Meritocracy assumes that there is such a thing as "objectively best at their job". "Best at their job" is subjective, and there are many different metrics that could be a part of that. You also make the assertion that "everybody gets a fair chance at demonstrating their best work", which is an interesting one. If we assume that your assertion is true (which I'm frankly not convinced by, and I hope you can provide some citations for this assertion), the next step is critical: how do we know that everyone who has demonstrated their best work is getting evaluated fairly?
Those who have been identified to be best at their job are not necessarily the most qualified to make executive decisions pertaining to that. Bias, conscious or unconscious, is a trap that even the best of us can fall into.
If you want to get into some of the theory around meritocracy, Nature had an article earlier this year that attempts to model a true meritocracy. The online version is here.
It's also worth noting that the people who are most likely to believe in meritocracy are young, upper-class, white men. The people who are least likely to believe in meritocracy are older, lower-class, minorities. I couldn't find the full article online; it's abstract is here.
Re: Meritocracy
Those who have been identified to be best at their job are not necessarily the most qualified to make executive decisions pertaining to that. Bias, conscious or unconscious, is a trap that even the best of us can fall into.
If you want to get into some of the theory around meritocracy, Nature had an article earlier this year that attempts to model a true meritocracy. The online version is here.
It's also worth noting that the people who are most likely to believe in meritocracy are young, upper-class, white men. The people who are least likely to believe in meritocracy are older, lower-class, minorities. I couldn't find the full article online; it's abstract is here.