Much of the recent backlash towards DEI is fuelled by flawed assumptions about merit. But a closer look at the evidence suggests effective DEI programs help reveal merit, not obscure it.

For those who work in HR or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), it’s been a tumultuous few months. DEI initiatives are under attack again; this time in the name of meritocracy. 

The idea being peddled by DEI critics is that DEI lowers standards and gets in the way of meritocracy. This interpretation misunderstands both DEI and meritocracy, and ignores the evidence. 

The two assumptions underpinning this argument – that we all define merit in the same way, and that, left to our own devices, we would make choices based solely on merit – are also misguided.

For those who work in this space and understand the value of DEI, it can feel like an uphill battle. Some may be questioning whether continuing to defend DEI is even worth it. I argue it is. 

If the re-examination of the value of DEI has been hoisted upon us, and meritocracy is being incorrectly touted as DEI’s opponent, then we should take the opportunity to revisit these concepts without politicised rhetoric and with a focus on the related data.   

Merit often manifests through DEI

Rather than “lowering the bar”, evidence suggests DEI initiatives, when implemented effectively, enhance organisational performance rather than compromise it. The data on this is quite compelling.

McKinsey research released late in 2023 showed that companies in the top quartile for board-gender diversity were 27 per cent more likely to outperform others financially. Companies in the top quartile for ethnically-diverse boards were 13 per cent more likely to outperform those in the bottom quartile. 

Another study found that companies ranked in the top 25 per cent for gender diversity were 21 per cent more likely to perform at above-average levels in profitability. 

Boston Consulting Group data further indicates that companies with diverse management teams earn up to 19 per cent higher innovation revenue. 

Research from the MIT Sloan Management Review demonstrates that integrating DEI into core business strategies can lead to increased innovation, improved employee engagement and access to new markets. 

These results illustrate that DEI is not just compatible with merit – it can be a source of it.     

The real obstacle to merit-based decision-making

I have yet to come across evidence that scrapping DEI initiatives means that decisions will be based purely on merit thereafter. 

Meritocracy sounds fair as a concept, but in practice, bias rigs the game. The human brain is not hard-wired to make decisions based solely on merit. 

This is partly why DEI programs were put in place – to try and level the playing field. Several studies show that one or more of approximately 180 different kinds of unconscious bias impact the decisions we make – including affinity bias, halo and horn effects and the well-known confirmation bias – clouding our ability to make decisions that are truly merit-based, even if we’re well-intentioned and think we’re deciding fairly. 

Unconscious biases impact our perceptions from when we’re children. Research shows children as young as 4-5 years old prefer wealthier peers and make social judgements based on perceived economic status. 

Unconscious bias undermines meritocracy, and the evidence of this is more apparent in recruitment and progression than in all other areas of business. 

Harvard Business School research and other studies have shown that job applicants from minority backgrounds who “whiten” their resumes get more interviews. WGEA data confirms that women and men are held to different standards in recruitment processes. Several studies confirm that resumes with photos of conventionally attractive individuals received far more interview callbacks than identical ones with less conventionally attractive faces.

“We often forgo a common definition of merit and concrete methods for measuring it fairly, so meritocracy usually doesn’t pan out as it was imagined it might on paper.”

DEI programs largely aim to level the playing field by encouraging decision-makers to take a second look at applicants typically most negatively impacted by unconscious bias: for example, women, culturally and racially marginalised (CARM) individuals, those living with disabilities, older persons and people of diverse sexualities and genders. 

Without DEI initiatives, these patterns would largely persist unchallenged in hiring, promotions and pay negotiations. 

There is now decades of research demonstrating the existence of unconscious bias and proving that it generally favours certain groups. Interestingly, though, there is relatively little resistance directed at the possibility of certain demographic groups unfairly benefiting from unconscious bias. 

In contrast, I notice significant backlash to the perceived possibility that historically and structurally oppressed groups – still underrepresented in boards, management or entire industries – might be getting a “leg up”. This is worth investigating.

The myth of pure meritocracy

The other assumption that doesn’t bear the weight of scrutiny is that we all think of merit in the same way. The very notion of meritocracy relies on there being a singular, agreed-upon definition of merit, but this rarely happens in practice. 

Some think of merit as based on qualifications or achievement in a particular field. Others think of merit as ability – i.e. performing certain tasks better than another. Some think of merit in terms of character – who deserves the opportunity the most? 

Ability is best tested in candidates through a task-based activity. Achievements/qualifications are best measured by comparing accolades. And how would one even objectively measure character? None of these would be measured the same way, so different people would probably make different selections, all based on so-called “merit”. 

We often forgo a common definition of merit and concrete methods for measuring it fairly, so meritocracy usually doesn’t pan out as it was imagined it might on paper. 

Meritocracy or a veiled desire to protect existing inequitable power structures?

If someone is concerned with meritocracy, they should first ensure agreement on what merit means, and how they will measure it objectively. 

They should then implement initiatives that will address unconscious bias within decision making. Until organisations are effectively reducing bias and thinking deeply about how they define merit (and why they define it so), decisions will never be based only on merit – with or without the presence of DEI initiatives.

Even if you address unconscious bias within decision-making as much as practically possible, structural inequality and privilege often means there still won’t be a truly level playing field. Many DEI programs assist with this challenge. 

Eliminating DEI initiatives doesn’t bring us closer to genuine meritocracy. It certainly doesn’t remove bias from decision-making. It just deprives businesses of the evidenced benefits of DEI (including benefits to the bottom line). 

When DEI efforts are rolled back under the guise of “meritocracy”, while structural biases remain unaddressed, the result isn’t neutrality; it’s regression. 

Those already advantaged by existing systems will continue to benefit, while others lose the critical support that once somewhat evened the playing field. Instead of retreating from DEI, now is the time to reaffirm its value and double down on building truly meritorious, inclusive organisations.

Fabi Fugazza ANZAM is a lawyer, academic, Co-Executive Director and author. More detail, and references for all studies mentioned above can be found within Fabi’s new book: “Born to be (Unconsciously) Biased: Strategies to Unbias Your Business Decision Making” – available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and at Read On Books now.

Learn how to design an effective diversity, equity and inclusion strategy with AHRI’s advanced DEI for HR leaders short course, or go back to basics with the introduction to DEI course.