Thread by @swardley

X : Where is meritocracy on your culture map?
Me : Meritocracy is a dangerous one. First up, it's belief i.e. a value that a collective (a group, an organisation, a nation) might share. All collectives want to succeed in spreading their values, it's their purpose ...

... like all values then meritocracy is tied to both behaviour (how you act to support your values) and the landscape.

This is where the problems start ...

... many collectives believe they are successful at being meritocratic (value) but in fact, the landscape (what is happening) is anything but meritocratic. This leads to behaviour which can be highly discriminatory i.e. assumption that anyone can make it if they work hard enough!

i.e. self justification of position based upon a belief that you're a meritocracy and dismissal of other concerns because ... well, we're meritocratic! When in fact, you aren't.

I see similar problems with many other beliefs, a disconnect with the landscape itself. For example in diversity, a belief that a % figure of women employees meaning your collective is not sexist ... err, no. You can end up with behaviours that are anything but inclusive.

Beliefs and the connection to landscape can be quite a tricky problem because some beliefs are mutually exclusive but other polar opposites can happily co-exist in the same landscape, in the same collective.

i.e. the principle (part of doctrine) for using appropriate methods requires different beliefs (people over process vs process over people) to simultaneously exist in the collective. Easy to mess up if some new leader comes in going "We believe in people over process" etc.

As general rule ... messing around with values, with behaviours, with gameplay, with org structure and power relationships is a bad idea until you get your doctrine (principles) sorted which includes greater levels of situational awareness.

X : What's the worst you see?
Me : The worst? People messing around with nudging behaviour when they don't understand the users, the user needs, the value chains or the landscape i.e. zero situational awareness but we're going to start messing with behaviour. What can go wrong?

X : How do you juggle landscape, values, behaviour, doctrine ... all at the same time? It's very complex.
Me : ... and complicated. Ashby's!
X : I don't understand.
Me : Ashby's law of requisite variety! It has two solutons.
X : Explain ...

Me : You can either make the management system capable of coping with the complexity of what is being managed or ... you pretend that was is being managed is simple. Just add a KPI or a 2x2 and you'll feel you've got it under control.
X : That sounds like delusion.
Me : Yep.