As for most things in life, nothing is completely bad and nothing is completely good. With an "IT meritocracy" (not really caring about DNA or physical composition), there is some good to be brought out from it, namely, to prevent professionals who have been in the company for many years to become complacent in their skills while the company itself struggles for that IT edge called innovation. If I was a business owner (one day!), I would want my development team to be younger, being guided by those who have the experience to prevent, to the best of their abilities as managers, the pitfalls of the young generation being too courageous (= dumb).

But we can't all be managers just because we have tenure. So while there is definitely a push out there to promote the young who may be more in tune (and more flexible) to adopt newer technologies, it also prevents anyone from just pushing the same button over and over again because it may have worked well in the past. This would, in my eyes, be a boost to incentive all staff, younger or older, to constantly hone their skills and learn something new to keep yourself relevant in the company as well as in the IT world, which is always changing: just as you're just getting a good handle on SQL 2008, SQL 2012 comes out.

So while I don't agree with the idea that someone should be promoted and rise quickly in the corporate ladder just because of their technical skills, I tend to believe that such mentality should also never totally fade away. We all need the push from a young and fresh perspective to change things and keep it interesting. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But there's definitely value in it, to my eyes.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I see myself as the young guy who came in and quickly became everyone's golden athlete so naturally I'm biased towards the young quickly going up the ladder just because as the younger person within the corporation, it is the most important thing I can bring to the table at this point in my career.