# Evidence Against Meritocracies By:: [[Ross Jackson]] 2023-07-01 There is some comfort in thinking that the best people get promoted. However, there is evidence that suggests such a view isn’t accurate. People are rarely moved down the organizational ladder. Once in a position, they either move up, stay in place, or leave. The staying-in-place aspect is the single most devastating evidence against meritocracies. As a given individual stays in place, they are not competitive for future advancement. Conversely, their performance provides no basis for dismissal. Consequently, they remain in place. Sometimes for a long time. Almost always, there is a person within the organization who is better than that person. Yet, moving that person down and placing a new person in is too awkward. This would happen if organizations were meritocracies. There are reasons why this might be acceptable. However reasonable, it does provide evidence against organizations being considered meritocracies. And if organizations are not strict meritocracies, attention should be given to all the biases and preferences that go into promotion and retention considerations. When labor rights are well defined, such decisions are procedural, often looking at longevity. When labor rights are not well defined, such decisions are based on preferences and biases and are framed in terms of merit. Of course, the term merit is sufficiently ambiguous. It could contain anything a person in power wants to aggregate under its label, so maybe we do have meritocracies, whatever they are. #### Related Items [[Meritocracy]] [[Organization]] [[Thinking]] [[Performance]] [[Business]] [[Cognitive Biases]] [[Power]]