The merit is the word now. In its annual report last week, oil company Exxonmobil said it was “focused on building a passionate global workforce.” Based on meritocracy.” Richlesser, global chairman of the Boston Consulting Group, spoke last month about creating “meritocracy where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.” In a note, Julie Sweet of Accenture wrote:
Merit’s Rise Up Corporate Agenda is supported by strong cheerleader Donald Trump. When the US president took office, he said he tried to build a “color blind, merit-based society” through an executive order restoring “met-based opportunities.”
At another point, mentions of meritocracy – hiring and moving staff forward purely based on ability and performance – could be harmless. But in an increasingly waking political situation as a company from meta to McDonald’s, City and rollback diversity policies, the term is “weaponized.”
Leslie Feinzig, founder and CEO of venture capital fund Graham & Walker, says achievement is the foundation of the American spirit. What has changed is “the juxtaposition of meritocracy (and) Day, a response to many initiatives that has skyrocketed over the past few years.”
When Trump banned Day, or diversity, fairness, and inclusion, part of his justification was that such a scheme was at odds with those moving forward based on his abilities. Day reduced “the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work and determination in selecting people for work and services,” he said.
Business leaders also benefit from diversity. Sweet’s Memo Championing Merit also includes news about the “Sunset” diversity initiative. Disney has replaced diversity with talent with executive pay schemes.
The supposed conflict between diversity and meritocracy was crystallized last year by Alexandre Wang, founder of the Artificial Intelligence Startup Scale. In a LinkedIn post outlined his employment policy, Wang created the term “Mei: Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence.” That means hiring “only the best people for the job” rather than choosing “winners and losers based on someone, etc., “right” or “wrong” race, gender, etc.” May was praised by Trump’s ally and Tesla’s chief executive Elon Musk, and Brian Armstrong, founder of cryptocurrency platform Coinbase.
However, the pursuit of meritocracy requires transparency and effort from the employer, and could risk returning to old prejudices.
Employers have a poor record of defining and evaluating performance, especially in white-collar jobs. Anton Roe, CEO of HR, is the CEO of MHR’s salary and financial providers. Employees view high-performance drivers as highly skilled teams or labor. Effective and stable leadership and financial success. On the other hand, for leaders, key factors constitute operational excellence. Move quickly, make quick decisions, attract and retain the best talent. ”
When an organization is truly meritocratic, employers should be explicit and open to career progression rather than relying on informal sponsorship and favors, encouraging a diverse staff base. Performance assessments should provide a clear purpose. You need to promote opportunities that could lead to promotions. The Equality Action Center, a University of California Law San Francisco project, recommends employers have objective criteria for employment by ensuring that skills and abilities are clearly defined in new positions. List them in job ads and evaluate candidates (using them).
Maria Colacurcio, CEO of Pay Software Company Syndio, said companies committed to pay transparency and data-driven decision-making will “become both in favor of fairness and true meritocracy.”
Critics warn that one of the risks of ending diversity policies in favour of meritocracy is the possibility of bias resurfacement. They argue that Day’s initiative reduces affinity bias – when people are attracted to people who remind them of themselves – thus ensuring that decisions are truly meritocratic.
Emilio Castilla, professor of management at the MIT Sloan Management School of Management School, cautions that “when it is not carefully designed and implemented by leaders, it can have unintended negative consequences for the organization and its employees.” Almost ten years ago, he co-authored a paper identifying the “meritocratic paradox.” This found that when leaders explicitly promote the meritocratic value of an organization, managers tend to award male employees with a higher merit-based reward than performing female employees equally.
This is highlighted in the Equality Action Center Report, highlighting one case of technology companies that provide more work to white male candidates with a lower rating than other demographic groups. “The cutoffs where candidates were rejected were lower for white men than in any other group,” the report added. “This meant that the company wasn’t offering jobs to the best candidates.” The engineering company gave more men (51%) than women (38%) the opportunity to do career-enhancing core projects.
Daniela Lup, professor of organizational behavior and relationships at ESCP Business School, said: Removing these policies does not create a level playing field. It just makes the rules invisible. ”
So Dei against Dei is a false binary, says David Glasgow, executive director of Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Nobaling. Instead, he should be “paired.”
“There are risks here in every direction,” adds Glasgow. Businesses fear legal action from conservative activists who claim minorities and women are receiving preferential treatment, as well as traditional discrimination lawsuits. They also risk boycotts from consumers who oppose or support the DEI initiative.
However, discarding DEI policies can make it difficult to create a diverse workforce.
Citigroup recently dropped its diverse slate requirements for candidates and interviewers, as well as its goals to increase its representation. Wang said Scale’s merit-based decisions would create a diverse workforce, but he refused to state how he planned this.
Diversity experts who asked to remain anonymous say the tension between merit and diversity could have been exacerbated by DEI consultants who pursued social justice rather than evidence-based initiatives and were separated from their core businesses. Colacurcio says Dei “enveloped the realization that it would make identity the only priority, the trust that it would erode, and provide the enemy with the opportunity to kill it.”
One problem, Williams, is that diversity practitioners have failed to assert that they are “trying to create meritocracy.”
Some employers are trying to attack the centre.
A recent memo from Bob Sternfels, global managing partner at McKinsey, put his belief in “diverse meritocracy.” This is a consulting commitment ahead of the current US administration. “We don’t guarantee fairness in our results, but we strive to ensure that everyone has a fair shot to succeed in our meritocracy. . Diverse teams are good at solving problems, better at transferring skills, increasing ambition and ensuring impacts come true.” In Davos, the unaccepted language of BCG was changing, but the US emphasizes that “we are a very diverse country and we need to create an environment where people feel included.”
Williams says some employers are practical by emphasizing meritocracy. “Use rhetoric that motivates the audience.” Some companies have been trying to “pursuing the DEI goals” for the Trump administration without “putting targets on their backs.”
Ironically, Graham & Walker’s Fienzaig said, “Most of us have the same goals. It’s to have a great workplace where people can work to ensure your company is successful.”
