Several times, I have seen people really obsessed with issues of leadership that is why, I think, my question can be a key factor to take into account. For example, people talk a lot about the multiple professional qualifications and personal virtues that a leader must possess, but may be they take the essential quality for granted, an essential quality from which they could see the entire scenario: “Merit”. Don’t you think there are many leaders without any merit?

It is important not to confuse visionary with leader, a visionary “always” is a leader, while a leader can occupy such a position by political, economic, religious relationship, social status… etc. That is why the “merit” factor is fundamental, because… Are there really opportunities based on merit? Is the meritocracy one of the most important judgment to recruit people across a range for leadership positions? I think that in most cases the situation is radically opposite.

In my view, there is a Global Vicious Circle. For example:

International organizations and best companies in the world have a clear preference to recruit people who have studied at the best universities of the world. At first glance, it seems entirely logical such selection criteria, but some questions arise:

Who has more opportunities to study at the top universities of the world (mainly in the business schools, universities of economics, law and politics universities… and similar fields), a person with merit or those who are related to political, economic or religious power? I think, unfortunately, the answer is obvious. Of course, you can say that there are scholarships and this is truth, although these will depend on the country we are talking about. On this particular point, among many other things, mention should also be made about: What are the selection criteria for scholarships and how much is the amount of these? It is also fully clear, at least to me, that there is a clear link between meritocracy and a country’s democracy quality. And, therefore, the higher the level of democratic quality, the greater is the magnitude of meritocracy and vice versa.

The best universities and business schools in the world are going to prefer that kind of people because they are always going to occupy a prestige positions in different parts of the world (governments, world organizations, top world companies…) and, therefore, these universities get prestige because its graduates get the best jobs in the world. But many of these people who have studied in such prestigious study centres and next, as a consequence of this, they get top positions, it is not on grounds based merit, but by their relationship with some kind of economic, religious, or political power.

It is in fact apparent that in most or at least in many cases the access to the best education and subsequently prestigious positions is a matter of wallet size and/or relationship with the political, economic or religious establishment rather than merit, then: Talent crisis is not a logical global consequence? How to hunt talent without a real meritocracy? What is the sense to talk about (time after time) justice, transparency, equal opportunities, eliminate corruption, democratic values, global poverty… (so on) if we are not choosing people under a merit criterion?

A lack of meritocracy will generate a huge level of injustice in the social and economic spheres, which would then result in imbalances societies, where prizes achievements are not a consequence of merit but a matter of patronage

Meritocracy means that opportunities are based on the real merit of people and not in their economic position or their relationship with power groups. Because in other way we have societies in which opportunities and success are based on membership to economic, political or religious groups… or other sort of dictatorial powers and lobbies. Don’t you think that merit criterion is fair? Therefore, meritocracy is not a subjective criterion. The problem is who has the power to test the merit since in almost all countries power-holders are not elected by a criterion of merit.

And obviously, there are many people who didn’t get any university degree and /or, in addition, they are completely inexperienced, or even unsuitable for a certain position, but they are directly related to the circles of power mentioned above and, therefore, will be persons without merit in key positions. Please take a look at the background of politicians, managers of large companies and top public and private organizations… Analyze how they got to those positions, which was the first step… (…in most of the cases you will see that thanks to an initial and continued support they have been able to reach such positions of power…) Now please, tell me if you don’t see the Global Vicious Circle I am talking about.

A high level of meritocracy will result in a better democratic quality of a country. Socio-economic inequalities will be reduced generating safer and stable societies. Social stability will be a strong point for foreign investments. Cultural, business, social and economic environment will be more competitive and therefore the country as a whole becomes more competitive in domestic and international markets.

On the other hand the lack of meritocracy will result in a lower democratic quality of a country. Socio-economic inequalities will increase given place to social conflicts that damage the country brand image abroad. Corruption will become structural focusing at all levels of society. Cultural, business, social and economic environment will be less competitive and therefore the country is not able to compete in the domestic and international market. As a result, we have a less globalized country and with few opportunities of success in international trade.

Relatively often we can see on the part of media, political leaders, stock markets, influencers, leaders of big companies…:

Contradictory messages of different international organizations (because measures depend on the specific interests at stake for each of them); for example, being able to suggest freeze or reduce salaries during a recession when it would be more logical just doing the opposite. Wrong measures based on mistaken assumptions; for example, positive forecast for economic growth when there is not a sufficient basis. Media manipulation against revolutionary ideas, new political parties…; for example, makes an unfair play by limiting the key channels of communication to certain ideologies and groups, manipulation of social thinking about several matters…etc.

Unfortunately, I do not know why a lot of people give credence to such kind of leaders that clearly lack of suitable capacity for their posts

Don’t you think that, as a result of a possible Vicious Circle, those who are in leadership positions are always the same ones and their heirs, friends and/or persons connected with them? Is it truth? If so, how we might do to avoid it and have the opportunity to reach leadership roles, or at least an opportunity to express our views in a global mass media in order to be heard (or read) by a vast majority of the people?