Why meritocracy is important

Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion are well-established as sound business practices. Studies show that companies with higher percentages of women in management roles have better financial returns, ethnically diverse companies are more likely to outperform homogeneous organizations, and organizations with greater ethnic and gender diversity innovate faster.

In fact, improving leadershiplevel gender diversity alone can add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. Here are some things HR leaders can do to promote equality in the workplace:.

Be transparent about pay. This is especially important as jurisdictions around the country adopt gender equity laws.

Provide nonthreatening training and education to surface and address implicit biases. Educate stakeholders on how structural bias affects corporate bias. Has the belief in meritocracies led to more egalitarian business practices worldwide? Unfortunately, it has not. In human resources, this ideology has failed to deliver positive results in multiple areas: recruiting, promotions, pay and performance management. Leaders who proactively address the misguided myth of meritocracy and make actionable change own the future.

Be one of them! You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page. September Viewpoint: The Myth of Meritocracy We all want to believe that merit is the sole factor driving our talent decisions. By Barbara B. Adams August 27, Reuse Permissions. Image Caption. A Rigged System We buy in to the concept of meritocracy because it supports the sense of can-do individualism that has shaped American mythology and gives hope to all.

Global Implications And what about global companies? We cannot stop parents from sending their children to expensive private kindergartens, nor from providing numerous other advantages to their children, from reading with them to giving them good counsel.

But we can ensure that the public education system offers every child a reasonable chance at success. If meritocracy also implies contest, other policy interventions help reduce the uncertainties and anxieties associated with a competitive education system and labour market, and provide assurance that there are multiple pathways to success. In response, there have been efforts to make every school a good school, for example, appointing the best teachers and principals to schools with poorer student outcomes, to raise standards.

The PSLE scoring system is also being changed to create wider bands for grades, so that there is less competitive pressure surrounding this educational milestone.

Greater flexibility across the various academic streams now allows students to take each subject at the level that is comfortable for them. Beyond these policy measures however, there is a need to change social attitudes.

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam 11 has stressed the need to move beyond the soulless pursuit of academic qualifications:. To underline this mindset change, new initiatives such as SkillsFuture which offers training grants and subsidies to all Singaporeans are signalling that everyone at every stage in life has the capacity to acquire new skills, and that help will be given to enable them to do so.

Public Service Commission scholars today are drawn from a more diverse pool that includes polytechnic graduates and those who attended specialised programmes such as the School of the Arts. While in the past, the Public Service had separate schemes of service for graduates and non-graduates, there is now a single scheme of service, meaning that starting academic qualifications are no hindrance to career advancement, which is based on performance on the job.

Meritocracy as a system tends towards unequal outcomes: for instance, higher wages in a profession may be necessary as an incentive to effort and skill. However, there are limits to the levels of inequality that we find acceptable as a society.

While we still value self-reliance and hard work, there has been a greater acknowledgement of the need for collective responsibility and care for the vulnerable. There are some things which individuals cannot do on their own and there are other things which we can do much better together. So we must shift the balance. The community and the Government will have to do more to support individuals.

Recent policies have leaned towards greater redistribution and strengthening social safety nets, 13 including enhancements to public assistance, universal health insurance, and significant new benefits for the elderly.

Such major initiatives, all of which have a redistributive element, are being funded in part through a more progressive tax structure. They indicate the need for the most successful in a meritocratic society to play a greater part in contributing to the wellbeing of all.

It will take time for the effects of these policy shifts to be felt. It will take years more for long-held social attitudes to change. Singapore is likely to maintain faith in the spirit of meritocracy; however, as with all principles, the way in which it is realised will continue to evolve.

As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo , explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles.

Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there.

To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics.

What is a meritocracy in the workplace? In a meritocracy, everyone has the right to express their opinions and are encouraged to share them openly and often. Those opinions are listened to and decisions are then made based on those that are deemed the best. This is the key distinction of the meritocracy. While everyone does have a voice, some are listened to more than others. Herein lies the crux of a meritocracy: Who decides who is listened to?

Who decides which ideas are the best? At my company, Red Hat, the people who are listened to are the ones who have earned the right. They have built a reputation and history of contributing good ideas, going beyond their day jobs, and achieving stellar results. In many technology companies that employ a meritocracy — Red Hat being one example — people forge their own path to leadership, not simply by working hard and smart, but also by expressing unique ideas that have the ability to positively impact their team and their company.

Entire paths have been paved at Red Hat because a single person spoke up when it mattered, had gained enough trust and respect from teammates so people truly listened, and, as a result, was able to influence direction of an initiative or start a new one. It takes time and a consistent track record to begin to earn respect and influence in a meritocracy.

As you can imagine, given the right vehicles for communication and encouragement, the natural thought leaders emerge.