Meritocracy: Myth or sensible business approach?

In my work, I am often met with comments such as “yes, but we only hire or promote the best person for the job” when talking about recruitment processes and internal systems for promotion and advancement.

And I believe that they believe this is true. 

But I always find myself responding in the same way, and it’s the question that has always fascinated me. What is your definition of best? Because while this answer varies from company to company, inevitably the words “based upon merit” will feature somewhere.  Because again, what does “best”, and “merit” look like?  Who decides? And how are we measuring this?

Now my research into this topic has been fascinating!! And I want to share what I’ve learned with you. So, buckle up my lovelies, and let’s get philosophical and dig into meritocracy...

As always, you know I like to begin at the beginning, so before we get meritocratic, I want to take a minute to talk about where the term came from.

In his 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy, English sociologist Michael Young coins the term as an opposing concept to existing hereditary privileges. (i.e. the succession of power, status and wealth by birth - e.g. the monarchy).  Now the work of Young is considered a dystopian and satirical essay, however the term meritocracy has lived on and is now widely accepted and defined in numerous ways.

One definition is

“a social system, society, or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position” Cambridge Online Dictionary

Sounds good right…?

However, this leads up to assume that, if everyone’s chances of winning are equal, the winner is deserving of their winnings.

And, while we would like to believe this is a fair statement, in reality, it’s usually anything but fair.  Why?  Well, it assumes that everyone is starting from the same place – “if everyone’s chances of winning are equal”.

Let’s take a simple recruitment process as an example.

We advertise a role, people apply, we interview the best candidates from a pool of applicants, and we hire the best person from that pool.  Simple right?

But again, what are we defining as “best”?

• Are we advertising the roles in the same tried and tested place we always do, with no consideration for how we might be attracting people from a wider audience who have been previously overlooked, but are equally able or better placed to do our work?

• Are we asking everyone to apply via the same online application portal, with no alternative routes for candidates with different abilities, who may be equally able or better placed to do the job?

• Are we hiring using rigid criteria, such as unrelated university degrees, favouring applicants from wealthier backgrounds or with well-connected families?

• Are we ignoring that societal power and privilege influences who does and does not have access to our processes? Or the impact of biases and assumptions by our selection panels?

A meritocracy is really the creation of a system of rules based on deservingness, when the definition of “deserving” is at best unclear, and at worst rooted in patriarchal and oppressive ideology.

How can we guarantee equality of opportunity, if we’re not all starting to climb the ladder from the same place?  

“We only hire the best person for the job”

If you’ve ever said this, without fully assessing what your definition of “best” is… you may need to rethink your meritocratic approach…

Another definition of meritocracy I found was:

IQ + Effort = Merit

This was the favoured argument of Adrian Wooldridge, political editor of The Economist, in a 2021 debate hosted by Intelligence Squared. He argued that deservingness can be determined by a person’s naturally occurring gift (in this case IQ), in combination with their commitment to hard work (i.e. their effort).

Ok, this sounds interesting.  I don’t have to be the smartest kid in my class, because if I work hard, I can use my effort to get me across the finishing line of deservingness.  I can get ahead based upon my own accomplishments.

Let’s unpack…

What I believe this definition is trying to do is acknowledge that a person is born with a level of talent that can be developed, through hard work and dedication, allowing them to flourish as a so called “winner”.  But again, I have to question, how are we assessing the measure of talent to begin with?

Because most examination processes are usually a narrow measure of performance, focusing solely on a person’s ability to replicate information at a point in time. And even these seemingly robust tests are not above the reach of power and privilege when we consider the role that being able to afford private tutors, or time to study instead of being required to work to make ends meet plays in our ability to participate and achieve.

I get it, we all want to believe we have worked hard to earn our spot, but again, even if we did earn our advantage to begin climbing from a higher position on the ladder, were there also others that would hold it steady for us while we did so.

And what about the concept of effort? Surely this is the one thing we can bank on to be solely up to us?! Perhaps. It’s true that it is up to us to put in the work, and in today’s society, a commitment to hard work is certainly deemed worthy of reward.  Or at least that is what our rapidly increasing culture of burnout would lead us to believe. But can we honestly say we give first prize to the person who tries the hardest? I don’t believe it. Races are not won by the person who sweats the most, or the person who put in the most training hours. They’re won by the person who crosses the line first on the day.

Maybe they have the innate talent to run faster, maybe they did train harder and sweat more, maybe they also have resources and support to enable them to be the best on that day.  All these things can be, and probably are, true.  But if it’s our responsibility to decide what winning looks like, then we need to have our eyes wide open to all of the factors, but just those that are the easiest for us to see.

For me, there is one thing that still swings that pendulum of meritocracy toward myth… and that is how all definitions seem to completely overlook any external factors that may be at play. There is no room for those who are structurally excluded, and therefore their only conclusion when they are not selected as the winner is that they are simply not good enough.  It is their own individual failure to achieve, when often the challenges are so much bigger and more difficult to navigate than that.

What if our belief that we operate in a meritocratic and fair way is simply one more barrier in allowing us to actually do so?

What does “best” look like in your organisation? And how does your organisation define and measure it?