The comfort of meritocracy and its illusions

The idea of meritocracy holds an undeniable appeal. It’s reassuring to think that talent, effort, and skill are all it takes to reach the top. In theory, this would mean that workplaces, from the boardroom to the factory floor, are unbiased arenas where the best talent rises to leadership. However, the reality looks quite different. Leadership positions are dominated by a demographic that doesn’t reflect the talent pool: overwhelmingly male, predominantly white, and consistently privileged. The 100% Project’s recent research echoes this, noting that “the concept of meritocracy is a common argument against the use of gender quotas, despite research suggesting that meritocracy in the workplace is a myth. ^[1]

This brings us to an uncomfortable truth: the meritocracy we so highly value often isn’t real. Instead, societal biases and entrenched stereotypes play a significant role in who gets ahead, leaving many capable individuals overlooked, while others benefit from unearned advantages.

Why do we cling to meritocracy?

Belief in meritocracy is deeply embedded in our culture, likely because it offers a comforting narrative. If success is based on merit, then failure must also be due to a lack of it. This perspective absolves us from considering systemic inequities or questioning why leadership lacks diversity. It also shields organisations from challenging their existing practices. As The 100% Project report highlights, “when men associate quotas with loss of meritocracy, they are less likely to support gender quotas”. ^[1]

Stereotypes and “the best person”

A crucial barrier to true meritocracy is the stereotypes embedded in our understanding of what leadership “looks like”. Leadership has long been equated with traits such as assertiveness, decisiveness, and confidence—traits that society typically labels as “masculine”. Women, on the other hand, are often viewed as more nurturing or collaborative, characteristics that don’t align with traditional views of leadership. As The 100% Project notes, “Leadership has traditionally been attributed specifically to men. An increase in women in leadership may threaten this identity by making leadership a more gender-neutral attribute”. ^[1]

These biases are often unexamined, leading to the subtle but persistent favouring of men for leadership roles. Studies consistently show that equally qualified women are overlooked for positions because they do not fit the stereotype of what a leader “should” be. This process is often so ingrained that we may not even notice it happening. As long as these stereotypes persist, true meritocracy will remain out of reach.

The misconception of “reverse discrimination”

A frequent argument against quotas and diversity initiatives is that they constitute “reverse discrimination”, undermining the principles of merit by giving preference to women or under-represented groups. Yet, quotas aren’t about handing positions to unqualified candidates—they’re about levelling the playing field. Without such measures, the system continues to favour men by default. Gender quotas, according to The 100% Project, don’t compromise meritocracy; they actually “ensure the rules apply to everyone”. ^[1]

Why focus on men’s attitudes?

The focus on men’s reactions to gender equity measures is not about diminishing the experiences of women in the workplace but understanding a crucial dynamic at play. As The 100% Project notes, “Given men currently hold most of the decision-making positions, insight into what drives their attitudes is crucial”. Without this understanding, efforts toward equitable leadership remain incomplete, as men’s attitudes can heavily influence organisational outcomes and the acceptance of gender equity initiatives.

Recent policy changes, such as the Australian government’s gender equity targets for national sports boards, have ignited debate over these very points. Critics argue that mandating gender representation “undermines business outcomes” and diminishes meritocratic principles. ^[2] While the government asserts that these changes will bring fresh perspectives and strengthen decision-making, the resistance highlights the need for understanding and addressing men’s perceptions of loss when it comes to quotas.

Does diverse leadership really matter?

Critics of gender equity measures often argue that diversity initiatives are merely ‘box-ticking’ exercises that hinder performance. However, a wealth of research suggests otherwise. Companies with diverse leadership teams have been shown to outperform those without, both financially and in terms of innovation. For example, McKinsey found that gender-diverse executive teams are 25% more likely to achieve above-average profitability. Furthermore, companies with gender-balanced boards experience improved decision-making, better risk management, and a stronger alignment with customer demographics.

But gender equity isn’t just a financial imperative; it’s a social one. According to The 100% Project, “gender balance can increase the reputation of organisations as it aligns with current ethical and social standards,” which leads to higher employee satisfaction and talent retention.

How organisations can foster psychological safety to reduce resistance

While psychological safety helps reduce men’s resistance to gender equity initiatives, fostering such an environment requires intentional action. According to The 100% Project, creating psychological safety begins with acknowledging the sense of “loss” some men feel around shifts in traditional power structures. Leaders can play a crucial role here by embracing vulnerability, actively listening, and encouraging open dialogue. Practical steps include:

• Regular Check-Ins: Shift the focus of team meetings from tasks to relationship-building by discussing topics that help build trust, eventually leading to deeper conversations about team perspectives on diversity.
• Active listening: Encourage leaders to practice active listening—showing that all voices are heard and valued helps build a climate of respect.
• No-blame environment: Establish a culture where mistakes and concerns are addressed without blame, creating a safe space for men to express and process their reservations about equity changes.

These steps, designed to foster psychological safety, can also help leaders address the biases that might otherwise prevent them from recognising under-represented talent.

The Call to Action: Reimagine leadership beyond tradition

True merit-based hiring and promotion requires us to redefine leadership in ways that go beyond gendered stereotypes and societal biases. To create a genuinely inclusive workplace, we must look past conventional images of leaders and make room for diverse perspectives and talents. The 100% Project’s research underscores the need to build psychological safety into organisational cultures, so that individuals feel supported to question, learn, and ultimately grow.

The concept of meritocracy is powerful, but it cannot exist in its ideal form until everyone has a fair opportunity to prove their worth. Diversity and equity initiatives, including gender quotas, are steps towards a more inclusive definition of meritocracy, one that reflects the real range of talent within society.

For a deeper understanding of the challenges and nuances of this shift, explore The 100% Project’s latest white paper, Navigating Loss – Understanding the impact of psychological safety on men’s attitudes towards gender quotas. Let’s move toward a future where true merit—and not tradition—shapes our workplaces.

References:

1. The 100% Project. Navigating Loss: Understanding the Impact of Psychological Safety on Men’s Attitudes Towards Gender Quotas. 2023.

2. Women’s Agenda. Government vows to cut funding for sporting organisations that don’t meet gender targets by 2027.