I have seen examples of the "You're really good at this job so we're going to replace you with somebody who isn't and give you a job you're not suited to" culture. Sure, it's nice to be recognised and rewarded but there should be ways of doing that without the need to change roles.
June 14, 2013 at 4:55 am
Richard Warr (6/14/2013)
Sometimes it's more important to do a job you enjoy and are good at than to clibm the corporate ladder.I'm in my 50s and am employed as a Senior SQL Developer. That suits me fine - I love writing SQL code and have god fairly good at it over the years. I've done other jobs in the past - everything from postboy to CTO - but this is the one I like and seem to be best at.
Too often I have seen examples of the "You're really good at this job so we're going to replace you with somebody who isn't and give you a job you're not suited to" culture. Sure, it's nice to be recognised and rewarded but there should be ways of doing that without the need to change roles.
I think you are advocating progress over change. I would wholeheartedly agree. Best job I never got was where they valued technical excellence enough to reward it in place (and also recognised that great IT practitioners do not necessarily make even adequate managers).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
June 14, 2013 at 5:09 am
Nice to find a kindred spirit. In the past I've spent 20+ years working as an IT contractor. That's one way of utilising technical skills to achieve "manager money" but it's certainly not suited to everybody.
It does grate sometimes when you find yourself working for an incompetent manager who has been prometed "out of harm's way" but fortunately that hasn't happened in the past few years (the fact that both my current and previous bosses are on this forum has nothing to do with that sentiment ;-)).
June 14, 2013 at 5:52 am
The real demon here: ambition.
There are those with more ambition that skills (and I refuse to consider ambition as a skill in itself even though I am ambitious at times). These are the dangerous ones. They will blame others, deceive, coerce and drop people in it at a drop of a hat.
The best managers I have worked for felt more like coordinators. That isn't all they did but they felt that a softly, softly less intrusive approach was most effective. They were all good umbrella holders to a man (in the original non-gender specific sense).
For those of you not getting the umbrella holder reference, imagine a fan spraying some substance out. You and your colleagues are in front of the fan doing a difficult task. However, between you and the fan is a person with an umbrella. The umbrella holder is not trying to keep the substance off of themselves. They are keeping you and your colleagues free from the distraction of being hit by the aforementioned substance. Umbrella Holder = Great team player. They rock.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
June 14, 2013 at 6:05 am
Lovely idea.
Still, it seems to be hard to find in reality.
June 14, 2013 at 6:21 am
I'd love to work in such an environment.
Too many times I've seen people promoted because "their face fit" rather than because of their ability to do the job.
Once that starts, it can damage morale in the rest of the workforce who can easily foresee the "keystone cops" approach to management and the aforementioned management tends to turn into an old-boys club (again non-gender specific).
I've worked in places with both scenarios and found that the meritocratic approach to promotion tends to get a better workforce in general (and I've not always worked in technology).
I've been promoted and passed over in both situations and I preferred to be promoted because I can do the job, rather than because I know the boss.
June 14, 2013 at 6:32 am
I've never enjoyed a real meritocracy at work, but some employers have been closer than others. There's no doubt that I've been happier with those who were closer.
I'm at a point in my career where I just don't care any more. That's not to say that I don't care about my value to the company - I just don't care about my position in the pecking order. I'm inside of 5 years to retirement and just want to finish out my working life getting the job done and done well for the satisfaction that brings to me.
June 14, 2013 at 6:39 am
To me it depends on the skills that people are being rewarded for. If we are rewarding people for doing a good technical job, then I'm in favor of that. Too often people are rewarded because of who they befriend and not what work they produce.
When a company promotes people because they are nice and go along with the flow, then expects to get improved performance they are often disappointed. People who just go along with the flow often are unable to drive improvement because improvement requires change from the way you are doing things.
June 14, 2013 at 7:19 am
Would you like to work in a place where the more talented people rise faster than the average worker, regardless of seniority, friendliness with management, or any other non-skill based measure?
