The idea of being ‘merit-based’ is appealing – but can do more harm than good. Here’s what leaders, coaches and organisations should know...
NOTE: A version of this article was first published in Coaching Perspectives, the magazine of the Association For Coaching, in January 2025.
My daughter recently started Secondary school. Like a lot of parents, we spent time looking into several institutions, to help us decide which would be best for her. We learned that there are different routes children take in the UK: State school (free and local), Private school, or Grammar school.
Grammar schools are believed to offer the same high standard as private schools, but without the hefty price tag. However, they are very selective. Children sit for rigorous entrance exams and only those with the highest scores get in.
On the face of it, this seems like a fair process – if you’ve got the ability, and are willing to put the effort in, you can earn yourself one of the coveted spots. However, there’s more to it.
Passing the Grammar school entrance tests certainly requires hard work, but it also requires an inside knowledge of how the tests work – including material not taught in the normal school curriculum, and specific ‘shortcuts’ that help you complete it in time. While there are books you can buy to help you prepare, the best chance at success is hiring a personal tutor or taking specialised classes outside school – all of which come at a significant cost. If you can’t afford this, your chances of making it are much lower.
So while it seems that selection is based purely on merit, the nature of the testing inadvertently disadvantages those who are not able to afford expensive tutors and/or do not have access to someone who has the knowledge and the time to teach them the extra material they need to know.
What is meritocracy?
The idea of ‘meritocracy’ – that people are fairly rewarded on the basis of their efforts and achievements alone – is intuitively appealing. However, it represents a naïve over-simplification of our social structures. It overlooks systemic barriers and inequities and fails to acknowledge disparities in starting points.
For example:
Most colleges in USA, despite rigorous “merit-based” entrance criteria, have a system called ‘legacy admission’ i.e. preference is given to applicants who have a familial connection with university alumni. This perpetuates existing inequities in who has access to higher education.
When it comes to organisations, job criteria are often set by those already in role and hiring decisions are often tainted with biases like ‘similarity bias’ (favouring those ‘like us’ or who we feel will ‘fit in’), again perpetuating exclusion for anyone from a ‘different’ background.
The unfortunate truth is that the playing field isn’t level, and until it is, the idea that we have a meritocracy is a myth that can do more harm than good.
Why is the Myth of Meritocracy Harmful?
At an individual level: A belief that “hard work” is the only determinant of success can engender a misguided sense of self-blame and inadequacy – particularly for those who might face structural barriers outside their control.
At a social level: It perpetuates social inequity because it puts sole responsibility on people to “work harder” rather than on those in power to remove structural barriers.
At an organisational level: Paradoxically, in companies that overtly claim to promote meritocracy, managers display higher levels of bias in their day-to-day decisions. Why? Because holding a belief that things ARE meritocratic can make you complacent and less vigilant about noticing and addressing bias and inequity.
The pretext of "meritocracy" can therefore (intentionally or unintentionally) serve to maintain existing inequalities.
To achieve true equity, we need to dig a little deeper, and look at:
🔍 what we mean by merit?
🔍 who defines it?
🔍 how it's measured?
🔍 who tends to be seen as having merit - especially when decisions are subjective (as they often are)?
Implications for Coaching and Leadership
Coaching as a profession is built on the premise that change is within one’s personal control and with the right motivation, direction and action, we can achieve our goals.
Whilst this idea remains key to the process of coaching and motivating others, we can, perhaps, take a more nuanced and sensitive view.
Here are three key steps:
Acknowledge bias: Bias exists everywhere – in our interpersonal interactions, and at an institutional level – and this can affect a person’s opportunities and advancement. Taking a ‘colour-blind’ (or ‘gender-blind’ etc) approach can ignore the reality your client faces and do them a disservice.
Broaden our view: We need to look beyond the individual and consider the whole picture of where our client is coming from: their background and journey, and their social and work cultures. Help them to set goals and find a path that will work for them in their context. For example, women have been famously advised to “Lean in”, but this doesn’t work out the same for all women!
Explore locus of Control: Acknowledge systemic inequity without creating helplessness. Explore and untangle what is and what is not in your client’s control, without over-indexing on either side.
Identify possible sources of support and advice – people they can collaborate with and learn from.
Help them strengthen their networks and feel connected.
Support them to develop strategies to cope with barriers and navigate the systems they operate in.
And – where they have the power to do so – to challenge and make changes in the system itself.
While it can be uncomfortable to accept that true meritocracy is a myth, this acknowledgement is a necessary and crucial first step if we want to effectively support others to become all they can be.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pooja Sachdev is the co-author of 'Rewire: A Radical Approach to Tackling Diversity and Difference', published by Bloomsbury and described by the FT as "the most refreshing approach to diversity I have read."
She is a coach, counsellor, consultant, and founder of Rewire Consulting.
Specialising in organisational development, diversity & inclusion, and leadership, Rewire helps build positive work cultures that enable people, teams and organisations to fulfill their potential.
"Actively Addressing Unconscious Bias in Recruiting"; Harvard Business School (2023)
The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organisations; Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University (2010)
Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead; Sheryl Sandberg, Nell Scovell (2013)
Why Leaning In Doesn't Apply To Women Of Color; Forbes (2019)
Comments