“Merit” and “meritocracy” are words I hear bandied about in the news and elsewhere—sometimes praised, sometimes condemned, depending on who’s using them. One would think that merit applies simply to the proven skills and aptitude a person has for the task at hand.
I remember earning merit badges as a kid—proving I could kindle a fire, set up a tent, or pass a swimming test. In the adult world, a soldier or sailor who displays the knowledge and ability needed for a higher rank can earn promotion based on merit. We like to think the same holds true in schools and workplaces of every kind. Most organizations aspire to reward people on the basis of merit.
A meritocracy, then, would seem to be a community or society in which knowledge, skill, and aptitude determine how one is evaluated for positions and promotions, rather than social status, wealth, family, connections, or race.
As virtuous as that may sound, it can easily be corrupted when individual performance—exclusive of the team’s performance—is the only measure of worth. When that happens, individuals pursue their own advancement at the expense of those around them. It becomes a kind of cutthroat, win-or-lose competition in which the success of the whole unit no longer matters. That kind of meritocracy undermines the well-being of the community—and that is especially dangerous when the “unit” is the nation itself.
There is an extreme form of American individualism that exalts self-reliance above all else and treats any interdependence as weakness. As heroic as its adherents try to make it appear, that ideal collapses the moment tragedy or crisis strikes. When that happens, some demand as much help as they can get from others; others rediscover the virtue of caring for one another—at least until conditions return to normal and the corrupt form of meritocracy reasserts itself.
I was privileged to have been given executive authority at a young age, but it took me far too long to understand that my success depended on the success of my group. The temptation was to let others compete for individual recognition, when what I really needed to do was ensure that every member of the team had the knowledge, training, aptitude, and tools to do an excellent job—and that they worked together, not against each other. I learned that lesson the hard way, though mentors had tried to teach it. My own father was one, and another was management theorist W. Edwards Deming, who thundered, “Stop focusing on the individual; pay attention to the system.” They were right.
A particularly painful and costly lesson about meritocracy was demonstrated during World War II. Bombers flying over Germany were escorted by fighter planes whose pilots were instructed to pursue and destroy attacking German fighters. Many did so with great skill, earning the coveted title of “Ace” and being celebrated in the news. But while they were off chasing German planes, the bombers were left unprotected and losses were high. It was competitive meritocracy at its best—and worst.
One group operated by different rules: the Red Tails, the Tuskegee Airmen. This all-Black unit, set up for failure, surprised everyone with its success. They surrounded their bombers in tight, disciplined formations, each fighter responsible for a specific sector. They were to engage enemy planes in that area but not pursue them beyond it. Few of them became aces, but as a unit they downed many enemy fighters. More important, no bomber under their protection was lost to enemy aircraft. There were losses from flak or mechanical failure, but none to enemy fighters. It worked because they were a disciplined team with the right training, equipment, and leadership to form a well-coordinated whole that accomplished its mission: to protect the bombers and bring them home alive.
It should have been a lesson for the ages—but it was soon forgotten. There were other lessons learned during that war as well. Women proved they could do every factory job men could do, without sacrificing quality or productivity. Strategic planning and coordinated effort—done in that uniquely flexible American way—proved more effective than the rigid methods of the enemy, who relied on tactics over strategy. Individual initiative was valued, but always in service to collective success. Like the Tuskegee Airmen’s example, the point was well made, and then quickly forgotten.
Benjamin Franklin tried to make the same point back in 1776. He’s credited with saying, “We must all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately.” The Articles of Confederation offered a costly demonstration that independent states competing with one another while pretending to act as one nation was impossible. The Constitution drove home the truth that opportunity for individual success depends on the welfare of the whole.
Amendments to that Constitution have strengthened and broadened its protections, extending opportunity and rights to all Americans, not just some. It has not been an easy path. Too many still seek to restrict opportunity and rights to a chosen portion of the population. They have made enemies of fellow citizens who only seek the full measure of rights once reserved to white Americans. They have scorned immigrants—documented and undocumented alike—who come seeking a better life in the land of opportunity. They have championed a distorted form of individual competitiveness that ignores the welfare of all..
Most egregious of all, some have claimed the name of Jesus Christ while promoting policies antithetical to everything for which Christ lived, taught, died, and was resurrected..
I think there are two ways to bring this to a close.
First, to those who claim the name of Christ: be reminded that you are to discipline your life, as much as you are able, to the way of love Christ taught and commanded. In that way there is no room for retribution, no threats of violence, and no denigration of others.
Second, to the American public as a whole, regardless of religious tradition: recommit to a national ideal that personal freedom, opportunity, and success depend on the health and welfare of the entire society and everyone in it. Particular attention must be paid to the conditions that sustain poverty and limit opportunities to enjoy the comforts of sustainable prosperity for all. That ideal depends on individuals exercising personal responsibility for their own actions, including their obligation to contribute to the greater good. It also requires an informed citizenry, reasonably well versed in civics and history, which in turn depends on freedom of the press, academic freedom, and an honest, truthful understanding of how we became who we are and what we hope to become.
Would you like me to integrate this into the version of your article I edited yesterday so you can see how it flows as a complete piece?