The paradox of meritocracy
Blind spot? Managers in meritocratic organizations fail to recognise their own bias. From founders to funders, Silicon Valley prides itself on its meritocratic ethos; however, new research from MIT finds that organizations with meritocratic values are often the worst offenders of bias, specifically as it relates to gender. Authors Emilio Castilla and Stephen Bernard found that organizations with meritocratic principles favor men over “equally performing women” via higher bonuses and favorable career outcomes. Conversely, when the authors stressed organizational values that emphasized individual autonomy (and not meritocratic principles), they found no statistical significance in the difference of bonus amount awarded by gender. Their work supports previous research, which finds women and minorities are paid less than white male peers – even when they have the same job, supervisor, human capital and performance evaluation score. Castilla and Bernard conclude, “Merit-based pay practices in particular may fail to achieve race or gender neutral outcomes.” Why does this happen? It appears that when managers work for meritocratic organizations, they believe they are more impartial, and thus (unknowingly) give themselves permission to act on their biases. And when people view themselves as unbiased, they are less likely to self-scrutinize. Castilla calls this, “the paradox of meritocracy”. Biases from beginning to end We all have biases, and they’re revealed beyond bonus times. In fact, they creep in throughout an employee’s entire career – in hiring, retention, promotion and attrition. When reviewing resumés during hiring, our unconscious biases – or the bias we are unaware of that allows us to gather information quickly – often finds that we prefer male to female candidates and “white” sounding names (like Emily and Greg) to more ethnic sounding names (like Lakisha and Jamal). In fact, both men and women will prefer to hire a male applicant – even when […]