The Meritocracy Myth: If Hiring is Already Fair, Take This Challenge
If this article speaks to you, you'll love my new book, The Equity Edge: How Addressing Bias in Recruiting and Retention Drives Success.
This piece is part of an ongoing series responding to the wave of DEI rollbacks and resistance. Each article offers thoughtful strategies to help you lead in ways that increase diversity and retention—without harm. Pre-order The Equity Edge now and receive The Equity Edge Instructor Guide FREE—a limited-time offer designed to help you bring these practices into your workplace with care, courage, and clarity.
For years, we’ve heard the same tired argument: Hiring should be based on merit, not diversity.
The implication? That diversity recruiting somehow lowers the bar, prioritizing identity over qualifications. That if we just focused on hiring the "best" candidates, workplace diversity would naturally follow.
Sounds simple. But here’s the problem: Traditional hiring isn’t as merit-based as we’ve been led to believe.
What most people call "merit" is often just privilege in disguise. Hiring systems rely on outdated skill proxies—like degrees, years of experience, and past employers—that don’t actually measure ability. Worse, bias in resume screening, interviews, and referrals skews opportunities in favor of certain groups, creating a false meritocracy where access, not skill, determines success.
If hiring were truly fair, the same demographics wouldn’t dominate the top of nearly every industry, because talent exists across all groups in America. So, let’s get real: Are we measuring actual skill, or are we just rewarding those who faced fewer barriers?
The Problem With How We Measure Merit
If hiring were truly about identifying the best talent, then it wouldn’t matter:
Where you went to school: Elite university graduates are not more effective in their roles than those from non-elite schools—yet they’re disproportionately hired for top jobs. Graduates from elite universities earn significantly more, but their job performance is only marginally better—about 1% improvement for every 1,000 spots in university rankings. A study of 28,339 students found that while top schools attract high-achievers and provide better training, the actual performance difference is small.
How many years you’ve spent in a role: Experience isn’t a straight path to mastery. Research shows that both novices and highly experienced managers tend to perform well, while those with moderate experience often struggle. Early on, people are adaptable and open to learning, but as they gain experience, they can become too reliant on past methods, limiting growth. True expertise kicks in only after enough experience accumulates, but that timeline isn’t the same for everyone. Some develop key skills in three years, while others stagnate even after a decade. What matters isn’t just time spent in a role, but the ability to adapt, learn, and evolve.
Who you know: Hiring isn’t solely about skills, at least in ground reality. It’s more about connections. Employee referrals and networking still dominate hiring decisions, with referrals making up 30–50% of all hires, even though they account for just 7% of applicants. Referred candidates are 4x more likely to land a job and tend to stay longer and perform better, making them a recruiter’s dream. But there’s a catch—this system favors those already in the loop, creating closed networks that exclude a diverse group of talent.
What you look like or what your name sounds like: Your resume might be spotless, but if your name sounds too ethnic, more than likely, you will receive fewer callbacks. A study found that identical resumes with white-sounding names got 9% more callbacks than those with Black-sounding names—and at some companies, that gap shot up to 24%.
These factors are not actual indicators of skill or competence—yet they heavily influence who gets hired, promoted, and paid fairly.
The Real Threat to Merit Isn’t Diversity—It’s Bias
If someone truly believes in hiring based on merit, then they should want the most accurate way to measure and assess it. That means they should support:
Removing arbitrary barriers (degrees, years of experience, network bias)
Using objective, structured assessments instead of subjective interviews
Expanding the talent pool to include all high-potential candidates, not just the privileged few
Yet, when diversity efforts call for these changes, people claim it’s "lowering the bar." But in reality, hiring the same way we always have is what lowers the bar. It filters out talent based on convenience, not competence.
If You Think Hiring is Already Fair, Take This Challenge
To those who insist that their success is purely based on skill and merit, we offer this challenge:
1. Strip Away Every Advantage
Would you still land the same job if you applied with your name redacted, the names of past employers listed (only your duties are noted), and the name of your school not mentioned, just what you studied? What if you had to compete purely on skill-based assessments? If merit is all that matters, this shouldn’t be a problem, right?
2. Compete in a Truly Blind Hiring Process
Let’s say every candidate had their resumes anonymized, their personal details removed, and their hiring process structured around objective, skills-based tests. Would you still be confident in your chances? If hiring is already fair, then this wouldn’t change your outcome, right?
3. Remove Network and Pedigree Bias
No LinkedIn. No referrals. No "I worked at Google and was mentored by…." Just your skills, competing on a level playing field. Would you still win?
4. Face the Same Barriers Others Do
Imagine your interviewer assumes the worst about your abilities because of your name, race, or background. Or that you have to outperform others just to be considered "equal." Would you still feel like merit alone determines success? Because for many, this is their everyday reality.
Now, let’s be honest:
If you wouldn’t take this challenge, then you already know the system isn’t truly fair.
If you’re hesitant to be judged on skill alone, then you already know merit alone isn’t what got you here.
And if you wouldn’t want your hiring process stripped of every advantage you’ve had, then you already know the truth—privilege has played a role in your success.
The Real Game Changers: Those Who Succeed Despite the Barriers
If we really want to see merit at work, we shouldn’t just look at those who had every advantage in the book—we should be looking at those who didn’t have the luxury of connections, legacy admissions, or a safety net. Those who had to fight against systemic barriers and still found a way to succeed.
Had to outperform just to be considered "equal": Indra Nooyi, former CEO of PepsiCo, immigrated to the U.S. with no connections, worked as a receptionist to pay for college, and still became one of the most powerful executives in the world.
Were denied opportunities but created their own: Oprah Winfrey was told early in her career that she was “unfit for TV.” She went on to build a media empire.
Had to navigate a system that wasn’t built for them—and still broke through: Ursula Burns started as an intern at Xerox and worked her way up to become the first Black woman to lead a Fortune 500 company.
These are the people who best demonstrate what real merit looks like—not just those who coasted on privilege.
The Real Question: Do You Want a True Meritocracy?
If you’re serious about hiring the best people, then you should want:
Structured, skills-based hiring processes that remove bias.
Diversity initiatives that expand access to talent, not limit it.
An end to outdated proxies for skill that reward background over ability.
Diversity recruiting doesn’t lower standards—it forces companies to raise them by demanding more accurate ways to assess talent. The real threat to merit isn’t diversity—it’s the bias, assumptions, and lazy hiring practices that have been baked into our system for decades.
So, to those who cling to the idea that hiring is already fair—prove it. Take the challenge. And if you won’t, then admit that the hiring system you defend isn’t about merit. It’s about maintaining the advantage many have always had.