The Shadow Side of Meritocracy
By Karen Larbi, Senior Associate at Purpose Union
Recent discussions led by figures like Alexandr Wang and Elon Musk have sparked debates about the intersection of meritocracy and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Wang advocates for a hiring approach centred on Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI), and argues that prioritising the "smartest" candidates is crucial. This is a focus that some experts suggest sidelines DEI initiatives.
The word "merit" creates a world of meaning where education, opportunities, and rewards are provided to those deemed deserving and worthy. Traditional career advice plays into this by highlighting the importance of individuals turning their fixed mindset into a growth mindset in order to demonstrate resilience and achieve success. This means that those who fail to achieve the standards by which merit is defined, no matter how hard they have applied themselves, are seen as undeserving and unworthy.
Meritocracy is influenced by a cognitive bias called the Just World Hypothesis. This is the tendency to believe that people get what they deserve based on their character and efforts. Therefore, we're told that if we follow the rules and work hard, we will achieve the outcomes we want. The need to believe in a meritocratic society is strong: after all, why would we get out of bed if there was no guarantee of success?
However, this leads to the belief that those who experience poorer outcomes because they have not worked hard enough, and are therefore undeserving of success. This can create deep feelings of shame and inadequacy in those impacted by marginalisation when they fall short of the meritocratic ideal, and consistent setbacks can lead to a fixed mindset even in the most resilient individuals. It also hides the reality that life is full of uncertainty, and inequality means there's no guarantee of getting the results we work hard for.
What does this mean for DEI?
Those in the best position to provide companies with the benefits of diversity are those whose lived experience lays bare the fact that merit is not awarded equally. For example, Black women who face a “concrete ceiling” limiting their leadership opportunities, and disabled people navigating a "sticky floor" that keeps them stuck in less senior positions - despite their best efforts - are often the best placed to provide unique perspectives and innovative solutions to seemingly intractable challenges and point out what companies are missing.
Ways companies can support colleagues navigating these complex experiences:
1. Expand the meritocratic ideal. Experiment with job adverts that highlight the type of employees you're looking for beyond traditional forms of merit. Encourage prospective applicants to apply for roles in your company even if they do not fulfil all parts of the job description. Focus on soft skills that make a new hire a valued addition to the team.
2. Train managers in effective coaching skills. Good management involves cultivating a relationship where employees feel able to operate in their zone of genius, stretch themselves, and progress in their careers. Using effective coaching skills, managers can support colleagues to unlearn internalised societal beliefs that hinder their growth.
3. Encourage employees to seek therapists, coaches, and mentors that share common identities and life experiences. Receiving guidance from professionals who are part of the same community as your employees can enable them to receive the validation and nurturance they need to navigate the disappointment and grief that accompanies oppression. This can give them the confidence to make bold strides in their careers.
4. Acknowledge the extra effort required by marginalised communities. Recognise that minoritised people often have to work harder to get half of what privileged people get. Use other means of assessing skill, passion, and enthusiasm for roles.
Some have noted that the MEI approach aligns with the goals and practices of DEI advocates, such as casting a wide net for talent and using objective criteria for selecting the best candidates. This nod to diversity indicates that meritocratic principles can sometimes align with DEI goals, though they often conflict in practice.
However, leaders like Wang and Musk advocating for the hiring of the "smartest people" in the AI field poses harmful risks. Hiring based purely on “merit” leads to tech companies lacking diverse perspectives, which creates AI technologies that perpetuate biases and further exclude marginalised groups. We are already seeing cases of the harm this causes, which underscores the need for a more expansive approach.
Companies must understand that the shadow side of meritocracy is that those with less access to opportunities are seen as less than. As a result, people from marginalised communities internalise feelings of shame and inadequacy. To truly create equitable workplaces, companies must support employees to heal from the wounds created by the myth of meritocracy.