Asking the question to the reader is an effective strategy for keeping their interest. While reading a text comprised of similar sentences, it is easy to miss some information by switching to skimming. Questions are formed differently, and this difference may cause and renew the reader’s attention. Unlike declarative sentences, questions challenge the reader and make their mind work non-standardly as well, presenting them with a task. Thus, Cooper’s method is effective and accomplishes its task of engaging the reader.
Cooper’s ideas are formulated in a way that may cause an impression that a commitment to meritocratic ideals itself is wrong and must be replaced with a system where managers share the information on “pay broken down by gender, race, and foreign nationality” (Cooper). However, there seems to be no problem with meritocracy itself or commitment to it. Generally, it is still the best way to manage employees. The real problem is that when leadership promotes meritocracy and simultaneously provides women and minorities with smaller pay increases, it does not follow meritocracy. Instead, they allow their version of meritocracy to become corrupted by their bias. Thus, the ideal that must be pursued is not to limit meritocracy, but, on the other hand, to make it pervasive enough to overcome the managers’ bias and equally reward employees regardless of gender or race.
Some of Cooper’s ideas in the text are in line with the aforementioned statement, saying that “a real commitment to meritocracy requires understanding that America hasn’t gotten there” (Cooper). A quote by E.J. Castilla adds that “the pursuit of meritocracy is more difficult than it appears… but that doesn’t mean the pursuit is futile” (Cooper). Thus, it is not the commitment to meritocracy that leads to problems in fairness in the workplace, but the lack of it, where managers allow their bias to corrupt it.
Work Cited
Cooper, Marianne. “The False Promise of Meritocracy.” The Atlantic, 2015.