ABSTRACT

The principle of being valued, in the employment context, according to effort and talent is appealing. Despite its appeal in principle, a consideration of the construction and application of merit in practice reveal fundamental underlying issues. Examined here in the context of corporate boards, it is argued that the meritocratic ideal can be more harmful than helpful. Human capital (including social and cultural capital) is decisive in merit-based decisions. But human capital is also flawed because measuring people in this way fails to account for structural inequalities. So long as boards are guided to implement and disclose a merit-based appointment policy, without sufficient focus on outcomes, they will continue to lack diversity of gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background. Even to the extent that it is possible to make a truly merit-based appointment, the privilege upon which human capital and merit is built makes truly meritocratic boards an impossibility in the current context. Despite these problems, a lack of feasible alternatives necessitates the continued use of merit. It is argued here that modifications should be made to the meaning and usage of merit in practice in order to mitigate its failings.

抽象的

在工作中，根据努力和才能被重视的原则很有吸引力。尽管原则上具有吸引力，但在实践中对功绩的构建和应用的考虑揭示了根本的根本问题。在公司董事会的背景下进行审查时，有人认为，精英主义的理想可能弊大于利。人力资本（包括社会和文化资本）在基于绩效的决策中起决定性作用。但是，人力资本也存在缺陷，因为以这种方式衡量人员并不能解决结构性不平等问题。只要指导董事会执行和披露基于绩效的任命政策，而对结果的关注不足，他们将继续缺乏性别，种族和社会经济背景的多样性。即使在可能进行真正基于绩效的任命的情况下，建立人力资本和绩效的特权也使得在当前情况下，真正的精英制董事会成为不可能。尽管存在这些问题，但缺乏可行的替代方案仍需要继续使用功绩。这里认为，应在实践中对功绩的含义和用法进行修改，以减轻功绩的缺陷。