The Myth of Meritocracy
Meritocracy is rooted in the ideal that we’d all get rewarded based on how good we are at our jobs. Which sounds totally peachy. But the fact of the matter is that in the modern workplace, merit is often confused with wealth, privilege, conformance to the status quo, and other nonsense. Meritocracy in action is actually pretty f***ed up.
Some of you may be firm believers in meritocracy. It’s basically the American dream. If you work hard and fight tooth and nail, in the end you will be recognized, rewarded, and reap the benefits. But the data shows that meritocracy in practice fails. A 2010 study found that organizations that value or emphasize meritocracy are actually more likely to show bias in their decision making. Take a few seconds to conduct a simple google search on meritocracy, and you can find tons of resources showing you how problematic it truly is.
Now, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t work hard or that working hard won’t get you places. What it does mean is that meritocracy is a myth. It’s a false ideology that’s used to justify the status quo, personal biases, and superiority complexes. In theory it seems like it would be a real cute look for us... but in the real world, meritocracy is harmful for organizations that practice it and harmful to the individuals who believe in it.
If you’re like, what the f*** is going on here? Let’s consider an example. Let’s look at two hypothetical candidates for an entry level job.
Human A was the first person in their family to attend college. Coming from an economically disadvantaged family, A has to work part time in order to pay for college and living expenses. A gets good grades though A could probably do better with more time for studying instead of working. A works at a struggling family business every summer holiday. A will graduate college with a 3.8 GPA and no industry experience.
Human B went to the same college as three generations of B’s family. B’s parent pays for college and living expenses. When B has a difficult time in a subject, B can hire a personal tutor to get a better handle on the material. B’s parent knows the partner at a firm for which B can intern every summer holiday. B will graduate with a 3.9 GPA and industry experience.
Meritocracy will state, “we hire the most qualified candidate.” On paper Human A can be quantified as a less “qualified” candidate. What meritocracy fails to address is the context in which people come to the table. A’s lower GPA and lack of industry experience doesn’t mean A has less knowledge in the curriculum, would be less successful in the position, or doesn’t work as hard. It just means people come from different circumstances. And what is typically used to quantify “merit” allows factors such as wealth, generational privilege, etc. to come into the mix.
Moving forward in the timeline, let’s look at when these individuals get further along in their careers… Human A didn’t have the same leg up going into the workforce, so A will be playing catch up throughout their career. Experience will still play a role in the meritocracy, and Human B will continuously be chosen over Human A for promotions and leadership positions. If Human A is also a minority, then, on top of completing the same tasks as everyone else, A has the added barriers of microaggressions and straight up harassment. Even if both humans have identical work ethic and abilities, the meritocracy would reward Human B for productivity while failing to acknowledge the bulls*** Human A has to wade through on the daily. Meritocracy in action never works to reward true merit because it fails to address privilege and barriers.
This is not to say that people with less privilege don’t make their way to the top. There are plenty of success stories of people who have made it through hard work and perseverance. Kudos to them! They certainly deserve success. But do not mistake this is as a counter argument to the one I’m making. This is still not proof of meritocracy working. First, the grit and thick skin required for less privileged people to succeed disproves a 100% merit based system. Second, what is the view from the top? If we can find someone next to us that works half as hard, does half as much, has a higher position, and gets paid more, this is proof that meritocracy is a myth.
Ultimately, the problem with meritocracy is that it turns a blind eye to the systems in place that allow some people to succeed and create barriers for others to fail. And what’s worse, the people at the top feel the entitlement of having “earned” their place without recognizing their own privilege or the problematic nature of the system. This results in new generations perpetuating the myth with their personal “success stories.” Which ends up fueling this hypocritical system that claims “fairness,” while being deeply entrenched in bias.
So what’s the call to action? We all need to recognize meritocracy for what it is. We’ve tested it out, and the physical state it takes at room temperature and atmospheric pressure is basically straight trash. Let’s work towards challenging the people who perpetuate the myth, including ourselves. Change our mentality from clawing our way to the top to working together as a team to reach collective goals. If you can figure out a way to hack it, help create systems that can actually reward merit and hard work without allowing various forms of privilege to enter the chat.