How the Myth of Meritocracy Perpetuates Discrimination in the Workplace
By B. Adams, PsyD
Instructor of the ProThink Learning online course Diversity and Inclusion: Concepts and Strategies for Success
We’ve all heard it said that America is the “land of opportunity.” Belief in the American Dream is about can-do individualism and goes something like this: anyone in this country can rise to a level of success based solely on his or her talents, abilities, and hard work.
But children also inherit different starting points from the parents they are born to or raised by. Children from poor families have to work much harder to gain the privileges afforded the middle and upper classes. Social class, immigration status, and discrimination (conscious and unconscious) are just a few of the factors that impede a fair and equal system of opportunity for all. And, of course, inherited wealth says nothing about the talent, ability, or hard work of the person inheriting the benefits.
Most companies want us to believe that they hire and promote the most qualified applicants, regardless of gender, race, age, or other differences. Technology companies and select others claim that their overwhelmingly young white male-dominated workforces simply reflect the larger problem of insufficient numbers of older people, people of color, and women available with the skills necessary to do the job. The sentiment is “We’d hire them, but they’re just not there.”
More recently, the tech industry has begun to acknowledge ways in which unconscious biases get in the way of hiring others unlike people already in the industry. Even when the most qualified applicants for a position are women or people from underrepresented minorities, the reality is that company leaders tend to still hire based on who they feel the most comfortable with — applicants they can relate to or who they think would be a good “fit” in the organization’s culture.
For an industry that prides itself on daring innovation, the situation demonstrates stagnant, backward thinking that, even if inadvertent, is designed to minimize diverse hires. And when they do hire “diverse” candidates, they favor underrepresented minorities who grew up in affluence, attended top-tier universities, and possess myriad connections to leverage.
A Brief History of Inherited Wealth
In her book Waking Up White, and Finding Myself in the Story of Race, Debby Irving shares her feelings about discovering that the GI Bill — instituted at the end of WWII to help returning service people obtain higher education and secure home loans — was, through its implementation, effectively for whites only. At the time, a quota system limiting the number of Black students in colleges and universities restricted the number of eligible Blacks who could attend. Yet many returning GIs, about one million, were Black.
At the same time, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) hindered opportunities for non-whites to purchase homes by instituting policies suggesting that the skin color of a homeowner could affect the value of a given home in a neighborhood. This perpetuated a common belief that if Black people, or other non-whites, moved into white neighborhoods, housing values would decline. Specifically, the FHA gave builders loans through banks, on the condition that no Blacks could be sold homes in subdivisions. Also, no suburban homebuyer could resell to a Black person; should this occur, the white neighbor could both evict the Black homeowner and be entitled to collect damages. These were known as housing and neighborhood covenants.
Eventually, these practices were ruled illegal, and the Fair Housing Act contained in Civil Rights legislation during the late 1960s changed the law to remove discriminatory housing practices. But by then, the damage was done. As a result of public policy, inner-city public housing became all Black, while suburbs became all white. Whites got equity appreciation from their housing, while Blacks did not, the effects of which continue to this day. The bottom line is that many whites gained education and housing benefits during this time in history, but fewer than 5% of Blacks did. The “American Dream” was rigged by a system of discrimination.
Many Americans acknowledge historical forms of discrimination, including: mass killings of Native Americans and the displacement of the remaining Native Americans to reservations; Africans brought to America and sold at auction as slaves; Jim Crow legislation; and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. White Americans, the primary beneficiaries of opportunities during these times, can be labeled the “in-group.” All others were considered the “out-group.” When we act as though the small number of women and minorities in technology and other industries is due to individual failings or lack of availability in the market, we elevate the idea of meritocracy and ignore the effects of hidden bias, subtle prejudice, and systemic discrimination.
Laws have changed since the end of World War II, but to what extent have beliefs and behaviors changed? Do employment and promotional opportunities exist equally today in companies? Clearly not. Unconscious bias alone prevents that. The top jobs go primarily to white men, role models for women and minorities are few, and opportunities for people who are a part of the “out-group” occur at an astoundingly slow pace. Leave-of-absence policies, designed mainly for women with childcare and eldercare responsibilities, and performance evaluation systems that say more about the person giving the assessment than the individual receiving it, perpetuate discrimination under the guise of “helpfulness” or “merit”. We need to ask some tough questions about whom our systems and policies are really helping — and whom they leave out.
Unpacking “Reverse” Discrimination
Imagine a black person and a white person in a race together. The white person has a jet pack and the black person does not. Both people run like that for a little while; then someone says that this isn’t fair. So, the white person has the jet pack taken away. But the race doesn’t start over, it just continues from where the runners were. A few minutes later, someone says that this still isn’t fair; although no one has a jet pack now, the white runner has already benefited from its earlier use. Since the race can’t be started over, this person suggests giving the black person the jet pack for a little while. In response to this, someone else asks, “But isn’t it racist to give the jet pack to a runner based on race?”
This story illustrates the structural institution we’re all born into and suggests that we’re all complicit in perpetuating a system of bias. “Restarting the race” for people of color, women, people with disabilities, individuals with non-heterosexual orientation, or those with other differences are not options.
Is Selection Bias Ever Justifiable?
When equally qualified candidates are competing for a job and the role is given to the underrepresented minority, this may be selection bias — but it is a justified selection bias. The company wants and needs a diverse workforce, and the candidate deserves to “wear the jet pack” for a time. Those leaders and teams progressive enough in their thinking to take this approach need to prepare for the inevitable backlash that will arise. This may lead some to assume that the marginalized persons selected with intention got their role only because of their marginalized identities. This implication assumes that the person is not as qualified or credentialed as the individual who was not selected.
It’s imperative for leaders to openly address that their decision to employ selection bias is from among equally qualified candidates. It takes courage and forward thinking to act on and vocalize these important choices. In the end, individuals, groups, organizations, and society all benefit from this selection.
The myth of meritocracy is used inside and outside many sectors to justify the lack of diversity. It essentially tells marginalized peoples that they only have themselves to blame if they didn’t get the job or the promotion. And when marginalized people exit the workforce with much greater frequency than white, Asian, and Indian men, the self-serving belief in meritocracy lessens the need to address the issue and examine why this even happens.
Dismantling the myth of meritocracy makes us all accountable for racism, sexism, classism, elitism, and all the other -isms we’ve perpetuated onto one another. Those companies who ground themselves in truth, data, introspection, and reality — for instance, companies scoring high in the global DiversityInc Top 50 annual survey — are excellent examples of how to do the work of diversity and inclusion and succeed. Other organizations would do well to learn from them.
