What happens when we stop believing in merit?
Flip your perspective on merit
I’ve blogged about merit before – noting how problematic it is as a concept. Slippery, rarely defined, defined by the dominant group to maintain the status quo and so on. But let’s for the sake of this discussion assume it is a thing. That merit can be operationalised – made to be a useful concept.
Look around you, do you believe that everyone got to the positions they are in because they were talented and deserving? And what about yourself? Do you believe you got to where you are because you were talented and deserving? Or that you will get to where you could expect to be if it were based purely on your talent and hard work. We know, when we stop to think, that lots of other things are at play, but surprisingly the assumption of merit, the idea that we work in meritocracies is hard to surface and shift. It is a deeply ingrained assumption. And maintaining it as an organisational ‘given’ suits those who are currently most rewarded by the organisation.
It is somewhat disconcerting to think this through. We probably find it easier to believe that something other than merit is at play when we look at who succeeds in politics. But we most certainly would like to believe that we are under the knife of the best surgeon, or being defended in court by the best lawyer, or that medical research is being undertaken by the best scientists. But what if these individuals were rewarded, promoted, became successful, for things other than the skills and competencies central to their professions? For example, who they knew, their gender, their capacity to self-promote, or simply their capacity to work long hours or have uninterrupted careers. We all know of organisational examples; appointments that were patently unfair, or even discriminatory but we don’t like to join the dots and assume it is widespread, or think about the consequences. As a society we cling to the idea of fairness, the Aussie idea of ‘a fair go’.
So what would women, men, minority group members, leaders, and organisations do differently if they based their actions on the assumption that their organisation is not a meritocracy, not even close. Until proven otherwise. Let’s reverse the burden of proof. This means we’d need to prove that developmental opportunities, promotion, reward, renumeration, career progression and success are based on merit, rather than assume this is the case.
If we don’t assume meritocracy, then all the merit based arguments go up in smoke. “Quotas – we can’t do that, it wouldn’t be based on merit”. “We only employ the best person for the job”, and so on. These statements all begin to look rather vacuous if we query whether current processes are in fact currently merit based, rather than assuming that they are merit based.
I’m particularly interested in what women would do differently. The idea that we will be rewarded if we work hard, keep our heads down and be nice is deeply ingrained. The message that hard work will win out is all around us. And women do work harder, dotting i’s, crossing t’s. Women are better educated, women are much more likely to attend staff development. Women try. And there is so much advice to women about how to succeed. A lot of ‘lean in’, get a mentor, get a sponsor type advice. How to look, how to dress, how to negotiate, how to juggle.
Try flipping the switch. Assume the organisation is not a meritocracy and see how that changes our thinking. What might we do differently?
Let’s assume the ‘best’ person did not necessarily get the job, the promotion, the bonus. Maybe we’d look around us and put a lot more effort into working out what is really going on. If it isn’t hard work, competency and talent that gets rewarded, what is? And how does it happen? Women’s distaste about organisational politics, the importance of networking and so on is shifting – but I still come across it in my leadership development work. It is, in my view, a way of denying reality. Work out what the real rules are, and then work out if you want to be party to them.
Once we understand the real rules, let’s raise the bar. We can stop perpetuating the idea that the organisation is meritocratic and proceed on the basis that it isn’t. Let’s ask questions. Make it clear that systems and people are flawed so what are we doing to overcome this? Talk about how to take bias and discrimination seriously.
We can also free ourselves from the myth of meritocracy once and for all. We can stop trying to live up to the current meritocratic ideal. The talented hardworking ‘leaning in’ woman will not necessarily be equitably rewarded. The data proves it.
Once we’ve flipped the switch on merit, and stop assuming merit, then merit can no longer be used as a trump card, a conversation stopper. Only then can we have real discussions about excellence, about diversity of contribution and career paths, about what knowledge is produced, by whom and how, about leadership, about values.
I’d like to be a part of that.
Merit: A trump card or card trick?