-

The appointment of managers along with the prevailing criteria in the developing countries is considered to be a serious problem. In the present article, being the outcome of a fieldwork, we examine the universalistic (meritocracy) and particularistic (un-meritocracy) criteria in respect of managers’ recruitment as well as the impact of such criteria on the performance of organizations.
Meritocratic criteria cover expertise , commitment, experience, skill and individual ability and un-meritocratic criteria include personal relations, nepotism, ethncism , common race and language, cronyism and even social and class status used for the appointment of managers.
The research statistical groups and samples included one hundred managers from the public and private sectors in the province of Yazd. The outcome illustrates that the appointments based on the particularism (un-meritocratic criteria) will lead to idleness, absenteeism, and discontentment of the personnel, wastefulness of resources, stifling of creativity and talents, and reduction of organizational efficiency and effectiveness. However, both meritocratic and un-meritocratic criteria still prevail in such
appointments.