Daylight is the Best Disinfectant for Meritocracy
Over recent weeks in the UK and the US the pushback against DEI has taken unexpected direction. The spotlight on “corporate wokery” has given way to an extensive examination of root causes and potential solutions for the fair progression of talent.
As a result, meritocracy, touted as the fairest way forward for people and organisations has come to the fore.
Ironically, the call for "pure meritocracy" and fewer targeted interventions from the DEI sceptics has inadvertently triggered rigorous scrutiny of their proposed cure and whether the systems intended to enable talent to naturally rise actually do so.
The debate has not helped their cause, shining a light on the many ways meritocracy fails.
A new comprehensive study from McKinsey reveals significant early-career disadvantages faced by women, which severely limit their advancement.
Similarly, a Financial Times analysis of talent evaluation processes—supposedly designed to ensure fair progression and key to overcoming DEI bias—highlights how these systems actually disadvantage groups such as women through inherent structural biases.
Research timed to come out around International Women's Day further underlines this issue, highlighting that, despite educational parity in the UK and even early-career pay advantages, women remain notably underrepresented in leadership positions.
This spotlight on meritocracy benefits everyone because in its unforgiving glare, we can see how all but the most privileged are disadvantaged when we uncritically accept its philosophy and how the majority gain if genuine fairness is injected into systems governing talent progression.
In theory, debunking the validity of meritocratic systems should attract widespread support.
In reality, the big challenge lies in implementing changes that lead to meaningful action and improving the talent mix in organisations in what is largely a DEI-sceptical environment.
Our programmes specifically designed for women have proven highly effective in developing talent that might otherwise have remained overlooked.
Such initiatives could become even stronger with the active involvement of men, who would benefit from understanding the barriers women face, recognising opportunities to influence change, and appreciating that what benefits women also enhances organisations and ultimately men themselves. Equality, after all, is not a zero-sum game.
More broadly, in leadership development, beyond traditional management techniques and interpersonal skills training, there is a glaring gap: insufficient attention is paid to understanding the factors which distort perceptions of talent, performance, and potential. Leaders must address these critical blind spots.
While DEI sceptics may have intended to create a hostile environment for organisations committed to improving equality and fairness, the opposite appears to be happening.
As the saying goes, daylight is the best disinfectant. Bringing meritocracy into the sunlight is steadily revealing what it is: an unhelpful and stale way of thinking about talent which has no value for individuals or organisations, today.
