It’s a balancing act with no clear one size answer. Can’t fix stupid, nor can you teach wisdom. There’s definitely situations where I’d want someone older in charge, cooler heads and all that.
I think when you see a rigid seniority system in place, it’s usually a stand in for a more equitable solution. Sometimes the argument over who gets precedent isn’t worth the trouble, and it’s easier to just say fuck it and go by seniority. Less fair than some methods, fairer than a lot though too.
Seniority is the stand-in for merit. Until merit can be evaluated, it’s presumed that someone more senior in a position has more experience, training, and connections in that position, and thus higher merit.
Everyone deserves an initial base level respect, regardless of their age, that ammount of respect can either be increased, decreased or lost entierly, all based on their actions.
I do not subscribe to the “respect your seniors” mantra, seniors can be complete dipshits just everyone else can.
That being said, it is dumb to not listen to experience from a senior, though they will probably have shown through their actions that they should be listened to.
Exactly, I’m of the same opinion.
If their seniority is worth anything, they will also have merit to prove it. And too often I experienced they reached a position not because but rather despite their own lacking merit.
Never?
In the situations that merit can’t be accurately or meaningfully measured.
Merit is generally the superior of the two. Seniority should only really be preferred if:
-
The performance of the task at hand is more dependent on pre-established connections and the like - ie a very knowledgeable and charismatic but new diplomat might actually be a worse choice for a given job than a rather boring and mid-tier diplomat who nonetheless has a lot of long-standing relationships in the area.
-
There is an issue of systemic rules in an institution where merit is not always the top concern, or not easily and clearly discerned - such as legislative committee appointments. “The best person is the most qualified for the top job” is a nice thought, but raises questions of “How do you figure out who is the best person?” and “The people didn’t send the best person, they sent this fellow to represent their interests.”
-
If it’s a really good hand job go with merit.
The only way to find out for sure is to try both.
Not as they have calluses.
Wait till they see my callouses.
Never. If the system is working correctly, then one’s experience should contribute to merit.
If the system is working correctly
then it’s time to perform a few reality checks: you are stuck in a dreamstate.
here’s some random shit from the internet to get you started: https://luciddreamsociety.com/reality-checks-guide/
I feel like this implys people should be fired just because.
They should, if they are unsuited to the job.
