In an organisational context, meritocracy is a state when an organisation is governed or run by people who are selected based on their merit. An individual’s professional success is linked to their job performance on the assumption that all of us start at the same place with equal access to the same resources. Further, it is also assumed that the systems in the organisation which lean on meritocracy are devoid of any inherent systemic biases. Such organisations purportedly hire people who are best suited for a role purely based on merit and are agnostic to the multitude of diversity strands like gender, age, sexual orientation, education, religion, caste, ethnicity, etc. They hire and promote within the organisation only based on merit. Plum projects within the company are assigned only to meritorious candidates. Prestigious domestic and international transfers are based only on merit. Is there anything wrong with this? Absolutely not! In fact, that is how organisations should function. But do they really?
If organisational systems were free of biases and based purely on merit, we should be seeing more under-represented groups at workplaces. Since we do not see them, are we inferring that there aren’t enough women, PwDs, LGBTQ folks who have the requisite knowledge, skills and attitudes to be in the meritocracy-driven corporates? Should we have not seen more women as CEOs or in leadership positions if merit was the only criteria? Should we be still talking about gender pay gap considering merit is the only criterion for pay decisions? So, what is the real issue then?
The real issue, whether we like it or not, is that organisations were historically built for able-bodied heterosexual men. While the world is moving at a break-neck speed, the systems and processes in organisations are still antiquated – they celebrate, honour and reward behaviours which are very male centric. So what happens in such a scenario? The meritocracy-driven organisation is going to be willy nilly hiring more people who fulfil the expectations that were never meant for the under-represented groups like women, PwDs and LGBTQ folks.
Equity and Equality
This is where DEI makes an entry. It challenges the current systems. It asks organisations to examine their systems and processes for biases. It sensitises people to unconscious bias and how it impacts the entire employee life cycle – starting from candidate attraction as an employer brand, recruitment, onboarding, opportunities for development and growth, promotions, pay parity, voluntary and involuntary exits. It draws attention to the fact that the playing field has never been level or equal for all to participate, thrive and be successful. It highlights the hurdles and barriers (both visible and invisible) that some have to face which impacts their inclusion and hence the outcome. It appeals to organisations about fair play and to distinguish between equity and equality and stresses that it is incumbent on the organisation to acknowledge this and create policies and processes which do not inadvertently leave behind people who had to traverse longer and more treacherous routes. It reminds us that equity is critical to create an equal world as not everyone had the same starting point. People face different challenges and they can overcome them with the right support. It nudges organisations to dismantle systemic barriers to include the historically under-represented population. It highlights the importance of acknowledging privilege and deploying it for the good of those who do not have those privileges. It shines the light on an inclusive culture with psychological safety as a foundation to help all employees bring their whole selves to the workplace without any ‘covering’. It reiterates the importance of ‘culture add’ as against the outdated concept of ‘culture fit’ while making hiring and promotion decisions. It acknowledges that having diversity at the workplace leading to diversity of thought is not just about responsible corporate citizenry by serving the social justice cause, but it is also good for business. It leads to better quality of decisions, more innovative products and services, better talent attraction which automatically leads to increased revenues, margins and profits.
Level the Playing Field
Does this mean that DEI & Meritocracy are at odds with each other? No! They have to co-exist. DEI is not about hiring and promoting people who are less qualified for the role. It is about providing equal access to all opportunities to all people who have the requisite skills. Affirmative actions help level the playing field which has been uneven for time immemorial.
A diverse, equitable and inclusive culture coupled with meritocracy will acknowledge the contributions of all employees by ensuring that the desirable successful behaviours are evaluated across all the systems and processes of the organisation. Meritocracy can thrive better when it is applied in an organisation which has worked on or is working on levelling the playing field for all identity groups.
An organisation which depends only on meritocracy by ignoring the challenges of the non-dominant groups, could be perpetuating discriminatory practices within. In fact, it can end up becoming a barrier in itself in achieving the benefits of DEI.
Focusing on equity and introducing equitable policies does not mean that we no longer evaluate people on their merits. It just means that we are providing the under-represented groups with the tools that they need to compete fairly with their peers who may have certain inherent privileges or advantages. We are just helping them to position themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with others based on merit.
An Illusion of Fairness
Meritocracy can sometimes create an illusion of fairness across the entire talent management life cycle. Meritocracy has traditionally been known to benefit people who already have the social capital, resources, networks, backing and support that is more common in the dominant group. When only meritocracy is the focus, it also gives the impression of infallibility in decision making without acknowledging the role of human biases.
DEI initiatives end up being in tension with meritocracy only when they are not strategised and implemented thoughtfully. When there is no transparency in the definition of ‘merit’ across the talent management process; when quotas take precedence over candidate skills and performance; when quotas are pursued merely as a mindless target to be achieved to qualify for incentives; when inadvertent reverse discrimination and exclusion takes place; when one group is excluded for the benefit of another.
When all individuals, irrespective of their identities are hired, promoted, rewarded, given opportunities to thrive based purely on their skills, such equal access coupled with meritocracy will be the utopian world which will make the DEI function redundant! It will address the social justice case and the fairness case and at the same time allows meritocracy to thrive with top class talent bubbling to the top to benefit the individual’s career, achieve the organisation’s business goals and eventually make the society better.
(The author is Founder and Principal Consultant at Turmeric Consulting, a firm focused on Diversity, Equality and Inclusion. She was Chief Talent Officer at Wunderman Thompson South Asia prior.)
Feedback: [email protected]
