The problem with "meritocracy" culture is that it often values only 1 form of meritocracy and that is direct, technical, individual contributions.

IE, it values the brilliant asshole.

Sure, the brilliant asshole is very smart, and makes good individual contributions. But thats not really what matters.

What matters is the TOTAL contributions of the entire team. And the brilliant asshole, often brings a lot of INDIRECT negative value to that entire team, as he creates a toxic culture that negatively impacts the other people that he is supposed to be working with.

Whether or not a "meritocracy" is good or not depends entirely upon the definition of meritocracy that you are using.

> The problem with "meritocracy" culture is that it often values only 1 form of meritocracy and that is direct, technical, individual contributions.

I haven't witnessed this, but maybe I've just gotten lucky with the companies I've worked at. The companies I've worked at seemed to value both your individual contributions as well as your ability to make others more productive.. being a toxic asshole to your coworkers would absolutely not fly, even if you were hyperproductive. There were certainly some people who were highly valued that were highly productive that didn't seem to particularly _care_ about making other people's lives easier, but they also weren't toxic - they mostly kept to themselves.