Over the last 30 years I've seen this happen to some people, myself included, in every place I've worked. But it's a very tough question to give an absolute answer.
To some degree, I think this already happens. One way or another (either within the company or by moving on) the most talented people do rise quickly. There will always be exceptions of course but for the most part this is what I've seen over the years.
Enjoy!
June 14, 2013 at 7:30 am
As for most things in life, nothing is completely bad and nothing is completely good. With an "IT meritocracy" (not really caring about DNA or physical composition), there is some good to be brought out from it, namely, to prevent professionals who have been in the company for many years to become complacent in their skills while the company itself struggles for that IT edge called innovation. If I was a business owner (one day!), I would want my development team to be younger, being guided by those who have the experience to prevent, to the best of their abilities as managers, the pitfalls of the young generation being too courageous (= dumb).
But we can't all be managers just because we have tenure. So while there is definitely a push out there to promote the young who may be more in tune (and more flexible) to adopt newer technologies, it also prevents anyone from just pushing the same button over and over again because it may have worked well in the past. This would, in my eyes, be a boost to incentive all staff, younger or older, to constantly hone their skills and learn something new to keep yourself relevant in the company as well as in the IT world, which is always changing: just as you're just getting a good handle on SQL 2008, SQL 2012 comes out.
So while I don't agree with the idea that someone should be promoted and rise quickly in the corporate ladder just because of their technical skills, I tend to believe that such mentality should also never totally fade away. We all need the push from a young and fresh perspective to change things and keep it interesting. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But there's definitely value in it, to my eyes.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. I see myself as the young guy who came in and quickly became everyone's golden athlete so naturally I'm biased towards the young quickly going up the ladder just because as the younger person within the corporation, it is the most important thing I can bring to the table at this point in my career.
June 14, 2013 at 7:31 am
Dave Schutz (6/14/2013)
To me it depends on the skills that people are being rewarded for. If we are rewarding people for doing a good technical job, then I'm in favor of that. Too often people are rewarded because of who they befriend and not what work they produce.When a company promotes people because they are nice and go along with the flow, then expects to get improved performance they are often disappointed. People who just go along with the flow often are unable to drive improvement because improvement requires change from the way you are doing things.
That said there is value in a personable colleague - if that is even a word (I know it is used a lot). Any task should be done well whilst rustling as few a feathers as possible. I think the smart route is somewhere between dictatorship and complete supplication. I am convinced that time spent getting the magical "buy-in" is usually worthwhile. The old adage of choosing ones battles wisely applies here.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
June 14, 2013 at 7:42 am
In our type of company it is really hard to implement meritocracy fairly. The reasoon for this is not because of the individuals but because each individual works for a di9fferent customer, on a different contract in a different location requiring different skills. I am supporting an agency that has always been backwards in implementing new technology. When my co-workers were building ASP.Net MVC apps for SQL Server 2008 R2, this agency was in the process of converting its Asp.Net 1.1 apps to 2.0 and upgrading from SQL Server 2000 to 2005. In providing support for this customer, innovation and new technology was not as appreciated as competence in the old technologies. In addition, my co-workers had their customers submit semi-annual reviews for each individual's performance, whereas the contract I work under will not allow the government to submit reviews for an individual but only for the company's performance. As those reviews do not count towards the bonus calculations it becomes obvious that those in the first situation will benefit more.
So while the concept is good, it is hard to see how people can be best recognized for the actual value added when people are working in completely different environments.
June 14, 2013 at 7:52 am
fchen 34442 (6/14/2013)
...I would want my development team to be younger, being guided by those who have the experience to prevent, to the best of their abilities as managers, the pitfalls of the young generation being too courageous (= dumb)...
Well, I am going to have to call you out for discrimination here.
I find what you are talking about to be personality types that are unrelated to age. I find that there are those who eager to learn new technologies constantly throughout their career, regardless of age, and yet some "stick in the muds" from day 1 of their career.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 58 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply