meritocracy

The system is rigged

There is a long-standing argument that people tend to hire those who look like them or those they easily relate to. This tendency reflects a well-documented human bias. In practice, access to jobs and positions of influence is often shaped by two factors:
a) Who you know, and how closely you resemble those already in the system
b) How capable you are

I think both factors exist in most organisations and the challenge is how to balance between them. A system that claims to value merit must ensure that capability carries greater weight than familiarity or resemblance. And opportunity should be determined primarily by how good someone is at the work, rather than by who they know or what they look like. That is the standard a merit-based system should meet.

,

Relationship with industry

,

What does research show about merit and bias in representation?

When external pressure shifted, corporate behaviour changed rapidly. This suggests the central issue was never the absence of DEI programs themselves, but rather that many so-called merit-based systems were not genuinely meritocratic to begin with.

In practice, organisational decision-making often privileges familiarity over performance. People tend to hire, promote, and reward individuals they know, like, or feel comfortable with. As a result, I think many organisations operate systems that appear merit-based in principle but function through informal preference structures in reality, and frequently this is without conscious intent.

There is enough

Meritocracy assumes a level playing field, but structural inequalities (e.g., access to education, networking, and mentorship) mean some groups start with disadvantages. Research shows that unconscious biases influence hiring, promotions, and leadership opportunities. The big question is would DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) initiatives be necessary if true meritocracy—where individuals are evaluated and rewarded solely based on their abilities, performance, and contributions—worked perfectly?

““Even after all this time the sun never says to the earth, “You owe me.”
Look what happens with a love like that, it lights the whole sky.””
— Hafiz

The game is unfair

Illustration by Nathalie Lees

Meritocracy assumes that everyone starts from the same position with equal opportunities, but this is clearly not the case for marginalized groups. Structural biases and systemic discrimination often limit access to resources, opportunities, and networks, making it more difficult for these individuals to succeed, even with talent and hard work.

How should I initiate conversations about DEI to effectively highlight these systemic inequities? What’s the best way to address the underlying structures that perpetuate these disparities? And why is removing these barriers essential to truly creating a fair and inclusive environment for all?

The opposite is true

The debate between diversity and meritocracy often overlooks a key point which is it's not just about qualifications or ticking boxes. I think diverse teams bring fresh perspectives, challenge group thinking, and ultimately leads to better decision-making. And in environments where diverse voices are represented, organisations are more agile and innovative, better equipped to solve complex problems. While merit is crucial, true leadership lies in reflecting the communities they serve, ensuring a range of lived experiences is brought to the table. Embracing diversity isn't about compromising standards, it's about broadening them to recognise different forms of excellence. Send me an e-mail and let me what you think?