One of our fundamental American beliefs is that every person has the opportunity to work and improve their situation. This equal opportunity for success is what inspires millions of people daily to work hard and sacrifice. The unfortunate reality of our society is that the formula to succeed is not as simple as hard work plus opportunity equals success. The equation is way more complex with many of the hardest working people in this country struggling and left poorly compensated or unable to reach their potential. The belief that good actions produce good results and bad actions create bad results is the "just-world hypothesis", a fallacy which fuels the illusion that we are in a merit-based system.

There are some things that are truly merit-based like getting a driver’s license or a car safety inspection. The criteria for success doesn’t change after the process begins and everyone who meets the requirement is awarded the prize. If you meet all of the requirements you get your license or safety sticker. A true merit-based system cannot exist if succeeding requires discriminating between qualified applicants for limited opportunities. A system where there can only be one or a few is not based on merit but judgement. 

Here is an example.
A job opportunity is posted for a project manager. Two candidates have the same level of education and experience that qualifies them for the position. They have met all of the qualifications for the position; therefore a merit-based system would accept both. Because there can be only one person hired, additional criteria is necessary, and the reason for selection changes. The types of experiences are ranked, and the qualities of their references come into consideration. A selection has to be made and discriminating between the final candidates is required. The term merit is now used to justify the choice and hide the reality that a new standard for selection was created. Whatever label is given to the process, the term merit is inaccurate at best and deceitful at worse.

Those of us labeled as “successful” have little incentive to change the system. It works for us. The cost of this system is untapped potential and the loss of adaptability that comes from diversity and inclusion. If you want to challenge the illusion of meritocracy there are steps you can take to create a more transparent and inclusive environment.

Stop labeling success as based on merit unless everyone who meets a standard is selected.

My 25 year military career provided me with the privilege of serving an institution with pay transparency and a core value of meritocracy that I never questioned until I reached the higher levels of leadership. When I had the opportunity to sit on the deciding end of promotion boards the veil was lifted to the illusion of meritocracy. In a promotion board we are asked to force-rank everyone competing. It was clear that the criteria of success was based more on tradition and some hard work was seen as more valuable than others. A leader who created a new program which helped hundreds of troops was valued less than the person whose initiative elevated an executive with the rationale of an ultimately larger impact. Because merit is subjective the system is not merit-based.

Wanting the best person for a position remains the goal. Acknowledge that the criteria for “best” is burdened with bias and precedence.

We often identify the person who “succeeds,” and we look backwards to justify their success. The person with access to interview questions has an advantage over the person without access, but their success is attributed to talent not opportunity. We use attribution bias to explain why one person deserves the promotion over another when the choice is close. We ignore the compounding interest of prior selections which allows previously selected candidates to stand out. To overcome the practice of justifying our selection the criteria needs to be clear and consistent before the selection process begins.

Equity and meritocracy often conflict because the measurements for each are polar opposites. Equity seeks to elevate each person to their highest potential; meritocracy seeks to identify a winner for each competition.

Meritocracy maintains the status quo by continuing to reward the people most able to perform in the current system. In an equitable system leadership, pay and influence reflects the demographics of the organization. Leila Janah said, “Talent is equally distributed but opportunity is not.” As a leader, a conscious choice is required to seek equity which will necessitate sacrificing the verbiage of meritocracy.

People appreciate the effort to be more meritorious when the criteria are clear and stable.

Meritocracy at its core is a system where those who are most deserving are promoted. Meritocracy says that those at the top earned it, and those who fall short need to work harder.  This system is motivating as long as the criteria is transparent. A system where the key to success appears more as favoritism than achievement poisons the environment. The antidote to this poison is clarity and consistency.

Any organization can transition to a more equitable climate and work towards a more meritocratic system by being transparent and routinely evaluating the process of who succeeds

Highly suggested reading: The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America by Lani Guinier was my inspirational step in re-evaluating my belief in meritocracy.