Galvanised by the overwhelming response to my previous post, “Is Meritocracy subjective?”, I feel encouraged to dissect the matter further and write this post as a corollary.
In a class comprising 40 students, not all are equally brilliant or duds and there is a fair distribution. A few of them score A+, a few A and so on and how so hard one may try, one or two fail too and have to repeat the class. But except for those who fail, all others are promoted to next grade and this continues throughout school and college. It’s indeed true that many A graders in school do not do as well in college, which could be attributed to them getting burnt out early or not accustomed to new way of learning that’s not bookish. Moreover, all those who are academically not so bright ( and even those academically bright) could develop other skills – sports, fine arts, technical education et al.
To sum up, assessing capability of any student is a very complex phenomenon and goes much beyond the mere academic scores. And each individual who is otherwise skilled and not bnecessarily academically brilliant , contributes to society and nation as much as anyone else. Therefore, if each human being is unique, the value he or she brings to the table also ought to be unique that cannot be simply quantified by any PMS mechanism. Taking cue from the above example of academic scenario, organisations can consider the following:
(1) Like everyone, except those who fail, is promoted to next grade, similarly organisations can promote everyone to the next level up to say middle management grades. Of course, more meritorious candidates should be provided with an express channel, while others can follow time norms.
(2) Strict meritocracy can be applied while considering promotion to senior management level or large leadership roles. Like all students don’t become civil servants, engineers, doctors or acquire doctorate, similarly every employee in an organisation cannot become CEO or other top management incumbent.
(3) One off brilliance ( a large deal) can be rewarded monetarily- promotion should be given based on sustained performance.
(4) Those not performing up to the desired level can be given message about them having hit a road block as far as future incentives are concerned and can be deployed in more routine jobs. But forced attrition can be avoided.
Humans are humans. Need is to identify their right acumen and potential and use his or her skills accordingly to the optimum benefit of both – the employee as well as the organisation. It will augur well – employee will progress and organisation will prosper.
Arvind Arya blog 