Susan Black is the managing director of the Crossbar Group, a consulting firm that advises organizations on diversity and inclusion matters. She has held executive positions in the private and non-profit sectors and serves on a number of boards.
Our business community holds a deeply cherished notion that when it comes to hiring and promoting talent, our first and overriding consideration should be merit. Who is the most talented? Who is the strongest performer? Who is the best skilled? As calls to diversify our board tables grow louder and scrutiny on the numbers of women and minorities in management intensifies, I increasingly hear merit offered as an explanation for talent choices that reinforce the status quo.
A few weeks ago, Matt Damon was savaged in social media after a stunning display of insensitivity to the implications of racial and gender identity. On an episode of his reality TV show, Project Greenlight, he brusquely shut down an African-American woman's suggestion that a prospective director's race and gender be considered, as it would likely influence their treatment of the material. Mr. Damon's rationale for stomping on her suggestion? His choice of director for a Project Greenlight film, he explained, is based on "merit," not diversity.
Canadian law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, in its recent analysis of the results of the Ontario Security Commission's new comply-or-explain regulation, revealed that that the primary reason companies cite for not adopting a diversity policy or setting targets to augment the number of women on their board is a desire to "not compromise the principles of meritocracy."
I understand the seductive appeal of merit as a basis for choosing talent and awarding opportunity. It promises fairness, encourages hard work and suggests that we are treating everyone equally – ideals that are profoundly important to us. Meritocracy is at the core of our belief system – raw individual talent combined with effort should trump class and caste when it comes to rewards.
But after decades of researching why women and minority groups don't advance as easily as white men, I have come to realize that meritocracy is, at best, an aspirational state. The notion that our organizations actually function as meritocracies is deeply flawed and embracing this view can be counterproductive.
First, it implies that we assess talent on a purely objective basis when in fact most organizations rely heavily on subjective factors. Amorphous criteria such as "cultural fit" or "suitability" for the job offer no quantifiable, clearly defined criteria on which everyone agrees. At the same time, research shows us that we have a preference for associating with those who share our cultural, racial, gender and age characteristics.
Consequently, allegedly merit-based criteria can easily translate into code for, "We want people who make us feel comfortable." Other criteria for judging merit are narrowly defined and often largely unrelated to an organization's desired outcomes. For example, some see working extreme hours as a badge of merit, although little evidence exists linking long hours to superior organizational results. When value-laden standards masquerade as impartial, we inevitably end up overlooking worthy talent.
Second, inherent in the concept of meritocracy is the notion that everyone starts on a level playing field. An abundance of research, conducted in the public domain and privately within organizations, has demonstrated that this assumption is patently untrue.
We know minorities encounter greater difficulty accessing informal networks and gaining sponsorship. We know that companies will risk putting men in leadership roles but expect women to prove themselves first. We know underrepresented groups often lack credible role models to guide and inspire them. When those in the majority enjoy built-in advantages, can a workplace fairly be called a meritocracy?
Finally, a series of studies suggests that explicitly describing an organization as a meritocracy can yield paradoxical outcomes. In organizations that emphasized meritocracy as a core value, managers favoured male employees with higher monetary rewards over equally qualified female employees. Striving to be meritocratic might have triggered managers' deeply held unconscious biases that presume men are more competent than women. Correspondingly, managers who believe they are operating in a meritocracy might be less likely to consciously check their own biases.
Increasingly, the merit argument is seen as a smokescreen, or, as one pundit wrote in the wake of Mr. Damon's diversity debacle, invoking the concept of merit is the white equivalent of pulling the "race card." While we can, and should, aspire to be meritocratic, we need to take a much harder look at what it takes to achieve this state. Companies who are truly looking for the best people are finding ways to disrupt bias in their decision-making and open opportunities to talent, far and wide.
Our ability to successfully lead in an increasingly diverse world demands our willingness to embrace a much deeper understanding of the implications, limitations and outcomes of our belief system and adapt or even jettison those that no longer serve us.