Metrics vs Merit
How Lack of Meaning can Lead to Destruction
Twelve years ago, I was performing recruitment activities at my alma mater for the organization where I was employed. Something odd started to come to the surface, and I began to notice a pattern. As we went on with the recruitment activities, Human Resources gave us strict metrics to achieve so that we could continue recruitment activities at this university. These metrics were reviewed and scrutinized. What were these metrics? We had to achieve a minimum number of women and Indigenous students to be interviewed and converted to employees. I questioned the approach immediately because I have always believed in hiring the best person for the job, and something I have told myself when I have fallen short, reminding myself that I did not deserve the opportunity. Unfortunately, others did not have the same sentiment around me. My difference of opinion and values eventually led me out of the organization a few years ago.
As the years have progressed, I have understood the initiative or action taking place as it has gained more prominence under the DEI (Diversity, equity, and inclusion) movement. Now, I am not against diversity, equity and inclusivity. Many people I have spoken to in this field have great ideas and the right intentions. I also appreciate the diversity in opinions and ideas people bring based on the differences in their worldviews, perspectives, experiences, personality traits, and temperament, to name a few qualities. I also understand we need to start somewhere to influence change, but when do things go too far? And are we there yet? My concern is that when the focus shifts to achieving numbers, we lose sight of the bigger picture by having tunnel vision. By trying to fit things into a box and forcing outcomes, we compromise the natural course of action and creativity that can ensue.
The constant debate that has transpired is equal opportunity vs equal outcome, and depending on which side of the debate you fall on, you may have differing opinions. The two get confused frequently; equal opportunity aims to achieve a similar starting point and access to education, resources, and employment opportunities. However, many critics argue that creating a level playing field is impossible. On the other hand, equality of outcome ensures that everyone ends up with the same results irrespective of effort, ability or circumstance, ultimately voiding merit. Equality of outcome seeks to reduce the disparities between individuals in wealth, education and other measures of success. While this approach may seem noble, it comes at the cost of merit. The focus shifts from the individual’s effort to the aspects of their life that potentially limit them.
There are examples where equality of outcome has provided positive benefits, especially in Scandinavian countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. However, from a data analysis perspective, the sample size is small, and one can argue that the situation is controlled in Scandinavian countries compared to other places with more diversity and continuous population growth. One example is higher graduation rates in Finland, which means everyone has access to the same quality of education. Sweden has observed improved life expectancy due to access to Universal Health Care systems. Denmark and Norway have reduced income inequality and improved poverty rates. Finally, these countries have reduced gender inequality in pay and leadership positions. Given the small sample size, the risks remain where there are reduced incentives around innovation and individual effort, which impacts merit and personal freedom and eventually stifles economic growth, a theme we continue to see.
Another ideology that comes into play is the work of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels concerning the criticism of capitalism. While Marx and Engels focused on economics, many scholars in this work have referenced the Communist Manifesto as having religious connotations. As a result of their focus on the select few being privileged, we have seen this spill into society at large and the emphasis on equality of outcome. A consequence of Marx's work, which Lenin, Stalin and Mao subsequently took on, was a Utopian Socialist endeavour. However, much has been talked about what would happen if we lived in a utopia. Writers such as Doestevsky postulated that humans would choose misery and live in self-pity rather than being handed everything on a platter. Plato's Republic also explored the idea of a utopian state. Furthermore, John Calhoun ran the Universe 25 experiments on mice. He found that despite living in a utopia, the mice eventually fell into chaos, unable to form social bonds and engage in complex social behaviour.
Why do I share all this? Because this is where we are headed. Many people have become entitled, preventing hard work, resilience and persistence. We see many aspects of what Dostoevsky predicted concerning the utopian state, i.e., people living in misery and nihilism despite vast human progress. We are truly living in interesting times where we have become so focused on metrics and hitting specific numbers, which has come at the cost of meritocracy, leading to unintended consequences and the chaos we see in society today. We are observing the demise of the social fabric that continues to become concerning and the promotion of people into positions where they are not set up for success. This issue is more significant than all of us; however, we all have a role and can influence. We must return to what allowed our species to evolve through merit, hard work, and innovation, giving us meaning and purpose.