Away with (some) words
Image description: A quote pulled from social media that perfectly demonstrates the challenge of confidence in the face of complexity
I used to roll my eyes whenever a talk, seminar or training session started with the dictionary definition, i.e. “Meriam Webster’s describes ‘conflict’ as…” but here I am calling up the dictionary definition of “merit” in an effort to make a point about how word choice can be helpful in keeping a challenging conversation going.
Note: To clarify “challenging” in that last sentence: picture an old-school landline phone conversation with someone who is “this close” to hanging up on you such every moment without a “CLICK” is a win.
Unending complexity and current events have conspired to complicate workplace conversations about “merit” (e.g. who we promote and why). The fiery nature of this topic is nothing new. You may have come across the adoption of “blind” auditions for orchestras in the 1970s and 80s that aimed to counter sexism in selecting performers for top-level groups. An auditory level of “blindness” was introduced as performers removed their shoes before walking on stage (behind a curtain, of course). The sound of high heels hinted at the gender of the performer and allowed biases (conscious or not) to influence the selection. Such efforts brought an increase in female representation.
Discussions of merit will include some of the words that do indeed appear in the dictionary entry: achievement, qualities, actions, what a person deserves, etc. Many companies claim (or aspire) to be a “meritocracy” and, one assumes, that the “merit” is based solely on performance. I won’t bore you with another dictionary, but I will borrow the quasi-mathematical equation that Timothy Gallwey gave us in his “Inner Game” work:
PERFORMANCE = POTENTIAL - INTERFERENCE
Mr. Gallwey makes the point that for an individual to perform at their potential, they have to minimize interference. For him, interference is the presence of an internal voice (Self 1) who can cause doubt and anxiety that detracts from optimal performance. This performance can be athletic, but also work-related. (His books include the Inner Game of Tennis, as well as the Inner Game of Work.)
If we keep the formula but widen the definition (ugh!) of “interference,” we include other diminishers of “performance” in the workplace. Could we also somehow account for accelerators of “performance” that may come in the form support not offered to others? The math gets a bit tricky.
Over the past few years, I have been involved in a number of initiatives that attended to the area of creating an inclusive (more words!) environment that benefits from diverse (another one!) opinions and experiences. The most impactful conversations always included a recognition that life is not fair and that, while some face obstacles, others benefit from the equivalent of a tailwind in their career achievements… not to say that such favourable elements were the ONLY reason for success. (But who knows how fast your time would have been without the tailwind?)
Question: If merit is about performance, but properly gauging performance must accounting for external environmental factors, how can we create an apples-to-apples comparison?
Short answer: We can’t.
Response to the reaction to that short answer: Nor should we even try.
Better question: What can we do?
In order to better understand someone’s potential, we have to create environments that reduce external interference and also help them to reduce internal interference. The former involves both formal structures and informal culture; the latter is termed “creating psychological safety.” Environments that promote learning, encourage mutual support and foster accountability will enable performance by exposing potential. This exposure can take the form of showing specific areas for improvement, as well as showing specific limitations to be accepted. Growth and development often arise from letting others take risks, which is the truly challenging part of the “meritocracy” because it can discourage stretching for fear of failing.
Assertion: My being MOST COMFORTABLE with this [insert name] for this role/job/project. etc., does not mean they are THE BEST candidate.
Response to the reaction: There is no “the best” candidate for any job.
The way to get the “best” performance, is to create an environment where people with various levels of potential can deliver extraordinary results by working together because they are allowed the room to learn, develop, fail and grow. If that sounds simple, it is certainly not easy.