Meritocracy - Criticism

Criticism

The primary concern with meritocracy is the unclear definition of "merit". Different people often have their own standards of merit, thus raising the question of which "merit" has the best merits—or in other words—which standard is the "best" standard.

Meritocracy also has been criticized by egalitarians as a mere myth, which serves only to justify the status quo, with its proponents only giving lip service to equality. In the words of sociologist Laurie Taylor:

The hideous thing about meritocracy is it tells you that if you’ve given life your all and haven’t got to the top you’re thick or stupid. Previously, at least, you could always just blame the class system.

A second concern regards the principle of incompetence, or the "Peter Principle". As people rise in a meritocratic society through the corporate ladder, they reach, and become stuck, at the first level of what they are unable to do.

Other concerns for the validity of a merit-based system have arisen from studies in psychology, sociology, and neuroscience. Given the proposition that 'a persons life prospects should not be decided by factors outside of their control or, for which a person cannot claim personal credit' (i.e., social status, inherited wealth, race, and other accidents of birth) a meritocracy proposes a system where people are rewarded based on their efforts, and if everyone can start on equal footing with the same opportunity to advance, then the results are just. However, some studies have shown that even our motivation, work ethic, and conscientious drive is, in fact, outside of our control and can be affected by such arbitrary factors as birth order. Children who are first in birth order are more likely to be hard working. Therefore, a system which rewards effort in this way is not just, because effort and hard work is not something we can claim credit for.

By definition, the principle of meritocracy could not be effective in a non-competitive society or environment.